The URL can be used to link to this page

2012-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF SALEM Department of Planning & Community Development Board Meetings Agendas*Minutes*Decisions"Sign In Sheets ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 2011 TO AUGUST 2012 MASSACHUSETTS 'CITY OF SALEM, BOARD OF APPEAL O-z AUG -2 A 10 Ob r1.11 9- S-619-i685 F,x:Q78--tf)-t j().j CITY CLE FILE it RK, SALEM, MASS. MEETING NOTICE ZONING 130 \RD OF APPEALS August 15,2012—6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex,120 Washington Street,Salem,MA, Room 313 IWICCCil Curran,Chair REVISED MEETING AGENDA I. ,Approval of Minutes:juiv IS, 20 12 mccring Continuation Of j)LlbhC IICitnllg: Petition of MARTINE BRACKE and SERGE GREGOIRE requesting it home occupation Special Permit in order to operate it WC111leSs/oLitritiOn/reiki bUSUICSS from the residencear 3 FREEMAN RD (R-I Zoning District). PETITION WAS CONTINUED TO SEPTEVIBER 19,2012. 3. F`LlbIiC IICerlllg: Petition of DUARTE MACHADO requesting iiSpecial Permit to expand it nonconforming two-fantily!ionic in order to construct it 15'x25' oric-stron addition on the propern, located at 14 ALBION ST (R-I Zoning District). 4. Public licilling: Petition of DEBORAH PLANTE rC1jLles'til1g it V:1nallCe from Sec. 3.1,Off-Street Parking,and iiSpecial Nnolt Under Suc. 3.3.2, to ChilogC from one 11011COnCOCIning use to another,in order to operate 311 itiltiCILLeS shop on the property locaredat 1 PLEASANT ST/117 BRIDGE ST (R2 Zoning District). 5. 6. PLINIC hearing: Petition of 8 PROCTOR ST LLP requesting Variances from lot xoidth/froiltage, side setbacks and front setbacks,:rod a Special Permit to extend it nonconforming structure and it nonconforming use, in order to construct a 2nd ,rovv;iddirion on the proper lociacdat 8 PROCTOR ST (R3 Zoning District). Pubtic hearing: Petition ofjEFFREY BARROWS requesting it Varmlicc from maximum .j1joaj)jc llcigl)t of allacceiioro iirructure to replace the existing it 1 1�2 srort�garage %%idia new 2 snii.garage,on the properrt located at 4 PICKMAN ST (R I Zoning District). S. Public hearing: Petition of CHRISTINE BURKINSHAW requesting it \ ,initace from side ciird setback and Special Nrinit to extend it ii,)iicoiiCoriiiitig,,,trticriire, in order to construct anaddition to 111C,"CCOnd 1100t Ulln IOCACLI on 118 DERBY ST (B I Zoning District). 9. Public licimlig: Pennon of GEORGE BALTOUNIAS r(ijuusting.t \ nriiince from Sec. 5.1, Off Sheet Parking,of the SlIcill Zoning Ordinance, in older to o:xCCed the total 111AX111111111 allowed cd driN c\kii\ %viddiot 111 feet on the proper_-located at 18-20 MALL STREET (R-2 Zoning District). 1). Public hearing: Puntion of RYAN NICSFIERA (PITMAN & WARDLEY ARCHITECTS) requesting it \ amulcc from ilic tMIX111111111 Injolher of Stories allow"I in older to huild :i 2-store addition oil the ;ingIc-family liolne a 9 WINTER ISLAND RD (R-I Zoning District). 11. Ojd/-\e1% Business 1_'. Adjournment RloiV, loidet !he Opol.l 1:iw)1" I'rev rl 1.(1.1 P) 1-Tand 01,#mw", Crdtmu 2-'0"y h )3 3. Jill, 'n � NEW, C1TY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS �. • "v$ ��" BOARD OF APPEAL y O - 120W SI H NG ION SiR1:1 r♦ S Ik\i,�%1ASStt I I tsirrrS01970 'Pea.e 978 619-5G85 I \x:978 710-Oi04 Kimneiu.c�Dtascoi.t MAYOR 0 MEETING NOTICE < o ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS C August 15,2012-6:30 P.M. rn s City Hall Annex,120 Washington Street,Salem,MA,Room 313 ::a Rebecca Curran,Chair >rn t^ D MEETING AGENDA 2 b 1. approval of,\bnutes:July 18,2012 meeting 2. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MARTINE BRACKE and SERGE GREGOIRE requesting a home occupation Special Permit in order to operate a wellness/nutrition/reiki business from the residence at 3 FREEMAN RD (R-1 Zoning District). • 3. Public hearing:Petition of DUARTE MACHADO requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming two-family home in order to construct a 15'x25'one-story addition on the property located at 14 ALBION ST (R-1 Zoning District), 4. Public hearing:Petition of DEBORAH PLANTE requesting a Variance from Sec. 51,Off-Street Parking,and a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2,to change from one nonconforming use to another,in order to operate an antiques shop on the property located at 1 PLEASANT ST/117 BRIDGE ST (R2 Zoning District). 5. 6. Public hearing:Petition of 8 PROCTOR ST LLP requesting Variances from lot width/frontage,side setbacks and front setbacks,and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure and a nonconforming use,in order to construct a 2nd story addition on the proper",located at 8 PROCTOR ST(R3 Zoning District). 7. Public hearing:Petition of JEFFREY BARROWS requesting a Variance from maximum allowable height of an accessory structure to replace the existing a 1 '/2 story garage with a new 2-story garage,on the property located at 4 PICKMAN ST(Rl Zoning District). 8. Public hearing:Petition of CHRISTINE BURKINSHAW requesting a Variance from side yard setback and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure,in order to construct an addition to the second floor unit located on 118 DERBY ST (Bl Zoning District). 9. Public hearing: Petition of GEORGE BALTOUMAS requesting a Variance from Sec. 5.1,Off-Street Parking,of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to exceed the total maximum allowed driveway width of 20 feet on the property located at 18-20 MALL STREET (R-2 Zoning District). 10. Public hearing:Petition of RYAN MCSHERA(PITMAN&WARDLEY ARCHITECTS) requesting a Variance from the maximum number of stories allowed in order to build a 2-story addition on the single-family home at 9 WINTER ISLAND RD (R-1 Zoning District). ' to momp Dftftd on MffleW Mom Door$* 11. Old/New Business ."Ry° 1,1011 Sate, Baca. an 12. Adjournment 1i` r, % tip " Y �4 . - .L Kuav Your Regh/r under the Often Nfeetrng Las,1I.G.1— r. 39§23B and City Ordinance Setlionj 2-20281hrough 2-2033. CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET# SnLEM,MnsSAa-iosErrS 01970 'ftLE:978-745-9595 FAx:978-740-9846 KIMMERLEY DRiscoLL MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: August 2, 2012 RE: Meeting Agenda —August 15, 2012 Board Members, • Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Planner's memo 3. Meeting minutes of 7/18/12 4. Materials for new agenda items Petition of DUARTE MACHADO requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming two-family home in order to construct a 15'x25' one-story addition on the property located at 14 ALBION ST(R-1 Zoning District). The materials for this petition were in your packet for July. The proposed addition will extend the rear of the house, continuing the existing nonconforming 5' setback (10' is required). The rest of the proposed dimensions comply with R1 zoning. The applicant has not yet submitted elevation drawings, but I have requested that he bring them to the meeting. Petition of DEBORAH PLANTE requesting a Variance from Sec. 5.1, Off-Street Parking, and a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2,to change from one nonconforming use to another, in order to operate an antiques shop on the property located at 1 PLEASANT ST/117 BRIDGE ST(112 Zoning District). • There is currently a music school operating in the building; this will remain. A portion of the space is proposed for Once and Again Too, an antique shop. Sec. 5.1, Off-Street Parking, requires 1 space per 150 square feet of gross floor area, excluding storage; the applicant estimates this space is 1500 square feet, 1 which would require 10 spaces. Two aces areproposed. Th q p p e applicant has not yet submitted any visuals depicting the parking area, but I have asked her to bring them to the meeting. Petition of 8 PROCTOR ST LLP requesting Variances from lot width/frontage, side setbacks and front setbacks, and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure and a nonconforming use, in order to construct a 2nd story addition on the property located at 8 PROCTOR ST(R3 Zoning District). While the applicant has applied for variances, the project only requires a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use and structure, since the addition is proposed on the same footprint as the current structure. The building is dimensionally nonconforming, with a 2 foot side yard setback (10 is required), and 2 foot front yard setback (15 is required). The existing commercial use is nonconforming in the R3 zoning district. Petition of JEFFREY BARROWS requesting a Variance from maximum allowable height of an accessory structure to replace the existing a 1% story garage with a new 2-story garage, on the property located at 4 PICKMAN ST(R1 Zoning District). The proposed garage is 2 stories; the maximum height allowed for accessory structures is 1'/: stories. Petition of CHRISTINE BURKINSHAW requesting a Variance from side yard setback and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, in order to construct an addition to the second floor unit located on 118 DERBY ST (133 Zoning District). • The applicant is proposing a second-story addition on her currently nonconforming structure. The addition only requires a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.3 to extend a nonconforming structure, and not a Variance as the applicant has requested. The building's nonconformity is due to a 3-foot side setback, where 10 feet is required. Petition of GEORGE BALTOUMAS requesting a Variance from Sec. 5.1, Off-Street Parking, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to exceed the total maximum allowed driveway width of 20 feet on the property located at 18-20 MALL STREET(R-2 Zoning District). The applicant is requesting an additional 16 foot curb cut; this is in addition to the existing driveway on the other side of the house, which is approximately 48 feet. Twenty feet is the maximum allowed total width for driveways. Petition of RYAN MCSHERA (PITMAN &WARDLEY ARCHITECTS) requesting a Variance from the maximum number of stories allowed in order to build a 2-story addition on the single-family home at 9 WINTER ISLAND RD (R-1 Zoning District). The applicant proposes expanding the house to the side and rear, as well as adding two stories, as shown in the site plan and elevations enclosed. The third story requires relief(2.5 is the maximum allowed). 2 r 01#oNor�g9 . City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet 3 4; Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date < / IS / 12 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail i-ecf Glul Le5sarJ 10 lea U+ � S�, i PvA 2 (979)210-[?9O �avlp p�u(a 57- rc�, d , l�i'1=Pr0Or� ��Juwd, W Ih �1'�ti9 YV • " l �/j] s 17e 9 1 y o) C�Y�GI • Page of City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, August 15, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, August 15, 2012 in the third floor conference room of 120 Washington St., Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Mike Duffy, Jamie Metsch, and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Those absent were: Annie Harris, Rick Dionne and Jimmy Tsitsinos. 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. Ms. Belair moves to approve the minutes of July 18, 2012, seconded by Mr. Duffy and approved 4-0. Ms. Curran explains the audience that only four Board members are here tonight, and so a unanimous vote is needed to pass petitions. She offers to allow any applicants to continue their hearings, or to go ahead tonight if they wish. • Petition of DUARTE MACHADO requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming two-family home in order to construct a 15'x25' one-story addition on the property located at 14 ALBION ST (R-1 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: i Application date-stamped 6/21/12 and accompanying materials i Mortgage plan dated 8/19/92 with proposed structure drawn in ➢ "Floor Plan and Elevations, Proposed Additions, Machado Residence, 14 Albion St., Salem, Mass," by Deer Hill Architects, dated 8/8/12 Duarte Machado presents the petition. He says he would like to create a three season room, as other houses on the street have. It will be one floor, 14 x 24. It is the side yard setback that is the issue. Ms. Curran asks if it is presently a 2-family; he says yes. Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment; no one comments. Ms. Curran asks about the siding materials; Mr. Machado says it will be vinyl to match the existing. • 1 Ms. Belair notes that this will fit in with the neighborhood, and it's not that big an . addition. Mr. Metsch agrees; other buildings on the street fit together; this will be out of view. It won't have impacts to traffic, utilities, fire, etc. Ms. Curran agrees. She has no problem with this. Mr. Duffy agrees, saying he is not changing or altering what is already nonconforming— it's the same issue, the side setback. Most of the building is nonconforming. This merely extends the house back further into the lot; he can't see anything that would suggest it's more detrimental. Ms. Belair moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Metsch, approved 4-0 (Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran, Ms. Belair and Mr. Duffy u y in favor, nine opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Petition of DEBORAH PLANTE requesting a Variance from Sec. 5.1, Off-Street Parking, and a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2, to change from one nonconforming use to another, in order to operate an antiques shop on the property located at 1 PLEASANT • ST/117 BRIDGE ST (112 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: i Application date-stamped 8/1/12 and accompanying materials i Photo of the property submitted at the meeting by Ms. Plante Debbie Plante presents her petition for 1 Pleasant St. She says she wants to use the space for an antique shop. She says she is using the whole building. There is a music school located on 3 Pleasant St. She says the music school doesn't use the parking during the day— mostly at night. She submits a photo of the property. Mr. St. Pierre — for the record, the address is 1 Pleasant St. Ms. Plante says the building is 3 floors, but she is only using the first and second levels. It will be open typical retail hours, 10-5. Ms. Curran asks if she can estimate how may customers she will have. She says that at 45 Bridge St., she never had more than two cars in front of the shop. Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment. No one comments. Ms. Belair: It's in keeping with the neighborhood and with other shops. Bridge St. has undergone a revitalization, and this is a nice addition. We like to support businesses in • Salem. I would be in favor of this. 2 Mr. Metsch agrees: This is a nice addition, it's nice you are expanding. I hope you will • have more traffic flow from downtown. It would be nice to guarantee the music store would never give you a problem with the parking. Ms. Belair: She'd be their tenant, so they would want to accommodate her. Ms. Curran says that with regard to findings for the variance, it is a peculiar lot in that there are two separate buildings on one lot—owing to that... Mr. Metsch — part of the Bridge St redesign has non permit parking heading toward downtown? Ms. Plante says there is not on Bridge St. there —there is parking on Webb St. Mr. Duffy: how many extra spots does the music school have? She says 2 plus the driveway. Property owner Dru Zuretti, 281 Rowley Bridge Rd., Topsfield, says there are 3 plus spaces. Mr. Metsch — I think with the parking on Bridge and the redesign it would lend itself to parking in that commercial district. Ms. Belair— I don't think the nature of antique businesses generate a lot of customers at the same time. It's not like Walmart; people drift in and out. • Ms. Plante— I'm hoping to get more tourist walking traffic from downtown. Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions, seconded by Ms. Belair and approved 4-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Curran and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Petition of 8 PROCTOR ST LLP requesting Variances from lot width/frontage, side setbacks and front setbacks, and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure and a nonconforming use, in order to construct a 2nd story addition on the property located at 8 PROCTOR ST (R3 Zoning District). i Application date-stamped 8/1/12 and accompanying materials i "Land of 8 Proctor St., Salem LLP, #8 (Lot A) Proctor St., Salem, MA," D.J. Lynch, engineers, no date ➢ "Proposed 2°d Floor Addition, May 10, 2012," D.J. Lynch, engineers ➢ Elevations, "8 Proctor St. LLC, Existing Building, 8 Proctor St., Salem, MA, Monaco-Johnson Group," D.J. Lynch, engineers, no date ➢ "Proposed Second Level Addition, 8 Proctor St., Salem, MA," D.J. Lynch, engineers, no date i "Roof Plan," D.J. Lynch, engineers, no date ➢ Supplementary CAD elevations and foundation plan, no title or date, submitted at meeting 3 • Chris Monaco, 3 Elm Place, Marblehead, presents the petition. He says they wish to increase their space for their businesses. The increase is about 540 SF in the second level. Since the plans were submitted, they have also created additional computer generated plans, which he passes out to the Board. The addition is 30 x 18, the second story over the existing first story. The corner by the garage is nonconforming. Ms. Curran notes the building is 2 feet off the property line, but that's not changing. She asks about materials to be used. Mr. Monaco says it is wood frame and some brick, but mostly wood, with aluminum siding. Mr. Metsch asks if there will be any change to that. Mr. Monaco says he doesn't know—they were thinking of re-siding based on the financing. He says he is concerned about the aesthetics —they are required to make it match the existing, though he's not inclined to put 8 inch aluminum on there. They might put on hardy plank instead —this is more likely. He suspects in the future they'll be before the Board again asking for other additions; they want to redevelop the property further. The two businesses are Monaco Johnson Group and Dionne's Cabinetry. Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion of the hearing; there are no comments. Ms. Curran asks if they are increasing the usage in terms of employees or parking? Mr. Monaco says no, there will be the same number of personnel, this is an increase in our • shop space and John is moving upstairs. Our existence on that corner is a positive thing; the activity/surveillance, the fact that we're there and developing the property is a plus for the area. Mr. Metsch: This section of Proctor St. is a pocket of existing nonconforming industrial uses; that's a non issue for me. The increase will have no impact on parking on that lot. Mr. Monaco: I did notice this week, a lot of people cut across our property— at some point they won't be able to—our insurance company would prefer that didn't happen. I may petition DPW in the future to provide a proper sidewalk. There can be congestion, but we do provide our own parking. Mr. Metsch —the attention to your property helps the neighborhood get public improvements too. I would be in favor of this. Ms. Belair—this is a minimal request, it won't add much traffic. The lot is very oddly shaped. I would support this. Mr. Duffy— It strikes me the proposal is within the existing footprint of the building; within the setbacks, there is no change. You're not further extending a nonconforming use;just going up. I would have a hard time finding it to be more detrimental. Ms. Curran agrees; also, the tallest side is on the interior. She would support this. 4 Mr. Metsch — regarding the material use— I'd be open to saying use whatever you think . will be attractive for the future. Ms. Curran —the exterior doesn't necessarily have to be in harmony with the addition; you could just use hardy plank. Mr. Metsch makes a motion to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Duffy, and approved 4-0 (Ms. Curran, Ms. Belair, Mr. Metsch, Mr. Duffy in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Petition of JEFFREY BARROWS requesting a Variance from maximum allowable height of an accessory structure to replace the existing a 1 Y2 story garage with a new 2-story garage, on the property located at 4 PICKMAN ST (R1 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 7/24/12 and accompanying materials i "A Garage Replacement for: Mr. Jeffrey Barrows, 4 Pickman St., Salem, MA 01970," Paul G. Fermano, AIA Consulting Architects, no date ➢ "Elevations & Building Section," Paul G. Fermano, AIA Consulting Architects, dated 7/18/12 ➢ "Plot Plan of Land, 4 Pickman St., Salem," North Shore Survey Corporation, dated 7/18/12 • Jeffery Barrows presents the petition. He would like to tear down a 22 square garage and replace it with a 24 square two story garage. He is asking for a height of 20 inches more than what is allowed. Ms. Curran —the rear backs up to Pleasant St.? He says yes. Ms. Curran asks, On that side, there are no windows,just a door? He says no—there would be windows. Mr. St. Pierre notes the issue is the number of stories requested —the dormer is a second story. Mr. Barrows says that is for storage space, no finished rooms will be up there. Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment. Francoise McCoy, 23 Winter St., says she is concerned that if a second floor is requested, it may be used later as an apartment or house. Just across the street, she says the owner has another building rented as an apartment. She thinks in the past this was a little garage. From the shape it has, it's been added to. She is suspicious this could happen again. Mr. Barrows says the existing building is a 3 family, and this use was grandfathered. He is not looking to put in an apartment in the garage. If he did want to, he's sure it would be denied. He's not sure what Ms. McCoy is talking about with the other garage; he does not own another garage. He owns other legal apartment buildings, none of which have a garage. He says one of his units is a legally converted carriage house. 5 Mr. St. Pierre asks if he is using trusses. Mr. Barrows says no, he's changing it to rafters. • Ms. Curran — do you live there? He says no - it's for use of tenants—one bay for them, the other for the lawnmower/snowblower. There will be space for storage of materials for the building. Ms. Curran asks about the condition of the current garage. Mr. Barows says it's in bad shape, and has asphalt siding. It's an eyesore. He wants his properties to look nice. Ms. McCoy: The house is unattractive, so why does he suddenly want something that . looks nice? Ms. Belair: he's here tonight about the garage. The proposed one looks much better than the existing one. This is half a story of relief—this looks much better and is an improvement to the neighborhood. Ms. Curran agrees— it's a better looking building, the only change increasing the height. Given the dimension, the extra height makes it a better looking building than the existing. She says it would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Duffy says he is only struggling with finding the hardship for the variance. Mr. Barrows says aesthetics are important— he doesn't want to diminish the property • value by putting up something ugly. The pitched roof looks more attractive. Also, it would allow him storage area in the loft and has no area in the building because it's occupied by three apartments. Ms. Curran says there must be some reason for the hardship. Mr. Metsch — if the footprint were smaller, would the roof pitch be less? Mr. St. Pierre — yes. Mr. Metsch — if you could lose a few square feet from the foundation and keep the same pitch —you could drop the attic space to eliminate the height variance. Mr. St. Pierre—you would still have a second story. Ms. Belair—with the lot size at 7200 SF, the addition will allow room for vehicles that aren't allowed now. Given the size, there's not much else he could do about his parking and storage problems. Mr. St. Pierre—the position of the house could be a hardship. It's unusual. Ms. Curran — how high is 1 A stories? Mr. St. Pierre clarifies how the zoning defines stories in accessory buildings. Ms. Curran says she likes the look of this. She's just struggling with whether the Board can allow it - is there a hardship? She likes it and wants to approve; they just need to figure that out. Ms. Belair—there are grounds —they make not be very strong, but there can be an argument for hardship due to the size of the lot, and location of the . house on the lot. There is some degree of hardship; we haven't required a higher 6 degree in the past. Mr. Barrows— it would be a hardship to keep this garage — it's an • eyesore and would devalue my property. Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion of hearing. Ms. Belair moves to approve the petition with 6 standard conditions and one special condition, that no unit is to be added to the garage structure and the garage is not to be occupied. Mr. Metsch seconds the motion. The Board votes two in favor (Ms. Belair and Mr. Metsch) and two opposed (Ms. Curran and Mr. Duffy) to the petition. The motion fails and the petition is denied. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Petition of CHRISTINE BURKINSHAW requesting a Variance from side yard setback and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, in order to construct an addition to the second floor unit located on 118 DERBY ST (Bl Zoning District). Ms. McKnight says the petitioner wants to continue to Sept. 19 because only four members of the Board are present. Mr. Metsch moves to continue the hearing, seconded by Mr. Duffy and approved 4-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Curran and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). • Petition of GEORGE BALTOUMAS requesting a Variance from Sec. 5.1, Off-Street Parking, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to exceed the total maximum allowed driveway width of 20 feet on the property located at 18-20 MALL STREET (R-2 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 7/24/12 and accompanying materials, including curb cut application and photograph ➢ Plan of driveway, no date or title ➢ Letter from Brenda Lau, 17 Mall St., Salem, no date George Baltoumas presents the petition for 18 Mall St. His wife, Janice Baltoumas, is also present. He would like the requested curb cut in order to provide parking for everyone who lives on the premises. There are currently 6 cars and 5 parking spaces. He is proposing a curb cut on the non parking side of the street. Ms. Curran —this looks like a driveway, but there is no curb cut. Ms. Curran —the hardship is owing to location of the house on the property. How wide is the new driveway? Mr. Baltoumas says 14.4 feet. Ms. Curran —the way the lot is laid out, it makes sense in terms of a variance. • Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment. 7 Janice Baltoumas, 18 Mall St., says her neighbors are in favor; they got a letter from one of them. Parking on the street is difficult. Ms. Curran reads a letter into the record from Brenda Lau, 17 Mall St. Mr. Duffy asks how many units are there. Mr. Baltoumas says it is a legal three-family. The previous third floor tenant had one car; the current couple renting that unit has two cars. Mr. Duffy asks about the rendering—a picture of the yard. There is no opportunity for additional parking space there? Mr. Baltoumas says he would have to dig out the yard — and the tenants like the yard. Mr. Metsch says the parking is a hardship —this is a three-family—we only require 1.5 spaces — but modern families often have more vehicles. Cutting into the yard would be a detriment to this property. The physical location of the building on the property is a problem. Ms. Curran —there is a hardship owing to the building on the lot and grandfathered nonconforming use. Mr. Duffy—also the street it's on —on the non parking side of the street limits parking. The curb cut is no detriment to the on street parking. • Mr. Duffy moves to approve the petition with 3 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 4-0 (Mr. Duffy, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Petition of RYAN MCSHERA (PITMAN &WARDLEY ARCHITECTS) requesting a Variance from the maximum number of stories allowed in order to build a 2-story addition on the single-family home at 9 WINTER ISLAND RD (R-1 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: i Application date-stamped 8/1/12 and accompanying materials i Letter from William J. Wharff, Manager, 11R Winter Island LLC, dated 8/15/12 ➢ "Lillo Residence, 9 Winter Island Rd., Salem, MA," Existing and Proposed Site Plan, elevations and floor plans, dated 7/31/12 9 Winter Island Rd. Attorney Bill Quinn presents the petition. He says this is the only remaining house on Winter Island Rd. that is still one story—it's a ranch. He explains the design of the dormers—there are knee walls high enough to require relief because they make a third story. The house will be three feet under the height requirement in feet. He says it fits with all other houses surrounding it in every way. Mr. Quinn says an RDA was requested from the Conservation Commission, and they • were not required to have an order of conditions. The 100 foot buffer zone goes through the house, so developing to the rear would be much more difficult and could 8 trigger serious environmental concerns. The plan just complies with setbacks. He says • the only way this house can comply is to go up. Ms. Belair—will it remain a single family? Mr. Quinn says yes, there is no second kitchen or separation of floors. Peter Pitman, Pitman &Wardley Architects, says the third floor space will be a study— no bathrooms or bedrooms. One dormer allows the stair. The other is storage and done for aesthetics. The other dormer, facing the bay window, allows access to a small balcony. The kitchen will be on the second floor plan only—the kitchen shown is what existed on the first floor. He says there will be no kitchen on first floor. There will be a family room in that space. Ms. Curran asks if the living space is on the second floor for views; he says yes. Ms. Curran what is the revision date on what's presented tonight? Mr. Pitman says 8/15/12. Ms. Curran —if not for those dormers, you'd be in compliance. Mr. Pitman says they could do them by right, but they'd be limited to 2 feet, and that would make an awkward approach for headroom. Also, the reduction would break the eave line. That line keeps the house feeling much lower. Lowering the dormer actually makes the house feel and look taller. Ms. McKnight reads a letter from William J. Wharff, Manager, 11R Winter Island LLC, dated 8/15/12, in favor of the petition. • Ms. Curran: In terms of hardship, it's owing to the location of the lot to the buffer zone. Mr. Quinn notes that the shape of the lot is unusual and gives them nowhere to go. Ms. Curran says the relief sought is minimal —the size is big, but allowable by zoning. Because of the location, this is one of the only options for expanding. Mr. Pitman says they did do an alternate design, but the owner was concerned about blocking views of a neighbor. Here, there is limited to no impact. Mr. Duffy— it does appear from drawings and discussion that owing to features of the property—the buffer zone location it would create a hardship to enforce zoning literally. Relief is desirable; nothing would be detrimental to public good. The one letter we have from the community is in support. Care was taken to preserve views and not impact neighbors. Ms. Belair—the one neighbor potentially impacted has not communicated any opposition. Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions. Mr. Duffy seconds, the motion and it passes 4-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Curran and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. • Mr. Duffy moves to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Metsch; all in favor. 9 The meeting adjourns at 8:10 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://solem.com/Pages/SalemMA ZoningAppealsMin/ Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 9/19/12 • • 10 a, CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • V , BOARD OF APPEAL Amat 120 WASFnNO'rON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACI IusE*rrs 01970 g' 'pUlfNM DOh�,� "rELE:978-745-9595 Cnx:978-740-9846 ... ....... KIMRERLEY DRISCOI L MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: August 2, 2012 RE: Meeting Agenda —August 15, 2012 Board Members, •: Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Planner's memo 3. Meeting minutes of 7/18/12 4. Materials for new agenda items Petition of DUARTE MACHADO requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming two-family home in order to construct a 15'x25' one-story addition on the property located at 14 ALBION ST(R-1 Zoning District). The materials for this petition were in your packet for July. The proposed addition will extend the rear of the house, continuing the existing nonconforming 5' setback (10' is required). The rest of the proposed dimensions comply with R1 zoning. The applicant has not yet submitted elevation drawings, but I have requested that he bring them to the meeting. Petition of DEBORAH PLANTE requesting a Variance from Sec. 5.1, Off-Street Parking, and a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2,to change from one nonconforming use to another, in order to operate an antiques shop on the property located at 1 PLEASANT ST/117 BRIDGE ST(112 Zoning District). • There is currently a music school operating in the building;this will remain. A portion of the space is proposed for Once and Again Too, an antique shop. Sec. 5.1, Off-Street Parking, requires 1 space per 150 square feet of gross floor area, excluding storage;the applicant estimates this space is 1500 square feet, 1. which would require 10 spaces. Two spaces are proposed. The applicant has not yet submitted any visuals depicting the parking area, but I have asked her to bring them to the meeting. Petition of 8 PROCTOR ST LLP requesting Variances from lot width/frontage, side setbacks and front setbacks, and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure and a nonconforming use, in order to construct a 2nd story addition on the property located at 8 PROCTOR ST (113 Zoning District). While the applicant has applied for variances, the project only requires a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use and structure, since the addition is proposed on the same footprint as the current structure. The building is dimensionally nonconforming, with a 2 foot side yard setback (10 is required), and 2 foot front yard setback (15 is required). The existing commercial use is nonconforming in the R3 zoning district. Petition of JEFFREY BARROWS requesting a Variance from maximum allowable height of an accessory structure to replace the existing a 1 % story garage with a new 2-story garage, on the property located at 4 PICKMAN ST(Rl Zoning District). The proposed garage is 2 stories; the maximum height allowed for accessory structures is 1 % stories. Petition of CHRISTINE BURKINSHAW requesting a Variance from side yard setback and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, in order to construct an addition to the second floor unit located on 118 DERBY ST(Bl Zoning District). 40 The applicant is proposing a second-story addition on her currently nonconforming structure. The addition only requires a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.3 to extend a nonconforming structure, and not a Variance as the applicant has requested. The building's nonconformity is due to a 3-foot side setback, where 10 feet is required. Petition of GEORGE BALTOUMAS requesting a Variance from Sec. 5.1, Off-Street Parking, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to exceed the total maximum allowed driveway width of 20 feet on the property located at 18-20 MALL STREET(R-2 Zoning District). The applicant is requesting an additional 16 foot curb cut;this is in addition to the existing driveway on the other side of the house, which is approximately 48 feet. Twenty feet is the maximum allowed total width for driveways. Petition of RYAN MCSHERA (PITMAN &WARDLEY ARCHITECTS) requesting a Variance from the maximum number of stories allowed in order to build a 2-story addition on the single-family home at 9 WINTER ISLAND RD (R-1 Zoning District). The applicant proposes expanding the house to the side and rear, as well as adding two stories, as shown in the site plan and elevations enclosed. The third story requires relief(2.5 is the maximum allowed). 0 2 �ONDITgq i CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS 7 BOARD OF APPEAL 120WASHINGioNSnc1:1:1 + SAJ.eni,M!\SSAciIUSI�1*1s01970 978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 KID10ER1.EY DRISCOLL MAYOR n August 28, 2012 r s Decision M„ >rn N m CO City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals m D 3 3 .,Q Petition of 8 PROCTOR ST LLP requesting Variances from lot width/frontage, sid9setbaolks and front setbacks, and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure and a 'J nonconforming use, in order to construct a 2nd story addition on the property located at 8 PROCTOR STREET(113 Zoning District). • A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 15, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on August 15, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Michael Duffy,Jamie Metsch, and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 4.0 and Special Permits under Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fad: 1. In a petition date-stamped August 1, 2012, petitioner requested a Variance and Special Permits to construct a 30'x18'x12', 2"d story addition on the existing commercial building located at 8 Proctor Street. 2. Petitioner Christopher Monaco (8 Proctor Street LLP) represented himself at the hearing. 3. At the hearing, petitioner stated that there would be no increase in employees or parking needs associated with the project. 4. At the hearing, no one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the project. • l • 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 detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, since the extension of the currently nonconforming use is in keeping with the neighborhood, which contains numerous other pre-existing, nonconforming industrial uses; the proposal would not increase traffic or parking needs on the site; the project would improve the property; the expansion would be only upwards within the existing footprint; and the tallest portion of the building would be on the interior of the site. 2. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district; owing to the odd shape of the lot, areas for expansion are limited. Therefore, literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance 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 voted four (4) in favor(Curran, Metsch, Belair, and Duffy) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Variance and Special Permits. A Variance under Section 4.0 and Special Permits under Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 are granted to allow for the proposed addition as shown on the submitted plans and elevation drawings. The Board of Appeals voted 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. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 2 • 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 7. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted doe not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. Michael Duffy, Member 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. • 3 ��OND1Tq��, CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL �`p9 �D j% 120 W.�.tii-uNc'r��tiutr.rr� 5 v.i:.ni,��[atis�[iiutr:'n:e 01970 'l isa.e 978-619-5685 Fem 978-740-0404 Kinmi;ia.cv Ditiscmi, MAYOR co August 28, 2012 { ca "� M s rn c Decision >M 00 r SL City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 3 D Petition of RYAN MCSHERA (PITMAN &WARDLEY ARCHITECTS) requesting a V*ianc*om the maximum number of stories allowed in order to build a 2-story addition on the single- family home at 9 WINTER ISLAND RD (R-1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 15, 2012 pursuant to Mass • General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on August 15, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Michael Duffy, Jamie Metsch, and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Section 4.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped August 1, 2012, petitioner requested a Variance from number of stories in order to construct an addition containing a third story, where a maximum of 2 % stories is allowed. 2. Petitioner was represented by Attorney William Quinn at the hearing. 3. At the hearing, no one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the petition. The Board received one letter in support of the project from William 1. Wharff, 11R Winter Island LLC. 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 • 1. Desirable relief maybe granted without detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, since the proposed renovation to the house is in keeping with the character of other houses in the neighborhood. The Board noted that care was taken to avoid impacting views of neighbors. 2. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district. Owing to the size and shape of the lot, as well as the location of the front and side yard setbacks, and the 100-foot coastal bank buffer zone on the property, developing horizontally would have been more difficult, and so literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance 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 voted four (4) in favor (Curran, Metsch, Belair, and Duffy) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Variance. A Variance under Section 4.1 is granted to allow for proposed addition to the house as shown on the submitted plans (dated August 15, 2012). The Board of Appeals voted to grant petitioner's request for a Variance subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes 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. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted doe not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty 2 i percent (50%) of its floor area of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. Michael Duffy, Member 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. • 3 CITY OF SALEM NIASSACHUSETTS �( loll BOARD OF .APPEAL ��4�MINBW ,5 120AG\SinNcrorvS'rRer;r tinI.en+,MnssACuUsrrrs01970 -- Timlr..978-619-5685 FAX:978-7,10-0404 KIAIBERIIEY DRusan.i, MAYOR n August 28� 2012 g n ti r M � Decision yr' N �m W r—7x City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ? D D Petition of JEFFREY BARROWS requesting a Variance from maximum allowable_Weight Wan accessory structure to replace the existing a 1 Yz story garage with a new 2-story garage, on the property located at 4 PICKMAN ST (R1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 15, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on August 15, 2012 with the following • Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Michael Duffy, Jamie Metsch, and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Section 3.2.4, Accessory Buildings and Structures, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fad: 1. In a petition date-stamped July 24, 2012, petitioner requested a Variance from number of stories of an accessory structure in order to replace the existing 1-story garage with a new a 2-story garage on 4 Pickman Street, site of a multi-family building. 2. Petitioner represented himself at the hearing. 3. Petitioner was informed at the beginning of the hearing that, due to the presence of only four Board Members, a unanimous vote in favor of his Petition would be required to obtain the requested relief. Petitioner was offered the opportunity to continue hearing of his Petition to a public hearing date in September 2012, when it was anticipated additional Board Members may be in attendance. Petitioner elected to proceed with the hearing as noticed. • 4. At the hearing, one member of the public spoke in opposition to the project, citing concerns that the garage could be converted to living space. 1 • 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. While the proposed new garage would bean improvement over the existing accessory structure, would improve the property and neighborhood, and the additional height requested improves the aesthetics of the garage, desirable relief could not be granted either without detriment to the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 2. Special conditions and circumstances do not exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district. 3. Evidence was not presented establishing that a literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant. 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 voted two (2) in favor (Belair and Metsch) and two (2) opposed (Curran and Duffy), to grant the . requested Variance. The petition is denied. Michael Duffy, Member 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. • 2 CITY OF SALEM MA---��, SSACHUSETT BOARD OF APPEAL 120WASHINGIoNS11OP.e.1 * SAnanl,\fASSAiiuscrrs01970 �IMIN60� Pr-',ii..978-619-5685 FAX:978-740-0404 Kwiii.jujw Dalscol.i. MAYOR n August 28, 2012 r1i �F N Decision >* o0 M D 3 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals � W cn 4 Petition of DUARTE MACHADO requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming two- family home in order to construct a 1S'x2S' one-story addition on the property located at 14 ALBION STREET(R-1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 15, 2012 pursuant to Mass • General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on August 15, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Michael Duffy, Jamie Metsch, and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fad: 1. In a petition date-stamped June 21, 2012, petitioner requested a Special Permit to construct a 15'x25' addition on the rear of the existing two-family house at 14 Albion Street. 2. Petitioner represented himself at the hearing. 3. At the hearing, no one spoke in favor 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 1. Desirable relief may be granted without detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. The adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the City and the neighborhood. The proposed addition merely extends the house back within an existing nonconforming side setback, and so does not make the structure substantially more nonconforming. The Board finds that the proposed addition is in keeping with the other houses in the neighborhood, is not large enough to have a detrimental impact on other properties or the natural environment, and would not have negative impacts with regard to traffic, utilities, fire or public.services. 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 voted four (4) in favor (Curran, Metsch, Belair, and Duffy) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit. A Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 is granted to allow for the proposed addition as shown on the submitted plans and elevation drawings. The Board of Appeals voted 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. 2 e IL 'LL' /,6m.y- Michael Duffy, Member 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. • • 3 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASI H Nl:IONS[ I F..F I SALEM,i\1ASS1CI IUSF'I"f'S 01 9']0 �nme ooi Tni;.:978-619-5685 0 FAX:978-740-0404 KINID15RLFv DRISCOI r. MAYOR August 28, 2012 ,y . � v (7 N Decision m NM co co City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals n m D 3 Petition of GEORGE BALTOLIMAS requesting a Variance from Sec. 5.1, Off-Street�llarkin Hof the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to exceed the total maximum allowed dri�fb'way%iel of 20 feet on the property located at 18-20 MALL STREET(R-2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 15, 2012 pursuant to Mass • General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on August 15, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Michael Duffy,Jamie Metsch, and Bonnie Belair. , Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Section 5.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped July 24, 2012, petitioner requested a Variance from off-street parking regulations in order to install a new curb cut, resulting in the property exceeding the maximum total allowable driveway width of 20 feet. 2. Petitioner represented himself at the hearing. 3. At the hearing, the petitioner's wife, Janice Baltoumas, 18 Mall Street, spoke in favor of the petition. A letter was also submitted in favor of the petition by Brenda Lau, 17 Mall Street. No one opposed the petition at the hearing. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: • 1. Desirable relief may be granted without detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, i • since the proposed curb cut would not remove any on-street parking (the property is located on the side of the street with no street parking). 2. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district. Owing to the grandfathered use of a three-family house in the R-2 Zoning District, and to the situation of the building on the lot, it would be difficult for the petitioner to provide sufficient off-street parking to tenants without the additional proposed driveway width. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance 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 voted four (4) in favor (Curran, Metsch, Belair, and Duffy) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Variance. A Variance under Section 5.1 is granted to allow for the proposed curb cut as proposed on the submitted plan. The Board of Appeals voted 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. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. AIC1-ile Adf� 1,41 Michael Duffy, Member 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 2 • Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • • 3 CITY of SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS � �' BOARD OF APPEAL ( ( J� 120 WAsrimc.u>N S'itazcr� ti,v.emi,��dntiti�c nus�rrs 01970 �MINBO°/ 'llr.vic:978-G19-5G85 ♦ 1?,m9 8-7�40-0404 KIMBb.RLHY Diusco . MAYOR n rn f7 r A c1 August 28, 2012 " N �rn m Decision m i City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals N d Petition of DEBORAH PLANTE requesting a Variance from Sec. 5.1, Off-Street Parking, and a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2, to change from one nonconforming use to another, in order to operate an antiques shop on the property located at 1 PLEASANT ST/117 BRIDGE ST(R2 Zoning District). • A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 15, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on August 15, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Michael Duffy, Jamie Metsch, and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.2 and a Variance pursuant to Section 5.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped August 1, 2012, petitioner requested a Special Permit to operate an antique store at 1 Pleasant Street (aka 117 Bridge Street), and for a Variance from off-street parking regulations in order to have fewer parking spaces than required on the premises. 2. The petitioner represented herself at the hearing. The property owner, Dru Zuretti, was also present. 3. At the hearing, the petitioner stated that her parking needs were minimal; she has, at the most, two cars at a time parked in front of her current antique shop on 45 Bridge Street. Additionally, she stated that the three parking spaces used by the music school at 3 Pleasant Street, on the same property, are generally used only at night and would be available during the day for use by the antique store. I • 4. At the hearing, no one spoke in favor 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 may be granted without detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, since the proposed use is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The Board finds that the proposed use is not more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current use. Adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the City or the neighborhood. 2. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district; owing to the presence of two buildings on the same property, the number of parking spaces required by the zoning ordinance (10) cannot be provided. Petitioner has stated that her business does not require more parking than would be available on the site, and the Board finds that the proposed use would not create the need parking than would be available. • 3. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant. 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 voted four (4) in favor (Curran, Metsch, Belair, and Duffy) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit and Variance. A Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 and a Variance under Section 5.1 are granted to allow for the operation of an antique shop at 1 Pleasant Street, as proposed. The Board of Appeals voted 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. 2 • 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain street number from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. " 4)-Mx Michael Duffy, Member 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 9T� 130Was11wt'inuSrai:c1 1Sgi.ra4Al.�se:v:nt�sr:rtsU1970 .Friji:978-619-5685 6 V:\s:978-7-10-0404 Ktuneai.evDaisctna. Mm olt MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS .... July 18,2012—6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex,120 Washington St eet, Salem, MA, Room 313 �� iam Cl) Rebecca Curran, Chair m e� MEETING AGENDA Dm .. r it 1. Executive Session: rn D S 2 Discussion of proposed settlement: 162 Federal Street 2 . Discussion of litigation: 10 White Street 8t 57 Rear Turner St. (n W m J 2. Approval of Nlinutes:June 20,2012 meeting 3. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.35 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS ST,Salem, NIA (R2 Zoning District): 4. Public hearing: Petition of DUARTE MACHADO requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming two- family home in order to construct a 15'x25'one-story addition on the property located at 14 ALBION ST (R-1 Zoning District). 5. Public hearing: Petition of MARTINE BRACKE and SERGE GREGOIRE requesting a home occupation Special Permit in order to operate a wellness/nutrition/reiki business from the residence at 3 FREEMAN RD (R- I Zoning District). 6. Public hearing: Petition of KATHERINE AND JOHN MACKAY requesting a Special Permit under Sec. .3.3.5 in order to alter and expand a nonconforming front porch and construct a 19'x20'addition on the single-family home located at 96 COLUMBUS AVE (R-1 'Zoning District). 7. Public hearing: Petition of DAVID CUTLER requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 in order to reconstntct a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 95 MASON ST (R-2 Zoning District). 8. Old/New Business ��l ��tat.Yt�,� At�O .o Cl,�1 c�tl�ttai44� €`.•. 9. Adjournment .� t.a •,t W, Sf9�r1, Was. on" wt Zo,z Ki;em 1 our R{kLv,uneler ike Opea Meeling Iona M.6.L c I9 1133,ted(:ih On inan,e Pr�lion.r 1-ZO_S'!¢mrrll.�?-='013. �coNorrA�a� CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS 2� BOARD OF APPEAL Ajclo'; .�:- 120 WASHINC'I'ON STREET $nLEM,MnssncliusETTs 01970 MINT -..-.-:...- '1'ELE:978-745-9595 1 fnx:978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: July 10, 2012 RE: Meeting Agenda —July 18, 2012 Board Members, • Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Planner's memo 3. Meeting minutes of 6/20/12 4. Materials for new agenda items Executive Session: ➢ Discussion of proposed settlement: 162 Federal Street ➢ Discussion of litigation: 30 White Street & 57 Rear Turner St. Robin Stein will be attending to update the Board about the status of these appeals. Continued public hearing: Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS ST, Salem, MA (112 Zoning District). Revised drawings were included in your June packet (the item was continued to this meeting). The elevations show the design that was originally submitted alongside a revised design, which is 9' lower than what was previously proposed. Dormers on either side of the roof are shown, instead of the additional . two stories originally proposed. The elevations also show the abutter's house at 14 Saunders Street alongside 16 Saunders St. 1 Public hearing: Petition of DUARTE MACHADO requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming two-family home in order to construct a 15'x25' one-story addition on the property located at 14 • ALBION ST(R-1 Zoning District). The proposed addition will extend the rear of the house, continuing the existing nonconforming 5' setback (10' is required). The rest of the proposed dimensions comply with R1 zoning. The applicant has not yet submitted elevation drawings, but I have requested that he bring them to the meeting. Public hearing: Petition of MARTINE BRACKE and SERGE GREGOIRE requesting a home occupation Special Permit in order to operate a wellness/nutrition/reiki business from the residence at 3 FREEMAN RD (R-1 Zoning District). The applicants have submitted a description of their business, attached to their application form. No exterior construction or signage is proposed. In addition to the two parking spaces required for their single-family home, the proposed home occupation requires one parking space. I have asked the applicant to bring visuals depicting the parking area. I am enclosing a letter in opposition to the proposal from Paulette Puleo, 5 Freeman Rd. Public hearing: Petition of KATHERINE AND JOHN MACKAY requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 in order to alter and expand a nonconforming front porch and construct a 19'x20' addition on the single-family home located at 96 COLUMBUS AVE (R-1 Zoning District). The front porch and front of the house already encroach on the front yard, and the proposed changes cause further encroachment. The required front yard setback is 15'; after the proposed renovations,the front setback will be 9'8". The garage area will be renovated and will be used as living space, rather than a garage. Public hearing: Petition of DAVID CUTLER requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 in order to reconstruct a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 95 MASON ST(R-2 Zoning District). The house on 95 Mason St. has been demolished. Petitioner is requesting to rebuild the house on the same footprint, but with an additional half story. The former house was nonconforming with regard to front, side, and rear setbacks, as well as lot area and building coverage. It was 1 % stories (approximately 20 feet). The height of the proposed new structure is 28' (2 stories). • 2 JV� 60NDJggQ�� • �� City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail AJo 2L& S�LQ - 97g go- -3z6u u �eeMxtO �kc�, SI.I�M cep eP�l��S 5 �fQ wuv 41e c/ 9(a Col us 4,,-c '7' VWR/- gas& T0tinjj149T"Ih,e� 1 / iLu� 4 7 V- 5_q y-sp a 78 - sQ y-5-(p sa i c� v �� 36Q3� ��lliu,� Sa(/re �tSS �z ��i��6us �r2 �'78-7s�f -76 S�0 WFCa55��m�st N� Page of r-, City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,September 19,2012 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA")was held on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 in the third floor conference room of 120 Washington St., Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos(alternate), Rick Dionne, and Annie Harris. Those absent were: Bonnie Belair(alternate) and Jamie Metsch. 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 Mr. Duffy moves to approve the minutes of 8/15/12, seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos and approved 5- 0. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MARTINE BRACKE and SERGE GREGOIRE requesting a home occupation Special Permit in order to operate a wellness/nutrition/reiki business from the residence at 3 FREEMAN RD(R-1 Zoning District). • Documents& Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 7/2/12 and accompanying materials Ms. Curran notes that only four members are here tonight who are eligible to vote on this petition. She gives the applicant the option of proceeding with four members, noting the petition would need all four votes to pass, or continuing to next month. Mr. Gregoire says he did talk to his neighbors, and decided it's probably not best to see people in his home, so he only wishes to pursue a computer based business. He asks if this means he still needs a Special Permit. Mr. St. Pierre confirms that he does not need the Special Permit if he is not seeing people in the home,only a business certificate from the city clerk. Mr. Gregoire requests to withdraw the petition. Ms. Harris makes a motion to allow him to withdraw without prejudice, seconded by Mr. Duffy and passed 5-0 (Mr. Duffy, Mr.Tsitsinos, Ms. Harris, Ms. Curran and Mr. Dionne in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of ZIAD NABBOUT requesting a Special Permit to allow for a motor vehicle general repair use on the property located at 86 JACKSON ST(B4 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 8/29/12 and accompanying materials ➢ Letter from Vincent J. Furfaro, 17 Calabrese St., dated 9/10/12 ➢ Site plan prepared for Ziad Nabbout for 86 Jackson St., by New England Civil Engineering • Corp., dated 8/16/12 1 Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal St. presents the petition. He says this is currently a BP station. His client wants to buy the property next door, to the left of the station,which is currently vacant. The property is zoned B4. Across the street is a car lot selling used cars. The proposal is to purchase that lot and build a motor vehicle garage. The lot is about 16,000 SF; the building would be a single story, beige split block type building from which mechanical repairs and auto service would be provided. There will be no gasoline pumping or sales on this property. He says they are asking—with no variances are required—a Special Permit for the use —although this is automotive zoning, a Special Permit is required under the new zoning. Ziad Nabbout, 13 Cavendish Cir., leases the gas station and would like to own a property for his business. There will be repairs only, no gas. He says the whole property will be paved and cleaned up. Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion. Todd Seigel,Ward 3 Councillor, 28 Brittania Cir.,says this is a wonderful opportunity and it fits in the current location. It's now overgrown. He says the applicant runs a great business, and it will be good to get this property back on the tax bill. He supports the petition. Joseph O'Keefe,Ward 7 Councillor, 28 SurreyRd, he says he has known the applicant for many years and he runs a good business; he has never heard complaints about him. He supports the petition. Joe Francis, owner of 92 Jackson St., speaks in support of the petition. He says the lot will be improved, and Mr. Nabbout will run a good business. He says the dangers on the lot will be • remedied. Ms. McKnight reads letter in support of the petition from Vincent J. Furfaro. Ms. Curran asks if Site Plan Review would be required for this; Mr. Correnti says no. He says it will be a single story split block; it will have garage doors, 3 or 4 in front. He says it's nothing fancy, but in keeping with the area. It will be new and paved; there will be some landscaping. It will have a flat roof. Ms.Curran asks if it has enough parking. Mr. Correnti says it meets all parking, setback and density requirements. He says it's undeveloped to the rear, and there are no residents directly behind it. There's a lot of green buffer before reaching the yards on Calabrese Street. Ms. Harris asks if new curb cuts are proposed. Mr. Correnti says yes. He says they will get to another level of plans once they know this is going forward; the next step is the closing if they do get approval tonight. The building inspector will see it,as well as engineering, etc. Ms. Harris notes that what's important is that there are curb cuts and not one continuous one, so a sidewalk can be maintained. Some area for planting is also important. Ms. Curran says it's an appropriate use for this area,and she would be in favor of granting it. Mr. Duffy agrees; it seems this is a proposal that seeks to meet community needs. There will be no adverse impacts to traffic flow and safety. There's been no discussion of adverse impacts to utilities. It's in keeping with the neighborhood, including views. It would have a potential • 2 positive fiscal impact on the city. We've heard a lot of support from the community. The adverse effects would not outweigh beneficial impacts. Mr. St. Pierre suggests as a condition that they must abide by the unregistered vehicle ordinance Sec. 24-21. He says this is not reflection on Nabbout,just a general problem in the city. Mr. Dionne moves to approve the petition with standard conditions and one special condition: Petitioner shall abide by the unregistered vehicle ordinance—no unregistered cars are to remain on the property for more than 15 days. The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy and passes 5-0 (Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Mr.Tsitsinos, Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of CHRISTINE BURKINSHAW requesting a Variance from side yard setback and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure,in order to construct an addition to the second floor unit located on 118 DERBY ST(01 Zoning District). Documents& Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 7/24/12 ➢ Elevation drawings dated 7/23/12 by Paul R. Lessard ➢ Photographs, no date ➢ Parcel map, 7/20/12 Paul Lessard, 18 Levitt St.,the project architect, presents the petition. Christine and Bob Berkinshaw,owners,are also present. Mr. Lessard says the owners received the property • adjacent to Ye Olde Pepper Co., after a long probate period. He shows a photograph of the property included in the application. He would like to add 17%more floor area to the top floor. The first floor will be storage for the candy company:carts and nonflammable items. He presents the elevations. He says there is a driveway adjacent to the parking area for the candy store. He shows the current means of egress and says they are hoping to add to the rest of the second floor. The footprint will not be changed. He says they have letters of support from two adjacent abutters,one a homeowner and the historical society owning the adjacent House of Seven Gables. Ms. Curran asks for confirmation they are keeping building as is,just filling in the second part which is recessed. They are staying on the footprint? Mr. Lessard—Yes—we are continuing the building, and the character of the building, using the same materials. At the end,the whole house will have been stripped and have new gutters, etc. Ms. Curran it will be used as an apartment and storage? Mr. Lessard says yes;the apartment has not been used for many years. The first floor has been used for storage. There is parking for two cars end to end. Since they own the adjacent parking lot, if a tenant didn't want to be end to end,they could allow the tenant to park on the adjacent property. Mr. St. Pierre—the apartment is there, but ceased being used 15-20 years ago. The main house needs some renovation, but the rear portion needs major repair. This would straighten things out for the second floor apartment. • Ms. Curran asks if it's OK for it to continue as an apartment. 3 Mr. St. Pierre says yes, it's on the books this way. Ms. Harris asks about the front extension—there is a slight setback? And in the back, there's a setback of a couple of feet? Mr. Lessard says that's correct, but we will not be changing the footprint. Ms. Harris—so the drawing isn't quite right—the roof isn't shown that way. The eave is not quite in the right place? Mr. Lessard says that's possible. Yes,the eave should be shown slightly higher due to the fact that the roof will be flush. Ms. Harris— It would be nice to have a ridge drop there. Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion; no one comments, so she closes it. Ms. Curran:There is no issue with the use, then. Mr.St. Pierre confirms this. Ms. Curran says it's a small addition,they are cleaning up the building significantly; and parking is not a problem. The only detriment is an increase in square footage. Ms. Harris says this is a much better egress. Mr.Burkinshaw: I won't get in front of HisCom until next month, so won't be starting construction immediately. If it's not started in fall,then spring. Mr. Dionne says it's good to see the property improved. Mr. Duffy moves to approve the petition with 9 standard conditions,seconded by Ms. Harris and approved 5-0(Mr.Tsitsinos, Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, and Mr. Duffy in favor, none opposed). Public hearing:Petition of ANDREW WEINSTEIN,TRUSTEE, MASON REALTY TRUST, requesting • a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use by allowing parking of 12 school buses on the premises of 38 COMMERCIAL ST&53 MASON ST(BPD Zoning District). Documents& Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 8/28/12 ➢ Site Plan of Land located in Salem, Mass., prepared for First student, Inc. by Eastern Land Survey Associates, dated 8/23/12 Attorney George Atkins, 59 Federal St., presents the petition. Also present is a representative from First Student Inc.,Gig Michaud. Mr.Atkins says in 1969, this was the location of the Eastern MA railway bus terminal. Subsequently, the building was used for manufacturing— trailer trucks were in and out. Now there are a variety of businesses—all involve truck and trailer traffic. In the 80s,there was another bus business on the premises. The use now proposed is to park 10-12 buses on the property in the vacant space to the rear of the building. Mr. Atkins presents photos of the property, saying there is a large empty area at the back. One concern could be the noises produced by backup alarms. It's easy to back buses in once finishing their rounds in the morning at 10 a.m. At 4 p.m,they back in so that during the morning departure there are no alarms. Making the turn from North Street to Commercial St. is difficult—having the light at Mason and North makes the route safer. He says this is a new contractor for Salem, and it's important they travel/make their dropoffs on time. A location in Salem is difficult to find—they don't think this will have any effect on the surrounding • 4 • community and is a natural use for this property. There will also be onsite management—the company will rent an office on the premises. Mr.Atkins says the bus company is a worldwide transportation company. They are experienced in terms of safety and record. For many years,the Michaud bus company was run on Jefferson Ave. Mr. Michaud says he was born into the business 60 years ago and understands the transportation industry well. This is a short contract—2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon. The buses will be leaving in the morning at 6:30, and there are no backup alarms then. They come back about a quarter to nine, then park for 3-4 hour,then go out for 2 hours, then return for the day. No operation on vacations,weekends, summers. He says the City was anxious to have them park in Salem with their office here too. If a bus has an issue, another bus can be sent quickly. If they are located outside the city,there are more delays. The state and federal government have a five minute idling law. Their rule is 3 minutes. They tell immediately if a bus has been idling, monitoring in real time. Drivers have to sign the company policy on this. All the buses have GPS. Mr.Atkins asks if there will be fueling onsite. Mr. Michaud says they have an outside vendor to bring in 15 gallons at a time. They have safety equipment with auto shutoffs. They do this throughout the country and in Canada. They do this on school grounds as well, and have no issues. Most of their fleet is fueled this way. • Mr.Atkins says this is an advantage to the city and its school system, students and parents. There will be no construction taking place. No public services are required. The most important provision for nonconformng use is that this is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment. Ward 7 Councillor Joe O'Keefe is in favor of the petition because Salem needs the buses. He remembers that building being used for street cars—the tracks are still on Mason St. It's always been used for transportation. These are diesel buses; diesel is not as flammable as gasoline. Arthur Parent, 39 Mason St.,says he only opposes buses going down Mason St.—it's too busy. The business at 39'/: Mason doesn't have enough parking. Ms. Curran: what is the proposed route for buses? Mr. Michaud: Most go down Mason as part of their routes. They have some stops on Mason— to have them not be on Mason would be impossible—it's how the routes have been established by the school system. Some buses finish their routes on Mason, though others can use Commercial St.coming back from their routes. Ms. Curran—none go down Flint St.? No one can make that turn. Mr. Michaud says no. Ms. Harris—why aren't buses parked on the school grounds? Mr. Michaud—our schools don't • have enough parking area. We did look at parking at our old location, but it wasn't possible. There is already a company parking buses on Jefferson Ave.—they had the contract last year. 5 Ms. Harris—does this part of Commercial St.flood? Mr.St. Pierre—yes, Commercial St.floods. . Cars couldn't traverse, but a bus could. The property itself does not flood. Ms. Curran—will the fueling trigger con com review? Mr. St. Pierre—we should add this in the conditions. MR. Michaud says his firm has come out to review Stratton Environmental out of TN—they will review the site a number of times. Ms. Curran—it is an enormous space—that doesn't seem to be an issue. What's in the building now? Andrew Weinstein says there are 8 businesses now. Mr.Tsitsinos and Mr. Dionne say they are happy with the proposal. Mr.St. Pierre—Mr. Michaud did his due diligence—he looked at many locations and came up with very few that could work. Ms. Harris moves to approve the petition with 3 standard conditions and one special condition— the company will make its best efforts to split any bus traffic evenly between Mason and Commercial streets. Ms. Harris notes that the site was used for transportation for many years,and this use is appropriate for the location. • Mr. Duffy says this appears to be a proposed extension of nonconforming use not more detrimental than the existing uses. He seconds Ms. Harris' motion. The petition is approved 5-0 (Ms. Harris, Ms.Curran, Mr.Tsitsinos, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Dionne in favor, none opposed). Mr.Tsitsinos moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0. Ms. Curran adjourns the meeting at 7:35 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://solem.com/paaesISa/emMA ZoningAppealsMln/ Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 10/17/12 6 CITY OF SALEM, MASSAC HUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL yy gt nfr R: 120WASMNGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSAC}RNETT41970 TILE:978-619-5685 •FAx:978-740-0404 r ~` KIMRERLEYDRIscoLL - rn C MAYOR ym N A� r rn 0 3 N LEGAL NOTICES N c w The City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will open public hearings for the following new petitions at its meeting on Wednesday,July 18,2012 at 6:30 p.m., 3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, ROOM 313: Petition of DUARTE MACHADO requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming two-family home in order to construct a 15'x25' one-story addition on the property located at 14 ALBION ST (R-1 Zoning District). Petition of MARTINE BRACKE and SERGE GREGOIRE requesting a home occupation Special Permit .. in order to operate a wellness/nutrition/reiki business from the residence at 3 FREEMAN RD (R-1 Zoning District). Petition of KATHERINE AND JOHN MACKAY requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 in order to alter and expand a nonconforming front porch and construct a 19'x20'addition on the single-family home located at 96 COLUMBUS AVE (R-1 Zoning District). Petition of DAVID CUTLER requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 in order to reconstruct a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 95 MASON ST (R-2 Zoning District). Rebecca Curran, Chair i icy Hall Z oo�M w�a WA �Y4 a w VAL Cowl__ CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL ,o. 120 WASHING'I'ON 51'R13P:I * bAl.F.M,MASSACI{pSETTS 01970 TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 KIbffiERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,July 18, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem, MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS ST, (112 Zoning District). Decision: Denied Filed with the City Clerk on 8/1/12 Petition of KATHERINE AND JOHN MACKAY requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 in order to alter and expand a nonconforming front porch and construct a 19'x20' addition on the single-family home located at 96 COLUMBUS AVE .(R-1 Zoning District). Decision:Granted Filed with the City Clerk on 8/1/12 Petition of DAVID CUTLER requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 in order to reconstruct a nonconforming single- family house on the property located at 95 MASON ST(R-2 Zoning District). Decision:Granted Filed with the City Clerk on 8/1/12 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, July 18, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, July 18, 2012 in the third floor conference room of 120 Washington St., Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Richard Dionne (arrived 7:15 p.m.), Bonnie Belair (alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Those absent were: Mike Duffy and Jamie Metsch. Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner. Ms. Curran opens the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Ms. Curran announces the Board will be going into Executive Session to discuss the following items: ➢ Discussion of proposed settlement: 162 Federal Street i Discussion of litigation: 10 White Street & 57 Rear Turner St. • Ms. Curran says the Board finds that it would be detrimental to discuss these matters in open session. Ms. Harris moves to go into Executive Session, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos and approved 4-0 (Ms. Harris, Ms. Curran, Ms. Belair and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). The Board leaves the room for its Executive Session at 6:45 p.m. and returns at 7:10 p.m. Ms. Harris moves to resume the regular session, seconded Mr. Tsitsinos, and approved (Mr. Tsitsinos, Ms. Belair, Ms. Harris and Ms. Curran in favor, none opposed). Approval of Minutes The draft minutes of 7/18/12 are reviewed with no comments. Ms. Harris moves to approve them as written, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos 3-0 (Mr. Tsitsinos, Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris in favor; none opposed; Ms. Belair abstaining). Petition of DUARTE MACHADO requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming two-family home in order to construct a 15'x25' one-story addition on the property located at 14 ALBION ST (R-1 Zoning District). Mr. St. Pierre notes that this applicant requested to appear on the August agenda, not July. Ms. Belair moves to continue the matter with no evidence taken to August 15, 2012, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos and approved 4-0 (Mr. Tsitsinos, Ms. Belair, Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed). 1 Mr. Dionne enters at 7:15 p.m. Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS ST, Salem, MA (112 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: i Application date-stamped 3/5/12 and accompanying materials Written statement read and submitted by Leslie Byrne, dated 7/18/12 ➢ Written statement with photographs submitted by Leslie Byrne, no date Solar model, solar azimuth and solar elevations, dated 6/18/12, submitted by Attorney John Carr Plot Plan of Land, 16 Saunders St., with proposed addition, dated 5/22/09 ➢ Biography of Steven Ozahowski, SRA, Certified Real Estate Appraiser Petition in opposition to the application with signatures ➢ Quitclaim Deed of 19 Dolloff Avenue, Beverly, MA 01915 Declaration of Homestead for 19 Dolloff Ave, Beverly, MA 01915, for Leslie Byrne i Leslie Byrne Residence: Additions & Renovations, 16 Saunders St., Salem MA, • dated 5/2012 Ms. Byrne presents her petition. She says the proposal remains within the current footprint and would extend to 2 Y22 stories. She has had this redesigned —the Board had requested the height reduction and addition of dormers, which she has now done. She says the expansion of her house will add to value of neighborhood and is consistent with other houses surrounding. She hands the Board copy of her statement. She addresses concerns previously brought up by neighbors. Regarding fire threat, she says that part of Salem's character/charm is its older neighborhoods, where houses are close together. The building will be done up to modern codes/materials. She says the new addition is in the same character and scale as the rest of the neighborhood. She compares her structure to the neighbors at 14 Saunders St., noting a nonconforming/illegal third floor dormer, which she says impacts her property value. She submits a packet with a narrative and photos. Ms. Byrne says she had not opposed the 2 house development at the end of the street, as had been stated. Ms. Curran notes that Ms. Byrne has addressed the issues that have come up; can she explain the new structure—how tall is it? Ms. Byrne says it's greatly reduced in height from what she previously proposed. Ms. Curran notes that she eliminated the third floor. How much square footage is being added to the 660 SF existing? She says it's . roughly an additional 700 SF. Ms. Harris says she is probably adding about 1,000 SF. . Ms. Harris asks if she is keeping the existing structure. She says she is keeping the whole existing structure without the bumpouts. Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment. George Fallon, 36 March St., says he developed the two lots at the end of the street. He is here to clarify— he's told part of the equation here is Ms. Byrne had a deal with him siting the houses at the end of the street —that is not true. He says he hired a company that specialized in modeling 3d sight lines. He says he paid a lot to have every property added to the visual so they could see the least offensive position for all the houses. This was done for everyone in view of the two lots. The computer model showed them where to put the houses, along with considering the zoning. He says this was not done with regard to any one individual's input. John Carr, representing the McKinnons at 14 Saunders St., submits a information in opposition to the petition. He says Ms. Byrne has a home in Beverly and had not disclosed this. He presents light and air analyses shown on two schematic drawings. He says he appreciates Ms. Byrne didn't have a deal with Mr. Fallon for the siting of those two houses, but she was considered. He says the McKinnon's got a building permit in 1981 to raise the slope of their roof. He says Ms. Byrne bought her house after this. He • says there is room to expand at the rear but she doesn't want to. He says the house is being rented now. He says the project will adversely affect the McKinnon's light and air. He says every single neighbor on the street and ward councilor Michael Sosnowski is opposed and has signed his petition. Steve Ozahowski, SRA, passes out a resume and real estate appraisal license. He says this project will lower the property value of the abutter. He says properties with river views are more marketable. If he were doing an appraisal of the property, compared to one with views, he would adjust the value down 5-10%. Ward 2 Councillor Michael Sosnowski, 17 Collins St., says he supports the McKinnons. His main concern is that all the neighbors oppose it. He concurs with what Mr. Carr has said. Elizabeth McKinnon, 14 Saunders St., says she had a building permit for the addition on her house. She gives a history of Ms. Byrne's previous petition, which the McKinnon's appealed. She says the court had asked Ms. Byrne to come up with plans they could agree on, but she did not contact them within the required 90 days. She says the new plans she came to the Board with in March were not sufficiently changed. She wants to know what it would have cost to expand horizontally, which Ms. Byrne has said would be too expensive. She disagrees with Mr. Fallon's claim that his houses were not situated to preserve Ms. Byrne's view. She says the houses at 14 and 16 Saunders are 9 feet apart. She says the revised plan now has a porch, which she objects to. 3 • Arthur Sargent, Councillor at Large, 8 Maple Ave., asks the Board to keep to the "substantially detrimental" standard for issuance of a special permit. He says there is seniority in the neighborhood that should be considered. George Fallon says everyone with a view was considered, including Ms. Byrne. There was no special deal just for her. Ms. Byrne says the McKinnons have plenty of sunlight and privacy—she has been in their shadow and in their view for years. She says the deck can be removed. She did buy a house in Beverly. She says she plans on selling the property and putting money into the Saunders St. house. She says she planned on building onto the Saunders St. property when she bought it. If she expands to the back, she will have no yard and there would be even less privacy for the McKinnons. Tom McKinnon, 14 Saunders St., opposes the petition. He says it will affect his light, air and value. Melanie McKinnon, 14 Saunders St., is concerned about lessened property values. She says the addition will be intrusive. • John Carr says last time he submitted a portion of the zoning ordinance that addresses preservation of property value, light and air, and calls this to the Board's attention. Ms. Belair asks Ms. Byrne if she spoke with the McKinnons after last hearing. She says no, they have been very hostile toward her. Ms. Belair says she understands, and sympathizes with the small house; she says the Board encouraged her to try to meet with the neighbors to try to work this out. She says Ms. Byrne did herself a disservice by not attempting it. Ms. Byrne responds that she has left the communication to the attorneys. She regrets that has been the case, but she honestly feels they will oppose any addition at all that will block their kitchen window view. In all communication that was brought forward, that was communicated to her. She says they avoid her and don't speak to her. Mr. Carr says he has made numerous written requests to speak with her about this. Ms. Curran says she appreciates this is a very small house on very small lot, and appreciates Ms. Byrne attempted to respond to some issues the Board had. She still thinks this is a very small lot and the houses are close together; this is not a property that is allowed to expand by right. We look at detriment to abutting properties. She says Ms. Byrne is so close she has to keep your shades down. She's not sure it's appropriate for an addition, based on where it is; she knows there are other similar • properties built at this time. It's not an addition going up years later. She says the shadow study is interesting and revealing— it will impact light and air. Ms. Byrne said herself it is very close. 4 • Mr. Tsitsinos is not in favor; he says all the neighbors oppose. He feels there has not been an adequate response, and Ms. Byrne is not even living there. Ms. Belair moves to approve the petition with 8 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Dionne and denied 5-0 (Ms. Belair, Mr. Tsitsinos, Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris and Mr. Dionne opposed, none in favor). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of MARTINE BRACKE and SERGE GREGOIRE requesting a home occupation Special Permit in order to operate a wellness/nutrition/reiki business from the residence at 3 FREEMAN Mr. Dionne (R-1 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: i Application date-stamped 7/2/12 and accompanying materials Photographs of the property submitted at the meeting i Letter from Paulette Puleo, 5 Freeman Rd., dated 7/18/12 Serge Gregoire presents the petition. He says he and Ms. Bracke, his wife, have recently purchased the house. He says his wife is in a wheelchair and has special needs; it is • difficult for her to get around. They tried to find a house he could run a business from and could not; they decided instead to buy a house perfect for his wife. He describes his wellness business, discussing how he meets with clients in person, over the phone and by Skype. He works part time in Boston; Freeman Rd. would be a satellite. Not much traffic is expected, 1-2 clients daily, sometimes more or less. He says he understands the concerns of his neighbors at 5 Freeman Rd. He notes that a lot of people turn onto Freeman, realize it's a dead end, and use their driveway to turn around —this happens 3-4 times daily. This is a huge problem. He says this is more of a concern than his clients. Ms. Curran asks about the number of clients he sees in his Boston office - 12-18 weekly. Mr. Gregoire says fewer would be seen in Salem. Hours would be Monday through Friday only. Ms. Belair asks if they see people in evening; yes, 7 at latest. Ms. Curran — 1 at time? Yes, for 30-90 minutes. Ms. Harris—not on weekends? Mr. Gregoire says sometimes if they have emergencies, but they generally do not work on weekends. He says no exterior changes are proposed. Ms. Curran asks about the size of the driveway— about 30x60? Mr. Gregoire says it's bigger he shares the driveway with 5 Freeman Rd. He shows photos of the driveway and property. Ms. Harris —this is the same neighbor who is objecting? Yes. Ms. Harris—you have 5 or 6 spaces total? Mr. Gregoire — no, only on our side. He notes the house will be ADA compliant. Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment. Ms. Curran reads into the record a letter from Paulette Puleo, 3 Freeman Rd., in opposition. 5 • Martine Bracke, 3 Freeman Rd., says it was difficult to find an accessible house for her. She hopes to stay there forever. She wants to be part of the neighborhood. She says she wants to be active in the neighborhood. Charles Puleo, 5 Freeman Rd., says he appreciates that the house was sold and they are fixing it up. He says the shared driveway does accommodate many vehicles. However, he is concerned about business activity where there wasn't any before. He feels downtown would be more appropriate. He is not opposed to having nice neighbors. He runs a business on Highland Ave., but doesn't bring it home; nor do their neighbors. He refers to the Home Occupation Special Permit provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, saying they shall utilize no more than 25% of gross floor area. He says this house has 1600 SF finished floor area with an unfinished attic. He is concerned that this could grow to a much larger proportion of the house; he does not want to have to monitor this. By right they could have an employee, and parking is an issue. He says when a Special Permit is granted, it stays with the property, and another buyer could run a similar business. He says this decision will change the characteristic of neighborhood forever. He refers to the criteria for issuance of a Special Permit, and says this will impact his property value. The houses on the street are all very well kept. He says the petitioner is asking people to accept less for their homes. He says it's great to have new neighbors, but he doesn't feel this is the right location. He says they filed for the Special • Permit prior to closing on the house, but they should become part of neighborhood prior to requesting something like this. Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols St., Ward 4 Councillor, notes the property is zoned Residential. He says the neighbors want only residential, not a business. He says a lot of people want to work out of their homes, but this affects other people's homeowners' insurance. 1 -2 people per day are more than are there now, and these clients are not residents of the neighborhood. Ms. Curran says that to clarify, home occupation is a special permit allowing a business use —it does not mean it stays with the property. This is not a variance. It can run with a particular owner, and it can be for a time limit. Up to one employee not living in the house is allowed but this Board can regulate that there are none allowed. 25% maximum floor area is allowed for a home occupation, but the Board can regulate this too. She says many of these things are addressable —she is not speaking to the merits of the proposal, but many of these issues can be addressed. Mr. Gregoire says he empathizes— and they do not want to hire employees. Ms. Belair asks if they would accept that as a condition; he says yes. He will work with the neighbors and the Board. He says 25-30 cars come to his driveway every day. The • Puleos had warned them about this because they have a 3 year old. He does not think there is a big impact in comparison. As for privacy—he says they have considered putting up a fence between the driveways so their clients do not park in the driveway at 6 5 Freeman Rd. Ms. Belair asks if they would accept conditions limiting the number of people, hours of operation, and hours limited to weekdays. Mr. Gregoire says they are willing to work with the Board and neighbors to make sure everyone is happy. He says the business would take up roughly 10% of the house. Ms. Belair notes that the Board can place limitations on the home occupation that would address neighbors' concerns. Dennis Murray, 10 Freeman Rd., asks who monitors these limitations. He thinks they will expand. The turnaround is a concern. The additional clients will make this worse. Ms. Curran asks about enforcement; Mr. St. Pierre says that presents some difficulties in that we have to rely on complaint. Ms. Belair says the Board can condition the permit for 1 year, and could take it away if the applicants are not abiding. Mary Goldberg, 8 Freeman Rd., says she wants the street to remain residential. She is concerned about increased traffic volume. She is opposed. Ms. Curran notes that they would be maintaining the residential zoning—not rezoning as business. Anywhere in Salem a neighbor can ask for this. A home occupation has different standards than other businesses; for example, they cannot sell goods. • Mary Goldberg asks what the difference is between seeing clients and selling a service. Ms. Curran explains how home occupations operate, and how they are permitted case by case, citywide. Arthur Sargent, Councillor at Large, 8 Maple Ave, asks when the last time was that a business use special permit changed hands and got approved for something else. He thinks they should have found a property that would allow this. They wanted a family neighborhood — but so do the neighbors. Ms. Bracke acknowledges that the neighbors don't know her, but she is happy to meet them —she says they won't bring a lot of people or disturb anyone. She is not trying to change the rules; she just wants to work at home without having to worry about access in an office with her wheelchair. She asks for 1 year special permit so we can see if they are making a mistake or not. She says they will respect all rules, and asks to be given a chance. She says she is happy to wait on a decision and speak with the neighbors. Ms. Curran suggests continuing so she can do that. Mr. Puleo asks what criteria the Board would look at after 1 year; Ms. Belair says it would depend on whether there were complaints. Mr. Puleo says he does not want to • have to monitor this. He says he does not think Ms. Curran is correct about the Special Permit not running with the land. 7 • Ms. Curran says she will check with the legal department. Laura Willis, 12 Freeman Rd. says she totally understands the concerns; none of the neighbors have met the applicant, but she would like to give her a chance. She is familiar with their type of business, and she practices Reiki herself and works at a center. She says it's a very quiet 1 to 1 thing. She notes that the applicants do much of the work long distance via Skype. She says for this practice,.they would not want to create noise. Councillor Sargent says the bottom line is it's a business in R1. He says there are other properties zoned for business. Ms. Puleo says there are other properties that would be perfect for this. She says they should have looked into where you can put a business in like that. This means people coming in and out of the home. Downtown business should be kept downtown. Ms. Harris moves to continue the hearing to give the petitioners a chance to speak with the neighbors. She says they need to be clearer about definition of home occupation. She notes it's a very mild use and is allowed all over the city, and is quite different from the grandfathering situation, which causes a lot of problems. However, she says she is • not optimistic they will be able to come up with a resolution. She moves to continue the petition to Sept. 19, 2012. Mr. Gregoire says he wants to keep the neighborhood quiet and raise his family there. Ms. Harris suggests speaking with the neighbors to show if there are limitations on the business, it will not disturb them. Ms. Belair seconds the motion to continue to September 19, 2012, and it passes 4-1 (Ms. Belair, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne and Ms. Harris in favor, Mr. Tsitsinos opposed). Petition of KATHERINE AND JOHN MACKAY requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 in order to alter and expand a nonconforming front porch and construct a 19'x20' addition on the single-family home located at 96 COLUMBUS AVE (R-1 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: i Application date-stamped 7/2/12 McKay Residence Addition Project, 96 Columbus Avenue, Salem, MA, existing conditions site plan, elevations and floor plans, dated 5/16/12, prepared by R. Rumpf& Associates, Inc. i McKay Residence Addition Project, 96 Columbus Avenue, Salem, MA, proposed site plan, elevations and floor plans, dated 6/12/12, prepared by R. Rumpf& Associates, Inc. 8 • Katherine McKay, 96 Columbus Ave., presents the petition. She wants to replace the front porch, which is nonconforming, and also have a room accessible to the basement. The property is large, so the other setbacks are met. It's a single story addition; just the front is nonconforming. Ms. Harris asks about the interior; it will be a family room. She says the elevations quite nice looking. Mr. Tsitsinos agrees. Ms. Harris—porches don't need relief? Mr. St. Pierre says no, just a Special Permit to extend the front line across. Mr. St. Pierre notes that the house has been restored nicely; only the porch has been left out. Bill Cass, 92 Columbus Ave, supports the petition and says they have done a great job redoing the property. Ms. Curran says the architecture is consistent with the neighborhood and the existing house, and the project would not be more detrimental to neighborhood. Ms. Harris says it is a very nice layout/expansion. She says it goes will with neighborhood — it's a great solution to expand without impacting the neighborhood. Ms. Harris moves to approve the petition with 8 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 in favor (Mr. Dionne, Ms. Belair, Ms. Harris, Ms. Curran and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of • these minutes. Petition of DAVID CUTLER requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 in order to reconstruct a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 95 MASON ST (R-2 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 7/2/12 and accompanying materials Plot Plan of Land located in Salem, MA for 95 Mason St., dated 11/11/10 Photographs showing house in 2008 and renderings of proposed reconstruction ➢ Floor plans prepared by DSD Enterprises Inc. David Cutler, 154 Washington St., Peabody, presents the petition. He says he bought the property a few months ago to renovate. After investigating and talking to Mr. St. Pierre, he decided to rebuild. He doesn't think it will be any more nonconforming. Ms. Curran asks if he is rebuilding the same building. He says yes, with a minor height change. Mr. Sf. Pierre says the height will be within zoning limits. Ms. Harris asks if it will be clapboard; no—vinyl sided. Ms. Harris asks if the Historical Commission has jurisdiction. Mr. St. Pierre says the house was purchased to be renovated. The interior was gutted and enough deficiencies found that it couldn't be renovated; there was extensive damage. Mr. St. Pierre told 9 • him he needed a Special Permit to reconstruct. His contactor spoke to Mr. St. Pierre's assistant who incorrectly gave him a permit. In good faith, the contractor started demolishing. He did not go through the waiver process; the Historical Commission got involved with the design at this point. It is not in a district, but what was missed was the review before demolition of a 50 year old or more structure. Ms. Curran says she prefers to see hardy board so it looks like wood. Mr. Cutler says the plan was vinyl. Ms. Curran says she prefers hardy board; does Mr. Cutler have a problem with that? He says yes; he's losing money, behind schedule. The resale value is already limited because of the location; he has to meet the stretch code. He says it will be an energy efficient and affordable house. Ms. Harris—in this city, you devalue a house by putting vinyl on it. You get more money for a property that looks historic even if it's not. Ms. Curran — I'm glad His Com weighed in on the roof; I have no problem with it going up higher. Ms. Curran opens issue for public comment. . Phil Barrett says he is representing his mother, who lives at 93 Mason St. He says the house probably did need to come down. He has no objection to house he's building. While excavating the back to establish new foundation, Mr. Barrett says they damaged his driveway, and just asks that they repair that. He would like to see Lynn-pack so there is no sagging. He spoke with the builder. They could do their staging without damaging the driveway. He says he has no problem with them coming into his property to do what they need to do, as long as they repair the driveway, remove the asphalt, replace with Lynn-pack or 3/ inch crushed stone, then a final coat to close off the driveway. Christopher Sweeney, 97 Mason St., iscurious to see plans. He examines them. Will you excavate and pour foundation? Mr. Cutler says minimally—it will be cinderblock. Ms. Curran — says this is consistent with the neighborhood, and not more detrimental. They are following the footprint, and it's not inconsistent with the zoning bylaw or the neighborhood. Ms. Harris says this is an improvement to replace a house that was falling down and in poor condition. Ms. Belair moves to approve the petition with 6 standard condition and two special conditions: 1. The driveway on 93 Mason Street is to be repaired as follows: asphalt is to be removed and replaced with Lynn-pack or inch crushed stone, and then a final • coat is to be applied to close off the driveway. This driveway is to be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the house on 95 Mason Street. 2. The exterior of the house shall be clad in clapboards or hardy board. 10 • The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne and passed 5-0 (Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Ms. Harris moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos to adjourn and approved 5-0. The meeting adjourns at 9:23 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.//solem.com/Popes/So/emMA ZoningAppealsMin/ Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 8/15/12 • 11 ��ooNoiraRa CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3Ro FLOOR • yam. r „� p SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 � nnenoiQ TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 --- KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 1011 AUG - I A 0 (9 MAYOR FILE ff CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS, July 31, 2012 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS ST, Salem, MA(R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 21, 2012, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was continued to April 18, 2012, May 16, 2012, and June 20, 2012, but was not heard those dates and no evidence was taken. The hearing • was then continued to July 18, 2012 and closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris,Jimmy Tsitsmos and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5, Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures, of the Ciry of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact., 1. In a petition date-stamped March 5, 2012, petitioner Leslie Byrne requested a Special Permit to alter and extend her nonconforming single family house with an addition of 1 '112 stones. 2. The petitioner was represented byAttomeyJames Cipoletta at the March 21, 2012 meeting, but represented herself at the July 18, 2012 meeting. 3. At the March 21, 2012 meeting, the Board heard testimony from several members of the public who opposed the project, citing concerns about impacts to views, access to light and air, fire safety, privacy, and decreased home values. The Board also received several letters in opposition to the project, as well as three letters of support. 4. On March 21, 2012, the Board continued the hearing to April 18, 2012, requesting that the petitioner look at revising the design to minimize the impact to abutters, • particularly those at 14 Saunders Street, who would be most affected by the project. 5. The matter was not heard on April 18, 2012, but was instead continued to May 16, • 2012 and then to June 20,2012; no evidence was taken on these dates. The hearing was then continued to Judy 18, 2012. 6. At the July 18, 2012 meeting, the Board discussed revised plans submitted by the petitioner showing a lowered height and a dormer design that reduced the mass from the original proposal. At this hearing, the Board again heard testimony from abutters opposing the project. 7. At the July 18, 2012 meeting, Real Estate appraiser Steven G. Ozahowski, 156 Willow St., Hamilton, stated that the value of the property located at 14 Saunders Street would be decreased by the proposed addition. A shadow study and solar elevations were also submitted to show impacts to the home on 14 Saunders 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 not be granted, since the addition would be proposed substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure. Due to the house's close proximity to the abutter at 14 Saunders Street, the proposed addition is not appropriate for its • location, would impinge on privacy, and would otherwise negatively impact abutters. 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 3.3.5, Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances, is denied. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted 5-0 (Curran, Harris, Dionne, Tsitsinos and Belau opposed, none in favor), to deny petitioner's request for a Special Permit. The petition is denied. AJA4&.& 4"-ue�/6.7itx 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 r 3 • office of the City Clerk Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11,the Variance or Special Pe='t 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 9 120 WASiuueron SIRHItif♦ SALFA1,NLwtACHUS XIS 01970 978-6I9-5685 FAX:978-740-0404 Kimmn ia.IsY DRIScou. MAYOR n N < o n N July 31, 2012 m c' +�T ca "— [ Decision >m m — r D 3 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals i 3 D VI — N Petition of KATHERINE AND JOHN MACKAY requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 in order to alter and expand a nonconforming front porch and construct a 19'x20' addition on the single-family home located at 96 COLUMBUS AVE (R-1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 18, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on July 18, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of • Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair, and Jimmy Tsitsinos. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped July 2, 2012, petitioner requested a Special Permit to replace a nonconforming front porch, and to remove the garage and replace it with expanded living space. 2. At the hearing on July 18, 2012, Bill Cass, 92 Columbus Avenue, 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 may be granted without detriment to the public good and without . nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, i • since the proposed addition is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and will have minimal impact on abutters. 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 voted five (5) in favor (Curran, Dionne, Belair, Harris, and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit. A Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 is granted to allow for the proposed addition and new front porch as shown on the submitted plans. The Board of Appeals voted 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. is3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the • Ordinance. n 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. • • 3 F CrrY OF SALEM MASSACHUSET'TS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WAtil-❑NGIY)NS'11tIiIf1' * S.ALGbI,MASS VCLIL`Sf;'19ti 01970 �C�MIN6OV. 'riar.c:978-G19sG85 . FAX:978-740-0404 KIA mlm,iw DRISCOLL MAYOR c� July 31, 2012 r y Decision _n Nr= �rn City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 3 A a Petition of DAVID CUTLER requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 in orderAo recpstruct a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 95 MASON ST (R-2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 18, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on July 18, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of • Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair, and Jimmy Tsitsinos. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped July 2, 2012, petitioner requested a Special Permit reconstruct the nonconforming single-family house on 95 Mason Street in the same footprint, but with the height increased by an additional story. 2. At the hearing on July 18, 2012, two residents asked questions about the petition, one of whom spoke in support. No one opposed the petition at the hearing. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. Desirable relief may be granted without detriment to the public good and without . nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, since the proposed house replaces a structure that was in very poor condition. Additionally, 1 • the new house was designed with input from the Historical Commission, and its design is consistent with 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 voted five (5) in favor (Curran, Dionne, Belair, Harris, and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit. A Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 is granted to allow for the proposed reconstruction as shown on the submitted plans. The Board of Appeals voted 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. 40 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. The driveway on 93 Mason Street is to be repaired as follows: asphalt is to be removed and replaced with Lynn-pack or Y4 inch crushed stone, and then a final coat is to be applied to close off the driveway. This driveway is to be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the house on 95 Mason Street. 8. The exterior of house shall be clad in clapboards or hardy board. Rebecca Curran, Chair Salem Board of Appeals • f 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 oL S�AL,E��, NIASS_-NCHUSETTS �' i '. BOARD OF APPEAL, f 1dQ' ��0'�MINE DONS COVAhlnurn ��nai yr � Sw,�i,.AI .:.�,.w s1_I1 019 0 pun+reri:•r Uia:,:�n.1. ll i`978619-;68i ♦ F4c 9'8'-10-i Fti-I n \i m'K 1 No � N r t_ m c �T Z MEETING NOTICE U m ZONING BO):ARD01: .Appf, \I.S June 20, 2012-6:30 P.M. r^ D Y _ City Fall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA, Room 313 ; `✓ D t/1 Rcbccca Curran, (:hair N REVISED MEETING AGENDA I. ,Apprm 11101 MinurUs: 16, 2012 meeting 2. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, rcqucsting a Slaccinl Permit under Sec. 3.35 nEthe Salon Zoning Ordinance to alter:uid extend a nonconforming single-Famil' house on the propem located at 16 SAUNDERS ST,Salem. mA (K2 Z,ming District). APPLICANT REQUESTS To CONTINUE TOjULP 18, 2012, 3. Public hearing: Petition of PAUL J. PINTO &JOHN F. CASEY [II requesria\g a Special permit For a bed & breakfast use on the properra' located at 314 ESSEX ST, Salem, &b\ (R-2 Zoning District). •f. Public hearing: Petition oFSCOTT CHARLTON requesting V'ariances From side and rear setback rcyuirenacnr I'll accesson structure to;illom an 3•s6' shed on the property locnred at It ORLEANS AVE, Salon, iAI.\ IB-2 for Zoning District). 5. Public hearing; Petition of JOSEPH W. NIGRO III rnqucsling a A';ui:uuc Irons minimum lot \ridrh anal f'onrage to subdivide the property located at 51 VALLEY ST, Snlem,lAf;A (K-I Zoning District). 6. OId/Ncw lSusinces Adj( n111cnr '> ;9nil <99QDtp1, Nq� t�& 41;7-01 i t !r , hn �r 1 otn R ;h/.;naJrr/hr Orn.11ydn� I<ur.1l.C;,L. .. 1'r 'Jli ,;nJl .) .:h i'dn+wra S rdi.uzr '-_0?S CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS A. BOARD OF APPEAL �s. 120 WASi HNG IONS inritr ♦ SAIJ M,N1 SSAu icsertS 01970 g= 'Cri.t!:978-6195685 * FAX:978-7-10-0404 KIMBERL iY DRISCOLL. MAYOR MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 20, 2012—6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex,120 Washington Street, Salem,MA, Room 313 ca O'L-t&L ew. Rebecca Curran, Chair t7 ^' r rn MEETING AGENDA " _z Nm N 1. Approval of NGnutes: May 16, 2012 meeting >* D m 3 2. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, requesting a Special Permit u er SecA3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single-family house on the pr erty lofted at 16 SAUNDERS ST,Salem, MA (R2 Zoning District). • 3. Public hearing: Petition of PAUL J. PINTO&JOHN F. CASEY III requesting a Special Permit for a bed& breakfast use on the property located at 314 ESSEX ST,Salem, MA (R-2 Zoning District). 4. Public hearing: Petition of SCOTT CHARLTON requesting Variances from side and rear setback requirements for an accessory structure to allow an 8'x6'shed on the property located at 11 ORLEANS AVE,Salem, NIA (13-2 Zoning District). 5. Public hearing: Petition of JOSEPH W. NIGRO III requesting a Variance from minimum lot width and frontage to subdivide the property located at 51 VALLEY ST,Salem, NIA (R-1 Zoning District). 6. Old/New Business 7. Adjournment Mg 'e 909 Ui7 "UI�I:CIN 4U Deafif! r1niy Hat! ft*r", was. on - unel t- Zoi4 a` Know Tour Righls render the Open A4eeling Law M.C.L 391I21 B and Ci ,Ordinance Seniors 2-2028 lhmrrgh 2-2033. ��,coNorr��a, CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL Z[��yyff (Hpt 120 WASHINGYON STREET 0$ALIiiM,MASSACHUSF_TIS 01970 >. 'PELF:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846 KmmERLeY DRISCOLL MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: June 5, 2012 RE: Meeting Agenda —June 20, 2012 Board Members, • Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Planner's memo 3. Meeting minutes of 4/18/2012 4. Materials for new agenda items Continued public hearing: Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS ST, Salem, MA (112 Zoning District). Revised drawings are included in your packet. The elevations show the design that was originally submitted alongside a revised design, which is 9' lower than what was previously proposed. Dormers on either side of the roof are shown, instead of the additional two stories originally proposed. The elevations also show the abutter's house at 14 Saunders Street alongside 16 Saunders St. Public hearing: Petition of PAUL J. PINTO &JOHN F. CASEY III requesting a Special Permit for a bed & breakfast use on the property located at 314 ESSEX ST, Salem, MA(R-2 Zoning District). A Special Permit was granted by the Board in 1984 to allow the property to be used as a law office; the application states that it has been used this way since. The 1984 decision is enclosed. The applicants now propose to use the structure as their residence with three guest rooms. A Bed and Breakfast is allowed by Special Permit from the Board of Appeals under Section 3.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. • 1 Public hearing: Petition of SCOTT CHARLTON requesting Variances from side and rear setback requirements for an accessory structure to allow an 8'x6' shed on the property located at 11 ORLEANS AVE, Salem, MA(B-2 Zoning District). The shed shown on the plan and in the accompanying photographs is existing and in violation because of its proximity to the side and rear lot lines. Accessory structure regulations (Section 3.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance) require 5 foot side and rear setbacks;the shed is currently set back only 2.5 feet from the side and rear lines. A Variance from maximum fence height was granted for this property in 2009. The decision is enclosed. Public hearing: Petition of JOSEPH W. NIGRO III requesting a Variance from minimum lot width and frontage to subdivide the property located at 51 VALLEY ST, Salem, MA (R-1 Zoning District). The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into two lots, one with the existing house, pool and shed on it on it (Lot B), and a new lot (Lot A). Variances are requested for Lot A from minimum lot width and frontage (100 feet is required, and 60 feet is proposed). Both lots meet all other dimensional requirements. A waiver from frontage requirements from the Planning Board will also be required prior to subdividing the lot. • • 2 — Meeting Sign-In Sheet City of Salem Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date �_/ oZr) / 12 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail John ��fSCV 15 Prj'fm J?Q. Satrarvrl12 MA 979--Flo -743o �iahg C< 4e' ZL F044& l� 6F leah✓ It ��p �ye0 fe .a/fui • lc„�(or,4,R: / Sco � �� I�a�/•ems ��e /`Jt� "/ i 2 �e� ✓t r , GOB • Page of • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,June 20, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, June 20, 2012 in the third floor conference room of 120 Washington St., Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Rebecca Curran, Mike Duffy, Annie Harris,Jamie Metsch, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Those absent were: Mike Duffy 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 6:30 p.m. Approval of Minutes Mr. Metsch moves to approve the minutes of May 16, 2012, seconded Ms. Harris and approved 5-0. Public hearing: Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 • of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS ST, Salem, MA (112 Zoning District). Ms. Curran states that the petitioner has requested to continue this petition. There are only four members present this evening who are eligible to vote on the matter. Mr. Metsch moves to continue the hearing July 18, 2012, with no evidence taken, seconded by Ms. Harris, and approved 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of PAUL J. PINTO &JOHN F. CASEY III requesting a Special Permit for a bed & breakfast use on the property located at 314 ESSEX ST, Salem, MA (R-2 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped May 30, 2012 and accompanying materials ➢ Letter from CB&G Realty Trust, Owner, authorizing petitioner's request, dated 5/25/12 ➢ Plot Plan of Land, 314 Essex Street, Salem, Prepared for Paul Pinto,John Casey, dated May 30, 2012, by North Shore Survey Corporation ➢ Plot Plan of Land located in Salem, Prepared for Salem Chapter American Red Cross, dated Sept. 21, 1984, Essex Survey Service, Inc. 1 ➢ Decision on the Petition of Walter A. Costello Jr. (Special Permit), date-stamped • December 7, 1984. Attorney Joseph Correnti presents the application on behalf of the petitioners, who are also present. He says this building has served as a law office since the mid-1980's. His clients have the property under agreement. The petition is to allow a bed and breakfast special permit in the R2 district. He says this has been used as an office for decades; they are proposing bringing back a residential use. This will be their home. They also want to have 3 guest rooms for a bed and breakfast. Parking is available in rear—five spaces are shown on the submitted plan. There is no request for any parking relief. They need two spaces for their primary residence, and one per guest room according to the ordinance. Mr. Correnti introduces the owners, Paul Pinto and John Casey III of 15 Puritan Rd., Somerville. Mr. Casey says they are both human resources professionals; they want this to be their home; and they chose Salem as the location for their plan of opening a bed and breakfast. Ms. Curran asks about the current layout of house and whether they are renovating the interior. Mr. Pinto says they want to keep to historic character, inside and out, and restore some • lost details. They want to put in a kitchen, maximize the space, and update some of the bathrooms. Ms. Curran asks if the idea is to get a Special Permit for the use prior to going to the Historical Commission; he says yes. This is a condition of sale—they want to make sure they had the ability to do the B&B. Mr. Duffy: Are you anticipating exterior changes? Mr. Pinto says no, the only thing is the back looks like there are some choppy elements that were added which are not true to the period; they would get an architect's opinion to make it more in keeping with the Witch House and First Church next door. Hopefully just an enhancement. There is a metal door in back. Ms. Harris says this work was done in the 1980's, and came through the Historical Commission for the 3'd floor addition. Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment. Bob Shea, 22 Hardy St., says he has owned a B&B for years, and has known Mr. Casey for years and speaks highly of his work ethic. He says Mr. Casey has wanted to do this for many years. Salem is a huge destination; tourists are flocking here. There is a demand for inns. His is frequently full, as are others. He says we want to keep tourists in Salem, which is screaming for more accommodations. He supports the request for a Special Permit. 2 • Lorraine Van Tis, 311 Essex St., says this is not the easiest corner, and she is the only person there at night. She was delighted when she heard others would come in to make full time residence. She has a two-car parking area, and if they have staff and need temporary parking to let her know. Mr. Pinto says they have no staff, but thanks her. Dorothy Hayes, 329 Essex St., supports the petition and says it's terrific to get it back to residential. Some concerns—perhaps these could be conditions? Our zoning is silent on the following: no limit to guests—assuming two to a room,for a total of 6 guests at a time? Can we limit guests? There have been problems with boarding houses. The term of stay could be limited to avoid long-term residents. Parking seems OK. No cooking devices for guests should be allowed. The only meal served should be breakfast. She has Hingham's bylaw if the ZBA is interested. Mary Whitney, 356 Essex St., says the petition doesn't address the criteria on the application regarding impact on the neighborhood. She is concerned this is zoned R2. The use was nonconforming for a long time. Was it grandfathered? Ms. Curran says no —it was a nonconforming law office allowed by Special Permit. Ms. Whitney says she is concerned about setting a precedent. She doesn't want a more intensive commercial use. The law office was not an intense use. Must it be owner occupied? What if they decide to sell? Can it be limited to just these owners? She is concerned about preserving the residential character of neighborhood. • Mr. St. Pierre says the bed and breakfast definition is in the building code—it has to be run as a single family home. It can't morph into 2 or 3 families, apartments, etc. This is why guests are limited to 3. It can't be divided up into separate units with kitchens, etc. This is a different use. Ms. Van Tis says across the street, people come and go all the time. She thinks this is a more discreet business. David Williams, 342 Essex St., says he doesn't like Special Permits. He thinks the board should make this conforming. He says it sounds like a lot of our concerns aren't valid — it has to be a single family. Every building we have a problem with is operated under a special variance. Ms. Hayes asks if a Special Permit runs with the person —when ownership changes, it expires? Ms. Curran —it can be either way. Mr. St. Pierre reads the definition of B&B from the Zoning Ordinance. He says there are to be not more than 6 bedrooms in which the owner resides; it's intended for guests, not long-term rental; all parking is off-street. • Ms. Curran thinks this nonconforming use by Special Permit is less intense than the existing. It will be residential—she has no problem requiring owners to live there or 3 trying to define what long-term means. 2 weeks seems reasonable. They will not be • running a boarding house by accident. Mr. Correnti says he is not sure about the proposed conditions, since the definition concerning owner occupancy is clear. He feels this is a non-issue. He's concerned about restricting this one B&B as to a random number of days—14 may be plenty—but it may not be. We have several B&Bs in city; we don't want this applicant put at a disadvantage to others with guests able to stay for 3 weeks. I don't know if people stay that long, considering the rates. Rather than arbitrarily pick a number of days...the definition addresses the concern of it turning into something else; that it become a rooming house. It can't be by definition. Ms. Curran says she hears what he is saying, whereas the bylaw is silent and doesn't define short-term —I would be inclined to try to define it for any B&B. 14 is arbitrary. I don't know what the exact number should be. What's to stop someone from living there for a year? The rates might—but then it is a rooming house. What is short-term to you? Mr. Correnti says if the city chose to define it for all B&B's in the city,that's fair game, we wouldn't have to guess. I Just don't want them put at a disadvantage. Ms. Curran — the neighborhood has dealt with rooming house issues that have been unpleasant. Ms. Harris asks Mr. St. Pierre we know other Special Permits for B&B's don't have • restrictions on them? Mr. St. Pierre says you'd have to pull each decision to find that out. Bob Shea says it's very unusual for someone to stay more than 6 days—usually 1 or 2, occasionally 4. Beyond 6 or 7 it would be very rare. The price would drive people to a rooming house. Ms. Hayes doesn't think 14 or 21 days would be onerous. She wants to support this but is sensitized because of the neighborhood's previous issues. Mr. Correnti: Why would the Special Permit only run to these gentlemen if they want to sell it? Ms. Curran — I'm not considering that myself. Mr. Correnti: Maybe now we have a fact basis from one B&B owner—a 21-day restriction seems more than adequate. We'd agree to that. Ms. Whitney: We don't have B&Bs in this district right now, right? That goes back to my concern about setting a precedent for making the neighborhood more commercial. Eventually the character will change from residential to commercial. Ms. Curran explains this use is allowed by Special Permit, which are looked at case by • case. Now it's commercial and becoming residential. People could apply for another 4 • Special Permit for a more intense use. It's where it is, how many rooms, parking, all those things. Mr. Williams says he is concerned that another nonconforming use could take the place of a B&B if it's considered similar enough (such as a rooming house), or if the property sells. Ms. Curran explains that the current nonconforming use was allowed by special permit, and the owners could have asked to change it to another nonconforming use; this is already the case. However, the Bed & Breakfast use is allowed by Special Permit. Mr. Williams is concerned this special use will be expanded. He doesn't want to backslide into what was there 10-12 years ago. Mr. Shea says he understands, he lives in a historic district; the word commercial is thrown around, but we're talking about a small, intimate B&B drawing a respectful clientele staying in someone's home. Ms. Whitney says that when you get a permit for a nonconforming use, you can do anything nonconforming. • Ms. Curran says this is not the case. Mr. St. Pierre says this permit is specific for B&B, and that is all it can be. Just 3 rooms. That is the only use allowed in this building without coming before the Board. Ms. Harris says this is a less commercial use—they will live there, and it will be a house again. It hasn't been for the entire time she's lived in Salem. Dorothy Hayes asks if issued a Special Permit could it be limited to their term of ownership. Ms. Curran doesn't think they should do this for a B&B. The owners should be able to sell it as a B&B to someone else. We are talking about the use, not the people. We could limit it, but I'm not sold on that. Dan Richarelli, 397 Essex St., I thought once the nonconforming use was abandoned, it can never be that again. Mr. Correnti says the neighborhood should be pleased because this is going from nonconforming office use to a R2 permitted use,that being a dwelling. That's why there is no relief requested for the dwelling house. It's going back to a residential dwelling . use and will be conforming. Now they are going to be a conforming residential use, they 5 ask for a special permit to allow the 3 guest room B&B. Getting a permit to change from • one nonconforming use to another is not the case here. Ms. Harris says this is a less detrimental use, and takes the property back to where it should be. Mr. Duffy says based on what he's heard in the room, it sounds like there is a community need for this type of use in Salem. He has no concern about traffic flow and safety. Parking is provided on site. The area is consistent with what the use is proposed for. There's been no discussion about utility or public services; he doesn't know if there are issues. This use is more consistent with a residential neighborhood than an office building. There are potential positive economic and fiscal impacts on the community. Based on this, if there are some adverse effects from the proposed change, they don't outweigh the beneficial impacts from this proposal. Mr. Metsch agrees with all those points. Parking—do we need a condition that all these spaces would be there? The use is in keeping more with the character of the neighborhood by going to residential. This is close to downtown and has been commercial;this is not a detrimental step. Fiscal impact is positive. Regarding the number of days, he doesn't feel strongly, but if the applicant is will to accept 21 days, that seems ample. That's less than the 30 day mark that would suggest a different use. He would be inclined to approve with that one condition. He prefers to have the special • permit run with property. Ms. Harris asks if the ordinance requires owner occupancy. Mr. St. Pierre says yes. He also says the applicant must submit a full set of plans to approve of the interior for this change in use. Mr. Metsch suggests opening up the discussion outside this Board of the opportunity to look at the B&B bylaw. Mr. Duffy moves to approve the petition with 9 standard conditions and one special condition: limitation of 21 consecutive days of stay, seconded by Mr. Metsch approved 5-0 (Mr. Duffy, Ms Harris, Mr. Tsitsinos, Ms. Curran and Mr. Metsch in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of SCOTT CHARLTON requesting Variances from side and rear setback requirements for an accessory structure to allow an 8'x6' shed on the property located at 11 ORLEANS AVE, Salem, MA(B-2 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped May 31, 2012 and accompanying materials including • photographs 6 • Scott Charlton presents his petition. He says about 20 years ago he constructed a shed — he thought zoning allowed it and was permitted correctly, but he has found out it does not comply. It is located only 2.5 feet from side and rear lot lines. He says it has been there 20 years. He thought to move the shed, but it would have to be disassembled because of the growth of a tree near the shed. He assumes responsibility for the permitting process when built, and is now requesting a variance. Thomas Potorsky, 9 Orleans Ave., cites problems with applicant's wife complaining about his boat storage. He is concerned the applicant asks for relief after the shed is built and says he did the same thing with his fence. He disagrees with the 2 A foot statement—it's closer than that. David Walsh, 12 Orleans Ave., says he can't see the shed. Mr. Potorsky submits a letter to the board about the boat storage issue, dated Dec. 12, from Michael Lutrzykowski, Assistant Building Inspector. Mr. Charlton says he doesn't want to get into this issue with his neighbor—he is just requesting the variance. • Ms. Curran asks for clarification—it's 2 %feet off from the rear and side? Mr. Charlton says that's the distance from the fence. Mr. Potorsky says the fence variance is for the rear fence. The existing fence between their properties was another 8 foot fence. He says Mr. Charlton had that added,to the other variance—he doesn't know how. He says the other fence doesn't comply either. Mr. St. Pierre—that fence is allowed to be higher. Ms. Curran—this can only be seen by your property? Mr. Charlton says yes, refers to the submitted pictures. Ms. Curran doesn't see a problem. It looks like it can't be moved,just taken down. She asks how the shed is used. Mr. Charlton says it's to store garden materials. Ms. Harris says it doesn't seem that big a deal. Ms. Curran says she'd be inclined to approve. There are special conditions/circumstances—the structure is existing. It's very small, not affecting other lands, buildings, or structures. Ms. Harris—he didn't realize he needed permits for 17 years. We know this would be granted without detriment because it's existed for 17 years peacefully. 7 Mr. Metsch doesn't see an issue with granting, but is concerned about the applicant • coming in after it's built. Ms. Harris moves to approve the petition. She says the hardship reasons are: the shed is small, minimally visible to street, existed for 17 years, there is no easy place to move given the trees, and it's useful. She says it can approved without detriment. Mr. Tsitsinos seconds the motion and it passes 5-0 (Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of JOSEPH W. NIGRO III requesting a Variance from minimum lot width and frontage to subdivide the property located at 51 VALLEY ST, Salem, MA (R-1 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped June 1, 2012 and accompanying materials ➢ Aerial photo, Google ➢ Plan to Accompany Petition to the Board of Appeals Located in Salem, Mass., prepared by Eastern Land Survey Associates, dated October 20, 2011 ➢ Letter from Patricia and Scott Hanford, 41 Valley Street, dated June 20, 2012 Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. He shows an assessor map with the • property highlighted. He says the applicant wants to subdivide the property to create a second building lot. The lot currently has 160 feet of frontage. They are proposing creating one lot complying with 100 feet of frontage with the existing house. The second lot would have 60 feet of frontage/lot width. In all other respects, these lots comply with the zoning. The property is significantly larger than other properties in the zoning district. He presents Google Earth maps and says a large portion of the land is not usable,though it is well maintained. He says that is the special condition that makes this property different from the rest of the zoning district. He says there is a loss of value because of the extra land. He says creating a lot with 60 feet of frontage is not inconsistent with the neighborhood and not detrimental. He also says cars would not have to back out of the driveway. Ms. Curran opens u the issue or public comment. p p f Ivy Ringhoff, 45 Valley St., says when they moved in, the drawback was their house was on a busy main street, but the benefit was there were almost no neighbors. She says the neighbors have large yards. Her property is a few feet below theirs, and there is a bowl effect. The new house would be close to her house, block their light, and would be right above them looking down at them. The new lot would not be very big. The house across the street from her has a large lot too. Why couldn't everyone do this? The • spacious neighborhood eventually could have lots of small lots. She wants to put in an 8 • addition one day and the house would be very close. She is concerned about property values going down. The house that could go on here would be even smaller than hers. She opposes the petition. Scott Gately, 65 Valley St., has several concerns—he also recognized it was a busy street when he moved there—so he looked for space when moving in. There are plenty of neighborhoods in Salem that would be more crowded. He asks what the criteria are for issuing a Variance. He is concerned about property values. Will another small house benefit Salem? He says their tax burden goes up with every new house. He says the sub terrain is rocky. Blasting needed to be done for neighbors' construction. Just because there are smaller lots, does this justify making a new one? Ms. Curran says that for a Variance, hardship must be shown. There must be some reason why this is their only option —something unusual about the site is making it hard to develop. Ms. Harris says the site is large—the property is acre—and they are trying to make that the hardship. Mr. Gately: Didn't they know that when they purchased it? • Matt Ryan, 48 Valley St., says he has great view; there is a well maintained yard, and they preserve the neighborhood atmosphere. His driveway is across from the parcel the applicant wants to create. He has no concerns or objections to the petition; he supports subdividing the property. Stefano Cornelio, 60 Valley St., speaks about the scale of home already there—a 3 story large structure. Not all the other houses in the neighborhood have such big houses. There is a swath of land between them and this other large structure. He doesn't know if this qualifies as a hardship. He questions the hardship claim, since he believes they want to sell to a family member. He says the homes in the neighborhood relative to plot sizes are not that big. He refers to the conservation area behind them at Gallows Hill Park. This open look not just on one stretch —Salem Woods is also behind the neighborhood. Mr. Gately says the height differential is very significant between the abutters' property and the new home. Attorney Grover addresses the proximity to Ms. Ringhoff's house, saying the new house will comply with all setbacks of zoning. He shows the tree line in the aerial photo, which Ms. Ringhoff says is not accurate and was taken a long time ago—the tree is no longer there. 9 Mr. Grover says the lot is almost 17,000 SF, not a small lot. It's unusual that it's a big lot • but lacks the necessary frontage. As to the impact on values—he refers to the new properties being built nearby at Strongwater Crossing, which are being sold in the mid high $400s, and this house would be $450 to $500K, significantly higher than most values in Witchcraft Heights. He thinks this would affect this neighborhood's values positively. As to taxes, a new house would spread out the tax burden and improve the tax situation. Ms. McKnight reads a letter in opposition from Patricia and Scott Hanford, 41 Valley St., who cite concerns about property values going down from allowing an undersized lot. Ms. Ringhoff asks what size house could go there. Ms. Curran says this is the only thing that wouldn't conform with zoning. If they didn't,they would have to make a separate application to a board. Mr. Cornelio says he doesn't think the values estimated by Attorney Grover are accurate. Ms. Curran notes it's a very large lot, but she just doesn't see the hardship. Ms. Harris doesn't see it either. A large lot is not a hardship. She won't support it. Mr. Duffy says he's not sure the Board has heard a description of a condition that • especially affects this parcel. The issue is a frontage problem. He doesn't see how that is special to this property. Mr. Grover says it's the size of this lot relative to the frontage that makes it unusual in this district. Ms. Curran agrees they have plenty of lot area, but doesn't that's a strong hardship argument. Mr. Duffy says he is struggling with fact that the property owners came to this under the existing zoning. Ms. Harris observes that they would have wanted a large lot. Mr. Grover says this was originally laid out as 3 separate lots and merged. Mr. Grover takes a few minutes to speak to client, then request to withdraw petition. Mr. Duffy moves to allow the applicant to withdrawn the petition without prejudice, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos and passed 5-0 (Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Metsch, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed). The petition is withdrawn without prejudice. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Old/New Business • 10 Ms. McKnight passes out new copies of ZBA action forms to members who need a copy. Adjournment Mr. Tsitsinos moves to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Duffy, 5-0 in favor. The meeting adjourns at 8:20 PM. 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.VYsa1em.com/Paqes1So1emMA ZoninaAppealsMin/ Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 7/18/12 11 v� No1Tq CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 9��rI1NE 00%� , 120WnsiiwciONtina1!1.1 �i rai,�d.��sviicsr-:rrs01970 Trli. :978-619-5685 4 F,\x:973 740-0404 Ki�usu:Ki.er Diascoi.i. A MAYOR -i n N r m cry z� July 3, 2012 fir= I ym W r�c Decision D a � D _ City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals O° Petition of PAUL J. PINTO and JOHN F. CASEY III requesting a Special Permit for abed and breakfast use on the property located at 314 ESSEX STREET, Salem, MA (R-2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 20, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on June 20, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Jamie Metsch, Michael Duffy, • and Jimmy Tsitsinos. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Sections 3.1 and 9.4 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped May 30, 2012, petitioners requested a Special Permit to allow a bed and breakfast use on the property located at 314 Essex Street. 2. The building on 314 Essex Street is currently used for a law office. 3. Petitioners state in their May 30, 2012 petition that they intend to reside in the building and make up to three guest rooms available. 4. At the hearing on June 20, 2012, several residents spoke in support of the petition, with one citing the local need for a bed and breakfast, and others stating their preference for a residential/bed and breakfast use over the current use as a law office. 5. Also at the hearing, some residents opposed the petition, expressing concerns that the new use would be more intense than the current one, and fearing that allowing a bed • and breakfast use could lead to other nonconforming uses on the property and in the neighborhood. 1 6. At the hearing, residents both in support of the petition and opposed to it spoke about the importance of ensuring the property not be used as a long-term rooming house. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. Desirable relief may be granted without detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, since the proposed use is less intense than the current use as a law office and more consistent with a residential neighborhood; there is a great demand in Salem for tourist accommodations; off-street parking requirements are met; the change would make a currently nonconforming property conform to the use regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance; and the proposed bed and breakfast would have positive impacts on the local economy. 2. Based on the above, the Board of Appeal determines that any adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the City or 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 voted five (5) in favor (Curran, Duffy, Metsch, Harris, and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit. A Special Permit under Sections 3.1 and 9.4 is granted to allow for the proposed use of a bed and breakfast on the property located at 314 Essex Street. The Board of Appeals voted 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 Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 9. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. • 10. Guests may stay no longer than twenty-one (21) consecutive days. Ai.aua 444-1,,l)�m-x Michael Duffy, Member 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. • 3 � oN°�Tq,Q CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS I�f fir, BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WKliW61'(1N S'fRl/l CI 4 ti\I L\I i\I:\tiff\<IIC51-'I'Iti 01970 7(11.1 978 619-5685 I'-vX:778-740-0404 KiNtm AL.GY DRISGOLI. MAYOR ti .( e � N m � July 3, 2012 ?Zr I �m w Decision a D 3 :D City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals o0 Petition of SCOTT CHARLTON requesting Variances from side and rear setback requirements for an accessory structure to allow an 8'x6' shed on the property located at 11 ORLEANS AVE, Salem, MA (B-2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 20, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on June 20, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of • Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Jamie Metsch, Michael Duffy, and Jimmy Tsitsinos. Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Section 3.2.4 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped May 31, 2012, petitioner requested a Variance from side and rear setback requirements of an accessory structure to allow an existing shed to remain on the premises in its current location. 2. At the hearing, petitioner stated the shed had been erected 17 years ago, by a contractor petitioner hired, whom he believed was aware of and complied with all permitting and zoning requirements. Petitioner did not realize a variance would be needed. 3. Petitioner stated that the shed cannot be moved from its location to accommodate five (5) feet to the side and rear lot lines due to the presence of a large willow tree adjacent to the shed, which prevents it being moved without being disassembled. Photographs submitted with the petition depict the location of the shed and the adjacent tree. • 4. At the hearing on June 20, 2012, one resident, an abutting property owner, stated his opposition to the petition. While the objecting resident's concerns addressed various 1 • disputes with the petitioner, the objections did not include any objections to the shed remaining in its current location. 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 detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, since the shed has existed for 17 years with no apparent problems, and it is small and minimally visible from the street. 2. Owing to its proximity to a large tree, the shed could not be moved without being disassembled, causing hardship to the petitioner. 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 voted five (5) in favor (Curran, Duffy, Metsch, Harris, and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Variances. Variances from side and rear setbacks under Section 3.2.4 are granted to allow the shed located at 11 Orleans Avenue to remain. • 4 . /A7K.-x Michael Duffy, Member 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. • 2 I gONDfTq.q CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL c' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 1911 JUL -3 A 0 V;8 CITY CLERK. ALEM.MASS. July 3, 2012 Withdrawal without Prejudice City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of JOSEPH W. NIGRO III requesting a Variance from minimum lot width and frontage to subdivide the property located at 51 VALLEY ST, Salem, MA (R-1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 20, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on June 20, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Jamie . Metsch, Michael Duffy, and Jimmy Tsitsinos. At the request of the Petitioner, the Board of Appeal voted 5-0 (Curran, Harris, Duffy, Metsch, and Tsitsinos on favor, none opposed) to allow the Petitioner to withdraw this petition without prejudice. GRANTED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE JUNE 20, 2012 1 .2. Michael Duffy, Member Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws • Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 5e BOARD OF APPEAL a� 120 WASHiNCTon S'CRGPT 1 SALEM,MASSACFNSF_TfS 01970 V' aiMm�oo � TIiJ.14:978 745 9595 4 FAX:978 740 9846 Kimm, LC. DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday June 20, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem, MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of PAUL J. PINTO&JOHN F. CASEY III requesting a Special Permit for a bed & breakfast use on the property located at 314 ESSEX ST,Salem, MA(R-2 Zoning District). Decision:Granted Filed with the City Clerk on July 3,2012 Petition of SCOTT CHARLTON requesting Variances from side and rear setback requirements for an accessory structure to allow an 8'x6' shed on the property located at 11 ORLEANS AVE, Salem, MA (B-2 Zoning District). •Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on July 3,2012 Petition of JOSEPH W. NIGRO III requesting a Variance from minimum lot width and frontage to subdivide the property located at 51 VALLEY ST, Salem, MA(R-1 Zoning District). Decision: Withdrawn without prejudice Filed with the City Clerk on July 3,2012 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. �- "°'Tq a CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 9�IJ• .�.oy" T' 130 CC'_nsiuM run Sracirr + Sei.rnt,VLtscArncsierts 01970 ��MmIED� fr:i.r 978-619-�685 ♦ 1;nx:978-740.0404 I:nu+icri itv Duiscui.i. AMA)OR n '< e MEETING NOTICE ^+ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS � s May 16,2012—6:30 P.M. x� -c r— City Hall Annex, 120 Cshington/Street, Salem, MA, Room 313 y m tf1 rn Rebecca Curran,Chair 70 3 I3 A " REVISED MEETING AGENDA v th c 1. Approval of Nlinates:April 18,2012 meeting 2. Continuation of public hearing Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 1.6 SAUNDERS ST, Salem, MA (112 Zoning District). PETITIONER REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TOJUNE 20, 2012. 3. Public hearing: Petition of JAY GOLDBERG/WILLIAM GOLDBERG requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an obedience training and doggie daycare with groonung services and dog retail products on the property located at 50 GROVE ST,Salem,MA (BPD Zoning District). 1. Public hearing: Petition of GEORGE F. FALLON requesting Variances from minimum lot area, frontage,lot width, and front and side setbacks, in order to subdivide the property located at 5 snvvil'r S"f, Salem, MA (R-1 Zoning District), and to construct a single-family house on one of the newly created lots. 5. Old/New Business 6. Adjournment 1V Salem, Mace. ly man AA 011 Komi I our Rtyhtc under-lbe Open 4Weetir�,g 11mr it LG.L r. 39§2313 and 6i),Ordiaanee.Seeliat.r 2-2028 dwnggb 2-2033. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL J, `a ,r 'a! 120 WASHIN 78-G19 O CT rs 01970 FAX:978-740-0404 KI[.BERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR l�7 MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS r" s May 16,2012-6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex,120 Washington/+Street, Salem,MA, Room 313 yrn .0 Rebecca Curran, Chair n MEETING AGENDA rn � J 1. Approval of Minutes:April 18,2012 meeting 2. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of LESLIE BYRNE,requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS ST,Salem,MA (R2 Zoning District). • 3. Public hearing. Petition of JAY GOLDBERG/WILLIAM GOLDBERG requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an obedience training and doggie daycare with grooming services and dog retail products on the property located at 50 GROVE ST,Salem,MA (BPD Zoning District). 4. Public hearing: Petition of GEORGE F. FALLON requesting Variances from minimum lot area, frontage,lot width, and front and side setbacks,in order to subdivide the property located at 5 SUMMIT ST,Salem,MA (R-1 Zoning District),and to construct a single-family house on one of the newly created lots. 5. Old/New Business 6. Adjournment Knorr four Rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 39123B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. TIt 1m" Do" on 'Of l" a01ty Han smem, glass. on 8� f� 84mehIt fE1 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 1-4 o . y� x, r, 120 WAS[JINO']�ON S'I RRET♦ SALEM,MASSACIIUSETIS 01970 {MINE /f '1'ELE:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: May 9, 2012 RE: Meeting Agenda—May 16, 2012 Board Members, • Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Planner's memo 3. Meeting minutes of 4/18/2012 4. Materials for new agenda items Continued public hearing: Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS ST, Salem, MA(112 Zoning District). Ms. Byrne does not yet have her revised drawings from her architect, but expects to by the meeting. If they are not ready by that time, she will request to continue the hearing until June 20. Public hearing: Petition of JAY GOLDBERG/WILLIAM GOLDBERG requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an obedience training and doggie daycare with grooming services and dog retail products on the property located at 50 GROVE ST, Salem, MA (BPD Zoning District). There are two buildings on the site connected by a breezeway—the Moose Lodge (a nonconforming use) and a building with various commercial uses. The addition of the doggie daycare would require a special permit to extend the nonconforming use. A plan is enclosed that shows the proposed location of a fenced-in area for use by the dogs. • Public hearing: Petition of GEORGE F. FALLON requesting Variances from minimum lot area, frontage, lot width, and front and side setbacks, in order to subdivide the property located at 5 SUMMIT ST, • 1 Salem, MA(R-1 Zoning District), and to construct a single-family house on one of the newly created lots. The property at 5 Summit Street wraps around two other properties, 11 and 13 Summit Street. I am • enclosing a copy of the Assessor plate to help illustrate what the parcel looks like now. The proposal includes conveying small portions of the property to abutters, and subdividing the rest of the property into two building lots, one of which already contains a house (Lot A). A new house is proposed for the other building lot (Lot B). Lot A requires relief from lot area (8,117 SF is proposed; 15,000 is required), frontage/lot width (56.88 feet is proposed; 100 is required), and set yard setback (3 feet is proposed; 10 feet is required). Lot B requires relief from lot area (9,978 feet is proposed; 15,000 is allowed) and frontage/lot width (50 feet is proposed; 100 is allowed). • • 2 ,��ONUIfig9 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet „y�qo Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date 5 / c / 12 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Sk. Sal m �--- i sA- AaF -S • Jay alc��p� �j� �'a/ �" ,Y. g7Y-1 �€oo Page of vV °"°"A9o� CITY OF S.ALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL °� 1012 M 120 WAsmNeioN Yrai;e;:r i:.ai,MnssAci-iUsF:n:S01970 978 619-5685 ♦ FAX:97R ,t I 4 Kiammsei.Hy DRISCOLL r�`C MAYOR CITY CLERK.. SALEM. MASS.. May 30, 2012 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of GEORGE F. FALLON requesting Variances from minimum lot area, frontage, lot width, and front and side setbacks, in order to subdivide the property located at 5 SUMMIT STREET, Salem, MA (R-1 Zoning District), and to construct a single-family house on one of the newly created lots. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 16, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on May 16, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of • Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Jamie Metsch, and Jimmy Tsitsinos. Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 4.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped April 25, 2012, petitioner requested Variances from minimum lot area, frontage, lot width, and front and side setbacks, in order to subdivide the property located at 5 Summit Street, and to construct a single-family house on one of the newly created lots. 2. Attorney Scott Grover represented the petitioner at the hearing. 3. At the hearing, several residents expressed concerns about the existence of a paper street called Summit Court, irregular water pressure in the neighborhood, traffic, and parking. 4. At the hearing, one resident spoke in support of the project. 1 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, since the parcel is larger than is typical for the district, irregularly shaped and burdened with encroachments and easements; 2. Owing to the special conditions noted above, literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant; 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, since the project will clean up a derelict property, sufficient off-street parking is provided, and encroachment will be corrected by conveying small portions of property to abutters. 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 voted five (5) in favor (Curran, Dionne, Metsch, Harris, and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Variances. Variances under Section 4.1 are granted to allow for the proposed subdivision and redevelopment of the property as shown on the submitted plans titled "Plan to Accompany Petition to the Board of Appeals, located in Salem, Mass., 5 Summit Street," prepared by Eastern Land Survey Associates, Inc., dated April 17, 2012. The Board of Appeals voted 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 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 conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. . 10. Renovation of the older home is to commence prior to construction of the new home, barring any legal barriers relating to the current occupants. 11. Approval is conditional upon review by the City's legal department of the applicant's documentation showing Summit Court's status as a private way. 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. 3 °yuiTq \ CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL, p 3 A 9Rd N' 20 WnsIUNclou Sral:.e:r SnL�.Nf � c Tu :rl 01970 �MiNEW% rcl.e:978-619-5685 ♦ FAs:978-7d - 4 Kimillm.uX DjuscOLI. VI�� # MAYOR CITY CLERK. SALEM. MASS. May 30, 2012 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of JAY GOLDBERG/WILLIAM GOLDBERG requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an obedience training and doggie daycare with grooming services and dog retail products on the property located at 50 GROVE STREET, Salem, MA (BPD Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 16, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on May 16, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of • Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Jamie Metsch, and Jimmy Tsitsinos. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.2 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped April 25, 2012, petitioner requested a Special Permit to allow an obedience training and doggie daycare with grooming services and dog retail products on the property located at 50 Grove Street. 2. Jay Goldberg presented the petition at the hearing. William Goldberg was also present. 3. A letter of support was submitted by Christine Thomson, owner of Decorative Arts Conservation at 50 Grove Street. 4. At the hearing, several residents expressed concerns about impacts to abutting properties, dog waste on the site, and the hours of operation. 1 The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public Shearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. Desirable relief maybe granted without detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, since the proposed use is in a location surrounded largely by vacant and industrial properties, and even if these parcels were redeveloped for residential use in the future, impacts to neighbors would be minimal. Additionally, Board members did not believe the project would generate significant traffic volumes. They also felt the business served a community need. 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 voted five (5) in favor(Curran, Dionne, Metsch, Harris, and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit. A Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 is granted to allow for the proposed use of a doggie daycare with grooming services and dog retail products on the Property located at 50 Grove Street. • The Board of Appeals voted 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. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 2 8. Petitioner is to contact the Conservation Agent to determine whether the proposed fenced area/dog pen requires action by the Conservation Commission. 9. Hours of operation for the doggie day care are 8 a.m to 6 p.m., M-F and 8 a.m. to 4. p.m. Saturday, with obedience classes given 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. M-F. No obedience classes will be given after 8 M-F or after 4 Saturday. There will be no Sunday hours. 10. The facility is to have no more than 50 dogs. A'. l l a 1�I'\ 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. • 3 I CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS AL BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 _ ..i T1iLE:978-745-9595 * FAX:978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem, MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of JAY GOLDBERG/WILLIAM GOLDBERG requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an obedience training and doggie daycare with grooming services and dog retail products on the property located at 50 GROVE STREET, Salem, MA(BPD Zoning District). Decision:Granted Filed with the City Clerk on May 30,2012 Petition of GEORGE F. FALLON requesting Variances from minimum lot area, frontage, lot width, and front and side setbacks, in order to subdivide the property located at 5 SUMMIT STREET, Salem, MA (R-1 Zoning Wistrict), and to construct a single-family house on one of the newly created lots. Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on May 30,2012 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, May 16, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 in the third floor conference room of 120 Washington St., Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Jamie Metsch, Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Those absent were: Mike Duffy 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 6:30 p.m. Approval of Minutes Mr. Dionne moves to approve the minutes of April 18, 2012, seconded Mr. Metsch and approved 4-0 (Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, Mr. Metsch and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed, Ms. Curran abstaining). • Continuation of public hearing: Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS ST, Salem, MA (112 Zoning District). PETITIONER REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO JUNE 20, 2012. Mr. Metsch moves to continue, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, Ms. Curran and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of JAY GOLDBERG/WILLIAM GOLDBERG requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an obedience training and doggie daycare with grooming services and dog retail products on the property located at 50 GROVE ST, Salem, MA (BPD Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 4/25/12 and accompanying materials and photograph ➢ 50 Grove Street Parking Layout, prepared by Bay State Surveying Associates, dated 6/21/09 ➢ Letter from Christine Thomson, owner of Decorative Arts Conservation, 50 Grove St., dated May 14, 2012 ➢ Site Layout Plan for MRM Project Management for 60-64 Grove St. and 3 Harmony Grove Rd., dated 12/20/11, submitted by Beverlie McSwiggin 1 • Jay Goldberg, 7 Rantoul St., Beverly, presents the petition. He says he represents the prospective tenant, Jermaine Anderson. He says two buildings are currently on the site —they are discussing the doggie day care for building 2. It has been vacant with little interest for rental. Ms. Curran asks which portion of the building would be used. Mr. Goldberg says 4,000 SF on the first floor. Ms. Harris notes the fence is not connected to building. Ms. Curran asks about other uses in the building. Mr. Goldberg says Decorated Arts, a furniture refurbishing business, is there, and next to her is a painting contractor. He has a letter from Christine Thomson, the most direct abutting neighbor/tenant, in support, and he says the other business owner also supports this. Jermaine has spoken with both to explain everything. He submits the letter from Christine Thomson. Mr. Metsch asks about access; Mr. Goldberg says it's from the parking lot side. Ms. Harris asks how the dogs get from the building to the fence; Mr. Anderson says he walks them. Ms. Curran: Run us through what goes on with this use, how many dogs, etc. Jermaine Anderson, owner, explains his dog training/doggie daycare and grooming business, and sale of retail products. He gives training classes. He currently has 30 dogs, and is looking to grow to 50. Structural obedience classes are one hour. Hours . are M-F 8-8, Sat 8-4, closed Sunday. Classes are given in the evening, at 7 p.m. Ms. Harris— might be 50 dogs at a time there? Mr. Anderson —yes, either in or outside. Ms. Harris—will you do overnight boarding? No. Ms. Curran — how are dogs dropped off? Mr. Anderson —half are dropped off, the other half we pick up. Ms. Curran opens up the public comment portion of the hearing Beverlie McSwiggin, 30 Japonica St., says that before the Planning Board, there is a plan to build 141 units abutting this. She says it does not seem.like this would be conducive to the quality of life for those tenants. She says Mr. Anderson said there will be overnight boarding, but the last time he was here he said he wanted to have overnight as an option. She notes that the fence abuts the canal. Rosemary O'Connor, 111 Mason St. —where in the building proposed —who was the prior tenant? Mr. Goldberg—on the lower level. It's been vacant for over 2 years. The prior user was an adult day care. William Goldberg, one of the owners, says this is the building closest to the canal, on the ground floor. 2 • Ms O'Connor asks where the dogs will be exercised outside. Mr. Anderson says it will be indoors and outside in the fenced area. Ms. Curran shows the 60' x 20' area where dogs would be outdoors. Mr. Goldberg describes the location of the fenced area within the larger grassy area behind the building. Ms. Harris asks if the dogs will be leashed outdoors. Mr. Anderson —yes, always. They will be supervised. Ms. O'Connor asks what period of time the dogs will be outdoors. Mr. Anderson — periodically during the day. It will vary in shifts. Day care is 8-6, and classes are after that. Ms. O'Connor asks how often they will be cleaning up waste, and where it will be stored, since this is right on the canal. Mr. Anderson says they have special bags for waste to contain the smell; and it's cleaned daily. Mr. Goldberg says they will use the dumpster on site or get a new one, • whatever is needed. Summertime, they are double bagged. If there are complaints, they would ask for more frequent removal. One time per week is planned. Ward 6 Councillor Paul Prevey says he appreciates that Mr. Goldberg contacted him. He does not have a lot of the concerns he had when this was proposed on Franklin St. He does have some concerns because there are residential neighbors. Perhaps the board could approve on a time limited basis, as they did before, for 6 months. He suggests postponing the decision and scheduling a site visit— Mr. Goldberg has offered to show the site. He asks how many employees there will be. Mr. Anderson says 3 currently, but he plans on 5 more, for a total of 8. Mr. Goldberg notes that he has no interest in moving forward if the permit is time limited. Councillor Prevey asks if the dogs will be taken offsite. Ms. Curran —you do take for walks from that location offsite? Mr. Anderson —yes, for a 2-3 minute walk. They are leashed, and the dogs have good manners and habits. William Goldberg, 8 Box Ct., Salem, one of the owners, says they are in a location far from any residential area -the location of property is significantly distant from residents. He says it's all industrial or vacant buildings in the vicinity. He says they have upgraded the buildings. This location is still very difficult—the space has been vacant for 2 years. He says Mr. Anderson is a plus for the community and environment. • 3 Beverlie McSwiggin, 30 Japonica St., agrees with Councillor Prevey that a site visit is • necessary to see how close to the canal it is. Dogs will be urinating there, and that won't be picked up. Ms. Curran says she has viewed site and asked if the other Board members did also— they often go prior to a hearing. As to the proximity to the canal, would Con Com approval be required for the fence? Mr. St. Pierre doesn't think so, but says they can check. Jonathan, Pitts, 3 Franklin Ct., says that after the last hearing, a video was posted online of Mr. Anderson training dogs that was very scary to residents. Is that the type of training you will do onsite? Mr. Anderson —they found a video I do in my personal time —trainers sometimes do training for sports— I trained Doberman pinschers for competition —these are personal protection dogs. This is not the type of training we will do at this facility. He encourages the Board and public to research this. Ms. Curran asks about this type of training; Mr. Anderson says it includes obedience and behavior modification for aggressive dogs. Leslie Limon, 18 Franklin St. asks about the hours of operation —when the Board issued the Special Permit, there was no limit on weekend hours, and this was one of the issues • we had a problem with. Ms. Curran repeats the hours the applicant has stated. Not open Sunday. Ms. Limon suggests that with 50 dogs all together, there would be noise. She says the number of dogs should be limited. Ms. Curran asks if it will be air conditioned. Mr. Goldberg says yes. Ms. Curran asks how many dogs 4000 SF accommodates. Mr. Anderson —30-40 dogs. Ms. Curran —you will typically be there for 8-6? Mr. Anderson —owners drop off the dogs on their way to work, at 8 or 9. Pickup is between 5-6 p.m. Ms. Harris—30-40 dogs—will they all be out? Are there cages? Handlers? Mr. Anderson —it's a structured day care, with a lot of training. No cages. Some dogs will be getting exercised, some getting trained by myself and other trainers. Others in the morning will be arriving by shuttle, and there is also afternoon dropoff. There will be obedience training in structured classes at night, between 6 and 8, with one trainer. He says he will be teaching agility—dogs will be jumping through hoops, climbing ramps, going through tunnels, etc., which builds relationships with owners. They will be playing in kiddie pools. We control excessive barking. He says Mr. Metsch was at another facility recently and there was no barking. The dogs are kept active. It's structured, not just letting them run, play, bark. Mr. Metsch says he was recently at the training facility down at end of Bridge St. —he • saw the facility, and there was no barking. He has faith in the owner's ability to control the dogs. Ms. Curran asks if there are substitutes of staff are out. Mr. Anderson says he 4 has volunteers ready who will be joining to act as subs. Usually there are 10 dogs per • employee. Ms. Harris asks he has a similar facility elsewhere. Mr. Anderson —no, but I have taught and trained at various facilities in MA. Mr. Dionne — I've heard of no problems from the facility on Canal St., which is near me. The location is good, and there is a need. Mr. Metsch —the properties around it are all industrial and commercial, vacant—there are proposals for future development, but still,judging by this plan, that will be OK. He has no problem with this. Ms. Curran notes there is new development in the permitting stage on abutting properties, but says that people who will buy or rent will know it's there and can make informed decisions about whether they want to live there. Ms. Limon asks if there will be a vet tech on staff. Mr. Anderson says yes. Mr. Dionne moves to close the public hearing, seconded by and approved 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). Mr. Dionne moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions and the following special conditions: 1. Applicant is to check with Con Com about whether the fence requires any approval. 2) Hours are 8-6 for doggie day care, M-F, 8-4 Saturday, no hours • Sunday. Obedience classes 6-8 p.m. M-F. No obedience class after 8 p.m. M-F or after 4 Saturday. 3) Limit to 50 dogs. Mr. Metsch notes this is serving a community need, the traffic will have a minimal if any impact, and it is within the character of the neighborhood around the property. Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris note it is a compatible use. Ms. Harris notes this is a commercial area. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of GEORGE F. FALLON requesting Variances from minimum lot area, frontage, lot width, and front and side setbacks, in order to subdivide the property located at 5 SUMMIT ST, Salem, MA (R-1 Zoning District), and to construct a single-family house on one of the newly created lots. Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 4/25/12 and accompanying materials ➢ Plan to Accompany Petition to the board of Appeals located in Salem, Mass., 5 Summit St., prepared by Christopher Mello, dated 4/17/12 ➢ Petition in favor of project with four signatures, submitted by applicant ➢ Plan of the Roberts Estate dated 4-18-1892, submitted by resident ➢ "What happened to Summit Court" information packet submitted b John pp P Y • Butler, 21 Butler St. ➢ Copy of Assessor plate for 5 Summit St. 5 • Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. Owner George Fallon, 36 March St., is also present. Attorney Grover says the property is unusual—it consists of a two-family dwelling, Lot A. It has an old private right of way, Summit Ct., recorded. This provides access to the property to the rear of Lot C. The parcel is considerably larger than all others in neighborhood. He asks Mr. Fallon to address the paper street. He says the Right of Way was created 100 years ago, and is only legally used by people who touch it on the perimeter. This is not a public way, and is not recognized by the City. There was a farm and slaughterhouse to the rear, and five buildings were on the site at one point. The right of way was just to provide access, but it's not a public way. Attorney Grover says the proposal is to subdivide into 5 lots—2 for dwelling purposes. They will convey the smaller lots to abutters to cure some issues with access and encroachment that they currently have. Most significant is Lot D—this would be conveyed to the L'Heureaux parcel. This squares off land and cures access problems. Lots E and F would be conveyed to abutters. There is a fence encroaching onto the Fallon property—he will convey those pieces to cure those encroachments. Attorney Grover says the house would remain a 2 family. A new dwelling would be placed on the new Lot B. • Ms. Curran asks about parking. Attorney Grover says it will be behind the houses. The right of way is finished with gravel. He says there is plenty of room in back. They are conveying lot C but retaining the right to pass. He refers to the property's unusual shape and size. Attorney Grover passes out a printout of the assessor's map to show how it compares with other lots in the neighborhood. Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion of the hearing. Eugene Polnicki, 12 Summit St, says he has had problems for the last 10 years with water pressure. He says the work was done by the City in the late nineties. This should be dealt with before a new building is constructed. Ms. Curran asks Mr. St. Pierre if the area is overburdened. He says he is not in a position to comment, but is happy to talk to the water department. Frank L'Heureux, 13 Summit St., supports the petition, saying the house is dilapidated and the property behind the house has junk on it. Mr. Fallon has cleaned it up. This is good for area — parking seems sufficient. • John Butler, 21 Butler St., is opposed. He says the traffic is very bad in the area. He passes out a packet of information to the Board. He says Summit Ct., in 1963, was listed 6 in a city record as a city street. It was later conveyed to the property. He says this was • not done properly. He says there is no hardship—the variance is requested to create a lot. Ms. Curran asks if a title search was done. Attorney Grover says the deed includes the ROW and always has. He says a lot of streets were listed as accepted, but this was incorrect. Mr. St. Pierre says the former city engineer improperly listed many streets and that had to be reversed. Mr. Fallon says two lawyers have looked at the title, Henry Lucas did the title, and Bob Welch, both did a search and came to same conclusion. The ROW was done over 100 years ago, and has nothing to do with the City. It was once proposed to get the street accepted, but it was not done. He says it has also been title insured. He says there is,no issue whatsoever with it being a public way. He says the fee is owned by him. Mr. Fallon also says that if anything, this relieves the parking burden. They conveyance to Francis will make his lot over 5,000 SF. Mr. Fallon says when he purchased the land, there was a condemned unit and the encroachments. To go through conventional financing, he would have to notify those encroaching to get off the property—that would force Mr. L'Heureaux:s parking onto the street. A bank would not finance this unless corrected. That's one of the reasons we are trying to clear up perimeter issues. This is the reason for the hardship. • Mr. L'Heureaux notes he uses that area for two parking spaces currently. Attorney Grover says there is a serious grade difference from the property to Mr. L'Heureux's property, and it makes more sense that the land is associated with this property. Armond Blanchette, 6 Summit St., says he had to complain to city to enforce people parking on sidewalk. Previously, there had been many cars parked here. He does not support the petition — he does not think there is a hardship. Ms. Curran —did you consider a more traditional driveway, pushing the house farther and not using the land in back? Mr. Fallon —that could be done, but if so, you would have people backing out onto Summit. You could have people go around the house from the back. There is ample parking. There is a net gain because Francis doesn't end up with two cars back on the street. The ledge begins 20 feet beyond where house is. Could be blasted, but neighbors might not like that. Ms. Curran —did you consider making a one family instead of two? Mr. Fallon —you'd have to see the building inside— it's a very awkward conversion to a single. Ms. Curran —was it built as a two family? Mr. Fallon doesn't know. Probably a farm house. • Mr. Butler says Summit Ct. is a right of way. There is no hardship. 7 Mr. Polnicki says that house was a single family in 1965. There is a lot of traffic on • Summit St. because of the high school. He says when cars are parked on both sides, fire trucks can through. t get t oug Councillor Jerry Ryan, Ward 4, says this is the first he has heard of the water issue. He is around the corner, and his is fine. He will have to check on that. Several years ago, he says they researched the issue, and the street was never accepted. It was shown on plans at the Registry, but in 1963, it disappeared. He is not for or against this, but this street is pretty bad he has spoken with Lt. Preczewski —it's a two way street, but smaller than most. It's a main artery to Witchcraft Heights. They have discussed making it one way. He would prefer to see a single family. Mr. Fallon —units are 1400 SF each —it's very awkward to convert. He has no issue with a condition that this is a private way. If it were recognized as a way, he says he would already have a second lot and he wouldn't need to be there. Councillor Ryan — I agree it's not an accepted street, but the records did change after 1963. Ms. Harris doesn't see why it makes a difference. Councillor Ryan — If this is built we'll need to restrict parking on the street or it can't be Y P g • a two-way anymore. Ms. Curran asks about the parking arrangement for each lot. Parking on street is not easy. She likes that the house is in front —this is more in keeping with the neighborhood. As to the Variance—this is a peculiar lot, so she has no problem with that, but she would not like to see a gain of a unit. She'd prefer they renovate the two family into one so there is still the same number of units. Ms. Harris—you don't want to. add to the density? Ms. Curran —yes. Mr. Blanchette is concerned about setting a precedent. Ms. Curran explains variances are done case by case. Mr. Metsch — I agree the lot is unusual; there is a hardship with series of hodgepodge encroachments, and the relative size of this lot to rest of neighborhood is larger. This plan reduces the number of curb cuts. With the amount of space available to park off street, this should relieve some of the parking issues even with the increase of 1 unit of density. I have no problem with the new construction. Ms. Harris— This clears up a lot of the parking issues. There is already parking provided, none is being taken away, perhaps more is encouraged. My only concern is it increases • the density. I'm thinking about it. 8 Mr. Dionne —This is cleaning up the lot, conveying pieces to the abutters is good. The parking in rear— it's there, so we hope people would use it. I have no problem with it. Mr. Tsitsinos — I'm very impressed with it—the whole lot is cleaned up, the neighbors get a small piece of land —you can't force someone to park in their driveway. There is plenty of parking. No cars will be backing into Summit St. This is a great opportunity. Ms. Curran —can we condition that the house is rehabbed prior to construction of the new house? It's a blight. Mr. Fallon says there are squatters in there right now who have agreed to leave early June. He Describes the rehab that needs to be done. He has no problem with that condition. Mr. Butler asks if the city will assess the lots. Ms. Curran says yes. Attorney Grover presents a petition of four neighbors in support. Ms. Curran it reads it into the record. Mr. Metsch makes a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos and approved 5-0 Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). • Ms. Curran reviews the findings for hardship — it is owing to the peculiar shape of the lot and its size. There are substantial easement and encroachment issues. Mr. Metsch notes that the building is large and has been used as a 2 family. He sees little impact in adding one unit. The bigger issue is parking and traffic—and this plan as a whole improves the parking. Ms. Curran says adding another unit doesn't help the traffic situation, and it could add a substantial number of cars. There are some traffic issues aside from parking. Ms. Harris says the owner is being generous to help solve several problems and is reducing the size of the property he has. The house needs a lot of work. At some point you start to get to financial hardship; I'm inclined to go along with giving another unit. Ms. Curran says the majority agrees with that, so she will go along with it. Mr. Metsch could we condition that we confirm and have on record documentation about the ROW? Ms. Curran —we could ask the city solicitor to review it. Attorney Grover—we will supply the documentation. Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with 9 standard conditions and two special conditions: approval is conditional on the city solicitor confirming the applicant's findings on summit St Court being a private way; and renovation on the existing • structure is to commence prior to the new construction;barring any legal barriers with r 9 current occupants. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). Mr. Fallon says the building was condemned, so someone from city will have to inspect it. Mr. Metsch moves to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0. Ms. Curran adjourns the meeting at 8:26 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://Solem.comIPagesISatemMA ZoningAppeolsM Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 6/20/12 ' 41 10 QTY of SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 9'?C/M�,pOC�P 1 20W.A.11 t,titrrus ti,ra.er* sv t n� aG�as, it ai(ns 01 J79 -_.. I'I):I.P.:978 619S68i ♦ FAX (� hI.IBIAury DRis,oij. MLiYUR n � m a rn v MEETING NOTICE N ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS r-- u D April 18, 2012—6:30 P.M. 3 _ Cite Hall Annex,'120 Washington Street, Salem, MA, Room 313 S Ni Rebecca Curran, Chairy W R 111"S D, \IL EIIN{,{\(XN A' 1. _\pproval of Minutes March 21, 2012 meeting 2. Public hearing: Petition of THOM:AS).PEILETIER requesting a Special Permit to change a nonconforming use (office space) to another nonconforming use,in order to convert the second flooi of the building located at 214 DER13Y SP to a residenual unit(R2 Zoning District). A Variance from off-street parking regulations is also • requested. 3. Public hearing:Petition of DAN RANDAL.L requesung a Special Permir to expand a nonconforming structure in order to construct a 20.7'x 14.6'addition on the rear of die house on 37 f 111 5 1 NLI 1 S'1,Salem, MA, (R'I Zoning District). 4. Continued public hearing: Petition of I I:SL]I' BYRNL, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.35 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single-family house on the propem-located at 16 SAUNDPRS S1.Salem,'NIA (R2 Zoning District). APPLICANTREQUESTS TO CONTINUE, 7'O,11AY 16, 2012. 3. Continued public hearing: Petition of BRUCE BORNSTEIN PRUSTI:[I K NG'S C OVF REALTY TRGST, requesting a Special Pernut under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change a nonconforming 1.0 allow an additional use of a portion of the First floor as a micro brewery of beer to be sold wholesale (remaining first floor to continue use as an environmental testing lab) for the property located at 6 NIC]IOLS S 1', Salem, AIA (R" Zoning District). 6. Old/New 13u611Ics>:Request to exmnd Special Permir and Variances issued to A.L. PR11"IF ENERGY CO\SLLa ANTS for the properties located at 17n I \I-AYE FI F S'I. (B-1 and R-3) and 183 L_A1 .AYF_"171 E SI'. ,Adjournment Know Fourl,ghtr under the Open iWeelin.,Lam i14.G.L c. 39523B audCity Ordinavm lecliwis 202S 1hmu'b 7 20.33. n tyh"mi " > ��tk �: bfl �b:s3s.,+r.� nP3 fry, q^ $i 3&jjU,t x MAIJS. oil /`F4 1�' 6,6Wt— A .. 1C'. ° Q CIS OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS v� BOARD OF APPEAL MI APR -4 P I. 21 � �_-- 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHFIR34197O KmfBEIu.E1'DRISCOI.L TELE:978-619-5685 • owrCLEMHALEM.MASS. MAYOR MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 18,2012—6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex,120 Washingtonn Street,Salem,MA,Room 313 Rebecca Curran,Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes: March 21,2012 meeting 2. Public hearing: Petition of THOMAS J.PELLETIER requesting a Special Permit to change a nonconforming use (office space) to another nonconforming use,in order to convert the second floor of the budding located at 214 DERBY ST to a residential unit(112 Zoning District). A Variance from off-street parking regulations is also requested. 03. Public hearing:Petition of DAN RANDALL requesting a Special Pemtit to expand a nonconforming structure in order to construct a 20.7'x 14.6'addition on the rear of the house on 37 CHESTNUT ST,Salem,MA,(Rl Zoning District). 4. Continued public hearing: Petition of LESLIE BYRNE,requesting a Special Permit under Sec.3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS ST,Salem,MA (R2 Zoning District). 5. Continued public hearing:Petition of BRUCE BORNSTEIN,TRUSTEE,KING'S COVE REALTY TRUST, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change a nonconforming to allow an additional use of a portion of the first floor as a micro brewery of beer to be sold wholesale (remaining fast floor to continue use as an environmental testing lab) for the property located at 6 NICHOLS ST,Salem,MA(112 Zoning District). 6. Adjournment - ICuom Your Rights under the Open Meeting Lam M.G.L c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. W9 toftpAslad On 'Oftw 8 • Cl�yl MaM Saief". MOBS. OR a zo�z /1 ai Ph is 600ftV9 we Ch* a@ bla CITY OF S- ELF M, I ASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL f iMrf C ��1MINE DO�� RU Al'�ci ust rn tv tiiur:l,i ti1�.1 >�. v�a ita;ri<u l9'u Iaan+rui.i r Oroli r.ui.r I'r.]1,:9'3-619S68i I<t S;973-'-10-0404 VI M H -C o n ti r y m .D MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF ,APPG:ALS — ^' IV April IS 2012—6• I'P 30P.M. rYt City Hall Annex, ( rn 20 Washington Street, Salem, MA, Room 313 ? —I Rebecca Corrnn, Chair a on REVISED MEETING AGENDA ul I. .Approx al of"%liuuteS: iAlarch 21,2012 meeting 2. Public hearing: Petition of"l f[OiAL\S PL LIA"ITI .R requesting a Special Permir to change a I Iconforn iIIg use (office space) to another nonconforming use, in order to com ert the second floor of the building located at 214 Dl-RBI'S'I'ro a residential unit (R2 Zoning District). A Variance from off-street parking regulations is also requested. 3. Public hearing: Petition of DAN RANDALL requesting a Special Permit to CXPnnd a nooconfonnirig stmcnire in order to contitruct a 20" s I4.6'addition on the rear of the house on 3. CI-IES IN UT SP,Salem, i%[:A, (it, Zoning District). 4. Continued public Iteartrtg- Petition of I_l SLIF: Bl'RNE, requesting a Special Permit under Scc.3.35 of die Selcna Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconli,nniag Singhe fanu}V house on the property located at 16 S,AL'NDI(RS S f',Salem, i\L\ (R? Zoning District). APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO 1111AYl6, 2012. �. Continued public hearing: Pettion of BRU( P: BORNS'Fl_[N,'IRU,l l:?E, KING'S COVF: REAL f1"I'RUS C, equcsnng a$pedal Peunit under Sec. 3.3 a of the S dean Zrncing Ordinance to change a noneonfomring ro allow an additional use of a portion of the fusr floor as n micro brewery of beer to be Sold whcdes:de (remaining first floor to ❑mm�ue use as an etnironmcntal testing lab) for rile property located at G NU:IfOLS ST,S:dem, iA(:A (R_' Zunit>,q District). G. ,Adjournment l�nnru l our Ili;/per roadtr lbe l)bra a lezliirq l<rw.l LG.I_ 39§2j6:aid(.7h Onliu�rure.1r�7ro�r, '-_028 thiou i -"' ' ` 3 3. Y. )�{/1 fir/ I �o"D�Tq CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS ,4a , BOARD OF APPEAL ' p 1Z0WASHINGTON S'I'RNET*SALISM,IVIASSACHUSE'1'fS 01970 'K' ,-,�M1NE ;'- / Tnf.,:978-745-9595 FAx:978-740-9846 KIMBERI.8Y Dimon MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: April 12, 2012 RE: Meeting Agenda—April 18, 2012 Board Members, . The Board's newest member, Mike Duffy, will be joining us for the first time on April 18. Welcome, Mike. Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Planner's memo 3. Meeting minutes of 3/21/12 4. Materials for new agenda items Public hearing: Petition of THOMAS J. PELLETIER requesting a Special Permit to change a nonconforming use (office space)to another nonconforming use, in order to convert the second floor of the building located at 214 DERBY ST to a residential unit (R2 Zoning District). A Variance from off-street parking regulations is also requested. The structure currently contains two residential units and office space;this mix of uses is nonconforming in the R2 zoning district. The applicant seeks a special permit to change the commercial space to a residential unit, making this a three-unit residential structure in the R-2 zone (also nonconforming). According to the application, only two tandem parking spaces are currently provided, so relief is required from Section 5.1, Off Street Parking regulations. 1.5 parking spaces are normally required per residential unit, so 5 spaces would be needed if a new unit was added, while only one legal space is provided. Public hearing: Petition of DAN RANDALL requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure in order to construct a 20.7' x 14.6' addition on the rear of the house on 37 CHESTNUT ST, Salem, MA, (Rl Zoning District). A Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 is requested to expand this nonconforming single-family house. 1 Continued public hearing: Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the• Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS ST, Salem, MA(R2 Zoning District). The applicant requests to continue to May 16, 2012 to allow her architect more time to revise the plans. Continued public hearing: Petition of BRUCE BORNSTEIN,TRUSTEE, KING'S COVE REALTY TRUST, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change a nonconforming to allow an additional use of a portion of the first floor as a micro brewery of beer to be sold wholesale (remaining first floor to continue use as an environmental testing lab)for the property located at 6 NICHOLS ST, Salem, MA(1112 Zoning District). I have received a proposed snow removal plan from the applicant, which I am enclosing. Note: I am also enclosing a supplement to the Zoning Ordinance that reflects amendments made since the recodified document was published in 2009. • • 2 i CON City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail &I-L l rn 7 PJAIw(t W 7d16 ?/ 156i �n�r ��asldi 2 F1e(dhyJZ /(0/ `) SI�/. 5'�(�`'l C77$7y� �G(>^ �htir/F7x✓1�S�cler�?�,.n.�f'ScT C'Ci,-�i-�,,./1 QL P.4vIT. 11C3 sr3 .4 CF\'rg6Qfiyor- Sr. " (b. 6f-7—re17 ��2 _ • c 2 —Td)s"W AI,SnN S • Page of • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, April 18, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, April 18, 2012 in the third floor conference room of 120 Washington St., Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Richard Dionne, chairing the meeting, Annie Harris,Jamie Metsch, Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate) and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Those absent were: Rebecca Curran, Chair. Also present were incumbent member Mike Duffy, Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner. Mr. Dionne opens the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Approval of Minutes Mr. Dionne moves to approve the minutes of 3/21/12, seconded by Ms. Belair and approved 4-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Tsitsinos, Ms. Belair and Mr. Dionne in favor, none opposed). Ms. Harris arrives at 6:31. • Public hearing: Petition of THOMAS J. PELLETIER requesting a Special Permit to change a nonconforming use (office space)to another nonconforming use, in order to convert the second floor of the building located at 214 DERBY ST to a residential unit(112 Zoning District). A Variance from off-street parking regulations is also requested. Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 4/12/12 and accompanying materials Thomas Pelletier presents his petition. He says he wants to convert the office space in the building to residential because he has had difficulty renting the space, and the market is better for residential. He says he would need to rent parking spaces in the South Harbor garage in order to meet the parking requirements. Two 2-bedroom units are proposed. Mr. Dionne opens the issue up for public comment. No one is here to comment;he closes the public comment portion. Ms. Belair says had been concerned about parking, but he's offering to lease 3 spaces; isshe suggests making that a condition. She notes that this is less detrimental because a residential unit would be less dense than office space, which would have employees 1 • there every day. Ms. Harris notes that he has a hardship in that he has not been able to rent the space. She says R2 is a residential zone and we encourage housing in the downtown. Mr. Metsch notes that he is taking care of the parking. He just wants to make sure there are spaces available in the garage for long-term lease. Mr. Pelletier says he spoke to the city's parking director and was told there is plenty of space available. Ms. Belair moves to approve the petition with seven standard conditions and one special condition: Petitioner is required to lease three parking spaces to satisfy the zoning requirements.The motion is seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 5-0 (Mr. Tsistinos, Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Continued public hearing: Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single- family house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS ST, Salem, MA(112 Zoning District). APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO MAY 16, 2012. • Ms. Harris makes a motion to continue the hearing to May 16, 2012, seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris and Ms. Belair and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of DAN RANDALL requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure in order to construct a 20.7' x 14.6' addition on the rear of the house on 37 CHESTNUT ST, Salem, MA, (R1 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 3/22/12 and accompanying materials ➢ Letter from Jon and Jenny Reardon, 35 Chestnut St., dated 4/10/12 ➢ Letter from Claire Hayes, 39 Chestnut St., dated 4/10/12 ➢ Plot Plan, 37 Chestnut Street, Salem, Mass, dated 2/10/12, prepared by Edward J. Farrell ➢ Proposed South Exterior Elevation drawing, no date ➢ Proposed East Exterior Elevation drawing, no date ➢ Proposed West Exterior Elevation drawing, no date ➢ Existing elevation drawings, no date Phil Gillespie, part owner, introduces himself. He is here with contractor Peter Strout and with David Foley, architect for the project. He says the request is for a small • addition on the back of the house that needs repair—he would like to rebuild it. It's a 2 sun room now. He would like to add 2 feet to the back. Mr. Gillespie submits a letter to • the Board from Claire Hayes, 39 Chestnut St., in favor of the petition. Mr. Foley shows the Board the floor plans. Ms. Belair asks if there would be another deck; Mr. Foley says no. Mr. Gillespie says they may put in a brick patio. Ms. McKnight reads letters from Jon and Jenny Reardon, 35 Chestnut St., dated 4/10/12, and a letter from Claire Hayes, 39 Chestnut St., dated 4/10/12, into the record. Ms. Harris notes that the abutters at 39 and 35 Chestnut St. are the only people who would be able to see the addition. Mr. Dionne opens the public comment portion, no one is here to comment, he closes the public comment portion. Mr. Metsch says he likes the design; it suits the applicant's needs, and has been blessed by the Historical Commission. It seems in keeping with the neighborhood. His only concern would be for the abutter located only 5 feet away, but the abutter doesn't object. He says he has no concern with traffic flow, it fits the neighborhood and improves property. There would be no detrimental effect on neighborhood. Ms. Belair • notes this is minimal relief, and it is an unusual lot. Also, both abutters are supportive. Ms. Harris says this is a minimal change and will be an improvement to the property. Mr. Metsch asks about the proximity of windows to the lot line. Mr. Strout says the distance 2.5 feet to the corner of the building, then columns will be coming in —he says they will meet the 3-foot setback. Mr. St. Pierre said no glazing would be required. Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with eight standard conditions, seconded by Ms. Belair and approved 5-0 (Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Belair and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Continued public hearing: Petition of BRUCE BORNSTEIN,TRUSTEE, KING'S COVE REALTY TRUST, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change a nonconforming to allow an additional use of a portion of the first floor as a micro brewery of beer to be sold wholesale (remaining first floor to continue use as an environmental testing lab) for the property located at 6 NICHOLS ST, Salem, MA (R2 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 2/14/12 and accompanying materials 3 • ➢ Nichols Street Second Floor Renovation, dated 4/20/04, prepared by H.H. Morant & Col, Inc. Architects ➢ Plot Plan of 6 Nichols Street, Salem, MA, dated 11/1/11, prepared by John G. Dick ➢ Snow Removal Plan —6 Nichols St., submitted as email attachment 4/11/12 ➢ Letter from Mark, Patricia and James Chesley, 6 Hanson St., dated 4/12/12 ➢ Letter to Leo Jodion dated 12/24/03 from Ronan, Segal & Harrington, submitted by Mr. Jodoin with attached documents: Police Department Incident Reports 3/21/00 and 3/7/01, photographs dated 11/2010 and 2012, Special Permit Decision date-stamped 5/26/04 ➢ Internet articles submitted by Pam Ryan, 4 Nichols St. "How to Make a Home Brewery a Commercial Nanobrewery," "Info regarding explosions at microbreweries," "Abita brewery tank explodes" (1/13/09), "Explosion rocks Abita Brewery in St. Tammany Parish" (1/13/09), "Two injured in beer explosion at Franconia Brewing Company in McKinney" (2/18/12), "Beer tank explodes at Otter Creek" (11/14/11), "After explosion, Otter Creek brews again" (11/16/11), "Royal Univerew Brewery Explosion in Denmark" (2/20/12) ➢ Letter from Mary Ferreira, 7 Crescent Dr., dated 4/18/12 ➢ Photographs submitted at meeting, dated 5/30/12 ➢ Letter from Joan Lovely, Councillor-at-Large, dated 3/21/12 • Attorney George Atkins presents the petition for Nichols St. He says the owner has gotten a new contractor for snow removal as a result of the board's comments. He has submitted a snow removal plan to the Board. He submits to the Board language for a draft condition prohibiting retail aspects of the business. Mr. Metsch asks for clarification that snow not able to be stored on site is to be removed. Atty Atkins passes out additional copies of the snow removal conditions with full text. Mr. Metsch moves to reopen the public portion of the hearing to discuss the new information, seconded by Mr. Tsistinos, 5-0 in favor. Mr. Dionne asks for comment from any member of the public who wishes to speak. Leo Jodoin, 8 Hanson St., presents photographs to the Board. He says his objection is not over a parking space. He says he has received a statement from Attorney Atkins' office granting him a parking easement. Attorney Atkins asks if this is relevant to the new information being presented. Mr. Jodoin says he is going to discuss snow removal. He reads from a police report about a snow removal violation on the property. He quotes from the minutes of the last meeting. Ms. Belair asks if he could just speak to what he wants to say and not try to characterize what others have said. • 4 • He says he has shoveled around the fire hydrant for many years. He says he has contacted the city about this problem previously. He shows photos of snow removal in process, saying that the contractor had piled the snow very close to his house. He says he has requested plans since 2004 and has not been able to get them. Ms. Harris asks how this snow removal plan looks to him. Mr. Jodoin says it's terrible—it would mean dumping snow near his home. Delivery trucks have been coming in. Ms. Harris notes that the deliveries are an existing condition. Mr. Jodoin says he can't trust this. The tractor trailors are so long they stick out in the middle of Hanson St., obstructing traffic. He doesn't see any buffer zone. He's pushing his property beyond the loading ramp. He says because of where the deliveries are coming in, this will push the snow removal area closer to his house. He says his wall is worn down because of the snow storage. Ms. Harris asks for clarification that the problem with the snow plowing plan is that it will push snow closer to Mr. Jodoin's house. Mr. Metsch asks Mr. St. Pierre what's allowed as far as the vehicles moving on the site. Mr. St. Pierre says this building is preexisting nonconforming, and never would have gone through site plan review. It's not a new project, so we are dealing with problems now from an existing building very close to a residential property. • Arthur Sargent, Councillor-at-Large, 8 Maple Ave., says this was advertised as a continuation of public hearing, so people should be allowed to speak on things other than snow removal. He says he has been called for 10 years about this snow issue and has shoveled the snow himself at times. He says the Board should consider whether the special permit conditions previously granted have been adhered to, not what the applicant promises to do in the future. John Boris, Chair of the Salem Housing Authority, says he as an additional problem he would like to address. He represents the 40 SHA abutters on Colonial Terrace. He says they did not receive a notice; Ms. McKnight checks the abutter mailing list and says a notice was mailed to the Salem Housing Authority at 27 Charter St. Ms. Belair moves to fully reopen public portion, seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Tsitsinos, Ms. Belair, and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed). Attorney Atkins notes for record that he objects to that vote. Ms. Belair comments that we should listen to the audio from the last meeting to determine exactly what happened in terms of closing the public hearing. 5 • John Boris, Chair, Salem Housing Authority, on behalf of Colonial Terrace residents, says they are concerned about traffic, delivery noise, and proximity of the brewery to their units, which are 25-30 feet away in some cases. He says pieces of brewery equipment may blow up, and they have concerns about odors. They are concerned about the negative impact in general of having a brewery in the neighborhood. They are opposed to the petition. Pam Ryan, 4 Nichols St., has packets of photos and information to present to the Board. photo of the back of her property and its proximity to the brewery. She She shows a p p p Y p Y notes there is graffiti on the building and a broken drain pipe that has never been fixed. She mentions the previously issued special permit, saying the conditions had not been met. She says the rock wall has recently been repaired. Ms. Ryan notes that she has highlighted some points in her research about microbreweries. She says several years ago, a brewery in New Orleans residential neighborhood had an explosion of debris throughout the neighborhood. She cites other examples of explosions at breweries. She is concerned about her children playing so close to the proposed brewery location. She says there is a 4-foot sinkhole in the loading dock area. She notes also that the brewing is already going on. She says there is also a huge amount of wastewater associated with brewing. She doesn't think the Salem sewer system can support this. She shows a photo of a hose attached to the • building and says Mr. Bornstein may be dumping the wastewater. She also says there are a number of things breweries need to do in order to become commercial, including meeting health requirements, etc. She says there are many questions that need to be addressed before this goes further. She is also concerned about odors. She feels this is not a clean industry for Salem. Ms. Harris asks if she found any information about smell. Ms. Ryan says she has not researched this. She submits a letter from Mary Ferreira, 7 Crescent Drive, also in opposition. Ward 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols St., says another neighbor from 6 Hanson St. has submitted a letter in opposition. He states his opposition to the petition. Councillor Ryan reads the letter from Mark, Patricia and James Chesley, 6 Hanson St., dated 4/12/12. Joan Lovely, Councillor-at-Large, 14 Story St., has concerns about snow removal and the safety of microbreweries; there has been a concern about this in the neighborhood. She says snow cannot be removed offsite and put elsewhere in the neighborhood —it must be taken somewhere to be property disposed of. She has been dealing with this issue with the Council for many years. • Mr. Dionne closes the public comment portion of the hearing. 6 Ms. Belair says that at the last meeting, she was opposed, and over the month she has given it thought—she really wants to work with businesses. She was changing her mind and considering putting a one-year limit on the Special Permit because of the fact that the petitioner has not been a good neighbor. She may have given the petitioner a chance with a one-year permit to show he could comply. After listening to comments tonight, however, she is now concerned about the waste—how will he deal with that, where does it go, what is the plan? She is concerned. Ms. Harris—brewery has been going on for a while—did we know that? Mr. St. Pierre—that was a testing run. That was discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Metsch wants to hear about waste and venting. He was left thinking that they would be under the purview of the health inspector, and certain other checks, etc. would be in place. That's not clear. He would like to hear if that is part of the plan. His assumption is they have to have an annual inspection, or more, like a restaurant. Mr. Tsistinos—the neighbors are not happy—that's what I'm concerned about. All the immediate neighbors are unhappy—since 2004, nothing has been resolved. Ms. Harris—I'm upset about the condition of the property—it's not well maintained. • Mr. Metsch—from the previous Special Permit, some items had not been addressed. Ms. Belair—for granting a Special Permit, we have to look at whether the use will be more detrimental to neighborhood. It's hard to say it won't, based on neighbors' comments. To put this into perspective—if this business were jarring jelly, would we be reacting the same way? Perhaps—it's cooked,jarred under pressure, and distributed— it's similar. It's the production of a small consumable—is that so far out for this particular property in this neighborhood? I'm leaning toward no. Ms. Harris—there are concerns about it being a brewery, but those are not the only concerns. Ms. Belair—my concern last time was for the many uses—density and number of uses in R2 was a problem. Mr. Tsistinos—my concern is more for the track record. Ms. Belair—that's why I thought to condition it with a time limit. Mr. Dionne—in the R2 zone, safety is the ultimate concern —and neighbors on both sides are upset. Do these microbreweries have potential for explosion? How are they dealing with waste? I'm not in favor at this point. 7 Attorney Atkins asks Mr. Bornstein to address the waste system, which is says this is a 10 gallon system. Attorney Atkins says that's not a lot, and that Mr. Bornstein is a chemist who has been using gases in this building for many years. Mr. Bornstein —the main waste is spent grain, which is purchased by farms for compost. Water from the hoses is filtered water— he was letting out drinking water with a chlorine flavor into the street. Mr. Dionne questions whether it's appropriate to put that water in the street. Attorney Atkins referred to his comments at the last meeting that Salem Beer Works has a brewery right in their restaurant—he hasn't heard any issues relative to safety or odors—there are people eating right next to it. The Licensing Board, state, Board of Health—all would have to act on this. Waste questions would be addressed by these agencies. A snow removal plan was submitted to try to solve the snow problem. The space next to Mr.Jodoin's house was left open so it would not impact his house. Mr. Bornstein has been using various gases there for many years—nothing has happened, and this was an industrial building. All the houses, he presumes, were purchased when the industrial building was in use. There was once a machine shop there—this has a history of being in a residential zone. Some of this has been exaggerated. Notwithstanding that, and recognizing everyone's sincerity and the Board's comments, he requests to withdraw the petition without prejudice. • Ms. Harris move to allow petitioner to withdraw without prejudice, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos, and approved 5-0 (Ms. Harris, Ms. Belair, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Metsch and Mr Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Old/New Business: Request to extend Variances issued to A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 and R-3) and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Request letter from Attorney George Atkins dated 4/16/12 Attorney George Atkins presents the request for an extension of Variances issued for 175 and 183 Lafayette St. He says the Board acted on this matter a year ago; the Planning Board acted after ZBA, but didn't make their decision until November. In addition, this project needs Fire Dept. approvals to go forward. They just got those, and now they need to go before City Council. Part of the property is owned by another party, and that transaction needs to be completed and current tenant needs to be moved. He asks for an extension of six months to begin the project. • Mr. Tsistinos moves to extend the Variances issued for a period of six months until November 12, 2012, seconded by Ms. Belair and approved 5-0 (Ms. Belair, Mr. Tsitsinos, 8 Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Ms. Belair moves to adjourn the meeting seconded by Mr. Tsistinos and unanimously approved. The meeting adjourns at 8:10 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: htto:llsalem.com/Pages/Sa/emMA ZoningApoeal5Min/ Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 5/16/12 • • 9 CIT of SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL �s 120 WASHINGPON S'LREEr♦SALEM,MAsSACHUS=S 01970 ��rMINBD�j/ TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 KIMBERL6.Y DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday, April 18, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem, MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of THOMAS J. PELLETIER requesting a Special Permit to change a nonconforming use (office space)to another nonconforming use, in order to convert the second floor of the building located at 214 DERBY STREET to residential (112 Zoning District). A Variance from off-street parking regulations is also requested. Decision:Granted. Filed with the City Clerk on May 1,2012. Petition of DAN RANDALL requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure in order to construct a 20.7' x 14.6'addition on the rear of the house on 37 CHESTNUT STREET, Salem, MA, (111 Zoning District). Decision:Granted. •Filed with the City Clerk on May 1,2012. Petition of BRUCE BORNSTEIN,TRUSTEE, KING'S COVE REALTY TRUST, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change a nonconforming to allow an additional use of a portion of the first floor as a micro brewery of beer to be sold wholesale (remaining first floor to continue use as an environmental testing lab)for the property located at 6 NICHOLS ST, Salem, MA(112 Zoning District). .Withdrawn without prejudice. Filed with the City Clerk on May 1,2012. 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. • voNo�To CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 720 WnsinUcroN STRer'r+ SAi.erti,MAssncrIuse'rrs 01970 F°irrme o� ---� 'CrLr--.:978-G79-SG85 FAX:978-740-0404 K[NIB 3RJEY DltlscotJ. MAYOR G7 1 ti � o m ^' April 30, 2012 m s R_ 1 Decision am — m 3 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals n r Petition of THOMAS J. PELLETIER requesting a Special Permit to change a nonconforming use (office space)to another nonconforming use, in order to convert the second floor of the building located at 214 DERBY STREET to residential (R2 Zoning District). A Variance from off- street parking regulations is also requested. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 18, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on April 18, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of • Appeals members present: Richard Dionne (chairing the meeting), Annie Harris,Jamie Metsch, Jimmy Tsitsinos and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.2 and a Variance pursuant to Section 5.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped April 12, 2012, petitioner requested a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.2 and a Variance pursuant to Sec. 5.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to convert the second floor of the building at 214 Derby Street to a residential unit. 2. The petitioner represented himself at the hearing. 3. At the hearing, the petitioner stated that he had had difficulty renting the office space, and that he felt he would have greater success renting residential space, based on the current market. 4. At the hearing, the petitioner stated that his intent was to convert the first floor space to two two-bedroom units. • 1 • 5. At the hearing, no member of the public 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. The inability to lease the existing office space has created 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, since the proposed residential use is more compatible with the residential zoning district, and would generate less traffic than an office use. Additionally, the petitioner has agreed to lease three parking spaces in order to satisfy the parking requirements for two residential units. 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 voted five (5) in favor (Dionne, Metsch, Harris, Tsitsinos and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Variance and Special Permit. A Variance under Section 5.1 and a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 are granted to allow conversion of the office space to two residential units. The Board of Appeals voted 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. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 2 • 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. Owner shall lease three (3) parking spaces at his expense at the South Harbor Garage for use by the residential units. ( Ric and Dionne 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. • 3 CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL s ti r-� i 120 WnsHiNrroN SucEI 1,N(nssncHuse s 07970 '7iu,L:978-619-5685 FAX:978-740-0404 Ki MMP-LEY Deusco[.i. MAYOR c-> ••+ r m s zT x_ April 30, 2012 CAM ! a City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 3 N Petition of BRUCE BORNSTEIN,TRUSTEE, KING'S COVE REALTY TRUST, requesting a 5*' cial Kermit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change a nonconforming to allow an additional use of a portion of the first floor as a micro brewery of beer to be sold wholesale (remaining first floor to continue use as an environmental testing lab) for the property located at 6 NICHOLS ST, Salem, MA (112 Zoning District). A hearing on this petition was opened on March 21, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. • The hearing was continued to April 18, 2012 and closed on that date with the following Board of Appeals members present: Rick Dionne, Annie Harris, Jimmy Tsitsinos, Jamie Metsch, and Bonnie Belair. The Petitioner sought a Special Permit pursuant to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Section 3.3.2: Nonconforming Uses, to operate a microbrewery on the premises at 6 Nichols Street. At the hearing on April 18, 2012, the Petitioner requested to withdraw the petition without prejudice. The Board of Appeal voted 5-0 (Rick Dionne, Annie Harris, Jamie Metsch, Bonnie Belair and Jimmy Tsitsinos on favor, none opposed)to grant the request of the Petitioner to withdraw this petition without prejudice. GRANTED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE APRIL 18, 2012 Richard Dionne Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASPIINCTON SIRE-F1 ♦S.vt:nf,IN'tASSACI-Iu58'rrs 01970 6 MIN6j fl-LE:978-619-5685 FAX:978-740-0404 Kwm-R1.6Y DRISCOLL MAYOR n n � M a m y x x April 30, 2012 nqt rn D 3 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 3 y n � r Decision to Extend Petition of A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS for 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). On April 20, 2011, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Salem voted in favor to approve the application of A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS for 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). A Decision dated May 4, 2011 was filed with the City of Salem Clerk's Office on that date. An Amended Decision was subsequently filed with the City Clerk's Office on May 12, 2011. On April 18, 2012, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals voted to extend the Variances granted on April 20, 2011 for six (6) months to November 12, 2012. The Board understands A.L. Prime Energy Consultants intends to go forward with the project, though additional time is needed to complete the necessary permitting and property transactions. A COPY OF THIS DECISION TO EXTEND HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • Richa�ne 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. • « o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS r `\ BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHING'I'0N S"I RECF♦ Si YN1,MASSAa1USE 01970 - ' � INBO� TGLG:978-619-5685 FAX:978-740-0404 KIAIMILBY DRISCOLL n MAYOR r a m y April 30, 2012 N� 'c ate' Decision m 3 3 D City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals r Petition of DAN RANDALL requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure in order to construct a 20.7' x 14.6' addition on the rear of the house on 37 CHESTNUT STREET, Salem, MA, (111 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 18, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on April 18, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of • Appeals members present: Richard Dionne (chairing the meeting), Annie Harris,Jamie Metsch, Jimmy Tsitsinos and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped March 22, 2012, petitioner requested a Special Permit to construct an addition that encroaches on the side yard setback on the property located at 37 Chestnut Street. 2. At the hearing, the petition was presented by Phil Gillespie, part owner of the property. 3. Letters of support were submitted by Jon and Jenny Reardon, 35 Chestnut Street, and Claire Hayes, 39 Chestnut Street. 4. At the hearing, no member of the public spoke in opposition to or in support of the project. • 1 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 detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, since the proposed addition requires minimal relief, is in keeping with other homes in the neighborhood, and would only be visible to the direct abutters on either side, both of whom support the petition. 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 voted five (5) in favor (Dionne, Metsch, Harris, Tsitsinos and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Variance and Special Permit. A Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 is granted to allow for the proposed addition as shown on the submitted plans. The Board of Appeals voted 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. 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 2 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. Ochard Dionne 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 fled with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • 3 T CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL lei JAI) NAR I A041 MW 120WASHINGTON SI-REEr *SALEM,'1fASSAC1[uSFX1y. 1970 Tru�:978-619-5685 0 FAX:9 LE KiM11FRI-Ey DRISCOLL SALEM.MASS. MAYOR MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 21,2012—6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex, 120 Washington S$reet,Salem,MA,Room 313 Rebecca Curran,Chair AMENDED MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes: February 15,2012 meeting 2. Executive Session: Discussion of proposed agreement for judgment for petitions for 9-11 Franklin Street and 162 Federal Street 3. Old/New Business > Request of PAUL FERRAGAMO for a six-month extension of the right to exercise Variances issued for the property located at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE. 4. Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of ICECAT,LLC requesting Variances from minimum frontage/lot width in order to allow the subdivision of the property located at 18 FELT ST(R-1) into three lots,one of which would lack the requisite frontage/lot width. 5. Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of THE SIGN CENTER(on behalf of SALEM SEAPORT CREDIT UNION) requesting a Variance in order to add signage that exceeds the square footage allowed by Sec. 4-50 of the City of Salem Code of Ordinances and Sec. 8.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance on the property located at 336 LAFAYETTE ST(R-2). 6. Public hearing:Petition of LESLIE BYRNE,requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS ST, Salem, MA (112 Zoning District). 7. Public hearing: Petition of MARCELO CABRERA requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure, and Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking regulations, in order to construct a third story dormer for use as a third unit on the existing two-family house on 24 WARD ST,Salem,NIA (R3 Zoning District). 8. Public hearing: Petition of ROGER P. DESCHENES and MARIELLE B. DESCHENES requesting a Variance from minimum front yard setback in order to construct a 24'x 24'addition with a two car garage underneath,on the property located at 19 PATTON ROAD (RI). 9. Public hearing: Petition of BRUCE BORNSTEIN,TRUSTEE, KING'S COVE REALTY TRUST,requesting a Special Permit tinder Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change a nonconforming to allow an additional use of a portion of the first floor as a micro brewery of beer to be sold wholesale (remaining first floor to continue use as an environmental testing lab) for the property located at 6 NICHOLS ST,Salem,M.A. (R2 Zoning District). 10. Adjournment MIS now* 00dw art ooffidw Ou 4 WjL2_2 Know )our R�ghts under the Openilleefing lQJtVCt 0 J!' Oxt W�r�c 4I4131ret-12 'o, 9W2313 and '0., A '& 90 Of CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS o BOARD OF APPEAL IIII MAR 14 P 1: 45 120 WASHING ION S'IREPa SiAI I:yI,11 ASS-1l'HC1F PfS°19,ZQ �n OPIB 0° T7;I F 978 6195685 ♦ 1'm 978-7 r f LE # ��CLERK. SALEM. MASS. MAYOR MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 21,2012—6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex,120 Washington trees,Salem,MA, Room 313 "s'- 26>KK Rebecca Curran,Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. approval of Minutes: February 15,2012 meeting 2. Executive Session: Discussion of proposed agreement for judgment for petitions for 9-11 Franklin Street and 315-317 Essex Street 3. Old/New Business Request of PAUL FERRAGAMO for a six-month extension of the right to exercise Variances issued for the property located at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE. 04. Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of ICECAT,LLC requesting Variances from[minimum frontage/lot width in order to allow the subdivision of the property located at 18 FELT ST(R-1) into three lots,one of which would lack the requisite frontage/lot width. 5. Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of THE SIGN CENTER(on behalf of SALEM SEAPORT CREDIT UNION) requesting a Variance in order to add signage that exceeds the square footage allowed by Sec. 4-50 of the City of Salem Code of Ordinances and Sec. 8.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance on the property located at 336 LAFAYETTE ST(R-2). 6. Public hearing: Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.35 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS ST, Salem, MA (R2 Zoning District). 7. Public hearing: Petition of MARCELO CABRERA requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure, and Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking regulations, in order to construct a third story dormer for use as a third unit on the existing two-family house on 24 WARD ST, Salem, MA (113 Zoning District). 8. Public hearing: Petition of ROGER P. DESCHENES and NLIRIELLE B.DESCHENES requesting a Variance from minimum front yard setback in order to construct a 24'x 24'addition with a two car garage underneath, on the property located at 19 PATCON ROAD (RI). 9. Public hearing: Petition of BRUCE BORNSTEIN,TRUSTEE, KING'S COVE REALTY TRUST, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change a nonconforming to allow an additional use of a portion of the first floor as a micro brewery of beer to be sold wholesale (remaining first floor to continue use as in environmental testing lab) for the property located at 6 NICHOLS ST,Salem,M1 (R2 Zoning District). �10. Adjournment Know y our RigGGt under Ibe Y� J Pf � S � �rogh 2?0 . r �RAOpet Lu �r � � 1g��pp veOR �C/L 23A A 2P 0 Q.Q. CITY OF SALEM M-ASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHING'PON SIILEBC* SALIi:M,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 '1'E7.E:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846 KIMBERI.EY DRISCOLL MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: March 13, 2012 RE: Meeting Agenda— March 21, 2012 Board Members, • Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Planner's memo 3. Meeting minutes of 2/15/12 4. Materials for new agenda items Executive session: Discussion of proposed agreement for judgment for petitions for 9-11 Franklin Street and 315-317 Essex Street Robin Stein will be attending the meeting to discuss these cases with the Board. Old/New Business: Request of PAUL FERRAGAMO for a six-month extension of the right to exercise Variances issued for the property located at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE. The original decision is enclosed. It was filed on 3/24/11. Variances expire after one year if not exercised. Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of ICECAT, LLC requesting Variances from minimum frontage/lot width in order to allow the subdivision of the property located at 18 FELT ST(R-1) into three lots, one of which would lack the requisite frontage/lot width. The following condition relating to tree preservation has been reviewed by the legal department, and is now being reviewed by the applicant: • "Prior to any construction, a certified arborist shall walk the property and develop and submit a plan for the vegetation slated to remain. The plan shall include measures for protection of the trees during 1 construction. Additionally, prior to any building permit being issued, the root systems shall: a) be identified; b) be • marked clearly in the field with stakes indicating where the root systems begin; and c) a temporary silt fence be placed around them so the measure of the radius of half their height is visibly marked and the trees protected from excavation, blasting, grade changes, and from compaction by heavy machinery or debris from excavation. Further, subject to the approval of the City, selective pruning may be conducted, but only under the direction and control of a certified arborist. If during construction any of the vegetation proposed to remain is damaged then the Tree Warden shall make a determination for replacement vegetation of the same or similar species and size as the damaged vegetation or where the vegetation is too large to and that is not practicable, then the caliper of the tree shall be replicated inch per inch basis as determined by the city." Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of THE SIGN CENTER (on behalf of SALEM SEAPORT CREDIT UNION) requesting a Variance in order to add signage that exceeds the square footage allowed by Sec. 4-50 of the City of Salem Code of Ordinances and Sec. 8.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance on the property located at 336 LAFAYETTE ST(R-2). This petition was first submitted in January, so I'll provide the summary again of the zoning relief needed for the two signs originally requested. I did hear from the applicant yesterday that he intends to request only the building sign, not the building sign and the free-standing sign, but here is the full background i� case that changes: Free-Standing Sign: A free-standing sign in a residential zone advertising a nonconforming use, such as this one, can be 32.5 square feet. Because of its location in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, the size allowed is between 16.25 and 32.5 square feet (from half of what is normally allowed up to the full size allowed). In 2005,the applicant was given a permit for a 30 square foot sign. They are now requesting an additional 30 square feet, for a total square footage of 60 square feet. Last year, the proposal was submitted to Tom Daniel for a sign permit. He indicated the additional 30 square feet could not be permitted as it exceeded the maximum area allowed. The applicant asked if the existing 30 square foot sign could be refaced. Tom indicated it could and recommended that the Building Inspector issue a permit to reface it. A permit was issued to reface the sign (keeping the same area). At the January meeting, the Board requested an opinion from Tom about this proposal. His response was that enlarging the already nonconforming sign was difficult to justify, given the surrounding neighborhood. He also had concerns about permanently allowing a sign of this size through a variance, since any future business located here would be allowed a sign of the same size. Building Sign: Tom also clarified the relief needed for the building sign proposed. The building sign shown on the plans does not require relief for area, as the applicant requested (13 square feet complies with the ordinance However, this property is restricted to one sign, and adding the building sign would mean there would b two, so a variance is needed for the number of signs (rather than the area). Tom does not have an issue 2 with a variance being issued for the number of signs. If approved, the applicant would also need to submit • the building sign proposal to Tom for a sign permit. Zoning of surrounding area: As to the Board's questions about whether surrounding businesses might also be inclined to seek permits for nonconforming signage, Tom noted that the businesses across the street cannot have free-standing signs because they are located too close to the street. (In response to questions raised about the zoning of the surrounding properties, I am enclosing a zoning map for the immediately surrounding properties. The neighborhood is a mix of R2, RI and B1.) Public hearing: Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS ST, Salem, MA (112 Zoning District). In July 2009,the Board issued a Special Permit and Variances to Ms. Byrne to allow for expansion of her nonconforming single-family house. The decision, which is enclosed in your packet, was appealed. Ms. Byrne is now requesting a Special Permit under section 3.3.5 to alter and expand the house with a similar (but not identical) addition to what was previously approved. Public hearing: Petition of MARCELO CABRERA requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure,and Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking regulations, in order to construct a third story dormer for use as a third unit on the existing two-family house on 24 WARD ST, Salem, MA (113 Zoning District). • 24 Ward Street is 2830 square feet. 22 Ward Street, which has merged with 24 Ward St. under common ownership, is 2439 square feet. Together, 22 and 24 Ward St. are 5269 square feet. The addition of a third unit will require relief from lot area per dwelling unit (3500 square feet per dwelling unit is required, and 1733 is proposed). The building is located on 24 Ward St., and the parking is to be located on 22 Ward St. Five parking spaces are required for three units in the R3 zone. The parking plan submitted shows six spaces, but this plan does not meet dimensional requirements for parking spaces or aisle widths, and would force cars to back out toward the street. I spoke to Mr. Cabrera about providing an alternative parking plan that would show only the required five spaces, but would require less dimensional relief, and allow for easier entry/exit, and he has also submitted an alternative plan that I am enclosing. Public hearing: Petition of ROGER P. DESCHENES and MARIELLE B. DESCHENES requesting a Variance from minimum front yard setback in order to construct a 24' x 24' addition with a two car garage underneath, on the property located at 19 PATTON ROAD (Rl). The applicant requests relief from the front yard setback (15 feet is required; 10 feet is proposed). Public hearing: Petition of BRUCE BORNSTEIN,TRUSTEE, KING'S COVE REALTY TRUST, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change a nonconforming to allow an additional use of a portion of the first floor as a micro brewery of beer to be sold wholesale (remaining first floor to continue use as an environmental testing lab)for the property located at 6 NICHOLS ST, • Salem, MA (112 Zoning District). The building is currently used for three residential units and an environmental testing lab. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit to add a microbrewery to the first floor space. 3 �`gCONDI? � �9 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail 1;3.- r?am !Y Sau.�darS ch 7Ys=- 67�6 M^ n n" - oQ /3v� lb 9akrtd&45 9t 7�/, Z01.7-7-17 ti � /V�G4-o I J J•f.'�u-1.2w..,�'1v+. I✓ I A&Wrl G S amic 6/�rcke(; IB -/2<�10,^ 97g 7`fy6606 a✓�NI i S Cam'VI S C -L- 9 7 f c U 71, L NbA1'cla �.-�� f WaKeC '-� 5��1 �I7i�239-2Y8� QzWmm, 7.1k 97F-335- 7t/0-7 Page of CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS a ; BOARD OF APPEAL � I��l{'��9yr11�YQ1 -1 AII: 12120 WASHINCTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSE 'rEI.F::978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404' KINIBERi.EY DRISCOIl FILE # MAYOR CITY CLERK. SALEM.MASS. LEGAL NOTICES The City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will open public hearings for the following new petitions at its meeting on Wednesday,March 21, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.,3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, ROOM 313: Petition of BRUCE BORNSTEIN,TRUSTEE,ICING'S COVE REALTY TRUST, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change a nonconforming to allow an additional use of a portion of the first floor as a micro brewery of beer to be sold wholesale (remaining fast floor to continue use as an environmental testing lab) for the property located at 6 NICHOLS ST, Salem, MA (R2 Zoning District). Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS ST, Salem, MA (R2 Zoning District). Petition of ROGER P. DESCHENES and MARIELLE B. DESCHENES requesting a Variance from minimum front yard setback in order to construct a 24' x 24' addition with a two car garage underneath, on the property located at 19 PATTON ROAD (Rl). Petition of MARCELO CABRERA requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure, and Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking regulations,in order to construct a third story dormer for use as a third unit on the existing two-family house on 24 WARD ST, Salem,MA (R3 Zoning District). Rebecca Curran Chair Tula Now 0Oaw a" 'O l�a1 ® 9 ' city a salsa+. Mass. a � 'o 11,111� 2A8WSfW CITY OF SALEM 1VLASSACHLJSE'TTS BOARD OF APPEAL i 120WASHINGFON SMELTS SALFA4,MAyS�SACHUSEM, 01970 'reLE:978-619-5655 FAX:910tI0 P ); 2N KNfB¢Rf. N DRISCOLL MAYOR FILE # CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS, April 4, 2012 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of ROGER P. DESCHENES and MARIELLE B. DESCHENES requesting a Variance from minimum front yard setback in order to construct a 24' x 24' addition with a two car garage underneath, on the property located at 19 PATTON ROAD (R3). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 21, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on March 21, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Annie Harris, Richard Dionne, Jamie Metsch,Jimmy Tsitsinos and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Section 4.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped February 16, 2012, petitioner requested a Variance from front yard setback requirements in order to construct a 24' x 24' addition with a two car garage underneath. 2. The petitioner represented himself at the hearing. 3. At the hearing, no one 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. Owing to special conditions on the property, which do not generally affect the other parcels in this zoning district, literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the appellant. The topography of the property is such that an addition could only be built in the front of the house, encroaching on the front yard. 0 2. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, since the lot is large enough to accommodate the expansion. 3. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Variance under Section 4.1 is granted to allow for the proposed addition, as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Curran, Harris, Metsch, Dionne, and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for a Variance subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state 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 re placement lacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure i P s 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. v� �ONDIT,�Q� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 101E APR 4 (R i• 24 , 120 WASHING'I ON SrMEU♦SALEM,Mnssnc�wFy'_t i�'5 01970 �—" 'ret.t:978-619-5685 F �.�7A,Zp2y�u�t-E KjNtBu .ev Daiscoij- T `LtKtt ftil SALEM, MASS, MAYOR April 4, 2012 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of MARCELO CABRERA requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure, and Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking regulations, in order to construct a third story dormer for use as a third unit on the existing two-family house on 24 WARD ST, Salem, MA (113 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 21, 2012 pursuant to Mass • General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on March 21, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Richard Dionne, Jamie Metsch,Jimmy Tsitsinos and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Section 4.1, and a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.3, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped March 7, 2012, petitioner requested a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit and a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure, in order to construct a third-story dormer for use as a third dwelling unit. Petitioner also requested a Variance from Section 5.1, off-street parking regulations, but later revised his parking plan so that relief was no longer needed. 2. The petitioner represented himself at the hearing. 3. At the hearing, no one 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 1. Owing to special conditions relating to the building and parcel, which do not generally affect the other parcels in this zoning district, literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the appellant. The multi-family use is an allowed use in the R-3 Zoning District, but expansion of the dormer is needed to meet code for access, and the lot is very small. 2. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, since the use is an allowed one in this zoning district, and the dimensional relief requested is minimal. Additionally, parking will be provided. 3. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to,the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Variance under Section 4.1 is granted to allow for the proposed addition, as shown on the submitted plans. 2. A Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 is granted to allow for the proposed addition, 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 one (Harris) 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. 2 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. 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. 3 0ND1TAQ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL Alt 9��9F�MIIV606`"' 120 WASHINGr°N SZREF t SALEM,MA204101'"W[P )t 23 TFLE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 KwBERLBY Dwscou. Mnvo CITY CLERK, ALEM. MASS. April 4, 2012 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of THE SIGN CENTER(on behalf of SALEM SEAPORT CREDIT UNION) requesting a Variance in order to add signage that exceeds the square footage allowed by Sec. 4-50 of the City of Salem Code of Ordinances and Sec. 8.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance on the property located at 336 LAFAYETTE ST(R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on January 18, 2012 pursuant to Mass • General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was continued to March 21, 2012 and closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Richard Dionne, Jamie Metsch, Jimmy Tsitsinos and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Article III, Sections 4-50.1 and 4-50.5, of the City of Salem Code of Ordinances, and Section 8.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped January 24, 2012, petitioner requested Variances from the requirements for signage on a nonconforming use in a residential zone. Two signs were proposed: an addition of a 36" x 120" pole cover to the existing free-standing sign, and one new 13 square foot building sign at the rear. 2. Jay Kahn of The Sign Center presented the petition on behalf of Salem Seaport Credit union at the hearing. 3. At the hearing, one member of the public and several Board members expressed concern about the size of the proposed free-standing sign addition, considering the residential neighborhood in which it is located. 1101 4. At the March 21, 2012 meeting, the applicant withdrew the request for the addition to the free-standing sign and requested relief only to install the building sign. 1 • 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 Variance from Article III, Sections 4-50 and 4-51 from the Code of Ordinances and from Section 8.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, is granted to allow for the proposed building sign only (and not the proposed changes to the free-standing sign), as shown in the submitted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Harris, Metsch, Dionne, Tsitsinos and Belair, Curran abstaining) 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. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 1191 Rebecca Curran, Chair Salem Board of Appeals 2 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • • 3 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASI IINCION S'I'R6E:1 ♦S(U,Em,NIASST(.)�ja.I 97Q_ I' �� "PISIs:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-74 - 4 4 P � — KIAIRERLEY DRISCOI.L \I,roR CITY CLERK ALEM, MASS. April 4, 2012 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of ICECAT, LLC requesting Variances from minimum frontage/lot width in order to allow the subdivision of the property located at 18 FELT ST(R-1) into three lots, one of which would lack the requisite frontage/lot width. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on January 18, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was continued to February 15, 2012 and March 21, 2012 and closed on March 21, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Richard Dionne,Jamie Metsch, Jimmy Tsitsinos • and Bonnie Belair. Ms. Curran was not present at the January 18, 2012 meeting, but reviewed all records of the proceedings, including the audio, and signed an affidavit attesting to this. Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Section 4.1.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped December 27, 2011, petitioner requested a Variance from lot width and frontage to allow the subdivision of the property located at 18 Felt Street into three single-family house lots. 2. The application date-stamped December 27, 2011 stated that two of the proposed lots would be fully compliant with zoning, but a third would lack the requisite frontage, having 85 feet of frontage instead of 100 feet. This lot also contained a single-family house that would be.demolished. 3. Attorney Scott Grover represented the petitioner at the hearing. 4. At the hearing on January 18, 2012, Attorney Grover stated that after the petition was filed, he had received feedback from the neighborhood that there was strong interest in preserving the historic house located on the property. In response, the petitioner had changed the plans to show the existing house would remain rather than be demolished and replaced by a new one. 1 • 5. At the meetings on January 18, 2012 and February 15, 2012, several members of the public spoke in favor of granting the Variance under the condition that the house be preserved to appropriate historic standards, and that the old trees on the property also be preserved. 6. At the February 15, 2012 meeting, Attorney Grover presented proposed guidelines for the historic preservation of the house, which he stated were drafted with the assistance of members of the Salem Historical Commission. He stated that the petitioner was willing to accept these as conditions of the requested Variance, as well as guidelines for the protection of the older trees on the site. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. Owing to the extensive repairs needed and the measures that must be taken to preserve the historic house and the trees on the property, literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, 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 the dimensional relief requested is both minimal and consistent with other properties in 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. A Variance under Section 4.1.1 is granted to allow for the subdivision of the property into three lots, one of which will have 85 feet of frontage and lot width rather than the requisite 100 feet. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Curran, Harris, Metsch, Dionne, and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for a Variance subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 9. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the • structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 10. The Variance for Lot 3 is conditioned upon the restoration of the structure pursuant to "Historic Restoration Proposal, the Ropes Mansion, 18 Felt Street, Salem, MA," dated February 11, 2012, and attached to this decision as Exhibit A. This lot is subject to the restoration of the house and is not valid unless the house is restored. This condition shall not be construed to affect Lots 1 and 2 shown on the plan submitted herewith. 11. Prior to any construction, a certified arborist selected by owner shall walk the property to determine the viability and safe retention of the four trees identified on the plan submitted with the application and shall develop and submit to the owner a plan including measures necessary for protection of the trees during construction. Additionally, prior to any building permit being issued, the root systems shall: a) be identified; b) be marked clearly in the field with stakes Is Salem where the root systems begin; and c) in consultation with the City of Salem Tree Warden, a temporary snow fence shall be placed around them so the 3 • measure of the radius of half their height is visibly marked and the trees protected from excavation, blasting, grade changes, and from compaction by heavy machinery or debris from excavation. In the event the certified arborist retained by the owner determines that a lesser radius is necessary for protection of any trees, his determination, and that of the Tree Warden, shall control. Further, subject to the approval of the Tree Warden, selective pruning of the four trees may be conducted but only under the direction and control of the Tree Warden. If during construction any of the four trees to remain are damaged to the extent that said tree cannot survive by the failure of the owner to comply with the arborist's plan referred to above and the conditions set forth herein, then the Tree Warden shall make a determination for replacement of the damaged trees with the same or similar species and size as the damaged trees or where the tree is too large and replacement is not practicable, then the caliper of the tree shall be replicated on an inch per inch basis as determined by the Tree Warden. 12. This decision applies to the main house only, and no other structures on the property. 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. • 4 • EXHIBITA HISTORIC RESTORATION PROPOSAL The Ropes Mansion at 18 Felt Street, Salem, MA February 11, 2012 Exterior (1) Original Exterior Wood Elements: Retain all existing clapboard and decorative shingle siding, window trim, corner, soffit, skirt and fascia boards and all other detail elements, replacing with in-kind materials only where necessary. (2) Original Slate Roof: Retain existing slate roof, repairing with in-kind materials only where necessary, particularly valley areas, and replacing any missing slate to match in color and shape. (3) Historic Windows: Retain and refurbish all existing window sashes, maintaining period glass and replacing any broken panes with glass to match in thickness and color. Particular care shall be taken to safeguard the two bow windows with original curved glass and the arched-top crystal glass window at the north side. Storm windows may be added. (4) Wrap-Around Porch: Restore front entry stairs and railings and entire porch balustrade and porch columns, where necessary, to replicate original as best possible ca.1900 photo. Porch • roof shall be re-shingled with 3-tab charcoal black asphalt. (5) Side Entry: Side entry stairs shall be rebuilt to conform to front entry design (only if side entry stairs are not eliminated). (6) Structural Work: Repair compromised structural supports at North elevation in accordance with approved engineering standards. (7) Chimney & Foundation: Any necessary repairs shall be made with matching materials. Re- pointing of brick shall be completed with mortar to match existing. (8) Painting: All surfaces to be prepared via hand scraping, vs. the use of destructive high velocity water blasting or power sanding. Paint in historically appropriate colors shall be used. (9) Original Wood Shutters: All existing shutters shall be retained. At a minimum, it is hoped to reinstall shutters to the windows at the front and left side of the house. (10) Venting: Venting for upgraded bathrooms, kitchen, and HVAC shall be hidden from obvious detection everywhere possible or painted to match —Same for condensers, transformers & meters. • 5 • (11) Skylights: Any skylights must be located only on areas of the roof not visible from public ways. This would be the same requirement for satellite dishes, solar heating panels, antennas, etc. (12) Future Additions: Should any future additions to the building be considered, they must be compatible with, and appropriate to, the mansion's Queen Anne Style, and be attached to the rear of the building only. Oversight This renovation project will be reviewed by the Salem Historical Commission to ensure compliance with the agreed standards, and to assist the owner in resolving any questions that may arise during the renovation process. This duty may be assigned to one member of the Commission to be appointed by the Chair at the option of the owner. • • 6 v��0A1DITq ,� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS �l µ\ BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSE;PIS 01970 TELF:978-745-9595♦FAx:978-740-9846 ICII14BERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday, March 21, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem, MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of ROGER P. DESCHENES and MARIELLE B. DESCHENES requesting a Variance from minimum front yard setback in order to construct a 24'x 24' addition with a two car garage underneath, on the property located at 19 PATTON ROAD (R1). Decision:Granted. Filed with the City Clerk on April4,2012. Petition of ICECAT, LLC requesting Variances from minimum frontage/lot width in order to allow the subdivision of the property located at 18 FELT ST(R-1) into three lots, one of which would lack the requisite frontage/lot width. Decision:Granted. Filed with the City Clerk on April4,2012. •Petition of THE SIGN CENTER (on behalf of SALEM SEAPORT CREDIT UNION) requesting a Variance in order to add signage that exceeds the square footage allowed by Sec. 4-50 of the City of Salem Code of Ordinances and Sec. 8.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance on the property located at 336 LAFAYETTE ST(R-2). Decision:Granted(for proposed building sign only, not freestanding sign addition). Filed with the City Clerk on April 4,2012. Petition of MARCELO CABRERA requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure, and Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking regulations, in order to construct a third story dormer for use as a third unit on the existing two-family house on 24 WARD ST,Salem, MA (113 Zoning District). Decision:Granted. Filed with the City Clerk on April4,2012. 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. ONDI? .aQ CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 - oo� FAX: 978-740-9846 Z01Z APR 25 P 31 29 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR FILE # CITY CLERK, SALEM, (MASS, April 25, 2012 Decision to Extend 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). • On Wednesday, March 16, 2011, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Salem voted in favor to approve the application of Paul Ferragamo for Variances 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 Decision dated March 24, 2011 was filed with the City of Salem Clerk's Office on March 24, 2011, and such Decision is recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 30354, Page 289 (the "Decision"). The Decision is valid for one year from the date of the Decision unless extended by the Board. On March 21, 2012, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals extended the Variances granted on March 24, 2011 for six (6) months to September 23, 2012 by a vote of 5-0 (Rebecca Curran, Bonnie Belair, Annie Harris, Jamie Metsch and Rick Dionne in favor, none opposed). 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 • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, March 21, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, March 21, 2012 in the third floor conference room of 120 Washington St., Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris,Jamie Metsch, Richard Dionne, Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate) and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Robin Stein, Assistant City Solicitor. Ms. Curran opens the meeting at 6:32 p.m. Approval of Minutes Ms. Curran opens meeting at 6:32 p.m. Ms. Harris notes that paragraph 3 on page 6 needs to be clarified. Ms. Belair moves to approve the minutes with edits, seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 5-0. • Executive Session: Discussion of proposed agreement for judgment for petitions for 9- 11 Franklin Street and 162 Federal Street Ms. Curran says the Board will be going into Executive Session to discuss these matters because they have determined that discussion in public session would be detrimental to the litigation. Mr. Metsch moves to go into executive session, Mr. Tsitsinos seconds the motion, and it passes 6-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Tsitsinos, Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris, Ms. Belair and Mr. Dionne in favor, none opposed). The Board members leave the room to hold the executive session at 6:40 p.m. and return at 7:20 p.m. Ms. Harris moves to reopen the public session; Mr. Dionne seconds, and the motion passes 6-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Tsitsinos, Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris, Ms. Belair and Mr. Dionne in favor, none opposed). Old/New Business: Request of PAUL FERRAGAMO for a six-month extension of the right to exercise Variances issued for the property located at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE Documents & Exhibitions: 1 ➢ Letter from Attorney George W. Atkins III requesting extension of Variances, dated 2/13/12 ➢ Decision letter from the Zoning Board of Appeals dated 3/24/11 granting Variances for the property at 405-427 Highland Avenue Attorney George Atkins presents the request on behalf of Paul Ferragamo, saying they are still working with Mass Highway for their required permits. He requests an extension of the Variances for six months until 9/23/12. Ms. Harris moves to grant the request, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Belair and Ms. Curran in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of ICECAT, LLC requesting Variances from minimum frontage/lot width in order to allow the subdivision of the property located at 18 FELT ST(R-1) into three lots, one of which would lack the requisite frontage/lot width. Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 12/27/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Site Plan dated 12/15/11 ➢ "Historic Restoration Proposal," dated 2/11/12 Ms. Curran notes that last month the Board continued this matter pending conditions on the preservation of the trees and the Ropes house. Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. He says after listening to input from the community, the developer has agreed to retain and restore the Ropes house. They have developed a set of standards for the preservation of the house and the very old trees on the property, which the developer has agreed to. He notes the two lots other than the one with the Ropes house on it comply fully as building lots. Ms. Curran reads conditions relating to trees and the preservation of the house: Condition relating to trees: "Prior to any construction, a certified arborist selected by owner shall walk the property to determine the viability and safe retention of the four trees identified on the plan submitted with the application and shall develop and submit to the owner a plan including measures necessary for protection of the trees during construction. Additionally, prior to any building permit being issued, the root systems shall: a) be identified; b) be marked clearly in the field with stakes indicating where the root systems begin; and c) a temporary silt fence shall be placed around them so the measure of the radius of half their height is visibly marked and the trees protected from 2 excavation, blasting, grade changes, and from compaction by heavy machinery or debris from excavation. In the event the certified arborist retained by the owner determines that a lesser radius is necessary for protection of any trees, his determination, and that of the Tree Warden, shall control. Further, subject to the approval of the Tree Warden of the City of Salem, selective pruning of the four trees may be conducted but only under the direction and control of the Tree Warden. If during construction any of the four trees to remain are damaged to the extent that said tree cannot survive by the failure of the owner to comply with the arborist's plan referred to above and the conditions set forth herein, then the Tree Warden shall make a determination for replacement of the damaged trees with the same or similar species and size as the damaged trees or where the tree is too large and replacement is not practicable, then the caliper of the tree shall be replicated on an inch per inch basis as determined by the Tree Warden." Condition relating to preservation of the Ropes house: "The variance for Lot 3 is conditioned upon the restoration of the structure pursuant to 'Historic Restoration Proposal,the Ropes Mansion, 18 Felt Street, Salem, MA/ dated February 11, 2012. This lot is subject to the restoration of the house and is not valid unless the house is restored. This condition shall not be construed to affect Lots l and 2 shown on the plan submitted herewith." • Ms. Curran notes the legal department has reviewed these conditions. She also notes she has been advised that putting the preservation of the house as a condition is more effective than requiring a deed restriction. Attorney Grover notes the standards document is dated 2/11/12 and is the most recently revised. Ms. Curran reads the conditions in the document: HISTORIC RESTORATION PROPOSAL The Ropes Mansion at 18 Felt Street, Salem, MA February 11, 2012 Exterior (1) Original Exterior Wood Elements: Retain all existing clapboard and decorative shingle siding,window trim, corner, soffit, skirt and fascia boards and all other detail elements, replacing with in-kind materials only where necessary. (2) Original Slate Roof: Retain existing slate roof, repairing with in-kind materials only where necessary, particularly valley areas, and replacing any missing slate to match in color and shape. (3) Historic Windows: Retain and refurbish all existing window sashes, maintaining • period glass and replacing any broken panes with glass to match in thickness and color. Particular care shall be taken to safeguard the two bow windows with original curved 3 glass and the arched-top crystal glass window at the north side. Storm windows may be added. (4) Wrap-Around Porch: Restore front entry stairs and railings and entire porch balustrade and porch columns, where necessary, to replicate original as best possible ca.1900 photo. Porch roof shall be re-shingled with 3-tab charcoal black asphalt. (5) Side Entry: Side entry stairs shall be rebuilt to conform to front entry design (only if side entry stairs are not eliminated). (6) Structural Work: Repair compromised structural supports at North elevation in accordance with approved engineering standards. (7) Chimney& Foundation: Any necessary repairs shall be made with matching materials. Re-pointing of brick shall be completed with mortar to match existing. (8) Painting: All surfaces to be prepared via hand scraping, vs. the use of destructive high velocity water blasting or power sanding. Paint in historically appropriate colors shall be used. (9) Original Wood Shutters: All existing shutters shall be retained. At a minimum, it is hoped to reinstall shutters to the windows at the front and left side of the house. • (10) Venting: Venting for upgraded bathrooms, kitchen, and HVAC shall be hidden from obvious detection everywhere possible or painted to match —Same for condensers, transformers & meters. (11) Skylights: Any skylights must be located only on non-visible areas of the roof only. This would be the same requirement for satellite dishes, solar heating panels, antennas, etc. (12) Future Additions: Should any future additions to the building be considered, they must be compatible with, and appropriate to, the mansion's Queen Anne Style, and be attached to the rear of the building only. Oversight This renovation project will be reviewed by the Salem Historical Commission to ensure compliance with the agreed standards, and to assist the owner in resolving any questions that may arise during the renovation process. This duty may be assigned to one member of the Commission to be appointed by the Chair at the option of the owner. • 4 • Ms. Harris asks about the provision about skylights—is the intent to be not visible from the street? Attorney Grover says he collaborated with John Carr and Jessica Herbert to develop this—his presumption is this means what is visible from the public way. The condition will be changed. Ms. Harris says these standards, while excellent, are being passed on to an unsuspecting owner who won't understand them. Mr. Metsch says they are very generous, but if this passes on to a different owner/developer—things like the roof and windows—it's very extreme. For this property, it's too restrictive. Ms. Harris says there should be escrows for these lots. Ms. Curran says if an owner decides to renovate, he's obligated to meet the conditions. Any owner will see this variance and be bound by it. Mr. St. Pierre notes that this board doesn't have the authority to waive energy or building code requirements; it all has to be done under the Massachusetts regulations. That caveat must be put into there. He doesn't have a problem with the conditions, this is not unusual, but you can only go so far—you can't override the building code. Ms. Harris—is it clear these all have to be met subject to the building code? Mr. St. Pierre says it's binding and enforceable, if unusual. Mr. Metsch —if the lots are separated—if lot 2 began construction, and at a later date there was noncompliance, what then? Mr. St. Pierre—if they don't conform to this document, they don't have a buildable lot. They can't tear it down and build another house. Mr. Metsch —if no one • can finance/restore the building, and others develop the other lots...Attorney Grover says lots 1 and 2 are both conforming, legal lots. Ms. Harris asks for clarification on the tree language. Ms. Curran—this is so all measures are taken to protect the trees; if damaged,the owner is supposed to replace them with, inch for inch, the same size caliper. Mr. Metsch—can we condition clearly that fill thrown on trees is not allowed? Ms. Curran —the idea is to make them very cautious of that because the ramification of damage is great. Mr. St. Pierre we can work with developer to put a better barrier around the tree. Ms. Curran suggests changing "silt fence" to a "temporary fence," to determine it with the developer. Attorney Grover suggests a snow fence. It's noted that this would be done in consultation with the Tree Warden. Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with 9 standard conditions and 3 special conditions, as follows: ➢ The exterior is to follow 2/11/12 historic preservation standards document ➢ Trees to be treated as per document submitted 3/21/12, with additional protections from the tree warden as noted ➢ The Variance decision relates to main house only 5 The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran, Ms. Belair and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby • incorporated as part of these minutes. Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of THE SIGN CENTER (on behalf of SALEM SEAPORT CREDIT UNION) requesting a Variance in order to add signage that exceeds the square footage allowed by Sec. 4-50 of the City of Salem Code of Ordinances and Sec. 8.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance on the property located at 336 LAFAYETTE ST (R-2). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 1/24/12 and accompanying materials ➢ Plot plan dated 2/28/86 ➢ Photo and renderings prepared by the Sign Center, dated 3/24/11, for Salem Seaport Credit Union Jay Kahn of The Sign Center presents the petition, and says the Credit Union is asking to withdraw the proposal for the pole covers for the monument sign. The posts are to remain visible. Now they are just proposing adding lettering to rear building. Ms. Belair moves to approve the building sign only and not the monument sign with 5 • standard conditions, seconded Mr. Metsch and approved 5-0 (Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Harris, Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS ST, Salem, MA (112 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application dated-stamped March 5, 2012 and accompanying materials ➢ Aerial photos of 16 Saunders St. ➢ Photos of 16 and 14 Saunders St. ➢ Plot Plan of Land, 16 Saunders Street, dated 5/22/09, prepared by North Shore Survey Corp ➢ Letter from Andy Goldman, 11 Pearl St., dated 3/13/12, in support, and amended letter of 3/21/12, also in support ➢ Letter from Frank and Phyllis Brown, 16 Pearl St., in support ➢ Letter from Pamela and Jeffrey Dungan, 15 Saunders St., dated 3/12/12, in support ➢ Letter from Jeffrey Dungan, 15 Saunders St., dated 3/13/12, opposed . 6 • ➢ Letter from Michael Sosnowski, Ward 2 Councillor, 17 Collins St., dated 3/21/12, opposed ➢ Letter from Rachel Little, 7 Cross St. Ct., dated 3/20/12, opposed ➢ Letter from Joseph Devincentis, 12 Saunders St., dated 3/12/12, opposed ➢ Letter from Valerie Calamese, 12 Saunders St., no date, opposed ➢ Letter from Rosalind Slawson, 5 Saunders St. Unit 1, dated 3/20/12, opposed ➢ Photos of neighborhood houses submitted at meeting: 8 Cross Street Court, 14 Burnside St., 3 Smith St., 10 Smith St., 23 Cross St., 21 Thorndike St., 14 Saunders St. ➢ Plan to accompany petition to the Board of Appeals, dated 3/9/09 by Eastern Land Survey Associates prepared for Riverside Realty Trust for 24 Saunders St. ➢ Statement submitted by Leslie Byrne at meeting ➢ "McKinnon Residence, 14 Saunders Street, Salem, MA 01970, Solar Elevations," prepared by Nilsson &Siden Associates ➢ "McKinnon Residence, 14 Saunders Street, Salem, MA 01970, Solar Model," prepared by Nilsson & Siden Associates James Cipoletta presents the petition. He gives a brief history of the property, saying the Board granted relief in the past for an addition, and this first decision was appealed. He says they are now proposing less extensive remodeling. They are seeking a Special Permit to raise the home to 34.5 feet, and not extending to rear. He submits photos to • the Board of 16 Saunders St. and surrounding homes. He says that even if approved, this would be one of the smaller homes. He notes that the Salem Zoning Ordinance doesn't address view; even so, with removal of the originally proposed back section, this is a benign request/result. Leslie speaks about her proposal, saying her home is 660 square feet, a single bedroom in the R2 zone. She says she is working within the footprint of the existing building. She says the assistant building inspector at the time she bought her house told her she could build up another I % stories by right. She says the proposed expansion of her house would conform to the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Curran asks about the square footage being added; Ms. Byrne says it's 660 additional square feet. Mr. Metsch notes she said the footprint is the same, but what about above the indents on the left? He notes it's a T shape, with a bumpout on the driveway side to extend the living room and one on the bedroom side. Ms. Curran notes this is not within the required side yard. Ms. Harris asks why it doesn't require a variance; Mr. St. Pierre explains the exception in the zoning ordinance for one- and two-family houses. Ms. Curran notes that in front the setback is 9 feet, and what is required is 15. Mr. St. • Pierre says the exception allows it to follow building line. 3.3.4. 7 Ms. Curran opens public comment portion of the hearing. • John Carr, attorney representing the McKinnon household at 14 Saunders St., distributes letters of opposition (from Jeffrey Dungan, 15 Saunders St.,'dated 3/13/12; Michael Sosnowski, Ward 2 Councillor, 17 Collins St., dated 3/21/12; Rachel Little, 7 Cross St. Ct., dated 3/20/12; Joseph Devincentis, 12 Saunders St., dated 3/12/12; Valerie Calamese, 12 Saunders St., no date; and Rosalind Slawson, 5 Saunders St. Unit 1, dated 3/20/12) and excerpts of the zoning ordinance regarding Special Permits for the Board to review. Attorney Carr opposes the petition because of fire safety, overcrowding, property values, and impacts to light and air. He refers to the letter submitted from Ward 2 Councillor Michael Sosnowski to highlight these points. He notes that in addition to the 1 % story structure, there is a carriage house garage close to the house. He says the current proposal is close to what was proposed earlier. He says the petition is to square off the "T" of the house—the prior proposal also called for a rear addition. He discusses the objections of various neighbors who are opposed to the project. Attorney Carr presents drawings showing how.views will be impacted from the McKinnon house ("McKinnon Residence, 14 Saunders Street, Salem, MA 01970, Solar Elevations," and "McKinnon Residence, 14 Saunders Street, Salem, MA 01970, Solar Model," both prepared by Nilsson & Siden Associates). He says the house will be �l deprived of much of its light. He says a certified appraiser has been consulted, and the McKinnon's is property value will go down over 25%. He says fire safety is also a problem, since changing from a bungalow, increasing the volume of the house, also increases the possibility of fire. He notes the neighborhood is wood construction. He says the McKinnons have been part of the neighborhood over 20 years longer than Ms. Byrne. Attorney Carr passes out a photo of the McKinnon house showing Ms. Byrne's house casting a shadow on it. He passes out additional photos of neighboring houses. He notes granting the Special Permit would set a precedent in the area. Attorney Carr discusses a plan the Board approved for 24 Saunders St., originally for two duplexes, which he says Ms. Byrne opposed. He says this development was changed to two single-family houses, and their location was also changed, to preserve Ms. Byrne's view. He says one of the new owners has submitted a letter of opposition to this petition. Attorney Carr says the applicant had previously agreed to come up with a new plan that didn't impact the McKinnon house, but this was never shared with them. Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion of the hearing. • 8 • Roz Lawson, 5 Saunders St., echoes the concerns stated by Attorney Carr. She says a 35 foot house, as tiny as the footprint is, will look ridiculous. There are many small homes in the area, but as a neighbor she asks Board not to approve this. Elizabeth McKinnon, 14 Saunders St., opposes the petition. She says the 6-foot extension to the rear wasn't just what they had a problem with —it was the whole plan. She says it's not just the view; they will be prisoners in their own house. They don't have windows on the top floor, and there would be no air coming in that side. She says the petitioner's house is going to be 5 feet taller than hers is now, and hers is a single family. She says the McKinnons would be looking at a wall. Thomas McKinnon,Jr., 14 Saunders St., opposes. He says it will destroy his house and cost him more in heat and electricity. He says it will be like a billboard outside his window. Ms. Curran reads the above-noted letters in opposition to the project. Ms. Belair clarifies, in response to some of the written comments that the applicant is not asking for a variance but a special permit. Ms. McKnight reads three letters she has received in support of the petition (from Andy Goldman, 11 Pearl St., dated 3/13/12, and amended letter of 3/21/12; Frank and Phyllis Brown, 16 Pearl St.; and Pamela and Jeffrey Dungan, 15 Saunders St., dated 3/12/12, in support). Attorney Carr says the letter from Pamela • and Jeffrey Dungan in support is dated earlier than the letter he has in opposition from Mr. Dungan only, and clarifies that Mr. Dungan does not now support the project. Melanie McKinnon, 14 Saunders St., opposes because of light, air,fire safety and property values. Jim Armstrong, 32 Carriage Rd., Beverly, a local real estate broker and formerly a Saunders St. resident., says he is familiar with the houses shown in the photos—all are much larger and have second floors. He says he isn't a certified appraiser but does market analysis and water views do not add close to 25%value to a home. He also notes that horizontal expansion is much more expensive than vertical. Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Harris asks if Attorney Carr has the appraisal he referred to in writing. Ms. Belair asks what the petitioner could do by right. Mr. St. Pierre says the previously, she would have been able to put in a second story, but since the zoning was recodified, this language has been clarified, and a Special Permit would be needed. Ms. Curran—do we have the remand? • 9 Mr. St. Pierre—do you have an accurate elevation of the home? Mr. Carr presented these drawings and they are absolutely not to scale, and is unfair of the Board to • consider that. Does the petitioner have a correct elevation? Ms. Curran—did you explore other options—dormers within the roof and not going up the full 35 feet? Ms. Byrne says she thought about going out, but because of the garage and the way the property is shaped, there isn't room. Raising the second floor up enough for living space would still block the McKinnon's view. Ms. Byrne gives Mr. St. Pierre architect's drawing. Mr. St. Pierre notes that on the submittal from the architect, the existing home if 17 feet measured from grade. Ms. Curran —is there a way to accomplish what you want in square footage without going up so high? Ms. Byrne says cost is prohibitive for dormers. Ms. Curr an—with a redesign you might be able to accomplish what you want and be less intrusive. Attorney Cipoletta--the Court stated to us that any vertical expansion of the home woulj be opposed by the McKinnons. He notes that there are several ways to do to the appraisal. As to concerns about fire safety, anything Ms. Byrne would do in the way of new construction would have to meet all codes enforceable by the building inspector. He says the third floor was added to 14 Saunders St. without an inspection and without • peg � it is unknown what the exact materials were used or how the construction was done. Ms. Stein shows Ms. McKnight the remand order, which she reads out loud. Attorney Carr clarifies that the third floor addition was done with a building permit, but without what should have been proper zoning relief. Ms. Belair says the appraisal should not be considered, since it was not offered as evidence. Regarding conserving the value of land and buildings—an addition would improve the neighborhood, not lessen the home values. She suggests the applicant look at reworking if she can. She suggests continuing for a month to look at a solution through a different design. She notes that Ms. Byrne's house is 660 square feet, which she says is a hardship. She would be inclined to approve an addition, but also in taking the neighbors' concerns into consideration, any way to look at reworking the plans, to compromise. She could build the second floor but change the design a bit; the neighbors may still oppose, but the Board would also feel Ms. Byrne did what she could. Ms. Byrne says that whatever she does on the second floor will block their view. Ms. Curran suggests just taking a more sensitive approach, and doing what she can;they would like to see her try. • 10 • Mr. Tsitsinos notes the house is 17 feet high now; he suggests working with the neighbors to come up with an addition that raises the height less and still provides interior space. Ms. Harris suggests more of a shed roof, and looking at other solutions. She doesn't think the effect will be as bad as the neighbors say, but the design is aggressive for this site—it's doubling the height. Mr. Metsch suggests bringing the roofline down; she would still gain second floor usable space. As to the issue of light and air—the house is 9 feet away from its neighbor, and in this neighborhood that's not unusual. He says the appraisal is a non issue. As to fire— again, this distance is not unusual. He says this could be done with a different design. Mr. Dionne says that as proposed, they would be adding more congestion and fire potential, and he would have a hard time approving something like that. He would rather see a more horizontal expansion, even though it is more expensive. He says he couldn't approve the height. Atty Cipoletta requests to continue the hearing to the April 18 meeting. Mr. Dionne moves to continue the hearing to April 18, 2012; Mr. Metsch seconds, and the motion passes 5-0. • Public hearing: Petition of MARCELO CABRERA requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure, and Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking regulations, in order to construct a third story dormer for use as a third unit on the existing two-family house on 24 WARD ST, Salem, MA(R3 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 3/7/12 and accompanying materials ➢ "Plan for a Shed Dormer, 24 Ward St., Salem, MA 01970", no date ➢ "Plan for a Shed Dormer," detail, no date ➢ Parking Plan for 22 Ward St. (angled spaces), and revised parking plan (parallel spaces) ➢ 24 Ward St Rear View elevation drawing Marcelo Cabrera presents the petition. He says the proposed parking is located at 22 Ward St. In response to Board questions about whether it is acceptable to have the parking located on the other parcel, Mr. St. Pierre says these lots will merge. He also notes that there is room to make parking spaces 18 feet instead of the 12 feet shown, to comply with zoning. Mr. Metsch notes that the parking area is not paved,just dirt now. Mr. Cabrera says they will level it and bring in the landscape architect to figure out the • drainage, etc. 11 Mr. St. Pierre notes that pavement is required, and they will need a.drainage permit • from the City Engineer, and will need to drain to a storm drain. Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion of the hearing, no one is here to comment, so she closes the public comment portion. Ms. Curran reviews the Board's findings, saying that literal enforcement of the zoning would create a hardship because it's an allowed use, but expansion of the dormer is needed to meet code for access. Ms. Belair notes it's a very small lot. She says this is not a lot of relief, it does have parking, which is a big issue, and they are using the other lot for parking instead of putting in another building. Mr. Metsch says he is happy with the plans submitted. Ms. Belair notes it would be nice to have some green space around the parking lot. Mr. St. Pierre says they must have a 2-foot buffer area from the lot line—the pavement must stop there, and this is a good place for landscaping. Ms. Curran says relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good; that this meets the intent/purpose of the zoning ordinance, since it is an allowed use, and the additional relief is minimal. Mr. Metsch notes that Ward St. is dense. • Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with 8 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 4-1 (Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran, Ms. Belair and Mr. Dionne in favor; Ms. Harris opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of ROGER P. DESCHENES and MARIELLE B. DESCHENES requesting a Variance from minimum front yard setback in order to construct a 24' x 24' addition with a two car garage underneath, on the property located at 19 PATTON ROAD (R1). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 2/16/12 and accompanying materials and photographs ➢ "Plot Plan in Salem, MA," prepared for Roger & Marielle Deschenes, 19 Patton Rd., by LeBlanc Survey Associates, Inc., dated 2/13/12 ➢ Elevation drawings, no date Roger Deschenes presents the petition. He explains there is a steep drop-off behind his house, so he couldn't build behind there; it wouldn't allow adequate egress. • 12 Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion of the hearing; no one is here to comment, so she closes it. Ms. Curran notes the petitioner is constructing in front only because of the topography of the property. Ms. Belair—noadditionalunit? No. Ms. Belair notes the applicant did a good job on his statement of hardship. Ms. Curran says she has no problem with this. The hardship is owing to the topography of the land, which does not generally affect the other parcels in this zone. It's too steep to build within the required setbacks. The lot is big enough, so it won't be detrimental to the public good in any way. Mr. Dionne moves to approve the petition with 8 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 5-0 (Ms. Harris, Ms. Belair, Ms. Curran, Mr. Metsch and Mr. Dionne in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of BRUCE BORNSTEIN,TRUSTEE, KING'S COVE REALTY TRUST, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change a nonconforming to allow an additional use of a portion of the first floor as a micro brewery of beer to be sold wholesale (remaining first floor to continue use as an • environmental testing lab) for the property located at 6 NICHOLS ST, Salem, MA (R2 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 2/14/12 and accompanying materials ➢ "Plot Plan of 6 Nichols St., Salem, Mass," dated 11/1/11, by John G. Dick ➢ "Nichols Street Second Floor Renovation," by John G. Dick, dated 4/20/04 ➢ Photograph of brewing equipment, no date ➢ Letter from Leo Jodoin, 8 Hanson St., no date, opposed ➢ Letter from Joan B. Lovely, Councillor-at-Large, 14 Story St., dated 3/21/12, opposed Attorney Atkins presents the petition. Bruce Bornstein, property owner, is also present. Attorney Atkins says this is a change of nonconforming use, with no changes to the building. He gives the industrial history of property— it was a tannery,then a machine shop. Relief was previously requested for an environmental lab,then for 3 residential uses above. He says there will be only a wholesale use associated with the brewery, no retail,tasting, etc. just labeling, bottling, etc. He speaks about the cleanliness of the operation and shows a photo of a typical interior. He says there will be no odors. This will require licensing board and Board of Health. He says the tanks are steam heated, • with no separate boiler situation. The entire building is sprinklered. He says the existing parking, 14 spaces, is sufficient for the current and proposed use. Deliveries of supplies 13 come once a week, typically in a box truck, sometimes a trailer. There are 1-2 deliveries . currently per day for the lab. There will be no substantial increase in traffic. The Special Permit requires a standard of the change in use not being more detrimental than existing use. He says there will be no detriment;the operation will be completely contained. Some jobs will be created. He asks Mr. Bornstein to address the Board. Mr. Bornstein says he's owned the building for a long time. He has a distributer lined up, who will pick up the product about once a week. He will get grain deliveries once a month. Mr. Metsch—what are the hours of operation? Bruce—8 to 6, people will be working. He has no plans for night shifts. The bottling is done there. The name of the business is Witchcraft Brewing. Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion of the hearing. Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols St. (Ward 4 Councillor), opposes the petition. He refers to the 2004 Special Permit allowing apartments, saying one apartment would be above this. He says the conditions of the Special Permit have not been adhered to. Snow removal has not been done, grass is not cut, and maintenance not done. He was fine with the residential use, since he prefers not to have a business next door. He also says the brewing system is already set up. Arthur Sargent, Councillor At Large, 8 Maple Ave., says he gets calls about their snow • removal —the snow is pushed from the lot to the sidewalk, and he has shoveled it himself in the past. He says they deposit snow on the sidewalk, making passage difficult. Ms. McKnight reads letters from Joan Lovely, Councillor At Large, 14 Story St., opposed; and Leo Jodoin, 8 Hanson St., opposed. Attorney Atkins says everything is kept in the interior. He asks Mr. Bornstein to address the brewing system currently in the building. He says this is a small 5 gallon setup that can be run out of a home, not for commercial use. As to snow removal, he says Mr. Jodoin was asked not to park his vehicle in front of the property. Mr. Bornstein says he was never fined for snow removal. Whenever it snows, he says they have tried to move it to where Mr. Jodoin was happy, but he has never been happy. Mr. Bornstein says he has tried to help with snow removal as much as possible. He says he does maintain the building, shovels, etc. He also says he is surprised at Councillor Ryan's change in support of the petition. Ms. Curran asks if Mr. Bornstein lives there; he says no, but he has owned the property for 25-30 years. • 14 Attorney Atkins says nothing affects the neighborhood because everything is taking place inside the building. Ms. Belair asks Mr. St. Pierre if there have been any violations. He responds that he wrote a ticket this year for the snow. It has been an ongoing problem, and the sidewalk. Ms. Belair asks if the owner has noticed that the city has responded. Mr. St. Pierre— that has not been my observation in most cases. Mr. Brennan (contractor) has given us a lot of grief. Ms. Belair—I generally strongly support business in Salem—but this area is primarily residential, and this one small parcel has three residences, a lab and now brewery...I can't support because of the density. Attorney Atkins says the building has 21,000 SF of space. He says the building is not being used close to capacity. The second and third floor were approved for residential, and they did the third, but second floor was cost prohibitive. He says the lab approval was not intended to bar other uses. Ms. Curran notes there has been a pattern of noncompliance. She has no problem with the use. She doesn't want to grant another Special Permit and have conditions ignored. • Mr. Dionne says they may have to remove the snow. Ms. Curran suggests asking for a snow removal plan. Ms. Belair has no problem with the use,just the density. Ms. Harris has no problem with that, but notes there is a lot of ill will. She is uncomfortable expanding with another special permit. Ms. Curran says there is plenty of parking and the building is big enough, but she has concerns about compliance. Mr. St. Pierre says that the plan submitted at the time has notes relating to snow removal. Attorney Atkins says snow removal plan could certainly be done. Bruce— contract with someone to do snow removal, if it can't fit on property, moved offsite? Front walkway which hasn't been done much, would be in contract to be done. That should address the main complaint. Snow is difficult to fit on property. Attorney Atkins notes that contracts change and expire—specific snow removal plan, working in conjunction with building inspector for where onsite storage should take place. Mr. St. Pierre—what kind of investment is it to set up? Conditional permit possible. Can it be moved to another spot if problematic. Bruce— 150-200K to put in floor that would support the fermenters, and equipment. Moving would be extremely prohibitive. Odors not going to be a problem. Hard to invest in building, most is fallow. Not using most of building. Wants to take care of rear, put up siding, needs money to fix up • property. 15 Ms. Belair—public portion closed— Ms. Curran yes. Ms. Curran —continue for a month? Mr. Metsch—condition to prohibit tastings, etc. Attorney Atkins requests to continue, will come back with language for prohibiting retail use and tasting, and a snow removal plan they will work with Mr. St. Pierre and the councilor on. Mr. Metsch move to continue to April 18, 2012, seconded by Mr. Dionne 5-0 in favor Mr. Tsitsinos not voting. Motion to adjourn by Ms. Harris, seconded by Mr. Metsch. Adjourns 10 pm. 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/Paaes/SalemMA ZoninaAppealsMin/ Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 4/18/12 • • 16 CITY OE' SALEM NLNSSACHVSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL ��MINE IYaN� I 111C'I�1 uS1�1 nV tii 1a a r � ti.,1J-al,AI tN..,rnurri S a l9'u TI 1 1>Q-8 6 P) 568; ♦ I;,S;9-8---W-0 W,. illAIltl Itl 1.1't�lticl�a.L �L,rna c� t7 N r- -i9 rn MEETING NOTICE �- LONINGl3O.ARDOI; .AI'P[:.AL5 �m February 15, 2012-6:30 P.M. # City Flail Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA, Room 313 = l�Q,t sec �n a l� K i R Rebecca Curran,Chair ➢ w rn rn CORRECTED MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of 1%finutcS: JanuanY 18, 2012 meeting 2. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of[CI:CAT, LLC requesting Variances from mininulm frontage/lot width in order to allow the subdivision of the property located at 18 FECP Sf(R-I) into three lots, one of yhich would lack rile requisite frontage/foe width. ). Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of PrASQU:ANN.A DFVI3L0llFRS, INC:. requesting Variances from nununuua lot area, lot area per dwelling unit, fronmge, lot width, front Yard setback and rear vard setback, in order to;uhdicide the property located tt 18 11 101RNDIKE SIRFFT (R-'_) into tice (5) single-buni1 house Intl. 1. Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of TI Ili SIGN C EN IFiR (on behalf of SALEM St" APORT CRFM I' UN ION) requesting a Variance in order to add signage that exceeds rile square foorage allowed by Sec. 0-50 of rile City ofSalem Code of Ordinances and Sec. 8.2 or the Salem Zoning Ordinance on the pr<,pertV lnc;Vcttl ar 3.36 1..A1'AYF L-I'U. Sf (It-2). APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO AIARCH21, 2012. 5. Public hearing: Petition of 127 CANAL S I IZkICI' LL.0 requcsring,t Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use, and a Vamince from off-strcut parking regulations, in order to convert ;t garage lnC:rred nn 127 CANAL SI•• Salem, AI.A, to it resicicnrial unit (R-1 Zoning Disrricr). 6. Public hcarir\g: Pclitinn of FlAVARD \ P011'IN requesting a .special Permit to extend a nonconforming use and alter a non(onhlmaing structure, and a Variance from side and rear setbacks and lot cm crage, tier rile properrn loaucd ar 12 11.AIN1 ON SI (1t2 %Irving District). 7. Public heariltg: Pctirion of :\II.LIDS:\ :\lA(;I WANIS requesting a Special Pcrmir to :titer an exisring n�mantt�n'ming structurr and Variance from ntininuan lot area per dwelling unit, in order In concert rile esi tatg�inglc ivnih home at lol FFIV..101. S I, 1:ticm, .MA, into a mo-t:unih home. (R2 7ouing Dkirico Oldie wlr;ness ihle� i4Cl��t! no l f ail 'Omdal 86j fill C;,, " cny 41 a9! t Ulm Mass on FdZI4w11. I). \tII IIICillill'ilr ��j� I ."p*4 WS ` {ii�+';•l:4 :Y�) ;[2 Yi. hn,,.�r l -�irr l�inlltr:rLtir!lI� Ur:Ii I L•ssl„ I.rv .lL(,.1. ,, 1'� I_'�R:uol< �I (1 , r \ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS fi� BOARD OF APPEAL 120WASHING1ON SI REI:.I SALEM,MASSACHOSE..ITS 01970 ��MINE TFIa_978-619-5685 ♦ E,v[.978 7 FILE # Kmnsealr:v��Rlscola, 0tfbLERH, SALEM.MASS. MAYOR MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 15,2012—6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex,120 Washington Street, Salem,MA, Room 313 Rebecca Curran,Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes:January 18, 2012 meeting 2. Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of ICECAT,LLC requesting Variances from minimum frontage/lot width in order to allow the subdivision of the property located at 18 FELT ST (R-1) into three lots, one of which would lack the requisite frontage/lot width. • 3. 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. 4. Continuation of Public hearing:Petition of THE SIGN CENTER(on behalf of SALEM SEAPORT CREDIT UNION) requesting a Variance in order to add signage that exceeds the square footage allowed by Sec. 4-50 of the City of Salem Code of Ordinances and Sec. 8.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance on the property located at 336 LAFAYETTE ST(R-2). APPLICANTREQUESTS TO CONTINUE TOMARCH21, 2012, 5. Public hearing:Petition of 127 CANAL STREET LLC requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use, and a Variance from off-street parking regulations,in order to convert a garage located on 127 CANAL ST, Salem,MA, to a residential unit(B2 Zoning District). 6. Public hearing:Petition of EDWARD A POTVIN requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use and alter a nonconforming structure,and a Variance from side and rear setbacks and lot coverage, for the property located at 12 HANSON ST (R2 Zoning District). 7. Public hearing: Petition of MELISSA MA CHERNIS requesting a Special Permit to alter an existing nonconforming structure and Variance from minimum lot area per dwelling unit,in order to convert the existing single-family home at 103 FEDERAL ST,Salem, MA,into a two-family home. (R2 Zoning District). 8. Old/New Business This Rohe 8V*=�m, on *OffialgA GVlle0ft ft ' City Haft . Salem, Mass. on J-g& a 4V2- 9. Adjournment AA It+/d so i Know)our Reghts under the Open Meeting Llrw Il I.G.L cu 39123B and 0.1) Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 9� f 120 WASITINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACNUSE.TTS 01970 TFLE:978-745-9595 FAx:978-740-9846 KIMIIL.RI.EY DRISCOLL MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: February 8, 2012 RE: Meeting Agenda —February 15, 2012 Board Members, • Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Planner's memo 3. Meeting minutes of 1/18/12 4. Materials for new agenda items Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of ICECAT, LLC requesting Variances from minimum frontage/lot width in order to allow the subdivision of the property located at 18 FELT ST(R-1) into three lots, one of which would lack the requisite frontage/lot width. I have not received any further information from the applicant. I am enclosing hard copies of two letters from residents which were sent to you via email for the last hearing, but did not make it into your packet in time. Both letters support preserving the Ropes mansion. 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. • In response to comments from neighbors, the developer has submitted revised plans that move the houses and driveways on lots 4 and 5 further away from the abutters on Thorndike Street, and closer to 1 the Hubon Street lots. The dimensional relief requested remains the same for all lots except 4 and 5. Lot #4 now requires a variance for side yard setback (10 feet is required, and 5 is proposed). Lot 5 now requires a variance for front yard setback (15 feet is required, and 5 is proposed) and a rear yard setback• (30 feet is required, and 20.5 is proposed). The applicant has also submitted renderings showing the proposed new houses on the lots, which are included. Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of THE SIGN CENTER (on behalf of SALEM SEAPORT CREDIT UNION) requesting a Variance in order to add signage that exceeds the square footage allowed by Sec. 4-50 of the City of Salem Code of Ordinances and Sec. 8.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance on the property located at 336 LAFAYETTE ST(11-2). APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO MARCH 21, 2012. The applicant requests to continue this petition because of scheduling conflicts. For the next meeting, I will include information about the zoning of the surrounding area, along with any comments from Tom Daniel, as requested at the last meeting. Public hearing: Petition of 127 CANAL STREET LLC requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use, and a Variance from off-street parking regulations, in order to convert a garage located on 127 CANAL ST, Salem, MA,to a residential unit (B4 Zoning District). The property contains two structures: a three-unit residential building and a garage. The residential use is nonconforming in the B4 zone. The applicant proposes to convert the garage to a single residential unit, thereby extending the existing nonconforming use on the property, pursuant to Section 3.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance (Nonconforming Uses). A variance is also requested from parking. Five spaces exist on the property (for the residential building); with the addition of a fourth unit, six spaces would be require No additional parking is proposed. Public hearing: Petition of EDWARD A POTVIN requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use and alter a nonconforming structure, and a Variance from side and rear setbacks and lot coverage, for the property located at 12 HANSON ST(112 Zoning District). Bass River is a vocational training program, which is a nonconforming use in the R2 zone. The structure is also nonconforming. Addition is proposed at the side and rear of the building, which would result in a side yard setback of 3.6 feet (10 feet is required), and a rear yard setback of 13.6 feet (30 feet is required). The existing lot coverage is approximately 56%; with the additions, lot coverage would be approximately 68% (35% is allowed). Public hearing: Petition of MELISSA MACHERNIS requesting a Special Permit to alter an existing nonconforming structure and Variance from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, in order to convert the existing single-family home at 103 FEDERAL ST, Salem, MA, into a two-family home. (112 Zoning District). The existing single-family house is located on a 7,000 square foot lot;the lot is nonconforming in the R2 zone (15,000 square feet is the minimum lot size). Accordingly, the lot is also nonconforming with regard to lot area per dwelling unit (7,500 is required; 7,000 exists). The conversion of the house into two units would result in a lot area per dwelling unit of 3,500 square feet. I am enclosing a letter from a resident in support of the project. • 2 rv�lsCONUI1gO \ City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet �s 1Qr Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E- ail -75tS-Oa l� /j1 al/y�e,yitr�,.r,ova �?oo.C'otsl lu�,e�YC275��Cclruc.4s� I I 17e--T Q-j6_-Pf1-87KD �� I1c� vxw��a�sr Vv,..t_d✓<j (J HJOM fT 467? e(talvo-tp 6�SSµrr�P� r�c4wr C 5I IUec,VbOcvr fi 21l5( N L�\GI .ZC(6-tf �31101C3 23 FC T 57 103 Page of < �OND(T,�,. CITY OF SALEM e��, , , MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 1 1209VASbIING10N$lRL'h:I'+$:V.13Af,i\I:\SSAf,HI,SF:IT501970 Tsuz:978-619-5685 4 FAx:978-740-0404 KII\BLT1,17Y DRISCOLL MAYOR February 29, 2012 rn ?E:� m Decision 1, K) a rq! City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals _"0 dwelling unit, frontage, lot width, front yard setback and rear yard setback, in order to su D� Petition of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. requesting Variances from minimum to area,,- of area per bdivide the property located at 18 THORNDIKE STREET(R-2 Zoning District) into five(5) single-family house lots. 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 16, 2011 (with no evidence taken) and then to February 15, 2012, and closed on February 15, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals • members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Richard Dionne, Jamie Metsch,Jimmy Tsitsinos and Bonnie Belair. Annie Harris was not present at the October 19, 2011 meeting, but reviewed all evidence of the proceedings (including the audio recording) and submitted a signed affidavit to this effect. Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 4.0 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Patrick Delulis presented the petition at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped September 22, 2011, petitioner requested Variances pursuant to Sec. 4.0 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow for the subdivision of 18 Thorndike Street into five (5) single-family house lots. 3. At the hearing on October 19, 2011, a resident spoke in opposition to the petition, concerned about the number of homes to be built. Joe Bennett, 15 Hubon Street, submitted a letter in opposition to the project and also spoke in opposition at the February 15, 2012 meeting, citing concerns about the level of density, fire truck access, and proximity of the new homes to his home. 1 4. At the February 15, 2012 hearing, the petitioner presented revised plans showing • movement of the houses and driveways on lots 4 and 5 further away from Thorndike Street abutters, and closer to the Hubon Street lots. 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, since the property was contaminated, which required extensive cleanup; it is a large lot with very little frontage; and it has a sewer easement running through it, which limited how the lots could be configured. 2. Owing to the previous contamination of the soil and the limitations presented by the sewer easement and lack of frontage, literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, since the Board finds the proposed development would be in keeping with the neighborhood. The Board also noted the project would offer benefits to the neighborhood • including installation of a fire hydrant where none had previously existed, and the cleanup of the formerly contaminated site. 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 voted five (5) in favor (Curran, Harris, Metsch, Dionne and Belair) and none opposed, to grant the requested Variances. Variances under Section 4.0 are granted to allow subdivision of the property into five (5) single-family house lots, as shown on the submitted plans ("Preliminary Subdivision Layout Geometry for 5 Residential Lots for a site at Thorndike & Hubon Streets, Salem, Massachusetts," prepared by Patrowicz Land Development Engineering, dated July 1, 2011 and last revised January 31, 2012). The Board of Appeals voted to grant petitioner's request for a Variance subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. 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 i A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • 3 BOND/TO� CTTY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL :•;DcAp�� j 120 WASHINGTON STRG:cr♦SALEM,MASSACHUSE"I S 01970 �1�RISCOI,L '1'cu>:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 KIAIIIGRLBY MAYOR R! February 29, 2012 M rrn Decision D m City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals a N W Petition of 127 CANAL STREET LLC requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use, and a Variance from off-street parking regulations, in order to convert a garage located on 127 CANAL ST, Salem, MA, to a residential unit (B4 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on February 15, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on February 15, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals . members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Richard Dionne,Jamie Metsch, Jimmy Tsitsinos and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.2 and a Variance under Section 5.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. The property located at 127 Canal Street contains a three-unit residential structure and a garage structure. The residential structure is nonconforming in the B-4 Zoning District. 2. Five parking spaces exist for use by the residential building. 3. In a petition date-stamped January 25, 2012, petitioner requested a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use, in order to convert the.garage structure to a single residential unit. A Variance from off-street parking regulations was also requested. 4. Attorney Scott Grover represented the petitioner at the hearing. 5. At the hearing, revised plans were presented, dated February 8, 2012 showing a reconfiguration • of the parking area. Six spaces were shown instead of five due to removal of a chain-link fence. The applicant stated that the dimensional requirements for the spaces do not meet the standards of the Zoning Ordinance, and so relief from off-street parking requirements was • still requested. 6. At the hearing, no residents spoke in support of or opposition to the project. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district. The existing mix of uses on the property affects the residential occupants negatively due to interaction with the garage use. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant. The mix of uses on the property causes a hardship to the residential occupants of the property due to vehicles entering and exiting the site for service, and the lack of parking available for the garage use. Additionally, the way the buildings are situated on the lot does not provide for adequate parking area. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good • and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, since the proposed expansion of the nonconforming residential use is less detrimental to the current residents of the property and to the surrounding neighborhood than the existing garage use. 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 Section 3.3.2 is granted to allow expansion of the nonconforming residential use by converting the garage to a single-unit residence. 2. A Variance under Section 5.1 is granted to allow six parking spaces that do not meet the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Curran, Harris, 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: i . 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. • 9. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 10. Petitioner shall maintain six (6) off-street parking spaces for the exclusive use of this property. Rebecca Curran, Chair Salem Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • I 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 SALEM5 MASSACHUSETTS { I BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHING rON Si REST*SAL,NL�ssaCI IUSF rs 01970 978-619-5685 I,Ax:978-740-0404 KinuaisRLry DRIscou, (MAYOR February 29, 2012 rC- ... n m m W Decision mm ^� Zl City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 3 _ 3 Petition of MELISSA MACHERNIS requesting a Special Permit to alter an existing J. nonconforming structure and Variance from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, in order to convert the existing single-family home at 103 FEDERAL ST, Salem, MA, into a two-family home (R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on February 15, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on February 15, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Richard Dionne, Jamie Metsch, Jimmy Tsitsinos and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5 and a Variance pursuant to Section 4.1.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Scott Grover represented the petitioner at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped January 25, 2012, petitioner requested a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5 and a Variance pursuant to Sec. 4.1.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to convert the single-family house located on 103 Federal Street to a two- family house. 3. The Board received a letter from residents Betsy and Bill Burns, 22 Beckford St., in support of the petition. At the hearing, a petition in support of the project was submitted with fourteen signatures. One resident spoke in support of the application. No one spoke in opposition. • I i The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public • hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district, since the house is unusually large and is a single-family dwelling in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District. 2. Owing to the large size of the single-family house, literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, since there are numerous other two-family houses in the neighborhood, and since parking requirements would be fully met on site. 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 fad and all evidence presented at the public he earinaring g including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning omng Board of Appeals voted four 4 in favo r or Curran Metsch• ( , Dionne and Belair) and one (1) opposed (Harris), to grant the requested Variance and Special Permit. A Variance under Section 4.1.1 and a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 are granted to allow conversion of the house to a two-family home. The Board of Appeals voted to grant petitioner's request for a Variance subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. • 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 9. Four (4) parking spaces are to be provided on site. Re�cect ecca Curran Cha ir 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. • 3 0ND1TAQ, CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASwNGMN S2xEer♦ SeU,FNI,iMASSACFIUSF:rrs 01970 TFaas:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-04 :MAYOR 'a w February 29, 2012 vim a* Decision ? U x > w City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of EDWARD A. POTVIN requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use and alter a nonconforming structure, and a Variance from side and rear setbacks and lot coverage, for the property located at 12 HANSON ST(R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on February 15, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on February 15, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals • members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Annie Harris, Richard Dionne, Jamie Metsch,Jimmy Tsitsinos and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3, and a Variance pursuant to Section 4.0 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Edward A. Potvin, Executive Director of Bass River, presented the petition at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped February 1, 2012, petitioner requested a Special Permit and a Variance to construct a 36' x 18' second floor addition on the side of the building and a 25' x 18' x 16' second floor addition on the rear of the building at 12 Hanson Street. 3. At the hearing, Mr. Potvin stated that the purpose of the additions was to accommodate clients' changing needs; as they aged, there were more people using wheelchairs and walkers. 4. No one at the hearing 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. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district, since Bass River's clients with physical 1 limitations require a horizontal rather than vertical expansion, and the building has other • internal restrictions. 2. Owing to the configuration of the lot and building, 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. The design is in keeping with the neighborhood. 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 voted five (5) in favor (Curran, Metsch, Dionne, Harris and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Variance and Special Permits. A Variance under Section 4.0 and Special Permits under Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.5 are granted to allow the expansion as proposed. The Board of Appeals voted to grant petitioner's request for a Variance and 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. • 2 A• M r/t 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. • 3 ,��con°ITRNQ/6 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL J»n, f 1 20 WASFIINO'PON$"fREE'C+$AL@:M,MASSACHUSE"PPS Ot970 MINE,,, TF_LE:978-745-9595 F'Ax:978-740-9846 ................ KIMBERm'y DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday, February 15,2012 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem, MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of 127 CANAL STREET LLC requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use, and a Variance from off- street parking regulations, in order to convert a garage located on 127 CANAL ST,Salem, MA,to a residential unit(132 Zoning District). Decision:Granted. Filed with the City Clerk on February 29,2012. Petition of MELISSA MACHERNIS requesting a Special Permit to alter an existing nonconforming structure and Variance from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, in order to convert the existing single-family home at 103 FEDERAL ST,Salem, MA, into a two-family home (112 Zoning District). Decision:Granted. Filed with the City Clerk on February 29,2012. • 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 Zoning District) into five (5)single-family house lots. Decision:Granted. Filed with the City Clerk on February 29,2012. Petition of EDWARD A POTVIN requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use and alter a nonconforming structure,and a Variance from side and rear setbacks and lot coverage, for the property located at 12 HANSON ST(112 Zoning District). Decision:Granted. Filed with the City Clerk on February 29,2012. 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, February 15, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, February 15, 2012 in the third floor conference room of 120 Washington St., Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Jamie Metsch, Richard 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 6:30 p.m. Approval of Minutes Mr. Metsch moves to approve the 1/18/12 minutes with edits, seconded by Ms. Belair and approved 5-0 (Ms. Curran abstaining). Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of ICECAT, LLC requesting Variances from minimum frontage/lot width in order to allow the subdivision of the property located at 18 FELT ST(R-1) into three lots, one of which would lack the requisite frontage/lot width. Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 12/27/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Site Plan dated 12/15/11 ➢ Photographs presented of Dearborn Street infill lots ➢ "Historic Restoration Proposal," dated 2/11/12 Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. He reviews conditions previously agreed to, including the preservation of the existing Ropes house on the property, and preservation of four trees, both of which they are willing to accept as conditions. He says there were also concerns about the nature of the preservation of the house, and about the proposed houses on the other lots. He says they have come up with a set of preservation guidelines, or standards, which he worked on with Jessica Herbert, chair of the Historical Commission, as well as David Hart and John Carr. He passes out the document, saying there should also be a condition relating to galvanized copper gutters and downspouts. He says his client is willing to agree to all these conditions. He notes the last condition —the owner agrees to have the Historical Commission oversee and ensure the conditions are adhered to. • Another concern was what kind of houses would be placed on the lots. He shows renderings, saying they are very conceptual ideas the owner has for what would go on 1 the lots. The first is the house on the Larch St. lot;that lot is now subject to an agreement with a buyer, who has worked with Pitman & Wardley, who designed these • renderings. The second rendering next to the existing house would be on the other lot. It shows Victorian elements. Attorney Grover says what creates the hardship to support the variance is the preservation of the house. It's a unique structure, and a property everyone agrees merits preservation;to provide the capital needed to preserve it, the owner is asking for a small variance from the frontage. He says this is not inconsistent with the neighborhood. All the lots exceed the 15,000 SF requirement for lot area. Most of the lots do not meet that requirement. , Ms. Curran: Is the owner doing renovation? Attorney Grover—that's the plan right now. There have been proposals to sell the property, but that is indefinite. Ms. Curran: runs through worst case scenario: the owner sells to someone bound to these conditions. During restoration, they find conditions are bad and they have to demolish the house. Once a third party owns it,the properties are no longer linked. Other than being in our decision, is it a deed restriction that's needed? Atty Grover says the variance that makes this a buildable lot is conditioned upon preservation of the house. Without that, he does not have a buildable lot without coming back to the board. Ms. Harris doesn't understand how that works; Attorney Grover says he could sell the two lots and then have the first lot subject to the preservation. Ms. Harris— then they'll come to us and ask for relief. Ms. Curran —I think it's great the house is being restored,the slight variance is worth the tradeoff. I fear if it goes into separate ownership, if the new owner is more deteriorated than believed, I want to make sure this protects us, either rebuilding it back to that exact standard... Attorney Grover- once variance is recorded, it's as effective as a deed restriction; any buyer is subject to it. Ms. Curran asks if the barn is being saved. Under present proposal it's not, but there are some discussions ongoing with a potential purchaser that would preserve it. Ms. Harris says this sounds remote and wants to make sure a new owner would abide by the variance. Attorney Grover says this is like any other variance—a new owner would have to abide by it. She notes how expensive renovation will be. Atty Grover says the owner has done due diligence and believes it can be restored. Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment. Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., shows his property on the plan. He says a potential buyer who would rehab the house is out of the country right now and could not be here. He says he has an agreement with the potential owner who is looking for the property. He would like to acquire a certain portion of the lot. He says if a new house would go on • 2 the adjacent lot as proposed,the setting is compromised. He says the prospective • buyer would keep the tree on his property. Mr. Treadwell's side yard would be expanded. This buyer would move the barn and use it in conjunction with the house. He would like the Board to continue the matter because the prospective buyer is not here. He would also like more time to think about plans for the new homes. He suggests a site visit. He notes the Board is considering the frontage and says there is a reason for the 100 foot requirement. He shows images from Dearborn St. of examples of house lots that were sold off with smaller frontage; he says this shows the justification for the minimum frontage. Mr. Treadwell says the hardship is not in accordance with the petition submitted, but is now associated with preservation of the house. He asks the Board to consider the amount of money the developer stands to gain from the development, arguing against the logic of the hardship. He again requests that the Board continue this. Jessica Herbert, 70 Webb St., Historical Commission, says they've been very impressed with the owner's ability and willingness to accommodate their requests—this is unusual and she wants this noted. One of the things the preservation community was initially looking for was to save the carriage house—that's not part of this, but I spoke to Mr. Wattendorf today and he might be able to. John Carr, 7 River St—supports what Mr. Treadwell has said. He says the buyer of the Ropes property is unavailable. He says the buyers are, together, offering the equivalent of what was paid for the property, and this plays into the hardship argument. He says the frontage of 185 feet would be protected if the prospective buyers are able to go through with their sale. The buyer wants to restore the house. He notes the developer stands to make a large profit with these sales. He says no one has had time to review the plans for the houses. He requests the Board continue the matter so the buyers can finalize their negotiations. Lee Baines, 23 Felt St., supports what has already been said; he would like to see maintaining the continuity of the property, if it means delaying until the next meeting. Brian Dawson, 30 Dearborn St., supports what Mr. Treadwell and Mr. Carr have said. He doesn't want a decision made now when we are so close to a solution. Ms. Belair asks what Attorney Grover has to say about a continuance. He says his client has asked him to seek a vote this evening; if they don't have enough information to make a vote and need to continue, they will respect that decision. He doesn't think it's appropriate for the ZBA to get into negotiations between buyers and sellers - It's true there is an offer, but it's contingent upon the buyer selling his house. It might not be close. Approval of the three lots here does not preclude this deal from happening at all. • He says his client isn't interested in waiting for someone to sell their house in order to proceed. He says they have responded to the neighborhood concerns expressed at 3 meetings; these are just pictures and there isn't much more to digest about them. Ms. Belair asks what the frontage on Treadwell property is; 88.23 feet. He says the photos • shown are deceptive, not intentionally, but these are very small infill lots that have nowhere near the frontage these lots would have. Ms. Harris notes that it shows the closeness of the houses. Attorney Grover says the location of that house is to protect the tree. Ms. Belair—in terms of the financial, that is not entering into how I'm thinking regarding hardship; not even considering that, I think there is a hardship besides that. What is not before the Board is the dealings going on. Preservation of the house and trees, extensive agreements in terms of keeping the house and repairing it are great. Come so far form last time, I'm really pleased by what's been presented, including designs. I hear the neighbors, but a lot of concerns have been satisfied. Now it's in negotiation phase, not something we should be caught up in. We are asked to look at variance from lot width and frontage; it's a minimal request in terms of the dimensional amounts. Supports project as presented; hope everyone can work it out. Doesn't have a strong leaning either way—vote or continue. Ms. Harris says the developer has agreed to not take trees and house down but not to actively preserve, possibly because he wants freedom to sell. She is equally concerned about trees and house. It's hard to try to show location of a new building—it will be very hard, once construction begins, to keep those trees. This owner isn't taking responsibility for that. She still has problems, and says the designs are not guaranteed either. Ms. Curran has a similar concern, but there is language they can add to alleviate this. Regarding the trees—she suggests giving a huge incentive to people to preserve; if the trees are not preserved, if damaged during construction, they must replace them with equal the caliper, meaning a huge planting and expense, so they really take the time to preserve that tree. She can come up with language for that. She is also concerned about a third party ownership; if the house isn't able to be preserved in accordance with a Board decision, this is not a buildable lot. That may be redundant, but I want it clear. The preservation of the house is the reason for granting the variance, that's what they're giving back to the city. If someone purchases the whole lot, wonderful, but then we don't have the protection;just because someone has good intentions, it doesn't mean they will preserve the house. Any future buyer should be bound by it. I just want more assurance that if it's a third party, this preservation still would happen. Attorney Grover—that is certainly the intention. Mr. Metsch — Preservation of the house is being written into these extremely generous guidelines, no different from any other future buyer purchasing a historic home. The variance requested is very minimal; my feeling is 15 feet using Dearborn as an example, those lots are very tiny compared to these properties. It's well within the size needed • for a three lot subdivision. With the addition of this language, if someone buys these 4 lots, we'd still be preserving the Ropes house, which doesn't even have to be done right • now. He also supports the proposal as it is. We just need to figure out the right language. Mr. Dionne has no problem continuing to let them work out the details—it's an important piece of property. Mr. Tsitsinos says he is not interested in who's buying it—Scott came back with what we asked for. Not our concern who is buying, what it's worth, etc. Mr. Metsch— if these guidelines were accepted in a variance, any potential buyer would be bound. Ms. Belair—the variance runs with the land. Mr. Metsch —as to design of vacant lots—there are so many styles in that neighborhood, he has no issue with what's shown. Ms. Curran —the vote doesn't necessarily preclude what they want to do. Attorney Grover—what's shown on the plan is not designed to be a precise building envelope, more to show setbacks. Not 100%committed but will comply with the zoning. If 3 lots don't get approved, unless someone buys all of it, the only alternative is to take the house down;you don't accomplish the objective of preserving house. • Ms. Belair—what will we find out in 30 days other than the neighbors coming to a financial agreement? This is over a financial negotiation. Mr. Treadwell—the reasons to delay are not only the neighbors' interest but so the board can see floor plans; Ms. Curran —we don't consider interior if single and two- family houses. Mr. Treadwell—buyer would rehab for family. Ms. Curran —how the board granting this would preclude him from buying the lot? Mr. Treadwell—it doesn't. He just isn't here to talk to the board. Retained single family home? Ms. Curran —it's R1. Mr.Treadwell -The petition talks about a hardship that's different from the argument made tonight. Quotes from hardship requirements; would be detrimental if variance were granted John Carr—7 River St.—the prospective buyer would also move and preserve the barn. Asks for continuance so this particular buyer can be considered. He says this would obviate him probably filing an appeal just to preserve—if anything, that makes the developer more...the control is better from the appeal...all we are asking for is another 30 days to appeal. It makes more sense if this is a done deal. Otherwise, if you file an appeal, people get offended... • Ms. Curran—if this board granted the variance how does this prevent the purchase by this person? 5 Mr:Carr—we've had 20 days to do all this, and what would have to happen is an appeal • would have to be filed to preserve options. I've done it before. Ms. Belair notes that now the Board is being threatened with an appeal if they don't continue. Mr. St. Pierre says that was most definitely a threat. Ms. Belair says he has said repeatedly that he will appeal if the Board doesn't continue this. Mr. Carr says it makes that obviated and no one wants to go there. Mr. Metsch— if there is an agreement to take this whole project off the table, all these historic preservation guidelines are off the table. Jon Ofilos, 2 Locust St., although some neighbors have a problem, I am an abutter and many others are in favor of this plan, the houses shown — I also represent the potential purchaser of lot 1. Negative effect of 30 day extension —there is no ps signed, all offers contingent on 3 lot approval variance. A continuance delays that whole process. Not all neighbors want continuance. Lot has been derelict for years. George O'Brien, 5 Locust st., wants a 30 day continuance. He supports the preservation of the house. Marie Meegan, 65 Dearborn st., tearing the house down is a possibility is also a threat made by the developer. Threatening an appeal is the same. Why does lot 1 have to be • included in this? Ms. Curran explains that right now it's all one lot. Attorney Grover- some confusion —whether house will be restored; there's no question about that condition, if the variance is granted. David Sirois, 24 Felt St., if the variance is approved, what is the timeline for the preservation? When will it begin? TJS—variance is good for one year. Wants it continued also for another month. Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Curran—if this is approved, I don't see the difference between now or next month. The reason to extend is for someone to buy the house; our action doesn't change that. Do you want a vote tonight, or do you want to continue? Attorney Grover—if the board feels more time is needed, that's fine. Ms. Curran— condition on landscaping, match the caliper in replacement trees. There should be a big financial incentive to preserve the trees. An arborist should be involved in preservation plan for tree during construction so damage isn't caused. She thinks waiting leaves the house more vulnerable. Ms. Belair agrees. Would be ready to vote tonight. • 6 Continuance has to do with working out purchase. Either way we vote shouldn't affect . that. Like your idea about the trees. Ms. Harris wants to continue. Mr. Dionne moves to continue. Mr. Metsch —says if we continue could allow current owner to proceed in a simple subdivision? Attorney Grover—all tied together in the economics of the project. What he sells off depends on what happens on the back lot. Preservation is contingent on a 3 lot subdivision. Ms. Curran notes that an ANR has no conditions. They could continue for language on trees, and if a third party were bound by this the house would be preserved. Attorney Grover—these conditions are agreeable. Ms. Harris mentions conditioning the design. Ms. Curran—that is overreaching this board—we are just concerned with conformance with zoning. Mr. Metsch —to be in keeping with the neighborhood, the neighboring houses are nothing close to the style of the Ropes house. Ms. Curran says she is uncomfortable with designing. Attorney Grover—that would be hard to enforce; subject to interpretation; consistency with neighborhood, but it's a diverse neighborhood. Mr. St. Pierre suggests asking the city solicitor. Motion to continue, Ms. Belair opposed, Ms. Harris in favor, Ms. Curran in favor, Mr. • Metsch opposed, Mr. Dionne in favor. The motion fails. Mr. Metsch makes a motion to rescind, Ms. Curran seconds; all are in favor. Mr. Metsch move to continue to March 21, Mr. Dionne second, 4-1 in favor (Ms. Belair . opposed )to continue. Mr. Metsch moves, Ms. Harris seconds,to extend final action to April 18, approved (all but Mr. Metsch) 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 ➢ Letter submitted by Joe Bennett, 15 Hubon St., dated 10/19/11 ➢ Preliminary Subdivision Layout Geometry for 5 Residential Lots for a site at Thorndike & Hubon Streets, Salem, Mass., dated 7/1/11, revised 1/31/12 ➢ Aerial photo renderings 7 Patrick Deiulis presents his petition. He was here last in October. He says a revision has been submitted. He reviews the original plan. The property owners on Hubon St. had • concerns about the proximity of 3, 4 and 5 to their properties. He reviews the relief needed. Following conversations with the neighbors, the homes and driveways on lots 4 and 5 have been moved away from the Hubon St. properties. He says they originally had 6 houses proposed. They discovered contamination on the property, they completed the cleanup to the standard needed for residential use, at significant expense. Ms. Belair notes he's asking for a lot of dimensional relief. She asks him to speak to the terms of hardship for asking for the variances. He refers to the statement in his application. He says it was historically used for commercial purposes and fill was brought in to raise the site up. When using as a contractor's yard, a lot of debris was brought in, all of which had to be removed. The lack of frontage, large, oddly configured lot with access from two driveways. We could only build one house based on frontage, but there is 36,000 SF lot. The characteristics of this lot are different from rest of neighborhood. Most lots in neighborhood are much smaller. Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment. Joe Bennet, 15 Hubon st., opposes, doesn't like lot 3. He thanks Mr. Delulis for moving away this house from his property. Main concern is that Hubon is very narrow and there has been difficulty with fire truck access. If anyone parks on the street, where • there is not currently a sidewalk, access will be worse. He'd like to see 4 houses instead. He says their lots are very small, and this shouldn't allow him to use that as an argument for his hardship. Refers to his letter from a few months ago with other concerns. Ms. Belair—if fire truck already can't get down, what difference does it make if a car is already there? Can we have no on street parking? Ms. Curran—we can't decide, but we could condition that they petition proper authority in city for that. Mr. Delulis says the reason they can't move house 3 is the proximity to the sewer easement. No relief is requested from the side yard setback. Ms. Belair—possible to move it any further back? Mr. Delulis—already back very far— deck would be up against back property line. Mr. Bennet—prefers garage under house. Mr. Delulis—footprints flexible,just done to show what could be put there with the variance. Owned property for seven years— it's lain dormant because we've been working these issues out with neighbors. Ms. Belair—you benefit from cleanup of site. Mr. Bennet wants four houses, with everything entering and exiting on Thorndike St. • 8 • Mr. Delulis— lack of neighborhood opposition suggests people are comfortable with this. Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Harris thinks the hardship is significant. The site had contamination, required cleanup, and is a large lot with very little frontage and a sewer easement. She likes the mitigation having some driveways on Hubon and some on Thorndike. Mr. Metsch says he originally had mentioned an opportunity to be in more keeping with neighborhood and even asking for more relief, this didn't change, but that's not a sticking point with me,this was well thought out, certainly a benefit to neighborhood. Agrees with the hardship presented. Ms. Belair—require them to petition council to limit parking on street. Mr. Metsch— single side parking? Letter to the Planning Board is suggested by Ms. Belair and Mr. St. Pierre. Ms. Belair—he has tried to take into account neighbors' request; there is a significant hardship, and the proposal is in keeping with neighborhood. • Mr. Metsch asks what the reasoning was for lots 4 and 5 being twisted? Mr. Delulis says the intent was to provide greater relief so only one corner of the home closer to Thorndike St. was that close to the existing homes. Mr. Metsch says he is in favor, but the twist is not really in keeping with the form of the neighborhood. Mr. Dionne - in a congested area, can you get fire access there? Mr. Delulis—clarifies where the hydrant is. Mr. St. Pierre says the fire dept attended a One Stop meeting and thought it was safer to put the hydrant in where it wasn't currently. Ms. Harris—the hydrant protects the neighbors. Also the development provides access. Ms. Harris moves to approve the petition including side yard setback, as shown on the plan revised 1/31/12 with 8 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Harris, Dionne, Curran, Belair and Metsch in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. • Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of THE SIGN CENTER (on behalf of SALEM SEAPORT CREDIT UNION) requesting a Variance in order to add signage that exceeds 9 the square footage allowed by Sec. 4-50 of the City of Salem Code of Ordinances and Sec. 8.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance on the property located at 336 LAFAYETTE ST • (R-2). APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO MARCH 21, 2012. Mr. Dionne moves to continue Lafayette St. to March 21, 2012 seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 5-0. Public hearing: Petition of 127 CANAL STREET LLC requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use, and a Variance from off-street parking regulations, in order to convert a garage located on 127 CANAL ST, Salem, MA, to a residential unit (B4 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 1/25/12 and accompanying materials and photographs ➢ "Plan of Land in Salem, Prepared for 127 Canal Street LLC;' dated 2/8/12 Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. He notes Anthony Gattinieri is the property owner. He presents photos of the property. He says the current automotive detailing business is there, and the residential building is a preexisting, nonconforming use. He would like to convert this building to a single family unit. He notes the plan shows five parking spaces, but after filing this, the plans were revised to show six spaces, which are • possible because a chain link fence has been removed. He distributes the revised plan. The spaces don't comply with dimensional requirements, so relief is still needed. It's noted that the parking spaces encroach on the Crosb sproperty. The are allowing this P g P Y Y g encroachment and have put in substantial landscaping here. They aren't seeking to formalize it with an easement. He says this is an extension of a nonconforming use— the residential use is the nonconforming use, not the automotive use. Ms. Curran asks what it will look like; Attorney Grover says they are not that far in plans. They won't keep the garage bank, so no parking will be provided in the building. He says the detail shop is very active with cars backing in and out all the time. No parking is allowed on Laurel St. As to the hardship, Atty Grover says the current use is incompatible with residential use of the property, and creates problems among occupants of the property. The owner rents out the units. The mixed use is creating the hardship. Ms. Harris—is there noise? Attorney Grover—yes,there are vehicles in and out. The business has no parking. Ms. Harris—this seems like a more peaceful use. Ms. Curran —it's clearly less detrimental. Ms. Belair—can we require the six parking spaces? Mr. St. Pierre says yes, you an make it a condition - make it for sole use of this property. Ms. Harris—is he moving the business? Probably. Ms. Curran —the new use must be within existing footprint of • garage—there is no expansion? Atty Grover- No. 10 • Mr. Metsch is concerned about lot line and use of the pavement—what if these were under different ownership and a fence were built along the lot line? What if Crosby's took their land back? Ms. Belair—he probably has a good claim for adverse possession. Attorney Grover—it could happen. Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment; no one is here to speak. She closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Curran —the use of the garage is interfering with the residential use, owing to the existing use. The main use here is housing;they have to have parking for the residences. Ms. Belair—the way the residences are situated on the lot, there is no room for parking. Also,there is no parking on Canal St. Ms. Harris—they are making every effort to accommodate the parking. Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with nine (9) standard conditions, and one special condition—petitioner shall maintain 6 off street parking spaces for the exclusive use of this property, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Curran, Metsch, Belair, Harris and Dionne in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part' of these minutes. • Public hearing: Petition of EDWARD A POTVIN requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use and alter a nonconforming structure, and a Variance from side and rear setbacks and lot coverage, for the property located at 12 HANSON ST(R2 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 12/28/11 and accompanying materials ➢ "Exterior Elevations, Proposed Addition, Bass River, Inc., 12 Hanson St., Salem, MA"; "Exterior Elevation &Site Plan, Proposed Addition"; first and second floor plans, all dated 11/10/11 ➢ Exhibit Plan of Land at 12 Hanson St., Salem MA, dated 12/15/11 Mr. Potvin presents his petition. He is the Executive Director of Bass River, which serves 65-70 people daily. He says as people age,their needs have changed —they have more people in wheelchairs and using walkers. They have installed a lift. They were required to develop an "area of refuge," which encroached on the upstairs space, and therefore want to expand their space to the side and front. The parking issue was discussed with Jerry Ryan and a community representative. • 11 Ms. Curran —you are putting in a second story, but not first? Mr. Potvin -yes, we didn't want to encroach on parking. Ms. Curran asks about the square footage; Mr. Potvin • says they have 10,000, and are adding 1500 SF. Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment; no one is here to comment. She closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. St. Pierre says he has worked with Bass River— Ryan and Jordan represent the neighborhood and Mr. Potvin has been very responsive to all issues. Ms. Curran—you're bounded by three streets and there is residential on the side you're expanded. Mr. Potvin —we passed around the proposal to neighbors. Ms. McKnight says she has received no comments. Mr. Metsch says the site has internal restrictions, and they need to serve needs of clients, which requires a horizontal expansion instead of vertical—this is their hardship. Design is in keeping with the neighborhood. Ms. Belair moves to approve with seven (7) standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Metsch, and approved 5-0 (Curran, Metsch, Belair, Harris and Dionne in favor, none . opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of MELISSA MACHERNIS requesting a Special Permit to alter an existing nonconforming structure and Variance from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, in order to convert the existing single-family home at 103 FEDERAL ST, Salem, MA, into a two-family home. (112 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 1/25/12 and accompanying materials and photographs ➢ "Plot plan of land, 103 Federal St., Salem, Property of Melissa Machernis," dated 10/27/11 ➢ Letter from Betsy and Bill Burns, 22 Beckford St. 103 Federal St. Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. Melissa Machernis is also present. He explains it's a single-family residence in the R-2 zone. The owner may continue to own one unit and sell the other. Attorney Grover says the house lends itself well to conversion to two units because of the locations of the entrances. There may have been a store located in the building in the 1940's or 50's. There is currently a garage that provides parking, as well as one outdoor space. The new plan accommodates the parking required. He submits a petition with signatures of neighbors • 12 in support of the project. Ms. McKnight notes a letter was received in support from Betsy and Bill Burns, 22 Beckford St. No exterior changes are proposed. Atty Grover explains the special permit is to change a nonconforming structure, and a variance from lot area per dwelling unit. Current square footage does not comply. Hardship relates to size of building. This is unique. Given the small size of the lot and the large structure,there are unique features. Almost all uses around the property are multi family. Some are single-family houses. Ms. Curran notes the hardship is owing to the size of the building on the lot. Ms. Harris has a hard time with this argument because there are lots of large houses on small lots. Mr. Metsch —it's consistent with the hardship cases we've reviewed before in terms of affording the property. Ms. Harris hates to see these houses divided up. Ms. Curran —there clearly is enough parking, it's consistent with neighborhood, and an allowed use, and there is enough space. Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment. Susan Heyworth, 105 Federal St., owns a single family house. She supports this being a two family. Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Belair—agrees with Ms. Harris, but it is in keeping with the area, and there is parking, so she supports this. Attorney Grover—at times there have been multiple other uses on the site—just not recently. Mr. Dionne moves to approve the petition with 8 standard conditions and one special condition,that the applicant will supply four parking spaces on the property. The motion is seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 4-1 (Curran, Metsch, Dionne and Belair in favor, Harris opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated into these minutes. Mr. Dionne moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Metsch; all in favor. The meeting adjourns at 9:25. 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 ZoninaAppealsMin/ Respectfully submitted, • Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 3/21/12 13 ON+�DI7.,1.� 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 2012 JAN I I A O� 09 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FILE N January 18, 2012-6:30 P.M. CITY CLERK. SALEM.MASS, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA, Room 313 A" C / Rebecca Curran, Chair REVISED MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes: November 16, 2011 meeting 2. Request for withdrawal without prejudice: 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). 3. 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. 4. Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of BHCM, INC. D/B/A BREWER HAWTHORNE COVE MARINA requesting Variances from front, side and rear yard setback'requiremerts 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). 5. Continuation of 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 Y2 FOSTER ST(R2). 6. Public hearing: Petition of JAMES&KATHERINE KLEIN requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming single-family home on the property located at 43 BAYVIEW AVE(R-1 Zoning District). 7. Public hearing: Petition of WING POWER ENERGY, INC. requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.0 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a research and development facility in the Industrial Zoning District, and a Variance from minimum rear yard depth,for the property located at 142 CANAL ST. (I Zoning District). 8. Public hearing: Petition of MICHAEL MUNROE requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming single-family home on the property located at 8 BEACHMONT RD(R-1 Zoning District). 9. Public hearing: Petition of THE SIGN CENTER on behalf of A 9 ( SALEM SEAPORT CREDIT UNION)requesting a Variance in order to add signage that exceeds the square footage allowed by Sec.4-50 of the City of Salem Code of Ordinances and Sec. 8.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance on the property located at 336 LAFAYETTE ST(R-2). 10, Public hearing: Petition of ICECAT, LLC requesting Variances from minimum frontage/lot width in order to allow the subdivision of the property located at 18 FELT ST(R-1)into three lots, one of which would lack the requisite frontage/lot width. 11. Public hearing: Petition of TERI KALGREN requesting a Home Occupation Special Permit(Sec. 3.2.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance) and a Variance from off-street parking regulations(Sec. 5.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance)to allow an herb shop in the first floor of the building at 3 HAWTHORNE BLVD(R-2). • 12. Old/New Business CRY Hall Salem Mass. On 'joC )tl' t //, ZOiL 13. Adjournment g pp -03® �� I Know Your Rights under the Open Meeting aw G . c. 39 3B and 1 y Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. 0 ONIntrr� CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ; o. SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 0o FAX: 978-740-9846 1011 JAN - Doi KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 4 q MAYOR MEETING NOTICE FILE N ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Ofiy GLEftfL SALEM,MASS, January 18, 2012—6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA, Room 313 Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes: November 16, 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 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). 4. Continuation of 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 Y2 FOSTER ST(R2). 5. Public hearing: Petition of JAMES& KATHERINE KLEIN requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming single-family home on the property located at 43 BAYVIEW AVE(R-1 Zoning District). 6. Public hearing: Petition of WING POWER ENERGY, INC. requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.0 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a research and development facility in the Industrial Zoning District, and a Variance from minimum rear yard depth, for the property located at 142 CANAL ST. (I Zoning District). 7. Public hearing: Petition of MICHAEL MUNROE requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming single-family home on the property located at 8 BEACHMONT RD(R-1 Zoning District). 8. Public hearing: Petition of THE SIGN CENTER(on behalf of SALEM SEAPORT CREDIT UNION) requesting a Variance in order to add signage that exceeds the square footage allowed by Sec.4-50 of the City of Salem Code of Ordinances and Sec.8.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance on the property located at 336 LAFAYETTE ST(R-2). 9. Public hearing: Petition of ICECAT, LLC requesting Variances from minimum frontage/lot width in order to allow the subdivision of the property located at 18 FELT ST(R-1) into three lots, one of which would lack the requisite frontage/lot width. 10. Public hearing: Petition of TERI KALGREN requesting a Home Occupation Special Permit(Sec. 3.2.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance) and a Variance from off-street parking regulations(Sec. 5.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance)to allow an herb shop in the first floor of the building at 3 HAWTHORNE BLVD(R-2). 11. Old/New Business C 6 r t� 12, Adjournment �� 'OI3 YC}-r•,I1h pgiy7 i>...:,t 's:wu +° i+M� F + '',' +*, ad's1n Know Your Rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§238 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS �� . r ._. - BOARD OF APPEAL • �:�«„,..,. `'�// 120 WAS[IINGION SfREE'r♦SALEM,MASSACTIUM7.17S 01970 ol4/NE TELE:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846 KIMBERLE.Y DRISCOLL MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: January 12, 2012 RE: Meeting Agenda —January 18, 2012 Board Members, is Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Planner's memo 3. Meeting minutes of 11/16/11 . 4. Materials for new agenda items Request for withdrawal without prejudice: 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). Attorney Scott Grover has submitted a letter requesting to withdraw this item without prejudice. 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. • 1 have not received any further information about this petition. 1 Continuation of 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 prope (I, R-2 and B-1). I have not received any further information about this petition. Continuation of 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 Y2 FOSTER ST(112). A site visit is scheduled for Wednesday,January 18 at 12:30 p.m. for those who are able to attend. I have not received any further materials. Public hearing: Petition of JAMES & KATHERINE KLEIN requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming single-family home on the property located at 43 BAYVIEW AVE (R-1 Zoning District). The petitioners propose an addition to their existing, nonconforming house, including a new garage and expansion of the house to the rear, as shown on the enclosed site plan and elevation drawings. The petitioners are represented by Attorney Grover. Public hearing: Petition of WING POWER ENERGY, INC. requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.0 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a research and development facility in the Industrial Zoning District, and a Variance from minimum rear yard depth, for the property located at 142 CANAL ST. (I Zoning District). • The proposed "Research and Development" use requires a Special Permit in the Industrial zone. The turbine, which is already constructed, is intended for experimental use and will not generate energy, according to the application. The submitted plans are somewhat fuzzy and difficult to read, and I have requested clearer plans from the applicant's attorney, Scott Grover. Public hearing: Petition of MICHAEL MUNROE requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.S of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming single-family home on the property located at 8 BEACHMONT RD (R-1 Zoning District). A second-story addition is proposed on the existing single-story house. The expansion, including addition of a front porch, will increase the nonconformity of the front and site setbacks. The current front setback is 12' (not including an existing landing); 7' is proposed and 15' is required. The current side yard setback to the north is 6' (not including an existing landing); 1' or less is proposed and 10' is required. Public hearing: Petition of THE SIGN CENTER (on behalf of SALEM SEAPORT CREDIT UNION) requesting a Variance in order to add signage that exceeds the square footage allowed by Sec. 4-50 of the City of Salem Code of Ordinances and Sec. 8.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance on the property located at 336 LAFAYETTE ST(R-2). A sign in a residential zone advertising a nonconforming use, such as this one, can be 32.5 square feet. Because of its location in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, the size allowed is between 16.25 and 32.5 square feet (from half of what is normally allowed up to the full size allowed). In 2005, the applicant was given a permit for a 30 square foot sign. They are now requesting an additional 30 square feet, for total square footage of sixty (60) square feet. The proposed building sign shown on the plans does not require relief. 2 Public hearing: Petition of ICECAT, LLC requesting Variances from minimum frontage/lot width in order to allow the subdivision of the property located at 18 FELT ST(R-1) into three lots, one of which would lack the requisite frontage/lot width. The applicant is requesting relief for one of the lots, which would have only 85 feet of frontage, where 100 feet is required. The other lots comply with zoning. If granted this relief,the applicant would need a Waiver from Frontage and request endorsement on an Approval Not Required plan in order to subdivide the lots. Demolition of the existing structures would be subject to a six-month delay unless waived by the Historical Commission. Members of the Commission have expressed an interest in working with the owner to alter the plans so that the existing house could be preserved. Public hearing: Petition of TERI KALGREN requesting a Home Occupation Special Permit (Sec. 3.2.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance) and a Variance from off-street parking regulations (Sec. 5.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance)to allow an herb shop in the first floor of the building at 3 HAWTHORNE BLVD (R-2). The applicant requests a Home Occupation Special Permit in order to run an herb shop and have a pP residence in this building. I am including Section 3.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for your reference. The application states the petitioner's intent to acquire the building and move in to the apartment, which is a requirement for the Special Permit. Previously,the first floor space contained an antique shop. In addition to the parking required for the residential space, one space is required for each home occupation. I understand from speaking to the applicant licant that she intends to install a wheelchair ramp in order to meet code. (This is shown in the 2008 . plans the applicant submitted, which were originally created for the antique shop.) This will remove at least one parking space currently available. I requested a parking plan from the applicant but have not received it. I also requested a statement of hardship from the applicant for the variance, but have not received that. 3 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail N Oa Aab) 6 ge�ohG&,T Paid g2f-7Y11410 611 o7i��/m C \ ar l L Lr COS_-337 7DOl ri SC'C i J�drJ� Ir se- ,S1M„� �j (ti\i If P • ,- I i L✓IQRiI MN✓1�� M `sects-h 0 4 ON. 77,F—S5-3-s-36_3 -c ln`!i"l Lt QYl✓Z0GeV 1.0 dZ✓.U¢/ LP o-z� J e4 ik/La � 3d 6"Sl �l q7�-7 l`1 7')35 I � Ccr ll�flan o�Crr ern,n t� �70NN �Y��` i � / CDLdm By.� ✓fdE` 7y`�=.7µ6 5 KkG U 5SA 1)4L�&Ld St �`f I -4l N _�, O,y 6KVP�S SI D(cv6cvyx 1'-(I HIGI Mat-i'e- CP-�icvy 6S,II�f IIE�w6arN 57 -7y5--e,5y ro, As Jet W ke S� AL 1h 3JY ��yY 36 a-f� C� Cam' �t Page of �CONOITg9 � 9Q� f o�a�a City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet n Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E- m il��rauy x eG 3 6 _e ll 78-- 1�4 5 * w AT,-� ST y Y � 7 Y5---7�3- — C/Yf66- XlQwfp�3 a 6 "W� 57— *ctl 0'7,5 Y5_,_ 7Y3 Crt-t -,�, aS�°��a�� o�n i�AC � , N qw( • U7 9&villelu qjgo, ,oqj aY) I-�osy in 5 ✓e- g17k- ?y5 -7z9Z cR4AA Z 5 7 y A,17 I Page of City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,January 18, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 in the third floor conference room of 120 Washington St., Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Annie Harris (Chairing the meeting), Jamie Metsch, Richard Dionne, Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate) and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Those absent were: Becky Curran, Chair. Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner. Ms. Harris opens the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Approval of Minutes The Board reviews the minutes; no changes are suggested. Mr. Dionne moves to approve them, seconded by Mr. Metsch and passed 4-0 (Ms. Belair abstaining). Request for withdrawal without prejudice: 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). Mr. Dionne moves to allow withdrawal of this application without prejudice, seconded by Mr. Metsch, and unanimously approved. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. 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. Petitioner has submitted a written request to continue the petition to February 16, 2012; Mr. Metsch moves to continue the petition to that date, seconded by Mr. Dionne and unanimously approved. Mr. Metsch moves to extend final action to March 15, 2012, seconded by Mr. Dionne and unanimously approved. Continuation of 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). iDocuments & Exhibitions: 1 ➢ Application dated October 26, 2011 and accompanying materials ➢ Letter from Janet Weedon, 1A Daniels St. Ct., dated Nov. 16, 2011 • ➢ Letter from Dolores T.Jordan, 97 Derby St., dated Nov. 16, 2011 ➢ Letter from Dolores T.Jordan, 97 Derby St., dated Jan. 18, 2012 ➢ Letter from John Zbyszynski, 55 Turner St., dated 1/17/12 ➢ Site plan last revised 1/18/12, by Derek Bloom Architects ➢ Elevation drawings dated 10/24/12 ➢ Aerial view of site dated 1/18/12 ➢ View Corridor Study dated 1/18/12 ➢ Shadow Study dated 1/18/12 ➢ Building height study dated 1/18/12 Attorney George Atkins, 59 Federal St., presents the petition. Noel Flaherty and Derek Bloom of the Brewer are also present. Atty Atkins says they had met with neighbors before, and also after, this meeting. He notes that no presentation was made at the November meeting. He presents updated plans. He says neighbors have asked if they had consulted with the fire department; since then they have done so. He says they are pleased they can access the building from front, side and the neighboring property, but wanted easier access from White St. They have changed access to the building and lost a few parking spaces, reducing them from 122 to 115. The plans are otherwise the same. He says the property to the east is owned by the City and provides access to the ferry. The R-2 portion of the lot is located off Turner St.;the rest of the lot is zoned Industrial. There is also a portion running up Derby and White that is zoned B1. The • proposed building is in the Industrial zone (1). Atty Atkins reviews the dimensional relief needed, noting that 45 is the maximum height allowed in I. After first meeting with the neighbors, they lowered the building to 39.9 feet. The original variance for the property issued in 1975 dealt with its use as a marina; there were no requirements in zoning for what parking should apply to a marina, and there still are not. He says they have used the provision for service industries and recreational usage. He says the requirements are less than what they are proposing. One problem with the project is the location of the building on the lot. He says they could have designed this in such a way that they wouldn't need dimensional variances. Two factors driving the decision making were the ability to use the site as a marina, and having the least impact possible on neighbors. He says there are many residential neighbors in the vicinity. He says their placement affects the fewest number of people in this location. Operationally and in terms of impact, they feel the building is best located here. Zoning doesn't have view requirements; but they have tried to use various houses in the neighborhood to determine what the view corridors would be. He says that in all cases,there are still substantial views from the southeast and southwest view corridors. He shows renderings of the shadows expected to be cast by the building. • 2 Atty Atkins says they are not asking to accommodate more boats; they want to upgrade the quality of the work that can be done there and quality of customer. He says a certain quality of work must be done inside. He speaks about controls on the inside of building—dust collectors, controls for fumes, etc., and says nothing will escape to atmosphere to affect neighbors. He says there is a long history with this site's industrial use. It once was used as a fuel depot, and so there were underground storage tanks on the site, and these have since been removed. He says the operator of the site is very experienced. He introduces Noah Flaherty, general manager of Hawthorne Cove Marina. He speaks about Brewer's other yards and good reputation. He says it is a family run business. He says when they took over the yard in October 2010, they wanted to do as much a they could in the short term while developing these plans. He says they want to attract and retain good customers; part of this is having a good facility. He says they have worked hard to put together a proposal that has as minimal an impact as possible. Mr. Dionne says this is a well done proposal and impact to the neighborhood seems minimal. Ms. Harris asks about the right of way off Turner St. —Atty Atkins explains it's an emergency exit and not used actively. Ms. Harris opens the issue up for public comment. Dolores Jordan, 97 Derby St. and White St., says she is not against growth and prosperity, but the neighborhood existed before the marina was purchased, and waterfront should be given as much consideration as historic districts. She expresses concerns about the size and placement of buildings and their impact on views; she also has concerns about fires after the previous marina building burned down. She says highly flammable materials will be used; the neighbors are very concerned. She says large, heavy vehicles drive over the sidewalks and make illegal turns, and this is damaging to the homes'foundations. She says the expansion of the marina will cause much more traffic on White St. She says Turner St. should not be used because of the House of Seven Gables. She says many neighbors on White and Blaney Streets are not being considered in the plans. Douglas Haley, 43 Turner St., is in favor of the plans; he is familiar with the property. He says the Brewer owners have built a wall behind his property and they did a fabulous job. He also says one of his pine trees was leaning into the property and Mr. Flaherty and he agreed to have it taken down. Cynthia Carr, 97 Derby St., has concerns about fiberglass work, including chemicals and • noxious odors. She says in their neighborhood,they have taken the brunt of this type of 3 use, considering the power plant. She has concerns about parking capacity, fire, illegal turns down Carlton St., and the height of the building. Mark Perez, 3 White St., supports what Ms. Carr says regarding the parking lot and entrance and trucks driving on the sidewalks. He says the current construction is shaking his house. He says the building should be much smaller, and the he can't even park. George Smith, 6 White St. #5, says since Brewer has taken over, the professionalism has increased. He says they have done a great job with improvements and renovations, and have had two open houses to discuss the project. He says most of the neighbors have been talking to Brewer. He supports the project. Steven Hultgren, 6 White St., concurs with Mr. Smith, saying they are good neighbors and the building siting is appropriate. He supports it. Denise McCauley, 6 White St. unit 1, supports the placement of the building. She says they have addressed questions of view, shadow and safety. She also supports Brewer's because of their past behavior;they have been very responsive. She says they are a welcome addition to the neighborhood. Sandy Martin, 6 White St. unit 4, supports the project. She says Mr. Flaherty has been great to work with and has addressed all their issues, including with lighting. Carol Naranjo, 6 White St., is an immediate abutter and boat owner. She says the main issue they have all grappled with is the view—while her view would be impacted, she supports the project. She compliments Brewer and says they could not have been more fastidious and considerate about evaluating who would be affected by this. She also has had health concerns and says the neighborhood has already been exposed to the fiberglass, dust, etc. and the previous owner did not address anything. She is much more confident in the current owner. She says the site plan is better for allowing in sunlight and keeping out shade, mold, etc. She has been waiting for something to be built here for years, and she thinks the current plan is thoughtful. Mike Furlong, Blaney St., represents the 4 Blaney St. condo association. He acknowledges Brewer's right to build, but said for those of the neighbors on Blaney and White Streets, it impacts them where it didn't previously. He says the denial of the variance wouldn't keep them from running their business. He says they see no hardships. Sam Northrop, 49 Turner St., says the present operation is something they all want to see go. She says work occurs in the small plastic temporary building—she is happy this will be further from her property line and contained within an actual building. . 4 Currently, the noise is day in and day out, summer and winter, and no relief from noise, • fumes, etc. She is happy to have the building further from her. Cythia Carr, says if they currently do their work in a small building, why did they need a 40-foot building? Ms. McKnight reads submitted letters into the record. Ms. Harris closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Atty Atkins says his client has not intentionally tried to divide the neighborhood. He says there is a reason for the size of the building: the type of equipment used to accommodate boats—a travel lift is needed. He says Ms. Jordan's comments are appreciated and knows they are intended to improve the neighborhood. Ms. Belair asks where they could you put this by right. Atty Atkins indicates the middle of the plans. Ms. Harris asks why they wouldn't put it there. Atty Atkins says where proposed is operationally the best location of the facility, and in their overall judgment, this had the least impact on the neighborhood. Ms. Belair asks if there is any room to lower the height somewhat; Atty Atkins says they reconsidered and met with the neighborhood, but to get the proper professional function, they need the height. He says they have been doing the work in the temporary building, but it's very difficult and • doesn't provide proper access. Ms. Harris asks if Brewer's simply does not do work on the site they can't accommodate in the small space, or if they do it elsewhere; Atty Atkins says in some cases they are not doing that work. Sometimes the boat owner goes elsewhere. Ms. Harris asks how this fits with the harbor plan. Atty Atkins says they do have to go to the Planning Board if the ZBA acts favorably. Ms. Harris says a priority of the harbor plan was to get a walkway along the water—did they look at this? Atty Atkins says no, but this would be a consideration of the Planning Board. Ms. Harris asks for the total floor area;Atty Atkins says it's 11,300 SF. Mr. Metsch says in terms of height, they are within the zoning requirement by 6 feet, so he's not concerned about that. He says with this placement they have done quite a bit of due diligence to site it to have the least impact while gaining use they need and containing the activities. Are there going to be any increased activities not on the site now? Anything else they hope to increase/additional services? Atty Atkins says this is not really an expansion of services in the sense of more boats, but an expansion of the services they can do within the building. Ms. Harris asks him to talk about containment of odors, etc. Atty Atkins says there are Federal rules from OSHA they must comply with. The building must be designed with an • exhaust system that has filtering to control odors and other materials. Workers must 5 use certain equipment, face masks, suits, etc. for painting. They have to contain and keep the facility clean —these processes require a very clean atmosphere. Lead paint is • no longer used. Sanding machines now all have dust collectors physically attached. Ms. Belair is conflicted—on the one hand, she is pro business for Salem; it's vital to the viability of the city. On the other hand, the neighbors have concerns; some are losing their views, and she thinks this is a big deal. She is leaning against voting in favor of it. Mr. Metsch says if the applicant were to avoid variances altogether, you can see where you would put this—30 feet off property line—you could put a bigger building and disrupt 6 White St. even more. There is a substantial tree on the site and the view is not as big an issue as it would be if they were not seeking a variance. Ms. Belair says view is big deal and this is very close to the property line; how do they do maintenance? Mr. Metsch says again that looking at the view corridor study—without a variance, they could build it in a place more detrimental to the views than what they are asking for. He thinks this is the most appropriate placement. He does think the rear elevation plan is monolithic. Otherwise, he feels they have addressed shadow, sight, containment of noise, fumes, fiberglass. He says it sounds like they are a professional group that has been responsive. He is concerned, however, about the turn out on White to Derby—is there something that can be done? This doesn't really impact that issue, however. Ms. Harris says her biggest concern is the desire for a walkway along the waterfront for access, and wishes that had been considered in this—she would rather see even a 0 lot • line if that meant they would do the walkway. Connection to the ferry and House of Seven Gables is important. Atty Atkins says a cantilevered walkway is being discussed with the city; also, the Planning Board will want them to address this. They have also thought about trying to get through the parking lot. Ms. Harris says this would make a huge difference to the city. Mr. Tsitsinos says if they moved the building to middle, what choice will neighbors have? He notes their attention to safety and cleanliness. He says they are going above and beyond. He says this will clean up the whole site. Ms. Harris says the nature of these buildings is that they are a similar size—all are around this height these days—in order to perform the services they do. Mr. Tsitsinos asks if this would keep the boats on the property, and mean less traffic going out. Mr. Flaherty says possibly. Mr. Tsitsinos notes it would be beneficial to have most of the work done on site instead of having more boat traffic leaving and returning. Mr. Metsch asks if there is any opportunity in that 5 feet at the rear parking lotto have screening trees, break it up? Atty Atkins says they will have to do a landscaping plan for • 6 the Planning Board's site plan review. They did add windows on that side because of that criticism. Mr. Metsch says it feels a little like an industrial park. He also addresses the neighbors' comments; do they feel the issues have been appropriately discussed? Ms. Harris says certain things can't be resolved —some like the view and others don't. the issues of traffic, access, parking, illegal turns—she's not sure how to address that. Mr. Dionne says they have a responsible marina owner who has gone out of his way to talk to the neighbors, and the placement is appropriate. We have a harbor and we need a marina. They need a facility to work on boats. Mr. Metsch says that with the opportunity of seeking a variance—rather than cantilever the whole potential walkway —is there an opportunity here to have an agreement to cooperate with on site pathways and connection to harbor plan? Atty Atkins says they will continue to pursue this with the Planning Board. Ms. Harris says she is concerned that if they approve this location, the Planning Board will have no room to have them landscape. Atty Atkins says that in cooperation with the city, they will work this out. Mr. Metsch wants to ensure cooperation with the Planning Board; Mr. St. Pierre suggests forwarding comments to the Planning Board from the ZBA. Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions and 1 special condition—that the Quonset but be removed promptly at completion of this project. Mr. Tsitsinos seconds the motion;the Board votes 4-1 in favor(Metsch, Harris, Tsitsinos • and Dionne in favor, Belair opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Ms. Harris encourages the Planning Board to consider the public access to the waterfront and the walkway specified in harbor plan; they understand the owner is amenable to trying to bring public access through city owned land to the House of Seven Gables. She encourages the Planning Board to work with the owner to look at have them provide landscaping on the Brewer owned property and doing some screening on the north side of building. They should consider a No Left Turn sign to try to prevent illegal left turns to Derby St. Ms. McKnight notes that the next ZBA meeting is February 15, not 16, and the Board takes their vote again to continue the request of Pasquanna Developers for 18 Thorndike St. to February 15 (moved by Mr. Metsch, seconded by Mr. Dionne, unanimously approved). Continuation of 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). • Documents & Exhibitions: 7 ➢ Application date-stamped 10/26/11, and accompanying materials ➢ Letter from Jyll Hudson, 33 Franklin St., in support • ➢ Photographs submitted at the hearing on 1/18/12 Atty Scott Grover is representing the petitioner. He understands there are only 4 members eligible to vote tonight; he has discussed this with his client, and they want to proceed. He says some members went to the property today on a site visit. He shows photos of the one-story house. He says the proposal is to add one story. He says the addition is modest and is well below the height allowed by zoning, and the square footage is small. He says they are asking Board to consider allowing a Sec. 3.3.5 special permit—the finding is that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. He says the neighborhood as a whole should be considered, not just individuals. She says the property most impacted is the immediate abutter. He says Ms. Kawczynski's house is set back far from the road; what that means is that when the addition is constructed, it won't impair the views the abutter has to the water. He shows views looking down the street and says if the second story goes up,there will be no impact on the abutter's view. What will be affected is the view over the petitioner's house into other houses that front on Franklin St. He says the views of the park and water—the beneficial views, are not impacted. He also asks the Board to consider how this is consistent with other properties in the neighborhood. He demonstrates with photos how close together many of the houses are. He says the courts have been clear that obstruction of view wasn't sufficient to confer standing. Ms. Harris opens the issue up for public comment. • Laura Callahan, representing Mr. Pelosi, who owns the abutting house, says her client already has standing. She says the previous owner subdivided his property—this house was once on its neighbor's property. She says the house encroaches on the property line. She says the views that will be impacted are from bedrooms; those not impacted are closed in porches. She says most of the surrounding houses are multi-family homes. She says the addition will affect two other houses, and it will cast shadows them, blocking light and air flow. David Sirois, 24 Foster St., says the owner has done well with the property, renovating it nicely. He supports the petition. He says the views are not that much obstructed. He says the addition will increase revenues to the city. Ms. Callahan she says a fence was needed on the property because of the petitioner's dogs. She also says there is case law to prevent "mansionization." She says she is adding another 500 SF to a house that's about that size. She says the lot is 1400 SF and there is no other room to build. She has concern about snow and ice coming on to her property. She appreciates that she put siding on the house. • 8 Ms. Harris asks about the snow and repair issues. Atty Grover says that based on the • pitch of the existing roof,the snow will fall where it will—all homes in Salem are built in close proximity—but it won't change the impact on abutting property. He also says there is a statute that allows a property owner to follow a certain process for repairs. The new construction will have to be done from the petitioner's own property. Ms. Callahan discusses the nonconformities of the current house. She says this used to be a workshop. She says the open space between the buildings will be closed off. Atty Grover notes that none of the other nonconformities she discussed are being increased. Atty Grover reads a letter from lyll Hudson, 33 Franklin Street, in support of the project. Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street, says people can't see the exhibits. Ms. Harris closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Harris says she and Mr. Metsch went to the site and walked the street, which was helpful in understanding the views. She says the photos are accurate representing the view. Views to the water and park are not obstructed by the house and don't look like they would be obstructed by the addition. The view over the other houses would be obstructed. • Mr. Metsch agreed, and as for the idea of mansionization—if it were changing the size to more than what was consistent with the neighborhood, that may apply, but this is much smaller than what's typical for the neighborhood. He says that today being able to see the views of the water in a direct line were not obstructed —you couldn't see the house at all. The back of the houses from Franklin would be obstructed. Mr. Dionne says this project makes the house a lot more livable; it's a small house and needs more space. Mr. Tsitsinos says he also went to see the property, and he is in favor of the project. Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with 8 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Dionne, and approved 4-0 (Mettch, Harris, Dionne and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed, Belair abstaining). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of JAMES & KATHERINE KLEIN requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming single- family home on the property located at 43 BAYVIEW AVE (R-1 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 11/28/12 and accompanying materials ➢ Site plans and elevation drawings titled "Klein Residence, Salem, MA," by Living Spaces, Inc., dated 1/16/12 • ➢ Letter from Kathie Gauthier, 52 Bay View Ave., dated 1/18/12 9 Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. Ms. Harris notes these plans are slightly • different from what the Board has seen. Atty Grover presents the site plan, showing the existing structure and proposed addition. He says the only change from submitted plans is the deck is being extended. He says the only thing they need relief for relates to the garage. There is an existing garage 3 and 1/3 feet off property line—that doesn't conform. They aren't expanding that, but changing its use from the garage to living structure is enough of a change requiring a special permit to expand an existing nonconforming structure. He says the standard is that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. He says the house is in significant disrepair. Ms. Harris opens up the issue for public comment. John McKay, 96 Columbus Ave., is the abutter to the garage. He says the Kleins spoke with him, and he thinks this looks great and will provide him with more privacy in his yard. He supports the project. Josephine Carrow, 14 Juniper Ave., supports the project. Peter Carrow, 301 Mt. Vernon St. Lawrence, also supports the petition. Marian Hosman, 51 Bay View Ave., is directly across the street. She has no problem with the garage location. She supports the petition. • William Cass, 92 Columbus Ave., support the improvements. Dick Roderick, 7 Sutton Ave., supports the project. Robert Cook, 42 Bayview Ave, supports the petition. Councillor Robert McCarthy, 153 Bayview Ave., says it's nice to see how everyone in the vicinity is in favor. Is the existing driveway going or staying? It will be removed. Councillor McCarthy supports the project. Ms. Harris closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Belair says the project is straightforward; it's a nice addition; she supports it. Mr. Metsch notes that the neighbors have all joined in support and feel it's improvement. Ms. Belair notes it will improve property values. Ms. Belair moves to approve the petition with 8 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 5-0 (Metsch, Belair, Tsitsinos, Dionne and Harris in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. • 10 • Public hearing: Petition of WING POWER ENERGY, INC. requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.0 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a research and development facility in the Industrial Zoning District, and a Variance from minimum rear yard depth, for the property located at 142 CANAL ST. (I Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 11/28/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Site plans titled "Wing Power Energy Site Plan Layout," dated 10/18/11 ➢ Letter from Paul Marquis, Energy and Sustainability Manager, City of Salem, dated 1/18/12 ➢ Photographs Atty Scott Grover presents the petition. Harry Ruda, CEO of the company, is also present. Atty Grover says the property runs from the Olive Oil building to the Dollar Store; all owned by Anthony Gattineiri. He says they are there to correct a zoning violation. The business is Research & Development, testing prototypes for wind energy facilities. There are 1500 SF of R&D space, and a monopole at back of building. It looks like a small flagpole. He passes out photos of the property. He says they moved in understanding it was as of right, but the building inspector noted that R&D is allowed by Special Permit in the I zone. Also, the monopole is constructed within 18 feet of rear lot • line and the setback in I is 30 feet from rear lot line. He says the reason for the location of the monopole is that if moved forward to comply with setback, it would be in the middle of the parking area—and parking is a significant issue on the site. He says it would interfere with the use of a number of the parking spaces. Ms. Harris opens up the public comment portion of the hearing. Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar St., member of South Salem Neighborhood Association, is concerned about the height of the pole. There is a plan for the bike path at the rear of the property, and she wants to make sure parking isn't impacted. She is concerned about the fall line for the monopole. Harry Ruda, 6 Cardinal Lane, Andover, CEO of Wing Power Energy, says this is a startup company. He builds micro wind turbines 30 feet high intended for urban installations. This is to be their headquarters. They have one engineer. They aren't putting in a turbine to generate electricity. They test out the components and other aspects of their products on the site. He says his product produces electricity with a low amount of wind. This is just for testing, not connected to a grid. He says they look to Salem to be an HQ and showcase for these products. The pole is 28 feet high. The train passes right behind it. If we were to move it to a 30 foot setback, it would be in the middle of the parking lot and affect the use. • 11 Ms. Belair asks if they will be adding other test equipment to the pole. Mr. Ruda says there are multiple components, but the tower itself not likely to change. It will be a • vertical turbine. Blades are sometimes attached, and new designs are added. There will be no ground equipment. Ms. McKnight reads a letter from Paul Marquis, Energy and Sustainability Manager for the City of Salem in support of the project, into the record. Ms. Wilbert asks how far from the bike path and parking this will be; if there were a failure, what's the distance that would be impacted? Ms. Harris says the bike path goes along the right of way, and is not on this property. Mr. St. Pierre says this is correct. He says the owner could better explain, but he's received o complaints—these are more like paddles circulating a pole—it's been up 6 months. The proposed bike path is about 50 feet from this, by the lumber yard. Ms. Harris asks if something falls off, how far does it go? Mr. Ruda says these are built so nothing falls off- other installations they have are in the middle of urban retail and industrial districts. They are putting these at Home Depots, etc., with traffic and many consumers; their engineers certify the stability and operation of products. He says even with different prototypes, stability is not an issue. Andrew Fett, 0 Felt St. Way, asks about the radius; Mr. Ruda says 10 feet diameter. He asks what the is max RPM is. Mr. Ruda says there is a breaking mechanism on it, so if • wind gets above a certain level, such as hurricane winds, etc., it wouldn't exceed a certain wind speed. Ms. Harris closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Belair says she work in the tower business—while not an engineer, she is familiar with towers of this type, and they usually do not fail. There is usually a break point; they generally don't break at the base, but somewhere in the mid range.. Especially the newer models do that. She suggests conditioning the height so it can't be taller than it is now without further relief. She asks for the exact height; Mr. Ruda says from base to top of blade it is 34-35 feet. Ms. Belair asks Mr. Ruda to confirm it isn't higher than 35 feet; he does. Mr. Metsch says he is encouraged by the activity, and it's great they've chosen Salem. He agrees with Mr. St. Pierre that the path will be closer to the train than the back of property. Also these types of towers are in parks and urban areas, and he doesn't think the impact is abnormal. Mr. Dionne moves to approve with 6 standard conditions and special condition that the height is not to exceed 35 with all appurtenances. 12 Ms. Belair notes that the hardship is there would be an elimination of parking spaces if • no relief was requested, and this would affect the shops there. This is the best location, with minimal impact to neighbors and businesses in terms of where it's located. Mr. Metsch seconds the motion, which passes 5-0 (Metsch, Belair, Tsitsinos, Harris and Dionne in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of MICHAEL MUNROE requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming single-family home on the property located at 8 BEACHMONT RD (R-1 Zoning District). Document& Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 12/20/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Petition form signed by neighbors, submitted at meeting, in support of petition ➢ Elevation drawings dated 1/9/12 ➢ Plot Plan of Land, 8 Beachmont Rd., dated 11/23/11 Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition on behalf of Michael Monroe, who is also present. He submits elevations with dimensions. He also notes that the plot plan didn't have the surveyor's signature, so he submits this too. He shows a photograph of the • house, and says the owner is proposing to put in a second story and a deck. It's an existing nonconforming structure. He says the footprint isn't changing. The deck will change the lot coverage, however. The front has a small covered landing which is being expanded into something more finished on the second floor. Ms. Harris asks if this can all be done by special permit; Atty Grover says—yes, because there are existing nonconformities;this request is under Sec. 3.3.5. Ms. Harris notes the size of the deck. Atty Grover says this is off the back of the property. He says it won't get any closer to the left side setback. Ms. Harris opens up the issue for public comment. Melissa Barnes, 51 Dearborn St., says they have done a wonderful job with the property. She says it's a tiny house. How deep is porch going? 12 feet. She says there's lots of land between them and neighbors. Lee Baines, 23 Felt St., concurs. He supports the petition. Emily Barnes, 51 Dearborn St., supports the petition. • Atty Grover submits a petition into the record with abutters' signatures in support of the project. 13 Kevin Cornacchio, 6 Beachmont Rd., supports the petition and says the owner has done • an outstanding job cleaning up the property. Ms. Harris closes the public portion of the hearing. Ms. Harris says she looked at the property, and feels it would be a nice improvement. She says it's consistent with what is in the neighborhood, and not a detriment. Ms. Belair moves to approve with 8 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 5-0 (Metsch, Belair, Tsitsinos, Dionne and Harris in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of THE SIGN CENTER (on behalf of SALEM SEAPORT CREDIT UNION) requesting a Variance in order to add signage that exceeds the square footage allowed by Sec. 4-50 of the City of Salem Code of Ordinances and Sec. 8.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance on the property located at 336 LAFAYETTE ST(R-2). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 1/24/12 and accompanying materials ➢ Plot plan dated 2/28/86 ➢ Photo and renderings prepared by the Sign Center, dated 3/24/11, for Salem • Seaport Credit Union Jay Kahn, 40 Orchard St., Haverhill, from The Sign Center, presents the petition. He says the current signage is nonconforming; they want are expanding it and adding a building sign. The property is in the R2 zone, nonconforming, and is now the Salem Seaport Credit Union. Earlier this year,they improved their branding. The request is to add pole covers to bottom of structure—wrapping bottom piece of sign. Because of square footage of the property,they need a variance. He says they are only allowed 2 SF on a building. The proposed sign is 13 SF. This is in an entrance corridor. The property has over 300 linear feet of frontage; building is 90 feet. They would be allowed 2 signs and 90 square feet if not in R2. They are adding 10 feet by 2 feet to the bottom with a reveal. He says the signs are not perpendicular to the road and won't block views. He addresses the hardship, which is that a commercial business has been there over 50 years as bank—it's not contrary to the spirit of ordinance; they are just asking to architecturally change the pole cover, and add sign at rear. Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar St. says the sign is sleek and elegant as it is today. Adding the base makes it heavier and more intrusive. She notes this is a residential neighborhood. She is not so concerned with this bank, but she has a problem with businesses across the street who are changing their signage. She says it's nice to have a sign appropriate , 14 to residential neighborhood. She says it's not appropriate for the corner and it would • encourage others to increase their signs. John Boris, 5 Bedford St., is in favor of the petition. He says the renovations to the bank have been significant. Patricia Warren, 121 Water St., Beverly, President and CEO of the credit union, supports it, saying she is very proud of the renovations and signage—all part of branding—they chose to brand as Salem Seaport Credit Union, not just Seaport Credit Union. Ms. Harris closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Belair asks Mr. St. Pierre if the businesses across street are also 112; he doesn't know, but says if they are, they would be subject to the same regulations. Mr. Dionne says this is not detrimental;the sign is very attractive. Mr. Metsch says this seems like too much compared to what is there today. Mr. Kahn says it's in accordance with the delivery of the brand —and it's architecturally more attractive to do monument versus post. • Mr. Metsch says he has no problem with the sign in back. Ms. Belair thought it was attractive before. She doesn't have a huge problem with the blue, but thinks it looks better without it. Mr. Metsch asks if there is a way to not have such a billboard-esque impact. Ms. Harris says she thinks it's a little large,too. The applicant confirms they are asking to add 26 x 120 (the blue portion). Ms. Harris asks about the reason for the change; Mr. Kahn says it's part of the branding. Mr. Metsch asks if they are amenable to reducing the blue area. Ms. Harris says it bothers her—it's a large sign. Mr. Kahn thinks that would look silly—you would still seethe poles. Mr. Dionne and Ms. Harris say the poles don't bother them. Ms. Belair is concerned about setting a precedent for businesses across the street. Mr. Metsch appreciates idea of branding with adding the blue. Mr. Kahn —says if it weren't entry corridor it would be allowed by right. 15 Mr. Metsch points out that it is where it is, which is why we are here. He asks if there • can be any movement on the design; Ms. Warren says no. Mr. Tsitsinos moves to approve the petition with 5 standard conditions, and no more lettering than what is shown, seconded by Mr. Dionne. Board members then clarify with the applicant that if they are denied, they will not be able to return to the Board with the same project for two years. The applicant says they would prefer to continue to the next meeting. Mr. Metsch moves to continue the hearing to February 15, 2012, seconded by Ms. Belair and approved 5-0. Public hearing: Petition of ICECAT, LLC requesting Variances from minimum frontage/lot width in order to allow the subdivision of the property located at 18 FELT ST(11-1) into three lots, one of which would lack the requisite frontage/lot width. Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 12/27/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Site Plan dated 12/15/11 ➢ Letter from David J. Collins, 75 Orchard Street, dated 1/16/12 ➢ Letter from Jean Harrison, 1 Orne Square, dated 1/17/12 Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. He says the property is between Larch and • Felt St., is over 1 acre, and is now dilapidated. He says a neighborhood meeting was organized to present the plans for redevelopment. The plans submitted were for a 3 lot subdivision of the property and demolition of house. He says all lots conform to the lot size requirement of the zoning. The only relief was from frontage and lot width requirement—one of the new lots would have only 85 feet. After filing this, there was a very strong expression of support for keeping the house. The owner has come up with a plan that calls for the house to be retained and preserved. He says it is very similar to the plan that was submitted. The lot line has been moved to accommodate the house and provide the required setback. He addresses the hardship, saying that granting the variance allows in the creation of 3 lots is the preservation of the house, financially. Without that variance, a 2 lot subdivision done by right, would result in the inevitable demolition of the property. Ms. Harris opens the public comment portion of the hearing. George O'Brien, 5 Locust St. in Salem, likes this but wants a condition. He says the Ropes mansion is big and he wants to make sure it's kept as a single-family house. Otherwise he supports the project. • 16 Mr. Grover notes that this is in the R1 zoning district, so there is no possibility of it being • used otherwise. No use variances are possible in Salem, but no he has no problem with that condition. Anne Sterling, 29 Orchard St., says the trees should be retained—the beech and magnolia. Atty Grover says they have no problem with that condition. The reason they showed the trees on the plan was to show the new structures could be located without disturbing the trees. They would just like to reserve the ability to trim the trees appropriately. Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St, is in favor of the two conditions that were proposed. He says the copper beech should be given attention. Pam Lombardini, 3 Larch Ave. and Richard Boyksberg, 4 Larch Ave., are also in favor of the plan shown. Ms. Lombardini says she is happy that this land will get the attention it needs. It's beautiful, but hasn't had electricity or heat;the deterioration is very sad. John Carr, 7 River St., says it was very beautiful once but has deteriorated. He says it would be nice if the barn could be saved, but if not, he would like to state his enthusiastic support with the two conditions. rMarie Meegan, 65 Dearborn St., says the abutting neighbors met this week and agree they are very happy and appreciative that the property has been bought and the house saved. They want a continuance, however, so they can see what else will be happening on the property. She requests sketches of the other houses. She says the immediate abutters object to the variance. Ms. Belair asks what type of info they want. Ms. Meegan asks what kinds of houses are to be built, saying they don't want bad houses put next to antique houses. Atty Grover says the developer doesn't know this yet—he doesn't think they will be able to get that information 30 days from now. He will be selling the lots or building houses —it could be either way. Ms. Meegan says she needs to know how they will be sold—as lots, as houses, etc. Jack Kinney, 36 Felt St., says the owner could sell those lots and they wouldn't be under any restriction. They want to know what will happen with those pieces. 17 Melissa Barnes, 51 Dearborn St., asks if the developer is planning to restore the house himself? What does he mean by "save" the house? • Atty Grover says their preference would be a buyer who has a passion for preservation, and they would sell it. The condition they're proposing is that the house be preserved. If they didn't find a buyer who would do it, the developer would have to undertake the restoration himself. Ms. Barnes asks if there would be time restraints; Atty Grover is not aware of the timeframe. She asks what would happen if it were allowed to fall into disrepair. Mr. St. Pierre says we have a responsible owner subject to building code—it can be ordered by the city to be kept secure. Letting it deteriorate to point of destruction isn't on the table. Previously the owner could not be worked with and resisted help. Andrew Fett, 0 Felt St. Way says there is approximately 200 feet of frontage—he has a direct view of the property. He also supports continuing the hearing to get more info about the other structures. He is pleased that the house should be restored. However, there are a lot of unknowns about the other structures. Vicky Sirianni, 6 Botts Ct., representing Historic Salem, Inc., speaks in support the the project. Jon Ofilos, 2 Locust Street, supports the petition. Jessica Herbert, 7 Webb St., Chair of the Salem Historical Commission, says this application would have been up for a waiver of demo delay. She says they have come a long way and the developer has listened to their concerns. The carriage house is also historic; we have developed plans so it could be moved into the lot with the house, which may also come before you. We would like to see that. She says they are very much in favor of what the developer is proposing. She says the house was also nominated as a WGBH This Old House project for 2012. Ms. Harris asks if the carriage house is also subject to demolition delay; Ms. Herbert says yes, as is the garage, but they are not as concerned about those buildings. Atty Grover says the owner has no problem with carriage house staying as an accessory. t Brian Balfum, 30 Dearborn St., says from where this started, which was tearing down, this as come very far. The concern of the abutters is next step—what will go there. He says this is a positive move. Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., says the historians deserve a lot of credit for working with this. Could we condition that the conditions—retention of home and trees - will be . 18 done quickly? He wants to know if the rehab could be done in accordance with the • standards of the U.S. Dept. of the Interior standards for rehab. Ms. Harris asks if they can meet the standards; Atty Grover says he is not familiar with the standards and can't agree to them without knowing what they are. Ms. Harris reviews that they are interested in conditioning preserving the house, preserving the trees, and keeping it as a single family. John Carr suggests continuing, since it is essential to have more info on the standards of rehab and the other design issues raised. George O'Brien notes they are talking about putting in 2500 SF houses—these would look good, and the lots won't be cheap. They wouldn't put up a house not fitting with neighborhood. Atty Grover says the houses that will go there depend on the market, etc. Ms. Harris says they could have covenants on the property for placement, design, height, etc. Andrew Fett, 0 Felt St., says that once people have the land,they can do what they want with it, so there should be covenants. Lee Baines, 23 Felt St., thinks the house should be preserved but only one other house • built. I Emily Barnes, 51 Dearborn St., agrees, saying this is what should be done for consistency. Ms. Harris notes they could do an ANR plan as of right for 2 lots. Atty Grover says that's the likely choice without the variances. Ms. Harris closes the public comment portion of hearing. Mr. Metsch asks about the footprint for lot 2—can that be conditioned because it's been drawn to avoid the dripline? Atty Grover says that's why it was drawn, to show you could still save the trees. Mr. Metsch asks if the developer is stuck with that footprint; Atty Grover says they could create conditions for the building envelopes. Design review he is less comfortable with. Ms. Harris notes the Board could require covenants, and she thinks they should continue the item. Mr. Metsch says the Board needs more information about the Ropes house • preservation. In terms of the other two lots, he's not asking for other design requirements. Ms. Belair says the Board needs more information about the houses to 19 be built. Atty Grover says he does not want to mislead anyone that design information can be forthcoming. The owner is not at a point in his business plan where he can do it. • Ms. Harris says he could also sell the land with covenants on it. She is not enthusiastic about 3 lots even if this means taking the Ropes house down. An ANR with 2 lots might make sense. The way the lots are, you still may diminish the house. Ms. Belair says she is really in favor,the 3 lots are probably necessary;the builder has gone out of his way to accommodate concerns to maintain the house and trees, he's made big concessions, and the Board needs to work with him. She says most people are happy with the proposal. Mr. Metsch says he would be in favor of 3 lots. Ms. Belair suggests not requiring covenants, but at least some limits. Atty Grover says the footprint size is feasible, but he is reluctant to say anyone will see what the houses look like. Mr. Tsitsinos moves to continue the hearing to February 15, 2012, seconded by Mr. Metsch and unanimously approved. Public hearing: Petition of TERI KALGREN requesting a Home Occupation Special • Permit (Sec. 3.2.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance) and a Variance from off-street parking regulations (Sec. 5.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance)to allow an herb shop in the first floor of the building at 3 HAWTHORNE BLVD (11-2). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 12/28/12 and accompanying materials ➢ Mortgage Plan, no date ➢ Plan of interior and wheelchair ramp, no date ➢ Europa Antiques Facade Improvement plan, dated January 31, 2008 ➢ Letter from Kathie Driscoll-Gauthier, 52 Bayview Ave., dated 1/18/12 ➢ Donald Fyfe MacFadyen, 1 Hawthorne Blvd., dated 1/18/12 Attorney James Burke presents petition. He says Ms. Kalgren is looking to purchase the property. They are looking to get a Special Permit to upgrade her home and business and a Variance from off street parking. They have two spaces; they had one more, but on the left hand side,they need to reinstall a handicapped ramp that was taken down. This means losing the third space. Previously, the Board granted a 5 year Special Permit for a home occupation in 2005. The property did not continue as home occupation use. Currently, Ms. Kalgren's store, Artemisian Botanicals, is on Wharf St. He describes the new property's surroundings. He says the area doesn't get as much use as the main. • 20 road and so does not need as much parking. He does not feel request would be a detriment to the public good. The property was already in use as a retail use, with some variation. Other businesses are very nearby. He introduces Ms. Kalgren, who says she is looking to move her business. She says the building has been a commercial property for over 100 years and except for 2 years in the 1960's, it has always had a business there. She says she is a longtime Salem resident and wants the business to continue after she is gone. She says the wheelchair access is important. Mr. Metsch asks for clarification, referring to the antique shop 2008 plan submittal—will it be changed? Atty Burke says they are just installing the ramp; it would be as shown, as required by the Board. Michael Stricker, 107 Essex St., owns Essex Cleaners, and supports the petition. He says the building has almost always had a business. There are other businesses around and a short term parking zone, which will help. Ms. McKnight reads a letter into the record from Donald Fyfe MacFadyen, 1 Hawthorne Blvd., in support of the petition, and one from Kathie Driscoll-Gauthier, 52 Bay View Ave., also in support. Marie Cardillo, 105 Essex St., supports the petition, saying it's a nice addition to the retail environment. • Ms. Harris closes the public comment portion of the hearing.. Ms. Belair asks if the units will be condos. Ms. Kalgren says right now tenants have a lease until August; we didn't know about the home occupation requirement until we started pursuing the building. She says she will sell her house if it's required for the home occupation SP. She says there is one unit above shop. Renting this would help her pay for the building. If they're not allowed to do that, she'll put an apartment in the first floor for daughter. Ms. Harris asks about the parking; Atty Burke says there will be two spaces. With the ramp,the two other spaces are not available. Ms. Harris asks if it's a legal use to have housing upstairs; Mr. St. Pierre says the building has historically had this. Mr. Metsch asks if there is a kitchen in the current retail space; Ms. Kalgren says no, it's an apartment. Mr. Metsch asks if they need to grant anything for the use; Mr. St. Pierre says only the home occupation SP. Technically it doesn't fit the criteria, but this is how the building was used until 5 years ago, and it's the only means to keep a retail use there. The precedent was set by the previous owner, who got a home occupation SP from a 21 previous board action, which he should not have let expire. The building had long history, but not enough to grandfather it. Sean Brady, who currently owns the property, says it's zoned "mixed use." Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that it's assessed as mixed use, not zoned. The assessor must assess what is there—2 residential and 1 commercial unit- but his job is to determine what is legally allowed by zoning. Mr. Mestch says he is in favor if this is what the applicant is asking, of a single business on the first floor, a single residence second floor with the variance on parking. He notes that someone has to maintain residence there after the lease is up. As to the design submitted —they are considering the one showing the wheelchair ramp. Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions, approving the A- 5 and A-4 construction plans submitted, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Metsch, Tsitsinos, Harris, Dionne and Belair in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Mr. Metsch moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Dionne and unanimously approved. The meeting adjourns at 11:09 pm. 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.-Ilsalem.com/Pages/Sa/emMA ZoningAppeals/W Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 1/18/12 22 v� �ONDIT� 4.\' CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL CrA , ,. 120 WASI H NC IONSi RiA10Sv.LA,MASSACl-Iusrrrs 01970 =—' TrLF_978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 KI Nim-RI.fY DRISCOLL 0 MAYOR n N r � M February 1, 2012 CA rr---ac Decision i CA D City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals P') `^ 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 30 WHITE STREET and 57 REAR TURNER STREET related to the boat yard/marina use of the property(I, R-2 and B-1). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 16, 2011 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was continued to January 18, 2012 and closed on that date with the • following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Annie Harris (acting as chair), Richard Dionne, Jamie Metsch,Jimmy Tsitsinos and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Section 4.0 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney George W. Atkins III represented petitioner BHCM, Inc. (DBA Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina) at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped October 26, 2011, petitioner requested a Variance pursuant to Sec. 4.0 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a new building on 10 White Street and 57 Rear Turner Street related to the boat yard/marina use of the property. 3. Accompanying the application form was a statement attesting to the unusual shape of the parcel, waterfront soil conditions, mixed zoning of the site, and limited access at the end of White Street, and stating that enforcement of the dimensional regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance would result in hardship because the petitioner would not be "reasonably able"to use the property for a marina and boat yard. • 4. The Board received three letters from residents opposed to the project, and one in support. 5. At the hearing on January 18, 2011, numerous neighbors spoke about the petition, several in favor of it and several against it. View was a commonly cited reason for both support and . 6. opposition, with some neighbors preferring the view offered by the proposed new building, and others preferring that of the previous marina structure. 7. Also at the January 18 hearing, Attorney Atkins stated that the proposed location for the new building was operationally best for the marina, and would have the least impact on views in the neighborhood. A view corridor study and shadow study were submitted 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. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would require the applicant to place the building in such a location the Board finds to be less appropriate than the one proposed. The view analysis presented showed that impact of views from the neighborhood would be lessened if the building were placed where proposed. 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 impacts to the neighborhood were shown to be less substantial if sited as proposed rather than where it would be allowed by right. 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 voted four (4) in favor (Harris, Metsch, Dionne and Tsitsinos) and one (1) opposed (Belair), to grant the requested Variance under Section 4.0 of the Ordinance to allow construction of a marina building as shown on the plans submitted, subject to the following terms, conditions and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. • 6. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. • 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. The existing Quonset but is to be removed from the property. Annie Hates, Salem Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION S ON 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. • °ti`lrrr CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSE7TS A � BOARD OF APPEAL k 120 WASHING'rONSI BEET* SALLM,kWSAaflJSETIS 01970 TEIF:978-619-5685 FAx:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR G) H nrn ti February 1, 2012 � O° Nm Withdrawal without Prejudice rnp S City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals «, cn 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). On January 18, 2012, the Board of Appeals met to discuss the petitioner's request to withdraw the above referenced petition without prejudice. The following Board of Appeals members were present: • Annie Harris (acting as Chair), Richard Dionne, Jamie Metsch, Jimmy Tsitsinos, and Bonnie Belair. At the request of the Petitioner, the Board of Appeal voted 5-0 (Harris, Dionne, Metsch, Belair and Tsitsinos on favor, none opposed) to allow the Petitioner to withdraw this petition without prejudice. GRANTED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE JANUARY 18, 2012 Annie Harris Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk •has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. CITY OF SALEM, MASSAC -ICTSETTS la BOARD OF APPEAL 120 NVASIUNGTOIJS BELT♦SALEM,MASSAa RiSETrS 01970 TLLE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR C7 1 n rn r rn m February 1, 2012 ?Z=� I Nr- �m Decision m'i D 3 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals i i:� Cn 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). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 16, 2011 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was continued to January 18, 2012 and closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Annie Harris (acting as chair), Richard Dionne, Jamie Metsch, Jimmy Tsitsinos and Bonnie Belair. • Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Scott Grover represented the petitioner at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped October 26, 2011, petitioner requested a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow expansion of the existing, nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 27 Y2 Foster Street, by adding a second story. 3. On January 18, 2012, prior to the continued hearing, a site visit was held at 27 Y2 Foster Street in order to allow Board members to view the property. 4. At the hearing on November 16, 2011, and January 18, 2012, Attorney Laura Callahan spoke on behalf of John Pelosi, 2 Walter Street, in opposition to the petition, citing concerns that the addition would restrict light and air flow to her client's house, cause mold because of additional shading, increase snow falling from the petitioner's roof onto his property, and block his water views. 5. At the hearing on January 18, 2012, David Sirois, 24 Foster Street, spoke in support of the • project, discussing the improvements the petitioner was making to her property and their benefits to 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 be granted, since the project would not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood. The Board, upon observation of photographs and a visit to the property, determines that the project would not block the water and park views from 2 Walter Street. The Board also determines that the enlargement of the house would not create an inconsistency with the other houses in 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 Section 3.3.5 is granted to the construct the • second-floor addition to the property as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four (4) in favor (Harris, Metsch, Dionne, and Tsitsinos, Belair abstaining) 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. 3 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area 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 � lX*L Annie Harris, 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� gONDITggd CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR - I SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O1970 • W� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 1011 FEB - I A 0 1 b SALEM,MASS: February 1, 2012 CITY CLERK, Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of JAMES & KATHERINE KLEIN requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming single-family home on the property located at 43 BAY VIEW AVE (R-1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on January 18, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on January 18, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Annie Harris (acting as chair), Richard Dionne, Jamie Metsch, Jimmy Tsitsinos and Bonnie Belair. • Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Scott Grover represented the petitioner at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped November 28, 2011, petitioner requested a Special Permit to allow expansion of the existing, nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 43 Bay View Avenue. 3. At the hearing, numerous 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 g g of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. Desirable relief may be granted, since the project would 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 Section 3.3.5 is granted to construct the addition to the property as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Harris, Metsch, Dionne, Belair and Tsitsinos) 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 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. 3 Is Annie Harris, 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. • �onnrrA CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS dQ� BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • . + SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 Doi FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR IEIII FEB - I A 0I b FILE # CITY CLERK. SALEM.MASS. February 1, 2012 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of WING POWER ENERGY, INC. requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.0 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a research and development facility in the Industrial Zoning District, and a Variance from minimum rear yard depth, for the property located at 142 CANAL ST. (I Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on January 18, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on January 18, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Annie Harris (acting as chair), • Richard Dionne, Jamie Metsch, Jimmy Tsitsinos and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.0 and a Variance under Section 4.0 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Scott Grover represented the petitioner at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped November 28, 2011, petitioner requested a Special Permit to allow a research and development facility in a portion of the building on 142 Canal Street a Variance from minimum rear yard depth, in order to allow a tower that tests different devices to generate wind power. 3. The Board received a letter from Paul Marquis, Energy and Sustainability Manager for the City of Salem, in support of the project. 4. At the hearing on January 18, 2012, two residents raised concerns about falling equipment and impacts to the nearby bike path. 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. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would require the applicant to place the tower in an area that would take away parking spaces and interfere with other businesses on the site. 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 impacts to the neighborhood would be minimal. 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 3.0 is granted to allow a research and development use in the Industrial zoning district. 2. A Variance under Section 4.0 is granted to allow placement of a test tower as shown on the submitted plans. • In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Harris, Metsch, Dionne, Belair and Tsitsinos) 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. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 6. Height of the tower is not to exceed thirty-five (35) feet. 3 Annie Harris, 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. • �onorrggQ CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • f SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 1111 FEB -I A 0 lb MAYOR FILE If CITY CLERK, SALEM.MASS. February 1, 2012 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of MICHAEL MUNROE requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming single-family home on the property located at 8 BEACHMONT RD (R-1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on January 18, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on January 18; 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Annie Harris (acting as chair), Richard Dionne,Jamie Metsch, Jimmy Tsitsinos and Bonnie Belair. • Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Scott Grover represented the petitioner at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped December 20, 2011, petitioner requested a Special Permit to extend an existing non-conforming structure, in order to allow expansion of the existing single-family house on the property located at 8 Beachmont Road. 3. A petition was submitted at the hearing, signed by nine (9) residents, in support of the project. 4. At the hearing, numerous 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: 2 • 1. Desirable relief may be granted, since the project would 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. 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 is granted to construct the addition to the property as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Harris, Metsch, Dionne, Belair and Tsitsinos) 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. S. 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 a ,��'"I�+�"V� JINX Annie Harris, 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 vdL BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • � . + ( SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 �y TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 1011 FEB - I N A 0 ' MAYOR RJ February 1, 2012 FILE k CITY CLERK, SALEM.MASS, Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of TERI KALGREN for a Home Occupation Special Permit and a Variance from off-street parking regulations to allow an herb shop in the first floor of the building at 3 HAWTHORNE BLVD. A public hearing on the above Petition was held on January 18, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Annie Harris (acting as Chair), Richard Dionne,Jamie Metsch, Jimmy Tsitsinos, and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks a special permit pursuant to Section 3.2.2 and a Variance pursuant to • Section to 5.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. Ms. Kalgren is the proprietor of Artemisia Botanicals, an herb shop located at 102 Wharf Street, Salem. 2. In a petition date-stamped December 28, 2011, Ms. Kalgren requested a Special Permit for a home occupation and a variance from off-street parking regulations for a home occupation at 3 Hawthorne Blvd. 3. Sean P. Pray and Richard L. Smith are the owners of 3 Hawthorne Blvd. Ms. Kalgren has the property under agreement and seeks to move her herb shop there from 102 Wharf Street. 4. At the hearing on January 18, 2012, Attorney James Burke presented the petition on behalf of Ms. Kalgren. 5. In her application and at the hearing, Ms. Kalgren stated her intent to occupy the residential unit in the building once the current tenants' lease is up in August 2012. • 6. At the hearing, the petitioner and the Building Commissioner noted that the building had a long history of having a commercial use in the first floor, but because of a two-year lapse, the commercial use was no longer grandfathered. • 7. The property has parking available for three cars; however, installation of a required wheelchair ramp will cause the loss of one of the parking spaces. 8. At the hearing, two residents spoke in favor of the petition, and two other residents submitted letters of support (Kathie Driscoll-Gauthier, 52 Bayview Ave.), and Donald Fyfe MacFadyen, 1 Hawthorne Blvd.). No one opposed 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. A special permit and variance may be granted to allow this request without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: • 1. To allow for the home occupation, a special permit may be granted under the Salem Zoning Ordinance § 3.2.2 Home Occupations. 2. To allow for only two parking spaces, a variance may be granted under the Salem Zoning Ordinance § 5.1, Off Street Parking. 3. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Harris, Dionne, Belair, Metsch and Tsitsinos) 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 (specifically, elevation drawings titled "Europa Antiques Facade Improvements, Salem, Massachusetts," dated 1/31/08, Scheme 2, pages A-4 and A-5). . 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. lily h wm22..A 6 }� Annie Harris Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of • this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETfS y { �� BOARD OF APPEAL q a A$� 120 WASHINGTON STRGE'r SAuam,IvlAssnc�-asr:rrs 01970 TEEE:978 745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 KI ju:jkLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem, MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition ofJOSEPH 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). Withdrawn without predudice. Filed with the City Clerk on February 1, 2012. 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). Decision: Granted. Filed with the City Clerk on February 1,2012. 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(132). Decision:Granted. Filed with the City Clerk on February 1, 2012. Petition ofJAMES & KATHERINE KLEIN requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming single-family home on the property located at 43 BAYVIEW AVE (R-1 Zoning District).\ Decision:Granted. Filed with the City Clerk on February 1, 2012. Petition of WING POWER ENERGY, INC. requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.0 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a research and development facility in the Industrial Zoning District, and a Variance from minimum rear yard depth, for the property located at 142 CANAL ST. (I Zoning District). Decision:Granted. Filed with the City Clerk on February 1,2012. Petition of MICHAEL MUNROE requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming single-family home on the property located at 8 BEACHMONT RD (R-1 Zoning District). Decision:Granted. Filed with the City Clerk on February 1, 2012. Petition ofTERI KALGREN requesting a Home Occupation Special Permit (Sec. 3.2.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance) and a Variance from off-street parking regulations (Sec. 5.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance) to allow an herb shop in the first floor of the building at 3 HAWTHORNE BLVD (R-2). Decision:Granted. Filed with the City Clerk on February 1, 2012. 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 r �1 VE GAMINE Zoning Board of Appeals January 2012- December 2013 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL i A ll 120 WASI'IING'rGN$'I'REE'f* $ALEM,MA5sAC1IUSITI'I'S 01970 �MINB 04� T ELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FA.x:978-740-9846 KiMBEREE,YDRlscou, MAYOR MEMORANDUM (TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: September 11, 2012 RE: Meeting Agenda— September 19,2012 Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MARTINE BRACKE and SERGE GREGOIRE requesting a home occupation Special Permit in order to operate a wellness/nutrition/reiki business from the residence at 3 FREEMAN RD (R-1 Zoning District). This petition was continued from the July 18 meeting. 1 have not received any further information about it. Public hearing: Petition of CHRISTINE BURKINSHAW requesting a Variance from side yard setback and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, in order to construct an addition to the second floor unit located on 118 DERBY ST (Bl Zoning District). The applicant is proposing a second-story addition on her currently nonconforming structure. The addition only requires a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.3 to extend a nonconforming structure, and not a Variance as the applicant has requested. The building's nonconformity is due to a 3-foot side setback,where 10 feet is required. The footprint will not change; the addition is vertical. The second-floor addition will now encroach on the side yard setback, as the first floor currently does. Details of the addition are shown in the enclosed elevation drawings. Public hearing: Petition of ANDREW WEINSTEIN,TRUSTEE, MASON REALTY TRUST, requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use by allowing parking of 12 school buses on the premises of 38 COMMERCIAL ST & 53 MASON ST (BPD Zoning District). The properties currently house a variety of commercial uses, some of which are nonconforming. Our zoning ordinance does not explicitly allow parking as a primary use, so the proposal expands the currently nonconforming use of the property. Public hearing: Petition of ZIAD NABBOUT requesting a Special Permit to allow for a motor vehicle general repair use on the property located at 86 JACKSON ST (B4 Zoning District). The B4 (Wholesale &Automotive) allows motor vehicle general and body repair only by special permit. The lot is currently vacant, and a new garage structure is proposed. The new structure and a parking plan are shown on the accompanying plot plan. 1 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet ,�y��iuvEoe� Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date / 7W / 12— Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail _ (/A Sf #Z 7 2<c1?6a u�@ av Q � �� ! � Le ff � P2 1� 1p- uip, TeTsezvcl 616 tAkCi4Au�3 L-4Nt Row � -7y3Go-f?>3 6Ci1Akutg-L-0 Ff 2c,- v- �' 9� Xi Jnle2 y 7F 9�5'ya 1/T !2//ei�r�,vet 7 gee,wNtl�`7�4, zC, C:c c p Fnp� A-vt A Page of �C°"°'Tf CITY OF SALEM, LVLASSr1CHUSETTS hzv BOARD OF APPEAL Ili lvC_tsiuscM..NMnai I # SuLlV.AI�"�t.nta-:n�019'n hlAIIH k IJ Yl.i.i :9`S-(,195683 Pc n 9-S—-NJ-iuu-t :�'I)uiseuLi. \Lw nt n MEETING NOTICE _® ZONING BOARD "— N September 19—6:30 P.M. T mo City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA, Room 3 m N Rebecca am- Rebecca Curran, Chair rn r 3 MEETING AGENDA n — 1. tApproval of\IinuteS: August 15, 2012 meeting ? Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MARTINE BRACKE and SERGE GREGOIRE requesting a home occupation Special permit in order to operate a wellness/nutrition/reiki business from . the residence at 3 FREEMAN RD (R-I Zoning District). 03, Public hearing: Petition of CHRISTINE BURKINSHAW reyuesting a Variance iance from side yard setback and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming Structure, in order to construct an addition to the second floor Lint located on 118 DERBY ST 011 Zoning District), 4. Public hearing: Petition of ANDREW WEINSTEIN, TRUSTEE, MASON REALTY TRUST, requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use be allowing parking of"I2 school buses on the premises of 38 COMMERCIAL ST & 53 MASON ST (13 )D 'Zoning District). 5. Public hearing: Petition of ZIAD NABBOUT requesting a Special Permit to allow for a motor vehicle general repair use on the properry rotated at 86 JACKSON ST (134 Zoning District). 6. Old/New Business 7. .\djournmcnt KauJJ ) oJn IZi�lt/.r under/Gt Oprn ,Ile /iu� l.uti.ILC;.I.. r. f%if'3I3 mJd C7lp OJ'r/iJrnnr Jtr/iau?-=0_'S' lftrrnr�G '--'oij. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, September 19, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 in the third floor conference room of 120 Washington St.,Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate), Rick Dionne, and Annie Harris. Those absent were: Bonnie Belair (alternate) and Jamie Metsch. 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 Mr. Duffy moves to approve the minutes of 8/15/12, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos and approved 5- 0. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MARTINE BRACKE and SERGE GREGOIRE requesting a home occupation Special Permit in order to operate a wellness/nutrition/reiki business from the residence at 3 FREEMAN RD (R-1 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 7/2/12 and accompanying materials Ms. Curran notes that only four members are here tonight who are eligible to vote on this petition. She gives the applicant the option of proceeding with four members, noting the petition would need all four votes to pass, or continuing to next month. Mr. Gregoire says he did talk to his neighbors, and decided it's probably not best to see people in his home, so he only wishes to pursue a computer based business. He asks if this means he still needs a Special Permit. Mr. St. Pierre confirms that he does not need the Special Permit if he is not seeing people in the home, only a business certificate from the city clerk. Mr. Gregoire requests to withdraw the petition. Ms. Harris makes a motion to allow him to withdraw without prejudice, seconded by Mr. Duffy and passed 5-0 (Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos, Ms. Harris, Ms. Curran and Mr. Dionne in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of ZIAD NABBOUT requesting a Special Permit to allow for a motor vehicle general repair use on the property located at 86 JACKSON ST(B4 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: Application date-stamped 8/29/12 and accompanying materials ➢ Letter from Vincent J. Furfaro, 17 Calabrese St., dated 9/10/12 ➢ Site plan prepared for Ziad Nabbout for 86 Jackson St., by New England Civil Engineering Corp., dated 8/16/12 1 �I • Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal St. presents the petition. He says this is currently a BP • station. His client wants to buy the property next door, to the left of the station, which is currently vacant. The property is zoned B4. Across Ithe street is a car lot selling used cars. The proposal is to purchase that lot and build a motor vehicle garage. The lot is about 16,000 SF; the building would be a single story, beige split block type building from which mechanical repairs and auto service would be provided. There will be no gasoline pumping or sales on this property. He says they are asking—with no variances are required—a Special Permit for the use —although this is automotive zoning, a Special Permit is required under the new zoning. Ziad Nabbout, 13 Cavendish Cir., leases the gas station and would like to own a property for his business. There will be repairs only, no gas. He says the whole property will be paved and cleaned up. Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion. Todd Seigel, Ward 3 Councillor, 28 Brittania Cir., says this is a wonderful opportunity and it fits in the current location. It's now overgrown. He says the applicant runs a great business, and it will be good to get this property back on the tax bill. He supports the petition. Joseph O'Keefe, Ward 7 Councillor, 28 Surrey Rd, he says he has known the applicant for many years and he runs a good business; he has never heard complaints about him. He supports the petition. •• Joe Francis, owner of 92 Jackson St., speaks in support of the petition. He says the lot will be improved, and Mr. Nabbout will run a good business. He says the dangers on the lot will be remedied. Ms. McKnight reads letter in support of the petition from Vincent J. Furfaro. Ms. Curran asks if Site Plan Review would be required for this; Mr. Correnti says no. He says it will be a single story split block; it will have garage doors, 3 or 4 in front. He says it's nothing fancy, but in keeping with the area. It will be new and paved; there will be some landscaping. It will have a flat roof. Ms. Curran asks if it has enough parking. Mr. Correnti says it meets all parking, setback and density requirements. He says it's undeveloped to the rear, and there are no residents directly behind it. There's a lot of green buffer before reaching the yards on Calabrese Street. Ms. Harris asks if new curb cuts are proposed. Mr. Correnti says yes. He says they will get to another level of plans once they know this is going forward; the next step is the closing if they do ge tapprovaltonight. Th e building inspector will see it, as well as engineering, etc. Ms. Harris notes that what's important is that there are curb cuts and not one continuous one, so a sidewalk can be maintained. Some area for planting is also important. Ms. Curran says it's an appropriate use for this area, and she would be in favor of granting it. Mr. Duffy agrees; it seems this is a proposal that seeks to meet community needs. There will be no adverse impacts to traffic flow and safety. There's been no discussion of adverse impacts to utilities. It's in keeping with the neighborhood, including views. It would have a potential 2 positive fiscal impact on the city. We've heard a lot of support from the community. The adverse effects would not outweigh beneficial impacts. Mr. St. Pierre suggests as a condition that they must abide by the unregistered vehicle ordinance Sec. 24-21. He says this is not reflection on Nabbout,just a general problem in the city. Mr. Dionne moves to approve the petition with standard conditions and one special condition: Petitioner shall abide by the unregistered vehicle ordinance— no unregistered cars are to remain on the property for more than 15 days. The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy and passes 5-0 (Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Mr.Tsitsinos, Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed). Public hearing! Petition of CHRISTINE BURKINSHAW requesting a Variance from side yard setback and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, in order to construct an addition to the second floor unit located on 118 DERBY ST(B1 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 7/24/12 ➢ Elevation drawings dated 7/23/12 by Paul R. Lessard ➢ Photographs, no date ➢ Parcel map, 7/20/12 Paul Lessard, 18 Levitt St., the project architect, presents the petition. Christine and Bob Berkinshaw, owners, are also present. Mr. Lessard says the owners received the property adjacent to Ye Olde Pepper Co., after a long probate period. He shows a photograph of the property included in the application. He would like to add 17% more floor area to the top floor. The first floor will be storage for the candy company: carts and nonflammable items. He presents the elevations. He says there is a driveway adjacent to the parking area for the candy store. He shows the current means of egress and says they are hoping to add to the rest of the second floor. The footprint will not be changed. He says they have letters of support from two adjacent abutters, one a homeowner and the historical society owning the adjacent House of Seven Gables. Ms. Curran asks for confirmation they are keeping building as is,just filling in the second part which is recessed. They are staying on the footprint? Mr. Lessard—Yes—we are continuing the building, and the character of the building, using the same materials. At the end, the whole house will have been stripped and have new gutters, etc. Ms. Curran it will be used as an apartment and storage? Mr. Lessard says yes; the apartment has not been used for many years. The first floor has been used for storage. There is parking for two cars end to end. Since they own the adjacent parking lot, if a tenant didn't want to be end to end,they could allow the tenant to park on the adjacent property. Mr. St. Pierre—the apartment is there, but ceased being used 15-20 years ago. The main house needs some renovation, but the rear portion needs major repair. This would straighten things out for the second floor apartment. Ms. Curran asks if it's OK for it to continue as an apartment. 3 I I Mr. St. Pierre says yes, it's on the books this way. Ms. Harris asks about the front extension—there is a slight setback? And in the back, there's a setback of a couple of feet? Mr. Lessard says that's 'correct, but we will not be changing the footprint. Ms. Harris—so the drawing isn't quite right—the roof isn't shown that way. The eave is not quite in the right place? Mr. Lessard says that'Is possible. Yes, the eave should be shown slightly higher due to the fact that the roof will be flush. Ms. Harris— It would be nice to have a ridge drop there. �I Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion; no one comments, so she closes it. ' Ms. Curran:There is no issue with the use, then. Mr. St. Pierre confirms this. Ms. Curran says it's a small addition, they are cleaning up the building significantly; and parking is not a problem. The only detriment is an increase in square footage. IMs. Harris says this is a much better egress. Mr. Burkinshaw: I won't get in front of HisCom until next month, so won't be starting construction immediately. If it's not started in fall, then spring. I Mr. Dionne says it's good to see the property improved. Mr. Duffy moves to approve the petition with 9 standard conditions, seconded by Ms. Harris and approved 5-0 (Mr. Tsitsinos, Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, and Mr. Duffy in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of ANDREW WEINSTEIN,TRUSTEE, MASON REALTY TRUST, requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use by allowing parking of 12 school buses on the premises of 38 COMMERCIAL ST&53 MASON ST(B D Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 8/28/12 ➢ Site Plan of Land located in Salem, Mass., prepared for First student, Inc. by Eastern Land Survey Associates, dated 8/23/12 Attorney George Atkins, 59 Federal St., presents the petition. Also present is a representative from First Student Inc., Gig Michaud. Mr. Atkins says in 1969, this was the location of the Eastern MA railway bus terminal. Subsequently, the building was used for manufacturing— trailer trucks were in and out. Now there are a variety of businesses—all involve truck and trailer traffic. In the 80s, there was another bus business on the premises. The use now proposed is to park 10-12 buses on the property in the vacant space to the rear of the building. Mr. Atkins presents photos of the property, saying theere is a large empty area at the back. One concern could be the noises produced by backup alarms. It's easy to back buses in once finishing their rounds in the morning at 10 a.m. At 4 p.m,they back in so that during the morning departure there are no alarms. Making the turn from North Street to Commercial St. is difficult—having the light at Mason and North makes' the route safer. He says this is a new contractor for Salem, and it's important they travel/make their dropoffs on time. A location in Salem is difficult to find—they don't think this will have any effect on the surrounding 4 li community and is a natural use for this property. There will also be onsite management—the company will rent an office on the premises. Mr. Atkins says the bus company is a worldwide transportation company. They are experienced in terms of safety and record. For many years, the Michaud bus company was run on Jefferson Ave. Mr. Michaud says he was born into the business 60 years ago and understands the transportation industry well. This is a short contract—2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon. The buses will be leaving in the morning at 6:30, and there are no backup alarms then. They come back about a quarter to nine, then park for 3-4 hour, then go out for 2 hours, then return for the day. No operation on vacations, weekends, summers. He says the City was anxious to have them park in Salem with their office here too. If a bus has an issue, another bus can be sent quickly. If they are located outside the city, there are more delays. The state and federal government have a five minute idling law. Their rule is 3 minutes. They tell immediately if a bus has been idling, monitoring in real time. Drivers have to sign the company policy on this. All the buses have GPS. Mr. Atkins asks if there will be fueling onsite. Mr. Michaud says they have an outside vendor to* bring in 15 gallons at a time. They have safety equipment with auto shutoffs. They do this throughout the country and in Canada. They do this on school grounds as well, and have no issues. Most of their fleet is fueled this way. Mr. Atkins says this is an advantage to the city and its school system, students and parents. There will be no construction taking place. No public services are required. The most important provision for nohconformng use is that this is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment. Ward 7 Councillor Joe O'Keefe is in favor of the petition because Salem needs the buses. He remembers that building being used for street cars—the tracks are still on Mason St. It's always been used for transportation. These are diesel buses; diesel is not as flammable as gasoline. Arthur Parent, 39 Mason St., says he only opposes buses going down Mason St.—it's too busy. The business at 39 Y, Mason doesn't have enough parking. Ms. Curran: what is the proposed route for buses? Mr. Michaud: Most go down Mason as part of their routes. They have some stops on Mason— to have them not be on Mason would be impossible—it's how the routes have been established by the school system. Some buses finish their routes on Mason, though others can use Commercial St. coming back from their routes. Ms. Curran—none go down Flint St.? No one can make that turn. Mr. Michaud says no. Ms. Harris—why aren't buses parked on the school grounds? Mr. Michaud —our schools don't have enough parking area. We did look at parking at our old location, but it wasn't possible. There is already a company parking buses on Jefferson Ave.-they had the contract last year. 5 Ms. Harris—does this part of Commercial St.flood? Mr. St. Pierre—yes, Commercial St. floods. Cars couldn't traverse, but a bus could. The property itself does not flood. Ms. Curran—will the fueling trigger con com review? Mr. St. Pierre—we should add this in the conditions. MR. Michaud says his firm has come out to review Stratton Environmental out of TN—they will review the site a number of times. Ms. Curran—it is an enormous space—that doesn't seem to be an issue. What's in the building now? Andrew Weinstein says there are 8 businesses now. Mr.Tsitsinos and Mr. Dionne say they are happy with the proposal. Mr. St. Pierre—Mr. Michaud did his due diligence—he looked at many locations and came up with very few that could work. Ms. Harris moves to approve the petition with 3 stardard conditions and one special condition— the company will make its best efforts to split any bus traffic evenly between Mason and Commercial streets. Ms. Harris notes that the site was used for transportation for many years, and this use is appropriate for the location. Mr. Duffy says this appears to be a proposed extension of nonconforming use not more detrimental than the existing uses. He seconds Ms. Harris' motion. The petition is approved 5-0 (Ms. Harris, Ms. Curran, Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Dionne in favor, none opposed). Mr. Tsitsinos moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved S-0. Ms. Curran adjourns the meeting at 7:35 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/PagesISo/emMA ZoninaAppealsMin/ Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 10/17/12 6 ,I oNuiTgo\ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 1'L0 WASHING TON$"fRCI'f1 $AI.Chi,MdSSACHLSB"P15 01970 ��MINB DD TL.LIr:.975-619-5685 FAX:978 740 0404 KImIiHRLF-Y DRISCOLL i MAYOR I October 3, 2012 I co Withdrawal Without Prejudice rn M-n Nm W City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals m U 1 Petition of MARTINE BRACKE and SERGE GREGOIRE requesting a home occupation meson Spewl Permit in order to operate a wellness/nutrition/reiki business from the residence at 3 oD FREEMAN RD (R-1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened I n July 18, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was continued to September 19, 2012 and closed on that date • with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Michael Duffy, Jimmy Tsitsinos, Annie Harris and Richard Dionne. At the request of the Petitioner, the Board of Appeal voted 4-0 (Curran, Harris, Dionne, and Tsitsinos on favor, none opposed, and Michael Duffyiabstaining)to allow the Petitioner to withdraw this petition without prejudice. GRANTED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 Rebecca Curran, Chair SI lem Zoning Board of Appeals i A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THEI 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 Iwith the Essex South Registry of Deeds. �I r CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL Ni 441-t 9� r�9�Cr 120 WASHINCTON SI IWE I ♦SAu;ni,N[Assncliusisrrr01970 978-6I9-5685 FA%:978-740-0404 n r.r Kiamcaisv Daisc:ou, c o MAYOR r" C-) �T 1 Nm W r-* October 3, 2012 s 3 Decision Ln N � City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of ZIAD NABBOUT requesting a Special Permit to allow for a'motor vehicle general repair use on the property located at 86 JACKSON ST (84 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on September 19, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on September 19, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Michael Duffy, Jimmy • Tsitsinos, Annie Harris and Richard Dionne. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Sections 3.1.2 and 9.4 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fad: 1. In a petition date-stamped August 29, 2012, petitioner requested a Special Permit to allow a motor vehicle general repair use on the premises. 2. The parcel is currently vacant. 3. Attorney Joseph Correnti represented the petitioner at the hearing. 4. At the hearing, several members of the public, including Ward 7 Councilor Joseph O'Keefe and Ward 3 Councilor Todd Siegel spoke in favor of the project. 5. Vincent J. Furfaro, 17 Calabrese Street, submitted a letter in support of the petition. 6. No one spoke in opposition to the project at the hearing. 1 I • The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans andl petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. Desirable relief may be granted without detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. The proposed use is in a location appropriate tolautomotive uses, and the business would meet community needs. The project would not!cause adverse impacts to traffic flow, safety, or utilities, and would have a positive fiscal impact on the city. No opposition was expressed by the public. 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 voted five (5) in favor (Curran, Dionne, Tsitsinos, Harris and Duffy) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit. A Special Permit under Section 3.1.2 and 9.4 is granted to allow for the proposed motor vehicle general repairluse. • The Board of Appeals voted 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'lstatutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the planes 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 priorlito beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. • 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City I Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Boa lIrd. 2 • 9. Petitioner shall abide by Section 24-21, Keeping of unregistered, abandoned or discarded motor vehicles, trailers or boats, of the City of Salem Code of Ordinances. 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. • • 3 CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 7 Y �9C�..u��r 120��ASFIINGCON$'IR6FCf# $ALGM11,1�1ASS.\CRUSE"I'I's 01970 B'MIIVBO�� TEL 978-619-5685 PAX:978-740-0404 KIaBh.2ceY DRISCOLL - MAYOR r October 3, 2012 o Decisi n �m w m City of Salem Zoning B' and of Appeals N Ln 00 Petition of CHRISTINE BURKINSHAW requesting a Variance from side yard setbElc and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, in order to construct an addition to the second floor unit located on 118 DERBY ST(133 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on September 19, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on September 19, 2012 with the following • Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Michael Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos, Annie Harris and Richard Dionne. i Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.3 and a Variance pursuant to Section 4.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped July 24, 2012, petitioner requested a Variance and a Special Permit to construct a second-floor addition on the property located at 118 Derby St. 1 2. In the course of reviewing the application, the Building Commissioner determined that only a Special Permit would be required to construct the addition, and not a Variance, as requested. i i 3. At the hearing, Paul Lessard, the petitioner's architect, presented the petition. Owners Robert and Christine Burkinshaw were also present. 4. At the hearing, Mr. Lessard stated that the addition would provide a better egress for the upstairs apartment, and that the lower level would be storage for Ye Olde Pepper Company, the adjacent candy store, which the petitioner also owns. • 5. At the hearing, no member of the public spoke in favor of or against the project. 1 I I I i The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public • hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. Desirable relief maybe granted without detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. The proposed addition would improve the building and the property, and provide a better second-story egress. While the building would increase in square footage,the addition is small. The project does not present any problems with regard to parking. 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 I including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Curran, Dionne, Tsitsinos, Harris and Duffy) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit. A Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 is granted to allow for the proposed addition as shown on the submitted plans. I The Board of Appeals voted 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 priorito beginning any construction. i 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Boa I rd. • 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 2 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 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • • 3 CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS �+ BOARD OF APPEAL 1A� 120 WASHINGTON S'rR[:F.1' SAL.1 M,MASSACHUSE TTS 01970 TELF:9,78-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 KIMI3HRLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeal held on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem, MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: I Petition of CHRISTINE BURKINSHAW requesting a Variance from side yard setback and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, in order to constructlan addition to the second floor unit located on 118 DERBY ST (61 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on October 3, 2012 I Petition of ZIAD NABBOUT requesting a Special Permit to allow for a motor vehicle general repair use on •the property located at 86 JACKSON ST (134 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on October 3, 2012 Petition of MARTINE BRACKE and SERGE GREGOIRE requesting a home occupation Special Permit in order to operate a wellness/nutrition/reiki business from the residence at 3 FREEMAN RD (R-1 Zoning District). Decision: Withdrawn without prejudice Filed with the City Clerk on October 3, 2012 I I 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 tlhe decision was filed with the City Clerk. i I i • l I I ��eonnrT,��i\ City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet a j4(r Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date 10 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail U Page of i CITY OF SAL M, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASFIINGTON$TREB'P*SALP..M,MASSACHUSLTCS U1970 CQ�MIfl6 '' TeLH:�978-745-9595 FAx:978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR � I I MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: October 11, 2012 RE: Meeting Agenda—October 17, 2012 Board Members, Please fmd the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Planner's memo 3. Meeting minutes of 9/19/12 4. Materials for new agenda items Petition of NORTHEAST BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CORP. appealing a cease and desist order of the Building Inspector for the property located at 41 MASON ST. (NRCC) The petitioner is appealing a cease and desist order by the Building Commissioner. The letter from Tom St. Pierre is enclosed in your packet, along with other information submitted by the petitioner. I have also enclosed a copy of a Variance decision from March 2003 for this property. Assistant City Solicitor Robin Stein will attend this hearing in order to answer questions for the Board. Petition of JOANNE R. HIGGINS for an administrative appeal of a decision of the Building Commissioner for the property located at 7 FLORENCE ST. (R2) The petitioner has submitted a packet of information in 'support of the appeal,including a Variance decision from April 2001. Petition of ERIC GLASS requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming use in order to conduct bottling on the premises of 51R CANAL STI/4 FLORENCE ST (B4 & 112) 1 . In July 1985, the Board issued a Variance for a variety of warehousing,woodworking,retail and other uses, as detailed in the decision letter enclosed in your packet. Currently, the petitioner is requesting a special permits expand these nonconforming uses to also allow bottling on the premises. Petition of MARYANN KOCUR requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming two-family home with the addition of third-floor dormers on the property located on 7 MARCH STREET CT (R2). The proposed dormers are shown in the elevation drawings enclosed in your packet. • • 2 �oNaT, ClTY of SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BO-z�RD OF APPEAL ro. .� 54 1, 129 i N<aro Sna J tiM i M A4,wca;iu ,i rts 01970 i r i ie 8-619s685 . 97s-7�y og FILE k Kl dnl si i v OR11ol.I, Ctl-1' CLERK, SALEM, MASS. \d n'Ynit MEETING NOTICE ZONING BO \IZD GF APPEALS October 17, 2012 —6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA, Room 313 Rebecca Curran,lChqu: MEETING AGENDA 1. Approvai of Minutes: September 19,2012 meeting 2- Petition of NORTHEAST B E HAV'IORAL HEALTH (%ORP. appealing a cease and desist order of the Building Inspector for the property located at 41 MASON S"I'. (NR(,-C) I 3. Petition off O VNNE R. I IIGGINS for an administrative appeal of a decision of the Building Cormnmssioner for the propern• located at 7 FI ORENCE. Sl'. (R2) 4. Petition of ERIC GLASS requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconfornung use in order to conduct bottling on the premises of 51 R CANAL S'l/I I LORI3�tCE ST (134& R2) 5. Petition of f\4ARYANN KOCUR requesting a Special Pe mur to extend a nonconfornung nvo-family home with the addition of third-floor dormers on the properry located on 7 ;MARCI-i S1 RI LT C 1 (R2). 6. Old/New Business 7. Adjournment Know Your Rigbis under the Open Meeling Law M.G.L 39§2381 and Ci(y Ordinance Sections 2-2028 lhrough 2-203.3. I. 1 • I� { I • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, October 17, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 in the third floor conference room of 120 Washington St., Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate), Rick Dionne, and Bonnie Belair. Those absent were: Mike Duffy, Annie Harris and Jamie Metsch. 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. Ms. Curran.announces that the next meeting will be held on Nov. 7, 2012 at 7 p.m. Ms. Curran announces the petitions requested to be continued, so that they may be heard by a full board: 41 Mason Street, 7 Florence Street, and 51R Canal St./4 Florence • Street. • Approval of Minutes Mr. Dionne moves to approve the minutes of September 19, 2012, seconded by Mr. Tsitisinos and approved 3-0 (Ms. Belair abstaining). Mr. Dionne moves to continue 41 Mason St. to November 7, 2012, with no evidence taken, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos, and approved 4-0. Ms. Belair moves to continue 7 Florence St. to November 7, 2012, with no evidence taken, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos and approved 4-0. Mr. Tsitsinos moves to continue 51R Canal St./4 Florence St. to November 7, 2012, with no evidence taken, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 4-0. Petition of MARYANN KOCUR requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming two-family home with the addition of third-floor dormers on the property located on 7 MARCH STREET CT. (112 Zoning District). Ms. Kocur, 7 March St. Ct., presents her petition. She would like to extend the second • floor apartment, but she says now the repairs are crucial because her roof is leaking, and she would like to do the work all at once. • 1 Ms. Curran notes it's a full length dormer on both sides. Mr. Kocur says it will be attic • space—no head room,just used for storage and one room. No plumbing will be up there. There will be no bathroom, but the space will be heated. Ms. Belair asks if this will be part of the second floor unit. Ms. Kocur says yes, eventually. Currently, the second bedroom in that apartment is so tiny a bed doesn't fit. Ms. Curran: This is a legal 2°d unit? Mr. St. Pierre says yes. Ms. Curran: You have parking? Yes. Ms. Kocur says the material used will be vinyl siding to match what is there currently. Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment; no one is here to comment. Ms. Curran says she can't tell where on the plot plan the house is. Ms. Kocur points out where her lot is on the plan. Ms. Belair notes that it's minor relief requested. Mr. Dionne asks what year the house was built. Ms. Kocur says 18905. Mr. St. Pierre . notes they don't have to go before historic commission. • Ms. Curran says there would be no adverse effect on the neighborhood or the city that would outweigh beneficial impacts. Ms. Belair says this is in keeping with the neighborhood, and the relief is minimal. i Ms. Belair moves to approve the petition with seven standard conditions; the motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos and approved 4-0 (Ms. Belair, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Mr. Dionne moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos; the motion passes unanimously. The meeting adjourns at 7:25 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.-Ilsolem.com/PagesISolemMA ZoningAppealsMin/ . Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner • 2 � I CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL a S \ s 120 WASHIN&ON STREET♦ SA[.EM,MASSACHUSEPCS 01970 � �%MINE TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 1{IMBFIRLF.Y DRISCOLL MAYOR ' SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 7, 2012 — 7:00 P.M. (not 6:30 as usual) City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA, Room 313 Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA • 1 Executive session for purposes of discussion of litigation in the action styled Byrne v. Curran, ESCV 2012-01567, relative to 16 Saunders Street 2 Approval of Minutes: October 17, 2012 meeting 1 3 Petition of ERIC GLASS requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconfornung use in order to conduct bottling on the premises of 51R CANAL ST/4 FLORENCE ST (B4 & R2) I 4 Petition of NORTHEAST BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CORP. appealing a cease and desist order of the Building Inspector for the property located at 41 MASON ST. (NRCC) 5 Petition of JOANNE R. HIGGINS for an administrative appeal of a decision of the Building Commissioner for the proper located at 7 FLORENCE ST. (R2) 6 Old/New Business 7 Adjournment 1 Know Your Rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 39 g23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. • • 2 v��oNDITggQ City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet �€ I'n: , ",Aw � �!�ineo6r'Q�ag Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail h 4- S(tYA C_ 3-' l ��S�n <C f ��--7cfO-ffg6 sal✓Gnc y oLP-C, g LPlG,,vemwoAh •tT 1,f/sy CT Pa.3 S7S 2-c0 ��,re�t lV.��vr @ can An (,W , co �7t.)oa? _207 Az /0o ✓ - o« /6�7r Sal - G SZ. Dtd 1�?n✓11e�J�a/L1y,. 41 �3�'l�o �r�`3' E� � .C�l�� @ tni2,+��,5 •�/2 — Glds 3r /"A c .,-JX ,Q s a 1��✓ wu��, %r Sws� r 978�/7- 7753 ��.Gf6 Page of ��oorrQ� CITY OF SAL �EM� MASSI�CHUSE' S BOARD OF APPEAL 130 WASHINGTON SCRP,,I'♦SALEM,MASSACHUSEFfS 01970 ��ININE1SD,r/ i 'CELE:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLI. MAYOR it MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner DATE: October 31,2012 RE: Meeting Agenda—November 7, 2012 I Board Members, lPlease find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda • 2. Planner's memo 3. Meeting minutes of 10/17/12 As we discussed at our last meeting,our November 21 meetiing is canceled. Materials for the following petitions were included in your packet for 10/17/12. Here is the information again about each: Petition of NORTHEAST BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CORP. appealing a cease and desist order of the Building Inspector for the property located at 41 MASON ST. (NRCC) The petitioner is appealing a cease and desist order by the Banding Commissioner. The letter from Tom St. Pierre is enclosed in your packet, along with other information submitted by the petitioner. I have also enclosed a copy of a Variance decision from March 2003 for this property. Assist iant City Solicitor Robin Stein will attend this hearing in order to answer questions for the Board. Petition of JOANNE R. HIGGINS for an administrative appeal of a decision of the Building Commissioner for the property located at 7 FLORENCE ST. (112) 1 The petitioner has submitted a packet of information in supp rt of the appeal,including a Variance decision from April 2001. Petition of ERIC GLASS requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming use in order to conduct bottling on the premises of 51R CANAL ST/4 FLORENCE ST (B4& 112) In July 1985, the Board issued a Variance for a variety of warehousing,woodworking,retail and other uses,as detailed in the decision letter enclosed in your packet. Currently, the petitioner is requesting a special permit to expand these • nonconfortr ng uses to also allow bottling on the premises. 1 1 ��on1aT CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS • `:' BOARD OF APPEAL Aj # �s 120 WnsinNcroN SLRLer+tiALCbI,MAssnctlusH'I'Is 01970 � �. TG.LE:978-619-5685♦ FAX:978-740-0404 KIAIBLRI.E.Y DRISCOLL MAYOR MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE AND SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS You are hereby notified that the regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for November 21, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. has been canceled. The Board will hold a special meeting on November 7, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. (not 6:30 as usual) at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA, Room 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair • r o VIM 3 3 CD Know Your Rzghtr under the Open Meeting Law[LLG.L c. 39 g23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. �►�� C itV 8a4em. Moos. �t(�xt 31 :. 41 • it MASSACHUSETTS -4 CITY OF SA LEM, BOARD OF APPEAL .fp 120WASHINGIONSIRN I SAIJ M,MASSACHUSI;TFS01970 Fiii:.:978-6195685 FAX:978-740-0404 DRISCOLL MA)OR 0 SPECIAL MEETING ING NOTICE cl C= ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS rr—n CID November 7,2012—7:00 P.M. (not6:30 as usual) City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA, Room 313;grn r-4t rn > Rebecca Curran, Chair X MEETING AGENDA Cn uNi 1 Executive session for purposes of discussion of litigati I on in the action styled Byrne v. Curran, ESCV 2012-01567,relative to 16 Saunders Street • 2. Approval of Minutes: October 17, 2012 meeting 3. Petition of ERIC GLASS requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming use in order to conduct bottling on the premises of 5 1 R CANAL ST/4 FLORENCE ST (134& R2) 4. Petition of NORTHEAST BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CORP. appealing a cease and desist order of the Building Inspector for the property located at 41 MASON ST. (NRCC) 1 5. Petition ofJOANNE R. HIGGINS for an administrative appeal of a decision of the Building Commissioner for the property located at 7 FLORENCE ST. (R2) 6. Old/New Business 7. Adjournment Know Y'011r Rights under The Open Meeting Lnp M.G.L e. 39§2 1 31 B and Cil.7 Ordinance Sections 2-2028 lbivilSb 2-2033. t 0 an 00vber 61 &912—ftftm, Moos Ll. ft" wa I C1 of SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL D� 120 Was[nN< roN STRFIA ♦ $ALBN,6dnssac[NSEFFS01970 Tra.c:978-619-5685 Fax:978-740-0404 KIb113FRi.CY DRISOLL MAYOR K m m a November 20, 2012 ?Z2 ufr" ^, am O Decision it rn City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals b- to W Petition of ERIC GLASS requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming use in order to conduct bottling on the premises of 51R CANAL ST/4 FLORENCE ST (134 & 112) A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on'November 7, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, � 11. The hearing was closed on November 7, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair);Annie Harris, Michael Duffy,Jamie Metsch, Richard Dionne, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). i • Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 313.2 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped September 13, 201211 petitioner requested a Special Permit to expand the nonconforming use of the property,by allowing bottling on the premises. 2. Eric Glass represented himself at the hearing. 3. At the hearing and in his application, Mr. Glass,explained that his intent was to import, warehouse,wholesale, distribute and bottle alcohol spirits on the premises. He further explained that no distillation or pressurization would take place on the premises. 4. Exterior changes are not part of the proposal. 5. At the hearing, no member of the public spoke in favor of or against the project. The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. Desirable relief may be granted without detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, since the • proposed business would be less detrimental to the neighborhood than other types of businesses allowed there by right, including those that generate',significant truck traffic. I I . 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 voted five (5) in favor (Curran, Harris, Dionne, Duffy and Metsch) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit. A Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 is granted to allow for the bottling on the property at 51R Canal Street/4 Florence Street. The Board of Appeals voted 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. 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. • 2 CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS � � BOARD OF APPEAL S , 120 WASHINOTON$TREI-f+$ALF_'M,iYIASSACHUSGPI'S 01970 /MMS 0% 'feLe:978-619-5685 FAX:978-740-0404 Ki,NoLI LGY DRISCOLL MAYOR co) November 20, 2012 4 r x Decision ?� O City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals m 3 Petition of JOANNE R. HIGGINS for an administrative appeal of a decision ofAhe Building Commissioner for the property located at 7 FLORENCE STREET N J A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 7, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on November 7, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Michael Duffy,Jamie Metsch, • Richard Dionne, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks an administrative appeal of a decision of the Building Commissioner. Statements of fact: 1. On April 25, 2001, the Board issued a Variance allowing commercial use for the premises. 2. In a petition date-stamped August 9, 2012, petitioner requested an appeal of a decision of the Salem Licensing Board to issue a Used Car Dealers License Class II to Salter Motor Sports, LLC for activities to take place at 7 Florence Street, Salem. 3. Attorney Joseph Wellington represented petitioner at the hearing. 4. In an attachment to the petition, and at the hearing, petitioner stated the Licensing Board's decision to issue the license was predicated on guidance received from Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner in a letter dated July 11, 2012, advising the Board that the proposed use requiring a Class II License was consistent with the uses allowed on the site by the 2001 Variance. 5. At the hearing, several residents spoke in support of overturning the decision of the Building Commissioner, citing concerns about the impacts of auto maintenance on the neighborhood. 1 f • 6. At the hearing, the owner of Salter Motor Sports, LLC,represented by Attorney Joseph Correnti, stated his opposition to overturning the decision of the Building Commissioner and questioned the jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals to hear the appeal. 7. The Board of Appeals, through counsel, also 'reserved the right to raise jurisdictional questions on appeal, if any. The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petition submitted, makes the following findings: I 1. The Board of Appeals has no jurisdiction over actions taken by the Salem Licensing Board. 2. The only issue before the Board of Appeals isithe validity of Mr. St. Pierre's decision that Salter Motor Sports, LLC's proposed activities requiring a Used Car Dealers License Class II are consistent with the use allowed under the 2001 Variance. 3. The Board finds that Mr. St. Pierre's decision that the occasional sale of classic cars, which use requires the Used Car Dealers License Class II, is consistent with the existing use of that site and the prior variance. it 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 voted none (0) in favor and five (5) opposed (Curran, Harris, Dionne, Duffy and Metsch), to affirm the appeal of the Building Commissioner's decision. The appeal is denied, and the decision of the Building Inspector is upheld. I Rebecca Curran, Chair (Salem Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK i Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursual t to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days ofIfiling 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 Registryiof Deeds. 2 � _ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • ' ��,, BOARD OF APPEAL a� 120%VASHING'I'ONSTREET SdLEAI,NIASS,\(:IIUSErIs01970 Tess:978-619-5685 ♦ PAX:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOIS. MAYOR (7 —4 •V <i ^� r z rn c November 20, 2012 n t r= ry Drn O Decision rr1I 3 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ?, cn J Petition of NORTHEAST BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CORP. appealing a Cease and Desist order of the Building Inspector for the property located at 41 MASON STREET A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 7, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on November 7, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Michael Duffy,Jamie Metsch, • Richard Dionne, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks an administrative appeal of a Cease and Desist order of the Building Commissioner. Statements of fact: 1. On March 19, 2003, the Zoning Board of Appeals issued a Variance for the property located at 41 Mason Street,in the Industrial Zoning District,granting dimensional relief to allow for an addition onto the existing building on that property. The Variance restricted hours of operation of the businesses on the premises to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 2. In a letter dated August 1, 2012, Building Commissioner Thomas St. Pierre ordered two businesses operating at 41 Mason Street, a dance studio and HES Group, to cease operation between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 3. In a petition date-stamped September 21, 2012, petitioner appealed the Cease and Desist order dated August 1, 2012. 4. Attorney Marshall J. Handly represented the petitioner at the hearing. 5. At the hearing and in the petition,Attorney Handly stated that the decision should be overturned because the use and operation of the space leased by Northeast Behavioral Health Corporation ("NHB") were exempt from zoning under the provisions of M.G.L. • Chapter 40A 93, since NHB is a non-profit educational corporation. Section 3 provides, in 1 i • relevant part, that "No zoning ordinance or by-law shall ... prohibit, regulate or restrict the use of land or structures for religious purposes or ... or by a nonprofit educational corporation;provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of Istmctures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements." 6. At the hearing,Attorney Handly stated that th'e hours of operation were critical to NHB's educational mission. 7. At the hearing, several residents spoke in support of upholding the Cease and Desist order, citing disruptions to the neighborhood from noise, police calls, traffic,lack of parking, and trash. The Board also received copies of policee reports and two letters from residents supporting upholding the order. No resident spoke against upholding the order. I The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. A condition placed on a variance from dimensional requirements restricted the hours of operation of all tenants in the building. This condition allowed for the expansion of the structure and without this condition, the building may not have been enlarged. The hour restrictions were a safeguard on dimensional control. i I • 2. The Board does not make a finding as to whether Northeast Behavioral Health is an educational use entitled to protection under M.G.L. Chapter 40A �3. 1 3. The 2003 Variance's limitations were included to serve a municipal goal. Further, there is ample evidence that this condition limiting hours of operation is necessary and such supporting evidence is on record, e.g. police reports presentedlto the Board and the testimony of neighbors. 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 voted five (5) in favor (Curran, Harris, Dionne, Duffy and Metsch) and none (0) opposed, to uphold the Cease and Desist order issued by the Budding Commissionerlrestricting the hours of operation of Northeast Behavioral Health Corp. at 41 Mason Street I 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 pursua I t 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 2 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 Regist_y of Deeds. • • 3 i CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL s Lt3; q. 120 WA5HING70N STREET♦ SAL.EM,MASSA©-[MSETTS o1970 TiYi11:978-745-95% ♦ FAX 978-740-9846 Kimueiu E v DR<scoL E MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,November 7, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem,MA the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of NORTHEAST BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CORP. appealing a cease and desist order of the Building Inspector for the property located at 4'1 MASON ST Decision: Denied; Cease and Desist order of the Building Inspector is upheld Filed with the City Clerk on November 20, 2012 Petition of JOANNE R. HIGGINS for an administrative appeal of a decision of the Building • Inspector for the property located at 7 FLORENCE ST Decision: Denied; decision of the Building Inspector is ;upheld Filed with the City Clerk on November 20, 2012 1 Petition of ERIC GLASS requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming use in order to conduct bottling on the premises of 51R CANAL ST/4 FLORENCE ST (B4 & R2) Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on November 20, 2012 i This notice is beingsern in cwpliarue with theMassa&wem dal Lazes, Chapter 40A, Seniors 9& 15 and" not wire action by the raipz6 A ppeals, if ark shall be nude pursuant to aupter 40A, Sation 17, and shall be filed within 20 dais from the elate whz&the&vision was filed vab the City Cle& C i I i i i QTY OF SALEM, MASSAC HUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTONSTREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSE9TS01970 -ITI-E:978-745-9595 FAx:978-740-9846 Ki MBERLLY DRISCOLL NTAYOR I MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner DATE: December 13,2012 VJ C. RE: Meeting Agenda-�.ievernber-7 2012 (✓� ,_� i Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: • 1. Agenda 2. Planner's memo 3. Meeting minutes of 11/7/12 Petition of THOMAS H. PSZENNY requestingL Special Permit to construct a third-story dormer on the two- family house located at 7 HODGES CT (R-2). The applicant proposes a shed dormer on the north side of the two-family house,expanding the third-floor space. The R-2 zoning district limits the number of stories to 1i The plot plan and elevations are enclosed. Petition of BING REALTY TRUST seeking to amend a previously issued Variance decision in order to change the allowed hours of operation of the dance studi i o located in the building on 41 MASON ST (NRCC). The applicant is requesting a modification of a previously issued Variance restricting hours of operation for the building at 41 Mason St.to 7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.,in order to allow the dance studio (only) to operate from 7:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m Petition of MATTHE W BANKO requesting to amend a previous decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals to eliminate the owner occupancy requirement from a Special Permit for the property located at 9-11 OCEAN TERRACE (R-1). Applicant also requests a Variance and Special Permit to add a third-floor dormer to the structure. i In 1980, a previous owner of this property received al,Special Permit to convert what was at the time a two-family house to a three-family house. The two-family use was already nonconforming,since it was located in the R 1 zoning district. • A modified Special Permit was issued in 1986 to a new owner,still allowing a three-family use, but restricting the number of occupants to seven, restricting the number of vehicles parked there to four, and requiring owner occupancy. In 2010, the current owner,Mr.Banko, requested to modify the 1986 Special Permit;which was interpreted as requiring occupancy of the particular owner at the time the 1986 permit was issued. The Board issued a new Special Permit in 2010 that still required owner occupancy,but clarified that the owner did not need to be the one named in the 1986 permit. All three decisions are included in your packet. Mr.Banko is now requesting that the Board remove the owner ' 1 I it occupancy provision altogether. The 2010 decision notes that Board members expressed concern at the hearing about allowing a three-family use without any owner occupancy requirement. The minutes from that hearing are also enclosed. The attachment to Mr.Banko's application states that his reason for the request to remove the owner occupancy requirement is that he would like to convert the units to condos;further detail and explanation is provided in this attachment. The applicant also requests a Special Permit to alter a nonconforming structure and a Variance from number of stories,in order to construct a third-story dormer(2.5 stories are allowed in the R 1 zoning district). A Variance is required in this case (unlike for 7 Hodges St.,above) because this is a three-family house,rather than a two-family,so the exemption from Variance requirements for single and two-family houses (Sec. 3.3.5) does not apply. A plot plan and elevation drawing are enclosed. • 2 I y; City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet t i /7i i `il Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date I, Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail S -V Floren ce, t �'i 7 F,S3Q =2 x e Caurde 5i -7'a row s57 979' 1I77 7 R39 Miriokm Jo4a IG I.J1,li,Sor10()e C17�'-F67-OqO l ri Gr/�ina�S Otte %�co J j9,W-616 45hAi e ,S_ak 79115L-W91 No_ d r l ok O lay) n C�crdne� s�,pealQ�i r�v�h. ln�nso�n Qlh�v`�c�oYyl�erv-nr�P�bai ��nrBZ ohnson KinAom ICrrRce Peaboc& cvt 21 G 1 we_I I S1 . a loc f ar,6n �a1fr532-oO�k G rrT //1/��r / PQ /,P OIn� P -s Page of it I -In Sheet City of Salem — Meeting Sign v� E�, ,y�, Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Addresi Phone # E-mail S n T N Gvecr*ac RO,hNN HN 5qlt-77q_3qb WA \Nt u % _�)p l-"m�Af(III. -rr ac G Oc,[ 'kO zo su 1vc� S+ . utue �r5 .�1� S7VD 7 -X7a- HWee Movkes '-Q 'Bakcomb ��, S�IIcM,M� a7B '7H0 -NLf6� �a1 L�nh ll((0 L, IS) Qkei IVYIYIIh�n a7$ -5y�7/-yb517 a._1 `Y EAred ICn I. ,O 115 g2lCi( ii /VI? Ai� 1n Silk l� UKIB P1 L. I"yh VY11`1 �i1� a��(-uS22 v i Uhl I ral PL 1�Q We. S ?I l �l$ ��`I-S12� oF;a Pe,r as a931OLf St 7k12 Sal?� Ah fill` P I i U U 60 ', 32 9?k-f f 1oS?7 +ctfAeP S-rAW-F-Y I ct I ouji�i Sr; �� OD2 �7Ss 3�2 5`(28 l�c�STN L r�PEc� YaN,u�i Id 5o(pin ST I i Page 2 of I i �oNDfTR , City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date i L_ / / ) Z Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail f/ r- I Q2 e?j 7 LIO-010 es C+ g7F =7yC 37S-v K :-� � �- 1t GuMA_OT,_;c� 9 b-5m- Q�l e (o Pe,rcr- Ave— f e,(1u06-- g17k--72` _G616 eli �rd 12 CrP.Stiirle GrUf M ' g18-J1y -13 La- quAl ire c(ku oong.aLo a-)ymt_ M 1 e IIIW6 Ya )a( �Al Ot C[OV i fI �4� del ,G"aPRA qCM ° 2,w 1Cyi �� N LeMy (61 f1.97-0RS /h a 3 fu. In �t o � -r- P Page of�_ CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL >] 120 WASI ANUMNS1 M IA ♦SALI M,NIASSACIIUSE*I-Iti 01970 - - 'FFLE:978-619-5685 FAX:978-740-0404 KiNIBF.RLEY DW(OLL MAYOR MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS December 19, 2012—7:00 P.M. (not6:30 as usual) r"- City Hall Annex, 120 Washington tteet, Salem, MA, Room `r7r Ajxt,e.e aL. X)---WL Znrn cn Rebecca Curran,Chair > 3 MEETING AGENDA s � N �n 1. Approval of Minutes: November 7, 2012 meeting • Petition of THOIvIAS H. PSZENNY requesting a Special Permit to construct a third-story dormer on the two-family house located at 7 HODGES CT (R-2). 3. Petition of BING REALTY TRUST seeking to amend a previously issued Variance decision in order to change the allowed hours of operation of the dance studio located in the building on 41 MASON ST (NRCC). 4. Petition of MATTHEW BANKO requesting to amend a previous decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals to eliminate the owner occupancy requirement from a Special Permit for the property located at 9-11 OCEAN TERRACE (R-1). Applicant also requests a Variance and Special Permit to add a third- floor dormer to the structure. 5. Old/New Business 6. Adjournment ` WOO Rome;F H -M on sn�, Iil006. on a, ZoiL a BIZ/-Ph w2h Cr4t. Q . 1/.��. uatu Your Rigbts under The Open ilfeelinS Lin,tILG.L c. 39123B evul City Ordinance Seelions 2-2 28 lb -oii b 2-2033. • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, December 19, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, December 19, 2012 in the third floor conference room of 120 Washington St., Salem, Massachusetts at 7:00 p.m. I Those present were: Annie Harris, Mike Duffy, Becky Curran (Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, and Rick Dionne. Those absent were: Bonnie B lair and Jamie Metsch. Also present was Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner. Ms. Curran opens the meeting at 7:05 p.m. I Approval of Minutes Mr. Dionne moves to approve the minutes of 11/7/12, seconded Mr. Duffy; all in favor. Petition of BING REALTY TRUST seeking to amend a previously issued Variance decision in order to change the allowed hours of operation of the dance studio located in the building on 41 MASON ST(NRCC). • Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 11/7/12 and accompanying materials ➢ Letter (violation notice) from Thomas St. Pierre dated 8/1/12 ➢ Variance decision dated 3/27/03 for 41 Mason St. ➢ Letter from Kathleen Zolla, PO Box 5, Bedford, dated 12/17/12 Attorney Jack Keilty presents the petition on behalf of Bing Realty Trust. He says they wish to amend a variance issued with conditions#at included restrictions on the hours of operation. He says Dance Enthusiasm has been a tenant for years, and they wish to change the terms of the variance to allow hours of 7 am to 9 pm, to accommodate classes that take place after school and the workday. Mr. Haley of Bing Realty Trust is present tonight as well. He says they are a use highly compatible with the neighborhood, particularly since this is located in the Industrial zone. There is very little traffic and virtually no noise generated by this operation. Ms. Curran: Is this open seven days a week? Mr. Keilty: Five days a week, there are extended hours until 9 p.m. Ms. Curran:There are many people here; everyone should have a chance to talk, so please keep comments brief if the same points have already been made. I it 1 i Attorney Mark Nestor, 45 Middle St., Gloucester, representing 37 Mason St. residents • Joseph and Silvana White, says his clients agreed to issuance of a variance as long as hours were restricted. He says the dance studio should have been aware that the building had restricted hours. There is a noise and a parking issue, reinforced by the number of parents. There is minimal off-street parking. His clients hear the music— they have children and this disrupts bedtimes, etc. He requests that the Board not grant the extension until 9 p.m. Joseph White, 37 Mason St., says the dance studio circulated a petition about this, and it was insinuated that a methadone clinic would be put here if the hours of operation were not extended. He says the noise has been a nuisance, including music and children running in the back. He opposes extending hours. Nancy Keller, 14 N. Central Ct., Peabody, says the studio is run very well. The teachers are with the students after school, not only working on dance but service issues. She says the teachers are professionals who encourage the girls to be kind, principled, etc. These are not the kind of people who would threaten a methadone clinic—she finds this hard to believe. The impact is negligible. She rarely hears the music, even when dropping off her daughter. She says the walls are thick and windows are not usually open. Dropoff/pickup does not cause parking problems. She objects to complaints from Mr. White about the 9-year-olds laughing, etc. She says this was a run down area that was improved. • Steve Ryan, 77 Mason St., says he didn't sign the petition. While he is sure the dance studio is positive for the kids, the expansion of business is troubling. He says he's often awakened by ambulances coming into the property. He understands this is not for the dance studio, but why would they expand one business and not another? This is a residential area. Lisa Swenson, 2 N Central Ct., Peabody, says she is there 5 days a week; she never parks outside the lot and never on the street, and doesn't understand how parking is a problem. Arthur Parent, 39 Mason St., says when the permit was voted on, there were not supposed to be evening businesses. There are traffic problems, noise constantly. Once everyone leaves at night, there's a lot of traffic. Silvana White, 37 Mason St., says as to the point that there cars are dropping and picking up and not staying—this is true, but we live there and we actually hear this noise. Mary Luz, 12 Summit St., Salem, says noise is not a problem. She is one of the teachers and says they keep the windows closed and AC on so that there isn't noise outside. • They have told parents not to park in the street. Congestion is only 5 minutes during 2 • dropoff/pickup. We don't allow the children to run around the lot. I don't understand after 7 years why we are suddenly hearing about the noise. Alexandra Serino, 6 Pierce Ave, Beverly, says that as to the conversation about the methadone clinic— I was one of the people circulating petition. What we said about the clinic is that's what's causing the noise and ambulances. I'm an alum and teacher, and i we don't allow the kids to So downstairs to wait!for a ride. If this went out of business l , it would affect a lot of people. I Amy Forman, 81 Bates Rd., Swampscott, says this is a mixed use street—we are looking to encourage business, and these hours are totally reasonable for a dance studio. This is family-friendly, healthy business. It's a positive environment and the request for a couple of extra hours is reasonable. Joanne Joyce, 19 Windsor Lane,Topsfield, says her daughter has just begun at Dance Enthusiasm, and since then she has grown and matured. She is encouraged by the teachers. We don't make noise. We trust the teachers. We need to look more at keeping kids off the street or home playing video games. Steve Luz, 12 Summit St., says these young ladies are ambassadors from Salem. They go to competitions in other regions, and the girls are proud to be from here. They are . positive role models and are just about to start their competition season. This would pull the rug out from under the competition. Ms. Curran: Have you been operating until 9? It varies. Summer is partially closed. We never knew there were restricted hours. Ms. Curran: even when you signed the lease? No. Ms. McKnight summarizes a letter from Kathleen,Zolla, Boxford, in support of the studio. i Mr. Keilty:This is the BP zoning district—nature of uses is mixed. On the corner, it's very business oriented. There are gas stations, retail, etc. Heading down Mason St., there are former industrial uses. This is an allowed use in this zoning district. However, it's located in a building that had changes made with a variance issued to Mr. Haley. The Ward councilor reported the neighborhood was in favor of the change at the time in order to improve the property. Mr. Haley had said the uses would be compatible with this zoning district. It's only because of the dimensional variance granted in 2003 that the hours are restricted; it's not because the use is not allowed. He says the premises are much improved from having been an auto repair shop. There are no neon signs. Our use is consistent with the zoning district, as are the hours. He understands there are residential properties that enjoy or don't enjoy business zoning, and there are • transitional zones. He says the proposed hours are reasonable. �i 3 Atty Nestor: the key issue is "but for"; they needed a variance, and in getting one, they • agreed to restrict the hours. It also appears the dance studio was not advised by the landlord of the hours. Now the landlord is asking us to fix his mistake. He was aware of the restriction. Ms. Curran: the issue is that a variance was granted in 2003. It was discussed and agreed to that one of the reasons it was granted —there were certain conditions that run to the property. A variance runs with the property. If we are altering the hours of operation for dance enthusiasm, it's for the building. We can't do a variance for the hours for one of the places there. When they leave, it's that space. I don't see how we really can do this. I think the studio is great. But this was negotiated in 2003, and we're still hearing from the neighborhood that these issues are still relevant. I think it allows the other uses in the building to possibly extend their hours of operation as well. Ms. Harris: I agree—a variance is a variance, and this appears to be a key component to it. It's not a Special Permit. Mr. Tsitsinos: Each business is different. Ms. Harris:this goes with the property, not the business. We just dealt with this at the last meeting. Mr. Tsitsinos:This is children's after school time— not a clinic. • Ms. Harris: you can't make a distinction on a variance. Ms. Curran: This building has a limitation on it in hours. If they had known that, they may not have signed the lease. I have no problem with the use. Ms. Harris: It's impractical to have the studio without those hours. Mr. Tsitsinos: after 7 years, this has just come up? Mr. Keilty: nothing prohibits you from considering the hours. I understand the variance runs with the land. However, if you wanted to revisit the hours, you could do so. Ms. Curran: We're still hearing issues from the neighborhood. You still have the same people living here. Mr. Dionne: HES is now restricted? Ms. Curran: everyone in the building is restricted. Ms. Harris: I agree with you. • 4 I • Mr. Dionne: we restricted the 24 hour operationonly? I Ms. Curran: no, everything was restricted in the building by the variance. Mr. Keilty: we are asking for an amendment to thie hours, not saying we are exempt. Kelly Belthoff, 20 Sylvan St., Danvers, notes that psychiatric screening is done in the building. Ms. Curran: HES and others are all restricted by the variance. Joanne Joyce: Isn't there a house for troubled teens there? Mr. Dionne: I hate to restrict their hours. Ms. Cu!ran —they are restricted, not through the zoning, but through a previous variance. Thei building was allowed to be renovated as it was, with those restrictions. As to the HES petition, this board determined that it didn't matter if it was an exempt use or not. I Kathy Surrette, 4 Hawk Hill Rd., Beverly, asks why the building was restricted. • Ms. Curran:there was a lot of neighborhood concern about the evening hours. It wasn't a matter of right—they were asking for relief - and they agreed to the condition. Lisa Roberts, 4 Forence Rd., Peabody—The only congestion on Mason St. has been during construction. This is the beginning of a business district, which this studio is part of. You are asking to restrict hours for this kind of business. Ms. Curran:this runs with the land. This particular building was not done by right, it was done by a variance, and it had restrictions, and without those, this project may never have gone forward. Amy Forman: Don't you have the ability to change the variance? Ms. Curran: we are dealing with an existing variance. It would apply to the entire building. I am still hearing neighborhood issues. !If the neighbors supported something with conditions, and this was changed,then something else could go in here until 9. Mr. Keilty:that is highly speculative, and we have a use here now. Ms. Harris moves to approve the petition to change the hours of operation to extend to 9 p.m., seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos and voted 2 in favor (Mr.Tstitsinos and Mr. Dionne) • and 3 opposed (Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris and Mr. Duffy). The petition is denied. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. � 5 4 Petition of THOMAS H. PSZENNY requesting a Special Permit to construct a third-story • dormer on the two-family house located at 7 HODGES CT(11-2). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 11/20/12 ➢ Alterations & Repairs to 7 Hodges Court, Salem, MA, prepared by Richard Stanley AIA, dated 10/2012 Richard Stanley, 191 Lowell St., Peabody, presents the petition for 7 Hodges Ct. He says they are renovating the property, and in order to do it economically, they are asking to raise the roofline and add a dormer. We are raising the wall four feet in a full shed dormer. The elevations show how it affects the view on three sides. It's already a nonconforming building, and it's run-down. Ms. Harris: This is in the historic district. Mr. Stanley: I was told we didn't need to see the commission because it's not a historic building. Ms. Harris says this is incorrect if it's located in the district—he should check again if it is. Ms. Curran: we would make any approval contingent on necessary Historical • Commission approval. Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment. No one comments. Ms. Curran:The use is staying same, and you are increasing head room. Mr. Stanley: It was built in 1898. Ms. Curran: I have no problem with this proposal; it's minimal, and not detrimental in any way. There would be no effect on traffic flow or utilities. Mr. Duffy: This is a minimal change, and doesn't change any nonconforming aspects of the existing structure, and I can't see how it would be a detriment. Mr. Duffy moves to approve the petition with 8 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Ms. Harris, Ms. Curran, Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Dionne in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Petition of MATTHEW BANKO requesting to amend a previous decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals to eliminate the owner occupancy requirement from a Special • 6 • Permit for the property located at 9-11 OCEAN TERRACE (R-1). Applicant also requests a Variance and Special Permit to add a third-floor dormer to the structure. Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 10/24/12 ➢ Elevation drawing, no date ➢ Condominium master deed for 9-11Ocean Terrace ➢ Exhibit 2: Purchase and Sale agreements, dated 10/23/12 ➢ Three previous Special Permit decisions for 9-11Ocean Terrace date-stamped 7/1/10, 3/12/86, and 9/10/80 ➢ Plot plan dated 6/4/12 Atty Mike McCardle, 204 Lafayette St. Salem, represents Matthew and Joseph Banko, who are also present. He says they have owned the building and resided there since 1996. He summarizes previous relief granted for this property, allowing it to be used as a three-unit building, and later clarifying conditions. Mr. Banko recently had condominium documents done, and these have been submitted. This is a 3-unit condo that he has marketed in various listings to purchasers. However, banks will not issue a loan under current conditions of the special permit. If it were foreclosed, it would not be owner occupied, and there would be an automatic reversion to the two-family status, as specified in the special permits. If an owner decided to lease,this would • result in an automatic reversion. The same would happen for any potential purchaser. He says even if leased, an owner would have to retain an interest in the property. The first owners would live there;they just don't know if they or other subsequent owners may lease in the future. He says the units will be separately taxed, and the sum value will be higher than the building currently is taxed for. He then addresses the dormer requested. Mr. Banko would like to add a third-story dormer of 9 feet. Ms. Curran opens the hearing up for public comment. No one comments. Ms. Curran: There are two issues—the variance for the dormer, and taking away the Special Permit condition that it be owner occupied. The fact that it's been a rental and is now going to condos does change the owner occupied situation. How many parking spaces are there now? There's a plan to remove an oak tree to make room for a fifth space. Atty McCardle reviews the parking plan. Ms. Harris: it has three parking spaces—what is the condo requirement? 5? Mr. Banko: there are four spaces now. • Mr. Dionne: I hate to cut down a 150 year old tree. 7 Ms. Curran: I don't really see the hardship reasoning for the dormer. • Mr. Banko: it's a pitched roof and there's no room for a table, and it's terrible. You can't stand up. That's a hardship. Ms. Harris: that's because it was supposed to be a two-family. Ms. Curran: it may be there shouldn't be living space. I don't see that as a hardship. On the issue of occupancy—it's a little confusing. I would be willing to amend it to take away the owner occupancy requirement if it was limited to 2 units. That would be the issue anyway when it sells. Mr. McCardle: We already have a P&s for two units. Ms. Curran: I would be willing to waive the owner occupancy restriction if it were a two- family. Mr. McCardle: We are trying to enhance owner occupancy, not waive it. It needs to be worded such that there would be no automatic reversion in the case of foreclosure or lease. It's been used as a three family since 1980, and it's set up nicely that way. Ms. Harris: all action of the previous board anticipated it would revert back to a 2 family. • Ms. Curran: I don't think we can do the dormer. Mr. McCardle:the other issue is more important. Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris agree it should revert to a 2-family if the clause is removed. Ms. Harris: It was only allowed to be a three family for a while; it was always anticipated to go back to a 2 family when sold. All recent action has anticipated that. This is a one- family zone. Ms. Curran: I would be willing to take out the problematic language to make it a two- family. Ms. Harris: I agree; if we vote on clarification,the goal would be 2 family owner occupancy. Mr. Dionne: this has been used as a three-family for a long time. Mr. Tsitsinos: how many meters are on the property? Mr. Banko says four. • 8 I Ms. Curran: if this were denied tonight, it would revert to a two family? Mr. McCardle: No, we have an owner occupant, there would be no change, it would just kill the condo marketing plan. i Mr. Dionne: The condos would not necessarily be owner occupied, because those owners could lease. II Mr. McCardle:You still have to be involved in the property and make sure the rules are followed. I Ms. Curran: we will divide this into two votes—Ithe dormer and the language. Ms. Harris moves to approve the request for the third-story dormer, seconded by Mr. Duffy, and denied 4-1 (Mr. Dionne in favor; Ms.iCurran, Ms. Harris, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Tsitsinos opposed). Ms. Harris moves to approve the request to amend the owner occupancy requirement, seconded by Mr. Duffy and denied 5-0 (Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Tsitsinos opposed, none in favor). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Old/New business • Ms. McKnight announces she will be leaving thelCity of Salem at the end of the year. Adjournment Ms. Harris moves to adjourn, seconded by Mr. DIionne; all in favor. The meeting adjourns at 8:40 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.-Ilsolem.com/""P``agesISa/emMA ZoninaAppealsMin/ Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 1/17/2013 I �I I 9 i I I CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL �X C 120 ASFIING I ON StRI-M ♦SALEM,MASSku,usI?I- odWN -2 a 0 20'1,Ei:E:978-619-1685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 K[61141i11LEY DR1SC011, FILE MAYOR CITY CLERK, SALEM,MASS, I December 201, 2012 Decision I City of Salem Zoning B'bard of Appeals Petition of MATTHEW BANKO requesting to amend a previous decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals to eliminate the owner occupancy requirement from a Special Permit for the property located at 9-11 OCEAN TERRACE (R-1). Applicant also requests a Variance and Special Permit to add a third-floor dormer to the structure. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on December 19, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on December 19,2012 with the following ZoningBoard of Appeals members present: pp p e,ent: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Michael Duffy, • Richard Dionne,and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks to amend a Special Permit granted on June 16, 2010 for the property located at 9-11 Ocean Terrace,Salem. Petitioner also seeks relief pursuant to Sections 4.0 and 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. Three previous Special Permit decisions, date-st damped September 10, 1980, March 12, 1986, and July 1,2010, had been issued for this property, allowing its use as a three-family house, with the condition that the premises remain owner-occupied,or it was to riven to a hvo- family house. 2. In a petition date-stamped October 24, 2012,petitioner requested elimination of the owner- occupancy requirement so that he could convert the apartments to condominiums. The petition also requested dimensional relief to construct a third-story dormer. 3. Attorney Michael McCardle represented the petitioner at the hearing. I 4. At the hearing, no member of the public spoke mlfavor of or in opposition to the petition. The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submiitted, makes the following findings: I 1 I I I With regard to the requested Variance and Special Permit for a shed dormer: 1. Desirable relief could not be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 2. Special conditions and circumstances do not exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district. 3. Evidence was not presented establishing that a literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant. With regard to the requested elimination of the owner-occupancy requirement for the property: 1. Desirable relief could not be granted either without detriment to the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. All • previous Board decisions regarding this issue had contemplated reversion of the three-family house to a two-family house if it were ever not occupied by the owner. Existence of a three- family house in the Residential One-Family Zoning District warrants this condition. 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 voted five (S) opposed (Curran,Dionne,Tsitsinos, Duffy and Dionne) and none (0) in favor, to grant the requested amendment to the previously issued Special Permit to eliminate the owner occupancy requirement for a three-family house. The Board voted one (1) in favor (Dionne) and four (4) opposed (Curran,Tsitsinos, Duffy and Dionne) to grant the requested Variance and Special Permit to construct a third-story addition. Both petitions are 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 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 • 2 � I •' Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • • 3 CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL JA -2 A 10: 20 120 VUAS7{lNC,IL�N tirR�;e'r�SntGsq.Y[��Ssnriiusr10111 Trr,.6:978-619-5685 + FvX:978-740-0404 Kw11F.R WflY DR1scou, Y1nvoR CITY CLERK,SALEM, MrASS. December 26, 2012 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of THOMAS H. PSZENNY requesting a Special Permit to construct a third-story dormer on the two-family house located at 7 HODGES COURT (R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on December 19, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, � 11. The hearing was closed on December 19,2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Annie Harris, Michael Duffy, Richard Dionne, 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. In a petition date-stamped November 20, 2012,petitioner requested a Special Permit to construct a third-story dormer on the two-family house located at 7 Hodges Ct.. 2. Richard Stanley, the project's architect,presented the petition at the hearing. Mr. Pszenny was also present. 3. At the hearing,no member of the public spoke in favor of or against the project. 11ne Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted,makes the following findings: 1. Desirable relief may be granted without detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, since the proposal is minimal and would not increase the nonconforming nature of the structure, and there would be no impact on traffic or utilities. 2. In permitting such change, the Board of.Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. • 1 i • 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 voted five (5) in favor (Curran,Harris, Dionne, Duffy and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit. A_Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 is granted to allow for the proposed dormer addition on7 Hodgest Ct, as shown on the submittedlplans. The Board of Appeals voted 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 plansl�and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. I I 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Departmen'I 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. I • 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to, the Planning Board and Historical Commission. i 8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise,anv 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 of more than fifty percent (501/6) 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'Ito 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 Perrot granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of'ithe decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. I 2 I °"°'T 4� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINcro.SITF.r'r*S,w.rM,N1,5511R JA y ot2o AID 19 tiAIV�y 11-,LL.978-619-5685* FAX:978-740-0404 KIM73Ea1.8Y Diuscou. FILE It MAYors CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. December 26, 2012 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of BING REALTY TRUST seeking to amend a previously issued Variance decision in order to change the allowed hours of operation of the dance studio located in the building on 41 MASON ST (NRCC). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on December 19, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on December 19, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Annie Harris, Michael Duffy, Richard Dionne,and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks to amend a Variance granted on March 19, 2003 for the property located at 41 • Mason Street, Salem. Statements of fact: 1. In a decision date-stamped March 27, 2003, owner Stephen W. Haley received Variances from side and rear setbacks, parking and density requirements to construct an addition on the building located at 41 Mason Street. 2. A condition of issuance of the Variances was a restriction of the hours of operation of the building from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 3. In a petition date-stamped November 7,2012,petitioner requested to amend the condition of the Variance restriction hours for the dance studio only, to allow it to stay open until 9:00 p.m. 4. Attorney John R. Keilty, 40 Lowell Street,represented the petitioner at the hearing. 5. At the hearing, several neighbors spoke against the petition, citing concerns about noise, traffic,parking and congestion on and around the site. 6. At the hearing, many students, parents and teachers from the dance studio spoke in support of the petition, saying that noise, parking and traffic issues were minimal, the studio was • i. surrounded by businesses as well as residences and it served youth and the community ' Y ty na positive way. The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. While the existence of the dance studio was not problematic, relief to extend the hours of operation to 9:00 p.m. could not be granted either without detriment to the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, since the expansion of the building in 2003 only occurred under the condition that business operations on the site be restricted to 6:00 p.m., and the Board finds that operations after this hour are disruptive 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 voted two (2) in favor (Dionne and Tsitsinos) and three (3) opposed (Curran,Harris and Duffy), to grant the requested amendment to the previously issued Variance. The petition is denied.6 Rebecca Curran, Chair Salem Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH'T'HE 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 he filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. 2 i �0"D1rA CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL F t 120 WnswNc'roN StRr-E:r*Snt.EM,Mnssnc[-IusE'ris 01970 Tece:978-619-5685 * FAx:978-740-0404 KiMi3ERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 16,201311 6:30 p.m. City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Itreet, Salem, MA, Room 313 Rebecca Curran, Chair i MEETING AGENDA I I 1. Executive Session: ➢ Discussion of litigation re: 16 Saunders Street in McKinnon v. Byrne ESCV 2009-01545C and in Byrne v. Curran 2012-01567C • ➢ Discussion of litigation in Higgins v. City of Salem et al. 12 Misc. 474478 (GHP) I 2. Approval of Minutes: December 19, 2012 meeting 3. Petition of JOHN & CATHERINE RANDALL requesting a Variance from Sec. 5.1, Off-Street Parking, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow a parking space of less than the required width on the property located at 46 CHESTNUT ST (R-1 Zoning District). �I 4. Petition of GARY MCCOY, POYANT SIGNS requesting a Variance from signage requirements of Sec. 4 of the City of Salem Code of Ordinances and Sec. 8.21 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for the CVS/Pharmacy store located at 300 CANAL ST (B-2/R-1 Zoning District). 5. Old/New Business 6. Adjournment I Know Your Ri ,gb1s under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. a 39 g238 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. • I CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL E / 120 WASHINGTON STREET* SALEM,MASSACFIUSETC$01970 _ Tta.e:978-745-9595 FAx:978-740-9846 KIMH13RLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Tom Devine,Staff Planner DATE: January 10,2013 RE: Meeting Agenda—January 16,2013 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Planner's memo 3. Meeting minutes of 12/19/12 Executive Session: • Discussion of litigation re: 16 Saunders Street in McKinnon v. Byrne ESCV 2009-01545C and in Byrne v. Curran 2012-01567C Assistant City Solicitor Robin Stein will update the board on the above matters. Petition of JOHN& CATHERINE RANDALL requesting a Variance from Sec. 5.1, Off-Street Parking,of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow a parking space of less than the required width on the property located at 46 CHESTNUT ST (R-1 Zoning District). Applicant seeks to create a single off-street parking space with less than the minimum required width.At its narrowest point, the proposed driveway is 9'in width,which is the minimum allowed,but lacks the required 2' setback from the lot line.The plot plan is enclosed. Petition of GARY MCCOY,POYANT SIGNS requesting a Variance from signage requirements of Sec.4 of the City of Salem Code of Ordinances and Sec. 8.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for the CVS/Pharmacy store located at 300 CANAL ST (B-2/11-1 Zoning District). Applicant seeks a variance from Salem's Signage and Zoning Ordinances to construct additional signage that was denied by the Building Inspector. For background and a recommendation,please see the enclosed letter from City Planner Lynn Duncan. • 1 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date _/ Nam Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Page of CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WAsmNm)N S1`RFFr S:er-.al.Af.tcanausta7s 01970 Tilt.978-619 K1 h113ERL['.Y r.Y 1�ftISC011 5685 F'IM'978'7404M 4R3 MAYOR -t o_ W r m a, �'n Z January 16,2013 m m D Withdrawal without Prejudice s City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals w ut Petition of GARY MCCOY/PORANT SIGNS requesting a Variance from signage requirements of Sec,4 of the City of Salem Code of Ordinances and Sec.8.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,for the CVS/Pharmacy store located at 300 CANAL ST(B-2/11-1 Zoning District). On January 16, 2013,the Board of Appeals met to discuss the petitioner's request to withdraw the above referenced petition without prejudice. The following Board of Appeals members were present: • Rebecca Curran (Chair), Bonnie Belair,Annie Harris, Mike Duffy,and Richard Dionne. At the request of the Petitioner,the Board of Appeals voted 5-0(Curran,Belair, Harris, Duffy,and Dionne in favor, none opposed)to allow the Petitioner to withdraw this petition without prejudice. GRANTED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE JANUARY 16, 2013 Rebecca Curran, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City perk. 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 8`" � BOARD OF APPEAL g,! 120 WASH1NGr0NSlRt:1:1 ♦S.u}.:1K,%U%A01USj-M. 0197° Kj&mi RLEy DRiscou. 1Y§.e 97"19-5685 FAx:978-740-0404 MAYOR _n ~ N � O (7 W r L January 16, 2013 � cn r= N >rn co Decision D zr City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals N Petition of JOHN&CATHERINE RANDALL requesting a Variance from Sec.S.1,Off-Street Parking, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow a parking space of less than the required width on the property located at 46 CHESTNUT ST(R-1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on January 16, 2013 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on January 16, 2013 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Annie Harris,Richard • Dionne, Bonnie Belair, and Mike Duffy. Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Section 5.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fad: 1. In a petition date-stamped December 20, 2012, petitioner requested a Variance from off-street parking dimensional requirements in order to construct one parking space 9' at its narrowest point with no setback from the property boundary. 2. The petitioner represented himself at the hearing. 3. At the hearing, petitioner submitted signed letters of support for the variance from Denice Brait and John H. Connelly of 48 Chestnut Street, Ken and Debra Harris of 42 Chestnut Street, and Katheryn and Joe DiPletro of 44 Chestnut Street.The Board received no correspondence in opposition to the variance and no one at the hearing spoke in favor or in opposition of the variance. The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: • A.. 1. Owing to special conditions on the property, which do not generally affect the • other parcels in this zoning district, literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the appellant. The size of the parcel and location of the structure on it are such that an off-street parking space could only be constructed with less than the required width and setback. 2. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, since the lot is large enough to accommodate the parking space. 3. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to,the Plans, Documents and testimony,the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Variance under Section 5.1 is granted to allow for the parking space, as shown on the submitted plan. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five(5)in favor(Curran, Hams, • Dionne, Belair, and Duffy) and none(0)opposed,to grant petitioner's request for a Variance subject to the following terms, conditions,and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state 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. If applicable, petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to,the Planning Board. 1 .._ C. Rebecca Curran,Chair • Salem Board of Appeals r A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • r a 3 v' City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • Approved Meeting Minutes Wednesday,January 16, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA') was held on Wednesday,January 16, 2013 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, Richard Dionne, Mike Duffy, and Bonnie Belair. Those absent were: [NAMES]. Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Tom Devine, Staff Planner. Ms. Curran opens toe nwirgat 6:30 p.m Approval of minutes: The minutes of 12/19/12 are reviewed. Ms. Belair states that she was not present at the December 19 meeting. Mr. Dionne moves to approve the minutes, seconded by Mr. Duffy and approved 4 in favor, none opposed, and 1 abstaining. Executive session for purposes of: • Discussion of litigation re: 16 Saunders Street in McKinnon v. Byrne ESCV 2009-01545C and in Byrne v. Curran 2012-01567C • • Discussion of litigation in Higgins v. City of Salem et al. 12 Misc. 474478 (GHP) Ms. Curran announces that the Board will be going into Executive Session to discuss litigation; it is not beneficial to the case to discuss the matter in open session. Mr. Duffy moves to go into Executive Session, seconded by Mr. Dionne, and approved 5-0 (Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne and Mr. Duffy, and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). The Board leaves the room at 6:05. Mr. Duffy moves to reconvene in open session at 7:05, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 M. Curran, Ms. Hams, Mr. Dionne and Mr. Duffy, and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). The Board returns to the room. Public Hearing: Petition of JOHN & CATHERINE RANDALL requesting a Variance from Sec. 5.1, Off-Street Parking, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow a parking space of less than the required width on the property located at 46 CHESTNUT ST (R-1 Zoning District). Documents &Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 12/20/12 and accompanying materials i Letter of support from Denice Brait and John H. Connelly of 48 Chestnut Street, undated Letter of support from Ken and Debra Harris of 42 Chestnut Street,undated • ➢ Letter of support from Katheryn and Joe DiPietro of 44 Chestnut Street, undated ✓ City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—January 16, 2013 Page 2 of 4 • Petitioner John Randall of 46 Chestnut Street describes the proposal. He states that the Historical Commission has approved moving the historic fence post to accommodate the parking space. Ms. Harris states that she lives in the neighborhood but is not a direct abutter and asks Ms. Curran whether that is a conflict.Ms. Curran replies that there is no conflict if she is not a direct abutter. Ms. Curran opens the meeting to public comment but there are none. Mr. Randall reads letters from neighbors supposing the variance: Denice Brait and John H. Connelly of 48 Chestnut Street, and Katheryn and Joe DiPietro of 44 Chestnut Street Ms. Curran says that she believes that granting this variance will not have any detrimental effect on the neighborhood. Ms. Harris agrees and says that having to take your car of the street for street cleaning and during a snow parking pan is a hardship. Mr. Dionne moves to approve the petition with 1 standard condition. Mr. Duffy moves to amend the motion to approve adding 4 standard conditions. The motion is approved 5-0 (Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne and Mr. Duffy, and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Public hearing: Petition of GARY MCCOY, POYANT SIGNS requesting a Variance from • signage requirements of Sec. 4 of the City of Salem Code of Ordinances and Sec. 8.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for the CVS/Pharmacy store located at 300 CANAL ST (B-2/R-1 Zoning District). Documents &Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 12/20/12 and accompanying materials ➢ Memorandum from Director of Planning & Community Development, dated 1/9/13 recommending denial of variance Set of 8 photos submitted at hearing by Gary McCoy, undated ➢ Letter of opposition from City Councilors Josh H. Turiel and Joseph A. O'Keefe, Sr., dated 1.13/13 Petitioner Gary McCoy of Poyant Signs presents. He says that in order to open the CVS quickly, they obtained by-right sign permits knowing that they would come afterwards for the relief needed to install additional signage. He states that none of the signage is proposed be to internally illuminated. Ms. Harris asks where the other tenants are on the plan and Mr. McCoy describes. He states that there are two entrances and that the site is difficult to navigate. Mr. St. Pierre states that the entrances were minimized with careful Planning Board and Mass Highway review. Mr. McCoy says that he questions the method used to calculate frontage and allowable signage area, • because the property fronts as many as three streets—Jefferson Ave., Canal St., and Kinmball Road. Ms. Curran asks what signs are present now and Mr. McCoy describes. Approved by the Board of Appeals on 02/20/2013 * City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—January 16, 2013 Page 3 of 4 Ms. Curran says she things the existing signs are very visible and is at a good scale for this residential neighborhood. The other units have building signs. More signs can be added to the pylon signs. Thirty feet in height seems excessive. Ms. Harris states that the proposed signage is more appropriate for a strip mall and not appropriate for this location. Ms. Belair asks why there is a hardship. Mr. McCoy replies that there are a number of unique characteristics of the property. the number of businesses, access limitations, and the setback from the street. Ms. Belair states that several Canal Street businesses share these characteristics and she therefore does not believe theycreate a unique hardship. Ms. Curran opens the meeting to the public. Ben Anderson of 10 Adams Street says that there are 3, and not 2, entrances, and that Tedeschi already has a freestanding sign on Jefferson Ave. and additional signage would be excessive. He does not think a 30' sign would be in character with current or future development in the neighborhood. He thinks that the building signage is acceptable, but a 30' sign would be taller than the light posts that were reduced in size during Planning Board review. He believes that there is sufficient space for other sign panels on the existing freestanding sign. . Matt Veno of 20 Forest Ave., member of the Salem Redevelopment Authority, reads a letter opposing the variance signed by City Councilors Joseph A. O'Keefe and Josh Turiel. Mr. Veno states that he believes that proposal is out of character with the neighborhood. The City has stopped other Canal Street properties from installing noncompliant signage. There is a history of the City taking this matter seriously and encouraging signs that are appropriate for the neighborhood. Pauly Wilbert, 7 Peters St., says she agrees with the last two speakers. She agrees with Lynn Duncan's recommendation for denial of the variance in her memo to the Board. The Tedeschi signs would have to come down because only two freestanding signs are allowed. The City has held the line with other property owners and ensured compliance with the limitations on signage. Allowing relief in this case could create a sign race among businesses competing for exposure. Ms. Wilbert adds that the CVS is Vinnin Square has no tenant signage, but people have no problem finding the store. With technology, signs are not longer as important as they once were, since smartphones help us find what we want. She says that 30' is not needed in order to be visible and she recommends denial of the variance. Jim Rose of 25 Linden St. says he is in agreement with the other members of the audience who have spoken. The 15' sign is very visible on Canal Street. If another is installed on Jefferson Ave., it should be far away from the fast residential property, perhaps between the two curb cuts. He states that no one is using Kimball Road for access to the property. • Mr. McCoy says that he did misspeak regarding the number of entrances. There is an additional entrance into Tedeschi that will remain. Our objective is to obtain adequate sign space for our Approved by the Board of Appeals on 02/20/2013 t City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—January 16, 2013 Page 4 of 4 • tenants. Thirty feet is not an arbitrary height, but what we had originally planned in addition to a monument sign on Jefferson Ave. that would be less than 6'in height. Mr. McCoy wonders if there could be some middle ground. Ms. Hams suggests that the petitioner withdraw and modify the proposal. Ms. Curran states that the Board would need to see plans if the proposal is modified, but nothing before her tonight seems deserving of a variance. Mr. Duffy notes that the application states that internally illuminated signs are proposed, but that Mr. McCoy is now proposing externally illuminated signs. That and the monument sign would be a big change from what is proposed in the application. It may make sense to amend or to submit a new application. Mr. St. Pierre says that a continuance could be simpler for the applicant than an entirely new proposal. Ms. Harris says that she doesn't see cause for a variance after careful thought from the City Council and Planning Department in crafting and implementing the sign regulations. I don't want to encourage you to think that this plan in a modified form would be worth a variance. Ms. Belair says that she agrees with Ms. Harris. Mr. Anderson says that more tenants could be added to the existing pylon sign. Mr. McCoy says that it is standard for CVS to use 2/3rds of the sign area. • Mr. McCoy says that in light of the feedback he has heard at this meeting, he would like to withdraw the petition without prejudice. Ms. Belair moves to approve the request to withdraw without prejudice, seconded by Mike Duffy and approved 5-0 (Ms. Curran,Ms. Harris,Mr. Dionne and Mr. Duffy, and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Old/New Business Mr. Devine announces that the Mayor has appointed two new members to the Board: Tom Watkins as a full member and David Eppley as an alternate. Mr. Devine updates the Board on the Citys search for a new Staff Planner to staff the Board. The Ciry has received many applications and has begun interviewing candidates. Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Ms. Harris, seconded by Mr. Duffy. Adjourns 8:05 p.m. Far actions zd)m the decisions hake not been fully written kw theae rrzmw, copies of dx decuiora haze beenpcxted separately by address or project at:http://.sakm corn/Pasrs/Sa1c72MA L(2ri7 9 U)eaG Min/ Respectfully submitted, • Tom Devine, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals on 02/20/2013 r CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS A, BOARD OF APPEAL \ 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSEITS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR T'Ele:978-619-5685 FAX:978-740-0404 MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppealr will hold its rgulary sebeduled meeting on Wednesday,February 20,2013 at 6.30 p.m. at City Hall Annex, RM 313, 120 lVasbington St, Salem,MA /�Ill- G-/-z4T5 Rebecca Curran,Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. EXECUTIVE SESSION ➢ Discussion of litigation re: 16 Saunders Street in McKinnon v. Byme ESCV 2009-01545C and in Byre v. Curran 2012-01567C ➢ Discussion of litigation in Higgins v. City of Salem et al. 12 Misc. 474478(GHP� W III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M rn • ➢ January 16,2012 meeting Drn N IV. REGULAR AGENDA m* D a Project: Petition requesting a modification of a special permit per Sec. -�:3.2 of:j to Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the first floor unit of a two-family�)uildinVo be split into a residential and commercial unit. �77 Applicant: RICHARD JAGOLTA Location: 18 BRIDGE ST(R2 Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting an appeal of a cease and desist order issued by the Assistant Building Inspector in a June 12,2012 letter. Applicant: ROBERT F CUMMINGS,JR Location: 146 BRIDGE ST(R2 Zoning District) Project. Petition requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow the operation of a kennel. Applicant: JOHANNA KERR Location: 63 JEFFERSON AVE (I and RC Zoning Districts) Project: Petition requesting a variance from Sec. 4.1.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the existing buildings with less than the minimum required lot frontage,width and area. Applicant: ELEONORA F. KOSKI TRUST,MIKE RAMAZIO,TRUSTEE Location: 19&25 BOSTON ST(13-21 R-3 Zoning Districts TW111 0i GftM V. OLD/NEW BUSINESS . VI. ADJOURNMENT 1 , Know Your Rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A 5 18-25 and 00 Ordinance J 2-2028 through 2-2033. /�ontorT'� n CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS dde �9} BOARD OF APPEAL KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHGSP,'ITs 01970 MAYOR TELE:978-745-9595 0 PAX:978-740-9846 STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Daniel Sexton,Staff Planner DATE: February 12,2013 RE: Meeting Agenda—February 20,2013 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda • 2. Planner's memo 3. Meeting minutes of 12/16/2012 Executive Session The City Solicitor is present to discuss the items identified below in Executive session. ➢ Discussion of litigation re: 16 Saunders Street in McKinnon v. Byrne ESCV 2009-01545C and in Byrne v. Curran 2012-01567C ➢ Discussion of litigation in Higgins v. City of Salem et al. 12 Misc.474478 (GHP) Materials for the following petitions were included in your packet for 02/20/2013. Here is the information again about each: Petition of RICHARD JAGOLTA, requesting a modification of a special permit per Sec.3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the first floor unit of a two-family building to be split into a residential and commercial unit at the property located at 18 BRIDGE ST (112 Zoning District). The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the modification of an existing nonconforming two-unit structure with a home-based professional business on the first floor. The modification,if granted,would allow the previously approved home-based computer repair business to be considered a standalone use,not tied in ownership with the first floor dwelling unit. The petitioner's application is enclosed in your packet for consideration. A copy of a Special Permit decision from November 2009 has also been enclosed within your packet.This Special Permit granted the use of a portion of the first floor in the two-unit building as a residence and a home-based computer repair business.The Building Commissioner is present to discuss the property's nonconforming use history. City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—February 12,2013 Page 2 of 2 Petition of ROBERT F CUMMINGS,JR,requesting an appeal of a cease and desist order issued by the Assistant Building Inspector in a June 12,2012 letter for the property located at 146 BRIDGE ST (R2 Zoning District). . The petitioner is appealing a cease and desist order issued by the Assistant Building Inspector. The Assistant Building inspector and Building Commissioner are present to speak to the matter. Historically, the property in question has been occupied by a number of legal and illegal nonconforming and accessory uses.Presently,the property is being used as a three-unit dwelling with accessory storage in the rear. Petition of JOHANNA KERR,requesting a special permit per Sec.3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow the operation of a kennel at the property located at 63 JEFFERSON AVE (I and RC Zoning Districts). As a point of clarification, the public notice for this petitioner's request for a Special Permit contained a minor discrepancy.The public notice should have referenced Sec. 3.1.2 Special Permit:Zoning Board of Appeals instead of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance.The petitioner is still required to receive a Special Permit from the Board of Appeals. The Building Commissioner has determined this to be a none substantive error. The petitioner's application is a request for a Special Permit to operate a dog kennel.A copy of the application is enclosed in your packet for consideration. Because the parcel in question is located in both the Industrial (I) and Residential Conservation (RC) zoning districts (see Interactive Map attached),Sec. 2.4 Lot Split By District Boundary Line of the City of Salem's Zoning Ordinance can be applied. This section of the ordinance stipulates that properties divided by two zoning district boundaries be provided an allowance for the regulations of the less restrictive district to extend into the more restrictive district by not more than 30-feet.The petitioner has provided a site plan within their application packet speaking to the location of the proposed use, specific the proposed outside fenced-in play areas,in . terms of the 30-foot allowance. Petition of ELEONORA F. KOSKI TRUST,MIKE RAMAZIO,TRUSTEE, requesting a variance from Sec. 4.1.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow the existing buildings with less than the minimum required lot frontage,width and area on the property located at 19& 25 BOSTON ST (B-2,R-3 Zoning Districts). The petitioner is requesting Variances for the properties located at 19 and 25 Boston Street from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Standards to reduce the lot width, frontage, and area requirements for the two properties.The properties were legally nonconforming parcels per their approved creation under the 1963 ANR Plan,which was granted prior to the adoption of the City of Salem's Zoning Ordinance in 1965. In 2003, the properties in question were legally reconfigured under the 2003 ANR Plan and a Frontage Waiver granted by the Planning Board.Prior to this action, however, the properties did not receive Variances from the Board of Appeals allowing the reduced dimensional standards for the two properties.As such, the petitioner is requesting these Variances to enable the petitioner to convey the parcels separately with clear tiles that are compliant with the City of Salem's Zoning Ordinance. • =f City of Salem, MA 2/12/2013 Interactive Map CIO �� < i says ;�,� rt � ✓a� � ,� c,e,:. 4 A', t 1 •, Ii fit '� � 2 i +, }lF y.. RC # U 0 101 feet A t� Property Information Property ID 24_0210 0 Location 63 JEFFERSON AVENUE MAP FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT Because of different update schedules,current property assessments may not reflect recent changes to property E3 boundaries.Check W M Me Board of Assessors to confirm boundaries used at time of assessment 4 �OI1iDIT`� SP CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 120 WA.SI'IING'fON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACI'IUSETTs 01970 MAYOR TILE:978-745-9595 ♦ RAX:978-740-9846 STAFF MEMORANDUM- SUPPLEMENT TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Daniel Sexton,Staff Planner�—� DATE: February 13,2013 RE: Meeting Agenda—February 20, 2013 Board Members, On Wednesday, February 131t, a supplementary document for petitioner Johanna Kerr's application requesting a Special Permit to allow the operation of a kennel at the property located at 63 Jefferson Avenue was submitted for the •application packet(attached).This document was referenced in the Staff Memorandum dated February 12th. The supplementary document is a site plan speaking to the location of the proposed use, specifically the outside fenced- in play areas, and its relation to the zoning district boundaries. The petitioner has added a note on the site plan indicating that all outside activities from the proposed kennel use will not exceed 30-feet into the Residential Conservation (RC) zoning district. • -1 GENE® OO 5 MAP FEB 13 2013 rTs sor mAN�nRrAnaN AunroRiry Ecn^MNY BOSTON A,_S. MAINE gAILROAD \ DE PT. OF PLANNING i REFERENCES: BOOK 4760 PACE 19 Y 5R 50F60 GAG 16B, O MHf 96IJ8SPLANGE 43H ' T8.35 5 2135_ 50' (RECOROMIaLL�p p ft C :OWAUNITY DEVELOPIWEN' AN BaOA'319 PLAN 7 )� PLAN IS A SVB/NWS!<W OF L07 2 ON PLAN ¢ K 317 PLAN r. I O BRe.ee _ \ x 4,ml LOT 4 T 47,613: SF. ASSESSORS MAP 24 LOT 210 V N ,BVB'v E LOT 3 ZQVVWO U1HIRlLL ONRY (� 42,393t $F. l AAFA 10, SF LOT 000 OTT FR M6YTALE 150 iT. I I MPHO Zl1NWG OISTAIcT GT U ONE RPPROVAL UNDER ME SI/BpWSION k OEN REALLY TRUST ' CONTROL LAW NOT REWH /V LOT 1 / ------ ALEM PLANNING BOARD ✓✓✓ N i W AAROfJ GLICKMAN IN s aA iE �� 1 l/ YL I xrea9'4oY + m0od'.wt S N 10tl0'f0'E f ra�esa n.. f 9 JEFFERSON AVENUE Wm SUBDIVISION PLAN OF LAND l[N.'AiEO/N c^�e_` / SALEM, MASS. NSFRY USE ONLY /"M `Ty ,,n SURVEY er EASTERN LAND SURREY ASSOCIATES, INC. 3o PLAN CHRISTOPHER R. MELLO, PLS - `•_q�/ - 104 LOWELL ST. PEABODY, MA. 01960 TG,ayp (978) 531-8121 l CER PFV MIS RLAN CONFORMS TON MI RULES Axo REGUu noNs a< ME SCALE: 1" = 40' SEPTEMBER 24, 1997 RELY51ER5 tl"pEE9$OF ME CMIMON- fWEPAREO F(N __fteb WEatM OF UA55ALHu5E'13 HUGH KERR w W m W F i CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL KIMBI R1.EY DRISCOLL 120 WASI'IINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 MAYOR TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem,MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of RICHARD JAGOLTA, requesting a modification of a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the first floor unit of a two-family building to be split into a residential and commercial unit at the property located at 18 BRIDGE ST (R2 Zoning District). Decision: Continued to the March 20" regular meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem, MA. Petition of ROBERT F CUMMINGS, JR, requesting an appeal of a cease and desist order issued by the Assistant Building Inspector in a June 12, 2012 letter for the property located at 146 BRIDGE ST (R2 Zoning • District). Decision: Denied Filed with the City Clerk on March 6,2013 Petition of JOHANNA KERR, requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the operation of a kennel at the property located at 63 JEFFERSON AVE (I and RC Zoning Districts). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on March 4, 2013 Petition of ELEONORA F. KOSKI TRUST, MIKE RAMAZIO, TRUSTEE, requesting a variance from Sec. 4.1.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow the existing buildings with less than the minimum required lot frontage, width and area on the property located at 19 & 25 BOSTON ST (B-2, R-3 Zoning Districts). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on Match 4, 2013 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. N'LASSACHUSETTS (JTY (-)t-,' IS At, lit BOARD Of" AtIPEAL ................. 120 w \�i![ I r! I I + tip. JQI) CITY CLER& VILEM, MASS Marc It 4, 2013 Decision Citv of Saliern Zoninn, Board of Appeals Petition of JOHANNA KERR, requesting, a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the operation of a kennel at the property located at 63 Jefferson Avenue (I and RC Zoning Distilcis). A hull aYing on dw ahn c Periumi was opcil"I on lukunly 2U, 2013 puntunr v) Win Unclad in" (N -1 t 1:\' S 1 I. ['lie hining was closed on llbiruvuT 214 2013 with MC rollumiug /.oning Board of Appcah -ncnlbcI' plr-'.senl: P'checca CLIII'all (Chan), Annic f kins, Richard Dionne, I oIn Watkins, jurinly Isitsillos (Airciliarc) and David Eppley (Alternaic). Purbioner seeks a Special 11cinnir pursuant n.) SCcrloll 3.0 (6'? ,4c"'1141"iolll of the (',try of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: i I1j)-[Tlre1 perm ltnul' ptasenrcd rh" p(:t1li(III F -r the pi(,pci-ty ar 63 j,:fFcrson \%cnne (I and RC 2. In rhc petition pack", I jmuiny 3R 2013, the petitioner rUCjLlCStCd I Special Permit to allov, the dfavdopnicnr and openbon of an Animal Kcmwl on &C BrOpI located ar, 63 Jefferson AVC111.112. A he plan of Me pirf,mv when M, Special Panit is hubg nNucsred was subrinined as sapplcnxivar� invivrink u, Mc mucimp, packer pn,vVWd to irricallber n1the Bow orAplank. ACII if, the pelnlon, tht chsclrhmenr and .'t' all Ainlllal in :ill flldrl rnal Zoning DiSFIiCr lCL;UIW' the appin"ni of Special Puny from Me Board nVAppcols, I hctC were [ rlulnl)�r if sal,-Ill ICSIKICIIIS irresenral the )LI1511c Icaling Char ,poke ill fin of of the pfuTirion tc(luiI None )( lh� pLlbIlC 171Csk in [Ile �1)cci;ll I'llilln b(I III) \\ timil UflnlnliW< I'lon) rlic pilhin: etc 1, xp f j I nr o' i;'c' pli ,Le p iioz'['! oi alter CaECiLil co SiCIUM11011 Of the LVILIC11CC I'll al the pL]hI1C Ind !&Cl (IiI tI of the phns and incurion submitted, makes the Ailkwing findings: I. I lie desired Special Permit nl,'ll be gi.11)FCCI Widnall LIC11-1111clit to the public good and "vidlout nullifying or substannalh dcrol from the aI purpose. and sl of the, Oct- of Salem /('11111" OldnialiI 1 111 1-Willil[ling this SpactA 'ClIllil, dlc BO:rd (If r1L]Uli(.d CUoJill C(andinprls ind satclic"llaids ll. pored j)ejI )1. ri'l NO, of lhf. yho\ic Falcilin", of F",-[ and all 1!\ id( nc(: I)WICII[C.1i Ir fllc pUhIjC heAllng n1I ]>Ll l(IT 'I r0' J;c PI ull I)ocurn( Irs and rctinanonc, dic /janng I-3oard :,f Aplicak concludes: M m ch 4.,-'()J 3 op Project: 63 Jellbreson Amnue hTe 2 or 2 I. The puitionceq Special 14min request for rI \Ililmll 1�ullllci lnaa he gramud in accnidalic( �li[ll SwA On 11 1 ve NjAdamw of Te Qv of Salem On by I (Wivivilims 11 unT 1<i ;:I b, II ( F r I Ic 'd 1 . i I if � llc,ll i'f 1,11 f!f \1 ) . �Fc'i ro iiiti : [I,( r:Il( "'I t�p Cial PCI liiir, !i�t \ 11:1:s (:Ill!:l:I Y" FljH-, Air Qb4w , Mr. Wmkws .i;iJ \If kii,iii,, in i1v(.)r alld 11(fic opp'""'L 111t: 1,wmd of :\pPca6vUwd wwwo p0iii,lict" luiticst [fa Sipc(1:11 Purim! >uhlecr ro tits loll(millig lerlins, conditions, and i;afc,,a;ard,: lluiui,awt shall coliniply with all wq and sww stanircs, ordinances, codes and legLilaciolls. I All consmicirdoll shall be do1w as per Flic plans and dimensions submlacd to and appl(-)�cd 1)'., the Building Commissioner. 11 icclabulICIIIS C11 the S:11CM I TC DCj)aI I PIC111 I l+16Vc k) e1'1()kc and tiv. salt'n shall 1)( -lm, Ilk Adlicic'! to. -1 Petitioner shall obtain it building punnir prior In beginning and constriction. 3. :.sLcrior finishes of the new constriction shrill be in Immnowy "idi the exisbungstaucirlare. 0. ,\ CuIll-ic:t1c of Occupancy is to be obraillucl. 1. A Certificate of Inspection is ro be obmmc& H. P(ailiolicl: is to obraill approval front am Civy Boalcl or Collimbssion having jurisdiction ITICILIChly,', but 10i timirid I'), the PL11111ill," Baird. il'cse dhl 1)::u>i:, I 1, ij)! >D lin), 11" rhea,i:,f:, llh /., llml. Jhr f kirwic'l dues nor t I ata'lium,e ilic Pcriiioncr to dote dish m iu, istrucr 11C ilLlCiL!l',1's) I'll ill(' plopem ir, !ill rXk'llt ;F lllelc diam hf[e "i'i-111 50" ") 'A is l",f area ,r 1111,ic f1:111 flcl\ perCcl1r of it, lepkicumclir Cost ar the '1111c (,[ c1csnicrioll. H [lit elimmilt is demolished hiv 111p Illf-ans lo an uxicim of more rhan ftq picimcnir (AYWQ of AN replaicemenr con or num than hFy pircuir (502etl) of its floor aria at W rime of destromnon, A shall nor It wavisnucied cxupr in ( onFaaniry i,,ich rlic provisions �f the Odmamu. 01,H)VIM llil f.H TO, v., meb 1naauuai I Soma ;-phe 34untu a m Syr.i I aw, 0hp,or 401. md had be god hvAm 20 -j! it 1/2., ulf e ,/ (",,y (,IerR. Nouael ' tie 06UpArr().,I. N. Me I ;Inalne nr ;'d P le'em OUR at Ake Q!1"ada ;fe, de>Aion Awly A wKwe o Re, ("'e,',) e I ive,!Yled elwh Ah L,o% V,&h �1 otCt,,J CITY O SALFN/1 N;1ASSACFCUSETTS • 7 E30_- RD OF _\PRF',_AL r ;, yf JT ii AA �/hlNp]Dn� " 2013'ffAq ,, ar,A q: 20 FILE r CITY CLERK. WEN. MASS. March 4, 2013 Dcci.ir,n City of Salem Zoning Bonrd of Appeals Pettition of 1 LSONORA F. KOSKI -I"RUS'F, %lIR:E 1ZAINIAZIO, TRUSA FEE, requesting a variance from Sec. 4.1.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allm� the existing buildings with less than the ininimum required lot frontage, width and area on the property located at 19 & 25 Boston Street (B-2, IZ-3 Zoning Districts). \ public hearing on the above NOW was opened on I'ehmaly 20, 2013 pursu.uat to ,NIILu, General I,uw Ch. 40_A. 'I: I I ]'he humng was closed on February 20, 143 with du following /onmg, BS )ard of \ppcals nacmhcrs present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annic I tarns, Richard Dionne, Tom Warkins, Limmy I sirstnos :Alrc[nnlc) ;Ind Dav-id G:pplec (Alrernare). "cririoner <cics a Qnyince W) 0cmill -1.1.1. '1ail; n� 1_)imzr, �,r ' iL'r/nii wcnl., of rile S Cin' of Snlcm Loninti (1rcGu,ince,. Starements of fact: i. yIra (;Immo, Arrorney for Rohinsorr & Cale, presented the petition for the owner FIeonora I:, I'�iski Trusr and Alike Raniazio, Trusree for the properq, at 19 & 25 Boston Street (B-2, R-3 Zoning Disrict). 2. In die pennon, dared January 28, 2013, the PCtldoaer reducsred Vari:uaccs 1ix>111 the minimum for alea (I WNW sit fr.), her Iidrh (lilt' w ), and Wr (101l r; ) te_luiren+c_Ills d Sccu'm -11 1 l;l>/e of i,l n. . i9'NN III the t ,i nl „iii ,.!n,ln i. r tit. ,'. 1'r1 i .j iV, :. Irn Sucel. I h: p nrioncr , prcpo:ctl pan:rl dtm a>ion> n iudcti: t � - 11 Boston acec I_or runca„c )i.�r it, I.��[ �Aridrh 1i.a.) tr. Loc:Area rtt (il I sq. Cu. - 25 Buswn Strcec 1 tit I tone qe 35.00 fr. f m Al' 1h 11.2 N. >, the petiuouct's proposed harckinp necewraring the need for die Variances included the unique ropc�grttphe of rile parcels in ducstion. Fuulaermore, all ,ANR plsm zdjusunt,* the prop(rry I)Ormd'drICS dread,, approved he the Phan end, Bco ml in 200 , 1. 1'huc ',cas no puhhc present ar rime mcemin � to ,pc:ll< in nr ;upp,m r, the \ ,uianee �t iursrs. _Aat rinnotlk no %%nlre l froln r.e j,uhh, nccired nr! x o ncL. trublic haariy" I he Board of :Appeal, after careful consideration of the rsidence pi scntcd at the public hearing, and after ehorou,gh rcv icw of the plans and pennon submitted, makes rile following findings: I. 'the desired relief nay be gmnted withour deriment eel the public good and withour nullih,ing or ubsmntialhzleroganng from rile Intent Or purpose of the (:ire of Salem Z_cming Ordinances. Salem Wind ofAppeals NOW 4. 20 13 Project: I I) &, 25 Boston Street Page 2 Q c[Ift)lcn Inctir of III,: Cm �,f Snkm /�111KT (AWWO Dahl, .,I d1:11 kctltnfcmcllrr impombp w 311A due w HIC m1upic jyqkqd1"J wInnnim, pum"M 11i fh� p.i!rds in pui-rinn. 5. In pcni tit[Ing such relief, Mc itonuclof .Appcal, 1tynlus certain applujinalc conditions and safeguards as noted bclu\\. On ncw basis of the above NO, of fact and all ex Ance lwwrimi vir the public hearing in W nut limited 111c, PJaHK 11wintens and nsHmonn the Xclnng nF \ppCnIk concludes: 1,11� mmonc[,:: A nj 1,yItl� "lic I' I�� Sc,ii.ni 1,1.1 1. , n/ Oi,il w,lw;,;l cif Salem zonm�,, Orclmance< I, glamccl a, sll(,\\ I )n lh� Snihlrimcd plans. III con>tdclarion of dic no"C, dic Alum 16,111 Of AM)LULS VUWd 0� LPI)ION C Me \ a1IAnC;CS I)Cln,q "IUC6rCd_ Avc (,5) it Emw (W Airmn (Chair). Ala. Harris, Nfr. Dionne, Sir. Wat,kins, and MI. 'i Sitsmos (Alccrnarc) and nfanw 01 CTPOKd. I !I,; li,)a[d of Appeals vocccl to grant: petitioner's rCqUCSL for a Variance StAbjeer Co the following terms', conditions, and safeOLiards: 1. Petitioner shall comph7 with all an and state statutes, ordinances, cod" and regulations. L,lll(-SS (Im" Decision exprcssiv l,r(:,\ icles orher"isu, any zoning relief gmnmd dow nor empower w authorize the liermoner to demolish or reconsirrucir the SnUCILJrc(S) located on the St-IbILM 171'OFMFy to an CN(CM Of more than 66Y pervair (50%) of its Van atca or more than filly pcict:nr (5W,e) of its rcptaccmew cos[ :it the One of dutnucriow I the sumnire IS dwwolishccl I)\, ant: mcans ro, an cxrcnr of more than filin, percent (AN) of IN repOccinerr coar or mere than 110 pcl(nejir (50%,; of in tlool area ar dIC 71111C of CICSITLICII(An, if SlInill I1(,r be Iceomnnicrcd except in cofiforinir%� \\1111 the pinvisif,cls Rc xcca Cut I all, Chni, 0)1 1 A )I jli- 1)1 it Iil I I It Inp Inj iII%pi III I\R 1 1 1111 1 1 1 R F: j,1 r/wh,b= wade 7it 11, Cowal Lm, C,,r,,,,,,,,, -0-1, b" 11., drn err i, z ""11,, of eh� t 1,1; 2z ,,,/1 10,L 3"."o"'! I Lv,e\ I,)wk 1'.((.)NDIT44 19 e '� CITY OF SALEM, NLASSACHUSETTS ;E A- Q� iZ, BOARD Ott ';WPEAL WMM I)R[SCj j 120\x 'Ni tu J,+s I it March 6, 2013 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 3Relative to the Petition of ROBERT F CUMMINGS, JR, appealing the jun412, 2q� cease Iand desist order issued by the Assistant Building Inspector relative to the property �*atedart 146 Bricge Street (112 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above petition was opened on 1-cbruilrY 20, 2013 PLJtSUanU to Nifiss General Law Ch. 40A, 11. 'Che hearing was closed on I"ClMlary 20, 2013 with the f0110WiHg ZOTILlIg Board of ,.Appeals members present Rebecca Curran (Chair), home Harris, Richard Dionne, Ton) Watkins, jirnrrry 'Irsitsillos (Alteriiare) and David Eppley (Alternate). Statements of fact: I Petitioner ROI)Cft F. CUrrin-tings JR., filed and presumed it petition appealing the cease and desist order I dared Junes 12, 2012 (�Order") relative to properry located at 146 Bridge Street. 1 111 the periliciii packet, dated janoarY 29, 2013, the petitiolle, SUbtritted evidence supporting his Appeal. 3. According to the petitioner, the issues being raised by neighbors C()Ilccrlliilg noise are more a matter ,)I'disgruntled neighbors their a zoning viotaricill. 4. At the hearilig, the liLddirig Commissioner and the Board of Appeals noted that the property had a 10119 hisroly of graodfathered pre-e.-usting noric0iifortrilli es. Based upon the discussion of prior uses of the I propem, tire use of the g us grandfathered use. ': gatilges for storage and parking of vehicle was determined to be a 5. '['here were a number of Satert, residents present ar the pLlbhc hearing that spoke in favor and against the petitioner's requested appeal. No written continents from the public were I eCCjv CLI prior to the pLlhhC hearing. Fhe Board of kppettis, after careful consideration of rile evidCrIce presented at the public hearing, and after rhni-01-1g11 review of the petition submitted, makes rhc following findings: \Vh1le the lise of the garages on the propern,, for the siorage or parking of vehicles is a jegajfc existing 11 oil co[I fo 1:111,lig use, attroniotive repairs jr)chidilig thoe requLring Csccssive idling and engine 1-cvx III" arc not pcirittirred on the pioperrv. 1� 2. I he desired Appeal of the cease and desist order c,11) not be granted mrhout ctLL,slllg ticirinjellt to the PLIIJ]iC good and WIthOLit null , Citv of ('ordinances.Salem /oZoning 9 or s1lbstatirl'.1'IN derogating the ALItIlOrity, purpose, and cope of[he Salem Board of Appeal; March 6, 2013 Project: 146 Bridge Street Page 2 of 2 011 the basis of rile ebov e Findings of facr and qll eridence presented ar the public hearin Iinvred to, rile documenn m and tesrroll�, the /onmg Board of Appeals concludes: g including, bur not ase desi I lie par incl and , i(il order issued for the Bu lding (-omnisvtoner is upheld as no our,ide auromo ��c repair o tthe garage tIng and rek cmg eehxles, is permitted o❑ the proper t); provided, hover cr that the use of rile garage for storage and vehicle parkil# is a grandfathered pre-"isdng nonconforming use Fiat mav'COntInOC on the properta. In consideration of the above, rile Salem Board of Appeals vored to dencr the requested Appeal, five (5) in (Alte (are) Curren e hair) os. 1-(arras, �Ix. pronne, ,Mr. Warklns, Mr. I�pplev (Ajrernate) and IAIr. hsirsinos �11reu)ate) and none (0) opposed. Rebecca Curran, Char Board of;Appeals rACUPY gP'f!1131)ILItilOA'-HAS rikkN1:1] DAXI I I'fi[I IITANAIAG!j0)AI.I).AND lllb:CPI'Y"CLh:RK A ea/ 'tom tpi.r r p l n r eJ ar.)' oluele pair aim to.1 edrwr 1 i rat the d'/a.m;.iuuettr Cenerol Cuivr('h��p/er 1G:4, rant/Chu///;e jileri:I�i;biv 20 rl rye oj./rlrn{ul/hu'deu�ran in the o11r, of ,Ie Cii ( /erh Peerrumi7 to /h;11 r� r Special pron[{raalml beam;ball nol take e!lea rmtil e, opp of the btr Gteuem/ pCadr n r 40A, Serlion 11, e(,ransaiu).f nrF daGrRru-t nof l/reli/ ale n/the( (mr beenrzhe • • • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 20, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday,February 20, 2013 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. I. ROLL CALL Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Richard Dionne, Tom Watkins, David Eppley (Alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate). Those absent were: Mike Duffy Also present were Robin Stein, Assistant City Solicitor, Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Daniel Sexton, Staff Planner. Chairwomen,Ms. Curran, called the meeting to order at 6.35p.m. Ms. Curran: Explained to the board members and public in attendance that the meeting is being recorded. II. EXECUTIVE SESSION Ms. Curran: The first order of business, Ms. Curran entertained a motion to adjourn to enter Executive Session for the purpose of discussing ongoing litigation, specifically: 16 Saunders Street in McKinnon v. Byrne ESCV 2009-01545C Higgins v. City of Salem et. al. 12 Misc. 474478 (GHP) These items are being heard in executive session because it has been determined that public discussion may have a detriment effect on the negotiating position of the City Ms. Curran explained that votes may be taken during Executive Session and, if they are, they will be released at a time deem appropriate by Council. Once completed,the Salem ZBA will reconvene in open session. Motion: Ms. Curran Requatel a roll call wte cf the mXioa whi& wu approved 6-0 as. Curran(Qair, Ms. Hams, Mr. Diarrr Mr. Watkins, Mr. Eppley(Altenate) and Mr. Tsitsino (Alternate) in fawn non oppnsal. The moon was aaepted The derision is h2rb�nmrporated as part cf d)ae ra urtes and the Sakm ZBA morn For minutes and votes held during Executive Session, please contact the City of Salem Solicitor to discuss their release. The motion below was made in Executive Session to reopen the public hearing. Motion: Mr. Dionne made a motion to dose the Exa 6w Session and remarem the Salem ZBA open hearir� seconded b Mr. EMIT j and a urn mmxns zote wns taken All the nrviim wtal in fawr, with a 6-0 we OR Curran(Chair), Ms. Harris,Mr. Diame Mr. Watkins,Mr. Epplev/Alternate) and Mr. Tsitsinos(Altemate favor, none Mpaso/). The nroon to dose the Exe=ze Session was ampted The derision is bereb�ywporated as part the Exarzd w Session and these airmz. The public hearing was reopened at 6:55 PM. • City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -February 20,2013 Page 2 of 21 . III. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Curran: On the approval of the meeting minutes from January 16, 2013, I believe Ms. Harris and I were the only members present. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes? Harris: I noticed a typo in the fifth paragraph on page 4. The word `care' in the first sentence should be changed to `careful.' Curran: So is there a motion with the minor change? Motion:Mr. Diorrrr nude a naion to approve the nim[tes as anrndal by Ms. Harris'ctrrtwim samudal ,y Ms. Hams, and a unamnmrs v&uas taken All the rr wh7s zotal in fazor, with a 6-0 we(Ms. Curran(Chair),Ms. Harris, Mr. Durum Mr. Watkim, Mr. Epplev(Alternate) and Mr. Tsitsirms �Altemate) in fawn now The martian vas actepted The decision is hem �irumParated as part these nzmues. IV. REGULARAGENDA Ms. Curran introduced the first agenda item. Petition of RICHARD AGOLTA, requesting a modification of a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 of the J P P Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the fast floor unit of a two-family building to be split into a residential and commercial unit at the property located at 18 BRIDGE ST (R2 Zoning District). Curran: Who is speaking on behalf of the petition? Please state your name and address for the record. Richard Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): 18 Bridge Street is located across the street form the 99 restaurant by the Salem/Beverly bridge. The area's zoning is commercial on the side of the street where 99 and Dunkin Donuts is located, and then there is a two block stretch on the other side that is zoned R2 (Residential Two-Family). Largely, the area is a mixed use district besides the portion of R2. Three years ago, I came before the Salem ZBA requesting a Special Permit to allow the first floor tenant to operate a computer repair business in a portion of the first floor. The building was originally built as a two-family house, but in the 1980's a permit was granted to allow a single-story addition on the left side of the building. That, addition, was a bait and tackle shop for a number of years. Since then, it has been used as a message parlor and an antiques business. Currently, the space is being used for a computer repair business and an apartment. The second floor is, and always was, a residential unit. While the first floor unit was initially occupied by a young couple, which operated the computer repair business. The success of the business has allowed the young couple to recently purchase a house. As a result, the couple has moved out of the residential portion of the fast floor unit (approximately 1,800 sq. ft.), but continues to operate the computer repair business out of the commercial portion of the space. While they have left the residential space, they have asked to stay on as a renter of the commercial portion of the space, which I said okay too pending the approval of the Salem ZBA authorizing the renting of the residential portion of the space to someone else. As it stands, they currently are occupying 400 sq. ft. of the first floor unit and I afford not to rent the residential portion of the unit. What I am asking for is the ability to rent out the residential space to different tenant than the commercial space. If I can't get the permit, I will be forced to evict a successful business. This doesn't seem to make sense, because the State just invest $10 million upgrading Bridge Street and the City is trying to develop a successful mix of residential and commercial use on that street. Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes-Approved 03/20/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -February 20,2013 Page 3 of 21 Curran: So when you came to us in 2009,what was the building being used for? Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): It was mixed use. The second floor was residential. The first floor had been vacant for some time. I had an antique shop that had been in there, but they moved out. I had the space up for rent. The current tenants had approached me with the proposition of operating a home-occupation business. Curran: Had it been vacant for more than two years? Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): No Curran: So it was a residential and business mix, which you came before us seeking a Special Permit for that. Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): Yes. When this situation arose, I always secure the necessary permits, I met with Thomas St. Pierre to discuss what I needed to do to continue the business use. Curran: So, essentially, you are proposing to revert back to the original use configuration that it had been before. Harris: So the antique business, the person lived there and operated the business? Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): No. The second floor was a residence and the antique shop was using the entire first floor. This was before I became the owner in 2004, but I have been told, way back in the day,that the bait and tackle shop operators lived there as well. But, I can't state that for a fact. Curran: Do any of the Board member have any questions, before I open the discussion to the public? Is there anyone here to speak on this proposal? Joe Bennett (15 Hubon Street): I spoke to my neighbors, but for whatever reason I'm the only person on this street that got a notice. So nobody else was available to attend today. The three people that I spoke with are the only other occupied properties on the street and they are against any change whatsoever that will increase traffic on our street. As it is, the driveway and parking for that house access the property from Hubon Street. Hubon Street is a dead-end street. It's been before your board already. You allowed Patrick Buless to put five units in the vacant lot, two of which will be exiting onto Hubon Street. As it is, we have questions about the occupancy of that house.. The property looks more like a rooming-house with all the cars parked there. It does not appear to me that one family lives in the structure. I would like Census to look into how many households claim that as an address. I personally have called Mike Saznowski at least four times about the amount of rubbish that is left outside. One time, there was a pile of cat litter and excrement left on the side of the street. I see no reason to allow this man to have a detrimental effect on my neighborhood. If you allow another set of people to come there, the computer repair shop as many people coming there. We've had to have the City put `No Parking-From Here to Corner' signs on both sides of the street, because people would park on both sides of the street not allowing anyone to access the street. The neighbors I talked to are Billy Semons (19 Hubon Street), Patrick Murtaugh (17 Hubon Street), and Michael Swasey(10 Hubon Street), but if you need them here for comments I suggest you postpone any votes until they can be notified. Curran: Could you[petitioner] speak to that? So presently, or until your family purchased the house, can you confirm that there was one family living in the top floor and operating the business? • Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes-Approved 03/20/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -February 20,2013 Page 4 of 21 Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): No. There is one elderly gentleman residing in the second floor unit. The couple rented the first floor unit and operated the computer repair business. I have no idea what he is referring to regarding the rooming-house. Joe Bennett (15 Hubon Street): When I leave to work in the morning, there are 4-6 cars there. I don't know who lives there. Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): The one tenant residing on the second floor has two vehicles (pickup truck and car). Then the couple on the first floor each has a car. So it's a four car driveway and there are four cars in it. Ms. Curran asked that members of the public please have discussion through the Chair. Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): There was a boat that belonged to the fast floor tenant that is gone since they moved out. But that was parked at the back of the driveway on the property. I've never seen a customer of the computer repair business drive down or park on Hubon Street. There is ample parking (on-street) in front of the building. Additionally, there is a parking sign in front of the building that limits parking for 15-minute, because people are always in and out. The spaces in front of the building are almost always open. If is incorrect to say the City had to change the parking allowance on either side of the street (Bridge Street). Parking on the 99 side of the street is always open. On our side of the street I've always been able to park in front of the building when I go there. There is a sign near the corner that prohibits parking at the comer. Many instances like this exist on a busystreet. Curran: How many spaces in total are there on the lot? Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): 4-6 depending upon how big the vehicles are. Easily 5 parking spaces. The shed in the comer allows 2 vehicles to park on the right side and 3 on the left side, but there are actually more spaces. Curran: So we require 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit. How many square feet is the commercial portion of the structure? Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): About 400 sq. ft. Curran: Those spaces can't be tandem. Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): There is actually one space next to Hubon Street that wouldn't be tandem. Eppley:What are the posted business hours for the computer shop? Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): 10-6. Eppley: One of the questions raised was whether there would be increased traffic on Bridge Street. And as I understand the proposal,the tenant of the business would not be living there from 6 PM to 10 AM. Is that correct? Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): Yes. Eppley: In essence,there would be the same amount of traffic occurring in the area between 10 AM and 6 PM Monday through Friday, but otherwise traffic would actually reduce because there wouldn't be some one living in the unit. Curran: I think their asking for a second residential unit. Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes-Approved 03/20/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -February 20,2013 Page 5 of 21 Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): As I understand it, the issue isn't traffic on Bridge Street, which is a very high traffic street being Route 1A. I believe his concerns are the traffic on Hubon Street. I understand his concerns because it is a small narrow street. But, 1 can't see how this is going to increase traffic on Hubon Street at all, because there have always been people living in both units. The residents on Hubon Street have been battling change of any kind in the area for years. There have been several developers over the decades that have tried to redevelop this eyesore, a vacant lot, which sits behind my building with no success. Curran: Let's just keep it focused on the petition before the Salem ZBA Harris: Just to be clear, this building contains two residential units and the residential unit on the fast floor has a commercial business associated with it. So as I understand it,the request before us is a petition requesting two residential units, plus a commercial unit. The first floor would now be a residential and commercial unit. Curran: I think it would be helpful if we had a site plan for the property and a building floor plan, with square footages) to get an idea of the size for each unit. 41 Chestnut Street): The size for the first floor is about 1 800 s . ft. Jagolta, (g ) q Curran: The commercial unit represents about 400 sq. ft. that would continue to be used for a computer business. So that leaves a 1,400 sq. ft. residential unit. How many bedrooms is that? Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): The current tenants are using it as a two bedroom, but it could be a three bedroom unit. Curran: Seeing a site plan for the property outlining the available parking spaces and their configuration would be helpful. Parking is always a big consideration. That fact that you're not request a reduction of parking makes me believe that you've discussed this issue with Thomas St. Pierre. But the petition doesn't say that anywhere, so I'd be hesitant to support the proposal without knowing there was adequate parking to support the increase intensity of use. Absent of that information,I think it makes it difficult to make a decision. Harris: I agree, it's a little more complicated then I had thought. I'm comfortable with the building information the petitioner has described, but I still don't understand the parking. Curran: Would it be possible for you to submit that information? It's always helpful to bring photographs. Would you be willing to continue this to the next meeting? Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): Tom had indicated that that wouldn't be necessary because there were no modifications proposed to the exterior of the building. Curran: It doesn't, but the increased use does affect parking. It would be helpful in making a decision. Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): What specifically would you like me to submit? Curran: A plot plan showing the size and location of parking spaces (current and proposed configuration), building layout on the property, and a building layout with square footage allocations by unit (existing and proposed). Hams: Is there a way to clarify any mistakes that may have been made concerning the abutters • notices? Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved 03/20/2013 Caty of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -February 20,2013 Page 6 of 21 • Curran: Dan, can you confirm the certified abutters list to make sure it is correct? The abutter notices are typically sent to abutters and abutters of abutters. Because of the 300 feet boundary, certain properties may not be included depending upon the density of an area. Sexton: I will confirm the distribution of the abutter notices. Curran: Our next meeting is March 20`h. So we would continue it till then. Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): I'm actually traveling with my daughter,visiting colleges. Curran: Is there someone that could be present on your behalf. Why don't we continue it to March 20`h and if you want to continue it further you can. You will need to sign a `Continuance Request' form,please see staff. Is there a motion to continue this item) Motion:Mr. Diorama made a miion to cuair,w the petixion cf RidxcrdLta, swam iM 18 Bridle Stunt, to the Mardi 2& rr� seconded by Mr. Watkins, and a uraxm mfs wte teas taken All the rrem-es wted in fawr, zuzh a 6-0 wte(Ms. Curran(Chair), Ms. Harris, Mr. Diorm Mr. Watkins, Mr. Eppley Alternate aril Mr. Tsitsirus (Alte»at) in fawr, none olipcad. The nion zuu aaxptecl This is hertbv Tamp atsl as part g[dlese rr¢nutks. Ms. Curran clarified to a member of the public that the public hearing on this matter has been continued so no further impute will be taken at this time. She then introduced the next item on the agenda. Petition of ROBERT F. CUMMINGS,JR, requesting an appeal of a cease and desist order issued by the Assistant Building Inspector in a June 12, 2012 letter for the property located at • 146 BRIDGE ST (R2 Zoning District). Thomas St Pwm owtd the navrg Curran: The applicant is Robert Cummings,Jr. Is the applicant present to discuss the petition? Robert Cummings,Jr. (176 Pine Street,Danvers): I own the house at 146 Bright Street in Salem I'm here to appeal the Building Inspectors ruling on Article 1 § 22-2 for my house here in Salem at 146 Bridge Street. Basically,I was a little confused because I was under the impression that I was allowed to have commercially rented property. When I got the violation, I went down to the Recorders Office to see what the City had on file for my property. At City Hall, I found that my property had been listed as a multi-use property coded 013 and a residence code of 015. I also attached a copy of the Assessors bill. Of the bills I submitted,I believe the trash bill is the fast, which indicates the fees for the property as residential ($16 a month) and commercial ($24 a month). On the next page, is a copy of my tax bill. It does change much, but if you look in the middle of the page under property descriptions, it shows I am being taxed one rate for the residential portion of the property and a little higher rate for the commercial garage I rent to a plumber at a little higher rate. Base upon this,I don't understand what the whole snafu with the issue. After that I did attached a couple photography of the situation and what it looks like down there. In one of the pictures I've identified who's renting a couple of the garages. A couple tenants in the apartment building are renting garages along with their apartments. And then the vacant ones I rent to a carpenter and a plumber. One of the pictures, in particular, shows the yellow house at 142 Bridge Street that has been filing the complaints. I'd like to draw the Salem ZBNs attention, the last time I was here was a couple two- three years ago, I think When the gentlemen building the house at 142 Bridge was in front of the board because he was going to rebuild the house on a nonconforming lot. He changed the layout of the structure a bit, which located the structure a little closer to some of the abutters. So we were all Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved 03/20/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes —February 20,2013 Page 7 of 21 • here to see what his plans were. I didn't really think there was going to be a problem, so I didn't protest at that time because I thought everything was going to be fine. Since then he has gone condo and the tenant of one of the units he sold is having a problem with the cars coming and going from the garage. In addition to the photographs, I have provided copies of some of the police reports that were filed with the complaint. The first police report I have in my packet is dated April of 2012. Personally, after doing some research, this started the whole disgruntled neighbor thing. It seems there was a disagreement between one of the tenants at 142 Bridge Street and one of my tenants at 146 Bridge Street. Apparently,the police were called to the property. Curran: These were people that resided in the house? Robert Cummings,Jr. (176 Pine Street,Danvers : Yes. Curran:Did they have anything to do with the garages? Robert Cummings, Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers : No. And I believe the person residing at 142, which is listed in this police report, is the person that has been making the complaints to Thomas St. Pierre that I'm in violation. So I think back in April,when these neighbors had their disagreement, is where everything started to fall apart. After that police report is a list of all the other police reports when 142 Bridge Street called on 146 for a zoning violation. It's just a record of the police officer showing to do his investigation, write down his findings, and leaving because there wasn't anything criminally that he could do about the situation. He recommended that we go in front of the Salem ZBA or meeting with the Building Inspector, something to that affect. Again, to emphasize my point that this is an issue of disgruntle neighbors rather than a zoning issue. After reviewing the • police reports I copied a couple of `Tweets' from the resident of 142 Bridge Street Tweeter account. I was able to make some correlations between some of the Tweets she had made and the date of the police reports. I would appreciate you take a look at some of the comments that were made about my tenants. I don't believe those types of comments are necessary. Those are on the last 3-4 pages. After.that, I provided a list of all the tenants I've had. I owned the property for the last 20-years, during which I've rent apartments and commercial space in the garage. I've also provided a list of the current tenants. The list is a little lengthy, but I don't want you to think I turnover a lot of people. At any given time, I've always rented to more then one tenant. Right now I'm renting to a carpenter and a lumber. At times I've had three different people renting garage space from me. So rP P � P P g g g P it's not like I'm turning over people every six months or a year, I try to find people that live in among the residences and that don't aggravate others. Then the last thing I included in my packet is a copy of a letter I received from the Mayor, which I believe she had sent out to all the residents of Ward 2, just stating her goals for trying to finish off Bridge Street and how she was hoping everything would shake out after the construction was done. I'd like to quote a statement of hers, The Bride Street Neighborhood should be an active mixed use neighborhood incorporating lively g g g rP g Y commercial and residential areas." I believe we have been doing that for the last 20-years. Again, I think this is an issue of neighbors not able to get along. Some neighbors that abut the property are present, to discuss that not all the neighbors abutting us are having these issues with the noise car. Additionally, before the first police report in April, everyone seemed to get along. But, when the issue between one of my tenants and the resident of 142 Bridge Street came to head in April with the complaint that's when everything began to be unsatisfactory. Curran: Tom, can you explain whether the issue is with the use of the garage or with the noise bylaw. Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved 03/20/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -February 20,2013 Page 8 of 21 • St. Pierre: The noise bylaw stands by itself. It's a police enforcement action if in fact there is a noise issue. The use of the garage as an automobile repair shop was the question. This is one of those properties, not an unusual use here in Salem, which really has a cloudy or not clear use history. It certainly has had many commercial uses. But for instance, Chief's place came in before to get a Special Permit to be there. I have the records somewhere. But since than many other businesses have been in there with no permission from the board. I would look at it as a nonconforming commercial garage. Curran: So is it a pre-existing nonconforming use? St. Pierre: It pre-existed to 1965. There was a meat packer, Swift Packing, way back in the 1960's. But,technically,when you change uses it's a pretty narrow definition of what you can stick with. Curran: Right. St. Pierre: Storage and warehousing, or whatever. Robert Cummings, Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): May I add one more thing? Basically where the garage is located, the back portion of my property abuts the former Packer Brothers site. So, since all the new condos and townhouses have gone in it has been a little more restrictive than when Packer Brothers was in operation. Curran: Is there a Special Permit for uses back there? Robert Cummings,Jr. (176 Pine Street,Danvers): Nope. • St. Pierre: There hasn't been any history of any in 20-years. Curran: So it is or isn't a pre-existing nonconforming use? St. Pierre: I'd have to say it is a pre-existing nonconforming use. It certainly had that commercial history, back before 1965. It's never stopped being a commercial and/or rental use. Harris: So do we know what the uses where? St. Pierre: There has been cold cut distribution. Watkins: So this type of commercial activity has been going on since adoption of the 1965 Zoning Code? St. Pierre: Yes. Watkins: So is the commercial use of the property grandfathered? St. Pierre: The grandfathering of a commercial use, the problem with that is it doesn't cast an umbrella that allows you to do any commercial use you want. It's usually restricted to that type of use or something similar. Curran: You stick to the same one and if you want to change uses you need to get a Special Permit. St. Pierre: It's a Special Permit to change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use. Curran: But it's a little cloudy as to what uses have been? St. Pierre: This current use is not technically cloud because the use is storage. The problem arises when their out working on the cars. The storage itself I don't think would be a violation. Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes-Approved 03/20/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -February 20,2013 Page 9 of 21 • Harris: Is the storage as in you can park a car or store boxes and equipment? St. Pierre: Like with the carpenter, they could store ladders and other construction equipment. I think there is a carpenter using one of the garage bays now. Curran: And working on cars on the property? St. Pierre: At one time, Chief's Motorcycles were in there. I remember them coming in to get a Special Permit,that's the one exception. Harris: So currently there is a car being repaired? Is the carpenter actually using the garage as a woodworking shop? St. Pierre: That I don't know. Robert Cummings,Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): He's here,tonight. Steve Champaign (Proctor Street): I rent two bays of Mr. Cummings garage, which I have done for the past six years. He keeps a very nice place. I'm in and out of there 2-3 times a week to pick different materials that I need for work and different jobs. The place is quiet,well kept, and secure. ? Curran: So u use the garage for storage? Not a workshop? you g gP Steve Champaign (Proctor Street): That is correct,I use it as storage. Not a workshop. Tory Hutchinson (150 Harbor Street): We share a common drive with the property and our property is about 10 feet from the garages and we've lived there for 15-years. During that time, there never once has been an issue with us about the noise. Robert Cummings, Jr. 176 Pine Street Danvers): May I clarify something about the other garage g J ( ) Y Y g g g use? The other tenant is Michael Saroy Plumbing & Heating and he uses the space primarily for storage. He's a plumber, so I imagine he stores a couple toilets, a water heater, pip fittings and other supplies. He does also have a car, which he stores in the garage during the week while he drives his diesel truck. On the weekends, he often pulls the car out of storage to drive it. The car is a bit of a hotrod. I think it is a 19741sh Dodge Dart. I think the car is pulled out for use on Friday afternoons and is then returned on Sunday or Monday morning. I know the truck he drives is a diesel vehicle so it's a little louder. The truck, which is a commercial vehicle, has a back-up beeper. In one of the photos, his truck is shown in front of the garage. Tory Hutchinson (150 Harbor Street): We're the neighbors right there, it's the bedroom side of our building, and it's never been an issue for us. Curran: So the other two garages are occupied by tenant of the build. Robert Cummings,Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): On one of the photographs, I've indicated who is renting each bay of the garage (i.e. Apt. 1 and Apt. 2). As shown, two bays are rented by Mr. Champaign (carpenter) and the larger bay is used by Michael Saroy(plumber and car storage). Harris: You're saying the use of those garage bays is just storage? Robert Cummings,Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): To be honest, I actually share the garage bay with Michael. The garage, to the best of my knowledge, is being used to store my boat, some snowmobiles, and Michaels car and plumbing supplies. . Curran: Are there other neighbors present to speak on the matter? Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes-Approved 03/20/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -February 20,2013 Page 10 of 21 • Allen Murphy(152 Bridge Street): The property is a clean space. I help maintain the driveway with him.Just look at the photos, he runs a tight ship. I've been at my house for 52-years, so I know the history of the area. Curran: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on the item) Jim Barkley (142 Bridge Street): This setup about disgruntled neighbors is not correct. There are a lot of issues that need to be disentangled. I, personally, don't have anything against my neighbors. I just like to enjoy my neighborhood. But this doesn't necessarily seem to be about the noise complaint. It's more a question of whether this is the proper area for multiple uses. At 142 Bridge Street there are two condos. There are multiple people that live there. A number of new structures have been built in the area over the last few years that are adjacent or very close to the property. When I moved in, I looked at City Hall and this areas was zoned R2 residential. My concern is that I wasn't aware that this area was going to be multi-use. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but its interesting to me that there has been this blanket history of a grandfather clause. I subscribe to the philosophy that when a neighborhood starts to have more residents in it, do what you've done for other petitioners. Come be fore the Salem ZBA and examine each petition on a case by case basis that considers whether a particular business is appropriate in a certain area. Not a blanket acceptance of any business. I think it's a risk. It's an unfair risk to place on residents of the area. So that's my question about the multi-tenancy. I'm willing to answer any questions the Salem ZBA may have for me as one of the two neighbors living at 142 Bridge Street. Caroline Coshow (142 Bridge Street): So everything started with me in April when I was on • maternity leave. I was hearing a lot of noise from two cars in the garage. I guess they must be the cars owned by Mr. Saroy. He makes noise for hours and races through the driveway and down Bridge Street. It's a potential hazard for anyone walking in front of the drive. There are also a lot of fumes, which are white and heavy. I can't even open the windows to my home. I went down to the garage one Saturday morning to speak with the gentleman working on the car and asked him if he could be a little quieter. He would not look or talk with me. After that, there was no respect so I called the police. But every time the police came it was just after the cars had left. I didn't call 911 because I didn't think this was an emergency. As a result, the timing of police arrival varied. The next time I'm just going to call 911. One of the police reports actually mentions the complaint was noise. It's not just one day a week that the noise occurs. 1 have no complaints against using the garages for storage, but I don't think it should be a commercial use. When we bought this house it was identified as a residential zone. I should have to listen to the car. The plumbing business has nothing to do with a car repair business. This issue has been going on since the first day we moved into the house, even after we asked them to be quiet. From March to November, you cannot enjoy one quiet even in your yard. I'm not comfortable to spend any weekend outside in the yard because you never know when the cars are going to arrive. I will not take my baby outside and endanger her. I should be able to go outside. I also don't understand how none of the other neighbors can hear the noise. I can hear the cars across the street. Jim Barkley(142 Bridge Street): If a may add to that. Part of what Caroline is saying, regarding the noise complaint, even though this not what this appeal is about. In a transitive way it is. I think if you look at the police reports, very few if any citations have been issued. So I think that may have been part of the reasoning for the City's Building Inspector to issue the cease and desist order as an alternative method of addressing the problem. Curran: Anyone else? If it's new information. Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes-Approved 03/20/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -February 20,2013 Page 11 of 21 Tory Hutchinson (150 Harbor Street): When she says that she called 911 saying that someone is going to get killed when they come out onto Bridge Street. She's not on the driveway. No one is in the driveway Luria Wood (142 Bridge Street#2):My question is,the answer that we would come out with from a situation like tonight doesn't have so much to do with noise and sounds. I just need to understand the truncated discussion we're having here. This is about the separate multi-use of the garages? The precipitating events, if I understand correctly, involve the calls and the investigations of the disaggregation of the tenants and what was going on there. The question is the fact that it has been residential the entire time and yet other things may have been happening. Whether or not that's okay to keep this happening moving forward. Or,whether there's something we should do different. Curran: Yes,that is correct. That is what we are discussing tonight. Robert Cummings,Jr. (176 Pine Street,Danvers):May add something? Curran: Just a second, I have a question to ask the Building Inspector. We have a cease and desist order, but is there a zoning violation? St. Pierre: We felt that the automobile use, if you want to call it that, we weren't sure where to go with this one either. There was a neighborhood complaint, but we felt the automobile use crossed the line. The use of the garages as storage of vehicles or work supplies doesn't seem to bother anyone,the revving and working on cars was where is crossed over into an automotive use. Curran: So you understand that by renting to the carpenter and the plumber for storage and parking • for the tenants that that is not a zoning violation according to the Building Commissioner. You are allowed to continue those activities. The thing that triggered this is the automotive repair. Just so you know, this is an R2 zoning district. There are things that predated zoning on this property. Those uses would be allowed to continue as long as they stay consistent. But, if someone wanted to change the active uses they would have to come in for a Special Permit from this board. But, if it stayed basically the same, which is storage and garaging, that's fine. The Building Commission is saying what crosses the line is the working on cars. So that is not a permitted use and it should cease and desist if that's happening.But is sounds like you're saying that isn't happening. Robert Cummings,Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): He's working on his own car. You're not going to go down there on a Saturday moming to get your oil changed. He might be doing things to his vehicle as a hobby. It's not a repair shop. Eppley: He's not repairing his car at his home, correct? Robert Cummings, Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): No, he's repairing his car in the garage he's leasing. The vehicles are registered to be on the road. I understand that they may be a little loud, but they pass inspection, have a sticker on the windshield, and are registered and insured. They just store the cars there during the week and drive them on the weekend. I don't think they know anyone downtown. It probably is fact that once the police have been called, and they arrive, the cars have left for the weekend. Luria Wood (142 Bridge Street#2): There's a point of dinunishing returns. Say for example,if it was one guy switching his car out for five minutes then it would be unlikely that any of us would have a problem with it. But, there are numerous people down there at all hours of the day and night. I find it hard to believe that is has anything to do with carpentry or plumbing. I'm not the mean neighbor that does want people to enjoy their car, but there becomes a point in which 1 can't believe that's Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes-Approved 03/20/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -February 20,2013 Page 12 of 21 what's really happening. Unless they're playing a recording of cars on a loop. I don't want to have to. call the police on my neighbors, who would want to do that. Tory Hutchinson (150 Harbor Street): Can I say something?. Curran: Is it new information that has not been stated? Tory Hutchinson (150 Harbor Street): Yes. I've been laid off for the past year and have only seen Mike down there. I don't understand what the problem is. I haven't heard him work on his car in months. Curran: Of the uses that are allowed, which are parking and storage, there is something going on there that goes beyond those allowed toes. That should stop. Even though they're working on their own car it's not on their property. What these garages should be used for is storage, such as vehicles and materials. If it goes beyond that, like changing oil and that sort of thing, it will be considered going beyond the allowable uses. If the car was had broke down there and they were trying to fix it that would be one thing. The present uses, specifically the car repair part, appear to be going beyond the allowed uses. But the car repair par. (1) is creating a neighborhood problem; and (2) it goes a little beyond storage. Which is what garages are typically, and since there is no clear history, it's safe to assume they have been used as garages and can continue to be used as such. St. Pierre: This is a difficult issue that crosses over into health and noise complaints. I was hoping to get this to the Salem ZBA earlier, but it took some time to get here. This lag may have aggravated the neighbors concerns and the whole situation. We were hoping that something could have been worked out. Say for example,if a car was idling it would only be allowed to do so for 5 minutes. Curran; Isn't there a State law governing the idling of vehicles that prohibits the idling of vehicles for no more then 5 minutes? St. Pierre: I believe there is, but I'm not sure it applies to cars. It does apply to commercial trucks. Curran: I believe it includes cars as well. St. Pierre: I'm not sure if there is a clear path on this beyond sticking to the fact that the garages are, and should be,used for storage and parking of vehicles. Harris: How come this issue wasn't brought before the Salem ZBA earlier? St. Pierre: The owner took a while to appeal our order and get it here. Harris: Do you agree that the issue involves two cats. St. Pierre: I believe that is correct. I know the car that Mike Saroy owns, but I'm unsure of the other car. At one time,he did mention that he had a friend's car there. Robert Cummings,Jr. (176 Pine Street,Danvers):Yes,there are two cars being stored there. Curran: I'm okay with the garages being used for storage. What you described as the use, him coming and going,is fine. It's just the working on vehicles that's not okay. Robert Cummings,Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): It's not like a commercial activity(i.e. painting the car and engine work). They are there when it's raining doing a brake job or oil change. Curran: I think that goes beyond the use. . St. Pierre: I really think the best play here would be some sort of an agreement. I don't think working on brakes or changing oil is the problem, from what I'm hearing from the neighbors. The Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved 03/20/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -February 20,2013 Page 13 of 21 • problem is the revving of the engines. The complaints we got concerned starting and revving of the hotrods. Theyre tuning and tweaking the engine for some lengthy period of time. Apparently, it takes a while to warm the cars up. That is the root of the complaint. I have a hotrod and it can take some time to warm it up. Normally, I start m car u and role it into the drive and then I drive P Y> Y P > away. Each car is different and other may be stickier then others. Tory Hutchinson (150 Harbor Street): May I ask a question? Curran: You may. Tory Hutchinson (150 Harbor Street): Chief's Place was there for many years. They were always revving their engines in the same garage we are talking about. St. Pierre: Chief's Place was there years ago and had received a Special Permit. So it's a little different story. Tory Hutchinson (150 Harbor Street): I don't hear the current tenant revving. St. Pierre: To clarify, the house that was located at 142 Bridge Street before was derelict and a known crack house. Before the developer came in with is proposal to develop condos there I was ready to order its demolition. Like it or not,the neighbors have a vested interest and we are trying to work through the issues. A lot of things can be straight forward, but in this instance it's not so straight forward. We have to consider the property rights of both properties and come to a solution that's good for everyone. Harris: How do we describe the way to limit the uses on the property? Should idling be allowed to • no more than 5 minutes? Should that be inside or outside? St. Pierre: If the owner would agree to limiting the idling of vehicles for no more then 5 minutes be agreeable? Caroline Coshow(142 Bridge Street): No, because when I went down there the first time to ask him to stop he just ignored me. I'm a patient person. I close mywindows and wait for the police. He just keeps idling and revving his vehicle. The more we call the police, the nosier he is. I wouldn't have any issue if the man would just leave, much like the lady had explained about the motorcycles. Curran: The public hearing will be closed if conversations continue back and forth between members of the public. Harris: The question was directed towards the petitioner,correct? Curran: Inside work of a quiet nature is not what needs to cease and desist. St. Pierre: That's my opinion and I don't think that is the cause of the problems. I think the problem is the tinkering of the car. Tsitsinos: It's the tinkering of their hobby that is causing the noise. If you have a four barrel carburetor with a 350 engine, it takes a while for it to warm up. Sometimes you may have to adjust something. Then you go. I know the area and it's always been quiet and clean. I`ve never heard anything outrageous. Harris: So you've been there? • Tsitsinos: No directly on this property, but I've been in the area and seen motorcycles and a hotrod. I've lived in the area for 15 years and I remember Chiefs. Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved 03/20/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -February 20,2013 Page 14 of 21 . Curran: Looking specifically at the cease and desist letter, what exactly were we asking them to cease and desist. It's certainly not the builder. We have not determined there to be a zoning violation here when one considers the garages being used for storage. What is crossing the line, seems to be the repair aspect. St. Pierre: I did hope the Salem ZBA would weigh in on that interpretation. Curran: I think that is correct. Now the question is how to proceed with the cease and desist letter. The cease and desist letter seems to indicate that there is a zoning violation, but I don't think there is. Tsitsinos: It seems to be more of a noise violation. Curran: I'm unclear as to how to proceed with the appeal. Robert Cummings,Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): If you could refer to some of the police reports, I think you can see the timeframe that we are talking about. More specifically, it indicates when the call was made,when they showed up, and what was found. It doesn't appear to be anymore then 20 minutes on any given one of them I'm pretty sure the latest they were called down there was at 8 PM on a Friday night. It's not like this thing is going on at 2 or 5 AM in the morning. Curran: I guess we don't want your tenants to idle their cars for more then 5 minutes, which is the state law anyway. Caroline Coshow(142 Bridge Street):May say one last thing? • Curran: Yes, one last thing then I'm going to close the public hearing. Caroline Coshow (142 Bridge Street): When we call the police, this man has been idling his car for 30-40 minutes. I`m not waiting for this man to arrive, I have other things to do. The police also have other things.to do. If I call the police, it's because there is a problem Even with the doors closed white smoke or fuses comes out of the garage. This is dangerous because it could be a fire. How am I to know? If he wants to repair his car he should go to his own property. Curran: I'd like to close the public portion of the hearing and continue the board discussion. Does anyone have anycomments? Watkins: Tom, has there been any official letter from the City or your department indicating to the tenants that complaints or that they are in violation of the noise ordinance? St. Pierre: Only with a verbal. I know Michael Saroy professionally and have spoken with him about the complaints, as was the owner. It was not unknown to them Curran: Are there other questions? The thing I would like to do is uphold the cease and desist order, but be very specific that there is not a zoning violation with the storage uses. It's a pre-existing nonconforming grandfathered use to rent these out for storage and the parking of cars. Not for active use. I would like to uphold it in that there does seem to be a nuisance aspect concerning the idling of vehicles for more then 5 minutes. If the space is going to be rented for storage there may be some idling, but it shouldn't be for more the 5-munites. Referring to the State law is a good gauge. Harris: Is that enough to explain that there is no zoning violation. To clarify,the storage and parking . of cars is allowed, but you're saying there needs to be a limit for idling. And you're saying there is Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes-Approved 03/20/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -February 20,2013 Page 15 of 21 • already a State law. Are we just bringing this law to the attention of the owner or should it be attached as a condition? Curran: I think upholding the Building Commissioners is important so if there is another police issue the decision can be pointed to as reference to what is and is not allowed, specifically in the instance of idling vehicles. In this case, the idling or repair of vehicles goes beyond storage and parking of vehicles. St. Pierre: So the excessive idling and repair of vehicle would be seen as an active use that is beyond what is allowed. Harris:You're talking about the idling, but how do we speak to the repair aspect? Curran: If the repair is happening inside the garage and involves work of a quiet nature on the vehicles. For example, if one of these tenants was doing repair that you would normally do inside your garage then that's fine. If it involves loud noises or other vehicles then it goes beyond storage of vehicles. St. Pierre: Keeping in mind that the hours and limitations of the noise ordinance are still in play. Curran: Correct. Harris: So are we passing anything other then passing something that acknowledges these law and ordinance already exists? St. Pierre: I think that perhaps the working on cars would be a zoning violation, if it were to be • outside tuning or something. Harris: So we are just advising the owner that those things should happen and there isn't presently violation. Curran: We're upholding the Building Commissioners order and denying the appeal. Watkins: With a limited scope involving. Curran: We've reviewed the uses and there not in violation until they become active. the use of the garage, as storage and vehicle parking, is allowed. The letter does say that the property is located in an R2 zoning district. The letter suggests, to me, that this is not consistent with zoning. But it is because it is a pre-existing nonconforming use so I want to make it clear that that is okay. What is not okay is anything beyond the use of the garage for storage or vehicle parking. Additionally, we want to say to the owner that the idling of vehicles beyond 5-minutes is not allowed by State law and will cross over into a zoning violation. Harris: Is it easier to just say the active use as opposed to working on cars? Curran: I believe so. As long as we reinforce that any active use, beyond what is allow, would be considered a zoning violation. St. Pierre: Having the 5-minute standard is a very easy standard for the Police and Building Departments to enforce. We will make sure they get a copy of this. Harris:What if the cars are in pieces in the garage of driveway? St. Pierre: So we are talking about that too? • Curran: Yes, if there were pieces all over it should be considered as repair, which would be a violation. Is hard to define what constitutes an active use. Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes-Approved 03/20/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -February 20,2013 Page 16 of 21 • Watkins: What if we consider those activities if they are happening on an ongoing basis? Anyone should be able to work on their own car in their own garage their renting out. Hams: But what if an individual is constantly disassembling and reassembling a car? Sexton: If I may clarify. The repair you are talking about, the active use, is something that is happening outside the storage space/garage? Harris: No, I think it could happen inside the space. Curran: We haven't defined that yet. St. Pierre: I would recommend just sticking with the idling and noise. Those appear to be the cnix of the complaint. Curran: Is there someone willing to frame this as a motion? Harris: We've reviewed the matter and find that the use of the garage for storage and vehicle parking is grandfathered as a pre-existing nonconforming use. But... St. Pierre: But the excessive idling or revving of vehicle motors will constitute an automotive use which will be considered a zoning violation. Curran: Are you incorporating Mr. St. Pierre's verbiage in your proposed motion? Harris:Yes. Motion: Ms. Hams nude a rnx on that stated-After mim&the m itter ue find that h6e cease and deist order • issued lDz the Building C orrorassiowr is zhelcG the usetbe gzraW for storm and zehide parking is a grarnJfatlae�x�l pre-existing w mAnmz?g use, and the eecessiw idling or rer W g zubide nvtms uX cor5d ute an atmwrdw use uhidr will be crnxs&eied a zoning vc1atian The naion vns sxzrnded by Mr. Watkins and a rd1 call wte vas taken All the mrni-m wted w fawr, with a 6-0 tote as. Curran(ayir),Ms. Harris,Mr. Dioirrre Mr. Watkins,Mr. EWley(Alternate) and Mr. TszvxF (Alternate in fawr, nom oppnsa�. The mmm sras yuVted The deasion u herein ated as part qFthese minutes. Ms. Curran explained to the applicant and the public in attendance that the decision would be available within two weeks of the hearing and filed with the City Clerk. Robert Cummings,Jr. (176 Pine Street,Danvers): Its okay that my tenants stay there,correct? Curran: Yes,just make sure they aren't excessively idling their vehicles. Ms. Curran introduced the fast agenda item Petition of JOHANNA KERR, requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the operation of a kennel at the property located at 63 JEFFERSON AVE (I and RC Zoning Districts). Johanna Kerr (4 Chestnut Street): I'm here today to ask permission to open up a doggy daycare and an overnight boarding facility at 63 Jefferson Ave. Curran: What is in the building now? Johanna Kerr (4 Chestnut Street): Right now, currently, there is an auto body shop occupying one half of the building and the other side was occupied by the doggy daycare. We had a fire last • February and nothing has been in there since. We are in the process of rebuilding and I was notified Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved 03/20/2013 GtY of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -February 20,2013 Page 17 of 21 • by St. Pierre that I needed to get a Special Permit form the Salem ZBA to operate a kennel and boarding facility. Curran: Is that because they are expanding beyond their original size? St. Pierre: No,just after the fire, it had come to our attention that the business had been operation in violation. The owners hadn't sought the proper zoning relief to allow their use. The fire triggered removal of the occupancy approval. The applicant was notified that they would need to be granted a Special Permit to run the business. I don't think the business is changing from what was there. This permit will just make it legal in the underlying zoning district. The business existed for about a year before the fire. Curran: I thought there was a dog kennel somewhere on Jefferson. St. Pierre: I believe this is the location you are thinking of. As a result of the fire, our attention was focus and we found out that the business didn't have a Special Permit for the use. Harris: Did they have overnight service at that point. St. Pierre:Yes, according to the applicant. Curran: So the use you are proposing was already happening. Johanna Kerr(4 Chestnut Street):Yes. Curran: How big is the building? • Johanna Kerr (4 Chestnut Street): It's approximately 20,000 sq. ft. Harris: 5,000 per floor? Johanna Kerr (4 Chestnut Street): The front two floors include 5,000 sq. ft. and the garage (rear) occupies 10,000 sq. ft. Hams: Is the whole building two floors? St. Pierre: No,just the first half of the building has two floors. The rear half is a single story. Hams: what was the use before? Johanna Kerr (4 Chestnut Street): The use before the kennel was a leather distribution facility and the rear garage was use for different uses (i.e. warehouse and automotive repair). St. Pierre: Originally, going way back, it was the Mishow Bus Company. We've had no complaints. Curran: So a kennel requires a Special Permit in this zoning district? St. Pierre: Correct. Curran: It appears you have a significant amount of parking available according to your plan. Johanna Kerr (4 Chestnut Street): The site plan shows the outside play areas in relation to the property lines and the two zoning district boundaries. These outside areas will be used as play areas for large and small dogs. Each area is fenced. Curran:What are the dimensions to that area? Was the fenced area existing before the fire? Johanna Kerr (4 Chestnut Street): The large are is 12 ft x 50 ft and the small area is about 12 ft. x 30 ft. There is a small walkway between the two areas. Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved 03/20/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -February 20,2013 Page 18 of 21 • Curran: Is the fencing chain link? Johanna Kerr (4 Chestnut Street):No,its wood with lattice., St. Pierre: The neighbor on that side is a florist or nursery. Sexton: The reason we had the applicant submit the site plan was so they could clarify the location of the outside play areas in relation to the zoning district boundary line. According to the City s Zoning Ordinance, a provision exists in the code allowing parcels that are split by two zoning district to extend the less restrictive standards or allowed uses of one district into the other more restrictive district by no more then 30 ft. So we were asking the applicant to speak to that. St. Pierre: It's a grandfathered industrial property so the applicant is allowed to operate most uses within the property. But if it were a new use they would have to comply with the existing standards of the zoning ordinance. Harris: Are there any issues with the drainage easement? St. Pierre: Technically, you are not supposed to construct anything on an easement. I'm not sure how much the use encroaches on to the easement or who owns it. Johanna Kerr(4 Chestnut Street): I'm not sure who the easement belongs too. St. Pierre: I think it's important to know that at such time the holder of that easement may require you to remove your fencing at your expense. Johanna Kerr (4 Chestnut Street): I know our property use to be part of a larger parcel that included • the two properties on either side of our building. It was, at one point, split up into four lots. Curran: Is there any members of the public that wish to speak on the matter? Richard Zalinski (Salem Street): We're a customer of hers. The place is clean and they take good care of the dogs. This permit should be granted. David Barrow (43 Endicott Street): I have used this facility to care for my dog a number of times. I work from home so having the doggy daycare there to care for my young puppy with a lot of energy is great. Even after the fire she continued to work with him. She takes the safety of the anunals as a high priority. Phil Dana (25 New Derby Street): I agree with all the other comments that have been made. I've been a customer from the beginning and my dog really enjoys the facility. The place is clean. Donne Foster (259 Jefferson Avenue): These people take great care of my dogs. This is a need for ourselves and the community. Curran: I know this is a much need use in the City. It is always difficult to operate this type of use in or near a residential district, but in this case it seems appropriate in this industrial area. Watkins: it's a good use for the location. Harris:Much of the surrounding area is industrial so it seems appropriate. Curran: Do we have a motion? Watkins: I make a motion to approve the Special Permit with all the stand condition applied except • for the eighth condition.Mr.Watkins read each of the standard conditions into the record. Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved 03/20/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -February 20,2013 Page 19 of 21 • Johanna Kerr (4 Chestnut Street): Are we in compliance with those conditions as read with our Building Permit we've submitted? Could you clarify the last condition? St. Pierre: Yes. The last condition is intended to prevent people from pulling a permit to renovate a building and then try to demolish it without prior authorization. The other conditions that were read off are standard conditions that are applied to petitions on a case by case basis. Motion:Mr. Watkins nude a nlion to 4Wrw the Spetial Pemit as mn&tiwet sea rxW by Ms. Hams, and a wte tors take Mize nrn&s. The fw nv4us tared w fawr, with a 5-0 ware(Ms. Curran(Chair), Ms. Harris, Mr. Dirnme Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinas (Alternate) in fazor none opVase . The mxion zags aaeptal The derision is hereby i unruu�porated as part g[these nimites. Ms. Curran explained to the applicant and the public in attendance that the decision would be available-within two weeks of the hearing and filed with the City Clerk There is a twenty day appeal period. She then introduced the next item on the agenda. Petition of ELEONORA F. KOSKI TRUST, MIKE RAMAZIO, TRUSTEE, requesting a variance from Sec. 4.1.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the existing buildings with less than the minimum required lot frontage, width and area on the property located at 19 &25 BOSTON ST (B-2, R-3 Zoning Districts). Curran: Is the applicant present to speak on the petition? Michael Giaimo (Robinson & Cole Law Offices): The petitioner is a trust that was setup after Ms. Koski died. Her husband owned the property since the mid to early 1900's. It always has had these • two businesses on it. For a long time, the two lots were combined as one parcel. But in 1963 they did an Approval Not.Require (ANR) plan. If you are formulary with the property it's the Coin Opt Laundry and the Salem auto body in the back The 1963 ANR plan, which is in the package, draw a line around the laundry building. As a functional matter, this action left little room for parking to be accommodated on site. In 2003, in anticipation of the trust wanting to sell the properties at some point, they got another ANR and a frontage waiver approved from the Salem Planning Board. At the time, they apparently didn't realize they needed Variances because the old and new lots were nonconforming. As such, the 2003 ANR changed the layout of the parcels. As justification for these Variance requests, if you've ever been out to the property, there is a large topography difference between the front and rear parcels. The laundry parcel is located at the street level on some land that has clearly been filled;whereas, the auto body parcel is higher in the rear. By granting these Variance requests, it supports the changes to the parcels that were grant in 2003. In doing so, the parcel area for the laundry was be, legally, adequately sized to allow for parking and provides adequate ingress and egress without have to cross onto the other parcel. Curran: So they got approval from the Salem Planning Board for an ANR plan that didn't change the frontages of the parcels? Not realizing they-were creating nonconforming lots. Michael Giaimo (Robinson & Cole Law Offices): It did change the frontage of the parcels. They widened the frontage for the parcel containing the Laundromat, but they never changed the buildings. Curran: So they didn't have the required frontage, but the Planning Board sign the plan? St. Pierre: The 2003 ANR needed relief from the dimensional standards, but the petitioner did not 0 seek relief from the Salem ZBA prior to the Planning Board's approval of the ANK Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes-Approved 03/20/2013 Cry of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -February 20,2013 Page 20 of 21 • Michael Giaimo (Robinson & Cole Law Offices): There is a provision under the Salem Zoning Ordinance that states, if you have a parcel that predates the adoption of the zoning ordinance with two structures on it can be divide. It doesn't matter whether the uses are residential or commercial. Curran: That provision only applies to residential structures. St. Pierre: I agree with the Chair,it's only applicable to residential structures. Curran: In any case, some how it got signed. Michael Giaimo (Robinson &Cole Law Offices): Additionally, we weren't necessarily sure why they were granted a waiver to frontage. In any case,we figured we need to come before this board to gain approval for the nonconfornuties that were created under the 2003 ANR plan. St. Pierre: This in affect changed nothing on the property. It changes addresses the legalities of the former approval. Michael Giaimo (Robinson & Cole Law Offices): We have a potential buyer for one of the properties. This will make it possible for that buyer to purchase this property without creating a zoning violation for the other property and cleaning the title. St. Pierre: This would resolve any issues a lender may have regarding this parcels status. Curran: I understand the situation now, but because these are Variance requests please run through your hardship justification. Michael Giaimo (Robinson &Cole Law Offices): The hardship is really the topography of the two • parcels and the locations of the existing structures on the lots. The location of the prior fill is a logic location for the division of the two parcels and is consistent with the 2003 ANR plan for the properties. This action would allow for parking to be accommodated on each lot, respectively, and would provide access for each parcel. This also creates a better lot configuration when considering the future use and redevelopment potential for each parcel. Hams: Isn't it also a hardship that there is no way to subdivide the two properties with their existing structures in a manner consistent with the Salem Zoning Ordinance? Michael Giaimo (Robinson & Cole Law Offices): You couldn't without putting in a road and significantly modifying the parcel layouts. Curran: Furthermore, literal enforcement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance's Dimensional Standards would be physically impossible. Michael Giaimo (Robinson &Cole Law Offices): That's true. Curran: I have no problem with this. Mr. St. Pierre pointed out that there were no members of the public present to speak on the request. Curran: Do we have a motion? Mr. Eppley made the motion. He then read each of the applicable standard conditions that would be applied to his approval. Mr. St. Pierre asked whether the application of conditions should be waived since this is an after the • fact action and there is not Building Permit associated with the petition? Curran: I think we should apply the first and last condition from the standard condition list. Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved 03/20/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -February 20,2013 Page 21 of 21 Motion: Mr. Eppley nu&a ration to grant the Vanane rawest as comliti� seamded by Ms. Hares, and a zaae teas take g(fiw nwhn. The fire rrenaxrs Toted in fawn, with a 5-0 Tote(Ms. Curran(Chair Ms. Harris, Mr. Diorm Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsusmos (ltemate in fawn, none id). The raion uas ag*ted The derision is hereby zrnmporatal as part these nzmrta. V. OLD/NE W BUSINE SS No business was discussed. VI. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Harris motion for adjournment of the February 20`h regular meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Motion: Ms. Harris made a mxion to adjoum the February 20 r�ular rrtirtlae Salem Zoning Board Appeals, savnded by Mr. Watkim, and a unanimacrs zw was taken All Lbe nvd-Lrs Toted in fawr, wth a 6-0 wte (Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionrx Mr. Watkim, Mr. Eppley(Alternate) and Mr. Tsitsina (Alternate in fawr now qWed). The notion vas aaeptxl The deasion is hereb mcorparawi as pan �jtl m nimdes. Respectfully submitted, Daniel Sexton, Staff Planner Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved 03/20/2013 r ii ONUIT CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL \\g 120 WASHINGTON S STREET SALEM MASSACHUSETCS 01970 i KIMBERLEY DRISCOL.L TELE:978-679-5685 Fnx:978-740-0404 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You are bereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppeals will hold its regularly scbeduled meeting on Wednesday, March 20th,2013 at 6.•30 p.m. at City HallAnnex, RM 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ➢ February 20, 2013 meeting III. REGULAR AGENDA Project: Petition requesting a modification of a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the elimination of a condition applied to a Special Permit issued in 1979. Applicant: JOEL GREEN Location: 310 LAFAYETTE ST(R3 Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting a Variance of Section 4 Dimensional Requirement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow construction of a 15 ft. by 20 ft. two-story addition in the 10 ft. side yard setback. Applicant: PAUL BARRETT Location: 35 JUNPIER AVE. (RI Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Project: Petition requesting a modification of a special permit per Sec. 3,2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the first floor unit of a two-family Oilding2i be split into a residential and commercial unit. Applicant: RICHARD JAGOLTA -ma s Location: 18 BRIDGE ST(R2 Zoning District) ?�" _ cnrn N V. ADJOURNMENT Irn* D s X B s Q? a^1 1 - `vim•""" Know Your Rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A 5 18-25 and City Ordinance ff 2-2028 through 2-2033. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET $ALEMh MASSACHOSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 LEGAL NOTICES The City of Salem Board of Appeals will open public hearings for the following new petitions at its meeting on Wednesday, March 20,2013 at 6:30 pm .,3rd floor, 120 Washington Street, RM 313: Petition of JOEL GREEN, requesting a modification of a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the elimination of a condition applied to a Special Permit issued in 1979 for the property located at 310 LAFAYETTE ST (R3 Zoning District). Petition of PAUL BARRETT, requesting Variances of Section 4 Dimensional Requirement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow reduction of the front, side and rear yard setbacks and the maximum allowable lot coverage by all buildings for construction of a two-story addition to the home on the property located at 35 JUNPIER AVE. (Rl Zoning District). Rebecca Curran,Chair Salem Board of Appals ..4 o clrn ..r r g M x� � Nm r n 3 3 W D y/ N 471 Oft d* a. , � h Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A 18-25 and City Ordinance§2-2028 through 5 2-2033. i NDI� .,� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS AM/; 9�i BOARD OF APPEAL KIMBERLEY DRISGOLL 120 WASIIINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 MAYOR TFLE:978-745-9595 FAx:978-740-9846 STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Daniel Sexton,Staff Planner d DATE: March 11, 2013 RE: Meeting Agenda—March 20,2013 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: • 1. Agenda 2. Planner's memo 3. Meeting minutes of 02/20/2013 Materials for the following petitions are included in the packet for the 03/20/2013 meeting. Here is a summation of the requested petitions and background parcel information for each item: III. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS Petition of JOEL GREEN, requesting a modification of a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the elimination of a condition applied to a Special Permit issued in 1979 for the property located at 310 Lafayette Street(R3 Zoning District). The petitioner is requesting the modification of a Special Permit approved by the Board of Appeals in 1979. The modification being requested involves the removal of condition 43 from the 1979 Special Permit,which states: "(3) The Special Permit shall terminate if the propery is sold by Dr. Green or if Dr. Green does not use it for his practice." The petitioner's application is enclosed in your packet for consideration. Petition of PAUL BARRETT, requesting Variances of Section 4 Dimensional Requirement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow reduction of the front, side and rear yard setbacks and to increase the maximum allowable lot coverage by all buildings for construction of a two-story addition to the home on the property located at 35 Juniper Avenue (R1 Zoning District). The petitioner is requesting Variances from Section 4 Dimensional Requirements to reduce the minimum width of the front, side, and rear yard setbacks and an increase to the maximum allowable coverage by buildings for the construction of a two-story addition. The Variances, if granted,would relax the dimensional requirements of the R1 Residential One Family zoning district as they apply this property as following: City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—March 11,2013 Page 2of2 • Dimensional Requirements f Zoning Ordinance :Actual, J Proposed m s r ' J Rc4mredStandard(Rl) Dimension° $Dimension Maximum Depth of Front Yard 15 Feet 0 0 Maximum Depth of Side Yard r' 10 Feet ;aa: I s�"';20 K 1`, 5 Maximum Depth of Rear Yard 30 Feet 0 0 Maximum Lot Coverage by Buildings 30% 66% . 91.60% I t 0 a When considering the relaxed dimensional requirements proposed by the petitioner, attention should be given to the referenced "Deed Property Line"indicated on the Plot Plan. The petitioner's application is enclosed in your packet for consideration. In 2006, the property was granted Variances from the permitted number of stories (2.5) to construct a roof deck and a reduction of the rear yard setback requirement of thirty (30) feet to approximately zero to install a bay window. A copy of the decision for these Variances is attached to this memorandum for reference. The Building Commissioner is present to discuss the property's nonconfornnng use history. OLD/NEW BUSINESS ITEMS Petition of RICHARD JAGOLTA, requesting a modification of a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the first floor unit of a two-family building to be split into a residential and commercial unit at the property located at 18 Bridge Street(R2 Zoning District). • The petitioner was not able to attend this meeting and has requested the continuation of the public hearing to the regular meeting on April 17,2013. Attachments Attachment A- City of Salem Board of Appeals Decision for 35 Juniper Avenue, dated November 22, 2006 • o�nT CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUS i BOARD OF APPEAL • • •. 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3Ro FLOOR ^' ( SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 s TELEPHONE: 978.745-9595 FAX: 978-740.9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL r�G- MAYOR O v7 T' November 22, 2006 Decision v Petition of Daniel Spencer requesting Variances for the property at 35 Juniper Avenue City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on October 18, 2006 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Steven Pinto, Richard Dionne, Elizabeth Debski and Robin Stein. The petitioner, Daniel Spencer, sought variances from the permitted number of stories (2 1/z) to construct a roof deck, and from the required rear yard setback of thirty (30) feet to • approximately zero (0) feet to allow for reconstruction of a second story bay window for the property located at 35 Juniper Avenue, Salem, in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zoning district. The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property at 35 Juniper Avenue is within the R-1 zoning district. 2. The petitioner is requesting a variance from number of stories to construct a (12) foot by sixteen (16) foot roof deck. 3. The petitioner is requesting a variance from rear yard setback to construct an approximately ten and a half(10 1/2 ) foot by three (3) foot second floor bay window. 4. The petitioner presented a petition signed by three (3) of the neighbors in support of the project. 5. Everett Dawkins of 37 Juniper Avenue spoke in favor of the petition. • 6. Campbell Seamans of 22 Beach Avenue did not speak against the project, but wanted to ask the Board to question what the implications of these variances would be on any future projects. r • 7. Ward One Councilor Lucy Corchado spoke in favor of the petition. 8. No other members of the public wished to speak on this petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The petitioner's request to for Variances does not constitute a substantial detriment to the public good. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner. 4. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor • (Cohen, Pinto,Dionne, Debski, Stein) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for a variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is top be obtained. 7. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted doe not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent • (50%) of its floor area of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent . (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. Richard Dionne Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that,if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • • �OND11q c,, City of Salem — Meeting Sign In Sheet ,9iMiu Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date ►'S Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail er P - a- S9:7 ill r Aa/1-01 Page of_�__ CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETT S BOARD OF APPEAL q�� n ii 120 W 1sHInGION SIR�,tr♦S u t�i. AG�Bari rzihirYJ-m`�7(r•' 3. 31 ,9��MINEO�"<� ler[::9r8-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 FILE D4avoa CITY ELEP,K, SALEM, MASS. March 28, 2013 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of JOEL GREEN, requesting a modification of a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the elimination of a condition applied to a Special Permit issued in 1979 for the property located at 310 Lafayette Street (R3 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 20, 2013 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. 'The hearing was closed on Match 20, 2013 with the following Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Richard Dionne, and Tom Watkins. The following Board of Appeals were absent from the hearing Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate) and David Eppley (Alternate). Petitioner seeks modification of a Special Permit pet Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconlomzing Uses of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. • Statements of fact: 1. Mr. Green, petitioner, presented the petition for the property at 310 Lafayette Street (R3 Zoning District). 2. In the petition, dated February 27, 2013, the petitioner requested the modification of a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the elimination of a condition applied to a Special Permit issued in 1979 for the property at 310 Lafayette Street. 3. The petitioner is requesting the modification of the Special Permit so the property may be sold to a chiropractic associate interested in the practice and property. 4. There was no public present at the meeting to speak in opposition or support to the requested Special Permit modification. r1 written comment submitted by Mr. Turiel, Ward 5 Councilor, supporting the petition was received prior to the public hearing. Ms. Curran read the comments of Mr. Turiel into the record. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petition and testimony submitted, makes the following findings: 1. The desired Special Permit modification may be granted without detriment to the remaining Special permit conditions, the public good and without nulli6 ing or substandallv derogating from the intent or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. 2. The literal enforcement of the Condition #3 would prevent the current property owner from selling the medical practice to chiropractic associate that is proposing to continue the medical use on the • parcel. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the documents and testimony, the Board of Appeals concludes: Salem Board of Appeals March 28, 2013 Project: 310 Lafayette Street • Page 2 of 2 I. The petitioner's Special Permit modification request to eliminate Condition #3 on the Special Permit issued by the Board of Appeals in 1979 is granted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted to approve the Special Permit modification being requested. The four members voted in favor, with a 4-0 vote (Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, and Mr. Watkins) in favor and none (0) opposed. Board of Appeals members Mike Duffy, David Eppley (Alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate) were not present for the hearing. Rebecca Curran, Chair Salem Board of Appeals A COPY OF MIS DECISION I[AS BEEN PILED WITH"I'1-IE PLANNING BOARD AND I-IL+(A IY O.Ir:RK Appeal fmm ibis decision, iI airy, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the MassacbusetU General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed Jvilhrn 20 days of filing et this decision in the o> ice of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Dorf Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Vanance or Spectal Peroutgraneed herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk bas been filed with the Esuex Soutb Registry of Deeds. • i CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 2 3 R 28 ,zowsHNN ONS,a�El . SALF%f_bfSSA1YPkI1�p,'J/U P 3� 38 M/NE� Ti.t.e -:978-745-9595 ♦ Ras:978-7409846 Kinineatex Daisco.�. FILE k Unvoas CITY CLERK, SALEM. MASS March 28, 2013 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of PAUL BARRETT, requesting Variances of Section 4 Dimensional Requirement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow reduction of the front, side and rear yard setbacks and to increase the maximum allowable lot coverage by all buildings for construction of a two-story addition to the home on the property located at 35 Juniper Avenue (111 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 20, 2013 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, � 11. The hearing was closed on March 20, 2013 with the following Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Richard Dionne, Tom Watkins, and David Eppley (Alternate). The following Board of Appeals were absent from the hearing Mike Duffy and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate). • Petitioner seeks a Variance to Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Mr. Barrett, petitioner, presented the petition for the property, at 35 Juniper Avenue (R1 Zoning District). 2. In the petition, dated February 26, 2013, the petitioner requested Variances from the minimum depth of front yard (15 ft.), minimum width of side yard (10 ft.), minimum depth of rear yard (30 ft.), and maximum lot coverage by all buildings (30%) requirements of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements in the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances for the property at 35 Juniper Avenue. The petitioner's proposed dimensional requirements were: - Minimum Depth of Front Yard: 0 feet - Minimum Width of Side Yard: 5 feet - Minimum Depth of Rear Yard: 0 feet - Maximum Lot Coverage by All Buildings: 91.60 percent 3. The petitioner's proposed hardship necessitating the need for the Variances included, the unique size and dimensions of the parcel, and the costs and impact on neighboring properties associated with expanding the existing structure vertically. 4. There was no public present at the meeting to speak in opposition or support to the Variance requests. Additionallv, no written comments from the public were received prior to the public hearing. -� Salem Board of Appeals March 28, 2013 Project: 35 Juniper Avenue • Page 2 of 3 The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. The desired relief may be granted without detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. 2. The literal enforcement of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance's Table of Dimensional Requirements would be physically impossible to apply due to the unique size and dimensions of the parcel. 3. The proposed horizontal expansion of the structure would be more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood then the vertical addition of a third story. 4. The presence of a protected public open space adjacent to the property greatly reduces the impact of the proposed addition. 5. In permitting such relief, 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 Board of Appeals concludes: 1. The petitioner's Variances requesting relief to Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the City, • of Salem Zoning Ordinances is granted as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted to approve the Variances being requested. The five members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote (Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins and David Eppley (Alternate) in favor and none (0) opposed. Board of Appeals members Mike Duffy and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate) were not present for the hearing. The Salem Board of Appeals voted to grant petitioner's requested Variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: I. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. • Salem Board of Appeals March 28, 2013 Project: 35 Juniper Avenue • Page 3 of 3 S. 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. Rebecca Curran, Chair ' Board of Appeals A COPY OF'I'l[IS IN-CISION HAS BEEN FILED WrCI-I'II IE PLANNNO BOARD AND'PI-IE CI'IY CLERIC Appeal from ibis decision, if any, Yball be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Mas atbuselts General Lams Chapter 40A, and,ball be filed noibin 20 days of Ping of this decision in the office of the Cite Clerk. Pursuant to the ntilasracbuseds General I<rms Chapter 40A, Section 71, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take e(fect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk hat been filed mith the,Essex Soulb Regntrp of Deeds. • • City of Salem Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday,Match 20,2013 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA') was held on Wednesday,March 20, 2013 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Due to the limited numir of Board g7Appeals mwa',rs pxmnt for the m"four(4) nurkm um present prior to starting the mating City staff eeplairtrl the cptiora awilable to the paaiore�s for haurg their petmm heard or continued I. ROLL CALL Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Richard Dionne, and Tom Watkins. Those absent were: Mike Duffy, David Eppley (Alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre,Director of Inspectional Services, and Daniel Sexton,Staff Planner. Chairwomen,Ms. Curran, called the meeting to orderat 6:46p.m. Ms. Curran: Explained to the board members and public in attendance that the meeting is being recorded. II. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Curran: Seeing that the meeting started late, Ms. Curran asked if there were objections to moving • approval of the meeting minutes to the end of the meeting. There were no objections to the proposed agenda change. III. REGULAR AGENDA Ms. Curran introduced the fast agenda item. Petition of JOEL GREEN, requesting a modification of a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the elimination of a condition applied to a Special Permit issued in 1979 for the property located at 310 Lafayette Street(R3 Zoning District). Curran: For the record, the applicant has agreed to move forward with the public hearing with only four (4) members of the Salem BOA present. If the applicant can please state their name and address for the record we can begin discussing the petition. Joel Green (310 Lafayette Street): The property in questions has housed my office for 35 years. Due to arthritis that has developed in my hands, I would like to sell my practice and the property to an associate that has worked for the past 3-4 years for me. Everything is going to stay the same. According to the previously granted Special Permit, the property is supposed to be used as a chiropractic office and that's what it's built to be. Presently,the first floor of the structure is used for the chiropractic office and the second floor is an apartment. It would be really hard and costly to convert the office portion of the structure back to a residential use. Some of the conversion that would make it difficult to change the space back to a residence include: the installation of leaded walls in one room, the removal of a stairway, the receiving counter, electrical conversions, a glassed in porch that is used as a waiting room, and many other changes. I treat a lot of Salem State athletes and residents of Salem Since the office was opened, the neighborhood has changed significantly. Many of the neighborhood's single family homes have been converted into professional offices or City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -March 20,2013 Page 2 of 7 • multifamily. There's even a halfway house for abused women nearby. I really want to keep it the same. In the 35 years that my offices have been located on this properly, I've never been located here. The associate looking to purchase the practice has been working with me for the past 4 years. Based upon my experience, it can be difficult for patients switch doctors or locations for medical service. Harris: The only change you are requesting is Condition#3. Joel Green (310 Lafayette Street): That's the only thing. Curran: Are there any other questions? Are there members of the public that wish to speak on the petition? I don't have any problems with the requested change because the approved use of the property isn't changing. One of the things we look at when considering Special Permits, is whether use could be a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. As proposed, the use of the properly as a doctor's office is the same. In terms of the Special Permit, it doesn't really matter whether it's Dr. Green or another doctor's practice. So the question now is whether we should change language of the condition (striking the reference to Dr. Green) or eliminate the condition altogether? Harris: If we eliminate Condition #3 the approved use of the property is still limited to a doctor's office. But, if the property is sold to another individual that wishes to develop the properly with something other than a medical practice they would still be required to come before the Salem BOA for a new Special Permit. Curran: That is correct,depending upon what the future use may be. • Hams: Based on that discuss, the elimination of Condition#3 seems to fine. The doctor's office, as an existing use, doesn't seem to be a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. Curran: I agree, it seems appropriate to eliminate Condition #3 of the Special Permit that was granted by the Salem BOA in September 1979. There was also a written comment submitted by Josh Turiel,Ward 5 Councilor,speaking in support of the petition request. Is there a motion? Motion: Ms. Harris nude a mion to ap = the mmsturl nnh ation the Spaial Permit, granted b d Salem BOA in Septemier 1979, to eliminate Corrduion #3 and retain the remttim g SSpecial Pm4t mnditions, seronded by Mr. Diorm and a wte taus taken Maur nv7i us. The four nrnit-a tared in fawn, wzth a 4-0 wte as. Curran(Clair), Ms. Hams, Mr. Dionne and Mr. Watkur) m fawr and nor oppasal Board cf Appends nv7ixn Mike D4 Dazid Eppley lAltemate) and Mr. Tsizsinns (Ak mate were absent from the bearing The motion was aaeptal This is l2mbv inxmporated as pan tl)ese mincua. Ms. Curran explained to the applicant and the public in attendance that the decision would be available within two weeks of the hearing and filed with the City Clerk. There is a twenty day appeal period. She then introduced the next item on the agenda. Petition of PAUL BARRETT, requesting Variances of Section 4 Dimensional Requirement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow reduction of the front, side and rear yard setbacks and to increase the maximum allowable lot coverage by all buildings for construction of a two-story addition to the home on the property located at 35 Juniper Avenue (Rl Zoning District). Paul Barrett (36 Juniper Avenue): Before I present my petition requests, I want to clarify when I can • request a continuance. Is it just before the Salem BOA votes that I should request a continuation if I so choose? Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes -Approved on 4/17/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -March 20,2013 Page 3 of 7 • Curran: Yes, but you could ask for a continuance at any point during the public hearing. St. Pierre: For instance, you could ask for a continuance right now since there are only four (4) members of the Salem BOA present. Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): Okay, I would like to present my case. I just ask that I be given an opportunity before you vote to request a continuance. I bought the properly approximately five (5 years ago. At that time I was single, but now am marred and have two children. In the last couple of years, it has become apparent that the house is too small to accommodate a family of four. As such, we are here before the Salem BOA to request relief from the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of the addition presented in the petition. After talking with all the abutting neighbors about the proposed addition and the requested variance, no one had any objection to it. We really love the neighborhood. The proximity to the ocean and neighborhood amenities really makes the area a special place to live. Our children love the park behind our home. By granting the requested relief, we will be able to continue living in the neighborhood and raise our children there. The location for the addition, as proposed, is really the only option for adding to the structure on this property. We examined the possibility of purchasing our neighbor's garage (as -depicted on the photos included in the petition). Curran: Did you consider building up? Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): We thought we'd cause more problems going up with an addition. Firstly, a third story addition would have a.higher likelihood of blocking the views of nearby properties. Secondly, a contractor indicated to us that the costs associated with developing upward • are really expensive. So to get the square footage that we can get by adding outward instead of up it's Just not affordable for us. I'm a mechanical engineer, so I understand the limitation of the existing structure. A three story house would just be too obtrusive for the neighborhood. Curran:What is your parking situation? Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): We have a single car garage and on-street parking. Curran: For the proposed addition, I see you are request a zero foot setback for the front and rear yard setbacks For the side yard with the with a minimum 20 foot setback,you are requesting relief to reduce the side yard setback down to 5 feet. Based upon those setback reductions, the lot building coverage will change to 91.60 percent. Basically,you will no longer have a yard. Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): That is correct. Curran: Please state you name and address for the record. Kelly Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): Behind the house, the City owns and maintains a fence for the park. If you look on the plot plan, the land between the "Deed Property Line" and the fence is owned by the City. While visually it looks as though there is 12 feet behind the house, we really don't own the land in between our house and the fence. Watkins: So there's a City owned park behind your home? Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue):Yes, here is a park right there. Curran: What does the Salem Building Code say about having structures with windows so close to • property lines? Can they even have a window if the separation distance is less than three (3) feet? Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes - Approved on 4/17/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -March 20,2013 Page 4 of 7 • St. Pierre: That may be an issue that we will have to talk about. Typically, a zero lot line structure cannot have a window or opening within three (3) feet of the zero lot line. When a building is developed within five (5) feet of a property line the requirements for openings become more restrictive. Curran: If the requirements are as Mr. St. Pierre stated, I'm wondering if the requested zero foot front and rear yard setbacks are even possible. Kelly Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): Can you please clarify what you mean by windows are not allowed in zero foot setback situations? St. Pierre: I can answer that. In cases of zero lot lines, windows and other opening are not allowed within three (3) feet of the property line, unless the window is fire rated or other fire proofing structures such as a sprinkler are installed. I can't vary the Salem Building Code, but I can send you folks into a hearing at the BBRS to pursue a Variance of the Building Code. Normally, they would grant such a request. But, since a City Park is located behind the structure they probably would grant it. Curran: On the back, but not on the front. St. Pierre: The front of the structure is located next to a "public ways' so it doesn't matter. The opening restrictions go away on a public way. Curran: But for the rear, a Variance would need to be granted from BBRS. It's likely that would be granted because of the park) • St. Pierre: Yes, it is highly likely a Variance would be granted because there isn't an abutter there. Basically, the Salem Building Code is trying to prevent incidences of an abutter near another abutter with an opening that can easily allow fire to travel between the two properties. Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): Okay. St. Pierre: Because the park is located on the other side of the property line, it is possible that a Variance to that Building Code requirement may be granted. Curran: You should be aware, if the addition were to be built further from the property line then the fire requirements wouldn't be an issue. Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): What is the process to request a Variance from the BBRS? St. Pierre: After you submit your Building Permit application, I would render a decision for the proposed addition based upon the Salem Building Code. Then we would send you to Boston to appeal my decision. It's similar to this hearing process, in that you would present your arguments to a board. Both the Fire Chief and I would be there to render an opinion. Normally, they would even consider it. But the presence of the park presents a unique circumstance, because the land is protected by local legislation. Curran: If wanted too, this petition could be continued until a decision of the BBRS is rendered. Is that something you are interested in doing? If it was denied,then you'd have to comeback before the Salem BOA requesting different relief. Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): I think we will move forward. If we didn't receive the Variance to • the fire requirement, we probably wouldn't move forward with the addition. Based upon my understanding of the BBRS Variance process,I'm confident that the request would be granted. Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes - Approved on 4/17/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -March 20,2013 Page 5 of 7 • Curran: Are there any questions? Ms. Hams asked Mr. Sexton if any written public comments were submitted in regards to this petition. Sexton: No. Curran: How is the property adjacent to the proposed addition developed? Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): The neighbor has a similar setback to the undeveloped portion of our property. It's about the same size side yard that we have. Watkins: Based upon that,your addition wouldn't be built directly adjacent to an existing structure. Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): That is correct. Watkins: So there would still be some yard separating the two structures. Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): Yes. I would say they have at least 20-25 feet of yard setback. After talking with the neighbors,they had no concerns on the location of the proposed addition. Hams: They new about the proposed location of the addition? Kelly Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): Yes, we talked with all the neighbors and no concerns were raised. I didn't think to have them write letter in support of the petition. Curran: So the Variances were previously granted by the Salem BOA to allow the construction of a . third floor deck and a bay window on the rear of the structure? Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): Yes. As I understand it, a prior owner requested the Variances. Mr. Eppley amwd St. Pierre: Do you want to bring Mr. Eppley up to speed on the petition? That would give you the five members. Ms. Curran briefed Mr. Eppley on the discussions surrounding this petition request. Curran: Are there any members of the public present that wish to speak on the petition? Seeing none, Ms Curran asked the Salem BOA members if they had further questions for the applicant. After reading the hardship letter, Ms. Curran clarified that the hardship for these Variances should really revolve more on the unique size of the property and location of the existing structure. Please elaborate on why you feel the construction of an addition outward would be less of a detriment to the neighborhood then building up. Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): What we don't want to do is inhibit anyone's views of the water. Our property is one house off the water, so if we built upward there would be a higher likelihood that someone's views would be obscured. Additionally, we figured that addition proposal would be met with more objections then what we are proposing. Such an addition would also not fit in with the character of our immediate neighbors and the overall character of the neighborhood. Hams: Would the elevations of the existing structure be maintained? Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): Yes. The only views that would be limited, slightly, are those of our direct neighbors to the right, when looking at our property from Juniper Avenue. They didn't have any objections. Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes - Approved on 4/17/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -March 20,2013 Page 6 of 7 • Curran: I don't think the proposed addition will have much impact on the neighborhood. I do have some general concerns about allowing the lot coverage to go from 66% to 91.60%. But it is next to a protected park that has very little likelihood of ever being developed. While Variances don't create precedence for granting relief to other property owners, we just need to make sure the proposed relief doesn't impact or further limit other properties nearby. I like the fact that the proposed addition isn't taking up the required parking spaces and isn't adding additional curb cuts to the street. As such, I don't really have a problem the request relief. I would say, however,the hardship is owed more to the unique size and layout of the lot. Furthermore, I agree, developing a third story would have a greater detrimental impact on the neighborhood. Who do other feel? Curran: Are you using the same exterior finish that the rest of the house has? Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): Yes. Curran: It's too bad you could purchase the garage from your adjacent property owner. Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): Yes, the purchasing of the garage would have great. But our neighbor uses the garage every weekend. He's always working on something. Harris: I don't think the proposed addition would detrimentally impact the neighborhood. Curran: In my mind, the unique circumstance of the lot size represents a significant hardship. As such, literal enforcement of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance's dimensional requirements would be physically impossible to apply due to the unique size the parcel in question. Since the property abuts the park, it seems to lessen the impact of the requested relief. Is there a motion? • Watkins: I'll make a motion to grant the requested Variances as proposed and subject to the Standard Conditions 1-7,9 and 10. The language of the conditions was read into the verbal record. Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue):Will a copy of those conditions be mailed to me? Sexton: If the Salem BOA grants the requested relief, the conditions just mentioned will be incorporated into the official decision. A copy of that decision will be mailed to you and will also be posted on the Salem BOA webpage. Motion: Mr. Watkins mxde a nation to grand the muestsd Variarm as cmx&ipnec seancW ly Mr. Eppleu and a ware seas takers qt fiw ne4m. The fiwe nerr ii"s wted in fawn wtb a 5-0 wte MLs Curran Qwlr) Ms Harris Mr. Diorrr Mr. Watkim and Mr. E A* (Alternate in fawr and none opposed Board ofAppeals nenatxrs Mike Du()ty and Mr. Tsixsirns (Alternate vvv abserdEarns the hea 71ae mxion weas aaeptai The ckcision is h2dbLLn wated as part 9 these niraw. Ms. Curran explained to the applicant and the public in attendance that the decision would be available within two weeks of the hearing and filed with the City Clerk There is a twenty day appeal period. Kelly Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): When does the twenty(20) day appeals period begin? Curran: Once the decision has been filed with the City Clerk,the appeal period begins. Additionally, you should meet with Mr. St. Pierre to discuss the potential window issue. She then introduced the next item on the agenda. • IV. OLD/NEWBUSINESS Ms. Curran introduced the continued petition of: Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes - Approved on 4/17/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes -March 20,2013 Page 7 of 7 Petition of RICHARD JAGOLTA, requesting a modification of a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the fast floor unit of a two-family building to be split into a residential and commercial unit at the property located at 18 BRIDGE ST (R2 Zoning District). Harris: Was staff able to confirm the list of abutters that received abutter notices? A member of the public at the last meeting indicated that certain neighbors of his were not able to attend the meeting because they hadn't been given proper notice. Sexton: We requested another Certified Abutters list from the City's Assessor's Department and found that two properties were not identified on the original Certified Abutters list. Harris:Where those properties notified of the continuance? Sexton: Yes, we sent notices to all the properties on the new Certified Abutters list identifying that the petition for 18 Bridge Street had been continued to this meeting. Since the applicant was not able to a site plan developed and he was going to be out of the state on the hearing date, he has requested another extension. Curran: So our next meeting is scheduled for April 17'. I'd entertain a motion to continue the petition for 18 Bridge Street, at the applicant's request, until the April 17' meeting. Motion: Ms. Hams nude the nxiort to gram the mmimrane the public hearing far the petition west cjIS Budge Sttw� at the request of the OVIkim until the April 17' rra= saorrded by Mr. Watkins, and a wuranuts ware was taken The fize nrr ie m wted in fawn with a 5-0 w to(Ms. Curran(Umir,Ms. Hams,Mr. Diorm Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Eppley(Alternate) in fawr and none oppased Baird cf Appeals rr wi-m Mike DZ and Mr. Tsiuinos (A&2Lmte) were absent fmm the hearing The nawn was aaepted The chum u h reby tnmrpordte l as pan f dl tie rrnrruta. V. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Curran: Asked whether members had any changes or edits for the draft meeting minutes? Seeing no changes,Ms. Curran asked for a motion to approve the Meeting Minutes as written. Motion:Mr. Eppley nude a notion to appmze the urinates as zerinm sewndal by Ms. Hams, and a urntnirrraus ware was taken All the Hugs w ted in fawn, wth a 5-0 wte(Ms. Curran(Chair), Ms. Harris, Mr. Diorvre, Mr. Watk im, and Mr. E ppley-(A ltemate fawr and now Qpnsad Baird CA ppea& nwien Mike Du&axl Mr. Tsixsirtas(Alternate) were absent from the hetrirrg The naxion was aaepted The decision is herebLrttrnparated as pdn c f these niw&s. VI. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Curran asked if there was a motion to adjourn. Ms. Harris motion for adjournment of the March 20`h regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals Motion: Mr. Eppley nude a nntion to g jqt rt the Manh 20°i regular rrnting c f the Salem Baard cf Appeals, semrrdal by Ms. Harris, and a unw inws tare wus taken All the r vd-,n waned in fawar, witb a 5-0 zate(Ms. Curran(Chair), Ms. Hams, Mr. Dwmir Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Eppley(Alternate) in fawor and nore oppased Baird Appeals rrenhs Mike Duffy andMr.. Tsitsincs(Altemawj vDe absem fivrn the bearing. The na wn wus . aaepted The demion is hereb+>Lxvrporated asp �tbese rrirudes. Respectfully submitted, Daniel Sexton, Staff Planner Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes -Approved on 4/17/2013 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • i '' BOARD OF APPEAL rrmeoo 1913 MAR 28 P 138 120 W.tsi-IIN(;IONS I RIH-T♦ SAI.6\I,'MASSACI-i cscrts 01970 KIMBURI.GY DRISCGLL Te.i.e 978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 MAYOR FILE CITY CLERrt,S ALEM. MASS MEETING NOTICE 3 au are hereb),notified that the Salem Zoning Board of-Appeals will hold its regula y scheduled meeting on Wednesday,April17, 2013 at 630 p.m. at City Hall,14 RM 313, 120 lVashington St, Salem, Adfl Rebecca Curran Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ➢ February 20,2013 meeting III. REGULAR AGENDA Project: A Petition requesting Variances from Sec. 3.2.4 subsections 2 and 4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the vertical expansion of two existing storage bins and the development of two new storage tanks closer than ten feet to the principle building and that exceed eighteen feet in height. Applicant: John O'Neil Location: 96 Swampscott Road Project: A petition requesting the Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector relative to the issuance to the Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy. Applicant: Helen and George Papadopoulos Location: 111-113 North Street Project: A petition requesting modification of a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the parking of a dump truck or dump trail with debris and to allow the occasional millwork and fabrication to be performed on-site. Applicant: Nathan Stein 4 Location: 77 Beaver Street Project: A petition requesting a Reconsideration pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A � 16. This Reconsideration request concerns Variance and Special Permit applications denied by the Board of Appeals on December 19, 2012. Applicant: Matthew Banko Location: 9-11 Ocean Terrace Project: If the above referenced Reconsideration request is approved, a public hearing will be held for a petition requesting modification of a Special Permit condition. Specifically, the modification is to clarify what happens to owner occupancy requirement in the instance of a foreclosure. Applicant: Matthew Banko Location: 9-11 Ocean Terrace IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Project: Petition requesting a modification of a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the first floor unit of a two-family building to be split into a residential and commercial unit. n Applicant: Richard Jagolta j ®� ,�_ P.Oj W a 9, a6t 3 Location: 18 Bridge Street kot�, 1�� V. ADJOURNMENT tl��3..3 S PM Know Your Righls under the Open Meeting I�uo M.G i L e 3Ol1 Q 1 r25 4rrd,GO Ordinance§2-2028 tkrairgh INIASSACHUSETTS CITY OF BOARD OF APPEAL200 MAR 28 P 3: 38 FILE ti !20T.k'!11.\(;I o-S I ki Il +�U'F\I'M I cS;I S A MASS. nj I DIUS'Olj I i:i i..97 8-61 Q 5(15'j # I \-(1 -8-7 P)-0404 Public Hearing Notice City of Salem Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of NATHAN STEIN for modification of a Special Permit per See. 3.3.2 of the City of'Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the parking of a dump truck or dump trail with debris and to allow the occasional millwork and fabrication to be performed on-site at the property located at 77 BEAVER ST. (R-2 Zoning District). The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 at 6:30 PM, in Room 113, Third Floor at 120 Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the application is on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning & Community Development, City [fall Annex, Third Floor, 120 Washington St. Salem, MA. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Ad Dates to Run in Salem News: April 3"' and 10"'. 201-1 P&S" Je177 MI i P/Y7 as 's • CITY Of, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 1013 MAR 28 P 3, 38 BOARD OF APPAL 'N/;INII, 12(l V,\ iv_�io 5[a1 I'l. 1M,MA'S'(f it 'i-, I- 1) HLE t,, I! j 9 7 8 6N-n685 1:.% 979 0 W i , Y CLEf1ii, SALEK M,, Public Hearing Notice City of Salem Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of GEORGE and HELEN PAPADOPOULOS for an Appeal of the Decision of the Building inspector relative to the issuance of the Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy for the property located at I 11-11') NORTH STREET (BI 'Zoning District). The public hearing will be field on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 at 6:30 PM. in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the application is on rite and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planting & Community Development, City LlaH Annex. Third Floor, 120 Washington St, Salem. MA. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Ad Dates to Run in Salem News: Apt-it 3' and 10". 2013 0"Walt cft etobm' k1lom., Voln�Hl"ki wider the Open Mcain Li2vM.(IJ_. 5'0-I If /S 25 and(,,,ly Ordinals§2 '02S lbroq,1,2-203 3. CITY OF SALEN, .1 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APH&U-28 P 3: 38 120V MASS 1, :1 9-8-619-5685 1 978 `411 0104 Public ffearinE! Notice City of Salem Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing For all persons interested in the petition of MATITIEW BANKO For a Reconsideration pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A § 16. This Reconsideration request concerns Variance and Special Permit applications denied by the Board of Appeals on December 19, 2012 for the property located at 9-11 OCEAN TERRACE (RI Zoning District). If the above referenced Reconsideration request is approved, a public hearing will be held immediately following for all persons interested in the petition of NIA"I'THEW BANKO for modification of a Special Permit condition. Specifically, the modification is to clarify what happens to owner occupancy requirement in the instance of a Foreclosure for the property located at 9-11 OCEAN TERRACE (RI Zoning District). The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 17. 2013 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the application is on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning & Community Development, City Hall Annex. Third Floor, 120 Washington St, Salem. MA. 2—L-- �— As Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Ad Dates to Run in Salem News: April 3"' and I 0"', 2013 044a* 9 P ormom go Q*o • Killily :1I?,Iillo 1-1111M.GL 30, 1 C1 )c 'WS hlo//vh 2-"03), CITY OF SALEM, NL-,kSSACHUSETTS BOARD OF AN '�Wig j P 3 38 vwu f # �xi i %i A(scvi 7#l4,Eo{6,0 11!,' 9-S 619 5685 C_ Public Hearing Notice City of Salem Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JOIFN UNIEL for Variances from Sec. 3.2.4 subsections 2 and 4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the vertical expansion of two existing storage bins and the development of two new storage tanks closer than ten feet to the principle building and that exceed eighteen feet in height at the property located at 96 SWAMPSCOTT RD (IBPD Zoning District). The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the application is on file and available for review durino0 normal business hours at the Department of Planning& Community Development, City I lall Annex, Third Floor, 120 Washington St, Salem, MA. Rebecca Curran. Chair Board of Appeals Ad Dates to Run in Salem News: April i'd and 10"'. 2013 oft • � � � CIS of SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS at„ i �� BOARD OF APPEAL KiNiBERLEY DRISCOLL 120 WASHING"I'ON STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSET-rs 01970 MAYOR TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Memberrs�. FROM: Daniel Sexton, Staff Planne4 DATE: April 4, 2013 RE: Meeting Agenda—April 17, 2013 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: • 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Meeting minutes of 03/20/2013 Below is a summation of the requested petitions and supplemental parcel information for the Board of Appeals to consider when discussing each petition scheduled for public hearing at the 04/17/2013 meeting. III. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS Petition of John O'Neil requesting Variances from Sec. 3.2.4 subsections 2 and 4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to allow the vertical expansion of two existing storage bins and the development of two new storage tanks closer than ten feet to the principle building and that exceed eighteen feet in height for the property located at 96 Swampscott Road (BPD Zoning District). The petitioner is requesting Variances from Subsections 2 and 4 of Sec. 3.2.4 Accessary Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to exceed the maximum height limit and to reduce the building separation distance permitted for accessory structures to allow the construction and expansion of auxiliary storage tanks. The Variances, if granted, would relax the dimensional requirements for accessory structures as they apply to the existing and proposed accessory structures located on the property in questions to the following dimensions: t"ytizjo. n 2". �©FdiLallC�tl 4 k pdp x � 'r1'1n1eA�tOna�egU�LClmenf$w ', wyrxs irc�SF�` � iRegturedsStandar� e '} Dtmen�totr Dlinge�nsion , 5 � Building Separation Distance No closer than 10 Feet 1 Foot* 1 Foot Maximum Allowable Height -. ' . Shall.nof exceed 18 Feet m hetglit 22'Feet* 38.Feet 9 Inches • *These dimensions are taken from existing accessory structures that are proposed to be expanded. In 2009, the Board of Appeals granted Variances to reduce the dimensional requirements for accessory structures to allow the construction of two storage structures. Those accessory structures have been constructed, and are proposed to be enlarged per this new petition.A copy of the decision for these granted Variances is provided in Attachment A. City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—April 4, 2013 Page 2 of 3 •Petition of Helen and George Papadopoulos requesting the Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector relative to the issuance to the Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy for the property located at 111-113 North Street(B1 Zoning District). The petitioner is appealing the issuance of a Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Commissioner for the property located at 111-113 North Street. The Building Commissioner is present to speak on the matter. Petition of Nathan Stein requesting the modification of a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to allow the parking of a dump truck or dump trailer with debris and to allow the occasional millwork and fabrication to be performed on-site for the property located at 77 Beaver Street (R2 Zoning District). The petitioner is requesting the modification of an issued Special Permit for a preexisting nonconforming use (construction warehouse) approved by the Board of Appeals on May 12, 2004. The modification, if granted, would allow the previously approved construction warehouse business to: 1. Park vehicles containing debris,such as a dump truck or a dump trailer on-sit;and 2. Allow the occasional fabrication of cabinets and millwork on-site. The petitioner's application is enclosed in your packet for consideration. According to the Findings of Fact for the granted Special Permit, the construction warehouse business had agreed to the following stipulations of the use: 4. No construction activity will occur on-rite.No construction debris will be brought to the site." •The Building Commissioner is present to discuss the property's nonconforming use history. Petition of Matthew Banko requesting a Reconsideration pursuant to M.G.L. 40A§ 16 for the property located at 9-11 Ocean Terrace. This Reconsideration request concerns Variance and Special Permit applications denied by the Board of Appeals on December 19, 2012. In hearing this petition, the Board of Appealr should he ready to vote on whether the Reconsideration request represents a speck and material change in the conditions upon which the previous unfavorable action was based, and describe such changes in the record of its proceedingr. Upon receipt of a favorable determination, which can only be made by a vote of four members of the Board of-Appeals consenting to the request, another public hearing will be held far a petition requesting modification of the Special Permit for the properly located at 9-11 Ocean Terrace. Since the Board of Appeals consists office members, not including alternates, approval of this Reconsideration request requires a favorable vote of four(4)members of the Board In accordance with M.G.L. Ch. 40A 4 16, the Salem Planning Board held a meeting on March 21st, 2013, where the Board voted 7-0 in favor of granting the Reconsideration request. A copy of the decision from the Reconsideration request is provided in Attachment B. The petitioner is requesting a public hearing for a Reconsideration of a petition that was denied by the Board of Appeals pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A § 16. The petitions denied by the Board of Appeals concerned a Variance to allow the construction of a shed dormer addition on the third floor of a three dwelling unit structure and a request to modify Conditions #1 and #2 of a Special Permit granted by the Board of Appeals on June 16, 2010. According to the petitioner's Reconsideration request, the changed petition proposes: elimination of the requested Variance to add the dorm; and requests the modification of the Special Permit to clarify what happens to owner occupancy requirements in the instance of a foreclosure.The petitioner's application packet is enclosed in your packet for consideration. Staff is available to answer any questions regarding the reconsideration process or the petitioner's denied or revised petitions. City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—April 4, 2013 Page 3 of 3 If the above referenced Reconsideration request is approved, a public hearing will be held for a petition of Matthew Banko requesting modification of a Special Permit condition for the property at 9-11 Ocean terrace (112 Zoning District). Specifically, the modification is to clarify what happens to owner occupancy requirements in the instance of a foreclosure. The petitioner is requesting modification of a Special Permit granted by the Board of Appeals on June 16, 2010. The modification, if granted, would modify the wording of Condition #2 to clarify that if any of the three condominium units involuntarily forfeits his/her owner occupant status due to a foreclosure the structure does not revert to a two- family dwelling. The petitioner's application is enclosed in your packet for consideration. To speak to the petitioner's statements of fact regarding the conversion of other properties along Ocean Terrace, The Budding Commissioner is present to answer questions. Since the petitioner's copy of the Board of Appeals decision for the denied petitions presented to the Board of Appeals on December 19, 2012 appeared to be incomplete, a complete copy of this decision can be found in Attachment C. OLD/NEW BUSINESS ITEMS Continuation of a petition of RICHARD JAGOLTA requesting a modification of a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to allow the first floor unit of a two-family building to be split into a residential and commercial unit at the property located at 18 Bridge Street(112 Zoning District). The public hearing for this petition was opened at the regular Board of Appeals meeting held on February 20th 2013. Due to questions raised by members of the Board of Appeals and the public, action on the petition was continued to March 20th, and then to the April 17th meeting. In response to the questions raised at the February 20th meeting, the petitioner has provided supplementary information for the petition packet. Specifically, the applicant has provided a •narrative speaking to the square footage allocations for each of the proposed uses in the structure and a site plan of the property. In response to the public concerns raised regarding adequate public notice of the hearing, staff requested a new Certified Abutters List from the City of Salem Assessor's Department. Following a comparison of the new and original abutter fists, it was found that two properties had not received proper public notice of the hearing. To rectify this situation, staff redistributed public notices to all the abutters and abutters of abutters identified on the new Certified Abutters list of the new hearing date for this item. Attachments Attachment A—Board of Appeals Decision for 96 Swampscott Road, dated September 1, 2009 Attachment B—Planning Board Decision for 9-11 Ocean Terrace,dated April 1, 2013 Attachment C—Board of Appeals Decision for 9-11 Ocean terrace, dated December 19, 2012 �coNuiTgq,� City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet t Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date 1/ / / 7 / Z-0 6 3 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail 'R64 nan.U(a,wr / T7 -532,l Tom,(::cia`C 7J-6oJ3�/ 4,7a - 7qj- 310, .Qe0K w le'tPet 4-if— -6,Qa T, PIR WAWA- edt)OS `ls=31I �HCbOoRCYE><1�UA 6PG cS � ' 5�1 ' 4 Al Sin AnVA JU 7 29� KO ,15ky_j4 'PI?00-SW xs�- �at-e� Ac ' Ok L13VOO t �i78 7Y�F�JX 978-14o•282� cot ,J va�n�e 61?- 33D,- plot CRRot rt106�E 47ii' -7�S-�ii 3 g'7Y_ Tyr • e_ Lec vl 4 7i f671 Page—L of Z .y City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet ny Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail 40 g7R'746• b079 rfr &�u wC1� g 7 t� Z2 <l� .c tik z - ifss- �� Ot w -7 ((i- 3« P S rt « r Page of } �GON[ilT,1� CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASI I ING ION S'IRFI I♦ SALFNI,MASS tCI I LSGr1s 01970 Kinnscau.v Daiscou.Mama 'I llt.r::978-619-5685 ♦ I�nx:978-740-0404 MEETING NOTICE )'on are hereby notilied that the Salem Zoning Bow-d of Appeals will hold itr regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, May19, 2013at 6.•30p.m. atGly Hallflnne-v, R1111313, 120 lVaihington.St., Salem, 11A C � s Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL c II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES � e W ➢ April 17,2013 meeting 2 m a III. REGULAR AGENDA <nm Go Project: ,1 Public Hearing for a petition requesting modification of a Special Perf�if'per ttjc. 3.3.3 of the • Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to allow the expansion of a nonconform ng strtture Applicant: EDWARD POTVIN z Location: 12 HANSON STREET u Project: Continued Public Hearing of a petition for Variances from Sec. 3.2.4 subsections 2 and 4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the vertical expansion of two existing storage bins and the development of two new storage tanks closer than ten feet to the principle building and that exceed eighteen feet in height. Applicant: JOHN O'NEIL Location: 96 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD Project: Continued Public Hearing of an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector relative to the issuance to the Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy. Applicant: HELEN& GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS Location: 111- 113 NORTH STREET IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Board Elections:.Nomination and Vote for Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary V. ADJOURNMENT This notice posted on "Offic' Fit ulletin oard" City Hall. Salem, Mass. on // � �/_2 at ��. /6 p�1in accordance MGICChap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Knwv l"our Rzghts under the Open A4ee1im I_a)u A4.G.L c. 30 ll J 18-25 and Cily Ordinance J'2-2028!!rough 2-2033. • �CONDITq�Q' CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL ��iMmeW KI(v m,RI.F_Y DRISCOU 120 WASHING I ON S"[REE-A O SALHNI,MASSACFNSGPfS O1970 MAYOR TELE:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846 STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Daniel Sexton,Staff Planner DATE: May 9,2013 RE: Meeting Agenda—May 15,2013 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: • 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Meeting Minutes from 04/17/2013 Below is a summation of the requested petitions and supplemental parcel information for the Board of Appeals to consider when discussing each petition scheduled for public hearing at the 05/15/2013 meeting. III. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS Public Hearing— Petition of EDWARD POTVIN requesting a modification of a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to allow the expansion of a nonconforming structure at the property located at 12 HANSON ST (112 Zoning District). Pursuant to Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Stmaure of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, the petitioner is requesting to further expand a legally nonconforming structure. According to the petitioner's application, the proposed enlargement of the structure will not further encroach into the already reduced side and rear setbacks or impact the lot coverage. The petitioner's application is enclosed in your packet for consideration. In 2012, a Special Permit allowing the alteration and expansion of a nonconforming structure, and Variances reducing the side and rear setbacks and lot coverage were granted by the Board of Appeals. A copy of the decision, dated February 12, 2012,is attached for reference (see Attachment A). Continued Public Hearing- Petition of John O'Neil requesting Variances from See. 3.2.4 subsections 2 and 4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to allow the vertical expansion of two existing storage bins and the development of two new storage tanks closer than ten feet to the principle building and that exceed eighteen feet in height for the property located at 96 Swampscott Road (BPD Zoning District). At the regular meeting of the Board of Appeals held on April 17, 2013, the applicant agreed to continue consideration Df this item until the Mav 16'h meeting. The public hearing was continued to allow the applicant time to work with the surrounding neighborhood to identify possible solutions for addressing the noise issue and to review the truck delivery schedule. The petitioner has provided a letter from Marc Hazel, President of Jacqueline's Gourmet Cookies, speaking to steps that have been taken to remedy the neighborhoods noise concerns and trucking information (see Attachment 13). City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—May 9, 2013 Page 2 of 2 • The Petitioner is present to speak in regards to a noise test that was completed for the facility and potential abatement options. Additionally, staff 1 f was asked to review the Board of Health rec ords for the property m uesnons. b the City Health tl P P n 9 An email nt C).submitted Y ty gent, dated May 8, 2013, has been attached d to this memo for consideration (see Attachment C). Continued Public Hearing - Petition of Helen and George Papadopoulos requesting the Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector relative to the issuance to the Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy for the property located at 111-113 North Street(BI Zoning District). At the regular meeting of the Board of Appeals held on April 17, 2013, the applicant agreed to continue discussion of this item until the May 16t� meeting. The public hearing was continued to allow the Assistant City Solicitor time to review and develop an advisory memorandum for the Board of Appeals regarding the applicability of the cases discussed during the initial hearing. The Board of Appeals allowed Atty. Dalton and Arty. Correnti the opportunity to submit position comments on the cases as well. At the time of this memorandum, Atty. Dalton had declined the opportunity to submit additional comments. A memorandum submitted b Atty. attached to this memo for consideration (see Attachment D). YCorrenti, dated May 8, 2013, is The advisory memorandum being developed by the Assistant City Solicitor was not complete at the time this memo was created. It is anticipated this document will be submitted to the Board prior to the public hearing. Attachments Attachment A—Copy of Board of Appeals Decision rendered on February 12, 2012 for 12 Hanson Street • Attachment B—Letter from Marc Hazel, President of Jacqueline's Gourmet Cookies,dated May 8,2013 and trucking information Attachment C—An email from the City Health Agent, dated May 8, 2013 Attachment D—Memorandum submitted by Atty. Correnti, dated May 8, 2013 • Attachment A ` CIS of SALENI, IVLASSACHUSETTS �ONDITq �' BOARD OF APPEAL L, 9� 120 WASHINGttm SIRFE1 ♦ SASFAI,bAASSAa nsFa'rs 01970 �MINBO�r' TE1.1 978-619-5685 FAX:978-740-0,11d KIAI13P.10.1,Y DRISCOLL --1 MAYOR _ rn February 29, 2012 A^ W* Decision A yr City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ' Petition of EDWARD A. POTVIN requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use and alter a nonconforming structure, and a Variance from side and rear setbacks and lot coverage, for the property located at 12 HANSON ST(RZ Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on February 15, 2012 pursuant to Mass General Law • Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on February 15, 2012 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Richard Dionne, Jamie Metsch,Jimmy Tsitsinos and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3, and a Variance pursuant to Section 4.0 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Edward A. Potvin, Executive Director of Bass River, presented the petition at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped February 1, 2012, petitioner requested a Special Permit and a Variance to construct a 36' x 18' second floor addition on the side of the building and a 25' x 18' x 16' second floor addition on the rear of the building at 12 Hanson Street. 3. At,the hearing, Mr. Potvin stated that the purpose of the additions was to accommodate clients' changing needs; as they aged, there were more people using wheelchairs and walkers. 4. No one at the hearing 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 �fter 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, since Bass River's clients with physical 1 limitations require a horizontal rather than vertical expansion, and the building has other • internal restrictions. 2. Owing to the configuration of the lot and building, 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. The design is in keeping with the neighborhood. 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 fad and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Curran, Metsch, Dionne, Harris and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Variance and Special Permits. A Variance under Section 4.0 and Special Permits under Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.5 are granted to allow the expansion as proposed. The Board of Appeals voted to grant petitioner's request for a Variance and 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. • 2 �r 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. • 3 Attachment B XC.or,nn,e•r coo,cren May 8, 2013 Daniel J. Sexton, Staff Planner ' Department of Planning&Community Development City of Salem City Hall Annex 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 i Re: Board of Appeals meeting 5/15/13 for the 96 Swampscott Road Project I Dear Mr.Sexton: We are writing to you in regards to the information that we would like to present to the Board of Appeals on Wednesday, May 15'h 2013.The continuation from our meeting on 4/17/13 is a result of the complaints by Todd Siegel. • Todd Siegel and Marc Hazel,President of Jacqueline's have spoken the week starting 5/5/13 regarding Todd's concerns. Todd and Marc have come to complete agreement and understanding of the complaints. Todd approves the steps Jacqueline's is taking to rectify any noise issues. The following issues are being addressed:` • Noise-Delivery Trucks and delivery times of Nitro from our vendor Linde • Noise—Humming sounds throughout the day,loud noise from our rooftops • Smoke from the roof top-issued resolved The following items are attached as we would like to proceed with submitting these items: 1. Two Linde packing lists—gas bulk delivery copy-Product Name=Nitrogen, refrigerated liquid a. These packing slip is submitted to point out the communication between Jacqueline's and Linde b. There is a preprinted note on every packing list that states:Drivers must be out of Jacqueline's by 23:00 and do not deliver before 67:00 due to town ordinance. MSB 12122109 2. A Linde schedule of delivery times downloaded from there website a. This list shows every delivery from 1/l/2013 to date of 5n113' b. Highlighted are deliveries on Sunday and Saturday c. Highlighted also are cross references to two deliveries in item l above 3. Acentech report-NOT YET AVAILABLE(to be available before meeting date of • 5/15/13) 96 Swampscott Road, Unit 1, Salem, MA 01970 • P (978)744-8600. F (978) 744-8622 L - ' e� • XaTuulfcT COQRIRti - a. Acentech—is as independent Architectural Acoustic Company. They(Acentech) are preforming an acoustic evaluation(measured level of noise analysis)today 5(8/13`at 3:30pm(same time as a delivery of Nitro from Linde). b. Acentech will be submitting the evaluation to Jacqueline's c. This report will be available as soon as possible. d. Due to schedules, we were unable to analyze and therefore submit any reports at this time. e. Any and all of Jacqueline's NOISE issues will be fully recognized by Jacqueline's and rectified as there are solutions to the level of noise being produced(bafflers etc.). Warmest regards, Marc Hazel,President of Jacqueline's - Cc Todd Siegel Enc. • 96 Swampscott Road, Unit 1,Salem, NIA 01970 P (978) 744-8600.• F (978) 744-8622 8227135 9EC UELISCOTT WHOLESALE B(ERY �IINDE IIIIIII till IIIIIIIIIII{I111111111l1111111l111111 Murray Hlll,Naw Jereay 079T4 5,: 5 7 9 9 4 1 1 2 T r SALEM MA 01970 L �U � } � COPY 557 994 112 BULK GASES REFER TO THIS NUMBER ON ' 800-232-4726 ALLCORRESPONDENCE UNIT LOT CUSTOMER P.O.NUMBER SHIP DATE MO. DAY YA Q PRODUCT NAME PRODUCT CODE - 9 P NO. C.O.D. SPEC.NANO. NITROGEN, REFRIGERATED LIQUID 25-00-I103 153 LIN SHIP VIA 299242 LLNrMMESMIPI 2 USTOMEREOUIP. 03 COMMON CARRIER Drivers must be Out ofJacquelines by 23:00 and do not deliver beforee 07:00. OTGAS TRAILER fig.UpDI07RVLER �9.RaL CAR due to town ordinance. MSB 12/22/09 GAUGE DEUVERY GAUGE OUT GAUGE IN BILLING CITY.DLVD. CUSTOMER SCALE DELIVERY WEIGHT IN WEIGHT OUT - WEIGHT DELIVERED CONVERSION FACTOR BILLING CITY DLVD. LINDE STANDARD BULK NITROGEN METER DELIVERY METER END:. L METER START C`3 METERED GALS.DLVD. `3 CONVERSION FACTOR r_f 3, I 1 UNIT NUMBER SHIPPED - BILUNG QTYDLVD UNIT NUMBER RETURNED - CRYOGENIC DELIVERY CUBIC FEET DELIVERED- CUBIC FEET RESIDUAL .. INCHES IN BILLING CITY..DLVD. INCHES OUT : . MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES - QUANTITY PROPER DOT SHIPPING NAME. UNIT LOT., T.E. PRODUCT CODE UNITS UNIT PRICE - AMOUNT OXYGEN AND NITROGEN LADINGS ARE PRODUCED BY THE AIR LIQUEFACTION PROCESS AND ARE CERTIFIED TO CONFORM WITH THE STANDARD' OF STRENGTH QUALITY AND PURITY IN THE CURRENT U.S. PHARMACOPOEIA/ NATIONAL FORMULARY WHICH.EVER IS APPLICADLE, THtS.STATEMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY 0 M LADINGS• THAT MAY BE LISTED ABOVE. _ - THE PURCHASER,BYACCEPTANCE MOUSE OF THE GOODS SPECIRED HERE4 ACCEPTS ANDAGREES TO BE BOUND BY THE CONDITIONS PRINTED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS RECEPT. CONSIGNEE iN EVENT OF ANY EMERGENCY CONCERNING�i SHI PERT THE CHEMICALS IN THIS SHIPMENT,CALL CHEMTREC GwsODD-C 7/09 TOLL FREE NUMBER$00-424-9300,DAY OR NIGHT. rST4 8227135 ACQUELINE' S WHOLESALE BAKERY 1111111I11111111111111111111IN111111111111111111 p 6 SWAMPSCOTT RD UNDE;LLC 5 5 7 8 4 0 3 0 0 Murray HIII,New Jersey 07974 T ' �A V161 ECOPY 557 840 300 QALEM ': MA 01970 BULK GASES t REF ? ER TO THIS NUMBER 800-232-4726 ALL CORRESPONDENCE UNIT LOT - CUSTOMER P.O.NUMBER 'SHIP DATE -MO. DAY YR. -PRODUCT NAME '. PRODUCT CODE -S.P.NO. C O.D: SPEC.HAND .NITROGEN,. REFRIGERATED LIQUID . .25-00-1103. -153 LIN SHIP VIA 20704E L 9ALCG96E E(mP02.CUSTOM EQUIP 111 COMMON CARRIER rivers must be out of Jacquelines by 23:00 and do not deliver beforee'07 Do 07.GAS TRAILER 01-M�6TNAILER 09.RAILCAR ue to .town ordinance. 'MSB 12/22/09 - GAUGE DELIVERY GAUGE OUT GAUGE IN BILUNGG.OTY DLVD. CUSTOMER SCALE.DELIVERY WEIGHT IN WEIGHT OUT WEIGHT DELIVERED CONVERSION FACTOR BIWNG QTY.DLVD. METER DELIVERY INDE STANDARD BULK NITROGEN METER END METER START METERED GALS.DLVD. `CONVERSION FACTOR . I UNIT NUMBER SHIPPED - BIWNG OTY DLVD. UNIT NUMBER RETURNED - - CRYOGENIC DELIVERY CUBIC FEET DELIVERED CUBIC FEET RESIDUAL INCHES IN BILLING CITY.DLVD. INCHES OUT . l.. MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES - - QUANTITY PROPER DOT SHIPPING NAME - UNIT LOT ITE. I PRODUCT CODE UNITS UNIT PRICE AMOUNT OXYGEN ANDNITROGEN LADINGS ARE PR DUCED BYTHE AIR LIQUEFgCTION PROCESS AND ARE CERTIFIED TO CONFORM WITH THE STANDARD OF STRENGTH QUALITY AND PURITY IN THE CURRENT PHARMACOPOEIA! NATIONAL FORMULARY WHICH EVER IS APPLICA6LE. THIS STATEMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO U.S,AY OTHER LADING • THAT MAY BE LISTED ABOVE.- /Y THE PURCHASED&ACCEPTANCE MOUSE OF THE GOODS SPECIFIED HEREIN,ACCEPTS ANDAGREES TO EE ROUND BYTHE CONOTIIONS PflI�E THE REVERSE$IDE iHISRECEIPr. CONSIGNEE IN EVENT OF ANY EMERGENCY CONCERNING SHIP E THE CHEMICALS IN THIS SHIPMENT,CALL CHEMTREC cw6000 c Iron TOLL FREE NUMBER 800-424-9300, DAY OR NIGHT. • Jacqueline's report dowed from Linde website • Amount Alt Alt Weight Vessel Reading JACQUELINES coverted dates to Installation Name Trip Rpt# Delivery Date Time Amount UOM Amount Amount Weight UOM Oely Note# Nr In UOM Reading Out UOM view day of the week 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 421260 5/7/201314:36 6900 GAL 642459 SCF 558186609 1 68 IN 234 IN Tuesday,May 07,2013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 412671 5/3/20137:54 6500 GAL 605215 SCF 558173584 1 110 IN 270 IN Friday,May 03,2013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 410193 5/2/2013,8:26 7440 GAL 692738 SCF 558169692 1 41 IN 215 IN Thursday,May 02,2013 8227135-02:JA000ELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 404844 4/30/201315:26 7000 GAL 651770 SCF 558161253 1 34 IN 202 IN Tuesday,April 30,2013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 397830 4/26/20137:21 7100 GAL 661081 SCF 558150362 1 88 IN 265 IN Friday,April 26,2013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 392890 4/24/201317:01 6980 GAL 649908 SCF 558142545 1 33 IN 208 IN Wednesday,April 24,2013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 390866 4/23/201313:37 6930 GAL 645252 SCF 558139314 1 31 IN 195 IN Tuesday,April 23,2013 8227135-02:JA000ELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 387726 4/21/201313:34 7106_GAL_661640_SCF _ 558134800_ 1 64 IN _243 IN _ Sunday April 212013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 379605 4/17/201316:08 7100 GAL 661081 SCF 558121575 1 50 IN 216 IN Wednesday,April 17,2013 8227135-02:JACQU ELI N E'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 377230 4/16/20137:01 6100 GAL 567971 SCF 558117420 1 125 IN 270 IN Tuesday,April 16,2013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 374482_4/14/20136:41 6800_GAL_633148 SCF _ 558112890 1 _ 75 IN _250 IN Sunday,April 14,2013 8227135-02:JA000 ELI NE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 368863 4/11/201311:16 6240 GAL 581006 SCF 558104051 1 122 IN 265 IN Thursday,April 11,2013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 366624 4/10/20139:11 6966 GAL 648604 SCF 558100213 1 93 IN 258 IN Wednesday,April 10,2013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 354793 4/4/201315:35 6351 GAL 591342 SCF 558082050 1 111 IN 270 IN Thursday,April 04,2013 8227135-02:JA000ELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 353068 4/3/201315:30 7300 GAL 679703 SCF SS8078982 1 56 IN 229 IN Wednesday,April 03,2013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 351368 4/2/20139:25 6950 GAL 647114 SCF 558075980 1 90 IN 252 IN Tuesday,April 02,2013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALEBAKERY JLIN)_348646 3/31/20139:33 6876 GAL 640224 SCF 558071796 1 65 IN 235 IN Sunday,March 31:2013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 340166 3/27/201313:37 6865 GAL 639200 SCF 558058717 1 65 IN 230 IN Wednesday,March 27,2013 8227135-02:IACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 337996 3/26/20138:38 7300 GAL 679703 5CF 558055089 1 72 IN 242 IN Tuesday,March 26,2013 8227135-02:JA000ELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 329608 3/21/201311:37 5804 GAL 540410 SCF 558041283 1 125 IN 265 IN Thursday,March 21,2013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 327083 3/20/201316:02 7160 GAL 666668 SCF 558037252 1 40 IN 211 IN Wednesday,March 20,2013 8227135-02:JACQU ELI NE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 324606 3/19/201312:34 6810 GAL 634079 SCF 558033535 1 37 IN 199 IN Tuesday,March 19,2013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 318066 3/15/201316:14 6525 GAL 607543 SCF SS8023294 1 73 IN 240 IN Friday,March 15,2013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 316207 3/14/201312:05 6920 GAL 644321 SCF 558019819 1 70 IN 238 IN Thursday,March 14,2013 8227135-02:JA000ELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 301376 3/7/201317:48 7200 GAL 670392 SCF 557997627 1 84 IN 261 IN Thursday,March 07,2013 O A A R 557994 a nes ay.March 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 297325 3/5/201313:20 6640 GAL 618250 SCF 557990793 1 43 IN 204 IN Tuesday,Marrh nS,20J3 8227135-02:JA000ELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 295014 3/3/201318:00_6800_GAL- 633148 SCF 557987151 1 74_IN 250 IN Sunday,March 03,2013 8227135-02:JA000 ELI NE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 286881 2/27/20139:14 6414 GAL 597208 SCF S57973708 1 112 IN 272 IN Wednesday,February 27,2013 8227135-02:JA000 ELI N E'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 294906 2/26/201312:45 5360 GAL 499070 SCF 557970115 1 65 IN 189 IN Tuesday,February 26,2013 8227135-02:JACQU ELI N PS WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 279601 2/22/201313:38 6394 GAL 595345 SCF 557961367 1 106 IN 270 IN Friday,February 22,2013 8227135-02:JACQU ELI N PS WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 277529 2/21/20138:46 5865 GAL 546090 SCF 557958162 1 135 IN 265 IN Thursday,February 21,2013 8227135-02:JACQU ELI N PS WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 275242 2/20/201310:23 6881 GAL 640690 SCF 557954713 1 72 IN 240 IN Wednesday,February 20,2013 8227 31 5 0 1212 ACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN)_269024 2/16/201315:07 6705_GAL_624303_ SCF_ _ - - - 55794SO18 1 _101 __-IN _ 271 IN Saturday,February 1Q 0013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 2652" 2/14/201310:56 6200 GAL 577282 SCF 557938913 1 123 IN 265 IN Thursday,February 14,2013 8227135-02:JA000ELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 263499 2/13/201313:11 6858 GAL 638548 SCF 557936266 1 44 IN 211 IN Wednesday,February 13,2013 8227135-02:JA000ELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 252165 2/7/201313:48 3600 GAL 335196 SCF 557916334 1 185 IN 270 IN Thursday,February 07,2013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 250030 2/6/201311:21 6891 GAL 641621 SCF 557912482 1 54 IN 223 IN Wednesday,February 06,2013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 247649 2/5/20138:16 7060 GAL 657357 SCF 557908221 1 35 IN 205 IN Tuesday,February 05,2013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 238609 V31/201313:46 6810 GAL 634079 SCF SS7892581 1 6S IN 230 IN Thursday,January 31,2013 8227135-02:JA000ELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 2357" 1/30/20137:37 6670 GAL 621044 SCF 557887754 1 82 IN 245 IN Wednesday,January 30,2013 8227135-02:JA000ELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 231164 1/28/201319:17 7390 GAL 688083 SCF 557880033 1 36 IN 214 IN Monday,January 28,2013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY JLIN) 220785 1/23/201310:31 6899 GAL 642366 SCF 557862255 1 93 IN 260 IN Wednesday,January 23,2013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 217886 1/22/20138:23 6613 GAL 615736 SCF 557857836 1 72 IN 225 IN Tuesday,January 22,2013 048 1117L2013 IS;26 5200 GAL 2F841720 urs a anuary 8227135-02:JA000 ELI N PS WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 204969 1/16/201316:03 6911 GAL 643483. SCF 557836430 1 73 IN 246 IN Wednesday,January 16,2013 8227135-02:JACQU ELI NE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 201225 1/15/201311:56 6843 GAL 637152 SCF 557830156 1 72 IN 234 IN Tuesday,January 15,2013 8227135-02:JACQU ELI NE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 193875 1/11/201316:11 6718 GAL 625513 SCF 557817734 1 87 IN 258 IN Friday,January 11,2013 8227135-02:JA000 ELI NE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 190927 1/10/201317:09 5306 GAL 494042 SCF 557812699 1 65 IN 195 IN Thursday,January 10,2013 8227135-02:JACQU ELI N PS WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 188209 1/9/201312:09 4894 GAL 455680 SCF 557807974 1 135 IN 234 IN Wednesday,January 09,2013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 184944 1/8/201310:37 7085 GAL 659684 SCF SS7802749 1 63 IN 234 IN Tuesday,January 08,2013 8227135-02:JA000ELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 182806 1/7/20138:29 6700 GAL 623837 SCF 557799054 1 50 IN 212 IN Monday,January 07,2013 8227135-02:JACQUELINE'S WHOLESALE BAKERY(LIN) 175093 1/3/201314:24 6850 GAL 637804 SCF 557785547 1 47 IN 212 IN Thursday,January 03,2013 Daniel Sexton Attachment C Wom: Larry Ramdin ent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 2:16 PMTo: Daniel Sexton Subject: 96 Swampscott Road Dan, The Board of health has not received any complaints about 96 Swampscott Road.We have no ongoing investigations or outstanding public health violations for this location Sincerely Larry Ramdin Health Agent Salem Board of Health 120 Washington Street, 4th floor Salem MA 01970 978-741-1800 (phone) 978-745-0343(fax) • • t 00 � W • MEMORANDUM TO SALEM ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL ors � s; 1, ADDRESSING CERTAIN ISSUES RAISED AT PUBLIC HEARING,, °A & , Trickett Realty Trust ("Trickett"), owner of the property at 111-113 North Street, ° hereby submits this Memorandum in Support of the Building Commissioner's `9 Decision to issue permits for the property. r This Memorandum is intended to address specific questions raised at the public hearing by Board members. D ISSUES: '* n I. THE 1970 SPECIAL PERMIT WAS TO ALLOW FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE NONCONFORMING AUTOMOBILE SERVICE AND REPAIRID I USE, WHICH USE HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY DISCONTINUED. In 1954, two uses were permitted at this site, Gasoline Filling and Automobile Service Station. (See Exhibit A attached hereto). In 1970, Shell Oil Company, Inc. ("Shell") applied to the Building Inspector for a permit to demolish its existing garage located on the premises and to • construct a new service station nearly double in size to be relocated on the property. The existing 1969 building was located on the northeast portion of the site, perpendicular to North Street, along the side yard abutting 109 North Street. (See Exhibit A, "Application to Maintain a Lubritorium"). The 1969 garage was approximately 1,218 +/- square feet in size, and had servicing for two (2) vehicles. Shell's petition to the City in 1970 sought to construct a new building of 2,387 +/- square feet, while relocating the building to the rear of the premises, parallel to North Street. The newly proposed building also contained three (3) automobile service bays, as opposed to the two (2) in the prior garage . (See Plan dated January 27, 1970 prepared for Shell Oil Company ("1970 Plan") attached hereto as Exhibit B). The 1970 Plan, as proposed, nearly doubled the size of the automobile repair building, 1,218 square feet to 2,387 square feet, while adding a service bay, causing the Building Inspector to require Shell to go to the ZBA for a Special Permit, as the automobile service station (garage) use was a nonconforming use under 1970 zoning. This 1970 proposal apparently was deemed to be an expansion of the use.' While the 1970 Decision does not specifically state the Building Inspector's findings, it can be inferred from the language of the Decision that the Special Permit was required due to an 1 • After hearing, the ZBA unanimously voted to issue a Special Permit to Shell to construct the gasoline service station with specific design criteria for the building and other conditions concerning the landscaping, grading, etc. (See 1970 Decision attached hereto as Exhibit C). During the pendency of the 1970 petition and continuously from 1954 through today, the gasoline filling use has continued on the site. (See 2013 Inflammables License, Storage Tank Permit and State License to Sell Fuel, attached hereto as Exhibit D). Conversely, the automobile service station use has been discontinued since the acquisition of the premises by the current owner in 2008. With the discontinuation of the automobile service and repair use, the Special Permit issued in 1970 for that use is no longer needed. The gasoline filling use continues as a legal nonconforming use today, and not as a special permit use as alleged in the Appeal. II. THE PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER CANNOT "PIGGYBACK" A PERMITTED USE TO A SPECIALLY PERMITTED USE IS INAPPLICABLE, AS THE SPECIAL PERMIT USE, AUTOMOBILE SERVICE AND REPAIR, HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED. • In its application of Appeal to the Board, the Petitioner attaches a two- page e-mail dated March 5, 2013 from its attorney to the Assistant City Solicitor, in which it is argued that the existing use at the site is a specially permitted use and that a permitted use (retail) cannot be "piggybacked" onto such Special Permit. This argument is inapplicable, as the existing use referred to at the site, gasoline filling, is not and never was a special permit use. The special permit use, automobile service and repair, was the subject of the 1970 Special Permit when the owner sought to expand the use by doubling the size of its garage in a newly constructed building. That use continued from 1970 through 2008 when the current owner discontinued it by eliminating the automobile service bays and remodeling the building. The repeated statements contained in the Appeal that the property owner contends "that one can add a use permitted as of right to a specially permitted use, as of right..." are simply inaccurate and misleading. No such contention has been made by the property owner. To the contrary, it is the owner's contention that the 1970 Special Permit is not required for the existing uses at the site (gasoline filling and retail). • expanded automotive service and repair use, as the new building was nearly double in size with three (3) automotive bays. 2 Ill. THE BUILDING CONFORMS TO ALL ZONING REQUIREMENTS, BOTH IN 1970 AND 2013. The 1970 Decision issuing a Special Permit was for the expansion of the automobile service and repair use due to the proposed construction of a new garage nearly double in size to the then existing garage. Nowhere in the 1970 Decision is relief sought or granted for any dimensional requirements of the building, simply because none were needed. The new building was sited on the lot so that it conformed with zoning. Since 2008, the building was renovated and expanded by the current owner through proper permits, all while conforming to current zoning. At issue in this matter was whether the property was in compliance with a condition of the 1970 Decision. The Building Inspector, by letter dated January 30, 2009 (attached hereto as Exhibit E) deemed that action by the owner concerning landscaping was required to bring the property into compliance. At no time did the building require any variances to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Thus, the Petitioner's reliance on the two cases provided in its Appeal, a Peabody and a Rockport Variance Appeals case, • is off point. Both the Lussier and DiGiovanni cases deal with dimensional variances granted by the respective Boards of Appeal, and whether those variance plans and conditions concerning side yard setbacks and cluster development building placements were exactly followed. The Court in each of those cases recites a litany of the history of variance law and how conditions on a variance are to be interpreted. Ironically, it is the Petitioner that is trying to "piggyback" this specific variance caselaw onto the 1970 Special Permit that allows an expansion of a particular use. It is well settled that obtaining and enforcing variances, with the required accompanying hardship findings, is unique in land use law. No variances have been required at this property and the cases cited in the Appeal application do not apply. IV. THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WAS ISSUED AFTER ALL CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE CITY WERE MET BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. By letter dated April 5, 2012 from the Building Inspector to the owner, a decision was issued that the landscape requirement intended in the • 1970 Decision was fulfilled by the submittal and acceptance of the Landscape Plan dated March 2, 2012, stamped by Lorayne Black, ASLA, 3 Registered Landscape Architect ("Compliance Decision") (See Exhibit F . attached hereto). The property owner, without conceding that the 1970 Decision still applies, agreed to bring the property into compliance as directed by the Building Inspector. Contrary to the allegation in the Appeal, the Building Inspector did not "waive" any conditions or violations and issue "new" conditions, but rather he enforced the conditions contained in the 1970 ZBA Decision as is his duty under M.G.L. c. 40A, §8. The Certificate of Occupancy was issued after being held up for over three (3) years until compliance was determined to be accomplished. On February 25, 2013, the Certificate of Occupancy for the property and building was issued. (See Exhibit G attached hereto). Attached to the Certificate of Occupancy is the sign-off sheet completed by ten (10) different City departments. All other state and municipal requirements have been met. Now, over one year after the property was deemed to comply, and after the business has opened to the public, the appellants t seek to appeal the Building Inspector's Decision. Such appeal is untimely. Thus, the current state of the property is as follows: 1. Conforming building; 2. Legal nonconforming gasoline filling use; 3. Permitted retail use (B-1 Zone) and, if applicable; 4. Conformance with 1970 Decision. There is no valid reason that the Certificate of Occupancy would not issue. Respectfully submitted, Trickett Realty Trust By its Attorney, By: Jos ph C. renti, Esquire Serafini, Darling & Correnti, LLP 63 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 (978) 744-0212 • 4 < EXHIBIT •Section 4. Apartment House Districts. In the apartment house districts, no new building or structure, or part thereof, shall be constructed or used and no existing building or structure, or part thereof, shall be altered, enlarged reconstructed or used for �! A. Any industry, trade, manufacturing, or commercial purpose; or for i f B. Any purpose except one or more of the following specified uses: 1. Any purpose or accessory use authorized in the single or general residence districts; 2. Residence for three or more families, apartment house, apartment hotel, or hotel; 3. Such accessory uses as are customary in connection with the foregoing uses and are incidental thereto, including a private garage, group garage, or private stable. Section 5. Semi-Residence Districts. • A. In the semi residence districts, new buildings and structures may be constructed and used and existing buildings and structures may be altered, enlarged, reconstructed, and used for any purpose or accessory use authorized in the single residence, general residence, or apartment house districts; but for no other purpose or use, except that B. The first floor, basement, and cellar of any new or existing building or structure may be used for one or more of the purposes and accessory uses authorized in the business districts, including a private garage or private stable, group garage, business garage or business stable, gasoline filling station, service station, but not a public garage or public stable, or a motor vehicle repair shop. Section 6. Business Districts. In the business districts, no new building or • structure, or part thereof, shall be constructed or used and no existing building -4- • or structure, or part thereof, shall be altered, enlarged, reconstructed, or used for A. Any purpose except one or more of the following specified uses: 1. Any purpose or accessory use authorized in the single residence general residence, apartment house, or semi residence districts; i% 2. Store, salesroom, or showroom for the conduct of retail or whole- § sale business; 3. Office of any kind; 6 4. Bank or other monetary institutions; 5. Restaurant or other eating place; 6. Club or other organization, dancing academy, theater, hall, or other place of amusement or assembly; 7. Public or semi-public building; • 8. Place of business of a Baker Dressmaker Mason Roofer Builder Druggist Milliner Shoemaker Butcher Dyer Newspaper Shoe repairer Cabinet Maker Electrician Optician Shoe shiner Carpenter Florist Painter Tailor Caterer Furrier Paper hanger Tinsmith Cleaner Grocer Photographer Tele0hone Exchange Confectioner Hair Dresser Plumber Undertaker Contractor Laundry Printer Upholsterer Decorator Manicure Publisher 9. Private garage or private stable, group garage, business garage or business stable, gasoline filling station, service station, public garage or public stable, or motor vehicle repair shop; 10. Any additional use which the Board of Appeal, upon petition and under the procedure provided in the Building Ordinance, may permit in a specific case, provided that the Board finds that (a). The proposed use is similar to one or more of the uses previously authorized by this section; (b). The exclusion of such additional use from a business aaaair,. e 9+ . X CITY OF SALEM Application to Maintain a Garage TO THE CITY COUNCIL: I hereby apply for a license to maintain a GARAGE at No. . ..111..`ro:;': .... .... ............ ..........._ _..........I.. ...- Street—•Avenue- . . .. ....... ..... .. ... .................................. .......... ... DESCRIPTION Width.......?g_....._feet........ ._........inches Length:.._.._42........feet.._...........0....inches. • Number of stories.._ . ..._onz....._........... Construction............_f'rLb."... I............................ _. ....... Number of automobiles to be kept.........._a.. 0...._.._.. . . ... ..................... ............... ....... ...... What type is the Garage? (See Zoning Ordinance, Section 12.) -- Private Garage?_......'.':....._.-_._..Group Garage?_.......... .............Business Garage?.__.._... Public Garage?......_.__......_._..._Garage Repair Shop?_..._.-_-.................. Motor Vehicle Repair Shop? x l l;,_::_. _ . i auL :, ;,;:,i l :.c ; :c t ;L t.on Are there any other garages on same lot of land? '(o..... .......... If so, how many?........ Will it be necessary to remove any city trees to make an entrance to the Garage?...X.: i...... Will it be necessary to remove a hydrant?_.._........... a.._........ Have the abuttors been notified?.............. _;.s_...... y:. ' T Applicant Residence Approved...... -� J . .... . � . �,�.fe-c _ - Inspector of Buildings • To conform to th inances of the City of Salem, the General Laws, Chapter 148, Sections 14 and 15, as amended by Chapter 335, Acts of 1925, and all State Regulations. A TR E COPY AT E T _ 7" CI CLEflK _ ' ✓F APPLICATION OF INDICATE PLAN OF PROPOSED GARAGE SHOWING LOCATION ON LOT OF LAND t (Use Space below) n = hell...oii.._Co..............._.............. by agreement I // To Maintain a LUBRITORIUM at No....U.North...St.�...._.............. ... In City Council(V..'..Nov.,..12., .J954 ; r^ Hearing..........Nar....26,_1954.._ P.M. I I r Clerk. i In City Council........Nov....26.,...I951x.... Ref. to Com, on PuNts Works In C. Council Dec. 91 1954 granted. fi 7-1 y G Q t o Clerk. ( , ,., �.,.. �� '' _.••�- or v JV . L 3 ..rrn rJ.a-13. 30-00-9033r0 T, 4r T= mwrttlt4 oftttti3ttrl u>;r#ttt._.i.,. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY—-DIVISioi*OF FIRE PREVENTION • 1016 CbMMONWEALTH AVENUE. BOSTON Salem Nov. 2. 1954 (City ., Town) (nee). APPLICATION FOR . LICENSE For the lawful use of the herein described building .. or other structure.._, application is hereby made in accord- anae,with the provision;of Chapter 148 of the'Genernl Lang,friFa li;•ense'to rase the land on�Wliick such hu8diiig;... or other structure.... is/are or islour to be situated, ;un only to such,extent ns shown on plot plan which is filed with and made a part of this application. c- 111 North Street Osborne Street Location of land............ ......................................._.........._Nearest crow atreet.....................................................I.................... ( t µ A, Number) Owner of Iand..5h.01J,..... ... mDg ....._..... .8etaeiiC AdStuart...dress .441....Stus.f .....B.aston.,.. 4ass..... D v )rYy . Number of budding; or other airucturba tos;*r which this application applies......... ... ...DAB............__........................................ Occupancy or use of such buildings..a.o...,9s.11i71R,..:.JBS..ViG w._. z.t.S.t.ion....-_.2_3,ay....Luk)ritorium.. q Garage Total capacity of tanks in gallons:—Aboveground.....Se v....p....r.e. v.S.a...s.ide-Underground ................................_.......... Kind of fluid to be stored in tanks....S.0..a...Ir.o.!.f:r.s.e....o.i.de...................�.mti.olio.a.....-...Pual.-Dil........... ........... hell Oil Company APprov, _L�..k� : ... .........Lj..._...19 S .p.Y..r.... . .......... ......... jL c...... ..:. ., z vrG_........ 3��ton.t...(titat s.^......._....................... ..................... • Oreed a! Fira DeM.) ;/ (dddrea) A TRUE COPY sr{� A �T � lye CtXY CLERK SALEM, MASS, 1 Iq,, aL ... ui� 4 OIL IN IN, ID Imp 01, I n *fN a IN to 01 tz 7:1 I L IN It 27� ALLTrATE LEGAL- top m t- > 01 a EXHIBIT AUG i a Clip err} {4+ I L iJ ON OF SHr.LL OIL COM PANY , INC . , FOR °"c" °°'O** Pi MTT TO At LOW CONSTRUCTION OF ..N AUTo-mo- ,crc-., STI,c S ""dICb: Si'-1TION AT 111-113 NORTH STREFT AF TFR DEMOi,TTTON OF FXISTING SERVICE STATION AT SAID LOCATION. a „art aa,: wos . ^e Tnspe_ctor of i;i.iicli.r 5 . ef„=ec.i to issue a permit to construct a new service station at this I.nca ;:9-gin ;s the existing use is non conforming for this district , zoned Ii-1 , Nei. Ahborhood business, and referred peti- ti.on:i.na companv to the Doard of Appeals . The City Zonin? Ordinance al- lows such a use in accordance with Section V-B-S "Special Permit Uses, 11-1 Districts" , when permission is obtained from the Board of Appeals. Hearing was held on this appeal Pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters , board members , and others , and advertisements published in the Salem Evening Mews , All Board members were present , excepting Mr. Doyle who was unable to at- tend. Counselor David T. Doyle appeared for petitioning company with Mr. Edward Gallagher of said company. Opearing in opposition with the Ward Councillor George McCabe , were Mr. Yeannakopoulos , Mr. Ercha , Mr, and Mrs. Will. Heffernan, Mr. James Godfrey, and Mr. and Mrs. Robert Nelson. The Board studied the facts presented by the petitioner and opponents , and it was the opinion of the Board that since a service station nls pres- ently in existence at this location, .that a Special Permit; was warranted and would be in the best interests of the community and the district ; it was the further opinion of the Board that the demolition of the presont station and the construction of a new station of colonial design would promote the public health, safety, convenience, morals and the welfare of the inhabitants of the City. At a meeting of the Board held on July 27 , 1970, it was unanieno+.,s.ly voted to issue a Special Permit to Shell Oil Co ,panv, Inc . , t s ;as- oline service station of colonial design .in corfor-3ity :•:i. r:; ;:e, ecrvi.ce station building presently existing at the corner of 934 Yase.r:e;risetts Avenue in Arlington, Massachusetts , as shown in photoprapli of .,r. :u: s::b- mi.tted to- this Board ; the petitioner shall have the further ,r;?1 :•::;lion of the maintenance of the property to the rear line; the coilructi.on of the said building and the landscaping shall be in accordance ,_th the New plans submitted by the petitioners to meet the objections of tlie nei.rhbors, and which are further incorporated in a letter from the petitioners ' attor- ney, David T. Doyle, to the Board, dated July 16, 1970, and said plans �- letter become an integral part of this decision. BOARD OF APP'�AI,S SP ;CIAL PERMIT GRANTED AS REQUESTED. BY Act. ) Secretary DOYLEE & DOYLE Ai,ORNEYS-AT-LAW n r 91 lVASHINGTON STREET SALE&., MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ,P.,.n JOSEPH F. COYLE JOSEPN F.OOYLE.JR. PHONE; 74.4-0S31 [ OAVIO T.OOYLE .AURICE A.—OUMARO 7111 „ 157c BOARD of ,—'PPE T_q City of `O!- Salem, Massachrsntt., Gentlemen: This office r. n' nr• ,,^hP11 Qi' r.•cr:-.d ly "^n,—rn n _ . a spPnl.al nnrm7.!' 'Fn r -. zt-?^Li Ct'.on d`f :] P- .o1.1T1n cgrpl.(:n ,t t.i.on at 1.1.1_-113 nt , Sal e n, ?a�sr.cht+sP .i:se A hearing was held n �;,11. Bn.ar? nn, A ,,-il 1 1 n7G at which til7P t 1:P,dor -n „nTa_ • Subsequent therPtn 1 `.:� j ,,.. ^_ ;'end th It Attornnv Gno'^!*P F. McCahe in his csin^ • ' 7.nid 6 Co ncil.lor and T as the Attorney for Sbc, , (1 i CCr.1 : attp.;p?.j to f`.^nl rn thZ' problems nresentr>d by z ^`. T_-: cnnformi.ro >i th the Board 's d.irecti�rn T.rCl 1, .n,.ha.(lcrl, sc„ss s ''ri.th all partlE's concerned. Tn 'an, t ti'' r �(;. "irc r F �??d> > rh'�');•`G, L the mans have b^_•-' I : > :i_f nn L-1 +. 1. Chnnged landscapi.nrr ;n thc Left 'hand sieiee of the Prop^rty t0 al.1.C.B1.3te (10fg t n1 ajn to hn^.n the retalnlnn" wall hn rn e (`JP^.n TI n 1,0 ^i 01;• C7 de 2 . Movod the rear ur,,, d -, l i .P en (1.71 frn+ Fiir"-h— awan from th;, r,,a prnrnr—_u lirp ., 3. Chand*n(I the ton n.ti oT of- th - nr4 now r 1_oFeY% an thn .trpn— 4. Relocated tho fi'Je foo the sloes(', in the ". l-r ^n Ft nr ;rrnn:n nr. station yard from in. , n;.r ,nrl +.hn Ti do urn:,rt _ . e Co Re1.✓^?t.od T1'1^ i�h are(, !'rrr:,l thn. .. of an . " . .: _ O to the Side. • DOYLE & DOYLE • ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW r i 61 WASHINOTONSTREET 5 y 42) i ii SALEM. MA55ACHUSETT5 0197C! JOSEPR F.COY s PHONE: 744-067D r ,. - �y `i i �I IA -.J 53- JOSEPnF.DOYLE.Jfl. S::_c� 1 OAv10 T.DOYLE MAURICE A.CMOUNARO ct _ r, . .,_ -9_ .71 i1 � J . ch-trot t:'-- ..rgl�f%. �, r. ,,'=1'-d t0 red.t-ce the. ov^- ,-A 1 !1 P.i t' •_ of ioyl ror.",-t V. 7 . P.-r^e,d t0 t, tr ?.Rro th^ re.,,-, cl_c- ar the. `> - .r ,7i l low> In the t=c-l•c.cc uncle.-1 area of the 8 . Chnn!-.ed the l^n,t n t:r inlifi S .d cf the. ;tat%on (Tobin side) 9 . Made knocm to thrc� that `!,el.l. Oit Corm%'•n;r Tn.^. .,,, .,� .-le. was agr. eeahl.e to � .,.�., ':v, t' -:i n :,..•_ ,_ t o �.. '_'.� cn Q._. i • n t r d�si�n �0 red7,^^ il. l n,- n seen from � rre-r ,. _L =;e L:.. " willi.n.; to do this; if rhrc Board de,-m,-2: it n.dvi.s�bl.e, A new plan incorporatinn 21-1. of `!,: ch,,ncre�z has h^^n ril • d L71th the PJ�a.lildin�; Tnt;!—cc`` - 7,1 J� ni :,1 ^ ' :7:t".. rJ (j ! - rr ... 'Sh 8 J "ttE:r J 'r-OM J1Lt0'rT .. .. _ the nei,-hbors and Att-Crn ,7 ^n7 !'!(, M r:^.!�. ^ti.' I CF' " 1 I r,,thn i:' e s rvi--re Gr.•tien and no 7, .7.al. DRri`it could ne fir. n , •�a ei1 t`'^ rr d—L 7o 7 c; ,a SDPC' fic,.d. A•5 T said at t, `he ^OL ol.d Servic2 station 07= %h?_S sp!+cinl. nermit T,741.1. he..}o !' C �ta-` rr •'�: cOl.Oni.a1 d-gl.!rn "ai.th con.^tri'Ct'.O f't '� , riI ..c- -, 17tt rrnro�i_ ate $1.801000.00 . T rP cr,1,C..�,. .� tj-,.- }-I,-. -�:.^. '. ..,..ry, }';1 •.: t s hi perm t- At 7_t T m ort n + n n-7r J7 : . '7 : 1.970. Thant-. you for y011r • C(' Cii.l 1 i.Arr. IJOI-)o`t CC '1--'"' r ' T nrch T.,n S tT• 'o it :fir 1 r„ �.h 7ohn M. Grny , Sr. _0 . r^I L .. Arthur THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS S A • - un OR town . BOARD OF APPEALS OF VARL4NCE Coa.diacniai or Limited Variance or Special Permit e2.1 :-;,ws Litc_to 40A,Section 13 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a 'C011diticnal or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted 't7T"i'!'n\ ;, ',_,'.o,:; ;•- i,':- 1'• -:, T TO MASTAN c�o - SFz^LT.: 01:T., �0 - -•---•-•- - - Ownr. or Petitioner '7 1•,.c -� } r piti YORK. NF,i•i YORK Address_..-- `'-`:?..._1_?11 .................. Cityor Town.................. ----..................................................................... ------------------ --•--------------- 11.1-113 ?rnn•n{ f. .;- ....__..__. Identify Land Affected SALEM, MASS. -...... •---••---•---••---•--------••-------••--•-- ..._..--••-•-•-----------------------------------------•-----------------------••-----••--••--•----• City by the Town-of---.---.--- S �i=r'`!'--''-'-=-= ----------------•-----•-•......Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. J..7._l.--3 J ._1QT_f'L_ arm:S ----•--------•----•--- -------- Street City or Town the record title standing in the name of MIL•TON ADESS &. PET3''R T TIOOMASTAN C/O-. SHFIA, OTL CO. ---••--••-•---------------------------------- -•------•---- ............................. ------------------------------ rj? TdF.STr c^• rmT .r^-w XOBK '1Lx--�nln2..._._.. whose address is :...._..... �20� t.L.....- City or To Scree[ City or Town State by a deed duly recorded in the_GnT?:rF _.! SS??X County Registry of Deeds in Book Page_.....-•---••---> ....................•---...---.----•--•--------•----Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No................. ................Book ----------------Page................ The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No....................... City in the office of the T•own-C1erk.....1iJGiJSTTT.F. T_[_. TOE 7i Y................................. Signed this----J..l''.day of---A!jfKQ-5. ;..197Q------------------196 Board of Appeals: j ..Chairman -• - ................ Board of Appeals __ ____ _ _ % Jerk .. .. a .13...d of Appcala .. ................................................19........ at..............o'clock and--------------------------------minutes ....i11. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of--------------------- ------------------- Book........................ Page..... ----•------------ - ATTEST ............................................................... Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Owner. FORM 1004 HOBBS & WARREN. INC.. REVISED CHAPTER a[a•ms¢ May 08 2013 3:26PM HP Fax page 3 a EXHIBIT City of Salem w Office of the City Clerk 93 Washington Street • Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Certificate of Inflammables Registration Salem,Mass. April 30,2013 This is to certify that Trickett Realtv has, in accordance with the provisions of M.G.L., Chapter 148, Section 13, filed a certificate of Registration setting forth that Trickett Realty is the holder of the license granted or[December 9. 1954 for the lawful use of the building(s) or other structure(s) situated at of to be situated at 1.11 North Street, Salem. Mass as related to the Keeping,to p g,Storage,Ma>}ufacture, or Sale of Flammables or Explosives. - r Qi Ch�eyl L Am,City Clerk:... This registration must be conspicuously posted upon the premises 4— Note:A CerNfrcate of Registration mau be filed on or before April 30°of each year. • May 08 2013 326PM HP Fax page 4 � l o1 at7 oaVauaella I, (Jhcx t�opm�•rna�uuec c PERMIT To Maintain an Existing/New StbrageTank Facility for Underground StorageTanks Regulated under 527 CMR 9.00 In accordance with the provisipris of 527 CMR 9.00 this permit to maintain an existing/new storage tank facility Is granted to: 1; Location of Property: i i i j Twin C, SVael addna I' Owner of Property: T ' Fie name al pawn,limy a w wlavan Number of Storage Tanks: �_ underground Facility to be maintained in atjCordance with the restrictions described below: i` Fee paid: $#10 °� (q;G.L. Chapter 148, section 10A) This permit will expire _?z� s o r ig ala SiomwreecA om Rrevepa}tmw[arappardwus 527 CMR 9.07(M)(1)Issuanoe and renewal contigent upon passing the inspection conducted pursuant to 527 CMR 9.07(P) j (Owner's copy-To be posted at the storage reci tty) FP-M Permit(revised 05M) i'. i. • May 08 2013 3:26PM HP Fax page 2 EXPIRES! THdi COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 1�4 ISSUE DATE DIVISION OF STANDARDS 01-03-13 O�. ASHBURTON PLACE, BOSTON, 02108 LICENSE NO. KfoC14998 LICENSE To SEL i LMOTORFUEL and/ or AUTOMOTIVE LUBRICATING OIL AT RETAIL is TNIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT; HARALAMPOS 5101ROP0405 2013 EKS 2 CORP. / SALE& SHELL III NGRTH STREETI' EK SALFM MA 01970 1' k CONTROL No. is hereby livened to a n9ago In the hualne" amukV motor fuel andtor lubricating oil at retail in acowda.nue with the provl3iona of thaptor 468 of the acts of 1 mg,as mast recently amended. THIS LICENSE IS NOT TRANSFERABLE AND MUST BE CONSPICUOUSLY POSTED UPON THE PREMISES --- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - lj7-*Pa dmtait the above LICENSE q Commonwealth of Massachusetts VISION OF STANDARDS Pis t ii i. L L'd 602L0 rK15L qoq 899:01• st, 80 Alm EXHIBIT oeo�T CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS y V J' • PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT a + 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3Ro FLOOR jZ SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 EXT. 380 nz poNP FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR January 30, 2009 Haralampos Sidiropoulos, Trustee Trickett Realty Trust 1180 Main Street Tewksbury, MA 01876 Re: 11 I-113 North Street Dear Mr. Sidiropoulos: This Department has been working with all parties involved to resolve the landscaping issues behind your property. At this point, a Zoning Board of Appeals Decision as well as a landscape drawing,both dating back to August of 1970,have been located. This Decision and Landscaping Plan are still valid and in effect. I have supplied a copy of the Decision and a copy of the plan to your attorney,Joseph Correnti. • You are directed to submit plans,prepared by a Landscape Professional, showing your plan to bring the project into compliance with the 1970 Decision. A certificate of Occupancy will be held up until this issue is resolved. If you feel you are aggrieved by this order, your Appeal is to the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals. Sine y, Thomas St. Pierre Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer CC. Scott Grover, Esq. Joseph Correnti, Esq. Elizabeth Rennard, City Solicitor Mayors Office Councillor Paul Prevey • a EXHIBIT ,�ONO1T.1 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS a PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT �n • ®' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ' SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 'fn TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 EXT. 360 .—e FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR April 5, 2012 Trickett Realty Trust I I I North Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 c/o Attorney Joseph C. Correnti Re: Landscape Plan Dear Attorney Correnti: I am in receipt of your letter and plan dated March 16, 2012 on behalf of your client, Trickett Realty Trust, owner of the property at I I I North Street. • Your correspondence is in response to my Order dated January 30, 2009, in which I directed that plans be submitted, prepared by a landscape professional, addressing the landscaping issues behind the building to the rear of the property. You have submitted a professionally prepared Planting Plan dated March 2, 2012, stamped by Lorayne Black, ASLA, Registered Landscape Architect in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. You have stated and I have confirmed that this plan is the result of collaboration with the landscape architect hired by the abutters to the property. The Plan, as submitted, includes 85 new trees and 94 new shrub plantings, as well as ground seeding and a new retaining wall, all built upon an engineered Grading Plan as referenced in the Plan Notes. The plan is intended to provide an adequate landscape buffer between the 111 North Street property and the residential neighbors. After reviewing the plan, I find that this plan meets with the requirements set forth by this office and adequately addresses the landscape buffer requirements intended in the 1970 Zoning Board of Appeal Decision for the property. However, because this plan incorporates all new plantings, which will take time to mature, the following conditions are put into place to insure successful and maintained growth of the landscaping, so as to achieve fuller screening and buffering of the property in the future. • Conditions: 1. All plantings, seedings, mulch, grading and other work shown on the Planting Plan is to be done per plans and dimensions as submitted, with a stamped as-built plan to be submitted by the property owner upon completion of the work; 2. All debris, dirt piles, etc. are to be removed from the property prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 3. The ongoing future maintenance of the landscaping shown on the Planting Plan becomes an obligation of any owner of the property and a condition to a Certificate of Occupancy for the property. As a result of negotiations with the City, your client has agreed to the following: 1. An appropriate in-ground irrigation system shall be installed to water the plantings; 2. The rear of the building is to be painted brown so as to prevent glare to abutting neighbors to the rear of the property; • 3. To insure the plant material thrives and matures, the owner shall not stockpile snow and ice, often containing salt and sand, on the planting beds; 4. Soft security lighting only shall be installed to the rear of the building; and 5. The plantings are to be guaranteed by owner for a minimum of two years. Any planting that dies or fails to thrive is to be replaced at owner's expense. To ensure plantings are replaced as necessary or that more may be added if deemed necessary by the City, the owner agrees to deposit $3,000.00 in an escrow account held by the City of Salem for a period of two years with any unused balance to be returned to the owner after two years. Very truly yours, �i� Thomas St. Pierre Zoning Enforcement Officer