The URL can be used to link to this page

2011-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ototrA CITY OF S.� ALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 5 � t SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAx: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL �3 MAYOR MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE You are hereby notified that the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for December 21, 2011 at 6:30 P.M. in City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA, Room 313 has been canceled due to lack of a quorum. All items scheduled for this meeting will be continued to January 18, 2012. Rebecca Curran, Chair a .:q i, :�zw wa , ,:;•,� �7 Wit.: Know Your Rights — g is under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS "� TT BOARD OF APPEAL 1 20 WASHINGTON STREEr. 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETrs 01970 y�ri- =�'�,`•T TELEPHONE'. 97$-74 rj-9S9S vrue,a FAX; 978-740 9846 KIMBERLEY ORISCOLL MAYOR MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 16, 2011 —6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA, Room 313 Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1, Approval of Minutes: October 19, 2011 meeting 2. Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. requesting Variances from minimum lot area, lot area per dwelling unit, frontage, lot width, front yard setback and rear yard setback, in order to subdivide the property located at 18 THORNDIKE STREET(R-2) into five(5)single-family house lots. 3. Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of ERIC COUTURE requesting Variances from lot area and lot area per dwelling unit to demolish the existing structure and construct a two-unit residential building on the property located at 12 RAWLINS ST(R-2). 4, Public hearing: Petition of WLODEK MATCZAK requesting a Variance from number of stories, and a Special Permit to extend a • nonconforming structure, to construct a shed dormer on the three-family home at 208 NORTH ST(R2). 5. Public hearing: Petition of PETER G. &JAN N. ESCHAUZIER requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a 3.5'x13,'one-story addition on the single-family house on 15 '/2 River Street(R-2). 6. Public hearing: Petition of TARA KAWCZYNSKI requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a second story on the single-family house at 27 '/2 FOSTER ST(R2). 7. Public hearing: Petition of BHCM, INC. D/B/A BREWER HAWTHORNE COVE MARINA requesting Variances from front, side and rear yard setback requirements to construct a new building on 10 WHITE STREET and 57 REAR TURNER STREET related to the boat yard/marina use of the property(I. R-2 and B-1). 8. Public hearing: Petition of JOSEPH BUKOWSKI requesting Variances and Special Permits in order to allow the first floor of the building on 19 BRIDGE ST to be used for commercial purposes, and for a Variance from the off-street parking regulations relating to such commercial use(8.2). 9. Public hearing: Petition of JAY GOLDBERG, GERREN REALTY TRUST requesting Special Permits under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure and to change one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, in order to open a Doggy Daycare/Training Business at 9.11 FRANKLIN ST, and to construct a 32'x24' vinyl fenced area (B 1 and R2). 10. Public hearing: Petition of TAMMIE FAVA requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to construct a third story dormer on the two-family home at 21 BUFFUM ST(R-2 Zoning District). 11, Old/New Business mss fie} ?try • tiir�,�1 �r? r�c�M 012. Adjournment irff , 14 r�1, 5,fa r.r. t y 40�� ; �I, ,. �Nhf. . ; ) {1G1.,w Know Your Rights under the Open hfeeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§238 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. ��coeiorrA�a City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date / / / / 6 f/ Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail i� ��idZLl � r <S ,� h CsAe vi3�Y�5�« aCfpa/tzsi%�/dd�m/l Card. HA us 7 /v EEao N l A ��Nt Ens s, c j. q79 -7rFy 1.aureSQe1(a as4d�dy- Qksi 17k-7Yy- 774J- Kp resri, "3 V Y0 6A X. Pot ka i Sr. 2 W4l � St— �a I cwt q-tb-- 74%f-8 Z 3.r Jew �OhYI �cs�S� I��m S-f-. �78 '7yS-333� 6 5 Mr cheue_ h'fe,lin 1-7 Fo kcj- �7g -q�q-5/g9 StiQ1t, 33-7 �28� �cJ\ea.k`fa,,. ��clau�)e•� I S/9 /CI,11Pr Jl• sass--m. M✓a_G17R:5%�/1�39 �Cc�ac,��r„e,�,� 1-810 Cck .Is Page of .............. City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet n o 9 f4 Board: Zoning Board of Appeals .................. Date A/ / /� / /L Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail �4- k/d y Z g �CO�.r�tsl�ae� ✓t c w i<S I�314,4 ev sf ,�Z Wr-Fes- 2g� �V 3 { Page of f' CITY of SALEM MASSACHUSETTS �� 4f BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASIiWCTON S'IRCCT*SALBM,MASSACHUSE'Pl'S 01970 Tst.E.:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846 - r_........ KtmnirlaEEY Uatsrota. MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: November 8, 2011 RE: Meeting Agenda —November 16, 2011 • Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Planner's memo 3. Meeting minutes of 9/21/11 4. Materials for new agenda items Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. requesting Variances from minimum lot area, lot area per dwelling unit, frontage, lot width, front yard setback and rear yard setback, in order to subdivide the property located at 18 THORNDIKE STREET(R-2) into five (5) single- family house lots. I do not have any further information about this application. Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of ERIC COUTURE requesting Variances from lot area and lot area per dwelling unit to demolish the existing structure and construct a two-unit residential building on the property located at 12 RAWLINS ST (R-2). I do not have any further information about this application. Public hearing: Petition of WLODEK MATCZAK requesting a Variance from number of stories, and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, to construct a shed dormer on the three-family home at 208 NORTH ST(112). The proposed third-story dormer requires a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure (Section 1 T �r 1 3.3.4 of the Zoning Ordinance), as well as a variance from number of stories (2.5 is allowed, and 3 is proposed). Public hearing: Petition of PETER G. &JAN N. ESCHAUZIER requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a 3.5'x13; one-story addition on the single-family house on 15% River Street (R-2). The applicant requested a Variance from side and rear yard setbacks (side yard of 10' and rear yard of 30' is required) for this addition, which will result in 0' side and rear setbacks. However, Tom St. Pierre's determination was that this could be accomplished with a Special Permit to alter a nonconforming structure under Sec. 3.3.5 instead. Public hearing: Petition of TARA KAWCZYNSKI requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a second story on the single-family house at 27% FOSTER ST (112). The applicant proposes adding a second story onto the existing house. The lot is 1,460 square feet, and the house is approximately 480 square feet. A Special Permit to extend a nonconforming single-family house is required to add the second story. A mortgage plan was submitted, which shows that the house is situated very close to the side lot line shared with 2 Walter Street. A fence (belonging to 2 Walter Street) runs along the property line, and can be seen in the submitted photos. While the owner of that property has not submitted comments, his representative has come in to view the plans. Public hearing: Petition of BHCM, INC. D/B/A BREWER HAWTHORNE COVE MARINA requesting Variances from front, side and rear yard setback requirements to construct a new building on 10 WHITE STREET and 57 REAR TURNER STREET related to the boat yard/marina use of the property (I, R-2 and 1). The portion of the property containing the proposed structure is in the Industrial Zoning District, which requires 30-foot front, side and rear setbacks. The applicant requests Variances to allow side and front yard setbacks of 5 feet, and a rear setback of 1.6 feet. There are two other zoning districts shown on the plans in areas that contain parking and an existing headhouse. One of these is R-2, and the other should be shown as B-2, but is labeled R-1 due to the applicant's error in reading the city zoning map. There is also a parking area included in the plan that is located at 8 White Street. According to the applicant, the three lots (5711 Turner St., 10 White St. and 8 White St.) have merged. I have not received any comments to pass along to the Board, but several residents have come in to view the plans. I would recommend, when Board members view the property, looking at the area near the corner of Derby St. and Carlton St., since some residents have expressed concern about the proposed building impacting their view of the harbor. Public hearing: Petition of JOSEPH BUKOWSKI requesting Variances and Special Permits in order to allow the first floor of the building on 19 BRIDGE ST to be used for commercial purposes, and for a Variance from the off-street parking regulations relating to such commercial use (B-2). A use Variance was issued by the Board in 1987 in order to allow construction of a single-family home in the B-2 district. This decision is enclosed. The current owner purchased the property in 2009, using the second floor for a residential unit and the first for an electronics business. The petitioner is seeking reli� to continue using the property this way. The relief requested is either an amendment to the original Variance decision in order to allow both residential and mixed use (NB: use Variances are no longer 2 allowed in Salem), or a Special Permit to alter a nonconforming use, whichever the Board deems • appropriate. I am requesting a legal opinion from Robin Stein relative to the Board's options in granting relief. Relief is also requested from off-street parking regulations to allow no parking on the site. Public hearing: Petition of JAY GOLDBERG, GERREN REALTY TRUST requesting Special Permits under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure and to change one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, in order to open a Doggy Daycare/Training Business at 9-11 FRANKLIN ST, and to construct a 32'x24'vinyl fenced area (61 and 112). This building houses several commercial uses, including a karate studio, restoration services company, and automotive business. The applicant requests to add a doggie day care/dog training facility. Public hearing: Petition of TAMMIE FAVA requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to construct a third story dormer on the two-family home at 21 BUFFUM ST (R-2 Zoning District). The applicant proposes a third-story shed dormer, making the house three stories (2.5 are allowed). 3 • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, November 16, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ( Salem ZBA ) was held on Wednesday, November 16, 2011 in the third floor conference room of 120 Washington St., Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Jamie Metsch, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate) and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner. Ms. Curran opens the meeting at 6:34 p.m. Approval of Minutes The Board reviews the minutes; no changes are suggested. Ms. Belair moves to approve them, seconded by Mr. Metsch and passed 5-0 (Ms. Harris abstaining). Ms. Curran says the following item will be taken out of order: • Public hearing: Petition of JOSEPH BUKOWSKI requesting Variances and Special Permits in order to allow the first floor of the building on 19 BRIDGE ST to be used for commercial purposes, and for a Variance from the off-street parking regulations relating to such commercial use(B-2). She says a written request has been received to continue the petition to December [the letter is dated November 16, 2011 and submitted by Attorney Scott M. Grover.] Mr. Metsch moves to continue to December 21, 2011, seconded by Ms. Harris and passed 6- 0. Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. requesting Variances from minimum lot area, lot area per dwelling unit, frontage, lot width, front yard setback and rear yard setback, in order to subdivide the property located at 18 THORNDIKE STREET(R-2) into five (5) single-family house lots. Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 9/22/11 and accompanying materials Patrick Delulis says that since Councillor Mike Sosnowski (Ward 2) has another commitment, he would like to give him a chance to address the Board regarding this project. Councillor Sosnowski says he has met with neighbors from Hubon and • Thorndike Streets, and they have a proposed plan they think everyone can agree on. He says the site is challenging, and they want to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. 1 The neighbors met only a few days ago. They have an idea, but the plan would need to • be redrawn. He says Mr. Delulis is willing request to continue to January; Mr. Delulis confirms this. Mr. Metsch moves to continue the petition to January 18, 2012, seconded by Ms. Belair and unanimously approved. Mr. Delulis signs a request form to extend final action to February 1, 2012. Mr. Metsch moves to extend final action on the project to February 1, 2012 seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved (Metsch, Dionne, Belair, Curran and Harris in favor, none opposed). Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of ERIC COUTURE requesting Variances from lot area and lot area per dwelling unit to demolish the existing structure and construct a two-unit residential building on the property located at 12 RAWLINS ST (R-2). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 10/5/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Elevation drawings (incorrectly labeled "43 School Street Condominium —this was clarified at meeting), dated 9/9/11 ➢ Cross Section, Residence for Eric Couture, 12 Rawling street condominium, Salem, Mass., dated 9/9/11 ➢ Rawlings Street Proposed Layout and Existing Condition, Plan of Land located in Salem, Mass., prepared by Eastern Land Survey Associates, Inc., dated 9/29/11 Eric Couture says he has worked out the owner occupancy issue with his neighbors. He . presents the plans and explains the relief he needs. He says there is an addendum in the condo documents saying the two units would be sold as owner occupied. Ms. Curran asks him to discuss his hardship; Mr. Couture says it's the size of the lot. James Moscovis, 10 Rawlins St., says he and Mr. Couture discussed the project and he's satisfied with what he will put in the condo documents addressing owner occupancy. Mr. Moscovis says the project will enhance the neighborhood and it's better than what was there. Jerry Ryan, Ward 4, speaks in support of the petition, also saying it will enhance the neighborhood. Ms. Harris says they had two issues at first—one was that the neighbors wanted it owner occupied, and the other was that the A/C unit should be in the back; was there anything else? Ms. Belair says she has no problem with it, it's in keeping with the general neighborhood, and an improvement over what's there now. She says this is more dense, but it's only two units and she'd be in favor of the project. Mr. Metsch asks about the parking. Mr. Couture says it will be in front. Mr. Metsch • says at the last meeting he'd expressed he didn't think it was in keeping with the 2 • neighborhood, since other buildings in the neighborhood were built right up to the street, and this doesn't really fit that. From a design perspective, he's still wondering if it wouldn't be better to move the structure forward more. Mr. Couture says due to the current zoning, he couldn't do two curb cuts and a fence. Mr. St. Pierre says that actually he could have a total of 20 feet of curb cut—two 10 foot cuts. Ms. Harris and Ms. Curran say this would look better and they would be more inclined to support the project this way. Mr. Metsch —is it CK to have parking in this proximity to corner? Mr. St. Pierre says yes. Mr. Metsch suggests pulling the house forward to a 15 foot setback; Mr. Couture has no problem with this. Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions and 3 special conditions: there are to be two driveways, the A/C units will be located in back, and the house will be moved up to have a front setback of 15 feet. Ms. Curran notes that the hardship is owing to the existing size of the lot. She says it's in keeping with the neighborhood since there are several other two-family houses in the neighborhood on smaller lots. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne, 5-0 in favor (Ms. Harris, Ms. Belair, Ms. Curran, Mr. Metsch and Mr. Dionne in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Ms. Belair leaves the meeting Public hearing: Petition of WLODEK MATCZAK requesting a Variance from number of stories, and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure,to construct a shed • dormer on the three-family home at 208 NORTH ST(112). Wlodek Matczak, 4 Kenney Rd., Middleton, explains the proposed addition—a dormer. Ms. Curran notes this is a dormer within the existing footprint to accommodate a bathroom. Mr. St. Pierre says this is a very minimal dormer. Square footage is about 4' x 5.' Ms. Curran notes it's an expansion of a nonconforming structure and use. She says the hardship is due to the roofline of house—it makes that area unusable. Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment;no one comments and she closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Dionne says this is a reasonable request to make the bathroom usable, and a good plan. Ms. Curran asks about the materials he will use. Vinyl, like the whole house will be. Right now it's asbestos. Ms. Curran— have you looked at what's underneath? Asbestos can sometimes preserve the clapboard really well. Mr. St. Pierre—the immediate abutter is Dennis Ross, who works in my department— he had no issues. Ms. Curran —there is not much of an impact. Mr. Metsch —this is a legal three unit building; he has no issues. Mr. St. Pierre—this has been a rental for a long time, this gentleman is remodeling it. He's done good work on other properties. Mr. Dionne moves to approve with 8 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Metsch (Mr. • Tsitsinos, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran, Mr. Metsch and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 3 Public hearing: Petition of PETER G. &1AN N. ESCHAUZIER requesting a Special Permit • under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a 3.5'x13; one-story addition on the single-family house on 15 % River Street (R-2). Peter and Jan Eschauzier 15 % River St., present their petition. Helen Sides,their architect, is there to answer any questions. Mr. Eschauzier says the request is to build a half bath at the southwest corner of the house, which is the only place to put it. The only bathroom they currently have is on the second floor. Mrs. Eschauzier has elderly parents. They are trying to minimize this, make it as small as possible, so it will have as little impact as possible on the property. They went before the Historical Commission to make sure they comply with all requirements and are in keeping with the neighborhood; they have approved the request. Mrs. Eschauzier says the neighbors are supportive and Mr. Couture, who is their abutter to the rear, has given permission for them to use their property so that any construction would be kept to a minimum and not disrupt River St. Ms. Curran notes there are no windows. The fence is to be replaced. There will be a 0 lot line. The fence is on their property. Ms. Harris notes that it's very tight. Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment. David Hallowes, 15 River St., is concerned with the historic integrity of the room. The houses in the neighborhood are from 1700s. Ms. Harris asks if he has seen where this is; • it isn't visible from the street, what they are proposing. Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion. . Ms. Harris says there will be minimal impact; Ms. Curran says no one will see it. Mr. Metsch notes that this neighborhood has a lot of buildings that are right up on top of each other; this would have no major impact. Ms. Curran —this is the only place it can go. Helen Sides says that a very competent and careful builder, Ed Brunis, will be building it. Mr. Eschauzier says the fence is being replaced for Mr. Couture's benefit— he gave him the option of not having it, but he preferred the fence to be there. They will use the same exterior material as they have now. Ms. Harris moves to grant the petition with 9 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Metsch, and approved 5-0 (Harris, Curran, Metsch, Dionne and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of TARA KAWCZYNSKI requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a second story on the single-family house at 27% FOSTER ST(R2). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped October 26, 2011 and accompanying materials, • including photographs 4 • ➢ Photographs presented at the meeting by Laura Callahan ➢ Mortgage plan of 27% Foster St. dated 3/31/10 ➢ Elevation drawings dated 10/21/11, drawn by David C. Wyckoff Tara Kawczynski presents her petition. Ms. Curran confirms this is an existing house, and she is going up within the footprint—the final height is to be 23 feet. Ms. Kawczynski says all the other houses on the street are 2 stories;this house is very small. The square footage now is 480;the proposal would double it. Mr. Metsch notes that this looks like a complete remodel - changing the front entry, etc. —is she changing the floor plans. Ms. Kawczynski says no, she's just changing the door/entryway inside, nothing else on first floor. Ms. Curran asks if she is improving the windows; Ms. Kawczynski says they are staying same. Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment. Laura Callahan, representing John Pelosi, 2 Walter St. on corner, says that historically, this was a single family lot subdivided by the prior owner, Mr. Albergini. He owned both homes. In 1978, Mr. Pelosi bought his home. She says the addition will block Mr. Pelosi's light and his view of the water and park. She shows photos of his second story window views and back yard. She says there is a distance of 10 feet from back of his • house to Ms. Kawczynski's yard. She says snow storage will be a problem - it will go into Mr. Pelosi's backyard and shed. She says when Mr. Pelosi bought the house, an extra foot of land was given to him because of the location of his chimney—Mr. Albergini needed an extra foot to erect a fence there. She says the current owner has a dog kennel in back and she can't get between the fence and the house. Ms. Callahan says this will diminish Mr. Pelosi's property value by blocking his views, cause mold in his yard, and add snow and ice to the yard. She says it will be a detriment to Mr. Pelosi and anyone else who has views of the park and water. She says because of this detriment, the petition does not meet the criteria for granting a special permit. Ms. Curran asks Ms. Kawczynski if there is any other way to gain square footage, such as with dormers from the roof. Ms. Kawczynski says they we looked at it, but this was the best solution. She says her house is so small she doesn't think it will block the view as suggested by the Ms. Callahan. Ms. Harris asks Mr. St. Pierre if this needs a Special Permit or a Variance; Mr. St. Pierre confirms that a single-family house can be expanded in this way by Special Permit according to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Metsch says that the expansion seems in keeping with the neighborhood; he has seen the surrounding neighbors, and all are two if not more stories high. However, • there are concerns about snow, access, light and air flow. He asks if there is a law that allows reasonable access for maintenance. Mr. St. Pierre says yes, through the police 5 department, but for construction, you'd have to figure out how to do it on the property. • Mr. Tsitsinos asks what the height is. Mr. St. Pierre says she is adding 8 feet. Mr. Tsitsinos says he doesn't think any view would be lost except of the neighboring house. Ms. Callahan refers again to the photos from the second story window and says she has concerns about the proximity of the chimney to the Pelosi house. He and Mr. Dionne note that the chimney is already there and will be the same distance from the house. Mr. Tsitsinos says he doesn't think they'd be losing much. Ms. Callahan asks what happens if there's a fire, and notes concerns about snow falling from a higher roof. Ms. Curran asks what the setback is from the Pelosi house to the lot line; Ms. Callahan says 10 feet 11 inches. Mr. Tsitsinos says everything stays the same, except the house would be going up. Ms. Curran asks if the roof pitch will be the same -Yes. She asks if the snow goes into the yard currently; Ms. Kawczynski says it does from the shed. Ms. Curran doesn't see the difference in snow getting into the yard if the roof is the same pitch. Ms. Harris says the addition will block the view. Mr. Tsitsinos asks about the height of Mr. Pelosi's house; Ms. Callahan doesn't know. Ms. Harris says she is sympathetic to the applicant, but this does impact the neighbor. Mr. Curran asks if the Board wants the applicant to look at other ways to go up without impacting neighbor so much. She doesn't see how mold and snow are going to be a problem, but the view- yes. Mr. Metsch says the expansion includes a sizeable master bed and bath —is there flexibility to cut this down, make it tighter? Ms. Curran asks if Ms. Kawczynski would be agreeable to talking to her architect about revisiting this, and continue to Dec. 21? Ms. • Kawczynski says yes. Mr. Metsch moves to continue to Dec. 21, 2011. Ms. Harris tells Ms. Kawczynski to try to address the view issue—she says it's really just the view from front, second floor window. Motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne; all in favor 5-0. Public hearing: Petition of BHCM, INC. D/B/A BREWER HAWTHORNE COVE MARINA requesting Variances from front, side and rear yard setback requirements to construct a new building on 10 WHITE STREET and 57 REAR TURNER STREET related to the boat yard/marina use of the property(I, R-2 and B-1). Attorney George Atkins says they are in the midst of discussion with the neighbors and requests to continue.to December. Ms. Curran notes they are continuing the hearing with no evidence taken. Mr. Dionne move to continue the hearing to Dec. 21, 2011, seconded by Mr. Metsch; all in favor. Mr. Metsch moves to extend the Board's final action to February 1, 2011, seconded by Ms. Harris; all in favor. Public hearing: Petition of JAY GOLDBERG, GERREN REALTY TRUST requesting Special Permits under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure and to change one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, in order to open a Doggy Daycare/Training Business at 9-11 FRANKLIN ST, and to construct a 32'x24' vinyl fenced area (133 and R2). Documents & Exhibitions: 6 • ➢ Application date-stamped 10/26/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Plot Plan for 9-11 Franklin St. dated May 11, 1995 ➢ Letter from Dorothy Healey-Lemelin, 15R Franklin St. #2, dated November 16, 2011, in opposition ➢ Letter from Ward 6 Councillor Paul Prevey, dated November 16, 2011, in opposition ➢ Petition submitted by neighbors in opposition Jay Goldberg, Goldberg Properties, 7 Rantoul St., Suite 100B, Beverly, presents the petition, saying the space previously was used by International Floors. He introduces the prospective tenant from Royal Canines, Jermaine Anderson,who wants to open a doggie daycare/training business. He says there will be no noise to the outside world. They have a lot of land in back that's not used. The fenced in area would be open at the top to give an outdoor atmosphere, but the animals wouldn't be seen. 7 a.m. —7 p.m. would be the hours of operation, M-F. Ms. Curran notes they are using the concrete block building that's there, and the fenced area in the back, and what happens to the garage? Mr. Goldberg says that stays—it's Ideal Transmissions. Ms. Harris notes there are two uses on this property already; are there two principle uses? Mr. St. Pierre says the transmission shop has been there for years. There are several other tenant spaces; the last tenant space here was flooring; anything in this space is by Special Permit because these are nonconforming uses. Switching from one to another,the Board has • to find the new use not more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use. Also, they need a Special Permit to increase a nonconforming use to expand in the back because that is currently vacant land. Mr. Goldberg says that currently,the building's uses are automotive, martial arts, and Ideal Transmission. Ms. Curran—we have to determine whether your use is less or more detrimental than the current use. Mr. Goldberg says that currently it's vacant. Ms. Curran—what kind of traffic does doggie daycare generate? Mr. Anderson says he picks up the dogs, so there is not much traffic. There are 50 spaces for dogs available for the day care. Just 10 or 11 clients would attend classes. There would be 4 classes/week. Ms. Harris asks if they would operate in the evenings; yes—the classes would be 6-7 p.m., and also weekend classes. Mr. Anderson says during the daytime,there's not much coming and going. He'd be starting with 20 dogs, and would like to grow to 50 dogs. Once he expands, he will use a bus, not a van. The pickup will be at 7-8 a.m.; people can also drop off their dogs. Ms. Curran asks about impacts to the neighborhood. Mr. Goldberg says most of the business for the martial arts center is after school, 3-6 p.m. He's not sure how many students—perhaps 130 total? 20-40 students during an evening. Ms. Curran asks if they will be housing dogs overnight; Mr. Goldberg says that's not the intention now, but at some point they want to have that option. Mr. St. Pierre says that requires a kennel license, which is a separate procedure, not through this Board. . Dorothy Lemelin, 15R Franklin St., faces the Franklin St. rear lot line shared with this property. She is concerned about noise. Now,there's nothing there,the space has 7 been empty for years. She is concerned about air quality, barking, noise, and flow of air into her yard. She says it will be unbearable. She is concerned about health and • welfare. Jonathan Pitts, 3 Franklin Ct., abuts the vacant lot that's there now. He says the fenced area will be close, and he is concerned about smell and noise, and says there are a lot of cats in the neighborhood. He is concerned about traffic; since you can't take a left onto North, people turn onto Foster, so that will increase traffic on an already damaged road. Darlene Palazzi, 10% Foster St., says she and mother are concerned about the dumpster that was put there; she is also concerned about the smell and the noise of barking, and says this will be detrimental for the whole street. She is also concerned about property values decreasing and child safety. For the animals and people, wouldn't it be better to in a larger area where the animals could run? y Montgomery, 16 Superior St., Lynn, has been a client of Mr. Anderson for last 18- /4 months. She says he is a wonderful dog trainer and behaviorist. He won't just stick the dogs in the backyard or let them run wild. She speaks highly if his maintenance practices. ?adwell, 36 Felt St., says a Special Permit can be issued only if the use is not more detrim -tal than the existing nonconforming use. He says there are 12 residential • propert:L 'hat abut, and this property is zoned R2. He discusses where kennels are permitted aid ur der what circumstances. '-Swiggin, 30 Japonica St., says in the last few months, neighbors have had difficu ith the property, including fumes. She says it's not fair to have another business come in. There is a park across street, and the dogs will be out there barking. Just two dogs barking would drive you crazy, let alone 50. Robert Scorzoni, 14 Larrabee Terrace, Peabody, encourages neighbors hors to give the business a chance and says Mr. Anderson is great trainer. John Pelosi, 2 Walter St., says barking dogs are awful; he likes dogs, but they can't guarantee the dogs won't bark. Particularly if the dogs are kept overnight,they will bark. It's not fair to the neighborhood. Dogs barking in a building will echo. He's not questioning Mr. Anderson's ability to train or handle dogs; he's just concerned about the noise. Karen McDonald, 3 Thomas Rd., Beverly, works for Goldberg properties. She says the place is like a warehouse now, but they are putting in rubber flooring, there are cement walls, the noise will be maintained, and all uses in the building are commercial. She says Mr. Anderson takes the dogs out to beaches, parks, trail walks, etc., and does not just • keep them there on the premises. He has a van, and takes them out all day. The 8 • outdoor area is large and is located 125 feet from the nearest home. They only want the fenced area to let dogs out for fresh air, but not to be kept out there playing all day. Outdoors,there would be artificial turf, no smell, and any feces would be picked up and cleaned immediately; she says it will be spotless. Judy French, 16 Foster St., she says the dogs will be very close to her house. She is concerned about the smell. She submits a petition with the addresses and signatures of people who are opposed to the project. She looks at the plot plan and Mr. Goldberg shows her where the proposal is in proximity to her property. She is concerned about the number of dogs Mr. Anderson wants to have on the premises, the value of her home, and dander in the air. Kathy Meadowcroft, 22 Foster St., shows an aerial shot of the property and says there were problems with fumes after the trees were cut down. There is a 9 foot fence with barbed wire on top. She complains about the nonconforming uses already on the property and debris. Paul Prevey, Ward 6, opposes the petition. He says Foster St. has a high amount of activity; he receives many complaints about the businesses there. He has submitted a letter detailing his opposition. This petition is simply too much for the neighbors. He urges the Board to help the neighbors maintain some quality of life. Ultimately, once the Special Permit is granted, he feels the applicant will do what he wants and he will continue to receive complaints; he suggests Mr. Anderson try to find a more appropriate location. A Lynn resident, says Councillor Prevey mentioned this neighborhood has had complaints from businesses, and is not living up to the standards for residents. He says businesses have to respect residents; he says they have been working with Jermaine and have two dogs in his care twice a week. He says they love their dogs and trust Mr. Anderson. He says the neighbors should want good businesses to come in to this nonconforming property, and this would be one. He says the dogs will not be running amok. He speaks to Anderson's ability to keep the dogs controlled and respect the surrounding neighborhood. Patricia Murphy, 27 Foster and 1 Walter st., says this is a very busy, noisy neighborhood, and she agrees with her neighbors about traffic. Foster St. is one way, many people who use the businesses go down the wrong way. She is concerned about noise and the fact that the clients, friends and supporters of the project do not live in Salem. David Fitzpatrick, 22 Foster St., says that people who board dogs work long hours, and constant traffic will be a problem, as well as noise. He says a rubber floor has to be washed, and this will just go into the surrounding yard. • 9 Melissa Brayton, 12 Reliance Row, Salem, does not think the business will disturb • neighbors. Karen McDonald says that Anderson picks up the dogs and then drops them off, so the number of additional cars is very small. Judy French says traffic will have an impact, and she's afraid this will turn into a boarding facility. She says the business makes the character of a neighborhood more of a noisy business area rather than residential and debases it. Darlene Palazzi, 10'/: Foster St., notes there are elderly people in the neighborhood. David Gavenda, 17 Buffum St., says north Salem is now a haven for coyotes and thinks this will attract them. Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion of hearing. Mr. Metsch asks for a clarification of how the property is zoned. Mr. St. Pierre says it's mostly R2, with a small Bl section. Mr. Goldberg says a lot of families do have dogs, and dogs add a component of life, health, safety, etc. He says he hears neighbors' concerns. He says they have been trying to clean the place up and be good neighbors, and he wants to try to address concerns. • Ms. Curran notes that the Board would not just be allowing the use, they must determine if the proposed use is less detrimental than the prior use;this use has big potential for conflict with residential use, and without data telling industry standards, it seems so unlikely that there won't be a noise issue. How does this work? From a common sense standpoint, it seems this many dogs would create noise. Mr. Anderson says he brings dogs to parks in the area —he had 21 dogs with him today— and he typically brings many dogs to close proximity of houses with no complaints. He says that typically, dogs do not bark with training. No dogs with aggression issues are allowed. Mr. Goldberg notes that with the vinyl fence you can't see in from a distance, so the dogs won't be barking at things on the outside. Mr. Metsch—for use change, we're just talking about this building? Ms. Curran —it's grandfathered, nonconforming that there are several principle uses. Mr. Dionne—the flooring business was pretty soundproof—and that's a noisy business. Mr. Metsch—the cats, kids—this is private property, and those not the owner's concern. In terms of a kennel, you're not proposing this today, that's a different process. As to expertise—you have had your clients address that. We get down to noise, smell and traffic. The traffic for me,this type of activity is already here on • Franklin St. —this isn't increasing it. You can't turn left on Franklin, so you loop around 10 • on North. Now you're having the dogs picked up, but do you feel that with this new location you will look to have your clients drop off more? Mr. Anderson —some clients cannot drop off dogs—it's beneficial for me to pick up the dogs. Mr. Metch: As to the noise—dogs definitely bark, I have three, could something be done as far as placement on the lot, erection of a taller, more sound barrier fence? Could something be done to work with neighbors' concerns? Mr. Goldberg—dogs won't set foot outside because the dogs will go right into the fenced in yard. Mr. Dionne -that area is smaller than this room. Mr. Anderson—that's right, you couldn't even put 15 dogs in the area. Ms. Harris—why do you need the outdoor space if you'll use it in such a limited way? Mr. Goldberg—we want them to be confined but still have some short outside time in between trips out. Mr. Metsch—notes substantial concerns from residents. He encourages discussion with neighbors. Ms. Curran—you need to prove to us, real specifics, why this is less detrimental than the last use. Mr. Goldberg— the other use had trucks all day, noise,fork lifts operating, beeping noise, dragging carpet inside to warehouse space; it was just noisy. For the majority of business hours, most people will be at work. Ms. Curran —if another doggie day care comes in, do all doggie day cares not have barking—what is the industry standard? Mr. Anderson says there are some who don't know how to keep the dogs well behaved. Mr. St. Pierre notes the hours of operation would be—7 am -7 pm Monday through • Friday. Mr. Tsitsinos—would it be unoccupied during weekend? Mr. Anderson -Sometimes there are training slots during the weekend. Mr.Tsitsinos—it's 130-140 feet from any home, with a 9 foot fence around it. Ms. Harris—it's really the noise. Mr. Tsitsinos— I don't hear any from the one on Highland Ave. Mr. Dionne says he doesn't hear dogs there either. Mr. St. Pierre—will you do any retrofitting? Mr. Goldberg-the door,fence, rubber flooring, fans. Mr. St. Pierre says he asked about the amount of investment being made in case the Board was thinking of issuing the Special Permit only for a short time. Ms. Curran —for a Special Permit, we could just condition it for this owner. Mr. Goldberg says he'd be unlikely to allow another doggie daycare. Mr. St. Pierre confirms they could condition the Special Permit to just that business owner. Board members ask if the dogs ever be there without Mr. Anderson; he says that during the day, he might leave them with another employee if he has to pick up other dog during the day. Ms. Curran —first we have to determine if it's more detrimental,then think about the • permit. 11 Mr. Metsch—truck traffic, fork lifts, loading and unloading. So from a traffic and noise • standpoint...Ms. Harris and Ms. Curran note that it's hard to believe there won't be noise. Mr. Metsch—will it be more or less than what was there? Mr. Tsitsinos says they won't have fumes like there were with trucks for the previous use. Ms. Curran says the traffic issue is minimal. For noise, the jury is still out. She asks about waste disposal; Mr. Goldberg says they use triple trash bags, disinfectant, a dumpster is used, and they remove waste daily from the premises. Board of Health, Fire and Building Departments all regulate. There is a whole section in the City ordinance on dumpsters and sanitation. Ms. Harris—will you use A/C in summer? Mr. Goldberg—no, we will install high powered fans. Ms. Curran —will they be noisy? Mr. Goldberg says they are still researching the type to be used. Mr. Dionne says he doesn't know if it can be done, but he'd recommend a trial period of 6 months or so. Mr. Goldberg—what if the neighbors are still upset? Mr. St. Pierre— we'd hear the complaints if the problems couldn't be solved. Obviously this is a risk for you. Mr. Tsitsinos—they still need to go to the Board of Health. Would they need special traps, drains for feces, etc.? Ms. Harris—it sounds like he runs a great business, but it's very hard to take a chance that this is not going to be noisy. I really dislike barking dogs. Mr. Metsch —will noise project toward neighbors? • Mr. Tsitsinos—what if they did a trial period just for the outside? That's the part neighbors are concerned about. We know we won't hear dogs from the inside. Ms. Harris- how do we know that? Mr. Tsitsinos—from 120 feet away? That would be difficult. At 3 Bridge St. —there are always dogs in and out there—by Stromberg's—I can't hear them. Ms. Curran - I think this is tough for a residential district. Ms. Harris-there are so many people opposed to it. Mr. Goldberg—I'm happy to do trial. Ms. Harris—9 months, a whole season,through the summer? I don't know if that would be OK with the neighbors;they are pretty upset. Jan —Sept., perhaps. It's a risk. I'm really uncomfortable with so many people opposed. Mr. Metsch— 1 year? We need to include the summer—when cooling is needed, having the doors open, there's more potential for dogs to get anxious and bark if they are going to. Mr. Anderson says they are very busy after Christmas, since a lot of people get puppies then. Mr. Metsch—can outdoor hours be restricted? That way there would only be • complaints in a 1 hour zone on either side—morning and night. 12 • Mr. Tsitsinos—the first year is really tough for a new business. 2%years is better. Ms. Curran—but we're more interested in finding out the negative impacts to neighborhood, not making sure the business survives. Ms. Harris—better to have the whole thing tested to find out how this really will be. Ms. Curran—I'm wavering between a trial and feeling this is not the right place for this. Ms. Harris—I'd only do a trial. Restrict to this operator. Mr. Anderson—how will we know if it's working? Mr. St. Pierre—we'll be hearing from the neighbors and ward councilor if there are problems. Ms. Harris—there is definitely some risk;there are a lot of upset neighbors. Ms. Curran—the Board finds this is not more detrimental than the previous use. Conditions limit the hours to Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. -7 p.m., and training on the weekends. Mr. Metsch moves to approve with 6 standard conditions and the following special conditions:the Special Permit lasts 9 months from issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy;the Special Permit runs with Loyal Canines, run by Jermaine Anderson;the • operation of the business is for doggie daycare and training Monday through Friday, 7 a.m -7 p.m., and training only on weekends;the petitioner will contact the Board of Health and animal control officer about the petition, letting them know what they are doing. Seconded by Mr. Dionne, 5-0 approved (Metsch, Dionne, Harris, Curran and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of TAMMIE FAVA requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to construct a third story dormer on the two- family home at 21 BUFFUM ST (R-2 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 11/10/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Back elevation drawing, revised 11/10/11 and initialed by Rebecca Curran ➢ Elevation drawings ➢ Photographs, no date ➢ Letter from Genevieve Gavenda, David Gavenda and Nancy Gavenda, 17 Buff um St., dated 11/16/11 Tammie Fava presents her petition, along with Michael Becker. She is renovating and • restoring the home, purchased 1 month ago. It's a 2-family home;the second floor apartment is where they want to live, and they want to make the 3`d floor a master 13 bedroom. They want to add a shed dormer. She presents photos of the house. She says this will be within the footprint of the house. It will have an almost-flat roof. They • want to put a closet in there. Ms. Harris asks if they looked at doing a more traditional dormer—what they propose doesn't go with the house all that well. Ms. Fava says it's in the back. Mr. Becker notes there is a dormer on the house next door. The reason for the almost flat roof is to reach the height of the ridge required; to get the headroom required the pitch has to be flat. Mr. St. Pierre says it looks like from the back view they're only going 22 feet, not whole length of the house? Mr. Becker says this is correct. Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment. David Govenda, 17 Buffum St., is concerned this could become a three-family house. He submits a letter stating his opposition if a third unit was allowed. Ms. Curran says they are not asking for a three-family- it is and will remain a two family. Ms. Fava says there would not be enough room for a three-family. Mr. St. Pierre says this Board is not empowered to make this a three-family. John Walsh, 19 Buffum St., says he just wants to see what was going on; he says he has no problem with the dormer. Ms. Harri- ?ests changes to the drawing; Ms. Curran asks if her modification to the • dra 1U.d w I ,r. St. Pierre suggests pulling in the dormer a foot and a half so .6mal rues r An. Mr. Becker says the stair runs there. Mr. St. Pierre says the i oara is tr; u;ru, cake sure the property doesn't look boxy or ugly. Mr. Metsch—I'm fine v, ' .t as is. i ",, Harris—I think it could be improved. Ms. Curran —it could look be -ve n Clem with the concept. Robert Pete. .w, .v Buffum St., says he is happy to hear they're not looking to make this a three-family and appreciate the Board's effort to refine the look. Mr. Govenda says he doesn't oppose the concept, but he does not want to see the top ridge line raised. Ms. Curran closes the public portion of the hearing. Ms. Curran says she prefers some flexibility and the Board would trust Mr. St. Pierre to make sure it doesn't leave the parameters of what is being approved. Mr. St. Pierre— I'm looking for a better drawing; your footprint of the dormer would be approved. Ms. Curran says she doesn't mind approving giving Mr. St. Pierre the flexibility to raise the ridge line as well. • 14 • The Board discusses approving the dimensions of the dormer, leaving the roofline flexible for Mr. St. Pierre's approval. Plans were revised and submitted at the meeting, the revised drawing was dated 11/16/11 and initialed by the chair, with the understanding that final drawings are to be submitted to Mr. St. Pierre for approval. Ms. Harris moves to approve the petition with the above condition and 9 standard conditions. Mr. Tsitsinos seconds; the Board votes 5-0 to approve the petition (Metsch, Tsistinos, Harris, Dionne and Curran in favor, none opposed. The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Mr. Dionne moves to adjourn, Mr. Tsitsinos seconds; all in favor. The meeting adjourns at 10:15 p.m. For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at: http://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA ZoningApaealsMin/ Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner • Approved by the Board of Appeals 1/18/12 • 15 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 W� FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR November 30, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of TAMMIE FAVA requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to construct a third story dormer on the two-family home at 21 BUFFUM ST (R-2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 16, 2011, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on November 11, 2011 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Annie Hams,Jamie Metsch, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Tamrnie Fava presented her petition at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped November 10, 2011, petitioner requested a Special Perrot to extend a nonconforming two-family home by constructing a third-floor shed dormer addition. 3. At the meeting on November 16, 2011, a resident opposed the petition if it would involve making the building a three-family home. The petitioner stated she was not asking for a third unit. 4. At the hearing, Board member expressed concerns about the design of the dormer, petitioner revised the drawing to raise the roofline and match the pitch of the new dormer roof to that of the existing roof. 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, since the proposed modification will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood. 2 • 2. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming two-family house is granted, as shown in the submitted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Curran, Harris, Dionne, Tsitsinos and Metsch) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for a Special Permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. Plans were revised and submitted at the meeting, with the drawing dated 11/16/11 and initialed bythe Chair. Final drawings to be submitted to the Building Commissioner for approval. • 4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 7. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 8. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 9. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 10. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the stnicture(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 conformty with the provisions of the Ordinance. 3 • Rebecca Curran, 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. • • coq„� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS Q BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR � ( SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 W� FAx: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ` '(; MAYOR November 30, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of WLODEK MATCZAK requesting a Variance from number of stories, and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, to construct a shed dormer on the three-family home at 208 NORTH ST (R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 16, 2011,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on November 11, 2011 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris,Jamie Metsch, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.4 and a Variance pursuant to Section 4.0 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. • Statements of fact: 1. Wlodek Matczak presented his petition at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped October 27,2011,petitioner requested a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming three-family home and a Variance from number of stories, in order to construct a third-floor shed dormer addition. 3. At the hearing, no member of the public spoke in support of 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, snakes the following findings: 1. The proposed modification will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconfomring structure to the neighborhood. 2. Owing to conditions affecting the building, literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise,to the appellant, since the configuration of the roofline does not allow for usable livingspace in this onion of the h p Dose. P 2 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 4. 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 under Sec. 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming three-family house is granted in order to construct the proposed shed dormer. 2. A Variance from number of stories is granted in order to construct the proposed shed dormer. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted,five (5) in favor(Curran, Harris, Dionne, Tsitsinos and Metsch) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for a Special Permit and 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 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. 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 3 • destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. Li, Aw/I. ,(b1t7( Rebecca Curran, 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. • gONDII CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ?� BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3Ro FLOOR 1� ( a SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • '� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL � � :, '�� -'ii "� 7• OO MAYOR November 30, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of PETER G. &JAN N. ESCHAUZIER requesting a Special Pennit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a 3.5'x13,' one-story addition on the single-family house on 151/2 River Street(R-2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 16, 2011, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on November 11, 2011 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris,Jamie Metsch, and Jimmy Tsitsmos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5. Statements of fact: 1. Peter and Jan Eschauzier presented their petition at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped October 6, 2011, petitioner requested a Variance from rear and side yard setbacks, but it was determined by the Building Commissioner that a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming single-family home was needed, rather than a Variance. 3. At the hearing, a member of the public expressed concern about the historic integrity of the house. 4. At the hearing, Board members stated that the addition would not be visible from the public way, and that building in this manner was in keeping with the neighborhood, which already has houses built very close together. 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,since the proposed modification will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to • the neighborhood. 2. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 2 On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans,Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming single-family house is granted in order to construct the proposed addition. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Curran, Harris, Dionne, Tsitsinos and Metsch) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for a Special Permit and Variance subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. • 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 8. . Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 9. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize 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. • 3 Rebecca Curran, au 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 Pemut 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�,tipOND(Ta„��, CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 • tr°' TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL "r'; MAYOR November 30, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of ERIC COUTURE requesting Variances from lot area and lot area per dwelling unit to demolish the existing structure and construct a two-unit residential building on the property located at 12 RAWLINS ST (R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 19, 2011,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was continued to November 11, 2011 and closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne,Annie Harris,Jamie Metsch, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 4.0 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. • Statements of fact: 1. Eric Couture presented himself at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped October 5, 2011,petitioner requested Variances from lot area and lot area per dwelling unit to demolish the existing single-family home at 12 Rawlins Street and construct a two-unit residential building. 3. At the hearing on October 19, 2011, two residents stated a preference that the property be owner occupied, and also expressed concerns about undertaking demolition carefully because of contaminants and animals on the site. 4. At the meetings, Wand 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols Street, spoke in support of the project, noting the poor condition of the property and saying the redevelopment would improve the neighborhood. 5. At the meetings,some Board members expressed a preference that the structure be brought closer to the street in order to be more in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public . hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 2 1. Owing to the small size of the lot, literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the appellant. 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; the project is in keeping with the neighborhood since there are several other two-family houses in the neighborhood on smaller lots. 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 under Section 4.0 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, specifically lot area and lot area per dwelling unit,are granted to allow construction of the proposed two- family house. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Curran, Harris, Dionne,Tsitsinos and Metsch) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's request for Special Permits subject to the following tetras, 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 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's 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 Comrnission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to,the Planning Board. 8. Two separate driveways, one for each unit, are to be constructed instead of a single driveway serving both units. • 9. The structure is to be moved up closer to the street so that a 15-foot front yard setback is achieved. 3 10. Air conditioning units are to be moved to the back of the structure. Rebecca Curran, 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. • • oynllq CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 0 BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR R SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • �?r°' TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 W� FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR LL t ...! jp' ) November 30,2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of JAY GOLDBERG, GERREN REALTY TRUST requesting Special Permits under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure and to change one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, in order to open a Doggy Daycare/Training Business at 9-11 FRANKLIN ST, and to construct a 32'x24'vinyl fenced area (B 1 and R2 Zoning Districts). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 16, 2011, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, 5 11. The hearing was closed on November 11, 2011 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris,Jamie Metsch, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). • Petitioner seeks Special Permits pursuant to Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Jay Goldberg presented the petition at the hearing. Also present was Jermaine Anderson, proprietor of Loyal Canines,the business that is proposed as a tenant for 9-11 Franklin Street. 2. In a petition date-stamped October 26, 2011, petitioner requested Special Pemvts to extend a nonconforming structure and to change one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, in order to open a Doggy Daycare/Training Business at 9-11 Franklin Street, and to construct a 32'x24' vinyl fenced area. 3. Currently, there are several commercial uses in the building on 9-11 Franklin Street, including an automotive business, a martial arts school, and a transmission shop. The space for which Loyal Canines is proposed was most recently a flooring business. 4. At the meeting on November 16, 2011,several residents spoke in opposition to the proposal,citing concerns about the potential noise and smell from the dogs, traffic congestion,cleanliness, property values, nonconforming uses already on the site, and • neighborhood safety. Two residents submitted letters in opposition to the petition, including Ward 6 Councillor Paul Prevey,26 Tremont Street, who also spoke in opposition at the hearing. Neighbors also submitted a petition against the project with signatures from neighbors. 2 • 5. Also at the November 16 hearing, several clients of Mr. Anderson spoke in favor of the project, attesting to his professional manner and skill with dog training. 6. At the hearing, Mr. Anderson stated that his dogs are trained not to bark. 7. At the hearing,Mr. Goldberg stated that the previous use, a flooring business,had trucks loading and unloading, and forklifts operating,which created beeping noises when backing up. 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,since the proposed doggie day care/training use is not substantially more detrimental than the previous nonconfornung use (a flooring business) to the neighborhood. 2. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing • including, but not limited to, the Plans,Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use is granted. The Special Permit is granted for a period of nine (9) months from the date of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, and is valid for use only by Loyal Canines, run by Jetmaine Anderson. 2. A Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming stnicture is granted. The Special Permit is granted for a period of nine (9) months from the date of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Curran, Harris, Dionne, Tsitsinos and Metsch) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's request for Special Permits subject to the following terms,conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Conutiissioner. . 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. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 7. Special Permits are granted for a period of nine (9) months from the date of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 8. Hours of operation for the doggie day care are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday. Dog training only is allowed on weekends. 9. Special Permit for use is granted only to Loyal Canines, nm byJermaine Anderson. 10. Applicant is to contact the Board of Health and Animal Control Officer prior to opening the business. ra Rebecca Curran, 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 Pemut granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSAC HUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL DPP yh` 120WASMNGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASS.ACHUSETCS01970 nii:978-745-9595 ♦FAx:978-740-9846 Ku,mERLEY DRiscou. MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem, MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of ERIC COUTURE requesting Variances from lot area and lot area per dwelling unit to demolish the existing structure and construct a two-unit residential building on the property located at 12 RAWLINS ST(R-2). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on November 30, 2011 ' Petition of WLODEK MATCZAK requesting a Variance from number of stories,and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure,to construct a shed dormer on the three-family home at 208 NORTH ST(112). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on November 30, 2011 Petition of PETER G. &JAN N. ESCHAUZIER requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a 3.5'x13,' one-story addition on the single-family house on 15'/: River Street(R-2). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on November 30, 2011 Public hearing: Petition of JAY GOLDBERG,GERREN REALTY TRUST requesting Special Permits under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure and to change one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, in order to open a Doggy Daycare/Training Business at 9-11 FRANKLIN ST, and to construct a 32'x24'vinyl fenced area (61 and 112). Decision: Granted (Special Permit granted for nine months from issuance of occupancy permit) Filed with the City Clerk on November 30, 2011 Petition of TAMMIE FAVA requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to construct a third story dormer on the two-family home at 21 BUFFUM ST(R-2 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on November 30,2011 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9& 15 and does not require action by the recipient. Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A,Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. � codmra.ra CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 3 JQc BOARD OF APPEAL 2 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR y `lip SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR REVISED MEETING NOTICE: CHANGE OF LOCATION ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 19, 2011 - 6:30 P.M. City Hall, 93 Washington Street Council Clambers (second Floor) Salem MA (NOT 120 Washington Street as usual) Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Miruues: September 21,2011 meeting 2. Public hearing:Petition of THREE SONS WINDOW& DOOR INC. requesting a Variance from number of stories and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to constntct a shed dormer on the house located at 25-25112 BARR ST (R-2). 3. Public hearing: Petition of LAWRENCE GALLAGHER requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off- street parking regulations, for the property located at 11 DEARBORN STREET (R-2), in order to use the single-family house as a two-family house. • 4. Public hearing: Petition of HUGH MULLIGAN requesting Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use and modify a preVauusly granted Variance in order to use the third floor for two residential units on the property located at 204 LAFAYETTE ST (R-3). 5. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of THE SALEM MISSION LLC D/B/A LIFEBRIDGE requesting Variances from rear yard setback,height (feet),height (stories), nmulinutm area per dwelling unit,and parking,to add two stories to the existing building at 56 MARGIN ST,Salem, MA,creatung twenty-two (22) units of residential housing (R- 2). 6. Public hearing:Petition of PASQUANNA DE VE LOPE RS, INC. requesting Variances from minimum lot area, lot area per dwelling unit, frontage, lot width, front yard setback and rear yard setback, in order to subdivide the propene located at 1S THORNDIKE STREET (R-2) uitu five (5) single-family house lots. 7. Public hearing: Petition of WILLIAM WFIARFF, MANAGE R, l IR WINTER ISLAND ROAD requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,and a Variance under Sec. 5.1 (Off Street Parking), for the property located at 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD(R-l). S. Public hearing: Petition of ERIC COUTURE requesting Variances from lot area and lot area per dwelling unit to demolish the ex sting structure and constniet a two-Unit residential building On the property located at 12 RAWLINS ST f 9. Old/New Business d , 10. Adjournment °.� :'a, ,: �l • kixw}ivrrRrgbsurrl7lrCpxnarbleeirXLawM.GL. c -79�28rrrlCity' Ot(u&r)xe:9'ntiv)k22U28'dmxs{i2-2033. ormr CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL e�i m 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RO FLOOR r, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • ��?n TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR MEETING NOTICE :2 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS v� October 19,2011- 6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Room 313(Yd Floor) Salem,MA Rebecca Curran,Chair v MEETING AGENDA IV 1. Approval of Minutes: September 21,2011 meeting — LJ 2. Public hearing:Petition of THREE SONS WINDOW&DOOR INC.requesting a Variance from number of stories and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a shed dormer on the house located at 25-251h BARR ST (R 2). 3. Public hearing:Petition of LAWRENCE GALLAGHER requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off- street parking regulations,for the property located at 11 DEARBORN STREET (R 2),in order to use the single-family house as a two-family house. 4. Public hearing:Petition of HUGH MULLIGAN requesting Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use and modify • a previously granted Variance in order to use the third floor for two residential units on the property located at 204 LAFAYETTE ST (R 3). 5. Continuation of public hearing:Petition of THE SALEM MISSION LLC D/B/A LIFEBRIDGE requesting Variances from rear yard setback,height (feet),height (stories),minimum area per dwelling unit,and parking,to add two stories to the existing building at 56 MARGIN ST,Salem,MA,creating twenty-two (22) units of residential housing (R 2). 6. Public hearing:Petition of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS,INC. requesting Variances from minimum lot area,lot area per dwelling unit,frontage,lot width,front yard setback and rear yard setback,in order to subdivide the property located at 18 THORNDIKE STREET (R-2) into five(5) single-family house lots. 7. Public hearing:Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF,MANAGER, 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,and a Variance under Sec. 5.1 (Off Street Parking),for the property located at 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R-1). 8. Public hearing:Petition of ERIC COUTURE requesting Variances from lot area and lot area per dwelling unit to demolish the existing structure and construct a two-unit residential building on the property located at 12 RAWLINS ST (R-2). 9. Old/New Business 10. Adjournment KwwYcurRights under the OpenMErlirg LawM.G.L. c 39§23B and Cay Ortlirszrxe Salim 2-2028&r*2-2033. ;sill notice Poslcd on Crlly H�!' aalem, Pass. a?� -:� v� f �®.�t�oid�«t=ra �,�� t�:;�. � ;ate CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL • ` � iZO WASHINGTON STREET+SALEM,MASSACHUSEITS 01970 'ISLE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR C� ~ N LEGAL NOTICES The City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will open public hearings for the follow ing ne� petitions on Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 6:30 p.m., 3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET 'ROOM313: N 00 Petition of HUGH MULLIGAN requesting Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use and modify a previously granted Variance in order to use the third floor for two residential units on the property located at 204 LAFAYETTE ST(R-3). Petition of LAWRENCE GALLAGHER requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking regulations, for the property located at 11 DEARBORN STREET(R-2), in order to use the single- family house as a two-family house. •, Petition of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. requesting Variances from minimum lot area, lot area per dwelling unit, frontage, lot width, front yard setback and rear yard setback, in order to subdivide the property located at 18 THORNDIKE STREET(R-2) into five (5) single-family house lots. Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, MANAGER, 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance reconstruct a nonconforming Single Family residential structure, and a Variance under Sec. 5.1.5 to allow tandem parking, for the property located at 1111 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R-1). Petition of ERIC COUTURE requesting Variances from lot area and lot area per dwelling unit to demolish the existing structure and construct a two-unit residential building on the property located at 12 RAWLINS ST(R-2). Rebecca Curran Chair • City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board 719Ta j D� � Date f U Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Page of r e�'�NOITq�Q� . City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Date 10 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Page of �cotao►rq�a�� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL P i 120 WASHINGTON S'IWcT♦ SnLHM,MASSACHUSI3TI'S 01970 MINE 'rrl._C:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846 IQMRuiu.LY DRISCOLL MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: October 6, 2011 RE: Meeting Agenda —October 19, 2011 Board Members, • Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Planner's memo 3. Meeting minutes of 9/21/11 Public hearing: Petition of THREE SONS WINDOW& DOOR INC. requesting a Variance from number of stories and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a shed dormer on the house located at 25-25% BARR ST(R-2). The applicant proposes 3 stories (2.5 are allowed). Public hearing: Petition of LAWRENCE GALLAGHER requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking regulations, for the property located at 11 DEARBORN STREET(R-2), in order to use the single-family house as a two-family house. This single-family house contains an apartment that has previously been used as a second unit. The applicant seeks to make it a legal second unit. Past violation notices for using the property as a two- family home without receiving proper relief are enclosed. Relief is needed from lot area per dwelling unit (7,500 square feet is required; 3,600 is proposed). Relief from off-street parking is also requested, since there is only space on the lot for two cars, where three would be required of there were two units. No change to the parking area is proposed. 1 Public hearing: Petition of HUGH MULLIGAN requesting Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use and modify a previously granted Variance in order to use the third floor for two residential units on the property located at 204 LAFAYETTE ST(11-3). In 1988, the petitioner received a Variance to use the building as office space on the first two floors and a residential unit on the third floor(the previously issued decision is enclosed). However, the third floor has actually been used for two residential units for several years. The petitioner seeks to legitimize the second unit. This requires a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use, as well as a modification to the previously issued decision. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of THE SALEM MISSION LLC D/B/A LIFEBRIDGE requesting Variances from rear yard setback, height (feet), height (stories), minimum area per dwelling unit, and parking,to add two stories to the existing building at 56 MARGIN ST, Salem, MA, creating twenty-two (22) units of residential housing (R-2). I have not received any further information about this project. The Board should act at this meeting in order to avoid constructive approval. Public hearing: Petition of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. requesting Variances from minimum lot area, lot area per dwelling unit, frontage, lot width, front yard setback and rear yard setback, in order to subdivide the property located at 18 THORNDIKE STREET(R-2) into five (5) single-family house lots. The applicant will need to apply to the Planning Board for subdivision approval and waivers from frontage. The Planning Board will ask the City Engineer to examine the drainage, and will also ask the Fire Department review the plans to ensure there is adequate turnaround space for fire apparatus. The dimensional relief requested is detailed on the table accompanying the application. • Public hearing: Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, MANAGER, 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, and a Variance under Sec. 5.1 (Off Street Parking), for the property located at 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD (11-1). Mr. Wharff is returning with a modified project. He expects to have full ownership of the property by the time of our meeting. If he does not, he will request to continue until November. The footprint of the proposed new house is shown on the plot plan he submitted. However, I do not have elevation drawings of the new house. Public hearing: Petition of ERIC COUTURE requesting Variances from lot area and lot area per dwelling unit to demolish the existing structure and construct a two-unit residential building on the property located at 12 RAWLINS ST (R-2). The applicant requests relief from lot area (the lot is 10,200 SF, where 15,000 SF is required), and lot area per dwelling unit (5,100 SF is proposed, where 7,500 SF is required). 2 • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, October 19, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, October 19, 2011 in Council Chambers, second floor, 93 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Jamie Metsch, Richard Dionne and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Those absent were: Annie Harris and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner. Ms. Curran opens the meeting at 6:38 p.m. Approval of Minutes The minutes of September 21, 2011 are reviewed. Ms. Belair moves to approve, seconded by Mr. Dionne; all are in favor (4-0). Ms. Curran announces that while we are expecting five members, we so far only have four Board members in attendance and asks the first applicant, Peggy Arend, if she • wants to proceed, since a unanimous vote will be required to pass her petition. Ms. Arend would like to go ahead. Public hearing: Petition of THREE SONS WINDOW& DOOR INC. requesting a Variance from number of stories and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a shed dormer on the house located at 25-25Y2 BARR ST(R-2). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 8/31/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Elevation drawings of 25 Barr St., Salem MA Peggy Arend, 33 Main St., Fields, NH, presents the petition on behalf of the petitioner. She explains the existing structure is a 2 story single family. The family wants to add a shed dormer which would change the 2/12-story house to a 3-story. The addition will house a master bedroom, shown in the plans. Presently,the existing structure is nonconforming; Ms. Arend says the design stays with what's already in the neighborhood. Ms. Curran asks how much area is being added; Ms. Arend says the addition is 25 x 13.5 feet. She says it doesn't change the footprint, and because it's a shed dormer it won't go above the existing ridge line. Ms. Curran asks if the materials used will be the same as the rest of the house. Yes—wood on the outside. Ms. Curran asks her to review her statement of hardship. Ms. Arend says they have the existing 2 . stories and attic space, and adding a dormer will make it a 3 story. She says they have 2 small children and the family is growing; due to the economic times it's impossible now 1 to sell and find a new house without a hardship as far as finance. They are not changing . the footprint and just want to add a master bathroom for the family. Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment. No one comments;she closes the public comment portion. Mr. Metsch asks for clarification on the materials being used. Ms. Arend says asphalt shingle for roof, and wood clapboard siding for the dormer. Mr. Metsch asks if there is a set of stairs to the attic; yes. The existing stairs will stay. Mr. St. Pierre says it looks like they are eliminating a set of stairs? Ms. Arend says that's an attic hatch. Mr. Dionne makes a motion to grant the petition with 9 standard conditions, and one condition that the property is to remain a two-family residence after construction. says Findings: Ms. Curran s this would not be a substantial detriment to the Y neighborhood; it's a preexisting property; it's staying within the footprint and air space of the currant building. Mr. Metsch seconds the petition; all in favor 4-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of LAWRENCE GALLAGHER requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking regulations, for the property located at 11 • DEARBORN STREET(11-2), in order to use the single-family house as a two-family house. Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 9/13/11 ➢ Petition supporting the project, signed by neighbors Lawrence Gallagher says he has lived in this house for 44 years. Both he and his wife work at Kernwood 6 months out of the year, seasonally. He says they are living on social security in a large house with big rooms, and they have big heating bills. He has asked neighbors if they have any objections, and he says all support his petition. He wants to stay in his house, doesn't want to move to an elderly complex, but needs some help. Ms. Curran notes there is a little history to this site and asks Mr. St. Pierre to confirm that it's been used as a two- family in the past. Mr. St. Pierre says it was a two-family and also had a semi unit in the basement which we dealt with years ago. Ms. Curran: Now a single family? Yes. Ms. Curran asks if it is the basement they want to rent out; Mr. Gallagher says no, the basement cannot be rented —it's the second floor. Ms. Curran asks if they will make renovations to bring up to code for a two-family. He says yes, he had the house inspected and knows what needs to be done. There will be no changes to outside of building. He says he has enough space for parking. Ms. Curran • notes there is no plot plan here—how big is the lot? Mr. Metsch notes there is no 2 • parking plan—are you using off street parking? Mr. Gallagher says they don't park on the property except in winter when there is a snow emergency. They have two cars. They would use four spaces as tandem spaces—one long row. Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment; no one comments and she closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Curran asks for confirmation there are no exterior renovations;they are not making any changes to the yard and are providing four parking spaces in total, although they are tandem. Mr. Metsch says he went by the property and the size of building seems ample to have two units if not more if allowed. He says a lot of neighbors have multiple units; his only concern is the off street parking and how for 10 months of the year it's a wall of picket fence, with no opportunity for one of the potentially four cars to access, making them rely on on-street parking. He says he is fine with the use,just concerned about the provision of parking. Ms. Curran asks if he could make parking part of the lease, making a space available to the renter. Mr. Gallagher says he is willing to make this a condition of the permit. Mr. Metsch asks if the gate swings open. Mr. Gallagher says they can move the fence. Ms. Curran suggests conditioning that that piece of fence be removed as part of this approval—that part of driveway would be permanently open. Ms. Curran notes this is an allowed use in this district, the issue is area per dwelling unit and parking;the variance requires a statement of hardship. She confirms that one was • submitted. Mr. Metsch suggests that the size of the building may also be a hardship. Ms. Belair says the hardship is that the building is so large; it's more than he can use. She notes he's been there 44 years and is a longtime Salem resident. She thinks they could classify that as hardship. Ms. Curran notes he is increasing the use but not the footprint, providing off-street parking. Ms. Belair notes that no one is opposing, and his neighbors have signed his petition in support. Mr. Metsch moves to approve with 9 standard conditions, and a special condition that petitioner is to provide two permanent, unobstructed year round parking spaces, and to provide a fencing system to provide easy access to the driveway. Ms. Belair seconds; all are in favor (Metsch, Curran, Belair and Dionne in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of HUGH MULLIGAN requesting Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use and modify a previously granted Variance in order to use the third floor for two residential units on the property located at 204 LAFAYETTE ST(R-3). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 9/28/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Previously issued Variance decision letter date-stamped 6/17/88 • Mr. Mulligan presents his petition, saying that in 1988 he purchased Ivy Manor nursing home, and in order to put his company in the building, got a variance to allow office use 3 in the building. That variance was granted in 1988. He bought the building and moved • the company in. It occupied the first two floors; the =third floor was to be residential — the property is located in the R3 zone. From the beginning, he says he didn't realize it supposed to be limited to 1 unit, and he rented two 1 bedroom units for 19 years. He says the building is sprinklered, has two entrances/exists, and he has used this configuration for 19 years. He says 4 out of 5 of neighbors are multi residence properties, and no one had any problem with what he's asking for. Ms. Curran asks about the parking available; he says there are 18 spaces. The building is just under 6000 SF. One space is there for each residence and three on the side as well. Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment. No one comments;she closes the public comment portion. Ms. Curran asks if they need to issue a new variance or amend the existing one. Mr. St. Pierre says they should amend the existing one. He says he has walked the property, the two apartments have been there a long time, nothing is changing, and if not for this technicality no one would know anything had changed in the building. Mr. Metsch asks if this petition was the result of a complaint; Mr. St. Pierre says no, Mr. Mulligan was looking to do something with the building and wanted to straighten this out. Ms. Curran notes that clearly there hasn't been an issue; she doesn't have a problem with the petition. There are no exterior changes, and this is just business as usual. Mr. Metsch makes a motion to amend the decision on petition dated June 17, 1988, so the property • can have two residential units on the third floor. Mr. St. Pierre says there was some confusion in the original petition; the Board didn't understand at the time that the units were there;those units go back to the fifties. Mr. Dionne seconds; petition passes 4-0 (Metsch, Curran, Dionne and Belair in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of THE SALEM MISSION LLC D/B/A LIFEBRIDGE requesting Variances from rear yard setback, height (feet), height (stories), minimum area per dwelling unit,and parking,to add two stories to the existing building at 56 MARGIN ST, Salem, MA, creating twenty-two (22) units of residential housing(R-2). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 5/25/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Plot plan dated 5/25/11 ➢ Exterior Elevations dated 5/25/11 ➢ Photos and elevations titled "Seeds of Hope III," dated 6/15/11 ➢ Letter from Jeffrey M. Cox, LICSW, BCD, dated 6/14/11 ➢ Letter submitted by the Greater Endicott Street Neighborhood Association (exhibit A), dated 7/18/11, and signature pages (exhibit B) ➢ Letter from Lifebridge dated 7/19/11 (exhibit C) ➢ Exerpt from Mark Bobrowski s Handbook of Massachusetts Land Use and • Planning Law, submitted by Arthur Sargeant, Councillor-at-Large 4 • Attorney George Atkins, 59 Federal St., presents the petition. He says they have agreed to go ahead with only four members. Ms. Curran says the last time they were here, they were going to meet with neighbors,talk about some of the non-zoning issues. He says the request for continuance at last meeting was so that he could meet with the board of directors; he was not planning on meeting again with neighbors. He says they did meet with them when they first submitted the application. He says they have presented evidence at the hearings concerning the nonprofit and educational status of the organization, in compliance with requirements for use. They discussed whether site review would be required; the assistant city solicitor's opinion was they would be required to go before the Planning Board for site plan review if the ZBA grants the variances. In addition to that, the Board was sent a letter from Jeff Cox on behalf of the neighborhood group. His client prepared a written response of particulars of that letter. Parking and traffic—they indicated the tenants in the kind of housing they provide is similar to the kind of tenant they have at High St. and Endicott; there, only one person, a staff member, had a car. They made a commitment to make sure tenants don't park in the neighborhood, or visitors. There is very close public parking available and they would make every effort to keep the parking out of the neighborhood. They have also agreed to not rent to level 3 sex offenders. In response to the request for details about shelter reduction, the concept is to increase the permanent housing and reduce shelter housing. They move homeless people from shelter to permanent housing, while giving • education addressing employment and health. He estimates they could reduce the shelter by as many as 10 beds. He hopes that can be done; it's their intent. Regarding construction —they would have to comply with all local ordinances;they indicated they would have an on-site contact for neighbor issues. They must also go to the Planning Board for site plan review, and that decision would contain detailed requirements for construction. He says he met with Lifebridge's board and discussed the displeasure expressed by neighbors at the last meeting. They recognize the concerns and wanted to reassure the neighborhood that there's been contact with the city and police to minimize impact to the community. As to the sale of the church, he says the archdiocese took the church away, not the Mission. He says they have continued to work with neighbors and police. They put forward the proposal of putting housing into the church; that was opposed, they backed away from it and adopted a view recommended by community leaders to build over the current structure,which is the proposal before the Board today. He says the Board of Directors of Lifebridge suggests they have met their community obligations with regard to the proposal. They consider the dimensional relief minor,the use is covered by the Dover amendment, and if the ZBA approves they will go before the Planning Board. He says they have worked with the community and have a well run facility. He suggests they have heard from everyone, they know what the issues are, and they'll never be able to convince some in the neighborhood to support it, and so he respectfully suggests the Board vote on the particulars of the proposal. • 5 Ms. Curran asks Mr. Atkins to confirm there are 8 spaces on this lot? Atty. Atkins—yes. • Ms. Curran —to clarify, all these buildings are on the same lot, including the church and the land under it, and that's for sale. Atty Atkins says all the buildings are individual condos on the land. The land comprises the condo in total, with each building a separate unit. You would only lose control over the land under the church. Ms. Curran - You don't feel that would nullify your approval because it's a condo? Atty Atkins—correct. Ms. Curran-it's 22 units you're adding, and there are 8 parking spaces total, and no cars of tenants? Atty Atkins says it's their experience from the Endicott and High St. housing that homeless people generally don't own cars; in these developments, only one staff person has a car. Ms. Curran says she doesn't have an issue with the dimensional relief, but she does with the parking. Would they be CK with a condition that no one can have a car except staff members? Atty Atkins says yes. Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion of the hearing. Barbara Mann, 29 Endicott St., chair of GESNA says she has been waiting to meet with • Lifebridge but they have heard nothing from them. They did not appear at their advisory committee meeting. At the last hearing,the Board strongly encouraged working with neighbors further to address suggested conditions. She says there are many residents who wish to stay in the neighborhood. She expresses frustration that Lifebridge has not met with them. Mary Beth Bainbridge, 7 Prescott St., expresses concerns that the proposed uses exceed what the property was zoned for. She also doubts the assertion that the homeless don't need cars; but given the work the organization does, enabling jobs and education, she feels they will need vehicles. How will they enforce parking? She notes there are no "hangout" areas, such as a yard, and so residents use the alley and sidewalk as a living room. She says this situation is problematic—there is smoking outside, the 22 units of studios are like dorm rooms, but there is no common area or rooftop courtyard. She also expresses concern they may be forced to accept level 3 sex offenders. She also wants a firm number of shelter beds that will be reduced, and a timeline. She asks what the timeframe is for the expansion, and asks how this will affect streets? She notes the proposed expansion weren't mentioned during any regular meetings with the neighborhood, and they waited until 2011 to propose the plan to community. She also says Lifebridge walked out of the meeting last time they met on 7/17, and after the ZBA encouraged them to meet with the public, they did not show up to the next meeting. She says they do good work, they fulfill a need, but she encourages expansion in other 6 • north shore cities, saying Salem is doing its fair share and bears the burden in terms of police services, etc. John Femino, 9 Margin St., spoke in opposition to the expansion. He says they broke their promise to keep the church open. Arthur Sargent, Councillor-at-Large, says the neighborhood was gracious when the shelter first moved in, but the expansion is too much for the neighborhood, which is on the brink of becoming rough. He says the increased density will make it worse. When the shelter first came, it was already too dense for R2. This proposal will make it even more nonconforming. He doubts the ban on tenant parking will be enforceable. When circumstances change, residents might have cars. He says the Dover amendment has sometimes been used to build rather than to promote education. He quotes from Mark Bobrowski's Handbook of Massachusetts Land Use and Planning Law. He says the applicant bears burden of proving the local zoning is unreasonable for the use and the municipality may not disregard requirements that would normally apply. He says the Board has the authority to decide if they are asking too much, and they can't keep expanding. Joan Lovely, Councillor at Large, 14 Story St., says the last meeting, she spoke in favor of the petition; now she has to reverse her support. Initially, Lifebridge would put housing • in the church, she was part of that original proposal. She's still supportive of that at some point. But many concessions need to be made. She doesn't think Lifebridge has met its obligations. She likes what she heard tonight about the parking. They need to commit to taking down at least 10 beds. The purpose is to close the shelter—they should move toward that and make the commitment to the community. An MCA should be drafted to guarantee 10 minimum beds to be reduced. She also has a density issue with this project. She thinks they should come back to the community with another plan that would include community space. Councillor Jean Pelletier, Ward 3, says Mr. Femino is correct that promises have not been kept; that's why they started the shelter committee. During a meeting, they asked Lifebridge if they would put a ban on level 3 sex offenders in writing but this has never happened. His issue isn't the density but the parking. They can't rely on Riley Plaza. The have Norman St. condos pay a yearly fee to park there—why should the shelter get free parking there? Atty Atkins said the homeless don't have cars, but this isn't true. When the old Crombie St. development came in, they said artists don't have cars, but the parking passes have been an issue. He is concerned about where the residents hang out and panhandle. He says the density is too much for the small neighborhood. He notes the windows facing the High st. playground and says it's bad enough to put a fenc e up, but putting windows in back—the city might as well shutter the playground because complaints will come in. He also thinks that job training means people will need cars. He urges the Board to deny the project. • 7 Councillor Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus Ave, is also a member of the Lifebridge • neighborhood association. He says that 3 years ago Lifebridge wanted to build in the church, and since then much progress has been made. It will never be perfect, but we worked on improvements for 3 years. Lifebridge showed up to the meetings, they were cooperative, etc. The issue with this particular project is the parking—we have just created a plan for 15% more parking in the city. 22 units without parking will be 3 steps backwards. He is concerned about neighbors' quality of life. He asks the Board to deny parking variance. Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Belair says the Board strongly recommended Lifebridge meet with neighbors, and they have chosen not to; she has no confidence that if problems arise they would even take the time to address them. She says Lifebridge gives the impression of arrogance not to meet with the neighbors. She says they do a disservice to their clients and the community, which needs this service. She can't support this petition because of Lifebridge's unwillingness to work with the neighbors and Board. She says they could have overlooked density, but can't support because of this. Mr. Metsch is also disappointed in the unwillingness to meet with neighbors. In terms of specifics, design density and parking, he similarly has no real issue with density, but does take issue with the lack of parking. The suggestion of no cars for future tenants • shackles people who are trying to climb to a better life and get a job, which can require a car—he doesn't like that provision. Parking is a big concern. The current residents now don't have transportation. As the plans are currently proposed, he is not in favor. Mr. Dionne says that others have covered his concerns, but he does feel that the proposed density is also an issue. Ms. Curran says she has a lot of experience with the Dover amendment and she does accept that the use falls under it. However, the board does get to look at density and parking, and dimensions; there have been excellent comments made about needing a rooftop courtyard, etc. Parking is the issue it comes out to. Even if they conditioned no cars, the expansion intensifies the use. With more people comes more vehicles, whether loading, visiting, or working. She feels this is an overuse of the campus without additional parking. She is not in favor of it as presented. Mr. Metsch says that in terms of parking, he would be open to a parking plan reduced from what the zoning code allows, even in the ballpark of half a space per unit due to the use, with the population typically not having cars, but only 8 spaces is not enough. Ms. Belair moves to approve the petition with nine standard conditions and the special condition that no residents shall park in the eight designated spaces, only staff. Mr. Metsch seconds, and the Board denies the petition 4-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran and Ms. Belair opposed, none in favor). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. 8 Public hearing: Petition of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. requesting Variances from minimum lot area, lot area per dwelling unit,frontage, lot width, front yard setback and rear yard setback, in order to subdivide the property located at 18 THORNDIKE STREET(R-2) into five (5) single-family house lots. Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 9/22/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Letter submitted by Joe Bennett, 15 Hubon St., dated 10/19/11 ➢ Plan of Land, Thorndike Street & Hubon Street, dated 2/17/06 ➢ Estate of James Welch, plan dated 1/29/07 ➢ Preliminary Subdivision Layout Geometry for 5 Residential Lots for a site at Thorndike & Hubon Streets, Salem, Mass., dated 7/1/11 Patrick Delulis presents the petition. He says the Welch family has owned the property for a long time-in the application packet is a 1907 plan showing a single-family home development put forth, and some of those parcels were actually developed. What's left is a long, narrow parcel that runs down along the river, with 135 feet of street frontage on Hubon St., together with a 20 foot driveway. The R2 zoning district has a larger lot requirement, but predominantly the property is single-family. There was a prior commercial use of the property. The residential zoning character prevented any non- , • residential development. In 2005 he attempted to permit 6 units on this site. He p � p thought the neighborhood would welcome this development, but they didn't. He still went forward with the acquisition, but was then faced with the prospect of cleaning up some contaminants that a prior owner had left from a construction business. This was a much greater undertaking than he anticipated. As a result, he ended up with a costly cleanup, one that required removing the top 4 feet of soil from the entire site. Because of the residential use they needed to allow for, they didn't want to do anything less than full remediation. They've met and presented plans to neighbors providing for 6 units of housing; he says they could never come to a meeting of the minds—they seem to have an impasse of 6 versus 5. Originally they thought they would develop the whole property as a condo complex, but in consulting with real estate brokers, single-family was more marketable. They came up with a workable division of property allowing for single-family homes and accommodated neighbors' desire to have no more than 5 units. The site plan shows limited frontage on Hubon St. into the property, and 2 driveways off Thorndike St. There's a brick garage behind 14'/:Thorndike which they took down —it was a hazard to that home. The other issue is the city has a 15-foot sewer easement that cuts through biggest part of property, makes a difficult undertaking to make a plan to develop for residential. However, they've managed to work something out that has some marketability, enhances the neighborhood and is in keeping with the dominant use of neighborhood —single family homes. • 9 Mr. Delulis says some of their discussions with neighbors took place 2 years ago—they • talked about traffic along streets, mitigaing as much as possible the amount of traffic. An earlier plan called for a driveway straight through from Hubon to Thorndike. This plan shows no cut-through. He reviews the dimensional Variances needed. He says he tried to maintain an adequate distance from neighbors, put in garages and driveways, no street parking. He says there are two other boards they need to go before in order for the project to go through —the Planning Board for subdivision, and they will also address some streetscape issues. Also Con Com, since three of the parcels are in the 200 foot riverfront zone. He thinks this is a good use of the property. The challenge the parcel presents in terms of dimensions and limitations, coupled with prior commercial use which led to costly remediation, warrants some relief from the Board so they can undertake development of a parcel they have owned for 5 years. He asks that no vote be taken tonight, that they continue so he has an opportunity to speak with neighbors who have concerns. He would like to come back next month. He says he gave a copy of the plan to Councillor Sosnowski, and he has met with Bill Semons,the primary voice in the neighborhood in earlier meetings. Ms. Curran notes that they have enough frontage for 1 single family, and enough lot area for 2. If he wanted duplexes, he could do 4 units. Patrick—no, we could only do 1 for duplexes; there's not enough frontage. Ms. Curran asks how he came up with 5 units; her overall view is it's a little crowded, probably by a unit. She understands . they've reduced from 6, but this is her first time looking at it. She realizes it's a difficult geometry. Mr. Delulis says the neighborhood told them 5 would be acceptable to them. Ms. Curran asks Mr..St. Pierre if a private way is counted as frontage. He says the developer came in for a predevelopment meeting, which we appreciate. Lynn Duncan, Erin Griffin, Frank Taormina and others were there; they discussed traffic and the idea of a through street was hashed over and decided against...It's not the first time we looked at this. We felt the developer had made every effort to minimize impact and this was a well thought out plan. They added a hyrant at the elbow of lot four. Ms. Curran asks if the driveway counts as frontage. Ms. McKnight says it would only after being approved as a subdivision. Patrick Murtagh, 17 Hubon St., says he met with Councillor Sosnowski at the Ward 2 social club, and 4 was the number of units they discussed. Ms. Curran reads a letter in opposition submitted by Joe Bennett, 15 Hubon St. Mr. Delulis indicates Mr. Bennett's house on the plan. He says that all these homes are built up to the back property line and have no rear yard. Their lots are 2000 SF and under. We are proposing lots over double—our smallest lot is more than twice the size. The two lots in that strip Mr. Bennett refers to are the largest—we've tried to minimize this impact on this end of the lot by only putting in two homes on that side. We don't need setback variances along the neighbor's property. We need variances primarily 10 • because we lack frontage. When the bypass road went in,the state took part of the property for the bypass. We took a prior commercial contaminated property, brought it to a residential standard, and that standard warrants the relief. We are going from 4 lots to 5 to help defray and recover some of the remediation costs. Mr. Metsch asks if there are any elevations. Mr. Delulis says they didn't want to spend the money yet designing the houses, but they would need to for the Planning Board. For that submittal, they will also submit plans showing the engineering, utilities, etc. There is no discharge to the storm system. Because we took the ground down 4 feet, we need to bring in clean fill to replace what we have to remove. Ms. McKnight clarifies that the Planning Board typically will not review the design of single-family homes as part of the subdivision review. Mr. Metsch says he is in favor of infill, especially in a residential area, and on a vacant parcel. He says this neighborhood supports the density. He says, however, that the current zoning really support a suburban model that's not in keeping with an urban neighborhood. He wishes, since they need so many variances,that instead they would look for footprints that match more the neighborhood. Mr. Delulis says the houses were set back this way to create driveways. They are trying to minimize the amount of zoning relief needed. Mr. Metsch says he would support even greater density. Mr. Delulis says he preferred six, but understands the concern of neighborhood and they • tried to address that as best they could. He says single-family homes are more appealing from a marketability standpoint. Mr. Metsch says he's not suggesting not doing single family,just suggesting looking at those streets down Bridge to Winter— looking at the rows of houses that mostly have no setback. He understands they're trying to fit within the existing rules, but the suburban character of the plan detracts from this. Ms. Curran says she'd almost rather see 3 houses on Hubon. Tucking these houses behind really changes the character. 3 might make sense with long, thin lots. Mr. Delulis says the sewer easement precludes that. Ms. Curran says it is different,they are asking for variances on everything, for everything. Mr. Metsch says they already present the driveway as a street; what came out of discussion of having it go through? Mr. St. Pierre says the City Planner thought it didn't make sense to create more trips through in a circular pattern; this creates fewer trips without a cut through. Ms. Curran says that no one would use a cut through except the people who lived there. Mr. St. Pierre says that would further decrease the lot sizes. Mr. Delulis says a 26 foot row would be hard to build on either side of. He thought the neighbors would appreeciate some space, given how dense the neighborhood is. Ms. Belair asks what style house he has in mind. 2 story colonial, probably. Ms. Belair says she doesn't think the houses in the neighborhood have attached garages, and this • will set them apart. She doesn't have a problem with the plan as it's laid out, but more it is problematic trying to fit in with existing setting. Mr. Delulis says the garages are set 11 back from front of house so they don't dominate;they are only visible from Hubon. He • says this is a dead end street, narrow, hard to get down, and he is trying to keep cars off the street as much as possible. Having a garage allows a car to be kept inside and another in the driveway. Mr. Metsch asks about the pitch, the twist on lots 4 and 5, why the angle? Mr. Delulis says it's in part to keep some separation from both parcels, giving it an orientation to the private way. Mr. Metsch says he thinks he should ask for greater variance to be more in keeping with neighborhood. Mr. Delulis says he's willing to look at that but doesn't know how the Planning Board will evaluate it. Ms. Curran says she would like to see it taken further, and wishes the road would go through, so it would be more consistent rather than having a house surrounded by green, and having the houses on Thorndike surrounded by the road and houses in front. She says it looks like a very difficult geometry. Ms. Belair doesn't have a problem with proximity of the houses to the street, but she would have a problem if the houses were significantly larger than what's existing. Mr. Delulis says most of those buildings have another history...one house in the neighborhood used to be a paint factory. The area was highly commercialized and industrialized. Early development was very haphazard. He doesn't want to redesign, but they can look at greater density and smaller lots if the neighborhood is receptive. Ms. Curran says she is not looking for more units,just concerned about the layout. She wishes the fourth house could be reconfigured; it looks like it's in the backyard of neighbors. You don't have a right to build this many units, you're asking for relief. You don't have to engineer • it, but see what you come up with. Mr. Delulis says 5 units is what he thought the neighborhood would accept. He is hearing differently from Mr. Murtagh, but not from anyone else. He would like to discuss this with the Councilor Sosnowski. He asks the Board if they are looking for him to present something different, or amend their table to allow for movement if the Planning Board concurs? Ms. Curran says to play around with this, it may be you don't come up with a new plan, but you've gotten some feedback. Don't fully engineer it. Mr. Metsch says the only two really sticking for me are lots 1 and 3, and how they sit on the lot, they are the most visible. 2, 4 and 5, having them twisted seems unnecessary. Keeping 3, 4, 5 a is but opening a third lot somehow between 1 and 2, 1 would be open to that. PD—unfort. Sewer easement restricts. RD moves to continue to Nove. ,16, secondced by JIM, all in favor to continue. Public hearing: Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, MANAGER, 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, and a Variance under Sec. 5.1 (Off Street Parking), for the property located at 1111 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (11-1). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 9/28/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Plot Plan of Land, 11R Winter Island Road, Salem, dated 9/27/11 . 12 . ➢ Elevation drawings submitted at meeting, prepared by Lew Oliver Inc.; supportive petition signed by neighbors attached to drawings Ms. Curran asks if they wish to go ahead with four members present; Attorney Grover, who is representing Mr. Wharff, says yes. Atty Grover says Mr. Wharff now owns the property and gives a brief history of his work in Salem. He presents photos of the house, noting that the houses in this neighborhood are well-kept except for this one. The property abuts a public way that runs from Winter Island Rd. to the water. He shows views from the public way and from the cove. He indicates the existing footprint on the plot plan, noting that changes to the footprint are minimal. He says the Board saw this property in January. The existing variance would allow the property to be reconstructed to add a story. That petition was from an early prospective buyer, who didn't go through with the purchase. Mr. Wharff felt the structure couldn't be economically be rebuilt that way and come out with a desirable product. Atty Grover explains that the old plan created two parking spaces in front of the property by the water. This plan allows parking in back and does not detract from views of the cove. He shows the elevation drawings, explaining that they weren't in Board's packet, since they were going through changes and they just got the elevations on Friday. He says they have met with the neighbors over the weekend with these elevations. He explains Coastal Living magazine had been looking at this property, and their designer made these plans. He says a Special Permit is needed to reconstruct a nonconforming • structure, and this project is not more substantially detrimental to neighborhood than what's existing. He says a variance is also needed for the parking, since tandem parking is normally not permitted. Ms. Belair asks for an explanation of how each floor would be used. Mr. Wharff says the ground floor has a finished basement, mechanicals, a/c, ducts, and some finished space. The 2nd floor has a kitchen, living room, and dining room, and the third floor has a bedroom and bathroom. Mr. St. Pierre notes that the Special Permit could allow the house to have three stories, and a separate variance would not be needed. Atty Grover submits a petition signed by neighbors in support of the project. Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment. Paul O'Shea, 15 Winter Island Rd., lives on the other side of the right of way. He is generally pleased with Mr. Wharff's plan. One concern is that the set of stairs comes out directly in line with his view to ocean; he wants Mr. Wharff to work with him on this issue. • Ms. Curran asks if Mr. Whaff has looked at this; he says yes, they can build the stair sideways, put in turns, etc. 13 Atty Grover, addressing the applicant's hardship, says this is an environmentally • sensitive area, and they want to use tandem parking to avoid putting parking closer to the water where it would be an environmental and an aesthetic issue. He says it would impact the views of some abutters to put cars there too. Ed Moriarty, 29 Winter Island Rd., spoke with Bill over the weekend, conditionally supports the project. He is concerned that the previous owner used kerosene and wood burning stoves—this was a constant problem of in the upper topography of the neighborhood—these houses were exposed to the smoke. He asks the Board to condition that there not be any wood burning or other fireplace in the new house. He says the prevailing winds go upwards. He has no problem with gas fire. He says the plans are otherwise reasonable. Ms. Curran asks Atty Grover if he was proposing a wood fire; Atty Grover says no,just gas. Mr. St. Pierre suggests a condition prohibiting solid fuel burning devices. Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Belair notes that the project is definitely in keeping with the area and would improve it. She says Mr. Wharff does a nice job, and she supports the petition. Mr. Dionne says it is well planned, a nice design, and the city has experience with his work. He supports the project. • Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with 9 standard conditions, and also a condition to prohibit solid fuel burning devices, and to work with the abutter at 15 Winter Island Rd. to create a less intrusive front stair design. Ms. Curran says that owing to the proximity of the property to the ocean/natural resource area, parking will be located on the south side away from ocean. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne and passed 4-0 (Dionne, Curran, Belair and Metsch in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of ERIC COUTURE requesting Variances from lot area and lot area per dwelling unit to demolish the existing structure and construct a two-unit residential building on the property located at 12 RAWLINS ST(R-2). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Letter from Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services/Building Commissioner, dated 9/29/11 ➢ Application date-stamped 10/5/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Elevation drawings (incorrectly labeled "43 School Street Condominium"—this was clarified at meeting), dated 9/9/11 ➢ Cross Section, Residence for Eric Couture, 12 Rawling street condominium, • Salem, Mass., dated 9/9/11 14 ➢ Rawlings Street Proposed Layout and Existing Condition, Plan of Land located in Salem, Mass., prepared by Eastern Land Survey Associates, Inc., dated 9/29/11 Eric Couture presents the plans. He says there is an error on them —the title says 43 School St., but should say 12 Rawlins St. Ms. Curran asks why they are demolishing the structure; Mr. Couture says it's uninhabitable,there is no working plumbing, nothing is to code, and there are animals living in it. Ms. McKnight reads a letter from Mr. St. Pierre regarding the condition of the property. Renderings of property are presented. Ms. Curran asks if he considered doing a single family house; Mr. Couture says this is not what the investor wants. James Moscovis, 10 Rawlins St., has concerns about the height of the property. He says there should be a letter of understanding so they neighbors can have some guarantees. He says owner occupancy should be required. He says the neighborhood is being blighted with unoccupied units. He also says each unit should have off street parking, and there should be fencing for privacy, as well as trees. He asks about the height; Mr. Couture says 34 feet. Mr. Moscovis is concerned about animals during demolition. He says the trash needs to be maintained. He asks if there will be city trash pickup, and if there is one single curb cut. Mr. Couture says it's a single driveway, and there are four parking spaces,two on each side. Ms. Curran asks if there is parking in front of the • door; yes. She asks if that will look good. Mr. Moscovis says parking is an issue, and the curb cut will eliminate some parking. Mr. St. Pierre notes that there already is a driveway. Ms. Curran says the Board can't condition owner occupancy. Mr. Moscovis says he needs a guarantee that it will be owner occupied. Ms. McKnight says his concern is noted in the minutes. Mr. St. Pierre says he can't enforce that. The developer could volunteer to put it in a deed restriction, but it's not up to the City. Mr. Couture says it could be advertised when sold as owner occupied; Ms. Curran says that could be a private agreement, but not part of this decision. Ward 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols St., supports the project. He says it will be an improvement to the neighborhood, and the property was in bad shape. Mr. Metsch says the proposed duplex really is not in keeping with the neighborhood. He feels like having two units isn't a problem— it's the situation on the lot. After seeing the neighborhood, the existing dwelling-all are pulled forward, have a more urban feel. This proposal seems suburban. He would like to see two separate structures; this would be more in keeping with neighborhood. He thinks it would be more marketable and would address the issue of owner occupancy. Mr. Couture says he did it this way so the setback requirement would be met. Mr. Metsch says it doesn't fit the neighborhood. Mr. Couture doesn't see the difference in marketability. Ms. Belair asks if he worked with the neighbors in developing the design. Mr. Couture says he showed them the • design, and there were no issues. 15 Jamie Lapensee, 61 Butler St., thinks the project is good but is concerned about owner occupancy. He respects the idea of single occupancy, but there are three single-family homes in the neighborhood that are abandoned and in foreclosure. He supports the redevelopment either of a single family or duplex if it gets someone to buy. He is concerned about the parking. He also wants the demolition to be done right because of contaminants. Ms. Belair suggests he continue to next month because he needs all four votes. Ms. McKnight suggests another member could listen to the tape to be eligible to vote. Mr. Metsch says as the layout is proposed, he doesn't feel it fits the neighborhood. Councillor Ryan disagrees that it doesn't fit with the neighborhood. He doesn't want two single family houses—he says there is not enough room. He much prefers this design. He also says they can't enforce owner occupancy. Mr. Moscovis says the neighborhood doesn't want two single-family houses. He says there are a lot of different styles in the neighborhood. A duplex would work in the neighborhood. Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Curran says she has no problem with this, but she's not sure he has the four votes • necessary and suggests it's in the applicant's best interest to continue to Nov. 16. Mr. St. Pierre says he agrees with the chair, and he says there is a difference of opinion about owner occupancy they should look into. The time could also be used to work out any other issues. Mr. Couture says he has the support of the neighbors and councilors, and is surprised the Board is discussing these other factors. Mr. Dionne moves to continue the hearing to Nov. 16, seconded by Ms. Belair. All in favor (4-0). Mr. Dionne moves to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Metsch; all in favor (4-0). For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at: http://solem.com/PopesISa/emMA ZoningAppealsMin/ Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals 11/16/11 • 16 on'o�irq.�a CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR - _ November 2, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of THREE SONS WINDOW & DOOR INC. requesting a Variance from number of stories and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a shed dormer on the house located at 25-25Y2 BARR ST(R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 19, 2011, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (chair), Richard Dionne, Jamie Metsch and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Section 4.1 and a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Peggy Arend of Three Sons Window & Door Inc. presented the petition. 2. In a petition date-stamped August 31, 2011, petitioner requested a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure and a Variance from Section 4.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to construct a third-story shed dormer on the existing two-family house located.on 25-25 %: Barr Street. 3. At the hearing, no one spoke in opposition to or in support of the petition. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. 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 house was preexisting, and neither the footprint nor the height will increase. 2 • 2. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Variance from Sections 4.1 (Table of Dimensional Requirements) and a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance are granted to allow the construction of the shed dormer as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four (4) in favor (Curran, Metsch, Dionne and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for a Variance and Special Permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of 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 • structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of 3 its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed • except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 9. The house is to remain a two-family house. Rebecca Curran, 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. • l y -gON�ITq,gd' CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3Ro FLOOR • � . + ( d SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR November 2, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, and a Variance under Sec. 5.1 (Off Street Parking), for the property located at 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R-1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 19, 2011, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (chair), Richard Dionne, Jamie Metsch and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5 and a Variance pursuant to Section 5.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Scott Grover represented owner and petitioner William Wharff at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped September 28, 2011, petitioner requested a Special Per pursuant to Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reconstruct a nonconforming single family residential structure, and a Variance to allow tandem parking, on the property located at 11R Winter Island Road. 3. At the hearing, Paul O'Shea, 15 Winter Island Road, stated that he supported the petition, except for the location of the front stairway, which would be directly in line with his view of the ocean. He requested that the stairs be repositioned. 4. At the hearing, Ed Moriarty, 29 Winter Island Road, stated that he supported the petition, but only if there would not be a wood burning stove in the house. He stated that the previous occupants had used a wood burning stove, and the • prevailing winds in the neighborhood blew smoke toward the homes at higher elevations. He stated that he had no issue with gas fires. ' 2 . 5. At the hearing, Attorney Grover submitted a petition with the signatures of five neighbors indicating they supported the project. Two of those neighbors indicated their support was conditional upon there not being a wood burning stove on the premises. 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, since the proposed modification will improve the property and will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure. Such development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Owing to the proximity of the property to a natural resource area, parking must be located on the south side of the house, away from ocean, and so a literal enforcement of the provisions off-street parking regulations would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to • the appellant. 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 under Section 3.3.5 to reconstruct a nonconforming single-family structure is granted to allow for the proposed addition on the property located at 11R Winter Island Road as shown on the submitted plans titled "Plot Plan of Land, 11R Winter Island Road, Salem, Prepared for 11R Winter Island LLC," dated September 27, 2011, by North Shore Survey Corporation, and elevation plans titled "Winter Island, Salem Mass., William Wharff, Builder," by Lew Oliver Inc. (no date). 2. A Variance under Section 5.1 is granted to allow tandem parking as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four (4) in favor (Curran, Metsch, Dionne and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for a Special Permit and Variance subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 3 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved 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. There are to be no solid fuel burning devices on the premises. 9. Petitioner is to work with the abutter at 15 Winter Island Road to create a less intrusive front stair design. Rebecca Curran, 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. • coNoirq.�e CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL Z 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR y ` r SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONES 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ?I r.. :�,� _.7 I-D n MAYOR Zi. i•.i: `;� November 2, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of THE SALEM MISSION LLC D/B/A LIFEBRIDGE requesting Variances from rear yard setback, height (feet), height (stories), minimum area per dwelling unit, and parking, to add two stories to the existing building at 56 MARGIN ST, Salem, MA, creating twenty-two(22) units of residential housing (R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 15, 2011, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was continued to July 20, 2011, September 21, 2011 and October 19, 2011, and was closed on October 19, 2011 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (chair), Richard Dionne, • Jamie Metsch and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 4.0 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney George Atkins represented The Salem Mission LLC d/b/a Lifebridge at the hearings. 2. In a petition date-stamped May 25, 2011, petitioner requested Variances pursuant to Sec. 4.0 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct two additional stories on the existing building located at 56 Margin St., Salem, creating twenty units of housing. During the proceedings, Attorney Atkins stated that a typographical error was made on the application, and the request was in fact for twenty-two additional units. 3. The Board of Appeals received two letters in support of the petition from Councillor-At-Large Thomas Furey, 77 Linden Street. Councillor Furey spoke to the community's need for Lifebridge's services in his letters, as well as the • quality of the plans. 4. The Board received a letter dated June 14, 2011 from Jeffrey M. Cox, LICSW, BSD, on behalf of the Greater Endicott Street Neighborhood Association, • requesting from Lifebridge further detail of the proposed building design, a traffic and parking study, written confirmation of the criteria for accepting residents (including sex offenders), and written confirmation of the number of shelter beds to be reduced as part of the project. 5. The Board received a letter from the Greater Endicott Street Neighborhood Steering Committee dated July 18, 2011, stating opposition to the project if the applicant could not promise to halt future expansion of the facility and reduce the number of shelter beds. The letter stated that the facility had already had negative effects on the surrounding neighborhood. 6. At the hearings, numerous residents spoke in opposition to the project, citing concerns about traffic, parking, the uncertainty about the number of shelter beds that would remain, and the degree of density on the site. 7. At the October 19, 2011 hearing, Councillors-At-Large Joan Lovely and Steven Pinto, and Ward 3 Councillor Jean Pelletier, all spoke in opposition to the project due to traffic, parking, and density issues. 8. At the hearings, some Board members expressed concerns about the degree of density on the site. • 9. At the hearings, some Board members noted that the project provides twenty- two new units but no additional parking; while most residents do not have cars, the use may still generate the need for parking due to visitors, trainers, staff, and others. Additionally, Board members noted that residents may need cars as they obtain jobs, and felt that a total prohibition on resident parking would be unrealistic. 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 not 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 density and intensity of use proposed for the site is too great for the site and for the neighborhood. The lack of parking would have a negative impact on the neighborhood, and the lack of ability to own a car would negatively • impact residents of the facility. 3 • On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. Variances under Section 4.0 to construct two additional stories on the existing building located at 56 Margin St., Salem, creating twenty-two units of housing, are denied. 2. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four (4) opposed (Curran, Metsch, Dionne and Belair) and none (0) in favor, to grant petitioner's request for Variances. The petition is denied. )La. .. llzn l xr _w Rebecca Curran, 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. • / y� �ovnirA,gd CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL a 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • y �i .�+ ( SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 TELEPHONE 978-745-9595 FAx: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR '} ( November 2, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of HUGH MULLIGAN requesting to modify a previously granted Variance in order to use the third floor for two residential units on the property located at 204 LAFAYETTE ST(R-3). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 19, 2011, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (chair), Richard Dionne, Jamie Metsch and Bonnie Belair (alternate). • Petitioner seeks a modification to a Variance dated June 17, 1988. Statements of fact: 1. Hugh Mulligan represented himself at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped September 28, 2011, petitioner requested an amendment to a Variance issued by the Board of Appeals on May 18, 1988 and filed with the City Clerk on June 17, 1988. The Variance allowed the first and second floors to be used as office space, and allowed one residential unit on the third floor. Petitioner requests to be allowed to use the second floor for two units. No exterior changes are proposed. 3. At the hearing, Mr. Mulligan stated that the third floor has been used as two rental units for most of the 19 years he has owned the building. 4. At the hearing, no one spoke 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: 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. 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 Variance issued on May 18, 1988 by the Board of Appeals is hereby amended to allow for the use of the third floor for two residential housing units. All other terms and conditions of the original Variance decision are to be adhered to. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four (4) in favor (Curran, Metsch, Dionne and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for an amendment to the previously issued Variance. AL - 4?,L-x Rebecca Curran, 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. • coNn�rq.ga CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 2 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • � ( � SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL n MAYOR November 2, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of LAWRENCE GALLAGHER requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking regulations, for the property located at 11 DEARBORN STREET(R-2), in order to use the single-family house as a two-family house. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 19, 2011, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (chair), Richard Dionne, Jamie Metsch and Bonnie Belair (alternate). • Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Sections 4.1 and 5.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Lawrence Gallagher represented himself at the hearing. 2. The single-family house located at 11 Dearborn Street contains a second unit, which the petitioner seeks to legalize. Space exists for four tandem parking spaces, or two standard spaces. 3. In.a petition date-stamped September 13, 2011, petitioner requested Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and from off-street parking regulations in order to allow the use of the second unit. No exterior construction is proposed. 4. At the hearing, no one spoke in opposition to the petition. The petitioner submitted several signatures of abutters indicating their support. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 2 • 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district; the house is large, and its use as a single-family home causes a financial hardship to the appellant. 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 a two-family house is in keeping with the neighborhood. 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 Sections 5.1 (Off-Street Parking) and 4.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance are granted to allow for use of the property as a two- family home. • In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four (4) in favor (Curran, Metsch, Dionne and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for Variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state 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 is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 7. Petitioner is to provide two permanent, year-round, unobstructed off- street parking spaces. 3 • 8. Petitioner is to gate the section of fence obstructing the driveway to allow free access to the parking spaces. Rebecca Curran, 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. • • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS r BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET# SALEM,MASSACHusETTS 01970 TELE:978-745-9595 FAx:978-740-9846 .. ........::. KIMMERLEY DRiscou MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem, MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of THREE SONS WINDOW&DOOR INC. requesting a Variance from number of stories and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a shed dormer on the house located at 25-25% BARR ST(R-2). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on November 2, 2011 Petition of LAWRENCE GALLAGHER requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking regulations,for the property located at 11 DEARBORN STREET(R-2), in order to use the single-family house as a two-family house. Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on November 2, 2011 Petition of HUGH MULLIGAN requesting to modify a previously granted Variance in order to use the third floor for two residential units on the property located at 204 LAFAYETTE ST(R-3). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on November 2, 2011 Petition of THE SALEM MISSION LLC D/B/A LIFEBRIDGE requesting Variances from rear yard setback, height (feet), height(stories), minimum area per dwelling unit,and parking,to add two stories to the existing building at 56 MARGIN ST,Salem, MA, creating twenty-two (22)units of residential housing(R-2). Decision: Denied Filed with the City Clerk on November 2, 2011 Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, MANAGER, 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, and a Variance under Sec. 5.1 (Off Street Parking),for the property located at 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R-1). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on November 2, 2011 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9& 15 and does not require action by the recipient. Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. ��,�ootiolr,,,to CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 �P 1 'r TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX 978-740-9846 LI I S KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ' MAYOR MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September21, 2011 - 6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Room 313 (3' Floor) Salem, MA Rebecca Curran, Chair REVISED MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes:July 20, 2011 meeting 2. Discussion and vote: 315-317 ESSEX ST - Clarification of intent of Special Permit and Variance issued March 17, 2011, per remand. 3. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of THE SALEM MISSION LLC D/B/A LIFEBRIDGE requesting Variances from rear yard setback, height (feet), height (stories), minimum area per dwelling unit, and parking, to add two stories to the existing building at 56 MARGIN ST,Salem, MA, creating twenty-two (22) • units of residential housing (R-2). A QUORUM WILL NOT BE PRESENT FOR THIS ITEM, SO IT LWLL BE CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 19, 2011. 4. Public hearing: Petition of CHRISTOPHER J. LEBLANC requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure by constructing a second story addition on the property located at 20 SOUTHWICKST (R-2). 5. Public hearing: Petition of THREE SONS WINDOW& DOOR INC. requesting a Variance from number of stories and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order Co construct a shed dormer on the house located at 25-251/2 BARR ST (R-2). APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO OCTOBER 19, 2011. 6. Request for withdrawal without prejudice: petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, MANAGER, 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD requesting a Special Permit tinder Sec. 3.35 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance reconstruct a nonconforming Single Family residential structure, and a Variance under Sec. 5.1.5 to allow tandem parking, for the property located at 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R-1). 7. Old/New Business 3. AC{j011mmenC E':A Y'1di�t:E) Iinryn-.r',1 L}!i y l .iCi '`1� {I�t1r `• �� , Srr. !� �cil 38� 91 In acoordir; knuze,Yan'R,�bts rarer t/x Qx,,j JVwt tg/_awylf.G.L. c 39�223 reel City Ozli nrme Swigs 2-2028 thmla h 2-2033. f CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR y ( SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS.01 970 -�� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 tie FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY ORISCOLL MAYOR MEETING NOTICE N ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 21, 2011- 6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Room 313 (3'a Floor) Salem,MA Rebecca Curran, Chair REVISED MEETING AGENDA N 1. Approval of Minutes:July 20, 2011 meeting 2. Discussion and vote: 315-317 ESSEX ST - Clarification of intent of Special Permit and Variance issued March 17, 2011, per remand. 3. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of THE SALEM MISSION LLC D/B/A LIFEBRIDGE requesting Variances from rear yard setback, height (feet),height (stories), minimum area per dwelling unit, and parking, to add two stories to the existing building at 56 MARGIN ST, Salem,MA,creating twenty-two (22) • units of residential housing (R 2). A QUORUM WILL NOT BE PRESENT FOR THIS ITEM, SO IT WILL BE CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 19, 2011. 4. Public hearing: Petition of CHRISTOPHER J. LEBLANC requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure byconstructing a second story addition on the property located at 20 SOUTHWICK ST (R-2). 5. Public hearing: Petition of THREE SONS WINDOW& DOOR INC. requesting a Variance from number of stories and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a shed dormer on the house located at 25.251/2 BARR ST (R-2). 6. Request for withdrawal without prejudice: petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, MANAGER, 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance reconstruct a nonconforming Single Family residential structure, and a Variance under Sec. 5.1.5 to allow tandem parking, for the property located at 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R-1). 7. Old/New Business .nfa S. Adjournment ThIS WWII poi 4 ®n _- s. i3on u�1e'►"Cr, ' City 0�a1��H Salem, M,2m wM Chap. 30 23A AI2313 of M��.t lijvwYanRid&wkier dx Open MwiTLawM.GL. c 39§238 a?d City Oirbura Satiora 2-2028 dpTv#i 2-2033. todwr,,� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS y J BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR y1 y I p SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR MEETINGNOTICE 2 ;ff -8 `J 00 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 21, 2011 - 6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Room 313 (3'a Floor) Salem, MA Rebecca Curran, Chair CORRECTED MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes:July 20, 2011 meeting 2. Discussion and vote: 315-317 ESSEX ST - Clarification of intent of Special Permit and Variance issued March 17, 2011,per remand. 3. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of THE SALEM MISSION LLC D/B/A LIFEBRIDGE requesting Variances from rear yard setback, height (feet),height (stories), minimum area per dwelling unit, and _ parking, to add two stories to the existing building at 56 MARGIN ST, Salem,MA, creating twenty-two (22) • units of residential housing (R-2). 4. Public hearing: Petition of CHRISTOPHER J. LEBLANC requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure by constructing a second story addition on the property located at 20 SOUTHWICK ST (R-2). 5. Public hearing:Petition of THREE SONS WINDOW&DOOR INC. requesting a Variance from number of stories and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a shed dormer on the house located at 25-251/2 BARR ST (R-2). 6. Request for withdrawal without prejudice: petition of WILLIAM WHARFF,MANAGER, 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance reconstruct a nonconforming Single Family residential structure, and a Variance under Sec. 5.1.5 to allow tandem parking, for the property located at 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R-1). 7. Old/New Business 8. Adjournment 0 KrnwYa trRighs wrier the OpmnM"LawM.G.L. c 39;§23B and Cay Oa wnx Scam 2-2028 bb w4 2-2033. This nolicizl City 3i :1s STP. 8 0201t at 23A & 2,314, �v �: y �ONNITA.A� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ti BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • � + F SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX, 9 78-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 21,2011 - 6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Room 313 (3 a Floor) Salem, MA A-e-� L-OL-/,&7"-K Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes:July 20, 2011 meeting 2. Discussion and vote: 315-317 ESSEX ST - Clarification of intent of Special Permit and Variance issued March 17, 2011, per remand. 3. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of THE SALEM MISSION LLC D/B/A LIFEBRIDGE requesting Variances from rear yard setback, height (feet), height (stories), minimum area per dwelling unit, and parking, to add two stories to the existing building at 56 MARGIN ST, Salem,MA, creating twenty(20) units • of residential housing (R-2). 4. Public hearing: Petition of CHRISTOPHER J. LEBLANC requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure by constructing a second story addition on the property located at 20 SOUTHWICK ST (R-2). 5. Public hearing: Petition of THREE SONS WINDOW& DOOR INC. requesting a Variance from number of stories and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a shed dormer on the house located at 25-251/2 BARR ST (R-2). 6. Request for withdrawal without prejudice: petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, MANAGER, 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance reconstruct a nonconforming Single Family residential structure, and a Variance under Sec. 5.1.5 to allow tandem parking, for the property located at 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R-1). 7. Old/New Business 8. Adjournment This notice Poeted on *0ME011181 DOW4n Board" city Iaii Salem, Mass. on Z r' wmbei, -7,2o,l 23A & 238 of ml . 0 Know YcwrRights under the Open Mating LawM.G.L. e 39$23B and Cuy Orckww Sectiors 2-2028 9Rw8$2-2033. ��oNo�Tq�Q CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS I� BOARD OF APPEAL 120WASHINGCON SHIP.0;•,'1' SALLM,MASSACHUSEC' CS 01970 !nveur TELE:978-745-9595 NAX:978-740-9846 KIMBIiiRI.u.YURISCOLL ' MAYOR L MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: September 13, 2011 RE: Meeting Agenda —September 21, 2011 • Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Planner's memo 3. Meeting minutes of 8/17/11 Discussion and vote: 315-317 ESSEX ST—Clarification of intent of Special Permit and Variance issued March 17, 2011, per remand. Robin Stein will be attending the meeting to discuss this item with us. In April 2008,the Board issued a Special Permit for a change in nonconforming use to allow the first floor space, which formerly housed a photography studio,to be used for professional offices. In April 2009, the Board issued a Special Permit to allow the applicant to change the use from office space to three residential units (another nonconforming use). The 2009 decision was appealed. The owner made a third application to the Board in March 2010. Working with the appellant, who was represented by Attorney John Carr, the applicant requested a Special Permit to change the use of the entire building (not just the first floor) from a lodging house and office space to six residential units. The Board also issued a Variance to allow for the construction of two dormers. Attorney Carr, representing the appellant, indicated that the appeal would be dropped if the Board approved this plan. The Board did so, and the project is currently under construction. • 1 However, the appeal was not dropped. Therefore, the court is now asking the Board to clarify its intent in issuing its 2010 decision. If the intent was to nullify the 2009 decision by issuing the 2010 decision,then the Board is asked to vote to formally vacate the 2009 decision. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of THE SALEM MISSION LLC D/B/A LIFEBRIDGE requesting Variances from rear yard setback, height (feet), height (stories), minimum area per dwelling unit, and parking, to add two stories to the existing building at 56 MARGIN ST, Salem, MA, creating twenty-two (22) units of residential housing(R-2). We will not have a quorum for this item, which I have discussed with George Atkins. He has agreed to request an extension of the deadline for final action on the project (which is currently October 3) so that the hearing can be continued to our next meeting. Attorney Atkins will be present at the meeting. The Board should vote on two items:to continue the hearing to October 19, and also to extend final action on the project until the date Attorney Atkins requests. Public hearing: Petition of CHRISTOPHER J. LEBLANC requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure by constructing a second story addition on the property located at 20 SOUTHWICK ST (R-2). The applicant has included elevation drawings of the proposed project, which involves adding a second story, as well as photographs of the house as it is currently. I have also included a parcel map to show the property in the context of the neighborhood. The proposed addition would require a Special Permit to alter a nonconforming single-family house; Variances are not needed. Public hearing: Petition of THREE SONS WINDOW& DOOR INC. requesting a Variance from number of stories and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a shed dormer• on the house located at 25-25% BARR ST(R-2). The applicant requests to continue to October 19 since only four members will be present to vote. Request for withdrawal without prejudice: petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, MANAGER, 1111 WINTER ISLAND ROAD requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance reconstruct a nonconforming Single Family residential structure, and a Variance under Sec. 5.1.5 to allow tandem parking, for the property located at 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD (11-1). Mr. Wharff intended to file new plans to be presented at this meeting. However, the property owner did not consent to this (Mr. Wharff has the property under agreement but is not yet the legal owner). Therefore, he is simply requesting to withdraw the petition he submitted without prejudice. His attorney, Scott Grover, has made the request in writing. • 2 • City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board �6ar s a P e s Date "I Name Mailing ''' d��t�Adresssss Phone # Email f T Ss h w,oZ-t -7 Lt S` -S 12L 2-D �JOU� 114JICK `178 744• 3o9D JST R��r@ cor • Page of CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL .off �`.�'' q(' r e ; 120 WAsFuNc IONS I R I L l 4 S,u enf,Mntti lcl-Iusl,.rrs 01970 �6�MINBO�=' TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FA%:978-740-0404 h6m11im.p.y DRISCOLL MAYOR N .J September 27, 2011 i> ..t7 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, MANAGER, 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, and a Variance under Sec. 5.1 (Off Street Parking), for the property located at 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R-1 Zoning District). • At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on September 21, 2011, the Board voted 4-0 (Jimmy Tsitsinos, Bonnie Belair, Rebecca Curran and Annie Harris)to allow the petitioner to withdraw the above petition without prejudice. Rebecca Curran, 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. • 1 CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL I 7�sL 120 WAsrn Nc roN S1xl;.r.r# Snl.l;.nt,:tiLAnnG lusr:rrs 01970 TuU:978-6195685 0 FAY:978-740-0404 KIMBIURLP.Y DRISCOLL MAYOR IV r� September 27, 2011 Decision to Extend Final Action City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of THE SALEM MISSION LLC D/B/A LIFEBRIDGE requesting Variances from rear yard • setback, height (feet), height (stories), minimum area per dwelling unit, and parking, to add two stories to the existing building at 56 MARGIN ST, Salem, MA, creating twenty-two (22) units of residential housing(R-2 zoning district). At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on September 21, 2011, the Board discussed the petitioner's request to extend final action on the above matter until November 2, 2011. The following Board members were present: Rebecca Curran (chair), Annie Harris, Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate) and Bonnie Belair (alternate). The Board voted 4-0 (Curran, Harris, Tsitsinos and Belair in favor, none opposed) to extend the deadline for final action to November 2, 2011. 6. l,Ur1x Rebecca Curran, Chair Salem Board of Appeals • l -,CONDQD CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS o}Y� % BOARD OF APPEAL 0 n 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 2. • a`\� � a SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAx: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR " �S September 27, 2011 Decision: 315-317 ESSEX STREET City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals On September 21, 2011, the Zoning Board of Appeals met to clarify its intent with regard to two petitions filed by 315-317 ESSEX STREET SALEM LLC for the property located at 315-317 Essex Street. In the first petition, dated February 2, 2009, the applicant requested a Special Permit to convert the first-floor office space to five units of residential housing. The Board granted the Special Permit, and it was filed April 22, 2009. This decision was appealed. While the Special Permit decision was under appeal, the petitioner filed another petition, dated February 26, 2010, requesting a Special Permit to convert the entire building, a 13-room lodging house and office space, to six two-bedroom residential units, and also requesting dimensional Variances to construct • two dormers. At the public hearing on March 17, 2010, the petitioner, the Board and abutters/appellants discussed that it was the petitioner's intent that this project would be constructed instead of the previously approved project. The Board granted the requested relief, and the decision was filed on March 31, 2010. It was not appealed. On September 21, 2011, the Board met to discuss its intent with regard to the two decisions, per remand by the Essex County Superior Court, in the action appealing the April 22, 2009 Special Permit. Whereas it was the Board's intent that by granting the Special Permit filed on March 31, 2010, the Special Permit filed on April 22, 2009 would be vacated, the Board voted on September 21, 2011 to vacate its 2009 decision by a vote of 4-0 (Rebecca Curran, James Tsitsinos, Bonnie Belair and Annie Harris in favor, none opposed). The vote was held to resolve any confusion remaining as to the Board's intent. The Special Permit granted to 315-317 ESSEX STREET SALEM LLC for the property located at 315-317 ESSEX STREET to convert the first-floor office space only to three units of residential housing (filed on April 22, 2009) is void. The Special Permit and Variances granted to allow conversion of the entire building from a lodging house and office space to six residential units (filed on March 31, 2010), stand. • Rebecca Curran, Chair Zoning Board of Appeals t �pND1T�� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS y' ?, BOARD OF APPEAL 120WASHINUIONSIRCCC♦ SAI.E.Nt,�NlASSACH6SI:1'IS07970 �� IIVB, 'Pere:978-619-5685 FAx:978-740-0404 Klmm:.lu.I,iv DRISCOLL MAYOR --. N September 27, 2011 _J Decision `7 _o City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals i Petition of CHRISTOPHER J. LEBLANC requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure by constructing a second story addition on the property located at 20 SOUTHWICK ST(R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on September 21, 2011, pursuant to Mass • General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (chair), Annie Harris, Bonnie Belair (alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.3 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fad: 1. Petitioner Christopher LeBlanc represented himself at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped August 31, 2011, petitioner requested a Special Permit pursuant to Sec. 3.3.3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a second-story addition on the existing single-family home on 20 Southwick Street. 3. At the hearing, Mr. LeBlanc stated that there had been a second floor on the house, which was built in 1901. However, the second floor had been destroyed by fire in the 1980's and was not rebuilt at that time. 4. At the hearing, Leslie Limon, 18 Southwick 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: l 'P 2 1. Desirable relief may be granted, since the proposed modification will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure. Board members noted that the structure had previously had a second story, and that the change was an improvement to the house. 2. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Special Permit to extend a nonconforming single-family structure is granted to allow for the proposed addition on the property located at 20 Southwick Street. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four (4) in favor (Curran, Harris, Tsitsinos and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for a Special Permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: • 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All 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 r i 3 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. Rebecca Curran, 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. g Y • • QTY OF SALEM MASSACHUSE'TTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHNGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 'ftLE:978-745-9595 ♦FAR:978-740-9846 KiNMERLEY DRIscoLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem, MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of CHRISTOPHER J. LEBLANC requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure by constructing a second story addition on the property located at 20 SOUTHWICK ST(R-2). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on September 27, 2011 • Request for withdrawal without prejudice: petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, MANAGER, 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance reconstruct a nonconforming Single Family residential structure, and a Variance under Sec. 5.1.5 to allow tandem parking, for the property located at 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R-1). Decision: Granted permission to withdraw without prejudice Filed with the City Clerk on September 27, 2011 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9& 15 and does not require action by the recipient. Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, September 21,2011 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate), and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Those absent were: Beth Debski, Jamie Metsch and Richard Dionne. Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner. Ms. Curran opens the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Approval of Minutes The minutes of July 20, 2011 are reviewed. Ms. Harris moves to approve them, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos and approved (4-0). Discussion and vote: 315-317 ESSEX ST—Clarification of intent of Special Permit and Variance issued March 17, 2011, per remand. • Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Petition dated February 2, 2009 ➢ Special Permit decision filed April 22, 2009 ➢ Petition dated February 26, 2010 ➢ Special Permit and Variance decision filed March 31, 2010 ➢ Minutes of March 16, 2011 Robin Stein, Assistant City Solicitor, reviews the case. She says the applicant, Stephen Morris, came in April 2009 seeking a Special Permit, which was appealed. The developer worked with the appellant and filed a new proposal in March 2010 to convert the entire building into 6 units. Ms. Stein says that from reading the minutes and from her own memory, the neighbors and the appellants were happy with the new project, and the new Special Permit would resolve and take precedence over the old project. However, she says that Attorney Carr doesn't think it takes precedence and the language isn't specific enough to void the 2009 Special Permit. She says the Judge is concerned there is not enough in the language to get rid of the 2009, and won't dismiss this unless he's comfortable with the language. She says if the Board agrees with her, the intent was to replace the old Special Permit with the new. Mr. St. Pierre asks if the Special Permit has now expired; Ms. Stein says no, since it was • under appeal. 1 Ms. Stein, reading from the minutes of the March 2010 meeting, quotes Attorney Atkins • (who represented the applicant) saying this would take precedence over the previously issued Special Permit. Ms. Curran asks if the Board's vote will be to rescind the 2009 decision. Ms. Stein says that whereas it was the Board's intent to void the 2009 decision, they should take a vote to void it. She says they need to reaffirm the intent from that meeting. Ms. Curran says she has no issue with that—she feels that was the intent. Ms. Belair makes a motion that whereas it was the intent of the board in granting the Special Permit for 315 Essex St., dated March 312010, to void the Special Permit dated April 17, 2009, the Board voids the Special Permit granted in 2009 for 315-317 Essex St. Attorney George Atkins is also present, and he notes that he represents petitioner in both cases and says the second decision makes the first decision moot, in reality. The motion is seconded by Ms. Harris and approved 4-0 (Mr. Tsitsinos, Ms. Belair, Ms. Harris and Ms. Curran in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated into these minutes. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of THE SALEM MISSION LLC D/B/A LIFEBRIDGE requesting Variances from rear yard setback, height (feet), height (stories), minimum • area per dwelling unit, and parking, to add two stories to the existing building at 56 MARGIN ST, Salem, MA, creating twenty-two (22) units of residential housing (R-2). Mission: RC we do not have a quorum tonight, petitioner has agreed to continue, need form signed. A quorum is not present tonight to hear this petition. Attorney Atkins states that they cannot go forward because there are not enough members present who can vote on the petition. He submits a request to extend the deadline for final action on the project to November 2, 2011. Ms. Harris moves to continue to the hearing to October 19, 2011 and to extend final action on the project to November 2, 2011, seconded by Ms. Belair and approved 4-0 (Ms. Belair, Mr. Tsitsinos, Ms. Harris and Ms. Curran in favor, none opposed). The record of the vote to extend is hereby made a part of these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of CHRISTOPHER J. LEBLANC requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure by constructing a second story addition on the property located at 20 SOUTHWICK ST (R-2). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 8/31/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Assessor plate of 20 Southwick St. ➢ Photographs • Mr. LeBlanc presents the petition. His wife, Jenny Hobbes, is also present. Mr. LeBlanc explains they want to put in the second level so they will have enough bedrooms for his 2 0 • children, who currently share a room. They will be adding 900 SF and staying in the current footprint. Ms. Curran asks if they are going directly up? Mr. LeBlanc says that's correct. He says the house did have a second level in the 1980's, and it burned down, but instead of putting up a second level they put an addition off the kitchen for a master bedroom. He says the house was built in 1901. Ms. Harris asks for confirmation that they are putting a second floor on the entire house; Mr. LeBlanc says yes. Ms. Curran asks if part of the house is a garage; Mr. LeBlanc says there was one there previously, but it's not there anymore. Ms. Curran asks how far off the back they are in the yard. She says it looks close, about a foot from the property line. Is there an alleyway there? Ms. Harris asks about the former garage. Mr. LeBlanc says now it's just a gravel driveway—there is no structure where there used to be a garage. Ms. Harris asks for clarification of what they need the Special Permit for; Mr. St. Pierre says the house is dimensionally nonconforming, so they are expanding a nonconforming structure. • Ms. Curran notes that the assessor's map the Board received is it's difficult to look at instead of a plot plan, since it's not to scale. She says it's hard to tell what is going on. They will need to know exactly how far away this is from the lot line. Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion of hearing. Leslie Limon, 18 Southwick St., supports the petition. Ms. Curran asks if they have talked to the people on Orchard St., noting that as abutters, they would have been notified. Mr. LeBlanc says they are fine with it. Ms. Curran asks how big the lot is; Mr. LeBlanc says 8200 SF. Ms. Harris asks if they are proposing a larger front door and a staircase? Mr. LeBlanc says the stairs are preexisting, and they just go to attic. Ms. Curran discusses the changes in the windows and asks if they are keeping the deck. Mr. LeBlanc says yes. He explains that they changed the plan for the stairs, which were originally going to go through the living room. Ms. Curran says the Board should have plans for what he is actually going to build— if this has changed. Is this an earlier plan? If we approve this, these are the plans of record. 3 • Ms. Belair asks if they are changing the siding. Mr. LeBlanc says they might change from shingles to clapboards, but they won't be using vinyl. He says it would be consistent— if they do clapboards, it would be the whole house. Ms. Belair says she has no problem with this—they are not changing the footprint, and the house did have a second floor before. She says this is an improvement. Mr. LeBlanc says he wishes they didn't have to do the work, but his kids are getting too big to share a room. Ms. Curran says she has no problem with the project - she would just like to have accurate plans that show what's being done. If this is what they are doing, that's fine, but if they're doing something different, they need the plans to show that. Mr. LeBlanc and Ms. Hobbes explain that this is accurately drawn. Ms. Harris says she thinks the footprint is increasing. Mr. St. Pierre says they can do the addition that is shown, which conforms to zoning, by right. It's the second story they need the Special Permit for. Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Belair moves to approve the petition with 8 standard conditions, seconded by Ms. Harris and approved 4-0 (Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris, Ms. Belair and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor, • none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated into these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of THREE SONS WINDOW & DOOR INC. requesting a Variance from number of stories and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a shed dormer on the house located at 25-25% BARR ST (R-2). Ms. McKnight says the applicant has submitted a request to continue to October 19, 2011, since there are only four voting members present tonight. Ms. Harris moves to continue to October 19, 2011, Mr. Tsitsinos seconds the motion, and it passes 4-0 (Ms. Harris, Mr. Tsitsinos, Ms. Belair and Ms. Curran in favor, none opposed). Request for withdrawal without prejudice: petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, MANAGER, 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance reconstruct a nonconforming Single Family residential structure, and a Variance under Sec. 5.1.5 to allow tandem parking, for the property located at 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R-1). Ms. Harris moves to allow the petitioner to withdraw without prejudice, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos and approved (Mr. Tsitsinos, Ms. Harris, Ms. Curran and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated into these minutes. Ms. Curran moves to adjourn the meeting, Ms. Harris seconds the motion; all are in favor and the meeting adjourns at 7:05 p.m. • 4 For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at: http://saiem.com/Poges/SolemMA ZoningAppealsMin/ Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 10/19/11 • • 5 o�oir CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3Ro FLOOR • y I SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ^-� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR ZGII SE€' - I P R 59 F!i.f tr SPECIAL MEETING CANCELLATION NOTI69T Y C L E i2PL � ;t.L_e , f'!A SS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS You are hereby notified that the Special Meeting scheduled for September 7, 2011 has been canceled. The applicant, William Wharff, requests to withdraw the petition for 11R Winter Island Rd. without prejudice. A new application for this project is scheduled to be heard during the Board of Appeals next regular meeting on September21, 2011. Rebecca Curran, Chair Kww Yew Rzyz order the OpmMcetirgLawM.G L. c 39§23B and City Odiw nn Scar= 2-2028 t)r*2-2033. This Wee 008110d on 00ftl�ll Bul �r dw CityWell Salem, Mass. on l <; in acaaorrd ce �i Chap. 33 sm 23A A 930 of MAL. oNDIr CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 DD FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 2011 r �6 22 P I: 2.9 MAYOR SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 7, 2011- 6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Room 313 (3'd Floor) Salem,MA Goa & � /,U xK-x Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Public hearing: Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF,MANAGER, IIR WINTER ISLAND ROAD requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance reconstruct a nonconforming Single Family residential structure, and a Variance under Sec:5.1.5 to allow tandem parking,for the properly located at 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R-1 Zoning District). Attorney Scott Grover. 2. Old/New Business 3. Adjournment • Know YcwRights=4er the Open McetirgLawM.GL. c 39§23B and City Orrli nx Seam 2-2028 thmrmgh 2-2033. Th1® n041e8 pelted on "Offtal DO m 0''09'r( " OIty Hpll Salem, Mae$, on t zz 2011 AA 23 /• �I' I 0 , 30 too goNDlTq,q^ CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 91 ( SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • "� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 4 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 20H AUIS -3 A n: 52 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 I1 1 August 17, 2011 - 6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Room 313 (3rd Floor) Salem,MA gdj"� lemx Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes:July20, 2011 meeting 2. Public hearing: Petition of TERRYANNE ST. PIERRE requesting Variances from side and front yard setbacks in order to replace an existing deck with a larger, 8'x10'deck on the properly located at 36 MARCH ST (R-2). 3. Old/New Business • 4. Adjournment Know Yo rr Rights miler the Chien M"LawM.GL. c .39 523E and City Qrdimw Scr m 2-2028 thra*2-2033. 01ty H 11 0 alotrl, mas;taa, On W�`,��v6t j, ZOI/ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS .„ BOARD OF APPEAL j 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 " p°N TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 K IMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 17, 2011- 6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Room 313 (3d Floor) Salem,MA Rebecca Curran, Chair REVISE D MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes:July 20, 2011 meeting 2. Public hearing: Petition of TERRYANNE ST. PIERRE requesting Variances from side and front yard setbacks in order to replace an existing deck with a larger, 8'Xl0'deck On the properly located at 36 MARCH ST (R-2). 3. Old/New Business Discussion: Board of Appeals planning and goals • 4. Adjournment —' N iv N Kmw Yom Rz#m rvrler dv Cpxn Mw&g L awM.G.L. c 39 523E and Crry(arl wKe Seaioa 2-2028 rhrer gh 2-2033. Tl�r��rio�IC�QO81m�4rt��11��-f�U Saint mads'i err CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL J I ., I�r`�M/NF / 0WASHING'PON$IIiI'.N;1'*$AL8M,1�'IASSAC4IUSF:C1'S 01970 - TrLe:978-745-9595 PAX:978-740-9846 HIhfI3I3IiL.ISY DRISCOLI. MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner DATE: August 9, 2011 RE: Meeting Agenda—August 17, 2011 Board Members, • Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Planner's memo 3. Meeting minutes of 7/20/11 Public hearing: Petition of TERRYANNE ST. PIERRE requesting Variances from side and front yard setbacks in order to replace an existing deck with a larger,8'x10' deck on the property located at 36 MARCH ST(R-2). The proposed new deck would result in a three-foot side yard setback (10' is required) and a 14-foot front yard setback (15' is required). The applicant has not submitted an elevation drawing with the application and plans, but will present one at the meeting. • 1 y� gONNUIT. 0 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR August 23, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of TERRYANNE ST. PIERRE requesting Variances from side and front yard setbacks in order to replace an existing deck with a larger, 8'x10' deck on the property on 36 MARCH STREET (R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 17, 2011, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Jamie Metsch, Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate) and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Petitioner seeks Variances under Sections 4.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. • Statements of fact: 1. George Fallon presented the petition on behalf of his wife, Terryanne St. Pierre. 2. In a petition date-stamped August 3, 2011, petitioner requested relief from front and side yard setbacks in order to remove an existing deck and replace it with a larger one. 3. No member of the public opposed or supported the petition at the August 17, 2011 meeting. 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. 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. Dimensional Variances under Sec. 4.1 are granted to construct the proposed deck. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Curran, Metsch, Harris, Tsitsinos and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for Variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state 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. J—Lcc� Z Rebecca Curran, 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 teffect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. ��onIDtrgq QTY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSET TS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHNGTON STREET+ $ALEM,MASSACHUSETLS 01970 ALE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 KIMRERLEY DRISOOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday, August 17,2011 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem, MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of TERRYANNE ST. PIERRE requesting Variances from side and front yard setbacks in order to replace an existing deck with a larger, 8'x10' deck on the property on 36 MARCH STREET (R-2). Decision: Granted. Filed with the City Clerk on August 23, 2011 • This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9 & 15 and does not require action by the recipient. Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. • • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, August 17, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday,' August 17, 2011 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate), Bonnie Belair (alternate), and Jamie Metsch. Those absent were: Beth Debski and Richard Dionne. Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner. Ms. Curran opens the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Approval of Minutes The minutes of July 20, 2011 are reviewed. Mr. Metsch moves to approve them, seconded by Ms. Belair and approved (4-0 with Ms. Harris abstaining). Public hearing: Petition of TERRYANNE ST. PIERRE requesting Variances from side and front yard setbacks in order to replace an existing deck with a larger, 8'x10' deck on • the property located at 36 MARCH ST(R-2). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 8-3-11 and accompanying materials ➢ Plot plan with proposed changes ➢ Photograph of the property with dimensions indicated ➢ GIS parcel map of 36 March St. George Fallon presents the petition on behalf of himself and his wife, Terryanne St. Pierre. He explains that he wants to replace the deck, which is in disrepair and is pulling away from the house because of the way it's been constructed. He shows the Board a photo of the side of the house and the deck, and explains that it's unsafe. He says he has put in temporary supports. He also notes that he needs to go beyond the sewer line in the ground in order to put in permanent supports. He says this entrance is also the only way to get furniture into the house when people move in and out, and that's another reason for making it a safer and larger deck. He indicates a berm on the property line and says the neighbor's house is 12 feet away from that. Ms. Curran asks if he has spoken to the abutter on that side; Mr. Fallon says he feels he will have support considering the improvements he's made to the house. He also notes he has to go before the Conservation Commission. • Ms. Curran asks Mr. Fallon to explain the deck's support system, which he does. 1 Ms. Curran notes for the record that no members of the public are present to comment. Mr. St. Pierre says for the record that Terryanne St. Pierre is not a relation of his. Ms. Belair says she feels the relief requested is minimal. Ms. Curran says she also has no problem with the petition. Ms. Belair moves to approve the petition with six standard conditions, seconded by Ms. Harris and approved 5-0 (Ms. Harris, Ms. Belair, Ms. Curran, Mr. Metsch and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated into these minutes. Old/New Business: The Board briefly discusses how they operate, at the suggestion of Mr. Metsch, who is new to the Board. Mr. Metsch moves to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Curran and approved 5-0. The meeting adjourns at 7:45. Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner . For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at: http://salem.com/Pages/safemMA ZoningAppealsMin/ Approved by the Board of Appeals 9/21/11 2 oeolt CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL m 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ,. FAX: 978-740-9846 IMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR MEETINGNOTICE 2011 ..!li! 13 A 11: 53 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 20, 2011— 6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Room 313 (3'a Floor) Salem,MA " Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes:June 15,2011 meeting c m 2. Public hearing: Petition of MARC TRANOS requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure. Proposed addition will have a side yard setback of 5' (10' required) and add a 3rd story living space (21h allowed) at the property located at 47 MEMORIAL DR (R-1). 3. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of PATRICK OSGOOD appealing a decision of the Building Commissioner, in order to continue operation of a business at 15 ROPES ST. (R-3). 4. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of THE SALEM MISSION LLC D/B/A LIFE BRIDGE • requesting Variances from rear yard setback, height (feet), height (stories), minimum area per dwelling unit, and parking, to add two stories to the existing building at 56 MARGIN ST, Salem,MA, creating twenty(20) units of residential housing (R 2 zoning district). 5. Old/New Business lb 6. Adjournment KngwYaeaRigks taller the Open MetingLawM.GL. c 39§23B and City 0dimnx Seaiora 2-2028 rhr*2-2033. r• h6flelfl NI Vv d on " J"s`'6' ra3 taut R4i1 fwqald" 3 �E A & goo tM. . . �tnblfr�� Q'I'y OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL f3, 120 WASHNGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSAGHUSETLS 01970 TELE:978-745-9595 +FAx:978-740.9846 KIMMRLLY Diuscou. MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: July 14, 2011 RE: Meeting Agenda—Jura 20, 2011 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: • 1. Agenda 2. Planner's memo 3. Meeting minutes of 6/15/11 Public hearing: Petition of MARC TRANOS requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure. Proposed addition will have a side yard setback of 5' (10' required) and add a 3rd story living space (2'/: allowed) at the property located at 47 MEMORIAL DR. (R-1). The application requests a Variance from side yard setback requirements (10 is allowed, and 5 proposed). However, the alterations can be made with a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming single-family house. Public hearing: Petition of PATRICK OSGOOD appealing a decision of the Building Commissioner, in order to continue operation of a business at 15 ROPES ST. (R-3). The materials for this petition were in May's packet. I have not received any further information from the petitioner regarding this appeal. Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of THE SALEM MISSION LLC D/B/A LIFEBRIDGE requesting Variances from rear yard setback, height (feet), height (stories), minimum area per dwelling unit, and parking, to add two stories to the existing building at 56 MARGIN ST, Salem, MA, creating twenty (20) units of residential housing (R-2 zoning district). 1 have not received any further information or materials regarding this petition. 1 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet ? ; Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail c�c �3c N vaz Y �?ZTI 97? 7q1=4�0,s--3 T (X flux '10 MA-ILc, St 97-)S 317 - Y(o fElviwoZ TMsAD JUG�n N- gun Z_7 6"L,WaItz Ce �'4. �77d )�fD _ Ca l z �,i l�f 6,V ct �7t '7 �S ' aXce Man/1 2_q k_rd&� 191 - 217 / -S-VVL • t RR c�z—E6S CD-�f j4- -ztW-93a7 Sad, Page _of �oeolrggo CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL I 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 �P TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 9 78-740-9846 �IMBERLEY DRISCOLL _ c MAYOR J August 3, 2011 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of PATRICK OSGOOD appealing a decision of the Building Commissioner, in order to continue operation of a business at 15 ROPES ST(R-3). A hearing on this petition was scheduled for May 18, 2011, on which date the petitioner requested to continue to June 15, 2011 with no evidence taken. At the June 15, 2011 meeting, the petitioner again requested to continue to July 20, 2011 with no evidence taken. On July 20, 2011, the petitioner requested to withdraw the petition. On July 20, 2011, the Board of Appeal voted 5-0 (Rebecca Curran, Jamie Metsch, Richard Dionne, Beth Debski and Bonnie Belair) to allow the petitioner to withdraw this petition without prejudice. GRANTED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE JULY 20, 2011. • Rebecca Curran Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. ��uso1T A CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL w 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 IxE W�P FAX: 978-740-9846 OkIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR August 3, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of MARC TRANOS requesting relief per Section 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure. Proposed addition will have a side yard setback of 5'and add a 3rd story living space on the property located at 47 MEMORIAL DRIVE (R-1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened July 20, 2011, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Jamie Metsch, and Bonnie Belair (alternate). • Petitioner seeks a Special Permit and Variance pursuant to Section 3.3.4 of the City of P y Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner represented himself at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped June 29, 2011, petitioner requested dimensional Variances under Section 4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to extend his nonconforming single-family house by demolishing a portion of it, constructing a new addition, raising the roof elevation and adding a new dormer. However, the Building Commissioner determined that relief was required under Section 3.3.4 instead. 3. At the hearing on July 20, 2011, two direct abutters indicated their support for the project. 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. 2. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Special Permit and Variance per Sec. 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure are granted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Curran, Debski, Dionne, Metsch and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for relief under Section 3.3.4 subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building 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 structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty 3 percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 9. The fa4ade will be adjusted to be three-dimensional, protruding from the house at least 2" on both sides. Rebecca Curran, 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. • • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, July 20, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Richard Dionne, Beth Debski, Bonnie Belair (alternate), and Jamie Metsch. Those absent were: Annie Harris and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner. Ms. Curran opens the meeting at 6:35 p.m. Approval of minutes: The minutes of 6/15/11 are reviewed. Mr. Metsch moves to approve, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 4-0 (Mr. Dionne, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran and Ms. Debski in favor, Ms. Belair abstaining, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of MARC TRANOS requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure. Proposed • addition will have a side yard setback of 5' (10' required) and add a 3rd story living space (2% allowed) at the property located at 47 MEMORIAL DR. (R-1). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application dated 6/29/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Plot Plan of Land, 47 Memorial Dr., Salem ➢ Elevation drawings ➢ Letter from Antonio Marfongelli, 49 Memorial Dr. ➢ Photographs of 47 Memorial Dr., no date Marc Tranos presents his petition. He explains that he wants to remove the existing breezeway/mud room and put on the proposed new addition. He explains that he wants to bring his stairs up to code and constructing a new stair of the appropriate dimensions would take up interior bedroom space. Therefore, he wants to extend the second story to give reasonable room for living space. He shows photos of the interior of the house. He says the roof has shed dormer with almost 0 pitch,.constructed by 2 x 6's, and the ceiling height is only 6'2"; he wants to increase it to 8'3". Ms. Curran asks how many square feet he is adding? Mr. Tranos says he is going from 1448 to 2560 SF. Ms. Curran notes that this is not quite doubling the area. She asks Mr. Tranos to confirm the reason he can't maintain the current setback is because of the • stairs; Mr. Tranos says he could , but it would make the bedroom very small—9 x 9; the 1 new stairs would eat into the two bedrooms. Ms. Belair asks what will be on the third floor; Mr. Tranos says storage. He says it will not be full height—it will have knee walls • coming up 3 to 4 feet and going up. He notes on the back side—there will be a place with a roof deck, which will be accessible through spiral stair inside a peak. Mr. Metsch notes the whole roofline would be raised. Ms. Curran says she is having a hard time visualizing the proposal. Mr. Metsch shows a photo he took on his phone of the house to Ms. Curran. Mr. Tranos says the height of the existing house is 20 feet, and they are going up to 28. He says that according to his architect, the average elevation on the ground is the point from which roof height is measured in Salem. Ms. Curran says it just looks so much bigger- enormous. Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion of the hearing. No one is here to speak about it. She closes the public comment portion. Mr. Tranos notes that a letter of support is included in his petition from his neighbor, Antonia Marfongelli, 49 Memorial Dr. He introduces his other abutter, Brad Smith, 45 Memorial Drive, whom he says is also here in support. Ms. Curran notes he is going from 1.5 to 3 stories. She says it's fine to use the top floor for living space, but if they are only using it for storage—and there's a deck—and if the reason to go over further is to not to impact the size of the bedrooms, then why build up space for storage? Could he reconfigure things to use that space as bedrooms and keep within current footprint— why go up that high? Mr. Tranos says it would be to make house look that way—it • currently is only 20 feet, and to get any type of attic space you have to go up that high, because it's not a deep house. He doesn't want to put 20 feet of roof straight across—it wouldn't look right. Ms. Curran notes there isn't a side elevation submitted. Mr. Dionne notes it will be a usable space, he likes the proportions, it looks nice, and if Mr. Tranos has no objections from neighbors, this makes sense. Mr. Metsch says that as a plan it looks attractive—he says the house to the left is approximately the same size, it is in keeping with some of the houses on the street, and the neighbors across the street are up on a hill. Ms. Curran asks what material he plans to use; Mr. Tranos says vinyl siding. Ms. Curran says she likes the variation in lines and way he's doing the dormers. She notes that she would have liked a better visual. She wishes they weren't increasing the side setback, but she has no real objection. Ms. Curran says she had thought the bump was on both sides—Mr. Metsch explains that's just on the back. Noting the front elevation —he says the front has a line down it —it's just on one plane—can we condition it to come out three feet—or do they need to redraw it? Mr. Tranos says in order to bring that front portion out three feet, he'd have to re dig the foundation of the house. Mr. Metsch and Ms. Debski say they would like to see even just something with trim board,just to break up the massing. Mr. Tranos says • 2 he can try to bring it out a little— he has to talk to his architect. Ms. Curran says she • knows he is dealing with an existing house, but it's a shame the door can't be separate. Ms. Belair asks Mr. Smith how tall his house is; he says approximately 31 or 32. Ms. Belair asks if he's in favor; he says he'd like to see some final renderings, but it's ok. He says the house really needs an overhaul; he's fine with it as long as it looks good and it's suitable for Mark. Mr. Metsch moves to approve with eight (8) standard conditions and one special condition,that the facade will be treated on both sides according to a revised elevation drawing showing a dimension of at least two inches, seconded by Mr. Dionne and passed 5-0 (Mr. Dionne, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran, Ms. Debski, and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated into these minutes. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of PATRICK OSGOOD appealing a decision of the Building Commissioner, in order to continue operation of a business at 15 ROPES ST. (R-3). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application dated 5/19/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Special Permit decision for 15 Ropes St., date-stamped 3/21/83 ➢ Zoning violation notice from Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer • ➢ Aerial photograph, 2004 ➢ Aerial photograph, 2009 ➢ Letter from Attorney Matthew Kavanagh, dated June 15, 2011 Attorney Matthew Kavanagh, representing the petitioner, says he thinks a key issue has been resolved —the applicant will cease parking vehicles in back (tape)—free up street parking, approach council about striping some spots on Ropes St. so he and neighbors can use for parking. Ms. Curran: this is no longer an issue? Atty Kavanagh confirms that he is no longer appealing the decision of the building inspector. He requests to withdraw the petition without prejudice. Mr. Dionne moves to allow withdrawal of the petition without prejudice, seconded by Mr. Metsch and passed 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Belair, Ms. Debski and Ms. Curran in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated into these minutes. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of THE SALEM MISSION LLC D/B/A LIFEBRIDGE requesting Variances from rear yard setback, height (feet), height (stories), minimum area per dwelling unit, and parking, to add two stories to the existing building at 56 MARGIN ST, Salem, MA, creating twenty(20) units of residential housing(R-2 zoning district). • Documents & Exhibitions: 3 ➢ Application date-stamped 5/25/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Plot plan dated 5/25/11 • ➢ Exterior Elevations dated 5/25/11 ➢ Photos and elevations titled "Seeds of Hope III," dated 6/15/11 ➢ Letter from Jeffrey M. Cox, LICSW, BCD, dated 6/14/11 ➢ Letter submitted by the Greater Endicott Street Neighborhood Association (exhibit A), dated 7/18/11, and signature pages (exhibit B) ➢ Letter from Lifebridge dated 7/19/11 (exhibit C) ➢ Exerpt from Mark Bobrowski's Handbook of Massachusetts Land Use and Planning Law, submitted by Councillor Michael Sosnowski, Ward 2 ➢ Letter from Thomas Furey, Councillor-At-Large Ms. Curran says there were questions raised last time, and she understands the developer has met with neighbors about these issues. She refers to the issue of the Dover amendment and says she has spoken with Robin Stein, Assistant City Solicitor, and the Board now has clarification about how that applies. Atty Atkins, 59 Fderal St., represents the Mission. He says last time he said he believed they were not required to go to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review, but says the Assistant City Solicitor has come to the conclusion that they do need to do this to proceed. He says they will follow her determination and will present a petition to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. Atty Atkins says the meeting with neighbors was Monday night. He says they answered • some questions, but not others; they won't be able to satisfy some of the objections that were raised. A letter dated June 14 was written by Jeff Cox and presented at the last meeting. Atty Atkins has prepared a written response (exhibit C), which he passes out to the board. They have highlighted in bold the responses of Lifebridge. The second item refers to traffic—statements referring to speed and danger—they agree with these statements, but don't agree that it's due to the organization's activities. He says they would support any kind of traffic calming brought before council. He says few employees have cars. If the project goes forward, they will have one additional employee, and that person can be accommodated on site. If additional parking is required, Atty Atkins says they can accommodate that on site or make arrangements in city owned lots and prohibit staff and residents from parking there. For visitors and guests—there can be a provision in the leases that tenants must use their best efforts to park in municipal parking and not on the streets. He says, however, that they would have limited control in this. They would use all their efforts to keep on-street parking from happening. He addresses the next concern in Mr. Cox's letter—the residents, and who is admitted. He says it is a nonprofit subject to fair housing laws. However, they always do a CORI check and will continue to do so. Also, Board has voted on a new policy that would bar Level 3 sex offenders in any existing or proposed housing of ours. There are two • 4 currently in the housing;they can't evict them, but they won't replace them once they • move out with other Level 3 sex offenders. Atty Atkins refers to concerns about building additional housing in the future, and concerns about construction and process. Lifebridge will add an on site contact for issues related to construction and email communication for construction related matters. He says there has been successful use of those two items at SSU regarding contacts with neighbors. They will commit to the same thing. Those are in writing, as requested, in response to Mr. Cox's letter. He addresses the issue of the Dover Amendment he has a series of legal documents for Board review. Ms. Curran says that Lifebridge should go through the reasoning of its educational purpose—it is not readily apparent when you think of a shelter for an educational purpose. She requests this be explained, on the advice of Ms. Stein. Atty Atkins says zoning ordinances can't regulate nonprofit educational uses, but are subject to reasonable regulations. He says the Articles of Organization of Lifebridge indicate it's a nonprofit, and in its purpose indicates the educational nature of the organization's purpose. He refers to item 3—a list of programs offered at Lifebridge—such as relapse prevention, anger management,job search skills, AA, case management including individual life plans, working with SSU student nurses, college writing courses (being developed), a women's support group, and men's support group. He says programs and monitoring are offered not just to sheltered residents but to all tenants currently in the • 22 residential units. He says there is constant monitoring of the tenants. Atty Atkins says there have been several cases in MA concerning "education" and what it means— the most important one is a Fitchburg case, which dealt with the conversion of a residential facility for former mental patients. Quoting from the case, Atty Atkins says education is "broad and comprehensive...process of developing and training powers and capabilities of human beings, etc." The proposed facility fulfilled an educational goal by helping people live in a normal setting, etc. , and by teaching basic coping and life skills - this qualified as an educational use. Atty Atkins says what Lifebridge offers is incontestably an educational process. Their intent is to move people from homelessness, move out of shelters, and move into permanent housing; all their efforts are designed to follow that. He refers to two other cases, in which the courts found that the use was protected, but "reasonable" dimensional regulations apply. He says they have asked for height variances, rear yard setback, relief from area per dwelling unit, and parking relief. He says that even though there is a new setback violation to the rear, the building is already 2.3 feet off the rear line. He says this is a de minimus request. He says that for lot area per dwelling unit, 7500 is unreasonable, and it is impossible to meet that standard anywhere downtown. He notes also that in the future, if some other group tried to use this as regular housing, they would have to come back for relief. Atty Atkins says that each of the dimensional requirements must meet some municipal need. He doesn't think any of these items meet a municipal need, so their imposition would be unreasonable. The reason he is asking for variances instead of a 5 determination of reasonableness is because in the Zoning recodification, there is language contrary to state statute that requires dimensional requirements to be met even for exempt uses, and they want to comply with the local ordinance. • . Ms. Curran asks him to run through this, saying the Board is trying to get a handle on the educational component. People move in, stay for a while, learn life skills and move on? Atty Atkins says they hope so, yes. Mark Cote, 22 Troy St, Lowell, Executive Director of Lifebridge., says that upon getting a bed at Lifebridge, everyone gets a case manager, and gets an ISP from entry to exit. The case manager determines how often they must meet. A series of benchmarks are met. Even those who live in their 22 units have case management. There are changes depending on the curriculum available and what they need. They must attend two classes and volunteer each week. Ms. Curran asks if each of the classes mentioned is a course? Mr. Cote says some have a hard curriculum, and some have clinicians who run the courses. There are 8 week cycles for some courses, and some are drop-in. They are working with SSU to offer college courses on the campus. Mr. Cote has an M.Ed, and Lifebridge has a strong educational component. He says this is not a place where you can come and not participate—residents have to be active. Everyone has chores daily. If they don't participate,they can't be there. There are other shelters where they can be. Ms. Curran asks about the length of a typical stay. Mr. Cote says some have been there for years. They work with those who have been there a long time to help them move on. The typical stay has gone from years to months, if not weeks. Some people • are gone in 24 hours. But, he says, if they are there and have a bed, that's their bed every night as long as they participate and meet expectations. He says there is also monitoring—by contract with DHCD —and there are 2 shelter attendants, one male and one female, in the dorm, there 24/7. They make rounds to the buildings. There are cameras, recording systems, etc. and they know who is coming and going. Mr. Metsch asks about the transition rate in the shelter. And the 22 existing units— those are permanent housing? Mr. Cote says they have one year leases. There have only been 3 evictions; some moved, one was a death from an illness. Mr. Dionne asks if there are 12 step meetings onsite; Mr. Cote says there are AA meetings weekly, as well as other groups run by his staff. Ms. Belair asks about police calls; Mr. Cote says they can get any records the Board needs from police. He says calls from their building are instigated by staff, or medical calls from nurses. He says the call frequency has dropped. He will get these numbers. He says there are 9 members on the Board. Ms. Belair asks if there is any s no not in requirement to have Salem residents on board; Mr.Cote says Y their bylaws. Atty Atkins notes that there are Salem residents on the Board. Ms. Belair says she would like there to always be a Salem resident on the Board. Atty Atkins says they will consider that. Mr. Metsch asks for clarification on the Dover Amendment— is this a use by right in our zoning? Does it meet the Dover Amendment criteria? • 6 • Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment. Mary Beth Bainbridge, 7 Prescott St.., of the Greater Endicott Street Neighborhood Association (GESNA)—passes out a petition with the signatures of residents who agree with an opposition letter she has submitted. Barbara Mann, coch'air of GESNA—29 Endicott St. —reads aloud letter that was submitted dated 7/18/11 from GESNA in opposition (exhibit B). She summarizes 6 conditions, attached to the letter (exhibit A). John Femino, 90 Margin St., is on the neighborhood advisory committee. He says they have made good strides in improving conditions. At the last meeting, he says they discussed the verbal agreements made. He says in 2004, this was brought before council, and what they have now,the two buildings, and the shelter, is what they promised they would do and that was all. They would keep church open for community. He says they went back on trying to build on the church. He says they are expanding beyond what they told the neighborhood they would do. He says he has a tape of 2004 meeting. They initially"proposed by leadership back then, and there should have been better cooperation. He says the church should have stayed open. He says it should have been preserved and used as community space. However, he says the church was closed and is on the market, and this is not what was agreed to at the council meeting in • 2004. He says the proposed density is much too high for the area and says there is already too much traffic. The thrift store goods block the sidewalk. Parking and trash are also a problem. Ms. Curran says the Board can condition promises made for this application but cannot enforce anything that was previously agreed to verbally outside this Board's review. Mary Beth Bainbridge, 7 Prescott St., clerk of GESNA, says that on the neighborhood meeting on 7/18, Lifebridge left abruptly and many questions remain. She says they haven't named their funding source for the new construction. She is concerned that changes could occur in the future if the funding they are getting is only good for 15 or 20 years. She says this has serious implications for the future of the community. She wants to know if their funder will have different requirements for sex offenders and if they will have to take them. She wants to know exactly how many shelter beds will be reduced. She has concerns about the parking. She doesn't think it's reasonable to think Lifebridge won't need additional.parking for 22 new units, and says the current units have insufficient parking. They can't predict future, whether staff needs will change. Just because current employees mostly don't drive doesn't guarantee parking needs won't change, she says. She also objects to adults living in studios the size of dorm rooms. She has concerns about construction and how it will affect neighbors—she asks how long it will take. She is concerned about the precedents this would be setting for • the city. 7 Robert Femino, 32 Endicott St., is also on GESNA and on the Lifebridge neighborhood . committee. He says sharing the neighborhood with the shelter has impacted the neighborhood by attracting mentally ill people and those with substance abuse issues. He is not opposed to the organization's mission. He says the neighborhood has accepted the current clients but doesn't think the neighborhood's concerns have been addressed, and feels the plans are unclear. He thinks expansion should happen in other communities. He thinks the saturation point has been reached in the neighborhood. He requests that Lifebridge agree to stop expanding if this is granted. He says such an agreement would go a long way toward getting neighborhood support for this project. Doug Crystal, 47 Endicott St., says that in the last 3 or 4 years, there have been improvements, but he has concerns about the new expansion and thinks it will have a negative impact on the neighborhood. He notes other investments in the neighborhood and worries that this project will erode property values. He is concerned about parking, future expansion, and density. Dan Finamore, 59 Summer St., says he fully supports what Lifebridge does, but he also knows it is the long term residents have vehicles; they all park on Summer St. Those living in the existing 22 units—these people are on their way up. Steve Perry, 32 Endicott St. is concerned about the type of person he encounters on the sidewalk recently—they are much more scary, verbal, etc. He says the shelter is a • magnet for these people. Mr. Cote says they have to complete 2 courses a year? Are they pertinent to the issues these people have, and what if they don't complete the courses? He also supports social services, but as of now they can't control the people in the neighborhood, and fears what the impacts will be if the number of units is increased. Joanne Mattera, 38 Endicott St., objects to the expansion. She says sex offenders must stay away from playgrounds and schools—the Lifebriedge building is close to playground —how can that be there in the first place? She is concerned about its proximity to children. She also has concerns with property values being eroded and says they already have issues with this in the neighborhood. Councillor Mike Sosnowski, Ward 2, says he attended Monday's meeting. He refers to an older letter from Jeff Cox, and he was under the impression the neighborhood supported this. In the last few days, it's become clear the neighborhood does not support it. He says his sympathies are limited, however. He says Lifebridge has an honorable mission. He says he thinks this does qualify under the Dover amendment for an exemption from zoning. How far can the board go with exemption? He quotes from Mark Bobrowski's Handbook of Massachusetts Land Use and Planning Law, and says that land or structures may be subject to reasonable dimensional regulations. He passes out excerpts to the Board. Inasmuch as this is doing a great job, he says the Board has • 8 already been reasonable in allowing what's there currently. Now they are being asked • to go beyond reasonable. A cap should be put on the current limits. He liked the suggestion about putting Salem residents on the Board —and the Board should only have Salem residents. Salem shouldn't have to pay the price for everyone. He has concerns about parking; have they already exceeded what would be reasonable with the exemption? The Board needs to consider this. Councillor-At-Large Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus Ave., says he was appointed to the neighborhood advisory board with Councillors Pelletier and Lovely, and they have made tremendous strides. Lifebridge has been open to suggestions and they have accomplished a lot. He says for this proposal—his only problem is parking—they administration just put forth a comprehensive parking plan in the city. The whole objective was to create 15% more parking for the city. They found that people with condos downtown pay for space in municipal lots and can't get in because they are so crowded, and it will aggravate the problem if employees or tenants use these spaces too. Councillor-At-Large Joan Lovely, 14 Story St. —also on the Lifebridge committee— echoes what Councillor Pinto said—they have addressed many issues. She says the mission of Lifebridge is to close the shelter which is very attractive to her. They want to eventually just have permanent housing with those who can support themselves and use the education services, help people get GEDs, etc. She supports the 22 units, but • doesn't think it's unreasonable for Lifebridge to enter into some sort of MOU to limit future expansion. This would max out the area. The church is available, hopefully for community purposes—they have listened to the neighborhood. She can see why neighbors want firmer number for shelter beds reduced. She is less concerned about parking, but has some concern about this. There should also be strict income limits for these units. Ward 3 Councillor Jean Pelletier, Chairman of the Lifebridge neighborhood advisory committee, also is in favor of some kind of MOU for the neighborhood so that Lifebridge should not have more housing here after this and possibly say what they plan to do with the church. He says this Board allowed no parking at some nearby condo developments. Part of the new parking plan is to reconfigure Riley Plaza. The Norman St. condos have passes there. He says before the Board allows a variance on parking, Lifebridge should come up with an acceptable parking plan. He says the shelter has had impacts on the neighborhood. He says the police calls have gone way down —it's all medical calls now. The clients who are problematic do not live there. He thinks their program works. He says the neighborhood concerns are dealt with by the board. He says the mentally ill clients are a small proportion of who's there. Joan Pizzello, 37 Endicott St., opposes the project, and says the neighborhood has absorbed about as much as it could take. • 9 Julia Pottier-Brown, 2 Gedney Ct., says she is resigned to 22 new units, but wants something in writing that no further expansion will be made. She says the permanent . housing won't end homelessness. Joanne Mattera -Asks if the Dover Amendment applies and asks the Board to confirm this. She asks that the Board members view the site and observe what the activity there is like. Councillor-At-Large Arthur Sargent, 8 Maple Ave., says his main concerns are parking and density. He refers to Bobrowski's text and says a city shouldn't disregard rules that would normally apply. John Femino says the plan is wrong— High St. court doesn't exist. The playground is much closer to their property. He has concerns about the construction period and how the shelter will transition. Ms. McKnight read a letter from Councillor-At-Large Thomas Furey, 77 Linden St., dated July 20, 2011, in support of the project. Ms. Curran says she has had extensive conversations with Assistant City Solicitor Robin Stein, which is why she asked the applicant to explain this. At the last meeting,the Board was concerned there would be no Site Plan Review, and traffic is normally dealt with at the Planning Board, so she is glad to hear they are agreeable to doing that. She • says if the ZBA were the only committee reviewing the project,they would have taken on that role, though not as well. She says an educational use doesn't have to be a school, and they have a lot of case law that further defines what is considered educational. Ms. Belair strongly encourages another neighborhood meeting. She says there are six items on the GESNA letter that should be easy to accommodate. She suggests having an open house and letting the neighbors see the building design. She says a traffic study is not unreasonable. She reviews the letter's other requests and says they should be able to work these out. She says there should be a firmer plan for shelter bed reduction, cap on future housing, etc. She says Lifebridge and the neighborhood have to live together, she wants to support the project, it's admirable, we or our family could need your services, and she strongly supports Lifebridge, but she feels for neighbors and they should at least try to come to some type of agreement. Ms. Curran says lots of issues have come up. She summarizes what is before the ZBA, and reviews the relief needed. She says parking is an issue; it is difficult even if they condition no cars on the site, because people do have visitors. There was some talk about conditions—but it's hard to enforce. There are zero spots being added and 22 new units. The height she has no problem with. She says Riley Plaza is so enormous it can easily support the height of this building. She says it is a huge improvement • 10 aesthetically compared to the old building. This is a very specific type of housing, so lot area per dwelling unit, she has no problem with. The rear yard setback she has no issue with because we are dealing with an existing building. However,the parking, she really does have an issue with. She doesn't know if there is a solution. She echoes Ms. Belair's comments—the ZBA wanted you to meet and deal with some of the non-zoning issues we don't deal with. The ZBA has to think about expanding a use with some of these issues out there. Ms. Belair refers to the parking, saying she drives by twice a day, and the parking across street is never seen full. Ms. Curran says the sex offender issue is not a zoning issue. However, there is a state law about proximity of sex offenders to schools. Mr. St. Pierre says he called Sgt. Rocheville from the Salem PD, and he said there is no law on the books about the proximity of sex offenders to a playground. Mr. Metsch addresses the design, saying he is generally in favor of it;the addition for the elevator is small, and the massing is appropriate. For parking, he says it will be difficult to include visitors in a calculation,just as it would be hard to require visitor parking in his own neighborhood for each unit. He notes that the 22 units are already there. His hope is that the units will be transitional, despite being permanent housing; • he notes that for those transitioning out of this housing, a car would become useful in finding a job. As for the additional 22 units—he doesn't think the parking required needs to be the one car per unit the Board would typically require, but there should be some provisions. He asks Dana Weeder about the right of way between the existing building and St. Mary's, and whether additional parking could be accessed from there. Mr. Metsch suggests redesigning the interior to have the elevator shaft within the existing footprint— moved to the upper right side of the existing building—by moving the proposed uses, maybe reducing the number of units slightly; perhaps they could allow access for parking at the rear, adding 2 or 3 spaces. Mr. Weeder notes they did play with the elevator location — it essentially came down to financing for foundation changes. However, there is no access for cars to get back to the courtyard area—this is a narrow alley with no room for two-way traffic. He says that programmatically, it makes sense to put elevator in front, but they didn't want to affect the front of building that much, and they prefer people to use the stairs. He says the top right of the building is a single story portion and has to remain on the larger mass of the building. Mr. Metsch says what he is suggesting is the location would then be abutting the north face of the new two story—the tower would now be on back of the north face single story. Mr. Weeder responds that putting the elevator in back used the lightest touch, and economics were also a factor. 11 Mr. Metsch discusses the density, saying he understands it makes the project more affordable. He supports the services Lifebridge provides. However, he has concerns for any potential growth even beyond this if the Board were to support this today. He is wondering if the Board can cap new expansion —is that an option? Can the number of dwelling units be tied to this owner? Ms. Curran says they could cap the portion they are looking at, but the church is for sale. Atty. Atkins says that he is the person who abruptly ended the neighborhood meeting Monday. He says this proposal is not about the use, it's the dimensional request and the parking. He suggests meeting with neighbors and with the Board of directors of Lifebridge so he can bring these questions to them. He says they did commit to a number of these issues already, in writing, tonight, with regard to sex offenders, employee and tenant parking, and other issues. He requests to continue the hearing to September. He says they can't answer all the questions that have been raised, but they can consider some other issues. He also offers to schedule a site visit. Ward 2 Councillor Mike Sosnowski, 17 Collins St., asks if they are using HUD funding for this; Mr. Cote responds that they are not, and the only HUD funding they have is for the current 22 units. Councillor Sosnowski says if something happens and this project goes away, what happens to the use? Ms. Curran says it would have to conform to zoning and explains that relief granted is for a particular use. Mr. St. Pierre says the Zoning Ordinance already covers this. Mr. Dionne moves to continue hearing to September 21, 2011, seconded by Mr. Metsch • and unanimously approved. Old/New Business: Mr. Metsch says he is interested in discussing ZBA member roles and connecting decisions to existing master plans. Ms. Curran says this is a great idea, and Ms. Belair agrees that this should be discussed at a future meeting. Ms. Debski moves to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Dionne, and the meeting adjourns at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 8/17/11 For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at: http://Salem.com/PagesISalemMA ZoninaAppealsMin/ • 12 o nrrA CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS s •„ BOARD OF APPEAL 120 W ASHINGTON T S REET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUS>� ETTS O 1970 • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 2011 AN —2 A If: 01 MAYOR REVISED MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CIr r ; „•,,,. June 15, 2011- 6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Room 313 (3'd Floor) Salem, MA Rebecca Curran, Chair REVISED MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes - May 18, 2011 meeting. 2. Public hearing: Petition of PATRICK OSGOOD appealing a decision of the Building Commissioner, in order to continue operation of a business at 15 ROPES ST. (R 3). 3. Public hearing: Petition of JULI MACDONALD requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a third floor shed dormer,and a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5.3 to construct second and third story decks on the two-family home located at 7 ESSEX ST, Salem,MA(R-2 zoning district). Public hearing: Petition of JAY LEVY AND NEAL LEVY, TRUSTEES OF 66 DERBY STREET REALTY TRUST, requesting Variances from lot area, lot area per dwelling unit,frontage, lot width, front and rear yard setbacks,and off-street parking regulations, and a Special Permit to allow the reconstruction, extension,alteration and changing of an existing nonconforming two-family structure on a nonconforming lot to a single-family house,in order to subdivide the properly located at 66 DERBY ST, Salem,MA,into two lots, construct an addition on one lot, and construct a new single-family home on the other(R-2 zoning district). 5. Public hearing: Petition of THE SALEM MISSION LLC D/B/A LIFE BRIDGE requesting Variances from rear yard setback,height (feet), height (stories), minimum area per dwelling unit, and parking, to add two stories to the existing building at 56 MARGIN ST,Salem,MA,creating twenty(20) units of residential housing (R-2 zoning district). 6. Public hearing: the petition of LESLIE R. ABCUNAS, requesting a Home Occupation Special Permit for a massage business in the single-family home at 24 BELLEAU RD, Salem, MA(R-1 zoning district). 7. Old/New Business This n01106 posh on 601 idal 81,111etfin Board• 8. Adjournment CRY Hall Salem, Mass. on June- L zel' & i om of M.�.�°°°�d qp* �0 Sea Know Yarn Ruin wrier d)e Cat M"LawM.G.L. c 39§23B aryl C4 Cdnvxe Smiera 2-2028 tbRao 2.2033. oMe.,Q CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • �` �+ • SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 1 7 _ KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL . Z�il Ci� 31 n ?: I b MAYOR MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 15, 2011- 6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Room 313 (3" Floor) Salem,MA ct /' M-k Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes - May 18, 2011 meeting. 2. Public hearing: Petition of PATRICK OSGOOD appealing a decision of the Building Commissioner, in order to continue operation of a business at 15 ROPES ST. (R 3). 3. Public hearing: Petition of JULI MACDONALD requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a third floor shed dormer,and a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5.3 to construct second and third story decks on the two-family home located at 7 E SSE X ST,Salem,MA(R 2 zoning district). 104. Public hearing: Petition of JAY LEVY AND NEAL LEVY, TRUSTEES OF 66 DERBY STREET REALTY TRUST, requesting Variances from lot area, lot area per dwelling unit, frontage,lot width, front and rear yard setbacks, and off-street parking regulations,and a Special Permit to allow the reconstruction, extension,alteration and changing of an existing nonconforming two-family structure on a nonconforming lot to a single-family house,in order to subdivide the property located at 66 DERBY ST,Salem, MA, into two lots,construct an addition on one lot, and construct a new single-family home on the other(R 2 zoning district). 5. Public hearing: Petition of THE SALEM MISSION LLC D/B/A LIFEBRIDGE requesting Variances from rear yard setback,height (feet), height (stories), minimum area per dwelling unit, and parking, to add two stories to the existing building at 56 MARGIN ST,Salem,MA, creating twenty(20) units of residential housing (R-2 zoning district). 6. Old/New Business 7. Adjoumment );us notice posted on "Official Bulletin Goard" City Hall Salem, Mass. on NAB 31 , zo t at 2 :2- e M Itl CCOrdBnco Wr-l1 C1�':�. 30 Sec. 23A & 23U of M.®.t Kmw Yam Ridits ia&r Jx Open Mating L awM.G.L. c 39§23B and City Orzd mw Seam 2.2028 dmn,gii 2-2033. P11ND1T 4 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS � BOARD OF APPEAL G y r 130 WASHHINGTON$"CRHP..'P SALem,Mnssncnusv:'1'rs 01970 Tel.aa:978-745-9595 CAx:978-740-9846 KIt,4BERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: June 8, 2011 RE: Meeting Agenda—June 15, 2011 Board Members, • Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Planner's memo 3. Meeting minutes of 5/18/11 Public hearing: Petition of PATRICK OSGOOD appealing a decision of the Building Commissioner, in order to continue operation of a business at 15 ROPES ST. (R-3). The materials for this petition were in May's packet. I have not received any further information from the petitioner regarding this. Attorney Matthew Kavanagh is representing Mr. Osgood. Public hearing: Petition of JULI MACDONALD requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a third floor shed dormer, and a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5.3 to construct second and third story decks on the two-family home located at 7 ESSEX ST, Salem, MA (R-2 zoning district). The applicant has requested a Special Permit under 3.3.2.1 (change or substantial extension of the use), though it appears the Special Permit required would actually be 3.3.3.1 (reconstructing, extending or structurally changing a nonconforming structure). A change in the use is not proposed, and the use conforms in the R-2 zone. A Special Permit is also requested under 3.3.5.3 (Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures— "alteration to a structure which encroaches upon one or more required yard or setback areas, where the alteration will comply with all current setback, yard, building coverage and building height requirements." The proposed decks would still allow for a 46' rear yard (30' is required). The side setback line, while currently nonconforming, can be extended without triggering new dimensional relief •for a two-family house under Section 3.3.4 of the Zoning. While only Special Permits were requested, third story decks normally require a Variance from number of stories (2.5 are allowed, and 3 are proposed). Public hearing: Petition of JAY LEVY AND NEAL LEVY,TRUSTEES OF 66 DERBY STREET REALTY TRUST, requesting Variances from lot area, lot area per dwelling unit, frontage, lot width, front and rear yard setbacks, and off-street parking regulations, and a Special Permit to allow the reconstruction, extension, alteration and changing of an existing nonconforming two-family structure on a nonconforming lot to a single-family house, in order to subdivide the property located at 66 DERBY ST, Salem, MA, into two lots, construct an addition on one lot, and construct a new single-family home on the other (R-2 zoning district). The existing two-family house is in the Derby Street historic district. The applicant received an approval for a conceptual plan from the Historical Commission for the redevelopment of this property that included the demolition of the rear addition on the existing house, renovation of the main house, a new addition, and construction of a second (two-family) house on the lot. However, constructing a second primary structure on one residential lot posed problems from a zoning perspective, so the applicant has revised his plans to show the same proposed changes to the exterior of the existing historic house, but also showing subdivision of the lot into two lots and the construction of a single-family (rather than a two- family) house on the second lot. The historic house will also be converted from a two-family to a single- family house. • The Dimensional relief for both lots is requested (proposed dimensions and required dimensions are listed in an attachment to the application). A Special Permit is also requested to make the proposed alterations to the nonconforming house on a nonconforming lot. Relief from off-street parking is requested to allow tandem parking and backing into a public way for both lots. Public hearing: Petition of THE SALEM MISSION LLC D/B/A LIFEBRIDGE requesting Variances from rear yard setback, height (feet), height (stories), minimum area per dwelling unit, and parking, to add two stories to the existing building at 56 MARGIN ST, Salem, MA, creating twenty(20) units of residential housing (R-2 zoning district). The applicant requests relief from rear yard setback (30' is required, 8'3" is proposed); height in feet (35' is allowed, 38'3" proposed); number of stories (2.5 is allowed, 3 is proposed); lot area per dwelling unit (20 units on a 24,045 square foot lot, for approximately 1202 square feet of lot area per unit). No onsite parking is proposed, where 30 spaces are required. The use is exempt under Section 6.5 of the Zoning Ordinance (Religious or Educational Institutions). Public hearing: the petition of LESLIE R.ABCUNAS, requesting a Home Occupation Special Permit for a massage business in the single-family home at 24 BELLEAU RD, Salem, MA (R-1 zoning district). The applicant requests a Special Permit for operation of a massage therapy business from her home. Home occupations require one additional parking space (beyond the two that are already required by zoning). I do not believe the applicant was aware of this, and it only came to my attention the week before the meeting, and I have asked her to come to the meeting with a drawing of the driveway area. P4��Ca �O� City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet of a' Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail 1�ANI� V-le�LR 3Z T� 13:�.IAOL 3 -tkEt�k24 ?45A e LA` -Fcr-T5 l �, ��►� r 2 i 1 klAefL /Z 2r�� 97S-25ZyOfOg Fp,u /n7p �e ✓tea-+�c,,tisz . 9��7 �yroc� .�,F� �os-Urs�. co� E12�zvl. ^ ^ CIr IUTAI�'I S�' CbUL14 57 Page / of • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,June 15, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, June 15, 2011 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Beth Debski and Jamie Metsch. Those absent were:Jimmy Tsitsinos and Bonnie Belair(alternates). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner. Ms. Curran opens the meeting at 6:35 p.m.. Approval of minutes: The minutes of May 18, 2011 are reviewed. No changes are proposed. Mr. Dionne moves to approve the minutes, seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 4-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed, Ms. Debski abstaining). Public hearing: Petition of PATRICK OSGOOD appealing a decision of the Building • Commissioner, in order to continue operation of a business at 15 ROPES ST. (R-3). Attorney Matthew Kavanaugh requests to continue the petition to the July 20, 2011 hearing in order to allow more time to research some of the issues relating to the appeal. Ms. Curran confirms he is requesting to continue the matter with no evidence taken. Mr. Dionne moves to approve the request, seconded by Ms. Harris and approved 5-0 (Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, Ms. Debski, Ms. Curran and Mr. Metsch in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of JULI MACDONALD requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a third floor shed dormer, and a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5.3 to construct second and third story decks on the two- family home located at 7 ESSEX ST, Salem, MA (R-2 zoning district). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 5/12/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Existing Conditions Plan dated 5/18/11 ➢ Floor plans and elevation drawings dated 5/12/11 Juli MacDonald, architect and representative for owner Elizabeth Coughlin, presents the petition. She presents the plans, saying the Special Permits are requested because of • the height of the building, and because the existing side yard is nonconforming. She shows the floor plans and explains the dimensions for the decks on the survey are more 1 exact than those shown on the plans. She says they are adding the shed dormer to provide full head height. She says the third floor deck with pergola requires a Special • Permit because it is on the third floor and extends that floor's existing nonconformity. She shows drawings of the rear elevation with and without the decks. She notes it is similar to the neighbors it faces. Ms. Curran asks her to confirm she is not changing the two family use; Ms. MacDonald says this is true. Ms. Curran asks if there are stairs to the third floor deck; Ms. MacDonald says no,just access from the unit. Ms. Harris asks for clarification of where rooms will be in the interior, and Ms. MacDonald explains the floor plans. Ms. Curran asks if the chimney will be removed; Ms. MacDonald says yes. Ms. Curran asks about the materials; Ms. MacDonald says they will be using vinyl siding and probably a pressure treated deck, though they are pricing cedar with solid stain also. Ms. Debski asks Mr. St. Pierre if they need a variance. He says it appears a Special Permit will take care of it—this is a nonconforming structure with a conforming use. Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment. No one in the public is here to speak about this;she closes the public comment portion. Mr. Dionne says these are lovely plans. Mr. Metsch notes they are in keeping with the • neighborhood, and he likes that the pergola does not extend all the way toward the neighboring house. Ms. Debski asks if the proposed Jacuzzi needs additional structural support; Ms. MacDonald says yes, and Mr. St. Pierre says an engineer will need to stamp their plans. Mr. St. Pierre also comments that this is a well-prepared set of plans and the owner is investing in the property in order to live there herself. He says he met with the applicant several times about the plans. Mr. Dionne moves to approve the petition with eight (8) standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 5-0 (Mr. Dionne, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Debski, Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of JAY LEVY AND NEAL LEVY,TRUSTEES OF 66 DERBY STREET REALTY TRUST, requesting Variances from lot area, lot area per dwelling unit, frontage, lot width, front and rear yard setbacks, and off-street parking regulations, and a Special Permit to allow the reconstruction, extension, alteration and changing of an existing nonconforming two-family structure on a nonconforming lot to a single- family house, in order to subdivide the property located at 66 DERBY ST, Salem, MA, into two lots, construct an addition on one lot, and construct a new single-family • home on the other(R-2 zoning district). 2 • Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 6/1/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Plans titled "Proposed Restoration & Rebuilding of 66-68 Derby Street, Salem, MA for Bedrock Properties," dated 5/12/11, prepared by David Jaquith Architects ➢ Site plan titled "Proposed subdivision, 66 Derby Street, Salem, Property of Jay Levy, Neal Levy," dated 5/12/11, prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation ➢ Elevations, no date ➢ Letter from Salem.Historical Commission dated 3/25/11 ➢ Letter from Joan B. Lovely, Councillor At Large, dated 6/15/11 ➢ Petition signed by residents supporting the project ➢ Photos and renderings, no date Attorney Mark Glovsky presents the petition. He introduces David Jaquith, architect, and the applicants, Jay and Neal Levy. Atty Glovsky presents the plans and photos of the property. He gives a brief history of the house on 66 Derby St. He says that originally,they had wished to demolish the historic house, and were expecting a delay in demolition. However, the Historical Commission would not permit the demolition due to the house's historical significance and location in the historic district. They proposed to tear off the rear addition, restore it to a one-family house, and build a new two- family on the lot for a total of three units, intending to treat them as condos. They • received a conceptual endorsement from the Historical Commission in March. However, there was a question about having two principal buildings on one lot, so they revised the plans and reduced the density. He says the existing building has been condemned. He says in order to make this economically feasible, they need to divide the lot and place a single-family on each new lot. He says a total of two buildings are proposed, and they have maximized the open space between the buildings. He says they have tried to make the architecture compatible with the neighborhood. They have not gone back to the Historical Commission, but they are just eliminating a unit. David Jaquith, 81 Railroad Ave., Rowley, architect for the project, explains the floor plans. He explains the site was a sea captain's house once with six units. He says the driveway will consist of pavers. Now, he says there is a "tooth missing" on the street, referring to the empty lot. He says the project will be for sale, not a rental. Jay Levy, 145 Cabot St., Beverly, says they met with the historic Derby St. association and were well received —many have signed the petition they submitted tonight. He says they have had a good neighborhood response, and this is a benefit, getting rid of blight, and putting in a project of an appropriate density. Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment. • 3 Angela Connery, 6 Connors Rd., says her mother grew up in the historic house. She is very pleased it will be preserved, and also supports the new house being built. • Noreen Casey, 123 Bay View Ave., asked where the parking would be. Mr. Jaquith shows the four required parking spaces on the plans. Mr. Levy notes that they will probably do something to buffer between the two houses, such as repair the wall. He also notes they are asking for relief from tandem parking. Ms. McKnight reads a letter from Councillor At-Large Joan Lovely in support of the petition. The public comment portion is closed. Ms. Curran says she does not have a problem with the petition —they are not increasing density—they are staying with two units. She says filling in the lot is in keeping with the neighborhood. She says tandem parking will not be a problem with single-family houses. She says the project is nice, intelligently sited, and a good addition to the neighborhood. Mr. Dionne agrees and says the plans are good. Ms. Harris notes this is a dense neighborhood already, and this is a moderate proposal. • She asks Mr. St. Pierre if he has any comments. He says the project is well thought out, and the petition is reasonable. Ms. Harris moves to approve with eight (8) standard conditions and one special condition, that the two houses remain single-family houses. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Mr. Dionne, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran, Ms. Debski and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of THE SALEM MISSION LLC D/B/A LIFEBRIDGE requesting Variances from rear yard setback, height (feet), height (stories), minimum area per dwelling unit, and parking, to add two stories to the existing building at 56 MARGIN ST, Salem, MA, creating twenty(20) units of residential housing (R-2 zoning district). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 5/25/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Plot plan dated 5/25/11 ➢ Exterior Elevations dated 5/25/11 ➢ Photos and elevations titled "Seeds of Hope III," dated 6/15/11 ➢ Letter from Jeffrey M. Cox, LICSW, BCD, dated 6/14/11 ➢ Letter from Thomas Furey, Councillor At Large, 77 Linden St., dated 6/13/11 • 4 Attorney George Atkins presents the petition. He introduces Executive Director Mark • Cote and Chair Andrew Oliver of Lifebridge, as well as Dana Weeder of Winter St. Architects. Atty Atkins says that contrary to what was reported in the newspaper,they are proposing an expansion not of the shelter, but of permanent housing. He also clarifies that there was a typo in the application, which says they are looking for 20 units. However, in the narrative, they explain they are looking for relief for 22 units; Atty Atkins confirms the plan is for 22. He reviews the standards to be applied to the petition and explains the use is exempt under MGL Ch. 40A Sec. 3,the Dover Amendment. He says that "reasonable" dimensional regulations do apply, but he says these can't impede, frustrate or cause harm to carrying out the use. He also says in the Salem Zoning Ordinance recodification, there is a section stating that these exempt uses must comply with all dimensional requirements. However, he notes.that local ordinances cannot override state statute. He says he doesn't want to challenge the Zoning Ordinance, but he does need to write a zoning opinion for this property, and so he is asking for traditional variances. He says this review should consider the reasonableness of the application. Atty Atkins explains the five dimensional variances sought, including rear yard setback, which is already nonconforming, but will become more so with the proposed rear addition, consisting of an elevator and stairway. He also describes the parking requirements—33 spaces—and says it is evident that some of the requirements of • zoning frustrate the use. He notes the unusual lot shape and says the lot contains an unusual set of buildings compared to the district. He requests the Board to consider the reasonableness of the project when applying the regulations. Atty Atkins says they have met with the neighborhood group. He addresses a letter the Board received from Mr. Cox. He notes there are some residents who don't want Lifebridge to be there at all, but says they are trying to work with the neighborhood. He says the project is not yet funded, so they don't yet have a contractor, and they need one before making certain construction decisions. He refers to the letter's request for a traffic engineer, and explains he doesn't think they need one, since cars are only used by employees. There are currently 17 employees, 8 of whom drive to work. He says there are two parking areas on High Street and Endicott Street on the site. He says if the project is constructed,there may be one more employee, meaning one more car. He says Lifebridge will limit employee parking—they will make arrangements for this. He agrees there is a traffic issue, but changing traffic direction is an issue for the police and Council. He addresses the criteria for residents, saying they get Federal, state and local funds and must abide by discrimination laws. However, there are two areas in which they can discriminate—convicted felons and level 3 sex offenders. He says they will not take people from either category. Atty Atkins explains that they have tied the project to a reduction in shelter beds. He • says several factors apply here, but they will try to reduce shelter beds by up to 10. He 5 says there are no plans for additional housing on the site or plans to buy another building. • Mark Cote, 22 Troy St., Lowell, is Executive Director of Lightbridge. He says they have four buildings at the corner of High and Endicott St. The housing units are in two anchor buildings and are occupied by men and women who are sober and drug tested, who meet with staff, have a curfew and pay 30% of their income in rent. He says they have an 88% retention rate—they are no longer homeless and are living in the neighborhood. He says they also have shelter beds, and they want to decrease these and increase the housing. He says they have a good track record of moving people from shelter to permanent housing, and people are successful because of the on-site supportive services. He says the Board voted today, and they have decided not to rent to level 3 sex offenders in Salem —this is a new policy. Ms. Curran asks him to go through each building's existing uses. Mr. Cote says there are 10 units of housing, dorm style, with a shared kitchen and bath on High Street, which will remain. He says the thrift store at St. Mary's will move—the building is currently on the market. He says between the two housing buildings, there are 22 units and community meals and support services provided. On the main floor, they will move the kitchen and dining to the basement, add 6 units, and reduce the shelter in the basement. There will be a total of 22 new units. Dana Weeder hands out photos and renderings and explains the renovations to the • existing building: front of the main floor will have six units; rear of the main floor will be offices; they will take off the roof, lower it 7 feet, and build two levels on top. He shows the elevation of the project site with the existing buildings around it and shows how the height will be similar. He says there will be 8 units each on the second and third floors. The first floor will have a conference room, where the educational components of the project will be. The low level will contain the kitchen and fewer shelter beds. Ms. Harris notes it looks as though the plans show an even larger reduction of beds than proposed; Mr. Cote says these are bunk beds. Ms. Debski asks if the units have kitchens; Mr. Weeder says there will be cooking in the upper units. Mr. Metsch asks about the average stay in the 22 units they already operate. Mr. Cote says people can stay forever—this is permanent housing. But in three years, they have had an 88% retention rate. There have been two or three evictions of people who didn't adhere to the program expectations. Mr. Dionne asks if this is a dry house; Mr. Cote says yes, it is sober and drug testing is done on site. He says state police come unannounced with drug sniffing dogs to search the property, and it has been amazingly clean. • 6 Atty Atkins says this plan resulted after the first plan to use the church was proposed, • and this was suggested by the chair of the Historical Commission. He says it developed over time with the funders and neighborhood. Ms. Curran asks what other review this will need; Atty Atkins says it would be exempt from site plan review. Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment. Jeffrey Cox, 58 Endicott St., says he would like to speak instead of having his letter read. He says over the last two years, people have gone from being negative to open to Lifebridge. He says not everyone is excited about having the shelter. He says the current management runs a very tight ship and he appreciates the talks with the neighborhood. However, he says the plan they saw was a photo of the plan and requests they continue the hearing so the neighborhood can review the plans further. He suggests a Lifebridge neighborhood advisory board to address concerns. He says this is a large construction project—as large as Derby Lofts— and they want time to discuss the information presented. He says the main issues in the neighborhood are parking and traffic. Speed is a concern—the area is dangerous. He doesn't want a study to be a barrier to the project, but he's concerned about pedestrian safety. He also questions what would happen if the shelter/housing were under different management in the future. He asks what the long term parking needs of the building are. He says this was a • low traffic area when it was a church, and now more people are there. He also asks where people will park who can't afford meters. He says this is the only Board to review, so they should take more time. Mr. St. Pierre says he will check whether site plan review is required for projects exempt under the Dover Amendment. Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., asks where the shelter residents will be relocated to during construction. Mary Beth Bainbridge, 7 Prescott St., says she appreciates the conversations Lifebridge has had with the neighbors. She asks what the green components are to the architecture, and how this fits into Salem's 10 year homelessness plan. She would also like the hearing to be continued to allow more time for review. Joe Hillshire, 7 Prescott St., questions the current plans for further expansion; he wants in writing if they will be limiting the expansion. He also doesn't like the aesthetics of the plan. John Femino, 90 Margin St., says he asked for a tour, saw the floor plans, and says they • are pushing a lot downstairs. He's not trying to stop the project—he just wants more time to review. 7 Ms. McKnight notes they have a letter from At-Large Councillor Thomas Furey strongly • supporting the project. Ms. Curran asks her to summarize the letter. Mr. Weeder, a LEED accredited professional, addresses the question about green building. He says the single most important thing they can do in terms of sustainability is reuse a building, which they are doing. This will be an energy efficient building with thermal bridging fiberglass windows, insulation and reduced infiltration. It will have a white or light colored roof to reduce heat gain, a high-efficiency HVAC, and operable windows. They will use recycled materials to the extent possible. They are not sure if they will go for LEED certification, but they will meet many of the standards. He says the MA energy code applies here, and Salem requires the stretch code. Atty Atkins says this is their first step—the approval is required for government funding. They don't yet have construction drawings, and the timing of their funding will affect this. He is willing to continue this to have further conversations with the neighborhood. However, he says they can't solve the traffic issue, and they will not have those drawings available. As to putting it in writing that they won't expand any further, he says they can't predict the future, and they are limited in the commitments they can make. He doesn't know what will happen with the church —the Archdiocese decided to sell it. They will try to answer, and will come back in a month. Ms. Debski suggests speaking to Councillor Jean Pelletier about the traffic issues, and • possibly setting up a meeting with the police. Janine Camarda, 143 Tedesco St., Marblehead, says she grew up in the neighborhood, and traffic was a problem then —the shelter is not adding to that. She says people speed, but it's nothing to do with the shelter. This is a 40-year-old problem. She asks about the reduction in beds, and wants to know if that means fewer people will be coming in. Mr. Cote explains the plan to reduce the shelter beds, and saying the floor plan hasn't been configured yet, but they could potentially go from 34 to 24 beds. They will be used as transitional beds until stable before providing permanent housing. Ms. Camarda asks if there will be enough shelter beds for Salem's needs; Mr. Cote says yes. Ms. Camarda asks where the people come from using the beds; Mr. Cote says the majority are from the North Shore, and more than 50% are from Salem. Mr. Femino disagrees that the shelter does not bring in more traffic. Ms. Harris asks for a further explanation of the Dover Amendment. Mr. St. Pierre explains that the exemption allows religious or educational uses, though he doesn't know if he agrees that site plan review is not needed. Ms. Curran says they will discuss • 8 this with counsel before the next meeting. Mr. Cote notes that the educational • exemption applies here because they hold classes on site. Mr. Femino says Atty Atkins has not been up front and there have been misconceptions passed along the the neighbors. He says some have been bullied. Mr. Cox thanks the applicant for being willing to continue; he looks forward to continuing their conversations, and thinks it will be a success. Ms. Curran says she thinks continuing would be a good idea for the neighborhood, and she would like to do a second visit. Ms. Harris says the applicant doesn't have to promise certain things, but an MOU might be helpful to outline the specifics of the project. Ms. Debski moves to continue the hearing to July 20, 2011, seconded by Ms. Harris and approved 5-0 (Ms. Debski, Ms. Harris, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne and Mr. Metsch in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: the petition of LESLIE R. ABCUNAS, requesting a Home Occupation Special Permit for a massage business in the single-family home at 24 BELLEAU RD, Salem, MA (R-1 zoning district). • Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 5/26/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Addendum to application, distributed at meeting ➢ Letter from Cynthia Hincman Bourgault, 19 Belleau Rd. ➢ Letter from Anne Marie and Richard St. Pierre, 26 Belleau Rd., dated 6/15/11 ➢ Letter from Councillor At Large Joan B. Lovely, dated 6/15/11 ➢ Letter from Councillor At Large Thomas H. Furey, dated 6/12/11 ➢ Letter from Councillor At Large Thomas H. Furey, dated 6/14/11 Ms. Abcunas presents her petition, saying she would like to have a massage studio in her parents' house, where she grew up, and now lives again. She says there was flooding damage in the basement, which they have renovated. She says her father is also present. She speaks about her schooling at the Spa Tech Institute in Ipswich. She says she is licensed and carries a $2 million insurance policy for liability. She says her project is supported by her insurance company, which has an attorney to make sure massage therapists are treated fairly in the state. He is not present tonight. She says she tried to rent space for this, but she doesn't yet have the clientele to rent downtown space, which is her ultimate goal. She doesn't want to work from home forever. Currently she is traveling to her clients. She says she looked into working in a spa, but she prefers a different approach to working with clients than the schedule of a spa • permits—she likes to take the time to learn clients' history, injuries, etc. 9 Ms. Abcunas says the parking area in the driveway fits three cars, and a neighbor has offered driveway space if needed. She says there will be no external changes and no • signs. She says not everyone can afford massage, but she keeps her pricing in line with the area market. She has no plans to have a lot of people come to the house. She has five friends here to support her. She says she does not advertise the business. She refers to some who have opposed the petition and notes that she is offended by the use of the word "parlor' —she does not want her services to be confused with anything but professional massage. She says the police were called when a friend came over. She now cannot have visitors without the police being called. When the police were called, she says the basement was not finished. She says she has suffered defamation of character. She refers to the petition she has submitted with signatures in favor of the project. Ms. Curran asks if she has employees; Ms. Abcunas says no. Ms. Curran asks if the business takes up less than 25% of the house; Ms. Abcunas says yes, it's less than half the basement. Ms. Curran asks about signage; Ms. Abcunas says she has none, and there is no advertising of her address—her clients are all from word of mouth. Ms. Debski asks how many clients she has. Ms. Abcunas says she doesn't have any now— she was practicing massage only. She says no one can prohibit free practice massages. She estimates she would have 8 clients weekly—this would be about 8 hours per week. However, it would vary—some weeks it could be 2, 5, etc. Jane Camarda, 20 Bellleau Rd., supports the petition. She says she got a training • massage and was impressed by Ms. Abcunas's training. She says she's helped her with a chronic problem. She also wanted to give an endorsement of Ms. Abcunas's character. Deborah Gregory, 22 Belleau Rd., also supports the petition and says she knows Ms. Abcunas well. Helen Brown, 35 Belleau Rd., also says she knows Ms. Abcunas well. She supports the petition and would look to her for help with her mother's sciatica. Cynthia Bourgault, 19 Belleau Rd., opposes the petition. She says they have not talked about hours. She says there is a discrepancy in what Ms. Abcunas has said about the amount of money she is insured for. She also says she has not been doing only practice massage but has been traveling to clients. She says there are lots of elderly people and kids in the neighborhood and the house is on a blind curve. She doesn't want a business in the neighborhood. She says this is a quiet dead end. She also says Ms. Abcunas isn't beyond making threats. Ms. Curran asks about the business's hours of operation. Ms. Abcunas says it would vary—it could be 7 days a week, but she wouldn't have anyone before 12 or after 8. • 10 Ms. McKnight reads letters from Ms. Bourgault (opposed), Anne Marie and Richard St. 40 Pierre, 26 Belleau Rd. (opposed), and At-Large Councillor Joan Lovely (opposed). She explains that she first received a letter in opposition from Councillor Thomas Furey, but she then received a letter supporting the petition after the Councillor met with the applicant about the project and toured her house. Ms. Abcunas notes that there would be no overlapping appointments, so there would never be more than one car parked, and no one would be waiting. Ms.Curran asks Mr. St. Pierre that this is allowed by Special Permit in the R1 zone; he says yes, it meets the definition of a home occupation. Ms. Curran reviews the criteria for home occupations and confirms that no goods are produced; she asks if Ms. Abcunas if she sells any products, to which she replies no. Ms. Debski asks if there is resident sticker parking on the street; Ms. Abcunas says yes. Ward 7 Councillor Joseph O'Keefe speaks in opposition. He says this is a dead end street and people have to turn around. He says this changes the R1 zoning and an office in a' house shouldn't be allowed. He doesn't want to set a precedent. He says this would alter the fabric of the neighborhood. He says the house has a car blocking the sidewalk, which is a violation, and there are unregistered cars on the property. He asks where clients will park, since this is a resident sticker only street. He also asks what Ms. • Abcunas's tagline "massage and more' means on her business card? He says this belongs in a business district. Ms. Camarda says the majority of the neighborhood supports the applicant, and she feels they are being bullied by other neighbors calling officials and calling the police. Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Debski says the applicant has answered their questions. Mr. St. Pierre refers to a state requirement for a different permit for an operation of more than 8 hours, and asks if Ms. Abcunas would be requesting this; she says she will apply for that if she gets approval for the license. Mr. St. Pierre notes that this is a different license, and she still needs a special permit for a home occupation from the city. Mr. Dionne says the dead end street is his only concern, but also notes that they would be setting a precedent by allowing this in R1. Ms. Curran asks Mr. St. Pierre to confirm that the special permit would run with the applicant and not the property; he says they can limit this to just the applicant. Ms. Debski says this would not be a big impact on the neighborhood—it would be one car at a time with no overlap. Ms. Harris says there is not adequate parking. Ms. Debski says the applicant could park on the street with her resident sticker—she has a right to 11 two per household. She says she is much more comfortable with this application after hearing from the applicant and neighbors. She says there is not much opposition. Ms. Curran says she is struggling to see the impact this would have, especially since this would be limited to the applicant and would not be forever. Mr. St. Pierre says they could limit the time the permit is good for. Ms. Harris asks if they could do it for a year, or six months perhaps? She notes there is both support and opposition in the neighborhood. Ms. Debski notes that they have done this before. Mr. Metsch says this is in keeping with the idea of a Special Permit, and it's no different from a lawyer, etc. with a home occupation. He notes this would just be one person at a time with no overlap. He likes the idea of issuing the permit for a certain amount of time as a trial, and suggests 2 years. He doesn't think parking is a problem, since the residents have the option to park on the street, and one car in the driveway is not an issue. Ms. Harris does not like offices in people's houses—doctors, lawyers, etc.—she feels this is too intense for residences. Ms. Curran points out that in those cases, the intensity of use is greater than what is proposed here. Mr. Metsch asks whether this sets a precedent for the Board issuing special permits; Ms. Curran says they are just evaluated case by case. Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with the following special conditions:the business use is to operate 12 noon to 8'p.m., Monday through Saturday; the Special Permit term expires in two years; no signage is to be posted; there are to be no • employees; and the applicant is to maintain all needed licenses, permits and insurance. Ms. Debski seconds the motion, and the Board votes 3-2 (Ms. Debski, Mr. Metsch and Ms. Curran in favor, Ms. Harris and Mr. Dionne opposed); the petition is denied. Mr. Dionne moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Ms. Harris and approved 5-0. The meeting adjourns at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner For actions where the decisions have not been fully written,into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at: http://salem.com/PagesISa/emMA ZoninaAppealsMin/ 12 � ccyolraAa CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS fie• BOARD OF APPEAL a 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3Ro FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • \ � TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR June 22, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of JAY LEVY AND NEAL LEVY,TRUSTEES OF 66 DERBY STREET REALTY TRUST, requesting Variances from lot area, lot area per dwelling unit, frontage, lot width, front and rear yard setbacks, and off-street parking regulations, and a Special Permit to allow the reconstruction, extension, alteration and changing of an existing nonconforming two-family structure on a nonconforming lot to a single-family house, in order to subdivide the property located at 66 DERBY ST, Salem, MA, into two lots, construct an addition on one lot, and construct a new single-family home on the other(R-2 zoning district). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 15, 2011, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Zoning • Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne,Annie Hams, Elizabeth Debski and Jamie Metsch. Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 4.0 (Dimensional Requirements) and 5.1 (Off-Street Parking Regulations), and a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures), of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. On March 25, 2011, the Salem Historical Commission voted unanimously to approve a conceptual plan that allowed the demolition of the rear addition existing on the house on 66 Derby Street, renovation of the remaining front main house, construction of a new addition and construction of one new two-tuut building on the site. 2. After the Historical Commission issued their conceptual approval, input from the Director of Inspectional Services indicated that placing two principal structures on the same residential lot would be problematic. The petitioners revised the plans to show the subdivided lot and a new single-family house, rather than two-family house, proposed on the newly created lot. 3. In a petition date-stamped June 1, 2011, petitioners requested dimensional Variances • and a Special Permit to subdivide the property located at 66 Derby Street into two lots; alter the existing house on 66 Derby Street by removing a portion of it, constructing a new addition and converting it to a single-family house; and construct a new single-family home on the other, newly created lot. Petitioner also requested 2 • relief from Off-Street Parking regulations in order to allow tandem parking spaces and backing into a public way. 4. The petitioners were represented at the hearing on June 15, 2011 by Attorney Mark Glovsky. Architect David Jaquith and the petitioners were also present. 5. At the meeting on June 15, 2011, resident Angela Connery, 6 Connors Road, spoke in support of the petition. The Board also received a letter of support from At-Large Councillor Joan Lovely. A petition in favor of the project was also submitted. No one at the hearing opposed 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. 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 project's density is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood, tandem parking is not problematic with single-family houses, and the proposed new house is intelligently sited and a positive addition to the neighborhood. 2. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate • conditions and safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans,Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. Variances pursuant to Section 4.0 (Dimensional Requirements) and 5.1 (Off-Street Parking Regulations), and a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures), of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances, are granted in order to subdivide and redevelop the site as proposed on the plans titled "Proposed Subdivision, 66 Derby Street, Salem, Property of Jay Levy,Neal Levy," dated May 10, 2011, and the plans and renderings titled "Proposed Restoration &Rebuilding of 66-68 Derby Street, Salem,MA," dated May 12, 2011. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Curran, Harris,Metsch, Debski and Dionne) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a Special Permit and Variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and • approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3 4. Petitioner shall obtain a budd ing permit prior • to beginning an construction. gP P g g Y 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 Cry Board or Comrnission 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 properryto an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction,it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 9. The renovated house on 66 Derby Street and the proposed house on the proposed . newly created lot are to both remain single-family homes. Rebecca Curran, 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 Ciry 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. • ,gONDITq.gO CITY OF SAL-EM, MASSACHUSETTS y i BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 1 0 SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 W�P FAx: 978-740-9846 r� KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 2011 JJ�t� ='2 A jl: 1 , MAYOR June 22,2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of LESLIE R. ABCUNAS, requesting a Home Occupation Special Permit for a massage business in the single-family home at 24 BELLEAU RD, Salem, MA (R-1 zoning district). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 15,2011,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Elizabeth Debski and Jamie Metsch. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.0 (Use Regulations) and Table of • Principal and Accessory Use Regulations, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact, 1. In a petition date-stamped May 26, 2011,petitioner Leslie R. Abcunas requested a Special Permit for a Home Occupation to run a massage therapy business from the house in which she resides at 24 Belleau Road in the Residential One-Family District. 2. The house at 24 Belleau Road is owned by the petitioner's father, Mr.Joseph Abcunas, who also signed the petition form. 3. The petitioner represented herself at the hearing. 4. At the meeting on June 15, 2011, three residents of the neighborhood,Jane Camarda (20 Belleau Road), Deborah Gregory(22 Belleau Road), and Helen Brown (35 Belleau Road), spoke in support of the petition,speaking favorably about Ms. Abcunas's professionalism and the quality of her services. Resident Cynthia Hincman Bourgault (19 Belleau Road) and Ward 7 Councillor Joseph O'Keefe spoke in opposition, citing concerns about a business use being inappropriate for a Residential One-Family neighborhood. 5. The Board of Appeals received letters opposing the petition from Ms. Bou gault, Anne Marie and Richard St. Pierre (26 Belleau Road), and At-Large Councillor Joan • Lovely. • 6. At-Large Councillor Thomas Furey submitted a letter of opposition to the petition, but then submitted a letter of support after meeting with the petitioner about the proposal and touring the house. 7. At the hearing,some Board members expressed concern about the fact that Belleau Road is a dead-end street, and clients visiting the residence would need space to turn around. 8. Also at the hearing, some Board members felt the parking available was inadequate. 9. Also at the hearing, some Board members voiced concerns that a business use would be too intense for the quiet, residential neighborhood, thereby having a negative impact,particularly since two neighbors opposed the petition; other Board members felt the impact would be minimal. 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 not 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 business use would be too intense for the surrounding neighborhood, and would also present • problems with cars needing to turn around on a dead-end street, and with insufficient parking. 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 under Sec. Section 3.0 (Use Regulations) and Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations,of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances, is denied. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, three (3) in favor of granting petitioner's request for a Special Permit (Curran, Metsch and Debsk) and two (2) opposed (Harris and Dionne), to granting petitioner's request for a Special Permit. The petition having not received the required majority, the petition is denied. Rebecca Curran, Chair Salem Board of Appeals • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING 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. • • �� oonoiT�.q CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS Q� e. BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 • gip TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 IrvE FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 7 L011 Jlt:1 22 `, H: 1�1 MAYOR June 22, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of JULI MACDONALD requesting Special Permits to construct a third floor shed dormer and second and third story decks on the two-family home located at 7 ESSEX STREET (R-2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 15, 2011, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne,Annie Harris, Elizabeth Debski and Jamie Metsch. Petitioner seeks Special Permits pursuant to Section 3.3 (Nonconforming Uses and • Structures), and 3.3.5 (Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped May 12, 2011,petitioner requested Special Permits to construct two decks and a third-floor shed dormer on the two-family home on 7 Essex Street. 2. Owner Elizabeth Coughlin was represented byher architect,Juli MacDonald, at the hearing. 3. No one at the June 15, 2011 meeting spoke in support of 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: 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, since the proposed project is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood and would be an improvement to the • house. 2. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 2 • On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans,Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. Special Permits pursuant to Section 3.3.3 (Nonconforming Structures) and 3.3.5 (Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances are granted in order to allow for the proposed decks and shed dormer as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Curran, Harris, Metsch, Debski and Dionne) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's requests for Special Permits subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. • 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of 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 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. Rebecca Curran, 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 Ciry 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. • �w�rfiya'�. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSET°TS ' BOARD OF APPEAL IRIp !s 3 120 WA$F➢NGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACliUSETTS 01970 'IELE:978-745-9595 +FAx:978-740-9846 KIM➢ERLEY DRiSCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday,June 15,2011 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of LESLIE R. ABCUNAS, requesting a Home Occupation Special Permit for a massage business in the single-family home at 24 BELLEAU RD, Salem,MA(R-1 zoning district). Decision: Denied Filed with the City Clerk on June 22, 2011 Petition of JULI MACDONALD requesting Special Permits to construct a third floor shed dormer and second and third story decks on the two-family home located at 7 ESSEX ST, Salem,MA(R 2 zoning district). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on June 22;2011 Petition of JAY LEVY AND NEAL LEVY, TRUSTEES OF 66 DERBY STREET REALTY TRUST, requesting Variances from lot area, lot area per dwelling unit, frontage,lot width, front and rear yard setbacks, and off-street parking regulations, and a Special Permit to allow the reconstruction, extension, alteration and changing of an existing nonconforming two-family structure on a nonconforming lot to a single-family house, in order to subdivide the property located at 66 DERBY ST,Salem,MA, into two lots,construct an addition on one lot, and construct a new single-family home on the other(R-2 zoning district). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on June 22, 2011 This now is Ding seat in mrrpliarxe with the Massadx=ts Gen-ral Law, Chapter 40A, Sections 9& 15 and does not inquire action by the mpi&r Appeals, if any, shall be nu&p ouant to Chapter 40A, Smt on 17, and shall Ee fiW zeithin 20 4s f uw the date zrhidr the dazsion uas filed with the City Clerk. • o CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL a 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 -P TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR �= REVISED MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS _ May 18,2011- 6:30 P.M. r City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Room 313 (and Floor) Sale m,.lGfA N Rebecca Curran,Chair — REVISED MEETING AGENDA ^' 1. Approval of Minutes — April 20,2011 meeting. 2. Continuation of Public hearing:Petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ.requesting a Variance from Sec. 3.2.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,Accessory Building Structures, including side yard setback,number of stories, and height, in order to demolish the existing shed on 38 CABOT ST. and construct a garage with second-story storage (R-2). 3. Public hearing:Petition of NICOLE BARLETTA requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming • structure,and Variances from number of stories,lot coverage and side and rear setbacks, and from off-street parking regulations, in order to construct two rear decks and create two parking spaces on the property located at 31 ARBELLA ST. (R 2). 4. Public hearing:Petition of BERTHAT. FAIRBANK,MARY COURTNEY&TIM WHEELER requesting Variances from Accessory Structure requirements, front and side yard setback, and lot coverage, in order to construct a garage on 1 FOSTER CT. (R-2). 5. Public hearing: Petition of PATRICK OSGOOD appealing a decision of the Building Commissioner, in order to continue operation of a business at 15 ROPES ST. (R-3). 6. Old/New Business ➢ Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC to extend Variances previously issued for 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 (NRCQ. 7. Adjournment This notloe posted on "OfflClal Bustin 6zerdo� , City Hen -Ph Salem, rMdess. With Chh* 3a Sea rw Z11A a 238 of M.&.tom 0 Know Yaw Ri&infer A Clam Ma>tvg LawM G.L. c 39§238 aid City ClIthiwa Settias 2.2028 t{mo 2-2033. oNmr CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 2 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR y I SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 18, 201ir 6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Room 313 (3'a Floor) Salenri,MA <' Ad"La Rebecca Curran, Chair 0 �s w 1. Approval of Minutes — April 20,2011 meeting. ` N 2. Continuation of Public hearing:Petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a Variance from Sec. 3.2.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,Accessory Building Structures,including side yard setback,number of stories, and height, in order to demolish the existing shed on 38 CABOT ST. and construct a garage with second-story storage (R-2). 3. Public hearing: Petition of NICOLE BARLETTA requesting a Special Pemut to extend a nonconforming structure, and Variances from number of stories, lot coverage and side and rear setbacks, and from off-street parking regulations, in order to construct two rear decks and create two parking spaces on the property located at 31 ARBELLA ST. (R 2). • 4. Public hearing: Petition of BERTHA T. FAIRBANK,MARY COURTNEY&TIM WHEELER requesting Variances from Accessory Structure requirements,front and side yard setback, and lot coverage, in order to construct a garage on 2 FOSTER CT. (R 2). 5. Public hearing: Petition of PATRICK OSGOOD appealing a decision of the Building Commissioner, in order to continue operation of a business at 15 ROPES ST. (R 3). 6. Old/New Business 7. Adjournment his "ad tvn "OV401126 P z Board" x Hall 8?a1em M99S- r" /i ate/ at :,Lr4ph 1 019. Know YotaRigiz w&r the OpenMmtirgL=M.G.L. c 39§23B and City G mrse Sedicvs 2-2028 dzmw#i 2-2033. oAR� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 2 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 9 f SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • ,.-- TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL pml I'i Y -3 P 3= 3� MAYOR rI LEGAL NOTICES The City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will open public hearings for the following new petitions on Wednesday,May 18, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.,3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, ROOM 313: Petition of NICOLE BARLETTA requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconfortnng structure, and Variances from number of stories,lot coverage and side and rear setbacks, and from off-street parking regulations,in order to construct two rear decks and create two parking spaces on the property located at 31 ARBELLA ST (R-2). Petition of BERTHA T. FAIRBANK,MARY COURTNEY&TIM WHEELER requesting Variances from Accessory Structure requirements,front and side yard setback,and lot coverage,in order to construct a garage on 2 FOSTER CT (R-2). Petition of PATRICK OSGOOD appealing a decision of the Building Commissioner, in order to continue operation of a business at 15 ROPES ST (R-3). C�-/,07KX Rebecca Curran Chair � CON11[Tq � CITY OF SALEM,MASSACHUSETPS DEPARTMENT OI PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DE t,"LOPMENT 1�s 120 WASHING'I'ON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETI'S 01970 q�!MmE TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ PAx: 978-740-0404 KIMBERI..EY DRISCOLL MAYOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIREC1'OR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: May 12,2011 RE: Meeting Agenda—May 18,2011 Board Members, • Please find the following in your packets: ➢ Agenda ➢ Planner's memo ➢ Meeting minutes of 4/20/11 Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a Variance from Sec. 3.2.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,Accessory Building Structures, including side yard setback, number of stories, and height, in order to demolish the existing shed on 38 CABOT ST. and construct a garage with second-story storage (R-2). I have not received any further materials from the applicant. Public hearing: Petition of NICOLE BARLETTA requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, and Variances from number of stories, lot coverage and side and rear setbacks, and from off-street parking regulations, in order to construct two rear decks and create two parking spaces on the property located at 31 ARBELLA ST. (R-2). A new application has been submitted for relief for only the decks and parking (relief for the proposed dormer was approved at the last meeting). Elevations and plans are enclosed in your packet. The new decks require relief from rear yard setback (14'proposed, 30'required) and side yard setback (5' proposed, 10' required). 2 parking spaces are proposed; 3 are required. The parking spaces would be T wide,while a 12'width is required. 38%lot coverage is proposed; 35%is allowed. The proposed third-story deck requires relief from number of stories (3 are proposed; 2.5 is allowed). • -I- Public hearing: Petition of BERTHA T. FAIRBANK, MARY COURTNEY& TIM WHEELER requesting Variances from Accessory Structure requirements, front and side yard setback, and lot coverage, in order to construct a garage on 2 FOSTER CT. (R-2). Relief is needed from Accessory Structure requirements,which do not allow placement in the front yard, and require a distance of 10 feet from the principal structure (8'is proposed). The proposed front yard setback is 8';R-2 requires 15'. The side yard setback proposed is 1'; 5'is allowed. Proposed lot coverage is limited to 35%, and based on the plans, it appears that relief is needed from this. However, the calculation is not given. I have asked the applicant to have this ready for the meeting. Public hearing: Petition of PATRICK OSGOOD appealing a decision of the Building Commissioner, in order to continue operation of a business at 15 ROPES ST. (R-3). The application and decision granting a Special Permit from 1983 allowing the expansion of the nonconforming garage structure is included in your packet, as is the violation notice the owner received in April 2011 for expansion of the business beyond what was allowed in the Special Permit. Mr. Osgood wishes to appeal the decision of the Building Commissioner that the current uses are beyond what is allowed on the property. Old/New Business: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC to extend Variances previously issued for 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). Attorney Corrend will be requesting an extension of time limits to exercise the Variances filed on June 2, 2010. The request letter is included in your packet. -2- ��joNblTq�� City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board. Zoning Board of Appeals Date 5 / �� / 1► Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail J?li �q /c`��i H7 ' Gower Page of ,got+oltggo CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS Jim BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3Ro FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • E��^' TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595. FAX: 9 78-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR ZGfI �IL';1 - 1 1: 01 u June 1, 2011 a' Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a Variance from Sec. 3.2.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, Accessory Building Structures, including side yard setback, number of stories, and height, in order to demolish the existing garage on 38 CABOT STREET and construct a garage with second-story storage (R-2). A public,hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 20, 2011 §11 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A. The hearing was continued to May 18, 2011 and closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Annie Hams,Jamie Metsch,Bonnie Belair(alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). • Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 3.2.4 (Accessory Buildings and Structures) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner represented himself at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped March 30, 2011, the petitioner requested Variances from Accessory Buildings and Structures requirements in order to tear down an existing garage and build a new 15 x 24 foot garage with additional second floor storage. 3. At the meeting on April 20, 2011,Board members noted that plans were not clearly drawn and not scaled, and requested further detail. 4. The hearing was continued to May 18, 2011, when the petitioner presented revised drawings. 5. No one spoke in support of or 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: • 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. 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. Variances under Sec. 3.2.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to demolish the existing garage on 38 Cabot Street and construct a new garage with second-floor storage are granted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Curran, Dionne, Harris,Metsch and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's request for Variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state 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. Rebecca Curran, 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 3 . decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • • y ;.conq,,Q CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • 1`A _ Y SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL Z��', J�liV� _ I (, 01 MAYOR i June 1,2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of NICOLE BARLETTA requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, and Variances from number of stories, lot coverage and side and rear setbacks, and from off-street parking regulations, in order to construct two rear decks and create two parking spaces on the property located at 31 ARBELLAST (R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 18,2011,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne,Annie Harris,Jamie Metsch, Bonnie Belair and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). • Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5 and Variances pursuant to Section 4.1. and 5.1.5 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped April 28,2011,the petitioner requested a Special Permit and Variances to construct two decks at the rear of the two-family house at 31 Arbella Street, and to create two parking spaces on the property. 2. Antonio Barletta and Amy Wallick presented the petition at the hearing on behalf of petitioner Nicole Barletta. 3. At the hearing, the Board of Appeals heard three letters from residents opposing the petition due to concerns regarding the size of the lot, proximity of the structures to abutters, use of the rear yard for parking, and objections that the house should not be used as a two-family home. 4. At the hearing, Board members asked Building Commissioner Thomas St. Pierre about the legal use of the building; Mr. St. Pierre confirmed that records indicate the building is a legal two-family home. 5. At the hearing, Board members expressed concern about the dimensions of the proposed parking area, noting the width did not seem great enough to accommodate cars easily. 2 . 6. At the hearing,Board members suggested decreasing the dimensions of the decks and relocating them so as to be less obtrusive into the rear yard area. The Board also suggested eliminating the rear parking area and,placing tandem spaces along the side of the property. The petitioner revised the drawing according to the Board's comments. 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. 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 under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance is granted to alter a nonconforming two-family house by constructing two rear decks as shown in the • revised plans. 2. Variances from number of stories, lot coverage and side and rear setbacks, are granted to construct two decks at the rear of the property as shown in the revised plans. 3. A Variance from off-street parking regulations are granted to allow two tandem parking spaces, as shown on the revised plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted,five (5) in favor(Harris, Curran, Dionne,Belair and Metch in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for a Special Permit and Variances to construct two rear decks and create two tandem parking spaces, 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 Corarnissioner. 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 Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 9. A new set of drawings to reflect the Board's comments, based on the revised drawings submitted at the May 18, 2011 hearing, are to be submitted for approval by the Building Commissioner. 10. Dimensions of the second floor deck are to be no greater than 5'xl4'. • Dimensions of the third floor deck are to be no more than 4'x8'. 11. The second parking space is to be 9'wide. 12. The back yard is to be restricted from parking. �// �Ltw..(.Aa, A l/J/inn /a- /K Rebecca Curran, air 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. • y ,COAU�Tggd CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL k 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • y 0=-tl n �'p`^ SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLE MAYOR ISCOLL1- Ob June 1, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of BERTHA T. FAIRBANK,MARY COURTNEY&TI M WHEELER requesting Variances from Accessory Structure requirements, front and side yard setback, and lot coverage, in order to construct a garage on 2 FOSTER CT (R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 18, 2011,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, S 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne,Annie Harris,Jamie Metsch, Bonnie Belair and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 3.2.4 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. • Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped May4, 2011, the petitioner requested Variances from Section 3.2.4,Accessory Buildings and Structures, in order to construct a garage on the property at 2 Foster Court. 2. Mr. Wheeler and Ms. Courtney presented the petition at the hearing. 3. At the hearing, no one from the public spoke in support of or 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. 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. 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: 2 i1. Variances under Section 3.2.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance are granted to construct the proposed garage, as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Harris, Curran, Dionne, Belair and Metsch in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for Variances to construct a garage, 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 harmonywith the existing structure. • 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any CityBoard or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Rebecca Curran, 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. • • yt``°�D'r4�o6 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL r o. 3 f ��f�'x�'R;516I1Oc. r 120 WASHINGTON S-MET 0 SALEM,MASSAcF0.,SG'ITs 01970 TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ Fim 978-740-9846 KI,bIRF RIS Y DRisco11. MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday,May 18, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem,MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a Variance from Sec. 3.2.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, Accessory Building Structures, including side yard setback, number of stories, and height, in order to demolish the existing shed on 38 CABOT ST. and construct a garage with second-story storage (R-2). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on June 1, 2011 . Petition of NICOLE BARLETTA requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure,and Variances from number of stories, lot coverage and side and rear setbacks, and from off-street parking regulations, in order to construct two rear decks and create two parking spaces on the properly located at 31 ARBELLAST. (R-2). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on June 1, 2011 Petition of BERTHAT. FAIRBANK,MARY COURTNEY&TIM WHEELER requesting Variances from Accessory Structure requirements, front and side yard setback,and lot coverage, in order to construct a garage on 2 FOSTER CT. (R-2). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on June 1, 2011 This wia,is lung sera in conpliarne urth d)e Massao�usetts Gemral Lays, Chapter 40A, SeLtiota 9& 15 and das nct iarju ie actwn by the waptent A ppeals, if ate shall bL Trade pzn hang to Chapter 40A, Sett m 17, and shall be fled wthin 20 days from the date ubub the chmon zags filal with the City Clerk. y �oNDiTq.gOl CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • v ._.. + ( SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 Ob il .KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL Z';,: MAYOR Decision to Extend 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). June 1, 2011 . High Rock Bridge Street,LLC c/o Joseph C Correnti, Esquire Serafini, Serafini,Darling &Correnti, LLP 63 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: 44 Boston Street and 401 Bridge Street Extension of Variances On Wednesday, May 19, 2010, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Salem voted in favor to approve the application of High Rock Bridge Street, LLC, for Variances to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional office building with retail and municipal space in the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Zoning District. A Decision dated June 2, 2010 was filed with the City of Salem Clerk's Office on June 2, 2010, and such Decision is recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 29680, Page 375 (the "Decision"). On May 18, 2011, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals extended the variances granted on May 19, 2010 for six (6) months to November 19, 2011 by a vote of 5-0 (Bonnie Belair, Annie Harris, Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, and Jamie Metsch in favor, none opposed). The Board understands High Rock Bridge Street, LLC intends to go forward with the project, though additional time is needed to obtain all required State permits. • A COPY OF THIS DECISION TO EXTEND HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. Rebecca Curran, 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. • w 2 • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, May 18, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, May 18, 2011 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Bonnie Belair, Richard Dionne,Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate), Annie Harris and Jamie Metsch. Those absent were: Beth Debski. Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner. Ms. Curran opens the meeting at 6:34 p.m. Approval of minutes: The minutes of April 20, 2011 are reviewed. Mr. Metsch notes the correct spelling of his name ("Metsch," not "Metch"). Mr. Dionne moves to approve the minutes with the change noted, seconded by Ms. Harris and approved 5-0 (Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor, Ms. Belair abstaining, none opposed). • Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC to extend Variances previously issued for 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). Attachments & Exhibitions: ➢ Letter from Joseph Correnti on behalf of High Rock Bridge Street, LLC, dated May 12, 2011 , requesting the extension of Variances issued for a period of six (6) months Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal St., representing the petitioner, makes the request. He says all local approvals are in hand, and they are in the pre-construction phase. They are pursuing/closing the loop on all state approvals. He says the city is working on its end (buying a condo in the building—half the first floor will be the Senior Center). He says this is a large project with many moving parts; they want to be in the ground as soon as possible, but they want to be sure none of their permits lapse. He believes they don't need to make the request because of the Permit Extension Act of 2010. He does not anticipate coming in to ask for extensions after this;they will likely rely on the act which gives them an extended period. However, they want to begin construction as soon as possible. They are now requesting a six-month extension. Mr. Dionne moves to extend the variances for six months, seconded by Ms. Harris and . approved 5-0 in (Ms. Belair, Ms. Harris, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, and Mr. Metsch in favor, none opposed). • 1 Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a • Variance from Sec. 3.2.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, Accessory Building Structures, including side yard setback, number of stories, and height, in order to demolish the existing shed on 38 CABOT ST. and construct a garage with second-story storage (R-2). Attachments & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 3/30/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Plot plan dated 10/4/05 ➢ Revised plans (no title/date) Ms. Curran says last time they asked for plans showing more clearly what was being proposed. Raynaldo Dominguez presents his continued petition. He passes out a new set of drawings. Ms. Curran notes he's shown on the plan that there will be 2 feet in rear; staircase will now be inside. She says he's taken away the doorway and balcony on the second floor. The structure is 18 feet in height, 24 feet in width. Mr. Dominguez refers to photos included with his new materials. Ms. Curran notes that it's all paved back there. Mr. Metsch asks for a reminder of what was needed for variances— Mr. St. Pierre says accessory structures must be 5 feet from the property line. Ms. Harris asks if . • they're actually moving it from the side yard; Mr. Dominguez says no, he's staying on that line with the foundation. He says what she is looking at might be the older plot plan. It will stay the same setback. Ms. Harris—in the back it will be 2 feet from the property line. Ms. Curran asks him to confirm the dimensions. Ms. Harris says this is much clearer, and Ms. Curran agrees. Mr. St. Pierre says that rear and side setback, and number of stories, is also needed. He notes that this is slightly less than 2 stories. Ms. Curran asks if anyone from the public is here to speak about the petition. No one is. Ms. Curran asks about the materials he'll be using, noting wood and asphalt shingles are shown. Mr. Dominguez says he'll use vinyl siding. Ms. Curran says it's clearer than it was before; this is what they ask for. She doesn't have a problem with it. Mr. Metsch asks about any other openings on the other three sides; Mr. Dominguez says just on the side for bigger things to make storage easier. Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition, including relief from rear yard setback, with 7 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved (Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of NICOLE BARLETTA requesting a Special Permit to extend a • nonconforming structure, and Variances from number of stories, lot coverage and side 2 • and rear setbacks, and from off-street parking regulations, in order to construct two rear decks and create two parking spaces on the property located at 31 ARBELLA ST. (R-2). Attachments & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped April 28, 2011 and accompanying materials, drawings and renderings (untitled) ➢ Parking plan drawing (untitled) ➢ "Alternative Parking Plan" drawing, revised on 5/18/11 ➢ Revised sketch dated 5/18/11 ➢ Letter from Ward Two Councillor Michael Sosnowski, 17 Collins St., dated 5/16/11 ➢ Letter from Kevin Byrne and Frank Byrne, 5 Collins St., dated 5/15/11 ➢ Letter from Jerome and Doris Curley, 35 Arbella St., dated 5/17/11 Amy Wallick presents the petition. She says they are back with new plans, clearer views and better measurements. She says they are proposing moving the egresses from the side of the house to the rear of property;they have also included in the plans what they are hoping to do with the parking. Currently there is one existing spot. The driveway is paved all the way to the back, but because the side stair is jutting out and preventing • access. There was some confusion previously regarding the number of decks. She confirms there are two proposed; the third floor one is more of a balcony, while the second floor deck has stairs. She introduces Tony Barletta as well as their contractor, Andrew Balbone. Ms. Curran —this is a two family now, and you're keeping it as such? Ms. Wallick says she was able to review the letters submitted that suggested the property was not already a two-family, and she clarifies that it is an existing two-family structure. She says they checked with the assessor's office and building department. Ms. Harris asks if two families live there now. Ms. Wallick responds that it is not currently habitable. Ms. Curran asks her to explain the parking. Ms. Wallick indicates on the plan where the paving is. Mr. Balbone explains there previously was an egress stairwell into the driveway. He says they've eliminated that, so now you can access the rear of the property to park. Mr. Metsch notes that they've already taken out the door. He asks what their plan would be for the second means of egress if they do not receive the Board's approval. Ms. Wallick says it would be as it exists currently. Mr. Barletta says they've had to do some repair to the foundation, and it would have had to go regardless. Mr. Metsch — that was the second egress— have you changed the interior layout to accommodate the • new plan? Ms. Wallick says this is currently at a standstill pending this decision. Mr. Barletta says there is area that could still be used, but some living space would be lost. 3 Mr. Balbone says the second unit on the upper level has the third floor as living space, • and there are three stacked staircases inside the house. Mr. Metsch asks Mr. St. Pierre if the second egress is still on the second floor coming out of what now is an unapproved deck, could they just build an exterior stair, or would that be encroaching as well? St. Pierre says they are not really protected with anything in zoning that's not there. Where they've altered the building, they aren't grandfathered and would need relief for a stair. Mr. Metsch addresses the parking, noting they show two spaces and questions if the width is adequate. Ms. Harris asks why they need to provide more parking—why is a variance needed at all? Mr. St. Pierre says they don't have to provide more parking, but they want to. Mr. Barletta says if they wanted to sell the units as condos,they would want to have them approved as legal spaces. Ms. Curran says she sees how the tandem works—do you envision them backing out? Ms. Wallick says yes, but they have also provided alternative plans. Mr. Barletta says there is also no way to deal with snow currently. This way, there's some area in back. He says nine feet is enough to push a plow back and keep it on the property. Mr. St. Pierre says Mr. Metsch is correct, it's showing a 9 foot width, but on the angle they wouldn't be anywhere near that. Mr. Metsch says they have the length,just not the width. Ms. Wallick offers to show them alternative plans for parking. Ms. McKnight reads three letters into the record: one in opposition from Ward Two • Councillor Michael Sosnowski, 17 Collins St., dated 5/16/11; one in opposition from Kevin Byrne and Frank Byrne, 5 Collins St., dated 5/15/11; and one in opposition from Jerome and Doris Curley, 35 Arbella St., dated 5/17/11. Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment. Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., asks if it is a two-family already, or are they requesting one? Mr. St. Pierre says city records indicate it's an existing two-family. Ms. Curran says their petition is for the deck, parking and stair. They are not required to get the parking, but they are asking for it. They do need setback relief. Ms. Wallick says there is already an existing spot on the property, and she asks about this as it is referenced in the last letter (from Mr. Curley). She asks if Mr. Curley extended his fence they couldn't use that spot, because it would be too close to the fence; was that what the letter said? Ms. Harris says the letter implies that the car doors currently would open onto Mr. Curley's property, and if the fence was extended to the sidewalk,the space would be too narrow for a car door to open. Mr. Barletta: as the neighbor noted last week, that's why his fence ends there. Mr. Barletta asks why the parking aisle area is needed. Metsch explains that maneuvering space is needed. Mr. Barletta says that the letters say there is no room, but people should have the option to park on their property. Mr. Balbone explains how parking is to be accessed. 4 • Mr. Metsch notes that most of this area isn't accessible. Ms. Wallick says they know it's tight. Ms. Curran says there were three issues. One is off the table—this is a two-family, according to city records. Mr. St. Pierre confirms that abandonment of the two-family use hasn't happened here, and there is case law to support this. Ms. Curran then addresses the decks. She says last time, they approved the dormer but not the decks. Ms. Curran says for her, it's a question of whether the deck is limited to minimum egress width;the back stair is all reasonable. She says the third floor deck is a reasonable size. She wonders if the second floor deck overpowers the small backyard. Mr. Balbone says they wanted to make this large enough to have a grill, and the balcony is self supporting. Mr. Barletta says there were two direct abutters who called the ward councilor and let him know they weren't opposed. Mr. Metsch says it's in keeping with the surrounding density, and cites an example of another property on Collins St. that has a similar deck. He says he has no problem with the plans as drawn —the deck or the height. He would just want clarity on parking. Ms. Harris suggests that if they make the deck smaller and self-supporting, or make the structure more integrated with the stairs below, the parking would work better. Now, at this size, she notes that it needs supports that go all the way down to the ground. It • would be better with a smaller deck. Mr. Barletta says there is a bulkhead on the foundation that cuts into the parking,that's why the deck is brought closer to the center of the building. Ms. Harris suggests lengthening the deck, keeping it closer to the house. Mr. Barbone says he tried to keep it farther from the neighbors. However, they are open to what the Board suggests. Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris suggest aligning the decks and keeping them narrower. Ms. Harris says eliminating the posts would be a huge help, and asks if the deck could be supported off the house? Mr. Barbone says it can be cantilevered. Ms. Harris says the deck would be smaller, but it would allow them more room at the back and would look better. Mr. Barbone says he could do a girder, and could push back the posts by about three feet. Ms. Curran asks Mr. St. Pierre if he has any problem with that, from a building perspective; he says no, as long as it's structurally sound. The Board members discusses possible dimensions and suggest a four-foot width. Ms. Curran addresses the third issue, which is parking, and says she appreciates trying to get parking. She says she would like to see the other parking plans;the diagonal doesn't work in back. She also notes that it's nice there's a little yard in back. Mr. St. Pierre says they should revise their drawings—if the Board approves this, he needs a drawing to be approved. He suggests the applicant and contractor leave the meeting to create a new drawing and then come back. Mr. Barletta says he prefers a 5-foot width . for the second deck. Mr. Metsch says this would be OK with him. Ms. Harris notes that 5 the.bulkhead doesn't come out 5 feet. Ms. Wallick passes out a new parking plan. Ms. • Barletta, Mr. Balbone and Ms. Wallick leave the room to revise drawings. Curran notes this hearing is still open, but says they are going to move on to the next agenda item while the drawing is being revised. Public hearing: Petition of PATRICK OSGOOD appealing a decision of the Building Commissioner, in order to continue operation of a business at 15 ROPES ST. (R-3). Ms. Curran invites the petitioner's attorney, Matthew Kavanagh, to come forward. She says she understands they want to continue the hearing with no evidence taken. Atty, Kavanagh says continuing to June would allow him more time to research the matter. Ms. Harris moves to continue the petition to June 15, 2011, seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of BERTHA T. FAIRBANK, MARY COURTNEY&TIM WHEELER requesting Variances from Accessory Structure requirements,front and side yard setback, and lot coverage, in order to construct a garage on 2 FOSTER CT. (R-2). Attachments & Exhibitions: ➢' Application date-stamped 5/4/11 and accompanying materials and plans ➢ Photographs (no date) Tim Wheeler and Mary Courtney present the petition. He says he is requesting a 22 x 24 garage one foot off the side property line. He says there is no front yard setback. Ms. Harris asks if there was there once a garage. Ms. Courtney says it was just land there. Mr. Wheeler explains there's currently a prefabricated building. The new one would be wood and concrete. Ms. Harris asks for clarification about the size and configuration of the building; Mr. Wheeler and Ms. Courtney explain the plans. Mr. Metsch says he is concerned about the one-foot setback on the left side—how tight is it, and is there any precedent for such a small setback? He asks Mr. St. Pierre how they would side it. Mr. St. Pierre explains that the fence would come down and then be put back up. Mr. Metsch says he is just concerned about someone building a fence on their property line and you couldn't take down the fence—especially just having approved something with a two-foot setback, he notes that in that project, one would have room to come in and do the siding. Mr. Wheeler says if he does get approval for the garage, he could stop the fence at the corner of the building. Mr. Metsch is just concerned about future maintenance with such a tiny yard. Mr. St. Pierre says the Mass General Laws cover intentional trespass—this requires the Chief of Police to enforce allowing trespassing for repairs. He says this comes up regularly. Ms. Curran agrees • 6 that two feet would be better, but they are trying to maintain distance from the other structure. Ms. Belair notes that no neighbors are here to speak about the petition. Ms. Belair says the relief requested is minor. Mr. St. Pierre asks about the finish of the garage. Mr. Wheeler says it will be vinyl. Ms. Harris moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris, Ms. Belair, Mr. Metsch and Mr. Dionne in favor, none opposed). The petitioners from 31 Arbella St. return, and the revised plans are presented. Mr. St. Pierre explains that if the parking space were required and they were adding a new unit, they couldn't do a tandem space. However, he says they don't have to have additional parking. Ms. Curran notes again that this is a pre-existing two-family. Mr. St. Pierre says the Board probably should at least give a dimensional variance for the second space. Mr. Barletta asks if he needs relief from aisle width. Mr. St. Pierre says no, because this isn't that sort of parking. Ms. Harris says Mr. St. Pierre should make sure the drawing is clear enough. Ms. Curran says there should be a written condition that no deck shall be a width greater than five feet. Mr. St. Pierre suggests dating the drawing for today, and we'll ask them to • produce a final drawing for him to approve; if he doesn't agree with that drawing the 7 applicant will need to come back to the Board. Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with eight (8) standard conditions and the following four (4) special conditions:that a new set of drawings is to be submitted to Building finalizing those already submitted dated 5/18/11; the dimensions of second floor deck are to be no more than 5 feet off the building;the second story deck platform is to be a maximum of 14 feet and the third story deck is to be 4 x 8 feet, as per the plans submitted; and the backyard is to be restricted from parking. Relief from tandem parking is granted. Mr. St. Pierre notes there are 12 conditions. Ms. Curran seconds, and the petition passes 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). Mr. Dionne moves to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Harris and approved 6-0. The meeting adjourns at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of • the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at: http://salem.comIPagesISalemMA ZoninaAppealsMin/ 7 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, May 18, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, May 18, 2011 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Bonnie Belair, Richard Dionne, Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate), Annie Harris and Jamie Metsch. Those absent were: Beth Debski. Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner. Ms. Curran opens the meeting at 6:34 p.m. Approval of minutes: The minutes of April 20, 2011 are reviewed. Mr. Metsch notes the correct spelling of his name ("Metsch," not "Metch"). Mr. Dionne moves to approve the minutes with the change noted, seconded by Ms. Harris and approved 5-0 (Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor, Ms. Belair abstaining, none opposed). • Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC to extend Variances previously issued for 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). Attachments & Exhibitions: ➢ Letter from Joseph Correnti on behalf of High Rock Bridge Street, LLC, dated May 12, 2011, requesting the extension of Variances issued for a period of six (6) months Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal St., representing the petitioner, makes the request. He says all local approvals are in hand, and they are in the pre-construction phase. They are pursuing/closing the loop on all state approvals. He says the city is working on its end (buying a condo in the building—half the first floor will be the Senior Center). He says this is a large project with many moving parts;they want to be in the ground as soon as possible, but they want to be sure none of their permits lapse. He believes they don't need to make the request because of the Permit Extension Act of 2010. He does not anticipate coming in to ask for extensions after this;they will likely rely on the act which gives them an extended period. However, they want to begin construction as soon as possible. They are now requesting a six-month extension. Mr. Dionne moves to extend the variances for six months, seconded by Ms. Harris and • approved 5-0 in (Ms. Belair, Ms. Harris, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, and Mr. Metsch in favor, none opposed). 1 Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a • Variance from Sec. 3.2.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, Accessory Building Structures, including side yard setback, number of stories, and height, in order to demolish the existing shed on 38 CABOT ST. and construct a garage with second-story storage (R-2). Attachments & Exhibitions:' ➢ Application date-stamped 3/30/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Plot plan dated 10/4/05 ➢ Revised plans (no title/date) Ms. Curran says last time they asked for plans showing more clearly what was being proposed. Raynaldo Dominguez presents his continued petition. He passes out a new set of drawings. Ms. Curran notes.he's shown on the plan that there'will be 2 feet in rear; staircase will now be inside. She says he's taken away the doorway and balcony on the second floor. The structure is 18 feet in height, 24 feet in width. Mr. Dominguez refers to photos included with his new materials. Ms. Curran notes that it's all paved back there. Mr. Metsch asks for a reminder of what was needed for variances— Mr. St. Pierre says accessory structures must be 5 feet from the property line. Ms. Harris asks if they're actually moving it from the side yard; Mr. Dominguez says no, he's staying on • that line with the foundation. He says what she is looking at might be the older plot plan. It will stay the same setback. Ms. Harris— in the back it will be 2 feet from the property line. Ms. Curran asks him to confirm the dimensions. Ms. Harris says this is much clearer, and Ms. Curran agrees. Mr. St. Pierre says that rear and side setback, and number of stories, is also needed. He notes that this is slightly less than 2 stories. Ms. Curran asks if anyone from the public is here to speak about the petition. No one is. Ms. Curran asks about the materials he'll be using, noting wood and asphalt shingles are shown. Mr. Dominguez says he'll use vinyl siding. Ms. Curran says it's clearer than it was before; this is what they ask for. She doesn't have a problem with it. Mr. Metsch asks about any other openings on the other three sides; Mr. Dominguez says just on the side for bigger things to make storage easier. Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition, including relief from rear yard setback, with 7 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved (Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of NICOLE BARLETTA requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, and Variances from number of stories, lot coverage and side 2 • and rear setbacks, and from off-street parking regulations, in order to construct two rear decks and create two parking spaces on the property located at 31 ARBELLA ST. (R-2). Attachments & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped April 28, 2011 and accompanying materials, drawings and renderings (untitled) ➢ Parking plan drawing (untitled) ➢ "Alternative Parking Plan" drawing, revised on 5/18/11 ➢ Revised sketch dated 5/18/11 ➢ Letter from Ward Two Councillor Michael Sosnowski, 17 Collins St., dated 5/16/11 ➢ Letter from Kevin Byrne and Frank Byrne, 5 Collins St., dated 5/15/11 ➢ Letter from Jerome and Doris Curley, 35 Arbella St., dated 5/17/11 . Amy Wallick presents the petition. She says they are back with new plans, clearer views and better measurements. She says they are proposing moving the egresses from the side of the house to the rear of property;they have also included in the plans what they are hoping to do with the parking. Currently there is one existing spot. The driveway is paved all the way to the back, but because the side stair is jutting out and preventing • access. There was some confusion previously regarding the number of decks. She confirms there are two proposed; the third floor one is more of a balcony, while the second floor deck has stairs. She introduces Tony Barletta as well as their contractor, Andrew Balbone. Ms. Curran —this is a two family now, and you're keeping it as such? Ms. Wallick says she was able to review the letters submitted that suggested the property was not already a two-family, and she clarifies that it is an existing two-family structure. She says they checked with the assessor's office and building department. Ms. Harris asks if two families live there now. Ms. Wallick responds that it is not currently habitable. Ms. Curran asks her to explain the parking. Ms. Wallick indicates on the plan where the paving is. Mr. Balbone explains there previously was an egress stairwell into the driveway. He says they've eliminated that, so now you can access the rear of the property to park. Mr. Metsch notes that they've already taken out the door. He asks what their plan would be for the second means of egress if they do not receive the Board's approval. Ms. Wallick says it would be as it exists currently. Mr. Barletta says they've had to do some repair to the foundation, and it would have had to go regardless. Mr. Metsch — that was the second egress—have you changed the interior layout to accommodate the • new plan? Ms. Wallick says this is currently at a standstill pending this decision. Mr. Barletta says there is area that could still be used, but some living space would be lost. 3 Mr. Balbone says the second unit on the upper level has the third floor as living space, • and there are three stacked staircases inside the house. Mr. Metsch asks Mr.St. Pierre if the second egress is still on the second floor coming out of what now is an unapproved deck, could they just build an exterior stair, or would that be encroaching as well? St. Pierre says they are not really protected with anything in zoning that's not there. Where they've altered the building, they aren't grandfathered and would need relief for a stair. Mr. Metsch addresses the parking, noting they show two spaces and questions if the width is adequate. Ms. Harris asks why they need to provide more parking—why is a variance needed at all? Mr. St. Pierre says they don't have to provide more parking, but they want to. Mr. Barletta says if they wanted to sell the units as condos, they would want to have them approved as legal spaces. Ms. Curran says she sees how the tandem works—do you envision them backing out? Ms. Wallick says yes, but they have also provided alternative plans. Mr. Barletta says there is also no way to deal with snow currently. This way, there's some area in back. He says nine feet is enough to push a plow back and keep it on the property. Mr. St. Pierre says Mr. Metsch is correct, it's showing a 9 foot width, but on the angle they wouldn't be anywhere near that. Mr. Metsch says they have the length,just not the width. Ms. Wallick offers to show them alternative plans for parking. Ms. McKnight reads three letters into the record: one in opposition from Ward Two • Councillor Michael Sosnowski, 17 Collins St., dated 5/16/11; one in opposition from Kevin Byrne and Frank Byrne, 5 Collins St., dated 5/15/11; and one in opposition from Jerome and Doris Curley, 35 Arbella St., dated 5/17/11. Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment. Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., asks if it is a two-family already, or are they requesting one? Mr. St. Pierre says city records indicate it's an existing two-family. Ms. Curran says their petition is for the deck, parking and stair. They are not required to get the parking, but they are asking for it. They do need setback relief. Ms. Wallick says there is already an existing spot on the property, and she asks about this as it is referenced in the last letter (from Mr. Curley). She asks if Mr. Curley extended his fence they couldn't use that spot, because it would be too close to the fence; was that what the letter said? Ms. Harris says the letter implies that the car doors currently would open onto Mr. Curley's property, and if the fence was extended to the sidewalk, the space would be too narrow for a car door to open. Mr. Barletta: as the neighbor noted last week, that's why his fence ends there. Mr. Barletta asks why the parking aisle area is needed. Metsch explains that maneuvering space is needed. Mr. Barletta says that the letters say there is no room, but people should have the option to park on their property. Mr. Balbone explains how parking is to be accessed. • 4 Mr. Metsch notes that most of this area isn't accessible. Ms. Wallick says they know it's tight. Ms. Curran says there were three issues. One is off the table—this is a two-family, according to city records. Mr. St. Pierre confirms that abandonment of the two-family use hasn't happened here, and there is case law to support this. Ms. Curran then addresses the decks. She says last time, they approved the dormer but not the decks. Ms. Curran says for her, it's a question of whether the deck is limited to minimum egress width; the back stair is all reasonable. She says the third floor deck is a reasonable size. She wonders if the second floor deck overpowers the small backyard. Mr. Balbone says they wanted to make this large enough to have a grill, and the balcony is self supporting. Mr. Barletta says there were two direct abutters who called the ward councilor and let him know they weren't opposed. Mr. Metsch says it's in keeping with the surrounding density, and cites an example of another property on Collins St. that has a similar deck. He says he has no problem with the plans as drawn —the deck or the height. He would just want clarity on parking. Ms. Harris suggests that if they make the deck smaller and self-supporting, or make the structure more integrated with the stairs below, the parking would work better. Now, at this size, she notes that it needs supports that go all the way down to the ground. It • would be better with a smaller deck. Mr. Barletta says there is a bulkhead on the foundation that cuts into the parking, that's why the deck is brought closer to the center of the building. Ms. Harris suggests lengthening the deck, keeping it closer to the house. Mr. Barbone says he tried to keep it farther from the neighbors. However, they are open to what the Board suggests. Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris suggest aligning the decks and keeping them narrower. Ms. Harris says eliminating the posts would be a huge help, and asks if the deck could be supported off the house? Mr. Barbone says it can be cantilevered. Ms. Harris says the deck would be smaller, but it would allow them more room at the back and would look better. Mr. Barbone says he could do a girder, and could push back the posts by about three feet. Ms. Curran asks Mr. St. Pierre if he has any problem with that, from a building perspective; he says no, as long as it's structurally sound. The Board members discusses possible dimensions and suggest a four-foot width. Ms. Curran addresses the third issue, which is parking, and says she appreciates trying to get parking. She says she would like to see the other parking plans;the diagonal doesn't work in back. She also notes that it's nice there's a little yard in back. Mr. St. Pierre says they should revise their drawings— if the Board approves this, he needs a drawing to be approved. He suggests the applicant and contractor leave the meeting to create a new drawing and then come back. Mr. Barletta says he prefers a 5-foot width . for the second deck. Mr. Metsch says this would be OK with him. Ms. Harris notes that 5 the bulkhead doesn't come out 5 feet. Ms. Wallick passes out a new parking plan. Ms. • Barletta, Mr. Balbone and Ms. Wallick leave the room to revise drawings. Curran notes this hearing is still open, but says they are going to move on to the next agenda item while the drawing.is being revised. Public hearing: Petition of PATRICK OSGOOD appealing a decision of the Building Commissioner, in order to continue operation of a business at 15 ROPES ST. (R-3). Ms. Curran invites the petitioner's attorney, Matthew Kavanagh, to come forward. She says she understands they want to continue the hearing with no evidence taken. Atty Kavanagh says continuing to June would allow him more time to research the matter. Ms. Harris moves to continue the petition to June 15, 2011, seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of BERTHA T. FAIRBANK, MARY COURTNEY&TIM WHEELER requesting Variances from Accessory Structure requirements,front and side yard setback, and lot coverage, in order to construct a garage on 2 FOSTER CT. (R-2). Attachments & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 5/4/11 and accompanying materials and plans ➢ Photographs (no date) • Tim Wheeler and Mary Courtney present the petition. He says he is requesting a 22 x 24 garage one foot off the side property line. He says there is no front yard setback. Ms. Harris asks if there was there once a garage. Ms. Courtney says it was just land there. Mr. Wheeler explains there's currently a prefabricated building. The new one would be wood and concrete. Ms. Harris asks for clarification about the size and configuration of the building; Mr. Wheeler and Ms. Courtney explain the plans. Mr. Metsch says he is concerned about the one-foot setback on the left side—how tight Y g is it, and is there any precedent for such a small setback? He asks Mr. St. Pierre how they would side it. Mr. St. Pierre explains that the fence would come down and then be put back up. Mr. Metsch says he is just concerned about someone building a fence on their property line and you couldn't take down the fence—especially just having approved something with a two-foot setback, he notes that in that project, one would have room to come in and do the siding. Mr. Wheeler says if he does get approval for the garage, he could stop the fence at the corner of the building. Mr. Metsch is just concerned about future maintenance with such a tiny yard. Mr. St. Pierre says the Mass General Laws cover intentional trespass—this requires the Chief of Police to enforce allowing trespassing for repairs. He says this comes up regularly. Ms. Curran agrees • 6 • that two feet would be better, but they are trying to maintain distance from the other structure. Ms. Belair notes that no neighbors are here to speak about the petition. Ms. Belair says the relief requested is minor. Mr. St. Pierre asks about the finish of the garage. Mr. Wheeler says it will be vinyl. Ms. Harris moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris, Ms. Belair, Mr. Metsch and Mr. Dionne in favor, none opposed). The petitioners from 31 Arbella St. return, and the revised plans are presented. Mr. St. Pierre explains that if the parking space were required and they were adding a new unit, they couldn't do a tandem space. However, he says they don't have to have additional parking. Ms. Curran notes again that this is a pre-existing two-family. Mr. St. Pierre says the Board probably should at least give a dimensional variance for the second space. Mr. Barletta asks if he needs relief from aisle width. Mr. St. Pierre says no, because this isn't that sort of parking. Ms. Harris says Mr. St. Pierre should make sure the drawing is clear enough. Ms. Curran says there should be a written condition that no deck shall be a width greater than five feet. Mr. St. Pierre suggests dating the drawing for today, and we'll ask them to • produce a final drawing for him to approve; if he doesn't agree with that drawing the applicant will need to come back to the Board. Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with eight (8) standard conditions and the following four (4) special conditions: that a new set of drawings is to be submitted to Building finalizing those already submitted dated 5/18/11; the dimensions of second floor deck are to be no more than 5 feet off the building;the second story deck platform is to be a maximum of 14 feet and the third story deck is to be 4 x 8 feet, as per the plans submitted; and the backyard is to be restricted from parking. Relief from tandem parking is granted. Mr. St. Pierre notes there are 12 conditions. Ms. Curran seconds, and the petition passes 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). Mr. Dionne moves to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Harris and approved 6-0. The meeting adjourns at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of • the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at: http://salem.com/Paoes/SalemMA ZoninaAppealsMin/ 7 or CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS n BOARD OF APPEAL a 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ( SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL REVISED MEETING NOTICE 201I tIr'I� (4 21 MAYOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �: April 20,2011-6:00 P.M. City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Room 313(Yd Floor) SAW,,'J1QP' Rebecca Cun-an,Chair EXECUTIVE SESSION- 6:00 PM Executive Session: Discussion of litigation of each of the following matters: 1. Easley et al.v.Salem Lafayette Development LLC eta]. Essex County Superior Court Docket No.2006-01820 2. Dzierzek et al.v.Salem Lafayette Development LLC et al.Essex County Superior Court Docket No.2007-00617 REGULAR AGENDA- 6:30 PM 1. Approval of Minutes-March 16,2011 meeting. 2. Continuation of Public hearing:Petition of A.L.PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS requesting a Special Permit under Sec.3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming use(gas station) and dimensional Variances under Sec.3.3.3 to reconstruct a nonconfomting structure (constructing a convenience store);requesting relief from frontage and lot area;and requesting relief from screening requirements of Sec.6.3.4 ,for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 and R-3) and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 Zoning District). 3. Public hearing:Petition of RENEWAL VENTURES,LLC requesting a Special Permit under Sec.3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance allow a change of nonconforming use by addition of one(1) residential unit to an existing four(4)residential unit building, and requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking requirements,for the property located at 28 EDEN STREET(R-1). • 4. Public hearing:Petition of KIERAN HURLEY requesting a Special Permit under Sec.3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance alter a nonconforming structure by constructing a second story on an existing garage on the property located at 4 PATTON ROAD(R-1). 5. Public hearing:Petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a Variance from Sec.3.2.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, Accessory Building Structures,including side yard setback,number of stories,and height,in order to demolish the existing shed on 38 CABOT STREET and construct a garage with second-story storage (R 2). 6. Public hearing:Petition of ANDRE W LYALL requesting a Variance from minimum width of side yard,and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure,to allow an attached garage approx. 10'x 19'at 40 COLUMBUS AVENUE (R-1). 7. Public hearing:Petition of MARC BOUCHARD requesting a Variance from minimum side yard setback and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a breezewayon the property located at 55 TREMONT ST. (R-2). 8. Public hearing:Petition of PAULA PEARCE requesting a Special Permit and Variances from height, number of stories,lot area per dwelling unit,lot coverage,and front,side and rear setbacks in order to demolish the existing building on 15 HIGH STREET and construct a one-unit,three-story residence (R-2). 9. Public hearing:Petition of NICOLE BARLETTA requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure,and Variances from number of stories,lot coverage,and side and rear setbacks,in order to construct a shed dormer and two rear decks on the two- family house at 31 ARBELLA ST (R-2). 10, Public hearing:Petition of CHARLIE RICKER requesting a Variance from number of stories and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a third floor porch on the property located at 112 LORING AVE (R-1). 11. Old/New Business .12. Adjournment Know YcwRights Ur&r the Open Mewrg LawM.G.L. c 39§238arr!QyOrii uwSttziaa 2-20281n2033. Thl# P�ft® 3 I�row- . e S r« Ci4y kr li `;' 'r'3. a� on i 4,zoi i L4. OM 6 . 99 Sea ,nND17 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 7 ¢ 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MA55ACHUSETTS 01970 • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL Z(±I! MAYOR MEETINGNOTICE ,) -U (� 31 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 20,2011- 6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Room 313(3�d Floor) Salem,MA PU. Cw,,...,/r.�ftx Rebecca Curran,Chair 1. Approval of Minutes -March 16,2011 meeting. AGENDA 2. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of A.L.PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming use (gas station) and dimensional Variances under Sec. 3.3.3 to reconstruct a nonconforming structure (constructing a convenience store); requesting relief from frontage and lot area; and requesting relief from screening requirements of Sec.6.3.4,for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 and R-3) and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 Zoning District). 3. Public hearing:petition of RENEWAL VENTURES,LLC requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance allow a change of nonconfomting use by addition of one (1) residential unit to an existing four(4) residential unit building,and requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking requirements,for the property located at 28 EDEN STREET (R-1). 4. Public hearing:petition of KIERAN HURLEY requesting a Special Permit under Sec.3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance alter a nonconforming structure by constructing a second story on an existing garage on the property located at 4 PATTON ROAD(R-1). 5. Public hearing:petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a Variance from Sec.3.2.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,Accessory Building Structures,including side yard setback,number of stories,and height,in order to demolish the existing shed on 38 CABOT STREET and construct a garage with second-story storage (R-2). 6. Public heating:petition of ANDRE W LYALL requesting a Variance from minimum width of side yard,and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure,to allow an attached garage approx. 10'x 19'at 40 COLUMBUS AVENUE (R-1). 7. Public hearing:petition of MARC BOUCHARD requesting a Variance from minimum side yard setback and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a breezeway on the property located at 55 TREMONT STREET (R-2). 8. Public hearing:petition of PAULA PEARCE requesting a Special Permit and Variances from height,number of stories,lot area per dwelling unit, lot coverage,and front,side and rear setbacks in order to demolish the existing building on 15 HIGH STREET and construct a one-unit,three-story residence (R-2). 9. Public hearing:Petition of NICOLE BARLETTA requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforning structure,and Variances from number of stories, lot coverage,and side and rear setbacks, in order to construct a shed dormer and two rear decks on the two-family house at 31 ARBELLAST (R-2). 10. Petition of CHARLIE RICKE R requesting a Variance from number of stories and a Special Permit to extend a nonconformingstructure m cppnnccrruu�r 4h �AVE (R-1). � Y3 � �03�1 111"m � 1 11. Old/NewBusiness City Hall q�(. Salem, . 4,�Zol/ at /Q. Jtp� /rye /.d F. 445•MTi ' mVa MO `2. Adjournment NA ! y 0 j.1 .L K vw Your Rights Urfer tlx Open Mating LawM.G L. c 39§23B a,ri Cay O thrrnar Seurxm 2 2028 d)ougb 2-2033. ��O[dUIT • "^`'� CITY OF SN.EM,MASSACHUSEITS _ Dh;PARTMEN 1'OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DENE.LOPMENT . � 120 WASHING'PON STREF.I ♦ SALEM,MASSACIIUSF"f"PS 01970 ��O!rmEp° TELE: 978-619-5685 ♦ FAX: 978-740-0404 KIMBERLFY DRISCOLL MAYOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner DATE: April 7,2011 RE: Meeting Agenda—April 20,2011 Board Members, • Please find the following in your packets: ➢ Agenda ➢ Planner's memo ➢ Meeting minutes of 3/16/11 Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS requesting a Special Permit under Sec.3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming use (gas station) and dimensional Variances under Sec. 3.3.3 to reconstruct a nonconforming structure (constructing a convenience store); requesting relief from frontage and lot area; and requesting relief from screening requirements of Sec. 6.3.4, for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. (13-1 and R-3) and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 Zoning District). . Attorney Atkins has let me know that while the new plans are not available as of the day I'm mailing your packets, the decision has been made to reduce the number of pumps from four to three,and that this would be the only change shown on the plans. If I do receive new plans in time to send them to you,I will do so. Otherwise, they will be presented at the meeting. Petition of RENEWAL VENTURES, LLC requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance allow a change of nonconforming use by addition of one (1) residential unit to an existing four(4) residential unit building, and requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking requirements,for the property located at 28 EDEN STREET (R-1). , Attorney Atkins is representing the petitioner. No exterior construction is planned. The application states that upon purchase of the property, the petitioner determined that the third floor contained a fifth unit which "neither qualified as a nonconforming use nor was approved by special permit or variance." The minimum lot area per . dwelling unit in R-1 is 15,000 square feet;currently, the ratio is 1,250 SF per dwelling unit(the lot is 5,000 SF and 1 the structure currently contains four dwelling units). Five units would result in a lot area per dwelling unit of 1,000 SF. • Relief is required from parking: 1.5 spaces per unit are required;3 spaces for 5 units are proposed. A Special Permit is also required in order to expand/alter the already nonconforming use. Petition of KIERAN HURLEY requesting a Special Permit under Sec.3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance alter a nonconforming structure by constructing a second story on an existing garage on the property located at 4 PATTON ROAD (R-1). The existing single-family structure is nonconforming. No dimensional rehef is requested. Petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a Variance from Sec. 3.2.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,Accessory Building Structures, including side yard setback,number of stories, and height, in order to demolish the existing shed on 38 CABOT STREET and construct a garage with second-story storage (R-2). The advertisement reads that the petitioner wants to demolish a shed,but it's actually an existing garage Mx. Dominguez wants to take down and replace. The proposed new garage would be 15'x 24'and have a second floor. The Accessory Building Structures regulations require a five-foot side yard setback;petitioner is proposing a three- foot setback. Accessory structures are allowed to have 1.5 stories;2 are proposed. Allowed height is 18; 18' 2"is proposed. A decision from 2008 for this property is enclosed in your packets as well. At that time, the Board granted relief from front yard setback to allow construction of a porch,and from number of stories to allow a new dormer on the third floor. A request to construct a proposed accessory structure (shed) was withdrawn without prejudice. Petition of ANDREW LYALL requesting a Variance from minimum width of side yard, and a Special • Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, to allow an attached garage approx. 10'x 19' at 40 COLUMBUS AVENUE (R-1). The petitioner proposes a side yard setback of 17; 10'is required. The same project was brought before the Board in September 2008 and was withdrawn without prejudice. I am enclosing the two pages from the September 2008 (draft) minutes that pertain to this petition. Petition of MARC BOUCHARD requesting a Variance from minimum side yard setback and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a breezeway on the property located at 55 TREMONT STREET (R-2). The petitioner proposes a breezeway between the house and garage. The required side yard setback is 10; the breezeway as proposed would provide a 3'side yard setback. Petition of PAULA PEARCE requesting a Special Permit and Variances from height, number of stories, lot area per dwelling unit,lot coverage, and front,side and rear setbacks in order to demolish the existing building on 15 HIGH STREET and construct a one-unit, three-story residence (R-2). The relief required for the proposed house is as follows: 3 stories are proposed(2.5 are allowed);lot area per dwelling unit proposed is 817 square feet(7500 square feet is required);a 0-foot front setback is proposed(15 is required);a 3-foot side yard setback is proposed(10 feet is required);a 3.7'rear yard setback is proposed (30 feet is required);and 80%lot coverage is proposed (35%is allowed). Petition of NICOLE BARLETTA requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, and Variances from number of stories, lot coverage, and side and rear setbacks,in order to construct a shed dormer and two rear decks on the two-family house at 31 ARBELLA ST (R-2). • -2- The petitioner is proposing to move the existing second form of egress. The application states that currently, this • stairway blocks full access to the driveway,and that moving it will allow access to two more parking spaces. The two new decks in the rear are proposed as the new second egress for the two units. The new decks require relief from rear yard setback(15'3"proposed, 30'required) and side yard setback (a 3'setback currently exists;adding the decks in back w ll create additional area that encroaches slightly on the side yard, though less than the main structure (side setback from the new decks would be approximately 9.� Petition of CHARLIE RICKER requesting a Variance from number of stories and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a third floor porch on the property located at 112 LORING AVE (R-1). The petitioner proposes a third-story porch on this 2.5-story house. This makes the top story a full third story and requires a Variance from number of stories (2.5 are allowed;3 are proposed). I • 3 NDI. o T CIT Y OF SALEM, M ASSACHUSETTS —3R BOARD OF APPEAL * 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR f SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 —� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 13' 31 MAYOR LEGAL NOTICES r The City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of RE NE WAL VENTURES, LLC requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance allow a change of nonconforming use by addition of one (1) residential unit to an existing four(4) residential unit building,and requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking requirements,for the property located at 28 EDEN STREET (R-1). Said hearing will be held on WEDNESDAY,April 20,2011 at 6:30 p.m.,3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET,ROOM 313. The City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of KIERAN HURLEY requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance alter a nonconforming structure by constructing a second story on an existing garage on the property located at 4 PATTON ROAD(Rt 1). Said hearing will be held on WEDNESDAY,April 20,2011 at 6:30 p.m,3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET,ROOM 313. The City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a Variance from Sec. 3.2.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,Accessory Building Structures,including side yard setback,number of stories,and height,in order to demolish the existing shed on 38 CABOT STREET and construct a garage with second-story storage(R-2). Said hearing will be held on WEDNESDAY,April 20, 2011 at 6:30 p.m., 3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET,ROOM 313. The City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of ANDRE W LYALL requesting a Variance from minimum width of side yard,and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, to allow an attached garage approx. 10'x 19'at 40 COLUMBUS AVENUE (R-1). Said hearing will be held on WEDNESDAY,April 20,.2011 at 6:30 p.m.,3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET,ROOM 313. The City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MARC BOUCHARD requesting a Variance from minimum side yard setback and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a breezeway on the property located at 55 TREMONT STREET (R-2). Said hearing will be held on WEDNESDAY,April 20,2011 at 6:30 p.m, 3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET,ROOM 313.. The City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of PAULA PEARCE requesting a Special Permit and Variances from height,number of stories,lot area per dwelling unit,lot coverage, and front, side and rear setbacks in order to demolish the existing building on 15 HIGH STREET and construct a one-unit, three-story residence (R-2). Said hearing will be held on WEDNESDAY,April 20,2011 at 6:30 p.m.,3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, ROOM 313. Th4z City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of NICOLE BARLETTA requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure,and Variances from number of stories,lot coverage, and side and rear setbacks, in order to construct a shed domier and two rear decks on the two-family house at 31 ARBELLA ST (R-2). Said hearing will be held on WEDNESDAY,April 20,2011 at 6:30 p.m., 3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET,ROOM 313. The City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of CHARLIE RICKER requesting a Variance from number of stories and a Special Permit to extend a nonconfomvng structure in order to construct a third floor porch on the property located at 112 LORING AVE (R-1). Said hearing will be held on WEDNESDAY,April 20 2011 at 6:30 p.m,3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET,ROOM 313. Mice pet "s d )13 ''O tlrsw a o#" Boa C1--" ''67•UL Hall -i��. r t ,�^p `:. �AR� pil/ ¢r zoji Kebecca Curran 29R a f .�.. i'1`i%w.,fii7y' rlKYlt� is City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, April 20, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, April 20, 2011 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:00 p.m. Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Beth Debski, Jamie Metsch, Rick Dionne,Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate), and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner. Ms. Curran opens the meeting at 6:00 p.m. She announces the Board will be going into executive session to discuss litigation of Easley et al. v. Salem Lafayette Development LLC et al. Essex County Superior Court Docket No. 2006-01820 and Dzierzek et al. v. Salem Lafayette Development LLC et al. Essex County Superior Court Docket No. 2007- 00617. She says the Board feels that discussion of these matters in public session could potentially detrimental to the cases. She says the Board will be reconvening in open session at 6:30 p.m. to hear the regular agenda. Mr. Dionne moves to go into executive session, seconded by Ms. Debski and approved 7-0 (Ms. Curran, Ms. Debski, Mr. Dionne, • Mr. Metsch, Ms. Harris, Mr. Tsitsinos and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). Public session recommences at 6:30 p.m. Approval of minutes: The minutes of March 16, 2011 are reviewed; no corrections are made. Mr. Dionne moves to approve the minutes, seconded by Ms. Debski and approved 5-0 (Ms. Debski, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Tsitsinos, Ms. Belair and Ms. Curran in favor, none opposed). Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming use (gas station)and dimensional Variances under Sec. 3.3.3 to reconstruct a nonconforming structure (constructing a convenience store); requesting relief from frontage and lot area; and requesting relief from screening requirements of Sec. 6.3.4, for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 and R-3) and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 Zoning District). Attachments & Exhibits: ➢ Plan titled "Site Improvement Plan," sheet C-1, prepared by Ayoub Engineering, last revised 4/14/11 ➢ Application date-stamped 12/22/11 and accompanying materials • Ms. Curran says she understands there are revised plans. Atty Atkins distributes them. 1 Atty Atkins presents the petition, says the board has a revised plan before them. He • says the major change is there are three pump stations rather than the four originally presented. He says this in turn changed the zoning dimensional requirements, so less area and width are required. He reviews the relief requested and says there is an updated matrix on the plans. He says the major impact is the number of pumps (the new plans show 3 pumps, not 4), so there is now more maneuverability on site. There is also temporary snow storage location on site, intended to be used from 48 to 72 hours before complete snow removal from site. He notes the landscaping on the plan —to the rear of the convenience store, on the Palmer St. side. He says this will be reviewed in greater detail by the Planning Board. But he says this was raised at the last meeting, so he is noting. He also discusses traffic movement through the site—they have examined and, subject to the Planning Board, they will create "do not enter signs" from Palmer for one way flow through site. They also looked at the location —there was much comment about the location of crosswalk across Lafayette on center of the site. He'says they have no control over this, but notes there are City improvements to take place on Lafayette St. He suggests, and they would be happy to submit it to those doing the work on Lafayette St., that the crosswalk should be moved to corner of Palmer St;this would bring it directly to the bus waiting stand to make for safer passage. They will discuss further with the Planning Board. He says they have addressed all the major issues from the last meeting. The original cause of looking at the site was the queuing on Lafayette. He says they have some misgivings that fewer pumps will impact that, but they think the • situation will still be improved. Mr. Metsch: in terms of the curb cut on Lafayette, is there a purpose for keeping it 80 feet, 79 rather? The intention of the curb cut ordinance is to minimize the on site confusion for how to get on and off and that's part of the problem with Lafayette on existing site. Any thought to shortening that? Atty Atkins says allowing more room allows people to access pumps in more orderly way, particularly if it's one way. He says the current, wider curb cut, an existing nonconforming condition, is better as is. Ms. Curran says they had closed public comment portion at the last meeting, but if members agree,the Board should reopen that given the new information presented. She says if there are any public comments we can entertain them now. Ward 7 Councillor Joseph O'Keeffe, 28 Surrey Rd., says he previously testified about the safety aspect. Currently, the tanks are smaller and fueling is more dangerous. The new proposal would put all fueling on property, control vapors and have an installed fire protection system in the canopy. This is automatic or easily triggered by an employee. He says the situation currently is horrendous—queuing and traffic circulation is very bad. The proposal is a much safer operation and in his experience a state fire marshal for 15 years, he approved thousands of these and there has never been a fire in one. Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion of the hearing. • 9 2 • Ms. Curran notes something new on the plan —they are retaining evergreens, and are these new plantings? Atty Atkins—to the south? Ms. Curran —yes,to the south and east side. You are planting something new? Yes—this landscaping is existing on the south, and there is new green on east and north sides. He says they will, in the Planning Board application, as required, give specific species designations. Ms. Curran says it's much improved with the elimination of one tank. She says it's not within their authority to move this crosswalk, but clearly that would be better. The way it is now is unsafe. To the extent that we can make mention of that in granting this relief, that would make it a better project. Mr. Dionne says it's certainly improved; there is space for the snow, and better access to the,store. He likes this much better with no entrance from Palmer St., and three pumps make more sense. Mr. Metsch agrees—the site improvements make it more efficient. He asks the Board if he's the only one concerned about the curb cut on Lafayette. He says it makes for a possibility of disorderly entry/exit onto Lafayette. Ms. Curran says she agrees, she thinks it could become chaotic— I'm assuming the big trucks that fill tanks come from Lafayette, and that's why you need to keep open? Mr. Metsch —30 feet would be adequate. Several other gas stations in town are similar in size, all have something breaking up the large span. Ms. Debski asks if they could address with arrows on pavement? She says she has no issue with curb cut—she says it's an existing • condition, and she thinks you need that room for trucks to be able to get in safely. Ms. Curran -what if you closed a little on north side? Atty Atkins—the reason for this is to get cars off Lafayette st. There's a potential for confusion, but after it begins working it will get people off Lafayette. He says this is certainly an issue for the Planning Board to deal with. Ms. Belair likes that they reconsidered and reduced the number of pumps. She does feel the density on the site is high, but it's a situation that has existed there already. She says she had originally had doubts, but after the changes, and considering she feels strongly about supporting local businesses, and so she now supports. Atty Atkins—currently the site has 3 businesses on it, right now it's not working, we think this is a significant improvement. Ms. Curran— I agree, though there is a school and there is a break in the two businesses between the curb cut. So, I hope that does get addressed in positive way at the Planning Board, which will be proper juridiction. She thinks this board could ask for certain things if it will make the project work. Mr. Metsch still feels the curb cut will be disorderly and unsafe for pedestrians. Ms. Curran —we could approve with condition that curb cut be reduced. Ms. Belair—the Planning Board will address this issue. Mr. St. Pierre notes that this, as a zoning regulation, is their purview. Atty Atkins says they will do traffic study with the Planning Board. Ms. Curran —that would be good info for this board to have. We are giving you 55 additional feet of relief for driveway. We could do it by a condition and let the Planning Board work it out. Atty Atkins points out that the Planning Board might not want a certain number of feet and they would have to come back to the ZBA. Ms. Debski • suggests they leave as is, and the Planning Board may require this change anyway. Ms. 3 Curran suggests conveying concern about the crosswalk and width of the curb cut to the • Planning Board. Atty Atkins says they will do this too. Mr. Dionne says pedestrian safety would be greater with a smaller curb cut, but on the other hand they need the room for the trucks. They are closing off part of entrance on right but allowing access for trucks? Atty Atkins—trucks need certain radius to turn in and out. From the point of view of consumers who want gas—we don't want to put barriers up for cars coming in. He requests they allow the Planning Board to make this decision. Ms. Debski says the benefit is getting traffic off Lafayette St., and this is really important goal; if we start tightening this up, we'll have a worse situation than we have now. Ms. Curran notes that there is also an elementary school and children walking, and she would be satisfied if they send a letter to the Planning Board, including mention of a crosswalk, and stressing they want it to be a minimum width for allowing cars/trucks to function but also for pedestrian safety. Mr. Metsch says they are proposing 30 feet on the Palmer St. side to come in, so presumably this is enough. Could they condition approval to 40 feet? Ms. Debski and Mr. Tsitsinos say they are not comfortable with this. Mr. Dionne says there are young children going to school nearby, and that must be a prime concern. Mr. Tsitsinos still thinks the new configuration will be safer and will afford more visibility. Atty Atkins again points to the current conditions. Ms. Curran points,out that it would be helpful to have the traffic information presented here as well • as the Planning Board. Ms. Belair moves to approve the petition with six (6) standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Dionne and passed 5-0 (Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran, Ms. Debski and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of RENEWAL VENTURES, LLC requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance allow a change of nonconforming use by addition of one (1) residential unit to an existing four (4) residential unit building, and requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking requirements, for the property located at 28 EDEN STREET(11-1). Attachments & Exhibitions: ➢ Application form date-stamped March 17, 2011 and accompanying materials ➢ Plot Plan, 28 Eden Street, Salem, MA prepared by LeBlanc Survey Assoc., dated 12/17/10 Atty George Atkins presents the petition. He introduces principals of the project—Dick, Diane and David Pabich. He says they recently purchased the building. The current building contains a nonconforming use and is a nonconforming structure. It contains • four residential units in an R1 zone; it has been there a long time and it qualifies as a 4 • nonconforming use. The lot is 5000 SF, with 50 feet frontage; it doesn't meet most dimensional requirements. This building also contains a fifth unit on the third floor. There are two on the first floor, two on the second, and one on the third. Atty Atkins says his client thinks the unit has been there about 20 years based on construction. He says this isn't captured by the nonconforming status- a prior owner put it in. Their proposal is to legitimize that unit. No exterior changes are proposed. Currently it doesn't meet standards for square footage or parking requirements—there are 3 spaces that fit in the rear. No change is intended to that. He says the standard is that the change or extension of nonconforming use should not be more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use. He believes this standard is met. Ms. Curran: how big are the units? Atty Atkins says 900 SF for each unit including the fifth. Mr. Dionne—the third floor was illegal fifth unit? Atty Atkins—yes, and we did buy it that way. Ms. Debski asks if fifth unit complies with building code. The Pabichs say yes. Ms. Debski — is there a kitchen existing? Yes. Atty Atkins passes out photos of the unit. Atty Atkins confirms they knew about this when purchasing, and in rehabilitation,they could choose to make this into a town house type unit instead. Ms. Debski asks about the size of the unit on the third floor—2 bedrooms, 1 bath, 2 means of egress. Mr. Dionne—7 parking spaces required? Atty Atkins—8. Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment. • Ann Kobuszewski, 31 Foster Dr., says her family owns the property at 24 Eden St., and asks how many windows are in the apartment. David Pabich says 5, and there is no proposal for dormers. Ms. Kobuszewski says she is concerned about the parking issue. By adding a fifth tenant, where will they park? Parking is tight in the neighborhood. Winter was particularly difficult. Catherine Mr. St. Pierre, 11 Eden St., says parking is very difficult on the street. She refers to the parking area, and says that for years people have come up the wrong way up the one way street to park there. Roger LaMontagne—58 Leach St. also has concerns about parking. Louis Morin, 6 Glover St., says he lives around the corner and has concerns about parking. He doesn't think the fact that this is already nonconforming makes it okay to give relief. He thinks this is a created hardship. As to the three spaces that exist, he questions their dimensions. Is there an easement? Ms. Curran asks where access is to the spaces. Atty Atkins says to the left of the building from Eden St. Mr. Morin thinks people will just park on the street. Caroline Curley, 24 Eden St., is also concerned about parking and snow. She noticed this winter, even though it seems two cars could fit on either side of her driveway, she often • was blocked into her driveway. 5 Susan Raines, 20 Green St., is also concerned about parking. Green and Eden Streets are • both one-way, which makes it especially difficult. Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Atty Atkins responds, recognizing that there is a parking problem in that neighborhood. However, he says there hasn't been sufficient parking for 20 years. He doesn't think this one unit makes much of an impact, since it's already existing. He corrects Mr. Morrin's statement because this is a special permit, which does not require a hardship finding. Ms. Harris says there are dimensional variances requested. Atty Atkins says the dimensional issues are different. He feels the change to the neighborhood is de minimus, not substantial, and in fact it already exists. Ms. Belair sympathizes with everyone with the parking problem. She has also seen several of the Pabich's projects throughout the city and feels they would increase values of property in the neighborhood. Parking is simply a city wide problem. Ms. Harris says there is significant opposition because of parking. Ms. Curran asks Atty Atkins, this is preexisting nonconforming four units now, with the current parking in place? Mr. Dionne says he would have a hard time approving this. He thinks it's too much congestion and to make a legal unit out of 20 year illegal unit—he's not comfortable with that. Ms. Debski asks if the unit is vacant. David Pabich says he bought it vacant, but had been occupied. Ms. Harris asks if they are renovating? Mr. Pabich says yes, • that's the plan. Ms. Debski asks about the building next door. David Pabich says he bought 3 contiguous lots. Ms. Debski—do the others have any extra parking? Atty Atkins—on those lots, there is some parking available. Some parking is available, but it's not sufficient to handle additional parking from this project. David Pabich says there are a total of 11 spaces on all 3 parcels. Ms. Curran —in an area where there's deficient parking to begin with, it's difficult for this board to grant that kind of relief. We know the unit has existed for a while, but the fact that was illegal doesn't change things—to legalize it now with a parking problem is an issue. Ms. Harris also comments on the high quality of Pabich's work. However, she says the Board should consider that so many neighbors are completely against it. She notes that the neighbors feel they will suffer a hardship. She suggests the applicant may want to withdraw. Atty Atkins says they have no way to resolve this—it's an up or down situation, so it doesn't matter whether they vote or withdraw. Ms. Debski moves to approve, with 5 standard conditions, seconded by Ms. Belair, and denied 3-2 (Ms. Belair and Ms. Debski in favor, Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris and Mr. Dionne opposed). The petition is denied. The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Ms. Belair leaves at 7.35 Public hearing: Petition of KIERAN HURLEY requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance alter a nonconforming structure by constructing a • second story on an existing garage on the property located at 4 PATTON ROAD (R-1). 6 • Attachments & Exhibitions: ➢ Petition date-stamped March 17, 2011 and accompanying materials ➢ Mortgage plan dated 4/20/09 ➢ Elevation drawings, untitled Kieran Hurley presents his petition. He says he is hoping to add to his house, he has a three bedroom house, one room is quite small, and he would like to expand the area to accommodate his family. He says the tried to come up with a design that would fit well with the neighborhood. He says two houses in the neighborhood have made similar changes and he has taken care to make sure his are aesthetic. Ms. Curran—you are staying in the footprint,just going up from existing garage? Mr. Hurley says yes. Ms. Curran —this is not separate from existing house? Hurley—right, it's connected. Mr. Metsch —from the plans, it looks seamless. Ms. Harris—you're keeping the garage and eliminating one door? Yes, the architect felt it was too busy with three doors. It's more work but we think it's worth it. Ms. Curran opens public comment portion. Ward 7 Councillor O'Keefe, 28 Surrey Rd., says the proposed addition will have little • impact on neighbors and is worthy of being granted the special permit. Ms. Curran closes public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Curran notes that it will improve the house. Mr. Metsch moves to approve the addition with 7 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Dionne, and approved 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Debski, Ms. Harris and Ms. Curran in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a Variance from Sec. 3.2.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, Accessory Building Structures, including side yard setback, number of stories, and height, in order to demolish the existing shed on 38 CABOT STREET and construct a garage with second-story storage (R-2). Attachments & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 3/30/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Plot plan dated 10/4/05 ➢ Plans titled "Proposed single car garge with additional 2nd fl storage, 38 Cabot Street" • Mr. Dominguez presents his petition, says the garage is rotting out and he wants to replace it. Mr. Dionne asks if there will be a unit added. Dominguez says no,just 7 storage, no kitchen or running water. Mr. Metsch asks about the hand drawn plan - • access to the second floor is from the side? Mr. Dominguez says yes. 'Ms. Debski notes that the plan shows a deck off the second floor. Mr. Dominguez says yes, he was trying to make it look nice, with large doors. Ms. Debski says it appears to be rather large compared to what's there now and he really has no room. She asks about the distance between the back of the garage and the ,,property line. Mr. Dominguez says there's 8 feet setback now, but he wants to put it as close as he can to the line. Ms. Debski confirms there will be only 2 feet from line? Mr. Dominguez says yes. Ms. Curran —you're maintaining the wall along side yard? Mr. Dominguez—yes. Mr. Metsch notes that on the side wall, the left hand side, if the south side is maintained, there wouldn't be enough room for the 3 foot proposed stairway—is that correct? I'm imagining that being only 2 feet, as you said. Mr. Dominguez—that's on the side. Ms. Harris—so it's 15 x 24 plus the 3 foot stair in addition to that. Ms. Curran —asks Mr. St. Pierre if there are different code requirements for fire because of this being an accessory structure. Mr. St. Pierre says openings are limited, same as a building. Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion of the hearing. No one comments, and she closes the public comment portion. Ms. Curran —now it will be almost twice as high, it's the same side line, so I wonder • what the impact is on the neighbor and structures. If this is storage, I suggest a deck isn't necessary. It makes the building larger—if you want a big door, I suggest a barn type arrangement. Perhaps an interior stairway would be better. I have no problem with a large garage, but this particular plan makes a full second story and so it is quite a bit larger than what's existing. Ms. Debski says this is a very large structure. She is concerned about the outside staircase. At some point someone will probably want to put in a unit. Mr. St. Pierre—Jamie is correct, there is no room for the stair on left. The applicant says he will put an interior stair in instead. Ms. Curran and others note their concern about the balcony. Mr. St. Pierre says enforcement is difficult unless the specific changes are made to the plan. The plan must be attached to the decision. He refers to the differences between the pre-made plan with dimensions and the hand drawn plan. He says a 6 foot wall won't support the doorway. This isn't to scale, something is off. The Board discusses proposed setbacks and doesn't understand the proposed dimensions. Ms. Curran requests the plans be drawn up—the dimensions must be shown exactly as is, where it sits on the plot plan with dimensions. She says the plan must be updated because there • is inconsistency between the two renderings. She asks the applicant to submit a plan of 8 I • what he wants to do and they will continue to 5/18/11. Mr. Metsch feels the Board has the information and could make the decision if they condition the internal stairwell, no balcony, and the door system changed. Ms. Debski is not comfortable that she doesn't know what the height is. Mr. St. Pierre says if the Board is comfortable with the drawing, he could enforce it. Ms. Curran- if anything is different from what's on the drawing, you may have to come back. Mr. Dionne says it's an improvement on property, the garage is in bad shape. Ms. Curran explains to the applicant the consequences of not having enough votes—his options are continuing to May or having the Board vote now. Ms. Harris says these are legally binding documents and they must be sure they are enforceable and clear. Ms. Debski asks if he has talked to his neighbors; Mr. Dominguez says yes, and they are in favor. Ms. Debski moved to continue the petition to the May 18, 2011 meeting, Mr. Metsch i seconds, II i a n favor 5 0. Public hearing: Petition of ANDREW LYALL requesting a Variance from minimum width of side yard, and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure,to allow an attached garage approx. 10' x 19' at 40 COLUMBUS AVENUE (R-1). • Attachments & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 3/30/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Plans dated 7/29/08, titled "Lyall Residence Renovation" ➢ Plans dated 8/20/08, titled "Proposed addition & improvements, Salem, Mass. Plan of Land prepared for: Andrew G. Lyall, Map 44, Parcel 148," Reid Land Surveyors." Andrew Lyall presents his petition, says both his abutting neighbors are here in support. Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment. Ruth Ann Fitzgerald, 38 Columbus, supports the petition. Lewis Lagon, 44 Columbus Ave, supports the petition. Bob Jackson, 30 Columbus Ave, supports the petition. Ms. Curran closes public comment portion of the hearing. • 9 Mr. Metsch says one concern he had was whether the immediate neighbor would . support this, and this has been addressed by Lewis Lagon and his wife. One other question —is there a fire hazard given the proximity to this house? Is there going to be a vehicle here? Mr. Lyall says yes. Mr. St. Pierre says the construction would have to be according to fire code, with a sheet rock wall, and this is very common. Mr. Metsch says he meant that he was concerned about the proximity to the adjacent structure. Mr. St. Pierre looks at the plan and asks what he has for openings on the left hand side. Lyall says there are no openings planned. Mr. St. Pierre suggests as long as the petitioner agrees to what code requires—there is an option of a fireglass window if he wants one, as long as he agrees to go by the code. Ms. Harris says the Board has seen this before, and notes that the applicant has done his homework,talked to the neighbors, and this is a big improvement. She is glad he has neighborhood support. Mr. Metsch says if we're changing the plans you've worked out with neighbors—do neighbors have any problems if the window is eliminated? Mr. .Lagon says he has no problem. Ms. Harris moves to approve with 8 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Metsch, 5-0 in favor (Ms. Debski, Ms. Harris, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne and Mr. Metsch in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of MARC BOUCHARD requesting a Variance from minimum • side yard setback and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a breezeway on the property located at 55 TREMONT ST. (R-2). Attachments & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 3/30/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Plot plan dated 2/23/92 ➢ Plans and elevations, no title Marc Bouchard resents his petition for a breezeway. Ms. Curran ask if h r p p y s the breezeway connects t r •o the carport; Mr. Bouchard says no, to the house. Ms. Harris asks for clarification on the area we're talking about. Mr. Bouchard indicates on the plans where the construction will be and where the stairs are to be located. Mr. St. Pierre explains that normally this wouldn't be an issue, it's just the way the lot is shaped that makes the relief necessary. He notes the stairs are in terrible condition. Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion of the hearing. No one is hereto speak, Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion. Ms. McKnight and Mr. St. Pierre point out that a hardship argument could be made, and Ms. Curran and Ms. Debski note that the hardship is due to the unusual shape of the lot. • 10 . Ms. Debski moves to approve with 6 standard conditions, seconded by Ms. Harris and approved 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran, Ms. Debski, Ms. Harris and Mr. Dionne in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of PAULA PEARCE requesting a Special Permit and Variances from height, number of stories, lot area per dwelling unit, lot coverage, and front, side and rear setbacks in order to demolish the existing building on 15 HIGH STREET and construct a one-unit,three-story residence (R-2). Attachments & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 4/7/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Photographs and renderings, no date ➢ Plan titled "Conceptual Plan at 15 High St., Salem, MA," prepared by Bartram Land Survey, dated 4/3/11 ➢ Plans and elevations titled "15 High Street— Residence," prepared by HND Architects, dated 3/28/11 Paula Pearce,25 Gale Rd., Swampscott, presents her petition. She introduces her attorney, Alessandra Baldizzone Donovan. She says the house is in poor condition and explains the new proposal. • Ms. Curran asks about the front setback— Ms. Pearce says it would be directly on the sidewalk, which it is already. Ms. Curran asks if there is a curb cut there. Pearce says no, it's just sidewalk currently. Pearce explains that she is trying to keep the new house looking like the house next, door. Mr. Metsch asks if the 3 parking spaces are for this unit. Ms. Pearce says she's purchasing the building next door too, so she'd be using the parking at#15 for the two units at#17. She plans to sell #17, which has two units, and keep #15. Each unit is to have one parking space. Ms. Harris asks if the lots are to be combined—is the Board looking at them together as three condos? Ms. Curran notes that no changes are proposed to the other building. Mr. St. Pierre says these are two buildings with separate uses. If this were an empty lot they would have merged—but even though they are owned by the same person, they have been taxed separately and are not merged. Mr. Metsch asks if they are separated down the road in ownership, if the parcels remain same, how would parking be distributed? Would parking go to 17? Attorney Donavan says they were looking into merging them in the future for one condo use, but they haven't explored that yet. First they wanted to explore demo and reconstruction of first house. But, she says, that is probably how it will go. Space could be deeded to the units. Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion of the hearing. 11 John Capece, 30 Spring St., Danvers, says he owns the parking lot next door at number • four. He is just concerned about the windows on his side. He doesn't know how many feet away from his building it must be. Mr. St. Pierre says the proposed structure is smaller than the house currently there. Mr. St. Pierre invites him to look at proposed plan and shows how the footprint is smaller. Mr. Capece says he is concerned he will be affected if he wants to build a garage in the future. Mr. St. Pierre says they had this discussion earlier today, but anything 5 feet from a building can't have a window unless it's afire window—there are codes that protect abutters. He says Mr. Capece would be bound to the same code if he put in a garage, and he would also have to come to the Board for a new structure if it was not within the required setbacks. Ms. Harris points out there will be almost four feet more space than they have now. Ms. Pearce says she doesn't have to have the window. Mr. Capece notes that this plan improves the neighborhood. Julie Pottier Brown, 2 Gedney Ct., thinks the three new parking spaces will be a boon. She is concerned that the property should be well cared for. Ms. Pearce says she's not selling#17 for a long time. Ms. Brown says she really just wanted to see the plans, and she thinks it's attractive. Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Harris addresses the parking, saying that using 2 properties together for 3 spaces is . a nice concept. She says she does worry about the properties getting separated, however, and doesn't know if there's a way to ensure the parking does go together. Ms. Curran says we they could condition that. Attorney Donavan says she'd prefer not to have that condition in the decision. She wouldn't foresee this would be a problem if the two lots merge in future. She is fine with having the 2 spaces bound to#17. Mr. Metsch asks about the exterior materials—will this be shingle? Pearce says it will be clapboard, not vinyl. Atty Donovan asks whether if the Board wants the sidewalk kept all the way to the garage. Ms. Curran notes this may be a question for DPW. Mr. St. Pierre says it's a zoning question —the maximum is 20 feet on a residential property. Ms. Curran suggests a future petition for relief if she needs more than this. Mr. Dionne moves to approve with 7 standard conditions, and one special condition — the applicant will provide 2 spaces at 15 high St. for use at 17 High Street; spaces will be secured by deed. Ms. Harris notes this is an improvement to the neighborhood, since it is a residential use and it provides parking, and there are good reasons for granting so much relief. Ms. Debski seconds the motion to approve, and the petition passes 5-0 (Mr. Dionne, Ms. Debski, Ms. Curran, Mr. Metsch and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. • 12 • Public hearing: Petition of NICOLE BARLETTA requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, and Variances from number of stories, lot coverage, and side and rear setbacks, in order to construct a shed dormer and two rear decks on the two-family house at 31 ARBELLA ST(R-2). Attachments & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 3/31/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Mortgage plan.dated 2/2/11 ➢ Untitled elevations, floor plans and renderings ➢ Letter from Theresa Miaskiewicz, 18 Arbella St., dated 4/17/11 ➢ Letter from Kathleen Callahan, 7 Warner St., not dated ➢ Letter from Councillor Joan Lovely dated 4/20/11 ➢ Letter from J.M. Curley, 35 Arbella St., dated 4/19/11 ➢ Photographs Tony Barletta presents the petition. He says he is trying to improve the property. He says it has a very narrow driveway,just under 11 feet at the smallest point, and it is difficult even to get one car in. He says moving the side stair would free up a lot of space, and the stairway is also falling apart. He shows photos of the property. He says the third floor was being used as living space, has a bathroom, and is finished. They • want to dormer the roof back from the third floor, and take advantage of the water use up there. Mr. Metsch asks if the makeshift bulkhead is proposed to be torn down. Mr. Barletta says yes, they will tear it down but keep access to the basement with the bulkhead. It now protrudes from property by 5 or 6 feet. He says he has spoken with most of the abutters, those impacted, and in his opinion there are not many negatives, especially considering his plan will resolve snow removal and parking issues. He says his main goal is to have a second means of egress for the second unit. Ms. Harris asks how the third floor will be accessed. Mr. Barletta says there are stairs inside. He says there was confusion with neighbors about what they are proposing. He says he did his best to communicate with abutters and ask what they would suggest— he notes that the entrance on the side makes no sense and prevents access to the back of the house. In his opinion, it's an improvement with parking especially with snow emergencies. He says those neighbors with a view of Collins Cove are in agreement with the plan. Mr. St. Pierre asks if the stairs are external to the decks. Mr. Barletta says no; 8 feet is the number the contractor came up with. Ms. Harris ask about the stairs from the first to the second floor— is the stairway in the deck? Mr. Barletta says yes, its purpose is as a second means of egress. Ms. Harris asks where the bulkhead is. Mr. Barletta still doesn't know if he wants a deck on first floor, or just stairs, but if he puts one in, it will have to be high enough so you can access the bulkhead. 13 Mr. Metsch asks about how the stairs will fit. Mr. Barletta explains the configuration. • He says he got a lot of opposition and just wants the staircase to not block driveway— he is flexible. Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion of the hearing. Jerome Curley, 35 Arbella St., says he sent a letter with photos. He is a direct abutter to the driveway. He has a fence on the property line, and there is about 9 feet from the house to the fence. He says the proposed setback puts his fence at risk and is a hardship to him when he tries to park his car. He says this is a very small lot in a dense neighborhood, and adding decks and parking spaces doesn't seem feasible. He shows a photo of the house and driveway. He says the lot area is 2200 SF and the decks will hang over other properties. Doris Curley, 35 Arbella St., says Mr. Barletta's letter to neighbors said he only wanted one deck and tonight he's asking for three. She says the decks aren't just for access, and she isn't clear on what the structure will be. She says it would impact neighbors as far as noise if they put a grill on the decks. Ms. Curran says she wants to do a site visit on this property. Mr. Barletta says what he submitted for paperwork was clear—the house has water • views—he has proposed to the dormer for the purpose of taking advantage of the water views. He says the abutters who just spoke talked to the construction workers and they were not qualified to answer questions that were asked. He says the reason he sent the letter was to let people know his main objective was the second egress. He says he can appreciate that people will see the decks, but if they notice where the existing entrance is, it stares into abutters' yards. He is having a hard time understanding why someone would oppose this when he is creating more parking and allowing access to the backyard. He says snow can be put back there. If a plow hits someone's fence, I will have to pay for it. He says a site visit might be a good idea, but those pictures show there's more room than people are suggesting. Mr. Metsch says he was able to look at property. He asks if the whole foundation will be demoed, and the stairway. Mr. Barletta says yes. Mr. Tsitsinos asks what the lip is for; Mr. Barletta says this was a bad shot at structural repair. Mr. Metsch says there's room for parking. Regarding the deck in rear, he says he's familiar with the neighborhood, and stacked decks are in keeping with that neighborhood. His only concern would be within that tight 8 x 12 area, without seeing how the stairs are proposed, he just wanst to make sure it stays to that size getting up and down. With the third story work, he says this is a great amenity, but he wouldn't want to create an ability to create a third unit. Ms. Harris says she's mostly comfortable with the proposal, and says it's a nice drawing. She says, however, that the thing they are giving a variance on is missing—the deck. She says the concept of eliminating the side stair is fine, but she is not 14 comfortable with lack of detail provided. Ms. McKnight reads letters from Theresa • Miaskiewicz, 18 Arbella St. (opposing), Kathleen Callahan, 7 Warner St. (opposing), and Councillor Joan Lovely (in support). She also notes that a letter was received from Mr. Curley, but Mr. Curley says it is not necessary to read it since he has spoken. Ms. Harris says the deck and stair detail should be drawn and this should continue to next month. She says the description sounds all right to her—she just wants the plans drawn. She says the applicant needs to decide about first floor deck, however. Removal of the side stair and the dormer sound fine—this would be an improvement to the property. Amy Wallick, 2 Meadow St., says she is working on the project with Tony. She addresses third unit question, saying it is not being considered. She asks the Board for suggestions for how to alleviate the concerns of neighbors. Ms. McKnight says floor plans were included in the application specifically to show this was not a proposed third unit. Ms. Harris says the parking plan should be shown. Mr. Barletta says no variance for parking is needed. He's not trying to say the driveway conforms, he simply doesn't need relief. He says the cars do fit. In reference to decks—he understands the confusion because he had not yet decided about number of decks when communicating with the neighbors, but this is clear on the application. He makes the suggestion to just put a • condition in that the stairs couldn't exceed certain dimensions. Mr. Metsch agrees this is a good idea; he does not see a problem with the size of the decks. Ms. Harris says the plan isn't to scale. Mr. Barletta says the floor plans aren't to scale, but the exterior plans are. Mr. St. Pierre says we are not clear on parking—we do have off-street parking regulations. If they are talking about creating two new spaces in the rear yard,the applicant does need to meet certain dimensions. He says what the Board grants is what they need to build. He suggests clarifying the drawings. Ms. Curran asks for clarification on what's being done with the bulkhead. Mr. Barletta says he can do better drawings of the stairs. Mr. Barletta asks if he can withdraw part of the petition and just go forward with dormer, and reapply for the other relief. Ms. Wallick reviews the materials the Board requests to see: Rear elevation Side elevation Sketches of two decks Bulkhead • Entrance to rear floor Parking plan 15 Mr. Barletta questions why they need a parking plan; TSP explains he must ensure • zoning compliance. Ms. Wallick says they'd rather move ahead with the dormer and reapply for the rest of the relief. Ms. Harris moves to split the petition: withdraw without prejudice the request for lot coverage and side and rear setbacks and the Special Permit for the decks, and allow the variances and Special Permit for the dormer, per the drawings provided the owner agrees to withdraw without prejudice the rest of petition. She makes the motion to approve the relief for the dormer with 8 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Metsch, and approved 5-0 (Ms. Debski, Ms. Curran, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Harris and Mr. Dionne in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of CHARLIE RICKER requesting a Variance from number of stories and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a third floor porch on the property located at 112 LORING AVE (11-1). Attachments & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 3/30/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Plot Plan dated 12/13/10 • ➢ Elevation drawing, no title Charlie Ricker presents his petition. He explains he wants to make roof area a porch area by adding hand rails; he is not extending above the roof Fine or outward in any direction. Mr. St. Pierre notes that the Special Permit is needed because it's already nonconforming, and this would be considered a third story. Currently it's 2.5 stories. Mr. Metsch asks if there are any planned stairs. Mr. Ricker says no. However, he says it would provide another means of egress because of the door—if there was a fire there, people could escape to the deck. He says he is renovating the property. Ms. Harris asks about the other work he's doing; Mr. Ricker explains other updates he's making. He says he might change the units to condos. He says he wants to be a good neighbor. Mr. Metsch shows the Board photos of the property. Janine Judge, 6 Sumner Rd., opposes the petition. She says their home is on a hill and on ledge and is directly behind this property. Their main floor is in line with Mr. Ricker's third story. By extending the porch,there would be a direct view to her kitchen and would impact her privacy. She also questions how many people would be living there. Bob Griffith, 24 Sigourney St., Lynn, says he suggested this porch because it would provide another means of escape and there is no means of egress from that part of the building. Every other level has the rear deck to go out—it's the lowest drop to the ground. On third floor,this doesn't exist. 16 Ms. Curran notes that it's 42 feet back to the property line and asks if there is any opportunity for planting trees. Ricker suggests large arborvitae there. He says there currently are cherry trees growing poorly, and he would rather put decent trees there. He offers to put up a fence or whatever buffer they want. Ms. Judge and the applicant discuss with the Board various possibilities for buffering. Mr. Metsch suggests addressing the problem with landscaping of a narrow row of some type of evergreen. Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with 9 standard conditions, and a special condition that the applicant will work with the rear abutting neighbors on lot 79 to provide landscaping screening that screens the first floor from the deck with fast- growing trees,to be planted this planting season, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran, Ms. Debski, Ms. Harris and Mr. Metsch in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Mr. Dionne moves to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0. Meeting adjourns at 10:15 pm. • Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 5/18/11 For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at: http://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA ZonineAppealsMin/ 17 1ACity of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet s4 . Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date q / zD / 11 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Nhie FWCAhe,'�) 5S ouT 57- 97Fr 7Ys 3965' /�J ��cy.A�1jC+c�s��ri vGr— �ToI1he �k�IeJ ay rcko s-'. c? 70 M c�a_,�. corn^ 31 fisW Qr Berg 998-4d0-Sys nne e� I.C'arn u GJ(ia 1�090,cSAk LRCETPQ,AN 03831 (Ao3-76r- (001 A6n&A@ANoUgENGtAII��tK.coM MA�ky�R �rtd T'rQC .: � 5' G,kNB�//Hp 2 �97cfr�. m�g� '+ ?9q�d�on7rrl�ieGcL � $ ( cahe� g9r�'75/O-G�BG �n7�2(o V7 /l 'C' na /-OtttS J Mort ` I lk S-D '5a-7- Ia6 lieL 2 rNcdoz S+. 0118 Lod- 6%5 r Page of ° rT CIS OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL ILL " . : �°l 120 WASHING?"ON SIREEP $n[.Ent,MASSACHUSEI'IS 01970 TELF:978-619-5685♦ Fsx:978-740-0404 Notice of Amended Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday,April 20,2011 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items, for which Amended Decisions have been filed: Petition of A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS requesting a Special Permit and Variances to construct a convenience store and canopy over gas pumps for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 and R-3) and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Amended decision filed with the City Clerk on May 12, 2011 'WPetition of KIERAN HURLEY requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance ter a nonconforming structure by constructing a second story on an existing garage on the property located at 4 PATTON ROAD (R-1). Decision: Granted Amended decision filed with the City Clerk on May 12, 2011 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9 15 and does not require action by the recipient.Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk i �pNDiT4A CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS het BOARD OF APPEAL /j16 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • 1 a SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR of c> May 12, 2011 " Amended Decision NJ City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals __ Petition of A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS requesting a Special Permit' under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming use (gas station), and Variances under Sec. 3.3.4, 4.0 and 6.3 to construct a convenience store and canopy over gas pumps for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 and R-3) and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 16, 2011,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was continued to April 20, 2011 and closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne,Annie Harris,Jamie Metsch,Jimmy Tsitsmos (alternate) • and Bonnie Belair(alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.2 and Variances under Sections 3.3.4, 4.0 and 6.3 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney George Atkins represented the petitioner at the hearings. 2. In a petition date-stamped December 22,2010,petitioner requested Special Permits and Variances to extend a nonconforming use (gas station), and reconstruct a nonconforming structure (constructing a convenience store), and requested relief from screening requirements for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. 3. At the meeting on March 16, 2011, one resident spoke in opposition to the proposal, citing concerns about traffic congestion and safety,snow removal problems currently on the site, and the potential for loitering late at night. 4. Also at the March 16 meeting,Ward I Councillor Robert McCarthy spoke in support of the petition, citing the project's potential to improve traffic congestion and queuing on Lafayette St. and noting that the petitioner's other facilities were well- maintained. 5. At the March 16 and April 20 meetings, Ward 7 Councillor Joseph O'Keefe spoke in support of the project, citing proposed fire safety improvements (larger, safer storage 2 • tanks,canopy sprinkler system) and improved access and circulation due to double- sided pumps. 6. At the March 16 meeting,some Board members expressed concern about the number of pumps proposed,suggesting four new double-sided pumps might increase traffic to the site and increase the intensity of use too much, and also noted that snow removal could be a problem. 7. The hearing was continued to April 20. At this meeting, the petitioner presented revised plans showing a reduction in the number of pumps from four to three, additional landscaping, and a designated area for snow stacking. AttomeyAtkins also noted that subject to Planning Board approval,the petitioner would place "Do Not Enter" signs at the Palmer Street driveway to ensure one-way traffic flow. Board members noted that these were improvements to the plan. 8. At the April 20 hearing, some Board members expressed concern about the width of the existing 79'driveway from Lafayette Street (saying it was too wide and created an unsafe pedestrian environment),while others were satisfied with the dimensions. Board members agreed to allow this issue to be addressed by the Planning Board during their review and noted that they would send a letter to the Planning Board suggesting they examine this and the location of the crosswalk that currently exists on Lafayette Street. • The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. 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,since the proposed plan is expected to reduce queuing on Lafayette Street, improve traffic congestion and circulation on the site, reduce the number of uses currently on the site, provide for a higher level of fire safety,and provide landscaping that will improve the site aesthetically. 2. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans,Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming use (gas station) is granted. • 2: Variances under Sec. 3.3.4, 4.0 and 6.3 to construct a convenience store and canopy over gas pumps as shown on the approved plan are granted. 3 3. Relief from the screening requirements of Sec. 6.3 is granted (landscaping is to be done as shown on the approved plan). In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Curran, Debski, Dionne, Tsitsinos and Belair) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's request for Special Permits and Variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. Approved plan is titled "Site Improvement Plan," sheet G 1, prepared by Ayoub Engineering, last revised 4/14/11. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having • jurisdiction including, but not limited to,the Planning Board. Rebecca Curran, 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. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 7 " 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • = ^�e0 - SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX. 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ry MAYOR LO � May 4, 2011 r' C Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming use (gas station), Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.3 and Variance under Sec. 3.3.4 to reconstruct a nonconforming structure (constructing a convenience store); relief from frontage and lot area under Sec. 4.1.1; and relief from screening requirements of Sec. 6.3.4, for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 and R-3) and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. (13-1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 16, 2011,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was continued to April 20, 2011 and closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne,Annie Hams,Jamie Metsch,Jimmy Tsitsinos (ahemate) and Bonnie Belair(alternate). Petitioner seeks Special Permits pursuant to Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3, and Variances under Sections 3.4.4, 4.1.1 and 6.3.4 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney George Atkins represented the petitioner at the hearings. 2. In a petition date-stamped December 22, 2010, petitioner requested Special Permits and Variances to extend a nonconforming use (gas station), and reconstruct a nonconforming structure (constructing a convenience store), and requested relief from screening requirements for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. 3. At the meeting on March 16, 2011, one resident spoke in opposition to the proposal, citing concerns about traffic congestion and safety,snow removal problems currently on the site, and the potential for loitering late at night. 4. Also at the March 16 meeting, Ward 1 Councillor Robert McCarthy spoke in support of the petition, citing the project's potential to improve traffic congestion and • queuing on Lafayette St. and noting that the petitioner's other facilities were �vell- mamtained. 2 1• 5. At the March 16 and April 20 meetings, Ward 7 Councillor Joseph O'Keefe spoke in support of the project,citing proposed fire safety improvements (larger, safer storage tanks, canopy sprinkler system) and improved access and circulation due to double- sided pumps. 6. At the March 16 meeting, some Board members expressed concern about the number of pumps proposed, suggesting four new double-sided pumps might increase traffic to the site and increase the intensity of use too much, and also noted that snow removal could be a problem. 7. The hearing was continued to April 20. At this meeting, the petitioner presented revised plans showing a reduction in the number of pumps from four to three, additional landscaping, and a designated area for snow stacking. Attorney Atkins also noted that subject to Planning Board approval,the petitioner would place "Do Not Enter" signs at the Palmer Street driveway to ensure one-way traffic flow. Board members noted that these were improvements to the plan. 8. At the April 20 hearing,some Board members expressed concern about the width of the existing 79'driveway from Lafayette Street (saying it was too wide and created an unsafe pedestrian environment),while others were satisfied with the dimensions. Board members agreed to allow this issue to be addressed by the Planning Board during their review and noted that they would send a letter to the Planning Board suggesting they examine this and the location of the crosswalk that currently exists • on Lafayette Street. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, since the proposed plan is expected to reduce queuing on Lafayette Street, improve traffic congestion and circulation on the site, reduce the number of uses currently on the site, provide for a higher level of fire safety, and provide landscaping that will improve the site aesthetically. 2. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a • nonconforming use (gas station) is granted. 2. Dimensional Variances under Sec. 3.3.3 to reconstruct a nonconforming structure (constructing a convenience store); are granted. 3 • 3. Relief from the screening requirements of Sec. 6.3.4 is granted (landscaping is to be done as show n on the approved plan). In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Curran, Debski, Dionne, Tsitsinos and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for Special Permits and Variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. Approved plan is titled "Site Improvement Plan," sheet G1, prepared by Ayoub Engineering, last revised 4/14/11. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. • 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having Jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Rebecca Curran, 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 Pemut 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. • �Ytoemra.gaJ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • y1`' � - SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 rHe�� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR j May 4, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of RE NE WAL VENTURES, LLC requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance allow a change of nonconforming use by addition of one (1) residential unit to an existing four(4) residential unit building, and requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking requirements, for the property located at 28 EDEN STREET (R-1). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 20, 2011, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris,Jamie Metsch (who recused himself from the hearing),Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate) and Bonnie Belair(alternate). • Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.2 and Variances under Sections 4.1.1 and 5.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney George Atkins represented the petitioner at the hearings. 2. In a petition date-stamped March 17, 2011, petitioner requested Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and from off-street parking requirements, and a Special Permit to change a nonconforming use, for a fifth unit in a nonconforming four-unit building at 28 Eden Street. 3. At the April 20, 2011 hearing, six residents spoke in opposition to the proposal, citing a lack of adequate parking and lack of space for snow removal in the neighborhood. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: . 1. Desirable relief may not be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, since the proposed plan would 2 legitimize a fifth unit in a building that lacks sufficient parking, and is located in a neighborhood with significant parking deficiencies. 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 under Section 3.3.2 is denied. 2. Variances under Sections 4.1.1 and 5.1 are denied. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, two (2) in favor(Belair and Debski) and three (3) opposed (Curran, Hams and Dionne), to grant petitioner's request for a Special Permit and Variances. The petition is denied. Rebecca Curran, 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 daysf f'o rlrrrg 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 unt il a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • coAA� CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS �.i.3TdLL J s BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • q' SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR '� LP n May 4, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of ANDRE W LYALL requesting a Variance from minimum width of side yard, and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, to allow an attached garage approx. 10' x 19' at 40 COLUMBUS AVENUE (R-1). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 20, 2011, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris,Jamie Metsch, 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. The petitioner represented himself at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped March 30, 2011, the petitioner requested a Variance from required side yard setback and a Special Permit to construct a second story on an existing garage attached to the single-family house located at 4 Patton Road. 3. At the meeting on April 20, 2011, three residents 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. 2. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. • On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: i • 1. A Variance from side yard setback requirements of Section 4.1.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance is granted. 2. A Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming single-family house is granted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Debski, Hams, Curran, Dionne and Metch in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for a Special Permit and Variances 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 Contnvssioner. 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 CityBoard 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 properly to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the.Ordinance. 9. Windows are to comply with Building Code requirements. . —Re r�ecca Curran, air Salem Board of Appeals I lid 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. • "cc �go CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • `4#�'d!^�tlY�l� O' SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 W� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 9 78-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ZP11 N;. _Lj ��_ ?3 MAYOR May 4, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of CHARLIE RICKER requesting a Variance from number of stories and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a third floor porch on the property located at 112 LORING AVE (R-1). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 20, 2011, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris,Jamie Metsch, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (ahemate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5 and Variances pursuant to Section 4.1.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. • Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped March 30, 2011,the petitioner requested a Special Permit and Variances to add a third-story porch and porch rail system to the three-family house located at 112 Loring Avenue. 2. The petitioner represented himself at the hearing. 3. At the hearing,the abutter at 6 Sumner Road spoke in opposition to the project, expressing concern that adding the third-floor porch would impinge upon her privacy. The petitioner, abutter and Board members discussed various options for landscaping and screening, and the petitioner agreed to work with the abutter to come to a mutually agreeable 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. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 2 • On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans,Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance is granted. 2. A Variance from number of stories is granted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Debski, Harris, Curran,Dionne and Metch in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for a Special Permit and a Variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved 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. 8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise 'P YP an zoning relief ranted 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 confo rmity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 9. Landscaping and screening will be agreed uponupon with neighbors. V ID m7Z • Rebecca Curran, 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. • .CONDIT...gQ CITY OF SALEM� MASSACHUSETTS i BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3Ro FLOOR • �`,_, . „ { ''^� SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 - y� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 - ^a KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR rJ May12, 2011 i Amended Decision i N I City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of KIERAN HURLEY requesting a Special Pen-nit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem ZoningOrdinance to alter a nonconforming structure b constructing a g Y g second story on an existing garage on e property PenY located at 4 PATTON ROAD R- 1), A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 20,2011,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Cuman, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris,Jamie Metsch, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (altemate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5 (Nonconforming Single- and • Two-Family Residential Structures) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner represented himself at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped March 17, 2011, the petitioner requested a Special Permit to alter a nonconforming structure by constructing a second story on an existing garage. 3. At the meeting on April 20,2011,Ward 7 Councillor Joseph O'Keefe spoke in support of the petition, noting it would have little impact on neighbors. 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. • 2. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 2 • On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming single-family house is granted. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Curran, Debski,Dionne, Harris, and Metsch) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for a Special Permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the • existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted 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. Rebecca Curran, 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 3 11 the Varia• nce or Special Pernut granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • • �� coegoJ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL - �, ` 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • 4= �`�o' SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR May 4, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of KIERAN HURLEY requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance alter a nonconforming structure by constructing a second story on an existing garage on the property located at 4 PATTON ROAD (R-1). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 20, 2011,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Annie Hares,Jamie Metsch, and JimmyTsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5 (Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. • Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner represented himself at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped March 17, 2011, the petitioner requested a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming single-family house on 40 Columbus Avenue by constructing a single-story, one car attached garage. 3. At the meeting on April 20, 2011, Ward 7 Councillor Joseph O'Keefe spoke in support of the petition, noting it would have little impact on neighbors. 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. 2. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate • conditions and safeguards as noted below. 2 • On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans,Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming single-family house is granted.. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Curran, Debski, Dionne, Harris, and Metsch) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for a Special Permit subject to the following terms, conditions,and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by e Building the Bildi Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the • existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted 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 (500%) 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. Rebecca Curran, 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 3 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. • ON0I1A.q�✓ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL tO 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR \• �' SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL �� MAYOR May 4, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of MARC BOUCHARD requesting a Variance from minimum side yard setback and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a breezeway on the property located at 55 TREMONT ST. (R-1). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 20, 2011,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Annie Hams,Jamie Metsch, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Section 4.0 and a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5 of the Cry of Salem Zoning Ordinances. • Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner represented himself at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped March 30,2011, the petitioner requested a Variance from required side yard setback and a Special Permit to construct a breezeway on the side of the two-family home located at 55 Tremont Street. 3. The petitioner noted at the April 20, 2011 meeting and in his application form that the breezeway was proposed to accommodate a disabled member of the household. 4. Also at the hearing,the Building Commissioner noted that the side yard setback relief was necessary because of the unusual shape of the lot. 5. No member of the public spoke in support or opposition 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; the petitioner's lot has an unusual shape. 2 • 2. Owing to the unusual shape of the petitioner's lot,literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 4. 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 side yard setback requirements of Section 4.0 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance is granted. 2. A Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to emend a nonconforming two-family house is granted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Debski, Harris, Curran,Dionne and Metch in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's • request for a Special Permit and a Variance subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. Rebecca Curran, 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. • • gONNIr�, CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL a 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 xnveo�� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 1 n .MAYOR 21 May 4, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of NICOLE BARLETTA requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, and Variances from number of stories, lot coverage, and side and rear setba cks, in order to construct a shed dormer and two rear decks on the two-family house at 31 ARBELLA ST (R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 20,2011,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Annie Hams,Jamie Metsch, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (ahemate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5 and Variances pursuant to Section • 4.1.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped March 31, 2011, the petitioner requested a Special Permit and Variances to construct a shed dormer in the rear roof and a three-level deck, which would also serve as the second means of egress for both units in the house. 2. Antonio Barletta presented the petition at the hearing on behalf of petitioner Nicole Barletta. 3. At the hearing, the residents of one abutting property spoke in opposition to the petition, and letters from two other residents were read, also opposing the project, citing concerns about adding decks and parking spaces to a small property. A letter from At-Large Councillor Joan Lovely was presented in support of the project on the grounds that it would enhance and beautify the neighborhood. 4. At the hearing on April 20, 2011,Board members noted the lack of detail provided in renderings of the proposed three-level deck and requested more specific, scaled drawings of the deck, as well as of the rear and side elevations, detail of the bulkhead, and the entrance to the rear floor. The Board also requested a parking plan, drawn to scale, to show the number and dimensions of the parking spaces on the property. 5. The Board proposed dividing the petition,voting on a Special Permit and Variance from dimensional requirements for the dormer (number of stories), and voting to 2 allow the petitioner to withdraw the remainder of the petition without prejudice with • the intent of re-filing it with more detailed plans. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. Desirable relief for the proposed rear roof dormer 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. 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 under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance is granted to alter a nonconforming two-family house by constructing a dormer on the rear roof as shown in the submitted plans. 2. A Variance from number of stories is granted to construct a dormer on the rear roof • as shown in the submitted plans. 3. The Board grants the petitioner permission to withdraw without prejudice the requested Variances and a Special Permit to install a three-level deck/means of second egress. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Debski, Harris, Curran,Dionne and Metch in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for a Special Pemut and a Variance to construct a dormer on the rear roof, and to withdraw without prejudice the requested Variances and Special Permit to install a three- level deck/means of second egress,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. is 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. I 3 • 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 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. Rebecca Curran, air Salem Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOA RD 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. • �YcaggOJ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS .y �m BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • y Is_ . + I p SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 �eCiM�rvE��P TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 9 78-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR May 4, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of PAULA PEARCE requesting a Special Permit and Variances from height, number of stories, lot area per dwelling unit, lot coverage, and front, side and rear setbacks in order to demolish the existing building on 15 HIGH STREET and construct a one-unit, three-story residence (R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 20, 2011,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran,Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Annie Hams,Janie Metsch, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.3 and Variances pursuant to Section • 4.0 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. 15 High Street, and the abutting properly at 17 High Street, are owned by T. William Smith;petitioner Paula Pearce intends to purchase both. 2. 15 and 17 High Street are lots held in common ownership, but with two distinct uses, and have not merged for zoning or assessment purposes. 3. The petitioner,Paula Pearce, and her attorney, Alessandra Baldizzone Donovan, presented the petition at the hearing. 4. In a petition date-stamped April 7, 2011, the petitioner requested a Special Pemit and Variances from number of stories, lot area per dwelling unit, lot coverage,and front, side and rear setbacks in order to demolish the existing building on 15 High Street and construct a one-unit three-story residence. 5. At the hearing, the petitioner noted that three ar e ara kin aces would garage parking spaces be included on site at 15 High Street- one for 15 High Street and two to be available for use for the two units on 17 High Street. • 6. At the April 20, 2011 hearing, two residents asked questions about the proposal, but neither opposed it. Both residents noted that the proposal would improve the property. 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 proposed project would improve the property and neighborhood and provide parking that does not currently exist. 2. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. Variances from height, number of stories, lot area per dwelling unit, lot coverage, and front,side and rear setbacks are granted. 2. A Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance is granted. • In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Debski, Harris, Curran,Dionne and Metch in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for a Special Permit and a Variance subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved 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. 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 form 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. Petitioner will provide two (2) spaces at 15 High Street for use by 17 High Street. Spaces will be secured bycondominium documents or deed. 3 i Rebecca CurTan, Lhair 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, MA.SSACILJSE7TS BOARD OF APPEAL ,P s' ae yak Q` 120 WASNGTON STREET SALEM,WssAcHusETTS 01970 HI TELE:978-619-5685 FAx:978-740-0404 KIMRERLiY DRisooLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday,April 20,2011 at 6:30 p.m at 120 Washington St., Salem,MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming use (gas station) and dimensional Variances under Sec. 3.3.3 to reconstruct a nonconforming structure (constructing a convenience store); requesting relief from frontage and lot area; and requesting relief from screening requirements of Sec. 6.3.4 , for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 and R-3) and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on May 4,2011 • Petition of RENEWAL VENTURES,LLC requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance allow a change of nonconforming use by addition of one (1) residential unit to an existing four(4) residential unit building, and requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking requirements, for the property located at 28 EDEN STREET (R-1). Decision: Denied Filed with the City Clerk on May 4, 2011 Petition of KIERAN HURLEY requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance alter a nonconforming structure by constructing a second story on an existing garage on the property located at 4 PATTON ROAD (R 1). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on May 4, 2011 Petition of ANDRE W LYALL requesting a Variance from minimum width of side yard, and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure,to allow an attached garage approx. 10'x 19'at 40 COLUMBUS AVENUE (R 1). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on May 4, 2011 Petition of MARC BOUCHARD requesting a Variance from minimum side yard setback and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a breezeway on the property located at 55 TREMONT ST. (R-2). Decision: Granted . Filed with the City Clerk on May 4, 2011 i Petition of PAULA PEARCE requesting a Special Permit and Variances from height, number of stories, lot area per dwelling unit, lot coverage, and front, side and rear setbacks in order to demolish the existing building on 15 HIGH STREET and construct a one-unit,three-story residence (R 2). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on May 4, 2011 Petition of NICOLE BARLETTA requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, and Variances from number of stories,lot coverage, and side and rear setbacks, in order to construct a shed dormer and two rear decks on the two-familyhouse at 31 ARBELLA ST (R-2). Decision: Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure and Variance from number of stories are granted in order to construct a shed dormer. Variances from lot coverage and side and rear yard setbacks in order to construct rear decks are withdrawn without prejudice. Filed with the City Clerk on May 4, 2011 Petition of CHARLIE RICKER requesting a Variance from number of stories and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a third floor porch on the properly located at 112 LORING AVE (R-1). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on May 4,2011 This mice is l eing sent in mnplianx with the Massadxaetts General Law, Chapter 40A, Sat m 9& 15 and does not require action by the ruipierrt Appeals, if ara}s shall bemzde pursuant to C�iapter 40A, Swim17, and shall Ix filxl within 20 d t5s from the date whicb the dauton teas filed with the City Clerk. o+nrr�� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 2 - 2: 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR - SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • ��fv� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595- FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR MEETINGNOTICE 2011 NAR 10 A $- 45 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING March 16 2011- 6:30 P.M. ` '{ City Hall Annex, CITY' CLi u`i, °1-i.: t. ° :','i5. 120 Washington Street Room 313 (3d Floor) Salem,MA 4aLk�/amp Elizabeth Debski,Vice Chair AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes -February 16,2011 meeting. 2. Continuation of 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 164 and 166-168 BOSTON STREET to an auto body shop (I Zoning District). 3. Public hearing:Petition of A.L.PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming use (gas station) and dimensional Variances under Sec. 3.3.3 to reconstruct a nonconforming structure (constructing a convenience store);requesting relief from frontage and lot area; and requesting relief from screening requirements of Sec. 6.3.4 ,for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. (B- 1 and R-3) and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 Zoning District). • 4. Public hearing:Petition submitted byPAUL FERRAGAMO seeking Variances from mimmum lot area,minimum lot width/frontage,and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for eleven (11) single-family house lots at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-1 Zoning District). 5. Old/New Business ➢ Board of Appeals elections 6. Adjournment Know YcemRig is Under the Open M"LawM.GL. c 39§23B and City Onlimnx Sects m 2-2028 rlmu*2-2033. city noItte pow*j an �o trJal Bo Bose W4ty Hall " 3iam, Ak@hz�. CR £1t 8.'y5 Atn s " " 7AAR. /0 a011 Aa � . . . • ONOIT"q'� ✓ ''�Q CPIY OF SALEM,MASSACHUS FITS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT S �J'x fa�T 120 WASMNGION STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSE"I 01970 TELE:978 619 5685 ♦ FAX:978-740 0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOL.I. MAYOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: March 10, 2011 RE: Meeting Agenda—March 16, 2011 • Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: ➢ Agenda ➢ Planner's memo ➢ Meeting minutes of 2/16/11 Continuation of public hearing: Petition of EXPRESS AUTO BODY,INC, seeking a Special Pe rmit to change one nonconforming use to another in order to convert the existing building located at 164-168 BOSTON ST to an auto body shop (I Zoning District). I have not received any further information from the applicant or owner. Calls to the applicant have not been returned, so I don't know whether he intends to withdraw or attend the meeting. Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming use (gas station) and dimensional Variances under Sec. 3.3.3 to reconstruct a nonconforming structure (constructing a convenience store); requesting relief from frontage and lot area; and requesting relief from screening requirements of Sec. 6.3.4 , for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 and R-3) and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 Zoning District). The applicant requested to continue this petition last month because only four Board members were present. Information about the petition was in your January packet. -1- Public hearing: Petition submitted by PAUL FERRAGAMO seeking Variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width/frontage, and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed • subdivision for eleven (11) single-family house lots at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-1 Zoning District). The applicant requested to continue this petition last month because only four Board members were present. Information about the petition was in your January packet. • 2 • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, March 16,2011 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday,,- March 16, 2011 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Elizabeth Debski, chairing the meeting, Rebecca Curran,Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate), Richard Dionne, and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Those absent were: Annie Harris. Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner. Debski opens the meeting at 65 30 p.m. Approval of minutes: The minutes of 2/16/11 are reviewed. McKnight says she has an addition: when the Board voted to go into executive session, she neglected to note the role call vote that was held in the draft minutes and suggests making this addition to the approved minutes. Curran moves to approve the minutes with this change, seconded by Dionne and passed 5-0. Continuation of 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 164 and 166-168 BOSTON STREET to an auto body shop (I Zoning District). Attachments: ➢ Application date-stamped ll/18/10 ➢ Assessor's map of the property and vicinity ➢ Site and Parking plan (no date or title) Debski notes the petitioner is not here, the Board has requested info they have not received, and there are people here in the public for this petition. Deski opens the issue up for public comment. Ward 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols St., speaks in opposition, saying the proposal in addition to what is there would be too much for that one property. Mike Shea, 160 Boston St., concurs with the Councilor. Bob Brophy 165 Boston St., says he opposes because of parking issues, not because the applicant proposes opening a shop competing with his. • Debski asks the Board for any comments. She closes the public comment portion of the hearing. 1 Dionne says the petitioner hasn't shown up and suggests he's lost interest. • St. Pierre says the owner, Mr. Cucurull,was asked to submit a parking plan. Curran: we haven't received a letter? McKnight says she has not received one, and a phone call and email to Petitioner about what he wanted to do were not answered. Curran moves to approve, seconded by Belair. The Board votes: five (5) are opposed (Curran,Belair,Tsitsinos, Dionne and Debski). None are in favor. Petition is denied. Public hearing: Petition of A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming use (gas station) and dimensional Variances under Sec. 3.3.3 to reconstruct a nonconforming structure (constructing a convenience store); requesting relief from frontage and lot area; and requesting relief from screening requirements of Sec. 6.3.4 , for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 and R-3) and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 Zoning District). Attachments: ➢ Application date-stamped 12/22/10,with supplementary material ➢ Plans titled"Site Improvement Plan" and "Proposed Floor Plan and Elevations," prepared by Ayoube Engineering,last dated 11/19/10 ➢ Photographs and property cards from Assessor database (submitted by resident Polly • Wilbert, 7 Cedar St.) ➢ Letter submitted by resident Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar St. Attorney George Atkins presents the petition and introduces Tony Guba of Ayoube Engineering. Arty Atkins describes the existing conditions of the site—a gas station and office building. He says AL Prime has entered into purchase agreement with the owner of 183, this is contingent on petitioner getting permits to do what both would like. They want to take down the buildings and put in four gas pumps with a canopy and a convenience store to the rear. He says this reduces number of businesses on these two lots —instead of four it will be reduced to two,gas station and convenience store. He says the plan is also intended to address the queuing of cars on Lafayette St. for people trying to get gas, and this proposal will prevent this. He says pumps will be self serve - currently it's attendant service - and the plan will allow for easy entrance and exit. Previously, there could be numerous vehicles trying to access the site for various reasons. There also is a crosswalk here that's dangerous. They think this plan will solve these problems. Arty Atkins says they've asked for a Special Permit on 175 Lafayette. He says this is needed because this was a use established prior to zoning; current ordinance requires a SP for gas station; convenience store is an allowed use. He says the property extends into the R3 zone in the rear. The SP is to change a nonconforming use on 175. They are taking down the • building on 183; need a SP because they will use for gas station use, "motor vehicle light i 2 • service," and this is a B1 lot. They are requesting two Special.Pertnits. He says that unfortunately, the dimensional regulations they are asking for are complex, since this is a corner lot. Because it is a gas station, or"motor vehicle light service," there are special regulations in section 6-4 of the Zoning Ordinance which change the dimensional regulations in section 4. He passes out a copy of table of the relief requested and explains each dimensional variance requested. Front setback is normally 15 feet in B1,requirements of special regs increase it to 40, and it's on the corner, so it has to be looked at from both sides. The existing structure, the garage,is not in conformance with that, and neither will the convenience store and canopy. At the south side, that refers to the side nearer to Marblehead. Requirement there is 10 feet currently;garage sits on the line or goes over. Convenience store is 2 feet across the side line. Convenience store and canopy must be looked at; to south, no relief is needed for the canopy. Convenience store is still 3 feet off the line and needs relief. Atty Atkins says the rear setback is 30 feet, this is not changed by the special regulations; the garage did qualify but the convenience store set back on 175 doesn't conform to the zoning requirements. The minimum area and lot width is substantially increased by the special regulations, from 6,000 to 16,000 SF, this is a function of the number of pumps they have. They need relief from lot area. Number of pumps increases what is normally allowed for lot width— from 40 to 160 feet. They are short of lot width on both streets. Frontage, a new requirement in the new ordinance, doesn't do have separate requirements as dictated by special regulations, as lot width does. He says no relief is needed for frontage. • Atty Atkins addresses building lot coverage—he says 40%is allowed in Bl —current site has 26% building coverage. He says the chart shows proposed conditions will have 38% coverage including canopies, meaning no relief is required. Atkins says the pump setback is currently nonconforming;plan doesn't require relief. We're pushing pumps back, getting cars off the street, there's queuing available on the site. Another requirement for max driveway width is in the special regs. What the plan shows is two existing driveways,both will be closed,and new access will be back from comer. This will provide more sensible parking. He thinks the neighborhood group was satisfied with that. Atkins says the driveway width can't be more than 24 feet according to Zoning;a 30 foot driveway will be on Palmer and the existing opening is now 79 feet. Relief will be required there. The nonstorage space in convenience store requires 10 spaces; the area between current buildings requires 9 spaces; they have 10 available. Evergreen screening is also required;we're asking for relief there because both lots are very small and adding screening would create a difficult problem in terms of laying out effectively. Atty Atkins explains changes proposed to the gas storage tanks. He says the tanks, currently in front, are very small by current standards for gas stations - two 6000 gallon tanks. They plan to remove them and install a larger, more common version of 20,000 gallons each. This will enable truck delivery without shutting down operations on site. With the small tanks, he says there are 10 deliveries a week; the larger tanks will only require 3 or 4, a big reduction. • He says the delivery of fuel to a site is a dangerous point for producing spills; this substantially reduces that risk. There are 3 employees on site, hours of operation are 6 to 10, 3 Sunday 8 to 8, and they will continue to use these hours. They may go to council for • permission for 24 hour operation. This is not yet determined and will depend on council. Atty Atkins says the neighborhood group was very concerned about this issue if this could be a youth gathering place. He says this operation keeps stations clean and orderly and have no problems at their sites. Also, he says neighbors were concerned about truck idling while delivering. Arty Atkins says it's an absolute rule of the company,possibly even state law, that trucks must be shut down while delivering. He says another concern was regarding construction—he says there are minimal employment opportunities, but he thinks the company will advertise locally. He addresses the construction time period—an estimated 3 to 4 months. New tanks must be put in. As a personal observation,in dealing with this company, councilors have been concerned a bout queuing of cars,we've met with them about this, they are very responsive. He thinks it will be a considerable improvement for the neighborhood and Lafayette St. Belair asks about the neighborhood meeting. Atkins says he was invited to meet with Point neighborhood,but hasn't met with immediate neighbors. He did meet with one resident who was concerned after the item was continued at the last meeting and answered her questions; he explained what they were doing and she was satisfied. Belau asks about the notation "and pizza" on the convenience store plans. Atkins says this would not be the principle activity of store;it will have pizza and subs as part of other food items for sale. Belau—most convenience stores don't sell pizza. Atkins —one of the other gas stations in Salem does a form of food service;it's quite common now. Belair—they'll be making pizza there? Atkins: Yes. Curran: are there seats? Atkins: No. • Dionne: will there be access to the variety store from Lafayette ST. from pump stations? Seems awkward. Atkins points out the access on the map. Dionne: you'll have four pumping stations that can serve 8 cars? Atkins: theoretically, but I'm not sure it's ever maximized. He says one thing the company has told him is gas stations aren't destination locations. Unless they are really driven by price, people won't come from elsewhere. They don't expect an increase in traffic. Curran: Pahner entrance is a 2 way entrance and exit? Atkins: yes. Curran: what's the reason for 30 feet instead of 24? Atkins: for more comfortable traffic. Curran: that's pretty wide. Tony Guba: It's to accommodate the swing of tractor trailor;Palmer is narrow. They'd be exiting out that way. Curran: Lafayette St. is just one way in? Guba: No, but the tanker truck would be coming in Lafayette, driving counterclockwise and exiting to Palmer. Dionne asks for clarification of distance between pump, storage area and exit. Ward 7 Councillor O'Keefe: state fire regs require a truck to shut down while delivering the fuel. If there's a 10,000 gallon tank truck, no one can be on the property while they are dispensing fuel. They must put cones up to prevent other cars from accessing. St. Pierre: this isn't happening around Salem. O'Keefe—this is a fire department issue; there should be no cars on property while fuel is delivering. • 4 • Debski: can trucks fit under height of canopy? Atkins: yes. Tony: canopy is lit with task area, recessed lighting. There's no glare;company uses LED lights. Atkins: this plan will also be reviewed, including lighting, by the planning board. Debski and Curran ask wither SPR will be triggered;Atkins says they will go before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. Curran: some relief I have no issue with, some is preexisting, but in back—this is residential —3 feet for this use seems really close to me. Any way you can shift up or reduce size? Can it be pulled back from that house? I see a conflict with those uses being so close. Atkins: I suppose you could—but you wouldn't want to go into parking area. You need space between parking and building. Curran: I'd almost rather see it come out to the street with less setback and provide more distance from that house. It's very close. Guba says the lot is higher than what's next door. He points on the plan to the open stairwell —the building is actually further back than it looks on plan. He says it's just a deck with stairwell. A retaining wall is there now;if the building was moved in, the wall is still a divider. Wouldn't open that area; and there's a fence there. Curran: there will be a stockade fence instead of evergreen screening? Guba—we're showing the fence all along property. Belau: what's the height? Guba thinks it's 6 feet. St. • Pierre says it can be 8 feet between a business and residence. Dionne: what's the requirement for gas storage underground tanks —what proximity to houses can they be? St. Pierre asks Councillor O'Keefe, who responds that they are underground. Debski: no minimum? St. Pierre asks about snow removal—he notes there's no proviso for snow and it will be pushed out to street. Atkins says it will have to be removed; St. Pierre says you have to have a plan to have it temporarily stored,perhaps that's for the Planning Board to review, but it's not realistic during a blizzard that it won't go onto street. Atkins: it's the company's practice to remove snow;all their sites are small. There isn't room to store snow. Dionne: most gas stations not so close to residential neighborhoods. I don't think they would allow that today. How close is the building to the right? Atkins says these tanks are the new standard; state of the art allowed by regulation. Dionne says he's concerned about traffic. Atkins says that's a problem they are trying to solve. Dionne points out increased capacity for pumping. Atkins says the experience of the company is that volume of cars won't go up,but the queuing will disappear. • Tsitsinos says this is exactly the same as the Hess on New Derby, and on North St. Both are totally free flowing. 5 Belair thinks these are larger. Tsitsinos thinks they are comparable to,if not smaller than, is this property. Belair: from my perspective,you're increasing the use. Atkins: keep in mind we started with a convenience store, office use, garage and pumping of gas, all on same site;all with deliveries and customers. He disagrees that they are increasing business activities. Tsitsinos agrees, and also thinks the backing out problem will be solved. Debski: garage that's there now—they repair vehicles? Atkins: yes, and this is just gas. Belair: people are concerned about people hanging around;in my mind pizza will attract this. Atkins: it's not a sit down restaurant. He does not think it will encourage loitering. Guba addresses increasing the number of dispensers —we find that there's a perception that more pumps equals more customers;but a good analogy is a grocery store with more checkout counters. He says it just means people are moved through faster, not that number of customers increases. Dionne—now people will have to come in to the store for transactions. Guba says the average transaction time will be 4 minutes. He says with all self serve, time is decreased because people aren't waiting for an attendant. Debski opens the issue up forpublic comment. • Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar St.,lives across street. She passes out photos of site and says this speaks to St. Pierre's concerns about snow. She says it's dangerous now, there is queuing on Lafayette, not sure any changes will diminish that. Doesn't think Salem needs it, thinks this project is because Marblehead has only one gas station and this is for them. Curran says actually, Marblehead has zero gas stations. Wilbert says kids loiter there. She's concerned about late hours. However,it would be nice for the liquor license to go away. She passes out information about local gas stations and their lot area and says they are significantly larger than this site. . Wilbert asks if they are aware of plans for Lafayette St. and Dow and Harbor's proposed signals. She says she asked about queuing to traffic signals, and up to 20 cars are expected. She says that will bring the queue to this gas station. There will be problems getting people in and out because of the queue. Also, the bus stop across from office building is a busy one. She says in winter, snow blocked crosswalk to bus stop. We've had pedestrians hit there multiple times because of that crosswalk. There would be lots of problems changing this site. It would be great if they could be fixed, but lots are too small, there's too little turning radius. Cars come onto lot from every direction. She says it's dangerous, and urges the Board not to approve. Jamie Metch, 18 Oliver St., says he had a chance to look at the plans and view the site. He agrees with the applicant that the proposal creates efficiency that could alleviate queuing. He still has concerns about congestion. He addresses the concern from neighbors about cars • coming on and off lot every which way,with a 79 foot curb cut from Lafayette, that still will 6 allow random ability to come and go. He suggests perhaps narrowing that down to 30 feet, pushing to right where the trucks would come in, and creating a one way in, one way out scenario like on Highland Ave. near the transfer station. Creating flow of traffic that only allows flow to go one way onto Palmer. Also, there is a pedestrian car conflict;he refers to the redevelopment of Lafayette and University growing, and says there hopefully will be more pedestrian/bike activity, so shortening the curb cut would be better. As to the evergreen screening—maybe it could be done on north side between sidewalk on Palmer and the north side of building, something to make more active to that neighborhood, keeping friendly instead of concrete wall. Ultimately proposed plan probably more efficient use;would agree that self serve is quicker than attendants. Ward 1 Councillor Bob McCarthy, 153 Bay View Ave., agrees with a lot of what was just said; he occasionally goes there, and the attendant is very slow. He concurs with the belief that reconfiguration of site will benefit Lafayette with regard to traffic. When he went to look at this and met the owner of company, the previous owner was having major conflicts and congestion. Council brought them in and discussed reconfiguring lot. Agrees with St. Pierre that stacking snow is an issue they have to resolve. When first made aware of plan, he looked at one owned by this company in Lynn and noticed an employee was inspecting trash facilities outside. He says they run a very clean operation. He thinks it's a plus to get queuing off Lafayette St. He's been in lots of gas stations, and there's a D&D in every one these days, or subs. Doesn't think food sale will attract new business from outside the neighborhood. Perhaps the crosswalk could be addressed at some point. The convenience store won't be selling liquor; that license won't go along with sale. • Councillor Joseph O'Keefe—28 Surrey Rd., not as a councilor,but as a fire protection engineer, says this station has been there since 1922 as a gas station and garage. Current tanks are single wall steel. They want to replace with new, double wall fiber glass,which is much safer in preventing a spill. This would be solving a problem with regard to storage. He goes there because it's cheap. He says the attendant system is slow. He has seen people going through station and drive all the way through to buy liquor. This plan will prevent that. This will also alleviate problem of access and circulation on site with the double sided pumps. Currently, there is no fire prevention system. These canopies will have a fire system. He says he's here not with any interest in the company but because of the fire safety problems, and the congestion. He respectfully requests the Board approve this project. Debski closes public comment portion Atkins: Ms. Wilbert's comments argue in favor of doing something for this site. This is an opportunity to make it better rather than leave it the way it is. There certainly were legitimate comments around snow removal, the bus stop crosswalk, not sure the narrowing of driveway to Lafayette is good idea,but there could perhaps be changes here. We have to go through Site Plan Review, and the Planning Board often will put conditions in their decision requiring snow removal, and this can be enforced by Building Inspector if it's not being done. The company can control kids hanging around. Can't control number of Marblehead residents coming, and he's not sure this is a problem. • Curran: Much of the relief I have no problem with. There are issues the Planning Board should look at—can we give them a letter asking them to look at these things? 7 Debski—we've conditioned snow removal before. She notes that St. Pierre has said they could, though this would also be looked at by the Planning Board. Atkins: if you send letter with your concerns,we can talk more about the opening, crosswalk position, snow, etc., and we will voluntarily bring these to the Planning Board. Debski asks how they will be addressing the Commerce St. side - with landscaping? Atkins says he is not sure, but it will be some solution to make the property look better on that side. Dionne asks if there is any consideration to looking at 3 instead of 4 pumps? Atkins says he must ask his client. Belair:.no problem with a lot of the relief requested, but she can't support petition as it is before the Board, however, because of the increase in density. Dionne - if they went to 3 pumps he would be in favor. Curran: timing of planning board? Atkins: after your decision. However,if it's critical to your vote,we could continue, and I will ask about 3 stations instead of 4, and this would also change the dimensional relief. Debski says she has no problem with 4 pumps, and thinks this is much better than what's there now. She says what Councillor O'Keefe brought up with regard to fire safety - that's huge. She does think this is a reduction in uses;what's there does not work, and this design is a big improvement. Curran says she has no problem with it, and some tweaks would be • addressed during site plan review. She says that's not a place for a crosswalk,it should be at the intersection. That is not before the Board, however. Atkins: four pumps were planned with the idea of reducing queuing on Lafayette St.; three works against this idea. Tsitsmos: I'm all for this — I'm comparing it with Bridge St., the Mobile station, all the Hess stations —the site is a mess now. I see nothing wrong with this plan at all. It cleans up the whole corner. Instead of 5 signs there will be 1. Atkins requests to continue to the next meeting so he can speak with his client about the issues raised. McKnight says before the Board votes, she would request Atty. Atkins sign an extension form so that the variances are not constructively approved. He agrees. Curran moves to continue to April 20, 2011, Dionne seconds, approved 5-0. Public hearing: Petition submitted by PAUL FERRAGAMO seeking Variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width/frontage, and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for eleven (11) single-family house lots at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-1 Zoning District). Attachments: • 8 ➢ Application date-stamped 12/22/10, with associated narrative and supplementary information ➢ Decision of ZBA date-stamped 5/6/09 for same property ➢ Approved plan from 2009, titled"Site Plan Layout Geometry at#405-427 Highland Ave., Salem,MA," prepared by Patrowicz Land Development Engineering, last dated 3/2/09 (Revised per ZBA Comments) Arty Atkins presents the petition. He refers to the May 2009 Board decision previously issued on this project and introduces the engineer, Scott Patrowicz, and owner, Paul Ferragamo. He says that because this is on a state highway, they need permission for entry of the property,which you can't get without local approvals. He notes that during the previous review, the city engineer did not think Mass DOT would accept the plans. As it turned out, they did not, and we spoke to them about alternatives,we have a good feeling of what they will accept. The location of entryway from Highland Ave. was changed as a result. Intersection now moved and this changes where lots are, and their area and frontage. iThe actual intersection will involve a change of equipment and poles, movement of the mechanical box, and installation of a light facing the project's entryway. These are required by the Highway dept. As a result, there is one more lot on the east side, one less on the southerly side. He says the upper lots averaged 7500 SF;now they average 7400 SF. The lower average was 6000, that's increased to 7000. He addresses the widths of the lots approved—at the time the frontage calculations were not required, just width, so frontage is now being requested—now relief is requested for 8 lots instead of 6,with exact same average of 77 feet. He says the new ordinance requires 100 feet of frontage, and frontage • now averages 74 feet on the 7 lots that need relief. He says the front setbacks have changed little. He says they did speak at the time of the last decision with the abutter at the immediate northerly side—he had concerns to be addressed with a landscape buffer - they are leaving landscape easement as it was, but the his situation is improved, since the roadway will be moved further away from his property. Debski asks if board members have questions. Atkins notes that Mr. Ferragamo is paying for improvements to the intersection, not Mass Highway. Debski opens the issue up forpublic•comment. Dennis Colbert, 7 Clark St.,likes this roadway entrance much better. He has no problem with the rest of the project. Jamie Metch, 18 Oliver St., agrees that squaring off at the intersection at Olde Village Dr. makes sense, and this will help the state highway. He says this is a good use of the lot. Debski closes the public comment portion of the bearing. Curran: I thought the project was really well thought out before, and this is an improvement. • Dionne and Tsitsinos agree. Tsitsinos says this is much better for the gentleman on left. 9 Debski says the lights are a big improvement. Curran notes that the improvements may increase the value of property. Curran moves to approve the project with the following seven (7) 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. 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. Atkins notes there is a typo in the petition—in the body of the narrative, 12 lots are referred to—this is a typo,it's just 11 lots, as it says in rest of petition. Dionne seconds and the petition is approved 5-0 (Dionne, Curran,Tsitsinos,Belair and Debski in favor, none opposed). Old/New Business: Board of Appeals elections • Debski moves to nominate Curran for the Chair position, seconded Dionne and approved 5-0 (Dionne, Curran, Debski,Belau and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). Curran moves to nominate Debski as Vice Chair, seconded by Dionne and approved 5-0 (Dionne, Curran, Debski,Belair and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). Curran moves to adjourn, seconded by Dionne and passed 5-0. The meeting adjourns at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 4/20/11 10 pONDITggO CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 • KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR L,1;� i;,:a /_Ll March 24, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 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 164-168 BOSTON ST, Salem, MA to an auto body shop (Industrial 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 continued to January 19, 2011, February 16, 2011, and March 16, 2011. The hearing was closed on March 16, 2011 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Beth Debski, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair (alternate), and James Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.2, Nonconforming Uses, of the • City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Peter Martino represented the petitioner, Carlos Farias, at the hearings. The property is owned by Robert Cucurull, who authorized the petition. 2. During the hearings, Board members expressed concern about parking on the site. The Board requested a parking plan showing which spaces would be dedicated to each use on the site. 3. Also at the hearings, several members of the public spoke in opposition to the proposal, citing concerns about congestion, parking and fumes near a residential neighborhood. 4. At the March 16, 2011 hearing, Board members noted the requested information, a parking plan, had not been received; the applicant was not present; and a phone call and email to the applicant had not been returned. 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. The petitioner did not attend the hearing on March 16, 2011 or respond to inquiries as to the status of the petition. 2. The petitioner did not demonstrate that the proposed change would not be substantially more detrimental then the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Special Permit to change the existing nonconforming use to another nonconforming use (auto body shop) is not granted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) opposed (Curran, Debski, Dionne, Belair and Tsitsinos) and none (0) in favor, to grant petitioner's requests for a Special Permit. The petition is denied. 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 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. • ,gONDITggo CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS c ✓ BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL FAX: 978-740-9846 MAYOR Zu Mt March 24, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO seeking Variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width/frontage, and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for eleven (11) single-family house lots at 405-427 Highland Avenue, Salem, MA (R-1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 16, 2011 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The meeting was closed on March 16, 2011 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair (alternate) and James Tsitsinos (alternate). • Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §4.1.1: Table of Dimensional Requirements. Statements of fact: l. Attorney George Atkins presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner, who owns the property., 2. In a petition date-stamped December 22, 2010, the applicant requested variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width/frontage, and minimum front yard depth. 3. The property, the site of a single-family home, currently has the address of 419 Highland Avenue. 405-427 Highland Avenue is the applicant's proposed street numbering after subdivision. 4. The Board of Appeals had granted relief for a similar plan on April 15, 2009. However, the Attorney Atkins stated that the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, which hasjurisdiction over Route 107/Highland Avenue, would not approve the site entrance as previously configured, and so they are proposing a relocated site entrance. Attorney Atkins stated that this change caused the reconfiguration of the house lots, with minor changes in the relief needed. • I 2 5. At the hearing, two residents spoke in support of the project, both stating their • preference for the reconfigured site driveway. No one spoke in opposition. 6. At its meeting on March 16, 2011, the Board of Appeal voted five (5) in favor and none (0) opposed to grant Variances from dimensional requirements to allow for the redevelopment of the site as proposed in the plan titled "ZBA Submittal: Subdivision Plan, Locus Plan for I 1 Residential Lots for a site at #405-427 Highland Ave., Salem, Massachusetts,"dated October 22, 2010, and prepared by Patrowicz Land Development Engineering and North Shore Survey Corporation. 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. Board members expressed that they felt this was a well thought out project that could potentially increase property values in the area. Additionally, they noted that changes from the previously approved plan were better for neighbors and that the new site driveway, including the proposed traffic light, were an improvement over the original plan. 2. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential One-Family District to • construct the proposed development, which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 3. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and'safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. To allow for the redevelopment of the site as proposed, the requested Variances from dimensional requirements are granted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Curran, Debski, Belair, Tsitsinos and Dionne) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for Variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. • 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said numbers so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. b 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 has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • � '�4's� 5 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet G froy Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date 3 / � 6 / I Name o Mailing Address Phone # rE-mail • • Page of ,w*66ND'��,, CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETrS v BOARD OF APPEAL a n �. n; +�r�a•'.. 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSAMLJSEM 01970 iru1;u4a4 ::-.W....-...,,, TEi.E:978-619-5685 FAx:978-740.0404 ........... KtNoERLEYDRISCOLL - MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday,March 16, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem,MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: 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 164 and 166-168 BOSTON STREET to an auto body shop (I Zoning District). Decision: Denied Filed with the City Clerk on March 24,2011 Petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO seeking Variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width/frontage, and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for eleven (11) single-family house lots • at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R 1 Zoning District). Decision: Granted- Filed with the City Clerk on March 24, 2011 This notice is being send in mrrpliance with the Massadnrsetts General Lazar, Chapter 40A, Sffnons 9& 15 and does not nqui.m action by the rttipi62 Appeals, if an}, shall be grade pursuam to Chapter 40A, Seam 17, and shall be filed whi in 20 dais from the date whid2 the derision was filed with the City Clerk. i ` ot+wr CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 7�. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR t SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING February 16,2011- 6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex, r, 120 Washington Street Room 313(3�d Floor) Salem,MA o C-) Elizabeth Debski,Vice Chair +� Q AGENDA 1. Executive Session: Discussion of litigation of each of the following matters: 7'+ ➢ Levesque et al.v. United Financial Consultants,LLC(ESCV2009-01178A); w ➢ Wallace et al.v. Wharff et al. (ESCV 2009-02005A); -D ➢ McKinnon et al.v. Byrne et al. (ESC'V 2009-01545C);and ➢ United Healthcare,Inc. et al.v.Stein et al. (ESCV2011-00088C). 2. Approval of Minutes -December 15,2010 and January 19,2011 meetings. 3. Continuati on of public hearing:PetitionPermit a Special nonconforming ue to another in order to ot�rt the existing building located seeking 166 68 BOSTON STREET to an auto body shop (I Zoning District). • 4. Continuation of Public hearing:Petition of RUSSELL&NORMA LEBLANC requesting a Special Permit under Sec., 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming structure,in order to add a second floor adtion to the existing single family house on the property located at 11 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R-1 Zoning District).ad 5. Public hearing:Petition of RICARDO GARCIA requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and from parking requirements in order to renovate and convert the existing single-family house on the property located at 138 BRIDGE STREET to a two-family house (R-2 Zoning District). 6. Public hearing:Petition of AL. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming use (gas station) and dimensional Variances under Sec. 3.3.3 to reconstruct a nonconforming structure (constructing a convenience store);requesting relief from frontage and lot area; and requesting relief from screening requirements of Sec. 6.3.4 ,for the properties located at 175 L 1 and R-3) and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 Zoning District) AFAYETTE ST. (B- : 7. Public hearing:Petition submitted byPAUL FERRAGAMO seeking Variances from minimum lot area,minimum lot width/frontage, and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for eleven(11) single-family house lots at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R 1 Zoning District). 8. Old/New Business ➢ Board of Appeals elections 9. Adjournment TWIG e wed on "pO� flidal 68't Board' City ��$0 S&IG e, MASS. oR q a.D�t C rY1 o r 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 MAYOR MEETINGNOTICE 2MI FED) I P 3: Oq ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING February 16, 2011- 6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex C I T` I-' U0 Washington Street Ikoom 313 (3,d Floor) Salem,MA Elizabeth Debski,Vice Chair REVISED AGENDA 1. Executive Session: Discussion of litigation of each of the following matters: ➢ Levesque et al. v. United Financial Consultants,LLC(ESCV2009-01178A); ➢ Wallace et al.v. Wharff et al. (ESCV 2009-02005A); ➢ McKinnon et al. v. Byrne et al. (ESCV 2009-01545C); and 2. Approval of Minutes - December 15,2010 and January 19,2011 meetings. THE FOLLOWING APPLICANT REQI IF STS TO CONTINUE TO 3/ 16/11 3. Continuation of 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 164 and 166-168 BOSTON STREET Ito an auto body shop (I Zoning District). . HE FOLLOWING APPLICANTS HAVE CONFIRMED ATTENDANCE 2/16/11 4. Continuation of Public hearing:Petition of RUSSELL &NORMA LEBLANC requesting a Special Pernut under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming structure,in order to add a second floor addition to the existing single family house on the property located at 11 WINTER ISLAND ROAD(R-1 Zoning District). 5. Public hearing:Petition of RICARDO GARCIA requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and from parking requirements in order to renovate and convert the existing single-family house on the property located at 138 BRIDGE STREET to a two-family house (R-2 Zoning District). THE FOLLOWING APPLICANTS ARE CURRENTLY THE AGENDA,BUT PLEASE CHECK WEBSITE AGAIN FOR POSSIBLE CANCELLATION: 6. Public hearing: Petition of A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming use (gas station) and dimensional Variances under Sec. 3.3.3 to reconstruct a nonconforming structure (constructing a convenience store); requesting relief from frontage and lot area; and requesting relief from screening requirements of Sec. 6.3.4 ,for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. (B- 1 and R-3) and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-I Zoning District). 7. Public hearing: Petition submitted by PAUL FERRAGAMO seeking Variances from minimum lot area,minimum lot width/frontage,and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for eleven (11) single-family house lots at 403-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-1 Zoning District). 8. Old/NewBusiness 9 Posted on "011fWal 9Ulf"n B Board of Appeals elections art 3 09 Ph SlgIOM, MOSS, on V,6 /4�// Adjournrrurnt 24A A �. .� n Kmzv Yarr Ri jjt: Uriler dx Cper ,V ffrirlg L.rw,V.G.L. c 39§23B aril City O dipunr Samm 2-2028 dmrri 2-2033. y��coeorr�.�a CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS �j BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3Ro FLOOR _ f Q SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • '` .�.. '7 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 oo� FAX. 978-740-9846 Z�!1 r � A ii �� KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ; MAYOR ( I�y 1, .. . ,, . February28, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of RUSSELL &NORMA LEBLANC requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming structure, in order to add a second floor addition to the existing single family house on the property located at 11 WINTER ISLAND ROAD(R-1 Zoning District). -A public-hearing-on-the above Petition was-opened-on-January49 2011,pursuantto Mass— -- — General Law Ch. 40A, S 11. The hearing was continued to February 16, 2011 and closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Elizabeth Debski (chairing the meeting) Richard Dionne, Rebecca Curran, and Bonnie Belair(alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Pemut pursuant to Section 3.3.5 of the City of Salem Zoning • Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Deborah Kozlowski is the owner of 11 Winter Island Rd. 2. Ms. Kozlowski submitted a letter stating that petitioners Russell and Norma LeBlanc had committed to purchasing the property and authorizing the LeBlancs to apply for needed permits. 3. Mr. and Ms. LeBlanc presented the petition at the hearings. 4. In a petition date-stamped January 5, 2011, petitioners requested a Special Permit pursuant to Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition on the existing single-family home on 11 Winter Island Road. 5. At the hearing, neighbors and Board members expressed concern about the lack of parking currently on the site and sought assurance that parking would not be permitted on the public right-of-way off of Wmter Island Road., adjacent to the property. 6. At the hearing, Mr. LeBlanc noted that there was space on the site (between the house and water) to park two cars. • 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: i. Desirable relief may be granted,since the proposed modification will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure. 2. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Special Perri-lit to extend a nonconforming single-family structure is granted to allow for the proposed addition on the property located at 11 --------------- ----- — --Winter--Island-Road-as shown-on-the-submitted-elevation plans titled- --------------- "LeBlanc Residence, 11 Winter Island Road, Salem,MA," dated 2/8/11, and prepared by Esoteric Residential Design, Inc. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four (4) in favor(Curran, Debski,Dionne and Belair) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's request for a Special • Permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All 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 Cenificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the • structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by 3 any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement is destruction, 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. Two off-street spaces shall be created on petitioner's lot. 10. Petitioner shall not park in public right of way adjacent to the property. a , 4 ,A ' IbAul Eliza et ib 1 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 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry • of Deeds. • y ,gONDIT�,gd CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • 4P �P, TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 4 _ KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 20t1 f�.;� /�' n, �1: Q� MAYOR February 28, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of RICARDO GARCIA requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and from parking requirements in order to renovate and convert the existing single- family house on the property located at 138 BRIDGE STREET to a two-family house (R-2 Zoning District). -A public-hearing on-the-above Petition was-opened on February M 2011;pur—mane to Mass ------ General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on February 16, 2011 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Elizabeth Debski (chairing the meeting), Richard Dionne, Rebecca Curran, and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Sections 4.1.1 (Table of Dimensional Requirements) • and 5.1 (Off-Street Parking) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Louis P. Izzi, Esq. represented petitioner Ricardo Garcia at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped December 28, 2010,petitioner requested Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and parking requirements in order to convert the existing single-family house on 138 Bridge Street to a two-family house. 3. Two residents submitted letters opposing the petition because the project did not include any parking. 4. At the hearing, Attorney Izzi stated that he had obtained a comrnitment for an 8- foot wide,71-foot long easement from the Trustee of 136 Bridge Street, Mr. Richard G. DiGirolamo, Esq., for vehicular passage, allowing access to a parking area on the site at 138 Bridge Street. Mr. Izzi presented a letter to the Board signed by Mr. DiGirolamo indicating his intent to convey this easement. 5. Attorney Izzi stated that the parking spaces created would not conform to the Zoning Ordinance, and relief would still be needed to allow these spaces. The spaces would be only 8 feet wide, and backing out onto Bridge Street would be necessary. • 6. At the hearing, Steve Smith, 140 Bridge Street, spoke in support of the project, but asked that gutters be installed on the roof to prevent water leakage into his house. 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: i. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 2. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to allow for the renovation as proposed, and mayvary the terms of off-street parking regulations. 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 lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking requirements are granted. • In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four (4) in favor(Curran, Debski,Dionne and Belair) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's requests for Variances, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state 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 perrnit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. • 8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the 3 structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 9. Petitioner shall secure an easement to allow for parking on the site, as described in the letter signed by Richard G. DiGirolamo dated February 16, 2011. 10. Gutters are to be installed on the roof to prevent runoff into the house located on 140 Bridge Street. De s6-�1z'1X 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 Zoning Board of Appeals • Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, February 16, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Elizabeth Debski (chairing the meeting), Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Those absent were: Annie Harris and James Tsitsinos (alternate). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner. Debski opens the meeting at 6:35 p.m. She announces there are only four members present and so some applicants have requested to continue to next month in order to be heard by a full Board. Continuation of 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 164 and 166-168 BOSTON STREET to an auto body shop (I Zoning District). Debski announces they have requested to continue. Curran moves to continue the petition • to March 16, 2011, seconded by Belair and approved 4-0. Public hearing: Petition of A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming use (gas station) and dimensional Variances under Sec. 3.3.3 to reconstruct a nonconforming structure (constructing a convenience store); requesting relief from frontage and lot area; and requesting relief from screening requirements of Sec. 6.3.4 , for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 and R-3) and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 Zoning District). Attorney George Atkins requests to continue the petition;Curran moves to continue the matter to March 16, 2011, seconded by Dionne and approved 4-0. Public hearing: Petition submitted by PAUL FERRAGAMO seeking Variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width/frontage, and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for eleven (11) single-family house lots at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-1 Zoning District). Attorney George Atkins requests to continue the petition; Curran moves to continue the matter to March 16, 2011, seconded by Dionne and approved 4-0. Debski says the Board is going to move to executive session to discuss strategy for litigation on several cases—the Assistant City Solicitor is present for this purpose. She says that . discussion of these cases in public could be detrimental to the City's position on litigation. She notes that the Board will continue in open session after the executive session. She 1 announces the Board members will be moving into the adjacent small conference room for the executive session and will return to the large conference room for the rest of the open • session. She says the cases to be discussed are: ➢ Levesque et al.v. United Financial Consultants,LLC ; ➢ Wallace et al.v.Wharff et al.;and ➢ McKinnon et al.v. Byme et al. Dionne makes a motion to go into executive session; Curran seconds, and the motion passes 4-0 (Debski, Dionne, Curran and Belair in favor, none opposed). The Board leaves the room at 6:40 p.m. The Board members return at 7:03 p.m. Debski announces the Board is back in open session. Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of RUSSELL &NORMA LEBLANC requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming structure,in order to add a second floor addition to the existing single family house on the property located at 11 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R-1 Zoning District). Attachments: ➢ Application date-stamped 1/5/11; accompanying plot plan and other materials ➢ Elevation drawings titled"LeBlanc Residence, 11 Winter Island Rd., Salem,MA," • dated 2/8/11, prepared by Esoteric Residential Design, Inc. ➢ .Photographs submitted to Board (no date) Russell and Norma LeBlanc present the petition. Mr. LeBlanc describes the one story addition he is proposing. He says the plans have been submitted to Board and shown to neighbors, and asks if the Board has any questions. Curran asks him to confirm that he is just going up,within the same footprint;LeBlanc says yes. Belair asks what material would be used. LeBlanc says he planned on vinyl siding but would reconsider if the Board preferred something else. Debski asks St. Pierre if the only relief they need is a Special Permit; St. Pierre says yes, and prior to the zoning recodification, they wouldn't even have needed that. He notes that there is a provision in ordinance that allows him to allow the applicant to rebuild the porch area without a Special Permit;it's just the addition that requires one. Debski opens issue up for public•comment. Scott Johnston, 12 Winter Island Rd. notes there is no parking on that lot and asks where they will be parking cars? LeBlanc says there is a 20 foot wide access road that goes down to water. He says the paving often used on golf courses will be put in adjacent to this access road to park cars on, in front of the home, between the home and water. Debski asks him to clarify where the access road is — she couldn't see it on the plan. St. Pierre explains it's a public right of way. LeBlanc presents photos of the property and shows the access road to • the Board. 2 . Debski asks if there is parking for 2 cars,LeBlanc says yes. Debski: there is no parking presently? LeBlanc says the current residents have been parking on the easement. Paul O'Shea, 15 Winter Island Rd., asks for clarification about the parking. Debski explains there is to be parking for two cars between the house and water; Curran adds that parking is not intended for the easement. St. Pierre notes there should be a condition that there will be no parking on the right of way. Anne O'Shea, 15 Winter Island Road, asks what will happen with the section of wall that was damaged years ago and rubble has been left behind. LeBlanc says he doesn't know what she's referring to. He says he saw debris in the right of way but this doesn't have anything to do with him. Ms. O'Shea says this time of year there's a lot of trash that washes up there, but this is separate issue. Debski notes he'll probably need to go to the Conservation Commission, and this would be worth discussing there. Debski closes public portion of the bearing. Curran says she likes the addition of parking. Belair moves to approve the petition with the following standard conditions: Petitioner shall • comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the • structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (501/6) of its 3 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. and two special conditions: 9. Two off-street spaces shall be created on petitioner's lot. 10. Petitioner shall not park in public right of way adjacent to the property. Motion is seconded by Dionne and passed 4-0 (Dionne, Debski, Curran and Belair in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of RICARDO GARCIA requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and from parking requirements in order to renovate and convert the existing single-family house on the property located at 138 BRIDGE STREET to a two-family house (R-2 Zoning District). Attachments: ➢ Application date-stamped 12/28/10.and accompanying plot plan,photographs and other materials ➢ Letter from Louis P. Izzi, Esq. to Richard G. DiGirolamo, Esq., dated 2/16/11 • ➢ Parking plan titled, "RS Design & Construction Corp., 138 Bridge St., Salem MA, Parking Proposed," no date. Louis Izzi, Esq. presents the petition on behalf of Mr. Garcia,who is also present. He says that in his statement of hardship he explains the property is in very difficult shape. He says it is currently held in the estate of William Paradise.The owners haven't paid taxes to the City in about 20 years. He says there was a tax taking done in 90s that was reversed because of a defect in land court proceeding, but it has been taken again. Most recently he says he was told the building was condemned. His client is interested in rehabbing—inside and out. In order to be economically feasible to do so he says they are recommending it be converted to a two family. Since petition was filed, Mr. Izzi says his client has been trying to find ways of securing parking. He says today he was able to secure a commitment from the neighbor at 136 to allow an easement for passage to a place on the property where on-site parking will be provided. He passes the board a letter signed by Richard Di Giralomo agreeing to this. He says the lot line between the properties is 71 feet. Along that boundary, the easement, 8 feet wide,will allow access to the rear of 138. He passes out a parking plan sketch to the Board. He feels this will alleviate concern that has previously been expressed by neighbors. He says he would be seeking relief from parking space area, since the lot configuration doesn't afford space. He notes that this is an odd shaped lot. He says his client has made an effort to alleviate the legitimate parking concerns of neighbors, and notes that adding parking could be seen as eliminating a parking nonconformity. Debski says piggy back spots don't count as legal- is there an area for turning around? Izzi says no, and this parking • 4 would require backing out onto Bridge St. He says that acquisition of the easement is not • insignificant in terms of costs and notes that many of the existing buildings in the neighborhood have the same situation in terms of backing out. Curran asks Attorney Izzi to confirm they are staying within the house's footprint and no expansion is proposed;he says yes. Garcia says some of the property might be demolished. Debski asks if this would allow room for a turnaround—St. Pierre says probably not. He notes that someone has been parking there for several years. Steven Smith, 140 Bridge St., comments that that area of Bridge St. has very little off street parking and he supports the plan. Curran asks what materials would be used. Arty Izzi says the plan to assess what's under the shingle;hopefully it's clapboard. They would attempt to refinish what's existing. Belair is concerned about letter saying the conversation about the easement is confirmed; tomorrow there could be no agreement. St. Pierre suggests adding this as a condition. Belair asks what happens if it falls through? Izzi says this approval is dependent on their ability to have the easement. St. Pierre says to make it a condition, so it's enforceable through the building permit process. Belair acknowledges the neighbors' concerns about parking. Izzi says he spoke to Councillor Sosnowski,who had been concerned about parking, about this prior to obtaining the easement, and he has since emailed him with an update. Izzi recognizes parking is a major issue in the neighborhood. • Dionne asks if during renovation they would install any kind of frrewall on the end of the house which is about a foot from the neighboring house? Garcia says the plans are preliminary,but will meet all regulations of the city. Because he doesn't own the property lot, he can't invest in exact detailed plan of the inside. St. Pierre says there are no windows on that side of the house, and the code wouldn't allow openings to be put in. They need to maintain a solid wall. Debski opens the issue up forpublic comment. Steve Smith, 140 Bridge St., says the roof is pitched and water runs into his house because it's so close—he would request gutters on that side. St. Pierre said that sounded reasonable. Smith said he wasn't originally supportive of the plan, but he's just glad to get it repaired- the shed in back is dangerous, and there could be animals living there. He does want to make sure there's no damage to his house when they do the siding. He says the bedrooms of his house are on very close. He asks about construction times allowed by the city; St. Pierre says the hours are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. - that's enforceable city ordinance. Smith says that proximity to construction could be hard for his tenants. However, it would be great to fix up the house. Debski refers to letters the Board has received (from Ward 2 Councillor Michael Sosnowski, 17 Collins St., and Alyssa Jones, Northey St.). • Debski closes the public comment portion of the hearing. 5 Dionne says he has a hard time allowing them to increase the density here. He understands the financial reasons for that, however. St. Pierre notes that the calls he receives on this • property indicate that its appeal is its proximity to the train station. Curran says she has no problem with increased density - this is how this property can be renovated. She says the parking isn't the best—but it does get cars off the street. Dionne asks if this doesn't go through—will it go up for auction? St. Pierre says yes. Debski says when she came in she was really concerned about the lack of parking, but realizes how hard the petitioner has worked and how expensive it must be to get that easement. It's not ideal, but they have been accommodating. Belair says she is concerned with increasing density. For a two family—you'd have at least two cars. She says she is really on the fence. Curran moves to approve the petition,with the following 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 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 (501/o) 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. and the following special conditions: 1. Petitioner shall secure an easement to allow for parking on the site, as described in the letter signed by Richard G. DiGirolamo dated February 16, 2011. • 6 2. Gutters are to be installed on the roof to prevent runoff into the house located on 140 Bridge Street. The motion is seconded by Dionne and approved 4-0 (Dionne, Debski,Belair and Curran in favor, none opposed). Approval of Minutes: The minutes of December 15, 2010 are reviewed. Dionne moves to approve, seconded by Debski, and passed 4-0 (Curran, Debski, Belair and Dionne in favor, none opposed). The minutes of January 19, 2011 were reviewed. Dionne moves to approve them, seconded by Debski and passed 3-0 (Debski, Dionne and Belair in favor, none opposed, Curran abstaining). Old/New business: Dionne moves to continue Board elections to the March 16, 2011 meeting, seconded by Debski and passed 4-0. Curran moves to adjourn, seconded by Dionne and passed 4-0. Meeting adjourns at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner • Approved by the Board of Appeals 3/16/11 • 7 • �'+�` CITY OF SALEM,MASSACFIUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ?s i 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM MASSACHUSEPTS 01970 NE iELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx 978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner DATE: February 7,2011 RE: Meeting Agenda—February 16,2011 Board Members, • Please find the following in your packets: ➢ Agenda ➢ Planner's memo ➢ Meeting minutes of 12/15/10 and 1/19/11 ➢ Materials for new agenda items Executive Session: Discussion of litigation of each of the following matters: ➢ Levesque et al.v.United Financial Consultants, LLC (ESCV2009-01178A). This is an appeal of the zoning relief given to reconstruct the condominium building at 272 Jefferson Ave. ➢ Wallace et al,v.Wharff et al. (ESCV 2009-02005A). This is an appeal of the zoning relief given to William Wharff for the HES building at 162 Federal Street. ➢ McKinnon et al.v. Byrne et al. (ESCV 2009-01545C). This is an appeal of the zoning relief given to Leslie Byrne forl6 Saunders St,off of Bridge Street. ➢ United Healthcare,Inc. et al.v. Stein et al. (ESCV2011-00088C). This is an appeal of the denial of a Special Permit for the proposed methadone clinic at 207 Highland Ave. Continuation of 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 164-168 BOSTON ST to an auto body shop(I Zoning District). At the last meeting, the Board requested that the applicant provide a parking plan from the owner,which has not yet been submitted. A letter from a resident in opposition to the project is included in your packet. • -i- Public hearing: Petition of RUSSELL&NORMA LEBLANC requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming structure, in order to add a second floor • addition to the existing single family house on the property located at 11 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R-1 Zoning District). At the last meeting, the Board requested scaled elevation drawings,which are included in your packet. Public hearing: Petition of RICARDO GARCIA requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and from parking requirements in order to renovate and convert the existing single-family house on the property located at 138 BRIDGE STREET to a two-family house (R-2 Zoning District). The applicant requested to continue this petition last month because only four Board members were present. Information about the petition was in your January packet. Two letters in opposition (one from Ward 2 Councillor Michael Sosnowski) are included in this packet. Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS requesting a Special Permit under Sec.3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming use (gas station) and dimensional Variances under Sec. 3.3.3 to reconstruct a nonconforming structure (constructing a convenience store);requesting relief from frontage and lot area; and requesting relief from screening requirements of Sec.6.3.4 ,for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 and R-3) and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 Zoning District). The applicant requested to continue this petition last month because only four Board members were present. Information about the petition was in your January packet. Public hearing: Petition submitted by PAUL FERRAGAMO seeking Variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width/frontage,and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for eleven (11) single-family house lots at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-1 Zoning District). The applicant requested to continue this petition last month because only four Board members were present. Information about the petition was in your January packet. • • -2- `��CONDITq�� City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail IV ��,,►,�, �, 44 1 3) C/"k S/ 14 -7ys-9ra Page of CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSET TS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 'IELE:978-619-5685 *FAx:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEYDRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday,February 16, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of RUSSELL &NORMA LEBLANC requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming structure, in order to add a second floor addition to the existing single family house on the property located at 11 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R 1 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on February 28, 2011 Petition of RICARDO GARCIA requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and from parking requirements in order to renovate and convert the existing single-family house on the property located at 138 BRIDGE STREET to a two-family house (R 2 Zoning District). • Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on February 28, 2011 This now is Ding sent in mphance wth the Massachusetts Gewral Lajas, Chapter 40A, Seawa 9& 15 and does not m7twe action by the reaptem Appeals, if an.� shall be nude pursuant to Chapter 40A, Seam 17, and shall be filed zathin 20 drjs from the date uahidr the decision uas fiW wth the City Clerk. oewr CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSET.TS BOARD• APPEAL S 120 WgSHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR f SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL FAX: 978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING January 19, 2011- 6:30 P.M. CI1 v . City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Room 313 (3A Floor) ` Elizabeth Debski, Vice Chair REVISED AGENDA(SECOND REVISION) 1. Approva l of Minutes - December 15,2010 meeting 2. Public hearing:Petition of JOHN WHARFF requesting Variances from minimum lot area,lot width/frontage,and front yard setbacks,to subdivide the property located at 434 LAFAYETTE STREET into six(6) single-family house lots (R-1 zoning district). Proposed access is from RAYMOND TERRACE, APPLICANT HAS WITHDRAWN THE P_ETITTOIV 3. Continued 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). 4. Public hearing:Petition of A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming use (gas station) and dimensional Variances under Sec.3.3.3 to reconstruct anonconformingrelifomcr structure (constructing a convenience store);requesting relief from frontage and lot area; and requesting relief from screening requirements of Sec. 63.4 ,for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. (B- 1 and R-3) and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 Zoning District). APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO FEBRUARY 16,2011. 5. Public hearing:Petition of RICARDO GARaA requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and from parking requirements m order to renovate and convert the existing single-family house on the propertUin u i at 138 BRIDGE STREET to a two-familyhouse (R-2 Zoning District). APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO FEBRUARY 16,2011. 6. Public hearing:Petition of KE VIN&AMY KING requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure,in order to add a second story and 8'x 12'addition to the single family house on 7 NURSERY STREET (R-2 Zoning District). 7. Public hearing:Petition of RUSSELL &NORMA LEBLANC requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming structure,in order to add a second floor addition to the existing single family house on the property located at 11 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R-1 Zoning District) 8. Public hearing:Petition submitted byPAUL FERRAGAMO seeking Variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width/frontage, and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for eleven (11) single-family house lots at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-1 Zoning District). APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO FEBRUARY 16, 2011. •s Old/NewBusiness Board of Appeals elections - TO BE CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 16, 2011 10. Adjournment This I14We posted on "Oftldal Buttetin Board" City Hall Salem, mar�,�. on sue,,. i9 C�oii at 9: 7b Pin in fix, w4ii Gam. 39 Ala. 22A a 2=1 of M.Q.L. odwrlro 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 MAYOR 2011 J.AAN 19 P 1: 33 MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEENG January 19,2011- 6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Room 313(3^t Floor) Elizabeth Debski,Vice Chair REVISED AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes -December 15,2010 meeting 2. Public hearing:Petition of JOHN WHARFF requesting Varianc es from minimum lot are a,lot wrdth/frontage,and front yard setbacks,to subdivide the propertylocated at 434 LAFAYETTE STREET into six(6) single-family house lots (R-1 zoning district). Proposed access is from RAYMOND TERRACE. APPLICANT HAS WITHDRAWN THE PETITION. 3. Continued 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). • 4. Public hearing:Petition of A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming use (gas station) and dimensional Variances under Sec. 3.3.3 to reconstruct a nonconforming structure (constructing a convenience store);requesting relief from frontage and lot area; and requesting relief from screening requirements of Sec. 6.3.4 ,for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. (B- 1 and R 3) and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 Zoning District). APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO FEBRUARY 16,2011. 5. Public hearing:Petition of RICARDO GARCIA requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and from parking requirements in order to renovate and convert the existing single-family house on the property located at 138 BRIDGE STREET to a two-familyhouse (R 2 Zoning District). 6. Public hearing:Petition of KE VIN&AMY KING requesting a Special Pemrit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure,in order to add a second story and 8'x 12'addition to the single family house on 7 NURSERY STREET (R-2 Zoning District). 7. Public hearing:Petition of RUSSELL &NORMA LEBLANC requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming structure,in order to add a second floor addition to the existing single family house on the propertylocated at 11 WINTER ISLAND ROAD(R-1 Zoning District) 8. Public hearing:Petition submitted byPAUL FERRAGAMO seeking Variances from minimum lot area,minimum lot v,idth/frontage,and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for eleven(11) single-family house lots at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-1 Zoning District). APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO FEBRUARY 16, 2011. 9. Old/New Business ➢ Board of Appeals elections -TOSBE CQNTIN �OFEN6~, Mn Board' AUri- 10. Adjournment City Hall Salem, Mass. own Z0 23A A 06 Of K. Our CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS .t BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WSON STREET, 01 FLOOR SALEM,EM, MA MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL FAX: 978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING V January 19,2011 - 6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex, _ 120 Wash gton Street Room 313(3,d Floor) Elizabeth Debski, Vice Chair t� AGENDA w I. Approval of Minutes - December 15,2010 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 zoning district). Proposed access is from RAYMOND TERRACE. 3. CA)tninued 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). 4. Public hearing:Petition of A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming use (gas station) and dimensional Variances under Sec. 3.3.3 to reconstruct a nonconfomnng structure (constructing a convenience sto and requesting relief fro re);requesting relief from frontage and lot area; m screening requirements of Sec.6.3.4 , for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. (B- 1 .utd R-3) and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-I Zoning District). 5. Public heating: Petition of RICARDO GARCIA requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and from parking requirements in order to renovate and convert the existing single-family house on the property located at 138 BRIDGE STREET to a two-famdYhouse (R-2 Zoning District). 6. Public hearing: Petition of KE VIN &AMY KING requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure, in order to add a second storyand 8'x 12'addition to the single family house on 7 NURSERY STREET (R-2 Zoning District). 7. Public hearing: Petition of RUSSELL & NORMA LEBLANC requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salcut Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming structure, in order to add a second floor addition to the existing single fanvly house on the property located at 11 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R-1 Zoning District) S. PubI1C hearing: Petition submitted by PAUL FERRAGAMO seeking Variances from mi amain lot area, rrtirtunnum lot aiddi/frontage, and rninimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for eleven (11) single-family house lots at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-1 Zoning District). 9. Old/New Business Board of Appeals elections TAM Reft poftd on M City ajj Salam, Mass. o // p/I CIA A 1p Mot ."..,, I COPIUIT . CITY OF SALEM,MASSAGHUSL'"L'1'S DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND l .s i�l li COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ;s jp1 s ��MINA 120 WASHITF E 978-619-5685 A FAx:8-740-0404TTs 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP - DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner DATE: January 13,2011 J� j 19,tall RE: Meeting Agenda— • Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: ➢ Agenda ➢ Planner's memo ➢ Meeting minutes of 11/17/10 ➢ Materials for new agenda items Public hearing: Petition of JOHN WHARFF requesting Variances from minimum lot area,lot width/frontage, and from 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. The applicant requests numerous dimensional variances,as listed in the table accompanying the application,which also provides a comparison to the dimensions zoning requires. Attorney Scott Grover will be representing the applicant. He has told me it's very likely he will request a continuance or will withdraw the application;however,I have not received any formal notice of this yet. I will let the Board know as soon as I receive updated information. Based on communications from residents, there appears to be significant concern in the adjacent neighborhood about this project. Continued 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). At the last meeting, the Board requested that the applicant provide a more complete site plan,which I have not yet • received. 4- Public hearing: Petition of A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS requesting a Special Permit under Sec.3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming use (gas station) and dimensional Variances under Sec.3.3.3 to reconstruct a nonconforming structure (constructing a convenience store); requesting relief from frontage and lot area;and requesting relief from screening requirements of Sec. 6.3.4, for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 and R-3) and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 Zoning District). The Zoning Information table accompanying the plans provides a comparison between the dimensions proposed and those required by zoning. Public hearing: Petition of RICARDO GARCIA requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and from parking requirements in order to renovate and convert the existing single-family house on the property located at 138 BRIDGE STREET to a two-family house (R-2 Zoning District). The property was the subject of a tax title taking recently,and so is currently owned by the city. City Solicitor Beth Rennard has signed the application, authorizing the petitioner to go forward. Petitioner requests relief from lot area per dwelling unit(1299 SF is proposed;7500 is required) and parking(no parking is provided on site;3 spaces are required). Public hearing: Petition of I EVIN&AMY KING requesting a Special Permit under Sec.3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure, in order to add a second story and 8'x 12' addition to the single family house on 7 NURSERY STREET (R-2 Zoning District). No dimensional relief is requested. Public hearing: Petition of RUSSELL&NORMA LEBLANC requesting a Special Permit under Sec.3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming structure,in order to add a second floor addition to the existing single family house on the property located at 11 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R-1 Zoning District). • No dimensional relief is requested. The application does not include elevation drawings,but the petitioners have agreed to bring them to the hearing. After the abutter notice went out,we received several calls from abutters concerned about parking and view obstruction issues. Petitioner Norma LeBlanc called last week to tell me she had met with neighbors to discuss the project and no longer expected opposition. Public hearing: Petition submitted by PAUL FERRAGAMO seeking Variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width/frontage, and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for eleven (11) single-family house lots at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-1 Zoning District). The Board approved a similar project on this property in May 2009 (decision is included in the application packet). The project requires a permit from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation,which did not approve the curb cut and site drive configuration as proposed. The new proposal aligns the site drive with the intersection of Olde Village Drive and Highland Avenue. The change required the reconfiguration of the house lots, so there are slight changes in the dimensional relief requested. • n -2- �poNolTq� City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet y; to•' `A Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date f / ",(7 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail YkiQQr 5-4, 4Pr A Z,) T /,. _'W-d q ?-N7,-2 Az� a 12- dQ-<f oi 7e-`7f�S=dSdS Page of cosorr�.9d CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS J �r. BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3Ro FLOOR SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 P TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 _ KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ZC!! F`(3 I gin, �': �b MAYOR February 1, 2011 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 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. At its regularly scheduled meeting on January 19, 2011, the Board of Appeal voted 4-0 (Debski,Belair, Dionne, and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed) to allow the Petitioner to withdraw this petition without prejudice. PERMISSION GRANTED TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE JANUARY 19, 2011. Elizabeth Debski Salem Zoning Board of Appeals CC: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk • allotTAgd CITY OF SALEM� MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL ro 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • �.` ro.. ' SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 Gn TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERL YDRISCOLL 20,11 FCf� MAYOR A_ N. Ob C,l February 1,2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of KEVIN&AMY KING requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure, in order to add a second story and 8'x 12' addition to the single family house on 7 NURSERY STREET (R-2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on January 19,2011 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, S 11. The hearing was closed on January 19, 2011 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Elizabeth Debski,Richard Dionne,James Tsitsinos (alternate), and Bonnie Belair(alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: • 1. Petitioners Kevin and AmyKing represented themselves at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped December 29,2010,petitioners requested a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure by adding an addition to their existing single-family house. 3. At the hearing,three residents spoke in support of the project. 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 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. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires 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 Special Permit is granted to extend a nonconforming structure. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,four(4) in favor(Debski,Dionne, • Tsitsinos and Belair) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's requests for a Special Permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,ordinances,codes and regulations. z i2. 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 safetyshall 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 CatyBoard or Conmussion 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 fiftypercent (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 fiftypercent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction,it shall not • be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordiriance. Elizabeth Debski Salem Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN 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 filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS � BOARD OF APPEAL a1 4.- i� 130 WASHHINGTON$1 RE.F,1 *SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 07970 'rELL:978-619-56854 FAX:978-740-0404 KIMRERLP.Y DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday,January 19, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the 120 Washington St.,, Salem, NIA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: 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, Salem,MA (into six (6) single-family house lots (R-1). Petitioner requested to withdraw petition. Decision: Permission granted to withdraw without prejudice Filed with the City Clerk on February 1, 2011 Petition of KEVIN &AMY KING requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure,in order to add a second story and 8' x 12' addition to the single family house on 7 NURSERY STREET (R-2). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on February 1,2011 This notice is being sent in compkance with the Massachusetts General7ltws,Chapter 40A,Sections 9&15 and does not require action by the recipient. Appeals,if any,shall be made pursuant to Cbatter 40A,Section 17,and shalt be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals APPROVED Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,January 19,2011 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBN') was held on Wednesday, January 19, 2011 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Elizabeth Debski (Chairing the meeting),Richard Dionne,Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate) and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Those absent were Annie Harris and Becky Curran. Also present were Thomas St. Pierre,Director of Inspectional Services, and Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner. Debski opens the nwtirgar 6:35 p.m Approval of minutes postponed until next meeting. 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. Attachment: • ■ Withdrawal letter from Attorney Grover dated January 19, 2011 McKnight explains the Board has received a letter from Attorney Scott Grover requesting to withdraw the petition. Dionne moves to allow to be withdrawn without prejudice,seconded by Tsitsinos and approved 4-0 (Dionne, Tsitsinos, Debski and Belair in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition submitted by PAUL FERRAGAMO seeking Variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width/frontage, and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for eleven(11) single-family house lots at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-1 Zoning District) Attorney George Atkins explains that because only four board members are present tonight, he wishes to continue the matter to the next meeting. Dionne moves to continue the item to February 16, 2011, seconded byBelair and approved 4-0. Public hearing: Petition of A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming use (gas station) and dimensional Variances under Sec. 3.3.3 to reconstruct a nonconforming structure (constructing a convenience store); requesting relief from frontage and lot area; and requesting relief from screening requirements of Sec. 6.3.4 , for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. (13-1 • and R-3) and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 Zoning District). 1 Attorney George Atkins explains that because only four board members are present tonight, he wishes to continue the matter to the next meeting. Dionne moves to continue the item to February 16,2011, seconded by Belair and approved 4-0. Public hearing: Petition of RICARDO GARCIA requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and from parking requirements in order to renovate and convert the existing single-family house on the property located at 138 BRIDGE STREET to a two-family house (R-2 Zoning District). Because only four board members are present tonight, applicant wishes to continue the matter to the next meeting. Belair moves to continue the item to February 16,2011, seconded by Dionne and approved 4-0. Public hearing: Petition of KEVIN &AMY KING requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure, in order to add a second story and 8' x 12' addition to the single family house on 7 NURSERY STREET (R-2 Zoning District). Attachments: • Application date-stamped December 29, 2010 ■ Plans titled "Proposed Addition to the King Residence," dated December 26, 2010, prepared by AFAB Enterprises,Burlington MA • Debski asks if there is a larger plan with the elevation shown. Mr. King shows an enlarged copy of the submitted plan. Debski notes that the side setback is already nonconforming. St. Pierre says he will check whether this requires a variance or only a Special Permit. Debski opus up the issue far public innate Michelle Fitzgerald and Ray Fitzgerald, 6 Nursery St., support the petition. Sarah Hayes, 21 Fairmont St.,supports the petition, noting the Kings are good neighbors and in this economy they should be allowed to expand rather than having to buy larger house. St. Pierre notes that only a Special Permit is needed for this petition,not a Variance. Belair notes that this is a nice proposal, in keeping with the neighborhood, and the abutters here support it. Tsitsinos moves to approve the petition with the following 9 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. 2 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. 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 conformitywith the provisions of the Ordinance. Motion seconded by Dionne and approved 4-0 (Debski,Dionne,Belair and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of RUSSELL &NORMA LEBLANC requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming structure, in order to add a second floor addition to the existing single family house on the property located at 11 WINTER ISLAND ROAD(R-1 Zoning District). • Attachments: ■ Application date-stamped 1/5/11 Russell LeBlanc presents the petition. He says they are looking at purchasing the property. They would like to add a second floor on the night hand side of the house and will not be expanding the footprint. Debski notes that no plan has been submitted. St. Pierre says legally the Board must tie their decision to a plan that's been submitted. Belair says the Board really needs to see plans so they can understand what they are approving. Debski says they don't need to be a full set of plans done by an architect, but they do at least need elevations. Applicant agrees to submit elevations by February 9, 2011, in time for the next meeting. Dionne moves to continue the petition to February 16 when scaled elevation drawings will have been submitted by Feb. 9, seconded by Belair, and approved 4-0 (Debski,Dionne, Belair and Tsitsinos in favor,none opposed). Continued 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). 3 Attachments: ■ Application date-stamped 11/18/10 ■ Assessor's map of the property and vicinity ■ Site and Parking plan (no date or title) St. Pierre clarifies that the correct address for this property is 164-168 Boston St., and does not include 162 Boston St. Attorney Peter Martino represents the petitioner. He says at the last hearing,there had been an issue with the parking. He apologizes that the plans were not submitted earlier and shows the Board a site plan. He explains the site layout and parking. Belair asks how many employees would be working there. Farias says two or three. Martino confirms there are 6 spaces for staff people.Farias says no customer parking is necessary because they work on the can and send them back Martino says all repairs are done inside the building. Debski asks what would happen with the remainder of the property- is the owner here to address that? She says the Board needs to look at parking for the whole project. Arty Martino shows on the plan where the existing rental office is. Farias says there is nothing in the front building. • Belair asks how cars will access parking- from Boston St.? Martino says yes,there is a right of way along the back side, but that parking area isn't part of this: Belair questions how the staff is going to access their parking. Arty Martino attempts to clarify on the plans how the spaces are to be accessed. Belair asks if these spaces are striped. She notes that the parking area is outside the property line. Debski says they asked at the last meeting for a plan showing each building's use and associated parking. Martino says the other parts of the property have nothing to do with Express Auto and its parking. He says the whole parcel is owned by one owner. St. Pierre said he thought it was clear at the last meeting that the Board requested an overall parking plan for the property. The Board must understand whether the body shop and other uses would work together and have enough parking. Belair notes there are five uses on this property. Belair asks where the truck rental office workers will park Martino agrees that the Board needs a plan that will show the other uses and their parking. Debski says she doesn't think the Board has enough information tonight to act tonight. She thought they had been clear, but perhaps there has been a misunderstanding. Belair says for the whole parcel,they want to know each use and the parking designated for each use. St. Pierre says the zoning ordinance requires parking to be designated for each use. One of the maim issues is the congestion and parking on the site. Debski Tem the issue up far public mnmiit r : 4 Ward 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan,4 Nichols St.,says parking is a major issue in that area. He says the same owner owns the property across the street, and down the road this will create a bigger problem. He also has a problem with the fumes associated with the auto body shop and how it will affect the children next door. He says he does not support the petition. Mike Shea,the owner of 116 Boston St., says the only access to the garage is through an easement on his property, but the only way to actually pull a truck into the garage is by going into his property. St. Pierre asks him to show the easement on the plan. Mr. Shea points out on the plans where the residential use next door and the easement is located. He also says the paint fumes will affect the children living next door. Debski asks about the width of the easement; Shea says approximately 10 feet. Martino says they need to update the plan with the easement. He says people always got in that way- the access is for a car, not for large trucks. Belair asks if tow trucks wouldn't be coming in? Martino says he doesn't think so. Also, he says this was a use of that building previously. However, he thinks the easement is wide enough to allow a car. Shea says it used to be Jeffers Mill and trucks did not come in that garage door opening. Shea says the previous owner owned the whole site and accessed it from the front and side. Shea says if they are taking one nonconforming business and going to another nonconforming, would the new use have to be less detrimental? St. Pierre says yes,you'd have to determine that the new use wouldn't be more detrimental. Shea says it will be a mess with the traffic and he doesn't know how they will access the building without going on his property. • Bob Brophy, 165 Boston St., asks if the current use is allowed by right. Also, is the U Haul allowed bythe current zoning? He says the U Haul takes up a lot of parking in the lower area where they are showing employee parking. Debski asks if that's where they are parking their trucks now;Brophysays yes,plus Budget trucks. St. Piere says Mr. Cucurull came in for the truck rental question- and that use is allowed. Motor vehicle and body repair is by ZBA special permit. An inspection station would be allowed under current zoning. Brophy asked about the Hertz car rental- does their parking plan include the Hertz? He says there are a lot of uses with things being stored and minimal storage space. He says he's had his shop,40 years and they are running into problems with the owner's multiple uses. He says there are too many things crammed into too small a property. St. Pierre says it's a good point that the owner has numerous uses and he needs to provide a parking plan for the property. He says Sec. 7 of the zoning is about off street parking requirements; it's up to the owner to detemune which uses have how much parking. Debski says where they show their employee parking is perhaps already in use;Martino says he doesn't think trucks park there currently. Brophy says the owner's vehicles have been blocking his driveway. He does not want to see $ more overcrowding. 5 Debski says she's sorry for the petitioner, but they really need the owner to explain the site. St. Pierre says he is going to send a letter to Mr. Cucurull. He says the Board has the right to demand a parking plan, and he will request this. Ed Ronan,21 Bow St.,says he opposes the plan. He says that considering this is an entrance corridor,the truck parking situation is terrible. He notes the many signs for various businesses on the property and he doesn't see how the proposed uses can all fit on that lot. He doesn't think it's a good fit for the neighborhood. St. Pierre confirms that he will require the plan from the property's owner and says he will request it in time for the next meeting. He says a plan also must show the easement. Martino says they will provide that. Belair says the parking spaces and their dimensions must be shown. Dionne moves to continue the petition to February 16, 2011, after the owner submits a parking plan,seconded Belair, and approved 4-0. Debski says if people don't have their plans ready when they apply,the applicant must continue to the following month. The Board briefly discusses scheduling and attendance in the upcoming months. Dionne moves to adjourn,seconded by Tsitsinos and passed 4-0. Meeting adjourns at 7:45 p.m Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 2/16/11 6