The URL can be used to link to this page

2013-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS EXHIBIT Certificate No: 2082-08 Building Permit=No.: 2082 08A Commonwealth of Massachusetts City of Salem Building Electrical Mechanical Permits This is to Certify that the COMMERCIAL located at ....................&�W�-.FVW.................. I I I NORTH STREET in the CITY OF SALEM ...................... .............. -------I.......--......... ........... .......... -------------------------------------------- --------------- Addmss T"n/Q"m IS HEREBY GRANTED A PERMANENT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY I I I NORTH STREET SHELL STATION This permit is granted in conformity with the Statutes and ordinances relating thereto,and expires ............................ ................unless sooner suspended or revoked. ExomtionDate .................... Issued On:Mon Feb 25,2013 .................... .J�...... ......... ......... .. ......... GOOTWO 2013 Des Lawie.MWIdPW Sdufws,Inc. .................. T00 @J 9 RMVS tUZ 466 19L XVd 10:2T VTOZ/99TZ-0 ............. _7. ..... .......... ------ CITY OF SUE, iNvLkssAcHUSETrs BOLDING DEPART.NULNT !' 120 WASHINGTONcSTREET,r FLOOR TEL.(978):745A595 _ - FAX U) 740.9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL THOR[AS ST.PtERRE -�SAYOR DIRECTOR Of MBLIC7PPERTY/BUMIMN6/ CONWISSIONER NEW CONSTRUCTION ✓ ,b i D}Id 13 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCYT LOCATION: �� jNoC rek DATE O� I<22 APPLICANT: ��et.t f Tt' c z l r ASSESSORS. y pt DATE: gr (93 Washington Street) y o {a ( cs CITY CLERK � CHERYL LAPOINTSA,jp111Aj4Lh1 DATE: (93 WashingtoaStieoQ - lip i PPUBLICESERVICES BRUGETHlBODEAU - DATE: i{( (120 Washington Streeo 41h nor WATER �... .DOTT ETHIBODEA1 T1ATE:�. J� 4O� r (120 Wash ng[on-Stree[)4s /CPin, CROSS CONNECT SUPERVIS01k m BRIARTHIBODEAU ( DATE:._ (5 Jefferson Avenue) ✓ PLANNING, �IL+ (;iNGiIIRH._ ATE: r�lUflStPact)3`6 Floor CONSERVATION COMMISSIO FRANKTAORMINA DATE: �S (120 Washington Street)3rd:Floor ELECTRICAL JOIN GIARDI % I DATE:. (48 Urayette Street) FIRE PREVENTION ERIN GRIFFIN i`'�^^�' p ' _ DATE:.2 (29 Fort Avenue) FSF.ALTH � 36rk.4tFP,'6re6�' � -�-C..�-� QATI (120 Washington Street)4i°Floor r °'T�; CITY OF SALENI 1VIASSACHUSETTS ' BOARD OF .APPEAL Anlj/ I20 W.\$1IINCI'ON$'IRI.F I, #SAl.liM,MASS:\I;FIUtiICPIS ot97L1 KIAtfill MA URISCOIS. \Invoa 'Crt.e:978-619-5685 # FAs:978-7-40-0404 MEETING NOTICE Y ors are herrlry notified that the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals mill hold iti regnlarly scheduled meeling on Mednesday, May 15, 20/3 at 6.•30 p.m. at City Hall Annev, Rtf1313, 120 R/ashington St., Salem,d,r I Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ➢ April l7, 2013 meeting III. REGULAR AGENDA Project: A Public Hearing for a petition requesting 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 Applicant: EDWARD POTVIN Location: 12 HANSON STREET 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 Clearing 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: Ill- 113 NORTH STREET IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Board Elections: Nomination and Vote for Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary V. ADJOURNMENT 0 Kno]V nin' Il iol,/r v,,.L.r ih•• /ln.•r: 1l.•,d.•.• I 11 /' 1 �n I ,r ,✓ r _. i i _._ ., , , ,. ,. ., ... . . /r�pONOlTg9�� City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet y yQ; Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date 5 / I s / Z-Ois ame Mailing Address Phone # E-mail g789�79�s� w z� k a�- n. 5�_. S'�an,� SC;K/, 1 C-i -&'`f�-cf�6y H,k..Z�,(Q ia��ju `4t7 CA-,Acre •. • Page of J City of Salem Board of Appeals • Meeting Minutes Wednesday,April 17,2013 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA") was held on Wednesday, Match 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: Annie Harris (Vice Chair), Richard Dionne, Mike Duffy, Tom Watkins and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate). Those absent were: Rebecca Curran (Chair) and David Eppley (Alternate). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, Robin Stein, Assistant City Solicitor, and Daniel Sexton, Staff Planner. Vice Chairwomen, Ms. Harris, caUed the meeting to order at 6.30 p.m. Ms. Harris: Explained to the board members and public in attendance that the meeting is being recorded. II. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Ms. Harris asked if there was a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the February 20d' meeting. Motion: Mr. Watkins made a motion to y4�mve the minutes as written seconded by Mr Dionne and a unanimous vote--was taken.All the members voted in favorr, with a 5-0 vote in favor Ms Hams ice Chair Dionne. Mr. Watkins, Mike Dully and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate) and none o4osed Board ofA�t)eals members • Ms. Curran (Chaim and Mr. EAPley Alternate) were absent from the hearing. The motion was accepted The decision is hereby incorborated as-Part of these minutes III. REGULAR AGENDA Ms. Harris introduced the first agenda item. Petition of OHN O'NIEL for Variances from Sec. 3.2.4 subsections 2 and 4 of the Salem Zoning g Ordinance in order l 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 (BPD Zoning District). Ms. Harris introduced the petition and asked whether the petitioner or his agent were in attendance to present the petition? David Berner (8 Pond St,Marblehead, MA): Mr. Berner is an architect representing the client. He distributed a couple of photographs around to the BOA members. Mr. Sexton: Explained that copies of the photos will need to be submitted for the record. Mr. Berner: Explained the overall project being proposed. He described how the existing tanks that are 22 feet in height would be increased in height by 16 feet and 2 inches. These tanks hold pastry ingredients. Additionally, he explained how the proposed relief would allow the construction of a new tank, containing CO2, at a height of 38 feet and 2 inches. According to the Salem Zoning Ordinance accessory structures are to be separated from the primary structure by 10-feet. The existing and proposed tanks are located 1-foot from the primary structure. Mr. Berner also explained discussed a 2009 Variance request that had been approved by the Salem BOA to locate the two existing storage tanks in their present locations. City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—April 17,2013 Page 2 of 13 Ms. Harris: Is there any members of the public here wishing to speak on this issue? • Paul C. Prevey(Salem City Councilor):Asked if the applicant could explain the proposed project again? Mr. Berner: Briefly explained to the Councilor Prevey how the proposed tanks would look if the Variances were to be approved. Councilor Prevey: Will the tanks protrude above the roofline and will they be visible from surrounding properties? Mr.Berner:Yes.Mr. Berner referenced the renderings of the proposed tanks on the plans. Councilor Prevey: Isn't there already an CO2 tank located on the property? Mr.Berner: Yes, but we're proposing to enlarge it. Councilor Prevey: My primary concern is the amount of noise generated by these tanks, which has a significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood. I've had the Building Inspector visit the site to conduct a noise test, but it was raining at the time. I've heard from numerous residents that the tanks generate a lot of noise. Specifically, the tanks create a humming noise and make a distinct sound when they kick on and off. Additionally, the nitro truck generates a large amount of noise as well. I've filed a number of complaints because the truck arrives at all hours of the night, even though it's only supposed to be there between the hours of 11 AM and 7 PM.My concern is for the neighborhood. Ms. Harris:You called the City on this? Councilor Prevey: Yes, before I was a elected a City Councilor. While the noises generated by the tanks and truck have gotten better, they still negatively impact the neighborhood. I believe some surrounding residents have tried to work with the operator. I'd encourage the Salem BOA to take a site visit and hear the noise. Mr. Watkins: Is the noise generated throughout the day? • Councilor Prevey: Yes. Helen Stevens (5 Paradise Rd, Beverly, MA): I understand the neighborhoods concerns. To mitigate the noise, additional noise inhibitors have been installed on the roof of the building. I was not aware of the truck arrival time. We will work with the trucking company. Councilor Prevey: Some adjustments that were made over the last couple of years, which resulted in the expelling of smoke,which creates more noise.We appreciate all the efforts the company has taken to mitigate the noises from their facility. I'm more then welcome to work with you to identify and test different measures. Ms. Steven: Yes, we'd be happy to coordinate and work with you to identify other possible noise reduction measures.We just weren't aware of the issues. Ms. Harris: Do members of the Salem BOA have questions for the applicant? Mr. St. Pierre: Do the new tanks that are proposed operate the similarly to the existing tanks? What could be causing the noise (vibrator,gas, etc.)? Ms. Stevens:Yes, I'm going to assume the new tanks will use a similar operating mechanism that is supported by gas,probably CO2. We're willing to take and/or install any measure to reduce the noises being generated. Ms. Harris: What is actually causing the noise? Ms. Stevens: It's the drawing of the gases,which then move the ingredients from the tank into the facility. Mr. Watkins: So a couple of years ago you installed some noise buffering barriers? Will you be installing additional barriers as part of this enlargement of the tanks? Ms. Stevens:Yes,we would likely enhance them. Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved on 5/15/2013 J City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—April 17,2013 Page 3 of 13 • Mr. Dionne: So you'd be installing additional noise barriers that aren't apparently working? Ms. Stevens:This is the first we've heard of the noise issue since the noise barriers were installed. Councilor Prevey: I don't believe the barriers have worked. The noise is the most apparent around 49-51 Britannia. Ms. Harris: Mr. St. Pierre did your offices receive the noise complaint? Mr. St.Pierre: It may have been the Health Department.We have no way to measure noise. Ms. Harris: We'll now open the public hearing. Is there anyone else here to speak in regards to the petition? Do any Salem BOA members have further questions? Mr. Dionne: How can you further mitigate the noise? Ms. Stevens: We'd investigate through different contractors different mitigation measures that could be implemented. It would likely be another roof top barrier. Mr. Dionne:You haven't received any additional complaints since the installation of the barriers? Ms. Stevens: Not to my knowledge. Councilor Prevey: It's not that they haven't complained, the neighbors have just to fighting this for years. We thought their proposed expansion to the rear of the property was going to resolve the noise issues, but that plan was dropped recently. Ms. Harris: So we think there were complaints to the Board of Health. Do we know if complaints have been filed with the Police Department? • Councilor Prevey: I've encouraged the neighbors to contact the police if they hear the truck unloading outside of the City approved hours. Ms. Harris: What does the applicant and members think about continuing this item to the next meeting?That way we can get in touch with the Board of Health to better understand their records and the applicant can work with the neighbors to identify additional noise abatement measures. Mr. Berner: So you want additional information responding to the noise issues generated by the trucks and tanks? Ms. Harris:Yes. Would you like to ask for a continuance? Mr.Berner: In the next meeting scheduled for a month from now? Mr. Sexton:Yes, the next meeting is scheduled for May 15a'. The applicant will need to file out a document. Ms. Harris: Do I hear a motion to approve the continuance request? Motion: Mr. Duffy made a motion to continue the hearing of the-petition requesting Variance for the-Proer4v located at 96 Swampscott Road, at the request of the twitioner, till the May 15" regular meeting to address the matters discussed, seconded by Mr. Watkins, and a unanimous vote was taken All the members voted in favor with a 5-0 vote in favor (Ms. Harris (Mice Chair). Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, Mike Duffy and Mr. Tsitsinoi (Alternate)and none Owed The motion was acce4ted The decision is hereby incorporated as,bart of these minutes Ms. Harris explained to the audience that this petition has been continued to the May 15`h regular meeting date. We are now moving to the 3`d item on the agenda. Petition of NATHAN STEIN for 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 trailer • 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). Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved on 5/15/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—April 17,2013 Page 4 of 13 Ms. Harris introduced the petition. She then asked if the applicant was in attendance to present the • item. Nathan Stein (3 Haskell Street,Beverly Farms, MA): I'm in the process of purchasing the property. I run a small residential construction business. As part of this business, if it were allowed to be located here, a construction trailer or dump truck sometime filled with construction debris would be kept on site. Additionally, some millwork may be conducted on-site. According to Mr. Stein, 90 percent of his business's operations occur on the job site. The current occupant is a roofing contractor and I believe the former occupant was a plumber, another trade. Ms. Harris: What is the size and how often would the trial be located on the site? Mr. Stein: We use a small 5' x 8' trailer that we place construction debris in. Occasionally, when its not located on a job site, the trailer would need to be stored on site. Mr. Duffy: Is the trailer open? Mr. Stein: Yes. Mr. Watkins: Would the trailer be parked on the street or on the property in question? Mr. Stein: The trailer would be stored on the property. I believe the current contractor also store a trailer on the property. The reason we're requesting these minor modifications of the Special Permit is because I read how the permit prevent storage of debris or construction activity on the property. Ms. Harris: Yes, the current Special Permit does not allow those activities. We have no site plans or drawings for the petition. Do any of the Salem BOA members have questions? Mr. Duffy: With respect to the construction of milling activities, where would that take place on the • site and what equipment would be used? Mr. Stein: We normally use a table saw or rotor, equipment that a typical homeowner may have in their basement. I currently run my business out of my basement and have never received any complaints from my neighbors. I imagine they don't know I operate the business there. Mr. Duffy: So those activities would occur inside the building? Mr. Stein: Yes. The building is constructed with concrete blocks and has minimal windows and doors. There is a garage door at the rear of the building not facing the street. Ms. Harris: Are there further questions? Seeing none, Ms. Harris opened the public hearing. Surrounding Neighborhood Comments: The main concerns raised by the surrounding property owners included: the neighbors were concerned with traffic, noise pollution (both generated by machinery and equipment), visual impacts, blowing debris and sawdust from the site, truck traffic, access to the site, and the general safety and welfare of neighborhood children. It's a residential neighborhood and this business would reduce the A number of adjacent property owners' submitted photos for the Salem BOA members to review, the photos were submitted for the record. No members of the public spoke in favor of the petition. Councilor Prevey: This type of business and the traffic it may create is out of sync with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Based on the concerns raised by surrounding residents 1 would ask the Salem BOA to protect the quality of life these residents deserve. I'm against this requested petition. Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved on 5/15/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—April 17, 2013 Page 5 of 13 • Arthur C. Sargent, III (Salem City Councilor): This is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Allowing this use to change from passive (i.e. storage) to active is one step to close to activities that are increasingly more detrimental to the neighborhood. We need to protect the neighborhood's quality of life. Mr. Stein: I sympathize with the neighborhood's concerns. I have children of my own and would never want an unfriendly business or use to be developed in my neighborhood. However, I believe there is a misunderstanding about what I'm proposing. My operation is similar to a roofer or plumber,most activities are conducted offsite. Ms. Harris: While I understand your position, it appears there are many residents in the area that are against this proposed use. What do other Salem BOA members think? Additionally, you could request an extension to give you time to speak with the residents. Mr. Stein: I have talked with a number of the surrounding neighbors and though I'd explained the operation we are proposing. My purchase is dependent on the issuance of this permit. Ms. Harris: Based on the comments and public opposition, I'm not comfortable voting in favor of this petition. While I'm not sure how the other Salem BOA members will vote, you should be aware that you will need four (4) favorable votes to have the petition granted. Another option you may want to consider is requesting a withdrawal without prejudice of the petition. Mr. Stein: I guess I will request to withdraw the petition. Ms. Harris: Does he need to sign something? • Mr. St. Pierre/Mr. Sexton: No signature is needed to withdraw the petition. However, a motion accepting the request should be considered. Motion: Mr. Du y made a motion at the newest of the petition to uitbdraw without prriudice the requested modication of a Special Permit per Sec 3 3 2 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance pertaining to 77 Beaver Sttzet seconded by Mr. [Flatkins, and a unanimous vote was taken of all five members. All the members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote in favor (Nls. Harris (Mice Chairl. Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, Mike Du lb and Mr. Tsitsinas (Alternate) and none opposed The motion was accepted The decision is hereby incoi4orated as part of these minutes Ms. Harris explained to the public that the Salem BOA would now be hearing the petition for 111- 1113 North Street. 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 111-113 NORTH STREET (B1 Zoning District). Ms. Harris introduced the petition and then asked if the petitioner was in attendance to present the petition. Arty. Dalton (4 Raymond St, Manchester, NH): I have a brief presentation and then Ms. Papadopoulos has expressed an interest in giving a brief statement at the end of my presentation. He explained why it is believed by his clients that Mr. St. Pierre has made an error in issuing the Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy for the property in questions. He then proceeded to discuss the Special Permit history of the gas station use at 111-113 North Street. Specifically, Atty. Dalton highlighted the decision's reference to approved plans for the site and conditions limiting its • development (i.e. vegetative buffer). Then Atty. Dalton discussed how the property owners sought a Building Permit from the City to construct an addition to the gas station. It appears the scope of the Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved on 5/15/2013 c City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—April 17, 2013 Page 6of13 addition was determined so as not to require a Special Permit. By allowing the developer to proceed • with this expansion is at the root of this appeal. It appears to just be a mistake. Additionally, Arty. Dalton discussed the applicability of the Lussier vs. ZBA of Peabody &Others court case to the petition before the Salem BOA. The remedy at hand for the property owner is to purse a modification of the 1970 Special Permit. Arty. Dalton then discussed another proposed expansion and/or intensification of this site by developing a retail or convenience store use. He also mentioned to the Salem BOA that they should consider the 1970 Special Permit as voided because the property owners has not complied with two conditions indicated on the decision. Greater protections should be provided to the abutting neighbors. Arty. Dalton then discussed the nonconforming status of the property. We are asking the Salem BOA to uphold a decision and conditions within that decision for this Special Permit,by ordering the revocation of the issued Certificate of Occupancy. Helen Papadopoulos (14 Buffum Street): Described the history of this issue. Specifically, Ms. Papadopoulos highlighted the elimination of buffer, construction activity and other impacts on the surrounding properties. She provided the Salem BOA with some before and after photos of the site to consider. These photos were entered into the petition record. Ms. Harris: Opened the Public Hearing. Surrounding Neighborhood Comments: The main concerns raised by the surrounding property owners included: the intensity of the use, visual impacts, noise from North Street, the removal of the vegetative buffer and the overall impacts on surrounding properties that this use has caused. This is a residential neighborhood and the operation of this use is degrading the quality of life for residents. No members of the public spoke in favor of the petition. Councilor Prevey: Explained how the property owner's has completely disregarded City's • requirements degraded the surrounding residential neighborhood. Specifically, Council Prevey mentioned the installation of an illegal drain. A plan developed in collaboration with the neighborhood has been disregarded. The removal of the vegetative buffer has exposed this residential neighborhood to the traffic and noise that is generated on North Street. I would encourage the Salem BOA to support the neighbors, uphold the parameters of the special Permit and grant this appeal. Councilor Sargent: The increased intensity of uses on this property has become a detriment to the neighborhood. The quality of life for the residential neighborhood has been degraded. I would encourage the Salem BOA to grant this appeal and support the neighborhood. Arty. Joseph Correnti (63 Federal Street): Arty. Correnti is representing the property owners. He agreed that this issue has gone on for too long. It has been an evolving process. This is not about support neighbors and sending a message,it's about upholding the law. Arty. Correnti explained why he disagreed with the information and facts presented by Arty. Dalton. Specifically, he stated that the gasoline filling station has been operating since the 1950s, which makes it a legally nonconforming use and not a Specially Permitted use. The Building Commissioner's interpretation of this is correct. The building on this site is conforming. The retail use is a permitted use on this property as developed. There has never been any abandonment of the gasoline use. From his interpretation, Arty. Correnti explained that the cases presented are not applicable because they concerned Variance applications. Variances and Special Permits are very different. The Special Permit was for the structure and use (automotive repair) developed in conjunction with the legally nonconforming fueling station. Furthermore, the Building Commissioner is an enforcer of the • ordinance and does not have the power the add conditions to a development permit. I respectfully Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved on 5/15/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—April 17, 2013 Page 7 of 13 g 9old the BuildinP• request the Salem BOA uphold Commissioner's decision to issue the Certificate of Occupancy based on the law. Ms. Harris: Could you inform the Salem BOA and members of the public on the status of this property in respect to its permit history. Ms. Stein (Assistant City Solicitor): After review the property records and history of the Salem Zoning Ordinance I can report the following information • 1954 — A permit was`issued for the operation of a fueling station. This permit would have been issued under the 1925 Zoning Ordinance which would have still been in effect. • 1955 —A gasoline fueling station and service station (meaning repair) were allowable uses on the property. So two separate uses were allowed. This was the year the Salem Ordinance was updated. • 1970s—The property owners sought a Special Permit to rebuild and enlarge a service station on the property. During this time the gasoline fueling station was still in operation and a legally nonconforming use. As such, I would have to agree with Arty. Correnti that the site contains a legal nonconforming use (gasoline fueling station) and service station that received a Special Permit for its development. The case law teaches use that changes to zoning ordinances don't automatically changes what is a permitting or illegal use. But, if you give up the Special Permit then you not required to adhere to the conditions of that permit. Based on this logic, the Building Commissioner's decision to issue the • Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy was correct. Specifically, this is because the property owner chose to develop a permitted use within the confines of the City's Ordinance and the Special Permit for the service station was no longer continued. Furthermore, the legally nonconforming gasoline fueling station has continued to exist since the 1920s. Ms. Harris: So why was a Special Permit required in the 1970s? Ms. Stein: If the property owner, at that time, had not wanted to expand or enlarge the service station use then no Special Permit would have been necessary. If nothing changes, nothing would have been required. The present retail use is allowed by zoning, as long as it stays under a certain square footage threshold. The building complies with current dimension requirements in the ordinance. Ms. Harris: So you are saying that the current property owners can have a fueling station and service station. Ms. Stein: No, the service station is only permitted through the Special Permit. The retail use is allowed and the fueling station is a legally nonconforming use. In addition, the concerns involving the dumpster can be review for compliance with the City's dumpster ordinance. Light can also be reviewed. Not all neighborly disputes are municipal disputes. I think some of the difference in interpretation may stem from how far back the applicant goes. I have presented information conveys history back to the 1920s and the applicant starts in the 1970s. Arty. Dalton: I can understand how the Building Permit was issued based on the discussions that have been presented. • Ms. Harris: Clarified the definitions of service stations and fueling stations. Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved on 5/15/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—April 17, 2013 Page 8 of 13 Arty. Dalton: I accept the argument that the fueling station is a grandfathered use. Arty. Dalton then encouraged the Salem BOA to consider the applicability of Powers & Otbers vs. Building Inspector of Barnstable and its three pronged test. Mr. Duffy: Is your position that the current fueling station use is tied to the 1970 Special Permit? Arty. Dalton: Yes, it is my position that the 1970 Special Permit is tied to the fueling station. The uses are interdependent.As such, you can't make changes without coming before the Salem BOA. Mr. Duffy: You're saying the three prong test on Powers vs. Barnstable applies to the case? Arty. Dalton: If you accept the position of Arty. Correnti and Ms. Stein then yes. As the third prong states, is it different in impact on the neighborhood. Clearly this use has been shown to have impacts on the surrounding neighborhood with the expansion of the building and further intensifying the nonconforming use. Mr. Duffy: So prongs one and two are immaterial to your argument? Arty. Dalton: Yes. A nonconforming structure cannot be expanded by right. Mr. Duffy: I'd like to hear from Arty. Correnti on this matter. Arty. Corrend: This argument, which is blending the discussion of use and structure, is misleading the discussion. The discussion should be whether the fueling station is, a legally nonconforming use and the structure is conforming building with permitted use. In the Powers vs. Barnstable, it discusses specially permitted uses. We don't have a specially permitted use on this site. The retail use, 2013 zoning, is a permitted use in the Bl zone. As such, this is not a piggy-backing of a permitted use on a specially permitted use. That's not correct. The building conforms. • Mr. Duffy:Are we dealing with a grandfathered use or a permitted use? Ms. Stein: It was an allowed use in 1954. Two separate uses were in effect on this site. When the ordinance changes, they became legally nonconforming uses. After reading the 1970 permit, the service station use was allowed to expand through a Special Permit. This fueling station remains a standalone legally nonconforming use. Mr. Duffy: Does the Powers vs. Barnstable case have anything to do with this case? Ms. Stein: While I am aware of the case, I would not want to discuss out of turn the applicability of the case. Since the Salem BOA has heard and discussed a number of court cases tonight, I would be willing to review these cases in the context of the petition before the Salem BOA. I can understand the confusion of the Salem BOA. Atty. Correnti: Powers is about modification of nonconforming uses. In no way has the gasoline fueling station been modified. What is being argued, as I understand it, is the introduction of a second use on the site. Powers does not consider this issue. The questions before the Salem BOA, is whether the Building Commission acted correctly in issuing the Certificate of Occupancy. I don't believe the applicant's agent has been clear in showing how the Building Commissioner was in error. Ms. Stein: We have a building with an allowable use that undertook an allowed expansion under the law. In addition, Ms. Stein informed the Salem BOA that there is hole body of case law the speaks to a statute of limitation on standing by while something is being constructed and then objecting to its development once constructed. No one has raised an issue about the building until now. There was prior enforcement issue regarding the elimination of the vegetative buffer. As such, the • Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved on 5/15/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—April 17,2013 Page 9 of 13 • Certificate of Occupancy was withheld until the matter was resolved. Since plantings have been installed the sought the Building Commissioners issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. No other enforcement action was sought regarding the use of the building or the issuance of the Building Permit. There is a timeliness issue. Councilor Sargent: Discussed the precedence of the language tied to the deed of the property. Ms. Harris: How do other members of the Salem BOA think about having Ms. Stein review the cases,information presented and the deed so she can provide the board with an advisory summary? Ms. Stein: I am not aware of any deed restriction. In any case, that is a private matter between property owners. The Salem BOA does not enforce deed restrictions. Are there any open questions beyond examining the Powers case? Ms. Harris: Do I have a motion to continue the item to the next meeting or do members of the Salem BOA wish to take action on the item? Is the applicant amenable to a continuance of the public hearing? Motion: Mr. Du ffv made a motion to continue the hearing of the A�Peal of the Deczsion of the Building Iurector relative to the issuance of the Building Permit and Certicate of 0ccupana for the_p ropera located at I I I-113 North Street till the May 15th regular meeting to address the matters discussed, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos, and a roll call vote was taken All the members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote in favor (Ms Hams (1/ice Chair) Mr. Dionne Mr. Watkins, Mike Duffy and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate) and none o4,hosed The motion was accepted The derision is hereby incorporated as-Part of these minutes. Ms. Harris explained to the audience that this petition has been continued to the May 15th regular • meeting date. Petition of MATTHEW BANKO for Reconsideration pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A S 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 (R1 Zoning District). Ms. Harris introduced the petition. She then asked in the applicant or agent was present to discuss the matter. Atty. McCardle (60 Island St., Lawrence, MA): Atty. McCardle, agent for Matthew Banko, began by discussing the previous petition that had been brought before the Salem BOA and was denied. He also discussed the parameters of M.G.L. Cha. 40A § 16, specifically discussing the Planning Board review of the reconsideration petition. Atty. McCardle then explained the basis of the material and specific change. He noted that the previous Special Permit modification had requested striking the "owner-occupied' requirement from a number of the Special permit conditions because a title insurance company preserved this language as interfering with the future resale potential of the property in the instance of a foreclosure proceedings. The material change in the new petition, as indicated by Atty. McCardle, retains the owner-occupied language, but seeks clarify of the automatic revision requirement in the instance of foreclosure proceedings and the opportunities available to a future lender. The lender needs to be able to hold the property temporarily until a new buyer can be found. The Lenders will be obligated, just like a homeowner, to sell the property to an owner- occupied tenant. • Mr. Duffy: Didn't the earlier petition also contain a Variance request? Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved on 5/15/2013 S City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—April 17,2013 Page 10 of 13 Arty. McCardle: Yes, but that is not the basis for a material and special change in this petition. The • Variance was and should be seen as a totally separate request, and is not being included with this petition. We are focused sole on the Special Permit modification request. According to conversations with the title insurance company this modification as requested should satisfy the needs of future lenders in the instance of a foreclosure. Ms. Harris: Are there any members of the public present that wish to speak on this matter? Kathleen Esler (24 Locus St., Beverly, MA): I'm the real-estate agent.trying to sell the property for Mr. Banko, and as was stated both potential buyers had issues with their tide issuance company due to the language of the Special Permit conditions. The clarification of this language should address the issue. Chris Banter (9-11 Ocean Terrace): Just before my wife and I were scheduled to close on the mortgage it had been identified that a fatal flaw in the Special Permit condition language was going to prevent the closing. We really like the neighborhood and speak in favor of the petition request. Joe Banko (9-11 Ocean Terrace): We're just asking that the language be modified so that in the instance of a foreclosure it doesn't automatically revert to a two-family structure. This change should allow potential buyers to secure title insurance for their mortgage. Ms. Harris: Explained how action on this petition will need to proceed. Is there any further discussion on the matter? Mr. Duffy: It appears to me that the petition before the Salem BOA tonight does represent a material and special change from the earlier petition that was denied. It is much narrower in focus and protects the three-unite structure of the buildings. • Ms. Harris: It sounds as though they are not requesting the elimination of the owner-occupancy requirement. Mr. Duffy: Does there need to be a motion and a vote on whether the revised petition request should be heard? Ms. Harris:Yes,we will need to take a vote on this matter before moving forward. Mr. Duffy: Motion: Mr. De made a motion to a rove the requested reconsideration bared on the�ndines that the new betition represents a material and special change from the breviourly denied petition, in that the initial petition requested the elimination of the owner-occu�anZ=uirements and the Petition being sought today retains the owner- oa4ana languane and asks for a narrowing of the automatic reversion in the instance of a foreclosure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Watkins, and a vote was taken of five members.All the members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote in favor (Ms. .Hams (Vice Chaim Mr. Dionne. Mr. Watkins. Mike Dua and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate) and none obosed.. The motion was acce4ted. The decision is bereby incor2orated as tart of these minutes. Petition of MATTHEW 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 (Rl Zoning District). Ms. Harris: Now we must consider the Special Permit modification petition request. • Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved on 5/15/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—April 17, 2013 Page 11 of 13 • Mr. Sexton explained that the Salem BOA should consider the requested petition as if it were a new petition before board. Ms. Harris: Asked whether staff or the applicant has provided draft condition language for the Salem BOA to consider for this request? Mr. Sexton: Discussed some key ideas that the Salem BOA should consider when developing the revised condition language. But, suggested the Salem BOA consult with the applicant regard exactly what the title issuance companies would or wouldn't want to see. Arty. McCardle: Generally speaking, Arty. McCardle explained that the title issuance companies are looking for a temporary waive of the automatic reversion requirement in the instance of a foreclosure. Ms. Harris: How do we ensure the lender doesn't disregard the owner-occupancy requirement and rent the foreclosed unit. Arty. McCardle: I think you could add some language that reinforce the lenders obligation to adhere to the owner-occupancy require for any future buyer. The Salem BOA crafted language for the condition. A member of the public suggested the Salem BOA not use the term "bank" in the condition language, but use "lender"instead. Mr. Sexton also cautioned the use of the word temporary. He encouraged the board to be more • precise with their language. Mr. Sexton restated the condition language, as it had been discussed,back to the Salem BOA. Ms. Harris asked that some language be added to the end of the condition that held the lender obligated to the owner-occupancy require with all future buyers. Based on discussion I understand the condition to be as follows: St. Pierre: noted the importance of the automatic reversion language. Motion: Mr. Tsitsinos made a motion to approve the requested mod;ication of the 2010 S4ecial Permit, with a condition as stated,for 9-11 Ocean, seconded by Mr. Dionne, and a vote teas taken of five members.All the members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote in favor(Ms. Harris Vice Chair).Mr. Dionne,Mr. Watkins,Mike Du and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate) and none o�pored. The motion was acce4ted. The decision is herebv incorporated as twrt of these minutes. Ms. Harris 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. IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Ms. Harris introduced the continued petition of Continued 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). Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved on 5/15/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—April 17, 2013 Page 12 of 13 Ms. Harris: Is the applicant here to speak on the petition? , Richard Jagolta (41 Chestnut St, Salem, MA): First I'd like to submit a couple letters to the Salem BOA for consideration in support on my requested petition. Ms. Harris read the submitted letters of Collin Wynmen (14 Bridge St.) and Thomas Kelly (18 Bridge St.) into the record. Mr.Jagolta briefly explained the petition being requested. He then highlighted the key points of the supplementary information, which included photos and drawing, provided to the Salem BOA for consideration of this petition. Specifically, Mr. Jagolta discussed the parking arrangement and then noted the commercial nature of the surrounding area. Ms. Harris opened the meeting up for public comment. No members of the public were in attendance to speak in favor or against the requested petition. She then asked the applicant to clarify some aspects of the parking arrangement as provided. Mr. Jagolta: Regardless of the tenancy there is adequate space to meet the parking needs on two residential units and one commercial unit. He then discussed other improvements that have been made to the property. Ms. Harris: How to limit the future tenants of the commercial unit if the computer business leaves so there aren't any adverse impacts to the surrounding residents. Is there a way the commercial unit could be converted in the future to a third resident? Mr. Jagolta: Its really not practical for that unit to ever become a residential unit. It would require significant modifications to the structure that would be cost prohibited to make. • St. Pierre: If the Salem BOA decided to allow this structure to contain two residential units and one commercial unit there needs to be some specific conditions on the Special Permit speaking to the limits of those uses. Mr. Dionne: Does the commercial unit have a restroom? Mr.Jagolta: I will have to add a restroom for the commercial space. Ms. Harris: If we chose to grant this petition, I think we should be fairly specific to the allowed types of commercial uses. Mr. Jagolta: I am amenable to that, but the Salem BOA should give me some options (i.e. professional offices, etc.) Mr. Watkins: What is the use considered now? Mr. St. Pierre: A service establishment. Based on the size of the structure, limiting allowed commercial use to service or professional office would be appropriate. Ms. Harris: What is the size of the commercial space? Mr.Jagolta: Approximately 390 sq. ft. Whit the needed space to create a bathroom and the layout of the unit,if the Salem BOA allow the unit to be 550 sq. ft. would allow me flexibility. Motion: Mr. Watkins made a motion to y4bmve the req.uested mod cation of the Special Permit for the conversion of the building at 18 Bridge Street and its two rrsidential units and a the home-based business to be converted to a stmture containing two residential units and a commercial unit as conditioned, seconded by Mr. Duffy, and a vote was taken of four members. All the members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote in favor (Ms. Harris (Dice Chairl. Mr. • Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved on 5/15/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—April 17, 2013 Page 13 of 13 iDionne.Mr. Watkins, Mike Dua and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate) and none o�Posed The motion was accented The decision is hereby incorporated as-part of these minutes Ms. Harris 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. Mr. St. Pierre asked whether the Salem BOA preferred have petitions come before the board as a modification or a new permit. V. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Harris asked if there was a motion to adjourn. Mr. Dionne motioned for adjournment of the April 17, 2013 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 9:50 PM. Motion: Mr. Watkins made a motion to adjourn the April 17 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos, and a unanimous vote was taken.All the members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote in favor (Nls. Harris (Dice Chair) Mr. Dionne, Mr. Wlatkins, Mike Dga and Mr. Tsitsinos fAlternate) and no opposed. The motion was accepted The decision is hereby incor2orated as-4art of these minutes Respectfully submitted, Daniel Sexton, Staff Planner • Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes-Approved on 5/15/2013 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE City of Salem provision M.G.L., Chapter 39, Section 23D. (A City Councilor, board, or commission member, to sign upon listening to the audio of a missed meeting and examining all evidence.) Per the City of Salem provision M.G.L., Chapter 39 Section 23D, 1, A✓1p W. , hereby certify under the pains and penalties of perjury that I have examined all evidence pertaining to 9�f. sw/MI 3hi distributed at the single missed session on which evidence included an audio recording of the missed session. This certification shall become part of the record of the hearing. Name Date • • AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE City of Salem provision M.G.L., Chapter 39, Section 23D. (For a City Councilor, board, or commission member, to sign upon listening to the audio of a missed meeting and examining all evidence.) Per the City of Salem provision M.G.L., Chapter 39 Section 23D, 1 �k12Gc G✓Yrw, hereby certify under the pains and penalties of per'ury that I have examined all evidence pertaining to 5-j �h S io, rz ( << wh 3 N ich waass 34 3 distributed at the single missed session on e r; I I , Z 0 l 3 which evidence included an audio recording of the missed session. This certification was submitted prior to the undersigned's participation in a vote on the matter and shall become part of the record of the hearing. Name e� e.G C a. C r� ,i Date 5 Board or Commission Ay.� (s • \,Vwf ., CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ! ' BOARD OF APPEAL KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 120 WASHINGTON S'IREEP♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETI-S 01970 MAYOR TFLE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 1013 MAY 29 A 9 39 FILE N CITY CLERK. SALEM.MASS. May 29, 2013 Withdrawal With Prejudice City of Salem Board of Appeals 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 111-113 NORTH STREET (B1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above petition was opened on April 17, 2013 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was continued on May 15, 2013, where the Board of Appeals met to discuss the petitioner's request to withdraw the above referenced petition without prejudice. The P P 1 following Board of Appeals members were present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris (Vice Chair),Mr. Dionne,Mr. Duffy,Mr. Watkins, Mr. Eppley (Alternate) and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). • The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the request presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the submitted petition and testimony, voted to grant the withdrawal of the petition for 111-113 North Street with prejudice. The members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote in favor (Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris (Vice Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Duffy) and none opposed. GRANTED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW WITH PREJUDICE MAY 15, 2013 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 fikng of this derision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Pemlitgranted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision beating the certificate of the City Clerk bay been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHING'ION STREET SALEM,MA.SSACHGSETB 01970 M EL TE:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846 : _ . KiNIBERI.EY DRIscoLL MAYOR N ti .{ O May 29, 2013 m = x_ N Decision VI City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ? D a � n Petition of JOHN O'NIEL for Variances from Sec. 3.2.4 subsections 2 and 4 Af the Yplem 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 (BPD Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 17, 2013 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, � 11. The hearing was continued to and closed on May 15, 2013 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris (Vice Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Eppley (Alternate) and Mr.Tsitsinos (Alternate). • Petitioner seeks Variances from Sec. 3.2.4 subsections 2 and 4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. Marc Hazel and Helene Stevens presented the petition for the property at 96 Swampscott Rd (BPD Zoning District). 2. In the petition, March 26, 2013, the petitioner 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 April 17, 2013 regular meeting, the petitioner provided supplementary noise and trucking documentation for consideration. 3. The petitioner is requesting the 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. The petitioner's proposed dimensional requirements include: - Extend two (2) existing flour storage bins to 38'-6" - Construct one (1) CO2 storage tank to 38'-9" - Construct all tanks 1' from an existing structure 4. At the first hearing for this petition numerous members of the public in attendance spoke in opposition to the petition due to noise and truck delivery concerns. At the April 17, 2013 meeting, numerous Councilor Siegel spoke in favor of the petition and the steps taken by the applicant to • address the noise and delivery concerns. No written comments were submitted in opposition or support of the petition prior to the hearings. 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: Salem Board of Appeals May 29, 2013 • Project: 96 Swampscott Road Page 2 of 2 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 orientation and present location of existing structures on the parcel. 3. The installation of noise baffling buffers and truckdelivery regulation measures greatly reduce the off- site impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding neighborhood. 4. In permitting such relief, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate terms, conditions and safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to,the plans,documents and testimony,the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. The petitioner's requested Variances to allow vertical expansion of two existing storage bins and the development of two new storage tanks closer than ten feet to the principle building is granted as conditioned. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted to approve the Variances requested. All the members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote in favor (Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris (Vice Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, and Mr. Watkins) and none opposed. The Board of Appeals voted to grant petitioner's request for • a Special Permit subject to the following terms,conditions, and safeguards: 1. The 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. S. The petitioner his successors or assigns shall comply with all MassDEP Standards and Regulations for noise. Rebecca Curran, Cliairy Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appad fimn this dairiors if arty,shall he mtde punuann to Sect=17 cf the Massadmetts Gorral Lana (Jxipter 40A, and shall be fkd within 20 da)s grfilug of this dmsion in the gjix q(the Qy(Jerk. Puma?¢to the Massadmeta Gorral Lava (Jaapter 40A, Sarion 11, the Vanian x or Spedal Pmw gran¢al he=shall mt take effar mid a copy gthe decision bearing the mtt fuate cf dx CLy(Jerk has l wn filet with the Essex South Rtgictry cf Dabs. "°" CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEI 1,MA1 W'(ff 01�� /� (y �� 978-745-9595 • FAx:978- 846 [ M T KIMBERLEY DRIScou, MAYOR FILE # CITY CLERK. SALEM,MASS, May 29, 2013 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals 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 (R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 15, 2013 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on May 15, 2013 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris (Vice Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Eppley (Alternate) and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Stractuns of the City of Salem Zoning • Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Edward Potvin presented the petition for the property at 12 Hanson Street (112 Zoning District]. 2. In the petition, April 8, 2013, the petitioner requested the modification of a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to allow the expansion of a legally nonconforming structure at the property located at 12 Hanson Street. The structure's prior enlargement and encroachment into the side and rear setbacks was granted by the Board of Appeals on February 15, 2012 3. The petitioner is requesting the modification of the Special Permit so a nonconforming structure may be expanded to increase cold storage. 4. At the public hearing no members of the public in attendance and spoke in favor or opposition to the petition.Additionally,no written comments from the public were received prior to the public hearing. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of-the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. The desired Special Permit modification may be granted without detriment to the public good and safety and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 2. As designed, the proposed development would be more consistent and visually pleasing to surrounding neighborhood than the current structural configuration. • 3. In permitting such change, the Board Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the plans, documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: } 4 Salem Board of Appeals May 29, 2013 • Project: 12 Hanson Street Page 2 of 2 1. The petitioner's Special Permit modification request to allow the expansion of a nonconforming structure is granted as,conditioned. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted to approve the Special Permit modification request. All the members voted in favor,with a 5-0 vote in favor (Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris (Vice Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins) and none opposed. The Board of Appeals voted to grant the petitioner's request for modification of a Special Permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. The 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. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED VATH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Lawr 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 Lams Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the deci.aon bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. CONDIT{' - �� 9° CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 1�0�C \1irJ M1Ca uN S IR[T r♦RA Il t I,MAS Ai 41051-1'1Y 019 f0 Ku,tui arcs DR75CUI1. '11u i 9 4 6195G85 ♦ r �r 9-8 -10-Pt04 FILE 4 at roa - CITY CLERK SALEM. MASS. MEETING NOTICE You are hereby nolaled that the Salem 7ontq{Board of Appeals:vill bold ifs mqularlb-;4heduied meelbi?on Wednesday,June 19,20D at6.•30p.m. atCrty Hall:Innex, RM 313. 1'0 lE aybink!on SD,., Salem,:lL•l Rebecca C.'turan,Chair — S MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 15,2013 meeting III. REGULAR AGENDA Project: A Public I Tearing to consider a Special Permit for an Essential.Services use pursuant to Sec. 3.0 Use Regulations and Variances to exceed the maximum allowable height allowance of 45 feet in an Industrial Zoning District pursuant to Sec. 4.0 Dimensional Requirements for the redevelopment of the Salem harbor Power Station Site. Applicant: FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP Location: 24 FORT AVENUE IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Y Rules &Regulations Updates to the Board of Appeals Petition packet V. ADJOURNMENT This notice posted on "Official-Bulletin Board City Had, Salem, Mass on t _ 130, �W/ -9 at D3p�f accordance with AiI�,L Chap. 30A, Sections '8"2. ." • Know ) our Righls lrnder the Oren tl•leetirm, Lnv tll.G.L r. 30.4 J' 18-25 imd City On(inamr 7-2028 Clmong!!=-20J 3. r City of Salem Board of Appeals • Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 15,2013 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ('Salem BOA') was held on Wednesday, May 15, 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 (Vice Chair), Richard Dionne, Mike Duffy, Tom Watkins, 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 order at 6,33p.m. Ms. Curran: Explained to the board members and public in attendance that the meeting is being recorded. She then explained to those in attendance that the order of the business, as indicated on agenda, will be slightly different due to a late request of the petitioner for 111-113 North Street to withdraw their petition without prejudice. That being said,Ms. Curran introduced the petition. 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 111-113 NORTH STREET (Bl Zoning District). Ms. Curran: Is the applicant or representative present to speak on the requested withdrawal without prejudice for the petition at 111-113 North Street? • Atty. Dalton: On behalf of the petitioner's, I'd like to request that the Salem BOA grant a withdrawal of this administrative appeal without prejudice. There is no intent to raise the substance of this appeal at any point in the future, thus we are asking that this petition be allowed to be withdrawn without prejudice. The reason for the request is based on the history of infractions connected to this property, which should not preclude or compromise the neighbors from pursuing enforcement action in the future. Ms. Curran: I have no problem granting a withdrawal, but a withdrawal without prejudice is not typically associated with an appeal. Is there any other reason why we should allow it to be withdrawn without prejudice? Atty. Dalton: Only the reason I just provided. Ms. Curran: I don't see how that is possible, because appeal an appeal must be submitted within thirty days of an action. Once this matter is closed, the appeal period will have expired. Atty. Dalton: The substance of this appeal is clearly connected to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, and once this appeal is withdrawn there will be no recourse on this matter. I'm not aware of any other petitioner that has made a timely appeal in regards to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. This issue would then be closed. The petitioners have concerns of how the property will be operated in the future, and would just ask that this withdrawal does not confuse their future rights to seek enforcement against this property. Ms. Curran: If you sought enforcement through the Building Department for activities on the property and felt the need to appeal that enforcement action you would be allowed to seek another • administrative appeal. I would just be more comfortable granting a withdrawal of this petition with prejudice to give finality to this matter. t City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—May 15,2013 Page 2 of 7 Ms. Harris: It sounds to like they have every right to come back before the Salem BOA if there is a • new enforcement issue or they disagree with the Building Department's enforcement action. They're not precluding themselves by withdrawing with prejudice. Mr. St. Pierre: That is correct. The petitioner's or neighbors could seek enforcement action against the property if there is something happening on the property that is perceived as an infraction. By statute, I'm required to respond to that request. Ms. Curran: Does anyone else wish to speak on this matter? At . Correnti (representing the owners of 111-113 North Street): After the hearing last month and h' � P g ) g the work that has been undertaken by myself and the City's Assistant Solicitor to develop follow up memos for this meeting, it was a surprise to us to see the email requesting withdrawal last night. We respect the petitioner's right to make that request. As stated by the Salem BOA and petitioner's attorney, there really is no basis for withdrawing this petition without prejudice. It's curious to me why the withdrawal wouldn't be with prejudice. We would request that any decision to withdraw this petition would be with prejudice, to give some finality to the concerns that have been raised. We are however, prepared to answer an questions of the Salem BOA on the subject matter that was > > P P any l initially intended to be discussed this evening. Ms. Curran: Is there anyone else? Mr. Eppley and Ms. Curran noted for the recorded that they both have completed an Affidavit of Service form acknowledging their review of the prior meeting's packet, which contained materials for this petition, and the prior meetings official audio record.As needed, this allows both members of the Salem BOA to vote on this matter. Ms. Curran: Is there a motion? • Motion: Mr. Duo made a motion to allow the petitioner to withdraw the appeal with_gjudice, and noted that there was discussion tonight indicating that this withdrawal would not preclude future enforcement action by withdrawing this meal, seconded by Ms. Harris, Discussion: Mr. Eppley encouraged the �rol)er4E owner to be agood steward and neighbor to the Buffum Street area. The removal of the etative bufer was not &4�ful to the neighborhood. Ms. Hams thanked the Cit ''s Assistant Solicitor and Atty. Correnti for D_widing clarification on the argument that transpired at the last meeting. Action:A roll call vote was taken, with the Salem BOA members voting 5-0 vote in favor Ws. Curran (Chair, Ms. Harris(Vice Chains Mr. Dionne, Mr. Dga, and Mr. Watkins) and none opposed. The motion was accepted. The decision is herebv incorporated as of these minutes. II. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris noted a couple minor non-substantive corrections. Ms. Curran then asked if there was a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the April 17`h meeting. Motion: Mr. Watkins made a motion to g4hrove the minutes as corrected, seconded by Mr. Du a, and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote in favor (Ms. Curran (Chair). Ms. Harris (Vice Cliair). Mr. Dionne.Mr. Dua, and Mr. Watkins and none opposed. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. III. REGULAR AGENDA Ms. Curran introduced the next agenda item. • Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved 6/19/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—May 15, 2013 Page 3 of 7 • 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 FIANSON ST (112 Zoning District). Ms. Curran: Is the applicant or representative present to speak on the petition? Edward Potvin (Executive Director of Base River, Inc.): There are two reasons we're here. We're planning to install a handicap stairway to the entranceway of our facility, and our consultants suggested we incorporate a solid wall along both sides of the stairway for the railing to attach too. This wall and railing would provide visually limits to the stairway, and would benefit many of the facilities patients that are diagnosed with dementia diagnosis. Additionally, the proposed 17' by 15' enclosure, under the previously approved structural encroachment into the side and rear setbacks, would be used for cold storage of winter snow removal equipment. Access to this enclosed space would be provided through a garage door. Ms. Curran: How many square feet are you adding? Mr. Potvin: The proposed enclosure is 17' by 15'. It doesn't encroach beyond the approved building footprint. Mr. Watkins: Where is the enclosure located? Is this development near Butler Street or Hanson Street? Mr. Potvin: This enclosure will be located near the Butler Street side of the structure, not on the Hanson Street side. • Ms. Curran had the applicant explain the proposed plans. What is the use of the building? Mr. Potvin:The facility is programed for adults with disabilities. Ms. Curran: So this won't intensify the use on the property? Mr. Potvin: It's just to facilitate access and cold storage. Mr. Eppley noted for the record that he lives in the neighborhood and received a notice of this petition.Additionally, be indicated that he does not have a finan ial interest in the propery in question. Ms. Curran: Are there any further questions? Ms. Harris: So we approved the addition above. Don't they need to get a Variance to expand the footprint? Mr. St. Pierre: No, the footprint of the structure is remaining the same. The petitioner is just looking to enclose the space under the previously approved structural encroachment into the side and rear setbacks. Ms. Curran: Are there any members of the public present that wish to speak on the petition? Seeing none, Ms. Curran closed the public hearing. Is there further discuss or motion? Ms. Harris: Isn't a Variance necessary to expand encroachments into a setback? Mr. St. Pierre: Yes, normally a Variance is required to allow a structure to encroach within a setback. However,in this case the structure already encroaches and, therefore, requires a Special Permit to be granted for further expansion of the encroaching building. • Mr. Duffy: From the presentation we've just heard, it sounds as though the expansion will be constructed within the existing footprint of the previously approved encroaching structure. It looks tl' Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved 6/19/2013 t City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—May 15,2013 Page 4 of 7 to be an enhancement, visually, to the neighborhood. The enclosure and stairway railing will provide • patients with an added level of safety. There is no opposition present tonight or file prior to the hearing. In my view, this extension could take place and not be more detrimental to the existing structure and neighborhood. Ms. Curran: I agree. Is there a motion? Motion:Mr. Du y made a motion to 4prigw the petition reguestinn modification of a S etial Permit4er Sec 3 3 3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to allow the L,% anion o a nonconforming tructure at the erty located at 12 Hanson Street as conditioned seconded by Mr. B�Nev and a mll call vote was taken All the members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote in favor(Ms Curran (Chair) Ms Harris (Vice Chair, Mr. Dionne Mr. Du& and Mr. Watkins)and none o4osed. The motion was accepted The dedsion is hereby incor2orated as-hart of these minutes Ms. Curran explained to the applicant and the public 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 JOHN O'NIEL 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 (BPD Zoning District). Ms. Curran introduced the petition and noted that the public hearing on this item was continued to allow the applicant time to examine and address the concerns raised by the public regarding noise and truck traffic. She then asked whether the petitioner or his agent were in attendance to present • the petition. Ms. Harris: We had also asked staff to research whether noise complaints had been lodged with the City's Health Department regarding the property in question. Ms. Curran: Yes, I believe there was an email included in our meeting packet indicating that no noise complaints had been received. Marc Hazel (President of Jacqueline's Gourmet Cookies): After talking with Councilor Siegel, we addressed all the concerns he had. We installed a noise baffling buffer on one of the tank lines and hired an independent acoustic consultant to verify the noise emissions from the factory. According to the consultant and the neighbors, there was an audible different once the baffling buffer was installed. Additionally, we conducted an internal audit of our gas distributor's deliveries to confirm they had been adhering to City's truck delivery ordinance. As the records show, they have not made a delivery outside the parameters of the City's ordinance. Mr. Hazel also explained how they had required the gas distributor to print the permissible delivery time periods on the invoice following the complaints received in 2009. Councilor Siegel: I've met with Mr. Hazel and his acoustic consultant to address the noise and truck concerns. At this time, I don't have any further concerns regarding the project. Jacqueline's Gourmet Cookies have been a good neighbor and receptive to public concerns. I would encourage g the Salem BOA to approve this petition. Helene Stevens: As the Salem BOA requested at the last meeting, I'd like to submit for the record the noise study completed by the acoustic consultant. • Ms. Harris: Was this study conducted before the third baffle was installed? Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved 6/19/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—May 15,2013 Page 5 of 7 Mr. Hazel: No. While the baffles do create a low humming noise, they reduce the noise generated by the pipes. As a result, the off-site noise impacts are reduced. Ms. Harris: If a neighbor has a complaint, how or who can they contact? Mr. Hazel: Yes, neighbors can contact use at any time. We try to be very responsive to concerns. We want to be a good neighbor. Mr. Harris: What happens is a truck arrives after hour? Mr. Hazel: The distributor remotely monitors the level of the tanks. Based on the concerns raised in 2009, we've worked with the distributor to ensure they're not delivering outside the allowable timeframe permissible by ordinance. Ms. Harris: There was a lot of frustration presented at the last meeting, and it seems that they've really tried to address the neighborhoods concerns.Why was there so much concern? Councilor Siegel: This is a very active area. I visited the site a couple of times following my conversations with Jacqueline's and found six other businesses that were operating out of compliance with the City's delivery ordinance. We did have a problem in the past, but Jacqueline's has been very responsive at addressing the neighborhoods concerns. I support this business. Ms. Curran:Are there any other questions for the Salem BOA. Mr. St. Pierre: We appreciate the petitioner working with the neighborhood and providing this level of information. The City's noise ordinance is somewhat vague, and really is only enforceable • through the time restrictions. Ms. Curran: Do we want to adopt further restriction as condition. Mr. St. Pierre: I think if you stipulated a condition requiring adherence the standards and regulations of MassDEP that that should be enough. Councilor Siegel: I would encourage the Salem BOA to add further restrictions to this business. Ms. Curran: Are there further public comments? See known the public hearing is no closed. This is a Variance, so we need to speak to the hardship statement, which I think is covered by the limitations of the property and the surrounding existing businesses. Ms. Harris: The petitioner's request relates to the expansion of the tanks and not the existing business. Since the tanks are pivotal in the operation of the business, I think that works towards a hardship. I think granting this Variance would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood. They appear to be very responsive to the neighborhood's needs. We should penalize them for the violations of other businesses. Ms. Curran:Is there farther discussion or a motion? Motion: Ms Harris made a motion to a�pmve the requested 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 storave bins and the development of two new stora e tanks closer than ten feet to the rin6 le buildin and that exceed ez hteen feet in hez ht at the n f � � % g { r property located at 96 Swampscott Road as conditioned seconded by Mr. Dionne and a roll call vote was taken.All the members voted in favor, with a 5 0 vote in favor Ms Curran (Chair) Ms Hams (Vice Chair) Mr. Dionne, Mr. Du,l�E, and Mr. Watkins and none o posed The motion was acce�ted The decision is hereby incorporated as ® part of these minutes. 19 2013 Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved 6/ / City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—May 15,2013 Page 6 of 7 Ms. Curran explained to the applicant and the public 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. IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Board Elections Mr. Sexton: Per the Salem BOA's Rules and Regulations, the Board is supposed to hold elections for Chair,Vice Chair and Secretary e May at the M meeting. Mr. Dionne: I nominate Ms. Curran as the Chair of the Salem BOA. Motion: Mr. Dionne made a motion to elect Ms. Curran as Chair of the Salem BOA seconded by Ms Harris and a unanimous vote was taken.All the members voted in-favor, with a 5-0 vote in favor Ws. Curran Chair Ms. Hams /Vice Chair).Mr. Dionne.Mr Duffy. and Mr. Watkin rf and none gp4osed The motion was accepted The decision is hereby incor2orated as tart of these minutes Ms. Curran: Who's listed as the Vice Chair presently? Ms. Harris: I am. Ms. Curran: I nominate Ms. Harris as the Vice Chair of the Salem BOA. Motion: Ms. Curran made a motion to elect Ms. Hams as Vice Chair of the Salem BOA seconded by Mr. Dionne, and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor with a 5-0 vote in favor Ws. Curran (Chair). Ms. Harris (Vice Chair). Mr. Dionne Mr. Du(y and Mr. Watkins) and none o�tosed The motion was acce4ted. The decision is hereby incorporated as�art of these minutes • Ms. Curran: Who is the Secretary? Mr. Sexton: I have come across any records indicating you've ever had one. Mr. Duffy: Is there a description for the Secretary? Mr. Sexton: Not really. There is a brief statement in the Rules & Regulations that indicates a Secretary is designated by the Salem BOA, and that the Secretary shall read the petition and all correspondence relative to the petition before the public portion of the hearing. He also noted how other boards and commissions have had the Secretary thoroughly review the meeting minutes. Ms. Curran: This sounds like a holdover from when there wasn't a staff liaison to the Salem BOA. Mr. Eppley: Weren't we going to discuss the Rules &Regulations? Mr. Sexton: Yes, we had initially intended to discuss them at this meeting. However, there hasn't been time for staff to work internally to develop suggested changes. Mr. Eppley: I would suggest we table the nomination of a Secretary until such time that the Salem BOA has time to review the Rules &Regulations. Motion: Mr. E le made a motion to table the nomination o a Secreta until such time that the r� y f ru Salem BOA reviews the Rules e'r'Renulations, seconded by Mr. Du_f!v and a unanimous vote was taken All the members voted in favorr, with a 5-0 vote in favor Ws. Curran (Chair) Ms Harris (Vice Chair) Mr. Dionne Mr Du and Mr Watkins)and none oA.hosed The motion was accepted The decision is hereby incorporated as-part of these minutes • Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved 6/19/2013 City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—May 15, 2013 Page 7 of 7 • V. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Harris motioned for adjournment of the May 15, 2013 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 7:15 PM. Motion: Ms. Hams made a motion to adfourn the May 15 regular meeting of the Salem Board of A�t)eals seconded by Mr. Dionne, and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote in favor (Ms. Curran (Chair). Ms. Harris ([Lice Chair). Mr Dionne. Mr. Duffv and Mr Watkins) and none opposed The motion was acce4ted. The decision is hereby incorporated as hart of these minutes. Respectfully submitted, Daniel Sexton, Staff Planner Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—Approved 6/19/2013 5f '° CITY OF SALEM • :. a • _.: , � MASSAC HUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL KIN16ERLEY DRIscoll 120 WASI IINGI'ON S'IRETT♦SALEM,NIASSACLIUSETrs 01970 MAYOR TE.E:978-745-9595 FAx:978-740-9846 STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Daniel Sexton,Staff Planner�� DATE: June 12, 2013 RE: Meeting Agenda—June 19,2013 Board Members, Please End the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Meeting Minutes from 05/15/2013 • 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 06/19/2013 meeting. III. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS Public Hearing—Petition of FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT, LP for approval of a Special Permit for an Essential Services use pursuant to Sec.3.0 Use Regulations and Variances to exceed the maximum allowable height allowance of 45 feet in an Industrial Zoning District pursuant to Sec. 4.0 Dimensional Requirements for the redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site to include the construction of a new state-of-the-art Combined Cycle Gas fired electric generation facility on a 20+/- acre portion of the property located at 24 FORT AVE (I Zoning District). The Petitioner is requesting eight Variances and a Special Permit for an essential services use to allow the redevelopment of the existing Salem Harbor Power Station Site. The Variances, if granted, would relax the maximum allowable height requirement For a parcel in an Industrial Zoning District to allow the construction of the proposed structures with the following height dimensions: ` "-S'truchiee " 111tazam"uiiir'�AIPowablFietght RegjuesteiL'$>�ght ' Generator Building Stack 45 feet 230 Feet(+/-) Hear,Recovery-Ste1m s Encloure r spS 43 feet : "' 125 feet + Air Cooled Condenser Enclosure 45 feet X 720 feet Diesel.Gehi r' ror Stack , r `45 feet ; 86 feet Gas Turbine#I Building 45 feet 76 feet Gas Tnrbme#2 BuilcLng � r 45 feet" _ ;76 feet + _ STG Building 45 feet 76 feet(+/� t\mmonia-Tank-Enclosure s � - � '� %'- "45 feet " `* 45 feet ,c z J �j City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—June 12, 2013 Page 2 of 2 • According to the Petitioner's application, those existing structures that exceed the allowable maximum height limit will be demolished.The requested relief is pursuant to Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. In consideration of the eight Variances being requested, the Board of Appeals should determine whether: ➢ Specific findings owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape, or topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures, but not affecting generally the zoning d strict in which it is located; ➢ The literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or appellant;and ➢ The desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. In terms of the requested Special Permit for an essential services use, the Petition has provided some general background information on the existing and proposed use of the property. The petitioner's application is enclosed in your packet for consideration. The Building Commission is present to respond to any questions that the Board of Appeals may have. • it ................. ��OflIDlTggo� City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board. Zoning Board of Appeals Date i 3 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail /,Z' Y3 u44L_� 5t- V + LQMnt3��1:. 3Qp �SSecS� Sa�eh, `i� S- 7Y3-/6`f � 3i�be 11 ✓� �cu.n �rQi �� • Page of ZBA ACTION FORM BOARD MEMBERS- d ^MOTION' 'SECOND 'VOTE Date: 6111127015 Rebecca Curran (Chair) Richard Dionne WS Petitioner: Qo✓ Mike Duffy ps P Annie Harris Address: Tom Watkins f Ale. David Eppley (Alt.) ?C I ?5 Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alt.) Total: 0 Conditions: Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. a ® All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3 X❑ All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. ®Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. ❑Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • 3 A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. ❑Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. ©Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to,the Planning Board. ❑Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent(50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent(50%)of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent(50%)of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent(50%)of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. ��° ,T,4os CITY of Sf1LEM, NLASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 6 •'O•'a J. _�'�tMmEoo��szr 'Il:u3:978-7d5-9595 ♦ PdS:978-740-984G r,4 Or hi�u=r_rzi.n:r Di<iscou. FftE if,VAPOR CITY CLFRH, SAl€M, MASS. June 28, 2013 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT, LP for a Special Permit for an Essential Services use pursuant to Sec. 3.0 Use Regulations and Variances to exceed the maximum allowable height allowance of 45 feet in an Industrial Zoning District pursuant to Sec. 4.0 Dimensional Requirements for the redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site to include the construction of a new state-of-the-art combined cycle gas fired electric generation facility on a 20+/- acre portion of the property located at 24 FORT AVE (I Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 19, 2013 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on June 19, 2013 with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Eppley (Alternate). 'The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit for an Essential Services use pursuant to Sec. 3.0 Ufe Regulation and Variances from Sec. 4.0 DimenjionalRegniremenis of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Joseph Correnti, representing Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development 1,13, Scott Silverstein, COO of Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP, and Bob Fox, of Cook Lk Fox Architects presented the petitions for the property at24 Fort Avenue (I Zoning District). 2. In the petition, dated May 29, 2013, the Petitioner requests a Special Permit for an Essential Services use and Variances to exceed the maximum allowable height in order to allow the redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site to include the construction of a new state-of-the-art combined cycle gas fired electric generation facility on a 20+/- acre portion of the site. 3. The requested Variance relief, if granted, would allow the vertical development of buildings and the stack proposed as part of the combined cycle gas fired electric generation facility to exceed the maximum allowable height allowance of 45 feet in an Industrial Zoning District. The Petitioner's requested height allowance for the buildings include: t tructuies dsx r of 1`4 ?x, Requested Hetght l'. Generator Building Stack 230 feet Heat Recovery Steam Enclosure 125 feet Air Cooled Condenser Enclosure 120 feet Diesel Generator Stack 86 feet Gas Turbine #1 BuilcGng 76 feet Gas Turbine #2 Building 76 feet STG Building 76 feet Ammonia Tank Enclosure 45 feet (+/-) City of Salem Board of Appeals June 2&2013 Project:24 Fort Avenue Page 2 of 3 4. At the public hearing for these petitions numerous members of the public in attendance spoke in favor and in opposition to the petitions. Mayor Kimberley Driscoll spoke in favor of the proposed relief and recited the extensive perm d itting an regulatory process the Petitioner is undergoing at both the state and local levels. Also speaking in favor of the proposed petitions were Rinus Oosthoek, Gzecutive Director of the Chamber; Robert DeRosier, President of the Chamber of Commerce; and Arthur C. Sargent, 111, Councilor At-large. Prior to the hearing, written comments from State Senator Lovely and State Representative Keenan were submitted in favor of the petitions. Linda Halev, 43 'Turner Street, voiced opposition to the proposed petitions due to the potential glare created by the louvers, the proposed height and width of the stack, potential air pollutants and the need for another power plant. The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petitions, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's presentation and public restimonv, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: 9.3 Board of Appeals 9.3.2 Powers, Subsection 3 1. The desired rehef 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. A power plant use has occupied the site for over 60 years and the current buildings and stacks reach from 150+/- feet to 500+/- feet in height, making this site unlike anv other in the District. • 3. The size, location and layout of the site and its proximity to the natural gas pipeline and the adjoining National Grid switchyardan make it unique to y other sites in the District. 4. The literal enforcement of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance's Table of Dimaensional Regniremrenl.r, specifically the maximum allowable building height requirement of 45-feet in an Industrial Zoning District, would render the construction of the buildings and structures that are needed to contain the power plants equipment and operations impossible, thus causing a substantial hardship to Petitioner. 5. The design of the facility, including its acoustic louvers and landscaped berm, both tr tigate and reduce the off-site impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding neighborhood and aid in the elimination of any detriments to the public good. 6. According to the visual comparisons of the existing and proposed power plants-, the proposed facility's reduced building heights and smaller plant footprint bring it more in compliance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 9.4 Special Permits 9.4.2 Criteria, Subsections 1 through 6 1. The facility is and has been an essential services use for the past 60 years- that has provided power generation to the City of Salem and the surrounding region, the facihh' as proposed continues that essential services use to meet the needs of the commutuh. 2. The redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station facility into a new combined cycle gas-fired electric generation facility is in accordance with the Salem Harbor Plan, and has been shown to meet the power generation needs of the community and the region at-large. 3. The facility, as proposed, does not change the traffic flow or safety of the neighborhood traffic flow of the neighborhood. ' City of Salem Board of Appeals June 28. 2013 Project: 24 Fort Avenue Page3of3 4. Through its reduced reliance on municipals services, especially its use of local potable water, the proposed facility will not adversely impact the public services and has adequate access to utilities. 5. The facility will be an improvement to the neighborhood character by reducing the building and stack heights throughout the facility, and shrinking the necessary footprint of the plant. In addition, the facility's design provides improved visual and physical access to a portion of the Salem waterfront and allows for greater opportunities for future commercial and industrial development and an expanded harbor. 6. As designed, the facility represents a benefit to the natural environment and visually improves the neighborhood for residents. The conversion from a coal fired plant to a new combined cycle gas-fired electric generation facility will have a positive impact to the environment. 7. The development represents a great opportunity for positive impacts on the economic and fiscal situation of the city. 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 Salem Board of Appeals concludes: 1. The petitioner's requested Special Permit for an essential services use and Variances to exceed the maximum allowable height allowance of 45 feet in an Industrial Zoning District is granted as conditioned. 2. In permitting the Special Permit for the essential services use and Variances to exceed the maximum allowable building height allowance, the Salem Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate terms, conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted to approve the Special Permit and \lariances requested. All the members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote in favor (Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins and Mr. Eppley (Alternate)) and none opposed. The Salem Board of Appeals voted to grant petitioner's request for a Special Permit and Variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. The 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 subtnitted 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. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of appeals A COPY OI: I'111S DECISION I LAti I4t1.N 191,H)WI I 11111 I I ANNIN( NOARD;AND 1111A111% CIA::RK Appeal fievi tbts demon, rl an), shall be nude punuant to Section is a/the:Flay ache ettt Gonual L<ny, Chapter 40f1, and iball he filed within 20 dais a%filiq of tbh eleasion in the al/iee aJ the Cat Clerk. Puns ant m the Meioa hmells General Dins Chapter 40,11, Section //, the I'anance or Special Pervulg waed herein shall not twee ellea mrtil a copy nl/be deasiou beaaq lber a,,the Citp CIer,F ban bean filed n+ilh tbe E uev S'nu/b Resimp o/Deed". Y �UUNDITq� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 5iABOARD OF APPEAL 'ems 2013 JUN 8 A C� 58 9F�/�'IINB D�. Kinnscici.ribRiscoi.i. ,q a� 1 20 WAS]i INC 10y SIRI IfI' # SAI LNI,NIASSA0 H SPITS 01�;f ILE q :MAYOR 'I'i�a.c.:978-Gi9-56ss � rAs:97sa�uCOPY GLER,�, SALEM, MASS, MEETING NOTICE 1'au are hereby nolifeed that the Salem Zoning Boarel of Appeals mill hold its iegulary nhededed meetinig o0 Wednesday,July 17, 2013 at 630 p.m. al City Hall_flne,�; 1t14 3131 120 I P/ashington St, Salem, ALI Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ➢ June 19, 2013 meeting III. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Project: A Public Hearing to consider a Special Perinit pursuant to Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the relocation of a stainvav• originally approved to be constructed on the rear of the structure to the side of the home Applicant: pp t JOHN and KATHERINE MACKAY Location: 96 COLUMBUS AVENUE IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on-1'�e Z'r, Loll' at 9 S Z* ft in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A0 Sections 18.2& Knoto Your Rights under lL'�a Open A4eeling L�nv hl.G.L.. c 30_'I �' 18-25 and Ca'ty Ordincrrr��e J'2-2028 d�rou�nG 2-?033. CITY OF JALEM, YVL 1J SAC l lJ J L 1 T J BOARD OFAPPEAL �a �9�'pjMt�NE 12011 Siaru,'i 0S-ir.r,g6A 1to'lun v;j 1V01970 Kumeiu.�n Dim(,oi . TELL:9%8-619-SGSS .F i.N:9;8-719-0-FOJ 3: 4 Aj.nole 1013 JUL N P FILE K CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. July 24, 2013 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of KATHERINE AND JOHN MACKAY requesting approval of a modification to a Special Permit that was issued pursuant to Section 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the relocation of a stairway originally approved to be constructed on the rear of the structure to the side of the home located at 96 Columbus Avenue (R-1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 17, 2013 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Section 11. The hearing was closed on July 17, 2013 with the following Zoning Board Appeals members present: Annie Harris (Vice Chair), Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Murray, David Eppley, and Tom Watkins. • Petitioner seeks a modification of 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 June 11, 2013, petitioner requested a modification of a previously approved Special Permit. 2. At the hearing on July 17, 2013, the following people spoke in favor of this petition: Katherine and John Mackay, 96 Columbus Avenue; Andy Lyle, 40 Columbus Avenue; Cindy Jerzlo, Bay View Avenue; Mike Swiniarksi, 126 Columbus Avenue; Renee Nowack, 114 Columbus Avenue; Robert McCarthy, 153 Bayview Avenue. 3. Letters in favor of this petition were submitted by: Mr. and Mrs. William Cass, 92 Columbus Avenue and James and Sisty Klein of 43 Bayview Avenue. 4. Attorney James Fleming, representing George Ahmed of 102 Columbus Avenue, spoke in opposition. 5. Board member David Eppley made a motion to continue the discussion of this matter until the next meeting. Board members discussed the motion and a roll call vote was taken. Two of the members voted in favor, (Mr. Eppley and Mr. Watkins) and three members were opposed (Ms. Harris (Vice Chair), Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos). The motion failed. Knou) Your Righls corder the Open Meeting 1 �nv NLC.L t: 30-l g 18-2>and Cily Ordinmrze 5 2-2028 11iloll h 2-2033. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: l. 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 relocation of the staircase from the rear of the property to the side of the property is not a substantial and material change and would not be substantially more detrimental than the previously approved plan 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 (Harris, Tsitsinos, Watkins, Eppley, and Murray) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit. The Special Permit, under Section 3.3.5, is granted to allow for the relocation of the staircase from the rear to the side 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 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 Floor area at the • time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance. Know Your R�;hls under'lhe Open Meelirro Iln�n1.G.1 c. 32.1§ f 8-25 and Qy Ordinance If 2-2028 lhmi(gh 2-2033. 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 with 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. • • Know Vour ILghls finder the Open A1eeliq Iliw M.G1_ (: 30A � 18-25 and Gq,Orzlinan,e§ 2-2028 lhiough 2-2033. City of Salem Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday,July 17, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals (`Salem BOA") was held on Wednesday,July 17, 2013 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Vice-Chairwoman Harris called the meeting to order at 6.•32p.m. I. ROLL CALL Those present were: Annie Harris (Vice Chair),Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins, David Eppley (Alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, Beth Debski Building Salem Coordinator, and Beth Gerard, Planning Department Recording Clerk. Absent Rebecca Curran (Chair) and Richard Dionne. II. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Vice-Chairwoman Harris noted a minor non-substantive correction. She then asked if there was a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the June 19'h meeting. Motion: Mr. Eppley made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected seconded by Mr. Duffy The vote war unanimous. with five in favor (NIr. Hams Mr. Eppley Mr. Duf�y Mr. Tsitsinos. and Mr. Watkins) and none 0 ored • III. REGULAR AGENDA Vice-Chairwoman Harris introduced the first agenda item. Project: A Public Hearing to consider a request for approval of a modification of a Special Permit that was issued pursuant to Sec.3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the relocation of a stairway originally approved to be constructed on the rear of the structure to the side of the house located at 96 Columbus Avenue (Rl Zoning District). Applicant: JOHN and KATHERINE MACKAY Location: 96 COLUMBUS AVENUE Tom St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, informed the Board members that a revised plan showing the correct dimensions from the property line was submitted at 2:21 PM today. The revised plan shows the correct dimension of 13 feet, not 17 feet as shown on the plan submitted with the application. Vice-Chairwoman Harris reviewed the new and revised plan with Board members. Hearing opened to public far comment Katherine MacKay, 96 Columbus Ave, stated that approximately a year ago they were approved for a Special Permit. Since then they have decided that they want to move the stairway to the side of the building Mr. St. Pierre asked for the dimensions to which Ms. MacKay responded that they are proposing a • 30 inch stairway that is within the 10 foot setback. or S City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—July 17,2013 Page 2 of 6 Dana Ross of Roger Tremblay Contractors, the contractor, stated that the staircase is approximately • 11 feet from the setback and added an additional 30 inches from the stairs. He said that it will be within the side yard setback. John MacKay, 96 Columbus Avenue, said that they originally had stairs at the back of the house but decided to have a small patio there instead. The stairs would have ended at the center of the patio so they decided to put the stairs on the side of the house. Andy Lyle, 40 Columbus Avenue, stated that it is a spectacular project which enhances the whole house. He felt that having the stairs at the back wouldn't look good. Cindy Jerzylo, 17 Bay View Ave, stated that this is a major improvement to the neighborhood. Mike Swiniarski 126 Columbus Avenue stated that he agrees with the neighbors, and wishes the :`� MacKays to continue. Ms. MacKay said that she hopes that the Board has the letters that the direct abutters have submitted,which included the letters from the Casses and Kleins. Renee Nowack, 114 Columbus Avenue, said she was afraid to go up the porch before. She looks through the yard where the stairs would be and it looks great. Mr. MacKay noted that where the stairs were going to be placed was originally in front of the • neighbor's dining room. He doesn't know if they will see the stairs from where they are going to be placed. Attorney Jim Fleming, representing George Ahmed, stated that Mr. Ahmed is directly impacted by this request and the rest of the neighbors who have spoken in favor of this project are not directly impacted. According to Atty. Fleming, this project has impacted Mr. Ahmed's quiet enjoyment and that Mr. Ahmed will be able to see the staircase from a second floor bedroom window. He showed a schematic of the view of the window from the second floor in his house. He stated that the project is already impacting Mr. Ahmed and there is no reason to move the stairway. He then showed another view from Mr. Ahmed's house and said that thirteen feet is close. He noted that their objections to the entire project is not before the Board as they don't think that the applicant has proven that a special permit should be needed. The pedestrian traffic will come within 13 feet of Mr. Ahmed's house, which is very close. It's an impact that he doesn't think the Board should grant relief for. As the project has progressed, there have been numerous calls to the Building Inspector. He stated that the sliding glass door and front stairs have not been built as specified in the plans and submitted to the Board. To move this staircase now to this new location does no good for the public, and further, it is detrimental to the interest of the zoning ordinance. They feel that without meeting those requirements, the Board cannot grant the special permit tonight. He also mentioned one administrative problem that the file was submitted today that is totally different than what had been submitted prior to today. Administratively this is a problem for this hearing. He hopes this demonstrates how this project has progressed. He asks the Board not to allow this. Ward 1 Councillor Bob McCarthy, 153 Bay View Avenue, stated that he is an interested observer • and he hates to see something like this come up between neighbors. He is happy to see that there is Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes -Draft V City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—July 17, 2013 Page 3 of 6 some give and take with long time friends and that a lot of neighbors have spoken. The work that they have done has been an immense improvement. He knows the contractor, it looks good from the street. The MacKay's are great family people and they are not asking to encroach. They are not asking for an encroachment on the setback. Attorney Fleming responded that this is not a zoning issue in regards to the side yard setback, it's a non-conforming use. It is not a side yard issue. David Eppley stated that he had a procedural question. He is concerned about the notice of the schematic presented at 2:22 pm today, particularly between the boundary fine and the current MacKay's home. He is concerned that they may need to bring this back for a future date because of this change. Mr. St. Pierre stated that he talked with Robin Stein, Assistant City Solicitor, and her opinion was that the legal notice was published and distributed notifying people that there was a hearing, so the standard notice requirement was met. Mike Duffy asked how the plan is made available online, to which Mr. St. Pierre responded that it was available at the Planning Department desk. Mr. Duffy asked if a person can sign out the plans, to which Mr. St. Pierre said that the files do not leave the counter. Ms. Debski said that they can get copies of the plans to which she further clarified that due to the turnover in the Planning Department and some confusion the plans weren't readily available but once they were located, they • were sent to Attorney Fleming. Ms. MacKay offered to explain how that discrepancy occurred. She stated that when they got the complaint from Mr. Ahmed, they quickly photocopied the plans and it was her fault that she copied the wrong one. She quickly rectified it. Attorney Fleming stated that the requirement is that the appropriate plans are in the files. If it was 17 feet, then that might have made a big difference. They asked for the original file from one year ago which said 13 feet. These distances are ultimately controlling in this. According to Mr. Fleming, the notice that the meeting was held did not convey the wholeness of the petition before the Board. Ms. MacKay said that she understands what is being said, but anyone who lives in the neighborhood sees what is going on and anyone with any concerns would be here tonight. i Mr. Duffy asked Attorney Fleming if it is his position that a difference between seventeen feet and thirteen feet would have made a difference to their opposition to the project. Attorney Fleming said yes as the difference is very critical and it is right on top of the Ahmed's property. He noted that the Board had previously granted the special permit and now this is going to add to that,which is a huge difference. He feels that this will impact his client's enjoyment of their home. Mr. MacKay responded that Mr. Ahmed is upset with the whole project. The stairs are going to be lower. Everything that will be on the stairs will be lower than what is there now. He emphasized that it's lower than what is currently there. He would think they would be pleased that they are • moving the stairs to a place where they would barely see them. It's not blocking their view to the street. He then showed a picture demonstrating how the stairs will look from their view. He is just Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes -Draft City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—July 17, 2013 Page 4 of 6 shocked that they don't want what is there now. They live in the Willows where the houses are on • top of each other. He said that Mr. Armand's shed is on the lot line, and it's a variance, but he doesn't care. The lots are close together and you have to deal with people who want to do work on their house. Attorney Fleming stated that it's not the structure that's at issue, it's about the traffic that is created by the structure. Mr. Eppley asked if the traffic pattern would be the same whether the stairs were on the direct side or going towards the house. Attorney Fleming responded that there is a disagreement between the original plans and the new ones. Vice-Chairwoman Harris reviewed the plans. Mr. MacKay clarified the original plans for the stairs. Harris reviewed the proposal. Attorney Fleming said that they still prefer the location on the plans with the stairs in the back. Mr. Eppley said that he was inclined to bring a motion to table this discussion to the next meeting. Vice-Chairwoman Harris pointed out that no one else has come to testify on behalf of this project and asked Mr. St. Pierre and Ms. Debski if they know of other people that had come in to review the plans, to which both of them said no. Ms. Debski also confirmed that no one in Planning Department said anyone had looked for them. Attorney Fleming corrected her and stated that his client looked at the plans a few weeks ago. Mr. Eppley moved to table the discussion to the next meeting, Mr. Duffy seconded. Vice-Chairwoman Harris read from the meeting notice and pointed out that the notice will be • exactly the same if the hearing is re-advertised. Mr. Duffy asked to discuss the motion that is on the table. He stated that from a legal standpoint, the legal requirements of providing notice were met. He asked if people would be swayed either way. Mr. Tsitsinos noted that someone would ask where the stairs were. Mr. St. Pierre stated that Mr. Ahmed came in to review the plans and there was some confusion. Ms. Debski reviewed where the discrepancy was. Mr. Duffy stated that he believes that when the abutter looked at the plan they would have had opposition, though he is not uncomfortable looking at this. He asked if they can say on record that no one else looked at this. Vice-Chairwoman Harris acknowledged letters from abutters. She then asked if they would approve this knowing that there was a discrepancy in the plans from 17 feet to 13 feet. She said she was not aware of any decisions that say that this is not true. She then asked the Board if they should continue for a month, to which Mr. Eppley responded in the affirmative. Vice-Chairwoman Harris pointed out that it is a full month away. Mr. Tsitsinos asked if they are in the middle of construction and if so then he is not in favor of • continuing. Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes -Draft City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—July 17, 2013 Page 5 of 6 The contractor, Mr. Ross, stated that the delay will hinder the project significantly. Vice- Chairwoman Harris asked how close they are to completion of the project. Mr. Ross responded that they are 4 days from completion and they just want to finish the job and move on as they are just moving the stairs ten feet from where it currently is. Mr. Watkins asked if they should just go forward and not re-open the facts, to which Mr. Tsitsinos recommended moving forward. Ms. Debski stated that if they did postpone, all of the Board members except for Chairwoman Curran and Mr. Eppley would be present, so there would be only 4 people that could hear the petition. Vice-Chairwoman Harris asked if more discussion was needed or if someone wanted to put forth a motion. Motion: Mr. E41ey made a motion to continue this discussion until the August 21" meetinv seconded by Mr. Watkins, and a roll call vote was taken. Two of the members voted in favor (Mr. E4,bley and Mr. Watkins,)and three members were n osed (Ms. Harris (Vice Chair) Mr. Dui Mr. Tsitsinos) The motion did not go forward The decision is hereby incor)2orated as-Part of these minutes Vice-Chairwoman Harris asked for a motion to approve the petition. • Mr. Duffy recommended having a discussion on the motion. Particularly, he wants to address the issue of the defect on the plans showing 17 feet and 13 feet. There has clearly been opposition to the original plan, in regards to the relocation of the stairs. Everyone seems to agree that there is an accurate plan that is still within the ten foot setback. He discussed the relocation support and letters in the record, as well as the argument in opposition. In view of the whole record, including the new and old plans, it appears that this change would not be substantially more detrimental than the previously approved plan and that the proposed relocation is not a substantial and material change. He also said that he thinks it is not more obstructive. The foot traffic will go around the porch into the general area. Ms. Debski noted that the original vote for the Special Permit was 5-0 in favor. Mr. Duffy said that the motion is on the table to approve the amendment, and that it should be subject to the same conditions as the original Special Permit. He then asked if they need to be read again. Attorney Fleming stated that they would waive the reading of the letters into the record. Ms. Harris noted that the letters came from James and Sisty Klein at 43 Bay View and William and Sallie Cass at 92 Columbus Avenue. Ms. Harris said that she doesn't see that it is more detrimental and it is almost a trade off, it is a closer but smaller stair. They have done everything that they can to make it less obtrusive. Attorney Fleming presented a list of additional conditions to be considered by the Board. • Mr. Eppley asked if all of those are already covered, to which Mr. St. Pierre stated that some are new and some are already covered. Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes -Draft City of Salem Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes—July 17, 2013 Page 6 of 6 Mr Tsitsinos noted that any changes that they make going forward would have to go before this Board again. Ms. Harris asked if drainage would be an issue. Drainage would not be changed by the relocation of the staircase. Mr. Tsitsinos recommended that they stick with original motion. Mr. Duffy stated that he thought that these were really good neighbors and have a great neighborhood. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy made a motion to 4hrove the-petition requesting moo cation of a Special Permit ber.Sec. 3.3.5of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to allow the relocation of a stairway originally approved to be constructed on the rear of the structure to the side of the house located at 96 Columbus Avenue, subject to the conditions of the anginal Special Permit gpp raved an iv 18. 2012. The vote was unanimous with-five in favor(Ms. Harris. Mr. Eppley. Mr. Duffu. Mr. Tsitsinos, and Mr. Watkins) and none opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes. IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT Motion and Vote: r. Du made a motion to ad'ourn the meetin seconded b Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was •0 o M ffv > g. �v unanimous with five in favor (Ms. Ha»zs• Mr. Duffy Mr. Ealey, Mr. Tsitsinos and Mr. Watkins) and none obbosed Rebecca Curran and Richard Dionne were absent. Vice-Chairwoman Annie Harris adjourned the meeting at 7:20 pm. Respectfully submitted, Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk • Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes -Draft CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 5P BOARD OF APPEAL 0 113 JUL 31 P 1: 01 120 WASH I ING ION S'I'RN I' ♦ Sqi GAI,MASSM I-ICSLTFYL1P7� Mm�W. rei.i 978 619s6a5 • rns:AI1l LERH. SALEM, MASS. KIntuI:;RLi-.y DRrscol.i. MAYOR MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE You are hereby notified that the regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for August 21, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street, has been canceled. �6�^ Cc /2e� Rebecca Curran, Chair This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on J�, .,i3/, 34/ at / : 09,0M in accordance wit MGL Chap 30A, Sections 18-25. Know Your Rigbts under the Open Meeting Lnu A4.G.L t 39 g2313 and 00 Ordinance Sections 2-2028 lhrougb 2-2033. t I CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS hr " l BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON S"rREET SAI�M,VIASSACHUSEITS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL .CELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board o(Appeals will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, September 18,2013 at 6-30 p.m. at City HallAnnex, RM 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,t11A Rebecca Curran,Chair MEETING AGENDA c) I. ROLL CALL at Cl) W II—APPROVA�OF MINUTES —rn — -- ➢ July 17, 2013 meeting — -- n"' N r— III. REGULARAGENDA 3 O 3 �1 D 1. Petition of ZIAD FOUAD NABBOUT requesting a Variance from Section 4 Dimens`�nal Relpirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum depth of the rear yard to ten feet, to allow for construction of a garage at the property located at 86 JACKSON ST (B4). 2. Petition of FRANK LANZILLO requesting an Appeal to the Decision of the Building Inspector in order to be relieved from the requirement to construct a garage on the property located at 11 HUBON ST(R2). 3. Petition ofRPS REALTY&MANAGEMENT requesting a Special Permit under Section 3 Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to approve use of the property located at 2-4 LORING AVE (R2) as a Residential Multi-Family dwelling with nine (9) dwelling units. 4. Petition of ELIZABETH BEAVER requesting a Variance from Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum depth of the rear& side yards, to allow for construction of a kitchen&deck expansion, for the property located at 13 OCEAN AVE (R1 Zoning District). 5. Petition of TWELVETONE,LLC requesting a Modification to a Special Permit under Section 3.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to change the use of the property from a non-conforming Commercial use to a Residential Single-Family use, for the property located at 1 PLEASANT ST (R2). _ etionW RCOMPANY6 Plo ADW /a NATIONAL GRID requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow anew essential services use& extend a pre- existing nonconforming use, for the construction of a new control house with related facilities, for thegroperty located at 57 CANAL ST (B4,R2, and ErUisc o pbgtti0)on "Off ici Buiietinn Board City Hall, Salcrn, Mass. on "4 a201 31 IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS at 12;54 O Mn accordance h MGL Chap. Me Sections 18-25. V. ADJOURNMENT Know Your Rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L a 30A 5 18-25 and 00 Ordinance§2-2028 through 2-2033. MASSACHUSETTS CIS of SALEM, 4�11 24 BOARD OF APPEAL .41 SEV zV4 A 8: 1�O A'�y I I m;I(N ti I RI I 1 4 1 1 Nt,MASSMA I L SI�I IS 01970 N111 NO 15 i,i�:978-619-5685 + F\x.978 Kimi3i%R1 i:I Y Dizn:oij, I rff- 4 1# %]AY(IR CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. Cityof Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of TWELVETONE, LLC requesting a Modification to a Special Permit under Section 3.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to change the use of the property from a non-conforming Commercial use to a Residential Single-Family use, for the property located at I PLEASANT STREET IR2 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18,2013 at 6:30 p.m., 3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, ROOM 3)13). psi Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 9/4 & 9/11/13 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City-Hall.-S alturn—Mass.on 412-013- at �Lkcj �- in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. �o ;Tq CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 2911 CI:P - ti o s �Qs 9 P I200._Va1WcrioN5n<,a;1 +1 nM,NLAsSAru CM 0 O�Mmmoo� 1n.r_978-619-5685 . i „ PTsh �a� 1tSALEM. MASS. 1:i:anr ai i r uieis7,i.�. - MAoOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of ELIZABETH BEAVER requesting a Variance from Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum depth of the rear and side yards, to allow for construction of a kitchen and deck expansion, for the property located at 13 OCEAN AVE (RI Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d Moor; 120 WASHINGTON STREET, ROOM 313. CLV�Iny. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 9/4 & 9/11/13 Thia noti_ce,posted.on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass on � ZG at �Hq tn- in accordance Jvith MdL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • ` ; CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL a�? _ IT Hp6jM�g 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUS=S 01970 TELE:978-619-5685♦ FAA:978-740-049.4iLE # xlbras�M YORIscoLL CITY CLERK. SALEM. MASS. MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of RPS REALTY&MANAGEMENT requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to approve use of the property as a Residential Multi-Family dwelling with three dwelling units,for the property located at 2-4 LORING AVENUE (R2 Zoning District). • Said hearing will be held on WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 9/4 & 9/11/13 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem. Mass. on j- 4Q13.. at 1�'-I cj V4 in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSET`TI'S Wi - 120WASHINGTON BOARD OF APPEAL nil SEP -u A 49 STRGHI ♦SALEM,NWM(L1t WWS 01970 KinBExl.sr llRlscocc rELE:978-619-s6stlY§'"EIMK'S*49EM. MASS. MAYOR 9 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of ZIAD FOUAD NABBOUT requesting a Variance from Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum depth of the rear yard to ten feet,to allow for construction of a garage in the rear yard, for the property located at 86 JACKSON ST(B4 Zoning District). • Said hearing will be held on WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News, 9/4 & 9/11/13 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Heil,Sa.iom, Mass on .... ... ... at +gqX in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • roNoir CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 41 BOARD OF APPEAL 1013 120 WASHINGTON S'IRHE,T+SALEM,MASSAC USEM 01970 T�tE:978-619-5685+PAx 9 i40-040f ILE fi KwBEN.EY DRISCOLL CI Y CLERK. SALEM, MASS. MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of FRANK LANZILLO requesting a Appeal to the Decision of the Building Inspector in order to be relieved from the requirement to constrict a garage on the property located at 11 HUBON STREET(R2 Zoning District). • Said hearing will be held on WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 9/4 & 9/11/13 This notice poste! on "Official Bulletin Board" --City-Nall; Salem -tviass. att_ #- t41 2G j3 at �- U 9 0-,n ,n accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • 0 CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL Z813 SEP4 A •_49 9ecjp7j—INI; 11.11:978-619-5685 FAX:978-7-1 Dim,0 L] %I\rOR CITY CLERK. SALEM. MASS, City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY D/B/A NATIONAL GRID requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a new essential services use and extend a pre-existing nonconforming use, for the construction of a new control house with related facilities, for the property located at 57 CANAL • STREET (134, R2. and Entrance Corridor Overlay Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 at 6:30 p.m., 3'6 floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 9/4 & 9/11/13 This notice posted-on "OfficiatBuffetin Board" City Hail, Salmi, Mass. on � Lit 2613 at j LA I tj in accordance vVith 1AGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. r��CONDIT,�q\\ CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS ' BOARD OF APPEAL KEABE_RLEY DRISCOLL 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 MAYOR TELE:978-745-9595 ♦FAx:978-740-9846 STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Dana Menon,Staff Planner DATE: Sept 11,2013 RE: Meeting Agenda—Sept 18,2013 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda . 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Meeting Minutes from 07/17/2013 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 09/18/2013 meeting. 1. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. Public Hearing—Petition of ZIAD FOUAD NABBOUT requesting a Variance from Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum depth of the rear yard to ten feet,to allow for construction of a garage at the property located at 86 JACKSON ST (B4). The Variance, if granted, would relax the dimensional requirements for rear yard depth from the required minimum of twenty-five feet. The petitioner's application, including a plot plan, is included for your consideration. In 2012, the Board of Appeals granted a Special Permit pursuant to Sections 3.1.2 and 9.4 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow for a motor vehicle general repair use on the property. A copy of the Decision for these granted Variances is included in Attachment A. It is also worth noting that an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) was placed on the property in 2002, which restricts the use of the property to industrial or commercial uses, and stipulates that any soils removed from the site must be managed in accordance with a Soil Management Plan and a Health and Safety Plan consistent with the Obligations and Conditions set forth in the AUL Opinion. 2. Public Hearing- Petition of FRANK LANZILLO requesting an Appeal to the Decision of the Building Inspector in order to be relieved from the requirement to construct a garage on the property located at 11 HUBON ST (R2). • This property is a parcel established as part of the subdivision of 18 Thorndike Street,approved by the Decision of the Zoning Board on February 29,2012. These previously approved plans included a garage— City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals St2'ff Memorandum—September 12, 2013 Page 2 of 4 • please see Attachment B. The petitioner's current Appeal is based on the decision of the Building Inspector to deny the applicant permission to omit a garage from his development of the property. The petitioner's application is enclosed in your packet for consideration. 3. Public Hearing- Petition of RPS REALTY& MANAGEMENT requesting a Special Permit under Section 3 Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to approve use of the property located at 2-4 LORING AVE (112) as a Residential Multi-Family dwelling with nine (9) dwelling units. The applicant submitted an application under the address 107 Linden Street,in the back of 2-4 Loring Avenue. The Building Card for 2-4 Loring Avenue (enclosed under Attachment C) states that 2 Loring Avenue has 1 unit,4 Loring Avenue has 5 units,and 107 Linden Street has 2 units. The petitioner is seeking to use the property as a nine-unit residence (inclusive of all the apartments/units at 2-4 Loring Avenue),by allowing an additional unit in the 107 Linden Street apartment. The petitioner states that the building has existed with this additional unit for many years, and so should be considered to be grandfathered. Included in your packet under Attachment C is a Zoning Letter issued by the Zoning Enforcement Officer in September 2012 stating that"According to the records researched in our Department,it has been determined the property located at 2- 4 Loring Avenue is a legal grandfathered non-conforming eight (8) —unit budding." The applicant also states that the three units have existed"without complaints from neighbors or constituents." After receiving a call from a concerned abutter, the police records relating to 2-4 Loring Avenue over the past year were requested. Various reports concerning the residents of 2-4 Loring Avenue have been recorded (included in Attachment C). It is pertinent to note that this building is under new ownership as of June 26,2013 (as recorded at the Southern Essex District Registry of Deeds). 4. Public Hearing- Petition of ELIZABETH BEAVER requesting a Variance from Section 4 • Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum depth of the rear & side yards,to allow for construction of a kitchen&deck expansion,for the property located at 13 OCEAN AVE (Rl Zoning District). The petitioner is proposing to construct an addition to an existing second floor kitchen and the adjacent existing second-floor deck. The petitioner also seeks to remove an existing staircase at the front of the deck and construct a new staircase at the rear of the deck. These additions and changes would result in under-sized rear and side yards—please see the table below: n Ce, vaE 1)tmensxoualI�ae1#xrc.±4et1i�. c, �„'tanda`�i�"$ st #)Iiff�itsltt Minimum width of side yard 10 feet Approx 18.7 feet* 2 feet * �x b1Z*7.4 feet—r of Ir �W Mmtmum de th of tear azd ,� Y30 feet ' t�,� 4!t ' �W 9 9 feet , i �fi+k-��,9�•s•�sp.a ,ad -. }, ,,., k ;�"!, g ,d.u�xaa`".*�,_ R.�. .ai * According to the provided plans,the existing face of the structure at the location of the proposed kitchen expansion is approximately 18.7 feet from the property line. The petitioner's application is enclosed in your packet for consideration. • City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—September 12, 2013 Page 3 of 4 5. Public Hearing- Petition of TWELVETONE,LLC requesting a Modification to a Special Permit under Section 3.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to change the use of the property from a non-conforming Commercial use to a Residential Single-Family use, for.the property located at 1 PLEASANT ST (112). In a public hearing on August 15,2013, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted 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.The Board's Decision (filed August 28) is included in Attachment D for your consideration. Sec. 5.1,Off-Street Parking,requires 1 space per 150 square feet of gross floor area, excluding storage;the applicant estimated this space is 1500 square feet,which would have required 10 spaces. Two spaces were associated with the building at that time. 6. Public Hearing- Petition of NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY d/b/a NATIONAL GRID requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a new essential services use & extend a pre-existing nonconforming use,for the construction of a new control house with related facilities,for the property located at 57 CANAL ST (114, R2, and Entrance Corridor Overlay). The applicant wishes to construct a 20 foot-by-14 foot new control house with related facilities at the existing electric substation at 57 Canal Street. The applicant was advised by the Inspectional Services Director to seek a "Special Permit for an extension of a pre-existing nonconforming use (i.e. essential service). The applicant has also applied for a new special permit for essential services use,in case the Board should find that the new control house is significant enough to.require a new Special Permit pursuant to the Use Table of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. The petitioner's application is enclosed for your consideration, as are the letters • from the Inspectional Services Director in correspondence with the applicant in relation to this matter (Attachment E). 2. STAFF MEMORANDUM 1) The Zoning Board was copied on a letter from FEMA to Mayor Driscoll,informing the City of the 90-day appeal period for the Preliminary revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Study(FIS) for Essex County. (See Attachment F for the letter from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to Mayor Driscoll re:Appeal Start for Preliminary FIRM and FIS Report.) The appeal period ends 90 days after August 9,2013. FEMA has made digital copies of these revised FIRM and FIS report materials on their website: htt r/hvww.fema.V,ov/prelunin=floodhazarddata. Click on the link for the"Search Tool"and select the appropriate State and County. This brings you to a list of maps for Essex County. The maps that cover Salem are numbers: 25009C0416G,25009C0417G,25009C0418G, 25009C0419G. Tom Devine in the Department of Planning and Community Development has a hard copy of these maps,as well as a very useful map showing the changes between the old FIRM maps and the Preliminary revised FIRM maps. You are welcome to come in to the DPCD to view these maps. If you have any technical questions,please direct them to Tom Devine. 2) Attorney John DeTore, on behalf of Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LLC (Footprint), filed an initial petition for a Certificate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest with the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) on August 5, 2013 (see Attachment G for the letter and application on behalf of Footprint Salem Harbor Development LP to the Energy Facilities Siting Board). In this initial petition,Attorney DeTore explains that the Salem Zoning Board granted Footprint's Petition for a Special Permit for Essential Service and Variances from the City's Dimensional Requirements, and that an Appeal of the Zoning Board's Decision • was filed on July 17, 2013 by Mr. Michael Furlong and Mr. William Dearstyne. It is this appeal that has apparently spurred Footprint to file the preliminary petition with the EFSB, as "...the delay caused by the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal prevents Footprint from constructing the Facility, [therefore] the EFSB should find that Footprint meets the statutory criteria for consideration of this Initial Petition See G.L.c. 164, � 69K'/2 (vi)." City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals -Stzff Memorandum—September 12, 2013 Page 4 of 4 • On August 19�h, 2013,Mr. Furlong and Mr. Dearstyne also Filed an Appeal of the Planning Board's Decision of July 25th to approve Footprint's Petitions for a Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review, and Flood Hazard District Special Permit,with Conditions. It is anticipated that the EFSB will act more quickly than the Superior Court. Action by the EFSB would supersede and render moot the appeals filed with Superior Court. Footprint's attorney has reiterated that the intent is that any action of the EFSB would incorporate the conditions of the Zoning Board and Planning Board decisions. In regards to the Appeals to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board's Decisions, the City Solicitor is responsible for the legal aspects of the appeal, and the Boards are covered by City resources. Additional information on the pertinent Massachusetts General Laws can be found here: htips://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/Tit]eXXIl/Chapterl64/Secdon69K1-2 Additional information on the Energy Facilities Siting Board can be found here: htip:///_�vw.mass.gov/eea/energy-utilities-clean-tech/energgy-facilities-siting-board/ Attachments Attachment A—Copy of Board of Appeals Decision rendered on October 3, 2012 for 86 Jackson Street Attachment B—Copy of Board of Appeals Decision from February 29,2012 for 18 Thorndike Street; and copies of plans on-file. Attachment C—Building Card for 2-4 Loring Avenue;September 20,2012 letter from the Zoning Enforcement • Officer re: 2-4 Loring Avenue;Salem Police Department reports regarding 2-4 Loring Avenue from 10/13/2012 to 5/22/2013 Attachment D—Copy of Board of Appeals Decision from August 28,2012 for 1 Pleasant Street Attachment E—September 10, 2013 letter from the Inspectional Services Director to New England Power Company re:City of Salem,National Grid Underground Cable Replacement and Substation Improvement Project, and September 20,2011 letter from the Inspectional Services Director to New England Power Company re: City of Salem,National Grid Transmission lien and Substation Improvement Project. Attachment F—A copy of a letter from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to Mayor Driscoll re:Appeal Start for Preliminary FIRM and FIS Report. Attachment G—A copy of a letter from Attorney John DeTore to the Director of the Energy Facilities Siting Board re:Initial Petition of Fooprint Salem Harbor Development LP for a Certificate of EnvironmentalImpact and Public Interest. • • ATTACHMENT A c�Nu�r� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEK MASSACHUSE1'1s 01970 TEt.E:978-619-5685 +FAx:978-740-0404 KLM3ERLEYDRIscoLL MAYOR October 3, 2012 Decision 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(64 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 fact: 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 1 • 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. The proposed use is in a location appropriate to automotive 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 repair use. • 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 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. 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 1..O 1 PROPERTY LINE SURVEY FROM EXISTING PLAN RECORDED WITH THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS, PLAN BOOK 361/PAGE 48. \` -- - 2. TOTAL LOT AREA = 16,702 S.F. (MIN. B4 ZONING N E ry `'yLOT AREA = 12,000 S.F.) I' TK 3. PROPOSED BUILDING AREA = 1836 S.F. OR 11% ��!'OF TOTAL LOT AREA (MAX. 84 ZONING BUILDING //// FOR REC COVERAGE = 80%) 4. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: �� 20 A C REAR SETBACK = 25 FEET _ 40, 8.78. 5. PROPOSED DIMENSIONS: FRONT SETBACK = 18 FEET R = 347.34' REAR SETBACK = 25 FEET 20' � � � � � � PROPOSED SETBACK FROM ALL PROPERTY LINES = 10 FEET DRIVEWAY 8'GL.F `y .PROPOSED. UP{I4519 0DRIVEWAY . t088fi. _ .i SIGN POB �. 5g'00 E. 18 1s' - . E.F. KING CO., INC. _ a 26-0-49.3 (16,702 S.F. TOTAL) ' \ R 12,702 S.F. . . 2' L 96.41' _ 'PROPOSED 9'x19'- uffer &J.06' PARKING SPACE (TYP) - . . N.. POGRAPHIC DETAIL IS SHOWN HERE . S = AREA OF AUL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921 S.F. M m^ ^ PROPOSED GARAGE a' AREA OF CTIMTY & USE LIMITATION 275 S:975 S:F. �10 1 setbac. OD ._ �` "^�, "� FIRST JACKSON ONE STORY P5_ BRICK �� . . 25 4,000 S.F. . etback. . .�'.�.` �. . PROPOSED EDGE z ''- 1$9.26'. _ . 25'. N9. .00pW OF PAVEMENT . z CONC PAD/VENTS N "W 11,97. 10' setb ck 0 UP LEEMILTS PETROLEUM. INC '`��. h n/f 25-0394 -� — BOSTON & MAINE 9 SCALE: 1 " = 20' n/t 2 LEF.MILTS PETROLEUM, INC Feet 0 10 20 40 Client Scale 1"=20' Sheet ZIAD NABBOUT Date 8/16/2012 Project Job 860012 u eusaxs ofrwsoxs 011/26/=2 New England Civil 86 JACKSON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS Designed by WMR p ei,nm as,e„sans osm/s 2 Engineering Corp. 1 Drawn by TAD p eusesm awsw s W/m/=2 PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT Checked by WNR No. Description Date a , SALEM, MASSACHUSETfS Approved by WMR REVISIONS • i ATTACHMENT B r �^ f CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL a� 120 WASHINGTON STREE"I ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSLM 01970 �- TELE:978-619-5685♦ FAx:978-740-0404 KIbBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR February 29, 2012 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 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. 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 maybe granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, since the 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 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, 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 Thomclike & 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 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY C 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 DETAIL OF 11 HUBON STREET PARCEL FROM 113112012 PLAN r l f ; Cx- la O .y.y�� G Padriv 8Ae4- ,�a ao ,5 5 _ 4' O r_ 5 O82tSF ' - 13 j JOIN DUMAS BRIDGE ST. l I a. D.a. •P f�"� olO� n ,} 1: 7 t i DO3.Ae pfr s f 9 648tSF s „ H.L 8 PT V �@� v 4 r / 4' _ �i y i / ti<' q 2 'u'O ,� ion 3iR / ,f '7"*\ .v � �NjrcASa>m va �.� �. J 8Do '�° / ti7. Illy \` t :~ f/. ,A � / a ,t� ..,..;;t `sAiEN csN mOa� Locus GRAPHIC t `i a // \ �. ••., SCALE Ym 200'. SCALE r / NOTES I. IMVS n SHONN OR SMEM ASK SAP Y 31.LOl M .,,tME 6 \ T PEA NOOK SNOM Sp oND' GEED RJFNE E(I2CCwfD AT R6 IMIU( i 0 Y MAi h V I ( l YO / CEEDSA BIXM[R 41E A2 3 I kJ]SnNE GVNSn0t6 I EU Acne,al-.E DODLMo SLRNE Or xomx slag amK.r '/.: ( a k'rkr `+ r J / M�y &. /6fS�' 'ry+•. , /`� ��. x nns n..w s Gvr MM. .A.AN LO iswc Is REwovn-ro q ,a• / rMAtrg OM[xsGS rA.V,ES UKNxA@ A11O GwY¢s ( Eaa r a Lows Is omRux M.A R-z zaumc msRlcr. 4,'mis sre xe3i DOES TIM IsvxESExr a ANa am ^°y" f , r ro:..: \ \ cm m uays zexua:xv v omwnuE.wIPUA snug eE • n' .. j ._ X_ Y. S / 'r • F - i\\ li RS P,CAN PEaN1E CENiNYO mM nI�MExGNaMMi OM PIh�M To �y 0, r(✓ 11 Axr oEsax Arm/w mNsmucncm vxrvoso eunuma emalr A. • l "�.°A // s. r ° I / :/ `Dr �, A � . /r.+i. El k tii wuwuaL wm.,'0,NUL usD xewmE 2WFMNAT OI mw OW ..AS,vuaurs NAr of M:anlaD(eAsrn -I-.. .TDILL rl f 41RVOIr P N 1 { r 4 it IM1r tt LOr 0 C lY'nh \ L. pppy pA p4:. \ 5. EAOI VRMfLi91 MWSE S 91 YN AG AT�.1D'.FAd PRCIO4D S SHiWM A / 5'/.n1II y QV/VFi�I! Ft ;S Xrt,y `\ ATIADIT0 ONTAG4 IS s iT.u'.EAtlI HIOPM D DEIX(w FA➢O t �+ t / C CYtk J AST IN't E OW)A SMONN'A9 Or t IY. / .S IS S1 �A \ \.•; Y,S,`\';,. 1 i-, ", /' ,." 4 ate" f � �•" /_ r _ - \� 44 - a°.s 44 z 1 / 9, o- O w / / / tia Cv, ♦v, / 431 --AD NOk4 N Y 1-0yn)13P ((f AHx.I fi.nDOtJ J r i 1N,A, o wni i PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION f RIIFY THAT THIS PLAN HAS REED \\ s i',r l \'\ l w LAYOUT GEOMETRY PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE"M TIE - \' .(" ,\ \ ' E f \ •.� of f�RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE tor �.\ "� / V REGISTRY OF DEEDS. -. "•� .,�' L,. -. ••,,,\`\ �., D 'G 5 RESIDENTIAL LOTS . . Ivr `FUor s. REGISTRY USE ONLY for o site of .1NFA tAIP: P £ Thorndike & Hubon Streets APPROVAL UNDER- SUBDIVISION' �' Salem, Massachusetts '. CONTROL LAW REQUIRED: \ t/, OdD: .AIy 1, 2011 R h aYJng6Dry 31yP0� - .. SALEM PLANNING BOARD � � \ / ` � MIZ9H-p6 Scd. 1 -20 ShD.t 1 Of I Prepared For. Pasquams. Developers. Lao. GRAPHIC SCALE a1 COULD. StrDDt TDI,.. L nz, MA 01UO2 - \, - , ---- s\/ PATROTYICZ LAND14 E4 DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING 9a( P86!) nwn $frNet, snI➢m, MA 019�0 m - - -6400 NORTH.SHORE SURVEY CORPORATION OATE_ 14 l3roxn 978) Snlvn, MA 01370 (A]H) 7a4-gH00 ATTACHMENT C * * Transmit Confirmation Report P1 08/28/2013 14:22 TTI1: TTI Number: es,etent Station Resolution Start Time Time Page Rind Result Error Code Message *WW'1422355 Normal 08/28 14:22 00-22-1 1 # OK r DATE OF PERMIT PERMIT No. OWNFR LOCATION 12.30.70 � 450 I Naumke,. : Trust I 2 -� rirg Avenue '1 sTALICTURE MATERIAL DIMENSIONS Ns.OF STORIES No.OF FAMILIES WARD bee�"�"`� t i'+welling 'r+ovd Frame 241 x 5U' 291 x 1 5 - - w BUILDER 'Thomas Xackey x bone Jenolish Building gg>E46,Ed3a,.,.lk� 6%12-15/70 Board Of Appeals - To erect a one story drive-in bank, 2126/71 #31 Erect bank building,( IValsh Constr,Co ) address of the bank is now 336 Lafayette St. Da+:id PalisxsRaur'L ', New owner - #631-7259 1 ffiiigllt Avenue, Marlbhead Certificate of Occupancy Issued ( Michael Vaillaneourtj Group Residence 7/28180 8/73/89 - one family - see letter in File 2 T,orina Ave. - 1 a-,artnent in the rear, A Loring Ave. - 5 a;�artuents in the front. 107 linden St. - 2 apartments in the reap 1 DATE nF PERMIT VCRHR NO. OWNEw TL:nEer Realty Trust I LocATroN J♦ 7,orvap Ave. April 22, 1954 105 I` L OWELLIrvG MR'1'EWAL I OWE.10Ne NO.UF OY'OnICn NO.OR YAM]LI f.9 WARD i WILDER - COST oa0. conveat 2 st. dwel'1inj into 5 famiy duelling 5 owners OTHER SLOGS. MATERIAL OIMENEIoN No-oi S'fOWES ➢Irlml i 1'OCItM I PoLOEA J PLRN I No-SMRLTS 9/16/38 ># 364+ 7/21/80 OZ61 (Owner-Michael vaillancourt) Add partition for a new bath,(2) fire doors, add (2) new doors, closing one, 4/2/84 0115 (Dwner-David Ramseyj Replace existing poreb,ceiiings,patcb walls, 2 Loring Ave. - apartment in the rear 4 Loring Ave. - 5 apartments in the front 107 Linden St. - 2 acartments In the rear • Metal dabizet Pocket 8 Bolder 2 QTY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING DEPARTMENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3'FLOOR TEL: 978-745-9595 KIMBERLEYDRISOOLL FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR THOMAS ST.PIERRE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROPERTIES/BUILDING COMMISSIONER ZONING LETTER 2-4 Loring Avenue September 20, 2012 RE: 2-4 Loring Avenue To Whom It May Concern, According to the records researched in our Department,it has been determined the property located at 2—4 Loring Avenue is a legal grandfathered non-conforming eight(8)-unit building. • 2 Loring Avenue— One(1)—apartment in the rear. 4 Loring Avenue— Five(5) —apartments in the front 107 Linden Street— Two (2)—apartments in the rear This letter is determine use and number of units only and in no way meant to confirm or deny whether said property is in compliance with all Building Department,Plumbing Department, Gas Department, Electrical Department, Fire Department or Health Department codes and regulations. Any questions please call our office at 978-745-9595. Respectfully, V +YIuY� ZA6�; Thomas St. Pierre Zoning Enforcement Officer Cc: file,Jason Silva • POLICE OFFICER'S FORMAL REPORT 09/11/13 12 : 02 SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT PAGE: 1 Case#: 681259 TTYP27 -768 rpt date : 05/22/13 05: 48 reported: WEDNESDAY 05/22/13 00: 32 • ucr : 140 DISTURBANCE-GENERAL location: 4 LORING AV follow up by: (N) ONE NEEDED case status: CLEARED/CLOSED NORMAL officer: rpt status : COMPLETED review officer: 88 SGT DACY comp/vict notify: No sup review officer: cir/involve type: complaint : LOUD MUSIC reporting officer: 100 PTL RILEY assignment: A car: 25 second officer: 166 PTL WHITE sup/back-up: --=--------------------------------------------------------------- chief [ ] capt/oic [ ] cid [ ] traffic [ ] fire [ ] other [ ] ---------------------------------------- I recommend this case be declared: Unfounded ( ) Not Cleared ( ) Court Action ( ) Cleared by Arrest ( ) Case Declared: Active ( ) Complete ( ) Unfounded ( ) Domestic Violence ( ) Reporting Off' s Sig. Date/Time OIC Signature Date/Time • Salem Police Department Records Division 95 Margin Street Salem,MA 01970 • ( POLICE OFFICER' S FORMAL REPORT 09/11/13 11 : 59 SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT PAGE: 1 Case# : 679510 TTYP27 -768 rpt date: 05/06/13 19: 09 reported: MONDAY 05/06/13 18 : 55 • ucr: 134 DISORDERLY HOUSE ibr: 1 : 197 2 : 422 location: 2 LORING AV follow up by: (N) ONE NEEDED case status : CLEARED/CLOSED NORMAL officer: rpt status: COMPLETED review officer: comp/vict notify: No sup review officer: 20 LT ENGLEHARDT cir/involve type: complaint: FOLLOW UP WITH PROPERTY OWNER reporting officer: 118 SGT KING assignment: C car: 092 second officer: sup/back-up: *** NAMES *** type mast# name/add phone dob ss# --- -------------------------------- -------- ----------- INVOLVED 258370 LAMOTHE,MICHAEL 05/10/90 014-74-6374 107 LINDEN ST apt: 3 SALEM MA 01970 PROPERTY 193720 NGUYEN, SCOTT C 02/13/74 18 MYRTLE ST MEDFORD MA 02155 • *** PROPERTY *** prop.type make mod/style color ser#/vin# ---------- ---------- --_---- ------------------------ FOUND F rpt 'd: 05/06/13 class: 51 qty: 1 . 00 IDENTIFICATIO 2013 SSU CLIPPER C id/desc: SSU STUDENT CLIPPER CARD value: $0 ncic: 258370 - MICHAEL LAMOTHE control # : bin #: analy # : ---------- NARRATIVE *** SEE NARRATIVE FOR REPORT REGARDING ACTIVITY AT 2-4 LORING AND 107 LINDEN STREET. FOLLOW UP WAS DONE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 2-4 LORING / 107 LINDEN STREET DUE TO THE REPEATED CALLS FOR SERVICE; SPECIFICALLY FOR LOUD PARTIES . THE CIU HAS HAD AN ONGOING RELATIONSHIP WITH SCOTT NGUYEN AND HE HAS BEEN RESPONSIVE IN IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING PROBLEM TENANTS . RESIDENT FELIX ZAMOT WAS ARRESTED FOR DISTURBING THE PEACE. ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY HAS INCREASED. ALL TENANTS WILL BE GIVEN A • POLICE OFFICER' S FORMAL REPORT 09/11/13 11 : 59 SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT PAGE: 2 Case# : 679510 TTYP27 -768 • *** NARRATIVE. *** FORMAL NOTIFICATION FROM NGUYEN ADVISING THEM TO STOP ALL DISTURBANCE RELATED ACTIVITY OR FACE EVICTION. IN ADDITION, OFFICER DAVIS GAVE ME A SSU CLIPPER CARD THAT WAS LEFT BY ONE OF THE MANY PARTYGOERS ON 05-06-2013 . IT BELONGS TO MICHAEL LAMOTHE. I WILL ATTEMPT TO NOTIFY LAMOTHE. SSU ASSISTANT DEAN OF STUDENTS SHAWN NEWTON MADE AWARE OF THIS OFF CAMPUS ACTIVITY. ==----------- chief [ ] capt/oic [ ] cid [ ] traffic [ ] fire [ ] other [ ] I recommend this case be declared,: Unfounded ( ) Not Cleared ( ) Court Action ( ) Cleared by Arrest ( ) Case Declared: Active ( ) Complete ( ) Unfounded ( ) Domestic Violence ( ) Reporting Off' s Sig. Date/Time OIC Signature Date/Time Salem Police Department Records Division 95 Margin Street Salem,MA 01970 • 09/11/13 11 : 59 SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT PAGE: 1 v5. 5p INCIDENT REPORT TTYP27 -768 shift: A date: O3/06/13 MONDAY org/1st -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- • ********** AC 146 DISTURBANCE-COLLEGE PARTY **rcv*clr* 00 : 51 * 2 LORING AV apt: 950 SAL 141 146 *ibr: 1 : 300 2 : 197 679402 * LOUD HOUSE PARTY 71 * ID # : 8883 509-768 Def: ZAMOT, FELIX A 05/28/92 2 LORING AV SALEM,MA 01970 *** UNIT (S) *** 22 SAL P PTL D SEARS PTL ARUNDE 509-509 r> 00: 51 d> 00: 51 a> 00: 53 c> 01 : 15 k> h> 24 SAL P PTL PIERCE 509-509 r> 00 : 51 d> 00: 51 a> 00 : 54 c> 01 : 09 k> h> 25 * SAL P PTL DAVIS 509-509 r> 00 : 51 d> 00 : 51 a> 00 :52 c> 01 : 15 k> h> *** COMMENTS *** 25 SAL 00 : 51 : 55 CD-141-LOUD HOUSE PARTY 509- 25 SAL 00 : 52 : 43 ARRIVED 509- 22 SAL 00 : 53: 53 ARRIVED 509- 24 SAL 00: 54 : 58 OUT 509- 24 SAL 01 : 09: 25 CLEAR. COMING IN WITH ONE. 509- 25 SAL 01 : 15: 33 CLEAR. PARTY ENDED, NEIGHBORHOOD QUIET. 509- 25 SAL ZAMOT IS BEING CHARGE WITH DISTURBING THE PEACE AFTER 126- 25 SAL HOSTING A LARGE COLLEGE PARTY. 126- 25 SAL SEE NARRATIVE. 126- Salem Police Department Records Division 95 Margin Street Salem,MA 01970 ----------------------------------- --------------- officer' s signature date • POLICE OFFICER' S FORMAL REPORT 09/11/13 12 : 02 SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT PAGE: 1 Case# : 678301 TTYP27 -768 rpt date : 04/25/13 23: 06 reported: THURSDAY 04/25/13 20 : 05 • ucr: 140 DISTURBANCE-GENERAL location: 4 LORING AV follow up by: (N) ONE NEEDED case status : CLEARED/CLOSED NORMAL officer: rpt status : COMPLETED review officer: comp/vict notify: No sup review officer: 20 LT ENGLEHARDT cir/involve type: complaint: GROUP THROWING BOTTLES AND CAPS reporting officer: 165 PTL ARUNDEL assignment: C car: 22 second officer: 175 PTL S.ANDRUS sup/back-up: -------------------------------------------------------- chief [ ] capt/oic [ ] cid [ ] traffic [ ] fire [ ] other [ ] ------------------------------------------------ I recommend this case be declared: Unfounded ( ) Not Cleared ( ) Court Action ( ) Cleared by Arrest ( ) Case Declared: Active ( ) Complete ( ) Unfounded ( ) Domestic Violence ( ) Reporting Off' s Sig. Date/Time OIC Signature Date/Time • Salem Police Department Records Division 95 Margin Street Salem,MA 01970 • POLICE OFFICER' S FORMAL REPORT 09/11/13 12 : 04 SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT PAGE: 1 Case#: 662881 TTYP27 -768 rpt date : 12/09/12 08 : 02 reported: SUNDAY 12/09/12 00 : 54 • ucr: 140 DISTURBANCE-GENERAL location: 4 LORING AV follow up by: (N) ONE NEEDED case status : CLEARED/CLOSED NORMAL officer: rpt status : COMPLETED review officer: comp/vict notify: No sup review officer: 116 SGT LUBAS cir/involve type: complaint: NOISE COMPLAINT - LOUD GROUP reporting officer: 170 PTL DUZZ assignment: A car: 25 second officer: sup/back-up: *** NAMES *** type mast# name/add phone dob ss# --------------------------------------- -------- ------ INVOLVED 254789 OLOUGHLIN,RYAN J 05/16/91 107 LINDEN ST apt: 3 SALEM MA 01970 *** NARRATIVE *** • 00 : 54 : 07 CD-140-NOISE COMPLAINT - LOUD GROUP 01 : 14 : 44 CLEAR ADVISED SEE NARRATIVE. UNITS 25 AND 24 WERE DISPATCHED TO 4 LORING AV. AT APPROX 00: 54 HOURS FOR A NOISE DISTURBANCE. UPON ARRIVAL IT WAS CLEAR THAT A PARTY WAS TAKING PLACE FROM THE RESIDENCE. THERE WAS LOUD MUSIC HEARD FROM THE STREET AND AS THESE OFFICERS APPROACHED THE RESIDENCE THE MUSIC AND VOLUME OF THE PARTY GOT LOUDER. THE DOOR TO THE RESIDENCE WAS OPEN AND ENTRY WAS MADE. AS THIS OFC. HEADED UP TO THE 3RD FLOOR WHERE THE PARTY WAS TAKEN PLACE PEOPLE. THE DOOR TO THE APARTMENT WAS OPEN AND THIS OFC. OBSERVED APPROX. 50 PEOPLE IN THE RESIDENCE AND MULTIPLE ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTAINERS SPREAD OUT ALL OVER THE APARTMENT. AFTER REQUESTING THE TENANT OF THE APARTMENT TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, RYAN OLOUGHLIN CAME FORWARD AND STATED THAT HE LIVED THERE AND HIS ROOMMATES WERE NOT HOME FOR THE PARTY. A HISTORY OF NOISE COMPLAINTS FOR THIS TENANT WAS SEARCHED AND CAME BACK WITH NO NOISE ISSUES . RYAN OLOUGHLIN WAS INFORMED OF THE NOISE ORDINANCE POLICY AND WAS ISSUED A NOISE ORDINANCE VIOLATION (LOUD PARTY) C.22 S. 34 $100- CITATION#7333 • POLICE OFFICER' S FORMAL REPORT 09/11/13 12 : 04 SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT PAGE: 2 Case# : 662881 TTYP27 -768 chief- [ j -cap-/oic [-] --cid- [-] -traffic- [ ] -fire- [-] - other _ - [ ] -- I recommend this case be declared: Unfounded ( ) Not Cleared ( ) Court Action ( ) Cleared by Arrest ( ) Case Declared: Active ( ) Complete ( ) Unfounded ( ) Domestic Violence ( ) Reporting Off' s Sig. Date/Time OIC Signature Date/Time Salem Police Department Records Division 95 Margin Street Salem,MA 01970 • • f VV/ ii/ 1.J 1L : UV bALLVJ YULiUb UEYAR'IMEN1' PAGE: 1 V5. 5p INCIDENT REPORT TTYP27 -768 shift: A date: 10/13/12 SATURDAY org/1st -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** AC 146 DISTURBANCE-COLLEGE PARTY **rcv*clr* 01 : 19 * 2 LORING AV apt: 950 SAL 141 146 *ibr: 1 : 300 2 : 001 3: 429 4 : 90C 5: 90G 656334 * LOUD PARTY 71 * ID # : 8883 57 -768 Def: HEGARTY, DANIEL T 01/31/92 18 CONNER RD BEVERLY,MA 01915 Vic: SOCIETY, SOCIETY *** UNIT (S) *** 25 * SAL P PTL PIERCE 57 -57 r> 01 : 19 d> 01 : 19 a> c> 01 :28 k> h> *** COMMENTS *** 25 SAL 01 : 19: 53 CD-141-LOUD PARTY 57 - 25 SAL 01 : 28 : 44 CLEAR COMING IN WITH ONE 57 - 25 SAL ON 10/13/12 THIS OFFICER PIERCE WHILE WORKING IN 150- 25 SAL MARKED UNIT 25 RESPONDED TO THE AREA OF 2-4 LORING AVE FOR 150- 25 SAL A LOUD PARTY. ON ARRIVAL 2 LORING AVE WAS CLEARED OF ALL 150- 25 SAL ITS GUESTS AND DANIEL HEGARTY WAS ARRESTED FOR DISORDLY 150- 25 SAL CONDUCT, RESISTING ARREST AND A MINOR IN POSS OF ALCOHOL. 150- • Salem Police Department Records Division 95 Margin Street Salem,MA 01970 --------------- officer' s signature date ATTACHMENT D CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL r 120WASHiNGFONS[RITI SI,F. f.MAtiS+crirsh:rtSO1970 TEi.i 9i8 619-5685 FAx:978 7l0 0404 K1mmIG.LY DRJSC;ol1. MAYOR �? r G m � August 28, 2012 4T N calm OD Decision M v 3 � City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 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). 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. 1 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 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 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 F'requirements of the Salem q e ire 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. 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. i 3 n 4 • li ATTACHMENT E • • l` S CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS i BUILDING DEPARTMENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET 3" FLOOR • \ * TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX(978) 740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR THOMAS STYIERRE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROPERTY/BUILDING COMMISSIONER September 10,2013 New England Power Company d/b/a National Grid 40 Sylvan Road Waltham,MA 02451 Attn: Legal Department Lauren Peloquin, Esq. Re: City of Salem, National Grid Underground Cable Replacement and Substation Improvement Project • Dear Attorney Peloquin: We appreciate having met with representatives of New England Power Company d/b/a National Grid("NEP") to discuss the above-referenced project,which includes the replacement of two I l5kV underground cables within various public streets in the City of Salem and associated work at NEP's existing substations known as the Canal Street Substation and the Salem Harbor Substation located at 57 Canal Street and off Fort Avenue. The letter from Joshua Lee Smith of Bowditch&Dewey to Thomas St. Pierre,the Inspectional Services Director for the City of Salem, dated August 22, 2013, accurately summarizes these discussions. As we discussed at the meetings, while some local zoning relief would be required, it is difficult to ascertain the extent and nature of relief required given the unique project use and facilities. We understand that NEP intends to petition concurrently both the Salem Board of Appeals for two special permits and the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities for individual and comprehensive exemptions from the applicable provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. The City of Salem supports NEP's determination to secure such exemptions, understanding that it will achieve clear, consistent and efficient regulation of the project and will allow the project to proceed in a timely manner. We appreciate your consideration to date with respect to this project and look forward to working with NEP to ensure that this important project proceeds expeditiously. Very truly ours, J� • Thomas St. Pierre Inspectional Services Director ��ovmra.a CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT - 7 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR Q SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • '�i�d+_.y%l, TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 EXT. 380 �'Tnrrue W� FAX 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR September d9, 2011 New England Power Company d/b/a National Grid 40 Sylvan Road Waltham, MA 02451 Attn: Legal Department Lauren Peloquin, Esq. Re: City of Salem, National Grid Transmission Line and Substation Improvement Project Dear Sir/Madam: • We appreciate having met with representatives of New England Power Company d/b/a National Grid ("NEP") to discuss the above-referenced project, which includes the replacement of two 1 15kV underground transmission lines within various public streets in the City of Salem and associated improvements at NEP's existing substations known as the Canal Street Substation and the Salem Harbor Substation located at 57 Canal Street and off Fort Avenue. The letter from Robert C. Sudmyer of Bowditch & Dewey to Mr. Thomas St. Pierre, the Inspectional Services Director for the City of Salem, dated September 16, 2011, accurately summarizes these discussions. As we discussed at the meeting, while some local zoning relief would be required, it is difficult to ascertain the extent and nature of relief required given the unique project use and facilities. We understand that NEP intends to petition the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities for individual and comprehensive exemptions from the applicable provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. The City of Salem supports NEP's determination to secure such exemptions, understanding that it will achieve clear, consistent and efficient regulation of the project and will allow the project to proceed in a timely manner. We appreciate your consideration to date with respect to this project and look forward to working with NEP to ensure that this important project proceeds expeditiously. Very truly Irs, / C_. • By: ,� 0 Y Thomas St. Pierre Inspectional Services Director • ATTACHMENT F ` O4'?A��FA r • y Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 n s f. 4 CERTIFIED MAIL IN REPLY REFER TO: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED APPEAL START p� ?r_ O`SZQ�� August 1, 2013 �'kce The Honorable Kimberley Driscoll Case No.: 11-01-0530S Mayor, City of Salem Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Community: City of Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts Community No.: 250102 Dear Mayor Driscoll: On June 3, 2013,the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency • (FEMA) provided your community with Preliminary copies of the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)and Flood Insurance Study(FIS) report for Essex County, Massachusetts(All Jurisdictions). FEMA has posted digital copies of these revised FIRM and FIS report materials to the following Website: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata. The Preliminary FIRM and FIS report include proposed flood hazard information for certain locations in the City of Salem. The proposed flood hazard information may include addition or modification of Special Flood Hazard Areas, the areas that would be inundated by the base(I-percent-annual-chance)flood; base flood elevations or depths; zone designations; or regulatory floodways. We have published a notice of the proposed flood hazard determinations in the FEDERAL REGISTER and will publish a public notification concerning the appeal process(explained below) in the Gloucester Times, Newburyport News, and Salem News on or about August 7, 2013, and August 9, 2013. We will also publish a separate notice of the flood hazard determinations on the"Flood Hazard Determinations on the Web" portion of the FEMA Website(www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fhm/bfe). We have enclosed copies of the notice published in the FEDERAL REGISTER and the newspaper notice for your information. These proposed flood hazard determinations, if finalized, will become the basis for the floodplain management measures that your community must adopt or show evidence of having in effect to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP). However, before any new or modified flood hazard information is effective for floodplain management purposes, FEMA will provide community officials and citizens an opportunity to appeal the proposed flood hazard information presented on the preliminary revised FIRM and FIS report posted to the above-referenced Website. Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-234) is intended to ensure an equitable balancing of all interests involved in the setting of flood hazard determinations. The legislation provides for an explicit process of notification and appeals for your community and for private persons i prior to this office making the flood hazard determinations final. The appeal procedure is outlined below . for your information and in the enclosed document titled Criteria forAppeals of Flood Insurance Rate Maps. During the 90-day appeal period following the second publication of the public notification in the above- named newspaper, any owner or lessee of real property in your community who believes his or her property rights will be adversely affected by the proposed flood hazard determinations may appeal to you, or to an agency that you publicly designate. It is important to note, however, that the sole basis for such appeals is the possession of knowledge or information indicating that the proposed flood hazard determinations are scientifically or technically incorrect. The appeal data must be submitted to FEMA during the 90-day appeal period. Only appeals of the proposed flood hazard determinations supported by scientific or technical data can be considered before FEMA makes its final flood hazard determination at the end of the 90-day appeal period.Note that the 90-day appeal period is statutory and cannot be extended. However, FEMA also will consider comments and inquiries regarding data other than the proposed flood hazard determinations (e.g., incorrect street names, typographical errors,omissions)that are submitted during the appeal period, and will incorporate any appropriate changes to the revised FIRM and FIS report before they become effective. If your community cannot submit scientific or technical data before the end of the 90-day appeal period, you may nevertheless submit data at any time. If warranted, FEMA will revise the FIRM and FIS report after the effective date. This means that the revised FIRM would be issued with the flood hazard information presently indicated,and flood insurance purchase requirements would be enforced accordingly, until such time as a revision could be made. Any interested party who wishes to appeal should present the data that tend to negate or contradict our • findings to you, or to an agency that you publicly delegate, in such form as you may specify. We ask that you review and consolidate any appeal data you may receive and issue a written opinion stating whether the evidence provided is sufficient to justify an official appeal by your community in its own name or on behalf of the interested parties. Whether or not your community decides to appeal,you must send copies of individual appeals and supporting data, if any, to: Tom Tufts STARR 5565 Centerview Drive, Suite 107 Raleigh,North Carolina 27606 Tom.Tufts@STARR-Team.com If we do not receive an appeal or other formal comment from your community in its own name within 90 days of the second date of public notification, we will consolidate and review on their own merits such appeal data and comments from individuals that you may forward to us, and we will make such modifications to the proposed flood hazard information presented on the revised FIRM and in the revised FIS report as may be appropriate. If your community decides to appeal in its own name, all individuals' appeal data must be consolidated into one appeal by you, because, in this event, we are required to deal only with the local government as representative of all local interests. We will send our final decision in , writing to you, and we will send copies to the community floodplain administrator, each individual appellant,and the State NFIP Coordinator. All appeal submittals will be resolved by consultation with officials of the local government involved, by . an administrative hearing, or by submission of the conflicting data to an independent scientific body or appropriate Federal agency for advice. Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is also available to your community in support of the appeal resolution process when conflicting scientific or technical data are „y I • submitted during the appeal period. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. An SRP is an option after FEMA and community officials have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Please refer to the enclosed"Scientific Resolution Panels”fact sheet for additional information on this resource available to your community. FEMA will make the reports and other information used in making the final determination available for public inspection. Until the conflict of data is resolved and the revised FIRM becomes effective, flood insurance available within your community will continue to be available under the effective NFIP map, and no person shall be denied the right to purchase the applicable level of insurance at chargeable rates. The decision by your community to appeal, or a copy of its decision not to appeal, should be filed with this office no later than 90 days following the second publication of the flood hazard determination notice in the above-named newspaper. Your community may find it appropriate to call further attention to the proposed flood hazard determinations and to the appeal procedure by using a press release or other public notice. If warranted by substantive changes, during the appeal period we will send you Revised Preliminary copies of the revised FIRM and FIS report. At the end of the 90-day appeal period and following the resolution of any appeals and comments, we will send you a Letter of Final Determination,which will finalize the flood hazard information presented on the revised FIRM and FIS report and will establish an effective date. If you have any questions regarding participation in the NFIP, we encourage you to contact the Mitigation Division Director, FEMA Region I, in Boston, Massachusetts, either by telephone at(617)956-7506 or in writing to 99 High Street, Sixth Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02110. If you have any questions regarding the proposed flood hazard determinations, revised FIRM panels,or revised FIS report for your community, please call our FEMA Map Information eXchange(FMIX),toll free, at 1-877-FEMA MAP(1-877-336-2627)or e-mail the FMIX staff at FEMAMapSpecialist@riskmapcds.com. Sincerely, Luis Rodriguez, P.E., Chief Engineering Management Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration List of Enclosures: Newspaper Notice Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations FEDERAL REGISTER Notice Criteria for Appeals of Flood Insurance Rate Maps "Scientific Resolution Panels" Fact Sheet • cc: Community Map Repository • Frank Taormina, Staff Planner/Harbor Coordinator, City of Salem Tom Devine,Conservation Administrator/Staff Planner, City of Salem David Knowlton, P.E., City Engineer, City of Salem 011e Duijvesteijn, IT/GlS Director,City of Salem Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development, City of Salem Daniel Sexton, Staff Planner, City of Salem John Tomasz, Director, Department of Public Works,City of Salem David W. Cody, Fire Chief/Emergency Management Director, City of Salem Charles Puleo, Chairperson, Planning Board, City of Salem Rebecca Curran, Chairperson, Zoning Board of Appeals, City of Salem Thomas J. St. Pierre, Inspectional Services Director, City of Salem Capt. Bill McHugh, Harbormaster, City of Salem Larry Ramdin, R.S./REHS,CHO,CP-FS, Health Agent, City of Salem Kerry Bogdan, Senior Engineer, FEMA Region I Richard Zingarelli, State NFIP Coordinator, Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Richard Vervil'le, Chief, Hazard Mitigation Assistance Branch, FEMA Region I Alex Sirotek, Regional Service Center, STARR Region I Tom Tufts, Project Manager, STARR • ATTACHMENT G RUBIN, �NDn T rRUDl V A V UP Attorneys at Law e S DP T.617.330.7000 F:617.330.7550 John A. DeTore p' 50 Rowes Wharf,Boston, MA 02110 Direct Dial:617-330-7144 E-mail:McTore@rubinrudman.com August 5, 2013 VIA HAND DELIVERY Andrew G. Greene, Director Energy Facilities Siting Board One South Station, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Re: Initial Petition of Footprint Salem Harbor Development LP for a Certificate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest, EFSB 13- Dear Mr. Greene: Enclosed for filing, please find an original and four(4) copies of the Initial Petition of ( Footprint Salem Harbor Development LP for a Certificate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest. Please date-stamp the enclosed copy of this letter and return it in the enclosed self- addressed envelope for our files. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, John . D ore JAD/dm Enclosures cc: Richard A. Davey, Secretary of Transportation Kenneth Kimmell, Commissioner, DEP Eric Worrall, Acting Regional Director, DEP Northeast Regional Office Ben Lynch, Director, DEP Division of Wetlands and Waterways Kevin Brander, P.E., Section Chief, DEP Northeast Regional Office ,�,',� James Belsky, Permit Chief, DEP Northeast Regional Office, Division of Air Quality Control 1400375_1 Wl4M.RU B l N RU DMAN.COM Andrew G. Greene, Director August 5, 2013 • Page 2 Rebecca Curran, Chair, City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Charles Puleo, Chair, City of Salem Planning Board Julia Knisel, Chair, City of Salem Conservation Commission Jessica Herbert, Chair, City of Salem Historical Commission Thomas J. St. Pierre, Inspectional Services Director, City of Salem Inspectional Services Department Julie Rose, Business Manager, City of Salem Water Department Alan F. Taubert, Jr., P.E., Executive Director, South Essex Sewerage District David W. Cody, Fire Chief City of Salem Y y Fire Department James Buckley, General Counsel M. Kathryn Seder, Esq. Robert J. Shea, Esq. Service List, EFSB 12-2 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD Petition of Footprint Power ) Salem Harbor Development LP ) for Approval to Construct ) EFSB 12-2 and Operate a 630 MW Generating Facility ) Pursuant to G.L. c. 164, §§ 69H, 69J% ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that,pursuant to 980 C.M.R. 1.03(4), I have on or before this day served a true copy of the enclosed documents upon all parties of record in this proceeding. Dated at Boston, Massachusetts this 5th day of August 2013. John . ore, Esq. Robert D. Shapiro, Esq. Rubin and Rudman LLP 50 Rowes Wharf Boston, MA 02110 Counsel for: Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LLC 13549631 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD Petition of Footprint Power Salem Harbor ) Development LP for a Certificate of ) EFSB 13- Environmental Impact and Public Interest ) ) INITIAL PETITION OF FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP John A. DeTore Robert D. Shapiro David C. Fixler Rubin and Rudman LLP 50 Rowes Wharf Boston, MA 02110 (617) 330-7000 Dated: August 5, 2013 1396308_2 INTRODUCTION • Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP ("Footprint") files this Initial Petition for a Certificate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest with respect to a generating facility ("Certificate") representing a composite of all state and local permits, approvals or authorizations that would otherwise be necessary to construct and operate the Facility, as such term is defined below, pursuant to G.L. c. 164, §§ 69K%2-690% and 980 CMR 6.02. On August 3, 2012, Footprint filed with the Energy Facilities Siting Board ("Siting Board" or"EFSB") its Petition to Construct a 630 megawatt (MW) (692 MW with duct firing) natural gas-fired, quick-start, combined-cycle facility ("Facility") at the present location of the Salem Harbor Station in Salem, Massachusetts. Footprint also provided extensive information regarding its plans to demolish the existing coal- and oil-fired facility, remediate the site, and make available for development approximately 45 acres of waterfront property in Salem. Construction of the proposed Facility is scheduled to commence in June 2014,1 with plans for the Facility to become operational in June 2016. The Siting Board docketed the Petition as EFSB 12-2. Over the course of the past year, the Siting Board: required Footprint to publish and provide extensive public notice of its proceeding; held a public hearing in the City of Salem; granted five petitions to intervene; issued three rounds of information requests to Footprint and allowed intervenors to issue two rounds of discovery to Footprint; held 10 days of evidentiary hearings during which 23 witnesses provided testimony; entered 775 exhibits into the evidentiary 1 There are several critical prerequisites for the actual commencement of construction in June 2014, including substantial final engineering work, the ordering of hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment(with substantial monetary deposits) and extensive site preparation work. These activities must begin in January • 2014, which means that project financing must be completed by then. Financing cannot proceed with permit Q a : appeals outstanding. 13963082 record; allowed Footprint and intervenors to submit initial and reply briefs; and reviewed an Issues Memorandum issued by EFSB Staff, as well as comments filed by parties in response to the Issues Memorandum. On July 11, 2013, the Siting Board held a public meeting regarding Footprint's Petition to Construct. After reviewing the Staff s Issues Memorandum, hearing comments from Footprint and intervenors, and thoroughly discussing numerous issues, the Siting Board voted to direct the EFSB Staff to draft a Decision approving Footprint's Petition to Construct its proposed Facility subject to conditions ("July 11 Vote"). See July 11, 2013 Transcript at 201-206. On June 28, 2013, the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Zoning Board") unanimously issued a decision granting Footprint's Petition for(1) a Special Permit for an Essential Service use pursuant to Section 3.0 of the City of Salem's Use Regulations; and (2) Variances from the City's Dimensional Requirements pursuant to Section 4.0 ("Zoning Board Decision"). Despite the Zoning Board Decision and the Siting Board's July I I Vote, Footprint cannot construct its Facility because, on July 17, 2013, Michael Furlong and William Dearstyne, both residents of Salem, appealed the Zoning Board Decision pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, § 17 (the "Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal").2 It is essential that construction and operation of the Facility proceed without delay in order for Footprint to (1) help meet the demonstrated need for capacity in the NEMA/Boston load zone in June 2016, as recognized by Department of Public Utilities ("Department" or 2 The full record of the Zoning Board proceedings, including a copy of the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal, is provided as Appendices A through D. A copy of the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal is provided as Appendix A to d! the Initial Petition. Pursuant to 980 CMR 6.02(3), in submitting an Initial Petition to the EFSB,"the petition shall include such attachments as the petitioning company deems useful." 2 1396308_2 "DPU") in D.P.U. 12-77 (2013); and (2) satisfy the requirement of ISO—New England • ("ISO-NE") that the Facility be on line by June 2016. Pursuant to G.L. c. 164, §§ 69K%z, the Siting Board shall consider a Petition for a Certificate if any of seven grounds are present. The sixth ground reads as follows: (vi) the facility cannot be constructed because of delays caused by the appeal of any approval, consent, permit, or certificate. Because the delay caused by the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal prevents Footprint from constructing the Facility, the EFSB should find that Footprint meets the statutory criteria for consideration of this Initial Petition. See G.L. c. 164, § 69K%z (vi). Accordingly, as more particularly set forth below, the Siting Board should (1) defer a decision on the merits of the Initial Petition, (2) consolidate the Initial Petition and the Application, (3) adjudicate the Initial Petition and the Application concurrently, and (4) grant the Initial Petition at such time. • DISCUSSION I. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR AN INITIAL PETITION Any person who proposes to construct or operate a generating facility in the Commonwealth may seek a Certificate from the Siting Board. G.L. c. 164, § 69K'/z; IDC Bellingham, LLC, 13 DOMSB 1, 10 (2001) ("IDC Bellingham Certificate Decision"). Such Certificate, if issued, "shall be in the form of a composite of all individual permits, approvals, or authorizations which would otherwise be necessary for the construction and operation of the generating facility." See G.L. c. 164, § 69K%z. An applicant for a Certificate first must file an Initial Petition. Id. The Siting Board shall grant an Initial Petition if(1) the Applicant asserts one or more of the seven grounds for a Petition set forth in G.L. c. 164, § 69K'/z; and (2) the (2 3 13963082 Siting Board determines that, on the merits, at least one of the grounds asserted constitutes a valid basis for granting the Initial Petition. Id. Within seven days of the filing of an Initial Petition, the Siting Board must decide either to hold a hearing on the merits of the grounds asserted in the Initial Petition, or to accept an Application for Certificate and to defer a decision-on the merits of the Initial Petition until the hearing on the Application. IDC Bellingham Certificate Decision at 10, n.5, citing 980 CMR 6.02(4). II. BACKGROUND In the sections that follow, Footprint summarizes (a) the proposed Facility; (b) Footprint's Petition to Construct filing and the status of the Siting Board's decision related thereto; (c) Footprint's Petition for a Special Permit and Variances and the Zoning Board's Decision related thereto; and (d) the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal. A. FOOTPRINT'S PROPOSED FACILITY 1. The Generating Facility and Interconnections Footprint's proposed Facility is a state-of-the-art; nominal 630 MW natural gas-fired electric generation facility with "quick start" capability. With duct firing under summer conditions, the Facility will be capable of generating an additional 62 MW, for a total of 692 MW. The Facility will include a diesel-fueled emergency back-up generator. The exclusive fuel - source for the Facility is natural gas. _ t The Facility major components include: • two (2) quick-start natural gas combustion turbine generators ("CTG"); • " ", ; two 2 steam( ) turbine generators ( STG ), • two (2) heat recovery steam generators ("HRSG") including pollution control ( equipment; i 4 1396308_2 �` '. an administrative building with warehouse/shops space; and a service bay; • • an auxiliary bay; • a water treatment facility; • transformers; • an ammonia storag e tank; • two water tanks; • air-cooled condensers; and • a facility switchyard and other structures and infrastructure. The Facility will use highly efficient quick-start combustion turbines. Footprint has selected GE Energy 7F 5-Series Gas Turbines for its generating technology. Each power block can produce approximately 150 MW (300 MW total for the plant) of output within 10 minutes of startup and, as such, can provide an economic, low emissions backup for intermittent wind generation. • The Facility will include a 34,000 gallon, single-wall construction above-ground steel ammonia storage tank. The tank will contain 19 percent aqueous ammonia (NH3), which is used for pollution control processes. The tank, ammonia transfer pumps, valves and piping, will be located within a concrete containment structure (dike). The diked area will be located within another enclosure. Additional equipment at the proposed Facility will include three fuel combustion emission units, as follows: • an 80 million Btu per hour natural gas fired auxiliary boiler equipped with ultra- low-NOx burners, • a 750 KW (standby rating) emergency generator firing 15 ppm ultra-low sulfur distillate (ULSD) oil, and • a 371 brake horsepower (BHP) fire pump engine firing ULSD oil. s 1396308_2 The Facility will interconnect with the existing National Grid ("NGRID") switchyard located in the northeast portion of the Site. In order to interconnect with NGRID's switchyard, Footprint will construct the following ancillary facilities: (1) a new facility switchyard, (2) a 115 kilovolt ("kV") underground cable connection from each of the four generator step-up transformers to the new SHR Facility switchyard; and (3) underground 115 kV transmission lines from the two sets of gas-fired steam and combustion turbine generators to the existing substation. Natural gas will be delivered to the Site from the HubLine pipeline in Beverly Harbor via a new 16-inch pipeline that will enter the Site in the vicinity of Derby Street and Webb Street. The pipeline will be owned and operated by Spectra. 2. The Site f The Facility will be constructed at the existing Salem Harbor power station—a four unit oil- and coal-fired electric generating facility - located at 24 Fort Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts. The existing site is a 65-acre parcel ("Property"), which has been used for power generation since 1951. The proposed Facility will be constructed on approximately 20 acres. The remainder of the Property will be available for future development. The Property is bordered by Fort Avenue and the South Essex Sewerage District ("SESD") wastewater treatment plant to the north; Salem Harbor and Cat Cove to the east and northeast; the City of Salem's Blaney Street Ferry terminal and several mixed-use buildings to the southeast; and by Derby Street and Fort Avenue to the west. Residential neighborhoods and the Bentley Elementary School are located to the west across Fort Avenue and Derby Street. The Property is located in an industrial zoning district and almost the entire parcel is within the Salem Harbor Designated Port Area. 6 1396308_2 ' A majority of the existing buildings and infrastructure of the existing facility will be • demolished, with the exception of the existing Community Outreach Building and guardhouse, which will be renovated. Footprint will remediate the Property as may be required under Chapter 21 E and the Massachusetts Contingency Plan. B. FOOTPRINT'S PETITION TO CONSTRUCT AND THE STATUS OF THE EFSB'S DECISION RELATED THERETO 1. Footprint's Petition to Construct Filing On August 3, 2012, the same day it closed its transaction for the acquisition of the existing Salem Harbor facility from a subsidiary of Dominion Resources, Inc., Footprint filed with the EFSB a Petition to Construct its proposed Facility. Footprint filed its Environmental Notification Form under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act on the same day. The Siting Board docketed the case as EFSB 12-2 and conducted a public hearing in the City of .71 SSalem on September 19, 2012. Intervention was granted to the following entities: the City of • Salem; Salem State University; the North Shore Community Development Coalition; NGRID; IBEW Local 326; Salem Alliance for the Environment; the Conservation Law Foundation; and the Historic Derby Street Neighborhood Association/Point Neighborhood Association. In addition, Benjamin Pignatelli and Richard Kerver were granted limited participant status. Footprint responded to three sets of information requests issued by EFSB Staff, and to one or two sets of information requests from five of the intervenors. The Siting Board conducted 10 days of evidentiary hearings during which 23 witnesses (14 Footprint witnesses, 5 NGRID witnesses, and 4 City witnesses)provided testimony totaling 1,783 pages of hearing transcript. In all, 775 exhibits were entered into the evidentiary record of the proceeding, including Footprint's responses to 74 record requests from the EFSB Staff and intervenors. Footprint and a number of intervenors submitted both initial and reply briefs. 1396308_2 On July 2, 2013, the EFSB Staff issued its Issues Memorandum, and Footprint and a number of intervenors submitted written comments regarding the Issues Memorandum. 2. July 11, 2013 Siting Board Meeting On July 11, 2013, the Siting Board held a public meeting to consider the EFSB Staff s Issues Memorandum and comments submitted by the parties. In addition, parties were afforded an opportunity to address the Siting Board with respect to the Issues Memorandum. After extensive questioning and discussion, the Siting Board voted to direct the EFSB Staff to draft a Decision approving Footprint's Petition to Construct its proposed Facility subject to conditions. See July 11, 2013 Transcript at 201-206. Footprint anticipates that the Siting Board will issue a Final Decision approving the proposed Facility with conditions in October 2013. C. FOOTPRINT'S PETITION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCES AND THE ZONING BOARD'S DECISION APPROVING SAID PETITION 1. Footprint's Special Permit and Variances Application On May 29, 2013, Footprint filed with the Zoning Board its requests for (1) a Special Permit for an Essential Services use pursuant to the Section 3.0 Use Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Salem ("Zoning Ordinance"); and (2) Variances to exceed the maximum allowable height allowance of 45 feet in an Industrial Zoning District pursuant to Section 4.0 of the Zoning Ordinance.3 With respect to the Variances, Footprint sought height allowances for the vertical development of the following components of the proposed generating facility: Generator 3 The Application to the Zoning Board is provided as Appendix B. 8 1396308_2 . Building Stack (230 feet (+/-)); Heat Recovery Steam Enclosure (125 feet (+/-)); Air Cooled Condenser Enclosure (120 feet (+/-)); Diesel Generator Stack (86 feet (+/-)); Gas Turbine #1 Building (76 feet (+/-)); Gas Turbine #2 Building (76 feet (+/-)); STG Building (76 feet and Ammonia Tank Enclosure (45 feet (+/-)). Notice of the time, place and subject matter of Footprint's Petition for a Special Permit and Variances was given as required by G.L. c. 40A. Pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, § 11, the Zoning Board conducted a public hearing on Footprint's Petition for a Special Permit and Variances on June 19, 2013.4 2. The Zoning Board Decision On June 28, 2013, the Zoning Board voted 5-to-0 to approve Footprint's requests for a Special Permit and Variances.5 In its Decision, the Zoning Board granted Footprint's request for 4 a Special Permit and Variances subject to certain terms, conditions and safeguards. Footprint is • prepared and able to comply with all of these terms, conditions and safeguards. In particular, the Zoning Board found that: • The desired relief may be granted without detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or of the purpose City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. • A power plant use has occupied the site for over 60 years and the current buildings and stacks reach from 150+/- feet to 500+/- feet in height, making this site unlike any other in the District. • The size, location and layout of the site and its proximity to the natural gas pipeline and the adjoining National Grid switchyard make it unique to any other sites in the District. • The literal enforcement of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance's Table of Dimensional Requirements, specifically the maximum allowable building height requirement of 45-feet in an Industrial Zoning District, would render the 4 The minutes of this meeting are included in Appendix C. • 5 A copy of the Zoning Board Decision is included in Appendix D. 9 13963082 construction of the buildings and structures that are needed to contain the power plant's equipment and operations impossible, thus causing a substantial hardship to Petitioner. • According to the visual comparisons of the existing and proposed power plants, the proposed facility's reduced building heights and smaller plant footprint bring it more in compliance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. • .The facility is and has been an essential services use for the past 60 years that has provided power generation to the City of Salem and the surrounding region, the facility as proposed continues that essential services use to meet the needs of the community. • The redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station facility into a new combined-cycle, gas-fired electric generation facility is in accordance with the Salem Harbor Plan, and has been shown to meet the power generation needs of the community and the region at-large. • The facility, as proposed, does not change the traffic flow or safety of the neighborhood traffic flow of the neighborhood. • Through its reduced reliance on municipal services, especially its use of local potable water, the proposed facility will not adversely impact the public services and has adequate access to utilities. • The facility will be an improvement to the neighborhood character by reducing the building and stack heights throughout the facility, and shrinking the necessary footprint of the plant. In addition, the facility's design provides improved visual and physical access to a portion of the Salem waterfront and allows for greater opportunities for future commercial and industrial development and an expanded harbor. • As designed, the facility represents a benefit to the natural environment and visually improves the neighborhood for residents. The conversion from a coal fired plant to a new combined-cycle, gas-fired electric generation facility will have a positive impact to the environment. • The development represents a great opportunity for positive impacts on the economic and fiscal situation of the city. See Zoning Board Decision at 2-3. 10 1396308_2 III D. THE FURLONG/DEARSTYNE APPEAL • On July 17, 2013, Michael Furlong and William Dearstyne (together "Plaintiffs"), both residents of Salem, appealed the Zoning Board Decision in Essex Superior Court pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, § 17.6 In the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal, among other matters, the Plaintiffs assert that the Zoning Board Decision failed to apply the appropriate standards of the Zoning Ordinance, and with respect to the Variances, that the Zoning Board Decision failed to include evidence or factual findings of a hardship, which Plaintiffs assert is necessary.in order to obtain a variance. The Plaintiffs seek to have the Court annul the Zoning Board Decision. II1. RELIEF SOUGHT A. FOOTPRINT MEETS THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN INITIAL PETITION Despite having sought and obtained the requested Special Permit and Variances from the 0 1 Zoning Board, Footprint cannot build its Facility while the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal is pending. • Therefore, as shown below, Footprint meets the statutory requirements under G.L. c. 164, § 69K% to seek a Certificate. G.L. c. 164, § 69K% sets forth the grounds for proceeding with an Initial Petition for a Certificate. These grounds include: • (i) The applicant is prevented from building a generating facility because it cannot meet standards imposed by a state or local agency with reasonable and commercially available equipment; or (ii) Because the processing or granting by a state or local agency of any approval, consent, permit or certificate has been und uly dul Y delayed for any reason, including the preparation and publication of any environmental impact report; or (iii) The applicant believes there are inconsistencies among resource use permits issued by state or local agencies; or 6 A copy of the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal is included as Appendix A • II 1396308_2 ® (iv) The applicant believes that a non-regulatory issue or condition has been raised or imposed by a state or local agencies, such as, but not limited to, aesthetics and recreation; or (v) The generating facility cannot be constructed due to any disapprovals, conditions or denials by a state or local agency or body, except with respect to any lands or interests therein, excluding public ways, owned or managed by any state agency or local government; or (vi) The facility cannot be constructed because of delays caused by the appeal of any approval, consent, permit or certificate. See also 980 CMR 6.02(2). In addition to the foregoing, the Siting Board "shall . . . consider an application for a [Certificate] if it finds that any state or local agency has imposed a burdensome condition or limitation on any license or permit which has a substantial impact on the responsibilities of the board as set forth pursuant to section 69H." G.L. c. 164, § 69K%para. 2. B. THE PENDENCY OF THE FURLONG/DEARSTYNE APPEAL PRECLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF THE FACILITY The Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal precludes the construction of the proposed Facility. See G.L. c. 164, § 69K% (vi). Pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, § 11, the pendency of the Appeal precludes Footprint's Variances from taking effect until the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal has been dismissed or denied. Thus, until the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal is resolved in Footprint's favor, Footprint cannot construct the Facility. Indeed, it could take up to twenty-two months for the Court to resolve the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal.? Of course, that disposition, even if it actually occurs in 7 The following deadlines have been set by the Essex Superior Court in accordance with the Third Amended Standing Order 1-88: Time Standards: November 14,2013—answer due; December 14, 2013 —amended pleadings and service of motions to dismiss under Rule 12;May 13,2014—complete discovery; July 12,2014—summary judgment motions;November 9, 2014—pre-trial conference; May 8,2015—disposition. See Docket No. ESCV2-13-01130;see also Third Amended Standing Order 1-88 for general deadlines for fast track cases. 12 1396308_2 - May 2015 and even if favorable to Footprint, would be subject to further appeal and thus further • delay. Thus, pendency of the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal will cause substantial delay in the Project's schedule because in order to construct, Footprint requires a building permit which cannot be issued until the Court makes a final decision on the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal. Moreover, it is essential that construction and operation of the Facility proceed without delay in order for Footprint to (1) help meet the demonstrated need for capacity in the NEMA/Boston load zone in June 2016, as recognized by the Department in D.P.U. 12-77 (2013); and (2) satisfy the requirement of ISO-NE that the Facility be on line by June 2016. In D.P.U. 12-77, the Department's review of the need for capacity in the NEMA/Boston load zone, the DPU determined that: The results of FCA #7 show that, absent Footprint, there is a need in NEMA/Boston for additional capacity resources . 77 11 beginning in the 2016/17 capacity year. D.P.U. 12-77, at 18. In addition, Footprint's bid to supply capacity in Forward Capacity Auction (or FCA) 7 was "cleared" (i.e., accepted as needed) by ISO-NE for the NEMA load zone for the 2016/17 delivery year. As ISO-NE's Vice President of System Planning explained in testimony before the FERC included with ISO-NE's filing seeking approval of the FCA 7 auction results: The capacity from Footprint is needed to meet NEMA/Boston's Local Sourcing Requirement . . . without the capacity from Footprint, the zone would not have sufficient capacity to meet its Local Sourcing Requirement.8 In order for the Facility to begin generating electricity in June 2016, financing of the Facility must be completed in January 2014. The pendency of the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal Moreover, if the case is moved to Land Court, a similar schedule would ensue. • 13 1396308_2 prevents Footprint from constructing its Facility consistent with the tight schedule that must be met in order to provide critical capacity to the NEMA load zone in 2016. Accordingly, pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 69K% (vi), the EFSB should consider Footprint's Petition for a Certificate.9 A full listing of the state and local permits required for and/or obtained by Footprint is provided in Appendix E. C. THE SITING BOARD SHOULD ACCEPT FOOTPRINT'S APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE AND ADJUDICATE THIS INITIAL PETITION AND THE APPLICATION CONCURRENTLY Pursuant to 980 CMR 6.02(4), upon receipt of this Initial Petition, the Siting Board or its Chairman shall: within seven days determine whether to hold a separate hearing on the grounds asserted in the petition or to accept an application pursuant to 980 CMR 6.03(1), and to defer decision on the merits of the grounds asserted in the initial petition until the hearing on the application. As shown above, Footprint clearly has demonstrated that it meets the statutory requirements to submit an Application. Because the issues addressed in this Initial Petition and the Application are intimately related, the Siting Board should address the Petition and the Application together. This is particularly true because -- as contemplated by 980 CMR 6.03 -- Footprint intends its Application to further elaborate on many of the issues raised in this Initial Petition. Further, adjudicating the two matters concurrently will save resources and time. See Cape Wind Associates, LLC, EFSB 07-8 (November 28, 2007 Procedural Order); Colonial Gas 8 ISO New England, Docket No. ER13-992 (Feb.26,2013),Testimony of Stephen J. Rourke at 8. 9 While Footprint recognizes that initial petitions for Certificates typically have been filed subsequent to a Siting Board final decision approving a Petitions to Construct filed under G.L. c. 164, § 69J'/4,nothing in the Siting Board's statute(G.L. c. 164, §§69K'/,-O'/a)or regulations(980 CMR 6.00 et seq.)governing Certificates preclude the filing of an initial petition before the Siting Board issues a final decision approving a petition to ` construct. 14 1396308_2 Company d/b/a KeySpan Energy Delivery New England, EFSB 06-1 (September 18, 2006 • Procedural Order); IDC Bellingham Certificate Decision (February 15, 2001 Procedural Order). Thus, to prevent further delay and promote judicial economy, within seven days of filing of this Initial Petition, the Chairman of the Siting Board should decide to: (1) defer a decision on the merits of the Initial Petition, (2) consolidate the Initial Petition and the Application, and (3) adjudicate the Initial Petition and the Application concurrently. Moreover, upon review, the Siting Board should grant the Initial Petition. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, because Footprint meets the statutory requirements under G.L. c. 164, § 69KY2 to seek a Certificate, Footprint respectfully requests that the Siting Board defer a decision on the merits of the grounds asserted in this Initial Petition until the hearing on Footprint's Application for a Certificate and adjudicate the Initial Petition and the Application concurrently. See 980 CMR 6.02(4). Consistent with 980 CMR 6.02(4), Footprint requests that the Siting Board's Chairman issue a decision on such consolidation within seven days. FOOTPRINT SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP By its attorneys, hn A. DeTore Robert D. Shapiro David C. Fixler RUBIN AND RUDMAN LLP 50 Rowes Wharf Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 330-7000 Dated: August 5, 2013 • 15 1396308_2 III v��ON�ITg9�� City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet �t. �4 ;i9b..li Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date _�/ 18 / 2013 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail 7&- 7/23 a.yh<1vj4 Sko,rc efA aol.G� ` li �O d Avlt7QFwJ' ��///l ��/ j�9'��3 J+s✓idw/ i0 p�•G.d�.rtA� zk F�t6etyi;l�r�zvn. � G tS�r I.+74S�ancF� ask fe Zo1 Sc( �l �g2` �CJ� kc d�=ae el ,d �17 - W-7716p i"o-can r5 9 r lc) F�i2�«�0 5r SCR-�y�1-31Si ( r4r �nfna'�c��c � r Page of CITY OF SALEM MASSACFIUSETTS ! 4' BOARD OF APPEAL w„d 120 WASffiNGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSAGHUSETE 01970 KIMMRLEYDRISGOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday, September 18, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem,MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of ZIAD FOUAD NABBOUT requesting a Variance from Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum depth of the rear yard to ten feet,to allow for construction of a garage at the property located at 86 JACKSON ST(B4). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on October 2 2013 Petition of FRANK LANZILLO requesting an Appeal to the Decision of the Building Inspector in order to be relieved from the requirement to construct a garage on the properly located at 11 HUBON ST(R2). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on October 2, 2013 • Petition of RPS REALTY&MANAGEMENT requesting a Special Permit under Section 3 Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to approve use of the property located at 2-4 LORING AVE (R2) as a Residential Multi-Familydwelling with nine (9) dwelling units. Decision: Withdrawn without Prejudice Filed with the City Clerk on October 2, 2013 Petition of ELIZABETH BEAVER requesting a Variance from Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum depth of rear yard, and a Special Permit under Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum width of side yard,to allow for construction of a kitchen &deck expansion,for the property located at 13 OCEAN AVE (R1 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on October 2, 2013 Petition of TWELVETONE,LLC requesting a Modification to a Special Permit under Section 3.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to change the use of the properly from a non-conforming Commercial use to a Residential Single-Family use, for the property located at 1 PLEASANT ST(R2). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on October 2,2013 Petition of NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY d/b/a NATIONAL GRID for a new Special Permit for an Essential Services Use pursuant to Section 3 Use Regulatiom and a Special Permit to extend a pre- existing non-conforming use pursuant to Section 3.3.2 Nonmv fowirg Uses and Struaures,for the construction of a new control house with related facilities at the property located at 57 CANAL ST(B4, R2, and Entrance Corridor Overlay Zoning Districts). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on October 2, 2013 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120WASHING1 ON SIRFE'l 4 SALNN1,N[ASSAC11US].;,n s 0197 pil UCT -2 P 12: 12 KINIBE.M.F),DRISCOLI, j:i,i::978-745-9595 # F,\x:978-740-9846 FILE It MAYOR CITY CLERK. SALEM, MASS, October 2, 2013 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of ZIAD FOUAD NABBOUT requesting a Variance from Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum depth of the rear yard to ten feet, to allow for construction of a garage at the property located at 86 JACKSON ST (114). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on September 18, 2013 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, � 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Diormc, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Harris, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Eppley (Alternate), and Mr. Tsitsmos (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Sec. 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Joseph Correnti representing Mr. Ziad Fouad Nabbout presented the petition for the 0 property at 86 Jackson Street (134 Wholesale and Automotive District Zone). 2. In the petition, date-stamped July 24, 2013, the Petitioner requests a Variance to reduce the minimum depth of the rear yard to ten feet, to allow for the construction of an automotive garage. 3. The requested Variance relief, if granted, would allow the construction of the automotive garage within 10 feet of the rear property boundary, which would fall short of the minimum requited rear yard depth of 25 feet. 4. At the public hearing for this petition members of the public spoke in favor and in opposition to the petition. Mr.Joseph A. O'Keefe, 28 Surrey Road, supported the petition. Councilor Todd Siegel of Ward 3 supported the petition. Prior to the meeting Ms. Diane DeLorenzo and Mr. Christian DeLorenzo, 10 Calabrese Street, submitted written comments asking the Board to consider, the Petitioner's disregard of conditions set by the Licensing Board on his business located at 34 Jackson Street, when deliberating on the Petitioner's request for a Variance. Ms. DeLorenzo also spoke at the public hearing in regards to this concern. The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petitions, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: S9.3 Board of Appeals §9.3.2 Powers, Subsection 3 1. The desired relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. The requested Variance concerns the conditions at the rear of the property. The land City of Salem f Board o Appeals October 2,2013 Project: 86 Jackson Street • Page 2 of 2 abutting the rear of the property is owned by the Boston & Maine Railroad Company, and is not in active use. 2. The unusual shape of the lot and its orientation in relation to Jackson Street create a unique condition in which a literal enforcement of the Table of Dimensional Requirements under the City of Salem's Zoning Ordinance, specifically the required minimum rear yard depth of 25 feet, would create a condition that would reduce the safety of vehicular traffic through the property, due to the required size and orientation of the building. Literal enforcement would cause a substantial hardship 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 Salem Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Variance from Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum depth of the rear yard to ten feet,is granted as conditioned. 2. In permitting the Variances to reduce the minimum depth of rear yard, the Salem Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate terms, conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran — Chair, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Watkins in favor) and none (0) opposed, to approve the Variance to the minimum depth of rear yard requirement, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the . Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 9. Storage containers used for, but not limited to, spare or stripped parts axe not permitted on the site. 10. Petitioner shall abide b Section 24-21 Kee in o unn istered abandoned or discarded motor vehicles trailers or Y p 8 .f 8 boals, of the City of Salem Code of Ordinances. `'fit EGa Can �- Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if mt)5 shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Lams Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of Ibis decision in the office of the 00 Clerk. Purruant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40 4, 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 Smdh • Re istg of Deeds. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL Sw.i3nt,bL�ssncriusr'rrs 0197 1013 OCT -2 P 12= 11 120\C nsi nnc �oN S'i'iu[r � Kin miu..n DRiscou. Tra.e:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 FILE Itn• ,wm CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. October 2, 2013 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of FRANK LANZILLO requesting an Appeal to the Decision of the Building Inspector in order to be relieved from the requirement to construct a garage on the property located at 11 HUBON ST (112). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on September 18, 2013 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Harris, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Eppley (Alternate), and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector, and petitions the Board to allow a Modification to the Approved Plan from the Board's Decision on 18 Thorndike Street, filed on February 29, 2012. • Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Sam Vitali, representing Mr. Frank Lanzillo, presented the petition for the property at 11 Hubon Street (112 —Residential Two Family Zone). 2. In the petition, date-stamped August 22, 2013, the Petitioner requests an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector, and petitions the Board to allow a Modification to the Approved Plan from the Board's Decision on 18 Thorndike Street, filed on February 29, 2012, in order to be relieved from the requirement to build a garage on the property. 3. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to develop the lot without a garage, but the number of off-street parking spaces would remain equal to the number of spaces shown in the previously Approved Plan (as recorded in the Decision dated February 29, 2012). 4. At the public hearing for this petition Mr. Patrick DeIulis, 6 Seemore Street, spoke in favor of the application. In hearings starting in October 2011 and ending February 2012, Mr. Deluhs presented the successful Petition requesting Variances necessary for the subdivision of 18 Thomdike Street. This subdivision led to the creation of 11 Hubon Street, which is subject to the Conditions set forth in the Board of Appears Decision on the 18 Thorndike Street subdivision application, dated February 29, 2012. Mr. DeIulis stated his understanding that the map approved with his Petition in February 2012 demonstrated the maximum build-out footprint that would be permitted. He expressed his support of the current Petition, which would effectively decrease the building density of the development. The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petitions, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's ` presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: C.iq of Salem Board of Appeals October 2,2013 Project: 11 Hubon Street Page 2 of 2 S9.4 Special Permits §9.4.2 Criteria, Subsections 1 through 6 1. The proposed Modification to the Approved Plan, relieving the Petitioner from the requirement to build a garage, will result in a lower building density in the neighborhood. Potential future owners of the property can pursue the construction of a garage should they so choose, but may also maintain the property as proposed,with more open space. 2. The proposed plan would not diminish the number of off-street parking spaces that would have been provided by the garage had it been constructed. 3. The character of the neighborhood will not be negatively impacted by permitting the Petitioner to not a construct a garage. The resulting smaller building footprint will in fact decrease building density in the neighborhood. Many properties in the City of Salem do not have garages. 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 Salem Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Modification to the Approved Plan from the Board's Decision on 18 Thorndike Street, filed on February 29, 2012,is granted as conditioned. 2. In permitting the Modification to the Approved Plan, to relieve the requirement for construction of a garage, the Salem Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate terms, conditions and safeguards as noted below. • In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran - Chair, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Watkins in favor) and none (0) opposed, to approve the Variance to the minimum depth of rear yard requirement, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. The Petitioner shall be relieved from the requirement to construct a garage at 11 Hubon Street, but shall comply with all other Conditions recorded in the Board's Decision on 18 Thomdike Street, dated February 29, 2012. iP-141 ` �- Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED V7ITH 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 ofice of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Pemit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate o_f the City Clerk has been filed waib the Essex South Registry of Deeds. .. / �CDIWIITIt CITY OF SALEM' MASSACHUSETTS t IT rm, Ian$, so; BOARD OF APPEAL 1613 OCT - �E � 120WASHINGI'ONSTRITJ + SAV.1{V1,TIASSACI-IUSI7I'IS019.70 P �' 1 KIMI4rauT DRIscou, TI u;:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 LE it MAYOR CITY CLERK SALEM,MASS. October 2, 2013 Withdrawal Without Prejudice City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of RPS REALTY & MANAGEMENT requesting a Special Permit under Section 3 Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to approve use of the property located at 2-4 LORING AVE (112) as a Residential Multi-Family dwelling with nine (9) dwelling units. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on September 18, 2013 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Eppley (Alternate). The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the request presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the submitted petition and testimony, voted four (4) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Watkins) and none (0) opposed to allow the Petitioner to withdraw this petition without prejudice. • GRANTED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 Rebecca Curran, Chair 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 Iowa Chapter 40A, and shall be filed witbin 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Incas Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permil granted bereiu shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certi kale of the City Clerk has been filed tvitb the Essex Soulb Registry of Deeds. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS aril ' BOARD OF APPEAL �' cTniniEoo�� OCT -2 P U -- 120\�4SI-IING'MN S'MIT I SALEN1,MASSACHUSF I 0197 0 �� ' KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TI Le:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 FILE MAYOR CITY CLERH, SALEM. MASS, October 2, 2013 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of ELIZABETH BEAVER requesting a Variance from Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum depth of the rear& side yards, to allow for construction of a kitchen& deck expansion, for the property located at 13 OCEAN AVE (R1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on September 18, 2013 pursuant to M.G.I.Ch. 40A, � 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy,Ms. Harris, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Eppley (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Variance from Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements and a Special Permit under Section 4.0 Dimensional Requimmenis of the Salem Zoning Ordinance Statements of fact: • 1. Ms.'Elizabeth Beaver presented the petition for the property at 13 Ocean Avenue (R1 — Residential One Family Zone). 2. In the petition, date-stamped August 27, 2013, the Petitioner requests Variances from the provisions P P g 9 of Section 4.1.1 for relief of the 10 foot minimum width of side yard requirement and 30 foot minimum depth of rear yard requirement. 3. The requested relief, if granted,would allow the Petitioner to expand the existing kitchen and adjacent deck, so that the kitchen and deck would extend to within 2 feet of the side property boundary, and the deck,with new stairs, would extend to within 9.9 feet of the rear property boundary. 4. At the public hearing for this petition, the Building Inspector and the Board determined that as parts of the existing building already extend to within 1.9 feet of the side property boundary, a Special Permit, rather than a Variance, is required for the encroachment on the minimum depth of side yard. A Variance was still found to be required for the encroachment on the minimum depth of rear yard. # s qr �oniagOtdmance A Aclttal Pmpostd3 Diineastonal Requtremetet a -1 qt r rx f RetrdrStan qu e dard( mensron 1 Ihmeuaton , Minimum width of side yard 10 feet 1.9 feet* 2 feet Mintmum depth of real yard a =y 30 feet ,A 17 4 feetwk fV 9.9 feet * At its narrowest point . 5. At the public hearing no members of the public in attendance spoke in favor or in opposition to the petition. No written comments regarding the petition were received prior to the public hearing. City of Salem Board of Appeals October 2,2013 Project: 13 Ocean Avenue Page 2 of 3 The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petitions, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: §9.3 Board of Appeals §9.3.2 Powers, Subsection 3 1. The desired relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the City, of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 2. The small lot size combined with the siting of the house to one side of the lot creates a unique condition in which a literal enforcement of the Table of Dimensional Requirements under the City of Salem's Zoning Ordinance, specifically the required minimum rear yard depth of 25 feet, would be a substantial hardship 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 Salem Board of Appeals concludes: 9.4 Special Permits . §9.4.2 Criteria, Subsections 1 through 6 1. The property is located in a dense neighborhood, characterized by many homes in close proximity to each other. The existing siting of the building on the property creates a condition in which the existing building footprint is already within 1.9 feet of the side property boundary. 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 Salem Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Variance from Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to encroach upon the required minimum depth of the rear yard is granted as conditioned. 2. A Special Permit under Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinances to encroach upon the required minimum depth of the side yard is granted as conditioned. 3. In permitting the Variance and the Special Permit, the Salem Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate terms, conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran — Chair, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Watkins in favor) and none (0) opposed, to approve the Variance to the minimum depth of rear yard requirement, and to approve the Special Permit for the minimum width of side yard requirement, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. The 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 City of Salem Board of Appeals October 2,2013 Project: 13 Ocean Avenue • Page 3 of 3 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure G. 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 confonnity with the provisions of the Ordinance. ilk ""_'"'��, Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if a)� shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Lanu Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the Gar Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit ranted herein shall not take effect until a cop),o the d 'i p g p� f ecrno n bearing the ce#iftcate of the City Clerk has been fried with the Essex South • Registry of Deeds. • r '..-,,pNDITq',9 - "� - 4 CITY OF SALEM N ASSACHUSETTS }k q BOARD OF APPEAL %Mrroa�" ;.. CT -2 P 12: I`0 120 V\ASi unc i oN�Snuccr ♦ SA1.1C%1,NIASWA IUsl-rrs 01970 KiMBEja.i.:vDniscou. 1ra.i�.:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 FILE it AIA)OR CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS, October 2, 2013 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Public Hearing - Petition of TWELVETONE, LLC requesting a Modification to a Special Permit under Section 3.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to change the use of the property from a non-conforming Commercial use to a Residential Single-Family use, for the property located at 1 PLEASANT ST (R2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on September 18, 2013 pursuant to M.G.J. Ch. 40A, ` 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: NIs. Curran (Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Harris, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Eppley (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Modification to a Special Permit pursuant to Sec. 3.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. Mr. Steven Spungin presented the petition for the property at 1 Pleasant Street (R2 Residential Two- Family Zone) 2. In the petition, date-stamped August 28, 2013, the Petitioner requests a Modification to a Special Permit to restore the property to Single-Family Residential use from a non-conforming Commercial P P tI g use (previously permitted by Special Permit). 3. The petitioner does not propose any exterior alterations to the structure. 4. The building was originally constructed as a one-family residence. 5. The 1 parking space adjacent to the building at 1 Pleasant Street will remain reserved for use by residents of 1 Pleasant Street. The other parking spaces will continue to be dedicated to use by the music school in the adjacent building. 6. At the public hearing no members of the public in attendance spoke in favor or in opposition to the petition. No written comments regarding the petition were received prior to the public hearing. The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petition, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: 9.4 Special Permits §9.4.2 Criteria, Subsections 1 through 6 1. The existing building was originally built for Residential use. 2. The property is in a R2 Residential Two-Family Zone, which allows Single-family and Two-family uses by-right. 9 Vity of Salem Board of Appeals October 2,2013 Project: I Pleasant Street Page 2 of 2 3. The exterior of the building and the parking accommodations will remain unchanged from the existing 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 Salem Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Modification to a Special Permit to change the property to a Single-Family Residential Use is granted as conditioned. 2. In permitting the Modification to a Special Permit, the Salem Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate terms, conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran — Chair, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Watkins in favor) and none (0) opposed, to approve the Modification to a Special Permit to change the property to a Single-Family Residential Use, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. The one (1) parking space adjacent to the building at 1 Pleasant Street will be dedicated to the use of the residents of 1 Pleasant Street. 2. All other conditions of the special permit remain in effect Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, tf any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Lams Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the Cite Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Lams Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision beaing the certificate of the Cite Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Regist j,of Deeds. ,•,. IL �ONt11T CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS �� roro' BOARD OF APPEAL 2113 OCT -2 P �' 09 MINE, 120 W '111NG 1'ON STREF1 1 SAI.I?Nl,n-LdSSA(:I IUSI:'1'1'S 01970 KN1B1Au,iw DRlscold, TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 FILE N bL11'OR CITY CLERK. SALEM, MASS, October 2, 2013 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY d/b/a NATIONAL GRID for a new Special Permit for an Essential Services Use pursuant to Section 3 Use Regulations and a Special Permit to extend a pre-existing non-conforming use pursuant to Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Structures, for the construction of a new control house with related facilities at the property located at 57 CANAL ST (134, R2, and Entrance Corridor Overlay Zoning Districts). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on September 18, 2013 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 5 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair),Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Harris, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Eppley (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Sec. 3.0 Use Table and a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. • Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Joshua Lee Smith representing New England Power Company, d/b/a/ National Grid and Mr. Dan McIntyre, consulting engineer, presented the petitions for the property at 57 Canal Street (B4, R2, and Entrance Corridor Overlay Zoning Districts). 2. In the petition, date-stamped August 28, 2013, the Petitioner requests a Special Permit for an Essential Services Use pursuant to Section 3 Use ReSulations and a Special Permit to extend a pre- existing non-conforming use pursuant to Section 3.3.2 Nonconfonving Uses and Structures, for the construction of a new control house with related facilities. The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petitions, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: C9.4 Special Permits §9.4.2 Criteria, Subsections 1 through 6 1. The facility is and has been an essential services use since the 1950s. The facility as proposed continues that essential services use to meet the needs of the community. The updating of the control house and related facilities is necessary to improve the capacity and reliability of electrical service to the City of Salem and neighboring communities. 2. The facility, as proposed, does not change the traffic flow or safety of the neighborhood traffic flow of the neighborhood. 3. The proposed facility will not adversely impact the public services and has adequate access to utilities. J City of Salem Board of Appeals October 2,2013 Project: 57 Canal Street Page 2 of 3 4. The proposed facility will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. 5. The proposed work includes planting new trees and shrubs for screening of abutters, and screening of Canal Street where feasible. All new lighting will be directed downward toward equipment on-site, and will not be directed out of the site." On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the plans, documents and testimony, the Salem Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Special Permit for an Essential Services Use under Section 3 Use Table and a Special Permit to extend a pre-existing non-conforming use under Section 3.3.2 for the construction of a new control house with related facilities are granted as conditioned. 2. In permitting the Special Permit for an Essential Sen*ices Use and a Special Permit to extend a pre- existing non-conforming use, the Salem Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate terms, conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran — Chair, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Watkins in favor) and none (0) opposed, to approve the Special Permit for an Essential Services Use and the Special Permit to extend a pre-existing non-conforming use, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordunances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner 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. A retaining wall shall be constructed along the western boundary of 8 Cypress Street, and no barbed wire shall be affixed to the top of the chain link fence that will be installed on top of the retaining wall along the western boundary of 8 Cypress Street. 9. Additional landscaping shall be installed along Canal Street, where feasible, and along the northern boundary of 8 Cypress Street,in order to provide screening. 10. The location of the building may vary from the location shown on the submitted plans by no more than 20 feet eastward, and it shall not be moved any closer to Canal Street. 11. The barbed wire affixed to the top of the chain link fence bordering the north side of 8 Cypress Street shall be angled in toward the site, and shall not be angled out over 8 Cypress Street. "Akcur Gin /Dg",_ Rebecca Curran, Chan Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN PILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK dty of Salem Board of Appeals October 2,2013 Project: 57 Canal Street Page 3 of 3 Appeal from Ibis decision, if any, shall be made pursuanl to Seclion 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filnig of this decision in !be olive of Me City Clerk. Purtuarrl to the Masmchurellt General L axs Chapter 40A, Seaton 11, Ibe Variance or Special Pernul granted herein shall not Jake effect until a copy of Ibe deasion bearing the cer6fcale o_f the City Clerk bas been filed witb the Essex South Regutp,of Deeds. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,1N'1ASSACFIUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRTscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You am hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppealr will hold it regulary scheduled meeting on Wednesday, October 16, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at City HallAnnex, BM 313, 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA Rebecca Curran,Chair MEETING AGENDA S' I. ROLL CALL r'1 W r c II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES `^ � c' ➢ September 18,2013 meeting n m 00 m v III. REGULAR AGENDA 3 3 FP n a Project: A Public Hearing for a petition requesting Variances under Section 4.0 Dim n ional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the creation of two lots,each smaller than the required minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet,and with less than the required minimum lot frontage of 100 feet and the required minimum lot width of 100 feet. Applicant: PETER HANTZOPOULOS Location: 13 CHERRY HILL AVENUE (RI Zoning District) Project: A Public Hearing for a petition requesting Variances under Section 5.1 Off-Street Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from: the maximum allowed entrance and exit drive width of 20 feet,prohibition of parking spaces within 5 feet of the street line, and encroachment upon the required 2 foot minimum setback of a parking lot and associated entrance and exit drives from all lot lines. Applicant: MARC TRANOS Location: 47 MEMORIAL DRIVE (R1 Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT This-notice-pasted on "afftr:iaUSURed Bpi City Hall, Salem, Mass. on O lobe,, 01 Zor3 at 12,t' ; H in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • `°' �� City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet F n, rfF 9��rfmiE' Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date 10 20 12, Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail ( G Qticc 9 F ?q LP6 MAY( G �✓ Oi� t' - �'9� ��IVtG �lPr ClkS?.AP� �Vl cj✓'_ K2 yv\Q±p t t j Da Page of tl ,CONUI CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON S1R6'E:i 1 SALEMt,MA$$ACI-IUSF:'I'fS 01970 KIM BERLEY DRISCOLL TELL:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Dana Menon,Staff Planner DATE: October 8,2013 RE: Meeting Agenda for October 16,2013 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Meeting Minutes from 09/18/2013 • 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 10/16/2013 meeting. 1. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. Petition of PETER HANTZOPOULOS requesting Variances under Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the creation of two lots,each smaller than the required minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet, and with less than the required minimum lot frontage of 100 feet and the required minimum lot width of 100 feet,for the property located at 13 CHERRY HILL AVENUE (Rl Zoning District). The variances,if granted,would relax the dimensional requirements for minimum lot area,minimum lot frontage,and minimum lot width. See the table below. x S O.#, 'ia,., a:I 'a 9 � x -.. . . N * W - Zantng Drdtttance Proposed Dimension a r Proposed Dimension +�DlAlenSiOn2l Requlletnents * 5 ra+ arRegmxed Standard i " t LoC A* � d �'Lot B ` 'x` ..aV :. "aifi'. m"#+#Fr"'Yund"•. . L 5 ` dl� W^ win6+`<&I wb ci F k'W fi ..$JG pe F Minimum Lot Area 15,000 11,413 11,416 (square feet) Minimum lot frontage(feet) 41;01 a 100 "'firX, s G 75.00 `" , ,, d �75 00„ $. Minimum lot width(feet)* 100 74.30 75.75 * "Minimum lot width required shall be measured at the rear of the required front yard depth and on a fine parallel to the right-of-way line..." (Section 4.1.2 Notes to Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning • Ordinance). The required front yard depth in an R1 District is fifteen (15) feet. The Written Statement submitted states "Having thisproperty as one lotposes a hardship as we have two daughters for whom we would like to build homes and need two separate lots." MGL Ch. 40A Section 10 states that a permit granting r.. City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—October 16, 2013 Page 2 of 3 authority may grant a Variance"... where such permit granting authority specifically finds that owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape,or topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or by-law would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or appellant,and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of such ordinance or by-law." The Written Statement submitted with the application states "The desirable rek'eefprovided by the variance will not cause any detriment to the pubkcgood, nor will it affect the character of the neighborhood negatively. In fact, most of the surrounding lots with homes built on them have 50 ft.frontage and are much smaller than the lots I am proposing for this variance." Please see Attachment A-parcel maps of the immediate neighborhood from the City of Salem Online Property Viewer- for your reference in this matter. The petitioner's application,including a plot plan,is included for your consideration. 2. Petition of MARC TRANOS requesting Variances under Section 5.1 Off-Street Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from: the maximum allowed entrance and exit drive width of 20 feet, prohibition of parking spaces within 5 feet of the street line,and encroachment upon the required 2 foot minimum setback of a parking lot and associated entrance and exit drives from all lot lines,for the property located at 47 MEMORIAL DRIVE (111 Zoning District). The variances,if granted,would allow an entrance/exit drive width greater than the maximum width set in the Zoning Ordinance, allow parking spaces within 5 feet of the street line, and allow the location of a parking lot and associated entrance/exit drives within 2 feet of a lot line. See the table below for dimensional variances: • ' d .u, „ �M y �x ✓.�y,$`'�t du 4t a A `:� w.:sr q, K- ; ZonrngOrdinance„� r ,,, Ptoposeds ^ N Dimensional Requirements r m' Required Standard a "- + Dimension w 1 1..C,4,16.ak M 4;; s Maximum width of entrance/ exit 20 feet 36.60 feet drives at street lot line(Section 5.1.5) - Minimum distance of surfaced parking lot and all entrance/exit drives from'all "2 fe"ef""a s'* cvkagirl� 0 feet " •* t 4 O 'A k'.. at eastern lot line,,1 lot lines (Section 516) •° �* K " r W m w'N • *� ^": n t ui,o-,w.ati P. c "� J u" "rmr In addition to the Minimum distance of surfaced parking lot and driveways from all lot lines (Section 5.1.6, as shown in the table above),Section 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces further specifies that at the street lot line .. no area within five (5) feet of the street line,including any driveway, shall be considered as a parking space in RC,R1,R2 and R3 Districts." This means that in the"existing drive" configuration submitted by the Petitioner, the depth of the paved area from the street front must be a minimum of 14 feet(5 foot setback from the street line plus 9 foot minimum stall width). The"existing drive"shown on the submitted plot plan would allow one (1) car to park in the drive, clear of the five (5) foot minimum buffer from the street fine,but a second vehicle would be approximately four(4) feet from the street fine. A minimum of two (2) parking spaces is required for a dwelling in an RI District,under section 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The Petition Form submitted by the Petitioner incorrectly cites Section 5.14 of the Zoning Ordinance. The correct Sections are noted in the table and description above. Please note that the Petitioner has in fact already • constructed the driveway for which the Variances are requested. The submitted Plot Plan shows the layout of this constructed,nonconforming driveway. k City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—October 16, 2013 Page 3 of 3 • Personal communication with the Petitioner(via phone) clarified the Statement of Hardship submitted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner made the shown changes to the driveway and parking area in order to: • Prevent runoff from the street from flowing downhill and pooling against the foundation of the house • Create additional space for parking on the property The Petitioner also stated that the driveways for 47 Memorial Drive and 49 Memorial Drive have been contiguous for some time. The Petitioner included two Google maps in the Petition to illustrate this—one from 2005,and one from 2008. On June 29th, 2011, the Petitioner submitted an application to the Board of Appeal to grant a Special Permit and a Variance per Sec. 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure,at 47 Memorial Drive. On August 3, 2012, the Board of Appeals issued a Decision granting the requested Special Permit and Variance. A copy of the Decision is included under Attachment B for your reference. The petitioner's application,including a plot plan,is included for your consideration. Please also see Attachment C-parcel maps of the immediate neighborhood from the City of Salem Online Property Viewer- for your reference. Attachments Attachment A—Parcel maps of 13 Cherry Hill Avenue and surrounds from the City of Salem Online Property Viewer Attachment B—August 3�d,2011 Board of Appeals Decision regarding the petition of Marc Tranos requesting • relief to extend a nonconforming structure on the property located at 47 Memorial Drive. Attachment C—Parcel maps of 47 Memorial Drive and surrounds from the City of Salem Online Property Viewer • J • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, October 16,2013 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals("Salem ZBA")was held on Wednesday, October 16, 2013 in the third floor conference room of 120 Washington St., Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Acting Chair Mike Duffy opens the meeting at 6:34 p.m. Roll Call Those present were: Mike Duffy(Acting Chair),Tom Watkins, Richard Dionne, and David Eppley (Alternate) Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Dana Menon,Staff Planner. Approval of Minutes September 19,2013 Draft Meeting Minutes Mr. Eppley pointed out various non-substantive typographical errors in the draft minutes. Motion and Vote:Mr. Watkins moves to approve the minutes as amended,seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with four(4)in favor(Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Mr. Dionne) • and none(0)opposed. Mr. Duffy notes that only four Board Members are present, so any vote would require an affirmative vote by all four members in order to be approved. Mr. Duffy announces that the Petitioner for 13 Cherry Hill Avenue has requested that the petition be continued to the next meeting, so that it may be heard by a full board. The next meeting will be held on November 20, 2013 at 6:30pm. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins moves to continue 13 Cherry Hill Avenue to November 20, 2013 with no evidence taken, seconded by Mr. Dionne. The vote was unanimous with four(4)in favor(Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Mr. Dionne)and none(0)opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Duffy clarified to members of the public that the public hearing on this matter has been continued, so no further input will be taken at this time. He then introduced the next item on the agenda. Public Hearing: petition of MARC TRANOS requesting Variances under Section 5.1 Off-Street Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from:the maximum allowed entrance and exit drive width of 20 feet, prohibition of parking spaces within 5 feet of the street line,and encroachment upon the required 2 foot minimum setback of a parking lot and associated entrance and exit drives from all lot lines for the property located at 47 MEMORIAL DRIVE(Rl Zoning District). Documents& Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 9/25/2013 and accompanying materials ➢ Site plan titled "Plot Plan for Tranos Residence at 47 Memorial Drive,Salem, MA" by Native • Landscapes, dated 9/23/2013 ➢ 2005 Google Earth aerial image of 47 Memorial Drive and surrounds 1 of 4 4 `+J ➢ 2008 Google Earth aerial image of 47 Memorial Drive and surrounds • ➢ Portion of topographical map showing 47 Memorial Drive area, submitted at the meeting ➢ 2010 Google Earth aerial image of 47 Memorial Drive and surrounds, submitted at the meeting Mr. Tranos presents the petition. He explains that due to the topography of the site, rain water flows downhill across the street and into the front yard of 47 Memorial Drive,where it has eroded the front yard and created a basin. There is negative pitch from the back of the sidewalk along Memorial Drive toward the house. The rain water collects in the basin, against the side of the house,and it seeps through the foundation. Mr.Tranos spoke with various professionals(a foundation waterproofer and a mason), about correcting this situation. He was advised to raise the height of the front yard, so that the pitch of the yard would direct the stormwater back toward the street and into the storm drain. He was also advised that putting an impermeable surface in the area would further prevent stormwater intrusion into the foundation. Noting the small area for parking, he was advised to make the area into a circular driveway. Mr.Tranos consulted with the Building Inspector, Mr. St. Pierre,who stated that as far as he knew, Mr.Tranos' proposed project could be completed without seeking zoning relief. Mr.Tranos references the 2010 Google Earth aerial image submitted at the hearing,to illustrate that 9 of the 20 houses around his property(47 Memorial Drive) have cars parked within 5 feet of the street. Mr. Tranos notes that the original driveway at the property was 20 feet, as the property shares a contiguous driveway with the neighbor. This condition has existed for about 20 years. Mr.Tranos references the 2008 Google Earth aerial image (submitted with the application)to illustrate that the neighbor across the street has a 30-foot wide driveway curb cut. Mr.Tranos notes that the shared driveway with his neighbor, Mr. Marfongelli, at 49 Memorial Drive • (east abutter), has existed for at least 20 years, as confirmed with Mr. Marfongelli. When Mr.Tranos installed the new circular driveway, he left a small strip of gravel to allow any runoff from his new circular driveway to infiltrate through the gravel, rather than run across into Mr. Marfongelli's property. Mr. St. Pierre confirms that Mr.Tranos consulted with him. When Mr.Tranos called, Mr.St. Pierre was unable to find the off-street parking regulations in the re-codified Zoning Code,so Mr.St. Pierre believed that they had been omitted in the updated Zoning Code. Mr. Duffy opens up the issue for public comment. Mr.Tony Marfongelli,49 Memorial Drive asks if there will be any changes to what has already been constructed. Mr. Tranos replies that he will extend the driveway on the side adjacent to 45 Memorial Drive,to go up to 2 feet from the property boundary on that side, in order to make it easier to turn in the driveway. Currently the drive only extends to within 3.3 feet of that boundary, but now that he knows that 2 feet is permitted, he will extend the drive to that point. Ms. Linda Morin, 44 Memorial Drive—saw the sidewalk and tree roots being torn up, without any notice to, or input from,the abutters. Even though the mason and the Building Inspector told Mr.Tranos that they thought the work was OK, people still have to follow the rules. Ms. Morin's concerns are aesthetics and snow removal—will the snow be plowed around the new circular driveway and onto her property? 2of4 c Ms. Kimberly Smith,45 Memorial Drive—main concern is that the minimum 2-foot setback is • maintained between the applicant's driveway and her property. Also concerned about the drainage— now that the area has been re-graded, and the area has been changed from grass to pavers,will additional runoff wind up on their property? Mr. St. Pierre states that per City ordinance,you are not allowed to push snow off of your property, and you are not permitted to push windrow off of your property. The City does enforce this. Mr.Tranos states that the neighbor's concerns are valid. He will likely shovel the driveway rather than plow it, so as not to damage the pavers. He will put the snow on the horseshoe in the center of the driveway. He has spoken with Ms.Smith about drainage, and they have agreed to watch the situation. Nothing is being changed on Mr. Marfongelli's side. Mr.Tranos states that he has made a significant financial investment in the project, based on his conversation with Mr. St. Pierre and his understanding that he would be able to construct the driveway. Mr. St. Pierre also notes that he has a curb removal permit on his desk,which was submitted after-the- fact. He has been holding it pending the outcome of this hearing. Ms. Morin states that when she called the City to inquire about the project, no one could find a curb removal permit for the project. Mr.Tranos has put sod and pea stone around parts of the new driveway(near the property line along 45 Memorial Drive)to help absorb any additional runoff. Mr.Tsitsinos notes that he visited the property, and saw that there is a little wall around the back of the • driveway. Mr.Tranos replies that he installed that to help raise the elevation, to gain positive pitch from the front of the house towards the street. Mr. Duffy states that there are conditions that create hardship, specifically: erosion has created a condition such that the front yard traps stormwater, and this stormwater intrudes into the basement of the home. The homeowner has sought advice from various professionals to solve the problem. The described work does not nullify or substantially derogate from the purpose of the ordinance. Mr. Duffy thanks the abutters for attending and commenting on the fact that the work and the seeking of approvals were done in the wrong order. He further notes that while there was a mistake made in the advice given to the applicant by the Building Inspector, but everyone is charged with having knowledge of the City codes. You should consult the City, but have your own council to advise you. The conditions for obtaining the requested Variances have been met. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins moves to approve the petition with 2 standard conditions,seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with four(4)in favor(Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Mr. Dionne) and none (0)opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes. Adjournment Motion and Vote: Mr. Tsitsinos moves to adjourn the meeting,seconded by Mr. Dionne and unanimously approved 4-0. The meeting adjourns at 7.00 p.m. • 3 of 4 a 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://solem.com/PogesISo/emMA ZoninaAapealsMin/ Respectfully submitted, Dana Menon, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 11/20/2013 • • 4of4 e0ND1 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS a BOARD OF APPEAL s 9�Pirrrveoo? 720 Wasrn;vciuN Sas 29 P 2-- 33ru� 't� 5:��.r:n[,Dlnss,�cFiusf-rrs 01970 KmBERLI?-.Y D1uscolt. T 1.i;:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 FILE. It I'UA'OR CITY CLERK(, SALEM, MASS, October 29, 2013 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of MARC TRANOS requesting Variances under Section 5.1 Off-Street Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from: the maximum allowed entrance and exit drive width of 20 feet,prohibition of parking spaces within 5 feet of the street line, and encroachment upon the required 2 foot minimum setback of a parking lot and associated entrance and exit drives from all lot lines at 47 MEMORIAL DRIVE (R1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 16, 2013 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 11.The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Mr. Duffy (acting Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos. The Petitioner seeks Variances from Section 5.1 O fStreet Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: • 1. In the petition date-stamped September 25, 2013, the Petitioner requested Variances to keep a newly- constructed driveway in its current configuration, at the property located at 47 Memorial Drive. 2. Mr. Marc Tranos presented the petition for the property at 47 Memorial Drive. 3. Mr. Tranos stated that due to the topography of the site, rain water flows across the street and into the front yard of 47 Memorial Drive. The rain water collects against the side of the house and seeps through the foundation. Mr. Tranos consulted with various professionals about correcting this situation, and was advised to adjust the height and pitch of the front yard to direct the rain water off of the property, and to install an impermeable surface. 4. Mr. Tranos and the Building Inspector each stated that Mr. Tranos had contacted the Building Inspector regarding the project, and the Building Inspector had informed Mr. Tranos that the proposed project could be completed without seeking Zoning relief. Mr. Tranos proceeded with the project, and learned after construction was complete that zoning relief was in fact required. 5. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to keep his newly-expanded driveway in its current configuration with: an entrance and exit drive width at the street lot line greater than the maximum 20-foot width at the street lot line set in the Zoning Ordinance, a parking space within 4 feet of the street line, and the location of a parking lot and associated entrance/exit drives immediately adjacent to the eastern lot line (at the property boundary shared with 49 Memorial Drive). 6. At the public hearing, Mr. Tony Marfongelli of 49 Memorial Drive, Ms. Linda Morin of 44 Memorial Drive, and Ms. Kimberly Smith of 45 Memorial Drive each posed questions on various aspects of the • project. 1NIs. Morin also mentioned her disapproval of the applicant proceeding with work prior to obtaining. the necessary perm ts. No written comments regarding the petition were received prior to the public hearing. City of Salem Board of Appeals October 29,2013 Project: 47 Memorial Drive • Page 2 of 2 The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petitions, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: Findings: flow from the street onto the property 1. The erosion of the front yard, caused by rain water over , results in pooling of water against the foundation of the house and intrusion of water into the basement of the property. This creates a unique condition in which a literal enforcement of the O§Street Parking requirements under the City of Salem's Zoning Ordinance, specifically the maximum allowed entrance and exit drive width at the street lot line of 20 feet, prohibition of parking spaces within 5 feet of the street line, and encroachment upon the required 2 foot minimum setback of a parking lot and associated entrance and exit drives from all lot lines, would be a substantial hardship to the appellant. 2. The desired relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. 3. The desired relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor (Mr. Duffy—Acting Chair, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor) and none 0 opposed, • to approve the Variances from; the maximum allowed entrance and exit drive width at the street 1(t tine of 20 feet to allow 33 feet, prohibition of parking spaces within 5 feet of the street line to allow a parking space . parking lot and associated entrance and exit drives from all lot lines to allow no setback (0 feet) o within four (4) feet of the street lot line, and encroachment upon the required 2 foot minimum setback of a lot line only, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: n the eastern 1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Mike Duffy,Act(ng Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, t/anr,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the klanacbusetts General L axs Chapter 40A, and shall be filed mitbin 20 days of yiling of ibis decision in the o lice of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the r11ay-buselli General Lams Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Lanance or Special Permitgranted herein shall not Cake effect until a ropy of the deasiou bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Eseea'South Registry of Deeds. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS , V BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETtS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL T`sLE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday, October 16, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem, MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of PETER HANTZOPOULOS requesting Variances under Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the creation of two lots, each smaller than the required minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet, and with less than the required minimum lot frontage of 100 feet and the required minimum lot width of 100 feet, for the property located at 13 CHERRY HILL AVENUE (111 Zoning District). Decision: Continued to the Wednesday, November 20te regular meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem,MA. Petition of MARC TRANOS requesting Variances under Section 5.1 Off-Street Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from: the maximum allowed entrance and exit drive width at the street lot line of 20 feet to allow 33 feet, prohibition of parking spaces within 5 feet of the street line to allow a parking •space within four (4) feet of the street lot line, and encroachment upon the required 2 foot minimum setback of a parking lot and associated entrance and exit drives from all lot lines to allow no setback (0 feet) on the eastern lot line only,at 47 MEMORIAL DRIVE (R1 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on October 29,2013 • f,ONU1T CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS :. � BOARD OF APPEAL 9�/MIN6W'" 120 WAS]iING"PCIN S"IREE"C 4 SAL[?bI,LPL\SS:\CHUSL"9'1'S 01970 KImBF:RLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You are hereby noted that the Salem Zoning Board of-Appeals will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday,November 20, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall Annev, RM 313, 120 lFasbington St., Salem,M-1 Rebecca Curran, Chair REVISED MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES � W r Z ➢ October 16, 2013 meeting X 6 Nm � III. REGULAR AGENDA • m D rn _ Project: A Public Hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit under Sectioz�.3 No=onjonning Uses and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from an existing ponco0P*r ing use to 00 another non-conforming use;a Variance under Section 5.1.2 Location ofAe Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow required parking to be located on a separate lot;Variances under Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow encroachment on the minimum allowed,x dth of side yard and minimum allowed depth of rear yard,and relief from the maximum allowed lot coverage by buildings (CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 18,2013 MEETING). Applicant: SPIRO KOUNSALIEH Location: 152-156 DERBY STREET (B1 Zoning District) Project: A Public Hearing for a petition requesting Variances under Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the creation of two lots, each smaller than the required minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet,and with less than the required minimum lot frontage of 100 feet and the required minimum lot width of 100 feet. (CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 18,2013 MEETING). Applicant: PETER HANTZOPOULOS Location: 13 CHERRY HILL AVENUE (R1 Zoning District) Project: A Public Hearing for a petition requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to increase the height of a previously approved tank by 5 feet, for a proposed total height of 43 feet and 9 inches. The construction of the tank to a height of 38 feet and 9 inches was previously approved in a Decision dated Mav 29, 2013. (RESCHEDULED TO DECEMBER 18,2013 MEETING). It Applicant: JACQUELINE'S GOURMET COOKIES Location: 96 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD (BPD Zoning District) This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall �Salem, Mass. on /\16V. f/ 3 , 2ot at !!=3 b in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for November 20,2013 Meeting Page 2 of 2 Project: A Public Hearing for a petition requesting a Variance from Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimenyional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum depth of rear yard to allow for enclosure of an existing open, first-floor deck Applicant: FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ Location: 152 LORING AVENUE (Rl Zoning District) Project: A Public Hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.1 Principal Uyey of the. Salem Zoning Ordinance to operate a general auto repair business. Applicant: DAVID KAPLAN and RYAN McSHAY Location: 164 BOSTON STREET (Industrial Zoning District) Project: A Public Hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of an existing Rooming House to 5 residential units. Applicant: EMIL KRANER Location: 2 EMERTON STREET (112 Zoning District) Project: A Public Hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3 2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow use of the property for auto repair,auto part sales, boat and engine service, and auto body work. Applicant: MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN Location: 62 JEFFERSON AVE (R1 Zoning District) • Project: A Public Hearing for a petition requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the maximum allowed height of buildings in feet and the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories,and a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow an extension of an existing nonconforming structure, for the construction of a roof deck;and a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the reconstruction of two existing nonconforming garages. Applicant: RICHARD TURNER Location: 18 OCEAN TERRACE (R1 Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT • City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet r� Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date ► 3 Name Mailin Address Phone # E-mail r l G�7 KS��I C) Yet, AVL I Ill o✓+ 3f. 4 (��7 � � `` �Z� CU �+� o�o�G�gfRoi �,Cb»'1 . /Q)D /21U/ &A S& NAyViL4ND LyNg 78l =39`-Z,?D7 =� �"10✓,jI/�� Z( G�J?/{L--S�'K- S� ?G SSG/ G uaJoU/� /7/ r Gr% 4m, igA4S /6 6 ISOs�an S4- $n.�-. Atr 97,fOc73--0jc/e9 l C�lle� �s F -e&- ct S+ -7�ZD 61OS 1 Z S�_ CL 7 O C�f 97 Irvv Page of -2— V��Co �94�5 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet • inF f Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Q Kr.rAP `�_\ _ H5 1151 "*?ja3 1_cj_1 o� "? S-r -)F--)YY--a-ys Lq g A ' ^ �T p A �D P&OV 1��/��N S`T' `3 7YY—�S�fc' /ica575 o/,—' C2 ril•cet�� 2n lo LSaq CL 979,71G` ZLZV 01w r or (agmaw Page Z of fti CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 W,kSHING'FON S'fREET♦ S,XLE.M,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals mill hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday,November 20, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall Annex, RM 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Rebecca Curran,Chair MEETING AGENDA o W I. ROLL CALL m z cmM II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES xF — Dm W ➢ October 16,2013 meeting m 3 III. REGULAR AGENDA n • � tr Project: A Public Hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3 Nonconforming Uses and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from an existing nonconforming use to another non-conforming use;a Variance under Section 5.1.2 Location of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow required parking to be located on a separate lot;Variances under Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow encroachment on the minimum allowed width of side yard and minimum allowed depth of rear yard,and relief from the maximum allowed lot coverage by buildings (CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 18,2013 MEETING). Applicant: SPIRO KOUNSALIEH Location: 152-156 DERBY STREET (BI Zoning District) Project: A Public Hearing for a petition requesting Variances under Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the creation of two lots;each smaller than the required minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet, and with less than the required minimum lot frontage of 100 feet and the required minimum lot width of 100 feet. Applicant: PETER HANTZOPOULOS Location: 13 CHERRY HILL AVENUE(R1 Zoning District) Project: A Public Hearing for a petition requesting a Variance from Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum depth of rear yard to allow for enclosure.of an existing open, first-floor deck Applicant: FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ Location: 152 LORING AVENUE (R1 Zoning District) • Project: A Public Hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.1 Principal User of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to operate a general auto repair business. Applicant: DAVID KAPLAN and RYAN McSHAY Location: 164 BOSTON STREET (Industrial Zoning District) City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for November 20,2013 Meeting • Page 2 of 2 Project: A Public Hearing for a petition requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to increase the height of a previously approved tank by 5 feet, for a proposed total height of 43 feet and 9 inches. The construction of the tank to a height of 38 feet and 9 inches was previously approved in a Decision dated May 29,2013. Applicant: JACQUELINE'S GOURMET COOKIES Location: 96 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD (BPD Zoning District) Project: A Public Hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of an existing Rooming House to 5 residential units. Applicant: EMIL KRANER Location: 2 EMERTON STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project: A Public Hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow use of the property for auto repair,auto part sales, boat and engine service,and auto body work. Applicant: MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN Location: 62 JEFFERSON AVE (R1 Zoning District) Project: A Public Hearing for a petition requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the maximum allowed height of buildings in feet and the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories, and a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow an extension of an existing nonconforming • structure, for the construction of a roof deck;and a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the reconstruction of two existing nonconforming garages. Applicant: RICHARD TURNER Location: 18 OCEAN TERRACE (R1 Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT This notice posted on "Officia Bulletin Board" City Hall, Slam, Mass. on /Job, /3, Zo t3 at 6-� � in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A. Sections 18-25. • ��i�ulr mop CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSEM BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET+ $ALEM,MASSACI-IUSETIS 01970 KIMBERLEYDRisc= 'FEEE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Dana Menon,Staff Planner DATE: November 14,2013 RE: Meeting Agenda for November 20,2013 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Meeting Minutes from 10/16/2013 • 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 11/20/2013 meeting. 1. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. Petition of SPIRO KOUNSALIEH requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3 Nonconforming Uses and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from an existing nonconforming use to another non-confortning use; a Variance under Section 5.1.2 Location of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow required parking to be located on a separate lot;Variances under Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow encroachment on the minimum allowed width of side yard and minimum allowed depth of rear yard, and relief from the maximum allowed lot coverage by buildings, at the property located at 152-156 DERBY STREET (Bl Zoning District). Per the letter included as Attachment A(which will be read into the record at the public hearing),the applicant has requested that the hearing of this petition be continued to the next,scheduled meeting- December 18, 2013 - so that they may obtain and file a parking lease that is referenced in their application. The application materials will be sent to you for review in advance of the December 18,2013 meeting. 2. Petition of PETER HANTZOPOULOS requesting Variances under Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the creation of two lots, each smaller than the required minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet, and with less than the required minimum lot frontage of 100 feet and the required minimum lot width of 100 feet,for the property located at 13 CHERRY HILL AVENUE (R1 Zoning District). At A pwum meting(Cktoer 16, 2013)the applicant guested to cummre the h i nng 6f tbu panion,as there were a nimnun Homer of Board nrni s in amztiame The variances,if granted,would relax the dimensional requirements for minimum lot area,minimum lot frontage, and minimum lot width. See the table below. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum- November 20,2013 Page 2 of 5 �` '�' r,v a i F r.w ad- u'9'fjq a gd'r,„�• t• r7—e t tur t t3 :?e iG #{`33>w 9Ii �wx " %x* x ui�f Zomng Ordrnance Proposed Dmmenron �Pmpoed DrmensAon ' DnT1 ens tonal Reglllrements r s Re ulred S�andard a I�` t,t LotaAt,�...}�x °,s t'"�r t ]•.fot B = > }t'. ,lam rd?ai V r ,n rnrn tt t,�u`�nr ,t....", t,,,,=r Minimum Lot Area(square feet) 15,000 11,413 11,416 c. Mimmum lot frontage(£eet) E`100" �_ `� E�5E ,? «75 00 r °' rF 75 00 ,. _ . . :: ,r .. I. Minimum lot width(feet)* 100 74.30 75.75 *"Minimum lot width required shall be measured at the rear of the required front yard depth and on a line parallel to the right-of-way line... " (Section 4.1.2 Notes to Tape cf Dirreresiand Requinwents of the Salem Zoning Ordinance). The required front yard depth in an Rl District is fifteen (15) feet. The Written Statement submitted states "Hazing this prGpeny as arm lot poses a hardship as Ise haze=daughters far uhom ue would like to build home'and rxl tmn separate lots." MGL Ch.40A Section 10 states that a pemut granting authority may grant a Variance "... where such permit granting authority specifically finds that owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions,shape,or topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located,a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or by-law would involve substantial hardship,financial or otherwise,to the petitioner or appellant, and that desirable relief maybe granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of such ordinance or by-law." The Written Statement submitted with the application states "The desirable ml of prow"by the wnanx will not cause arty detnnrnt to tle public gw� nor?Pill it affect the daaracter of the neighhorhad negatizely. In fact; rust qf the 5wmunhT lots ?Pith hours built on them haze 50 ft f omagr and are r icb snu&than the lots I am propcsiT far this wnanx." Please see Attachment A- parcel maps of the immediate neighborhood from the City of Salem Online Property Viewer- for your reference in this matter. The petitioner's application,including a plot plan,was included in the packet sent out in advance of the previous meeting(October 16,2013). 3. Petition of FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ requesting a Variance from Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum depth of rear yard to allow for enclosure of an existing open,first-floor deck, for the property located at 152 LORING AVENUE (Rl Zoning District). The variance,if granted,would allow the enclosure of an existing deck that is within 7.5 feet of the rear lot line. The minimum depth of rear yard required in Section 4.0 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance is 30 feet. This lot is located on the comer of Station Road and Loring Avenue. The building address is on Loring Avenue, so the western lot line is the rear lot line,and the northern lot line is the side lot line. The minimum width of side yard required is 10 feet,so the proposed improvements do not impede on the required side yard width. iv, pty4„U,a,r,egR F!n y01N t n�'�`,,' aSs+ xiud�6 .wa¢, ,',t{;` DunenstonalRe utrements Zomn OrdmanceRe uiredSta dardt� 'Pro osedDimeusionso 9t -fig.. tq , n. "1 P x Minimum depth of rear yard(feet) 30 7.5 • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum- November 20,2013 Page 3 of 5 • 4. Petition of DAVID KAPLAN and RYAN McSHAY requesting a Special Pernut under Section 3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to operate a general auto repair business on the property located at 164 BOSTON STREET (Industrial Zoning District). The Petitioners wish to operate a"general auto repair" business at 164 Boston Street,which is in the Industrial zoning district. According to Section 3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, "Motor vehicle light service" is allowed bright in an Industrial Zone,but"Motor Vehicle General and Body Repair" requires a Special Permit from the Board of Appeals. Section 10.0 Definitions of the Ordinance defines: • "Motor vehicle light service" as "Premises for the supplying of fuel, oil,lubrication,washing,or minor repair services,but not to include bodywork,painting,or major repairs." • "Motor Vehicle General Repairs" as "Premises for the servicing and repair of autos,but not to include fuel sales." 5. Petition of JACQUELINE'S GOURMET COOKIES, requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to increase the height of a previously approved tank by 5 feet, for a proposed total height of 43 feet and 9 inches. The construction of the tank to a height of 38 feet and 9 inches was previously approved in a Decision dated May 29, 2013, at the property located at 96 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD(BPD Zoning District). The applicant is required to submit a request for a variance as the tank which they are proposing to enlarge is less than ten(10) feet from the principal building, and exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height. While the applicant wrote that they are seeking"Variances from Section 7-8", and the petition was advertised as being a request for • a Variance under Section 4.1.1,the Variances are actually needed under Section 3.2.4 AaessoryBudd*and Structures. Seethe table,below iE�'N"N " mlu3" ='dmaa i . d��i� t L t' i� i = 1 mh linensronal to uirements EEl Zonang`Oydmance N "Proposed PrenouslyAppmvid,Dimension ' " q t 1E� Re uued8tandard"`{ `Dirne'nsaon �p 'erM y�2013Decrsion) bu?n:._ E'�a-.•'" i?�!„�;, "`sir 'a;.'� �;.":. ,,.��l a>,�iq n �€ t�.t ,�� .. ... ��n5:�,,;3= ., rE�t i per aF% .;��M=; . d Minimum distance of accessory 10, 1' 1 structure from principal building Maximum height of accessory 38'-9" structure 18' 43'-9" The plans submitted with the application highlight the tank to be modified in green. On the plan titled"Part Plan:New Liquid CO2 &Liquid Nitrogen Tanks &Expanded Storage Bins" The tank is labeled"existing LN Tank Convert to 002", as that was what was originally proposed in their April,2013 petition(approved May 2013). The last plan in the package,titled"Elevations:New Liquid 002 &Liquid Nitrogen Tanks + Expanded Storage Bins",the proposed additional height on the previously approved tank is highlighted in green, and labeled"Addition Height." The tanks highlighted in red are from the April 2013 application (approved May 2013). There are no new proposed changes to these tanks. The construction of two of the storage structures was approved in a September 2009 Decision. The May29,2013 and the September 1,2009 Decisions are included under Attachment B for your reference. 6. Petition of EMIL KRANER requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of an existing Rooming House to 5 residential • units, at the property located at 2 EMERTON STREET (R2 Zoning District). The applicant is proposing to convert an existing Rooming House in an R2 district to five (5) apartment units, and is seeking a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Norxonforning Use of the Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum-November 20,2013 Page 4 of 5 • There is no on-site parking,and the applicant proposes to maintain this condition. Section 5.1.8 Table cf R&7taredParking Spaczs of the Ordinance requires "one and one-half(1 mh) spaces per dwelling unit,with a minimum of two (2) spaces,plus one (1) space for each home occupation" for dwellings in R2,and rooming houses. The Board should consider including approval or denial of the proposed parking situation as a Variance under Section 5.1.8 of the Ordinance in their Decision on this application. 7. Petition of MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow use of the property for auto repair, auto part sales, boat and engine service, and auto body work, at the property located at 62 JEFFERSON AVE (Rl Zoning District). The petitioner owns the garage at 62 Jefferson Avenue,in an R1 district. The petitioner leases out the property to various businesses. Each time a new tenant moves into his property,the applicant is required to apply for a Special Permit, as the businesses seeking rental space in a garage building generally do not conform to the uses permitted in an Rl district. The petitioner would like to seek approval for operating a variety of potential non- conforming businesses at the property: "auto repair,part sales,boat and engine service and auto bodywork." The Petitioner has previously been granted the following: • Special Permit in a March 2009 Decision, "to allow the expansion of a currently nonconforming use (plumbing business) to allow additional nonconforming uses (small tradesman,handyman and contractor)." (included in the petitioner's application materials) • Special Permit for a new nonconforming use in a September,2005 Decision (see Attachment C) S. Petition of RICHARD TURNER requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional . Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the maximum allowed height of buildings in feet and the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories,and a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow an extension of an existing nonconforming structure, for the construction of a roof deck; and a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the reconstruction of two existing nonconforming garages, at the property located at 18 OCEAN TERRACE (Rl Zoning District). The Petitioner is proposing to bad a roof deck on the existing building at 18 Ocean Terrace,as well as to reconstruct two (2) existing non-conforming garages on the existing garage footprints. The garage reconstructions require a Special Permit under section 3.3.3,Nona rfann*Straa tin of the Ordinance. This Section states that"The Board of Appeals may award a special permit to reconstruct... a nonconforming structure ... only if it determines that such reconstruction... shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood." The roof deck requires a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonarfor 4 Uses for the expansion of an existing nonconforming structure. The existing structure is a legal grandfathered non-conforming three (3) unit building. The proposed roof deck would be an expansion of the living space of this existing use. The roof deck also requires Variances from Section 4.1.1 Table gfDi,reraiorrrl Requivnrrz for maximum height of building in feet and maximum height of building in stories. Please see the table below. S,., .11 .11 h�� 'rF gem Ii �sm ' � "dud �f i� n�nr. dDrmenstonal Requirements, f@!Zomng Ordinance Requiied Standard ; Proposed Dimension pl(hC�ih4fpkt I �.._0 • Maximum height of buildings 35 38 (feet) in Rl Zone Maximum height of buildings 2 5 4 (stories) in Rl Zone City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum-November 20,2013 Page 5 of 5 Attachments Attachment A-Letter requesting continuation of the public hearing for the application pertaining to 156 Derby Street. Attachment B -May 29,2013 Decision on petition by Jacqueline's Cookies,for the property located at 96 Swampscott Road. Attachment C- September 2005 Decision on petition by Michael McLaughlin for the property located at 62 Jefferson Avenue. • 6< CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS low- wil, BOARD OF APPEAL 4 130 WdSHINC ION.S`fRGPa + $dl L:hf,AdAtiSdCHCSISII'c Q 1970 Kiniur_iu.r v Diusroi.i. 'Pi�:�.e:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 ,13nrOa City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of DAVID KAPLAN and RYAN McSHAY requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to operate a general auto repair business on the property located at 164 BOSTON STREET (Industrial Zoning District). • Said hearing will be held on WED, NOV 20, 2013 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 11/6/13 & 11/13/13 o m C �r W r » m -0 3 3 v�i N 00 This notice ,posted on Official Bulletin Board" . City Hall, Salem, Mass, on el64 ?/, �Gi•3. at - 4,FPm in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. ` � t CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS x, ¢` BOARD OF APPEAL ar ix ji,K j a' � I?0 W,\sFunc ION ti nu�.ri � Sni i:Ai,A{ysAcHos6:rrs 01970 Kmuaitai.isv Diuscou.. 'fr_i.r:978-619-5685 F,ix:978-740-0404 \W OR n � W n_ a �- W n m City of Salem -K Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ requesting a Variance from Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum depth of rear yard to allow for enclosure of an existing open, first-floor deck, for the property located at 152 LORING AVENUE (R1 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, NOV 20, 2013 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. -p4ge,C.4 Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 11/6/13 & 11/13/13 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Sai(j-m, Mass. on �7G3/, c9D/3 at S '02 7)"'in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS � i PEAL BOARD OF AP ��ppuu �N6 120 WASHINGTON STREET � SALEM,N1Asm3,*v-rT&9-P 27 33 KnfBERLEY DRIscOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ Fwc:978-740-9846 MAYOR FILE # CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of EMIL KRANER requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of an existing Rooming House to 5 residential units, at the property located at 2 EMERTON STREET (R2 Zoning District). • Said hearing will be held on WED,NOV 20, 2013 at 6:30 p.m., 3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 11/6/13 & 11/13/13 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on Mod ,�- zz/3 at Z!33-Ph in accordance with AGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. "a- �,,---��o�, CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL � 7 'S 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,Nfl11116 A97A 'I IN /AIOV6. TFLE:978-619-5685 ♦FAx:978-740-0404 KINIBERLEY DRISCOLL FILE # NLAYOK CITY CLERK, SALEM,MASS. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN requesting,a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow use of the property for auto repair, auto part sales, boat and engine service, and auto body work, at • the property located at 62 JEFFERSON AVE (RI Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED,NOV 20, 2013 at 6:30 p.m., 3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. ta Cam,/j, Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 11/6/13 & I1/13/13 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on Abi/: S Z013 at // in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A. Sections 18-25. CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINCTON STREET♦$AI-EM,MASSA 3QN081�75 A II I4 66''��MRV6� TELE:978-619-5685 * F,�x:978-740-0404 xrnBr-aMA Dwscou. FILE CITY CLERK,SALEM, MASS, MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of RICHARD TURNER requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the maximum allowed height of buildings in feet and the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories, and a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow an • extension of an existing nonconforming structure, for the construction of a roof deck; and a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the reconstruction of two existing nonconforming garages, at the property located at 18 OCEAN TERRACE (RI Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED,NOV 20, 2013 at 6:30 p.m., 3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. 40AQ! Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 11/6/13 & 11/13/13 This notice posted on "Officia Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on A0j, s- Zo,b at /1, r¢ A41 in accof dance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • ,I, CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSET S % m BOARD OF APPEAL 5 120 Wr\SHINGI'ON$'IRF.ET $rLLF.M1I,i\1r15tiA E. 19 I . �•�-.- "fs 'rFLb::978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 KIM11BeaLEY DalscoLL FILE # Mnvoa CITY CLERK. SALEM• MASS. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JACQUELINE'S GOURMET COOKIES, requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to increase the height of a previously approved tank by 5 feet, for a proposed total height of 43 feet and 9 inches. The construction of the tank to a height of 38 feet and 9 inches was •previously approved in a Decision dated May 29, 2013, at the property located at 96 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD (BPD Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED,NOV 20, 2013 at 6:30 p.m., 3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. (.��- A �Q beC ►rw'/_- Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 11/6/13 & 11/13/13 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Ma-zs. on AlpJ, o" ZOt-�> at ll: /4-AM in a(.Lordance with dAGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS .� BOARD OF APPEAL t jr: /. 120 WASHINOTON$TREE'I' SALEM1f,b1r155ACH1 0 'rrLE:978-619-5685 1 FAX:978-740-0404 KwBERLEY DRISCOU, FILE N m1AYOR CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of SPIRO KOUNSALIEH requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3 Nonconforming Uses and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from an existing nonconforming use to another non-conforming use; a Variance under Section 51.2 Location of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow required parking to be located on a separate lot; WVariances under Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow encroachment on the minimum allowed width of side yard and minimum allowed depth of rear yard, and relief from the maximum allowed lot coverage by buildings, at the property located at 152-156 DERBY STREET (B1 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED,NOV 20, 2013 at 6:30 p.m., 3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 11/6/13 & 11/13/13 This notice posted or, "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, M, :5 on Z J• ,)- Uib at //:( ¢4*4 in accordance with MU Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. e CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • ''°' BOARD OF APPEAL a 120 W ASFQNGTON STREET♦ SALBM,NL SSAct-1usETl's 01970 KiNtrrau.l:Y DiuscOLL TELE:978-745-9595 • FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday, November 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 FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ requesting a Variance from Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum depth of rear yard to allow for enclosure of an existing open, first-floor deck, for the property located at 152 LORING AVENUE (R1 Zoning District) Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on December 5, 2013 Petition of DAVID KAPLAN and RYAN McSHAY requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.1 Principal User of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to operate a general auto repair business, at the property located at 164 BOSTON STREET (Industrial Zoning District) Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on December 5, 2013 Petition of EMIL KRANER requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of an existing Rooming House to 5 residential units, at the property located at 2 EMERTON STREET (R2 Zoning District). Decision: Denied Filed with the City Clerk on December 5, 2013 Petition of MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconfon7ning Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow use of the property for auto repair,auto part sales, boat and engine service, and auto body work,at the property located at 62 JEFFERSON AVE (R1 Zoning District) Decision: • Special Permit request to allow auto repair, auto part sales, and boat and engine service is Granted • Special Permit request to allow auto body work is Denied Filed with the City Clerk on December 5, 2013 Petition of RICHARD TURNER requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the maximum allowed height of buildings in feet and the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories, and a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow an extension of an existing nonconforming structure, for the construction of a roof deck; and a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the reconstruction of two existing . nonconforming garages, at the property at 18 OCEAN TERRACE (R1 Zoning District) Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on December 5, 2013 3 i� v� '.tONnITg9�is 5� ?7 CITY OF SALEM, MASS.ACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL Wig.. 920W- 111NCTONStRLti � S.v.r;�i y[�ss:�cFiusr:t"I 17� o hinu;rat.ey DRtscoi.i. Trio-.978-745 9595 ♦ F.\x 978-740-9846 m r^ MAYOR X r I m cn December 5, 2013 '` y Decision a �s N City of Salem Board of Appeals ^> Petition of MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow use of the property for auto repair, auto part sales, boat and engine service, and auto body work, at the property located at 62 JEFFERSON AVE (Rl Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 20, 2013 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos. The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Noneotoizving U es of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped October 30, 2013, the Petitioner requested a Special Perntit to allow the following nonconforming uses: ,into repair, auto part sales, boat and engine service, and auto bodywork, at the property located at 62 Jefferson Avenue. 2. Mr. Michael McLaughlin, the Petitioner, presented the petition for the property at 62 Jefferson Avenue. 3. Mr. McLaughlin bought the existing auto repair building in 2006. Since that time he has appeared before the Board of Appeals twice to request Special Permits for nonconforming uses for various businesses that he has leased his space to. 4. The Petitioner is appearing to request a Special Permit to allow auto repair, auto part sales, boat and engine service, and auto body work, so that he can lease his space to businesses suited to the building without having to appear before the board for every new tenant. Additionally, the Petitioner has a new tenant that operates a boat repair business, which the Petitioner would like to be allowed under the Special Permit. 5. The property is in an R-1 zoning district. The property is located in an area with other industrial and commercial uses. The building itself is well suited to the types of businesses that the Petitioner is seeking permission to have on the property. 6. The previous Decisions issued granting the two previous Special Permits had specific conditions prohibiting outdoor storage, except storage of cars; towing/repossession of cars after 1 Ipm; operating hours after 1 Ipm (except in cases of emergency); and outdoor auto repairs. 7. Mr. Robert Dunham, 60 Jefferson Avenue, submitted a letter in opposition to the petition. Mr. • Dunham submitted photographs supporting his letter, which demonstrated that the Petitioner has been allowing outdoor storage, in violation of the conditions of the previous Special Permit. S. Auto body work within a residential area has consistently been problematic. City of Salem Board of Appeals December 5,2013 • Project: 62 Jefferson Avenue Paae 2 of 2 The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petitions, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: Findings: 1. The proposed change in use to include auto repair, auto part sales, and boat and engine service would not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood, if the conditions of the Special Permit are adhered to. 2. The proposed change in use to allow auto body work would be On the basis of the above Statements of Fact the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor (Ms. Curran — Chair, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor) and none (0) opposed, to deny the Special Permit to allow auto body work on the property. On the basis of the above Statements of Fact and Findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor (1bls. Curran — Chair, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor) and none (0) opposed, to approve the Special Permit to allow ,into repair, ,into part sales, and boat and engine service on the property, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly • adhered to. 3. No auto body work shall be performed 4. No outdoor storage, except storage of cars or boats, is permitted. No more than five (5) cars or boats:. may be stored on site at a time. 5. The terms of this Board's two previous special permit decisions in March 2009 and September 2005 relative to this property are incorporated herein by reference unless specifically altered by this decision. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals :A COPY OF THIS DECISION FLSS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CFIA CLERK Appealliom This decision, f aop, shall be made puruatot to Section 17 of the Alaseaehusetis General Lams Cbapler 40A, and shall he filed midhin 20 dayi of filing of lhir derision in the oJice of the Ce r Clerk. Pursrraw to the iblarsachnsells General Lams Chopler 40A, Sectim /1, the L'atian�e or Speaal Penmil granted herein shall nol lake effec!unlil a,opy-o_f the decisioo bearing lbe,erlill ale of Ibe City Clerk has been tiled mill)the Essea Somtb Regishp of Deeds. • CITY OF SALEM, A/LkSSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL z 120 WASI IING tON S FREI"[ + S.1d,111 \L,\ss.\c1[us[n-i's 01970 z KiNIBkRLEY DRISCOLL TI31,11:978-745-9595 # FAX:978-740-9846 C-2 71 rn ,\L\YOR M C—) F: till December 5, 2013 > Decision -.9 City of Salem Board of Appeals r1a in Petition of DAVID KAPLAN and RYAN McSHAY requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to operate a general auto repair business on the property located at 164 BOSTON STREET (Industrial Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 20, 2013 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsmos. The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit under Section 3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the Petition date-stamped October 23, 2013, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit to operate a • general auto repair business, at the property located at 164 Boston Street. 2. Mr. David Kaplan and Mr. Ryan McShay presented the petition for the property at 164 Boston Street (Industrial Zoning District). 3. Under Section 3.1, in an Industrial Zone "Motor vehicle light service" is allowed by-right while "Motor vehicle general and body repair" requires a special permit granted by the Board of Appeals. Section 10.0 of the Zoning Ordinance defines "Motor Vehicle Light Service" as "Premises for the supplying of fuel, oil, lubrication, washing, or minor repair services, but not to include body work, painting, or major repairs." The definition for "Motor Vehicle General Repairs" is: "Premises for the servicing and repair of autos,but not to include fuel sales." 4. The property is currently used for light motor vehicle service. 5. The Petitioners stated that there will be no fuel sales or body repair work on the property, and that there will be no modifications to the exterior of the building. 6. Aside from the two parking spaces on the dedicated front entrance driveway, all vehicles will be parked and/or stored inside the budding. 7. At the public hearing, Mr. Mike ShUltZ (I Fairmount Road, Peabody), a previous employer of the Petitioners, spoke in support of the character of the Petitioners and the excellence of their business. Councilor at Large Tom Furey (36 Dunlap Street) spoke in favor of the petition. Mr. Bob Brophy asked about the traffic and parking impacts of the proposed business. Mr. Arsenio Villarosa (166 Boston Street) asked about the parking and traffic impacts of the proposed business on the adjacent driveway, and the anticipated noise levels. The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the Public hearing, and after thorough review of the petitions, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zouing Ordinance: 2� City of Salem Board of Appeals December 5,2013 • Project: 164 Boston Street Page 2 of 2 Findings: 1. The proposed change in use will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. 2. Community needs will be served by this new use. 3. There will likely be no impact on parking or loading in the area, as the parking is housed inside the building, and customers will use the front driveway and door. 4. Utilities and public services to the building are adequate. 5. There will be no changes to the exterior of the building. 6. The Petitioners have stated in their application materials that they strive to operate as a "green company" 7. It is a growing business, and will have a potentially positive fiscal impact on the city, the tax base, and the surrounding businesses. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor (Ms. Curran — Chair, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor) and none (0) opposed, to approve the Special Permit to allow motor vehicle general repair, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: • 1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fite Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 4. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. LLL6C6, Cc' mt&t p 5, Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION FIAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this deasiou, #aty, Tall be made pursuanl to Secliou 17 of the iblassathraells General Llnvf CGpler-FOA, and shall be filed milhin 20 days of filing of thri deaion in the o�ce of the City Clerk. Purmaol to the Mai admsells General L<nvs Chapler 40A, Sea'tiou 11, lbe G"in7inue or Speaial Permil granted herein shall not take elect rnrtil a ropy of the deaiion beariag 1he cerl�icafe of the Cihr Clerk has been filed rvilh the Flex Soolh Reg7inp of Deedi. • F` e vw��ONU1T\Qi .. CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS `_. BOARD OF APPEAL 120Wrus[uNGIONSIRtit # S:uLEM,N[Ass:uet[ust:rrs01970�tlm o K[n[BeM.evDR[sco[.t. TEN::978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 �F � NIAYOR r� D 3 December 5, 2013 a q Decision N City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ requesting a Variance from Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum depth of rear yard to allow for enclosure of an existing open, first-floor deck, for the property located at 152 LORING AVENUE (RI Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 20, 2013 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, � 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Sec. 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordnance. Statements of fact: • 1. In the petition, date-stamped October 21, 2013, the Petitioner requests a Variance to reduce the minimum depth of the rear yard to 7.5 feet to allow for the enclosure of an existing open first-floor deck. 2. Mr. Rod Rivera, designer, presented the petition for the property at 152 Loring Avenue (R1 Residential One-Family Zoning District). 3. Mr. Rivera stated that his client, Mr. Hernandez, had hired a contractor to enclose the deck. This contractor did not inform Mr. Hernandez of any requirements to seek relief from the Board of Appeals, and had completed the work in a substandard fashion. The Building Department issued a stop-work order, and the contractor had not returned Mr. Hernandez's calls, or any part of the money Mr. Hernandez had paid for the work. Mr. Rivera is now working with Mr. Hernandez to correct the problems created by the first contractor, and to seek the appropriate relief from the Board of Appeals. 4. Mr. St. Pierre, Building Inspector, stated that Assistant Building Inspector Michael Lutrzykowski ordered the work on the deck to be stopped, as there were several building code violations in the enclosure and roof structure. 5. The Salem Zoning Code, Section 3.3.4 Variance Requitrd(under Nonconforming User and Sdudures) states that"... the reconstntclion, extension, or strudural change of a noncon forming structure in sueh a manner as to inova.ia an existing noncarfornrio, or create a nets noncoufonwily, shall require the issuance of a uruianee ..." The enclosure of the deck in this instance results in a new nonconformity, as the corner of the deck falls 7.5 feet from the rear lot line, which is closer to the rear lot line than the corner of the existing house, which falls 8.0 feet from the rear lot line. 6. The requested Variance relief, if granted, would allow the enclosure of an existing first-floor deck • within 7.5 feet of the rear property boundaty, which would fall short of the minimum required rear Yard depth of 30 feet. 7. At the public hearing for this petition no members of the public spoke in favor or in opposition to the petition. A City of Salem Board of Appeals December 5,2013 . Project: 152 Loring Avenue Page 2 of 2 The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petitions, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: Findings: 1. The location of the house and attached first-floor deck on the lot is a unique condition. The north- west corner of the existing house Ges within 8.0 feet of the rear lot line. The western side of the house is aligned at an angle to the rear lot line, such that the existing first-floor deck, which was constructed in a continuous line with the western side of the house, terminates at a point on 7.5 feet from the rear lot line. 2. The enclosure of the existing deck is a natural extension of the existing house. 3. The applicant is applying to the Board in good faith, in a situation that is not entirely of his own making. 4. The desired relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. 5. The desired relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. On the basis of the above statements of facts and fmdings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor (Ms. Curran — Chair, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor) and none (0) opposed, to • approve the Variance from the required minimum depth of rear yard, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION I-L\S BEEN FILED M"FFI THE PLANNING BOARD AND'IFIE CITY CLERK rippeal front dxs deasion, if nary, shall he made pursuant to Se,tiou 17 of the dlassaihraells General hunt Chapter 40A, and,ball he filed ndlhin 20 days of filing of this decision ur the ollice of lbe Culp Clerk. Punuaut to die Alaumhusetts General Luna Chapter 40A, Sedion 1l, the f ariauce or Special Perm granter/Herein shall not lake ej)evl until a copy of the dewion hearir{q the cerl#iaate of the Ci/p Clerk has been filed vith the 8'sser S'oulb Regm lq of Deeds. v toNp►r9 CITY OF SALEM, A/lASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL - 120\G:\SI-IINC;tON S'1'R15f.'t' # Se\LG:\I,\L\SSdCI IUSG'PfS 01970 KrnIRe;RI.eY Dluscou. Tete:978-745-9595 ♦ F:\x:978-740-9846 MAYOR n � o December 5, 2013 a m rn Decisions `-' r- City of Salem Board of Appeals ti un Petition of EMIL KRANER requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconformity Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of an existing Rooming Houma to 5 sidential units, at the property located at 2 EMERTON STREET (112 Zoning District). r N r�� N A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 20, 2013 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos. The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonco forming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped October 28, 2013, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit to change • from one nonconforming use to another, at the property located at 2 Emerton Street. 2. Mr. Emil Kraner, the Petitioner, presented the petition for the property at 2 Emetton Street (122 Zoning District). 3. "The building is currently in use as a rooming house, and is in poor condition. It has three double- occupancy rooms, four single-occupancy rooms, and one 2-bedroom apartment, for a total of 8 units. 4. The Petitioner proposes to convert the existing building to four 1-bedroom living units and one two- bedroom living unit, for a total of 5 units. The Petitioner proposes to renovate the plumbing and electrical systems, as well as the interior and exterior finishes. 5. There is no parking on the property, and the existing footprint of the building does not leave adequate space for the creation of parking on-site. 6. Ward 2 Councilor Mike Sosnowski (17 Collins Street) speaks in opposition to the petition. Councilor Sosnowski stated that the parking need for the existing rooming house is only for the manager/owner, none of the other units have parking needs. The proposed use at 5 residential units would require 5-10 cars. 7. Ed Beaupre of 11 Boardman Street, Carolyn Barres of 9 Boardman Street, Kathleen Cullen of 25 Forrester Street, Ted Kobialka of 27 Forrester Street, Kristine Doll of 30 Forrester Street, Ed Keenan of 21 Forrester Street,Jan Costa of '17 Forrester Street, MaryAnne Curtin of 35 Forrester Street, and Christina Bash of 37 Forrester Street all speak in opposition of the Petition, due to the existing lack of street parking in the neighborhood. Ms. Doll stated that at one point a fue truck was unable to navigate through the neighborhood and down Emerton Street due to the narrow width of the street and the congestion of the parked cars. The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petitions, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's presentation and public testimony, snakes the following findings that the proposed project was found to be - i City of Salem Board of Appeals December 5, 2013 • Project: 2 Emerton Street Paae 2 of 2 more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming use and does not meet the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: Findings: 1. The proposed change in use will generate the need for more parking than the existing use. 2. The proposed change in use would be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood, due to the lack of on-site parking for residents. 3. The existing congested street parking conditions impede the access of emergency vehicles. The addition of five residential units requiring on-street parking accommodations Would pose a public safety Hazard. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) opposed (Nls. Curran — Chair, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos against) and none (0) in favor, to approve the Special Permit to allow change from one nonconfornng use to another. -The petition is denied. Rebecca Curran, Chair • Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from Mix deasiou, i%ag, shall be made purnant to Section 17 a(the D4assad5usetts General Laws Chapter 4014, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the o§ice of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the I i+riance or Special Permitgranted herein shall not take eVect until a ropy of the decision hearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • coNotTq CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS +, a' BOARD OF APPEAL t20Wnsru�cioNSrae[:[ � S:a.i::n[,DL�ss:�rnu�i rrs01970� W Tei.ic:978-745-9595 ♦ F:hx:973-740-9846 — o KiaiHi,:at.i�vDiascois. M ALhvoR x' . = t December 5, 2013 " n m D Decision ? City of Salem Board of Appeals -' N N Petition of RICHARD TURNER requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Tabre of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the maximum allowed height of buildings in feet and the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories, and a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow an extension of an existing nonconforming structure, for the construction of a roof deck; and a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the reconstruction of two existing nonconforming garages, at the property located at 18 OCEAN TERRACE (111 Zoning District). i1 public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 20, 2013 pursuant to b-I.G.L Ch. 40A, � 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Sec. 4.0 Dimensioned Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. • Statements of fact: 1. In the petition, date-stamped October 30, 2013, the Petitioner requests Variances to exceed the maximum allowed height of buildings in feet and the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories, a Special Permit for the extension of an existing nonconforming structure, and a Special Permit to reconstruct two existing nonconforming garages. 2. During the hearing, it was found that the reconstruction of the garages would require another Special Permit under Section 3.2.4 Aaessory Buildings and Structures for construction of the garages within 5 feet of the side lot line. 3. The Petitioner, Mr. Richard Turner, presented the petition for the property at 18 Ocean Terrace (R t Residential One-Family Zoning District). 4. At the time of the hearing it had not yet been determined by the Building Inspector whether a secondary egress from the proposed roof deck would be requited. 5. The land on the parcel is sloped such that very little flat space exists on the parcel. The Petitioner would like to expand the outdoor space that each living unit has access to, and providing space for all three units on the ground around the house is not feasible. The existing decks for each living unit are about 9'x15'. 6. -f he Board received a letter from John DeFelice, abutter, in opposition to the petition. 7. At the public hearing for this petition Ms. Kathy Bruin of 8 Shore Avenue and Ms. Karen Russell of 6 Shore Avenue asked questions pertaining to the view from 18 Ocean -Terrace into their properties, and the delineation and screening of the property boundaries. Thc Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petitions, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's City of Salem Board of Appeals December 5,2013 Project: 18 Ocean Terrace Page 2 of) presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: Findings: I. The sloped topography of the property imposes a hardship where there is not adequate space for outdoor gatherings for each unit in the building. 2. The desired relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. 3. The desired relief—both the Variances and the Special Permits - map be granted, as amended, without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 4. The reconstruction of the garages will be an improvement to the neighborhood. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor (Ms. Curran - Chair, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins,,and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor) and none (0) opposed, to approve the Variances to exceed the maximum allowed height of buildings in feet and the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories, the Special Permit for the extension of an existing nonconforming structure, and the Special Permit to reconstruct two existing nonconforming garages, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. The 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 stnncture. 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. S. The Petitioner shall develop and implement a landscape plan in consultation with the abutters to address the need for delineation and privacy screening. 9. Construction of the deck shall be per the approved plans submitted with the application, with the alteration that there shall be no "penthouse" or any construction that exceeds 42 inches, and any second egress required by the building code shall not exceed the 42-inch height of the deck rail. +1ye CL vak /1f�- Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals :A COPY OE'rl-IIS DECISION HAS BEEN PILED\CITE[T[fE PLANNING BOARD :AND T f IE CI IA CLERK Appeal/inn this decision, t%any, ,hall he inane pmniaut to Section /7 q the.Lla.,fad�mzttr General Lou Cbapler 40A, aiid shall he filed ioitbiu 20 dale of filing a/this decision ut the ollice o1 the Giy Clerk. Pursuant to lire Ma,f ,husettr General L,no� Chapter 40�I, .Veelion 11, Me I`m-ianie nr Spenal Benni/gronled herein shall not take ebret/until a,opl of the deeoiou beaanZ lbe ceili/imle o/Me Cili C krk Kau hem filed will,/hr L.,,e\ .1hull, - Regi,lp of Deeds. tJ CITY OF SALEM, NLkSSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WAsi iil\(;'t oN, S 1111,11:1 0 SAIA:N1,MASSACI IUsL 1-1 S 0 1970 KiNjiwtux) DRISCOLI, TITF:978-745-9,595 # FAX:978-740-9846 C:) C-) AW'oll I �m cn December 5, 2013 az Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of RICHARD TURNER requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Tabre of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the maximum allowed height of buildings in feet and the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories, and a Special Permit tinder Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow an extension of an existing nonconforming structure, for the construction of a roof deck; and a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the reconstruction of two existing nonconforming garages, at the property located at 18 OCEAN TERRACE (R1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 20, 2013 pursuant to 1\4.G.L Ch. 40A, 5 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Nit. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsmos (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Sec. 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. • Statements of fact: 1. In the petition:, date-stamped October 30, 2013, the Petitioner requests Variances to exceed the maximum allowed height of buildings in feet and the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories, a Special Permit for the extension of an existing nonconforming structure, and a Special Permit to reconstruct two existing nonconforming garages. 2. During the hearing, it was found that the reconstruction of the garages would require another Special Permit under Section 3.2.4/Ieeesxory Buildings and Stmetures for construction of the garages within 5 feet of the side lot line. 3. The Petitioner, Nit. Richard Turner, presented the petition for the property at 18 Ocean Terrace (Rt Residential One-Family Zoning District). 4. At the time of the hearing it had not yet been determined by the Building Inspector whether a secondary egress from the proposed roof deck would be required. 5. The land on the parcel is sloped such that very little flat space exists on the parcel. The Petitioner would like to expand the outdoor space that each living unit has access to, and providing space for all three units on the ground around the house is not feasible. The existing decks for each living unit are about 9'x 15'. 6. The Board received a letter from.fohn DeFelice, abutter, in opposition to the petition. 7. lr\t the public hearing for this petition Ms. Kathy Bruin of 8 Shore :Avenue and Ms. Karen Russell of 6 Shore Avenue asked questions pertaining to the view from N Ocean Terrace into their properties, and the delineation and screening of the property boundaries. ['he Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review Of the petitions, including the application narrative and plans, and the Pcorioner's City of Salem Board of Appeals December 5,2013 Project: 18 Ocean Terrace • Page 2 of 2 presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: Findings: 1. The sloped topography of the property imposes a hardship where there is not adequate space for outdoor gatherings for each unit in the building. 2. The desired relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. 3. The desired relief—both the Variances and the Special Permits - may be granted, as amended, without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 4. The reconstruction of the garages will be an improvement to the neighborhood. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor (Ms. Curran - Chair, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor) and none (0) opposed, to approve the Variances to exceed the maximum allowed height of buildings in feet and the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories, the Special Permit for the extension of an existing nonconforming structure, and the Special Permit to reconstruct two existing nonconforming garages, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. The 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. The Petitioner shall develop and implement a landscape plan in consultation with the abutters to address the need for delineation and privacy screening. 9. Construction of the deck shall be per the approved plans submitted with the application, with the alteration that there shall be no "penthouse" or any construction that exceeds 42 inches, and any second egress required by the building code shall not exceed the 42-inch height of the deck rail. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF TEAS DECISION VMS BEEN FILED V ITFI TFIE PLANNING BOARD :AND THE(T[A'CI..ERF: Ippeal from/bit dearion, it any. Tolle made pamuurt to Secfion l7 o)the dla.aznlverelts General Lurr Chapter 40f1, mud shall beJiled middn 20 daps of liki of Ibis deeriion in the ollice of fhe Cig Clerk. Purruaw to the Maff&1;h.ietLr General 1<uus Chaffer 40. 1, Seliwi I I. the I 'arw&e or- Pwai Permdgranled herein shall uof Lake elp'Y until a aopp of the(Lislon ,earn,ehe,er>iiirale o%the City(.jerk haf been filed mil, b)e f:ua\ S'onll, Re dp�of Deeds. • �ONDIT,j9 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL n 9�P/MtNE W. m o 120 w:usui�c,rou Srxr c r Snt.isnt ALusSA( i[Ustsrrs 01970T C-)-) �� Ki.%itwiu,m,DiuscoiJ. TI Lr::978-745-9595 F,A5:973-740-9846 �:m Ul m D 3 December 5, 2013 ,q Decision N City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ requesting a Variance from Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum depth of rear yard to allow for enclosure of an existing open, first-floor deck, for the property located at 152 LORING AVENUE (R1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 20, 2013 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 9 1 t. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Sec. 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition, date-stamped October 21, 2013, the Petitioner requests a Variance to reduce the • minimum depth of the rear yard to 7.5 feet to allow for the enclosure of an existing open first-floor deck. 2. Mr. Rod Rivera, designer, presented the petition for the property at 152 Loring Avenue (R1 Residential One-Family Zoning District). 3. Mr. Rivera stated that his client, Mr. Hernandez, had hired a contractor to enclose the deck. This contractor did not inform Mr. Hernandez of any requirements to seek relief from the Board of Appeals, and had completed the work in a substandard fashion. The Building Department issued a stop-work order, and the contractor had not returned Mr. Hernandez's calls, or any part of the money Mr. Hernandez had paid for the work. Mr. Rivera is now working with Mr. Hernandez to correct the problems created by the first contractor, and to seek the appropriate relief from the Board of Appeals. 4. Mr. St. Pierre, Building Inspector, stated that Assistant Building Inspector Michael Lutrzykowski ordered the work on the deck to be stopped, as there were several building code violations in the enclosure and roof structure. 5. The Salem Zoning Code, Section 3.3.4 Valiance Required(under Aloncoifbrnting Uses and Sinifluree) states that"... the reconiYnrction, extension, or rtnfelurel change of a noncon%arning stmcture in such a manner as to increase an existing noncoa fomily, or create a neii nonroi fo oily, shall require the issuance of a vaizaarce ..." The enclosure of the deck in this instance results in a new nonconformity, as the corner of the deck falls 7.5 feet from the rear lot line, which is closer to the rear lot line than the corner of the existing house, which falls 8.0 feet from the rear lot line. G. The requested Variance relief, if granted, would allow the enclosure of an existing first-floor deck within 7.5 feet of the rear property boundary, which would fall short of the minimum required rear card depth of 30 feet. 7. At the public hearing for this petition no members of the public spoke in favor or in opposition to the petition. City of Salem Board of Appeals December 5, 2013 Project: 152 Loring Avenue Page 2 of The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petitions, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: Findings: 1. The location of the house and attached fast-floor deck on the lot is a unique condition. The north- west corner of the existing house lies within 8.0 feet of the rear lot line. The western side of the house is aligned at an angle to the rear lot line, such that the existing first-floor deck, which was constructed in a continuous line with the western side of the house, terminates at a point on 7.5 feet from the rear lot line. 2. The enclosure of the existing deck is a natural extension of the existing house. 3. The applicant is applying to the Board in good faith, in a situation that is not entirely of his own making. 4. The desired relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. 5. The desired relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor (Nis. Curran — Chair, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor) and none (0) opposed, to approve the Variance from the required minimum depth of rear yard, subject to the following terms, • conditions, and safeguards: 1. The 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. �ecca L't:n'an/ram'"" Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION FIAS BEEN FILED IXrITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal/rani this demion, i%any, Tall be made paruaat to Seelion /7 o the Hasraahuretlt General Lnrvs Chapler 40A, and Yhall he filed❑dlhbr 20 (toys n%li6i g of lhr7 derision io the o1fl e ol'the City Clerk. Pnrssaal to the bdasfadmietts General Lmus Chapler 40.1, .Section //, the I'ruiame or .SPunta Permit grainer/herem shall rent take eJlea aakl a cop) of the de,woti bearinq the rerti/ieate nJ the Cily Clerk has been filed roith /he r ssea Swab Reysly of 0,wL . • tONDITq �� qQ' CITY OF St�LEN1, MAsSACHUSETTS ��. BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHING ION S'I'RFI:1 ♦ Sw.e�l �I,�Ss:�clausF:rrsOl97U� - KI\[BFIU,EYDRISCOI.L "rizl.e:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 o LAYoa :T t in� cIl December 5, 2013 max: D rn Decision ? City of Salem Board of Appeals N Petition of DAVID KAPLAN and RYAN McSHAY requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to operate a general auto repair business on the property located at 164 BOSTON STREET (Industrial Zoning District). i1 public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 20, 2013 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 9 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Duffy,Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos. The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit under Section 3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped October 23, 2013, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit to operate a general auto repair business, at the property located at 164 Boston Street. • 2. Mr. David Kaplan and Mr. Ryan McShay presented the petition for the property at 164 Boston Street (Industrial Zoning District). 3. Under Section 3.1, in an Industrial Zone "Motor vehicle light service" is allowed by-right while "Motor vehicle general and body repair" requires a special permit granted by the Board of Appeals. Section 10.0 of the Zoning Ordinance defines "Motor Vehicle Light Service" as "Premises for the supplying of fuel, oil, lubrication, washing, or minor repair services, but not to include body work, painting, or major repairs." The definition for "Motor Vehicle General Repairs" is: "Premises for the servicing and repair of autos, but not to include fuel sales." 4. The property is currently used for light motor vehicle service. 5. The Petitioners stated that there will be no fuel sales or body repair work on the property, and that there will be no modifications to the exterior of the building. 6. Aside from the two parking spaces on the dedicated front entrance driveway, all vehicles will be parked and/or stored inside the building. 7. At the public hearing, Mr. Mike Shultz (I Fairmount Road, Peabody), a previous employer of the Petitioners, spoke in support of the character of the Petitioners and the excellence of their business. Councilor at Large Tom Furey (36 Dunlap Street) spoke in favor of the petition. Mr. Bob Brophy asked about the traffic and parking impacts of the proposed business. Mr. Arsenio Villarosa (166 Boston Street) asked about the parking and traffic impacts of the proposed business on the adjacent driveway, and the anticipated noise levels. '['he Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public heating, and after thorough review of the petitions, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the Provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance J, City of Salem Board of Appeals December 5,2013 Project: 164 Boston Street • Page 2 of 2 Findings: 1. The proposed change in use will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. 2. Community needs will be served by this new use. 3. There will likely be no impact on parking or loading in the area, as the parking is housed inside the building, and customers will use the front driveway and door. 4. Utilities and public services to the building are adequate. 5. There will be no changes to the exterior of the building. 6. The Petitioners have stated in their application materials that they strive to operate as a "green company" 7. It is a growing business, and will have a potentially positive fiscal impact on the city, the tax base, and the surrounding businesses. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor (Ms. Curran — Chair, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor) and none (0) opposed, to approve the Special Permit to allow motor vehicle general repair, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: • 1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 4. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. �'v�ecca Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION FIAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND TEIE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, i%any, shall be made purnrant to See/ran 17 o%the lblassaehusetr General Lanes Chapter 40 I, and shall be filed leithiu 20 d[yi of fling of this decision in the of6e of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Alassachusells General hoer Chapter 40A, ,feellon 11, the Varialue or Speaal Pe it,gralnted herein shall not take eeeot nalil a dopy of the deiision bearing the zerl ftrate o/the 04,Clerk has been pled)e[lb the Fsce.v Soldh Regntr,of Deeds. AV- 46. CITY OF SALEM, NU SSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120W\siii\, G IONS I RE11:1 I* # KINIBERLM,DRISCOLL 'j'f:jj,':978-745-9595 + F\\:978-740-9846 AYOR December 5, 2013 C=1 M rn "i C_� Decision ?Z�= 1 �C7 City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of EMIL KRANER requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonco-11formin Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of an existing Rooming HouA to 5 sidential >units, at the property located at 2 EMERTON STREET (112 Zoning District). r1j "I r13 A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November '20, 2013 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40z\, 5 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos. The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonew!Prming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped October 28, 2013, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit to change from one nonconforming use to another, at the property located at 2 Emerton Street. • 2. Mr. Emil Kraner, the Petitioner, presented the petition for the property at 2 Emerton Street (R2 Zoning District). 3. The building is currently in use as a rooming house, and is in poor condition. It has three double- occupancy rooms, four single-occupancy rooms, and one 2-bedroom apartment, for a total Of 8 UintS. 4. The Petitioner proposes to convert the existing building to four 1-bedroom living units and one two- bedroom living unit, for a total of 5 units. The Petitioner proposes to renovate the plumbing and electrical systems, as well as the interior and exterior finishes. 5. There is no parking on the property, and the existing footprint of the building does not leave adequate space for the creation of parking on-site. 6. Ward 2 Councilor Mike Sosnowski (17 Collins Street) speaks in opposition to the petition. Councilor Sosnowski stated that the parking need for the existing rooming house is only for the manager/owner, none of the other units have parking needs. The proposed use at 5 residential units would require 5-10 cars. 7. Ed Beaupre of 11 Boardman Street, Carolyn Barres of 9 Boardman Street, Kathleen Cullen of 25 Forrester Street,Ted Kobialka. of 27 Forrester Street, Kristine Doll of 30 Forrester Street, Ed Keenan of 21 Forrester Street,Jan Costa of 17 Forrester Street, Mary2\111le Curtin of 35 Forrester Street, and Christina Bash of 37 Forrester Street all speak in opposition of the Petition, due to the existing lack of street parking in the neighborhood. Ms. Doll stated that at one point a Fire truck was unable to navigate through the neighborhood and down 1--',mertofi Street due to the narrow width of the street and the congestion of the parked cars. The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petitions, including the application narrative and plans, and the petitioner's presentation and public tcstinionY, makes the following findings that the proposed ptojecr \ta, found to he City of Salem Board of Appeals December 5, 2013 Project:2 Emerton Street Page 2 of 2 more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming use and does not meet the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: Findings: 1. The proposed change in use will generate the need for more parking than the existing use. 2. The proposed change in use would be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood, due to the lack of on-site parking for residents. 3. The existing congested street parking conditions impede the access of emergency vehicles. The addition of five residential units requiring on-street parking accommodations would pose a public safety hazard. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) opposed (Ms. Curran — Chair, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos against) and none (0) in favor, to approve the Special Permit to allow change from one nonconforming use to another. The petition is denied. s " Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPS'OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED CbTTH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall he made pursuant to Section 17 of the 11assachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and Shall he filed within 20 rhyi of filing of this deaision in The office of the GO Clerk. Purruant to the Masmchnsetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Pemntgranted herein shall not take efeat until a copy of the decisions hearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS si B AM OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ Fwc:978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You are bereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppeals will bold its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, December 18,2013 at 6:30 p.m. at City HallAnnex, RM 313, 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA Rebecca Curran,Chair n � m W MEETING AGENDA C') c I. ROLL CALL rn T II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES " rn Y rnt D November 20, 2013 meeting ? v J III. REGULAR AGENDA N Project: A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change from one nonconforming use to another • nonconforming use. (APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE) Applicant: GENIA PATESTIDES Location: 107 FEDERAL STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project: A Public Hearing for a petition requesting Variances under Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning.Ordinance to allow the creation of two lots,each smaller than the required minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet,and with less than the required minimum lot frontage of 100 feet and the required minimum lot width of 100 feet. Applicant: PETER HANTZOPOULOS Location: 13 CHERRY HILL AVENUE (R1 Zoning District) Project: A Public Hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3 Nonconforming Uses and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from an existing nonconforming use to another non-conforming use;a Variance under Section 5.1.2 Location of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow required parking to be located on a separate lot;Variances under Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow encroachment on the minimum allowed width of side yard and minimum allowed depth of rear yard, and relief from the maximum allowed lot coverage by buildings Applicant: SPIRO KOUNSALIEH Location: 152-156 DERBY STREET (Bl Zoning District) Project: A Public Hearing for a petition requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to increase the height of a previously approved • tank by 5 feet, for a proposed total height of 43 feet and 9 inches. The construction of the tank to a height of 38 feet and 9 inches was previously approved in a Decision dated May 29,2013. Applicant: JACQUELINE'S GOURMET COOKIES Location: 96 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD (BPD Zoning District) This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem,.Mass. on b U . 11t 2-01b at /,37 P�" in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. I City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for December 18,2013 Meeting • Page 2 of 2 Project: A public hearing for a petition requesting a Variance under Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the minimum depth of rear yard and minimum width of side yard requirements. Applicant: LINDA GAGNON Location: 54 CHARLES STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project: A public hearing for a petition requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit,minimum lot frontage,and minimum lot width requirements. Applicant: ANDREW PERKINS Location: 15 CHERRY HILL AVENUE (R1 Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS • Review and vote: 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Schedule V. ADJOURNMENT • • ' -� CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL \ 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETI'S 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 FAY:978-740-9846 MAYOR A -G n W r m -io-n n r �- I City of Salem r1' Zoning Board of Appeals 3 978-619-5685 a Ln Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JACQUELINE'S GOURMET COOKIES,requesting Variances under Section 3.2.4 Accessory Buildings and Structures, to increase the height of a previously approved tank by 5 feet, for a proposed total height of 43 feet and 9 inches. The construction of the tank to a height of 38 feet and 9 inches was previously approved in a Decision dated • May 29, 2013, at the property located at 96 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD (BPD Zoning District). Said hearing has been RESCHEDULED for WED, DEC 18, 2013 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 12/4/13 & 12/11/13 • � CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS s BOARD OF APPEAL' 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,IMASSACHUSETI'S 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR C..I W r v rm rn c-) 7C T I N m N City of Salem m -p Zoning Board of Appeals 3 fp 978-619-5685 N CID Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of LINDA GAGNON requesting a Variance under Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the minimum depth of rear yard and minimum width of side yard requirements at the property located at 54 CHARLES STREET (R2 Zoning District). . Said hearing will be held on WED, DEC 18, 2013 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 12/4/13 & 12/11/13 • ��NDIr , CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS l BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET • SALEM,MASSACHUSETrS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRiScoLL TELE:978-745-9595 EA- :978-740-9846 MAYOR � o n W r o m m xT C-) ?C_ City of Salem m ^� Zoning Board of Appeals i 0 978-619-5685 a �� z> cn co Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of GENIA PATESTIDES requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, at the property located at 107 FEDERAL STREET(R2 Zoning District). • Said hearing will be held on WED, DEC 18, 2013 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 12/4/13 & 12/11/13 • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ( � BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET 4 S.UEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR n n w r o m rn City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals �m ^' 978-619-5685 3 U 3 M D N Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of ANDREW PEIdUNS Rquesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, and minimum lot width requirements for the property located at 15 CHERRY HILL AVENUE (RI Zoning • District). Said hearing will be held on WED, DEC 18, 2013 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 12/4/13 & 12/11/13 • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, November 20, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals("Salem ZBA")was held on Wednesday, November 20, 2013 in the third floor conference room of 120 Washington St., Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Chair Rebecca Curran opens the meeting at 6:31 p.m. Ms. Curran notes that only four Board Members are present, so any petition would require an affirmative vote by all four members in order to be approved. Ms. Curran reads a letter from the Petitioner for 152-156 Derby Street, requesting a continuance to the next meeting, which will be held on December 18, 2013 at 6:30pm. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy moves to continue 152-156 Derby Street to December 18,2013 with no evidence taken seconded by Mr. Watkins The vote was unanimous with four(4)in favor(Mr. Duffy. Mr. Watkins Mr. Tsitsinos and Ms Curran)and none(0) opposed The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes. Ms. Curran reads an email from the Petitioner for 13 Derby Street, requesting a continuance to the next meeting,which will be held on December 18, 2013 at 6:30pm. • Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy moves to continue 13 Cherry Hill Avenue to December 18,2013 with no evidence taken seconded by Mr. Watkins The vote was unanimous with four(4)in favor(Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos and Ms Curran)and none(0)opposed The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes. Ms. Curran announces that the hearing for 96 Swampscott Road will be rescheduled for the meeting on December 181h, 2013, as the required legal ad for the hearing was not published. ROLL CALL Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Thomas Watkins, Mike Duffy, and James Tsitsinos (Alternate) Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Dana Menon, Staff Planner. Public Hearing: petition of FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ requesting a Variance from Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum depth of rear yard to allow for enclosure of an existing open,first-floor deck,for the property located at 152 LORING AVENUE(113 Zoning District). Documents& Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 10/2V2013 and accompanying materials • ➢ Plan and elevations of the proposed deck enclosure, brought to the meeting by the applicant 1 Rod Rivera, designer representing the applicant (Francisco Hernandez) presents the petition for 152 Loring Avenue. He states that Mr. Hernandez had an open porch on the house, and wanted to enclose • the porch in order to put exercise equipment there, and to enjoy the porch. He hired a contractor to enclose the porch. The contractor charged Mr. Hernandez$5,000. The Building Inspector put a stop- work order on the porch. The hired contractor would not return Mr. Hernandei s phone calls,or return his money. Mr. Rivera was asked to do an inspection of the previous contractor's work and to come up with a design to correct the problems created by the first contractor. The Building Inspector advised Mr. Rivera of the need to apply to the board. Now it is cheaper to correct what's been built than to tear it down and start over. Mr. Rivera shows construction plans and elevations. Ms. Curran asks if the footprint of the structure shown in the plot plan is the existing deck. Mr. Rivera replies that it is. Mr. St. Pierre states that Michael Lutrzykowski, the Assistant Building Inspector,found several building code violations in the enclosure and roof that were completed by the first contractor. Ms. Curran asks if they have they been fixed. Mr. Rivera explains that's what the proposed work is—to be allowed to continue and to correct the problems. Chair Curran opens the hearing to public comment No one speaks in favor or opposition Ms. Curran asks if this requires a Variance or a Special Permit. Mr. St. Pierre reads from Section 3.3.4 of the Salem zoning code: • "Except with regard to single-and two-family structures as provided in subsection 3.3.5, below, the reconstruction, extension or structural change of a nonconforming structure in such a manner as to increase an existing nonconformity, or create a new nonconformity,shall require the issuance of a variance;provided, however, that the extension of an exterior wall at or along the some nonconforming distance within a required yard shall require a special permit and not a variance from the Board of Appeals." Mr. St. Pierre states that in this instance a variance is required, as the deck to be enclosed extends closer (by a half-foot)to the rear lot line than the existing side of the house. Ms. Curran states that she reads it as requiring a Variance. So the Board needs a statement of hardship, and that relief may be granted without detriment to the public good,and that the literal enforcement of the provision would provide a hardship. Ms. Curran states that she doesn't have any issue with it, and there has been no opposition expressed. Where the building lies on the lot is a unique condition and the enclosure of the deck is a natural extension of the building. Mr.Watkins doesn't see any issues with it. Ms. Curran comments that the difference in proximity to the rear lot line (from 8 feet to 7.5 feet)would be imperceptible. Mr. Duffy states that this relief could be allowed without any substantial detriment to the public good, and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. There is no opposition here to this petition. Perhaps a more careful application process could have been followed here, but the owner is trying to apply in good faith in a situation not entirely of his own making. • 2 • Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with four(4)in favor(Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy Mr. Tsitsinos, and Ms. Curran)and none (0)opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes. Public Hearing: Petition of DAVID KAPLAN and RYAN McSHAY requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to operate a general auto repair business on the property located at 164 BOSTON STREET(industrial Zoning District). Documents& Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 10/23/2013 and accompanying materials The Petitioners, David Kaplan (46 Dearborn Road, Epping, NH)and Ryan McShay(20 Anderson Street, Marblehead, MA), present the petition. They are proposing to operate a general auto repair business at location. The property is currently being used for light auto repair. They are currently operating their business in Peabody, now they're looking to move it to Salem. All cars will fit inside the building. Traffic flow&exterior parking shouldn't be an issue. Ms. Menon reads the definition for"Motor vehicle light service" from Section 10.0 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: "Premises for the supplying of fuel,oil, lubrication,washing, or minor repair services, but not to include body work, painting, or major repairs." And the definition for"Motor Vehicle General Repairs" from Section 10.0 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: "Premises for the servicing and repair of autos, but • not to include fuel sales." Mr. Kaplan clarifies that there will be no fuel sales and no body work. They will be doing mostly smaller repairs, but may occasionally do an engine swap, etc that would qualify as general auto repair. Ms. Curran asks if they would do any painting. Mr. Kaplan responds no. Ms. Curran asks if there is a residential building next door. Mr. Kaplan responds that there is an apartment building, but it is in the Industrial zone. He adds they they do high-end auto repair. Ms. Curran asks if there will be any change to the building, or if they will be using it as-is. Mr. McShay answers that they will be using it as-is. Ms. Curran asks if there will be room for all of the cars inside the building. Mr. Kaplan and Mr. McShay reply that everything, including parking,can fit inside the large building. Ms. Curran notes that there is an outbuilding,and asks if the applicants will be using it. Mr. McShay states that they are not using the outbuilding,and they don't know who uses the outbuilding. It isn't theirs. Ms. Curran opens the hearing for public comment. Mike Shultz, 1 Fairmount road, Peabody MA: These two young gentlemen worked for meat Stutz Volvo. I know them as fine young men who went out to start their own business. They started in Peabody in a tiny building with only 3 stalls. They are good people,they do good work, and they are smart and honest. He knew they would do well and outgrow the space in Peabody. They have now outgrown it. • Peabody hates to lose them. Salem will find them as a welcome addition. 3 Tom Furey—36 Dunlap St,Salem, MA-Councilor at Large. He had a Volvo for many years. This situation • is areal gain for Salem, and Peabody's loss. It's going to be a premier spot for Salem. Bob Brophy—Owns 165 Boston Street, Boston Street Auto Body. Will the applicants be using the entire building—the front and rear of the building? Ms. Curran replies that they will not be using the outbuilding in the rear, but they will be using the entire front building. Mr. Brophy asks about parking-that end of Boston Street gets very congested with the rental trucks,etc. Mr. Kaplan replies that they are going to have customers drive right in to the building. They are going to be able to park almost 20 cars inside, so the parking will not be any different than it is now. The entrance door is on the side of the building, so deliveries will not be from the street,they will be from the parking lot side. Mr. Kaplan states that they work closely with the towing company next door. They cooperate with neighbors to get along. Their previous location was very tight, and they never had an issue. Ms. Curran asks if there will be no need for curb cuts, and if the parking will be inside. Mr. McShay replies yes. Parking will be as much as we can inside the building. Arsenio Villarosa, 166 Boston St. He just bought the building 4-5 months ago. The residence has a common driveway with the shop. It's been tight with the big trucks. But if these guys are going to be doing good business, it will get more congested. Mr.Villarosa's concern is that with more customers and the general auto repair, it will get more congested and noisier(compression guns, revving cars, engine swaps, etc). Ms. Curran asks the applicants if they want to talk about the noise issue. • Mr. Kaplan states that there wouldn't be any greater noise than the current use. Light repair isjust as noisy as general repair. Mr. McShay states that the building is well insulated. The lumber business previously in the space had giant saws going, so this use won't be any noisier than before. Mr. Kaplan asks Mr.Villarosa to let them know if they have any problems or concerns. He adds that it is an industrial area,so if they don't move in there,who knows what will wind up in there. Mr. McShay& Mr. Kaplan state that the side of the property will still be U-Haul's lot, so there won't be any change in use of that drive from what it is now. There's a driveway that goes right to the front of their building, and that's all they'll use. Mr. Mc.Shay states that if they don't have use the side drive,they won't. Mr. Kaplan explains that they'll be doing 8-10 cars a day, and they can fit them all inside the building. Mr. McShay clarifies that there are two outside parking spots, but they're along the driveway to the front of the building. g Mr. Brophy asks where the office is going to be-will it be the existing office that's there now? The wooden part? Kaplan replies that they're going to use an office in the upstairs of the building. The wooden part is still used by U-Haul. Mr. Duffy states that he believes that the proposed change would not be substantially more detrimental than the current use. There would be a positive economic result,and community needs would be served by this. There would likely be no impact on parking or loading in the area. The parking is housed inside the building, and the business will be using the front drive and door. There is no question that there will • 4 • be adequate utilities or public services to the building. The applicant states in their application that they strive to operate a "green business" as much as they can. This Special Permit would only change the type of repair work being done as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. There would be no changes to the building or the setup. It sounds like it's going to be a growing business, with a potentially positive fiscal impact on the city, the tax base,and the surrounding businesses. He is in favor of approving the petition. Ms. Curran and Mr.Tsitsinos agree. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy moves to approve the petition with 4 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Watkins. The vote was unanimous with four(4)in favor(Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Ms. Curran)and none (0)opposed The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes Discussion:Mr. St. Pierre states that there may need to be some plumbing changes with the change to full auto repair. He will ask for a code review to be done by a building inspector. Public Hearing: Petition of EMIL KRANER requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of an existing Rooming House to 5 residential units,at the property located at 2 EMERTON STREET(112 Zoning District). Documents& Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 10/28/2013 and accompanying materials The Petitioner, Mr. Emil Kraner,404 Paradise Road, Swampscott, MA, presents the petition. • The house is currently used as a boarding/sober house. It is in a rundown condition inside and out. The house is for sale, and Mr. Kraner is proposing to buy it. In order to maintain the house up to current standards,the house has to be completely stripped down to the beams and rebuilt. He won't really change the structure, but will replace everything, including plumbing and electrical, and rebuild it as four 1-bedroom units, plus the one existing 2-bedroom unit, for a total of five residential units. Ms. Curran asks Mr. Kraner to explain how the rooming house operates. Mr. Kraner clarifies that the rooming house isn't his. It has 7 rooms. There are three double-occupancy rooms, four single-occupancy rooms, and one 2-bedroom apartment. Ms. Curran asks if there parking on the site. Mr. Kraner replies that unfortunately,the way it is built, there is no way to put any parking on the site without really ripping down the house. Ms. Curran responds that she can see that the building occupies the entire lot. Mr. Kraner clarifies that the building was constructed in the 1880s. Mr. Kraner states that he is building 1-bedroom apartments. There is a real shortage of small apartments in the city. He prefers building 1-bedroom apartments. The renters are typically better with 1- bedrooms, as typical renters are young professionals, and there are no parties, no noise. Mr. St. Pierre asks Mr. Kraner if he has any other rental properties. Mr. Kraner responds that he does. He has been doing it for 15 years. He's primarily an engineer, but has other rental properties. Chair opens the hearing for public comment. Mike Sosnowski, 17 Collins Street,Salem-Ward 2 Councilor. He is opposed to the petition. It is not • currently in use as a sober house. It is a rooming house. The rooming house was allowed to have that 5 many units only because they would never require parking. With the proposed use,there would be a minimum of 5 cars, possibly 10. Emerton Street cannot support more parking. If you want to buy it, • fine, but you should convert it to two condos and sell those. There are a lot of people here tonight who will speak to this. Ed Beaupre—11 Boardman Street,Salem. He is in opposition. He and his wife have lived there for 30 years. The parking in his neighborhood is horrendous. You should change the property back to the original R-2 zoning. The owner of the rooming house, back when they moved in, assured the neighborhood that there would only be 1 car resulting from the occupancy of the management apartment. This place has been a dump for a long time. You could tear it down, pave it over, and sell it as parking to the neighbors. Two years ago Mr. Sosnowski had to have the city come down and pull all the snow out of the area, because it was impacting the parking. Carolyn Barres, 9 Boardman Street. Many of the houses are condos and 3-families. Each floor comes with a car or two. Parking is the big issue. The house is an eyesore. With 5 units, I can't see where the people would go [park]. During the winter it would be a nightmare. She is opposed to the 5 units. Kathleen Cullen, 25 Forrester Street. There is no parking at all. Emerton Street has basically no parking itself, and the people on Emerton Street come park on Forrester St. The property has been a dump,and few people have been living in it. It's a 2-family zone, it's a big family neighborhood, and the apartment building would be a strange mix with the families. It's loud when it's filled with tenants. There is a demand- if someone reverted it to a 1 or 2 family house, the neighborhood would be very happy. She is opposed to 5 units. Ted Kobialka—27 Forrester. Parking is tight on the corner where the building is. • Kristine Doll,30 Forrester St. Would like to echo each of these objections. Last winter, a fire truck could not make it down and around the corner to Emerton Street because of the tight parking. The fire truck then couldn't back out. They had to have a tow truck come move the parked cars to get the fire truck out. To anticipate 5,10, 15 more cars coming in, it's unthinkable. Ed Keenan, 21 Forrester St. Also owns a 2-family at 26 Forrester Street. Parking is horrendous. There is just no room to bring that amount of cars into the neighborhood. Jan Costa, 17 Forrester Street. It has been a horrible place to have in the neighborhood. I can't stand the thought of it being a 5-unit house. MaryAnne Curtin—35 Forrester St,objects to the conversion to a 5-unit residence. She doesn't think that particular part of Salem will generate that kind of rental. She doesn't think it would be feasible. Parking is impossible. It would be great if that house was turned into something nice. 5 residences would be 5 cars minimum,and she can't see how that would work. Christina Bash, 37 Forrester St. Is in direct opposition to having that many apartments in the building. Ms. Curran asks the applicant how big the building is. Mr. Kraner replies that it is 3,770 square feet. He states that the house was for sale for 6 months. The owner is not willing to sell for less than a normal house on the street. Anyone who would buy that • 6 house would have to pay full P can see rice, and then pay again to re-do everything in the house. As you , it is impossible to get anyone interested in buying the house as a 2-family house. He prefers to have • small apartments. With large apartments it's more difficult to manage. Most of the people here object to the parking issue. Unfortunately he didn't create the situation. Maybe the City can help somehow with improving the parking. If someone converted it to a 2-family house,you'd have 3-4 cars on the street anyway. He is trying to bring the house to its best condition, in this situation. He would like to have parking, but he cannot. There is no space. You can keep it in the current condition, and it would still be a dump on your street. He is trying. Ms. Curran states that the house is in an R-2 zone, and asks Mr. St. Pierre if the building by-right could be a 2-family. Mr. St. Pierre replies that you'd have to look at the lot area per dwelling unit. It's possible there's a non- conformity. You could get to a 2-family through a special permit application process. Ms. Curran and Mr. St. Pierre clarify that it's definitely a 1-family by-right, and possibly a 2-family. Ms. Curran -so presently it's a boarding house (8 units). Mr. Kraner's proposal looks like less units, but typically in a boarding house, not every person has a car. So parking is an issue. If we were looking at this and there weren't any parking concerns,this would be a different situation. With four 1-bedroom units and one 2-bedroom unit, it could be up to 10 additional cars with no parking. So I think in that way it is more detrimental. Mr. Duffy asks under the zoning, is there no requirement for parking for a rooming house? Councilor Sosnowski responds. In looking at rooming houses throughout the city,we do not anticipate any parking at all except for the manager or owner. That's the only reason why a rooming house is • issued the license. Mr.St. Pierre responds with all due respect, it's a zoning question not a licensing question. He hasn't had to look at any new rooming houses coming in, in the 15 years that he's been here, so he hasn't had to look at this situation before. The normal off-street parking requirement is 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit. Mr. Duffy asks,wouldn't it also require a Variance for parking? St. Pierre responds that it's possible. We were also thinking that it could possibly fall under the change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use. The Special Permit can be pretty broad. Mr.Tsitsinos states that he agrees with the neighborhood. The parking is really bad. I tried to get down there, and it's really hard. I don't think it's a good fit. It would be good to see it cleaned up, naturally, but 5 units... Mr. Duffy agrees that's the difficulty. This proposal is to improve the building, but the parking sounds difficult. The piece of information that alarmed me the most was the issue with the fire truck. You're putting lives at risk if you can't get in with a fire truck. Mr.Tsitsinos adds that the parking situation is horrendous. You can hardly fit a car down the street. Mr.St. Pierre requests to reply to Mr. Duffy's earlier question: that the Table of Required Parking Spaces in the Zoning Code [Section 5.1.81 states that for dwellings in RC, R1, R2 and R3 districts, rooming houses,tourist homes, and home occupations, 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit is required. So you'd have to get a Variance for parking. Mr. Kraner responds that in that case,most likely the house will stay in its current condition. Curran clarifies that the cost of the building can't be part of the Board's criteria for making a change. Curran adds that it can't be said that this use is less detrimental. It's probably more detrimental by making it market-rate apartments which are very likely to have cars associated with each,and making 7 the parking situation worse. Mr. Beaupre adds a comment: he'd rather have it look like a dump than have it add to the parking • problem. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy moves to approve the petition, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The petition was denied with none (0)in favor(Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy. Mr. Tsitsinos, and Ms. Curran)and four(4) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes. Public Hearing: petition of MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow use of the property for auto repair,auto part sales, boat and engine service, and auto body work,at the property located at 62 JEFFERSON AVE (113 Zoning District). Documents& Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 10/30/2013 and accompanying materials ➢ Photos submitted by the applicant at the hearing ➢ A letter in opposition to the application,with photos,submitted by Robert Dunham The petitioner, Michael McLaughlin, 62 Jefferson Avenue, presents the petition. He distributes photos of the building at 62 Jefferson Avenue. He bought the building in early 2006. He appeared before the ZBA for a change of use permit at that time. It had previously operated as an auto repair for 40+years. He used it for his plumbing business, and allowed the auto use to fall by the wayside. By 2008, he was crushed by the recession,and was forced out of the business. He tried to sell the building for several months this year, but has been unsuccessful. This is an R-1 zoning district. If you look at the general • area,the property is next to two giant parking lots. Up and down Jefferson Ave,the majority of the businesses are either industrial, or auto repair, auto garage, auto body types of business. This building was built out for auto repair after I tried to sell the building,to seek out the best potential tenant uses. His tenant Richard Burk operates a boat&marine repair business. He did not realize the business name included "auto repair." Mr. McLaughlin would like to position himself for the best potential suitable use. He thought he had done that with boat tenant,which is only a 2-man operation. It does not maintain irregular business hours or late night operation. Mr. Bird does a lot of dock-side service. When Mr. McLaughlin had his business there, he had 10 employees there. Mr. McLaughlin wants to have permission for Mr. Bird to operate his business. Ms. Curran states that it looks like the Petitioner has appeared before the Board on a couple of occasions. She asks Mr.St. Pierre if he thinks the Marine use is conforming? Mr. St. Pierre replies that no, he doesn't think the marine or the auto use conforms with the other special permits that have been issued for this property. Mr. McLaughlin adds that no homes or residences have a close view of his building. There may be houses around the corner or up the hill, but no one with a close view. Mr. Watkins asks what the building next door is (to the right of the building, looking from the street side). Mr. McLaughlin responds that it's mixed-use. It's owned by Bob Dunham,who owns the building across the street, a parking lot,and several parcels down the street. The letter the Board received is from Mr. Dunham. He allowed the auto use to be written out of the original decision at this neighbor's request,as Mr. McLaughlin didn't think it would come up. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that the building to the right is a large single-family home. • 8 Mr. McLaughlin says that it isn't quite a single-family home. It used to be a garage. Mr. Dunham knocked • it down to build a two-story building to give to his daughter, a sculptor. He developed the first floor as a sculpture studio,with a small residential unit on the top floor. When he had the building designed, he didn't put any windows on the side of the building facing Mr. McLaughlin's property. It's been difficult having this building in an R-1 district. Back when the zoning was being recodified, Mr. McLaughlin inquired about rezoning the property, and he was informed that the property couldn't be spot-rezoned. Ms. Curran reads the letter from Robert Dunham into the record. Ms. Curran opens the hearing to public comment Richard Bird,the tenant with the boat service. He doesn't need the parking space—he has lots in other places for boat storage. He provides mobile marine service. Regarding the automotive repair, he's a specialist in corvettes. He works on a couple specialty cars—his own and friends. That's not what he doesfor a living, it's more of a hobby. He needed a base location for the marine business. He doesn't do body work, or painting. He very rarely bring boats to the 62 Jefferson Avenue location—he has brought his own boats down there to winterize them. He's looking for a base for the business on a main street, so that potential customers can see his business. He has 3 service vehicles, and 2 people who work for him. Ms. Curran asks how big the building is. Mr. McLaughlin responds that it is approximately 10,000 sf. The majority of the building mass is the original building. • Ms. Curran asks if there are 3 units in this building. Mr. McLaughlin responds that there are 4. Ms. Curran asks where the parking is. Mr. McLaughlin answers that in back of the property is a rock cliff. Ms. Curran clarifies that the use the applicant is asking for is auto repair,auto part sales, boat and engine service, and auto body work. Mr. Watkins adds that in essence approving it would approve it for the whole building Ms. Curran states that it looks like the applicant owns about 6 feet in the front of the building. Mr. McLaughlin responds that there is no specific curb. There is just a general sidewalk/walk-by area. Ms. Curran asks the applicant to describe the operation that he'd like to see here. Mr. McLaughlin responds that in this case, he felt that his tenant Richard Bird was a suitable use. The 2009 application was for the renter at the time and his activities. He thought the Decision made back then would allow this use. Ms. Curran asks if the applicant is proposing any exterior changes to the building. Mr. McLaughlin clarifies that it is not required. The space is ideally configured for the requested use. Mr.Tsitsinos asks how much parking would the marine repair tenant need? Mr. McLaughlin states that he granted him 3 parking spaces in the lot,the remaining spaces are divided up between the other tenants. He can use those for parking or temporary boat parking Mr.Tsitsinos asks if the spaces would be used for boat movement or storage. Mr. McLaughlin states that they would be used for boat movement. Mr. Bird provides dock-side service, and when a boat does come up to the garage, it goes into the building. Ms. Curran states that the building seems suited to automotive use. She notes that some of the photos submitted by Mr. Dunham are disturbing though—like the one of the boat being backed in. • Mr. Bird responds that it was his boat- it was brought down to winterize it and wrap it up. He brought it 9 inside the building. The photo of the boat being backed in is from last night. That boat will be gone tomorrow. • Ms. Curran asks if he does that with lots of boats. Mr. Bird—no, it's a special boat. He does a lot of stern-driving builds, and he ships and builds engines. But he needs a base to put engines together, put stern-drives together. He also has some specialty cars that he works on and that he's keeping there now. The picture of the.RV [submitted by Mr. Dunham]— it's an RV he has for Patriot's games. It was sitting there for a week, and now it's in his lot in Lynn. Mr. McLaughlin states that the RV has no bearing on the site—it was parked on the street. Michael Curley, works for Mr. Bird. If they bring a boat in, it's a 30-second thing. It doesn't hold up traffic for a long time. They're not opposed to working with the City so that they can have the site. It's a great location for advertising. 90%of their work is mobile. They work in Revere, Winthrop, Danvers, ... Mostly they get in the shop in the morning to get their materials for the day,then they're gone. Mr. Bird states that he travels to service people's boats. He prefers to work outside. Ms. Curran asks if there is any problem with having more than one use in this building. Mr. St. Pierre replies that the City zoning doesn't address that Mr. Duffy states that this letter[from Mr. Dunham] makes reference to requests for enforcement, and asks Mr. St. Pierre if he knows of any requests. Mr.St. Pierre responds that he does not. Mr. Duffy references the history of the nonconforming repair use on the site. It changed to a plumbing use in 2005. The same abutter [Mr. Dunham] had issues with the auto repair business, but there doesn't appear to have been any request or any real debate at that time about continuing the auto repair use. • The building seems to be suitable to it. The only additional concern is storing boats or other equipment outside of the actual building. There can be conditions set to not permit storage outside of the building except for cars. Can the issues be addressed if that kind of condition is included? Ms.Curran notes that the special permit could include storage of cars and boats, but not other things. It sounds like the objections in the letter [from Mr. Dunham] are to some of the other things outside the building. It is a residential unit there. It is an R-1 district, but it is a very industrial/commercial area. Salem is a marine city,so it's good to have marine businesses. However, some conditions to restrict the stuff outside might be appropriate. Ms. Curran has no problem with the use or the storage of boats or cars, but the outside storage of other stuff is an issue. Mr. McLaughlin states that the mason tenant put scaffolding out to store tools and equipment. Mr.St. Pierre notes that the applicant is clearly in violation of outside storage conditions laid out in the previous decision. Ms. Curran states that the applicant is in violation of that, and the Board would probably carry forward that condition or one like it. Mr. St. Pierre cautions that the location of body shops anywhere near residential units usually results in problems. Ms. Curran notes that the applicant is trying to think toward the future, so that he doesn't have to keep coming back. Mr. McLaughlin notes that this is his 3`d appearance before the board. Ms. Curran agrees that auto body work really does create problems when mixed with residential. Mr. McLaughlin states that he'd be willing to drop the auto body request. Mr. Watkins states that he is open to boat and car repair, but would like to drop the auto body portion of the request. 10 • Mr. St. Pierre notes that there is a question about whether the Board should be modifying an existing Special Permit or creating a new Special Permit. Ms. Curran notes that it was advertised as a new Special Permit, and that seems to be the way the Special Permits have been done in the past for this property. The Board should carry forward the item about no outdoor storage except for cars and boats, and no more than 5 cars or boats may be store on the site at one time. Mr. McLaughlin states that he believes there are 8 parking spaces. Are storing and parking spaces the same thing? Ms. Curran clarifies that if someone drives to work,that's not storing,that's parking. If you're working on a car/boat and waiting for someone to come pick it up,that's storage. The Board discusses the conditions to carry forward from the previous Special Permit decisions. They concur that all conditions set in the Board of Appeals 2009 Decision should be carried forward, but that the 3rd condition should be modified to include boats so that it would read "No outdoor storage, except storage of cars or boats, is permitted. No more than five (5) cars or boats maybe stored on site at a time", also that a condition should be added to prohibit the use of the property for auto body work, and also to carry forward all of the conditions set in the Board of Appeals 2005 Decision. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy moves to approve the petition with 2 standard conditions and 4 special conditions,seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with four(4)in favor (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Ms. Curran) and none(0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes. • Public Hearing: Petition of RICHARD TURNER requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the maximum allowed height of buildings in feet and the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories, and a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow an extension of an existing nonconforming structure,for the construction of a roof deck;and a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the reconstruction of two existing nonconforming garages,at the property located at 18 OCEAN TERRACE(113 Zoning District). Documents& Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 10/30/2013 and accompanying materials and photographs ➢ Letter in opposition from John DeFelice, abutter The Petitioner- Richard Turner, 30 Crescent Ave, Beverly—presents the petition. He is the owner and contractor working at 18 Ocean Terrace. He'd like to continue it's grandfathered usage as a 3-family building, and to reconstruct the garages. Because the property is so steep, it's hard to create outdoor space for the exclusive use of each owner. There may be enough flat area around the building to create two small patio areas, but not three. Because of the nature of the slope,the underpinnings of a ground- level deck would be unsightly. To create more outdoor space for the top floor unit, he'd like to construct a deck on the roof. Ms. Curran points out that there is an existing deck on the 3`d floor. Mr.Turner confirms that there is. Each unit has its own small space—about 9'x15'. The proposed roof • deck is 16'+/-x 12',for the exclusive use of the third floor. From the front of building,the front of the 11 building is about 29'tall. If he adds a "penthouse" structure,there would be an additional 8 feet. • Dramatic slope exposes perhaps an additional 10 feet of basement,so it's perhaps 48'tall from grade at the back. He's been in communications with the building inspector about whether two forms of egress would be required from the deck. If only one is required, then he wouldn't have to construct the "penthouse" structure over the stairs serving as a second form of egress, and the only additional height would be about a foot(for the floor of the structure) and 48" handrails around the deck. It would appear as a roof balustrade. In that case the only egress would be a spiral staircase from the existing third floor porch. Ms. Curran asks Mr. St. Pierre what triggers the roof deck coming before the Board. Mr. St. Pierre replies that it is viewed as an additional story of living space, even though it's open. To answer the penthouse (egress) question—we have not gotten into that code question yet. We will in the next couple of days. Ms. Curran state that it might be good information to have. Ms. Curran reads into the record a letter from John DeFelice, in opposition to the proposal. Ms. Curran opens the hearing to public comment. Kathy Bruin, 8 Shore Avenue. She is not for or against the project, she just wants to find out more information about it. She is confused as to how the roof deck will work for the 3rd floor unit. Why add it when there's already 3 decks? Mr.Turner responds that the existing porches are 9'x15',which is limited space for an outdoor gathering. Ms. Bruin asks if the other decks are the same size. Mr.Turner responds that they are, but for the 1:t and 2"d floors, there's the possibility to create patios for • their use. There isn't really room for 3 patio spaces. Ms. Curran asks what the lot size is. Ms. Bruin and Mr.Turner state that the lot is large, but it's sloped. Mr.Watkins reads from the plot plan that it is 10,413 square feet. Ms. Curran asks about the garage rebuilding. Mr.Turner explains that they will be rebuilt on the same footprint, but will be a little bit higher. Mr.St. Pierre clarifies that the applicant also needs a Special Permit for construction of the garages within 5 feet of the lot line,just to cover everything legally. Ms. Curran wishes that the Board had the information about whether or not you need the cover for the structure(penthouse) on the top, as a formal second means of egress on the deck. It's so towering now, it's hard to see adding to the structure. If it were just the railing,that might be OK. Mr.Tsitsinos states that he's all for the construction of the roof deck, personally. Ms. Curran states that if it were just the roof deck, it wouldn't be a big impact, but with the "penthouse" it would be quite large, and towering over everything. Mr. Turner states that he would be in favor of not having the penthouse as it detracts from the appearance of the building, but it might be required by code. Mr. St. Pierre asks the applicant if he would entertain having a bulkhead-style entrance for the second egress, rather than the "penthouse" structure? Mr.Turner states that he would agree to that. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that he would picture a hatch like in a commercial building. That would only be required if the building inspector found that a second egress was required. Mr.Tsitsinos states that in general, he likes it. • 12 Mr. Duffy states that the Board usually has their approvals subject to the plans submitted. Would we just make a note in the Decision that it would be for the plans with the alteration that there would be no penthouse,and a second egress provided as required by building code, not to be more than 42" above the roof? Mr.Turner states that he would probably construct the hatch so that people could walk over it when it's closed, and no one would see it or use it unless there's an emergency. Mr.Tsitsinos states that it's an awesome concept—no one would see the hatch. Karen Russell, 6 Shore Avenue, asks if with the roof deck—can you see into our back yard? Mr. Turner responds no. Most people would be looking out toward Gloucester and beyond. Ms. Bruin states that from the side decks,the view to our yard is wide open right now. Can I request as a good neighbor gesture that screening be put in along one side of the property? The area was cleared for the work that's been done. And truthfully,this is not the best yard to have wide open. New trees will take too long to grow in. Mr.Turner explains that there will be landscape work done, including stairs to get from the garages to the house. Ms. Bruin asks when the trees would be going in. Mr.Turner states that he wanted to do it now, but it's too late in the season to get good plant stock. It would be done in the early spring. Ms. Curran asks the applicant if he has a landscape plan. Mr.Turner responds that he does not yet, but he is sensitive to the neighbor's privacy. It works on both sides of the fence. Ms. Bruin adds that safety is important too—there's a drop between the properties. Ms. Curran summarizes that it is two issues with the screening—privacy and delineation. Ms. Curran states that the easiest thing for the applicant would be to install a fence for the immediate need, and then work out the landscape plan. Mr. Duffy asks, in terms of putting in a condition—are we talking about a fence? Mr. St. Pierre notes that it has to be enforceable. Ms. Curran states that the Board can continue the hearing, and the applicant can submit a landscape plan. Mr.Turner states that he didn't realize the privacy/boundary was before the board today. Ms. Curran replies that it's a matter of any detrimental effects on the neighborhood. Ms. Curran suggests a split-rail fence for delineation,to be followed by landscaping. The applicant and Mr.Tsitsinos agree that a split-rail fence would be a good solution. Ms. Bruin expresses her wish to have more time to think about it and discuss it with Mr.Turner. Mr. St. Pierre reads a draft condition -the developer shall develop and implement a landscape plan in consultation with the abutters to address the need for delineation and privacy screening. Ms. Curran adds a condition that no part of the roof deck is to rise above the required 42" railing. Mr. Duffy states the findings for the Variance. As it concerns the Variance, based on the evidence on the record tonight,the topography of the property makes a hardship where there isn't adequate space for outdoor gatherings for all of the units in the building. There are no conditions that would make this substantially detrimental to the community,or that would derogate from the zoning ordinance, as amended. The Special Permits requested can be granted without any detriment to the neighborhood as well. The reconstruction of the garages will better the neighborhood. • 0 Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions and 2 special conditions, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with four(4)in favor (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Ms. Curran)and none(0)opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes. Approval of Minutes October 16,2013 Draft Meeting Minutes Motion and Vote:Mr. Duffy moves to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with four(4)in favor(Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Ms. Curran)and none (0) opposed. Adjournment Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy moves to adiourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos and unanimously approved 4-0. The meeting adjourns at 8:52 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/PagesISa/emMA ZoningAppealsMin/ Respectfully submitted, , Dana Menon,Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 1/1SC1014 • 14 F �OA1�T� CITY OF SALEM, IVIASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL A�✓X -� 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHJSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE .You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppealr mdll hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday,December 18,2013 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall Annex, RM 313, 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA Rebecca Curran,Chair 2i MEETING AGENDA c") r ram*+ I. ROLL CALL i II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES . rn ➢ November 20,2013 meeting 3 3 .. D Ld III. REGULAR AGENDA ut°i J Project: A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconfomring Uses • of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use. (APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE) Applicant GENIA PATESTIDES Location: 107 FEDERAL STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project A Public Hearing for a petition requesting Variances under Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning.Ordinance to allow the creation of two lots,each smaller than the required minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet,and with less than the required minimum lot frontage of 100 feet and the required minimum lot width of 100 feet Applicant PETER HANTZOPOULOS Location: 13 CHERRY HILL AVENUE(RI Zoning District) Project A Public Hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3 Nonconforming Uses and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from an existing nonconforming use to another non-conforming use;a Variance under Section 5.1.2 Location of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow required parking to be located on a separate lot;Variances under Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow encroachment on the minimum allowed width of side yard and minimum allowed depth of rear yard,and relief from the maximum allowed lot coverage by buildings Applicant SPIRO BOUNSALIEH Location: 152-156 DERBY STREET (Bl Zoning District) Project A Public Hearing for a petition requesting Variances under Secdon.4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to increase the height of a previously approved tank by 5 feet, for a proposed total height of 43 feet and 9 inches. The construction of the tank to a height'of 38 feet and 9 inches was previously approved in a Decision dated May 29,2013. Applicant: JACQUELINE'S GOURMET COOKIES Location: 96 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD (BPD Zoning District) This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem,.Mass. on '�b U. llt Z i oe J at I'37 P�t in accordance with MGL Chap. 3OA, Sactions 19-2S. t City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for December 18,2013 Meeting Page 2 of 2 Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Variance under Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the minimum depth of rear yard and minimum width of side yard requirements. Applicant: LINDA GAGNON Location: 54 CHARLES STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project A public heating for a petition requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit,minimum lot frontage,and minimum lot width requirements. Applicant ANDREW PERKINS Location: 15 CHERRY HILL AVENUE (RI Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS • Review and vote: 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Schedule V. ADJOURNMENT • 4 i CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL ''��t????�?CC{ `•�,,/ 120 WASHINGTON STREET # SALEM,MASSACFIDSF;C]'S 01970 K]MBERLEYDluscou, Tea.E:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Dana Menon,Staff Planner DATE: December 12,2013 RE: Meeting Agenda for December 18,2013 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Meeting Minutes from 11/20/2013 • 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 11/20/2013 meeting. 1. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. Petition of GENIA PATESTIDES requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, at the property located at 107 FEDERAL STREET (R2 Zoning District). The applicant has submitted a letter requesting to withdraw witbout prejudice. This letter is included as attachment A. The applicant was seeking a Special Permit to allow her to operate her book design and publishing business at the property. A Special Permit had been granted in 2006 to the previous tenant of the space—a graphic design studio and art gallery—to operate in the space. I am including the application materials for your reference. 2. Petition of PETER HANTZOPOULOS requesting Variances under Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the creation of two lots,each smaller than the required minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet, and with less than the required minimum lot frontage of 100 feet and the required minimum lot width of 100 feet, for the property located at 13 CHERRY HILL AVENUE (Rl Zoning District). At the two previous meetings-October 16 and November 20, 2013 -the applicant requested to continue the hearing of this petition, as there were a minimum number of Board members in attendance. The application materials were included in the packet you received in advance of the October 166 meeting. • The variances,if granted,would relax the dimensional requirements for minimum lot area,minimum lot frontage, and minimum lot width. See the table below. City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—December 18,2013 Page 2 of 5 1R I H.- I 1 o,a 17 l=A%t 7: w Minimum Lot Area 15,000 11,413 11,416 (square feet) �Ut U 75 00 so, ml M �in �P q� EZIIRIF T 7, Minimum lot frontagi'(feei) 100".1 V R, 15F �0 Zz N" 011,11 NO , -,%u,M,� I � Minimum lot width (feet)* 100 74.30 75.75 * "Minimum lot width required shall be measured at the rear of the required front yard depth and on a line parallel to the right-of-way line..." (Section 4.1.2 Notes to Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance). The required front yard depth in an Rl District is fifteen (15) feet. The Written Statement submitted states "Having this properly as one lot poses a hardship as we have two daughters for whom we would like to build homes and need two separate lots." MGL Ch.40A Section 10 states that a permit granting authority may grant a Variance"... where such permit granting authority specifically finds that owing to circumstances relating to the sod conditions, shape,or topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or by-law would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise,to the petitioner or appellant,and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of such ordinance or by-law." The Written Statement submitted with the application states "The desirable reliefpmvided by the variance will not cause any detriment to the public good nor will it affect the character of the neig hborhood negatively. In fact, most of the surrounding lots with homes built on them have 50ft.frontage and are much smaller than the lots I am proposing for this variance." Please see • Attachment A-parcel maps of the immediate neighborhood from the City of Salem Online Property Viewer- for your reference in this matter. 3. Petition of SPIRO KOUNSALIEH requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3 Nonconforming Uses and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from an existing nonconforming use to another non-conforming use; a Variance under Section 5.1.2 Location of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow required parking to be located on a separate lot;Variances under Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow encroachment on the minimum allowed width of side yard and minimum allowed depth of rear yard,and relief from the maximum allowed lot coverage by buildings, at the property located at 156 DERBY STREET (111 Zoning District). This petition was continued upon the applicant's request at the November 201h,2013 meeting. No evidence was taken at the November 20fl,meeting . Request for a Special Permit to change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use: The applicant is proposing to renovate an existing 3,d floor space above the existing restaurant for use as an apartment. There is currently one apartment above the restaurant on the second floor. Variances to allow encroachment on the minimum allowed width of sidejard and minimum allowed depth of rearyard and relief from the maximum allowed lot coverage by buildings.- The applicant proposes to expand an existing exterior stairway that provides access to the second and third floors. The applicant states that the existing stairway encroaches on an abutting parcel,and would like to reconfigure it to bring it into compliance. This new configuration would place the stairway entirely on the applicant's property however; the stairway would encroach on the minimum required side yard and depth of 2 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—December 18, 2013 Page 3 of 5 • rear yard. It would also slightly increase the existing nonconformity to the maximum lot coverage requirement. See the table below. li gtirfllrmtaucri , Pxw�loaett tl : }' 1}imtastLil P„tl:; .. ��+"`rflt°�tcd,SL04 x. e }'.rin x_ r t '.,u,WE] t � uu�� Minimum width of side yard 10 0 0 Minimum depth of rear yard 30 2.6' 2.6' Maximum lot coverage by buildings 40% 68.9% 69.9% Variance to allow required parking to be located on a separate lot., As there is inadequate parking on-site, the applicant is also requesting a variance to allow the parking spaces required for the two apartment units to be located off-site. The applicant has submitted a lease agreement for these parking spaces—this is included as attachment B. Attachment C includes a February 2013 letter from the Building Department informing the applicant that a Building Department inspection of the property found an illegal dwelling unit on the 3�d floor, and requiring Mr. Kounsaheh to bring the property into compliance. Also under this attachment is a February 2004 Board of Appeal Decision granting a Special Permit to enlarge a nonconforming structure and a Variance from front, side, and rear setbacks and lot coverage. The work described in this Decision was an expansion of the building to increase the seating capacity of the restaurant,which would eliminate four parking spaces (retaining one handicapped parking space). • 4. Petition of JACQUELINE'S GOURMET COOKIES,requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to increase the height of a previously approved tank by 5 feet,for a proposed total height of 43 feet and 9 inches. The construction of the tank to a height of 38 feet and 9 inches was previously approved in a Decision dated May 29,2013,at the property located at 96 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD (BPD Zoning District). This petition was scheduled to be heard at the November 20, 2013 hearing, but the Salem News failed to print the required legal notification. The application materials were included in the packetyou received in advance of the November 201b meeting. The applicant is required to submit a request for a variance as the tank which they are proposing to enlarge is less than ten (10) feet from the principal building, and exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height. While the applicant wrote that they are seeking"Variances from Section 7-8",and the petition was advertised as being a request for a Variance under Section 4.1.1, the Variances are actually needed under Section 3.2.4 Accessory Buildings and Structures. See the table,below. dn i1}x3n na pal'!. uumcuts" g tSt P c° +mp ased 1?C "AppruYetb }�me}isioh`. cgttie` ��tatsclard 1�txpettsitxtt (pec�ay 21�13I7 et +i Minimum distance of accessory 10, 1' 1 structure from principal building Maximum height of accessory 18, 43'-9" 38 9 structure • 3 Cityof Salem: Zoning Board f Appeals g oar o PP Staff Memorandum—December 18,2013 Page 4 of 5 The plans submitted with the application highlight the tank to be modified in green. On the plan titled"Part • Plan: New Liquid CO2&Liquid Nitrogen Tanks&Expanded Storage Bins"The tank is labeled"existing LN Tank Convert to CO2",as that was what was originally proposed in their April,2013 petition (approved May 2013). The last plan in the package, titled"Elevations: New Liquid CO2&Liquid Nitrogen Tanks + Expanded Storage Bins",the proposed additional height on the previously approved tank is highlighted in green,and labeled"Addition Height." The tanks highlighted in red are from the April 2013 application (approved May 2013). There are no new proposed changes to these tanks. The construction of two of the storage structures was approved in a September 2009 Decision. The May 29,2013 and the September 1,2009 Decisions are included under Attachment B for your reference. 5. Petition of LINDA GAGNON,requesting a Variance under Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the minimum depth of rear yard and minimum width of side yard requirements at the property located at 54 CHARLES STREET (112 Zoning District). The applicant reconstructed an existing entryway porch,creating a new enclosed entry with a muciroom, and adding a second floor bathroom over the entry area. The applicant has already completed this work,and is now seeking a Variance to bring it into compliance. The applicant explains the circumstances in the Statement of Hardship they have included in their application. The new mudroom and bathroom addition extend the footprint of the house closer to the side and rear lot lines—see the table and note below. Zttnin t)rdinauca). P vl 17tlneit iQxe .Yr �3? rr O rinerreiorialRegutrements Ice, t Standard ?uu�sa e Minimum depth of rear yard 10, 5.9' 5.5'/49'** 5.9' • Maximum width of side yard 30' 17.2' 23'(at narrowest point) 17.2' **See the plot plan submitted with the application. The lot is "L"shaped, forming a second (southern) "rear lot line" at the jog in the"L". Prior to the "reconstruction"of the entryway, the house footprint did not actually overlap with the southern rear lot line. The corner of the house fell at approximately a 5.5'radius from the jog in the"L", and was 49' from the northern rear lot line. 6. Petition of ANDREW PERKINS requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit,minimum lot frontage, and minimum lot width requirements for the property located at 15 CHERRY HILL AVENUE (111 Zoning District). Attorney Graver, the petitioner's representative, indicated in a pbone conversation that the Petitioner will be submitting a letter to request to Witbdraw Witbout Prejudice prior to the beating. The Petitioner is considering this, as the petition for 13 Chemy Hill Avenue is scheduled to be beard at the same meeting. At the time of writing,I have notyet received this letter, but I am anticipating it next week. I will letyou know ifl wben I receive this reque 7. Until I receive that request in writing,I will proceed witb preparing far the public beating of this petition. The Petitioner owns a lot that includes both 21 Valley Street and 15 Cherry Hill Avenue. The Petitioner wishes to split this property into two lots,and construct a new single-family dwelling on the Cherry Hill Avenue lot. Currently, there is only one structure(a home) on the lot,which has frontage on Valley Street. The application submitted requests Variances from the minimum lot size,minimum lot frontage,and minimum lot width • 4 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—December 18,2013 Page 5 of 5 • requirements for the 15 Cherry Hill Avenue lot. I advised the applicant's representative that the proposed building would also exceed the required minimum lot area per dwelling unit. See the table below: p ane aposet Uiu`mog kit ides lttlC##F4ddt ..S" Big), w- Minimum lot area 15,000 sf 6,659 sf 13,340 sf Minimum lot frontage 100, 50' *existing lot has frontage on Valley St. Minimum lot width 100, 50' *existing lot has frontage on Valley St. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit 15,000 sf 6,659 sf 13,340 sf While it is not outlined on the application form, the applicant's Statement of Grounds notes that the Valley Street lot,which would be effectively created if the creation of the Cherry Hill Avenue lot is approved,would also require a Variance from the minimum lot area requirement. After receipt of the application I informed the applicant's representative that the applicant would also have to apply to the Zoning Board for the nonconforming lot fronting on Valley Street. In considering this application, the Board may want to consider requiring the applicant to file a concurrent application for the 21 Valley Street lot. Attachments Attachment A—Letter from Genia Patestides requesting to Withdraw Without Prejudice the application for 107 • Federal Street Attachment B—Agreement to lease parking spaces,made between Spiro Kounsaheh and Captain Dusty's Inc, to provide parking for the proposed dwelling unit at 156 Derby Street Attachment C—February 2013 letter from the Building Department regarding an illegal dwelling unit on the third floor of 156 Derby Street; February 2004 Decision of the Board of Appeals on a petition submitted for 156 Derby Street. • 5 TINTI, QUINN, GROVER & FREY, P.C. 27 CONGRESS STREET,SUITE 414. •WILLIAM J.TINTI SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 tinti@tintilaw.com - WILLIAM B.ARDIFF(1965, 1995) WILLIAM F.QUINN TELEPHONE MARCIA MULFORD CINI WilliamFQuinn@aol.com (978)745-8065 • (978)7442948 OF COUNSEL SCOTT M.GROVER TELECOPIER JOHN D. KEENAN smgrover@tintilaw.com (978)745.3369 OF COUNSEL MARC P. FREY www.tintilawsom mpfrey@tintilaw.com JONATHAN M.OFiLOS jofilos@tintilaw.coml THOMAS J.HOGAN tjhogan@tintilaw.com /yI 11/05/2013 00, olF 06'2�r� .,w,--N'C"�� Chair and Members `O`'yFN Salem Board of Zoning Appeals 12o Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: Application for 156 Derby Street, Salem, MA 01970 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: • My client, Spiro Kounsalieh, hereby requests that his application for zoning relief for 156 Derby Street, as recently filed, be scheduled or continued for hearing until the December 18, 2013 Board meeting, rather than at the November meeting as previously requested. This will allow the applicant to complete his preparations, including obtaining and filing the parking lease that he references in the application. Thank you. Very truly yours, William F. Quinn To pity of Salern Board of Appeal From:Genia Patestides, co-owner of lWorld Book Media LLC December 11."'2013 Dear Board hirrnbt;,, T an requestiag lapprovai £loin ft,Board of appeal to Nvit#zdraw without prejudice the _ application subs id,ed on November?6",201 3 fur arl ^xistizig nonconforming use Special penait: fear IN federal -Street, t.inrt 1.;Sitc.trl_ ildA 019-10, This space is, Iocated in 8m I:2) Zoein" District b"e}lore to opeo ztn olT xe in Salem ii, 2014,ai)d hope (o do so in the eomiag r7mi7![is in bLVoite ,;OF MIXe€? rise di4tcict.. 7'hQlAk you for your (x)stsi:ieration. • {"jcria. Patestities City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet trot! Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date 12 / 1 8 / Zo I Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail , 4 s /'� ��// lrt�i%/ i9P. 9187�/S/S/l� �allefie✓ � � �c4s�! �-N,-Nd0 5� CY� Sl— q'1 S -11W -590b I mda e b05+w_ M&O_ rwr) 695 0 �0 ewe- S4ve.vs ver�� Qlef ��cav��zonuuib� � Sh_erwUUd 9h-e�{kLu� q�k�i �-I54� IM4n c C�1 Re �� cam °l 't L-$ D$yl • (�e1ci i� .she� i 13r5- Page of • City of Salem Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday, December 18, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA") was held on Wednesday, December 18, 2013 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Curran calls the meeting to order at 6.•32 p.m. I. ROLL CALL Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris (Vice Chair), Richard Dionne, Tom Watkins, and David Eppley (Alternate). Those absent were: Mike Duffy and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services and Dana Menon, Staff Planner. II. REGULAR AGENDA Petition of GENIA PATESTIDES requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use for the property at 107 FEDERAL STREET (112 Zoning District) • (APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE) Chair Curran states that the applicant has submitted a letter requesting to withdraw without prejudice. Chair Curran asks if anyone would like to make a motion. Motion and Vote: Mr. Dionne made a motion to allow the- ab twitioner to withdraw the peal without4Wc dice. The motion was seconded by Mr. E�pl y. The vote was unanimous with Live L51 in favor (Mr. Watkins. Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris. and Mx E41e�) and none �q) oo4t wed. The decision is hereby incor2orated as Dart of these minutes. Ms. Curran explains that the next item will be taken out of order, in case anyone is in attendance for the hearing of: Petition of ANDREW PERKINS requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, and minimum lot width requirements for the property located at 15 CHERRY HILL AVENUE (R1 Zoning District). The applicant submitted a request to withdraw without prejudice. Ms. Curran asks if any Board Member would like to make a motion. Motion and Vote: Ms. Harris made a motion to allow the Petitioner to withdraw the a,p,t)eal without t,=dice. • The motion was seconded by Mr. Dionne. A mll call vote was taken, and was unanimous with four (� in favor Wr. Watkins Ms. Curran Mr. Dionne. and Ms. Harris and none o�hosed Mr. E�Pley abstained. The decision is hereby incorporated as Curt of these minutes. • Petition of PETER HANTZOPOULOS requesting Variances under Section 4.0 Dimensiomd Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the creation of two lots, each smaller than the required minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet, and with less than the required minimum lot frontage of 100 feet and the required minimum lot width of 100 feet, for the property located at 13 CHERRY HILL AVENUE (Rl Zoning District). John Keilty,Attorney,presents on behalf of Peter Hantzopoulos, trustee of Hantzopoulos Family Irrevocable Trust. The Hantzopoulos'prepared the application to the Board themselves. The applicant acquired the property in 1962, and it was shown as 3 lots in a 1925 subdivision plan "Homesites Plan" done for Frederick Griswold. In 2011 they put the land into the trust it's in today. The assessor's map (map 14 lot 225) shows it as one parcel, as the Hantzopoulos' owned the three lots as one single entity, the three lots were merged for the purposes of zoning. Attorney Keilty describes the area, frontage, and width of the two proposed lots. He states that each of these two proposed lots would be some of the largest lots in the neighborhood, as most of the lots have been built out similar to the way the lots were laid out in the 1925 plan. The proposed lots would not derogate from the intent or purpose of the ordinance, as the lots would be larger than the other lots in the subdivision. The applicant isn't looking for any variances for any future houses— the applicant can comply with the dimensional requirements for the size and location of a house on the lot. Chair Curran opens to public comment. No members of the public speak in opposition or in favor. • Chair Curran closes the public comment. Ms. Curran asks Attorney Keilty to clarify—if the lots had been held in separate ownership, they would be three separate lots now? Attorney Keilty responds yes. If they had been under separate ownership, they wouldn't have been merged. In hindsight, they should have put each of the lots under a different daughter's name. Ms. Curran states that the size of the lots doesn't seem like it's inconsistent with the neighborhood, but she does not see a hardship under MGL Chapter 40A. Attorney Keilty responds that he is suggesting that the hardship is the imposition of a zoning zoning requirement after the creation of the lots in 1925 such that the lots were caused to be merged. There is nothing particularly unique to the size of these lots, other than that they're actually larger than the existing neighborhood lots. Ms. Curran responds that if this were a Special Permit there wouldn't be a problem, but it's a Variance, and she doesn't see a hardship. Mr. Eppley states that he has concerns about the petition. He asks if the petitioners have thought PP Y P P g about constructing a 2-family home and asking for a Variance to do that. Attorney Keilty states that he believes that in an R-1 zone they wouldn't be allowed to do that—it would have to be a use variance,which isn't allowed in the Salem zoning code. Attorney Keilty states that if the board were to grant the variance,it would then go to the planning • board for as an Approval Not Required plan. • Ms. Curran states that the Board has not granted variances for this kind of situation before,where there's no particular hardship. She asks if the Board has any further questions. Attorney Keilty responds that he understands that financial hardship alone is not sufficient. Hardship relating to the land is very hard to do when you are taking three lots and turning them into two. There are three separate lots (abutters) behind this lot, showing that people in the neighborhood have developed the lots at the size they were laid out as in 1925. Ms. Curran states that there's not a question that it's consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Dionne adds that he doesn't see any problem with it— the land has been in the family for so long, and there are four daughters. It's been a long time since those lots were created. The Board discusses and clarifies that there were three lots originally laid out,which were merged into one lot. Now, the discussion is about creating 2 lots from that one lot. Mr. Eppley states that he would like to allow it,but the problem is establishing a precedent for a lack of hardship. Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris agree. Attorney Keilty offers that he doesn't believe that the Board sets precedents. If there was another situation where there was strong neighborhood opposition,it would be a different situation. If the Board wanted to grant the variance, they could certainly do so. If the decision of the Board were challenged in court, then the issue of hardship would certainly be an issue for the court to determine. • Ms. Curran responds that typically this board has not granted a Variance without a hardship. It's true that if it's appealed,it pretty much loses. Typically we need to see an articulated hardship under Chapter 40A. Ms. Harris states that she doesn't think that the applicant has the votes tonight, and asks Attorney Keilty if he wants to continue it to the next meeting, to have more time to consider the hardship argument. Arty Keilty thanks the Board and requests permission to continue to the January 15`s Board of Appeals meeting. Motion and Vote: Mr. Ettl y made a motion to Compe the request to continue the tublic hearing to the]anuar- 15'b Board of Atteals meeting. The motion zvas seconded by Ms. Harris A mll call vote was taken, and was unanimous with live ( in favor (Mr. Watkins Ms Curran Mr. Dionne Ms Hams and Mr. Ealeg - and none (0) ottosed. The decision is herby incortorated as-Part of these minutes. Petition of SPIRO KOUNSALIEH requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3 Nonconforming Uses and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from an existing nonconforming use to another non-conforming use; a Variance under Section 5.1.2 Location of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow required parking to be located on a separate lot;Variances under Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow encroachment on the minimum allowed width of side yard and • minimum allowed depth of rear yard, and relief from the maximum allowed lot coverage by buildings, at the property located at 156 DERBY STREET (B1 Zoning District). Attorney William Quinn, of Tinti, Quinn, Grover& Frey P.C., Salem MA, represents the applicant, Spiro Kounsalieh. Mr. Kounsalieh owns the Witches Brew at 156 Derby Street,which is a reputable and long-standing eating establishment. Attorney Quinn describes that a 1970 plan shows the addition of the third floor for sitting rooms. In 2006 the applicant received a Special Permit from the Board to expand the restaurant on the first floor. To Attorney Quinn's knowledge, there have been no problems with the restaurant or the apartment upstairs. Mr. St. Pierre became aware that the 3d floor had been converted to a separate apartment without the appropriate permits. He issued some orders because of some safety issues as well as the use nonconformity. The applicant has taken that to heart, and has undertaken the safety improvements required by Mr. St. Pierre, and informed Mr. St. Pierre that he would appear before the Board regarding the use. This property has been the same type of establishment (a restaurant with an apartment over it) since at least 1965—so it is an existing nonconforming use. So we are requesting to go from one apartment with a restaurant below it,which was allowed again in 2006, and now adding another apartment,which would be a different nonconforming use. The apartments are relatively spacious, and will fill a need in the city for affordable dwelling units. The building would be enhanced from a taxation and assessment point of view. The second issue is parking. The property only has a couple of spaces, which are used for handicap accessible parking for the restaurant. Otherwise the property is full of building. There's no room for parking for either of the apartments. The area is congested, and many people have to make arrangements to park their cars elsewhere. The applicant has arranged a lease with Captain Dusty's across the street for five parking spaces, for five years. It's in the public interest, and not in derogation of any intent of the zoning by-law. Attorney Quinn goes over the submitted plan and the proposed improvements to the stairway at the • back of the building. The stairway encroaches on the neighboring property,which is the National Park Service building. The stairway required repairs to satisfy code, so the applicant has worked with an architect to rebuild the stairway, including moving the stairway off of the neighboring property, entirely onto 156 Derby Street. The new stairway would also have to be slightly larger than the existing stairs. There would be no increase in the nonconformities of the stairway, as the existing stairway is over the property line, and the proposed stair would be at the property line. The lot and the placement of the building on the lot create a hardship for meeting the parking requirement and for the stairway. The change to the stairway is deminimus. The building is fit so tightly on the site that it creates a hardship,which would allow you to grant a variance for this request. Mr. Dionne asks Attorney Quinn to clarify that the property been like this for quite a while. Attorney Quinn responds that the 2006 Board of Appeals decision recites the fact that there were two apartments above the restaurant, and none of us really registered that it was a nonconformity at the time. Once the Building Inspector issued his citations, Mr. Kounsalieh has cooperated fully. Ms. Curran asks the Building Inspector if there a building issue with having the staircase right up against the other building. Mr. St. Pierre responds that there is not. There would be if there were "openings" (like a window) on the lot line, but there isn't in this case. Ms. Curran asks how the parking linked to the building. What happens after 5 years, or if someone else buys the Captain Dusty's property? Attorney Quinn responds that the applicant has the option to extend the lease for 5 years,if he wants. He suggests that the Board add a condition saying that Mr. Kounsalieh has to provide evidence of an additional lease at the end of the current lease. • Ms. Curran clarifies that Attorney Quinn is arguing that providing two units is not more detrimental, • as you're providing the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Watkins asks if the 3 parking spots being leased are just for Captain Dusty's use. They're not public spaces? Attorney Quinn responds that no, they're owned by Captain Dusty's, and he's leasing them to the petitioner specifically for use by the residents of the apartments. Ms. Harris directs a question to St. Pierre about the nature of the letter he issued to the petitioner regarding the nonconformities, and if the applicant cooperated. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that the necessary building permits have now been issued, and currently the applicant is on hold,waiting for the Board's decision. The letter is a standard violation letter,which is worded strongly in order to encourage action. We haven't actually required removal of everything,as the applicant did work with us to get the building permits and agreed to come before the Board. Ms. Curran opens the hearing up for public comment. Tina Hall, 155 Derby Street, states that she has been renting a parking space from Captain Dusty's for a number of years, and from the previous owners of that building before Captain Dusty's. That parking area lends itself well to that arrangement—it's a seasonal business, and closed in the winter. She's leased a parking space there for at least 12 years Bonnie Belair, 92 Wharf Street, speaks in favor of the petition. The Witches Brew has been there a long time,it's very popular. Spiro is a generous and good neighbor. The buildings and how old they • are (200-300 years old) create a hardship. They didn't worry about parking back then. She urges the board to vote in favor of the application. Senator Joan Lovely, 14 Story Street, speaks in favor of the petition. Spiro is a professional and runs a great establishment. When he bought the establishment, no one knew that this second apartment wasn't a legal 3`d floor apartment. The situation reminds the Senator of when we were building condos here and there was limited parking, and we were letting people get parking passes in the garage to meet the parking requirement. Bob McCarthy, 153 Bayview Avenue,Ward 1 Councilor. Agrees with everything that's been said about Spiro and his business. Councior McCarthy believes that parking is a big issue for the neighbors and constituents. It's important that you make the parking part of the decision. The parking situation is no fault of Mr. Kounsalieh's, and he's done the right thing with the parking lease agreement. The Councilor's concern is if the tenants of those units are looking for residential parking along the street,which is already congested. Can we exempt them from getting a residential permit? William Legault, Councilor At Large. Spiro, and his restaurant,is part of the fabric of that neighborhood. I support granting him the special permits. Mx. Eppley adds that in the 2004 application,line 4 of the findings of fact: the 2" floor of the building is currently used as two apartment units that will remain." He adds that he doesn't think the Board of Appeals has jurisdiction to look at who does and does not get residential parking • approval. Ms. Curran states that the use of this property for two apartments is not more detrimental to the neighborhood, because they are securing parking. The variance for the stairs,is owing to the • location of the building on the lot, and the location of the neighboring building on the lot. Also,it's an egress,not an addition, so she doesn't have a problem with it. There should be a condition that in 5 years the parking somehow needs to be checked. There should be some language in the Decision that requires the owner to keep the parking lease current, and make the Board aware of any other changes to the parking. Other than that, it's good. It's about residents, and about smart growth. Attorney Quinn suggests that the applicant be required to file proof that he's extended the lease, and if he does not, he will have to appear before the Board of Appeals. And the same at the end of 10 years—the applicant would have to supply written proof that off-street parking is supplied, and if he doesn't, he can be called back in before the Board. Mr. St. Pierre states that he believes that would be fine - as long as it's in the Decision, he can enforce it. Ms. Curran states that the Board can't limit residents.from getting parking stickers. Ms. Harris concurs. Mr. St. Pierre comments that in that neighborhood,if someone had an off-street parking space, that's what they'd use. Motion and Vote: Mr. E le makes a motion to a mve the etition witb seven standard condition�� v �p � s,plus one special condition regarding the parking. The motion was seconded by Mr. Watkins. A mll call vote was taken and • was unanimous with live (5)in favor(Mr. Watkins.Ms. Curran,Mr. Dionne Ms. Hams and Mr. Ephle�) -and none Q) opposed The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Discussion: Ms Harris clarifies that the hardship for the parking Variance would be the site and location of the buddinv on the lot— tben is no room on the site for parking. There is no detriment to the neighborhood as they an bmviding off-street Parkinz in close 4mxim4 to the living unit. Petition of JACQUELINE'S GOURMET COOKIES, requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to increase the height of a previously approved tank by 5 feet, for a proposed total height of 43 feet and 9 inches. The construction of the tank to a height of 38 feet and 9 inches was previously approved in a Decision dated May 29,2013, at the property located at 96 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD (BPD Zoning District). Mark Hazel,Jacqueline's Gourmet Cookies presents the petition. Mr. Hazel states that the taller nitrogen tank would be in the same previously-approved tank footprint. Having 5 more feet of height would provide more flexibility in the nitrogen delivery schedule. The tank was originally going to be a 13,000 gallon nitrogen tank, now it would be a 15,000 gallon nitrogen tank. Mr. Watkins asks Mr. Hazel to clarify the "flexibility"in the delivery. Mr. Hazel responds that it would provide flexibility in the delivery window times. The delivery company maximizes every load, so they can't bring more,but it gives them the flexibility in the timing of the delivery. They can fit the deliveries into the time periods set by the ordinance. • . Ms. Curran asks if it would it reduce the number of deliveries. Mr. Hazel replies that it would not. If they had a 13,000 gallon tank, the truck would deliver one fully tank, and then have to deliver a partial tank load later. With the 15,000 gallon tank, they can deliver two full truck loads. Mr. Watkins clarifies that it then could reduce the number of truck trips, as they could deliver full loads instead of partial loads on each trip. Mr. Hazel concurs. Ms. Harris asks how much the truck holds. Mr. Hazel responds that it holds about 7,500 gallons. Ms. Harris clarifies that it would take two full truck loads to fill the tank. Ms. Curran states that the Board gave the applicant a variance before, for the tanks the applicant has now. The proposed tank is T-9" higher than what they have now. Ms. Curran asks how that relates to the height of the building. Mr. Hazel responds that the building is 32' high; the tank is 43' high. He clarifies that the proposed tank is the same width as the originally approved tank, and it would be placed on the same pad. He states that the company did talk with all of the condo association members, and Todd Segel, and they had no issues with the proposed tank. Ms. Curran clarifies that everything is staying the same - the applicant is just expanding the tank capacity. Mr. Watkins reminds the applicant that previously there were some noise issues, and asks if the noise issues were related to this tank. Mr. Hazel responds that the noise issues were fixed—they put baffling systems on the exhaust motors. The noise issues were not related to the tank. • Ms. Curran opens the hearing to public comment. No one speaks in favor or in opposition. Ms. Curran asks if anyone wants to make a motion. Ms. Harris makes a motion to grant the request for a Variance. There is discussion about extending the conditions of the original Decision to this new Decision. Ms. Curran states that the hardship would be the location of the existing structure. Mr. St. Pierre asks if it wouldn't actually be a modification to an existing Variance. Ms. Harris concurs with Mr. St. Pierre. Ms. Curran agrees that it would seem to be the case, but that wasn't what was applied for. However, the original Variance does still seem relevant,as no other aspects of the original application are being changed. Ms. Harris agrees, and states that the hardship for the modification would be the size of the delivery trucks, and that a larger tank would allow a broader window for delivery of a full truck of nitrogen,while still having enough nitrogen in the tank between deliveries to allow production of the cookies to continue. Mr. St. Pierre points out that no members of the public came to speak at this hearing. At the public hearing for the applicant's previous petition (when the Variance for the construction of the original tank was approved), there were many abutters present, so it seems that this change isn't troubling the abutters. Ms. Harris asks to change her motion to grant the modification of the existing Variance,with all previous Conditions standing. Motion and Vote: Ms Harris makes a motion to grant a mod(cation to the existing Variance, carving over all conditions from thetrevious Decision. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dionne. A roll call vote was taken, and was • unanimous witb five �5) in favor fMr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Eppley - and none �0) oDDosed The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Petition of LINDA GAGNON, requesting a Variance under Section 4.0 Dimensional • Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the minimum depth of rear yard and minimum width of side yard requirements at the property located at 54 CHARLES STREET (112 Zoning District). George Atkins,Attorney,presents the petition. He apologizes to the Board that they are here post- construction of the changes to the structure. Mr. St. Pierre came to the site and informed the applicant of the need for zoning conformance. Mr. Atkins states that it is difficult to determine those requirements, due to the strange shape of the lot. Attorney Atkins included a survey plan in the application instead of the standard plot plan because of the odd"jog"in the lot. When the applicants purchased the lot, the plot plan provided at that time didn't adequately define where the existing porch, side-porch and entryway were relative to the lot lines. The lot is a nonconforming lot, and the structure is a nonconforming structure. The "Jog"in the property boundary makes the house 5.9' from the "rear jog" not from the actual rear of the property. It is also 17.2' from the side line. Attorney Atkins states that he cannot provide the dimensions of the house prior to the porch, side porch and entryway. The previous porch was suffering from a number of repair requirements, and it was also the main entrance into the house. There was no step into the house, so that water and snow would come into the house. As the door opened directly into the house, it created a difficulty with cold and heat. The applicant decided to reconstruct that, and add a mud room to prevent these things from happening. At the same time,it's a family of five, and they had one bathroom. They decided to add a second bathroom on the second floor of this mudroom/entrance. AttorneyAtkins states that the standards for hardship for granting Variances relating to de minimus P �' g g dimensional changes such as this, are not as demanding as they normally are. These are de minimus • changes, particularly in regard to the shape of the property,with the "jog." We are not presenting this as a hardship relating to the fact that it's already constructed. Mr. St. Pierre adds that the homeowner has been ver erative and stopped work immediate)Y coo P PP .Y It has been sitting there "shelved"with no work done inside the structure. Ms. Curran opens the hearing to public comment. Priscilla &Richard Dalton, 1 Pacific Street, state that they have no problem with the addition. Their property is right behind the "jog"in the applicant's property. Ralph Turgeon, 53 Charles, states that the owners have taken a house that was in total disrepair, and have fixed it up, landscaped it, and beautified it. It's changed that whole part of Charles St. He doesn't want anything to impede the work they're doing. Y S P Y .g Kenneth Okeny, 111 Broadway, agrees that the building was previously in need of repair. He really supports what the applicant is doing- making the house beautiful and increasing its value. Attorney Atkins thanks those who have spoken in favor of the application. Ms. Curran asks for clarification on the dimensions of the old entrance/stairway, and if it's the same dimensions as the new mudroom/entrance. Attorney Atkins responds that they're not the same dimension,but you can't quite tell from the plot plan what the dimensions were. It looks like the original structure was somewhat smaller. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that it requires a variance because • 9 • it's a covered structure,which is treated differently than an open deck. A structure requires a 10' side yard setback and a 30'rear yard setback. An open deck is only required to have a five foot setback. Attorney Atkins states that it's the principal entrance to the house, as it's next to the parking for the building. Mr. Eppley notes to the Chair that it looks like the neighbors that abut on Pacific have a fence that goes along the jog. Attorney Atkins confirms that there is a fence, but according to the surveyor it's not on the lot line, so it changes your estimation of where the lot line really is. That's another issue, which requires private resolution. Even if you used the fence as the lot line, the distance to the structure would be below the required setback. Mr. Dionne states that he doesn't see any problem with it. Ms. Curran notes that she wishes they'd come in before it was constructed. Attorney Atkins concurs, and adds that they applicants also with they had done so. Ms. Curran states that the "jog" in the property line and where the house is situated on the lot makes the situation different. You could only expand the house into the back yard without encroaching on the required setbacks, but that wouldn't achieve what the applicants were trying to do. • Attorney Atkins notes that the statement of hardship is attached to the application. The stated hardships relate to the"financial and otherwise" hardships, and the shape of the lot. Ms. Curran agrees that the shape of the lot makes sense. The other statements aren't zoning hardships. As evidenced by the support here tonight,it's not detrimental to the neighborhood or the city at large in any way, and it's not intensifying the use of the building in any way. At this point literal enforcement would involve hardship. Ms. Harris adds that really it's the placement of the house on the lot, and the shape of the lot, that is creating a hardship. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the petition with seven Q standard conditions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Eppley. A tell call vote was taken and was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Epple%) - and none (0) opposed The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. III. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Ms. Curran recommends discussing and approving the November 20`", 2013 meeting minutes at the next regularly scheduled Board of Appeals meeting, as there are only two Board Members in attendance tonight who were in attendance at the November 201h, 2013 meeting (Mr. Watkins and Ms. Curran). Ms. Harris adds that the meeting attendees should be listed at the top of the minutes. IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Review and vote: 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Schedule Ms. Curran notes that two of the meetings are scheduled during school vacations, but suggests that those can be addressed on a case-by-case basis as they come up. Motion: Mr. Watkins made a motion to appmve the 2014 Board of Appeals meeting calendar, seconded by Mr. Dionne, and a unanimous vote was taken pith five (5) in favor . Watkins. Ms. Curran Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, and Mr. EPplq) -and none (0) qpposed. The decision is hereby incot4orated as-Part of these minutes. V. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Watkins motioned for adjournment of the December 18`', 2013 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 7:45 PM. Motion: Mr. Watkins made a motion to adiourn the December le regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals seconded by Mr. Dionne, and a unanimous vote was taken with-rive (5) in-favor (Mr Watkins Ms Curran Mr. Dionne Ms. Harris and Mr. Eppley) - and none (OLopposed. The decision is bemby incorporated as Dart of tbese minutes. 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 ZoningAppealsMin/ Respectfully submitted, Dana Menon, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 1/15/2014 • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS { BOARD OF APPEAL 120W,tsi-uNcroruS'nai,:e1 � S��r.rroi,M.�ssnCrwats'rrs01970 K iwiai_nvDiziseoj.t. Trl.e::978-745-9595 17ax:978-740-9846 \Cwrnt Notice of Decision A a meeting of the Cuc7 of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday, December 18, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. it 120 \V/Ishingtoil St., Salem,MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Pcution ofPEfER I-IANTZOPOULOS requesting Variances under Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of die Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the creation of two lots, each smaller than the required minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet, and with less than the required minimum lot frontage of 100 feet and the required minimum lot width of 100 feet, for the property located at 13 CHERRY HILL AVENUE(R1 Zoning District). Decision: Continued to the Wednesday,January 15t" 2014 regular meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem, MA. Petition of GDNIA PATESTIDES requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change from one nonconfornung use to another nonconforming use, at the property located at 107 FEDERAL STREET (R2 Zoning District). Decision: Withdrawn Without Prejudice Filed with the City Clerk on December 30, 2013 Petition of ANDREW PERKINS requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salcm Zoning Ordinance m grant relief from the nununum lot area, nunimum for area per dwelling unit, minimum lot I ootage, and nunhmum lot width requirements for the property located at '13 CFIERRY HILL rAVENUII: (R'I Zoning District), Decision: Withdrawn Without Prejudice Filed with the City Clerk on December 30, 2013 Petition of SPIRO KOUNSALIEH requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3 Nonconforming Uses and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from an existing nonconforming use to another non-conforming use; a Variance under Section 5.1.2 Location of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow required parking to be located on a separate lot; Variances under Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow encroachment nn ncU minimum allowed width of side vard and minimum illowed depth of rear yard, and relief from I L maximum allowed lot cnvciagc b_v buil(Iings_ ar the propern located it 1 i6 DF:RRI S I RfT, I" (R1 Zoning Distict). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on December 30, 2013 Petition of JACQUELINE'S GOURMET COOKIES, requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to increase the height of a previously approved tank by 5 feet, for a proposed total height of 43 feet and 9 inches. The construction of the tank to a height of 38 feet and 9 inches was previously approved in a Decision dated May 29, 2013, at the property located at 96 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD (BPD Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the CitN Clerk on December 30, 2013 of Salem Board of Appeals Notice of Decision—December 18, 2013 Page 2 of 2 • Petition of LINDA GAGNON, requesting a Variance under Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the minimum depth of rear}lard and minimum width of side yard requirements at the property located at 54 CHARLES STREET (R2 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Piled with the City Clerk on December 30, 2013 IN., nolice it heino.renl in covnpliaine with the AAarmchutettr General Lmv.i, Chapler 4019, Seclioiz 9 13 and doe.,not require aclion h7 Me mipienl. l ppeaL rI any, shall he made puuuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17. and.than he#led within 20 days Imm the date which the deenion war filed with the City Clerk. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS A Fk" BOARD OF .APPEAL t2 W199 00 1)WASHINGION SMELT # C30 P 2 Kmisisiu.isti Dikiscou. rr..ii:.:978-745-9595 # FAX:978-740-9846 M\)oR FILE it CITY Cm�,K, SA, LEpj, MA`S. December 30, 2013 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of SPIRO KOUNSALIEH requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3 Nonconforming Uses and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from an existing nonconforming use to another non-conforming use; a Variance under Section 5.1.2 Location of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow required parking to be located on a separate lot; Variances under Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow encroachment on the minimum allowed width of side yard and minimum allowed depth of rear yard, and relief from the maximum allowed lot coverage by buildings, at the property located at 156 DERBY STREET (B1 Zoning District). • A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on December 18, 2013 pursuant to M.G.1, Ch. 40A, 11. 'The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Nits. Curran (Chair), Nfs. Harris (Vice Chair), Nit. Dionne, Nit. Watkins, and Mr. Eppley (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks Variances from Section 5.1.2 Location and Section 4.0 Dimensional Requiremenlu, and a Special Permit under Section 3.3 1Noncon4bnningu Uses and Siniclares, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance Statements of fact: 1. Attorney William Quinn of Tinti, Quinn, Grover & Frey, P.C. presented the petition for the property at 156 DERBY STREET (Bl Zoning District). 2. In the petition, date-stamped October 30, 2013, the Petitioner requested: 1. A Special Permit Linder Section 3.3 .Nonivioinfin, User and Simamrs in order to change from one nonconforming use to another 2. A Variance from the provisions of Section 4 Dimensional Requirements for relief from the 10 foot minimum width of side yard requirement, the 30 foot minimum depth of rear yard requirement, and the 40 percent maximum lot coverage by all buildings requirement, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. See the table below: At an -Kip a Yrogoae sl tnjensiow� Minimum width of side yard 10 0 0 Minimum depth of rear yard 30 2.6' 2.6' Maximum lot coverage by buildings 40"llo 68.9",,, 69.91,10 Cit of Salem Board of Appeals December 30, 2013 Project: 156 Derby Street Page 2 of 3 3. A Variance from the provisions of Section 5.L2 Iocntior for relief from the requirement that all parking spaces be on the same lot as the building or use which they are intended to serve. 3. The requested relief, if granted, would allow: a residential unit on the third floor of the existing building, the reconstruction of an existing stairway so that it complies with building code and to locate it entirely on the applicant's property where it had previously encroached onto a neighboring property, and to allow the required parking for the two residential units to be located across the street. 4. There is an existing nonconforming use of the building (a restaurant with one residential unit) as there IS currently a residential unit on the second floor of the property, which has been in use since at least 1965. Additionally, the 2006 Decision of the Zoning Board regarding this property specifically mentions the existence of the residential unit. The Petitioner seeks to change to another non- conforming use (a restaurant with two residential units). 5-. The Petitioner submitted a copy of a parking lease to provide three (3) off-street parking spaces for exclusive use by the residents of the two residential units, at Captain Dusty's, 143-147 Derby Street, for a period of five (5) years, with an unrestricted option to extend the lease for an additional five year period. 6. At the public hearing for the petition, the board considered the comments of interested persons who spoke in favor of the petition. There were no comments submitted in opposition to the petition. The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and • after thorough review of the petitions, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: Findings 1. The desired relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, as off-street parking has been secured. 2. The location of the building on the lot, and the location of fhe neighboring building relative to the lot, creates a hardship that justifies the variances required for the rebuilding of the stairs. 3. The proposed non-conforming use is not more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (bls. Curran — Chair, Ms. Harris — Vice Chair, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Dionne, and Mr. Eppley in favor) and none (0) opposed, to approve the Special Permit to change from an existing nonconforming use to another non- conforming use; the Variance allow required parking to be located on a separate lot, and the Variances to allow encroachment on the minimum allowed width of side yard and minimum allowed depth of rear vard, and relief from the maximum allowed lot coverage by buildings, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: I. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. All construction shall be clone as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Departinent relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning am construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained City of Satem Board of Appeals December 30, 3013 Project: 156 Derby Street Page 3 of 3 G. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Plantung Board. 8. Petitioner will provide proof of current lease to the Zoning Enforcement Officer for three off-street parking spaces, to be renewed as necessary. Petitioner will report on the leases at 5 year intervals from the execution of the first lease. Failure to file a current lease for 3 parking spaces within reasonable distance of the residential wets will result in a mandatory appearance before the Board of Appeals for review and potential revocation of approval. C ( /L)SY Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK .Appeal from thin derision, if wry, shall be made puramnt to Section 17 of the klassacliusetu General Laws Chapter 40_,1, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this deenion in the o#ice of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Ntassac'hrueas General I1uvs Chapter 40_-1, Section /1, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall ems take eyed until a copy of the decision bearing the certi/icale nl'the 0 , Clerk has been filed with the Fssex South Registry of Deeds. • /4 �sSACHUSETTS CITY OF SALEM, At BOARD OF APPEAL NE t.10 WAS[[ING I ON S I III I:,I # S\IJ.:AI,N1ASSACI 11_1sF FIS 01970 2011 DEC 30 P 2: 01 Kimii;izi.i;v Diuscoi.i, filit:978-745-9595 # FAx:978-740-9846 MA)oiz FILE it' CITY CLERK. SALEM MAS December 30, 2013 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of GENIA PATESTIDES requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, at the property located at 107 FEDERAL STREET (R2 Zoning District). On December 18, 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), Annie Harris (Vice Chair), Richard Dionne, Thomas Watkins, and David Eppley (Alternate). Board of Appeals members Mike Duffy and James Tsitsinos were absent. • At the request of the Petitioner, the Board of Appeals voted to allow the Petitioner to withdraw the petition without prejudice. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Nlr. Watkins, Nis. Curran, Mr. Dionne, NIS. Harris, and Mr. Eppley) and none (0) opposed. PERMISSION GRANTED TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE DECEMBER 18, 2013. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION I[AS BEEN FILED \XITFITHE PLANNING BOARD AND TF IE CITYCLEIZI,: _-1ppealfiw)i this tleaiioii, if any, shall be made PUM&W 10 Seniors //7 q1 the iblasuithuells General Lni4v Chapter 40-,L and be filedxilbin 20 days of filial of this de(hion in the olli(e qf1he City-Clerk. Purwanl to the Maisadwsells GeiiemlLin)s Chapto 40.11, ,Section I/, the I "anvire or)�eaal Permit ;nested herein shall not lake ej/�a until a 6op 11 -11 y q1 the dec-nion heafiiil The teili/iaile o/Me 0.1y Clm(v.Ati bee)i filed iiwh The E�j e.\:South kegy.o) ol'Deeds. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ss BOARD OFAPPEAL 1913 OEC 30 P 2: 01 120WAS1 PING;[0NS'iRk1.-.[ Ki,mwRi.in Diuscou. 978-745-9595 F ax:978-740-9846 FILE it '\Lwoit CITY ftERK- 3AI-Efl, MASS. December 30, 2013 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of ANDREW PERKINS requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, and minimum lot width requirements for the property located at 15 CHERRY HILL AVENUE (111 Zoning District). On December 18, 2013, the Board of Appeals rnet 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), Annie Harris (Vice Chair), Richard Dionne, Thomas Watkins, and David Eppley (Alternate). • Board of Appeals members Mike Duffy and James Tsitsinos were absent. At the request of the Petitioner, the Board of Appeals voted to allow the Petitioner to withdraw the petition without prejudice. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Mr. Watkins, ?\fs. Curran, Mr. Dionne, and Ms. Harris) and none (0) opposed. Mr. Eppley abstained. PERMISSION GRANTED TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE DECEMBER 18, 2013. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from Ibij decision, i/any—shall be niade parwaill loSeclion 17 of the General Ltivy Chapter 40A, and;ball be filed 2t)ilhiii 20 dap of filing oJ-1hij d&ii-ion iii the q1fice q1*the City Clerk. Purwatil to the A4assa,buse0.i Goiend Chapter 40. 1, Setimi 11. the I/ana&e or Special Ilemil,gianted herein shall not lake ejlea until top) o/the deasmi beanl�,y the teit#iaile q1 the 01; Clerk hay Gees filed with The[-'.s.re-v South Regislg of Deedi. vw�coNu(7,4--1 CITY OF SALEM, 1\/L-�sSACHUSETTS 4. �A I- BOARD OF APPEAL t)OWASHINGION scat TA * S�i,i:l�t,yf:\;;,\cl[us1;its O1970 2013 DEC 30 P 2: 01 Diuscoi.i. T kj,t::978-745-9595 # F\x:978-740-9846 LE CITY CLERIC, S,4(_EM, MASS. December 30, 2013 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of JACQUELINE'S GOURMET COOKIES, requesting Variances tinder Section 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to increase the height of a previously approved tank by 5 feet, for a proposed total height of 43 feet and 9 inches. The construction of the tank to a height of 38 feet and 9 inches was previously approved in a Decision dated May 29, 2013, at the property located at 96 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD (BPD Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on December 18, 2013 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, S 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris (Vice-Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Eppley (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. • Statements of fact: 1. In the petition, date-stamped October 28, 2013, the Petitioner requests .i Variance to increase the height of a previously approved storage tank by 5 feet, for a proposed total height of 43 feet and 9 inches. 2. Mr. Marc Hazel of Jacqueline's Gourmet Cookies presented the petition. 3. The Board of Appeals approved the construction of a 38-foot 9-inch high storage tank for nitrogen storage at the property in a Decision dated May 29, 2013. 4. The proposed storage tank would be the same diameter and in the same location as the nitrogen tank previously approved by the Board. The only change from the originally approved storage tank Would be the additional five (5) feet in height. The height of the originally approved tank was 38'-9". The height of the tank with the proposed increase would be 43'-9". 5. The increased height of the storage tank would provide a greater volume of nitrogen storage for the production facility. The originally approved storage tank had a capacity of 13,000 gallons. The proposed storage tank would have a 15,000 gallon capacity. The increase in capacity would allow greater flexibility in scheduling truck delivery of nitrogen as the truck Could deliver a full load (approximately 7,500 gallons) at each delivery, and there would still be enough nitrogen in the storage tack between deliveries to allow continued production in the fiiciliq. G. At the public hearing the Board, in C011SUltabOn with Mr. Tom St. 1�icrre, Zoning Enforcement Officer, found that the relief sought by the applicant could be allowed with a modification to the existing Variance, as all other aspects of the original application will Nruaill unchanged, and all Conditions from the original Variance should be carried forward. 7. At the public hearing for this Petition no members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the petition. City of Salem Board of Appeals December 30, 2013 Project: 96 Swampscott Road Page 2 of 2 The Salem Board of appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petitions, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner', presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets ;the provisions of the City of Salem "Zoning Ordinance: Findings: 1. The capacity of the nitrogen delivery trucks and the need to maintain a certain quantity of nitrogen in the storage tank to allow continued production at the facility between nitrogen deliveries creates a hardship that could be alleviated by increasing the capacity of the storage tank by the requested amount. On the basis of the above statements of facts,and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted Five (5) in favor (NIs. Curran — Chair, GIs. Harris — Vice Chair, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Dionne, and Mr. Eppley - Alternate) and none (0) opposed, to approve a Modification to the existing Variance, subject to the Conditions laid out in the previous Decision, which included the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. The 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 Fite 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. The petitioner his successors or assigns shall comply with all MassDEP Standards and Regulations for noise. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPS OF TF(IS DECISION I-t.-AS BEEN FILED WftFI THE' PLANNING BOARD .-AND THE(ITY CLERK "Ippeal%roar 116 dem on, i/any, rhall be made pnrramil to Seamo 97 of Me,11a..a,kL ell, General Chapter 40,1, and Tall he filed mil)rn 10 da);of biro{ of lhi.r de,ioion in the oj?he of the 04, Clerk. Par mart Io the Mashnlwntrtts General I aw CBapler-10,21, Scauni I f, the I 1 i W,V nr Spe,irrl Pennil eremted herein shall not take effe,I rondo Copp of the derision beanq the erlificcae of the Cill Clerk-hat been filed mite 1he I: o,,x Sow), Fd�r?ln, of Deed, CITY OF SALEM, NLkSSACHUSETTS BOARD OF -APPEAL 120WASI UNG IONS I RIT.1 # SU.I 2013 DEC 30 P 2: 01 0197( 978-745-9595 # F.%x:978-740-9846 KI%IM RJAkYDRISCO1.1, FILE A L\)ol� CITY CLEP, December 30, 2013 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of LINDA GAGNON, requesting Variances tinder Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the minimum depth of rear yard and minimum width of side yard requirements at the property located at 54 CHARLES STREET (112 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on December 18, 2013 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, Q 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris (Vice Chair), Mr. Dionne, i%4r. Watkins, and Mr. Eppley (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Sec. 4.0 Dimensional Reeptimments of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: • 1. In the petition, date-stamped November 27, 2013, the Petitioner requests Variances to reduce the minimum depth of the rear yard to 5.9 feet and to reduce the minimum width of side yard to 7.1 feet to allow for the construction of an entryway. 2. Attorney George Atkins presented the petition for the property at 54 Charles Street (R2 Zoning District). 3. Attorney Atkins apologized to the Board for appearing before them after the construction of the entryway. Fle explained that Mr. Thomas St. Pierre — Budding Inspector and Zoning Enforcement Officer — visited the site during constniction and informed the applicant of the need for zoning conformance. The homeowner had not been aware of the need for Variances prior to Mr. St. Pierre's visit, 4. Attorney Atkins stated that the lot is an irregular shape, with a "jog" that creates a second rear lot fine that is close to the house. Additionally, the entryway has to be proximate to the driveway, which is located near the "jog" in the property line. 5. At the public hearing for this petition, four abutters spoke in favor of the petition. There were no comments submitted in opposition to the petition. The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petitions, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: Findings: 0 1. f lie shape of the lot and the location of the house on the lot create a hardship that is unique to the parcel and the building. 2. As evidenced by the support expressed by the abutters WIIO spoke in Favor of the petition, the desirable relief can be granted without SUbStaIMd &tUinlCut to the public good. ti- 6 City of Salem Board of Appeals December 30,2013 Project: 54 Charles Street Page 2 of) 3. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor ('1s. Curran, Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Eppley in favor) and none (0) opposed, to m nimum depth of rear yard, subject to the following terms, approve the Variance from the required conditions, and safeguards: 1. The 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 [nspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION FL AS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal front this deaiion, ferry, shall be made pnrrnmrt to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40,4, and ball be filed withar 20 days of filing of This deci im in the o#iee of Me City Clerk. Pnruant to the rblassachusetts General Laws Chapter 40"1, Section 11, 1Ge Variaoce or Special Permit granted herein shall not take efled nntil a espy of the deeision Gearing the cerlilhate of the CIt3r Clerk has been filed with the Enex Sou1G Registry of Deeds.