Loading...
2014-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS C� INli Zoning Board of Appeals �ece,hnber 201�1 January 2014 �_e,•�ti.n��0.�0�n d�. �_K� nc� sio�n=n_She� Legci�el 5 SCIA42,on J%-x Q.tc e- 9-Z,- O 4p C S c� i CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS in! BOARD OF APPEAL- 120 W[\SHINGTON STREET* $ALES[,VL\S5:\CbIUSETTS 01970 MMBERLEY 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,January 15o, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall Annex, RM 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,A1A Rebecca Curran,Chair MEETING AGENDA �� e I. ROLL CALL r t_ \ II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES x= t ➢ November 20,2013 meeting a ➢ December 18, 2013 meeting rn � IV III. .REGULAR AGENDA N w Project: A continuation of the 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 under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the required minimum depth of front yard, and Special Permits under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Tmo-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the reconstruction of an existing nonconforming structure in continued non-conformity with the required minimum depth of front yard,minimum depth of rear yard,minimum width of side yard,and maximum lot coverage by all buildings. Applicant: LAWRENCE AND DEBORAH CALLAHAN Location: 129 COLUMBUS AVENUE(RI 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 a change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforminguse. Applicant: DE SIEU LAM and TUYEN NGOC LAM Location: 97 BOSTON ST (112 Zoning District) This notice posted on "OfficialBulletin Board"4- IV:. OLD/NEW BUSINESS City Hall, Salem, Mass. on 9 at in accordanc with M L Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. V. ADJOURNMENT �t;OSV�ITp� CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS y ate. ��f BOARD OF APPEAL i .� �i � M1NE D4C/ 120 WASHINGCON STREET+ SALEbf,MAS$ACI-IUSIi`CPS 01970 KIMBERLEYDR1scoLL TELE:978-745-9595 1 FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR r STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Dana Menon, Staff Planner DATE: January 10,2014 RE: Meeting Agenda for January 15,2014 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Meeting Minutes from 11/20/2013 and 12/18/2013 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 12/18/2014 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 hearing for this petition was opened at the previous Board of Appeals meeting(December 18, 2013). Evidence was heard, and the petitioner requested the Board's approval to continue the hearing to the next meeting of the Board of Appeals. The Board granted the request so that the petitioner could have the opportunity to prepare a more complete argument regarding evidence of a hardship. Please refer to the meeting minutes and audio (available online) for a review of the discussion at the December 18s'meeting. 2. Petition of DE SIEU LAM and TUYEN NGOC LAM 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 97 BOSTON ST (R2 Zoning District). The petitioner proposes to open a nail salon business on the second floor of the property at 97 Boston Street. The property is an existing business use,in an R-2 district. The submitted application states that they are proposing"to construct" the nail salon,but I believe this is confusion on the part of the applicant on the r requirements of the application. They measured the existing space to establish the dimensions listed on the application. There will be no external changes to the space. Some renovations to the interior are planned, which will be subject to the approval of the Building Commissioner. f City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—January 15,2014 Page 2 of 2 The Board is required to consider the following in an application for a Special Permit: • Community needs served by the proposal • Traffic flow and safety,including parking and loding • Adequacy of utilities and other public services • Neighborhood character • Impacts on the natural environment including view • Potential economic and fiscal impact,including impact on City services,tax base, and employment The petitioner did not address these issues in their attached statement,so the Board should endeavor to obtain this information during the public hearing. 3. Petition of LAWRENCE AND DEBORAH CALLAHAN requesting a Variance under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the required minimum depth of front yard, and Special Permits under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the reconstruction of an existing nonconforming structure in continued non-conformity with the required minimum depth of front yard,minimum depth of rear yard,minimum width of side yard,and maximum lot coverage by all buildings, for the property located at 129 COLUMBUS AVENUE (Rl Zoning District). The petitioner proposed to reconstruct an existing single family dwelling,on the existing foundation. The existing budding is a non-conforming structure as it encroaches on the required front,rear, and side setbacks, and exceeds the maximum allowed lot coverage. In addition to the existing nonconformities that would be carried over to the new structure, the applicant is proposing the extension of an overhang on the western side of the building and an extension of the front porch to connect the front porch to the proposed overhang. The applicants are seeking a Variance to allow this. The extension of the front porch extends the nonconformity of the existing nonconforming porch area along the same nonconforming distance from the front yard as the existing porch,but would extend the porch to within 9'-1" of the side yard line,which is an additional encroachment on the required minimum width of side yard(10). The extended overhang on the western side of the building still meets the minimum width of side yard requirement,but constitutes an extension extension of an existing nonconforming use. rc!� n: c i Maximum lot coverage by 30 35.5 38.0 all buildings (percent) x a .Minimum depth of front "e 4 M� fr x Y e t 15 S� ti ry ,d €� yard a i Minimum width of side yard (at the narrowest point— 10, 4.6' 4.6' north eastern corner) '4t fi k�it Mtmmum wi dth of side and �� ,� 3 t` Y � � a r� F� to dwelling , �y �+91 to dwelhn ; d w w^s•.f a 3 r "n proposed expansion aiea) ' s4 r �E +' 6 2 to deck 6 2 to deck, '. Minimum depth of rear yard 30' 9.4' 9.4' �} f 2 City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—January 15,2014 Page 1 of 9 • City of Salem Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday,January 15, 2014 A meeting of the Salem Board of "Appeals ( Salem BOA" ,) was held on Wednesday,January P y 15, 2014 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, Mike Duffy and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner, and Dana Menon, Staff Planner. II. REGULAR AGENDA A Continuation of the 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). Documents &Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped September 25, 2013 and accompanying materials ➢ Memorandum dated January 14, 2014 ➢ Conveyance of Land, dated August 1962 ➢ Quitclaim Deed, dated April 2013 ➢ "Variance Plan" dated 9/23/2013, prepared by C.L.G. Associates ➢ October 1925 plot plan entitled"Home Sites", drawn by Thomas A.Appleton, C.E. John Keilty,Attorney,presents on behalf of Peter Hantzopoulos, trustee of the Hantzopoulos Family Irrevocable Trust. Attorney Keilty reads from the submitted memorandum,reviewing the history of the lots, starting with the recording of the original three lots as laid out on the 1925 "Home Sites" plot plan, the purchase of the lots in 1962 by the Petitioner, and the Petitioner's conveyance of the lots to himself and his wife as Trustees of Hantzopoulos Family the Irrevocable Trust in 2013. Atty. Keilty states that should one large home be constructed on the one large (merged) lot, the resulting home (a "McMansion") would be out of context with the surrounding neighborhood of smaller homes on smaller lots. Attorney Keilty states that the merging of the three lots into one lot is an economic City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—January 15, 2014 Page 2 of 9 hardship, that the hardships faced by the applicants are not self-created, and that the proposed 2 lots • will still be larger than the other lots in the neighborhood. He further states that the variances required to allow the two proposed lots are "modest deviations" from the requirements of the R1 district. The applicant did not purchase the lots knowing that they'd be nonconforming. The 2013 conveyance still refers to the 3 lots laid out in the original (1925) plot plan. Ms. Curran states that she has no issue with the division of the lot, but she doesn't see a hardship. Ms. Harris adds that it does seem that some of the other lots in the neighborhood were combined. Ms. Curran states that the applicant purchased 3 conforming lots, three years later the lots merged and they didn't know about it, as they weren't in real estate. Arty. Keilty adds: the economic hardship plus the other factors, and how we can distinguish this from other situations (this lot can be easily divided,it has plenty of frontage, the proposed lots are regularly shaped). The sutra of the issues argues for a Variance. Ms. Harris, Ms. Curran, and Mr. Watkins agree that dividing the lot into two lots would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Ms. Curran states it's a good point that a larger house would be out of scale with the neighborhood. Arty. Keilty states that homogeneity of the neighborhood is often an argument. He adds that the lots were merged along one frontage. Mr. Dionne states that he has no problem with the proposal, and it would fit better into the neighborhood. Ms. Harris and Ms. Curran discuss the need for all three hardship conditions. Atty. Keilty responds that a hardship can be looked at with the question "am I left with something." In this instance, the applicant would be left with one lot,but the two lots resulting from the proposal would be better for the neighborhood character. Ms. Curran asks Arty. Keilty about the topography of the site. Atty. Keilty responds that the site is flat, the lot is square. There have not been any takings associated with the lot. Mr. Duffy states that here the discussion is about 3 lots that became one lot. The unusual circumstance with this situation is that the lots were all side-by-side, under one owner, and were not built on before the zoning change. Motion and Vote: Ms. Harris makes a motion to grant the requested Variances avith three standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. A tell call vote is taken, and is unanimous adth five (5—) in favor (Mr. Watkins. Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Hams, and Mr. Dua) - and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Discussion: Ms. Harris states that the hardship in this case is that literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would be a substantial hardship to the applicant. The applicant owned the property for a very long time, and it was legal when they acquired it. It became out of conformance through no fault of their own, and they were unaware of it. The relief being granted doesn't have any substantial detriment to the public good, and it wouldn't take away from the neighborhood. S City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—January 15,2014 Page 3 of 9 • Mr. Duffy adds that the hardship is that the lots are located side-by-side,lined up, and are regularly- shaped lots,which might be distinct from another situation in which lots under single ownership were merged. Additionally, the existing lot was formed from the merging of three lots, and the applicant is seeking only to divide the existing lot into two lots. Ms. Harris clarifies that the Board is considering that the size and location of the lots—compact, lined up together, of a regular shape— to be the unique conditions that create a hardship. Ms. Curran adds that the development of the land as two lots would be better in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, so it doesn't derogate from the intent of the zoning ordinance. Petition of LAWRENCE AND DEBORAH CALLAHAN requesting a Variance under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the required minimum depth of front yard, and Special Permits under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the reconstruction of an existing nonconforming structure in continued non-conformity with the required minimum depth of front yard, minimum depth of rear yard, minimum width of side yard, and maximum lot coverage by all buildings, for the property located at 129 COLUMBUS AVENUE (Rl Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped December 23, 2013 and accompanying materials Richard Griffin,Architect,represents the petitioners. Mr. Griffin states that the existing house was constructed in 1895,and is now in bad shape. It was a typical Willows house construction, with light joists,-and the thrust of the roof members are bowing out the house. The floors are springy and insect-infested. It would cost more to do a gut rehab than to tear it down and rebuild it completely. In designing the reconstruction, they found it desirable to add a couple of additional overhangs on the house,which add about 80 square feet for programming. Mr. Griffin states that they are proposing to extend the front porch by six feet [toward the south-west property boundary], so that the porch can wrap around the building to create a more graceful look. The hardship is that the lot size was determined in 1931,and the house was built in 1895. The lot size is awkward and pinched,with a fairly minimal three-bedroom house on the site. The proposed rebuild is still three-bedroom. Ms. Curran asks what the existing square footage of the house is. Mr. Griffin responds that there is about an 80 square-foot difference between the proposed and existing house. The additional covered area of the front porch adds about 35 square feet, the covered entryway at the back door is an additional 20 square feet, and the additional overhang is about 32 square feet. Ms. Curran clarifies the areas of the expansion, and asks why they are proposing an overhang [on the south west side of the house] of just an additional 1'-8"? Mr. Griffin refers to the submitted floor plans, and describes that the 1'-8" provides additional room in the interior for the desired programming of the space, and allows for the wrap-around of the front porch,which is an aesthetic improvement. • City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—January 15, 2014 Page 4 of 9 Ms. Harris asks if the proposed 2"d floor will remain the same size as the existing 2"`' floor. Mr. • Griffin responds that the proposed is slightly bigger than the existing. Mr. Watkins asks if the new front porch would extend further toward the street. Mr. Griffin explains that it will come out no farther than it is now. Mr. St. Pierre comments that, as the Building Inspector,it's good to see a house rebuilt in the character of the neighborhood, but with improved energy efficiency and construction quality. Ms. Curran opens the issue up forpublic comment. Larry Spang, 125 Columbus Avenue, a direct abutter. Mr. Spang and his family have lived there for about 15 years, and knows that the Callahans have been struggling with what to do with the property. Having a vacant house is not good for the neighborhood. Mr. Spang agrees with Mr. St. Pierre's comment. Mr. Spang and his wife are both in support of the petition. Kathy Picone, 25 Beach Avenue, supports the petition, and believes that it is very sensitive to the architecture of the neighborhood. The Callahan are good neighbors. John Doyle, 121 Columbus Avenue. The existing house is in disrepair. Anything to improve the property would be a plus for the neighborhood. Andree and Bill Walch, 23 Beach Avenue, support the petition, and agree with the other comments . made. Keith Chalmers, 12 Beach Avenue, states that the existing house is an eyesore. He is glad that the applicants are taking this on and are building something good for the neighborhood. Ms. Curran closes the public comment on the issue. Ms. Curran states that relief from the required front yard setback is by Variance. She believes that the extension of the front porch is aesthetically beneficial. Mr. Griffin clarifies that the foundation of the proposed house will be in the same location that it is currently. Mr. St. Pierre states that he believes that the hardship is the extremely small size of the lot, and the current configuration of the house. Ms. Harris states that in addition to those factors, the existing house is a wreck. Mr. Watkins states that the proposed house is in character with the neighborhood, and he doesn't see a problem here. Ms. Harris asks if the siding will be wood. Mr. Griffin replies that it will either be wood or HardiPlank. City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—January 15,2014 Page 5 of 9 • Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to grant the requested Variance and Special Permits with 7 standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr: Tsitsinos. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (S) in favor (Mc Dionne. Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris and Mr. Dual - and none (0) oaosed. The decision is berebv incorporated as tart of these minutes. Discussion: Ms. Curran states that for the Variance—the lot is very small, and it conformed to zoning at the time. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that the existing house predated zoning. Ms. Curran amends her statement, clarifying that the existing house predated zoning. Ms. Curran continues, stating that the applicant is using an existing footprint and making very minor additions to that footprint. She adds that the desired relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good—it will actually be more in keeping with the Willows neighborhood and the architecture of the neighborhood. Without that feature it would look out of place. In terms of the Special Permit—the social, economic and community needs served by the proposal,it fits in with the architecture of the neighborhood, they are adding another parking space and utilizing the same driveway. It's an existing single family house, so the impacts of the proposed building on utilities and on the environment will be the same as the existing single-family house. It's in keeping with the Willows neighborhood character. It will be an improved property, and will increase the tax base. Ms. Harris adds that as evidenced by the neighbors who spoke in favor of the petition, the house is currently a wreck, and the proposal is a definite improvement to the neighborhood. Petition of DE SIEU LAM and TUYEN NGOC LAM 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 97 BOSTON ST (R2 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped December 24, 2013 and accompanying materials ➢ Photos of the property and the neighboring buildings ➢ A written statement addressing the necessary findings for granting a Special Permit Attorney Scott Houseman represents the petitioners in their request for a Special Permit to allow a change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, for the operation of a nail salon on the second floor of 97 Boston Street. Ms. Curran asks what is currently in the space. Atty. Houseman replies that the fast floor is a first aid training/EMT training facility. The second floor is currently vacant. Mr. Lam bought it in November 2013. In speaking with real estate brokers and the tenants downstairs,it seems to have been used most recently as offices of some type (lawyers, financial services, etc.). Arty. Houseman adds that the property was purchased by an owner for use as an aluminum store and window sales shop in 1971. After that use started, the property was rezoned from business to R-2. The 1971 Zoning Board of Appeals decision states that"recent changes in the zoning ordinance rezoned the Boston Street premises from a business to a two-family zone while adjacent • properties remained zoned for business. The petitioner has conducted his business in the Boston Street area for some time and is established there, and would prefer to continue operating at this City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—January 15, 2014 Page 6 of 9 locale..." They also found that there were many other businesses being operated in the immediate • vicinity, and that the boundary between the Business zone and the R-2 zone starts at the abutting property. Arty. Houseman states that remains the case—the zoning boundary is a half-block away, at Nichols Street. The Building Inspector indicated that he thought that there might be another Decision of the Board of Appeals on record. Atty. Houseman looked at the Registry of Deeds records, and its registered land,which may be why it didn't show up when the Building Inspector was looking for the second Decision. As far as Arty. Houseman can tell, there was never a second Decision of the Zoning Board recorded regarding the second floor. Mr. St. Pierre adds that he can definitely testify to the office use on the second floor. He had occasion to be in the property in the last 10 years, and it was definitely in office use. Ms. Curran interjects to clarify that they never came into the Board for that office use. Mr. St. Pierre confirms this. Mr. St. Pierre continues that the current first floor business applied to the Board for approval of their use of the property for a first aid training facility. He knows this because he read it in the file, but has been unable to re-locate the file in time for this hearing. The second Decision that he was looking for was for the first floor unit, not the second floor unit. The second floor was the aluminum business, and then became professional offices. Ms. Curran asks if the parking meets the requirements of the by-law. Atty. Houseman responds that the proposed use of the second floor would require 5-6 lots, and the downstairs use requires 4. There are 10 parking spaces total in the lot behind the building. The downstairs business primarily g P Y operat es i r sn the evening. Mr. St. Pierre adds that the driveway is to the left of the building. Mr. Watkins asks if the driveway is two-way, and if there are designated spots for the two businesses in • the parking lot. Arty. Houseman replies that there aren't any spots reserved for the upstairs business specifically. Mr. St. Pierre adds that the driveway is too narrow to be two-lane, but is a generous single-lane. Arty. Houseman states that even if all four (nail station) chairs were filled, there wouldn't be much impact on the community. Ms. Curran asks if that means there will be 3-4 employees there at a time? Arty. Houseman replies yes. He adds that there is unlimited on-street parking across the street, and around the corner on Hanson Street, as well as a nearby bus stop. As shown in the submitted photos and statement, the buildings across the street have commercial uses, and behind the property is industrial use. Ms. Harris asks if the buildings on either side of the property are residential. Arty. Houseman responds that they are. Ms. Curran asks if they applicants will be using the entire second floor? Arty. Houseman replies that there will be no other use on the second floor,but some of the area will be used for storage related to the business. Ms. Harris asks what the maximum number of chairs (nail stations) will be. Mr. Lam responds that they will start slow, and Hopefully grow to a maximum of 8 chairs, depending on what building code will allow. • City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—January 15,2014 Page 7 of 9 • Mx. Tsitsmos asks what's on the third floor of the building. Mr. St. Pierre responds that there is no third floor—the second floor has cathedral windows. Ms. Curran opens the issue up forpublic comment. Travis Lemiesz, 95 Boston Street, states that the residents have had no problem with commercial use, or with a nail salon. He does note that parking on Hanson Street is by residential sticker only. Plus, new condos are being constructed across the street, so parking on that street will be more congested. Mr. Lemiesz states that he just came to the meeting to make sure it wasn't going to be a methadone clinic or something like that. He has no problem with it being a nail salon. The CPR place only works at night,and there aren't a lot of people coming through. He adds that the driveway to the parking lot is definitely only wide enough for one car at a time. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that the condos that are going in across the street is just the conversion of an g g J existing 2 or 3 family residential unit to 2 or 3 condos, so there won't be any increase in the number of units. Mr. Lemiesz responds that the house being converted to condos has been vacant for at least two years, so if new folks are moving in, parking will be tight there. Mr. Watkins asks if there are any proposed operating hours. Mr. Lam replies that they are waiting to see the building permits. Mr. Watkins clarifies that he is just concerned about the amount of traffic if the nail salon is operating at the same time as the training school downstairs. It could get congested in the parking lot. Mr. Lam states that the CPR/first aid business is open maybe 6:00pm • to 10:00pm, and the nail salon would be open maybe 9:30am to 7:00pm. Ms. Harris reiterates the concern about the number of chairs and the length of opening hours, and asks the Board if they want to set any limits on either of those things. Arty. Houseman states that the Lams will start small and see how things go. It's hard to establish a set number of what's realistic right now. If the Board wants to set an upper limit of something like 8 stations/chairs, that would be fine. Mx. St. Pierre adds that the applicants could always come back if they wind up wanting to change that. Ms. Harris adds that nail salons are busy. Mx. Watkins states that it would generate a lot of traffic throughout the day—more traffic flow than the previous office use would have created. He suggests putting a limit on the number of chairs/stations. Ms. Harris notes that the number of employees will equal the number of customers. Arty. Houseman notes that there is a signalized cross-walk to the other side of the street, so if people parked there,it would be a safe way to cross the street. Mr. St. Pierre adds that one parking space is required for each 150 square feet of commercial use, so the proposed nail salon would require 6-7 spaces. Mr. St. Pierre advises the Board that if they have concerns, they should set limits now. Arty. Houseman states that a set closing time of 7pm and a maximum of 8 chairs is good. Motion and Vote: Ms. Watkins makes a motion to grant the reUuested Special Permit witb 7 standard conditions, and two special conditions: there sball be a maximum of 8 stations and the operating hours shall be between the hours of 200am and 7:OOpm. Mondayt hrough Sunday. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Duffy. A roll call vote was taken, and was unanimous with five ( in favor (Mr. Dionne. Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran Ms. Hams. and Mr. Du!A)and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—January 15,2014 Page 8 of 9 Discussion: Mr. Duffy adds that the proposed use would not be substantially more detrimental to . the neighborhood,it would provide a service to the neighborhood, and that impacts on traffic will be mitigated by the set limits on the number of chairs and the hours of operation. There are other businesses in the area, so it is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. It will have a positive financial impact on the city. III. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES November 20,2013 Draft Meeting Minutes Motion and Vote:Mr. Watkins moves to 4hrove the minutes as written, seconded by Mr. Quo . The vote was unanimous with four(4 in favor(Mr. Watkins.Ms. Curran, Mr. D96, and Mr. Tsitsinos and none (0) opposed. and Ms. Ham's and Mr. Dionne abstaining. December 18, 2013 Draft Meeting Minutes Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins moves to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Ms. Harris. The vote was unanimous with four(4) in favor(Mr. Watkins.Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne and Ms. Harris and none (0) opposed and Mr. Duffy and Mr. Tsitsinos abstaining. • IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Ms. Curran states that the Board seems to have been getting more applications where the applicant hasn't clearly laid out a hardship in the application materials. Ms. Curran adds that it would be helpful to format the application to really emphasize that you MUST show a hardship, and if you don't show a hardship,you can't get a Variance. They always have the right to apply for it, but the Salem News is so expensive, so they're spending a lot of money to get here. Mr. St. Pierre notes that the Salem Board of Appeals has typically taken a more lenient view on granting Variances than some other municipalities. Ultimately it's the Board of Appeals' decision to grant or to not grant a Variance. Ms. Menon offers to reformat the application package with the aim of clarifying the requirements for applicants. Mr. St. Pierre adds that the Board has to set the tone themselves, but we can look at revising the application. Mr. Watkins asks Ms. Menon if the Mayor has made an appointment to replace Mr. Eppley on the Board. Ms. Menon updates the Board on the progress with appointing a new member. V. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Watkins motioned for adjournment of the January 15t6, 2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 8:10 PM. • City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—January 15,2014 Page 9 of 9 • Motion: Mr. Watkins made a motion to ad iourn the January 15", 2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board o� Appeals. seconded by Mr. De�, and a unanimous vote was taken with six(6) in favor(Mr. Wlatkins.Ms. Curran Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Mr. Du(i - and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. For actions wbere the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions bare been posted separately by address orprojectat.• ba:llsalern.com/PageslJ'alemMA ZoningjppealsMinl Respectfully submitted, Dana Menon, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 2/19/2014 � �I ��coNurmg9� City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail V6� q a--3 r3 Qp s'F, Q 1Q1 C411a.G d, D- i :2/ Ur/_401c Okle 7 U1A1-0U - S rlk Lvvl Page of f ,�CQflD17i}„� � CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • 9�e f�9,- BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINUMN SraEM' * SAI.i�M,MASSACHUSE,r[s 01970 KIMBERLEYDRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will hold its regularly sebeduled meeting on Wednesday,January 15yn,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall Annex, RM 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES D November 20,2013 meeting ➢ December 18,2013 meeting III. REGULAR AGENDA • Project: A continuation of the 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 Variance under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the required minimum depth of front yard,and Special Permits under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Famiy Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the reconstruction of an existing nonconforming structure in continued non-conformity with the required minimum depth of front yard,minimum depth of rear yard,minimum width of side yard,and maximum lot b e coverag Y all buildings. g Applicant: LAWRENCE AND DEBORAH CAL.LAHAN Location: 129 COLUMBUS AVENUE (Rl 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 a change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use. Applicant: DE SIEU LAM and TUYEN NGOC LAM Location: 97 BOSTON ST (R2 Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT � \ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • ` ` b i" fop BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 - KIMBERLEY DRIscoEL TEt.E:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX!978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,January 15,2013 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(Rl Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on January 29,2014 Petition of DE SIEU LAM and TUYEN NGOC LAM 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 97 BOSTON ST (R2 Zoning District). • Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on January 29,2014 Petition of LAWRENCE AND DEBORAH CALLAHAN requesting a Variance under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the required minimum depth of front yard,and Special Permits under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the reconstruction of an existing nonconforming structure in continued non- conformity with the required minimum depth of front yard,minimum depth of rear yard,minimum width of side yard, and maximum lot coverage by all buildings,for the property located at 129 COLUMBUS AVENUE (R1 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on January 29,2014 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9 dam'15 and does not require action by the recipient.Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A,Section 17,and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. �cON01�� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS � I BOARD OF APPEAL, 120 WASHINGTON STREET 0 SALEM,MASSACIiUSF l 26i�OJ�W 29 P 12: 45 MNIBM,EYDR[sCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 bLAYOR FILE ti CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. January 29, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of DE SIEU LAM and TUYEN NGOC LAM 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 97 BOSTON ST (R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on January 15, 2014 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. Dionne, Ms. Harris, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsmos (Alternate). The .Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. • Statements of fact: 1. In the petition, date-stamped December 24, 2013, the Petitioner requests a Special Permit to change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use. 2. Attorney Scott Houseman presents the petition on behalf of the applicants. 3. The petitioner proposes to operate a nad salon business on the second floor of the property located at 97 Boston Street. 4. The property is in an R2 district, adjacent to a B2 district. The second floor was in use as an aluminum and window sales shop in 1971, when the property was rezoned from a Business district to an R2 district. A Zoning Board of Appeals Decision from 1971 regarding the use of the property states that "recent changes in the zoning ordinance rezoned the Boston Street premises from a business to a two-family zone while adjacent properties remained zoned for business. The petitioner has conducted his business in the Boston Street area for some time and is established there, and would prefer to continue operating at this locale..." 5. The first floor is currently in use by a CPR/First Aid training cent& G. A parking lot for the property is located behind the building. The lot has 10 parking spaces for use by both the first and second floor businesses. 'There is on-street parking available across Boston Street, and a signalized crosswalk. There is also a bus stop nearby. 7. If the CPR/First Aid training center were holding a class at the same time as peak usage of the nail salon, there is concern that there would not be an adequate number of parking spaces in the dedicated • lot. Limiting the operating hours and the number of chairs/stations in the nail salon would mitigate this condition. 8. At the public hearing for the petition, an abutter asked questions regarding the details of the project, and stated that they had no objections to the proposed use. No other members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the petition. v „ City of Salem Board of Appeals January 29,2014 Project: 97 Boston Street 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 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: Findings: T u shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to 1. he proposed use y g g the neighborhood. The proposed use would provide a service to the neighborhood. 2. The proposed use is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, as there are other businesses in the area. 3. Any potential impacts on traffic will be mitigated by the set limits on the number of chairs/stations and the hours of operation. 4. The proposed use will have a positive financial impact on the city. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Nis. Curran—Chair, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Harris, Mr. Watkins) and none (0) opposed, to approve the Special Permit to allow a change from one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use, 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 i adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 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 Planning Board. 8. There shall be a maximum of 8 chairs/stations in the nail salon 9. The operating hours of the nail salon shall be between the hours of 9:00am and 7:00pm, seven days a week. &VV'V1/05VL'�' Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from Ibis derision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of!be d4assachuiettr General Lunt Chapter 4014, and shall be filed within 20 d yt of filing of this derision in the ggiee of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the iWassaahutetts General Lucas Chapter 40A, Set tion /t, the ['orrancce or • Spetral Permit granted herein shall not lake dject until a copy of The derision bearing the tertoeafe of!be City Clerk has been filed with the Etje.% South Registry ofDeerls. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 9a i 120wAsHINGToNsraEEr . sAx.EM,NcAss:,CHUsFITsoM19 JAU 29 P 12: 45 Kmiatxt.EYDRtscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 NIAYOR FILE Y CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. January 29, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals 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). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on December 18, 2013 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on January 15, 2014 with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris (Vice Chair),Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy,Mr. Watkins, and Nit. Tsitsinos. The Petitioner seeks Variances from Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: • 1. In the petition date-stamped September 25, 2013, the Petitioner requested Variances to allow the creation of two lots from one existing lot. 2. Attorney John Keilty presented the petition for the property at 13 Cherry Hill Avenue. 3. The requested Variances would 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. Proposed Lot A would have a lot area of 11,413 square feet, 75.0 feet of frontage, and a lot width of 74.26 feet. Proposed Lot B would have a lot area of 11,416 square feet, 75.0 feet of frontage, and a lot width of 75.8 feet. 4. The single lot now in existence was created from the merging of 3 separate lots. The three lots were recorded on a plot plan drawn in October 1925 by Thomas A. Appleton, C.E. The three lots were conveyed to Peter Hantzopoulos and his wife in August 1962. In 200, Mt. Hantzopoulos conveyed the land to himself and his wife as Trustees of the Hantzopoulos Irrevocable Trust. In this 2013 conveyance, the land was still described in reference to the three lots as drawn in the 1925 plot plan. 5. In 1965 the City of Salem adopted a Zoning Ordinance, which zoned the three lots as RI. The three lots were undersized according to the requirements of the R1 zone, and as the three lots were under common ownership they were, after two years lapsed, merged into one lot of 22,829 square feet, 150 feet of frontage, and 150.06 feet in Width. These dimensions exceed the requirements of the Rl zoning district for a minimum area of 15,000 square feet, minimum frontage of 100 feet, and minimum width of 100 feet. 6. The applicants were unaware of the merging of the three lots under their ownership. The reduction • of the three lots to one lot imposes an economic hardship on the applicants. 7. The three lots were regularly-shaped lots, lined up side-by-side along the frontage on Cherry Hill I Avenue. nY City of Salem Board of Appeals January 29,2014 Project: 13 Cherry Hill Avenue • Page 2 of 2 8. The petitioners are not seeking to recreate the original three lots, but rather to divide the one lot into two lots. 9. The existing large single lot is out of character with the neighborhood, which is largely comprised of smaller lots with smaller residences. 10. At the public hearing, no members of the public spoke in favor of, or 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 petition, including the application narrative and plans, the Petitioner's presentation and public testimony, and a memorandum submitted to the Board at the hearing, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: Findings: 1. The three original lots were regularly-shaped lots, and were lined up side-by-side along Cherry Hill Avenue. This creates a unique condition in which a literal enforcement'of the Dimensional Regrthrmentt under the City of Salem's Zoning Ordinance, specifically the required minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet, the required minimum lot frontage of 100 feet, and the required minimum lot width of 100 feet,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. The development of the land as two smaller lots would be more consistent with the character of the neighborhood than the development of the one • large lot. The existing single lot was created from the merging of three lots, but the applicant seeks only to divide the existing lot into two lots. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran—Chair, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Duffy), none (0) opposed, to approve the Variances from: the required minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet to allow the creation of Lot A at 11,413 square feet and Lot B at 11,416 square feet; the required minimum lot frontage of 100 feet to allow a lot frontage of 75.0 feet at Lot A and 75.0 feet at Lot B; the required minimum lot width of 100 feet to allow a lot width of 74.26 feet at Lot A and 75.8 feet at Lot B; subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 3. 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 WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE Uri'CLERK 4ppeal from Ibis deaiion, #'any,shall he made pursuant io Section 17 of lbe k1assachwells General Laws Chapter 4011, and sball be filed within 20 days o/filing of Ibis det-ision in the ollice of the City Clerk. Pursuant Io 1he Massachusetts General L�nns Chapter 40,4, Section i 1, lbe Vaname or Spedal Permil granted herein,hall not lake ellecl until a mpy of Ibe derision hearing the cerlifi we of the Cio,Clerk has been pled with lbe Esfev South Registry o/Deeds. ", CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL ��P/Mnvs 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTs;MkdAN 2 9 P 12: 4 5 KIMBERLEYDRISCOI..L TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 fliE 1f MAYOR FILE CLERK, SALEM, MASS. January 29, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of]LAWRENCE AND DEBORAH CALLAHAN requesting a Variance under Section 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the required minimum depth of front yard, and Special Permits under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the reconstruction of an existing nonconforming structure in continued non-conformity with the required minimum depth of front yard, minimum depth of rear yard, minimum width of side yard, and maximum lot coverage by all buildings, for the property located at 129 COLUMBUS AVENUE (R1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on January 15, 2014 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. Dionne,Ms. Harris,Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, and Special Permits pursuant to Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition, date-stamped December 23, 2013, the Petitioner requests a Variance to grant relief from the minimum required depth of front yard, and Special Permits to allow the reconstruction of an existing nonconforming structure in continued non-conformity with the required minimum depth of front yard, minimum depth of rear yard, minimum width of side yard, and maximum lot coverage by all buildings. 2. Mr. Richard Griffin,Architect,presented the petition on the applicant's behalf. 3. The petitioner proposes to reconstruct an existing single family dwelling on the existing foundation. The proposed reconstruction includes the addition of a 1'-8" overhang on the south-west side of the house, and the extension of the front porch by 5'-4" such that the porch will run along the entire front of the house and tie into the south-west side of the house. 4. The existing building is a non-conforming structure as it encroaches on the required front, rear, and side setbacks, and exceeds the maximum allowed lot coverage. The existing building was constructed in 1895, and the lot was established in 1931,which predates Salem's Zoning Ordinance. 5. The existing house is in poor condition, and it would be more costly to repair the existing house than to rebuild it. • 6. At the public hearing for this petition, several abutters spoke in favor of the petition. No members of the public spoke in opposition to the petition. City of Salem Board of Appeals January 29,1114 . Project: 129 Columbus 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 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: Findings: 1. The existing size of the lot, which predates the Salem Zoning Ordinance, creates a unique condition in which a literal enforcement of the Dimensional Requirements under the City of Salem's Zoning Ordinance would be a substantial hardship to the appellant. 2. The desired relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. The proposed design, with the wrap-around porch, will be more in keeping with the Willows neighborhood architecture than the existing structure. 3. The desired relief—both the Variance and the Special Permits - may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. The applicant will be making very minor additions to the existing building footprint. 4. The public comments received during the hearing demonstrate that the proposed reconstruction will remove a structure that negatively impacts the neighborhood with its poor condition, and replace it with a new structure that is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. • 5. The proposed plan will utilize the existing driveway, and add an on-site parking space (for a total of two on-site spaces). 6. There will be no additional impact on utilities or other public services from the existing use. The existing structure is a single-family house. The proposed structure is a single-family house, with very minor additions to the existing building footprint. 7. The impact of the proposed structure on the environment will be the same as the existing structure. 8. The proposal is for an improved property,which will increase the City's tax base. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor Ms. Curran— Chair, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Watkins) and none (0) opposed, to approve the Variance from the required minimum depth of front yard, and to approve the Special Permits to allow the reconstruction of an existing nonconforming structure in continued non-conformity with the required minimum depth of front yard, minitnum depth of rear yard, minimum width of side yard, and maximum lot coverage by all buildings, 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. # 7 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. City of Salem Board of Appeals January 29,2014 Project: 129 Columbus Avenue Page 3 of 3 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 WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, sball be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General lams Chapter 40A, and sball be filed within 20 days of fihng 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 sball not take effect until a ropy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed mitb the Essex Soutb Registry of Deeds. ti t I • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS a BOARD OF APPEAL MINEDQ' 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALCM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KmIBERLEV DRISCOLL TFILE.:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Dana Menon, Staff Planner DATE: February 12,2014 RE: Meeting Agenda for February 19,2014 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Meeting Minutes from1/15/2014 . 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 2/19/2014 meeting. 1. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. Petition of MICHAEL MEYER requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the extension of an existing nonconforming structure in order to construct an addition to the second floor of the house at the property located at 15 BEACON STREET (R2 Zoning District). Mr. Meyer is seeking to build an addition to the second floor of an existing home,to accommodate a bathroom and an additional bedroom on the second floor,as well as removing an existing porch and stairs on the east side of the house, to construct a new porch and stairs at a different location. A Special Permit is required as the existing home is a nonconforming structure,and already encroaches on the minimum required width of side yard—the house is situated on a narrow lot. The west side of the house is only 2 feet from the western property boundary,with an existing first-floor porch at the north-west corner. The proposed addition to the second floor would extend over the existing porch, to meet the fine of the existing west side of the building,at 2 feet from the property line. The applicant included elevations and plans in their application packet. Drawing A-1 shows the existing and proposed east and south elevations,with the proposed width,height, and length of the house with additions. Sheet A-2 shows existing and proposed north and west elevations, sheet A-4 shows the existing and proposed basement plan,and sheet A-6 shows the proposed first and second floor plans. The existing porch and steps to be removed are shown on the surveyed plan. The existing and proposed porch and stairs are shown on sheet A-1. The direct abutters,Daniel and Stephanie O'Connell of 17 Beacon Street,have submitted a letter in support of the proposed improvements. I will bring the letter to the meeting, to be read into the record. City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—February 19, 2014 Page 2 of 4 2. Petition of ROBERT AND CHRISTINE KING requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 • Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the renovation and expansion of an existing nonconforming structure, and a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements, specifically from the 2.5 story maximum allowed height of buildings, to allow the building to be 3 stories in height, at the property located at 84-86 BAY VIEW AVENUE (Rl Zoning District). The petitioners are seeking to renovate and expand the existing house. The mortgage inspection plan submitted shows the general layout and size of the lot,and the placement of the existing house on the lot. The second 1lx17 sheet enclosed in the application shows that the footprint of the proposed structure will be smaller than the footprint of the existing structure—the areas outlined in a dashed red line indicate the parts of the existing footprint that will be abandoned in the renovation. The petitioners are applying for a Special Permit to allow them to renovate and expand an existing nonconforming structure—according to the two plans mentioned above,the existing structure is in noncompliance with the minimum width of side yard,and the maximum lot coverage by all buildings. See the table below: OF Re s - Dtme MY4, scturulttd S;Eandard " ;, a a Maximum lot coverage by 30% 38.2% 32.8% all buildings Minimum width of side yard 10, —0' —3' • (at narrowest dimension) The petitioners are applying for a Variance to allow them to exceed the 2.5 story maximum allowed height of buildings in stories—the proposed building would have dormers that would create a 3�d story. The application packet includes color, scaled renderings of the proposed structure (drawings Al-A4). The proposed dormers are most clearly seen on sheets Al,A2, and A3. The drawings are at 1/8"-l'-0"scale,and the Front Elevation drawing on sheet A3 notes the elevation dimensions. The structure is shown as being 32'-0"high,which is below the allowed 35'maximum height of buildings in feet, so a Variance is only required from the height in stories. The petitioner has already been in contact with the City's Conservation Agent regarding the potential need for the Conservation Commission to review the project. The petitioner will follow up on this should the Board of Appeals approve the proposed work. 3. Petition of ROBERT WILLWERTH requesting a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements, specifically from the maximum allowed height of buildings, and a Special Permit under Section 3.3 Nonconforming Uses and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one non-conforming use to another, and to change a non-conforming structure, to allow the conversion of the property to residential use, at the property located at 107 HIGHLAND AVENUE (111 Zoning District). The petitioner seeks to renovate the existing structure for use as eight(8) residential units. This is a nonconforming use in an R1 district, but as the property is in a pre-existing nonconforming use (medical office),it is eligible for Board approval of a Special Permit to change from one non-conforming use to another. The applicant proposes to provide 14 off-street(on-site) parking spaces,which exceeds the minimum 2 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—February 19,2014 Page 3 of 4 number of spaces required (12). The attached blueprints show the existing and proposed site layout with parking. The petitioner is seeking an additional Special Permit to extend an existing non-conforming structure. The existing structure does not meet the required minimum depth of rear yard(see table below). The proposed extensions do not increase the footprint of the building,but do add space to the second and third floors over the existing first floor footprint. The proposed expansions are dormers on the third floor,and decks on the second and third floor(over the existing first floor deck). The propose extension also requires a Variance,as the proposed expansion of the building would exceed the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories. The petitioner proposes adding a dormer and a deck on the back of the building in order to create room for living space on the third floor. .. 611 Noll, ,y. .. v ... .. .. ' NOUN # l'}EtYitks&aal8liegF�.trelprnrR, i ,, ahnae 'r+ u+'ems, , i'! L( .. IYrolo a - Re�ttfre t 101 d d. iti Maximum height of building 2.5 2.5 3 (stories) Minimum depth of rear yard 30' 25'+/- 25' +/- Required parking for dwellings 1.5 spaces/unit (8 units proposed) (= 12 spaces for 8 units) ^'28 spaces 14 spaces • The applicant has also included a landscape plan to illustrate the landscaping that will replace the excess parking that would be removed. If the Board approves the petition, the petitioner will also have to apply to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. In sum, the applicant is seeking: 1. Special Permit to change from one non-conforming use to another 2. Special Permit to extend an existing non-conforming structure 3. Variance to exceed the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories 4. Petition of JEFFREY PERAS requesting a Variance pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.3.4 Nonconforming Uses and Structures — Variance Required, to grant relief from the requirements of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements, to allow remodeling of a kitchen and construction of a deck at the property located at 379 LAFAYETTE STREET (Rl& ECOD Zoning District). The petitioner proposes to construct an extension to the kitchen of the existing house,and to add a back deck. The proposed kitchen expansion would encroach on the minimum required width of side yard. As part of the kitchen renovations, the petitioner proposes to remove an existing mudroom and stairs that is within 3'of the property line- this encroaches on the minimum width of side yard,and is therefore an existing nonconforming structure. However,the proposed changes to the structure would"increase an existing nonconformity",which requires the issuance of a variance. The proposed deck would result in an exceedance of the maximum lot coverage by all buildings,which also requires a variance. 3 0 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—February 19, 2014 Page 4 of 4 ;, oq a SM,4 f�1tt�.' (IuirPimet i. yhIQj1���5F4�iF�'° II Minimum width of side yard 10 +/ 3' +/-5'-4" Maximum lot coverage by all buildings 30% 26% 31% The submitted certified plot plan (labeled"A") shows the required setbacks related to the existing configuration of the house. A second copy of the certified plot plan (labeled`B'� shows the plan layout of the proposed additions to the house (kitchen expansion and deck). The 24"06"sheet shows the existing layout& elevations (dashed lines) and the proposed layout&elevations (solid lines). The 8.5"xl l" sheet of plans and elevations shows only the existing conditions. The petitioner has submitted a second proposed plot plan (labeled"C") showing a reduced deck footprint, which would meet the 30%lot coverage requirement. The petitioner chose to include this plan so that should the Board not grant the Variance for the lot coverage, the Board could approve this second plan. 5. Petition of ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES GROUP INC requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.0 Use Regulations and Section 9.4 Special Permits, to allow use of a portion of the building as a Medical Clinic for a Registered Marijuana Dispensary, at the property located at 50 GROVE STREET (BPD& ECOD Zoning District). The petitioner proposes to operate a Registered Marijuana Dispensary at 50 Grove Street. As a"Medical Clinic"use in a BPD zone, this use requires a Special Permit from the Board of Appeals. • The petitioner has been approved for a provisional license by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. The petitioner is one of two companies granted a provisional license for Essex County—the other company is proposing to locate in Haverhill. Attached is a Q&A sheet for municipalities,prepared by DPH. Also attached is an aerial map showing the 500-foot radius around the proposed RMD location. 4 i, V CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • =a BOARD OF APPEAL �tMINE D�ia�' 120 WASHINGTON STREET# SALEM,MASSACHIJSETI$01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You are hereby rxxif:al dtat the Salem Z=T Band g(Appeals mill hold its rWdady sdxdidxl nre&T on Wad day,February 19, 2014 at 6:30 p.m at City Hall A ruse,RM 313, 120 Wasbirgton St,Salem;MA Rebecca Curran,Chair n MEETINGAGENDA m I. ROLL CALL r- =n m rM W II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES �—' r ➢ January 15,2014 meeting `>r^ ^� m D III. REGULARAGENDA 3co 3 • Project: A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3;5 No a rrung Single aryl Tv.&FamdyResidential Smaures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow e extension of an existing nonconforming structure in order to construct an addition to the second floor of the house. Applicant: MICHAEL MEYER Location: 15 BEACON STREET(R2 Zoning District) Project: A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Naxmforrrerg Strucum of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the.renovation and expansion of an existing nonconformingstructur e,and a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table P qf Dureraioral R*7moz,specifically from the 2.5 story maximum allowed height of buildings,to allow the building to be 3 stories in height. Applicant: ROBERT AND CHRISTINE KING Location: 84-86 BAY VIEW AVENUE (R1 Zoning District) Project: A public hearing for a petition requesting a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table cf Dinmiard Relcarwv&,specifically from the maximum allowed height of buildings,and a Special Permit under Section 3.3 Nazorfarmag Uses and Stmcum of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one non-conforming use to another,and to change a non-conforming structure, to allow the conversion of the property to residential use. Applicant: ROBERT WILLWERTH Location: 107 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R1 Zoning District) Project: A public hearing for a petition requesting a Variance pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.3.4 • Naxm fbm&g Uses and Stnrw s- Variane Ral and to grant relief from the requirements of Section 4.1.1 Table cf Dirreiaiord R*rerrerz,to allow remodeling of a kitchen and construction of a deck Applicant: JEFFREYPERAS Location: 379 LAFAYETTE STREET (R1 Zoning District) I City of Salem Board of Appeals • Agenda for February 19, 2014 Meeting Page 2 of 2 Project. A public heating for a petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.0 Use ReyLtim and Section 9.4 Specad Pe ary,to allow use of a portion of the building as a Medical Clinic for a Registered Marijuana Dispensary. Applicant: ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES GROUP INC. Location: 50 GROVE STREET (BPD Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem,.Mass. on et,6m w4 P-,dWN at ?'I6&h in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A9 Sections 18-25. • 'i • �'• CITY OF SALEM n f ,( I , MASSACHUSETTS T715112 BOARD OF APPEAL 132 NS 120 WASHINGTON SIRFET SA7..Eb1,i AS&AcnusFTrs 01970 KINfBERLFY DRlscoLL TEUX:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846 FILE MAYOR 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 JEFFREY PERAS requesting a Variance pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.3.4 Nonconforming Uses and Structures— Variance Required,to grant relief from the requirements of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements, to allow remodeling of a kitchen and construction of a deck at the property located_at 379 LAFAYETTE •STREET (R1 & ECOD Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, FEB 19, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 2/5/14 & 2/12/14 v This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City half, SA616 Mass. on I%-4, 4, ;70 1 y at V A 4886dWance with MGL Chap. 30Ao . SectWns 18-25. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPRAT . 7919 EB -4 P 3. 32 9 ___ 120 W:ISHINGTON STREFi.T 0 S.U:F•,M,MASSr1CFIUS6'TL'S OWLOE # KArBERLEYDRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ Fnx:978-74CfFY6CLERK. SALEM, MASS, A,�YOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of ROBERT WILLWERTH requesting a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements, specifically from the maximum allowed height of buildings, and a Special Permit under Section 3.3 Nonconforming Uses and .Structures of the.Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one non-conforming use to another, and to change a non-conforming structure, to allow the conversion of the property to residential use, at the property located at 107 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R1 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, FEB 19, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 2/5/14 & 2/12/14 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, hi.;ss. on Fes, 4. 02014 • at 331 pm in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. t CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSET"TS � I BOARD OF APPEAL j' ,..,. FEB 4 n 3* 32 120 WASHINGION SIREE'I'* SALEM,NViSSACHOSET-501970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-984BILE # MAYOR 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 ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES GROUP INC requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.0 Use Regulations and Section 9.4 Special Permits, to allow use of a portion of the building as a Medical Clinic for a Registered Marijuana Dispensary, at the property located at 50 GROVE STREET (BPD and ECOD Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, FEB 19, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST,ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 2/5/14 &2/12/14 posted on "Office BulietinBoard" This notice p 'P. b 30A, City Hall, Salem, Mass. on in accordance With With >VI ap. at 33)-PM Sections 18 25. • A�oN01T�, CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPFF��������� ,. f 9i' l�IG FE8 -U P 1. 32 �NS= 120 WASHINGI'ON SIREE.T 4 $ffi.EM,K1SSACHUSETI'�q'ff 71# KINmERLEYDRiscoL ' LI'::978-745-9595 ♦ FAY 978-eff f Fft E RK. S,ALEM. 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 MICHAEL MEYER requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the extension of an existing nonconforming structure in order to construct an addition to the second floor of the house at the property located at 15 BEACON STREET �(R2 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, FEB 19, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 2/5/14 & 2/12/14 osted on "Official Bulletin Board" This notice P Mass. on f 30A, City Hall, Salem, at 3 3,. P Pl in accordance with MGL Chap. • Sections 18-25. All 71. CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS 4,, �t s; BOARD OF APPEAL s� ` 1014 FEB C 12 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SAi.FM,MASSACIiUSETTS 01970 MmBERi.FYDRiscoiz TE1.E:978-745-9595 F:ix:978-740-9846 FILE #t 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 ROBERT AND CHRISTINE KING requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the renovation and expansion of an existing nonconforming structure, and a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dlmensional Requirements, specifically from the 2.5 story maximum allowed height of buildings,to allow the building to be 3 stories in height, at the property located at 84-86 BAY VIEW AVENUE (RI Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, FEB 19, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 2/5/14 & 2/12/14 This notice posted on "Oflici i Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on �q. a01Lf at 33a-f m in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. 5 ?¢ : City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date 2 Zo I9 Name Mailing Address Phone # QE-mail l )I OLOK xq kL/C7T//K ®G7u/et/ c j g ®tip S+- 97ryo739y7 ZTReP .AseQVL.00, ovl r r — ,.Yea 6YO-ka7 621re 978- 7yS-sore smai-e /0 'ca" q 2 & 1• " Sy9< S-K— • Page of l_ " CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS w BOARD OF APPEAL \ Bid 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,NU\SSdCHUSETTS 01970 MAR 10 P Z. 41 KIMBERLEYDRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 / FAx:978-740-9846 FILE # MAYOR CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. March 10, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of MICHAEL MEYER requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the extension of an existing nonconforming structure in order to construct an addition to the second floor of the house at the property located at 15 BEACON STREET (R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on February 19, 2014 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. Copelas (Alternate), and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks Variances from Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Tivo-Family Beridential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: + 1. In the petition date-stamped January 23, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit to expand an existing non-conforming structure by constructing an addition to the second floor of the existing house, at the property located at 15 Beacon Street. 2. Mr. Michael Meyer presented the petition for the property at 15 Beacon Street. 3. Mr. Meyer stated that the addition will increase the size of the house by about 250 square feet, to a total area of just under 1,200 square feet. 4. Mr. Meyer stated that the existing house does not function in today's real estate market. 5. Mr. Meyer stated that he is not proposing any changes to the first floor. 6. The proposed addition will not exceed the height of the existing building. 7. The existing use of the building is single-family residential. The use of the building will remain single- family residential. 8. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to construct an approximately 250 square foot addition to the second floor, over the extents of an existing first-floor deck, and within two feet of a side lot line. 9. At the public hearing, one abutter expressed their non-opposition to the petition. One written comment in support of the petition was 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 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: City of Salem Board of Appeals March 10,2014 Project: 15 Beacon Street Page 2 of 2 Findings: 1. The impact of the proposal on the community's needs is no different than the existing use, as the property will remain a single-family residence. 2. There will be no impact on parking or loading in the area, as the property will remain a single-family residence. 3. The adequacy of utilities and public services to the building will remain the same as existing. 4. It will be an improvement to the neighborhood character. 5. The addition will potentially increase the value of the home,resulting in a positive economic and fiscal impact. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Duffy in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit to allow an addition to the second floor of an existing residence to within two feet of the western side lot line, 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. th� � 64ni-7/05qA 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 Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed w thin 20 days of fling of this deasion 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. HWT \ ` CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETI"S • ,' BOARD OF APPEAL 7014 MAR� 10 P 2: 41 120 WASHINGTON SIREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 K[MBERLEYDRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ F,vt:978-740-9W CITY CLERK, SFILALEM,MAYOR MASS. March 10, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of ROBERT AND CHRISTINE KING requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the renovation and expansion of an existing nonconforming structure, and two Variances from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements, specifically from the 2.5 story maximum allowed height of buildings to allow the building to be 3 stories in height, and from the minimum width of side yard to allow the construction of stairs from the ground elevation up to the deck, at the property located at 84-86 BAY VIEW AVENUE (R1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on February 19, 2014 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 4 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. Copelas (Alternate), and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). • The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit from Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, as well as two Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped January 28, 2014, the Petitioner requested: a Variance to allow the addition of two dormers to provide walk-up access to the attic, when the addition of the dormers creates a third story and only 2.5 stories are permitted in an Rl district; and a Special Permit in order to renovate and expand an existing nonconforming structure. 2. Mr. Tom St. Pierre, Zoning Enforcement Officer, found that the proposal also required a second Variance to allow the construction of an exterior stairway from the proposed rear deck to the ground level. These proposed stairs encroach on the required 10-foot minimum width of side yard. 3. Mr. Robert King presented the petition for the property at 84-86 Bay View Avenue. 4. The existing structure is approximately 27 feet in height. The proposed structure will be 32 feet in height. The proposed dormers would be 31 feet in height. In an RI zoning district, 2.5 stories is the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories, and 35 feet is the maximum allowed height of buildings in feet. 5. The petition proposes to remove three features of the existing structure that encroach on the minimum required depth of side yard, and to construct one stairway at minimum width and with a lesser encroachment on the required depth of side yard than the existing features. 6. Mr. King submitted plans that show the proposed rear deck to be 8 feet deep by 21 feet wide. At the • public hearing, Mr. King requests to amend the proposed deck to be 6 feet deep by 21 feet wide, to accommodate the request of one of the direct abutters. 7. The property is currently a two-family residence and will remain a two-family residence. .i City of Salem Board of Appeals March 10,2014 Project: 84-86 Bay View Avenue Page 2 of 3 8. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to renovate and expand the existing non-. conforming structure, would allow the addition of two dormers to create a third floor, and would allow the construction of exterior stairs from ground level up to the rear deck, within the required minimum width of side yard. 9. At the public hearing, one abutter expressed their non-opposition to the petition if the proposed rear deck is limited to a maximum depth of six feet, one abutter expressed concerns regarding the petition. Two written comments in support of the petition were received. 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 — Special Permit to allow the renovation and expansion of an existing nonconforming structure: 1. The impact of the proposal on the community's needs is no different than the existing use, as the property will remain a two-family residence. 2. There will be no impact on parking or loading in the area, as the property will remain a two-family residence. 3. The adequacy of utilities and public services to the building will remain the same as existing. 4. It will be an improvement to the neighborhood character. 5. The value of the home would increase, resulting in an increased tax base. This would have a positive• economic and fiscal impact. Findings — Variance from the required minimum width of side yard to allow the construction of stairs from the ground elevation up to the deck: 1. The proposed stair from the deck is at the minimum allowed width. Due to the narrowness of the lot, any potential location for the stairway would be within a requited side yard setback. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would be a substantial hardship. 3. The proposed stairway is smaller than the existing stairway, so the desired relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. 4. The desired relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Findings—Variance from the 2.5 story maximum allowed height of buildings to allow the building to be 3 stories in height: 1. Due to the narrowness of the lot, the size of the house, and the configuration of the lot and the house, the applicant cannot create a staircase to the attic space without dormers. The dormers trigger a technical third story. Although it's technically a third story, the height of the proposed structure is within the allowed maximum 35 foot height of buildings in feet. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would be a substantial hardship. 3. The proposed dormers are located toward the front of the house, such that the greatest impact of the• dormers would be on the neighbor across the street. The petition has the support of the neighbor across the street. The desired relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. City of Salem Board of Appeals March 10,2014 Project: 84-86 Bay View Avenue • Page 3 of 3 4. 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. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, and Mr. Duffy in favor) and one (1) opposed (Ms. Harris), to grant the requested Special Permit to allow the renovation and expansion of an existing nonconforming structure, the Variance to allow the building to be three (3) stories in height, and the Variance to allow the construction of stairs to the deck within the minimum width of sideyard, 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 Comrnissioner 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 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. The submitted plans show an eight (8) foot deep rear deck. The rear deck shall be a maximum of six • (6) feet deep. 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 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 benin 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'll-k4u CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETI'S BOARD OF APPEAL io 10 P 2 41 120 WASHINGCON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KwBERLEYDRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 FILE tf MAYOR CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. March 10, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of JEFFREY PERAS requesting a Variance pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.3.4 Nonconforming Uses and Structures — Variance Required, to grant relief from the requirements of Section 4.1.1 Table ofDtmensional Requirements, to allow remodeling of a kitchen and construction of a deck at the property located at 379 LAFAYETTE STREET (R1 & ECOD Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on February 19, 2014 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. Copelas (Alternate), and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Variance from Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. • Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped January 29, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Variance to allow the remodeling of a kitchen. The kitchen remodel requires a Variance as the proposed kitchen encroaches on the 10-foot minimum required width of side yard. 2. After submission of the application Mr. Thomas St. Pierre Zoning Enforcement Office r, determined that the proposed deck would also require a Variance, as it exceeded the allowed 30% maximum lot coverage by all buildings. The proposed structure, inclusive of the proposed deck, would result in 31%lot coverage by all buildings. 3. Mr.Jeff Peras presented the petition for the property at 379 Lafayette Street. 4. The existing mudroom, which would be demolished for the construction of the new kitchen area, hes approximately 4.5 feet from the side lot line at the narrowest point. The proposed remodeled kitchen would lie approximately 5.5 feet from the side lot line at the narrowest point. 5. The requested relief, if granted,would allow the Petitioner to remodel the kitchen such that it extends to within 5.5 feet of the side lot line, and to construct a rear deck that would result in a 31% total lot coverage by all buildings. 6. At the public hearing, no members of the public spoke in support of or opposition to the petition. Written comments from six abutters were submitted in support of the petition. The 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: City of Salem Board of Appeals March 10,2014 Project: 379 Lafayette Street Page 2 of 2 Findings — Variance from the required minimum width of side yard to allow remodeling of the* kitchen: and from the 30% maximum lot coverage by all buildings to allow the construction of a deck: 1. The angled shape of the lot and the location of the building on the lot create a hardship. The rear lot line is square to Naples Road and Lafayette Street, but the southern lot line is at an irregular angle. The existing structure is located toward the southern side of the lot such that it encroaches on the required minimum 10-foot width of side yard. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would be a substantial hardship. The proposed deck configuration exceeds the maximum allowed lot coverage by all buildings requirement by only 1%. 3. The renovation results in a greater setback from the side lot line than the existing configuration of the structure thus making it less nonconforming that the existing house. . The desired relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. 4. 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 five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Duffy in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Variances to allow the remodeling of the kitchen and construction of a rear deck, 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 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 "" c� /4a� 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 Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 0 days of filing of this decision in the office of the Cily Clerk Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—February 19,2014 Page 1 of 22 • City of Salem Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 19,2014 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA') was held on Wednesday, February 19, 2014 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 6.31 p.m. I. ROLL CALL Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris (Vice Chair), Richard Dionne, Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy, Peter A. Copelas (Alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre,Building Commissioner, and Dana Menon, Staff Planner. II. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES January 15, 2014 Draft Meeting Minutes Ms. Menon noted corrections regarding the vote totals,as alternate board members aren't eligible to vote on petitions for which the full board is available and eligible to vote. Motion and Vote:Mr. Dionne moves to approve the minutes with the noted changes, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with six(6)in favor(Mr. Watkins,Ms. Curran,Mr. Du fFu Mr. Dionne,Ms Harris. and Mr. Tsitsino, and none (0) e�Posed. III. REGULAR AGENDA Petition of MICHAEL MEYER requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconfornvng Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the extension of an existing nonconforming structure in order to construct an addition to the second floor of the house at the property located at 15 BEACON STREET (R2 Zoning District).. Documents &Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped January 23, 2014 and accompanying materials ➢ Letter in support of the petition from Daniel&Stephenie O'Connell, 17 Beacon Street, received February 12, 2014. Mr. Michael Meyer speaks on his own behalf. When he purchased the property it was condemned and completely nonfunctional. He's seeking to add two bedrooms to the second • floor. The houses on either side have each made similar additions. The footprint isn't expanding, there's no difference in the green space. The existing house just doesn't function in today's real . City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—February 19,2014 Page 2 of 22 estate market. • Ms. Curran: How many square feet are you adding? Mr. Meyer:Approximately 250 square feet. Ms. Curran: Will the Vt floor porch remain open under the proposed 2"d floor expansion? Mr. Meyer: it will remain open. I'm not pushing out any further than the existing foundation. Ms. Curran: and you're two feet from the side property line at that back corner? Mr. Meyer: yes Ms. Curran asks Mr. St. Pierre if there's a building restriction with having the windows so close to the lot line. Mr. St. Pierre states that there can be restrictions at three feet and under, but as it's not on the lot line, it's not really a concern. Mr. Meyer states that he's spoken with abutting neighbors and there's no opposition. Mr. Watkins asks if the first floor is staying the same. Mr. Meyer: yes, the first floor is staying the same. I'm not adding anything more to the foundation,just expanding the second floor. Ms. Curran opens the issue up forpublic comment. Mr. Richard Barbeau, 19 Beacon Street: I just want to make sure this won't turn into a multifamily dwelling. Mr. Meyer: I have gotten this question from another neighbor. -No, it's remaining a single family. You can't fit more than one family in there. Ms. Curran: What is the square footage of the house? Mr. Meyer: It's a little under 1,200 square feet with the addition. Mr. Barbeau: if he wanted to try to make it a multifamily, would he have to come back before the board to do so? Mr. St. Pierre: yes,he'd have to come back before this board for relief from requirements for lot area per dwelling unit and number of parking spaces. Mr. Barbeau: I've'lived in this neighborhood for years, we're on top of each other. The windows are not of concern to me, and I have no problem with this proposal. Ms. Curran reads a letter from Daniel & Stephenie O'Connell, 17 Beacon St, into the record, stating their support for the project. Mr. Watkins: What's the off-street parking situation there? Mr. Meyer: There was really no off-street parking, I've been able to push the front porch back far enough that you can maybe fit 2 small cars on the site now, but probably just 1 car. Mr. Watkins: Is there on-street parking there? Mr. St. Pierre: Yes. Ms. Harris:Are you renovating to rent, sell, or live there? Mr. Meyer: To sell. • City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—February 19,2014 Page 3 of 22 • Ms. Harris: There's no restriction on the height? Mr. St. Pierre: It's not exceeding the existing height of the building. Ms. Curran: It's a special permit, so we need to go through those criteria. Social, economic or community needs served by the proposal: It's an existing single family home, and it's staying that way. Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading: again, it's staying as a single family home. Adequacy of utilities and other public services and impacts on the natural environment - will stay the same. It will be an improvement to the neighborhood character, and regarding the economic and fiscal impact, it will increase the value of the home. Ms. Harris: It seems that it will be an improvement. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to grant the requested Special Permit with eigbt standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5 in favor (Mr. Watkins. Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris. and Mr. Du,1,9�) - and none (0) 94bosed. The decision is hereby incorporated as�art of these minutes. Petition of ROBERT AND CHRISTINE KING requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the renovation and expansion of an existing nonconforming structure, and a Variance from the provisions of • Section 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements, specifically from the 2.5 story maximum allowed height of buildings, to allow the building to be 3 stories in height, at the property located at 84-86 BAY VIEW AVENUE (R1 Zoning District). Documents &Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped January 28, 2014 and accompanying materials ➢ A set of four additional floor plans submitted February 19,2014 ➢ Letter of support from Deborah Adair, 87 Bay View Avenue, submitted at the hearing ➢ Letter of support from Roland Morency, 88 Bay View Avenue, submitted 2/19/2014 Mr. Robert King presents the petition. We bought the house, and it's in pretty dire need of renovation. Years ago, somebody thought it would be a good idea to dig a hole under the house and put the furnace down there. It's rusted beyond use, so there's no heating in the house. The electrical system is old—fuses, knob &tube. The lower-level ceiling height is low— about six feet. We're basically looking to rebuild this house. It's in the Juniper Cove area, and the houses are pretty tight there. We're looking for a variance to put gables on the 3'd floor, to allow walk- up access to the third floor(to avoid having to use a pull-down stair). Right now there's no access to the lower level from inside the house, you have to go outside to get to the stairs to the lower level. We're proposing to move the stairs inside the house, and to remove a large exterior bulkhead to the lower level as well. We do want to add a deck off the back and a staircase off the side. The original submission drawings show the staircase off the deck to be even with the end of the deck. We'll actually be pulling the stairs away from the end of the deck, as shown on the plans submitted today. In conversation with the abutters on the right side, they stated that if we City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—February 19, 2014 Page 4 of 22 reduced the depth of the deck to six feet(from eight feet), the abutter will have no problem with • the deck. Ms. Curran & Ms. Harris ask for clarification on which dimension of the deck will be reduced to six feet. Mr. King points it out on the submitted plans. Ms. Curran: what is the existing and proposed area of the house? Mr. King: it's currently about 2,500 square feet, and we're proposing to increase it by 500 square feet. Ms. Harris: is it now a 2 family, or will it be a 2 family? Mr. King: it is now a 2 family, and we're keeping it a 2 family. The lower level is a 2-bedroom apartment; the upper floors will be their residence. Ms. Curran: The two Variances are for the gables (adding a P floor), and the deck. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that the 2°d Variance is for the proposed staircase off of the deck, which is closer to the side lot line than the required minimum distance. Ms. Curran: is the stair minimum egress width? Mr. King: The proposed stair is three feet wide, the existing stair is four feet wide. Ms. Curran: So you're actually increasing your side yard by removing some of the things that are there now. Ms. Curran:Are you in the flood zone? Mr. King: No. Ms. Curran: what is the existing and proposed building height? Mr. King: the existing is about 27 feet, the proposed house is going to 32 feet high, the allowed • height is 35 feet. Ms. Curran opens the issue up forpublic comment. Bob Chadwick, 80 Bay View: My issue is—as you raise the back of the house, it's going to encroach on the view of my neighbor(the petitioner's direct abutter). If you do that, it's going to block my view a lot. Right now the deck is one story. You're coming up another story above that. You'll in principle block my neighbor's view, which would doubly block my view. Raising the height of the deck and the length of the deck will block my view. Mr. King: I don't have an aerial with me, but I believe your house is further back. His house is 2 houses over(80 Bay View). Mr. Chadwick: what I'm saying is, right now I can look out my window and see the water. If Mr. King makes an addition, his immediate neighbor will want to add an addition to keep his view, which would impact my view. Ms. King: 84-86 Bay View, we're not moving any closer to the water. Ms. Curran: If 82 Bay View were to expand; they'd also have to come through this board as well. Mr. Chadwick, you're concerned with the porch. Mr. Chadwick: I'm concerned with the rear of the house going up higher than it is now. Mr. King provides a photo of the rear of the house. He explains that the proposed improvements are basically adding one level. Mr. Chadwick states that it's one level plus the peaked roof. Ms. Harris states that currently there's a peaked roof at the front of the house. The proposed peak City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—February 19,2014 Page 5 of 22 of the addition will be at the same height? Mr. King: No. The existing roof is 26-27 feet high. The proposed roof is 32 feet high. The proposed gables are 31 feet high, lower than the proposed roof line. It's a new roof line. Ms. Curran explains that the proposed roof line is six feet higher than it is now. Mr. King: were below the height allowed by the variance. Ms. Harris: but on the back you're adding one and a half stories. Ms. Curran: yes, on the back they're adding a floor plus a gable. Dan Lang, 82 Bay View Ave: I spoke with the Chadwicks about this matter. What I understand of the property, Mr. King is taking 84 square feet of the existing foundation and replacing it with 126 square feet of decking. So it's only adding on 2 feet over what's there now. So yes, I have concerns, but in the grand scheme of things, the back yard is what I'm mostly concerned about keeping. I won't oppose the variance if he's not going to exceed that additional 2 feet. Going up is a concern, but not enough to fight the Variance. When I spoke with him two weeks ago, no one had dimensions of that deck. We've discussed it, and we've agreed that he'll pull the deck back to six feet, to impact the neighborhood minimally. Yes, he's creating a high rise, and he'll be creating a precedent in the neighborhood. I don't have a problem with it, as long as the deck is no longer than six feet long. Anthony Serino, 510 Revere Beach Boulevard, Revere, MA, father in-law of Bob King: Speaking in favor of the petition. Mr. King's character is irreproachable. His wife and he intend • to move into the apartment that Bob will be providing. We intend to move into the apartment for the rest of their days. Ms. Curran reads the letter from Roland (Moe) Morency and Pat Morency, in favor of the proposed project. Mr. St. Pierre adds that the Morency's live next door to the applicant, at 88 Bay View Ave. Ms. Curran states that the front looks great, and is in scale. The back looks big, but the deck actually helps the massing a bit. The proposed structure is 3 stories and a gable, which is quite a difference from the existing. I assume there is a grade change that creates the appearance of 2 stories on the front and 3 stories on the back. Ms. Curran asks the petitioner to speak to the hardships for granting the two variances. Mr. King: The size and shape of the lot restrict additions to the house. The roofline of the gables would be one foot lower than the roofline of the house, and would allow them to have a walk-up stairway to the third floor rather than a pull-down stair. A dormered roofline is in keeping with the character of the nearby homes, and would not be substantially derogating from the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Curran:And for the stairway? Mr. King: The only place that makes sense to put the staircase is here on the side. Right now there's a cement/cinder block structure already there with a stairway that goes down to the lower level. That current staircase is four feet wide. The proposed staircase is three feet wide. I realize it's very close to the property line, but it's narrower than the existing stairs. • City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—February 19,2014 Page 6 of 22 Ms. Harris: I'm having trouble with the hardship. This is all being done to get a staircase instead of a pull-down to the attic. I'm finding it hard to make a compelling enough case for a Variance. It's really massive on the back, and sets a precedent for the neighborhood. Mr. King: The house, I believe, 5 houses up the street (a yellow house), is at least three stories. There are a lot of houses that have been redone in the neighborhood, as well as cottages. Ms. Harris: I'm having trouble with the hardship for a variance for the staircase to the attic. Mr. King: I honestly believe the gables help with the look of the house. I don't know how to determine a hardship. Mr. King shows some google earth images of other neighbors with gables. Mr. Tsitsinos: I don't see any problem with it. Ms. Harris: I'm just having trouble seeing the Variance. Ms. Curran: yes, if it were a special permit, it wouldn't be an issue,but it's a different threshold to grant a variance. Mr. King: I have gotten approval from both direct abutters, including a letter from the woman directly across the street. Their view would be the most impacted. Ms. Curran reads the letter submitted by Debby Adair, in support of the project. Mr. King: Ms.Adair lives directly across the street. She'll see our house and the roofline. Ms. Curran: from the front it looks fine. The gables add to the look of the roofline, but is there a hardship? Are the bedroom configurations the same? Mr. King: We're adding a third bedroom to the second floor. Mr. Dionne: I don't have a problem with it, other than setting a precedent. It is an improvement • over the old house, it would be an improvement to the neighborhood. Mr. St. Pierre: The legal standing for a hardship is something to do with the land, the house on the land, etc. Ms. Curran: I have no issue with the staircase to the deck, as the staircase is the legal minimum width, and it's a narrow lot, so there's no other place to put it. You can't do the staircase in the middle, it doesn't work? Mr. King: The house is so narrow, there's no other place to put it. Ms. Curran:And there will be no change to the parking? Mr. King: No,no changes. Ms. Harris: And the bump-out on the side of the second floor is covered by the special permit? Mr. King: It's for a fireplace, and overhangs a lower level door. Mr. St. Pierre: the special permit should cover the expansion of the existing non-conforming structure. It's minimal. The existing bump-outs on the structure that the applicants are removing are larger than the proposed bump-out. The full-height dormers on either side trigger the variance from the height in floors. If there's a full-height wall perpendicular to the ridge of the roof, it becomes a third story. Ms. Curran calls for a motion if there's no other discussion. Mr. Watkins: Can the hardship be that there's simply no other way? Ms. Harris: No,because you could have a pull-down stair. The dormers are pretty, but there's enormous pressure, particularly in this neighborhood, to expand. So we need consistency. Mr. St. Pierre: In the design, the dormers are shifted toward the front of the building, so the back isn't as impacted. Mr. King: That's why I stated that the only person who would be impacted by the dormers would • City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—February 19,2014 Page 7 of 22 • be Debby Adair. The width of the house restricts the stairway configuration, and the width of the house is restricted by the width of the lot. Mr. Duffy. The applicant does have a narrow lot. They can't get a staircase up to the attic space without dormers, which triggers the technical third story. But in terms of the total height, it's not even up to the total height limit that's allowed by the ordinance. It's really just the fact that it becomes a third story that triggers the variance need. There is just no way that he can create a staircase to allow access to this attic space without having this dormer come in. Is it a condition that especially affects this land, this building, or this structure? It may be - based on how it currently sits on this lot, based on the current footprint, and the interplay of those factors with trying to get a stairway up to the attic space. I think it does bear some consideration that the dormers are toward the front of the house, that they're not full-length dormers, that you're not seeing them on the back of the house where they would have an impact on the view of the neighbors out to the water. They would be allowed to just expand the house up to 35 feet with a straight-peak roof without a third floor. I think you could make a case that it's based on the land, building, and structure, and the way those are situated. Ms. Curran: You could add to that, that fact that the basement will continue to be used for living space, storage. You would be less likely to see sheds or other outbuildings, which could be done. The other board members concur that Ms. Curran's point isn't an argument for the variance. Mr. St. Pierre: It's a very minimal third story, I think that's the point. Ms. Curran agrees. Mr. Duffy: Should we discuss the special permit as well? • Ms. Curran: The criteria for the special permit: the social, economic, and community needs served by the proposal? It's not really a change, as it will remain a two-family use. Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading - will stay the same. The adequacy of the utilities and other public services is not really impacted, as the use remains the same. The impact on the natural environment and drainage—they are using the same building footprint. Neighborhood character— it's certainly an improvement to the look of it. The potential fiscal impact - the value of the house would increase, which would increase the tax base. From my standpoint, all those things for the expansion are fine. For the Variance, the special conditions are: • For the stairway: the stair is narrow - they're doing the minimal egress. The special conditions and circumstances that affect the land, building, or structure involved, that generally don't affect other land or buildings: anywhere they put that stairway, it would be in a side yard, owing to the narrowness of the lot. Literal enforcement of the provisions would result in substantial hardship to the applicant: There's really no other place to put the stairway. The desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good: The proposed stairway is smaller than the one that's existing, so it doesn't have any detrimental effect on anyone, including the next door - neighbor. • For the dormer: Mike, do you want to state that? Mr. Duffy: Well, I think we have that in the record. Owing to the narrowness of the lot, and the size of the house, and the configuration of the lot and the house, there's a hardship in the sense that they can't add this attic space and have a stairway access it without triggering a minimal third story, which even though it's technically a third story, it's within the maximum 35 foot height allowable. I don't think granting that relief would bring any substantial detriment to the . public good, or nullify the intent or purpose of the ordinance. It has the support of the neighbor City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—February 19,2014 Page 8 of 22 across the street. The dormers are toward the front of the house, so they won't impact the views • of the next door neighbors. Ms. Curran asks if there's a motion. Motion and Vote: Mr. Du( makes a motion to grant the two requested Variances and S4edal Permits uith 7 standard conditions and one 4ecial condition that while the submitted Mans show an S foot deed deck the a4�mved deck shall only be 6 feet deed. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. A mll call vote is taken, and four(4) are in favor(Mr. Dionne.Mr. Watkins Ms. Curran. and Mr. Du -and one (1) o�hosed(Ms Hams) The motion is acce,pted. The decision is hereby incorporated as-hart of these minutes Discussion: Ms. Harris expresses her reservations about the hardship. Ms. Curran reviews the hardship that's been discussed and states that she doesn't have any problem with it. Mr. Watkins concurs— given the size and layout of the land and the building itself, the case for the hardship is made. Petition of ROBERT WILLWERTH requesting a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements, specifically from the maximum allowed height of buildings, and a Special Permit under Section 3.3 Nonconforming Uses and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one non-conforming use to another, and to change a non-conforming structure, to allow the conversion of the property to residential use, at the property located at 107 HIGHLAND AVENUE (111 Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: • ➢ Application date-stamped January 28, 2014 and accompanying materials ➢ Petition of support for the proposed project signed by six abutters, submitted February 19, 2014. Attorney Scott Grover, 27 Congress Street, represents Mr. Willwerth. Mr. Willwerth has a P&S agreement to purchase this property, with Dr. John Von Weiss, pending the outcome of this hearing. Atty. Grover shows photos of the existing building. It was a very active medical practice with 5 doctors. Dr. Von Weiss is retired, and is in the process of winding up the practice. The property is neglected. Atty. Grover refers to the existing conditions plan (sheet 2 of the submitted Eastern Land Survey Plan). The site is almost entirely covered in pavement—right up to the perimeter of the property and to the edges of the building. The property is in poor condition. The bushes in the front are overgrown. Mr. Willwerth is proposing to convert the use of the property back to residential use, the underlying use in the zoning district. He's proposing a multi-family use - 8 one-bedroom condominiums in the existing structure; the units will be between 600 and 700 square feet. The only changes to the exterior of the structure will be to the rear. The 3 sides visible from the street will remain mostly the same: The windows will be replaced with windows more in keeping with its historic character, and it will be painted. The changes at the rear(sheet Al of the architectural renderings). On the back of the existing structure there's an existing bump-out. Mr. Willwerth is proposing to construct 2 floors of decks on top of the existing bump out, and a dormer for the P floor. The more dramatic changes will be to the grounds (see the landscape plan). The plan would be to cut the pavement back • City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—February 19, 2014 Page 9 of 22 • significantly from the edge of the property, and install planting beds. There are some substantial trees there that provide a buffer to the residential neighbors. These will for the most part remain. Also the pavement will be cut back around the edge of the building, and plantings installed there. The most dramatic change to this property will be to the grounds. The plans propose 14 parking spaces, which is more than the required number(12), and is substantially less than the 27 spaces currently there. The site is-about 17,000 square feet. Currently, over 15,000 square feet of the lot is impervious. The proposed plan would have less than 6,000 square feet of impervious area. The Special Permit is to change the existing nonconforming structure and to change the existing nonconforming use (medical office) to another nonconforming use (multifamily). Firstly, going back to a residential use that's consistent with the underlying zoning is important. Traffic to the site and parking on the site will be reduced. The changes to the environment are positive with more landscaping, and less impervious area. Adding 8 condominiums will have a significant impact on the tax revenues for the City. Secondly, the Variance for the height of the building— the overall height complies with the 35 foot height required in the RI district, but the dormer causes it to exceed the 2.5 story height restriction in the district. The special conditions relate to the building itself. The building has been cut up into a maze of medical offices inside. Most of the rest of the buildings in the neighborhood are traditional residential buildings. This building is different. What it's going to take to renovate—to really gut the whole building—and create the units, to provide the economic engine to restore the building, they need to create usable space on the third floor. The dormer really provides the economic ability to undertake the improvements to the building. Without useable space on the third floor, it's not financially feasible to do the project. Mr. Willwerth arranged to meet with the neighbors to listen to their concerns. There . were some concerns about privacy at the rear, and he's agreed to add some additional shade trees there. He's also agreed to continue an existing fence along the entire back of the property to provide privacy, and to keep snow from being pushed onto adjoining properties. For the most part, the neighbors at that meeting were in favor of the proposal, and thought that the conversion to residential use would be a positive thing for the neighborhood. There's a dumpster that's going to be enclosed per City ordinance. Ms. Curran: We need to establish that the proposed nonconforming use will be less detrimental than the existing nonconforming use. What will be the difference in the traffic? Atty. Grover: The medical practice had 5 doctors, 22 full and part-time employees, and an average of 60 patient visits a day. The number of parking spaces that exists now show how busy it was. With the proposed single-family condos, they will be occupied by one person, or at most a couple. With the size of the units, there should be more than enough parking on-site for the proposed use. Also, with the proposed use (residential), there will be far less trips to and from the site than there were with the medical office—they'd mostly make one trip out in the morning and one trip back in the evening. Mr. Watkins: There's a potential for 16 residents there (2 people per unit), and there's only 14 spaces. Arty. Grover: I don't think there's likely to be 16 cars there, but there are side streets that residents could park on. There is more room on the site for parking, but it would be sacrificing some of the landscaping that we think is more important to the residential neighborhood. • Ms. Curran: It certainly seems less intensive. Although the number of units—and you say that City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—February 19,2014 Page 10 of 22 number is the number that works—we need to review the financial analysis behind that. Eight . units seem like a lot of units. I have no problem with it going to residential, but it is a tough street to get in and out of. It's less intensive than the previous use, but it's still an issue. Mr. Watkins: That's where I was going with the parking, too. People have guests over, too. There's definitely the potential to have more than 14 cars there. I have no problem with it going from commercial to residential, but 8 units is a lot. How many extra units does the dormer allow? Atty. Grover: the dormer allows for 2 units. Part of it is the market they're targeting with the smaller units. Being right on Highland Ave, they likely won't be able to achieve a higher price point. Probably they will be purchased by first-time homebuyers, and the units will probably sell for less than $200,000 per unit. You have to make up for that price point. If it's parking you're concerned about, there is room for more parking on the site. We could pick up a couple of spaces around the perimeter. It's conjecture, but from my own experience, you're going to have many single people buying the units, given the size of the units and the area. Ms. Harris: How will the units break down, how many units are on each floor? Mr. Willwerth: There's actually 4 floors, with 2 units on each floor. Ally. Grover: The topography of the site drops down, so you pick up 2 units on the lower level. Mr. Dionne: There's no storage area other than in the units? Mr. Willwerth: There's a sub-basement that will have a small storage area for each unit. Arty. Grover:As this project is 6 or more units, this would require site review by the Planning Board. They'd look in much more detail at site layout, planting, drainage, etc. The Planning • Board will dig.into those issues, there will be further scrutiny. Ms. Curran opens the issue up forpublic comment. John Lunt, 6 Greenway Road, a direct abutter. At the neighborhood meeting we were told the fence would come all the way around the north side of the property. Atty. Grover:Yes, that's correct. Mr. Lunt: I've lived here many years. I've looked at the dumpster, the guardrail, the back of the building. The proposed cleanup will make my property much more favorable. I didn't realize the dumpster was going to stay there. That dumpster has been an issue for 2 years. Seagulls go in there and pull it all out. It's uncovered. As far as parking, Greenway Road, Cottage Street, Wilson Street, we don't want anyone parking there. We're already dealing with hospital employees parking there for the day. Some of the privacy issues discussed with the rear decks— that'll be something we talk about. I'm not opposed to the project. For me it's about condos — people will own them, they'll maintain them. I wouldn't be so crazy about apartments. There are also drainage easements —sewer and catch basins. Well have to speak about those issues more. I don't see any other use for the property. No commercial developer is going to come in and have much success with the neighbors. If you force it to stay R1, what do you do with it? Look for a family of 20? The building is in very rough shape, it's an eye sore. Dr. Von Weiss's maintenance was pretty good, but since he's left, it's not good. It would be an improvement to our neighborhood. It's going to be a little bit of a wait-and-see, who knows who will buy these. It's been day use, and it would be different with the residential use. • City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—February 19,2014 Page 1.1 of 22 • Atty. Grover submits a petition from residential abutters behind the site who support the petition. Ms. Curran reads out their names. Ms. Curran: Going to a residential use is good,but 8 units seems like a lot. I would ask that you submit the pro-forma analysis of the finances so that the board can see that. Since you're stating that's the reason for the variance, I'd request that for the Board's review. Ms. Harris: So you're saying we'd put it off for a month? Ms. Curran: Yes. Mr. Watkins concurs. Ms. Harris: That would be the main thing. It's a very unusual building, it's changing the use to be more compatible with the neighborhood. The only other logical option would be to tear down the whole thing and build a new commercial use. I think there's a lot of case here for hardship. Ms. Curran asks Atty. Grover if the applicant would be amenable to a continuation. Arty. Grover: Yes, if the board would need to. Also, if there are any other questions/comments from the board that we can address, let us know. Mr. Dionne: It looks well done, the landscaping is well done. Ms. Harris: There aren't many windows in the basement. Mr. Willwerth: There are existing windows in the basement. Just so you're aware of it—there are • 32 parking spots there now. If there was a requirement that we needed 2 parking spots per unit, we could absolutely do that. We'd just have to take away from the landscaping. We're trying to get rid of some of the impervious ground, spruce up the property, and make it look not so commercial. When you walk in from Highland Ave, you're on the first floor. It's a walk-out basement on the back. There are windows on the sides and back of the building for the basement units. They have their own separate entrances, plus a common entrance from the parking lot. Ms. Harris:And the people parking can walk in and go up? Mr. Willwerth—Yes. There are actually 5 stories to this building, it's deceiving from the outside. Mr. Watkins —How many parking spaces are required by the zoning ordinance? Mr. St. Pierre: 1.5 per unit. So they're already in excess of that requirement. Mr Tsistinos: What is the square footage of the units? Atty Grover: 600 or 700 square feet. Mr. Watkins motions to continue the hearing for the petition to March 191h Motion and Vote: Ms. Watkins makes a motion to continue the hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board ofA4eals on March 19, 2014, in Room 313. Third.Floor 120 Washington Street. The motion was seconded by Mr. Du,4y. A roll call vote was taken, and was unanimous with-five (5) in favor (Lr. Dionne. Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris. and Mr. Dui) and none (Ol 4hosed. The decision is hereby incor2orated as hart of these minutes. . Petition of JEFFREY PERAS requesting a Variance pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.3.4 Nonconforming Uses and Structures —Variance Required, to grant relief from the City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—February 19,2014 Page 12 of 22 requirements of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements, to allow remodeling of a 4 9 • kitchen and construction of a deck at the property located at 379 LAFAYETTE STREET (R1 & ECOD Zoning District). Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped January 29, 2014 and accompanying materials ➢ Letters of support from abutters Mr. Peras presents the petition. In May 2008 I purchased the home, across from Salem State University. This house was built in 1910; it has had nothing done to it. I love it, but it is the second ugliest house in the neighborhood. Mr. Peras refers to partial first-floor plan, and the A2 Plan. I did not submit an Al plan, which was a build-out option that encroached more on the side yard. The A2 Plan is the plan I submitted for approval. In this plan the kitchen expansion is only four feet wide, and leaves about 5 feet-4.5 inches to the side property line. I'm also asking you to look at the deck at the back of the house. On the plot plan, the front of the house has a cement patio, which is just zero use to me and my family—it's on Lafayette Street, with the noise pollution and the college across the street, it's just not safe for us to use. I spoke with many of my adjacent/immediate abutters, and asked that they submit letters to the Board if they were in favor of the project. The proposed expansions of the deck and the kitchen would put the building at 31% lot coverage. The reason it's designed this way—we're going to have a door from the entrance, a door from the kitchen, but between the new kitchen seat and the bulkhead, the first two-to-three feet of deck is wasted space, so the space we'd actually use is beyond the proposed • kitchen window and the existing bulkhead_ Ms. Curran: The bulkhead will remain? Mr. Peras: Yes, with decking on top. Ms. Curran, Ms. Menon, Mr. Peras, and Ms. Harris clarify the relative proximity to the side lot line of the existing mudroom and the proposed kitchen expansion & entrance. Mr. Copelas asks if they have a curb cut on Lafayette Street. Mr. Peras: The front of Lafayette Street is a tow zone, 24-7. Naples Road has a tow zone at some hours of some days of the week. There is no parking off Lafayette St. There's a single parking space in the driveway off of Naples St. Ms. Curran: Is this proposal changing your parking configuration at all? Mr. Peras: No. There's a stone wall between the lawn and the driveway, with a four-to-five foot drop off. The deck, especially with younger children, we want to use as a safe haven. Ms. Curran: So it's a two-story addition? Mr. Peras : The kitchen? No. We're expanding the kitchen and a window seat in the kitchen, and there's a roof over the kitchen window seat. There was a deck off of the master bedroom, we will be replacing that deck in the future. Ms. Curran opens the issue up forpublic comment. No members of the public speak in support of or in opposition to the petition. Ms. Curran reads • several letters in support of the project. These letters were submitted by : Julie Carter, 2 Naples City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—February 19,2014 Page 13 of 22 • Road; Jack Hoar, 11 Naples Road; Kimberley Marquis, 5 Fairview Road; Donna D'Allessandro— 2 Naples road; Sean Pray, 275 Lafayette St. Unit#2. Ms. Curran closes the public comment on the issue. Mr. Peras presents an additional letter from Tiffany Gaddis, 381 Lafayette St, expressing her support of the petition. Mr. Dionne: It's a nice project, I have no problem with it. Ms. Harris: The changes to the interior 2"d floor don't change the exterior walls? Mr. Peras: correct. Ms. Curran: the hardship is owing to the angled lot—it's at a right-angle to Naples, and angled from Lafayette Street. He's impacting the side yard in one respect and improving it in another. Ms. Harris: he's improving it, because he's pushing the wall back. Ms. Curran: regarding the 3 1% lot coverage. It's only I% over. Can you do without that 1%? Mr. Peras: We lose a lot along the front wall of the house, filling in between the "bump outs" and the bulkhead. We would get the sun right at the outer curve in the deck. Ms. Harris: could you have just shifted the stairs in a bit, to get to the 30%? Mr. Peras: it's a great home,just definitely needs a lot of work, a lot of equity. Not a lot of work has been done to the house. Mr. Watkins: so the hardship is the layout of the land? Ms. Curran: Yes. I thought he articulated it well in the written statement. • Ms. Harris: there are two issues—the side yard, which I think he's improving; and the 3 1% versus the 30% lot coverage. I think there's probably the opportunity to pick up that 1% if he looked at other configurations of the deck. Ms. Curran: the lot is 8,100 square feet? Mr. Peras: 8,103. Ms. Curran: so for 1% we're talking about 100 square feet-ish of difference. Mr. St. Pierre: The angle of the lot line trims the lot area. If the lot line were squared off, there would be more room on the lot Motion and Vote: Ms. Watkins makes a motion to grant the two requested Variances with 7 standard conditions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dionne. A roll call vote was taken, and was unanimous withdve (5 in favor(Mr. Dionne.Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran,Ms. Harris, and Mr. Duo) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Petition of ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES GROUP INC requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.0 Use Regulations and Section 9.4 Special Permits, to allow use of a portion of the building as a Medical Clinic for a Registered Marijuana Dispensary, at the property located at 50 GROVE STREET (BPD & ECOD Zoning District). Documents &Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped January 28, 2014 and accompanying materials • City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—February 19,2014 Page 14 of 22 ➢ Supplement to the application containing a copy of the Department of Health regulations • for implementation of humanitarian medical use of marijuana,received February 10, 2014. ➢ A 500-foot buffer map around the proposed facility,provided to the Board by the Planning Department Attorney George Atkins, 59 Federal Street, represents the petitioner. Chris Edwards, the executive director of Alternative Therapies Group (ATG), is also here, with some other members of his team. Voters of Massachusetts passed an act in favor of"an act for the humanitarian medical use of marijuana." I want to emphasize "humanitarian medical." In connection with the law, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health(DPH) spent a year-plus crafting regulations. Atty.Atkins provided the Board with those regulations. They have been applauded for the effort they made in trying to apply all of the best practices from around the country. This is going to be an extremely rigorous regulation of a business. It's probably going to be much more regulated than your typical pharmacy. The applicant has made a real effort to meet with and gain the support of elected officials, appointed officials, neighborhood organizations, tenants of buildings where they want to locate, etc. There's a meeting set in early March with another neighborhood group, and a meeting set for next week or maybe the week after for tenants in the building at 50 Grove Street. They also recently met with Salem Police Chief Paul Tucker, and have invited him to be part of the security for this premises. Chief Tucker has agreed to be part of the review of their plans and procedures, and provide any additional recommendations on his part. It's been an open and truthful process. Regarding the zoning ordinance - in 2010 the zoning ordinance was amended to deal with the location of a methadone clinic near a residential • district. As a result of this, the Salem City Council passed an amendment to the zoning ordinance which redefine "medical clinic" to include the word"dispensary", and to ban "medical clinics" from residential districts, and to only allow them in commercial/business districts, and only by a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The proposed medical marijuana facility falls right within that definition of a "medical clinic." Regarding the criteria for a special permit: • The community needs: 60%-plus of the people in our community voted for the medical marijuana act. Additionally, at a meeting of the City Council there was support expressed by citizens of Salem with serious illnesses of the sort that can benefit from this service. The Massachusetts regulations on page 3 lists the "debilitating illnesses" that qualify a patient for access to medical marijuana, and defines the severity of the condition(Atty. Atkins proceeds to read the definition of"debilitating" set out by the Massachusetts regulations). I think all of us who have been touched by these terrible medical conditions recognize that it would be nice to get some help that's an alternative to the usual prescriptive medicines. • Parking: I have asked our landlords, the Goldberg Brothers, to be here tonight. They have 86 parking spaces, plus 5 handicap spaces, on this site. We expect to eventually see an estimated 10-15 patients an hour at this facility. Initially when a patient arrives, their visits are longer as they learn the process. Later on, their visits are quicker, as they've already received the initial education, and their prescription can simply be refilled. Regarding the parking needs of the site. The needs of the dispensary are dependent upon • the number of employees. We estimate that there will be 8-10 employees. The zoning City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—February 19, 2014 Page 15 of 22 • ordinance requires 1 space plus 2 additional spaces for every professional; and 1 space for every 2 employees. 1-2 professionals requires 3-6 spaces, 6-8 employees requires 3-4 spaces, for a total of 6-10 spaces. Ally.Atkins hands out a sheet showing the estimated P � P Y g parking demand for ATG, plus the spaces required by the other uses in the units at 50 Grove St. Most of the other units in the building (50 Grove Street) are business offices with employees, which are required to have 1 space for each employee. There are some small units that are currently vacant, but the remaining units require a total of 28 parking spaces. There is also the Moose Lodge on-site - their activity is primarily at night and on the weekends. There are provisions in the Goldbergs' lease with the Moose Lodge that provides them with 10 spaces during the business day. They generally don't interfere with the business uses that are at 50 Grove St. The Storage facility has a provision for 6 spaces for overnight spaces. During the day the business uses take up pretty much 1/3`d of the total parking spaces that are there. We anticipate that we would not use anywhere near the remaining spaces. Also, the 5 handicap spaces are right outside where our facility would be located. Obviously, with our patients, they will need to have those parking spaces available to them. • Utilities—the building already has utilities of all types that are necessary. The cultivation of the product will not occur here in Salem—it will be elsewhere and transported to Salem. • Character of the neighborhood—the area was industrial, and it is now undergoing rapid and great change. The customers coming to this facility are people with the"debilitating • illnesses" allowed by the law, and some of their care providers. The crowd will not be ... the "pipe smoking" crowd. By state law, the name of the business and the logo cannot contain anything pertaining to marijuana or a marijuana plant. The sign is more in keeping with a medical office sign. • Security—There will be need for cameras in the entrance, exit, inside, outside, in the delivery trucks. The product is videotaped as it's weighed at both the loading and unloading sites. ATG will also provide a security company to transport the product. There will be lighting and alarms, and there will be an extraordinary level of security at the facility. There will be a higher level of security not only for the building, but for the neighborhood. There are also strict regulations on how any product is disposed—it's incinerated off-site. For the most part, this is an inhaled product, not a smoked product. • Economic Impact—ATG has entered into a community benefit agreement with the city, for mitigation of any impacts on the community this may have, and for education on the product's use, misuse, and driving under the influence. The funds could also be used for the planned improvements to the Grove St corridor. There will also be some employment benefit. When you go through the criteria for a Special Permit, the conclusion is that this will not impact the neighborhood in a negative way. Arty.Atkins refers to the regulations again, to address any concerns about physicians prescribing the product as a medication. The physician has to have a relationship with the patient, not just be • writing the prescription. They can't have anyone else in the office write the prescription. The physician has to be registered with the DPH. The patient also has to be registered, and the City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—February 19, 2014 Page 16 of 22 dispensary requires a patient to present their registration card with their prescription. The State . can revoke the registration at any time(of patients, doctors, and medical dispensaries), and once it's revoked, it can't be re-granted. There is a limited number of Registered Marijuana Dispensaries (RMDs) in the state, so DPH can easily keep on top of the reviews of the facilities. This is far more oversight that local pharmacies, which carry far more potent drugs. There is a provision for personal caregivers. These would represent someone who might be bedridden, or would be working for a hospice. But a caregiver can only represent one party, they can't represent multiple people, and they also have to be registered. All the people within the organization(ATG)have to be vetted by the DPH. There is a provision for "hardship cultivation rights"—people who are allowed to cultivate their own product in their home. The Salem police thought it would be better to have one main facility to monitor, rather than multiple small hardship cultivators. When you have a dispensary, there's going to be far fewer—if any— hardship cultivation locations. In the state regulations, see page 22—Operational Requirements and Security Requirements; page 34 covers Prohibitions that the applicant has to adhere to. See also the pages concerning Revocation of a Registration Card, Revocation of a Certifying Physician's License, Cease & Desist Orders, Quarantine Order, Suspension Order, etc. All very strong regulations &enforcement mechanisms. In addition to the State's monitoring, I'm sure City Councilors, neighbors, the Police Department, will all be keeping an eye on things. Even. though I have great faith in DPH being able to regulate this process, the local level will also provide a level of security in the community. My client has operated in Maine, is experienced in Maine, they have business people running this business. Chris Edwards, Executive Director of Alternative Therapies Group (ATC), we are a nonprofit • organization. The license granted to us is a provisional license—we can't open our doors until final inspection by DPH. Mr. Edwards continues to list members of the Board of Directors and their experience and background. Mr. Edwards goes on to describe the ATG management team and their experience and background, as well as a consultant that worked with Maine Organic Therapies in Ellsworth ME. The regulations here in Massachusetts are modeled largely on the program in Maine. Retired senator Fred Berry heads up the Community Advisory Board. Medical marijuana isn't for everyone, but patients should have this choice, and we intend to make it available in a safe and professional way. It will be organically cultivated, it's tested and labeled—the patient knows the potency of what they're consuming. This isn't the case on the black.market. Only licensed patients will be allowed inside the facility. Each patient is required to prove their identity and patient status to security personnel. There is no opportunity to falsify a patient ID card. Once verified, a first-time patient goes through an,orientation process. Mostly will be vaporizers—they're much healthier, and are not hot enough to create carcinogens. RMDs are required to provide vaporizers to patients at-cost, and instruct them how to use it. No diversion, no loitering, no inside consumption is allowed. The patients will have to sign an agreement that they have been made aware of the regulations. The penalty of possession of black-market marijuana up to 1oz is a fine. The penalty for diversion of medical marijuana is 5 years in jail. We will staff the facility with 8-10 full-time staff members, including 2 elite security professionals in the building, and a third security person patrolling the parking lot and area. Chief Tucker is very familiar with our security plan. We will have state of the art video surveillance with redundancy, fire, alarm, and security. • City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—February 19,2014 Page 17 of 22 • Ms. Curran: do you have a number of exclusive parking spaces, of the 86? Atty.Atkins: no, the Goldbergs (landlords) wanted to remain flexible in that regards, so that they can work out any parking issues between the different tenants. Ms. Curran: how many square feet is the facility? Mr. Edwards: 4,000 square feet. Ms. Curran: So you have 8-10 employees parking (inclusive of the security guards). How long does a transaction take? Mr. Edwards: 5-10 minutes. Ms. Curran: Is there a sufficient number of handicap parking spaces, or do you need to increase that? Mr. Edwards: that's something we're speaking about with the owner of the property. We may seek to increase it, but we feel it's adequate right now, based on projections, with the existing 5 spaces. Ms. Curran: you expect 10-15 patients an hour. That's all day? Mr. Edwards: yes, on average, on a full-run day (not on day 1). Ms. Curran: so between employees and customers it sounds like you're using about 20-25 spaces. No one has an occasion to stay there other y y o e than the initial counseling. Mr. Edwards: yes, and the initial orientation would be 10-15 minutes. Ms. Curran: If there's a community that has a dispensary facility, does that have anything to do with the number of hardship cultivations allowed? Mr. Edwards: The hardship is really based on someone's ability to get to a dispensary within"a • reasonable distance" (as defined by DPH). So it's expected that if someone applied for a hardship cultivation permit in Salem, it would fall flat because there is a dispensary right up the road Mr. Duffy asks about the 500-foot radius map included in the informational packet on this application, and asks what 110 Boston Street is [a property highlighted on the map]. Ms. Menon clarifies that the Planning Department provided that map as part of the Planner's Memo to the Board, it was not submitted by the applicant. She does not know why 110 Boston Street is highlighted on the map— it was intended to just demonstrate the 500-foot buffer area, and was generated in response to a question about the location of a proposed children's medical facility at the former Flynntan site, on Boston Street. Ms. Curran clarifies that the map shows 500 feet from each building, and that it hits Mack Park, but doesn't appear to include any areas where people would congregate. She asks if that's the way the regulations read. Atty.Atkins responds that is a correct definition—any place where children congregate. He states that he doesn't believe that a medical facility would fit that definition either, but it's beyond the 500-foot area anyway. Board members concur that 110 Boston Street is a children's counseling facility—Children's Friend and Family Services. Ms. Curran: has a study been done that there's no home daycare in properties within the 500 foot buffer? Ally.Atkins: I wouldn't say there's been a study, but there's none that we know of. . Mr. Edwards: We have conducted neighbor's and abutter's meetings. We've done extensive City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—February 19, 2014 Page 18 of 22 outreach, so if there were a daycare use in the area, it should have come forward by now. • Mr. Watkins: so you haven't heard either way from the Children's Friend and Family Services? Mr. Copelas: Atty.Atkins mentioned the fiscal impact criteria, and you made reference to the Host Community Agreement. Has that been finalized, and is it the number that we've been hearing about in the newspaper? Atty.Atkins: at the moment, that is the number, and that is what has been agreed to tentatively, but there are ongoing discussions in that regard. Mr. Dionne: one of the diseases you treat is Hepatitis C? Mr. Edwards: yes. Mr. Dionne: Now that is usually associated with dirty needles from heroin use, whatever? Atty.Atkins: I'm not sure that's the only cause. Mr. Dionne: It may not be the only cause, but it's certainly one of the major causes. And, you would agree that marijuana is a gateway drug? Mr. Edwards: Not necessarily. I would say alcohol is a gateway drug much more so than marijuana, personally. Ms. Curran: we should stick to the use and the zoning. Mr. Dionne: The reason I'm bringing this up is that this is all new for everybody here. I have heard that some other areas of the country have had some problems with areas around the facilities. I thought somebody would be here—she's not—that has had experience with this. If I were to approve this, I would definitely want to revisit this in a year, after the opening, to see how it has effected the neighborhood and the city and lift the special permit if there are problems. Atty.Atkins—I would have some legal problems with granting a special permit and then lifting it • in a year. If the Board wanted to revisit its conditions, or make new conditions, that would make sense to me. There is also contrary evidence—California has had a medical marijuana law for 10 years. They had some initial problems, but they have continued to ratchet up the regulations. There was a front-page article in the New York Times saying that all of the horrible things — gateway drugs, for instance—have not occurred in their experience. So I'm not sure the conclusion about a gateway drug is a good one. Plus, this is a medical use. There are certain strains that are better for certain diseases than others, this isn't recreational marijuana. Mr. Edwards: Strains have been developed to have lower levels of THC, and to have higher levels of the medicinal compounds, to specifically benefit the medical marijuana users, and which would have less attraction to recreational users. Atty.Atkins: Each seed has a barcode, and it's tracked until it's gone out the door in a prescription bag. Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment. Josh Turiel, Ward 5 Councilor, speaks in support of the application:As the City got its applicants, 2 came in. One applicant we've been reading about in the paper regarding errors around their application. The experience with this company—they reached out very early in the process, have spoken to a large number of the City Councilors, answered all questions, been very proactive in working with the neighborhood groups, and in getting real neighborhood support. I'm very glad these are the guys that got the Salem dispensary license. We're going off into somewhat uncharted territory for Massachusetts, but there are states that have had experience with this, • • t City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—February 19,2014 Page 19 of 22 . such as Maine. We've learned a lot from these other states' experiences. I Support this petition. Rose Mary O'Connor, 111 Mason Street, speaks in support of the petition: I can see the facility from my back deck. She's done a complete turn-around. They've been more than willing to meet with us neighbors, and they'll be at the Mack Park neighborhood meeting on March 111', which will be taped or televised. David Eppley,Ward 4 Councilor, 69 Boston Street, speaks in support of the petition: ATG appeared before the Gallow's Hill neighborhood group a few weeks ago, and passed with flying colors. These gentlemen have worked very hard. They've done a great job educating city officials and neighbors. This venture shows a lot of compassion and promise. Councilor Eppley also submits his statements in support of the petition in a letter of support to the Board. Beth Gerard,Ward 6 Councilor speaks in support of the petition: I met with them at the beginning of January, and was very impressed by them. I have worked in healthcare for 14 years - ran a doctor's office. This will be a run-of-the mill doctor's office. I also talked to the deputy code enforcer in Ellsworth, Maine. There have never been any complaints, after 3'/2 years in Ellsworth. They don't have residences within 500 feet of the facility, but they believe if they did, it wouldn't be an issue. The Ellsworth Chief of Police stated that you would never know the facility is there, and the RMD is the highest security facility in Ellsworth. Councilor Gerard also submits letter from the Salem City Solicitor regarding the 500 foot set-back definition, and the • definition of a facility where children commonly congregate. Councilor Gerard also submitted to the Board's clerk an email in support of the petition. Ms. Curran reads submitted letters into the record: • Mary Margaret Moore, Independent Living Center of the North Shore and Cape Ann, Inc. —in support of the petition. • Frederick Berry, Retired Massachusetts State Senator—in support of the petition. • Nicole Snow Dawson and Thomas Dawson, 190 Bridge St— in support of the petition. • Atty Atkins— adds that Ms. Dawson was here earlier and had to leave, and also spoke to the City Council on this matter. • Anonymous —in support of the petition. • State Rep. John Keenan—in support of the petition. Mr. Watkins: states that he is impressed by the level of professionalism and security. Too bad we haven't heard from Children's Family and Friend's Services at 110 Boston St. But my concern is somewhat eased by the definition of the buffer zone provided by Councilor Gerard. It looks like there's just parking in the back of 110 Boston Street. Has the Moose commented on this? They have kids parties in there. Mr. Goldberg: Chris and I met with the Moose Lodge early, they had lots of questions, but seem to be fine with it now. Atty.Atkins: I don't think some of these facilities meet the standard of a facility where children • tend to congregate, either. A counseling facility isn't where children congregate/hang around. City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes February 19,2014 Page 20 of 22 Ms. Curran: this is my first special permit of this type. There are two ways we could do this— so it's not the kind of special permit where the normal conditions apply. I'm concerned about putting conditions on that are inconsistent with the State's regulations, and some of the State's regulations I want to echo so that we can also enforce them locally. So there's some input I want to get from the planning department and the city solicitor in crafting a decision and conditions. We can either grant a special permit with a broad idea of the type of things we want to condition, OR we could continue to the next meeting and establish the conditions between now and then. I want to run the language by counsel first. Atty.Atkins: We're running up against a real tight timeline. If you can grant the special permit, I'd be willing to work with the City Solicitor, the Planning Department, or yourselves, before you issue the written conditions. Ms. Curran states some of her general areas she'd like to look at conditions for are: security, landscaping(mainly because there's language in the DPH regulations about landscaping and we need to be consistent with that), traffic and parking, and no growing/cultivation (if the laws change state-wide I'd want to make sure you'd come back here before undertaking cultivation), security, signage.And Mr. Dionne's point that we should run by Council. Ms. Harris: It couldn't be revoked in a year—you couldn't have your investment at risk. Ms. Curran: How does the Board feel about getting input from the City Solicitor? Just because it's so very different from what we typically do. Ms. Harris: I think I'm comfortable with going ahead and voting with the understanding that we'll work out the fine points of the conditions. • Ms. Curran: time-wise, we have 90 days legally to do it, we always do it in two weeks—is that a local thing, or is that just courtesy? Ms. Menon: I think it has to do with our sunshine ordinance, but I'll have to check. Procedurally, how would the Board settle on conditions as a Board without having the opportunity to meet to discuss them? Ms. Curran: Right. We would discuss the ideas, and the exact wording to be settled by the City Solicitor. I think that's the only way to do it other than continuing. Arty.Atkins: that's not too different from how it's usually done anyway. Ms. Curran: well, we're usually pretty specific. Mr. Duffy:Are there hours of operation? Arty.Atkins: Yes, I made an error in the application. I wrote loam to 7pm, but it's really 9am to 7pm, Monday through Saturday, to allow for spreading out of patients' arrivals & departures. Mr. Watkins: Are there scheduled times for deliveries? Mr. Edwards : No. The delivery service will depart from our cultivation site in another community. We don't expect to be delivering much, if at all, of the product to patients. Ms. Harris: The delivery won't be in the middle of the night, will it? Mr. Edwards: No, it would be when the security staff is there. Mr. Watkins: You have security 24-hours there? Mr. Edwards: Yes. Ms. Curran lists areas for the proposed conditions, with exact wording to be worked out by the Planning Department and the City Solicitor: • . 1 City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—February 19,2014 Page 21 of 22 • Signage— it be in character with the neighborhood. • Security—the Chief of Police should review and approve any security • Landscaping—make sure that what the facility has is not inconsistent with what the state requires • No cultivation on-site • The traffic and parking— if other building uses change and the parking requirements change, we could condition that at least 20 spots be open for this use at all times. • Hours—no more than 9am-7pm Monday through Saturday Ms. Menon states that the Planning Department does have reservations about granting this at the first hearing, in order to give the Board time to consider some examples set by other communities, and having the opportunity to really mull over the conditions. This is the chance to set the conditions, and how enforceable will the conditions be if there's a gray area. Ms. Curran: so timing-wise we're talking about the difference of a month,.if we came back with the exact conditions next month. Arty. Atkins: I don't think it would be different than it would be in the past for you to vote and then craft the decisions. You won't find any similar conditions or decisions from other communities. To my knowledge, there have been no zoning actions on dispensaries in Massachusetts yet—you're the first. So I don't think you're going to find anything that's going to help you. But the topics you've raised as conditions are all reasonable, and can be crafted reasonably, and we have no objection to them or others similar to them. Keeping in mind those • 50 pages [the state regulations] that we're already subject to. Ms. Harris.asks if anyone other than ATG wants to open an RMD in this location, they'd have to come before the board? Ms. Curran and Mr. St. Pierre add that the Board could condition that specifically. Mr. Jim Treadwell, from the Mack park neighborhood association points out that Grove Street is an entrance corridor, so there are specific sign regulations that would apply. Ms. Harris and Mr. Dionne agree that they are comfortable with proceeding. Mr. Watkins:just to be clear, if we vote on this tonight, the Planning Department and the City Solicitor work out the specific language, and we don't have to vote on it, right? Ms. Curran: yes, but we wouldn't have any opportunity to add to it or change it. Ms. Menon: yes, the shortfall would be if there was anything that you missed tonight. Ms. Curran: the timing winds up being about the same if we do condition it. Atty.Atkins: there are some other moving parts here. The development of the cultivation site has to go forward with leasing and material ordering, that they have to act on promptly. We aren't fearful of your conditions now—we think they'd be reasonable and manageable, and they probably won't exceed the restrictions of the DPH. Ms. Menon: so the question is how comfortable the Board is with having the conditions "TBD." Atty.Atkins: It's not unusual to have the specific conditions worked out by staff later. And keep in mind that you have a backstop of the DPH regulations. Mr. Copelas: I am sympathetic to their time constraints. . Mr. Watkins: I think I'm comfortable with moving ahead and letting the Planning Department and the City Solicitor work out the language. We've set out the general points, and the DPH City of Salem—Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes—February 19,2014 Page 22 of 22 regulations are there. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion tozrant the requested Special Permit with conditions - to be finali-ed by the Planning Department and the City Solicitor— to generally address.• signage (small in size. to conform to entrance corridor regulations security (reviewed and 4, mved by the Salem Chief of Police trior to occutane�,- landscaping (similar to what the state is requiring)• traffic &parking adequate parking set aside for Mplo eev s and Patients during opening hours• and number of handicap .maces to be reviewed time-to-time by ATG or the pq�erty owners: no cultivation: hours of operation limited to 9am to 7pm. Monday tbrough Saturday: and specific to this company in this location (Alternative Therapies Group. Inc. at the 50 Grove Street location), plus 8 standard conditions.. The motion was seconded by Ms. Harris. A roll call vote was taken, and was unanimous with five in favor(Mr. Dionne.Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran,Ms. Harris. and Mr. Dua) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Discussion: Atty. Atkins adds—he hopes the Board wouldn't have any objections to him working with the City Solicitor and the Planning Department in drafting the conditions? Ms. Curran: no. IV. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Dionne motioned for adjournment of the February 19, 2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 10:18 PM. Motion: Mr. Dionne made a motion to addourn the .February 19, 2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Watkins and a unanimous vote was taken with all in favor(Mr. Watkins Ms. Curran. • Mr. Dionne, Ms. Flarris, Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Copelas. and Mr. Duff) - and none (0) opposed The decision is hervbv incorporated as part of these minutes. For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been frosted separately by address orpmject at.•1)40:llsalem.com/Pages/Sa/emMA ZoningAppealjMin/ Respectfully submitted, Dana Menon, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 3/19/2014 k �C,OAlU/T,I,y ,-� .Q'0 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 9��t9fNB 120 WASFIINGTON SIRE ET * $ALE;bf,bIASSACI-IUSETTS 01970 KIMB6RLEY DRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ F:AY:978-740-9846 ;MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppeals will bold its regulary scheduled meeting on Wednesday,March 19, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at City HallAnnex, RM 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Rebecca Curran,Chair n 0 MEETING AGENDA { � I. ROLL CALL m y rn 9 �T en rrn w II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES �r D rn 3 � ➢ February 19,2014 meeting 3 D t an • III. REGULAR AGENDA Project: A continuation of the public hearing for a petition requesting a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements, specifically from the maximum allowed height of buildings, and a Special Permit under Section 3.3 Nonconforming Uses and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one non-conforming use to another, and to change a non- conforming structure, to allow the conversion of the property to residential use. Applicant: ROBERT WILLWERTH Location: 107 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R1 Zoning District) Project: Petition for an administrative appeal of a decision of the Building Commissioner regarding agricultural use of the property. Applicant: MICHELE CONWAY Location: 69 ORCHARD ST (R2 Zoning District). Project: 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 and 21 VALLEY STREET (R1 Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting Variances under Section 3.3.4 Variance Required of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an extension&structural change to an existing non-conforming structure • for the addition of a second floor and front and rear exterior stairways that increase the existing encroachment on the required minimum depths of the front and rear yards, to the existing single-story building. Applicant: DAVID FRANK Location: 77 BEAVER ST (112 Zoning District) City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for March 19,2014 Meeting • Page 2 of 2 Project: Petition requesting an Amendment to a previously issued Variance decision in order to reduce the number of parking spaces required for the commercial space,and to allow an increased encroachment on the 50 foot buffer required for construction activity abutting residential property. Applicant: RIVERVIEW PLACE LLC Location: 72 FLINT ST,67-69 MASON ST,AND 71 MASON ST (NRCC Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" • City Hall, Salem, Mass. on vie r3 2dy-',— at `5- -3 t'hln accordan a GL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. ND §� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL ��FcfMINE�� - - 120 Wr1SHINGTON STREET+ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Dana Menon, Staff Planner DATE: March 14, 2014 RE: Meeting Agenda for March 19, 2014 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Meeting Minutes from 2/19/2014 0 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 3/19/2014 meeting. 1. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. Continuation of the Public Hearing for the Petition of ROBERT WILLWERTH requesting a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements, specifically from the maximum allowed height of buildings, and a Special Permit under Section 3.3 Nonconforming Uses and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one non-conforming use to another, and to change a non-conforming structure, to allow the conversion of the property to residential use, at the property located at 107 HIGHLAND AVENUE (111 Zoning District). The hearing for this petition was opened at the previous Board of Appeals hearing, on February 19a'. Evidence was heard at that meeting. The Board expressed some concern over the number of proposed units (8 units). The applicant stated that the project was only financially feasible if 8 units could be created. The Board requested that the petitioner submit a pro-forma analysis of the finances. The hearing was continued to March 19, 2014, so that the petitioner can bring that information before the board. There was also some concern that while the number of proposed parking spaces meets the zoning code, the number would not be adequate. Pages 8-11 of the draft minutes (enclosed) covers the discussion of the petition. To summarize the petition, the petitioner seeks to renovate the existing structure for use as eight(8) residential units. This is a nonconforming use in an R1 district,but as the property is in a pre-existing nonconforming use (medical office),it is eligible for Board approval of a Special Permit to change from one non-conforming use to another. The applicant proposes to provide 14 off-street (on-site) parking spaces,which exceeds the minimum number of spaces required (12). The petitioner is seeking an additional Special Permit to extend an existing non-conforming structure. The existing structure does not meet the required minimum depth of rear yard (see table below). The proposed extensions do not increase the footprint of the budding, but do add space to the second and third floors over City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—March 14, 2014 Page 2 of 4 the existing first floor footprint The proposed expansions are dormers on the third floor,and decks on the second and third floor (over the existing first floor deck). The propose extension also requires a Variance,as the proposed expansion of the building would exceed the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories. The petitioner proposes adding a dormer and a deck on the back of the building in order to create room for living space on the thud floor. 13ttuensonal Rccjurements" od ESiyliktg Pra �d rd rt ' Maximum height of building 2.5 2.5 3 (stories) Minimum depth of rear yard 30' 25' +/- 25' +/- Required parking for dwellings 1.5 spaces/unit _28 spaces 14 spaces (8 units proposed) (= 12 spaces for 8 units) If the Board approves the petition, the petitioner will also have to apply to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. In sum, the applicant is seeking: 1. Special Permit to change from one non-confornng use to another 2. Special Permit to extend an existing non-conforming structure 3. Variance to exceed the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories 2. Petition of MICHELE CONWAY for an administrative appeal of a decision of the Building Commissioner regarding agricultural use of the property,for the property at 69 ORCHARD ST (112 Zoning District). The applicant is appealing a decision of the Building Inspector,which states that the applicant's keeping of chickens constitutes an agricultural use. Under Section 3.0 Use Regulations,in the "Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations," Section "E.Accessory Uses", "Customary agricultural,horticultural and floricultural operations" are not permitted in an R2 district. The applicant argues that their keeping of"pet chickens" does not constitute agricultural use. In their attached statement, the applicant refers to a 2008 ZBA decision concerning backyard chickens at 114 Federal Street. This Decision is enclosed as Attachment A. A few sources for definition of"agricultural use" are below: • From Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 128,Section 1A states: "Farming" or"agriculture" shall include farming in all of its branches and the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, the production, cultivation,growing and harvesting of any agricultural,aquacultural, floricultural or horticultural commodities, the growing and harvesting of forest products upon forest land, the raising of livestock including horses, the keeping of horses as a commercial enterprise, the keeping and raising of poultry, swine, cattle and other domesticated animals used for food purposes, . bees, fur-bearing animals,and any forestry or lumbering operations,performed by a farmer,who is hereby defined as one engaged in agriculture or fanning as herein defined, or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations,including preparations for market, delivery to storage or to market or to carriers for transportation to market." 2 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—March 14,2014 Page 3 of 4 • Mark Bobrowski states in his Handbook of Massachusetts Land Use and Planning Law, 1993 (gl2.1.2 "Animals"): "The keeping of traditional household pets—dogs, cats,birds,or fish—is a customary and incidental use to the primary residential use of property. However,when the dispute shifts to more unconventional pets—horses,pigs, and chickens, for example—the result is less predictable. In Sacco P. In pector of Buildings of Brockton, the court relied on Town of Hamard v.Maxant to hold that the keeping of two saddle horses was a permitted accessory use. The inquiry should focus on the scale of the proposed activity,its effect on the neighborhood,and whether the keeping of such animals has been customarily a part of community life. The keeping of animals as an accessory use must be distinguished from the principal use of the premises for agriculture. The term"agriculture"is also the subject of debate. Any agricultural use on more than five acres of land is entitled to the exemption provided in Mass. Gen.L. ch. 40A, �3." • From the Merriam-Webster dictionary ("Agriculture." Merriam-Webster.com.Merriam-Webster,n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2014. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agriculture): "the science, art, or practice of cultivating the soil,producing crops, and raising livestock and in varying degrees the preparation and marketing of the resulting products" 3. Petition of ANDREW PERKINS requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional 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 and 21 VALLEY STREET (R1 Zoning District). The petitioner seeks to divide an existing lot with frontage on both Valley Street and Cherry Hill Avenue into two lots, one with frontage on Valley St, and one with frontage on Cherry Hill Ave. In order to do this, the applicant must receive Variances from the minimum requirements for lot area, frontage,width,and lot area per dwelling unit. See the table below: Dtmmettsiottal Zoatiig C3tdt#tance; cstta I'xvysec P gserul 1Zequttg eats alfegtteil$tattrasd e ,s�gfa;l4k 1 txrysldt#I Iat Va[Ieyt Minimum lot area 15,000 sf 13,340 sf 6,659 sf 6,681 sf Minimum lot frontage 100 ft 50 ft on 50 ft 50 ft each side Minimum lot width 100 ft 100 ft 50 ft 50 ft Minimum lot area per 15,000 sf 13,340 sf 6,659 sf 6,681 sf dwelling unit If the petition is approved, the petitioner proposes to construct a second house on the proposed Cherry Hill Ave lot. Plans and elevations for this proposed structure are included. 4. Petition of DAVID FRANK requesting Variances under Section 3.3.4 Variance Required of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an extension & structural change to an existing non-conforming structure . for the addition of a second floor and front and rear exterior stairways that increase the existing encroachment on the required minimum depths of the front and rear yards, to the existing single-story building,located on the property at 77 BEAVER ST R2 Zoning District). P P h' ( g ) 3 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—March 14,2014 Page 4 of 4 The petitioner proposes to convert the existing property to a single family residential use. The property is currently in use as a garage for storage of construction materials and for parking commercial vehicles, as allowed in a Special Permit issued by the Board of Appeals in 2004 (attached under Attachment B). Elevations of the proposed building have been requested, and will be supplied by the petitioner at the hearing. 5. Petition of RIVERVIEW PLACE LLC requesting an Amendment to a previously issued Variance decision in order to reduce the number of parking spaces required for the commercial space, and to allow an increased encroachment on the 50 foot buffer required for construction activity abutting residential property, for the property located at 72 FLINT ST,67-69 MASON ST,AND 71 MASON ST (NRCC Zoning District). This project appeared before the Board of Appeals in 2007. The Decision on this 2007 application is attached under Attachment C. The petitioner later applied for a Chapter 91 License and MEPA review. During that process, the applicant found that changes to the proposed plans were required in order to comply with 2013 Flood Plain standards. The applicant is now appearing before the Board of Appeals to seek an amendment to the 2007 Variances, to allow these changes. The changes include a reconfiguration of the parking areas, and a reduction in the number of parking spaces. II.Attachments A. 2008 Board of Appeals Decision regarding keeping of chickens at 114 Federal Street B. 2004 Board of Appeals Decision regarding 77 Beaver Street C. 2007 Board of Appeals Decision regarding Riverview Place • 4 coNoiT f s� x City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet c{nrmTe.: � Board: Zoning Board of Appeals I Date � / c / 00 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail 17 7 38 Charles �42 q7F Rd-13gq C)rc,Vyr6 L �� I ► S �5' d Qav 73 ORcN14R0 S- 978-71) ,f -2391 An 17 229-7/Y g/dam 3 &yM �T f � f��o�f ECG G(/1S7�1LG� S IL 746 -�fYl 30 grb id TO( l ,3 C(DS•c) \ Page of City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet 9��piEtiRo° Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail 01 q(e J p � Js�•11 4-{�l�fe MiF � I'A;r ;g nn�si n �v1C o a V � I� ����24657�� IN W�(JKX NtCci ' Cet+1 �rvtf�OV I S la[f Jef_ 5 r—. RIB ?d(46S o Jc-rJ Y r5f3s C4mjS L6X)4( 7� SOUVI JC),c STD / �-75 794 3D9D �15r�ruaM� �oL. �� 9Qr / ASklhf � .,� L-Gri�, eHi�d /4/( 7d' 7YY-7P%J NofA4,�, S u✓ Page of lot ' CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHING"TON STREET + SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMRERLE.Y DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the 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 and 21 ' VALLEY STREET (R1 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, MAR 19, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 3/5/14 & 3/12/14 • v �WITq,9 's. CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS F BOARD OF APPEAL �CIMINEOQ J t20 WASI-TINGTON STREET * SALEM,MASSACI-IDSETTS 01970 KIMBERLI Y DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of DAVID FRANK requesting Variances under Section 3.3.4 Variance Required of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an extension& structural change to an existing non-conforming structure for the addition of a second floor and front and rear exterior stairways that increase the existing encroachment on the required minimum depths of the . front and rear yards, to the existing single-story building, located on the property at 77 BEAVER ST (R2 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, MAR 19, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 3/5/14 & 3/12/14 i v���ONUITq��' CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ;9 BOARD OF APPEAL ��C/MINE� Pf 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACIIIISETTB 01970 KIbIBERLEY DRISCOLL TELL:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of RIVERVIEW PLACE LLC requesting an Amendment to a previously issued Variance decision in order to reduce the number of parking spaces required for the commercial space, and to allow an increased encroachment on the 50 foot buffer required for construction activity abutting residential property, for the property located at 72 • FLINT ST, 67-69 MASON ST, AND 71 MASON ST (NRCC Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, MAR 19, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Ad to run on: 3/5/2104 & 3/12/2014 ���CONDIT�,gO CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSLITS 01970 KIMBEiu..LY DRISCOLL TELL:978-745-9595 1 FAx:978-740-9546 MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MICHELE CONWAY for an administrative appeal of a decision of the Building Commissioner regarding agricultural use of the property, for the property at 69 ORCHARD ST (R2 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, MAR 19, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 3/5/14 & 3/12/14 City of Salem Board of Appeals • Meeting Minutes Wednesday,March 19, 2014 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA')was held on Wednesday,March 19, 2014 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.•35 p.m. ROLL CALL Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Richard Dionne,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre,Building Commissioner,and Dana Menon, Staff Planner. REGULAR AGENDA Project: A continuation of the public hearing for a petition requesting a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements, specifically from the maximum allowed height of buildings, and a Special Permit under Section 3.3 Nonconforming Uses and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one non-conforming use to another, and to change a non-conforming structure, to allow the conversion of the property to residential use. Applicant: ROBERT WILLWERTH Location: 107 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Rl Zoning District) . Documents &Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped January 28, 2014 and accompanying materials ➢ Petition of support for the proposed project signed by six abutters, submitted February 19, 2014. ➢ Comparative Pro-Forma with estimated costs and revenues based on conversion of the property to 6 residential units and 8 residential units. Attorney Scott Grover presents on behalf of Robert Willwerth. Arty.. Grover briefly reviews the application—to convert from an existing non-conforming use as a medical office to another non-conforming use as a multi-family residential use. They are also seeking a Variance to allow a dormer, to create a functional 3.d floor on the building. At the previous meeting (February 19d') they proposed 14 parking spaces. They have a new site plan tonight to provide 16 parking spaces—2 spaces per unit. These are small one-bedroom units, so 2 parking spaces per unit should be more than adequate. If the Board prefers the 16 spaces,we're happy to substitute the new plan for approval. The second area of concern the Board had expressed was that 8 units was really required to meet the financial requirements of the development. The Board asked for financial information to justify the request for the variance,which would make room for 8 units. We submitted by email 2 different pro-formas: one for 6 units,which demonstrates a financial loss, and one for 8 units,which demonstrates a financial profit. Curran: On the 8-unit pro-forma, the sale price for the units is all the same. When you do the 6 units,you'd incorporate the attic into the unit size, that's why they're different prices? Arty. Grover notes that is correct. Robert Willwerth: The building is approx. 7,000 square feet. Ms. Curran states that in that case the costs look reasonable, and asks for clarification that the project would be a gut-rehab. Arty. Grover states that it is. Ms. Curran reiterates that the itemized costs and sale costs look reasonable. She clarifies that if this were a bigger project the Board might have someone look at this and analyze this for us,but this looks reasonable to me, and I'm satisfied • with it. I think the addition of the 2 parking spaces, even though you met zoning, because of what we heard from the public and the lack of on-street parking, and the fact that even with the additional 2 spaces you can keep most of the landscaping and screening Mr. Tsitsinos takes his seat at the table. He arrived late, and waited by the door for the conclusion of the previous statements. • Mr.Watkins —how will the dumpster be screened? Arty. Grover—it will have 2 layers of screening,with a fence and landscaping. I would also like to remind the board that the site plan will also be scrutinized by the Planning Board during Site Plan Review. Ms. Curran asks if tbere's public comment None heard,Ms. Curran closes the public hearing. Ms. Curran—They are seeking a Special Permit to change from one non-conforming use to another, so it has to be less detrimental, and also a Variance for the third story. The 8 units will have less traffic and impact than the medical office. The impact on the neighborhood, from what we heard last time,will be positive. It will be screened,and will be more in keeping with the residential character. Other than the dormer,you're not expanding the footprint at all— correct? Arty. Grover replies that this is correct. Ms. Curran—on the Variance, the circumstances that specifically affect the building—the main thing is that it's a residential zone,and on a main corridor, and it's a very large building. Due to the location in a more commercial area (Highland Avenue) and the size of the structure,it would be difficult to convert to a single-family use. It can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good,and would benefit the tax base. Mr. Duffy—Agrees with Ms. Curran's points. On the issue of the Variance—the age,size, location of the building and the set-up of the lot(the hardscape being reduced with landscaping,but otherwise hardscape), and the pro- forma information demonstrating that it would be uneconomical to convert the building to only six units, can support the analysis. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the application for a Variance and a Special Permit, with 9 standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. A roll call vote is taken, and is • unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr.Watkins,Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne,Mr.Tsitsinos, and Mr. Duffy)— and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Project: Petition for an administrative appeal of a decision of the Building Commissioner regarding agricultural use of the property. Applicant: MICHELE CONWAY Location: 69 ORCHARD ST (112 Zoning District). Documents &Exhibitions: • Application date-stamped 2/25/2014 and accompanying materials Michele Conway,petitioner,and Jim Adams, abutter at 5 Manning Street,present the petition. Ms. Conway references the letter she submitted in the application. About a year ago she decided to get chickens. She called various departments and was informed that there was no ordinance against chickens. She also saw the 2008 Tuttle Decision,and saw that as long as she wasn't selling eggs the chickens would be considered pets. Then she was cited by the Building Inspector for having an agricultural use on the property. The chickens are her pets, and she's not selling the eggs. Ms. Curran—How big is your lot? Mr.Adams replies that it is about 7,000 square feet. Ms. Curran—what zone are you in? Ms. Conway replies R2. Ms. Curran—What happened before [in the 2008 case regarding 114 Federal Street] is that we did say that if you weren't selling the eggs than it was not an agricultural use, and it is your pet. So you're not selling the eggs? Ms. Conway—no,I'm not. Ms. Curran—The Massachusetts General Law on agriculture,MGL Ch128,Section 1A,is very confusing language. Is that what the Budding • Inspector is basing the agricultural use on,Tom? Mr. St. Pierre—it's part of it,yes. Ms. Curran—so right now, the accessory structure setback would apply,as well as any nuisance ordinances. Other than that,we don't have presently any section of our zoning ordinance that pertains to chickens, correct? Mr. St. Pierre responds that Salem's zoning ordinance does include Section 3.2.1 Customary Agricultural, Horticultural, and Floricultural Operations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,which does mention where buildings can be kept. Ms. Curran asks if that relates to the Section • 40A exemptions. Mr. St. Pierre responds that he believes that it does not,it says that"all buildings shall not occupy a greater percentage of the lot than that allowed in the Table of Dimensional Requirements, no storage of manure or odor or dust producing substance and no building in which farm animals are kept shall be permitted within one hundred feet of any property line,no greenhouse heating plant shall be operated within operated within fifty feet of the property line,and no products shall be publicly displayed or offered for sale from the roadside." Ms. Curran—so the question is whether this is considered an agricultural use,and that was out question before [the case of 114 Federal Street, from 2008]. Tom—this is similar to the other case? Mr. St. Pierre confirms that it is similar in some ways. Mr. Duffy—what does happen with the eggs from the hens? Ms. Conway—I consume them myself, or if I have extras, I give them away. Mr. Adams adds that he has received some. Jim Adams, 5 Manning Street—I'm a direct abutter,and I've been helping Ms. Conway with the chickens. There are times when the chickens don't lay eggs (for example, the winter). Ms. Curran opens the public comment period. Sally Wilson, 37 Dearborn St—have any of the neighbors complained? Ms. Conway—just one next-door neighbor. Ms. Wilson—I'm in favor of chickens in the neighborhood. David Boucher, 13 Manning Street—I live right behind them,and I have no problem with the chickens. P Kayla Kirkpatrick,29 Dearborn Street—bikes by there all the time, didn't even know there were chickens there until we got the legal notice for the hearing. Happy to have them in the neighborhood. Janet and Clayton Greene, 72 Orchard Street—live directly across from the property. We are in favor of the chickens.You don't hear them,you don't smell them,you don't see them. They would be a wonderful and delicious pet. Cindy LeBlanc, 73 Orchard Street—Never hears the chickens. Josh Turiel,Ward 5 City Councilor,238 Lafayette Street- I support backyard chickens,and having eggs as a bonus. I would also hope that we would, on the legislative side,we would come to have reasonable guidelines, so that a few chickens or a couple of rabbits would get lumped in with"agricultural use." I understand why people have to come in here on the appeals process,but if there's something we need to do on a common-sense basis to work with the ZBA to have these things set up, then we should do it. I'm in favor of this appeal being granted. Marcie Clawson, 46 Dearborn Street. We moved to Dearborn from an R2 neighborhood,with 5 chickens that we'd had for four ears. Two neighbors at our Dearborn home were vex much against us having them. We had to et rid Y g Y g g g of our family pets. They've been moved to another property somewhere else in Salem, and we still visit them. I dunk it's too bad that a neighbor can prohibit chickens. I'm in favor of the chickens,I think they're good for families,wonderful pets. Kevin&Kristin Cordy, 1 Orchard Terrace,present a sliideshow. The abutters'appeal is that the poultry she purchased are pets. It is clear that the ordinance was established to protect the rights of neighboring abutters. Whether or not the eggs are used for food or are sold is not the issue. MGL Ch128 Section 1A does not allow the separation of food into primary or secondary purposes. If I bought a cow and used it to mow my lawn,it would still be an agricultural use. We have experienced chronic noises with the chickens 5 feet from our property line. We • experience the noise every day. It interferes with our life,and my wife's ability to work from home. We can hear it from all over the house,including in our bedroom. Mr. Cordy plays a sound recording of the chickens from the bedroom. That can go on for minutes at a time. Dander—we do get feathers on our property. Odor—frequent noxious odor perceptible on our property. Disease—the coop is 5 feet from our property line. Immuno- compromised individuals should not be in contact with poultry. We cannot bring an infant onto our property. Mr. • Cordy shows an aerial showing the present location of the coop,and where the coop would have to be located if it were considered an agricultural use (100 feet). If the applicant sold 1 egg, she'd be required to meet the agricultural requirements. Chickens are not customarily considered pets. If they are pets,what are the rules regulating them? Whether they are pets is irrelevant—the law is clear,poultry is defined as livestock. The impact on the quality of life of my wife and I is the same. It has been six years since the Board ruled on 114 Federal St. In that time it has submitted no rules to the Attorney General regarding this issue. Is this a zoning board issue,and not an issue for the Board of Health? David Eppley,Ward 4 Councilor, 69 Boston Street#2—in support of approving the appeal,on behalf of the chickens and the applicants. I appreciate the presentation that was just made,but it seems that you have a precedent that is fairly straight forward. That being said,with some of the issues being stated,maybe as a City Council we need to pass an ordinance to make it clear that chickens are welcome. One of the things that the abutter mentioned is that we've gone from an agragrian community to an urban community. That's true,but just up the street, there are farms in Salem. Having poultry is not something new to Salem. Anthony Zietman, 395 Lafayette Street—I'm a doctor and a chicken owner. Poultry offer no particular threat, and no more than cats or dogs. We far more often see things resulting from cats or dogs, and we rarely,if ever, see anything resulting from chickens. Janet Greene, 72 Orchard St—it was brought up that we need regulations to state exactly how they should be cared for. That may be true,but I don't see any specific guidelines pertaining to other family pets. I think that it should be no different chickens, and anyone,as with any pet, can report a health concern. Kristin Cordy; 1 Orchard Terrace—I am aware there are a lot of person opinions here tonight,but the law is clear. • They are farm animals under state law,and under Salem law. The abutter does not have the room to meet the zoning code. Jeff Brandt,3 Lynn Street—The board thought about this several years ago with the Tattles. We have chickens,my kids love them. They've learned so much from having them. They've improved our life. Clayton Greene—72 Orchard St—we've been living in that house for years, and we have many longtime friends in the neighborhood. I raised chickens when I was a kid. Chickens sleep at night. If you have a rooster,which she doesn't,you can say they wake me up. The way the mesh is on the coop, the feathers would not be getting through there. Any feathers in the yard would be from birds. Stan Franzeen, 34 Daniels St—I live in a condo, I have no yard. I love that there are chickens next door. Jenny Lynch, 38 Charles Street—in support of the chickens. Chickens go to sleep with the sun. If there's a noise complaint,you could certainly raise that to a police officer,but I would find it hard to believe it would be breaking the decibel level. Justin Graniss, 3 Fairfield Street—children in this electronic age do not have the initiative to go outside. If you have chickens, then you would have the initiative to go outside. CJ Karsh—76 Memorial Drive—I want to question the clarity of the law that says that chickens are livestock. According to the MGL cited, technically if you have a rosebush you are committing an act of agriculture. "the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, the production, cultivation,growing and harvesting of any agricultural, aquacultural, floricultural or horticultural commodities" • Kathy Karsh—76 Memorial Drive—adding onto that—continues reading the MGL. "the ... growing and harvesting of any agricultural, aquacultural, floricultural or horticultural commodities"- that definition would include the growing of tomatoes,rose bushes, etc. This is an incredibly vague,inarticulate definition of agriculture. You can't have furbearing animals. So if you have a pet bunny, ferret, or chinchilla, that wouldn't be allowed. How far do you go in upholding the letter of the law? I am in support of Michele Conway keeping her chickens. • Mr. Cordy, 1 Orchard Terrace—the law says that"Customary agricultural,horticultural and floricultural operations are allowed"—a garden,growing vegetables,growing flowers are allowed. As far as the health cases, not as many people keep chickens as keep cats or dogs, so you would see more cases with cats and dogs. Burt Haskins, 22 Larchmont Rd—The MGL references the people producing the commodity, and references farmers. These folks are not farmers. It's important to separate the issues of noise and sanitary. For example, there's nothing preventing them from getting two large dogs and having them bark all day long. So until it exceeds the noise ordinance, there's nothing you could do about that. Putting a pet in the backyard is a customary use. Donald Moore, 73 Orchard St—I immediately abut 69 Orchard on the northwest side. As far as the noise is concerned, the chicken house is located on the side away from us (maybe 60 feet away),I've only heard the chickens once in the past year. I don't doubt that the Cordy's hear noise, as it's closer to their property,and the prevailing wind would blow the odor in that direction. But we don't have any complaints. Maura Murphy, 70 Dearborn St. We are backyard chicken owners. There are more people in the city than you'd think who have backyard chickens. Her daughter visited chickens at a local farm every day,and would help with the chickens. Ms. Murphy erroneously believed at first that chickens are dirty. If you keep your chicken coop and run clean, rodents aren't a problem. Finally the daughter got her own coop,run,and chickens. The chicks became members of the family, and they were named. They weren't in it for the eggs. As the flock grew, they checked with the neighbors to make sure there were no noise or other issues. They kept the chickens in the coop until 7:30 weekdays and 8:30 weekends. When they're out, they're in an enclosed run. When you buy a house,and you see something there,it's part of life. I have a train that runs by my house,and I chose to live there, and I have to deal with it. For example, an air conditioner could be an annoying noise. Chickens aren't an annoying noise. If you do it • right,whether you have kids, dogs, or chickens,you need to respect your neighbors. Dan LeBlanc, 73 Orchard St—I live directly above the chickens. My skylight is open. I love the little noises of the chickens. Jim Adams, 5 Manning St—presents a signed document stating no problem with the chickens, signed by abutters. Mr.Adams also works at home,and has no problem with the noise Charlie Wilson, 69 Dearborn St,directly across from Maura (Murphy). I didn't even know she had chickens. As she said, the train is more annoying than any natural chicken noise. I'm also a bird watcher, and I bet my bird feeders create more of an issue with"bird turds" than their coop. I see how her daughter's face lights up with the chickens. They're definitely pets. Mr. Cordy, 1 Orchard Terrace—we're not arguing against backyard chickens. We are arguing that 5 feet is not an adequate distance to an abutting property. People who live farther away from the coop are saying they have no problem. AC and kids playing are noises one expects to hear in an urban environment, barnyard noises are not. Beth Gerard,Ward 6 Councilor,49 Larchmont Road—my in-laws live next to folks who have chickens, as does one of my friends,in California.Very small lot sizes,with chickens. The only reason I know those chickens are there is because they've been pointed out to me—no noise,no odor. When I was around door-knocking for election, I never knew there was a coop there until it was mentioned. Marcie Clawson- I wanted to speak regarding the noise. We had chickens for 3 years. The noise you hear is a chicken laying an egg, and they make the noise for maybe 3-4 minutes. With 4 chickens,it would happen maybe 3-4 times a day. • Nicole McLaughlin,4 Roosevelt Road—I hear the issue around working at home,and noise,and the issue of concentrating. When I was working at home, there were barking dogs in the neighborhood. Ultimately I got an AC, to help me concentrate, because I didn't feel that I could go ask people to get rid of their dogs. I do believe that • chickens are pets. I think that's really what it turns on -the issues with noise and cleanliness are the same as Cindy LeBlanc, 73 Orchard—I happen to know the chickens all have names,I've seen them sitting with the chickens petting them in the back yard. They're certainly pets. Maria Voss, 2 Roosevelt Road—adopted the chickens from Marcy [Clawson]. I couldn't believe she couldn't keep them, and I love having them. I didn't even think to ask my neighborhood about having them when I first got them. Later I went to talk to the neighbors, and I have to say I'm very lucky. I feel sorry for Michelle,I'm here to support her. And I want to thank my neighbors,who are amazing, and babysit the chickens. Chris Leblanc, 20 Southwick Street. I think the 100-foot setback would be excessive. I don't know many people in Salem that could meet the 100 feet requirement. I am for the chickens. If we do move forward,we should revisit that standard, and adjust it to something that would be more appropriate for Salem-sized lots. Jenny Hobbs, 20 Southwick Street. We have chickens, they are about 10 feet from our bedroom. I don't hear them in the morning until I go out in the morning. We have one neighbor who loves the chickens and the sound, she doesn't like it when the dog barks, though. Nancy Moore, 73 Orchard St—we have a cherry tree in our sideyard, and we have a lot of birds in there chirping a lot of the day, and so far no one has asked us to cut down our chair. Heather Maitland,23 Cedarcrest Ave—in support of chickens and the noises they make. Sometimes crows and seagulls bother us,but there are all sorts of noisy animals in our area. We want people in Salem to be able to have chickens. • Jim Adams, 5 Manning Street—just to clarify,initially the coop was about 5 feet away from the property line, and Mr. St. Pierre's first letter instructed us to move it. Nov it's about 15 feet from the property line. Frank Murphy,70 Dearborn St—My only quest is why the animal officer isn't involved in this kind of conversation? Ms. Curran—closes the public comment. Ms. Curran—I was here in 2008. In her mind this situation hasn't changed, an agricultural use doesn't exist, and I'm in favor of overturning the Building Inspectors decision. However,I recognize that there are some issues that need to be dealt with here, as we only hear about this when abutters are having problems. It would be something for the City Council and the Board of Health to deal with. I did search for zoning ordinances and chickens. Someone who searches for it would come to the conclusion that there are no zoning ordinances in salem relating to chickens. The issues raised would pertain to any pets—dogs or anything,but the issues raised should be addressed. I don't think this is an agricultural use. Even though chickens weren't customary, they are customary now There are a lot of chickens here,and there should be some regulation. Right now I think they exist legally. Mr.Watkins—I don't think there's a clear agricultural use here. The eggs aren't being sold. The chickens seem to be living there as pets. I concur with how the board voted in 2008, though I wasn't on the board then. I would ask that the City Council give us a little more guidance in establishing a chicken ordinance. Beverly and Hamilton have one, regulating the number of chickens and how far they have to be from the property line. We need a clear ordinance to apply in the future, for this board and future boards. Mr. Duffy—I think it's evident from the support here tonight that the City of Salem obviously is not un-friendly to chickens. I do want to speak in defense of the enforcement issued. In looking at the agricultural uses—there is one • referring to customary agricultural, floricultural, and horticultural uses. We just don't have anything pertaining to this situation in our zoning ordinance. I think it sounds like it's at least on the agenda for city council and the City to look at. For now,we do have this very vague statement in our ordinance. I can see how someone could construe the ordinance to mean agriculture—it doesn't define scale. The eggs are used for food purposes. But what's the f difference really between a pet chicken and an agricultural pet. We don't have anything telling us the difference. Is it • really in naming it that it's transformed from an agricultural animal to a pet? That's a tough argument to make. There's also been some expression that a rooster would present a different issue. We don't have anything saying that a rooster can't be a pet. That's a problem. There's nothing that tells us numbers,distances,health issues, etc. All this needs to be resolved. I understand the alternative position here—there's a relatively small number of chickens being kept,it's happening a lot in the community. Mr. Dionne states that he believes that the board should limit the number of chickens allowed. Ms. Curran clarifies that the Board can't put conditions on a Decision on an appeal of the decision of the building inspector. Mr. St. Pierre states that there is a SP for agricultural use in an RC and R1 zone. Ms. Curran replies that she thinks this is a different situation. Mr. St. Pierre disagrees. Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve the petition of Michele Conway for appeal of the decision of the Building Inspector. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. A roll call vote is taken, and is passes with four (4) in favor(Mr.Watkins, Ms. Curran,Mr.Dionne, and Mr.Tsitsinos) - and one (1) opposed (Mr. Duffy). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Ms. Menon mentions that the Board neglected to read letters submitted in support. Ms. Curran submits the letters to the record. Project: 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 and 21 VALLEY STREET (Rl Zoning District) Documents &Exhibitions: • Application date-stamped February 25, 2014 and accompanying materials Additional plot plan detailing proposed location of parking on propose 15 Cherry Hill Avenue parcel • Map showing relative size of lots in the surrounding neighborhood Attorney Scott Grover presents on behalf of Mr.Perkins the applicant,who is also in attendance. Mr. Perkins owns the property at 21 Valley Street. This particular property,in the R1 zoning district,has two addresses, as it has frontage on both Cherry Hill Avenue and Valley Street. There's an existing home at the valley st address,which Mr. Perkins is renovating. Originally this lot was 2 separate lots,when it was laid out in the 1920s. In the 1950s they came into common ownership,which caused these lots to merge for zoning purposes. They are considered a single lot for zoning purposes. This area should be familiar to the board,as a few months ago the board heard a petition regarding a nearby lot (13 Cherry Hill Ave),and the board allowed that petition to divide into two lots. Mr. Perkins is seeking relief to allow re-subdivision of this lot along the original lot lines when the lot was created. Atty. Grover references the plan submitted with the petition,noting the proposed new dwelling location and associated parking. The proposed building meets the front, side and rear yard setbacks. It does not comply with the required lot area, or with the current requirements for frontage or lot width. Like the other lots in that area, they were 50 feet wide. We are looking for a variance from the minimum lot area,minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and minimum lot frontage requirements. Arty. Grover refers to the elevations submitted with the application, showing that it's a narrow house to suit the dimensions of the lot. We need to demonstrate that there are special conditions here. You can see that the lot is a very irregular shape. What makes it even more unusual is the fact that it has frontage on two different streets. I can't see a single other lot in the area that has that feature. We also have to establish a demonstration of hardship. In this case, the hardship is really that the whole back part of the lot,because it's very narrow, doesn't add any value to the property. It's not useable as a yard..The only conceivable thing you could do is maybe add a garage. It really doesn't add any value to the property. So any owner of this property is deprived of any financial benefit of • that back part of the parcel. We also need to demonstrate that this wouldn't be detrimental to the public good or derogate from the zoning ordinance. I've highlighted lots in the neighborhood that are the same size or smaller than the proposed lots would be. The proposed lots would certainly be consistent with the size of the lots in the neighborhood. The intent of the zoning ordinance is consistency within a zoning district. These proposed lots wouldn't be inconsistent with the area. I've also highlighted all of the existing lots in the neighborhood that don't . comply with today's zoning. Ms. Curran: I don't think that having a long lot is not a hardship, though it may not be convenient. I do see the irregular shape of the lot and the frontage on two streets,it's unique in that way. The existing house is in bad shape and needed to be renovated? Atty. Grover—yes. I see that the back part of the lot is of no use to the property. There is a line of cases out there is that the standard for hardship when applied to dimensional variances is much less demanding than the hardship required for a use variance. Mr. Tsitsinos —I agree. I know the property. It's very long and narrow,it's kind of a waste back there. Mr. Perkins —you can't use it as your yard—it's too long. Ms. Curran—having a big yard is not a hardship. Atty. Grover—it's a big,unusually shaped lot. Ms. Curran—yes, but we don't want every merged lot coming back before the board. I do see it as unique in some ways. Mr. Dionne—the adjacent property is basically the same size. Ms. Curran—no problem with the concept of it,it's just getting to the hardship. Mr. St. Pierre—is the approval being submitted for the footprint, or for the home in the drawings? Atty. Grover— we're willing to commit to the structure shown in the drawings. Mr. Watkins—please clarify what we're voting on? A Variance for the lot on Valley Street? Atty. Grover—in addition to the variances needed for the new Cherry Hill lot,you need a variance to allow for the reduction in size of the valley street lot. • Nancy Pelletier, 17 Cherry Hill Avenue. Has lived there for 25 years. The seller of our house told me that was an unbuildable grandfathered lot. Now we're finding that someone wants to build on it. By the way, they have always cut the grass all the way across the lot. Also, the proposed house,which would be 15'from our house,would block all the good light. Arty. Grover—one point to consider, on the plan submitted to the board, the house is located 20 feet from the street,which complies with the front yard setback. There's plenty of room to move the house back,and still comply with the rear yard setback requirement(30 feet). Would it satisfy your concerns if we moved the house further back, so it wasn't in line with your house? Richard Pelletier, 17 Cherry Hill Ave—I do want to commend Mr. Perkins. He was very informative,letting the neighbors know. He does show concern. After living there for 25 years,the house would be 15 feet from ours. There really aren't houses like that down,like,Derby Street. That street is a short-cut to other neighborhoods, and it gets congested there. Would be more congested with another house there. A similar case came through before, and was approved by the board. It was appealed to the court, and the judge overturned the decision fo the board, saying that it was a grandfatehred lot. Paul Dulong, 22 Cherry Hill Ave, directly across the street. Agrees with Mr.Pelletier. It is a busy street, and to add houses, families, kids —there are no sidewalks. Kids use it as a shortcut to school. Any structure they put there,we'd be concerned with lighting. When they plow the street in the winter,it's one-truck wide. I think it's a safety consideration. . Ms. Curran—it is not a bad proposal, but I don't see a hardship. • Mr. Watkins—concurs with Ms. Curran. It's a good project,just having a hard time identifying the hardship. Atty. Grover—when it comes to dimensional variances,there are clear cases showing that the hardship can be relatively minor. You have such an unusually shaped lot. Perhaps we could work with the neighbors to mitigate the impact by moving the house back. Perhaps we could come back to the Board after we've gotten more support from the neighbors. Mr.Watkins—but even with more support, Chair Curran, there would still be the issue of hardship. Atty. Grover—the hardship has to be created by the unusual condition of the lot. The irregular shape and the dual frontage create an unusual condition. Also a financial hardship by depriving the owner of much of the value of the property back there. It's probably similar to the hardship in the 13 Cherry Hill Ave case,where there's a very large lot that lost much of its value through the merging of the lot. We're willing to work with the neighbors. Ms. Curran—it's not about the neighbors for me. Atty. Grover suggests continuing to the next meeting, to both work with the neighbors and to work to better articulate a hardship for the Board. Mr.Watkins states that he would be in favor of allowing that,as the Board has done it before. Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to allow a continuance to the next regularly scheduled meeting on April 16,2014. All in favor,none opposed. The motion carries. Project: Petition requesting Variances under Section 3.3.4 Variance Required of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an extension& structural change to an existing non-conforming structure for the addition of a second floor and front and rear exterior stairways that increase the existing encroachment on the required minimum depths of the front and rear yards, to the existing single-story building. Applicant: DAVID FRANK Location: 77 BEAVER ST (R2 Zoning District) Documents &Exhibitions: • Application date-stamped February 25, 2014 and accompanying materials • Additional elevations submitted at the meeting. • Photo of existing building& conditions. Attorney Scott Grover presents on behalf of the applicant,David Frank. The existing building is a 1-story garage, used for the last 10 years by a roofing company for storage of construction materials and parking. It's allowed under the terms of a Variance issued in 2004. It was a Variance with many conditions on the commercial use. Mr. Frank bought the property several months ago. His proposal is to convert the building back to residential use. The existing commercial use is an aberration—the rest of the neighborhood is residential. It's a very simple structure right now Mr. Frank is proposing to keep the existing first floor of the property, and to add a second floor where the residential unit would be. The first floor would still be used for storage,but wouldn't be used for commercial use any more. We are proposing to forgo the commercial use allowed by the previous Variance. Because this would be an extension of a nonconformity,a Variance would be needed for an expansion of a nonconforming structure. The exterior changes would be: addition of a second story,addition of rear entrance stairway& deck (south side),and a second means of egress on the side with the garage entrance (eastern side of the building). The plans originally submitted with the application package shows a second egress on the Beaver St (north) side. Now we are proposing to put the second egress on the east side of the building. There is no demand for commercial space in a residential zone, and the Variance only allowed a very specific type of use—if you're not using it for storage of construction materials,you can't really use the building currently. Bringing this property back to residential use would be in keeping with the intent of the zoning ordinance. I feel quite firmly that we're satisfying the requirements of the variance. Ms. Curran—did you look at having the stairway on this side,where you wouldn't expand the nonconformity? Atty. Grover—that's what the new plan is showing. Ms. Curran—so the first floor use would be related to the residential occupation? And what if you just had the egress on the east side of the house, and a second stair inside the building envelope,and didn't have a stair and deck on the south side of the house? Atty. Grover—even if we did that, the second floor addition would necessitate a variance. . Ms. Curran opens to the public Jane Froncki, 5 Safford St—my family was in the area when that building was built. It was originally a boiler company. Then ServicePro. Then roofing company. Never had any problems with any of those businesses. 63 Beaver St is a 3 family, absentee landlord. 72 Beaver St,absentee landlord. 74 Beaver St,absentee landlord,well known to the Salem police department. 6 Silver St,absentee landlord. Boston, Safford,Beaver Street—it's very busy,it's a shortcut to North Street. That garage there—if a second floor is added,it will block my sun. Not one absentee landlord is here. They don't care. It looks like a dump. I'm requesting that you leave it as it is. I'm hoping we get another nice neighbor. Mr. Frank should have come around before he bought the property to see how the neighbors felt. I found out after he bought the property. Please honor the agreement that was made 50-plus years ago with her family. Stan Froncki, 5 Safford St—that building would cut 2 hours off my morning sun. That structure would resonate more noise from the gas station to my yard. Because it's an R2 district,probably down the road they'd put an R2 P Y Y family in there. Once they build the developments around the area, there will be a lot of new people there. All the absentee landlords are a problem. Sarah Lobao, 148 Boston Street—borders the lot. We have rental units. Our concern is the privacy. Our tenants are elderly. How would they be impacted by the privacy, the noise factor. What will the parking situation be? How many bedrooms will there be? The concern primarily is how close this will be to us. It is a very congested area— we're pretty much on top of one another. Our units have porches that face out to that lot. Our tenants would like to use their porches. Concerned for their tenants,and it's their livelihood. Stan Froncki - concern with absentee landlord. . Atty. Grover asks permission from the chair to respond to some of the concerns. There will be more than enough parking on the site. The proposed structure is a small one-level structure on top of the existing structure, so there's no possibility for additional units. Granted Mr. Frank isn't going to live there, but his business is in Salem. He's not out of town,he's not out of State, he wouldn't treat the property like some of the other absentee landlords. Jane Froncki, 5 Safford Street—past story of landlord that misled them in what they were intending to build. Ms. Curran—reads an anonymous letter submitted in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Frank—in my own defense, I'm not an absentee person,I'm there all the time. I've been a taxpayer in Salem for many years. I want to bring it back to a quiet neighborhood, and make the house look like it belongs there. It's only going to be a two-bedroom, 1-bath. Ms. Curran—the plan shows three bedrooms. Ms. Curran—did you consider doing a one-story or traditional cape in lieu of adding to the structure that's there? Mr. Frank—the structure that's there is a beautiful strong building. Ms. Curran—and you can't convert the existing structure to residential? Mr. Frank—no,it's just one big space. The proposed structure would only be 13 feet higher than the existing structure. Ms. Curran—this is the first time I've heard a residential neighborhood fighting to retain an industrial use. Atty. Grover—there's no outside space where people would be congregating outside. We could look at moving the stairway and deck off the back space, to reduce the proximity to the rear abutters, and address the privacy issues. That's something we'd be willing to consider. Ms. Curran—so do you want to look at that and continue? Atty. Grover—yes. If that would alleviate concerns, to not have a lot of activity in the rear of the building. Ms. Curran suggests speaking with the neighbors about the privacy and the impacts on the light into the other properties. Arty. Grover requests a continuance. Motion and Vote: Mr.Duffy makes a motion to continue the hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting on April 16,2014. The motion is seconded by Jimmy Tsistinos. All in favor, none opposed.The motion carries. Project: Petition requesting an Amendment to a previously issued Variance decision in order to reduce the number of parking spaces required for the commercial space, and to allow an increased encroachment on the 50 foot buffer required for construction activity abutting residential property. Applicant: RIVERVIEW PLACE LLC Location: 72 FLINT ST,67-69 MASON ST,AND 71 MASON ST (NRCC Zoning District) Documents &Exhibitions: Application date-stamped February 26, 2014 and accompanying materials • Supplemental material distributed at the meeting,with clearer (color) drawings. • Landscape plan approved by the Planning Board in 2008 Decision. Attorney Grover presents on behalf of Riverview Place LLC, the applicant. The Riverview Place project is on the site of the former Salem Suede and Bonfami properties. In 2007 there were a variety of variances approved for this project, that allowed for construction of a primarily residential complex,with 130 units, and 2 parking spaces per unit. There was a small component required to be commercial space, as required in the NRCC zoning code. The property is 3 buildings—one on Mason St,one on the Flint St side, and one in the middle,with a parking garage. There were 260 parking spaces dedicated for residential use,plus 37 spaces required for the commercial use,and 12 • spaces required for residents of Flint St. Plus there's a requirement for a 50-foot buffer on construction activity adjacent to residential properties. Extensive environmental remediation has been ongoing, and is almost complete. The owners have also been involved in the arduous process of getting a Chapter 91 license from MassDEP. As part of that process, they discovered that as part of the property is on filled tide land, the buildings had to be shifted out of the water dependent use zone. MassDEP and CZMA also required the owner to conduct a flood study— completed by BioEngineering group. That study recommended that we use the new 2013 FEMA mapping,even though it hasn't been adopted yet, and also that we look at sea rise predictions for 2100, to determine where the lowest habitable space should be. Because of that,we've raised the residential portions of the budding,and put the parking on the first floor of the central building. The redesign also caused the units to be laid out in a different manner. Instead of the units being loaded to look out on the river,units were now looking out toward the parking garage. So they've lowered the parking garage by one level, so none of the residential units are looking into the garage. To make up those spaces,we've had to reconfigure the surface parking areas,and to reduce the number of parking spaces dedicated to the commercial space to 10 spaces, from the 37 previously conditioned. The 37 spaces would be required with the maximum buddout of that space. Now the owners are thinking that commercial space will likely be used for lower-density office space,and that the 10 spaces will be more than sufficient. The use would have to comply with the zoning ordinance requirements for the number of parking spaces available,as enforced by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Ms. Curran—that property on Mason St is the only commercial use? Atty. Grover—yes. At the time,we came up with a number of required spaces based on the most intensive use. Now we're looking to reduce it to 10 spaces,but we're not asking for a Variance—we would just restrict the use of the property based on the number of available spaces. Mr. St. Pierre—and the applicant understands that they might have to wait for an appropriate tenant to come in— the property might sit vacant until that happens. • Atty. Grover-what's been discussed is maybe a management office related to the development. Under the zoning ordinance,it requires 1 space per employee, so you'd be allowed to have up to 10 employees there. Ms. Curran asks for clarification on changes to the building. Arty. Grover clarifies that in order to make up for the loss of some of the units,they've added one floor to one wing of the building,but the total height still complies with the zoning code, so it doesn't require a variance. The top of that wing is level with the rest of the building, which is not proposed to be any higher than the original design. The new provision to substitute the off-street parking requirements of the zoning ordinance in lieu of the 37 spaces is one amendment. The other amendment is to the Variance granted to allow encroachment on the required 50-foot activity buffer in areas adjacent to residential properties. Atty. Grover describes the submitted plans and the proposed changes to the building and parking layout. The new proposed layout of the north-west surface parking lot gets about 20 feet closer to the residential properties on the west side of the site. The new parking layout also shifts further away from the residential properties on the north side of the property. The second amendment we're asking for is to allow the parking and the buildings to slightly encroach further on the 50-foot buffer. Arty. Grover shows the landscape plan approved by the Planning Board in their 2007 Decision,and states that the proposed changes to the development will have to go back before the Planning Board and the DRB as well. The proposed north-west parking lot is at a lower elevation than the surrounding residential properties. The grade rises 3 feet to the property line from the parking lot, six feet to the nearest structure (a garage), and even further up to the actual residential structure. It is increasing the surface parking, as we've lost some in the garage. One of the positive things,which the DRB was concerned with,is that the massing of the garage will be reduced. Atty. Grover references the proposed amendment wording laid out in the submitted statement of grounds. Rosemary O'Connor, 111 Mason Street—Are you increasing the number of units? Arty. Grover—no,we're raising the building up to allow parking underneath. It really is just bringing up that wing of the building to be level with the rest of the building. Rosemary O'Connor—further reducing the buffer zone is asking too much of the neighbors. Arty. Grover—it really just essentially relates to parking, the buildings aren't getting any closer. It's just one line of • parking,and in some places the parking gets further away. Atty. Grover discusses the plans in more detail with Ms. O'Connor. Ms. O'Connor states that the proposed 7.6 feet between the parking lot and the western property boundary is quite tight. Atty. Grover agrees, but states that the mitigating factor is the grade change. We did previously get a Variance to allow a minimum distance of 21.3 feet,and now we're asking for 7 feet. Ms. Curran—with a good landscape plan, a lot could be done with that. What was the size of the parking spaces? Arty. Grover—they're complying with the zoning ordinance. Mark Hoskins,22 Larchmont Rd. My recollection is that the development preserved some theoretical right-of-way should Commercial Street be extended in the future. Arty. Grover—yes,you're correct. The owners were required to preserve a ROW from Flint Street to connect to Commercial Street, further down. It does have to pass over another privately owned parcel, so that would be further down the line. The changes proposed here would actually make that more practical, as the buildings would be further away from the edge of that potential roadway. Beth Gerard,Ward 6 Councilor, 9 Larchmont Road—7 feet is very close, and would be concerning for a residential abutter. Arty. Grover—the applicant spoke with 4 or 5 abutters. The Board discusses what the structure is that would be closest to the proposed parking lot. It's agreed that it's most likely a garage or a shed, as the house fronts on Flint Street. Arty. Grover reads the proposed amendment wording for the required parking committed to the commercial use. A use that required more than 10 spaces wouldn't be permitted. Ms. Curran—for retail,what's the requirement for parking? Mr. St. Pierre—for commercial other than an eating or • drinking establishment: 1 space for each 150 sf of gross floor area, excluding storage areas. What's more likely is commercial use,which would require 1 space for each professional person,plus 1 space for each additional 2 employees. Arty. Grover—and the second amendment would pertain to further encroachment on the 50-foot residential buffer • required by Section 8.4.13 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The only area that would need additional relief is that one location on the north-west corner of the north-west surface parking lot. One of the outcomes of these changes is that it creates more open space along the canal. The Planning Board took a lot of pains to create visual and physical connections through the site that would invite people down to the canal. Ms. Curran—so this vote would amend the November 2,2007 Decision with the two amendments. Arty. Grover— correct. And what's driving it is the Chapter 91 requirements. Mr. Dionne—commends the petitioner on their excellent work. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the two requested amendments to the November 2,2007 Decision of the Board of Appeals. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr.Watkins, Ms. Curran,Mr. Dionne,Mr.Tsitsinos, and Mr. Duffy) - and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2014 Draft Meeting Minutes Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins moves to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Mr. Duffy. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr. Watkins,Ms. Curran,Mr. Duffy,Mr. Dionne, and Mr. Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed. OLD/NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT Mr.Watkins motioned for adjournment of the March 19, 2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 8:10 PM. Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins made a motion to adjourn the March 19,2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Duffy, and a unanimous vote was taken with five (5) in favor(Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran,Mr. Dionne, Mr.Tsitsinos, and Mr. Duffy) - and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address orproject at:ha:llsalem.com/]3ages/SalemM4 Zonin"4 PealsMinl Respectfully submitted, Dana Menon, Staff Planner Approved b the Board of Appeals 4/16/2014 PP Y PP r�(;ONDIT,q�� CITY OF SALEM, IVLASSACHUSETTS 9i BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHING FON S'MT,'t+ SALEM,Il4ASSACHUSL'ITS 01970 KIMBE'dil'.Ev DIUSCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 n �L1YOlt -f o :") c r x. April22, 2014 �T fJ m N Amended Decision D City of Salem Board of Appeals o Petition of Riverview Place LLC requesting Variances to allow for a minimunoot J area of 1,440 square feet per dwelling unit, common building entrances, and to allow construction within the 50 foot buffer area for the properties located at 72 FLINT STREET AND 67-69 &71 MASON STREET [NRCC]. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 22, 2007 and continued to September 19, 2007, and October 17,2007 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §� 11. The public hearing was closed on October 17,2007 with the following Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein,Bonnie Belair, Elizabeth Debski,Rebecca Curran, and Steven Pinto. The petition was granted on November 2, 2007. On February 26, 2014 Riverview Place,LLC submitted a request to amend the decision to allow a reduction in the number of parking spaces required for the commercial space, and an increased encroachment on the 50 foot buffer requited for construction activity abutting residential property. A public hearing on the request for modification was held on March 19, 2014 and duly posted and noticed in accordance with Mass General Law Ch. 40A, �§ 11. The public hearing was closed on March 19, 2014 with the following Board of Appeals members present Rebecca Curran (Chair), Richard Dionne,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins, and Jimmy Tsitsmos (alternate). Statements of fact: 1. The locus in is in the North River Canal Corridor (NRCQ District and includes 72 Flint Street (3.69 acres),71 Mason Street 10.34 acres), and 67-69 Mason Street (OF'1 acres) for a total of 4.14 acres (the "Locus"). 2. Plans accompanying the original Petition, as approved on November 2, 2007, include the site plan prepared by Eastern Land Survey, entitled"Site Development Permit Plan", dated October 9, 2007, and elevations prepared by H.H. Morant& Co., Inc.Architects, entitled "Riverview Place: Schematic Roof Plan& Elevations", dated September 26, 2007, 3, In 2007, the Zoning Board of Appeals decision was appealed to the land court. A • judgement of the landeourt was issued which upheld the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The judgement of the landcourt was issued based on the final 2 plans as approved by the Salem Planning Board on April 11,2009 [Site Plan Review Decision]. Those plans are: a. "Site Development Permit Plan of Riverview Place in Salem, Massachusetts," Sheets I through 8, dated January 24,2008 and revised on March 17, 2008,November 12, 2008,December 23,2008, February 19, 2009, and March 26, 2009, prepared by Eastern Land Survey Associates, Inc., Peabody, MA; b. "Riverview Place, Flint& Mason Street, Salem, Massachusetts," Sheets C1.1, A1.0 through A1.7, A2.I, A2.2, A2.3c, and A2.4b. c. "Conceptual Landscape Plan." Sheets L-1 and L-2, dated March 18, 2009, prepared by Huntress Associates, Inc., Andover, MA; d. "Traffic Signing and Pavement Marking Plan," dated March 2009, prepared by AECOM, Concord MA; and e. "Riverview Place, Salem, MA, Site Lighting with Wall Fixtures," dated March 25, 2009, prepared by Peter Beane. 4. The 2009 plans have been modified by the plans submitted with the February 26, 2014 petition to the Board of Appeals, as noted in #3, below. 5. Construction of parking areas and portions of the buildings within the 50 foot residential buffer required b'v Section 8.4.13 of the Ordinance shall be permitted in • accordance with the submitted plans entitled"Symes Riverway" dated March 18, 2014 by O'Sullivan Architects Inc. 6. The petition for amendment of the November 2, 2007 Decision requested that additional encroachment on the 50 foot residential buffer be allowed, to accommodate the reconfiguration of the north-west parking area and minor relocation of die buildings, all as shown on the "Symes Rivenvay" plan as referenced above. 7. The elevation change between the closest residential abutters and the proposed parking lot within the buffer zone would aid in reducing the visual impact of the parking lot on the residential abutters. 8. The proposed amendments to the November 2, 2007 Decision are the result of changes to the plan required to bring the proposed plan into compliance with the new 2013 Flood Plain standards, and the requirements of Chapter 91. 9. The October 9, 2007 plans provided 309 parking spaces,including 260 allotted to the residential units (2 spaces per dwelling unit), 12 spaces for Flint Street residents,and 37 spaces allotted to the commercial space. The revised plans, dated March 18, 2014 project provide 282 parking spaces,which includes 260 allotted to the residential units (2 spaces per dwelling unit), 12 spaces for Flint Street residents, and 10 spaces allotted to the commercial space. • 10. At the public hearing, one member of the public spoke in opposition to the petition, Beth Gerard,Ward 6 Councilor, expressed concern regarding the additional encroachment on the 50 foot residential buffer, and one member of the public asked 3 . about the preservation of a right-of-wav for a potential future extension of Commercial Street. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing on Match 19, 2014, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings regarding the proposed modifications: 1. The modifications requested are not contrary to the original variance granted. 2. The parking relief requested will be permitted with the condition that the Zoning Enforcement Officer will determine the number of parking spaces required fox any proposed use of commercial space based on the requirements of Section 5.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. No use of the commercial space will be permitted which requires more than the number of spaces required under said Section 5.1. 3. The findings and all conditions of the original decision remain in effect, except where this approval modifies such conditions. 'the Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearings on August 22, 2007, September 19, 2007, and October 17, 2007, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, made the following findings in their Decision dated November 2, 2007: 4. There are circumstances including soil conditions and use and condition of the • existing buildings which especially affect the Locus but do not affect generally the zoning district in which the Locus is located. The contaminated soil must be remediated prior to redevelopment of the Locus. 5. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner. 6. The proposed development complies with the goals of the NRCC Neighborhood Mixed Use District and the requirements set forth in � 7-21 (a) to achieve these goats, as follows: a. The Locus is being redeveloped for housing and commercial uses b. Public pedestrian access to and along the North River Canal will be provided. c. A public-private partnership to provide enhanced maintenance trees, sidewalks,benches,along the canal will be developed. d. The streetscape along Mason Street will be enhanced. e. The project is designed to enhance solutions to neighborhood traffic, including the granting of an easement to the City of Salem to aflow it to construct an extension of the Commercial Street public roadway across the development site. Further the applicant will work with the City to incorporate reasonable recommendations from the Earth Tech, Inc. traffic study to improve travel along Flint Street. • For these reasons, desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance. 4 • On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearings on August 22, 2007, September 19, 2007, and October 17, 2007 including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimouv, the Zoning Board of Appeals concluded findings in their Decision dated November 2, 2007: 1. To enable the proposed development, the petitioner may vary the following terms of the North River Canal Corridor Zoning District§ 7-21: • minimum lot area per dwelling unit may be reduced to 1440 sf/dwelling unit (from the 3,500 sf/dwelling unit required) Q 7-21 (k)(1), • common building entrances can be used instead of having separate exterior entrances for each unit � 7-21 (e)(2)(a)(3) • a small percentage of two buildings, and a portion of the roadway and parking on the western side of the Locus are within the 50 ft buffer zone, therefore construction may take place in the buffer zone § 7-21 (m)(l)(c). 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 hearings on March 19, 2014,including,but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: . 1. All conditions of the original variance dated November 2, 2007 shall be retained except where this approval modifies such conditions. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed to grant the petitioner's request for Amendments to the Variances granted in the Decision of November 2, 2007, 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 begitutitig any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. • 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to the Planning Board. 5 8. The Petitioner shall place an Affordable Housing Restriction on thirteen (13) of the one hundred and thirty (130) units in the form of a deed rider approved by the City Planner and registered with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. The affordable housing restrictions are to be in accordance with the eligibility criteria for the Commonwealth Department of Housing and Community Development's Subsidized Housing Inventory for the purpose of ensuring that thirteen (13) dwelling units will be restricted as affordable housing for households whose annual incomes are eighty percent (80%) or less of area median income ("low income households") with a sales price affordable to low income households for a period of ninety-nine (99) years from the date of the first occupancy permit. 9. Twelve (12) on site parking spaces are to be reserved for the sole use of Flint Street residents. The proposed mechanism for reserving the spaces is to be submitted and approved by the Department of Planning and Community Development prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. 10. The applicant, upon taking title to the premises,will grant to the City- of Salem and easement to construct an extension of the Commercial Street public roadway across the site in the location shown on the site plan at any time within a ten (10) year period after all necessary approvals for the project become final. upon such construction, such casement shall automatically become a full and permanent easement to use and maintain the easement area as a public way in the City of Salem. Rebecca Curran. Chai— Salem Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED wrrH 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. s .i • s CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL � C 120 W.151 Rti(;I()tiSI'RI-;11'� S.11..}:,W,A'IASSACHUSE;lTS01970:� Ki NIBFRIXYDR[SCO1.L Ticur:978-745-9595 ♦ FAY:978-740-9846 r a MAYOR April 4, 2014 "' r Decision 1 City of Salem Board of Appeals w Petition of ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES GROUP INC requesting a Special Pe miR under Section 3.0 Use Regulations and Section 9.4 Special Permits,to allow use of a portion of the building as a Medical Clinic for a Registered Marijuana Dispensary, at the property located at 50 GROVE STREET (BPD & ECOD Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on February 19, 2014 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, � 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris (Vice Chair), Richard Dionne, Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy, Peter .A. Copelas (Altemate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate) The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit under Section 3.0 Use Regulations and pursuant to Section 9.4 Special iu! Permits of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. • Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped January 28, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit to operate a Registered Marijuana Dispensary in a portion of the building at 50 Grove Street,in the Business Park Development District 2. Attorney George Atkins presented the petition on behalf of the applicant, Alternative Therapies Group Inc. 3. Salem Police Chief Tucker has agreed to be part of the review of the plans and procedures, and to provide additional recommendations. 4. The property includes 86 parking spaces, plus 5 handicap spaces. The anticipated average number of patients is 10-15 patients per hour, and there will be 8-10 employees. Most of the other units in the building are business offices with employees. These uses plus the proposed medical facility would require, under the zoning code, a total of 28 parking spaces. The Moose Lodge is provided with 10 spaces during the business day, and the storage facility is provided 6 spaces for overnight use. During the day, the current average parking l e i g p got usage s approximately one-third of the total mailable parking spaces. The 5 handicap spaces are located near the entrance to the proposed Registered Marijuana Dispensary. 5. The applicant has conducted significant community outreach to neighborhood groups as well as to various City departments. i 6. A Community Benefit rlgreerxient is being negotiated between the applicant and the City. 7. At the public hearing,several residents, including Josh Turiel, Ward 5 Councilor, David Eppley, Ward 4 Councilor, and Beth Gerard Ward 6 Councilor, spoke in support of the petition. The Board also • received several letters in suppi rt of the petition. The Petitioner's application, presentation and public testimony addressed the Criteria as specified under Section 9.4.2 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance as follows: City of Salem Board of Appeals April 4,21114 • Project: 50 Grove Street Page 2 of 4 1. Community needs which are served by the proposal: Over sixty percent of the people in the community voted for the medical marijuana act. At a meeting of the City Council there was support for a Registered Marijuana Dispensary (RMD) expressed by citizens of Salem with serious illnesses of the sort that can benefit from this service. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health defines the "debilitating illnesses" that qualify a patient for access to medical marijuana, and defines the severity of the condition. The dispensary will serve the medical needs of die community. 2. 'Traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading: There are 86 parking spaces plus 5 handicap spaces on site. There would be an average of 10 to 15 patients an hour at the proposed RMD facility. It is estimated that the RMD would have 8 to 10 employees working from 9am to 7pm Monday through Saturday. The Salem Zoning Ordinance requires 1 space plus 2 additional spaces for every professional and 1 space for every 2 employees. 1 to 2 professionals requires 3 to 6 spaces, 6 to 8 employees requires 3 to 4 spaces, for a total of 6 to 10 required parking spaces. In the commercial building at 50 Grove Street there are currently three unoccupied commercial spaces, and the six occupied commercial spaces require a total of 18 spaces. The Moose Lodge is provided 10 spaces during the business day, and the storage facility is provided 6 spaces for overnight use. This means that approximately 1/3" of the available on-site parking spaces are required for the current uses. The 5 handicap spaces are adjacent to the proposed location of the RMD facility. The dispensary will have minimal traffic impact, and there is sufficient parking associated with the site. • 3. Adequacy of utilities and other public services: Prior uses of the building included industrial use. The existing utilities and drainage will be adequate for the proposed medical dispensary use. 4. Neighborhood character. The customers of the facility are people with "debilitating illnesses" as defined by state law. State law also restricts the appearance of the signage, prohibiting it from containing any reference to marijuana or any image of a marijuana plant. The sign would be more in keeping with a typical medical office sign. There will be extensive security both inside and outside the facility, and on the delivery trucks. There will be a higher level of security not only for the building at 50 Grove Street, but for the neighborhood. The petitioner will work with the Salem Police Department on security measures. The proposed use will have no negative impacts on the neighborhood. 5. Potential economic and fiscal impact, including impact on City services, tax base, and employment: The petitioner will be entering into a Community Benefit Agreement with the City, and there will be some employment benefit. There was additional discussion by the Board regarding parking as follows: 1. The Board queried if the applicant would be assigned exclusive parking spaces of the 86 spaces available. The applicant clarified that they would not 2. The Board queried if there was currently an adequate number of parking spaces to meet the needs of the facility's patients. The applicant indicated that it was anticipated to be adequate for the time being,but that they may seek to increase the number in the future. • 3. The Board estimated that with an anticipated 10 to 15 patients an hour visiting the facility, and the anticipated number of employees, the facility might use 20 to 25 of the 86 parking spaces available on- site. City of Salem Board of Appeals April 4,2014 • Project: 50 Grove Street Page 3 of 4 On the basis of the above statements of facts and criteria, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (11dr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, ,'GIs. Harris, and Mr. Duffy), and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit to allow the use of a portion of the building at 50 Grove Street to operate a Registered Marijuana Dispensary, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: SPECIAL CONDITIONS i. Any exterior signage for the Medical Marijuana Facility shall adhere to the requirements of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, as set forth m Section 8.2.6 Signage of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the stgnage shall conform to the requirements of the MA Department of Public Health. The sign will need a sign permit from the Building Department. 2. The applicant shall be required to provide adequate security for all clients arriving and leaving the facility. 3. Security measures and protocols for both on site operations and deliveries shall be reviewed and approved by the Salem Chief of Police prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 4. The Medical Marijuana Facility subject to this Special Permit shall provide the Salem Police Department and the Building Commissioner with the names, phone numbers and email addresses of all management staff and key holders should there be operating problems associated with the establishment. • 5. Landscaping shall conform to the requirements of 105 CMR 725.110 (A) (11), which requires that trees, bushes, and other foliage outside of the RMD do not allow for a person or persons to conceal themselves from sight. 6. Twenty spaces shall be available for use by the employees and patients of the Medical Marijuana Facility during Facility operating hours. At this time, it is acceptable that these spaces not be specifically designated; however, should the Building Commissioner determine that there is increased parking demand on site in the future due to changes of use at 50 Grove Street, the Facility/property owner will designate twenty specific spaces as reserved for use by the Facility. 7. Should the number of handicap accessible spaces available for use by patients of the Facility be deemed inadequate by the Building Commissioner at any time, the number of accessible spaces so designated shall be increased by the Facility and property owner of 50 Grove Street to reflect the demand as determined by the Building Commissioner. 8. The hours of operation of the Medical Marijuana Facility shall be limited to between the hours of 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday. 9. This Special Permit shall have a term limited to the duration of the applicant's control of the premises at 50 Grove Street as a Medical Marijuana Facility. This Special Permit is not transferrable to other entities,other locations, or other uses. 10. No cultivation of marijuana shall be permitted on the premises. 11. The facility is required to have an approved Community Host Agreement prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 12. Copies of all required licenses and permits issued to the applicant by the Commotnvealth of • Massachusetts and any of its agencies for the Facility shall be provided to the Board of Appeals and Building Commissioner prior the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. _y City of Salem Board of Appeals Project:50 Grove Street Page 4 of 4 13. This Special Permit shall apply sole1v to Medical Marijuana and not to sale of recreational marijuana on the premises. 14. The Medical Marijuana Facility shall be required to remove all material, equipment and other paraphernalia prior to the Facility surrendering its state issued licenses or permits; or within six months of ceasing operations; whichever comes first. PLUS ST.FINDARD CONDITIONS: 15. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues,ordinances,codes and regulations. 16. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 17. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 18. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction 19. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 20. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 21. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 22. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any other 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 WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made purruant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts Genera!Laws Chapter 40A,and.Thall be filed within 20 da)r of filing of this decision in the offue of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts Geneml Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit,granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearirse The certificate of the 06i Clerk has been filed with the.Essex South Regisiey of Deeds. • E - \ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KImInE:RLEYDRISCOLL TELL:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-984*4 APR 15 P r 39 MAYOR FILE # April 15, 2014 CITY CLERK,SALEM, MASS. Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of MICHELE CONWAY for an administrative appeal of a decision of the Building Commissioner regarding agricultural use of the property, for the property at 69 ORCHARD ST (112 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 19, 2014 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,Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos (alternate). The Petitioner seeks an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector, and petitions the Board to find that the keeping of chickens on her property does not constitute an.agricultural use. Statements of fact: • 1. Michele Conway, petitioner, and Jim Adams, abutter at 5 Manning Street, presented the petition for the property at 69 Orchard Street (R2—Residential Two Family Zone). 2. In the petition, date-stamped February 25, 2014, the Petitioner requests an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector, and petitions the Board to allow the keeping of chickens on their property, by finding that the keeping of chickens in this instance does not constitute an agricultural use. 3. The requested relief,if granted,would allow the Petitioner to keep chickens on their property. 4. The petitioner does not sell eggs laid by the chickens. 5. At the public hearing for this petition,27 residents -including Councilor Josh Tutiel, Councilor David Eppley, and Councilor Beth Gerard - spoke in support of the Board granting the appeal, and two (2) residents spoke in opposition to the appeal. In addition, the Board received 10 letters in support of granting the appeal, including a letter from Councilor-at-Large William H. Legault, and a petition in support of granting the appeal which was signed by 14 residents. 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 narrative, the Petitioner's presentation, and public testimony,makes the following findings: 1. The chickens at 69 Orchard Street are being kept as pets. The eggs are not sold, and therefore cannot be considered an agricultural use, as defined by Chapter 128, Section IA. 2. The keeping of chickens has become customary. 3. The keeping of chickens is currently vaguely addressed in Salem's Zoning Ordinance. The Salem City Council and the Board of Health should establish an ordinance that clearly addresses and regulates the • keeping of chickens. 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: City of Salem Board of Appeals April 15,2014 Project: 69 Orchard Street • Page 2 of 2 1. An agricultural use does not exist and the order of the Building Commissioner to cease the use is therefore odertumed. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos) and one (1) opposed (Mr. Duffy), to grant the petitioner's request to Appeal the Decision of the Building Commissioner. 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 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 bay been filed wilh the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS fI BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACH jj 1j0WT5 P 2: 3q KIMBERLEYDRISCOLL TET.E:978-745-9595 ♦ Fnx:978-740-9 MAYOR FILE 0 CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. April 15, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of ROBERT WILLWERTH requesting a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements, specifically from the maximum allowed height of buildings, and a Special Permit under Section 3.3 Nonconforming Uses and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one non-conforming use to another, and to change a non-conforming structure, to allow the conversion of the property to residential use, at the property located at 107 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Rl Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on February 19, 2014 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 5 11. The hearing was closed on March 19, 2014 with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair),Mr. Dionne,Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit from Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning • Ordinance, as well as two Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Fequirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped January 28, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit to change from one non-conforming use to another, to allow the conversion of the property from a medical office to eight (8) residential units; and to change an existing non-conforming structure, to allow the addition of dormers and decks on the second and third floor over a portion of the existing first-floor porch. 2. After receipt of the application, Mr. Tom St. Pierre, Zoning Enforcement Officer, found that the proposed dormers created a functional third story, where only 2.5 stories is permitted in an Rl Zoning District, and thus required a Variance from the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories. The proposed building does not exceed the 35-foot maximum height of buildings in feet requirement. 3. Attorney Scott Grover presented the petition on the applicant's behalf for the property at 107 Highland Avenue. 4. The existing site is largely paved, and provides 27 parking spaces. The application proposed reducing this to 16 spaces, and to increase landscaping on the site. Over 15,000 square feet of the existing 17,000 square foot site is impervious. The proposed reduction in parking would result in a reduction of the impervious area. 5. The medical practice had 5 doctors, 22 full and part-time employees and an average of 60 patient • visits per day. The proposed eight (8) residential units will be occupied by one to two people per unit, and will result in fewer vehicular trips in and out of the site. 6. Prior to the March 19, 2014 public hearing, the applicant submitted to the Board a revised site plan showing 16 parking spaces, and also provided a financial analysis indicating that the redevelopment of the property was only financially feasible with the creation of a minimum of 8 residential units. City of Salem Board of Appeals April 15,2014 • Project: 107 Highland Avenue Page 2 of 3 7. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to construct a dormer to accommodate residential units on the third floor, construction of rear decks on the second and third floors, and use of the property for eight (8) residential units. 8. At the public hearing, one abutter spoke in non-opposition to the application, and the applicant submitted a petition in support of the application, signed by six neighbors at five different addresses. 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 — Special Permit: to allow a change from one non-conforming use to another, and to allow a change to an existing non-conforming structure. i. The proposed changes and alterations shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood as there will be less traffic to and from the site, and fewer parking spaces will be required than with the previous use. 2. The utilities and public services to the building are adequate. 3. The proposed changes would benefit the City's tax base. Findings —Variance from the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories. • 1. The large size of the building, the arrangement of the lot, and the property's location in a residential zone as well as on a main commercial corridor creates a unique condition in which literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship. It would not be economically feasible to convert this building to less than 8 residential units, which can only be accommodated by allowing the third story. 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 five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Duffy in favor) and none (o) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit to allow a change from one non-conforming use to another and to allow a change to an existing non-conforming structure, and to grant the requested Variance to allow the renovation and expansion of an existing nonconforming structure to allow the building to be three (3) stories in height, 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. City of Salem Board of Appeals April 15,2014 Project: 107 Highland Avenue • Page 3 of 3 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 9. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of tis 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. 0e� C� / 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 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 Pemit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • r _ _ _. - r� go0f yev� - .94�sa 1S CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS to } BOARD OF APPEAL --- 120 W:ASHINGI'ON S'IRG['I' � S_U.GbL,ilL\StiA(;Ii USP;I"1'S 01970 Kimm .evDiuscoi.t. Tt;:i.e::978-745-9595 F,tx:978-740-9846 NIAvoR MEETING NOTICE 1`ou am hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board of-Appeals will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on liledne dqy,April to', 2014 at 630 p.m. at City HallAnnex, RM 313, 120 lVashington St., Salem,A14 Rebecca Curran,Chair 2 � o � c � a MEETING AGENDA m 9 I. ROLL CALL v'F II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3 ➢ March 19, 2014 meeting cn1� III. REGULAR AGENDA iProject: Continuation of the 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,iminnmum lot frontage, and minimum lot width requirements. Applicant: ANDREW PERKINS Location: 15 CHERRY HILL AVENUE and 21 VALLEY STREET (R1 Zoning District) Project: Continuation of the Petition requesting Variances under Section 3.3.4 Variance Re9 uind of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an extension&structural change to an existing non- conforming structure for the addition of a second floor and front and rear exterior stairways that increase the existing encroachment on the required minimum depths of the front and rear yards, to the existing single-story building. Applicant: DAVID FRANK Location: 77 BEAVER ST (112 Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Fcmily Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change to an existing non- conforming residential structure,in order to construct a 3-season room on a portion of an existing deck. Applicant-. FOTINI MANOLAKOS Location: 1 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (RI Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two Eamily Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an expansion of an existing non- conforming Structure,in order to expand an existing 1 V2 story dwelling to a full two-story dwelling,over the existing footprint. Applicant: DANIEL R. HALL Location: 12 OAKVIEW AVE Fr (R14onin Distr'ct Minis notice lyostec� an "Oft; 'al Bulletin Board City HaA Salem, Mass. on 72t` 19 d_,J 1� at I 'AS ph in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, w_.-.:-___ •w .� City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for April 16,2014 Meeting Page 2 of 2 Project: Petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Noncon/orming User of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one non-conforning use to another to allow the operation of a nail salon on the lower level of the existing single-family residence, and a Variance from the requirements of Section 5.15 Off Street Parking—Design of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the required minimum width of a two-way drive, to allow the drive to be narrower than the required minimum width of twenty (20) feet. Applicant: THANG TRAN Location: 284 HIGHLAND AVENUE (B2 Zoning District) Petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 9.4 Spetzal Permits and Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Re.ridential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the addition of a solarium onto the rear of the existing non-conforming single family residence. Applicant: JENNIFER FIRTH Location: 3 CARPENTER STREET (112 Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residenlial Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the addition of a second-story master bedroom, shed dormer, cellar entry extension,and storage shed to an existing non- conforming single-family residence. Applicant: LINDLEY HANSON Location: 21 CARLTON STREET (112 Zoning District) . IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS { 'o' BOARD OF APPEAL • aka 120 WASIiING'1'ON STREET 1 SALEM,NIASSACI-fUSL 1T5 01970 KIMBERLEYDRiscoLL TELL:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Dana Menon, Staff Planner DATE: April 9, 2014 RE: Meeting Agenda for April 16, 2014 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Meeting Minutes from 3/19/2014 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 3/19/2014 meeting. 1. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. Continuation of the hearing on the petition of ANDREW PERKINS requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table ofDimensiom d 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 and 21 VALLEY STREET (111 Zoning District). The petitioner seeks to divide an existing lot with frontage on both Valley Street and Cherry Hill Avenue into two lots, one with frontage on Valley St,and one with frontage on Cherry Hill Ave. In order to do this, the applicant must receive Variances from the minimum requirements for lot area, frontage,width, and lot area per dwelling unit. See the table below: 'd2 E ! _` ! j :.-, i,t"_ , ai Dunensional omnflydtttauee Existing It'raposed � l?#opogetll Aegmceritents Itq"tu� tt Standard 4�u�efgk `lla' Ghei yte lot1 gape Setots Minimum lot area 15,000 sf 13,340 sf 6,659 sf 6,681 sf Minimum lot frontage 100 ft 50 ft on 50 ft 50 ft each side . Minimum lot width 100 ft 100 ft 50 ft 50 ft Minimum lot area per dwelling unit 15,000 sf 13,340 sf 6,659 sf 6,681 sf City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—April 16,2014 . Page 2 of 5 If the petition is approved, the petitioner proposes to construct a second house on the proposed Cherry Hill Ave lot. At the previous meeting, the applicant requested to continue to the next meeting in order to work with the neighbors regarding their concerns, and to better articulate a hardship for the Board. To grant a variance, the Board must make the following findings: 1. Owing to conditions especially affecting such parcel or such building but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located,a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or, otherwise, to the appellant 2. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good 3. Desirable relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Ordinance 2. Continuation of the hearing on the petition of DAVID FRANK requesting Variances under Section 3.3.4 Variance Required of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an extension & structural change to an existing non-conforming structure for the addition of a second floor and front and rear exterior stairways that increase the existing encroachment on the required minimum depths of the front and rear yards,to the existing single-story building, located on the property at 77 BEAVER ST (112 Zoning District). The petitioner proposes to convert the existing property to a single family residential use. The property is currently in use as a garage for storage of construction materials and for parking commercial vehicles,as allowed in a Special Permit issued by the Board of Appeals in 2004 (attached under Attachment B). At the previous meeting, the applicant requested to continue the hearing to the next meeting,in order to work with the abutters regarding their concerns about privacy and lighting,and to address the Board's questions about the need to locate the entrance stairway along the back of the budding,where it would increase the encroachment on the required rear setback. To grant a variance,the Board must make the following findings: 1. Owing to conditions especially affecting such parcel or such building but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or,otherwise,to the appellant 2. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good 3. Desirable relief may be anted without nullifyingor substantiall atin� Y dero g g from the intent or purpose of the Ordinance 3. Petition of FOTINI MANOLAKOS requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change to an existing non-conforming residential structure,in order to construct a 3-season room on a portion of an existing deck, for the property located at 1 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (RI Zoning District). The petitioner is proposing to build a 19x14 3-season room on a portion of the existing deck. The Plot Plan submitted notes the deck as "proposed"as the plan is from a prior project,however,please note that the deck has been fully constructed (as shown in the attached photos), and the 3-season room is proposed for the area of the deck that is highlighted in yellow. 2 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—April 16, 2014 Page 3 of 5 The existing building is non-conforming, so the applicant is applying for a Special Permit to allow a change to an existing nonconforming residential structure. To grant a Special Permit,the Board must make the following findings: That the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the City or the neighborhood,in view of the particular characteristics of the site,and of the proposal in relation to that site. The determination shall include consideration of each of the following: a) Community needs which are served by the proposal; b) Traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading; c) Adequacy of utilities and other public services; d) Neighborhood character; e) Impacts on the natural environment including view;and f) Potential economic and fiscal impact,including impact on City services, tax base, and employment. 4. Petition of DANIEL R. HALL requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an expansion of an existing non-conforming structure, in order to expand an existing 1 1/2 story dwelling to a full two-story dwelling,over the existing footprint,for the property located at 12 OAKVIEW AVENUE (R1 Zoning District). The applicant is proposing to expand their existing 1 1/2 story dwelling to a full 2 stories, over the existing footprint. The existing building is an existing non-conforming residential structure as it does not meet the Minimum Lot Area,Minimum Lot Width,or Minimum Side Yard Setback requirements for the R1 district. The applicant is seeking a Special Permit to expand an existing non-conforming residential structure. To grant a Special Permit, the Board must make the following findings: That the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the City or the neighborhood,in view of the particular characteristics of the site, and of the proposal in relation to that site. The determination shall include consideration of each of the following: a) Community needs which are served by the proposal; b) Traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading; c) Adequacy of utilities and other public services; d) Neighborhood character; e) Impacts on the natural environment including view;and Potential economic and fiscal impact,including impact on City services,tax base,and employment. 5. Petition of THANG TRAN requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one non-conforming use to another to allow the operation of a nail salon on the lower level of the existing single-family residence, and a Variance from the requirements of Section 5.1.5 Off-Street Parldng—Design of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the required minimum width of a two-way drive,to allow the drive to be narrower than the required minimum width of twenty (20) feet, for the property located at 284 HIGHLAND AVENUE (132 Zoning District). The applicant wishes to open a nail salon in the walk-out basement of the existing single-family residence. The . existing residence is a non-conforming use in a B2 district, so the applicant is seeking a special permit to change from one non-conforming use to another—a single-family residence with a personal service establishment. To grant a Special Permit, the Board must make the following findings: 3 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—April 16,2014 Page 4 of 5 That the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the City or the neighborhood,in view of the particular characteristics of the site,and of the proposal in relation to that site. The determination shall include consideration of each of the following: a) Community needs which are served by the proposal; b) Traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading; c) Adequacy of utilities and other public services; d) Neighborhood character; e) Impacts on the natural environment including view;and 0 Potential economic and fiscal impact,including impact on City services, tax base, and employment. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to locate the parking for the nail salon at the back of the house,as die entrance to the walk-out basement is at the back of the house, and parking in the front yard would create an unsafe condition with cars backing onto Highland Avenue. The Section 5.1.5 Design of the Off-Street Parking regulations requires that the minimum width of a two-way entrance and exit drive shall be 20 feet. The applicant only has a width of 13 feet available for the entrance drive (at the narrowest point),and so is seeking a Variance from the requirement of Section 5.1.5 to allow the entrance/exit drive to be 13 feet wide. To grant a variance, the Board must make the following findings: 1. Owing to conditions especially affecting such parcel or such building but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance would involve substantial hardship,financial or, otherwise, to the appellant 2. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good 3. Desirable relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Ordinance 6. Petition of JENNIFER FIRTH requesting a Special Permit under Section 9.4 Special Pennits and Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the addition of a solarium onto the rear of the existing non-conforming single family residence, for the property located at 3 CARPENTER STREET (112 Zoning District). The applicant is proposing to construct a solarium on the rear of the existing single family residence. The existing structure is non-conforming as it encroaches on the minimum required rear yard setback. The zoning code requires a minimum rear yard setback of 30 feet in an R2 district. The existing house falls at 10 feet from the rear lot line. The proposed solarium would further reduce this to 9 feet. The applicant is seeking a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming... Residential Structures to allow an extension to an existing nonconforming residential structure. 7. Petition of LINDLEY HANSON requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the addition of a second-story master bedroom, shed dormer, cellar entry extension, and storage shed to an existing non-conforming single-family residence, for the property located at 21 CARLTON STREET (112 Zoning District). The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the existing non-conforming residential structure. The existing structure encroaches on the minimum required side yard setback and exceeds the maximum percentage . lot coverage by all buildings. The proposed addition would increase these existing nonconformities—see the table below: 4 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—April 16,2014 Page S of 5 '��imettsit_��e�tuletaetir� -Z Minimum width of side yard 10 7 6'-6" Maximum lot coverage by all buildings 35% 39% 47% As the existing structure is nonconforming,the applicant is seeking a Special Permit to extend an existing Non- conforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structure. To grant a Special Permit, the Board must make the following findings: That the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the City or the neighborhood,in view of the particular characteristics of the site, and of the proposal in relation to that site. The determination shall include consideration of each of the following: a) Community needs which are served by the proposal; b) Traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading; c) Adequacy of utilities and other public services; d) Neighborhood character; e) Impacts on the natural environment including view;and f) Potential economic and fiscal impact,including impact on City services,tax base,and employment. II.Attachments 1. Guide to findings for Special Permits and Variances 5 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date ��- Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail DRUE � A) ' 8/ 8q(XL F y2.7- 7y ,/-© / z � hWql�� zf:y_A16_fie l7 c/, vk/h �p II CCA40CA tr11 I 7 JW104.-d COS- 1 -i T Lit G�,•e C �-� I i �- d 4 (Cv�Y� 14- �- .�� �`�Y-7�C5-vo 67 GL YJoy�e�C�L��� ".L �a;ne � ncl�� S Sx���c�S�►���vc 47�-�f�s-�I�gY Page of �eONDITq,9�. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRIscoLL TF,,LE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of FOTINI MANOLAKOS requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change to an existing non-conforming residential structure, in order to construct a 3-season room on a portion of an existing deck, for the property located at 1 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (RI Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, APR 16, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 4/2/2104 & 4/9/2014 v���ONDITq,9O's CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL �CM1N_8 Do . 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MA$$AGHU$1>PCS 01970 KI1,-IBE2LEY DRISCOLL TEES:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of DANIEL R. HALL requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an expansion of an existing non-conforming structure, in order to expand an existing 1 '/z story dwelling to a full two-story dwelling, over the existing footprint, for the property located at 12 OAKVIEW AVENUE (RI Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, APR 16, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 4/2/2104 & 4/9/2014 ���CofJDITq,9�'e. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON SIREET 4 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ICMar:IU.EYDiuscou, TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of THANG TRAN requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one non- conforming use to another to allow the operation of a nail salon on the lower level of the existing single- family residence, and a Variance from the requirements of Section 5.1.5 Off-Street Parking—Design of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the required minimum width of a two-way drive, to allow the drive to be narrower than the required minimum width of twenty (20) feet, for the property located at 284 HIGHLAND AVENUE (132 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, APR 16, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 4/2/2104 &4/9/2014 i CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASI-IINGTON STREET 1 SALFM,NIASSACI-IUSE"1TS 01970 KMOERLEY DRISCOLL TF1aa:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 NIAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JENNIFER FIRTH requesting a Special Permit under Section 9.4 Special Permits and Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two- Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the addition of a solarium onto the rear of the existing non-conforming single family residence, for the property located at 3 CARPENTER 0 STREET (R2 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, APR 16, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 4/2/2104 & 4/9/2014 s Ov��C09�O�s. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGfON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACI-USETTS 01970 Kip,imia, rDRISCOLL TFLE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 I\LWOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 978-619-5685 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of LINDLEY HANSON requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the addition of a second-story master bedroom, shed dormer, cellar entry extension, and storage shed to an existing non-conforming single-family residence, for the property . located at 21 CARLTON STREET (R2 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, APR 16, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 4/2/2104 & 4/9/2014 City of Salem Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday,April 16,2014 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA') was held on Wednesday,April 16,2014 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.•32p.m. xG�a� *asah�xv � Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Richard Dionne,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy and Peter A. Copelas (Alternate).Also present were Thomas St.Pierre,Building Commissioner,and Dana Menon,Staff Planner. Project: Continuation of the 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 and 21 VALLEY STREET (R1 Zoning District) Documents &Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped February 25, 2014 and accompanying materials ➢ Plot Plan dated February 28,2014 prepared by Landmark Engineering&Surveying,Inc. ➢ Letter from Atty. Scott M. Grover to Rebecca Curran,Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals, dated April 14,2014,requesting a modification to the petition of Andrew Perkins. *Note that the letter erroneously re- fers to the abutters (Richard and Nancy Pelletier) as residing at 13 Cherry Hill Avenue. The Pelletiers reside at 17 Cherry Hill Avenue. Attorney Scott Grover presents on behalf of the applicant. Atty. Grover provides a review of the application presented at the previous meeting. The applicant has now submitted a request to modify the application to the Board,per the letter submitted.[dated April 14,2014]. At the previous meeting, the abutters at 17 Cherry Hill Avenue expressed concern over the density and the proximity of the proposed house to their property. The applicant has now reached an agreement with the owners of 17 Cherry Hill Avenue to convey the property (15 Cherry Hill Ave) to the owners of 17 Cherry Hill Avenue. Now, the only relief needed is for 21 Valley Street,as conveying the 15 Cherry Hill Avenue lot to the abutters will reduce the size of the lot at 21 Valley Street. The abutters'lot to which 15 Cherry Hill Ave will be conveyed to,will make that lot (17 Cherry Hill Ave) more conforming. Ms. Curran states that she previously had difficulty finding a hardship, and the applicant is still seeking a Variance. Atty. Grover reiterates his argument that it's an irregularly shaped lot. For the modified application,we could include a condition in the Decision that the lot at 15 Cherry Hill Ave would be conveyed to the owners of 13 Cherry Hill Ave,and combined with that lot, such that the nonconformity of that piece of land would be reduced. Nancy Pelletier and Richard Pelletier of 17 Cherry Hill Avenue state that they'd appreciate the Board's consideration to allow this petition,so that they can purchase the lot [15 Cherry Hill Avenue]. Andrew Perkins, 21 Valley Street, applicant,states that he's selling the lot at the assessed value—he's not trying to make a profit,he's just trying to offset the costs of renovating the existing house. David Eppley,Ward 4 Councilor expresses his support of the modified petition. Ms. Curran—so you'd be increasing the lot size of 15/17 Cherry Hill Avenue,making that lot almost conforming. 1of10 1 -r Mr.Dionne states that he thinks it works,it helps the neighbor, and it's not detrimental to the neighborhood Ms. Curran inquires about the hardship. Mr. Watkins replies that the hardship is the irregularity of the parcel. The Board has granted a Variance on that hardship before. He agrees with Mr. Dionne that it's not detrimental to the public good or the neighbors/neighborhood, and it doesn't derogate from the intent of the ordinance. Ms. Curran agrees that there's not substantial detriment if it's combined in a non-buildable lot. Arty. Grover states that a condition could be added specifying that 15 Cherry Hill Ave would be combined in a non- buildable lot. Mr. Watkins asks if the plan is to keep the lot [15 Cherry Hill Avenue] in open land. Ms. Pelletier responds that it is. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the application for a Variance for the property located at 21 Valley Street,with 3 standard conditions and an additional condition that the lot at 15 Cherry Hill Ave shall be combined with 17 Cherry Hill Avenue to be a non-buildable lot. The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr.Watkins,Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne,Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy)—and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. t xkb ° '.�?"`Y��Ps9t �`a �a � � � ' w ,"��` Yr6, ..i,. 1¢i��.; ,•rwrr, �,' v� 3w'-ram L 1 is' t �t..�'or 0huu.�Y�USS r�ssuila g.�" us i��Yul tw"..G!{lmklSk dH _ m«ar,w .'kxdX" ut,,:`,:. Project: Continuation of the Petition requesting Variances under Section 3.3.4 Variance Required of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an extension& structural change to an existing non- conforming structure for the addition of a second floor and front and rear exterior stairways that increase the existing encroachment on the required minimum depths of the front and rear yards, to the existing single-story building. Applicant: DAVID FRANK Location: 77 BEAVER ST (112 Zoning District) Documents&Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped February 25,2014 and accompanying materials,including:plan set"S&W Realty Trust Addition Project" dated 03/18/2014,prepared by R.Rumpf &Associates, Inc;plan"Zoning Board of Appeals Plan,77 Beaver Street Salem,property of David Frank" dated January 27, 2014,prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation. Attorney Scott Grover presents on behalf of David Frank, the applicant. Atty. Grover reviews the petition as presented at the previous Board of Appeals meeting. At the previous hearing,abutters expressed their concerns about privacy issues. To address these concerns,Mr. Frank has agreed to eliminate the left-hand window on the Safford Street side (west side,at bedroom 3) of the building, to provide more privacy to the abutter directly across Safford Street. Mr. Frank would expand the window on the Beaver.Street side slightly to let more light in,but eliminate the left-hand window on the west elevation of the submitted drawings. The other discussion was whether 2 forms of egress were required. The Building Inspector believes that two forms of egress are required. If two stairs are required, the area currently shown on the parking lot side would be the second egress. Mr. Watkins asks if the first floor would remain a garage. Arty. Grover affirms that it will be garage and storage space. Mr.Watkins mentions the Froncki's concerns about the exterior lighting,as expressed at the previous meeting. Atty. Grover replies that it won't really be a concern. It would be blocked by other buildings. Sara Lobao, 148 Boston Street—her property is a four-family home that abuts this property. She still has concerns about privacy, specifically regarding the stairs on the side of the home,which is in view of her tenants. She'd prefer to see the stairs put in a different location. 2 of 10 Jane Froncki, 5 Safford Street states that with the change to the window, she has no problem with the petition. Ms. Curran clarifies that the applicant is proposing to flip the whole layout of the stairs and the interior building plans. Atty. Grover concurs. Mr. St. Pierre asks if there is a second set of stairs. Arty. Grover affirms that there will be a second set of stairs as indicated on the new plans, toward the parking area. If they put the second set of stairs on Beaver Street it would be closer to the lot fine, making more of a nonconformity. David Frank,owner of 77 Beaver Street,adds that he has just spoken with the abutter on Safford St regarding the location of the stairs. Mr. Frank proposes to enclose those stairs,with proper lighting and ventilation, so Ms. Lobao's tenants wouldn't see people on those stairs. Or you could move the stairs around back(on Beaver St). Ms. Curran states that if the stairs are on the front, the stairs would just be the minimal width,but the main entrance would then be on the front of the house,which is more typical. Ms. Curran asks if the area near the proposed stairs is currently paved or green space. Mr. Frank responds that it's all paved. The Board discusses including a requirement to reduce the paved area on the lot,and increasing the green space to make it more in keeping with a residential use. Ms. Curran states that she thinks the closed-in stairs would look too bulky. Mr. St. Pierre adds that it would be difficult to build and have it look good. Ms. Curran and Mr. St.Pierre discuss the minimum size of a stairway. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that 4 feet is the typical Y minimum stairway size, and that there would be no issues with having the stairs one foot off of the property line adjacent to a public street,should the stairs be moved to the Beaver Street side. Motion and Vote: Mr.Duffy makes a motion to approve the application for Variances,with 7 standard conditions and the following three (3) special conditions: the entry stair location will be moved from the south elevation to the north elevation,on Beaver Street,that the window on the west elevation associated with bedroom 3 will be removed, and that in keeping with a residential use of the house, the green space would be extended along the south elevation of the house to the property line. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr.Watkins,Ms. Curran,Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy)—and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Discussion: Ms. Froncki expresses concern about the location of the stairway on the Beaver Street side,relative to her house. She is reassured that the stairs will not be directly across from her bedroom. Ms. Froncki shows photos of the site, and reiterates that the proposed stairs would be across from her bedroom. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that stairs are also proposed at the garage end of the house. Those stairs would be the ones primarily used,not the ones on Beaver Street. Ms. Curran describes the area to be made into green space—the green space will be expanded to extend along the south side of the building. Mr. Duffy states that this is an unusual building for this neighborhood,being a garage/commercial space. There hasn't been much demand for use of that building,which is a financial hardship to the applicant. There are some attributes unique to that building,which don't pertain to the other buildings in the neighborhood. Going from a commercial use to a residential use is more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Going to a more conforming use of the neighborhood, this can be granted without derogating from the intent of the ordinance. w1�wmg '• rv�.. '?T 'a, a ✓Kw ""R"i tvf t�tH€ e rrnm ajq T m11, ".+,. f,n ° wsv � .{y S, «„ittw ,,N w wa. wG �w ��,3 � 4 3V, n.ww.iituar t`�=sa>....IwS ,.. .:#¢.utv:..a£...�.x,.��aw...k,.-"sv 3 v az u.z..,u.wra.nA,l w `uwa LM�, n .'a.....' P "v, us,.,ael3k:i,.+w Project: Petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two- Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change to an existing non-conforming residential structure,in order to construct a 3-season room on a 00 portion of an existing deck. 3 of 10 Applicant: FOTINI MANOLAKOS Location: 1 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (Rl Zoning District) Documents&Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped Match 25,2014 and accompanying materials Ms. Founi Manolakos, owner of the property,presents the petition. They are proposing to build a 3-season room. This room is to be built on a section of an existing front deck that was added in 2012. The purpose of this enclosure is so that they can enjoy more time with their grandchildren during the winters. There is already parking on the site, and the traffic would not be affected—there are already many vehicles that travel on the road on the way to the park. The existing utilities are adequate,and no additional drainage is needed. The style of the proposed addition would be in keeping with the existing structure and the neighborhood. These proposed changes would increase the tax base for the City of Salem. Ms. Curran clarifies that the applicant is proposing to build the room on an existing portion of the deck, so it won't be coming out any further than the existing deck. Ms. Manolakos confirms this. Ms. Curran further clarifies that the proposal will not make the structure any more non-conforming. Mr. Copelas,Mr. St. Pierre and Ms. Manolakos discuss the discrepancy in the proposed room dimensions as noted on the application and the plan (12'xM4 versus the dimensions as noted on the elevations and framing sketches (12'x20') It is clarified that the contractor erroneously noted a width of 20 feet. That is incorrect, the proposed room is 12'xl4'. Mr. Copelas notes that there is an existing rooftop deck on the upper part of the deck,and asks the applicant to clarify the relationship of the addition to the upper rooftop deck. Ms. Manolakos responds that the addition will go no higher than the existing floor of the rooftop (top) deck. The railings of the top deck will be visible above the proposed addition. Mr. Watkins and Ms. Manolakos discuss the siding materials. Mr.Watkins notes that the elevation sketches indicate that the addition will be sided with shingles. Ms.Manolakos states that the sketch is incorrect; the siding will be in keeping with the rest of the house. Ms. Curran open'the public comment period, and there is no comment. Ms. Curran closes the public comment period Ms. Curran&Ms. Manolakos discuss the height of the roof of the proposed addition. Mr. Copelas confirms with Ms. Manolakos that she won't extend the top deck onto the roof of the addition. Mr. St. Pierre states that any ex- pansion to the deck would require another petition to the Board. Mr. Watkins states that he believes that it is a good proposal, there is nothing wrong with it. Traffic flow and safety are fine, the utilities are there,it's in keeping with the neighborhood there,and it's a positive impact on the City for additional tax revenue. It's overall a good proposal, and he sees no reason not to grant it. Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve the application for a Special Permit,with 8 standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr.Watkins,Ms. Curran,Mr.Dionne,Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy)—and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. jb"Y'.7 ,. t[ `."C, 3 ' li' .i[swsY u t[ ; A9�iiw:wN. "'° .".e JlW::r ' wa+*sR� E*:�W;;° ; :'Y.9+ w+a 3 Project: Petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an expansion of an existing non-conforming structure, in order to expand an existing 1 1/2 story dwelling to a full two-story dwelling,over the existing footprint. Applicant: DANIEL R. HALL Location: 12 OAK-VIEW AVENUE (Rl Zoning District) 4 of 10 Documents &Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped March 24,2014 and accompanying materials,including plans entitled"Residence for Daniel&Jessica Hall, 12 Oakview Ave Salem,MA 01970" dated 03/21/14,prepared by Richard W Griffin,Registered Architect. Mr.Watkins makes a statement that he has submitted a conflict of interest form to the City, as he knows the applicant through the applicant's abutter,but he is still able to vote on this in an unbiased manner. Mr. Richard Griffin,architect,presents the petition on behalf of the petitioner,Mr. Daniel Hall. Mr. Griffin describes the property and the neighborhood: it's located in a residential neighborhood,the home was built in the 1950s by Mr. Hall's grandfather. Dan and his wife Jessica have a daughter and will soon have another child in September,so they need to expand their living space. They currently have 2 bedrooms on the second half-floor,and the expansion to a full second floor would allow them to have 3 bedrooms. The proposed addition would be in traditional materials. They're not expanding the footprint. They are required to get a Special Permit because the setback on one side is only five feet- that side abuts a neighbor's driveway. They are proposing to increase the height of the house by 9 feet. There would be 3 bedrooms and 2 baths upstairs. Ms. Curran and Mi. Griffin discuss that the proposal is to turn a cape into a colonial. Ms. Curran asks if the only change is the height. Mr. Griffin clarifies that there is no change to the footprint of the house. There is an existing rear porch on the first floor that the second floor would extend over,and the height would increase by 9 feet. The house is currently shingle,and would be changed to clapboard. Mr. Copelas states that it seems that this would make the home have greater bulk than the homes on either side of it, and shows a Google"street view"of the neighborhood on his iPad. Mr. Griffin concedes that there would be a little bit more bulk,as there is a bit more height there. Mr. Hall (the applicant) adds that there are colonial-style homes on the opposite side of the street. In response to questions by the Board,Mr. Griffin adds that the current structure is 1.5 stories high,approximately 32'x25'and about 1,050 square feet now. The proposal would bring it up to about 1,400 square feet total. Ms. Curran opens the public comment period, no comment is heard Ms. Curran closes the public comment period Ms. Curran inquires if all the lots in the neighborhood about the same size. Mr. Hall replies that many are,but the one diagonally in back of their property is quite a bit bigger. Mr. Griffin states that Mr. Hall has met with the neighbors. Mr. Hall adds that they're all happy we're going to stay there and raise our family there. Mr. Duffy states that there doesn't appear to be any adverse effects that would outweigh the beneficial impacts of this project as proposed. Community needs are being met,with a family seeking to stay here. There is no negative impact on traffic flow or safety,utilities are there. Having taken a quick view of the street and abutting properties,it does seem to be a somewhat larger building,but it's still a single family building, and not much of a difference. No natural environment or view problems—there are no abutters here to speak against the application. The financial impacts seem to be positive. Motion and Vote: Mr.Duffy makes a motion to approve the application for a Special Permit,with 8 standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr.Watkins,Ms. Curran,Mr.Dionne,Mr. Copelas and Mr.Duffy) —and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. a, ki ,._ - �� � k.-. 'zan. .¢sd u t� - ;,.� ,...,l;x�15 .",5�.'i£.-0 IVIYA- 111 u. .-,ftiwe Is Project: Petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one non-conforming use to another to allow the 5of10 operation of a nail salon on the lower level of the existing single-family residence, and a Variance from the requirements of Section 5.1.5 Off-Street Parking—Design of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the required minimum width of a two-way drive, to allow the drive to be narrower than the required minimum width of twenty (20) feet. Applicant: THANG TRAN Location: 284 HIGHLAND AVENUE (132 Zoning District) Documents &Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped March 20, 2014 and accompanying materials ➢ "Statement of Hardship" and attached plan: "284 Highland Ave—Parking Plan"depicting 4 parking spaces plus a handicap aisle,located at the rear of the building. Ms.Thao Nguyen presents the petition on behalf of her husband,Mr.Thang Tran. She explains that they now live on the top level of the existing home. The lower level is currently vacant. They'd like to open a 600-square foot nail salon,with parking out back. The driveway is only 13 feet wide, so it requires a variance from the minimum width of the driveway for two-way use. Ms. Curran inquires as to the previous use of the downstairs. Ms. Nguyen responds that it was a family room. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that it's a walk-out basement. The building is a single-level ranch on the Highland Ave side,and the land slopes down away from Highland Ave. Ms. Curran asks if the parking spaces in the back of the building currently exist. Ms.Nguyen clarifies that the area is currently grass. Mr. St. Pierre adds that 4 parking spaces are required for the proposed business use. Mr. Copelas asks Ms. Curran to clarify the relationship between the Special Permit [to change from one non- conforming use to another] and the Variance [from the minimum required width of the two-way driveway]? Mr. Copelas states that the width of the driveway seems barely adequate for one car to pass. The Variance has a higher threshold for granting, as opposed to the Special Permit. Ms. Curran replies that one becomes useless without the other, so it's really all or nothing. A Variance usually pertains to an existing condition. There is no ability to widen the driveway—it's constrained between the building and the property line. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that right now no driveway to the back exists—the applicants use the front garage for their parking—and that the required driveway width for two-way use is 20 feet. Ms. Curran asks how many seats the applicant is proposing for the salon. Ms.Nguyen responds they are proposing three to four stations. Mr. Copelas states that he's wondering if it's a derogation of the ordinance to allow a 13 foot width for the driveway in this space. I'm open to being convinced, but that's my concern. It's clearly a commercial area, so he sympathizes with the desire to have a business there. Ms. Curran states that there is no way to remedy that,it's just whether it's safe. Ms. Nguyen adds that there is about a 20-foot setback in front of our yard,so a car could be waiting there in the front for a car in the rear to come out. There is no turn-in currently there,but there is a space of about 20'x70'. Mr. Duffy asks if the issue with parking in the front is that with the commercial space in the downstairs is accessed from the back,and there's no provision for an elevator or ramp down to that lower level from the front? Mr. St. Pierre affirms that it is,and further explains that he isn't supposed to encourage a condition in which cars are backing out onto a busy street. Mr. Watkins asks if the petitioner could you remove some of the bushes and trees on the side of the property and make more space, to which Ms. Nguyen replies that there is a slope there. Ms. Curran notes that the narrowest point 6of10 of the driveway is 13 feet,but it widens out afterwards. Mr. Copelas asks Tom St. Pierre his opinion on the adequacy of the proposed driveway. Mr. St. Pierre replies that with the anticipated volume,he doesn't believe it would be much of a problem. Occasionally you'd have someone trying to enter and exit at the same time,and someone would have to back up. Mr. Duffy and Mr. St.Pierre discuss the option of having a sign at the driveway to inform patrons of the driveway condition. Mr. Copelas adds that they proposal shows one of the resident's parking spaces in front of the garage,which makes the driveway narrow all the way out to Highland Avenue. Ms. Curran asks if the front parking space could run parallel to the house. Ms. Curran adds that she believes that the proposed use is fine for that area, but the Board is struggling with the width of the driveway. Ms. Curran adds that the building is only 28 feet wide,so it's not like it's a long tunnel,but there is some topography to it—it's not flat. Mr. Copelas states that the proposed use is one of three that are similar,as there is a used car shop and curtain shop nearby. There are some single family homes left over. Ms. Curran clarifies that Highland Avenue is effectively one-way there, and there are 2 lanes. In response to discussion by the Board regarding the layout of the parking area,Mr. St. Pierre adds that he believes any parking area for 4 or more vehicles triggers review by the city engineer. Ms. Menon adds that during the application process, the applicants indicated that they were open to paving the front yard to allow for more parking,so perhaps they'd be willing to pave some of the front yard to create more room for an entering car to pull onto the property, out of the way of an exiting car. The second owner parking space could be parallel to the house(rather than in front of the garage door), to open up the drive area at the street edge. Ms. Curran sketches that proposal in,and shows it to the applicants. The applicants indicate they would be fine with that scenario. Ms. Curran proposes limiting the size of the business to 4 stations,so that it doesn't get too big, as she could see it being problematic if the business got too big. The applicant shows 4 on their plan. Mr. St. Pierre asks where the workers would park. Ms.Nguyen clarifies that it would be a home business,and right now the plan is only for Ms. and Mr.Train to be working there. The process for the service provided(nail salon) is that one person can wait while someone else is being served. Mr. Copelas asks if the Board can condition safety signs. Ms. Curran responds that they can. She goes on to state that they are looking at additional paving in the front—a paved area running 18 feet along the front of the house and then down to the road at the front- to allow for maneuvering and owner parking,and the petitioner seeking the advice of the planning department or engineering department regarding on-site traffic signage, and removing the shrubs along the property line adjacent to the proposed entrance drive,where the entrance drive runs from the house to Highland Avenue. Ms. Curran opens the publie comment period, no comment is heard,Ms. Curran closes the public comment period Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve the application for a Variance and a Special Permit,with 7 standard conditions and the following 4 special conditions: a paved area at the front of the building,running 18 feet along the front of the house and then approximately 20 feet down to the road, shall be added to allow for maneuvering and owner parking;the petitioner shall seek the advice of the planning department or engineering department regarding on-site traffic signage;the petitioner shall remove the shrubs along the property line adjacent to the proposed entrance drive,where the entrance drive runs from the house to Highland Avenue; and the business shall be limited to four stations. The 7of10 motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr. Watkins,Ms. Curran,Mr. Dionne,Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy)—and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Discussion: Mr.Duffy describes the findings for the Variance—given the driveway space that is available on this property,and the unavailability of any space to increase it to a conforming width,and given that the only handicap accessible means of accessing the basement portion of the property is through the back of the property, the literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would impose a substantial hardship on the applicant that isn't typical to the neighborhood. Relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and limiting the size of the business to 4 spaces will add to that. Desirable relief may be granted without nullifying or derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance. Regarding the special permit—this proposal adds a commercial use to a clearly commercial area. The traffic flow and safety issues have been somewhat mitigated by the conditions placed on the approval, the utilities are adequate,it's clearly in keeping with the character of the neighborhood,no negative impact on the natural environment,and it would be a positive financial impact on the city. M-Jjlr .. .wk.a�'Mn w,uIRT MO''.,!,'S. .`aw"�w 4$'a".,41"a,1."•Iai3O `R,: Project: Petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 9.4 Special Permits and Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the addition of a solarium onto the rear of the existing non-conforming single family residence. Applicant: JENNIFER FIRTH Location: 3 CARPENTER STREET (112 Zoning District) Documents &Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped March 25,2014 and accompanying materials,including plans "Solarium Addition to Existing Victorian Residence,3 Carpenter St,Salem,Massachusetts"revised 9/23/13,prepared by SDA. Jennifer and John Firth present their petition. They propose to construct a 1-story solarium onto the rear of the single family residence. The solarium would be built largely within the existing footprint of existing stairs and patio. The proposed solarium would reduce the rear setback to 9 feet. They have already appeared before the Historical Commission,who approved the project. Ms. Curran asks if you could see the proposed solarium from the street. Ms. Firth replies that you could not. In the winter when the leaves are off the trees,you could sort of see a corner of it. The rear parcel is a property of the Peabody Essex Museum,currently there is no public access back there and it is blocked by a seven foot hedge. One side-abutter is a mentally handicapped group home, and the other abutter is behind the bulkhead. Ms.Curran opens the public comment period, no comment is heard,Ms. Curran closes the public comment period Ms. Curran states that it seems very straight-forward. It's attractive and small, and she has no problem with the proposal at all. Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve the application for a Special Permit,with 8 standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy. A roll call vote is taken,and is unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr.Watkins,Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy)—and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Discussion: Mr.Duffy adds the findings for the record,as they came up somewhat informally in the Board's discussion. The adverse impacts of the proposal will not outweigh the beneficial impacts. It's an extension of an existing single family home,there will be no impact on traffic or parking, the utilities are adequate, there will be a positive impact on the neighborhood character, there are no negative environmental impacts, and it will have a positive economic& fiscal impact. At 8of10 a �,�i!.n:swSw :w. ,.tw.:, t � ':; ,. .'�`,»e;:.'',,Swr• d:tifae,4�P n,.$; ,.., r„t a✓-i. tS=' x.a. 'rS�'.e ne,.i4_a �..et;l a� ` Project: Petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two- Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the addition of a second-story master bedroom,shed dormer,cellar entry extension,and storage shed to an existing non-conforming single-family residence. Applicant: LINDLEY HANSON Location: 21 CARLTON STREET (112 Zoning District) Documents &Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped March 26,2014 and accompanying materials Attorney Charles A. Martins presents on behalf of the petitioner,Ms.Lindley Hanson. Ms. Hanson has contracted Michael Burgess of MDB construction to draw up some plans and complete the construction. It will have no impact on traffic flow or utilities,it will increase the value of the property and consequently the income to the City of Salem. She's reached out to abutters,and has signed assents from 4 of the abutters. In 2006 the previous owners came before this board and sought a Variance that was allowed. That Variance was slightly different from what Ms. Hanson is seeking. Now we're not seeking a Variance,as the setbacks are already nonconforming—the proposed addition would increase the setback encroachment by a few inches. The percentage of the lot covered by the building is already nonconforming, and that nonconformity would be increased. Ms. Curran asks if the majority of the addition is on the second floor, the first floor is mostly the entry way? Ms. Hanson responds that the existing stairs are very tight,so we want to bump them out a bit. Also, the existing ceilings are very low, so by putting in a dormer,we're getting a more conforming height for the ceiling. We're changing the pitch of the roof,but the height of the peak of the roof will be exactly the same as the existing. The roof will be an imitation slate. It is the smallest house in that section. The houses on either side are two stories. It won't be overshadowing any of the other houses. Mx. St. Pierre notes that the previous application for this property,by the prior owner,was very similar to this,and clarifies that the proposed improvements permitted in the Variance that was granted to the prior owner were never constructed. Ms. Curran states that it seems like a modest addition. Mr. St. Pierre adds that it will improve the property. It's not a terribly attractive property right now. Atty. Martins adds that it will improve the quality of life for the owner. In response to a question by Mr.Watkins,Ms. Hanson and Arty. Martins clarify that the property is currently used as a single family residence, and it will remain a single family residence—Ms. Hanson will occupy the house with her daughter. Ms. Curran opens the public comment period, no comment is heard,Ms. Curran closes the public comment period Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve the application for a Special Permit,with 8 standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr.Watkins,Ms. Curran,Mr. Dionne,Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy)—and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Discussion:Ms. Curran—the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts on the City or neighborhood. Community needs are served by the proposal. Traffic and utilities are the same. It is in keeping with the neighborhood character,plus the addition is in the back and the roofline is the same as existing. There will be no impact on view, the natural environment, or drainage. It will have a positive fiscal impact. 9of10 APPROVALOF MEETING MINUTES' DR March 19, 2014 Draft Meeting Minutes Motion and Vote: Mr. Dionne moves to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Mr. Duffy. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr.Watkins,Ms. Curran,Mr. Duffy,Mr. Dionne,and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed. OLD%NEW BUSINESS "Mir rw ,E ,r ROM 2i5dxdi t r v a $ �^.a v E Y'g K r :i��iaLak`ti$,i'.. u�txba9:a,:f,�;au�`r .43 iva None _ m :$? = _ Mt. Watkins motioned for adjournment of the April 16,2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 8:32 PM. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy made a motion to adjourn the April 16,2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr.Watkins, and a unanimous vote was taken with five (5) in favor(Mr. Watkins,Ms. Curran,Mr.Dionne,Mr. Copelas, and Mr. Duffy) - and none (0) opposed. For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been ported separately by address orprSiect at:htep:ll salem.coml Page,vl SaleniMA ZoningA)pealrMinl Respectfully submitted, Dana Menon, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 5/21/2014 10 of 10 City of Salem Board of Appeals DRAFT Meeting Minutes Wednesday,April 16,2014 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA') was held on Wednesday,April 16, 2014 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. .� a dE Y rxri �i H 'TROLLrzCALLgWYm Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Richard Dionne,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy and Peter A. Copelas (Alternate). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre,Building Commissioner, and Dana Menon, Staff Planner. 'ky{ - -,-vtasa karMs ni - kP�lTi"i{d*t "&g69Ci '. hP�'F� � `�i"KFtl REGULAAAGENDA,� � zy .w. tF §+? i1a91,n „ems 26 l� fl xs .. Project: Continuation of the 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 and 21 VALLEY STREET (111 Zoning District) Documents &Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped February 25, 2014 and accompanying materials ➢ Plot Plan dated February 28,2014 prepared by Landmark Engineering& Surveying,Inc. ➢ Letter from Arty. Scott M. Grover to Rebecca Curran, Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals, dated April 14, 2014,requesting a modification to the petition of Andrew Perkins. *Note that the letter erroneously re- fers to the abutters (Richard and Nancy Pelletier) as residing at 13 Cherry Hill Avenue. The Pelletiers reside at 17 Cherry Hill Avenue. Attorney Scott Grover presents on behalf of the applicant. Arty. Grover provides a review of the application presented at the previous meeting. The applicant has now submitted a request to modify the application to the Board,per the letter submitted [dated April 14, 2014]. At the previous meeting, the abutters at 17 Cherry Hill Avenue expressed concern over the density and the proximity of the proposed house to their property. The applicant has now reached an agreement with the owners of 17 Cherry Hill Avenue to convey the property (15 Cherry Hill Ave) to the owners of 17 Cherry Hill Avenue. Now,the only relief needed is for 21 Valley Street, as conveying the 15 Cherry Hill Avenue lot to the abutters will reduce the size of the lot at 21 Valley Street. The abutters'lot to which 15 Cherry Hill Ave will be conveyed to,w ll make that lot(17 Cherry Hill Ave) more conforming. Ms. Curran states that she previously had difficulty finding a hardship,and the applicant is still seeking a Variance. Atty. Grover reiterates his argument that it's an irregularly shaped lot. For the modified application,we could include a condition in the Decision that the lot at 15 Cherry Hill Ave would be conveyed to the owners of 13 Cherry Hill Ave, and combined with that lot, such that the nonconformity of that piece of land would be reduced. Nancy Pelletier and Richard Pelletier of 17 Cherry Hill Avenue state that they'd appreciate the Board's consideration to allow this petition, so that they can purchase the lot [15 Cherry Hill Avenue]. it Perkins,ndrew 1 21 Valley Street, applicant, states that he's selling the lot at the assessed value—he's not trying to make a profit,he's just trying to offset the costs of renovating the existing house. David Eppley,Ward 4 Councilor expresses his support of the modified petition.. Ms. Curran—so you'd be increasing the lot size of 15/17 Cherry Hill Avenue,making that lot almost conforming. Mr. Dionne states that he thinks it works,it helps the neighbor,and it's not detrimental to the neighborhood • Ms. Curran inquires about the hardship. Mr.Watkins replies that the hardship is the irregularity of the parcel. The Board has granted a Variance on that hardship before. He agrees with Mr.Dionne that it's not detrimental to the public good or the neighbors/neighborhood,and it doesn't derogate from the intent of the ordinance. Ms. Curran agrees that there's not substantial detriment if it's combined in a non-buildable lot. Arty. Grover states that a condition could be added specifying that 15 Cherry Hill Ave would be combined in a non- buildable lot. Mr. Watkins asks if the plan is to keep the lot [15 Cherry Hill Avenue] in open land. Ms. Pelletier responds that it is. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the application for a Variance for the property located at 21 Valley Street,with 3 standard conditions and an additional condition that the lot at 15 Cherry Hill Ave shall be combined with 17 Cherry Hill Avenue to be a non-buildable lot. The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr.Watkins,Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne,Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy)—and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. IG,YM Is, l �f.1'. 4 t� fid x { tt I F d1L` � tL t rNl4 am ++ $ '�0 .a .HP.�3Q6tuLW.{+.{`.MEYI.'d'<�`?Sk�.`.• uffibR:!4awa5{VHdid9uhwt r..I{WUdka6a'db` 6ti1af1121 YtiN E aAe.Y.G.�m'.' _+M`s -.`. c" .l ,20, Project: Continuation of the Petition requesting Variances under Section 3.3.4 Variance Required of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an extension & structural change to an existing non- conforming structure for the addition of a second floor and front and rear exterior stairways that increase the existing encroachment on the required minimum depths of the front and rear yards,to the existing single-story building. . Applicant: DAVID FRANK Location: 77 BEAVER ST (R2 Zoning District) Documents &Exhibitions: D Application date-stamped February 25, 2014 and accompanying materials,including: plan set"S&W Realty Trust Addition Project" dated 03/18/2014,prepared by R. Rumpf &Associates,Inc;plan"Zoning Board of Appeals Plan,77 Beaver Street Salem,property of David Frank" dated January 27,2014,prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation. Attorney Scott Grover presents on behalf of David Frank, the applicant. Arty. Grover reviews the petition as presented at the previous Board of Appeals meeting. At the previous hearing,abutters expressed their concerns about privacy issues. To address these concerns,Mr. Frank has agreed to eliminate the left-hand window on the Safford Street side (west side, at bedroom 3) of the building, to provide more privacy to the abutter directly across Safford Street. Mr. Frank would expand the window on the Beaver Street side slightly to let more light in,but eliminate the left-hand window on the west elevation of the submitted drawings. The other discussion was whether 2 forms of g egress were required. The Building Inspector believes that two forms of egress are required. If two g q P g q stairs are required, the area currently shown on the parking lot side would be the second egress. Mr. Watkins asks if the first floor would remain a garage. Atty. Grover affirms that it will be garage and storage space. Mr. Watkins mentions the Froncki's concerns about the exterior lighting,as expressed at the previous meeting. Arty. Grover replies that it won't really be a concern. It would be blocked by other buildings. . Sara Lobao, 148 Boston Street—her property is a four-family home that abuts this property. She still has concerns about privacy, specifically regarding the stairs on the side of the home,which is in view of her tenants. She'd prefer to see the stairs put in a different location. Jane Froncki, 5 Safford Street states that with the change to the window, she has no problem with the petition. • Ms. Curran clarifies that the applicant is proposing to flip the whole layout of the stairs and the interior building plans. Atty. Grover concurs. Mr. St. Pierre asks if there is a second set of stairs. Atty. Grover affirms that there will be a second set of stairs as indicated on the new plans, toward the parking area. If they put the second set of stairs on Beaver Street it would be closer to the lot line,making more of a nonconformity. David Frank, owner of 77 Beaver Street, adds that he has just spoken with the abutter on Safford St regarding the location of the stairs. Mr. Frank proposes to enclose those stairs,with proper lighting and ventilation, so Ms. Lobao's tenants wouldn't see people on those stairs. Or you could move the stairs around back (on Beaver St). Ms. Curran states that if the stairs are on the front,the stairs would just be the minimal width, but the main entrance would then be on the front of the house,which is more typical. Ms. Curran asks if the area near the proposed stairs is currently paved or green space. Mr. Frank responds that it's all paved. The Board discusses including a requirement to reduce the paved area on the lot,and increasing the green space to make it more in keeping with a residential use. Ms. Curran states that she thinks the closed-in stairs would look too bulky. Mr. St. Pierre adds that it would be difficult to build and have it look good. Ms. Curran and Mr. St. Pierre discuss the minimum size of a stairway. Mr. St.Pierre clarifies that 4 feet is the typical minimum stairway size, and that there would be no issues with having the stairs one foot off of the property line adjacent to a public street, should the stairs be moved to the Beaver Street side. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the application for Variances,with 7 standard conditions and the following three (3) special conditions: the entry stair location will be moved from the . south elevation to the north elevation,on Beaver Street, that the window on the west elevation associated with bedroom 3 will be removed, and that in keeping with a residential use of the house, the green space would be extended along the south elevation of the house to the property line. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr.Watkins, Ms. Curran,Mr. Dionne,Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy)—and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Discussion: Ms. Froncki expresses concern about the location of the stairway on the Beaver Street side,relative to her house. She is reassured that the stairs will not be directly across from her bedroom. Ms. Froncki shows photos of the site,and reiterates that the proposed stairs would be across from her bedroom. Mr. St.Pierre clarifies that stairs are also proposed at the garage end of the house. Those stairs would be the ones primarily used,not the ones on Beaver Street. Ms. Curran describes the area to be made into green space—the green space will be expanded to extend along the south side of the building. Mr. Duffystates that this is an unusual budding for this neighborhood, being a garage/commercial a/commercials ace. There g g g g g P hasn't been much demand for use of that budding,which is a financial hardship to the applicant. There are some attributes unique to that building,which don't pertain to the other buildings in the neighborhood. Going from a commercial use to a residential use is more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Going to a more conforming use of the neighborhood, this can be granted without derogating from the intent of the ordinance. �s w. i arxnr s -1051N f ri Yi'2F.9"`#`t > 9 i-......I.,,xiRN... kR . Project: Petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two- Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change to an existing non-conforming residential structure, in order to construct a 3-season room on a portion of an existing deck. Applicant: FOTINI MANOLAKOS . Location: 1 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (Rl Zoning District) Documents &Exhibitions: Application date-stamped March 25,2014 and accompanying materials Ms. Fotini Manolakos, owner of the property,presents the petition. They are proposing to build a 3-season room. This room is to be built on a section of an existing front deck that was added in 2012. The purpose of this enclosure is so that they can enjoy more time with their grandchildren during the winters. There is already parking on the site, and the traffic would not be affected—there are already many vehicles that travel on the road on the way to the park. The existing utilities are adequate, and no additional drainage is needed. The style of the proposed addition would be in keeping with the existing structure and the neighborhood. These proposed changes would increase the tax base for the City of Salem. Ms. Curran clarifies that the applicant is proposing to build the room on an existing portion of the deck, so it won't be coming out any further than the existing deck. Ms. Manolakos confirms this. Ms. Curran further clarifies that the proposal will not make the structure any more non-conforming. Mr. Copelas, Mr. St. Pierre and Ms. Manolakos discuss the discrepancy in the proposed room dimensions as noted on the application and the plan (12'xl4')versus the dimensions as noted on the elevations and framing sketches (12'x20') It is clarified that the contractor erroneously noted a width of 20 feet. That is incorrect, the proposed room is 12'x14'. Mx. Copelas notes that there is an existing rooftop deck on the upper part of the deck, and asks the applicant to clarify the relationship of the addition to the upper rooftop deck. Ms. Manolakos responds that the addition will go no higher than the existing floor of the rooftop (top) deck. The railings of the top deck will be visible above the . proposed addition. Mr. Watkins and Ms. Manolakos discuss the siding materials. Mr.Watkins notes that the elevation sketches indicate that the addition will be sided with shingles. Ms. Manolakos states that the sketch is incorrect;the siding will be in keeping with the rest of the house. Ms. Curran opens thepublic commentperiod, and there is no comment. Ms. Curran closes the public commentperiod Ms. Curran&Ms. Manolakos discuss the height of the roof of the proposed addition. Mr. Copelas confirms with Ms. Manolakos that she won't extend the top deck onto the roof of the addition. Mr. St. Pierre states that any ex- pansion to the deck would require another petition to the Board. Mr. Watkins states that he believes that it is a good proposal, there is nothing wrong with it. Traffic flow and safety are fine, the utilities are there,it's in keeping with the neighborhood there,and it's a positive impact on the City for additional tax revenue. It's overall a good proposal,and he sees no reason not to grant it. Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve the application for a Special Permit,with 8 standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr.Watkins, Ms. Curran,Mr.Dionne,Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy)—and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. ry �R4dd 4Y@ 6 NHS'SIh4R9h9 5 Rj3d__ d]6lTIJU O`n tl 94l`I@ E'T2.� � �'% l Y�"MwNi+ � � to va...vvz;,(bdiM4,,.,w.�,.,mSwn.',.4.,,�mm a,,,.mo �`�U _,d�.rc4 m,a,s,.Yh ,.,u,i.3n, 5fr:S�'�%'a `:rvnao ,*n:w..uauuR ,`#sWi: Project: Petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an . expansion of an existing non-conforming structure,in order to expand an existing 1'/2 story dwelling to a full two-story dwelling,over the existing footprint. Applicant: DANIEL R. HALL Location: 12 OAKVIEW AVENUE (Ra Zoning District) Documents &Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped March 24, 2014 and accompanying materials,including plans entitled"Residence for Daniel&Jessica Hall, 12 Oakview Ave Salem,MA 01970" dated 03/21/14,prepared by Richard W. Griffin,Registered Architect. Mr. Watkins makes a statement that he has submitted a conflict of interest form to the City, as he knows the applicant through the applicant's abutter,but he is still able to vote on this in an unbiased manner. Mr. Richard Griffin, architect,presents the petition on behalf of the petitioner,Mx. Daniel Hall. Mr. Griffin describes the property and the neighborhood:it's located in a residential neighborhood, the home was built in the 1950s by Mr. Halls grandfather. Dan and his wife Jessica have a daughter and will soon have another child in September, so they need to expand their living space. They currently have 2 bedrooms on the second half-floor,and the expansion to a full second floor would allow them to have 3 bedrooms. The proposed addition would be in traditional materials. They're not expanding the footprint. They are required to get a Special Permit because the setback on one side is only five feet- that side abuts a neighbor's driveway. They are proposing to increase the height of the house by 9 feet. There would be 3 bedrooms and 2 baths upstairs. Ms. Curran and Mr. Griffin discuss that the proposal is to turn a cape into a colonial. Ms. Curran asks if the only change is the height. Mr. Griffin clarifies that there is no change to the footprint of the house. There is an existing rear porch on the first floor that the second floor would extend over,and the height would increase by 9 feet. The house is currently shingle,and would be changed to clapboard. Mr. Copelas states that it seems that this would make the home have greater bulk than the homes on either side of it, and shows a Google"street view" of the neighborhood on his iPad. Mr. Griffin concedes that there would be a little bit more bulk, as there is a bit more height there. Mr. Hall (the applicant) adds that there are colonial-style homes on • the opposite side of the street. In response to questions by the Board,Mr. Griffin adds that the current structure is 1.5 stories high, approximately 32'x25'and about 1,050 square feet now. The proposal would bring it up to about 1,400 square feet total. Ms. Curran opens the public comment period, no comment is heard Mr. Curran closes the public comment period. Ms. Curran inquires if all the lots in the neighborhood about the same size. Mr. Hall replies that many are,but the one diagonally in back of their property is quite a bit bigger. Mr. Griffin states that Mr. Hall has met with the neighbors. Mr. Hall adds that they're all happy we're going to stay there and raise our family there. Mr. Duffy states that there doesn't appear to be any adverse effects that would outweigh the beneficial impacts of this project as proposed. Community needs are being met,with a family seeking to stay here. There is no negative impact on traffic flow or safety,utilities are there. Having taken a quick view of the street and abutting properties,it does seem to be a somewhat larger building,but it's still a single family building,and not much of a difference. No natural environment or view problems—there are no abutters here to speak against the application. The financial impacts seem to be positive. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the application for a Special Permit,with 8 standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr.Watkins,Ms. Curran,Mc Dionne, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy) —and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. w min .a �'.^r 'dsp A 4v y Ci .c Xf?'+�xk�qM EE96 k 94' 2 Eph��� I '�3h :N a �.+ a,a t' ., ,;_ 7. x'�es _ -' :.a�,. rtV.� i_Hd 4 a t€� 6 2N �' y �� '-"c..WrA.,.4 ';aa..,nti„W. Project. Petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one non-conforming use to another to allow the operation of a nail salon on the lower level of the existing single-family residence, and a • Variance from the requirements of Section 5.1.5 Off-Street Parking—Design of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the required minimum width of a two-way drive, to allow the drive to be narrower than the required minimum width of twenty (20) feet. Applicant: THANG TRAN Location: 284 HIGHLAND AVENUE (132 Zoning District) Documents &Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped March 20,2014 and accompanying materials ➢ "Statement of Hardship"and attached plan: "284 Highland Ave—Parking Plan"depicting 4 parking spaces plus a handicap aisle, located at the rear of the building. Ms. Than Nguyen presents the petition on behalf of her husband,Mr.Thang Tran. She explains that they now live on the top level of the existing home. The lower level is currently vacant. They'd like to open a 600-square foot nail salon,with parking out back. The driveway is only 13 feet wide, so it requires a variance from the minimum width of the driveway for two-way use. Ms. Curran inquires as to the previous use of the downstairs. Ms.Nguyen responds that it was a family room. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that it's a walk-out basement. The building is a single-level ranch on the Highland Ave side,and the land slopes down away from Highland Ave. Ms. Curran asks if the parking spaces in the back of the building currently exist. Ms. Nguyen clarifies that the area is currently grass. Mr. St. Pierre adds that 4 parking spaces are required for the proposed business use. • Mr. Copelas asks Ms. Curran to clarify the relationship between the Special Permit [to change from one non- conforming use to another] and the Variance [from the minimum required width of the two-way driveway]? Mr. Copelas states that the width of the driveway seems barely adequate for one car to pass. The Variance has a higher threshold for granting, as opposed to the Special Permit. Ms. Curran replies that one becomes useless without the other, so it's really all or nothing. A Variance usually pertains to an existing condition. There is no ability to widen the driveway—it's constrained between the building and the property line. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that right now no driveway to the back exists—the applicants use the front garage for their parking—and that the required driveway width for two-way use is 20 feet. Ms. Curran asks how many seats the applicant is proposing for the salon. Ms. Nguyen responds they are proposing three to four stations. Mr. Copelas states that he's wondering if it's a derogation of the ordinance to allow a 13 foot width for the driveway in this space. I'm open to being convinced, but that's my concern. It's clearly a commercial area, so he sympathizes with the desire to have a business there. Ms. Curran states that there is no way to remedy that,it's just whether it's safe. Ms. Nguyen adds that there is about a 20-foot setback in front of our yard,so a car could be waiting there in the front for a car in the rear to come out. There is no turn-in currently there, but there is a space of about 20'00'. Mr. Duffy asks if the issue with parking in the front is that with the commercial space in the downstairs is accessed from the back, and there's no provision for an elevator or ramp down to that lower level from the front? Mr. St. Pierre affirms that it is, and further explains that he isn't supposed to encourage a condition in which cars are backing out onto a busy street. Mr.Watkins asks if the petitioner could you remove some of the bushes and trees on the side of the property and make more space, to which Ms. Nguyen replies that there is a slope there. Ms. Curran notes that the narrowest point Il of the driveway is 13 feet, but it widens out aftenvards. Mr. Copelas asks Tom St.Pierre his opinion on the adequacy of the proposed driveway. Mr. St. Pierre replies that with the anticipated volume,he doesn't believe it would be much of a problem. Occasionally you'd have someone trying to enter and exit at the same time,and someone would have to back up. Mr. Duffy and Mr. St. Pierre discuss the option of having a sign at the driveway to inform patrons of the driveway condition. Mr. Copelas adds that the proposal shows one of the resident's parking spaces in front of the garage,which makes P YP P P g P g g . the driveway narrow all the way out to Highland Avenue. Ms. Curran asks if the front parking space could run parallel to the house. Ms. Curran adds that she believes that the proposed use is fine for that area, but the Board is struggling with the width of the driveway. Ms. Curran adds that the building is only 28 feet wide,so it's not like it's a long tunnel, but there is some topography to it—it's not flat. Mr. Copelas states that the proposed use is one of three that are similar,as there is a used car shop and curtain shop nearby. There are some single family homes left over. Ms. Curran clarifies that Highland Avenue is effectively one-way there, and there are 2 lanes. In response to discussion by the Board regarding the layout of the parking area,Mr. St. Pierre adds that he believes any parking area for 4 or more vehicles triggers review by the city engineer. Ms. Menon adds that during the application process, the applicants indicated that they were open to paving the front . yard to allow for more parking, so perhaps they'd be willing to pave some of the front yard to create more room for an entering car to pull onto theproperty, out of the way of an exiting car. The second owner parking space could be g P Y g P g P parallel to the house (rather than in front of the garage door),to open up the drive area at the street edge. Ms. Curran sketches that proposal in, and shows it to the applicants. The applicants indicate they would be fine with that scenario. Ms. Curran proposes limiting the size of the business to 4 stations, so that it doesn't get too big,as she could see it being problematic if the business got too big. The applicant shows 4 on their plan. Mr. St. Pierre asks where the workers would park. Ms.Nguyen clarifies that it would be a home business,and right now the plan is only for Ms. and Mr.Train to be working there. The process for the service provided(nail salon) is that one person can wait while someone else is being served. Mr. Copelas asks if the Board can condition safety signs. Ms. Curran responds that they can. She goes on to state that they are looking at additional paving in the front—a paved area running 18 feet along the front of the house and then down to the road at the front- to allow for maneuvering and owner parking, and the petitioner seeking the advice of the planning department or engineering department regarding on-site traffic signage,and removing the shrubs along the property line adjacent to the proposed entrance drive,where the entrance drive runs from the house to Highland Avenue. Ms. Curran opens the public comment period, no comment is beard,Ms. Curran closes the public comment period Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve the application for a Variance and a Special Permit,with 7 standard conditions and the following 4 special conditions: a paved area at the front of the building, running 18 feet along the front of the house and then approximately 20 feet down to the road, shall be added to allow for maneuvering and owner parking;the petitioner shall seek the advice of the • planning department or engineering department regarding on-site traffic signage;the petitioner shall remove the shrubs along the property line adjacent to the proposed entrance drive,where the entrance drive runs from the house to Highland Avenue;and the business shall be limited to four stations. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. • Watkins,Ms, Curran, Mr, Dionne, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy)—and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Discussion: Mr. Duffy describes the findings for the Variance—given the driveway space that is available on this property, and the unavailability of any space to increase it to a conforming width, and given that the only handicap accessible means of accessing the basement portion of the property is through the back of the property, the literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would impose a substantial hardship on the applicant that isn't typical to the neighborhood. Relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and limiting the size of the business to 4 spaces will add to that. Desirable relief may be granted without nullifying or derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance. Regarding the special permit—this proposal adds a commercial use to a clearly commercial area. The traffic flow and safety issues have been somewhat mitigated by the conditions placed on the approval, the utilities are adequate,it's clearly in keeping with the character of the neighborhood,no negative impact on the natural environment,and it would be a positive financial impact on the city. drv4o-o-ns,S. d fr ry Flu t t tt A. s t + y ... u.. 2✓• 2' swu ..c ixu..r _....... .... .c Lin ... .... s ,d 1 t.. .. t t. Project: Petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 9.4 Special Permits and Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the addition of a solarium onto the rear of the existing non-conforming single family residence. Applicant: JENNIFER FIRTH Location: 3 CARPENTER STREET (R2 Zoning District) Documents &Exhibitions: Application date-stamped March 25,2014 and accompanying materials,including plans "Solarium Addition . to Existing Victorian Residence, 3 Carpenter St,Salem,Massachusetts"revised 9/23/13,prepared by SDA. Jennifer and John Firth present their petition. They propose to construct a 1-story solarium onto the rear of the single family residence. The solarium would be built largely within the existing footprint of existing stairs and patio. The proposed solarium would reduce the rear setback to 9 feet. They have already appeared before the H storical Commission,who approved the project. Ms. Curran asks if you could see the proposed solarium from the street. Ms. Firth replies that you could not. In the winter when the leaves are off the trees,you could sort of see a corner of it. The rear parcel is a property of the Peabody Essex Museum, currently there is no public access back there and it is blocked by a seven foot hedge. One side-abutter is a mentally handicapped group home,and the other abutter is behind the bulkhead. M. Curran opens the public comment period, no comment it heard,Ms. Curran closes the public comment period. Ms. Curran states that it seems very straight-forward. It's attractive and small,and she has no problem with the proposal at all. Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve the application for,a Special Permit,with 8 standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr.Watkins,Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy)—and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Discussion: Mr. Duffy adds the findings for the record,as they came up somewhat informally in the Board's discussion. The adverse impacts of the proposal will not outweigh the beneficial impacts. It's an extension of an . existing single family home, there will be no impact on traffic or parking, the utilities are adequate,there will be a positive impact on the neighborhood character, there are no negative environmental impacts,and it will have a positive economic& fiscal impact. ' r �: , - cram rsvr ..L. e'' �.u.,. .... ,2,v" -a+:.,�...,. r �.,w4uzw....,.,� .;.�}:�e`�!..,a.�,i2t :� e�o2�ashn��. . .r.t!.�`�.N.,,au�it� aa .,M ..,.,.r. .T�u^ic ..._. . Project: Petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two- Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the addition of a second-story master bedroom,shed dormer,cellar entry extension, and storage shed to an existing non-conforming single-family residence. Applicant: LINDLEY HANSON Location: 21 CARLTON STREET (112 Zoning District) Documents &Exhibitions: Application date-stamped March 26, 2014 and accompanying materials Attorney Charles A. Martins presents on behalf of the petitioner,Ms. Lindley Hanson. Ms. Hanson has contracted Michael Burgess of MDB construction to draw up some plans and complete the construction. It will have no impact on traffic flow or utilities,it will increase the value of the property and consequently the income to the City of Salem. She's reached out to abutters,and has signed assents from 4 of the abutters. In 2006 the previous owners came before this board and sought a Variance that was allowed. That Variance was slightly different from what Ms. Hanson is seeking. Now we're not seeking a Variance, as the setbacks are already nonconforming—the proposed addition would increase the setback encroachment by a few inches. The percentage of the lot covered by the building is already nonconforming, and that nonconformity would be increased. Ms. Curran asks if the majority of the addition is on the second floor, the first floor is mostly the entry way? Ms. Hanson responds that the existing stairs are very tight, so we want to bump them out a bit. Also, the existing ceilings are very low, so by putting in a dormer,we're getting a more conforming height for the ceiling. We're changing the pitch of the roof, but the height of the peak of the roof will be exactly the same as the existing. The roof will be an imitation slate. It is the smallest house in that section. The houses on either side are two stories. It won't be . overshadowing any of the other houses. Mr. St. Pierre notes that the previous application for this property, by the prior owner,was very similar to this,and clarifies that the proposed improvements permitted in the Variance that was granted to the prior owner were never constructed. Ms. Curran states that it seems like a modest addition. Mr. St. Pierre adds that it will improve the property. It's not a terribly attractive property right now. Atty. Martins adds that it will improve the quality of fife for the owner. In response to a question by Mr. Watkins,Ms. Hanson and Arty. Martins clarify that the property is currently used as a single family residence,and it will remain a single family residence—Ms. Hanson will occupy the house with her daughter. Ms. Curran opens the public comment period, no comment h heard,Ms. Curran closes the public comment period. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the application for a Special Permit,with 8 standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr.Watkins, Ms. Curran,Mr.Dionne,Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy)—and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Discussion: Ms. Curran—the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts on the City or neighborhood. Community needs are served by the proposal. Traffic and utilities are the same. It is in • keeping with the neighborhood character,plus the addition is in the back and the roofline is the same as existing. There will be no impact on view, the natural environment,or drainage. It will have a positive fiscal impact. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES 4' ` l ,'��,s,,;;', LF4a1m:..' 'a�i �.a.: 3 �riP'1 . • March 19,2014 Draft Meeting Minutes Motion and Vote: Mr. Dionne moves to approve the minutes as written,seconded by Mr. Duffy. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr. Watkins,Ms. Curran, Mr.Duffy,Mr. Dionne, and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed. OLD' NEW BUSINESS 'ice'' .. w r t tl i t la t 1 tr..( 1 t ��'{ ,_,��`+`'�+'"� lttllul 1 111 €id I't rz.44 St t " a�iL.: tms,§ ...mrk �i None ADJOURNMENT " h t i fY{ 3 t t ,,�{giss5n4 h t t r . ,5,. � ,,. .w:�, ..�wS.:aR&SvOdd.,ud a. „�EFULte Lt m,..,vwx,—..,...,-_•_-.-.-.m,Y�z—m,- Mr. Watkins motioned for adjournment of the April 16,2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 8:32 PM. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy made a motion to adjourn the April 16,2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Watkins, and a unanimous vote was taken with five (5) in favor(Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas, and Mr. Duffy) -and none (0) opposed. Respectfully submitted, Dana Menon, Staff Planner ��r;.C�NDITq`ZQ �' - - CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASFTINGTON STREET* SALEM,\1ASSACi-IUSETTS 01970 KINIBERLEY DRIscoLL Tr,,T.F-::978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,April 16,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: 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 and 21 VALLEY STREET(Rl Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on May 20,2014 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9&15 and does not require action by the recipient.Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days farm the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. r, • • 1 f 1 v��coNDup'140 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL • 9�at E -= 120WASHING1ONS'tRFEI Sat.F:nt,\L�ssacatuSt:'rt'sO1���I MAY 20 A 10* 35 K[AtBF:i .E.YDRISCOLL TE.ts:978-745-9595 FAF:978-740-9846 ilL\Yott FILE if CITY CLERK, SA.IP1, MA r S. May 20, 2014 Decision City of Salem 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 and 21 VALLEY STREET (R1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 19, 2014 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, � 11. The hearing was continued to April 16, 2014. The hearing was closed on that April 16, 2014 with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Copelas (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks Variances from Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. . Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped February 25, 2014, the Petitioner requested Variances to grant relief from the minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, and minimum lot width requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow 15 Cherry Hill Avenue to be recognized as a separate parcel, and to allow for construction of a separate single-family dwelling at 15 Cherry Hill Avenue, in addition to the existing single-family dwelling at 21 Valley Street. The establishment of 15 Cherry Hill Avenue as a parcel separate from 21 Valley Street would result in a reduction in the total lot area of the 21 Valley Street parcel, causing it to become nonconforming,with less than the required minimum lot area and required minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and requiring the granting of a Variance by the Board of Appeals. 2. The two lots — 15 Cherry Hill Avenue and 21 Valley Street — were created as separate legal lots in a 1925 subdivision plan. In the 1920s a building was constructed at 21 Valley Street, while 15 Cherry Hill Avenue remained vacant. Since that time, the dimensional requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance have changed, so the two lots became under-sized and non-conforming. As the two lots have been under common ownership, they have been merged into one lot for zoning purposes. 3. Attorney Scott Grover presented the petition on 15 Cherry Hill Avenue and 21 Valley Street. 4. On April 14, 2014, the petitioner submitted to the Board a written request to modify the submitted petition. The petitioner had reached an agreement to convey the vacant lot at 15 Cherry Hill Avenue to Richard and Nancy Pelletier, owners of the abutting property at 17 Cherry Hill Avenue, who would maintain 15 Cherry Hill Avenue as a vacant lot. The petitioner therefore requested to withdraw that portion of the petition relating to 15 Cherry Hill Avenue and to grant the relief requested as to 21 Valley Street only. 40 5. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to convey 15 Cherry Hill Avenue as an non-buildable lot to Richard and Nancy Pelletier, causing it to be merged with 17 Cherry Hill Avenue, and would allow 21 Valley Street to exist as a nonconforming lot, with less than the required 15,000 City of Salem Board of Appeals May 20,2014 Project: 15 Cherry Hill Avenue and 21 Valley Street Page 2 of 2 square foot minimum tot area and less than the required 15,0000 square foot minimum lot area per dwelling unit, having only a 6,681 square foot lot area and a 6,681 square foot lot area per dwelling • unit. The 21 Valley Street lot will remain nonconforming to the Salem Zoning Ordinance requirements with less than the required minimum lot frontage and minimum width of side yard, and those nonconformities would remain. 6. At the March 19, 2014 public hearing, Richard and Nancy Pelletier of 17 Cherry Hill Avenue and an additional abutter expressed their concerns a bout the petition. At the April 2014 public hearing, Richard and Nancy Pelletier expressed their support for the modified petition, as did Ward 4 Councilor David Eppley. 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: Findings i. The existing parcel, consisting of 21 Valley Street and 15 Cherry Hill Avenue, is an irregular shape. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would be a substantial hardship. 3. The condition placed upon the approval, establishing 15 Cherry Hill Avenue as a non-buildable lot, allows the desired relief to be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. . 4. 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 five (5) in favor • (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit to allow the conveyance of 15 Cherry Hill Avenue as a non-buildable lot to Richard and Nancy Pelletier of 17 Cherry Hill Avenue, and to allow 21 Valley Street to exist as an undersized lot, with less than the required 15,000 square foot minimum lot area and less than the required 15,000 square foot minimum lot area per dwelling unit, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 3. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board 4. The lot at 15 Cherry Hill Avenue shall be combined with 17 Cherry Hill Avenue, and shall be a non- buildable lot. 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 decision, if any, shall be rnade 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 offlce of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the t'ariance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take eject until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Esse,'South Registry q1 Deeds. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL �s 120 Wnsi-urrcTON SiRcrT + SAt.FM,Mnssnc1-iusErrs 01970 KniBLRLLY DRISCOLL TLLE:978-745-9595 ♦ &1X:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,April 16, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of JENNIFER FIRTH requesting a Special Permit under Section 9.4 SpedalPermits and Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two FamilyResidential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the addition of a solarium onto the rear of the existing non-conforming single family residence, for the property located at 3 CARPENTER STREET (R2 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on May 20,2014 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9 &15 and does not require action by the recipient.Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSAC�HUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120WASHINGTON STREI-74 SAI.E�%[,,Nf,nSSA(:IIUSE�,'1'114149#AY 20 A ck IS KJMBERmsy Dmscou, Tr:j,rs:978-745-9595 + FAX:978-740-9846 AIA 'oR FILE it CITY CLEU, SUM. M SS May 20, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition ofJENNIFER FIRTH requesting a Special Permit under Section 9.4 Specia/Permits and Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the addition of a solarium onto the rear of the existing non-conforming single family residence, for the property located at 3 CARPENTER STREET (112 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 16, 2014 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, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Copelas (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Pertnit under Section 9.4 Special Permits and Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Txo-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped March 25, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit in order to construct a solarium addition onto the existing nonconforming structure. 2. Ms.Jennifer Firth and Mr.John Firth presented the petition for the property at 3 Carpenter Street. 3. The existing single-family residence is non-conforming, with less than the required minimum lot area, minimurn lot frontage, minimum lot width, minimum depth of front yard, minimum depth of side yard, and minimum depth of rear yard. The existing depth of rear yard is ten feet, rather than the required 30 feet. The proposed single-story solarium addition would further reduce the depth of the rear yard to nine feet. 4. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to add a solarium onto the rear of the existing non-conforming single family residence, decreasing the depth of the rear yard from ten feet to nine feet. 5. At the public hearing, no members of the public spoke in support of or 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 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: Findings 1. The property will remain a single-family residence, and the adverse impacts of the proposal will not outweigh its beneficial impacts on the community. 2. There will be no impact on parking or loading in the area, as the property will remain a single-family residence. 3. The adequacy of utilities and public services to the building will remain the same as existing. t'f^ty of Salem Board of Appeals Mdy 20,2014 Project: 3 Carpenter Street Page 2 of 2 4. It will have a positive impact on the neighborhood character. 5. There are no negative environmental impacts. 6. The value of the home would increase, resulting in an increased tax base. This would have a positive economic and fiscal impact. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit to allow the addition of a solarium onto the rear of the existing non-conforming single family residence, 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. S. 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 FLAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appea!from this derision, 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 oJce 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 bearinrg the certificate of the Cary Clerk has been filed ivith the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS Am s BOARD OF APPEAL �ClPjl1V6' 120 WASHILJGPON SIRE'ET* SALF..M,MASSACFIOSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRiscoEE TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,April 16,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of DAVID FRANK requesting Variances under Section 3.3.4 Variance Required of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an extension& structural change to an existing non-conforming structure for the addition of a second floor and front and rear exterior stairways that increase the existing encroachment on the required minimum depths of the front and rear yards, to the existing single-story building,located on the property at 77 BEAVER ST (R2 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on May 20,2014 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9 & 15 and does not require action by the recipient.Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17,and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. i CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL MAY 20 A 15 120WASIIIN(;'I*ONS'ERI-'I:I' * S�W.;,%[,'�vL\SSA(:IIUSI:I'ISOI KIMBFRi,ry DRISCOLL Tkija:978-745-9595 * F\x:978-740-9846 ALwOR FILE # CITY CLER,w., S,IALEM, I,1,ASS May 20, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of DAVID FRANK requesting Variances under Section 3.3.4 Valiance Required of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an extension & structural change to an existing non-conforming structure for the addition of a second floor and front and rear exterior stairways that increase the existing encroachment on the required minimum depths of the front and rear yards, to the existing single-story building, located on the property at 77 BEAVER ST (R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 19, 2014 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11. The public hearing was continued to April 16, 2014, and was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Copelas (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Variance from Section 3.3.4 Variance Required of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: • 1. In the petition date-stamped February 25, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Variance to allow the conversion of the existing garage building to a single-family residential building, by adding a second floor and two exterior stairways to the existing single-story budding. 2. Attorney Scott Grover presented the petition for 17 Beaver Street. 3. The existing structure is non-conforming in that it has less than the required minimum 15-foot depth of front yard and less than the required 30-foot depth of rear yard. The existing building is sited on the lot such that the front yard setback on Beaver Street is five feet, the front yard setback on Safford Street is 13 feet,and the rear yard setback from the north-western lot line is 13 feet. 4. The first floor of the building would be utilized as a garage and storage space for the residents. 5. At the March 19, 2014 meeting three abutters expressed their concerns about the petition, and the applicant requested to continue to the April 16, 2014 meeting in order to address the abutters' concerns, specifically in regards to the privacy concerns of the direct abutters and the proximity of the proposed exterior stairways to the adjacent properties. 6. At the April 16, 2014 meeting, to address the privacy concerns of the abutters, the Petitioner proposed the following: eliminating the window associated with bedroom 3, depicted on the west elevation of sheet A2.1, of the submitted plans "S&W Realty Trust Addition Project" dated March 18, 1011; and relocating the proposed entry stair from the south elevation of the budding to the north elevation, such that it is located on Beaver Street. 7. The Board discussed the extent to which the existing lot is paved, and agreed that increasing the green space on the lot would be more in keeping with the proposed residential use. City of Salem Board of Appeals May 20,2014 Project: 77 Beaver Street Page 2 of 3 • 8. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to convert the existing garage building into a single family residential building, by adding a second floor and two exterior stairways to the existing g single-story budding. One of the exterior stairways, to be located on the south side of the building, would increase the existing structure's nonconformity by reducing the front yard setback from five feet to one foot. 9. One written comment in opposition to the petition was received. 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: Findings 1. The existing building, a commercial building, is unusual for the residential neighborhood. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would be a substantial hardship — there has been little demand for commercial use of the existing building. 3. The desired relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, particularly as the conditions placed upon the approval seek to address the specific concerns of abutters. 4. The desired relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or . purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, as converting the property from a commercial use to a residential use is more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. • On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Variance to allow the extension and structural change to an existing nonconfornvng structure, for the addition of a second floor and two exterior stairways, which would increase the existing encroachment on the required minimum depth of the front 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 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. The window associated with bedroom 3, depicted on the west elevation of sheet A2.1, of the submitted plans "S&W Realty Trust Addition Project" dated March 18, 2014, shall be removed. s City of Salem Board of Appeals a I t. May 20,2014 Project: 77 Beaver Street Page 3 of 3 9. The proposed entry stair on the south elevation of the building shall be relocated to the north elevation, such that it is located on Beaver Street. • 10. The green space shall be extended along the south elevation of the house, extending from the building to the property line. 11. Construction shall conform with the submitted plans, excep t t as specifically noted in this decision. P ��P .. --^^� -- Y "� l -'VV / 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 arty, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Iowa Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of fiug 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 benin shall not take eeci until a copy of the decision bearing The certificate of the GO Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • ���ONUfT,tA_ ' CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL �MIIVE� 120 WASHINGPON STRfI3'r ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTs 01970 KIMBERLEY DRcscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,April 16,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of LINDLEY HANSON requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the addition of a second-story master bedroom, shed dormer, cellar entry extension, and storage shed to an existing non-conforming single-family residence, for the property located at 21 CARLTON STREET (R2 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on May 20,2014 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9 dam'15 and does not require action by the recipient.Appeals, if any,shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. • • • Ca�T CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS Af, BOARD OF APPEAL 120WASHINGTON STREET Szu.ENI,�fASSACF[USF:I't'S0191814 MAY 20 A IS • K1N1BF.Rji;y DRISCOLL Tiq,L':978-745-9595 * FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR AYoR FILE tf CITY CLERK, SALD1, tl,4Ss. May 20, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of LINDLEY HANSON requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the addition of a second-story master bedroom, shed dormer, cellar entry extension, and storage shed to an existing non-conforming single-family residence, for the property located at 21 CARLTON STREET (R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 16, 2014 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, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Copelas (Alternate) The Petitioner seeks a Special Perniit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and T o-Famil Resident ial Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: • 1. In the petition date-stamped March 26, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit to allow the addition of a second-story master bedroom, shed dormer, cellar entry extension, and storage shed to • the existing non-conforming single-family residence. 2. Attorney Charles A. Martins presented the petition for the property at 21 Carlton Street. 3. The existing structure is nonconforming with the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed addition would increase the nonconformity of the minimum required depth of rear yard and the nonconformity of the maximum lot coverage by all buildings. The existing depth of the rear yard is 12 feet, and the existing lot coverage by all buildings is 39%. The proposed addition would decrease the depth of rear yard to 11-feet, 6-inches, and would increase the lot coverage by all buildings to 47%. 4. The petition proposes to add a 17-foot 5/15-inch by 14-foot 7-inch addition with a master bedroom, shed dormer, first floor cellar entry extension, and storage shed. 5. The property is currently a single-family residence and will remain a single-family residence. 6. At the public hearing, no members of the public spoke in favor of or 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 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: Findings 1. The adverse effects of the proposal will not outweigh its beneficial impacts on the City or the neighborhood. 2. Community needs are served by the proposal. City of Salem Board of Appeals May 20, 2014 Project:21 Carlton Street r Page 2 of 2 • 3. There will be no impact on parking or loading in the area, as the property will remain a single-family residence. • 4. The adequacy of utilities and public services to the budding will remain the same as existing. 5. It is in keeping with the neighborhood character, particularly as the addition is at the back of the property, and the proposed roofline is the same as the existing roofiine. 6. The value of the home would increase, resulting in an increased tax base. This would have a positive economic and fiscal impact. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit to allow the addition of a second-story master bedroom, shed dormer, cellar entry extension, and storage shed to an existing non-conforming single-family residence, subject to the following terns, 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. • 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal fmm 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 fihug of this decision in the afire of the Ciry Clerk Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, be Va,iance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the cenificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • CITY OF SALEM5 MASSACHUSETTS �j' BOARD OF APPEAL • �i�'RN6 W" 120 WASHINGTON STREH'1' ♦ SALE,NIASSM:1 IU:yrG��fl""CRA 7 3 A III KI AIBISRI.F.Y DRISCOLL TI31.E•::978-745-9595.♦ FAX:978-740-98 i Ol N[AYOIt CITY CLE'R L E rf May 13, 2014 S,LEM. MA&S. Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of DANIEL R. HALL requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an expansion of an existing non-conforming structure, in order to expand an existing 1 1/2 story dwelling to a full two-story dwelling, over the existing footprint, for the property located at 12 OAKVIEW AVENUE (Rl Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 16, 2014 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, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Copelas (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit from Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential . Slntaures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped March 24, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit in order to • expand an existing nonconforming single-family residential structure by expanding the existing 1 /z story Cape Cod style dwelling to a full two story house, over the existing building footprint. 2. Mr. Richard Griffin,project architect, presented the petition for the property at 12 Oakview Avenue. 3. The existing structure is approximately 15 feet in height. The proposed structure will be 23 feet and 2 inches in height 4. The existing structure is non-conforming to the ten-foot required minimum width of side yard. The existing building falls within five feet of the east lot line. The existing lot is non-conformingwith less than the required 15 000 square foot q q t lot area and 100-foot minimum lot width, with a lot area of 5,600 square feet and a lot width of 50 feet. No chang es to those non-conforming g dimensions were proposed. 5. The proposed structure would be in a Colonial style, and would be finished in clapboard. 6. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to expand the existing non-conforming single-family structure to two stories from the existing 11/2 stories. 7. At the public hearing, no members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the proposal. 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: • Findings — Special Permit to allow the expansion of an existing g nonconforming single-family residential structure. JoCify of Salem Board of Appeals May 13,2014 Project: 12 Oakview Avenue Page 2 of 2 1. The community's needs are being met by the proposal, accommodating a family seeking to stay in the • neighborhood. 2. There will be no negative impact on traffic flow or safety. 3. The adequacy of utilities and public services to the building will remain the same as existing. 4. The structure will remain a single family building, and the increased size will not make a significant impact on the neighborhood character. 5. There will be no negative impacts on the natural environment, including views. 6. The value of the home would increase, resulting in an increased tax base. This would have a positive economic and fiscal impact. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Copelas in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit to allow the expansion of an existing nonconforming single-family residential structure, 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. S. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board 1LAeCC9211 GLml4 Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal fmm this decision, if aiy, 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 acibe 00 Clerk. Pursuant 10 the Massachusetts General Lams Chapter 40A, Section 11, the (,ananee or Special Pemit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision beating the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed suitb the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • M CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • `,' p' BOARD OF APPEAL 120WASHINGTON SUREL.,.'r SALEM,%1ASSAC11U.SF-,']2114"My 13 A 11: 0 1 KmfBf-am.x DRISCOIJ. TELE:978-145-9595 * FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR FILE rf CITY CLERK, SiUi'l. 4ASS. May 13, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of FOTINI MANOLAKOS requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change to an existing non-conforming residential structure, in order to construct a 3-season room on a portion of an existing deck, for the property located at 1 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (111 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 16, 2014 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, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Copelas (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit from Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the,Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped March 25, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit in order to construct a 3-season room on a portion of an existing deck. • 2. Ms. Fotini Manolakos presented the petition for the property at 1 Winter Island Road. 3. The proposed room would be 12-feet by 14-feet, and would he entirely on a portion of the existing exterior deck. The height of the proposed additionI would not exceed the height of the existing floor of the upper-level deck above. 4. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to change the existing non-conforming structure, to allow the addition of a 3-season room on a portion of an existing deck. 5. At the public hearing, no members of the public expressed their support of or their 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 use of the building as a single family home does not change and therefore the impact of the proposal on the community is no different than the existing condition 2. There will be no impact on traffic flow and safety 3. The utilities and public services to the building are adequate 4. The proposed addition is in keeping with the neighborhood • 5. The proposed addition would result in additional tax revenue for the city, this would have a positive economic and fiscal impact. City of Salem Board of Appeals May 13,2014 Project: I Winter Island Road Page 2 of 2 On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor • (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit to allow a change to an existing non-conforming residential structure, in order to construct a 3-season room on a portion of an existing deck, 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 pemvt prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. S. 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 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 6 ariance or Special Permitgrartted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision beating the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed will)the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • CITY OF SALEM, IVIASSACHUSETTS r Via; BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,NL\SSACI-IUSP:I201gl 13 A 11: 01 MN1BFiu,LyDRlscou, TELL:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR FILE fF CITY CLERK, SALEM. MASS. May 13, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of THANG TRAN requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one non-conforming use to another to allow the operation of a nail salon on the lower level of the existing single-family residence, and a Variance from the requirements of Section 5.1.5 Of-Street Parking—Design of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the required minimum width of a two-way drive, to allow the drive to be narrower than the required minimum width of twenty (20) feet, for the property located at 284 HIGHLAND AVENUE (132 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 16, 2014 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, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Copelas (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, and a Variance from the requirements of Section 5.1.5 Off-Street Parking - Design of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. • Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped March 20, 2014, the Petitioner requested: a Special Permit to change from one non-confortning use to another to allow the operation of a nail salon on the lower level of the existing single-family residence, with the upper level remaining in use as a single-family residence, and a Variance to grant relief from the required 20-foot minimum width of a two-way drive, to allow the drive to be 13 feet wide at its narrowest point. 2. Ms. Thao Nguyen, wife of the petitioner, presented the petition for the property at 284 Highland Avenue. 3. The existing use of the property is as a single-family home. The petitioner is proposing to convert the lower level of the building to a nail salon (a personal service establishment use), and retain the upper level of the building as a single-family residence. In a B-2 Business Highway zone, a personal service establishment may be permitted as a special permit by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 4. The petitioner proposes to add parking for clients of the nail salon at the rear of the building, with a single two-way driveway providing access from Highland Avenue. The required minimum driveway width for two-way use is 20 feet, however, the proposed drive would be restricted to 13 feet wide at its narrowest point,requiring a Variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. 5. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to convert the lower level of the existing home into a nail salon, and to construct a two-way driveway for patrons that is only 13 feet wide at its narrowest point. 6. At the public hearing, no member of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the petition. • Tity of Salem Board of Appeals May 13,2014 Project: 284 Highland 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: Findings — Special Permit to change from one non-conforming use to another, to allow the operation of a nail salon on the lower level of the existing single-family residence: 1. The proposal adds a commercial use to a commercial area 2. The conditions placed upon the approval have attempted to address and mitigate the traffic flow and safety issues 3. The utilities and public services are adequate 4. The proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood 5. There will be no negative impact on the natural environment 6. The proposal would have a positive economic and fiscal impact on the city. Findings —Variance to grant relief from the required minimum width of a two-way drive, to allow the drive to be narrower than the required minimum width of twenty (20) feet: 1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would be a substantial hardship on the applicant, due to the following: the location that is available for a driveway on this particular property, the lack of space in the front of the property to increase the driveway to a conforming width, and the need for handicap accessible access to the lower level of the building, which is only available through the rear of the building due to grade changes in the lot. • 2. Relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, particularly as the business will be limited to four service stations. 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 five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, and Mr. Copelas in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Pen-nit to change from one non-conforming use to another, and the Variance to grant relief from the required minimum width of a two-way drive, 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. . 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board r N'ity of Salem Board of Appeals May 13,2014 Project: 284 Highland Avenue Page 3 of 3 9. There shall be a maximum of four service stations in the nail salon 10. A paved area at the front of the building, running 18 feet along the front of the house and approximately 20 feet from the house to Highland Avenue, shall be added to allow for client maneuvering and owner parking. 11. The Petitioner shall seek the advice of the City Planner or the City Engineer regarding on-site traffic signage. Approval of the installed signage by the City Planner and/or the City Engineer shall be required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 12. The Petitioner shall remove the shrubs along the northeast property line from the house to Highland Avenue, in the area adjacent to the proposed entrance drive. V Rebecca Cutran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION I IAS 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 Lawi Chapter 40A, and shall be filed witbin 20 days of filing of this deasion 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+pith the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • • - ! 4 i �cortulrn�o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL s9 K '-�fM1N1 120 WAStuNG'I'ON S'I'RI ta' ♦ SAi.iant,bL\SStCtiuse:i,is01970 Kiatittst.C?vDRuscou, Ti,:i.e::978-745-9595♦ F2\x:978-740-9846 \LwOR MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofllppeals evill hold its regularly i ihedrtled meeting on Eednesday, M(ry 21, 2014 at 6:30p.m. at Oily Hall.Annex, RM 313, 120 lVashington St., Salem,Mfl Rebecca Curran,Chair REVISED MEETING AGENDA --I N I. ROLL CALL e II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES mT —9e ➢ April 16, 2014 meeting i1 III. REGULAR AGENDA _, w • un Project: Continuation of the Petition requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 TablC-af Dime r�ronal 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 and 21 VALLEY STREET (111 Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Section 9.4 Special Permits of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the extension of the existing nonconforming retail use,in order to sell firearms at the property. Applicant: MICHAEL BEAULIEU Location: 128 MARGIN STREET (112 Zoning District) APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO WITHDRAW Project: Petition requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the operation of a medical clinic providing analytical testing, and requesting a variance from the provisions of Section 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow fewer than the required number of off-street parking spaces. Applicant: ALPHA ANALYTICAL Location: 121 NORTH STREET (B1 Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting special permits per Sec. 3.35 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures and Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the renovation of an existing nonconforming single-family residence into a two-family residence, with less than the required minimum lot area per dwelling unit. Applicant: JOSEPH & MARIA GAGNON Location: 105 BROADWAY (112 Zoning District) This nNob(Odsted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on Mo- 14 t �i,( att j'.�P(h in accordance Wi�h MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. i 4 City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for May 21,2014 Meeting Project: Petition requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the e,, sting nonconforming structure, and a variance from the requirements of Sec. 3.2.4 Accessory Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the expansion of a previously-approved garage such that one wall lies on the southern property line. Applicant: RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ Location: 38 CABOT STREET (112 Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting a special permit per Sec 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the operation of a dog daycare business and the fencing of the outside space. Applicant: G. RACHEL HILL Location: 1 FLORENCE STREET (R3 Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting a special permit per Sec 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the addition of a covered porch and rear steps, as well as raising the roofline of the existing structure. Applicant: CHAPMAN MILLER Location: 13 GRAFTON STREET (RI Zoning District) Project: Petition special permit per Sec 9.4.2 Special Permits—Criteria and Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the operation of a real estate consulting office in a budding currently in a nonconforming use,at the property located at • Applicant: RODNEY SINCLAIR Location: 107 FEDERAL STREET (112 Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting a special permit per Sec 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a 20'-9" x W-11" single-story addition to the existing residence and Bed&Breakfast. Applicant: PHILIP MARCHAND Location: 47 SUMMER STREET (R2 Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 2 e�� : City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet ` Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date ame M ' 'ng Address Phone # E-mail 9 AO Orn/r15 uCZ 3[�('lL(�DTSI 9�fa1o37zf (Nlmil f—�C���P��J �f 7162,738627 2vdvveuQrick rv-7 R,� S� C, 7SYi,ti9 Page of L CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL � .M 120 WA$HINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETI'S 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE—2nd REVISION You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppeals will bold its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday,May 21, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at City HallA.nnex, RM 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Rebecca Curran,Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ➢ April 16,2014 meeting III. REGULARAGENDA Project: Petition requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Section 9.4 Special Permits of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the extension of the existing nonconforming retail use,in order to sell firearms at the property. Applicant: MICHAEL BEAULIEU Location: 128 MARGIN STREET (112 Zoning District) APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO WITHDRAW Project: Petition requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the operation of a medical clinic providing analytical testing,and requesting a variance from the provisions of Section 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow fewer than the required number of off-street parking spaces. Applicant: ALPHA ANALYTICAL Location: 121 NORTH STREET (Bl Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting special permits per Sec.3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures and Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the renovation of an existing nonconforming single-family residence into a two-family residence,with less than the required minimum lot area per dwelling unit. Applicant: JOSEPH&MARIA GAGNON Location: 105 BROADWAY(R2 Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure,and a variance from the requirements of Sec. 3.2.4 Accessory Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the expansion of a previously-approved garage such that one wall lies on the southern property line. Applicant: RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ Location: 38 CABOT STREET(R2 Zoning District) Page 1 of 2 a City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for May 21,2014 Meeting Project: Petition requesting a special permit per Sec 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Sec.3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the operation of a dog daycare business and the fencing of the outside space. Applicant: G. RACHEL HILL Location: 1 FLORENCE STREET(R3 Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting a special permit per See3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the addition of a covered porch and rear steps,as well as raising the mofline of the existing structure. Applicant: CHAPMAN MILLER Location: 13 GRAFTON STREET (R1 Zoning District) Project: Petition special permit per Sec 9.4.2 Special Permits—Criteria and Sec.3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the operation of a real estate consulting office in a building currently in a nonconforming use,at the property located at Applicant: RODNEY SINCLAIR Location: 107 FEDERAL STREET (112 Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting a special permit per Sec 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow a 20'-9"x 16'-11" single-story addition to the existing residence and Bed&Breakfast. Applicant: PHILIP MARCHAND Location: 47 SUMMER STREET (112 Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 2 i City of Salem Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes • Wednesday,May 21,2014 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA")was held on Wednesday,May 21, 2014 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Ms.Harris calls the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Those present were:Annie Harris (Acting Chair),Richard Dionne,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy,and Peter A. Copelas (Alternate).Also present were Thomas St. Pierre,Budding Commissioner,and Dana Menon,Staff Planner. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES_ April 16,2014 Draft Meeting Minutes Motion and Vote: Mr. Dionne moves to approve the minutes as written,seconded by Mr. Duffy. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr.Watkins,Mr.Duffy,Mr.Dionne,Ms. Harris,and Mr. Copelas) and none(0) opposed. Project: Petition requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Section 9.4 Special Permits of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the extension of the existing nonconforming retail use,in order to sell firearms at the property. . Applicant: MICHAEL BEAULIEU Location: 128 MARGIN STREET (R2 Zoning District) Documents&Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped April 9,2014 and accompanying materials ➢ May 14,2014 email from applicant requesting to withdraw Applicant submitted a letter requesting to withdraw. Motion and Vote:Mr.Duffy makes a motion to approve the application. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. A roll call vote is taken,and is unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr.Watkins,Ms.Harris,Mr. Dionne,Mr. Copelas,and Mr. Duffy)—and none(0)opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. MY zw.iuuw'S,., v" pIM Project: Petition requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the operation of a medical clinic providing analytical testing,and requesting a variance from the provisions of Section 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow fewer than the required number of off-street parking spaces. Applicant: ALPHAANALYTICAL Location: 121 NORTH STREET(Bl Zoning District) Documents&Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped April 17, 2014 and accompanying materials Eugene Shehu presents the application. He says he would be doing analytical drug testing at the site,with two-to-three Iof11 t employees maximum. There would be no foot traffic there,it would just be the employees there. Ms. Harris asks if the operating hours would be normal business hours—Monday through Friday,9am-5pm. Mr. . Shehu affirms. Mr. Shehu adds that the samples would come straight from the doctors or courts. Mr.Shehu would either collect them himself,or an employee would collect them. A regular car would drop them off,it wouldn't require a delivery truck. Mr. Copelas asks if this an existing business,and if the applicant has contracts in place to provide business. Mr. Shehu replies that this is a new business,and this is his first step in the process of opening the business. Mr.Dionne asks about the kind of testing that will be done. Mr. Shehu states that the business will be testing for drugs of abuse,for courts that require them. A doctor would request the samples to be tested,Mr. Shehu's business would collect the samples and test them. Mr.Watkins asks for clarification on the parking. Mr. Shehu clarifies that there's room on site for one legal parking space. He proposes that if needed he could remove a small wooden fence on the property,to make room for another car. Additionally,he believes there is plenty of street parking.Mr.Watkins clarifies that this location was formerly a former bait&tackle shop,Mr.Shehu concurs and adds that its last use was as a sewing shop. Ms. Harris opens public comment on the petition: Rosemary O'Connor 111 Mason Street asks how many parking spaces are required. Ms. Harris reads the requirements of the Salem Zoning Code,and states that according to the code the business would require 2 spaces— 1 space for him as a professional,and 1 space for the 2 additional employees. Ms.Harris notes that it sounds like it's possible that he could put both spaces on the property. Ms. O'Connor adds thatNorth street is very busy,so putting the parking on the street is not ideal. Ms.Harris clarifies that that applicant can only rely on the street parking if the • Board grants him the variance from the parking requirements,otherwise he has to provide all of the required parking spaces on the property. Mr. Copelas asks the applicant about the likelihood that a second off-street spot can be fit onto the property. Mr. Shehu states that the parking spaces would be tandem,front-to-back. Mr. St.Pierre added that a tandem space is not a legal space,so it would still require a variance. Mr. St.Pierre suggests that the Board could put a condition on the Special Permit requiring the 2 tandem spaces on-site"if feasible". The Board also discusses the feasibility of employees walking from the train station. Mr.Watkins states that he's in favor of the special permit for the use,but isn't sure about the variance for the parking,as he'd prefer to see the 2 off-street parking spots. He states that he'd like the applicant to go back and see if the spots can be legal. Mr. St. Pierre adds that the Board can add a condition to the Special Permit that the applicant shall create the 2^d spot,if it's feasible to create the additional parking space without violating any of the other dimensional requirements of the Zoning Code. Mr. Duffy states the findings for the Special Permit: there does appear that there's some need for this business,based on the submitted petition,by courts and other companies requiring this kind of testing. The board is attempting to address the issues with parking with the conditions set upon the approval. Utilities and public services appear to be adequate. The proposed business is not more detrimental than what is currently there;there are no significant impacts on the natural environment or view,and there will be beneficial economic and fiscal impacts. Mr. Duffy states the findings for the Variance: the Variance can be granted without substantial detriment,as requiring the 2^d parking space Emits the impact of the Variance. There won't be much impact from the employee parking or traffic. The requested variance is not nullifying or derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance. No plan or picture of the actual property was supplied to the Board,but the Board is a adding a special • condition that might allow for 2 cars to be parked on-site,. The parking is an issue that is unique to this parcel. 2of11 Motion and Vote: Mr.Duffy makes a motion to approve the application for a Special Permit and Variance, • with 8 standard conditions and four(4) special conditions to the special permit:1) the petitioner shall provide two (2) parking spaces on the property if feasible;2) the maximum number of employees working at one time shall be limited to three (3);3) the applicant shall have to petition the Board for a modification to the Special Permit in order to have more employees working at one time;4) there shall be no walk-in clients. The motion is seconded by Mr.Dionne. A roll call vote is taken,and is unanimous with five (5)in favor(Mr.Watkins,Ms.Harris,Mr.Dionne,Mr. Copelas,and Mr.Duffy)—and none(0)opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. �{rnn: Project: Petition requesting special permits per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures and Sec.4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the renovation of an existing nonconforming single-family residence into a two-family residence,with less than the required minimum lot area per dwelling unit. Applicant: JOSEPH&MARIA GAGNON Location: 105 BROADWAY(112 Zoning District) Documents&Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped April 28,2014 and accompanying materials ➢ Photos of the property after clean-up by Mr. Gagnon,submitted to the Board. Joseph Gagnon,owner and petitioner,presents the petition. Mr.Gagnon purchased the property about 6 weeks ago, and is seeking to convert it from a single-family to a two-family use. The petitioner has spoken to abutters,and states that there have been no objections. The house was condemned previously. Mr. Gagnon had to hire a haz-mat company to remove hazardous waste materials. He has rehabilitated 2 houses previously. The lot is 5,000 square feet - the majority of the lots in th s area are a similar size. Mr. Gagnon will provide the 3 required parking spaces on-site. Most of the structures in the surrounding area are multi-family. There are three single-family homes on Broadway, Mr. Gagnon states that he has spoken with all 3 owners and that they're all thrilled about the rehabilitation work. Mr. Gagnon concludes that it is easier to rent out 2 apartments than a whole house in that area. Mr. St.Pierre speaks to Mr. Gagnon's business reputation. The Building Department has worked with Mr. Gagnon on several other renovations,and highly recommends the way he does business—he goes through the building process thoroughly and properly. Ms. Harris opens public comment on the petition: Ewan Miller- 103 Broadway,speaks in favor of the petition. The house was an eyesore,and it was getting worse and worse. One more 2-family house won't bother anyone on the street. There is room for the required parking. The petitioner is changing the hazardous waste site into a decent house. Mr. Duffy states that it looks like a good proposal. What is proposed meets the standards for a special permit. It's adding a little density,but it wouldn't outweigh the beneficial impacts to the neighborhood. The petition is taking a house that's derelict and putting it to good use. The proposal addresses traffic and parking considerations.Utilities& public services are adequate. Based on the petitioner's presentation and the neighbor's comment,the proposal would bring the property up to the neighborhood character. There will be no detrimental impact on the environment, and the proposal will have a positive economic and fiscal impact. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the application with 9 standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins,Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne,Mr. Copelas, and Mr. Duffy)—and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. 3 of 11 Q mom Protect: Petition requesting a speciaall permit per Sec. 3 3 5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family u n:: Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure,and a variance from the requirements of Sec. 3.2.4 Accessory Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the expansion of a previously-approved garage such that one wall lies on the southern property line. Applicant: RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ Location: 38 CABOT STREET(R2 Zoning District) Documents&Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped April 22, 2014 and accompanying materials,including a letter from Michael P. Ki- ley, 40 Cabot Street,in support of the petitioner's request to construct the left side wall of the garage on the shared property line. ➢ Photos submitted to the Board. Mr.Raynaldo Dominguez,38 Cabot St,presents the petition. Mr. Dominguez states that he received approval [from the Board of Appeals] for the old garage previously. He laid the foundation down for that previously approved garage,and found that the layout of the foundation makes it difficult to back out of the garage without hitting the house. He proposes to remove the left-hand side of the garage foundation,and rebuild it to extend the garage to the property line on that side. It will be expensive just to do that one side. Mr. Dominguez states that he has support from the neighbor on that side. Ms.Harris asks -that neighbor is Mr.Kiley? Mr.Dominguez confirms this,and states that Mr. Kiley's property is located on the side where the garage foundation is. Mr.Dominguez submits existing photos of the garage foundation to the Board. Ms. Harris states that—there was a decision made in 2011 for a Variance from side yard setback and accessory • structure height requirements. The conditions were the standard conditions,there were no special conditions. Mr. St.Pierre asks for clarification on the final size of the garage. One submitted plan shows the garage up against the rear lot line of the property,the other submitted plan doesn't. The plan titled"kitchen addition"shows the garage in a different position. Ms.Harris asks about the dimensions of the proposed garage. Mr. Dominguez clarifies that the garage is now 15 feet wide by 24 feet long,and the proposal is to expand it to 18 feet wide by 24 feet long. Ms. Harris notes that the existing plan shows that the existing garage is 18 feet long,not 24 feet long. The old decision stipulates that the garage was permitted for 15 feet by 24 feet. Mr. Copelas asks if this had been the proposal from the start,how would the Board have reacted? Mr.St. Pierre— adds that when you build on a zero-lot-line,the soffit might overhang the property fine. Mr.Dominguez responds that the old garage was right on the property line. There wouldn't be any windows on that side of the garage. Mr. St. Pierre states that the proposed garage roof could have no overhang at all (without soffit or gutter),or else it would overhang the neighbor's property. Mr. St.Pierre asks the applicant how he proposes to address that concern. Ms.Harris offers that the Board could condition that the garage has to be a foot off the property line. Mr.Watkins adds that the water runoff from the garage roof would go straight onto the abutting property,and suggests moving the garage two feet from the property line. Mr. Dominguez states that the existing foundation is built 3 feet from the property line, and offers that the gutters on the garage would move the water away from the abutting property. Mr. Copelas points out that the proposed kitchen addition would make the existing layout of the garage even more difficult. He states that without the kitchen addition,backing out of the garage is difficult but it's doable. Ms. Harris adds that the current neighbor might not mind the proximity of the garage,but the next might. If we give an additional 2 feet of relief from the existing location-requiring a 1-foot offset from the property line,it would almost straighten the route out. 4of11 i Ms. Harris opens public comment on the petition: No comment is heard. Mr. St.Pierre states that he'd highly recommend a one-foot setback. On a zero-lot line,the footing of the garage would have to be on the neighbor's property. We can't condone building on the neighbor's property. Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve a modification to the previous Board of Appeals decision of June 1,2011 to allow the extension of the garage to extend to within 1 foot of the side lot line, with all of the original conditions of that decision still applicable.The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. A roll call vote is taken,and is unanimous with five(5) in favor(Mr.Watkins,Ms. Harris,Mr.Dionne,Mr. Copelas,and Mr. Duffy)—and none(0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Ms. Harris raises the second issue, the expansion of the kitchen. Mr. St.Pierre asks if it is a single-story addition,which Ms. Dominguez confirms. Mr.Duffy notes that the drawing depicts it as having a deck on top,and asks how that would be accessed. Ms. Dominguez states that it would be for the second floor. The tenants on the second floor have an existing small porch,and that would have to be rebuilt. Mr.St. Pierre asks if the existing back porch provides an exit for the second floor tenants. Mr.Dominguez notes that in the proposed addition,the stairs to the second floor would be on the right side of the house. Mr. St.Pierre notes that these stairs are not shown on the submitted drawings. Mr. Copelas and Ms. Harris note that that the submitted side view is not to scale. Mr.St. Pierre recommends that the applicant request to continue,and return with properly scaled drawings that show all of the proposed features. Mr.Duffy agrees with that the lack of illustration of the proposed access to the second floor is an issue. Mr.Duffy and Ms.Harris clarify the drawings required and the level of detail needed. Mr. St. Pierre adds that the submitted drawings show different locations for the kitchen extension,and states that there has to be one consistent plan. Motion and Vote:Mr.Duffy makes a motion to approve the applicant's request to continue to the June 18, 2014 Board of Appeals regularly scheduled meeting.The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr.Watkins,Mr. Duffy,Mr. Dionne,Ms.Harris,and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. '?- .i v i s!. #' !3 Hi�l1'J"� ' . .-` k i r�. `* "+vR?IN41q Project: Petition requesting a special permit per Sec 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the operation of a dog daycare business and the fencing of the outside space. Applicant: G. RACHEL HILL Location: 1 FLORENCE STREET(113 Zoning District) Documents&Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped April 30,2014 and accompanying materials Ms.Rachel Hill and Mr. Greg Salamida present the petition. Ms. Hill owns Healthy Hounds Doggy Daycare. They moved into their current location on Summer Street knowing that it would be temporary,as the building will be coming down. They are proposing to move to 1 Florence Street. Ms. Harris views the submitted plot plan,and confirms that the blue line is the proposed fence for the outdoor area. 5 of 11 Mr. Copelas asks which part of 1 Florence street the applicant will be using. Mr.Salamida indicates they will be using the southern end of the building. Ms.Harris asks how the dogs will go from the budding to the fenced dog area. Mr. Salamida indicates that they would put a moveable fence between the building and the proposed fenced dog area,a few feet off of the eastern property boundary,parallel to the existing permanent fence on the eastern property boundary. Mr. St.Pierre notes that the application should just be for a special permit for use,not for a nonconforming structure,and adds that his understanding is that the fence is just to show what parts of the property will be used. Ms. Harris confirms that the special permit is then only for the use of the property. Ms. Harris opens public comment on the petition: Anthony Picarello, 1 Florence St,owner of the building,speaks in favor of the petition. Mr. Dionne notes that there doesn't seem to be any opposition from the neighbors. Mr.Duffy states the findings: the petition serves a community need by caring for pets in the area, there have been no objections or concerns expressed regarding impacts on parking or loading,the utilities and the public services will be adequate,the proposed business is in keeping with neighborhood character, there are minimal-if any-impacts on the natural environment and view,and the proposal will have a positive economic and fiscal impact. Mr. St.Pierre asks if the business will be run strictly in the daytime,or if it will be overnight. The applicant states that the overnight care they've provided so far hasn't been at the dog daycare property,but they'd like to have the option down the road of having overnight use approved. Mr.St. Pierre suggests that the Board condition it for daytime service for now,and that if the applicant wants to change to overnight use in the future,they'd come back before the Board. The applicant clarifies that the business is generally open 7am-7pm,and it sometimes opens at 6:30am. • Motion and Vote:Mr.Duffy makes a motion to approve the application for a Special Permit for 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses for the operation of a dog daycare business,with 7 standard conditions,and with the special condition that it shall only be open only during typical retail hours,6:30am-11pm. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. A roll call vote is taken,and is unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr.Watkins, Ms. Harris,Mr. Dionne,Mr. Copelas,and Mr.Duffy)—and none(0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. g Project: Petition requesting a special permit per Sec 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the addition of a covered porch and rear steps,as well as raising the roofline of the existing structure. Applicant: CHAPMAN MILLER Location: 13 GRAFTON STREET (R1 Zoning District) Documents&Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped April 30,2014 and accompanying materials ➢ Letter of support from abutter at 11 Grafton St, submitted to the Board. Chapman Miller,petitioner,presents the petition. Ms. Harris reads a letter of support submitted by Sam Hiljeh and Weam Alserabi at 11 Grafton Street. Ms. Harris asks where specifically the roof is being raised. Mr.Miller indicates on the plan that the main dwelling roof is being raised. 6of11 Ms.Harris asks what the additional square footage of the house will be. Mr.Miller indicates that it will be about 200 additional square feet on the second floor,plus the area over the covered porch. Mr.St.Pierre adds that the side porch is about 23 feet by S feet. Mr. Duffy notes that the proposal will change the building,but it won't result in any further encroachment on the required setbacks. Mr. St.Pierre confirms,and states that the lot coverage would still be in conformance with the zoning code. Mr. St.Pierre clarifies that the petition requires a Special Permit as its proposing to continue a non- conforming line along the front of the property(along Grafton Street). Ms. Hamm opens the hearing forpublic comment. Patrick Collins, 16 Grafton Street,states that the proposal will improve not only the petitioner's house,but will improve the whole neighborhood. Mr. St. Pierre states that he has worked with Mr. Miller on another renovation under progress. Everything has been done well and correctly. Mr.Duffy states that based on the application and plans submitted,and the statements heard today, the beneficial impacts would outweigh any negative impacts on the neighborhood. There would be no impact on traffic flow& safety,the utilities and public services will be adequate,the proposal will improve the property and the neighborhood character,the impacts on the view&natural environment is not an issue here,and the proposal would have a positive economic and fiscal impact. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the application with 9 standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Harris,Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas,and Mr. Duffy) —and none (0) opposed. The decision is . hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Project: Petition special permit per Sec 9.4.2 Special Permits—Criteria and Sec. 3.3.2 W3 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the operation of a real estate consulting office in a building currently in a nonconforming use,at the property located at Applicant: RODNEY SINCLAIR Location: 107 FEDERAL STREET (112 Zoning District) Documents&Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped April 30,2014 and accompanying materials ➢ Business brochures submitted to the Board. ➢ Proposed list of special conditions submitted to the Board Mr. Rodney Sinclair presents the petition. He has been in business for about 4 years,previously out of his home in Jamaica Plain. With his young son,he needs more space,and wants to move into some office space. This space on Federal Street has historically been a commercial space. He is currently renting the space,with an option to purchase in one year. The space would allow him to hire an intern and possibly an administrative person. He held a community meeting at the space and there was a general sense of support for the business. The space itself has been vacant for the past couple of years,and the previous use didn't allow for"eyes on the street" Neighbors mentioned that they would welcome some active use in the space,to discourage unwanted activities on the street. Mr. Sinclair's business mostly consists of assisting large-scale real estate projects through permitting,concept development, contractor selection,construction process, community process,etc. He plans on using this space as his headquarters. He does not intend,and does not need,to have walk-in business. It has been a successful and consistent business. He has gone over some conditions with some folks in the neighborhood who have expressed specific concerns,which he submits to the Board. He does want to clarify that the hours of operation proposed would be modified from those listed on the proposed conditions to be 10am-7pm. 7of11 Ms.Harris reads three letters from the public into the record: 1. Joel Caron,4 Andover Street,in opposition to the petition,stating that the proposed use will have no relationship to the neighborhood,and will not benefit the residential neighborhood. 2. Jane Arlander,93 Federal Street,in opposition to the petition,stating that there would likely be more than 2 or 3 employees,and that the proposed use is not in keeping with existing quiet residential character of the neighborhood. 3. Meg Twohey, 122 Federal Street,in opposition to the petition,stating that the proposed commercial use would have a more detrimental impact on the neighborhood than the previous commercial uses. No on-site retail real estate sales should be allowed,no additional parking should be permitted,and proposed educational classes to the neighborhood should not be allowed. Ms.Harris reads the nine proposed conditions submitted by the applicant. See Attachment A for the submitted list of conditions. Ms. Harris opens the hearing forpublic comment John Carr,7 River Street,Salem—states that he prepared the submitted conditions. He refers to the August 17,2006 Decision regarding the existing non-conforming use. The existing non-conforming use was by appointment only, and there was no retail. 107 Federal Street is the only non-conforting use along that stretch of Federal Street. Mr. Sinclair is only going to use the space as private office space. Mr. Sinclair has assured Mr. Carr that he will not be bringing people to the space. If Mr. Sinclair adheres to these conditions,Mr. Carr can support it. If the conditions are not adopted,he will appeal. Barbara Cleary, 104 Federal Street—had some concerns about the proposal,but is now supportive of the petition with the submitted conditions. Just wants to add that the phrase"or real estate brokerage sales"should be inserted after the first line of condition#6. Steve Whittier,10 River Street—has met with Mr. Sinclair,gives him credit for his involvement of the neighborhood, • and would welcome him. Mr. Carr adds that he supports Mr. Sinclair's proposed change to the hours. Mr.Watkins asks if the proposed condition#4 can be an enforceable condition. It seems that it would probably be part of the findings of the Board,if they granted the Special Permit. Mr.St.Pierre agrees with Mr.Watkins' statement on condition#4,and adds that#10 is something that has typically been enforced. Mr. Copelas states that the part of condition#8 stating that"at no time shall the business become a nuisance to the residential historic neighborhood..."is not enforceable. Mr.Duffy adds that there are other ordinances that would govern some of the concerns laid out in the submitted conditions,such as excessive noise,litter,and trash. The hours of operations could be fixed per the conditions the Board sets. Ms. Harris states that parking is a significant concern. Mr.Duffy concurs,and notes that if submitted condition#7 (no more than 3 people there at one time) is followed,then the parking situation would be better. The Board continues discussion of appropriate edits to the submitted conditions,which of the submitted conditions to apply to the Special Permit,and carrying over conditions from the previous (August 17,2006)Decision. Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve the application with 6 standard conditions,and with the following the special conditions: (#5 as edited by Board;#7 as edited,#8 as edited,#7 edited from the Aug 17 2006 decision). The motion is seconded by Mr.Dionne. A roll call vote is taken,and is unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr.Watkins,Ms.Harris,Mr.Dionne,Mr. Copelas,and Mr. Duffy)—and none (0)opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. 8 of 11 :1 Discussion:Ms. Harris states that the proposed use is no more detrimental than the previous use. Mr.Duffy adds that the proposal is fairly consistent,at least in terms of the scope and what's been permitted by our conditions,to be similar to the graphic design business. Project: Petition requesting a special permit per Sec 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow a 20'-9"x 16'-11"single- story addition to the existing residence and Bed&Breakfast. Applicant: PHILIP MARCHAND Location: 47 SUMMER STREET (R2 Zoning District) Documents&Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped April 30,2014 and accompanying materials ➢ Petition of support from neighbors submitted to the Board. Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. The Marchands live on the property and operate a small bed and breakfast there. They are proposing to add a small second-story addition to an existing single-story part of the building. The purpose of the addition is to create a single room with a laundry room,to make room for the expected baby. There would be no change to the building footprint. The proposed change is consistent with the rest of the house. Mr.Marchand asked his neighbors for support of the petition. This proposal will also have to go before the Historic Commission,so the proposal will have that oversight as well. Ms. Harris opens the bearing forpublic comment. Joseph Gagnon,23 High Street,speaks in support of the petition. Brian Shaughnessy,4 Broad Street,speaks in support of the petition. Mr. Shaughnessy states that the applicants are great neighbors,run a business in a residential neighborhood that has never impacted any of the neighbors. This addition will allow the Marchands to stay in the home rather than having to sell it. Atty. Grover states that the property is currently approved for a 3-bedroom Bed and Breakfast,and the proposal would reduce that to 2-bedrooms used for the Bed and Breakfast,which would actually decrease the impact of the bed and breakfast business on the neighborhood. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the application with 8 standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins,Ms. Harris,Mr. Dionne,Mr. Copelas, and Mr. Duffy)—and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Discussion:Mr.Duffy states that the adverse impacts of the proposal will not outweigh the beneficial impacts, the business is already in place, and is a very good,neighborly business. It serves a community need,there is no additional impact on traffic flow&safety,the utilities&public services are adequate,there are no apparent negative impacts on the natural environment including view, the proposal will not create a negative economic or fiscal impact, in fact the economic/fiscal impact will possibly even be positive. ns kOLDN - '"" t M, w°t «EW BUSINESS S ` a a.ln None Mr.Dionne motioned for adjournment of the April 16, 2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 9:05 PM. 9 of 11 `1 Motion and Vote: Mr.Dionne made a motion to adjourn the April 16,2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals,seconded by Mr. Copelas,and a unanimous vote was taken with five (5)in favor(Mr. Watkins,Ms.Harris, ,Mr.Dionne,Mr. Copelas,and Mr. Duffy)-and none (0) opposed. For actions where the decisions have not been filly written into there minutes, copier of the decisions have been pouted separately by address or pmjectat.•ho.-Il.salem.com/PageslSalemMA ZoninZA,npeadTYlinl Respectfully subm tted, Dana Menon,Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 6/18/2014 • i 10 of 11 Attachment A Suggested Conditions of Approval submitted to the Board on 5/21/2014 by Mr. Rodney Sinclair,in support of his petition for 107 Federal Street. 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues,ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to,the Planning Board and the Salem Historical Commission. 4. In no event shall the real estate consulting business have a more deleterious effect on the R-2 residential zoning district in which it is located than has been the case with the pre-existing non-conforming graphic design business (Studio 107 and ancillary art gallery owned and operated by Christine McClearn.) 5. The petitioner shall be limited to the office use for a non-retail,real estate consulting business only, subject to the other conditions of this Special Permit,and such business shall be limited to the first floor of the site only. 6. The real estate consulting business shall not include any retail or commercial sales activity of any kind on the premises. The premises shall only be used as the office space where those affiliated with the business can perform their private office duties. All meetings with customers or clients shall occur off-site. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing there shall be no advertising posted on the premises. 7. There shall never be any more than(3) people affiliated with the business on site (including the business owner). This 3-person limitation includes (without limitation) employees,interns,paraprofessionals,support staff,or any other individuals of whatever description. 8. The hours of operation will be limited to Monday to Friday from 8:30am to 7:00pm(and shall not include holidays). At no time shall the business become a nuisance to the residential historic neighborhood, including(without limitation)as a result of excessive noise,hours of operation,fitter,or demands on parking in the neighborhood. 9. This Special Permit will expire upon the first to occur of the expiration or relocation of the business (Sinclair Development Solutions),the change of the majority of ownership of same,or the violation of any of the conditions of this Special Permit. Any future business seeking to occupy this space is required to apply for a new Special Permit. 11 of 11 b ,CONDtk1f • T CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS z 1 BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DtuscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Dana Menon,Staff Planner DATE: May 16,2014 RE: Meeting Agenda for May 21,2014 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Meeting Minutes from 4/16/2014 • 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 5/21/2014 meeting. 1. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. Petition of MICHAEL BEAULIEU,requesting a special permit per Sec.3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Section 9.4 Special Permits of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the extension of the existing nonconforming retail use,in order to sell firearms at the property located at 128 MARGIN STREET (112 Zoning District). The petitionet has submitted a request to withdraw this application. 2. Petition of ALPHA ANALYTICAL,requesting a special permit per Sec.3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the operation of a medical clinic providing analytical testing, and requesting a variance from the provisions of Section 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow fewer than the required number of off-street parking spaces,at the property located at 121 NORTH STREET (Bl Zoning District). The petitioner proposes to convert the current business into an analytical testing laboratory. The Zoning Enforcement Officer has determined that the business should be considered as a"medical clinic"use,which requires a special permit from the Board in order to operate in a Bl zone. The proposal also requires a variance,as there is insufficient on-site parking to serve the proposed use. The zoning ordinance requires"1 space for each professional person,plus 1 space for each 2 other employees,plus 2 additional spaces for each professional person." The applicant proposes to have 2-4 employees. There is • only 1 conforming parking space on-site. The applicant states that there is parking available on North Street, and parking at the future MBTA commuter rail parking garage will also be available. Furthermore,the applicant states that the lab would be for analytical testing,and there would be no customers or walk-in business—samples would be delivered to the lab. City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—May 16,2014 Page 2 of 5 • To grant a Special Permit, the Board must make the following findings: That the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the City or the neighborhood,in view of the particular characteristics of the site,and of the proposal in relation to that site. The determination shall include consideration of each of the following: a) Community needs which are served by the proposal; b) Traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading; c) Adequacy of utilities and other public services; d) Neighborhood character; e) Impacts on the natural environment including view;and 0 Potential economic and fiscal impact,including impact on City services,tax base,and employment. To grant a variance, the Board must make the following findings: 1. Owing to conditions especially affecting such parcel or such building but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located,a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance would involve substantial hardship,financial or,otherwise,to the appellant 2. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good 3. Desirable relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Ordinance 3. Petition of JOSEPH& MARIA GAGNON,requesting special permits per Sec.3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures and Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the renovation of an existing nonconforming single-family residence into a two-family residence,with less than the required minimum lot area per dwelling unit, • at the property located at 105 BROADWAY(R2 Zoning District). The applicant proposes to change an existing nonconforming single-family residential home to a two-family residential home. The applicant proposes to renovate the building,but there will be no changes to the building footprint. The proposed use requires 3 on-site parking spaces,which the applicant proposes to locate at the rear of the property. The existing non-conforming residence has less than the required lot area per dwelling unit, and the western side yard is less than the required depth. The proposed change of use would increase the nonconformity of the lot area per dwelling unit: q tmettsio tat Requuements ZonLtg Oidinan EzrAeting Minimum lot area per dwelling unit 7,500 5,000 2,500 Minimum width of side yard(west yard) 10 feet 6 feet 6 feet To grant a Special Permit, the Board must make the following findings: That the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the City or the neighborhood,in view of the particular characteristics of the site,and of the proposal in relation to that site. The determination shall include consideration of each of the following: g) Community needs which are served by the proposal; h) Traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading; i) Adequacy of utilities and other public services; • 2 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—May 16,2014 Page 3 of 5 j) Neighborhood character; k) Impacts on the natural environment including view;and 1) Potential economic and fiscal impact,including impact on City services,tax base,and employment. 4. Petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a special permit per Sec.3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-fami/,Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure,and a variance from the requirements of Sec.3.2.4 Accessory Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the expansion of a previously-approved garage such that one wall lies on the southern property line,at the property located at 38 CABOT STREET (R2 Zoning District). In a June,2011 decision (see Attachment A),the applicant was granted a Variance to allow the construction of a garage with a second-story,located 2 feet from the side yard and 5 feet from the rear yard. Mr. Dominguez is now seeking an additional variance to allow him to move the south wall of the garage to be located on the property line,expanding width of the garage by 2 feet. Mr.Dominguez is also proposing to construct a 20-foot by 8-foot addition.onto the back of his house,to increase the area of the kitchen. The kitchen and garage expansion would increase the existing nonconformities of the residential structure. The required maximum lot coverage by all buildings in the R2 zone is 35%. The existing house and garage cover 37%of the lot. The proposed expansions would increase the lot coverage by all buildings to 48%. • To grant a Special Permit,the Board must make the following findings: That the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the City or the neighborhood,in view of the particular characteristics of the site,and of the proposal in relation to that site. The determination shall include consideration of each of the following: a) Community needs which are served by the proposal; b) Traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading; c) Adequacy of utilities and other public services; d) Neighborhood character; e) Impacts on the natural environment including view;and f) Potential economic and fiscal impact,including impact on City services,tax base,and employment. To grant a variance,the Board must make the following findings: 1. Owing to conditions especially affecting such parcel or such building but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located,a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance would involve substantial hardship,financial or,otherwise,to the appellant 2. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good 3. Desirable relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Ordinance In addition to his 2011 petition regarding the construction of the two-story garage,Mr. Dominguez was also granted variances in 2008 to allow the construction of a porch and third-floor dormer. The decision is included in Attachment A for your reference. 5. Petition of G. RACHEL HILL requesting a special permit per Sec 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and • Sec.3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the operation of a dog 3 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—May 16,2014 Page 4 of 5 daycare business and the fencing of the outside space,at the property located at 1 FLORENCE STREET (113 Zoning District). The applicant is proposing to change from the existing non-conforming use to another nonconforming use,in order to operate a dog daycare at the site. Part of this proposal is an exterior fenced area at the rear of the property,as indicated on the submitted plot plan. To grant a Special Permit, the Board must make the following findings: That the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the City or the neighborhood,in view of the particular characteristics of the site,and of the proposal in relation to that site. The determination shall include consideration of each of the following: a) Community needs which are served by the proposal; b) Traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading; c) Adequacy of utilities and other public services; d) Neighborhood character; e) Impacts on the natural environment including view;and f) Potential economic and fiscal impact,including impact on City services,tax base,and employment. 6. Petition of CHAPMAN MILLER requesting a special permit per Sec 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the addition of a covered porch and rear steps,as well as raising the roofline of the existing structure,at the property located at 13 GRAFTON STREET(RI Zoning District). The applicant is proposing to construct a covered porch on the south-east side of the existing home,adding 8- • foot wide by 8-foot long rear stairs,and raising the roofline of the existing building by 8 feet over the existing foundation and the new proposed rear steps. The existing structure is 21-feet, 5-inches high,the proposed expansion would increase the height of the structure to 29-feet. The proposed additions would not increase the nonconformities of the existing building. To grant a Special Permit,the Board must make the following findings: That the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the City or the neighborhood,in view of the particular characteristics of the site, and of the proposal in relation to that site. The determination shall include consideration of each of the following: a) Community needs which are served by the proposal; b) Traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading; c) Adequacy of utilities and other public services; d) Neighborhood character; e) Impacts on the natural environment including view;and f) Potential economic and fiscal impact,including impact on City services,tax base,and employment. 7. Petition of RODNEY SINCLAIR requesting a special permit per Sec 9.4.2 Special Permits—Criteria and Sec.3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the operation of a real estate consulting office in a building currently in a nonconforming use, at the property located at 107 FEDERAL STREET (112 Zoning District). The applicant proposes to operate a real estate consulting business in a building currently in an existing nonconforming use. The property is currently in residential and retail use. In 1995 and 2006,the Board of • 4 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals • Staff Memorandum—May 16,2014 Page 5 of 5 Appeals granted special permits to allow various previous nonconforming commercial uses at this property. These decisions are attached for your reference under Attachment B. To grant a Special Permit, the Board must make the following findings: That the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the City or the neighborhood,in view of the particular characteristics of the site,and of the proposal in relation to that site. The determination shall include consideration of each of the following: a) Community needs which are served by the proposal; b) Traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading; c) Adequacy of utilities and other public services; d) Neighborhood character; e) Impacts on the natural environment including view;and 0 Potential economic and fiscal impact,including impact on City services,tax base,and employment. 8. Petition of PHILIP MARCHAND requesting a special permit per Sec 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow a 20'-9"x 16'-I1" single-story addition to the existing residence and Bed&Breakfast, at the property located at 47 SUMMER STREET (R2 Zoning District). The applicant proposes to construct a 20-foot,9-inch by 16-foot, 11-inch addition onto the east side of the existing home,adding a second story to an existing single-story portion of the building. The property is currently in use as a private residence and a bed and breakfast. The proposed addition is specified in the • application as being for the addition of a bedroom to the private residence. To grant a Special Permit,the Board must make the following findings: That the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the City or the neighborhood,in view of the particular characteristics of the site,and of the proposal in relation to that site. The determination shall include consideration of each of the following: a) Community needs which are served by the proposal; b) Traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading; c) Adequacy of utilities and other public services; d) Neighborhood character; e) Impacts on the natural environment including view;and f) Potential economic and fiscal impact,including impact on City services,tax base,and employment. II.Attachments o Attachment A- 38 Cabot Street: 2011 and 2008 decisions petition o Attachment B— 107 Federal Street. 1995 and 2006 decisions. 5 ATTACHMENT A June 5, 2008 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ seeking VARIANCES from minimum front yard depth to construct a new 24' x 6' porch and number of stories allowed (2 '/2) to construct a 15' x 7' third floor dormer at 38 CABOT STREET (R-2). RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting to WITHDRAW the request for a Variance from the distance an accessory structure is required to be from lot lines to allow for an 8' x 8' shed 2' from the side lot line and 1' from the rear lot line at 38 CABOT STREET (R-2). • A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 21, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on May 21, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein(Chair), Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, Annie Harris and Bonnie Belair(Alternate). Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Table I: Residential Density Regulations. Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner, Raynoldo Dominguez,is the owner of 38 Cabot Street a property located in the Residential Two Family(R-2)Zoning District. The property contains and two residential units. 2. The petition is accompanied by a plan entitled, "Plot Plan of Land Located at 38 Cabot Street",prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation, dated April 21, 2008. Additionally, the petition is accompanied by four perspectives of a 3D computer model illustrating the proposed porch. 3. The petitioner is proposing to remove the existing porch (approx. 5' x 6') and construct a 24' x 6' farmer's porch on the front of the residence. The petitioner states the existing porch is in poor condition and in need of replacement. The minimum depth of front yard required is 15'; the petitioner is proposing a front . yard depth of 3' and is therefore seeking a variance from the minimum depth of front yard. 2 4. The maximum height of buildings allowed in stories is 2 '/2 stories. The petitioner • is proposing to construct a 15' x 17' third floor dormer; therefore, the petitioner is seeking a variance from the maximum height of buildings (stories). The dormer would increase the living space for the second floor unit. 5. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow an accessory structure to be located closer than 5' from any lot line. The petitioner's application included a request for a variance from the distance an accessory structure is required to be from lot lines to allow an 8' x 8' shed 2' from the side lot line and 1' from the rear lot line. The petitioner requested to withdraw this portion of the application at the public hearing. 6. Wendy Curtin(5-7 Geneva Street) spoke in opposition of the petitioner's request for a variance to allow for a shed. 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. Minimal relief is necessary to allow the construction of the dormer, which can provide for increased living space on this small lot. The existing front yard depth is similar to what is proposed and the style of the proposed porch will enhance the look of the property. These are special circumstances that especially affect the land and structure, not generally affecting other lots in the in the Zoning District. 2. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would result in substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner who is seeking to make improvements to his property. 3. The proposed porch and dormer would not be out of character with structures existing in the neighborhood. Therefore, desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. To allow for the 24' x 6' porch as show on the plot plan, the petitioner may vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, specifically the minimum depth of front yard. 2. To allow for the 15' x 17' third floor dormer as show on the plot plan, the petitioner may vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, specifically the maximum height of buildings (stories). 3. The petitioner's request to withdraw the variance requested for the proposed • shed is allowed by this decision without prejudice. 3 • 4. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Debski, Curran, Stein, Harris, and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statues, 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure, though slate is not required on the roof. • 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. Robin Stein, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • June 1, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a Variance from Sec. 3.2.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,Accessory Building Structures,including side yard setback, number of stories, and height, in order to demolish the existing garage on 38 CABOT STREET and construct a garage with second-story storage (R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 20, 2011 §11 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A. The hearing was continued to May 18, 2011 and closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran,Richard Dionne,Annie Harris,Jamie Metsch,Bonnie Belair(alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 3.2.4 (Accessory Buildings and Structures) of . the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner represented himself at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped March 30, 2011, the petitioner requested Variances from Accessory Buildings and Structures requirements in order to tear down an existing garage and build a new 15 x 24 foot garage with additional second floor storage. 3. At the meeting on April 20,2011,Board members noted that plans were not clearly drawn and not scaled, and requested further detail. 4. The hearing was continued to May 18, 2011,when the petitioner presented revised drawings. 5. No one spoke in support of or opposition to the petition. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public • good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 2 • 2. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including,but not limited to, the Plans,Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. Variances under Sec. 3.2.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to demolish the existing garage on 38 Cabot Street and construct a new garage with second-floor storage are granted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Curran, Dionne, Harris,Metsch and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for Variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as pet the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire • safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to,the Planning Board. Rebecca Curran, Chair Salem Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the • office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the F� 3 decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry • of Deeds. i • ATTACHMENT B un r CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS Gi I-y OF SALEM, MA -, BOARD OF APPEAL _ CLERKS OFFI.CG 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TELEPHONE: 978-745.9595 FAx: 978-740.9846 NQ4 5EP I 1 'P!A: 31 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR August 17,2006 Decision Petition of Christine McClearn requesting a Special Permit to allow a graphic design and art gallery at the property located at 107 Federal Street, R-2 District City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on August 16, 2006 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch.40A, Sec. 11,the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein, Annie Harris, Stephen Pinto,Bonnie Belair,Elizabeth Debski. The petitioner, Christine McCleam, is requesting a Special Permit pursuant to section 5-3 0)to allow for a graphic design business and art gallery located at 107 Federal Street Street, Salem,in the Two Family Residential(R-2)zoning district. The Board of Appeals,after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following • findings of fact: 1. The property at t07 Federal Street is within the R-2 zoning district. 2. The petitioner,Christine McClearn, will run the graphic design business as primarily a graphic design studio, with an ancillary use as an art gallery. 3. The petitioner is requesting an extension of the previously non-conforming use to allow the graphic design business use for the site. 4. The site was previously used as a florist shop,a pre-existing non-conforming use. 5. The petitioner will only utilize the first floor of the property for the graphic design business. 6. The hours of operation of the graphic design business will be Monday-Friday during regular business hours, and the art gallery will operate during the same business hours with the only exception being an occasional Saturday or Sunday appointment as needed and an occasional evening gallery reception for artists. 7. Parking for the use will be accommodated by the existing on-street parking,or the single off-street parking space on the site. • • 8. The graphic design business shall function on an appointment only basis and shall not function as a retails ace.. III P 9. There were two members of the public who spoke in favor of the petition, with consideration of conditions of operation being limited to no greater than that of the previous use. On the basis of the above findings of fact,including all evidence presented at the public hearing, including, but not limited to,the Petition, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The petitioner's request for a Special Permit to allow the use of a graphic design business and art gallery at 107 Federal Street does not constitute a substantial detriment to the public good. 2. The requested Special Permit does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 3. The petitioner's proposal will be continuing a pre-existing non-conforming use. • In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5)in favor(Stein, Harris,Pinto, Debski,Belair) and none(0)opposed, to grant the request for a Special Permit, subject to the following terms,conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety 4 P Y shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 4. The petitioner shall operate the graphic design business on the first floor of the site only. 5. The art gallery shall be limited to showing paintings and photographs displayed on the walls and shall not include the display or sale of crafts,jewelry or other art-craft type objects . 6. There shall be only three(3) employees on site(including the business owner) at any one time for the operation of the graphic design business. • 7. This Special Permit will expire with this business (Studio 107 and ancillary art • gallery)and any other business seeking to occupy this space is required to apply for a new Special Permit. Annie C. Harris Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that,if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • (Qit of Salem, �Nassacljusetts 'Board of (�ppettl Am I J q PSI C}Ty 0f Ald'H. 4A WF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KENNETH SMITH/HI-DA-WAY PLANT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 107 FEDERAL STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held March 15, 1995 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett; Acting Chairman; Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Associate Members Joseph Ywuc and Arthur LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow a change of use to allow a flower shop for the property located at 107 Federal Street. This property is located in a R-2 District. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j), which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits . for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans. makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner conducts a retail establishment engaged in the business of flower sales, and has been engaged in business for several years. 2. The majority of the petitioners business is conducted with telephone orders. 3. Petitioner utilizes two delivery vans to deliver it's floral arrangements. 4. The site was previously used as a convince store. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KCNNXTli NAUf11/H1-Uy-WA1 rLAWL ruff n SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 101 FEDERAL STREET (R-2) page two 5. There are two 15 minute parking spaces in `,front of the property. 6. Petitioner requested a variance for change of use to enable the first floor space to be used as a flower shop. • 7. The following people who were at the hearing and spoke in favor: Bill S Betsy Burns 22 Beckford Street Councilor at Large The Arlander Family 93 Federal Street Joan Boudreau 138 Federal Street Richard Lindeman 113 Federal Street Joel Caron 4 Andover Street Victoria Stevens 5 Monroe Street John Carr 7 River Street sa. David Hart 104 Federal Street m. Ellen DiGeromino 11 Church Street ^o w Elizabeth Hunt 2 River Street — Darlene Melis 115 Federal Street Joan Griffin 105 Federal Street s 8. The following people submitted letters in support of the x m petitioners request: —v The Arlander Family 93 Federal Street z s Joan Boudrequ 138 Federal Street m Richard Lindeman 113 Federal Street Joel Caron 4 Andover Street Victoria Stevens 5 Monroe Street ;. be Board may ;rant a speciai permit fur change of use to a non-conforming structure even though the petitioner applied for a variance. 10. Special permit may be granted upon the finding that the special permit will promote the public health, safety, convince or welfare of the city's inhabitants. 11. Neighbors speaking in favor of the request expressed a concern and a desire to limit the use to the specific use of the property as • a flower shop. 12. The change of use to a flower shop as requested by the petitioner will not be substantially more detrimenta. to the neighborhood then the existing non-conforming use. 13. There was no opposition to the petitioners request for a change in use for a flower shop. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially . derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and may be granted in harmony with the neighborhood. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KENNETH SMITH/HI-DA-WAY PLANT SHOP FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 107 FEDERAL STREET (R-2) page three Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to. 3. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 6. Special Permit will expire with business at 107 Federal Street (Hi-Da-Way Plant Shop). o A u3 0 Special Permit Granted r �. March 15, 1995 fi 0 .- �� � cs � Z .a Joseph J. Ywuc Y y n Board of Appeal v 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 MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry or Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title, Board of Appeal NO OND174 2 CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL U,F A.M§ E 120\UASHINGIONS11�1:1:1 1 10 P 2: 01 s01970 TkU.:978-74.5-9595 + FAN:r8-740-9846 Aj:\v o1z FILE hr CITY CLERK, S)ALEI". June 10, 2014 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of MICHAEL BEAULIEU, requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Section 9.4 Special Permits of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the extension of the existing nonconforming retail use, in order to sell firearms at the property located at 128 MARGIN STREET (112 Zoning District). On May 21, 2014 the Board of Appeals met to discuss the Petitioner's request to withdraw the above referenced petition. The following Board of Appeals members were present: Annie Harris (Acting Chair), Richard Dionne, Thomas Watkins, Mike Duffy, and Peter Copelas (Alternate). 'At the request of the Petitioner, the Board of Appeals voted to allow the Petitioner I' to witraw the and lle vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (L�jr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Harris, Mr.hd Copells, d Mr. Watkins) and none (0) opposed. BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTED PFRMISSIN TO WITHDRAW MAY 21, 2014 &v ' AuLkm- Z'FLU Annic Harris,Acting(_11,,Lr Board of Appeals i\ COPY OFTHIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITT f Tj JE PLANNING 130AIZD _AND THE (yf*y(j,I;jtK Appeallmo Ibij dea.4on, any, a1)elll be made parruanI to Seaton 17 of1he 414a.1oenbo,,em Cene 'Ltnu Chapter 40A, and"ba//be filed within 20 d"T' Offiliny of 11V, detnion in the olliee qfgo, na Ve,lion the I"Vian te or I J�eaal Pennit tolbe!V1,11-jadooem GeneralLnv, Chapter 40.-1, pwaeel belvill hl//not lake Ojea unlit(I")P)'of the&a.iion beafin�lbe eilifieale ql/be City (,'Ierk bay been filed with lbe E'.ue.\ South Regirttj y Dedf. 0 CITY OF SALEM, NWSACF [USETTS BOARD OF APPEAL INK —� 120\C'.V)I ING IM S I III:].[ # S:ALb:dl,AI:A5 1<,I usl'rn1 01971� KIOI HI atl.ltl'Dalscoll, 7T:LIf978-745-9595 F:\s:978-740-984G ::0� C iAGV1'olt X 2 �m p June 10, 2014 m " Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals o Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the operation of a medical clinic providing Petition of ALPHA ANALYTICAL, requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow fewer than the required number of ana requesting a variance from the provisions of Section 5.1.8 Table of Requd lytical testing, and ire Perking Spaces of the the property located at 121 NORTH STREET (Bl Zoning District). off-street parking spaces, at A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 21, 2014 pursuant to iM.G.L Ch. 40A, 9 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: INIs. Flarris (acting Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Copelas (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit per Section 3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, and a Variance from the provisions of Section 5.1.8 Table of Required ParkinS,Spaces of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped April 17, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit to allow the operation of a medical clinic providing analytical testing, and a Variance to allow fewer than the required number of off-street parking spaces. 2. Mr. Eugene Shehu, petitioner, presents the application for 121 North Street. 3. The facility would be conducting analytical drug testing of samples. 4. There would be no walk-in customers, as samples would be delivered by car. 5. There would be two to three employees, in addition to Mr. Shehu. G. The business would operate during normal business hours — Monday through Friday, 9:00am to 5:00pm. 7. There is currently one legal off-street parking space on the site. 8. '['here may be adequate room on the site for an additional tandem parking space. "tandem parking spaces are not considered a legal space under the Salem Zolung Ordinance, but if the additional space is feasible, it could potentially alleviate the practical need for on-street parking. 9- The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to utilize the existing commercial space as a medical clinic providing analytical testing, and to provide one off-street parking space rather than the two off-street parking spaces required by the Salem Zoning Ordinance. h). At the public lieating one member of the public expressed their concern about granting relief from the off-street parking requirements, stating that North Street is a busy street. City of Salem Board of Appeals June 10, 2014 Project: 121 North Street 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 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: Findings —Variance from the provisions of Section 5.1.8 Table ofReyuired Parking Spaces 1. The size and configuration of the existing lot does not allow for the creation of two off-street parking spaces that are in conformance with the provisions of the Off-Street Parking section of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance would create a substantial hardship. 2. "File desired relief may be granted without substantial detfiment to the public good, particularly as the conditions placed upon the approval seek to limit the impact of the variance. 3. The desired relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, as converting the property from a commercial use to a residential use is more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Findings —Special Permit allow the operation of a medical clinic providing analytical testing 1. The proposed use will not be more detrimental than the current use. 2. The proposal serves a community need, as it will provide testing required by the courts and other businesses local to Salem and the area. 3. The Board is addressing the parking issues with the conditions set upon the approval. 4. The utilities and public services to the building will be adequate. 5. There are no significant negative impacts on the natural environment, including view. G. The proposal will have a positive economic and fiscal impact. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (hlr. Watkins, Ms. Harris, Nfr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas, and Mr. Duffy in favor) and none (0), to grant the requested Variance to grant relief from the off-street parking requirements and the requested Special Permit to allow the operation of a medical clinic providing analytical testing, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. 'Fine 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 I)v the Building Commissioner 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictiv adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a budding permit prior to beginning any construction. Ig5. Exterior finishes of new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. G. A Certificate of Occupancv is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. A� City of Salem Board of Appeals June 10,2014 Project: 121 North Street Page 3 of'3 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 9. The petitioner shall provide two (2) parking spaces on the property, if feasible 10. The maximum number of employees working at one time shall be limited to three (3). 11. The applicant shall have to petition the Board for a modification to the Special Permit in order to have more employees working at one time 12. There shall be no walk-in clients. /L Annie Harris, Acting Chao Board of Appeals A COPY OP THIS DECISION 1 LAS BEEN FILED WITH TIME PLANNING BOARD AND'fI IE CtfY CLERK Appeallrom lbis decision, i%any, shall he male pursuant to Se,lion 17 of the Adasaaahusells General L<ems Chapter 40A, and,Gall be filed w1bin 20 days a%filii?g ol this decision in the olfi,e o%the City Clerk. Purarant lo the d Iaysa,huseds General L1Iwr Cbopter 40A, Section 1I, the ["arieurae or Special Pemeil granter)herein shall not take 0e1 until a copy of'the deaiiou Gearrug the cent licaie of the City Clerk has heen filed ivitG the Essex Soulh Re islry q1 Deeds. f r coNotTq CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSEJTS 9 BOARD OF APPEAL MINED, t20 WASHING ION S'reia._r ♦ S:u.EM MASSAC}IUSF I-[ 0197�.-*i z Ki,\IBI::R]IrYDR1scgt.i. Ttti.t;:978-745-9595 ♦ Fnx:978-740-9846 o MAYOR r�k rn 3 June 10, 2014 M w Decision " o City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of JOSEPH & MARIA GAGNON, requesting special permits per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures and Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the renovation of an existing nonconforming single-family residence into a two-family residence, with less than the required minimum lot area per dwelling unit, at the property located at 105 BROADWAY (R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 21, 2014 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. Harris (acting Chair), Mt. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Copelas (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks Special Permits per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures and Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped April 28, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sec 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Tvo-Famiy Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to change an existing nonconforming single-family residence to a two-family residence, and a Special Permit per Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow less than the required minimum lot area per dwelling unit at an existing non-conforming property. 2. Mr.Joseph Gagnon, petitioner, presented the petition for the property at 105 Broadway. 3. The petition proposes to renovate and rehabilitate an existing single-family residence to be a two- family residence. There would be no change to the footprint or dimensions of the existing building. 4. The submitted plans include the addition of a driveway and three off-street parking spaces on the property. 5. The required minimum lot area per dwelling unit for the R2 zone is 7,500 square feet. The existing lot is nonconforming, as it is only 5,000 square feet in size, with one residential unit. 6. The proposal would increase the number of residential units to two (2), which would decrease the lot area per dwelling unit from 5,000 square feet (existing) to 2,500 square feet (proposed). 7. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to renovate the existing non-conforming single-family residential structure into a non-conform ng two-fam ly residential structure, and would allow a lot pare per dwelling unit of 2,500 square feet. 8. At the public hearing, one abutter spoke in support of 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: i � City of Salem Board of Appeals June 10,2014 Project: 105 Broadway Page 2 of 2 Findings w 1. The slight increase in density does not outweigh the project's beneficial impacts. 2. 'The proposal serves a community need — it is transforming a house that is derelict and putting it to good use. 3. There will be no additional impact on traffic flow or safety — the proposal addresses traffic and parking considerations. 4. The utilities and public services to the building will be adequate. 5. The proposal would make the property more in keeping with the neighborhood character. 6. There are no negative impacts on the natural environment, including view. 7. The proposal will have a positive economic and fiscal impact. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (DIr. Watkins, Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas, and Mr. Duffy in favor) and none (0), to grant the requested Special Perruts to allow the renovation of an existing nonconforming single-family residence into a two-family residence, with 2,500 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, 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 pen-nit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 9. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board Annie Harris,Acting Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION ELKS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK tippeal from this decision, if any, sball be made punuant to Section 17 of the tldassaebusetts General Laws Chapler 10A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Afaisalnrselts General Laws Charter;BOA, .Section 11, lbe Variance or Special Permit granted herein sball not take effect until a ropy of the decision hearing the eeT#kale of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Reguzry of Deed,. ` CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • 5 BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET # Sl1LEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIIvIBERLEY DRisco u, 'nstaa:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,May 21,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a variance from the requirements of Sec. 3.2.4 Accessory Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the expansion of a previously-approved garage such that one wall lies on the southern property line, at the property located at 38 CABOT STREET(R2 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on June 11,2014 *Please note that the above-referenced Decision pertains only to the petitioner's request for a variance to allow the expansion of a previously approved garage. The public hearing on the applicant's request for a special permit per Sec.3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure has been CONTINUED to the June 18'a Board of Appeals meeting. This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A Sections 9 & 15 and does not require action by the recipient.Appeals, if any,shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A,, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. • CITY OFSAIA .Nf, MASS ACH USI]TTS BOARD 01" APPE N1 I( SIRI 1:1 NI,M\S'<v III, SI 1'1�1)11)71) K I D I,I t III I :9-8--43-')39.5 --all P Nh� June 11, 2014 Decision �Y City of Salem Board of Appeals -j Petition of RAYNALDO DOMfNGUEZ requesting it variance from the requirements of Section 3.2.4 Accessory guildii�4-,is; widStructurcs of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the expansion of it previously-approved garage such that one wall lies on the southern property line, at the property located at 38 CABOT STREET (R2 Zoning District). public hearing on the above Petition Was 011cticd on May 21, 2014 [)UrSLI!Itlt 10 M.G.1, Ch. 40.\, , H. '[he hearing was CIOsCd oil that date with the follomlig S:Ilcln boatel Of Appeals ")ctiil)ct-s prcscitr: Nk. Hartis (Icritig Chair), Mr. DiOIlIIC, [\It. I)LLff%, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Copelas (o\lrcriiatc). 'Llic Peritioner seeks a Variance from the I-CCILlirenictirs of Section 3.2.4 , lol('11.1013' 13nilrlrrrflr rlurl.Shvduria of the Salem /(.)tiiiig Ordinaticc. Statements of fact: I. it the petition dare-sralillied \ptil 22, 2014, the Peririoncr requested a Variance to dlo\% tile CXP'ItlSi011 Of I j)I`CViOLISl%1,lpprovcd garage in order to move one waft to lie on the southern property line. 2. MI. Rao,naldo DotnillgUCZ, petitioner, prec[ircol rl-e :ipplic:ttton for 38 Cabot Street. 3. 1\ lloard Of .\ppcids Decision dated JLIIIC 1, 2011 granted Mr. L)(,)IllillgLICZ Variances to allvty 111C construction of:I 15 x 24-foot garage with a second floor, locarud within the ICCII-Hred minimum side vard setback. 4. The petitioner completed construction of the garage fOLIJILL11ton, in the location appro\cd in the little t, 2011 [ Wrd Of (JCCisi011, MILI FOUIld that tile position of the ,,.iriigc in relation to the house made it difficult to back out Of the garage. the petitioner proposes to Jlck lare this difficulrt by mdening the garage by 3 feet to the SOLItil. \X�IClo2IlaIg the. garage by 3 feet CO the SOLIHI \oOLJ1d locarc [Ile 111'AI%IgC wall on the s(Altll propene line. The reclUcst-co-1 IchcF, if grimed, \kroLIILI :1110w HIC Petitioner to icloc:irc otic \kiill of lic previously :Il)PI-ON'Cd g!lt:lgC to the SOLIth J)tol)CM IIIIU. G. 1 lie submitted application included :I letter signed bo, Nit. Nfichad P. filet, o\\tier Of 40 Cibor Street, in favor of rile applicants petition to relocate the garage wall to the south properto, title. Mr. KileN,'s property abuts the SOLIth property ]tile. 7 l.ocilrilig the Wall of the garage ()it the property IIIIC would result in porrione of the garage structure clictoAcilillg on the ibLIttCt'S' PI-Oj)CI't.\ Keeping the garage %xall One Foot off Of the property line would avoid This condition. S. DLIrIIlg the Colli-Se Of the pLil)IiC hearing it was esrablished that the proposal to charge the gzrage footprint actually rCLjLIirCLf -1 Modification of the )title 1, 20 11 Decision, rather that a new Variance. City of Salem Board of Appeals .lame I I. 2014 Project: 38 Cabot Street Page 2 of 2 9 .Ar the puhlic hearing no members of the public spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, rile petition. 'Che Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the ecidatce presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petition, including rile application n;urative and plans, and rile Peririoner's presentation and public restimona�, makes the following findings that the proposed project tnects the provisions of the (:ir), of Salem Zoning Orclinalice: Findings —Modification to the June 1, 2011 Board of Appeals Decision I. The desired rclicf mac he granted without substantial detriment to rile puhlic good and without nullifcing or subsrantialh' derogating from the intent or purpose of the Ciro of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Oil the basis of rile above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of:Appeals cured five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Nis. Harris, Mr. Dionne, AIr. Copclas, and Mr. Duffs in Pacor) and none (0) opposed, to grant a modification to die June 1, 20I t Board of-Appeals decision, to allow the cvpansion of the garage to extend within t foot of the south side lit line, subjccr to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: I. The Petitioner shall comply with all cite and stare statutes, ordinances, codes and rcguletious. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved be the Building Commissioner 3. .All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safes shall be smelly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall ohtain p building permit prior to bel"inning anv ccnstruction. 5. kxterior finishes of new construction shall he in laattnonc with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to he obteincel. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from ant Cttv Board or Commission havigg juriselictio❑ including, bur not limited to, the Planning Board. A-V), e� �1h (� /zsy, Aanic Harris, :Acting Chair Board of.Appeals A COPY UP MIS DI(CISION It \S IlF(Ii:S PILED AA' I t][ 't ill_. PI..ASSI�'G 5WItt) AND I M: C1'I'Y CI,ICRh lye/jrwa lh r de, om, i/aun, rball he mode Anr:vronl In Sd,7lurr l% n%/Gr.Ilm a hu,rell.,C:rrmrol 1�rrv; C/rnpltr-W 1, anal dwll he lifer/ii/Gin_'0 r41a�r of/ilnr; nJ lhr(hi ion in 11%r o(Jia, of /he tilt U rr-.. Pmwtaw to r,u sal l oiv, Clr,rPler-10-I. f?r/ion 11. the I t/ri1orce W V�. dol Per'vul"'titled 6ovin �ladl inl/tile r_/)rrl,urtil<�end/ o%llre d,-?tuu h,v,in; ll�. ,�r/i/iuo o%tlr, Crq (7.r,F Got l„-dn filer(wilb lh. h�re'� .Sanlb • -;i J1�1- 004, 4 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL ME 120\VASI[IN(;l'ON S I III 'i.i v:1 jusi:I't o 1w(r) KIMBFIZI,k) Diusn)ij, 978-745-9595 ♦ F\v 978-740-9846 1— ALA)()It C= C) June 10, 2014 M Decision zr City of Salem Board of Appeals > C> Petition of G. RACHEL HILL requesting a special permit per Sec 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Sec. 3.3.3 Noncorifotming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the operation of a dog daycare business and the fencing of the outside space, at the property located at I FLORENCE STREET (113 Zoning District). A Public hearing on rile above petition was opened on May 21, 2014 Pursuant to M.G.I. Ch. 40A, '[,he (hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: this. Harris acting Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Air. Watkins, and Mr. Copelas (Alternate). 'The Petitioner seeks a Special permit per Sec 3.3.2 Nwno,.1%1njjjj'g U,es and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance Statements of fact: I. In the Petition date-stamped April 30, 2014, the Petitioner requested special permits Per Alonto q6rmill Uses and Sec. 3.3.3 Of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow rile 19 P Sec 3.3.2 operation of a dog daycare business and the fencing of the outside space. 2. Nls. Rachel Hill and Mr. Greg Salamida present the petition for the property at I Florence Street. 3. The Petition proposes to operate a doggie daycare business Out 0 1991 Y f I Florence Street, and to erect a fence for an Outdoor dog run in an area at the rear Of the property. 4. At the public hearing, it was determined that the application did.not actually require a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Noncmilbmijjr,q 3'11711-1m-es of the Salem Zoning Ordinance it only requires a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Alonco q6lvhag Ures. 5. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to operate a doggie daycare business at the property, including a fenced outdoor(log run. I e 6. At the public hearing, the Owner of I Florence Street expressed his support for rl members Of tile public spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the petition. le petition. No other The Salem Board of Appeals, after c- areful consideration of the c6dericc presented at the public hearing, d after thorough review Of the petitions, including the application al Presentation and a 11 narrative and plans, and the l,etiri()llcr,,s Public testimony, makes the following findings that the Proposed project incers the provisions of the CIrY of Salem Zoning Ordinance: Findings — I. 'I"Iie proposal seLl,cs :lcoMmllllit� 2. '[*here ire uO 'apparent additional.' nced by caring for pets in the area. ""Pacts On traffic flow or saferv. 3. *['he utilities and publi 4. There are no apparent c set"'ces to the building will be adequate. negative impacts oil the natural environnictit, including view. City-'of Salem Board of Appeals June 10, 2014 Project 47 Summer Street Page 2 of 2 5. The proposed business is in keeping with the neighborhood character. 6. The proposal will have a positive economic and fiscal impact. (AIOn the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor r. parkins, Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas, and Mr. Duffy in favor) and none (0), to grant the requested Special Permit to allow the operation of a dog daycare business at the property, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. "['lie Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5 A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. S. The business shall only operate during typical retail hours — 6:30am to 11:00pm. Annie Harris,Acting Chai�r Board of Appeals A COPY OF"PHIS DECISION FLAS BEEN FLED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal/ivrn Ibis dechtoo, J wry. ball be made purruanl to Section 17 of the dleusadoueltr General Ioms Chapter 40.A. and,Im//be filed nvlhia 20 drys al fr/urg of tha decision inIbe o#ire of 1be CO! Clerk. Purruaol lo !be bl:r.cracbraetls Geaeral Iauvs Cbrrpler 40A1, Sectiou 11, die 1-ananee or S st rtr�)al Perms granted hereur shall riot take e/Jezt rnNil a copy Re of the rlecrjion benriuq the aerli��ale of 1be City Clerk. has been fifes with the Ee;e� Swill),aJ Deedt `V CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • q BOARD OF APPEAL M1NE 0� 120 WASHINGPON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHOSETTS 01970 YJMBERLEY Dmscoij, TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,May 21,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: Petition of CHAPMAN MILLER requesting a special permit per Sec 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the addition of a covered porch and rear steps,as well as raising the roofline of the existing structure, at the property located at 13 GRAFTON STREET(R1 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on June 11,2014 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9 &15 and does not require action by the recipient.Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17,and sball be filed within 20 days from the date which • the decision was filed with the City Clerk. • -�rON01Tq� y=� � �I%� CITY OF SAr_.EM, MASSACHUSETTS k A. �I a BOARD OF APPE"d, ._,..- LU AC VsI IIAul'nA tilltl ltl ♦ SU.I.%I, �LVs�.V I II'<I':I'l o11) .7 e— I:nntl[I:LI(1Dlauctn.i. E%V9-8-7-p1-(),4-1G T: June 11, 2014 l~ ' w Decision N City of Salem Board of Appeals w Petition of CHAPMAN MILLER requesting it Special Permit per Sec 3.3.5 Nonconformin, Sin;rle- and Ttvo-Family Resi(lential Structures of the Salem "Zoning Ordinance, to allow the addition of it covered porch and rear steps, as well as raising the rootline of the existing structure, at the property located at 13 GRAFTON STREET (R1 Zoning District). \ public hearing on the above Petition %vas opened on Uty 21, 2014 pursuant to ALG.1. Ch. -41,1A �, 11. 1'he hearing was closed On that date with the following Salem Board of ,Appeals members present: AIs. Barris (acting Chair), Mr. Dionne, Dlr. Dutfy, ((It:. Watkins, and Mr. CopeLts (;Alternate). I'hc petitioner seeks a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 rA'omoll /nd)lo Simo/e- and Ih-o-l'uImi/p R�ai�len/id/.S'l)nr/m r.c of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: I. In the petition elate-srtmped <Aprit 30, 2014, the petitioner requested a Special permit per Sec 3.3.5 V'o)lmn/o)•raing Sii{,n- and Tnn-14�m%h Rt-rid�ulidl.Slintlnna of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allo%e the - addition of:t can creel porch and gear steps, as well as raising the tootline of the existing structure. 2. .AIt. Chapman Afiller, petitioner, presents the petition for the property located at 13 Grafton Street. 3. 'tile petition proposes to raise the rooftine of the existing structure in order to create a full second store to the CNisring home, as well as to add a covered porch and rear steps. 4. 'tile existing structure is a non-conforming single-family reside116:11 structure None of the dimensionat uon-conformities of the existing structure would be affected b)' the proposed additions. 5. 'the existing structure. is LS stories, with a [oral height to builditlg ridge of 2l-feet 5-inches. l'he proptned addition would expand the structure to :t futt 2 stories, %kith a coral height to building ridge ot'_9-fcct 0-inches. G. The requested relief, if granted, vyoulcl allow [Ile petitioner to expand the existing non-c llf , g single-familc residential structure by raising the rooftine to create a full second Stoll, and by nddin" rear steps and it covered side porch %with artached steps. 7. .7Ar ncc public hearing, one aburrer spoke in f:nor of the petition. :A letter of support from :[butters at I I Grafton Street was also submitted. 'I lie Satcm Board of .Appeals, after carefut considecttio❑ of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and utter thorough review of the petitions inc luding Iudinb the application nacratic and plans, and the cu rioncr's preSco':niou :uul public tesrimonc, makes the following findings that the proposed project ntcers the provisions of the Cia' of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Findings — I. 'file beneficiat impacts of the proposal outweigh any negative impacts on the neighborhood. C:ih of Salem Board otAppeals .tune 11, 2014 Project 13 Grafton Street , Paec 2 uf3 — There will be no additional inlprtcr on traffic flow or safety. 3. The utilities and public sM'ices to the building Ceill be aClequatc. 4. The proposal will improx-c the property and the ncighburhood ch;u'acrer. 5. 'I here are no negative impacts on the natural em ironmenr, including v icw. G. The proposal will have a positil e economic :-and fiscal impact. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Boarcl of_Appcals voted five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, its. Harris, Mr. Dionne, Mr. ("opelas, :and Mr. Daffv in favor) and none (II), to grant the requcsecd Special Permit to allow tine raising of the roofline to create a full second story, nce addition of rear steps, and die addition of a covered side porch with attached steps, subject to the following terns, conditions, and safeguards: 11 I. 'I he petitioner shall complY with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes n11c1 regulations. °. ,All construction shall be dome as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approvCLI by ncL' Building Commissioner 3. ;All requirements of the Salcnn Hire Department relative to smoke and fine sifety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning nap construction. 5. 1ixterior knishes of new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure G. A Certificare of Occupaacv is to be obtained. 7 6 \ Ccrtihcate of Inspection is to be ubitined. 8. petitioner is to obtain approval from any. Cin Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, bur not limited to, the planning Board. 9. Unless this Decision expresshv provides utherwise, ally zoning relief granted dose not empower of authorize the petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the sr_ructures(s) located on the subject properry to all extent of more than ftfty percent (50"0) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50')��) of tis replacement cost at the time of destruction. if the structure is demolished bv, any means to tin extent of more than fifty percent (50°4,) of its replacement cost or more than fifty (50 )) of its floor area ar the tinne of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in confornim: NN=ith the provisions of the Ordinance. ,Ainic Harris, :Acting Chair Board of Appeals :A COPI OF II IIS DI{CaSlON I I.AS 131_;I�N 1:11,1{1) AGill I 'll It: IT ANNIM; 50_AIZ1) ,AND I [1:: r:Il'Y CLh:IZh .•Iprh-r//iam/hr.r rlrei.ion, i/mop. /vJl he made Nir,mmnl/n.Section I of lh,,lla"m,ina"lU Gererzrl luau Oapler-10, 1. aid /ar/lGe filed milbm 20 /!n l aiiou nr lGr u1/he o/ lh Gilt O i( Pia unto/l) Me 11.r qr hn eu. (enurrl I -air C.7"rnlu 4o- 1, .IelllOol l l /A 1 ui vd,V or Sp rdl Perim! k mrled herein hall nol lake valid a 0/I/W d r rnu/,mmm Me _i/if"'le 4/1'e (M r l rk k" Geerr/rl<d "i/h the f -e�.S o/0' Ht_"mLi n'/ Deed.i. • p)ND17144 CITY OF SALEMP MASSACHUSETTS Ait BOARD OF APPEAL 120W'�s11INGIONS11j1+1 rIS 0 19701 1:1,1::9718-74.5 < -'�595 + F X:978-740-9846 MAYOR M June 10, 2014 CD Decision ir City of Salem Board of Appeals �1� UJI Petition of RODNEY SINCLAIR requesting a special permit per Section 9.4.2 ��peci ?perinits Criteria and Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the operation of a real estate consulting office in a building currently in a nonconforming use, at the property located at 107 FEDERAL STREET (112 Zoning District). Public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 21, 2014 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40,,\ 'I he hearing was closed on that date with the was Saiem Board of Appeals members present: M's. Harris (acting Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mt. Duffy, NM r. Watkins, and Mr. Copelas (Alternate). The petitioner seeks a Special Permit Per Section 9.4.2 Slpeaal Pervitv— Criteria and Section 3.3.2 i\1on,0,;!1bj7�ji1jg Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: • 1. 11, the petition date-stamped April 30, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit to allow the operation of a real estate consulting office in a building Current]'�- in a nonconforming use. 2. Mr. Rodney Sinclair, Petitioner, presented the petition for the property at 107 Federal Street. 3. A draft Est of special conditions was submitted to the Board by the applicant. This list of conditions was prepared in collaboration with concerned abutters. 4. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to operate a real estate consulting office at the property. 5. Three letters in opposition to the Petition were submitted to the Board, and were read into the public record at the hearing. 6. At the public hearing, two abutters expressed their Support of the petition con the special conditions discussed at the hearing, and a third abutter expressed their Support of die (er)i1rilon. The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the (2VIdCIICe presented at after thorough review of the Petitions, including the application the PLIbIiC hearing, and Presentation and public testimony, makes the folio narrative and plans, and the perjujoller,s provisions of the City of Salem Zoning.ling Ordinance: wing findings that the proposed project incers the Findings I. The Proposed nonconforming use is no more detrimental than the Previous nonconforming use of the propem,. 2. 'I'lle scope of the proposed use, with the Conditions set by the Board, is consistent with the scope of the previous use allowed b Speciat Permit, and as such, the proposed use does not constitute a substantial detriment to the'public good, It does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinanc e. f City of Salem Board of Appeals June 10, 2014 Project: III Federal Street Page 2 of 2 (MOn the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals noted five (5) in favor r. Watkins, Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas, and Mr. Duffy in favor) and none (0), to grant the requested Special Permit to allow the operation of a real estate consulting office in a budding currently in a nonconforming use subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: I. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 3. 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 Dire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. G. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 7. The petitioner shall be limited to the office use for a non-retail real estate consulting business only, subject to the other conditions of this Special Permit, and such business shall be limited to the first floor of the site only. 8. There shall be no advertisements posted on the premises. 9. The real estate business shall not include any retail or commercial sales or real estate brokerage sales . activity of any kind on the premises. 10. There shall never be any more than three (3) people affiliated with the business on-site at and' otic tune. 11. The hours of operation will be limited to Monday to Friday from 10:00am to 7:00pm and shall not include holidays. 12. This Special Permit shall expire with this business (Sinclair Development Solutions) and any other business seeking to occupy this space is required to apply for a new Special Permit. Annie Harris, Acting Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF TPIIS DECISiOVv hG1S BEEN HLEiD WJ'1 Ft Tlif PLANNING BOARD :AND"CHE Ct'1'1"CLERK Appeallimn Mt,decision, i(anp, xha11 be made pmsaarrt 1rr.Seuiorr 17 General LIW, Cbapler 40,-1. anel rinrll be filed within 20 da}r ol./ilarg o/lbr?deemon in the o re n/Me Cilp Clerk. Prrcwaul to lbe ehlassadveaellr General (upter#OA, S'e,lion 11, doe I ''a acne or RegslPerndl granled bmiu iha/1 not lake ;/%c'/nolil a eoPy q1 Me elea ion bearing Me emilitate o/me City Clerk bar been filer(ailb Me G.ue_e.Swab q,o%Deers. • `O ? ` CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • ;,9 BOARD OF APPEAL 9 M1�goo 120 WASHING'I'ON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 K1MM',RI.FY DRiSCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,May 21, 2014 at 6:30 P.M. at 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: Petition of PHILIP MARCHAND requesting a special permit per Sec 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a 20'-9"x 16'-11"single-story addition to the existing residence and Bed&Breakfast,at the property located at 47 SUMMER STREET (R2 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on June 11,2014 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Cbapter 40A, Sections 9 dam'15 and does not require action by the recipient.Appeals, if any,shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. • NDF � tb CITY OF SALENI MASSACHUSE=S BOARD OF APPEAL Ito AX v;i i i I ri a;r ♦ S u.i!ai,A[.);;.)ci ii:;itn'.u MIAIM{R1.ba Ditis(tq.i, lTa.e:078= ♦ F aa:9-8--40-9ri-t6 c June 11, 2014 Decision w City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of PHILIP MARCHAND requesting it Special Permit per Sec 3.3.5 Nonconlonniq,Sin��le- tmd Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow it 20'-9" x 16'-11" single-story addition to the existing residence and Bed & Breakfast, at the property located at 47 SUMMER STREET (112 Zoning District). \ puhlie hearing oil rile above 1etition %vas opened on AI;rc 21, 1-014pursua1117 to Al G.J. Ch. 40:A, § 11. The hGlCing was closed on that dare kith the following Salem Boatd of :Apprals members present. AIs. I-farris (acting Chair), Afr. Dionne, AIr. Duf.v, \fr. Watkins, and \fr. Copclas (,Altcrnatc). I he petitioner seeks :I Special permit per Section .3.3.5 ;\niraut/iiirninq Sin,lr- dad Tmo-1 �iudl}' Rr.�rrknli<r/.lhwr/tut r of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: I_ In the petition elate-stamped \pril 30, 2014, the 1'etitioncr reyucstcd a Special Permit per Sec 3.3.5 �A'vnwn/orruia{�Su(klr- and"Ia�o-14rniilp Kt�rdrnlidl.171nr/m't.r of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allmk a 20'- 9" x I6'-l 1" single-story addition to the existing residence and lied & Breakfast. 2. .\rrorncv Scott Grover presented the petition for the property at 47 Summer Street. 3. The petition proposes to add a small second-store addition to an cxisring single-sron portion of the building. 'the purpose of the addition is to create a single bedroom avith a lauudry room, to accomtnodatc an expected babe. 'the proposed addition would not change the csistimr building foorprint. 4. the propem is curmitlk in use as a single-finuk residence and 3-bedroom lied and Breakfast. 3. 'Che proposed change to the existing building would allow continued use as a single-t:unih resldenCC, and mould reduce the Bed and Breakfast to 2 hedrooms. 6. '1 he proposed addition R Oulll be in a srvle consistent wirh the existing stucnue, and rile proposal also rcyuites twity and approval by rile I-(isruric (:nnln)ission. 7. The rcyucsted relief, if granted, would allow rile Petitioner to expand the existing non-confoemiug single-family residential structure, h) addling a single-store addition on rop of an existigg single-store portion of the csisting building, such that rile entire structure kill be mo stories. R. ;At the public hearing, two abutters expressed their support of the petition, one noting that the proposed addition would allow the applic:ults to remain in the home and the neighborhood. �Chc Salem Board of :Appcak, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hcarit\g, and ifter dtorough review of rile petitions, including rile application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's presentation and public testimony-, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of rile City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: City of Salent hoard of Appeals June 1 1. 2014 Project: d7 Summer Street Pale 2 of 2 Findings - Special Permit to allow the renovation and expansion of an existing nonconforming structure: I. The adverse impacts of the proposal do nor outvycigh its beneticizl impacts. 2. '1'hc proposal sen-es a cianununit\ nccd. 3. '1'herc will be no additionml impact on rraffic docv or safety. 4. The utilities anti public scryiccs to rile building will be adcyuare. 5. 1 lie Tied and BreakEisr business is ah'cadv in place, and has fat in well with the neighborhood. G. f hcrc are no apparem net;arive impacts on rile natural environment, including view. ['he proposal will nor create a negative economic nr fiscal impact- diere is potcutial for rite proposal to hayc a positive economic and fiscal impact. ()n rile basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of.Appeals voted five (5) in faN'or_ (\lr. Wiakins, Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas, and Mr. Duffy in favor) and nimc (0), to grant rile. requested Special permit to allow a '20'-9- x 16'-11" single-story addirion to rile existing residence and Bed & Breakfast, subject to rile following terms, conditions, and safeguards: I. "fhc petitioner Shall annplV' with all city and state statures, ordinances, codcS and regulations. 2. .All construction shall he done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by rile Building Commissioner i. All requit'etnenrs of ncC Salem I ire Ueparrmenr relative to smoke and fire safery shall he srricrk adhcrcd ro. -I. Petitioner shall obtain a building; permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. I:atcrior finishes OFnew construction shall be in harmony with rile existing stnacture. G. :A Certificate of Occupancy is to be Obtained. 7. :A Ccrtiticarc of lots pccrion is to be nbrainecl. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approv:ll from any Cir< Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, bur nor limited ro, the Planning Board \ante Harris, Acting Chair Board of:Appeals .A C(11'1 01:"I1IIS DH ISIt_tA I LVS BITIN P(LIID V I I I-I 'I111: PLVANIVG R<1_ARll _AND"I I]I( C'fl'l CI.IfRI� I/+rad jinni /hc'd¢i.rimt. ij our rl,rll be.anrdt J+ur?u,u</6i.S�t%inn l- q ape.I f I,o.hbusvlll Geu'lxl 1_snar (..'tiller 40,-1. mvl,ladl br_lil d edam_O tin, o�/ilia;, n/IN,; dai-nit] iu Me drr Gl: Cl i.(.. Puewanrr ,, lr 1(,-er�;alnnr/l GWN LPW Ow ler 10:-I _S.:6oi� ! lr• A 1, 1. I aamd.e or 1PV✓l Penuil a mled below SlIallnot la '1/1%/until a,111p1, )/the dea m b,,Ivl, 00/illle(I%A'Cil7 U r,(e has been liled)pill, lh, I -e�Sough R,,c/rvn/ltndr. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS t BOARD OF APPEAL �� r/MINE r 120 WASHING'ION S'I'R[:{E'l'1 SAI.ENI,1NfASSACF[USE'f S 01970 KIMBERLEY DRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppeals will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday,June 18, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at City HallAnnex, RM 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Rebecca Curran, Chair REVISED MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ➢ May 21,2014 meeting III. REGULAR AGENDA Project: Continuation of the petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two- Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure. Applicant: RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ Location: 38 CABOT STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.2.5 Swimming Pools of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow an above ground pool to be closer than the required six-foot minimum setback from the rear property line. Applicant: LINDA RENNICKS Location: 32 GALLOWS HILL ROAD (Rl Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting a Variance per Sec. 3.3.4 Variance Required and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow an addition to the rear of the existing nonconforming building to accommodate an additional garage bay. Applicant: EVANGELOS SRANGIAS Location: 119 BOSTON STREET (B2 Zoning District) Project: Petition appealing the decision of the Building Commissioner that the property is currently in use as a Rooming,Boarding or Lodging House as defined in the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Should the appeal of the decision of the Budding Commissioner be unsuccessful, the petitioners seek a Special Permit per Section 3 Table otTrimdpal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the use of the property as a Rooming,Boarding or Lodging House. Applicant: GEORGE &JODI BRADBURY Location: 102 DERBY STREET (B1 Zoning District) • Page I of 2 City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for June 18,2014 Meeting Project: Petition seeking Variances from the provisions of Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow less than the required 100-foot minimum lot frontage and less than the required 100-foot minimum lot width for two proposed.lots. The proposed lots will take their frontage from a shared driveway off of Marlborough Road. Applicant: ANTHONY JERMYN& RICHARD JERMYN Location: 148 MARLBOROUGH RD (R1 Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT • • Page 2 of 2 City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for June 18,2014 Meeting • frontage from a shared driveway off of Marlborough Road. Applicant: ANTHONY JERMYN & RICHARD JERMYN Location: 148 MARLBOROUGH RD (R1 Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT • • Page 2 of 2 eve CpB,YO�s yp �� City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet [77 t> �tP1 Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date / / 20 � 4 ;Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail � ��-��, � ' � j(< �P>t�s�a l � , 7�-mob 7 -Sod� 7e nhu Sr 9BI-5Pb-S4' G� aecle j� 10 Q I>rj6 L, 1 ,�r IV Ile ael, S)z19z� SQX /S�i ,^,� r IbOn,U r�� 74J - 070 is �,czsrA�d aKWou)9 J- Yob VILIM2 Page I of • City of Salem Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday,June 18, 2014 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA") was held on Wednesday,June 18, 2014 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 6:37 p.m. ROLL CALL Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Richard Dionne,Tom Watkins,and Peter A. Copelas (Alternate).Also present were Thomas St. Pierre,Building Commissioner,and Dana Menon,Staff Planner. Ms. Curran advises those present that there are only four Board members here tonight, so any approval will require an affirmative vote from all four members present. Applicants have the option to request to continue to the next meeting, so that their petition may be heard with more Board members present. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES _ May 15, 2014 Draft Meeting Minutes Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas moves to approve the minutes as written,seconded by Mr. Dionne. The vote was unanimous with three (3) in favor (Mr. Copelas, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Dionne) and none (0) opposed. Ms. Curran abstained, as she was not present at the May 15" meeting. BF.Gi1LAR AGENDA Project: Continuation of the petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure. Applicant: RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ Location: 38 CABOT STREET (112 Zoning District) Documents&Exhibitions: • Application date-stamped April 22, 2014 and accompanying materials • "Proposed Kitchen Addition" plan and photo, submitted 6/18/2014 Mr. Raynaldo Dominguez states that he only received the drawings he requested from the contractor at Sam this morning. He doesn't believe that the drawings he received are going to be adequate for the Board's review. • Ms. Curran recommends submitting what he has, and if he wants to continue to the next meeting, he can request that. She notes that the Board hasn't seen the drawings yet. 1 of 8 OF v The applicant distributes the additional drawings ("Proposed Kitchen Addition"). • Mr. St. Pierre recommends that the applicant requests to continue, as the drawings are difficult to interpret. Ms. Curran recommends that Mr. Dominguez follow up with the Building Inspector before the next meeting, and that Mr. Dominguez submit the required drawings and plans to the Board one week prior to the meeting. Mr. Dominguez requests to continue to the July 16"meeting of the Board of Appeals. Mr. Watkins motions to continue the hearing of the petition to July 161h, second by Mr. Copelas, all in favor—unanimous (4). Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the applicant's request to continue to the July 16, 2014 Board of Appeals regularly scheduled meeting. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran, and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed. Project: Petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.2.5 S vimming Pools of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow an above ground pool to be closer than the required six-foot minimum setback from the rear property line. Applicant: LINDA RENNICKS Location: 32 GALLOWS HILL ROAD (RI Zoning District) • Documents& Exhibitions- 9 Application date-stamped May 8, 2014 and accompanying materials Ms. Linda Rennicks presents the petition. Ms. Rennicks states that the new pool is in the same location as a r p evious pool, but it is larger. Mr. Watkins clarifies which neighbors axe objecting to Ms. Rennicks'pool. It is established that the next door neighbor on Gables Circle has no issue with the pool, and that the neighbor on Gallows Hill Road has raised the issue of the pool being installed without a pertnit. Ms. Curran opens the hearing to the public. Doris Boghosian, 28 Gallows Hill Road: states that there is a spotlight in Ms. Rennicks' back yard,in the pool area, that shines on her porch. Ms. Boghosian ostan asks if there is a regulation that requires that �'q pool use end b 11 P m. Y P Ms. Curran and Mr. St. Pierre state that they are not aware of that time limit. Ms. Rennicks states that the spotlight was installed 2-3 years ago. Ms. Boghosian states that there's no shield on the light. 2of8 • Mr. Richard Viselli, 31 Gallows Hill Road: states that he has lived across the street for many years, and has no complaints. Ms. Curran asks if there are any more members of the public who wish to speak. None come forward. Ms. Curran states that if the applicant were to install a new pool,it would be placed six feet off of the property line, per the requirements of the zoning ordinance. This is a small difference from the current location of the pool (currently 4.7 feet from the rear property line). If the pool was moved a foot, the pool would still be there. Ms. Curran raises the option of putting a special condition on the Board's approval, requiring a shield on the spotlight, or moving the spotlight, such that it doesn't shine on Ms. Boghosian's property. Mr. Watkins states that there was a pool that had been there for a number of years, and the new pool would only need to be moved by a foot or so to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance, and that the issues with the light can be addressed in the Board's conditions. Mr. Watkins doesn't see anything that goes against the required findings for a Special Permit. Ms. Rennicks asks about the 11pm issue. Mr. St. Pierre states that it's probably actually a reference to the noise ordinance. Ms. Curran addresses the considerations for granting a Special Permit: • Community needs Which are served by the proposal—it's an existing pool and will continue to be. Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading is not impacted. Adequacy of utilities and otherpublic.cervices is not impacted Neighborhood character—there's always been a pool there, and there will continue to be. Impacts on the natural environment including view remains the same, as there was a pool there previously. Potential economic and fiscal impact, including impact on City services, tax base, and employment—these are not impacted Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to close the public hearing, and to approve the application with 2 standard conditions and one special condition that the spotlight in the rear yard shall be shielded and directed away from 28 Gallows Hill Road. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with four (4) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, and Mr. Copelas) — and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Discussion: Mr. St. Pierre will follow up to inspect the condition of the light. Project: Petition seeking Variances from the provisions of Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow less than the required 100-foot minimum lot frontage and less than the required 100-foot minimum . lot width for two proposed lots. The proposed lots will take their frontage from a shared driveway off of Marlborough Road. Applicant: ANTHONY JERMYN & RICHARD JERMYN 3of8 s Location: 148 MARLBOROUGH RD (R1 Zoning District) • Attorney Correnti requests to submit his request to continue, out of order of the Agenda. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the applicant's request to continue to the July 16, 2014 Board of Appeals regularly scheduled meeting. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran, and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed. Project: Petition requesting a Variance per Sec. 3.3.4 Variance Required and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Noncorforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow an addition to the rear of the existing nonconforming building to accommodate an additional garage bay. Applicant: EVANGELOS FRANGIAS Location: 119 BOSTON STREET (B2 Zoning District) Documents& Exhibitions, • Application date-stamped May 23, 2014 and accompanying materials Mr. Copelas —states that he is an abutter to property that Mr. Frangias owns, and states that with the applicant's consent,he will stay at the hearing. The applicant states his consent. Attorney Atkins presents the petition. He states that Angelo Frangias operates the service • station in question. Mr. Atkins states that these are not new Variance requests, they are extensions of the existing building- extending the existing rear setback line of the building. There is a tear retaining wall at the back of the property, as the rear abutting parcel rises substantially up from 119 Boston Street. Mr. Atkins emphasizes that the requested relief is not for a new nonconformity— the "L" of the existing building is already within the required setback. This proposal for the petition would increase the lot coverage from 26% to 32%, including the canopy. It is already nonconforming. The original service station was built in 1958. A subsequent owner expanded the garage in 1980 by a Special Permit, and in 1988 the canopy over the pump area was approved. The key factor in issuing the Special Permit is that there not be substantially more detriment to the neighborhood. In this case, more vehicles will be able to be put inside the building. The current area is empty, and the applicant will improve the rear retaining wall. The use will not be much different from what it is today. Contemporary vehicles require more equipment for repair than vehicles used to, and Mr. Frangias needs an additional bay for repairs. This is a neighborhood business, and has been there a long time. The Variance for a rear yard setback just continues the existing nonconforming setback. This is an irregularly shaped lot,with some extreme topography in the rear. Hardship is related to not being able to reasonably use the property. This is a reasonable extension of the service station. This is a B2 district, and a service station is an allowed use in this district. This is just a dimensional question in regards to rear yard setback and percentage of coverage. Ms. Curran—it looks like the addition is 17 feet high, and the existing building is 14 feet • high. What's currently behind the property? 4of8 t' • Mr. St. Pierre states that the rear retaining wall is approximately 6-7 feet tall, and the land beyond it slopes up to Butler Street. Atty. Atkins states that the lot is a rather small lot. Mr. Copelas asks about the sale of used cars on the property. Arty Atkins replies that a license was approved in an earlier special permit on the property, and that the sale of used cars will not be discontinued. Mr. Copelas states that the proposed addition is where the used cars are currently located. Arty. Atkins replies that there is still 52 feet by the proposed bay for used car parking. Mr. Frangias states that he is currently licensed for 5 used cars. Ms. Curran opens the bearing to the public. Marietta Goodridge, 115 Boston Street—owns the property behind the garage. Ms. Goodridge asks about the height of the new retaining wall. Any Atkins replies that the existing wall is seven feet high, and the proposed replacement wall will be nine feet high. Hearing no more public comment,Mr. Eakins motions to close the public hearing. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. The vote was unanimous with four(4) in favor and none (0) opposed Ms. Curran states that the addition makes the most sense in the area it's proposed. It's • infilling an existing building, and the location of the addition is owing to the geometry of the existing building. If they tried to construct the addition in another location,it would impede the workings of the rest of the property. Mr. Watkins states that he is OK with the proposal,Mr. Dionne states that it is a sensible use of the building. Arty. Atkins states that the hardship is the irregular shape of the property, and the topography at the rear of the property,which requires a retaining wall. Ms. Curran adds that the circumstance and location of the building itself is unique, and creates a hardship. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve a substantial hardship to the applicant. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the zoning district. It is just an expansion of an existing use. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the requested Variance and Special Permit, with 8 standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran, and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed. • Project: Petition appealing the decision of the Building Commissioner that the property is currently in use as a Rooming,Boarding or Lodging House as defined in the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Should the appeal of the decision of 5of8 the Budding Commissioner be unsuccessful, the petitioners seek a Special • Permit per Section 3 Table of PrindpalandAccessog Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the use of the property as a Rooming,Boarding or Lodging House. Applicant: GEORGE &JODI BRADBURY Location: 102 DERBY STREET (Bl Zoning District) Documents& Exhibitions• • Application date-stamped May 28, 2014 and accompanying materials • "Petition of Support" submitted to the Board Arty. George Atkins presents the petition. Atty.Atkins submits to the Board a signed petition in support of the application. Atty. Atkins explains that he does not believe that the use constitutes a "rooming, boarding, or lodging house" use. It's a different sort of use that is not contemplated in the current ordinance. This type of short-term vacation rental is becoming more popular, and there are numerous locations in Salem offering this kind of rental. Arty.Atkins states that the definition of"Roomers and Boarders" does not apply here. The State Statute that governs lodging houses specifies letting to 4 or more persons, and the letting of an individual room, which is in some places is described as being less than 400 square feet. It may be that the City is interested in pursuing some questions, or an ordinance amendment, around this particular use, but it's not currently addressed in the zoning ordinance. Section 40A • prohibits the regulation of the use of the interior of a single family home. Ms. Curran states that if you have an apartment or a house, the City doesn't get involved in the length of the rental term for residential units. With weekly or vacation rentals, there could be other issues that come up, but I don't think it meets the definition of"rooming, boarding or lodging house" in the zoning code. If the City wants to regulate that, because it's something that happening more and more, the City may want to look at that. Right now my thinking is to overturn the decision of the Building Inspector. Mr. Copelas —agrees that it doesn't appear to fall under the definition of a "rooming, boarding or lodging house"in the Salem Zoning Code. There does seem to be space for some new regulations. It seems more akin to a bed and breakfast type use, and that would entail taxes, etc. But the narrow definition of the use as a lodging house doesn't seem to be the correct interpretation of the current use of the property. Perhaps a new ordinance could be investigated, but that's beyond this Board's purview. Ms. Curran reads the petition in support of the appeal, submitted by Arty. Atkins to the Board at the meeting, signed by four (4) individuals. Ms. Curran reads the following letters into the record: • Charles Ouimet, 109 Derby Street, describing a late-night disturbance related to renters at 102 Derby Street. • Mr. David Bowie, 14 Beach Ave.,in support of the petition, stating a benefit to local • businesses. 6of8 • • Emily Swilling, 105F Derby Street,in opposition to the petition, stating a concern about a change in the character of the neighborhood. • Kerman Abbate, 105R Derby Street, in opposition to the petition, stating a concern about parking and the establishment of a precedent for rentals in neighborhoods. • Barbara Matteau, 43 Union St #2,in support of the petition. Long-term residents of a residential unit have more cars than the short-term rentals. There are other uses permitted in a Bl that would be more detrimental than a vacation rental • Dawna Bucco, 74 Webb Street,in support of the petition. • Ms. Karen Scalia, Salem Food Tours,in support of the petition. ■ Christine Langill and Michele Cormier, 4 Blaney Street Unit 5, in support of the petition. Ms. Curran opens the bearing to the public. Heidi Milman, 109 Derby Street—has lived in the neighborhood for 31 years, and the character of the neighborhood has been fine. The applicants originally told Ms. Milman that the second unit would be used by family members. The applicants never told the neighbors what they were doing with the property until the neighbors received notice of the hearing. We need more affordable housing in Salem. This is not affordable housing. We have no idea who could be there. You don't screen people before they stay there. This will affect City-wide affordable housing if you allow this to go through. • Patrick McCormack, 105 Rear Derby Street, states that he wasn't aware of the gray area of the definition of the word "lodging". It's a B1 business district, so I assume it is in fact a business. I assume the City would require a business license to operate a business. As a business,it has to fall into some category, it can't fall into some hole as if it doesn't exist. The renters take up parking spaces on the street. In this instance,it hasn't been inspected for fire code for guest habitation. George Bradbury, owner&petitioner, 102 Derby Street—parking is a premium in that area. About half of our guests don't have a car, they travel by ferry or train to the area. A lot of the guests are actually family members of other neighbors. Parking is not being used continuously. We do screen our guests before they arrive. We also live there, so we can monitor noise. We want our house to stay beautiful. We are proud of our neighborhood, and we want it to stay beautiful. We also use part of the property for family members staying for short periods of time. I wasn't trying to hide this from anyone,it's listed online, I've talked to neighbors about it. There's a retail store right next door, and the rentals are beneficial to that business. Ms. Heather Ahearn, 17 Messervy Street, speaks in support of the petition. Atty. Atkins—perhaps if regulation needs to be contemplated, it should go to City Council, but the zoning code doesn't apply at this time to this situation. . Ms. Curran—I would be in favor of overturning this because I don't think it meets the definition of a rooming house. However, there could be issues such as parking, fire safety, 7of8 room tax, etc., so the City Council might want to consider doing something. It's a growing . trend, and might deserve some further study. Mr. St. Pierre states that this is becoming a common use in Salem, and that there would need to be regulation of this kind of use. It will be taken up by the City in the future. Mr. Watkins states that he agrees there are further considerations such as tax and fire regulations, that aren't before the Board tonight. He agrees that the current use of the applicant doesn't meet the definition in the local bylaws and the state statute. Mr. Watkins is in favor of overturning the decision of the Building Inspector. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to overturn the decision of the Building Inspector, upholding the appeal of the petitioner. The motion is seconded b .y Mr.. Copelas. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor Mr. Watkins, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran and Mr. Co el p as) and none (0) opposed. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Mr. Watkins inquires about the status of the appeal on the "chicken case." ADJOURNMENT Mr. Watkins motioned for adjournment of the June 18, 2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 8:OOpm. • Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins made a motion to adjourn the June 18, 2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Dionne, and the vote is unanimous with four (4) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Dionne, and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed. For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address orproject at,• I)M:Ilsalem.com/Pa, esZSa/e_ mMA Zomin114ealrMin/ Respectfully submitted, Dana Menon, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 7/16/2014 • 8of8 �o�°tTq�o CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS v� 1616 "` BOARD OF APPEAL 120 V6 ASI IINGION S ME.I I # Se LEM,�%1ASS V(I iU-Si-j- 01970 ,e��Mmc oe - Ini.r 9,8-619-5685 FAX:978 7aaoa(44 Kjmmi>mj.;.Y DR6COLL M N12vYOR r m c 3 F 1 on rn N hs m 3 N City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of EVANGELOS SRANGIAS, requesting a Variance per Sec. 33.4 Variance Required and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow an addition to the rear of the existing nonconforming building to accommodate an additional garage bay, at the property located at 119 BOSTON STREET (132 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, JUN 18, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 6/4/2014 and 6/11/2014 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on at �`l(ft in accordance with GL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. �g'D 'oIrR���� ?� C rry OF SALEM, MASSACHUSEM s BOARD OF APPEAL T 120 WAsmNGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSA=ETIS 01970 KiMBERLEYDRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,June 18,2014 at 6:30 p.rrL at 120 Washington St.,Salem MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: Petition of LINDA RENNICKS requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.2.5 Swimming Pools of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow an above ground pool to be closer than the required sit-foot minimum setback from the rear,- property line,at the property located at 32 GALLOWS HILL ROAD (R1 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on August 4,2014 This now is h ngseru m wrrpharxe with tbeMassadmeas Gemral Law, G6pter 40A,Somm 9& 15 argil dc5 not ralw7r aawn by the reapierG Appeals, ifaT,shall be trade pwsruar2 to Chapter 40A, Sion 17,and shall Ee fled within 20 dais f emht e date uM the de ision was fiW with the City clerk. � c.Y f . , W� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS , i BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHuSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 'FELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 ,� MAYOR "'I "C b n � August 4, 2014 c Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals „ram a D Petition of LINDA RENNICKS requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.2.5 Swrm�or;44 Agols of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow an above ground pool to be closer than the required&Kx-foot minimum setback from the rear property line, at the property located at 32 GALLOWS HILL ROAD (Rl Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 18, 2014 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. Watkins, and Mr. Copelas (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Perinit per Section 3.2.5 Swimming Pools of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped May 8, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit to allow the • location of the side of an above-ground pool 4.7 feet from the rear property line. 2. The Salem Zoning Ordinance requires a Special Permit to be obtained from the Board of Appeals to allow the side of a pool to be located less than six (6) feet from any rear or side property line. 3. Ms. Linda Rennicks presented the petition for the property at 32 Gallows Hills Road. 4. The petition is concerning a pool that has already been erected at the property. The pool is replacing a previously existing pool that was in the same location, but the new pool is a larger size, so that the side of the new pool is located closer to the rear property line. 5. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner keep their pool in the current location, with the side of the pool located 4.7 feet from the rear property line. 6. At the public hearing, one abutter stated that they have no complaints with the location of the pool. A second abutter, Ms. Doris Boghosian of 28 Gallows Hill Road, stated that the petitioner has a spotlight illuminating the pool area that shines onto Ms. Boghosian's property. 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 — Special Permit to allow an above ground pool to be closer than the required six-foot minimum setback from the rear property line: 1. The impact on the community needs served is similar to the previous condition - There was an • existing pool at this location,and there will continue to be a pool at this location. 2. There will be no impact on traffic flow and safety,parking, or loading in the area. 3. The adequacy of utilities and public services will remain the same as existing. 1 City of Salem Board of Appeals August 4,2014 Project: 32 Gallows Hill Road Page 2 of 2 •,, 4. The impact on the neighborhood character is similar to the previous condition - There has always been a pool at this location, and there will continue to be a pool at this location. 5. This project has no economic or fiscal impact, nor an impact on City services, tax base, and employment. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, and Mr. Copelas in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit to allow an above ground pool to be closer than the required six-foot minimum setback from the rear property line, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 3. The spotlight in the rear yard shall be shielded and directed away from 28 Gallows Hill Road 't cck Cw lv� /g�sw• 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, sball be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be frled within 20 days of fibng of this decision in the offire of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take eect until a ropy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • 3nd � � rbj�� w. BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSAQ IUSETIS 01970 KIMMERLEYDRiscioi TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,June 18,2014 at 6:30 p.m.at 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item Petition of EVANGELOS FRANGIAS,requesting a Variance per Sec. 3.3.4 VanuawR*red and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Norxonfonr&gStrcKwu of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow an addition to the rear of the existing nonconforming building to accommodate an additional garage bay, at the property located at 119 BOSTON STREET (B2 Zoning District). Decision:Granted Filed with the City Clerk on August 4,2014 This natue is Ia T sere in onphane wth the Massadmetts Gereral Law, Uwpter 40A, Sozws 9& 15 and does wt 7eTa7e aawn by the 7tuptem Appeals, tf arty,shall be nude punuara to chapter 40A, Semwt 17,and shall lu frl d within 20 days fiaw the date zdx& the deaswn uns ftlad wth the City Clerk. • • gONDIT 7­7 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEYDRiscoLL TEiF:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR n August 4, 2014 n Decision m c 70 T M3 City of Salem Board of Appeals x,= Nrn � Petition of EVANGELOS FRANGIAS, requesting a Variance per Sec. 3.3.4 Yarrwwc R�q aired and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning:Crdinafnce, to allow an addition to the rear of the existing nonconforming building to accommodate ifn addhTonal garage bay, at the property located at 119 BOSTON STREET (B2 Zoning District). &) — A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 18, 2014 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. Watkins,and Mr. Copelas (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Variance per Section 3.3.4 Variance Requind and a Special Pernvt per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped May 23, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Variance and a Special Permit • to allow the addition of an additional garage bay to the rear of an existing nonconforming building. 2. Attorney George Atkins presented the petition for the property at 119 Boston Street. 3. The proposed addition would infill an "L" at the rear of the existing building. It would be 15'-8"wide by 45'-0" long, and 17'-0" in height. The existing building is 14'-0"in height. 4. The existing building does not meet the 30-foot minimum depth of rear yard requirement of the zoning code — it is located only five (5) feet from the rear lot line. The rear wall of the proposed addition would be seven (7) feet from the rear lot line. 5. The property is currently a commercial garage and will remain a commercial garage. 6. The requested relief, if granted,would allow the Petitioner to add a garage bay measuring 15'-8" wide by 45'-0"long by 17'-0" high to the existing nonconforming building. 7. At the public hearing,no members of the public spoke in favor of or 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 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: Findings —Special Permit: 1. This is an expansion of an existing use 2. Community needs served by the proposal are similar to the existing condition of the property. It is an • expansion of an existing use. 3. Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading, is not changed significantly. The creation of indoor parking and work space will minimize outdoor storage. City of Salem Board of Appeals August 4,2014 Project: 119 Boston Street Page 2 of 2 • 4. Adequacy of utilities and other public services will remain the same. 5. The impact on the neighborhood character is minimal, as the additional garage bay is in keeping with the existing character of the building and is located in the rear of the building. 6. Impacts on the natural environment including view are minimal since the additional garage bay is located in the rear of the building. 7. The potential economic and fiscal impact, including impact on City services, tax base, and employment,is positive since the result is an improved building. Findings—Variance: 1. The situation and configuration of the building, located at the rear of the lot and set into a steep hill, is unique and creates a hardship. The proposed location for the addition is logical—it is infilling the existing building. If the addition were constructed at any other location on the property it would impede the workings of the property. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would be a substantial hardship. 3. The proposal is an expansion of an existing use, and the desired relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. 4. 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. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, and Mr. Copelas in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit and Variance to allow the addition to the rear of the existing nonconforming building to accommodate an additional garage bay, 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. S. 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 WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • Appeal fmm this decision, if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Mauacbusetts 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 Chapter40A, 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. CQSSDITq CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL `�G7MiNIST� 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSAQ-IDSETIS 01970 KIMBERLEYDRIScoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,June 18,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item Petition of GEORGE &JODI BRADBURY appealing the decision of the Building Commissioner that the property is currently in use as a Rooming,Boarding or Lodging House as defined in the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The property is located at 102 DERBY STREET(Bl Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on August 4,2014 This rxw is baTsera in awplianre wuh the Massa&xetts Gereral Law, Caapter 40A, Sanwa 9& 15 and"not reqzam amon by the rtripiem Appeals, if ark shall be nude pu suam to O*ter 40A, Sazion 17,and shall IT filed within 20 dais frwn the date vhub the decision zw filed with the City Clerk. • .. ��ONDITg90 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS a,33t BOARD OF .APPEAL 9F�tM1NE D°�P� 120 WASHINGI'Ov SCRG:L C 1 S/ALE:hI,lI4SSACl IUSISI'I'S 01970 Kii%[i iu.t,:YDaiscot.l, Tra.ic:978-745-9595 ♦ Fax:978-740-9846 �WAYOk MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified lhat the Salem Zonin3 Board B ofll eaG will hold ib re Marl scheduler]meetin pp � Y g on lVednesday,June 18, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at City HallAnne.v, RM 313, 120 IFashinglon St., Salem, M-1 Rebecca Curran, Chair � o MEETING AGENDA r m c I. ROLL CALLS z r — II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES i m s. ➢ May 21,2014 meeting s cJs III. REGULAR AGENDA • Project: Petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure. Applicant: RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ Location: 38 CABOT STREET (112 Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.2.5 Swmming Pools of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow an above ground pool to be closer than the required six-foot minimum setback from the rear property he. Applicant: LINDA RENNICKS Location: 32 GALLOWS HILL ROAD (111 Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting a Variance per Sec. 3.3.4 iianance Required and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow an addition to the rear of the existing nonconforming building to accommodate an additional garage bay. Applicant: EVANGELOS SRANGIAS Location: 119 BOSTON STREET (132 Zoning District) Project: Petition appealing the decision of the Budding Commissioner that the ro ec -is Currently in use 1 PP g g P P S ) as a Rooming, Boarding or Lodging House as defined in the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Should the appeal of the decision of the Building Commissioner be unsuccessful, the petitioners seek a Special Permit per Section 3 Table ofPrinapal andArcessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the use of the property as a Rooming,Boarding or Lodging House. Applicant: GEORGE &JODI BRADBURY Location: 102 DERBY STREET (Bl Zoning District) • Project: Petition seeking Variances from the provisions of Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow less than the required 100-foot minimum lot frontage and less than the required 100-foot minimum lot width for two proposed lots. The proposed lots will take their Page 1 of 2 This notice posted on "Offici Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on e, tt , atl� at .3J� eM in accordance with MGL Chap. 0A, •. .�. �ONU1T CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS r BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WAS}IINGTON STREET* SALEM,MASSACHIJSETTS 01970 r-, a KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595♦ FAX:978-740-9846 m :I-- MAYOR 'Clt Nm August 4, 2014 rn= D Decision 3 City of Salem Board of Appeals N oN Petition of GEORGE & JODI BRADBURY, appealing the decision of the Building Commissioner that the property is currently in use as a Rooming, Boarding or Lodging House as defined in the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The property is located at 102 DERBY STREET (B1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 18, 2014 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.Watkins,and Mr. Copelas (alternate). The Petitioner seeks an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector, and petitions the Board to find that the property is not currently in use as a "Rooming, Boarding, or Lodging House" as defined in the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney George Atkins presented the petition for the property at 102 Derby Street. • 2. In the petition, date-stamped May 28, 2014, the Petitioner requests an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector, and petitions the Board to find that the property is not currently in use as a "Rooming, Boarding, or Lodging House" as defined in the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 3. The property is a two-family residence. The petitioners rent out one unit of the two-family residence for short-term vacation rental. 4. At the public hearing for this petition, the applicant presented a petition in support of the appeal, signed by four residents. 1 resident spoke in support of the Board granting the appeal, and two (2) residents spoke in opposition to granting the appeal. In addition, the Board received 5 letters in support of granting the appeal, and 3 letters in opposition to the appeal. 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 narrative, the Petitioner's presentation, and public testimony, makes the following findings: 1. The rental of the dwelling unit for short-term vacation rental does not meet the definition of "rooming,boarding or lodging house" as set forth in the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 2. Short-term vacation rentals of dwelling units is becoming more prevalent, and this trend raises questions around issues such as parking, fire safety, and room taxes. As such, it is a use that the City Council may wish to consider addressing. 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 premise is not being used as a "Rooming, Boarding or Lodging House" and therefore the order of the Building Commissioner to cease the use is overturned. City of Salem Board of Appeals August 4,2014 Project: 102 Derby Street Page 2 of 2 In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed, to grant the petitioner's request to Appeal the Decision of the Building Commissioner. �) Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal jmm this decision, if any, .shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts Genera!Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this deasion in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts Genera!Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect unt l a coy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deedr. _ �,� i lil . _ _ � ii I ilk v`� 9Di 5, n CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120WASMN(;10NS'1R1t:1 S,�t.i:�l AL�ss.uaiu�trris01970 KINfBLAtx) Dlziscot.t, Ti;,u:::978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846 \LAyoa MEETING NOTICE You tire hereby nokfled that the Salem Zoning Board ql AppeaL will hold itr regularly scheduled vneeling on l f`ednesdcry, Jo# 16, 2014 at 6:30 pm. at City Hall-Annex, R11/1313, 120 lFashinglon St., Salem,i1 LA Rebecca Curran, Chair n MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL `— `— M C �'T1 r- �- 1 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES v June 18, 2014 meeting 3 3 l l III. REGULAR AGENDA N W Project: Continuation of the petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Noncon/bmvng Single-and Tavo- Family Renderttial Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the exist ng nonconforming structure. Applicant: RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ . Location: 38 CABOT STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project: Continuation of the petition seeking Variances from the provisions of Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow less than the required 100-foot minimum lot frontage and less than the required 100-foot minimum lot width for two proposed lots. The proposed lots will take their frontage from a shared driveway off of Marlborough Road. Applicant: ANTHONY JERMYN& RICHARD JERMYN Location: 148 MARLBOROUGH RD (R1 Zoning District) Project: Petition seeking a special permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconfoming Single-and Two-Family Residenlial Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the addition of a second floor deck onto an existing nonconforming single-family residence. Applicant: NICK MOSHER Location: 462 LAFAYETTE STREET (Rl Zoning District) Project: Petition seeking Variances from the requirements for maximum lot coverage of all buildings, minimum width of side yard, and minimum depth of rear yard of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dirnenional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the construction of a 38-foot by 25-foot garage. Applicant: JOHN KONTARASIS Location: 7 OSBORNE STREET (R2 Zoning District) Page I of 2 'City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for July 16,2014 Meeting Project: Petition seeking a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nnneon(anain Structurer and a Variance from the maximum height of buildings in stories requirement of Section 4.1.1 Tab/e o1 Dimensional Requitrmenlr of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the extension of an existing nonconforming structure for the addition of a shed dormer. Applicant: JOHN ESPINOLA Location: 28 TREMONT STREET (R1 Zoning District). Project: Petition requesting a Special Permit per Section 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the extension of an exterior wall along an existing nonconforming distance within a required side yard, in order to construct a second story addition. Applicant: BRIDGET K. PAGE Location: 65 TREMONT STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project Petition requesting a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconfonnino Struetures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the addition of a roof deck to an existing nonconforming three-ftnidy residential building. Applicant: NICK OSGOOD Location: 4 BENTLEY STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project. Petition requesting a Special Permit per Section 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a single-story addition and an exterior stairway to an existing nonconforming structure. Applicant: THOMAS& MARY DEMAKES Location: 22 WILLOW AVENUE (R1 Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT This notice, posted on "O ial RBjullet'n Board" Cit Hail. Salem, Mass. on ( /� 0-61 at J v-b'p M in accordan wit MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 25. Page 2 of 2 1 CONUIT,j1.�. o�,� CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS ro' BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASI IINGTON S"I'Rt E t ♦ S.U.I:�AI,1 fASS:ACI[us[`['Is 01970 KIMBI:Iu,FE Dalscou, ftij::978-745-9595 ♦ FAX 978-740-9846 ,�Lvvoa MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board of-4ppeals twill hold its regularly scheduled meeting on IYedneiday,Jul 16, 2014 at 6.30 p.m. at City Halltlnnex, Rtl4'313, 120 [F/aihington St, Salem, 1L4 Rebecca Curran, Chair n REVISED MEETING AGENDA e I. ROLL CALL M rn C � r— II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES �= r v'm O June 18, 2014 meeting m �L III. REGULAR AGENDA 3 CT jµ Y l:) • Project: Continuation of the petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Tmo- Family Residential Stnutures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure. Applicant: RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ Location: 38 CABOT STREET (R2 Zoning District) NOTE.APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO AUGUST 20'h MEETING Project: Continuation of the petition seeking Variances from the provisions of Section 4.0 Dimensional Reguirementi of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow less than the required 100-foot minimum lot frontage and less than the required 100-foot minimum lot width for two proposed lots. The proposed lots will take their frontage from a shared driveway off of Marlborough Road. Applicant: ANTHONY JERMYN& RICHARD JERMYN Location: 148 MARLBOROUGH RD (Rl Zoning District) Project: Petition seeking a special permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Noncmrforming Kngle-and Two-Family Residential Stmaures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the addition of a second floor deck onto an existing nonconforming single-family residence. Applicant: NICK MOSHER Location: 462 LAFAYETTE STREET (R1 Zoning District) Project: Petition seeking Variances from the requirements for maximum lot coverage of all buildings, minimum width of side yard and minimum de pth of rear 1-axd of Sea 4.1.1 Table of Dimenuianal Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the construction of a 38-foot by 25-foot garage. Applicant: JOHN KONTARASIS • Location: 7 OSBORNE STREET (R2 Zoning DNW%otice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salern, Mass. on (•(dQ I Bl 0-ol q � at 41 PM in accordanc with MGL Chap. 30A, Page 1 ,Actions 18-25. City of Salem Board of Appeals REVISED Agenda for July 16, 2014 Meeting Project: Petition seeking a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Noncon/btmin,Sinrctrrrr.i and a Variance from the maximum height of buildings in stories requirement of Section 4.1.1 Table o%Dimen.ional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the extension of an existing nonconforming structure for the addition of a shed dormer. Applicant: JOHN ESPINOLA Location: 28 TREMONT STREET (R1 Zoning District). Project: Petition requesting a Special Permit per Section 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the extension of an exterior wall along an existing nonconforming distance within a required side card, in order to construct a second story addition. Applicant: BRIDGET K. PAGE Location: 65 TREMONT STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Noncom brmin Slnittui r of the Salem Zoning p � 3 g Ordinance, to allow the addition of a roof deck to an existingnonconforming three family g residential budding. g Applicant: NICK OSGOOD Location: 4 BENTLEY STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting a Special Permit per Section 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a single-story addition and an exterior stairway to an existing nonconforming structure. Applicant: THOMAS & MARY DEMAKES Location: 22 WILLOW AVENUE (R1 Zoning District) iIV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT • Page 2 of 2 r City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet 9 ;vE " Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date 2O Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail t� �K osiliy '-16J to,,, k sL I7��7V-Ald n,dl olas, lve6, mayova,/ 3-7 s-r. �.-Ic f ?zY rya 01aa- �1ti,ehl�149t7l � - ,/ _1 lo,r ra_ • orb jag yer o f gj6,riia -?NJ TI _ V27 97859C/?9,; l��r� c.f✓lSdn / l < a 3L)vK 4 970-7u1 - 23(� AN :<n .lj 1=NNf} o -7 D- y1L`j .A10-w ke US R-18 -w4lu 14�1 ,gzc6 MCI( �ic41I�A2� CoumJa2r(� l TR�uniCG Sk. Svc 2Yy-23� �i YnCyw(no�eC2� 1.CoYh ��a(Vlan y0.cukl 3Z TUren t,�. . Er',a {��or��� 10 <�►e�Akl< RJI. 11arblcl�cdl �I l•B38 8�8z 13FoRTlta�12s n brJ cord REPREseNr�k6 28 TRtNo�{T �A�. �(u.,ne nn� �(V'�[['' /�l Y�Gr�16��/� ��rn R 7 S-�`9U � 2'�vu•�u//''� iG�21r�X( } rU3�h 37 TuYNeIr �e . g7ggR7���PageV �o Tj,karc�(c �5,(dv C ��on�wT CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 0 A-if pt o,' BOARD OF APPEAL �'NE 120 WASfnNGrON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACttusrsrrS 01970 K1M13ERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 NfAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Dana Menon, Staff Planner DATE: July 11,2014 RE: Meeting Agenda for July 16,2014 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Meeting Minutes from 6/18/2014 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 7/16/2014 meeting. . 1. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. Continuation of the petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a special permit per Sec.3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure, at the property located at 38 CABOT STREET (R2 Zoning District). At the May 21,c meeting the Board approved a modification to an earlier Variance, to allow the petitioner to move his garage to within one (1) foot of the south property line. At the same meeting, the petitioner presented his request for a Special Permit to allow the construction of an addition onto the existing nonconforming residence. The petitioner's drawings of the proposed addition were inconsistent and incomplete,and the Board granted the petitioner's request to continue, so that he might present revised drawings at the June 18ch meeting. At the June 18th meeting, the petitioner had not prepared sufficient drawings,and requested to continue to the July 16'h meeting. The applicant has submitted a request to continue to the August 201r,meeting,as the requested drawings will not be complete by the July 16'r'meeting. 2. Petition of ANTHONY JERMYN & RICHARD JERMYN seeking Variances from the provisions of Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow less than the required 100-foot minimum lot frontage and less than the required 100-foot minimum lot width for two proposed lots. The proposed lots will take their frontage from a shared driveway off of Marlborough Road. The proposal is for the property located at 148 MARLBOROUGH RD (Rl Zoning District). This application was submitted for the June 1816 meeting, however, as there were only 4 board members present at that meeting the applicant requested to continue to the July 16",meeting. The materials for this application were distributed in advance of the June 18rr,meeting. As stated in the memo for the June 181r'meeting.- The petitioners submitted a revised"Statement of Hardship"which replaces the original statement attached to the application. The"Statement of Hardship"stapled to the application form is the older statement—please City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—July 16,2014 Page 2 of 5 disregard. The "Statement of Hardship"attached at the end of the packet by paper-clip is the new and revised statement. ' The petitioners are proposing to divide an existing lot (Lot 250A)into two lots—shown as Lot 250Al and Lot 250A2 on the submitted plans. The applicants are proposing that the two lots share a driveway providing access to Marlborough Road. The lots are configured such that each lot effectively has approximately five (5) feet of frontage on Marlborough Road. The applicant proposes to institute permanent easements such that each of the two lots will retain real access to Marlborough Road for the full width of the driveway. " The required Variances to allow this configuration are from the required Minimum Lot Width and the required Minimum Lot Frontage, as laid out in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance: : '� Zoning brdina�N Dimensional'i2eggitetge"uts� 1?atopoy4d � M q =� JLegnited;Standard �_ Minimum lot frontage 100 —5 Minimum lot width 100 —5 3. Petition of NICK MOSHER, requesting a special permit per Sec.3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the addition of a second floor deck onto an existing nonconforming single-family residence, at the property located at 462 LAFAYETTE ST (RI Zoning District). • Mr. Mosher is seeking to construct a deck over the existing attached garage. The deck would extend beyond the footprint of the garage at the front such that it is even with the front of the house;and at the rear, to accommodate four-foot wide stairs. The submitted plot plan with the proposed deck footprint does not match the proposed deck layout submitted, as the plot plan does not show the four-foot wide stairs. I will contact the applicant and request that they provide clarification at the meeting. The existing building is a nonconforming single-family residence. The side yard setback is only three feet from the southeast property line to the existing garage. The proposed deck would not overhang this existing setback,but it would extend in line fine with the existing garage. Due to the angle of the house relative to the side lot line, the corner of the proposed deck would be only 2.5 feet from the side property line. 2omngOcdueance 1xisting D141enstonaLRegmrem6nts i► oposda a $equit�d 3tandatd a Minimum width of side yard(Feet) 10 3 2.5 4. Petition of JOHN KONTARASIS,requesting Variances from the requirements for maximum lot coverage of all buildings,minimum width of side yard, and minimum depth of rear yard of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the construction of a 38-foot by 25-foot garage, at the property located at 7 OSBORNE ST (112 Zoning District). The applicant proposes to construct a garage at the rear of the property. There is currently no garage structure, but there is an existing foundation. On the application form the applicant describes it as a 2-car garage,but in • their attached letter states "this garage will eliminate 4 vehicles from Osborne Street" The Board may wish to seek clarification on the intended use and capacity of the garage. 2 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—July 16,2014 Page 3of5 f �`_urtutg rdm c _ AuneuatQIIa1 R IIfreIIlemg s .Rerplt'CSfandartlt 1KiEtn 31 Maximum lot coverage by all buildings (percent) 35 29.2 52.6 Minimum width of side yard 10 feet No existing 0' (southwest)building garage g 8'-9" (east) Minimum depth of rear yard 30 feet No existing 2, 8„ garage building 5. Petition of JOHN ESPINOLA, requesting a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures and a Variance from the maximum height of buildings in stories requirement of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the extension of an existing nonconforming structure for the addition of a shed dormer, at the property located at 28 TREMONT ST (Rl Zoning District). This is an existing three family dwelling unit,which currently lacks the required 2nd egress for the 3rd floor unit. In order to comply with this requirement, the applicant is proposing to add a shed dormer,and to extend the rear(north)wall of the 3rd floor out by approximately four feet. The addition of the shed dormer requires a Variance to allow 3 stories when only 21/2 are allowed. The extension of the third floor requires a Special • Permit to allow the extension of an existing non-conforming building. The addition to the third floor will not extend beyond the footprint of the existing structure. r =23 enalR kn®qts 2aii ng Q edlttance it roposq . Maximum height of buildings 2.5 2.5 3 in stories 6. Petition of BRIDGET K.PAGE, requesting a Special Permit per Section 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the extension of an exterior wall along an existing nonconforming distance within a required side yard,in order to construct a second story addition at the property located at 65 TREMONT ST (112 Zoning District). The applicant's attached statement clearly explains the second floor addition and the impact on the required setbacks. The existing building does not conform to the required front yard setback, side yard setback, minimum required lot area,minimum lot frontage,and minimum lot width. The proposed addition really only concerns the minimum side yard setback. The addition will be on the rear of the existing building, and will extend two feet further back than the existing structure,but will not extend beyond the existing footprint in any other direction. The single-story portion of the existing structure over which the second floor will be extended is only five feet from the side lot line. The second floor addition would continue this nonconforming distance vertically(up one floor),and toward the back of the property by 2 feet. • 3 L City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—July 16,2014 Page 4 of 5 B Diiiensional Requireztuegtsr mm »� y 9 Regtzzred 8randaFd . Minimum width of side yard 10 5 5 7. Petition of NICK OSGOOD, requesting a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the addition of a roof deck to an existing nonconforming three-family residential building, at the property located at 4 BENTLEY ST (112 Zoning District). The petitioner proposes to construct a roof deck for the use of the third floor unit. The deck would be constructed over a portion of the existing building footprint. The deck is proposed for the south-east part of the building,and would be approximately 10 feet from the west side lot line, 10 feet from the rear lot line,and 18-19 feet from the east side lot line. In 2006 the applicant submitted a petition to construct an exterior stair at this property. The Decisions concerning this application are included under Attachment A. This was a contentious project, and the Decision of the Board was appealed. The current application does not propose any exterior stairs,and is only for the construction of the roof deck. A Special Permit is required as the existing structure is nonconforming. 8. Petition of THOMAS& NARY DEMAKES,requesting a Special Permit per Section 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow a single-story addition and an exterior stairway to an existing nonconforming structure, at the property located at 22 WILLOW AVE (111 Zoning District). The proposal is to add a 4'-4" deep by 16'-8"wide single-story addition, to enclose an existing first-floor porch, • and to add a new exterior stairway from the porch,to an existing nonconforming budding. The existing building is non-conforming,including nonconforming to the required minimum width of side yard. The proposed addition would extend an exterior wall for 4'-4" along the same nonconforming distance within the required side yard. The other nonconformities of the building and lot would remain unchanged. L"rung CI disance Diznenszonal Regltremetzta ReuirzdSr�ndae . xisdn o ed P11 z M _pts I Minimum width of side yard 10 4 4 II.Attachments o Attachment A—two previous Decisions regarding 4 Bentley Street 4 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—July 16,2014 Page 5 of 5 . To grant a variance, the Board must make the following findings: 1. Owing to conditions especially affecting such parcel or such budding but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located,a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or,otherwise,to the appellant 2. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good 3. Desirable relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Ordinance To grant a Special Permit,the Board must make the following findings: That the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the City or the neighborhood,in view of the particular characteristics of the site, and of the proposal in relation to that site. The determination shall include consideration of each of the following: a) Community needs which are served by the proposal; b) Traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading; c) Adequacy of utilities and other public services; d) Neighborhood character; e) Impacts on the natural environment including view;and f) Potential economic and fiscal impact,including impact on City services, tax base,and employment. • • 5 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET# SALED4,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TE..1.E.:978-619-5685♦ FAX:978-740-0404 KIMBFRL6Y DRISCOLL - MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure, at the property located at 38 CABOT STREET (R2 Zoning District). Said hearing is scheduled for WED, AUG 27, 2014. However, PLEASE NOTE—the applicant has submitted a request to continue the hearing to the regularly scheduled WED, SEPT 171h Zoning Board • of Appeals hearing, without any evidence being heard at the August 271h meeting. The Sept 171h meeting will be at 6:30pm, in Room 313 on the 3'd floor of 120 Washington Street. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS r� f � BOARD OF APPEAL 1 \\\ 120 WASHING LON STREET♦SALEM,MASSAGHUSETES 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 FAX:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JOHN ESPINOLA, requesting a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures and a Variance from the maximum height of buildings in stories requirement of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the extension of an existing nonconforming structure for the addition of a shed dormer, at the property located at 28 TREMONT ST (RI Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, JUL 16, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 0313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 7/2/2014 and 7/9/2014 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ' BOARD OF APPEAL \\ / 120 WASI'IINGTON$'IREE:T*$A1.FM11,MASS-ACIiUSG:Pf501970 '1'ELE:978-619-5685♦PAx:978-740-0404 KimBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JOHN KONTARASIS, requesting Variances from the requirements for maximum lot coverage of all buildings, minimum width of side yard, and minimum depth of rear yard of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the construction of a 38-foot by 25-foot garage, at the property located at 7 OSBORNE ST (R2 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, JUL 16, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM • 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 7/2/2014 and 7/9/2014 • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASI IING I'ON$IREET+SALEM,N ASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELL:978-619-5685♦ FAX:978-740-0404 KIMI3ERLEY DRISCOLI.. MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of NICK MOSHER, requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the addition of a second floor deck onto an existing nonconforming single- family residence, at the property located at 462 LAFAYETTE ST (RI Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, JUL 16, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM • 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 7/2/14 & 7/9/14 -` CIS OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET*$ALEM,MASSACHUSF..TTS 07970 TELE:978-619-5685♦FAx:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of BRIDGET K. PAGE, requesting a Special Permit per Section 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the extension of an exterior. wall along an existing nonconforming distance within a required side yard, in order to construct a second story addition at the property located at 65 TREMONT ST(R2 Zoning District). Said hearingwill be held on WED JUL 16 2014 at 6:30 .m. 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST ROOM P , • 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 7/2/2014 and 7/9/2014 • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL � 120 WASHINGTON STREET# SALBM,MASSACI-IUSBTIS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685♦PAX:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOI.I. MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of NICK OSGOOD, requesting a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the addition of a roof deck to an existing nonconforming three-family residential building, at the property located at 4 BENTLEY ST (R2 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, JUL 16, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM • 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 7/2/2014 and 7/9/2014 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS T , BOARD OF APPEAL 6 1� 120 WASHINGTON SCRF.FT♦ SALFM,MASSACHUSF'PI'S 01970 _��/ TELE:978-619-5685♦ FAX:978-740-0404 KIMB6RLFY DRTSCOLL MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of THOMAS & MARY DEMAKES, requesting a Special Permit per Section 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a single-story addition and an exterior stairway to an existing nonconforming structure, at the property located at 22 WILLOW AVE (RI Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, JUL 16, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 7/2/2014 and 7/9/2014 ATTACHMENT A uv CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL • � 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOORI I F' U(' �ALEM. MA \ i SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 CLERKS OFFICE TELEPHONE: 978-745.9595 $KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL FAX: 978-740.9846 MAYOR 200b DEC -I P b 32 December 7, 2006 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeal Decision — Amended - Petition of Nicholas Osgood requesting a Variance From-Side Yard Setback to Allow Construction of Exterior Stair at 4 Bentley St. (R-2 District) A public hearing on the above petition was opened at the April 19, 2006 meeting of the Zoning Board pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, and was continued until the October 18, 2006 meeting. The following Zoning Board members were present: Beth Debski, Nina Cohen Richard Dionne, Steve 'Ptnto and Robin Stein The petitioner Nicholas Osgood requests a variance pursuant to section 9-5 to allow the construction of an exterior stairway at the existing dwelling at 4 Bentley Street in the two-family zoning district. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Plans and Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Nick Osgood purchased the property at 4 Bentley St, a three-story residence, in 1995. 2. In May 2005 Mr. Osgood applied for and received a building permit to construct a roof deck and an exterior staircase to allow egress from the third floor. 3. In applying for the building permit, Mr. Osgood submitted sketched showing that the proposed stairway would extend to within three feet of the rear property line and would not be in compliance with rear setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The Building Department understood that the dimensional requirements of the zoning code were superceded by Building Code and fire safety requirements, and for that reason the permit was issued without the granting of a zoning variance. 4. In May construction of the stair commenced. A neighbor, Linda Moustakis of 2 Bentley St., immediately objected, on the grounds that the structure was too close to the property line and did not meet zoning requirements. She requested that the Building Department demonstrate their basis for setting aside zoning considerations. She further pointed out that no variance would be required if the egress stairway were sited on the driveway side of the house. 5. On November 22, 2005 the Building Commissioner informed Mr. Osgood that the building permit granting permission to construct the stair was not validly issued and directed him to correct the zoning violation within 60 days of receipt of the notice. See Letter of Thomas St. Pierre, Zoning Enforcement Officer, dated November 22, 2005, incorporated by reference herein. 6. On information and belief, Mr. Osgood did not comply with the Building Commissioner's directive. In late 2005, Mr. Osgood converted the property to a condominium-association and filed a Master Deed and Declaration of Trust: 7. On November 30, 2005 W. Osgood conveyed the second floor condominium to Victoria Regan. 8. Mr. Osgood's request to build a roof deck was not part of the original building permit since there was no roof deck shown on the sketches submitted to the Building Department. The Building Department has asked the petitioner to remove any portion of the roof deck that was completed, and, upon information and belief he has done so. This petition does not include a request for a variance to allow a roof deck. 9. At the public meeting, Ms. Moustakis and her attorney John Carr spoke in opposition to the proposed variance, on the grounds that the exterior stair was too large and deprived her of privacy in the enjoyment of her property. Also speaking in opposition to the stair were neighbors Robert Wilde of 5 Daniels St. and Kate Gill of the Daniels House Inn. 10. Also speaking in opposition were City Councilors Lucy Corchado, representing Ward 1, and Lenny O'Leary, Ward 4 representative and a friend of the abutter. On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition and detailed plans, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The petitioner's request for a variance to construct an exterior stair within 2.5 ft of the rear property line constitutes a substantial detriment to the public good. 2. The proposed expansion does nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 3. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) opposed (Cohen, Dionne, Stein and Pinto) and none (0)in favor, to approve the request for a variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of 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. r"', Nina Cohen, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeal oa rA CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL L' 1 UI ��LEM• MA � m 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RO FLOOR CLERK'S OFFICE :a ( SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 $KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 20 NOV 22 ,P 3: 2'U MAYOR November 20, 2006 Cityof Salem Zoning Board of g Appeal Decision Petition of Nicholas Osgood requesting a Variance From Side Yard Setback to Allow Construction of Exterior Stair at 4 Bentley St. (R-2 District) A public hearing on the above petition was opened at the April 19, 2006 meeting of the Zoning Board pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, and was continued until the October 18, 2006 meeting. The following Zoning Board members were present: Beth Debski, Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Steve Pinto and Robin Stein The petitioner Nicholas Osgood requests a variance pursuant to section 9-5 to allow the construction of an exterior stairway at the existing dwelling at 4 Bentley Street in the two-family zoning district. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Plans and Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Nick Osgood purchased the property at 4 Bentley St, a three-story residence, in 1995. 2. In May 2005 Mr. Osgood applied for and received a building permit to construct a roof deck and an exterior staircase to allow egress from the third floor. 3. In applying for the building permit, Mr. Osgood submitted sketched showing that the proposed stairway would extend to within three feet of the rear property line and would not be in compliance with rear setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The Building Department understood that the dimensional requirements of the zoning code were superceded by Building Code and fire safety requirements, and for that reason the permit was issued without the granting of a zoning variance. 4. In May construction of the stair commenced. A neighbor, Linda Moustakis of 2 Bentley St., immediately objected, on the grounds that the structure was too close to the property line and did not meet zoning requirements. She requested that the Building Department demonstrate their basis for setting aside zoning considerations. She further pointed out that no variance would be required if the egress stairway were sited on the driveway side of the house. 5. On November 22, 2005 the Building Commissioner informed Mr. Osgood that the building permit granting permission to construct the stair was not validly issued and directed him to correct the zoning violation within 60 days of receipt of the notice. See Letter of Thomas St. Pierre, Zoning Enforcement Officer, dated November 22, 2005, incorporated by reference herein. 6. On information and belief, Mr. Osgood did not comply with the Building Commissioner's directive. In late 2005, Mr. Osgood converted the property to a condominium association and filed a Master Deed and Declaration of Trust. 7. On November 30, 2005 Mr. Osgood conveyed the second floor condominium to Victoria Regan. S. Mr. Osgood's request to build a roof deck was not part of the original building permit since there was no roof deck shown on the sketches submitted to the Building Department. The Building Department has asked the petitioner to remove any portion of the roof deck that was completed, and, upon information and belief he has done so. This petition does not include a request for a variance to allow a roof deck. 9. At the public meeting, Ms. Moustakis and her attorney John Carr spoke in opposition to the proposed variance, on the grounds that the exterior stair was too large and deprived her of privacy in the enjoyment of her property. Also speaking in opposition to the stair were neighbors Robert Wilde of 5 Daniels St. and Kate Gill of the Daniels House Inn. 10. Also speaking in opposition were City Councilors Lucy Corchado, representing Ward 1, and Lenny O'Leary, Ward 4 representative and a friend of the abutter. On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition and detailed plans, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: I. The petitioner's request for a variance to construct an exterior stair within 2.5 ft of the rear property line constitutes a substantial detriment to the public good. 2. The proposed expansion does nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 3. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) opposed (Cohen, Dionne, Harris and Pinto) and none (0) in favor, to deny the request for a variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of 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. C*4--A�- Nina Cohen, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeal i CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS � f BOARD OF APPEAL �act uauo�� .- 120 WASHr,4GTON STREET 4 SALEM,1VIASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ F.sx:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,July 16,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem,Mil,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: Petition of JOHN KONTARASIS, requesting Variances from the requirements for maximum lot coverage of all buildings, minimum width of side yard, and minimum depth of rear yard of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the construction of a 38-foot by 25- foot garage, at the property located at 7 OSBORNE ST (R2 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on August 27, 2014 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massacbusetts General Lcws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9 6-15 and doer not require action by the recipient.Appeals, if any,shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A,Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. I v��,CONDIT9��i CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL CtrlfiVEDp' 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSEII'S 01970 KID-BERLEYDRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 1 FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,July 16, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem,MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: Petition of JOHN ESPINOLA, requesting a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures and a Variance from the maximum height of buildings in stories requirement of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the extension of an existing nonconforming structure and the addition of a shed dormer, at the property located at 28 TREMONT ST (RI Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on August 27,2014 This notice is be ng sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Lams, Chapter 40A, Sections 9 dam'15 and does not require action by the recipient.Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be fled within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS }= BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSE"fffi 01970 KIbfBERLEY DRISCOIL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,July 16,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: Petition of BRIDGET K. PAGE,requesting a Special Permit per Section 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the extension of an exterior wall along an existing nonconforming distance within a required side yard,in order to construct a second story addition at the property located at 65 TREMONT ST (R2 Zoning District) Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on August 27,2014 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Lams, Chapter 40A, Sections 9 dam'15 and does not require action by the recipient.Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. i • ter - a� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL li 120 WASHINGTON STREET* SALEM,MASSAQ-IUSETIS 01970 KiMaER[EYDRIScOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR CORRECTED Notice of Decision Petition of NICK OSGOOD requesting a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the addition of a roof deck to an existing nonconforming three-family residential building, for the property located at 4 BENTLEY STREET (R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 16, 2014 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. Copelas (Alternate). At the public hearing Mr. Osgood requested to withdraw the petition without prejudice. Decision: GRANTED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE Filed with the City Clerk on August 29,2014 • This mite is IvTsera in mir fil arxe with bOe Massadmeus Gerrral La-rrra, Uupter 40A,Sezuxa 9& 15 and dtrs not m?tam aaion by dx rttzpiera Appeals, if an} shall be nude punuaru to Chapter 40A, Sation 17,and shall lx fll uidxn 20 dais front the date ubi& the decision vas fill-with the City Clerk. • .;0ONI11T� � CITY OF SALEM NLA sSACHUSETTS s a BOARD OF APPEAL F V �? 29 A 8- '46 yfMl r 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEYDRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 FILE # MAYOR CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS August 29, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of NICK OSGOOD requesting a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the addition of a roof deck to am existing nonconforming three-family residential building, for the property located at 4 BENTLEY STREET (R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 16, 2014 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. Copelas (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit from Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and a Variance under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped June 25, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit to extend an existing nonconforming structure by adding a roof deck to an existing nonconforming three-family residential building in an R2 zoning district. 2. Mr. Nick Osgood presented the petition for 4 Bentley Street. 3. At the public hearing, three members of the public spoke in opposition to the petition, stating concerns regarding density, infringements on their privacy, and the negative impact of the proposed privacy fence on the value of the property and the character of the neighborhood. 4. Mr. Osgood requested to withdraw the petition without prejudice. The Salem Board of Appeals, after thorough review of the petition including the application narrative and plans, and careful consideration of the Petitioner's presentation and testimony by the public, voted to grant the withdrawal of the petition for 4 Bentley Street without prejudice by a vote of four (4) in favor (Mr. Watkins,Ms. Curran, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy in favor) and none (0) opposed. GRANTED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE 'ma " G W&--t /DV 1-- 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 Mauacbuseits General Lawn Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of fihng of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusens General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Pemiitgranted 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. ���ONUIT,Ie CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGroN S REEr ♦ SAt,sM,T-fASSACI n7SE'rfS 01970 KIMBERLEYDRIscou. Tra11:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR CORRECTED Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,July 16,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem,I\Lk,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: Petition of THOMAS & MARY DEMAKES, requesting a Special Permit per Section 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a single-story addition and an exterior stairway to an existing nonconforming structure, at the property located at 22 WILLOW AVE (R1 Zoning District). At the public hearing, the petitioner submitted revised plans proposing a Y-6" expansion of the porch (approximately 58 square feet),in addition to the previously proposed single-story addition and exterior stairway construction. Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on August 29,2014 This notice is being ent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9 & 15 and doer not require action by the recipient.Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the derision was filed with the City Clerk. CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS � .. BOARD OF APPEAL 9nlh Ails 20 A 8 46 120 WASHNNGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 -- TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740- FILE H KnBEwEYDRiscoiL m CLERK. SALEM,MASS: MAYOR August 29, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of THOMAS & MARY DEMAKES requesting a Special Permit per Section 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a single-story addition and an exterior stairway to an existing nonconforming structure, for the property at 22 WILLOW AVENUE (111 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 16, 2014 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, g 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. Copelas (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit from Section 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped June 25, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit to expand an existing nonconforming structure by adding: a single-story 4-foot 4-inch deep by 16-foot 8-inch long addition to the rear of the existing structure, enclosing an existing first-floor side porch, and adding an exterior stairway to the rear of the first-floor side porch. 2. The applicant submitted revised plans dated 7/16/2014, sheets EX2, Al, and A2, with a proposed 3- foot 6-inch deep addition to the first-floor side porch. 3. The proposed side porch addition would add approximately 58 square feet to the first floor porch, and the addition would not encroach on any of the requited setbacks. 4. Mr. Richard Griffin, architect, presented the petition. 5. The requested relief, if granted, would,allow the Petitioner to construct a single-story 4-foot 4-inch deep by 16-foot 8-inch long addition to the rear of the existing structure, to enclose and extend the existing first-floor side porch, and to add an exterior stairway to the rear of the first-floor side porch. 6. At the public heating, no members of the public spoke in favor of, or 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 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: Findings: 1. Community needs served by the proposal will be unchanged from the existing condition, the proposed additions axe in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, Is2. The parking and loading will be unchanged from the existing condition. 3. The impact on utilities and public services will be unchanged from the existing condition. 4. There will be no negative impact on the natural environment, particularly as any added roof runoff will be directed to on-site permeable areas. a 1 City of Salem Board of Appeals August 29,2014 Project:22 Willow Avenue Page 2 of 2 5. The proposal is in keeping with the neighborhood character. 6. The proposal is an improvement to the property, particularly with the enhanced view of the water, so it will have a positive economic and fiscal impact. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit to allow construction of a single-story 4-foot 4-inch deep by 16-foot 8-inch long addition to the rear of the existing structure, to enclose and extend by approximately 58 square feet the existing first-floor side porch, and to add an exterior stairway to the rear of the first-floor side porch., 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board +�Icc-' / Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal firm ibis decision, if any, shall be made purmant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of f:l:'ng of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40,4, Section 11, the Variance or S ecial Permit anted herein shall not take a ed until a co o the decision beatin the certificate o the Ci Clerk has been sled with the Essex South S 8 Sy l of f Registry of Deedf. �A CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS n M' BOARD OF APPEAL Ult AUG 9�y 9 A & 46 '--- --D°t? / 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MAssACHusETTs 01970 KIMBERLEY DWSCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 FILE # MAYOR CITY CLERIC, SALEM, MASS. August 29'b, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of NICK MOSHER requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the addition of a second floor deck onto an existing nonconforming single-family residence, at the property located at 462 LAFAYETTE ST (111 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 16, 2014 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. Copelas (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped June 19, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit in order to construct a deck over the existing one-car garage on the property. 2. Mr. Michael Shapiro, D&H Construction, Peabody, MA presented the petition on behalf of the applicant. 3. The existing building is nonconforming, so the addition of the proposed deck requires a Special Permit. 4. The deck would be placed over the existing garage, with an overhang at the front of the garage, and stairs providing egress from the deck to the rear yard would be added to the back of the garage. The front edge of the deck would be even with the front facade of the house. 5. Due to the angle of the structure relative to the side lot line, the extension of the deck toward the street would result in an additional six inches of encroachment on the required side yard width. The front corner of the deck would be approximately 2.5 feet from the side lot line, while the rear corner of the existing garage is three (3) feet from the side lot line. 6. An existing second-story side window would become the door to the deck. This window is located above the front edge of the existing garage, necessitating the extension of the deck beyond the front edge of the garage in order to facilitate access to the deck. 7. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to construct a deck over the existing attached one-car garage,with rear stairs and a front overhang. 8. At the public hearing, no members of the public spoke in favor of, or 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 , t City of Salem Board of Appeals August 29,2014 Project:462 Lafayette Street ' 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 impact of the proposal on the community's needs is no different than what currently exists. 2. The proposal does not impact parking or loading in the area. 3. The proposal does not impact the adequacy of utilities or other public services. 4. The proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 5. The proposal does not impact the natural environment. 6. The proposal does not have an economic or fiscal impact. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit to allow the expansion of an existing nonconforming structure, 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 pet 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 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. z 1 C 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 Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be fled within 20 days of filing of this decision in the offece of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • CITY OF SALEM, NLASSACHUSETTS n .` BOARD OF APPEAL 4 AUG 21 A 10: 42 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMSERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 FILE # MAYOR CITY CLERK, SALEM,MASS. August 27, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of JOHN ESPINOLA seeking a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures and a Variance from the maximum height of buildings in stories requirement of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the extension of an existing nonconforming structure and the addition of a shed dormer at the property located at 28 TREMONT STREET (R1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 16, 2014 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 4 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. Copelas (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit from Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and a Variance under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped June 23, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit to extend an existing nonconforming structure and a Variance from the 2.5 stories maximum height requirement in an Rl zoning district. The addition of the shed dormer and the extension of the third floor will create adequate space for the legally required second point of egress for a third story living unit, creating a useable third story. 2. Ms. Brigitte Fortin,Architect, presented the petition for the property at 28 Tremont Street. 3. Mr. St. Pierre, Zoning Enforcement Officer and Building Inspector, stated that the third floor has been in use as a residential unit for some time, and the current owners are trying to bring the unit into compliance with the Building Code. The three-family residential use of the building has been ongoing for some time, and is a legally grandfathered nonconforming use. 4. In order for the petitioner to continue the existing three-family residential use of the building, and to gain income from the rental of the third floor unit, the petitioner must construct a second point of egress for the third floor. 5. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to extend the rear wall 3-feet 10.5-inches toward the rear of the property, and to add a 13-foot 3-inch long shed dormer. 6. At the public hearing, Ms. Lori Hrdy of 9 Japonica Street expressed her concerns about the petition. Ms. Hrdy has had difficulties with the tenants of 28 Tremont Street - with loud gatherings on the porch and parking. Ms. Hrdy expresses that the proposed shed dormer would tower over her property. Ms. Hrdy requests installation of a six-foot high opaque fence on the property line. One 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 i i City of Salem Board of Appeals August 27,2014 Project:28 Tremont Street ' Page 2. 3 presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: Findings —Special Permit to allow the extension of an existing nonconforming structure: 1. The proposal will have no negative impact on the community's needs. 2. The proposal will have no negative impact on parking or loading. 3. The proposal will have no negative impact on the utilities and public services to the building. 4. The proposal will have no negative impact on the neighborhood character, and the condition requiring construction of a six-foot fence will be an improvement for the neighbors. 5. The proposal will have no negative impact on the natural environment. 6. The proposal will have no negative economic or fiscal impact. Findings—Variance from the 2.5 story maximum allowed height of buildings to allow the building to be 3 stories in height: 1. Without constructing a second form of egress to the third floor, the current building owner would be unable to continue use of the third floor dwelling unit, thus losing income. Therefore, literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would be a substantial hardship. 2. The desired relief, as conditioned,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. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit to allow the extension of an existing nonconforming structure, and Variance from the maximum height of buildings in stories requirement, to allow the extension of an existing nonconforming structure and the addition of a shed dormer, 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board 9. Petitioner shall install a six-foot high stockade fence on the rear property line prior to completion of • construction of the approved additions. 10. Construction shall proceed continuously. A construction debris dumpster shall be on on-site during construction, and shall be removed as soon as is practical after completion of construction. i City of Salem Board of Appeals August 27,2014 Project:28 Tremont Street • Page 3 of 3 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 Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of fkng of this deasion in the office of the Cily 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 Deedi. i, $NcONUIT �� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS m q BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 011M AUG 21 A ID 42 K[MBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR FILE It CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. August 27, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of JOHN KONTARASIS seeking Variances from the requirements for maximum lot coverage of all buildings, minimum width of side yard, and minimum depth of rear yard of Sec. 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the construction of a 38-foot by 25-foot garage at the property located at 7 OSBORNE STREET (112 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 16, 2014 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 5 11. The heating was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mt. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Copelas (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks Variances from the requirements for maximum lot coverage of all buildings, minimum width of side yard, and minimum depth of rear yard of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped June 18, 2014, the Petitioner requested Variances in order to construct a 38-foot by 25-foot garage. 2. Mr.John Kontarasis presented the petition. 3. There is an existing foundation from a previous garage structure that was on the property, but was removed around 1959. The applicant wishes to re-use the existing foundation for the new garage structure. 4. The property is in use as a two-family residence. 5. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to construct a garage on the existing 38- foot by 25-foot foundation. 6. At the public hearing, one member of the public spoke in favor of 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 size of the lot and the location and size of the existing garage foundation are unique conditions. Owing to these unique conditions, literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would be a substantial hardship. 2. The desired relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. i.. y City of Salem Board of Appeals August 27,2014 Project: 7 Osborne Street Page 2 of 2 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. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Variances from the requirements for maximum lot coverage of all buildings, minimum width of side yard, and minimum depth of rear yard, to allow the construction of a 38-foot by 25-foot garage 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 9. The proposed garage shall be built upon the existing 38-foot by 25-foot foundation. The Building Inspector shall verify that the existing foundation is in suitable condition for re-use in construction of the garage. If the existing foundation is not adequately sound, the applicant shall apply to the Board of Appeals to seek any necessary variances for construction of a garage on the property. 10. The garage shall remain as an accessory use to the primary residence on the property, and shall not be used for business purposes. / *qua &Yyw-, I DSv� 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 Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed witbin 20 days of firing of this decision in the ofice of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS ° n s- BOARD OF APPEAL S!� l A042 ' cy, poet' 120 WASHINGTON STREET* SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 FILE # MAYOR CITY CLE.RK� SALEM, MASS. August 27, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of BRIDGET K. PAGE requesting a Special Permit per Section 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the extension of an exterior wall along an existing nonconforming distance within a required side yard, in order to construct a second story addition at the property located at 65 TREMONT STREET (112 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 16, 2014 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, C 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. Copelas (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit from Section 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped June 24, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit to extend an exterior wall along an existing nonconforming distance within a required side yard, in order to construct a second story addition to a single-story portion of the existing structure. 2. Ms. Veronica Hobson, Residential Designer, presented the petition for the property at 65 Tremont Street. 3. The proposed addition will be over the footprint of the existing structure, with a 2-foot overhang at the rear of the building. 4. The roof height of the proposed addition would be lower than the roof height of the existing two- story portion of the building. 5. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to construct a 12-foot 9-inch by 13-foot 9.5 inch second story addition over a single-story portion of the existing single-family residence. 6. At the public hearing, no members of the public spoke in favor of, or 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 community needs served by the proposal will be unchanged from the existing condition. 2. The parking and loading will be unchanged from the existing condition. 3. The impactn o utilities and public services will be unchanged from the existing condition. 4. The impact on the natural environment will be unchanged from the existing condition. i City of Salem Board of Appeals August 27,2014 Project: 65 Tremont Street Page 2 of 2 5. The proposal will improve the neighborhood character. 6. The proposal is an improvement to the property, so it will have a positive economic and fiscal impact. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit to allow the extension of an exterior wall along an existing nonconforming distance within a required side yard, in order to construct a second story addition, 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but • not limited to, the Planning Board G-v>�t /GSM 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 Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of fih'ng of this decision in the office of the City Ckrk. 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 Ckrk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. `��0lU1ItTq�jc yP :, CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL M1NlQ, 120WASHINGTONSTREET+ SALEM,MASSA=EIMQ19Y1 2U P 4: 08 KIMBERLEYDRIScoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR FILE 0 CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. MEETING DATE CHANGE You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals regularly scheduled meeting for Wednesday, Aug 20, 2014 is RESCHEDULED to Wednesday, Aug 27, 2014 The meeting will be held at the regular time and place: 6:30pm at City Hall Annex, RM 313, 120 Washington St, Salem, MA Rebecca Curran, Chair This notice posted on "Official;,ll Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on L Z +J2011 at LIVVPIYI in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-26. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS i ' BOARD OF APPEAL ' :Apid AUG 13 P I: 28 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FA-N_:978-740-9846 FILE MAYOR CITY CLERK, SALEM.MASS. MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals gill hold its August meeting on Wednesday,August27,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall_Annex, RM 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ➢ July 16, 2014 meeting III. REGULAR AGENDA Project: Continuation of the petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two- • Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure. Applicant: RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ Location: 38 CABOT STREET (R2 Zoning District) NOTE.APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO SEPTEMBER MEETING Project: Continuation of the petition seeking Variances from the provisions of Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow less than the required 100-foot minimum lot frontage and less than the required 100-foot minimum lot width for two proposed lots. The proposed lots will take their frontage from a shared driveway off of Marlborough Road. Applicant: ANTHONY JERMYN&RICHARD JERMYN Location: 148 MARLBOROUGH RD (RI Zoning District) Project: Petition seeking a Variance from the minimum lot area requirement of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a reduction in size of the existing nonconforming lot by approximately 379 square feet. The Petitioner proposes to realign the rear lot line in order to square it off with an abutting property. Applicant: 4 MILK STREET TRUST Location: 4 MILK STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project: Petition seeking a Variance to allow the construction of a roof deck over an existing 2nd floor roof, which would exceed the 2.5-story maximum allowed height of buildings as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Applicant: MARC BERUBE & KEN KAYSER Location: 14 FORRESTER STREET'UNIT 2 (R2 Zoning District) This notice posted on "OfficA eyl tjr�Roard" PageekVHall, Salem, Mass. on uu++71 11 ZA at f �y fM in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-26. 3 . City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for August 27,2014 Meeting • Project: Petition seeking a Variance to allow the creation of a 11-foot by 13-foot off-street parking stall, when the minimum allowed off-street parking stall dimensions are 9-feet by 19-feet,per Section 5.1 Off-Street Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Applicant: JOSEPH DIPIETRO Location: 44 CHESTNUT ST (R2 Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting a Variance to allow the addition of two 14-foot dormers onto the third floor of the existing building,which exceeds the maximum allowed building height of 2.5 stories, as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Applicant: ERIC EASLEY Location: 19 NICHOLS ST (RI Zoning District) Project: Petition seeking to reconstruct and extend a three-story nonconforming structure that was damaged by fire. The Petitioner is requesting a Variance from the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow expansion of livable space on the third floor,as well as a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion of a nonconforming structure,in order to expand the previously existing nonconforming building. Applicant: JOHN KALANTZIS,TRUSTEE Location: 12 SCHOOL ST (R2 Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting a Variance from the requirements of Section 8.4.9 Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow fewer than the required 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, and an Amendment to allow less of an encroachment on the 50 foot buffer required for construction • activity abutting residential property than the previously issued decision allowed. Applicant: RIVERVIEW PLACE LLC Location: 72 FLINT ST,67-69 MASON ST,AND 71 MASON ST (NRCC Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 2 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date / 2 / � 4 me Mailing Address Phone # E-mail 9� , a :Ccieh JB d "� � &)13716 e ms//.cal mw arwRcs�o 71-?91'�-32-3 -1 r• Iieao(`ac'y • �� � O.,d I�l��� Q��7W�-�k^7S kv 4v,e TlM I7cna Va% aS /Vi C40(5 57 ukIT A C11 % � 14-04i3 IY �0nn01 n 49 71nAh.cc1 Uytj-R COV -3y V7S8 , C6)A-J, 22) Q cSi�vermvri � /nV - S S� jam- �YS -�-� �SiIV�r�'Y.s.19P �i�6•!� m%chc% .S�✓eeney thou/ Sr 640" � 978 76.6 7s'-R3 rhicrwe�r�o7�Jcv u 1 u iyS' 6440 7- ?_hJ t rl/��J2Gs�i A ��/�� s�'x STe`�*''� l`7�•9�//- ®6 S� _..--- OeCur-lslt»4 ar 93 F l c dent 97k-/y/- 69/d borpeeoxrawaoym w c4p? • o`�oNen / �(!9h/rfy! �/iii2 'f KIPN 1 �78-A73-bi c( I Page of �� (�. � CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS • ' : BOARD OF APPEAL ��MINS� 120 WASPONGPON STREET 1 SAtT:.M,MASSAc1iuSE"[-rS 01970 KiMHERLEYDRiscou, TIat.E:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Dana Menon,Staff Planner DATE: August 22,2014 RE: Meeting Agenda for August 27,2014 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Meeting Minutes from 7/16/2014 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 8/27/2014 meeting. 1. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS • 1. Continuation of the petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure, at the property located at 38 CABOT STREET (112 Zoning District). At the May 211t meeting the Board approved a modification to an earlier Variance,to allow the petitioner to move his garage to within one (1) foot of the south property line. At the same meeting,the petitioner presented his request for a Special Permit to allow the construction of an addition onto the existing nonconforming residence. The petitioner's drawings of the proposed addition were inconsistent and incomplete,and the Board granted the petitioner's request to continue,so that he might present revised drawings at the June 18th meeting. At the June 18th meeting,the petitioner had not prepared sufficient drawings, and requested to continue to the July 16th meeting. The petitioner then submitted a request to continue to the August meeting,as the requested drawings were not ready. The petitioner has again submitted a request to continue—to the September 1711,meefing, as the drawings are notyet ready. 2. Continuation of the petition of ANTHONY JERMYN& RICHARD JERMYN seeking Variances from the provisions of Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow less than the required 100-foot minimum lot frontage and less than the required 100-foot minimum lot width for two proposed lots. The proposed lots will take their frontage from a shared driveway off of Marlborough Road. The proposal is for the property located at 148 MARLBOROUGH RD (Rl Zoning District). This application was submitted for the June 18'h meeting,however, the applicant requested to continue to the . July 16th meeting. The materials for this application were distributed in advance of the June 18th meeting. On July 16th the petition was opened, and evidence was heard. To recap: City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—August 22, 2014 Page 2 of 4 The petitioners are proposing to divide an existing lot(Lot 250A) into two lots—shown as Lot 250Al and Lot . 250A2 on the submitted plans. The applicants are proposing that the two lots share a driveway providing access to Marlborough Road. The lots are configured such that each lot effectively has approximately five (5) feet of frontage on Marlborough Road. The applicant proposes to institute permanent easements such that each of the two lots will retain real access to Marlborough Road for the full width of the driveway. The required Variances to allow this configuration are from the required Minimum Lot Width and the required Minimum Lot Frontage,as laid out in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance: Dimensional Requirements Zoning Ordinance 7Proposed Required Standard Minimum lot frontage 100 —5 Minimum lot width 100 —5 At the July 16th meeting, the Board requested that the applicant consider other alternatives for dividing up the parcels, to try to diminish the zoning nonconformities of the proposal. The applicant has not as yet supplied any additional materials,but I anticipate that they will have material for the meeting. 3. Petition of 4 MILK STREET TRUST seeking a Variance from the minimum lot area requirement of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow a reduction in size of the existing nonconforming lot by approximately 379 square feet. The Petitioner proposes to • realign the rear lot line in order to square it off with an abutting property, at the property located at 4 MILK STREET (R2 Zoning District). The existing lots at 4 Milk Street and 14 Pickman Street are both nonconforming. They each have less than the required minimum lot area for an R2 zone: Dimensional Zoning Ordinance 4 Milk St Existing 14 Pickman St Exis Requirements Requirement (Lot B) (Parcel C) Minimum lot area(SF) 15,000 4,575 7,832 The proposal would effectively re-allocate 379 square feet of existing 4 Milk Street lot(Lot B) to 14 Pickman Street(Parcel C),by creating a "Parcel D" to be transferred to 14 Pickman St(Parcel C). This would result in the following: Dimensional Zoning Ordinance 4 Milk St Proposed 14 Pickman St Pr e Requirements Requirement (Lot B) (Parcel C&D) Minimum lot area(SF) 15,000 4,196 8.211 4. Petition of MARC BERUBE & KEN KAYSER seeking a Variance to allow the construction of a roof deck over an existing 2nd floor roof,which would exceed the 2.5-story maximum allowed height of buildings as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at 14 FORRESTER STREET UNIT 2 (R2 Zoning District). The applicant proposes to construct a roof deck over an existing 2-story portion of the building. The access to • this roof deck would be from an existing door on a 2 '/2 floor. The existing 2 /2 floor is currently only 2 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—August 22,2014 Page 3 of 4 • considered a"half-story",and so the building currently complies with the 2 '/2 height in stories maximum limitation of the R2 zoning district. The Zoning Enforcement Officer has determined that the creation of the proposed deck would increase the useable space of the third"half story" substantially enough to require a variance to allow a full third story. The proposed deck would be at the rear of the structure. 5. Petition of JOSEPH DIPIETRO seeking a Variance to allow the creation of a 11-foot by 13-foot off- street parking stall,when the minimum allowed off-street parking stall dimensions are 9-feet by 19- feet,per Section 5.1 Off-Street Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, at the property located at 44 CHESTNUT STREET (112 Zoning District). Since the submission of this application by Mr. DiPietro,I was contacted by Ms. Katie Casiglia,who has purchased the property and was unaware of the details of the application to the Board. I forwarded Ms. Casiglia the application materials,and Ms. Casigha has informed me that she intends to submit a letter to the Board stating that regardless of the outcome of the Board hearing she does not intend to pursue the proposed project. Her description of the site indicates that only a compact car would fit within the space,and that access to the space would require removal of a public street tree. I have not yet received this letter,but I anticipate receipt prior to the hearing. For the Board's information,healthy public street trees cannot be removed without approval from the City Tree Warden,and would require a public hearing. 6. Petition of ERIC EASLEY requesting a Variance to allow the addition of two 14-foot dormers onto the third floor of the existing building,which exceeds the maximum allowed building height of 2.5 stories, as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, at the property located at 19 NICHOLS STREET (Rl Zoning District). • The applicant is proposing two 14-foot dormers to the existing third floor unit,in order to bring the third floor unit into compliance with building code.The expansion and use of the third floor as a full residential space requires a variance,as the maximum allowed height in stories in an Rl zone is 2/2 stories. The applicant purchased this property when it was illegally in use as 4 residential units. The applicant is applying for this variance as part of his efforts to bring the property into conformance with building and zoning codes. 7. Petition of JOHN KALANTZIS,TRUSTEE seeking to reconstruct and extend a three-story nonconforming structure that was damaged by fire. The Petitioner is requesting a Variance from the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow expansion of livable space on the third floor, as well as a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion of a nonconforming structure,in order to expand the previously existing nonconforming building,at the property located at 12 SCHOOL STREET (112 Zoning District). The previously existing building at this location was damaged by fire in March of this year—attached to this memo is a photo from the property record card,which shows the original building. The applicant is seeking Variances as they wish to rebuild with some additions to the structure. These additions would increase the living area of the third floor,requiring a variance to allow 3 stories in an R2 zone,where a maximum building height of 2 '/2 stories is permitted. This project also requires a Special Permit to expand an existing non- conforming building. 8. Petition of RIVERVIEW PLACE, LLC requesting a Variance from the requirements of Section 8.4.9 Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow fewer than the required 2 parldng . spaces per dwelling unit,and an Amendment to allow less of an encroachment on the 50 foot buffer required for construction activity abutting residential property than the previously issued decision 3 e City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—August 22,2014 Page 4 of 4 allowed,for the property located at 72 FLINT ST,67-69 MASON ST,AND 71 MASON ST (NRCC • Zoning District). This project came before the Zoning Board in April 2014,requesting an Amendment to a previously issued Variance decision in order to reduce the number of parking spaces required for the commercial space,and to allow an increased encroachment on the 50 foot buffer required for construction activity abutting residential property. After securing that Variance from the ZBA, the petitioner has also had to submit a request for an amendment to the Planning Board and the Salem Redevelopment Authority for the same project. The petition has been opened by both the Planning Board and the SRA, and has been heard at one meeting of each of the respective bodies. The petition is still open with both bodies. In the course of the First meeting with the SRA,the applicant received comments regarding the number of parking spaces provided on-site. In response to these comments, the applicant is seeking to reduce the number of on-site parking spaces,to below what is required by the zoning code. The zoning code requires 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit in the NRCC district (see Section 8.4.9 "Parking Requirements"within the NRCC District). The applicant is seeking a Variance to only provide 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Included in your packet is a memo from the SRA chair regarding the comments made about parking at the SRA meeting. I am still in the process of gathering additional information on parking requirements and supply for similar types of development, for the Board's information. I will be sending this information out by e-mail early next week(Monday). I anticipate that there will be much public interest in this petition,as I have already received • several requests for information on this proposal from members of the public. • 4 y, l -_ M s •; '', ,�� � _—�� � ;�& ice"— r __ „ � f -- I�ii,aa iris i CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 9�q(M 6 120 WASHINUI ON SI REM ♦ Sni.rnI,ngnssnrFmsr'ris KIMBriu.rti DRISCUL[, TI'Lr:978-619-5685 ♦ Nx:978-740-040.4, 01970 . ... Mnroa Cn C r- 7D c X a F f r= m Z City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of ANTHONY JERMYN & RICHARD JERMYN seeking Variances from the provisions of Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow less than the required 100-foot minimum lot frontage and less than the required 100-foot minimum lot width for two proposed lots. The proposed lots will take their frontage • from a shared driveway off of Marlborough Road. The proposal is for the property located at 148 MARLBOROUGH RD (R1 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, JUN 18, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 6/4/2014 and 6/11/2014 This notice posted on "OfflSW Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass, on— K_C )6Iq at O'O A in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. r • ���.�01iD1 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS��e BOARD OF APPEAL I' 2014 AUG 13 P ►. na 40 - // 120 WASHINGTON STREET 0 SALEM,MASSACHUSETrs M �,----111V6_;-! TELE:978-619-5685*FAx:9701�0[<(1�4Eft SALEM, MASS. KIMRERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of 4 MILK STREET TRUST seeking a Variance from the minimum lot area requirement of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a reduction in size of the existing nonconforming lot by approximately 379 square feet. The Petitioner proposes to realign the rear lot line in order to square it off with an abutting property. The proposal is for the property located at 4 MILK ST (112 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, AUG 27, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, • ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 8/13/2014 and 8/20/2014 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin0Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on AUG 13 14 at I ,,A PM in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. 0 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL �\ 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSEYIS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRiscoLL 7xr E:978-619-5685 ♦FAX:978-740-0404 MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MARC BERUBE & KEN KAYSER, seeking a Variance to allow the construction of a roof deck over an existing 2nd floor roof, which would exceed the 2.5-story maximum allowed height of buildings as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is for the property located at 14 FORRESTER ST, UNIT 2 (R2 Zoning District). • Said hearing will be held on WED, AUG 27, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 8/13/2014 and 8/20/2014 CITY OF SALEM ASSESSOR'S CERTIFICATION OF ABUTTERS AND "PARTIES IN INTEREST" BOARD/COMMISSION: Board of Appeals PROJECT SITE 14 Forrester St#2 {35_0442_802} DATE: 07/28/2014 DESCRIPTION OF REQUIREMENT: Parties in Interest: The applicant Abutters Owners of land opposite any street or way Abutters and abutters to abutters within 300 feet Planning boards of abutting cities and towns ' This is to certify that the time of the last assessment for taxation made by the City of Salem, the names and addresses of those listed on the attached sheets are "parties in interest" (as defined by Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A, Section 11) to the parcel(s) of land listed above as the project site. Assessor's Signature: Date: 7 � / / Number of initialed pages attached: S Once Certified, Return to: Dana Menon Department of Planning and Community Development P CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSE ,.�,conmrT TTS BOARD OF APPE — ?Old AUG 13 P 1: 29 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACHUS 1970 . FILE KIMR ERLEYnRISCOLL TtLE:978-619-5685*FAX:978-740-04p4 Y CLERK, SALEM,MASS, MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JOSEPH DIPIETRO, seeking a Variance to allow the creation of a I 1-foot by 13-foot off-street parking stall, when the minimum allowed off-street parking stall dimensions are 9-feet by 19-feet, per Section 5.1 Off-Street Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is for the property located at 44 CHESTNUT ST(R2 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED,AUG 27, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., P floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 8/13/2014 and 8/20/2014 This notice posted on "Offici I ull tin Board$$ City Hall, Salem, Mass. on 1 2014 at 1:04 PM in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, • Sections 18-25. CITY OF SALEM ASSESSOR'S CERTIFICATION OF ABUTTERS AND "PARTIES IN INTEREST" BOARD/CO MMISSION• Board of Appeals PROJECT SITE 44 Chestnut St 125_0217_0) DATE: 07/28/2014 DESCRIPTION OF REQUIREMENT: Parties in Interest: The applicant Abutters Owners of land opposite any street or way Abutters and abutters to abutters within 300 feet Planning boards of abutting cities and towns This is to certify that the time of the last assessment for taxation made by the City of Salem, the names and addresses of those listed on the attached sheets are "parties in interest" (as defined by Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A, Section 11) to the parcel(s) of land listed above as the project site. Assessor's Signature: �.. Date:—. 74 / Number of initialed pages attached:. Once Certified,Return to: Dana Menon Department of Planning and Community Development • Mar�` - ' CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS o BOARD OF APPEAL1814 AVG 13 P I: 29 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSF�'i't:II1470 E'IK` KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 I tY ((;;LL 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 JOHN KALANTZIS, TRUSTEE, seeking to reconstruct and extend a three-story nonconforming structure that was damaged by fire. The Petitioner is requesting a Variance from the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow expansion of livable space on the third floor, as well as a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion of a nonconforming structure, in order to expand the previously existing nonconforming building. The property is located at 12 SCHOOL ST(R2 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, AUG 27, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 8/13/2104 & 8/20/2014 This notice posted on "Office �ttll�tifiRoard" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on t 1 1144 at [Xpilk in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEA�ra AUG 13 P 1: 29 `—" 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHII�j S 01970FILE # KIMBERLEY DRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-98f6y)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 ERIC EASLEY, requesting a variance to allow the addition of two 14-foot dormers onto the third floor of the existing building, which exceeds the maximum allowed building height of 2.5 stories, as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table o• Dimensional Requirements O q ements of the Salem a em Zoning Ordinance. The property is located at 19 NICHOLS ST (RI Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, AUG 27, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., P floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 8/13/2104 & 8/20/2014 This notice posted on "Off, pity Hall, Salem icial Bulletin Board" P , Mass. on AUG 13 2014 • Sections 18_25.n accordance with MGL Chap, 30A 1 CITY OF SALEM ASSESSOR'S CERTIFICATION OF ABUTTERS AND "PARTIES IN INTEREST" BOARD/COMMISSION: Board of Appeals PROJECT SITE 19 Nichols Street 11502400 DATE: 07/28/2014 DESCRIPTION OF REQUIREMENT: Parties in Interest: The applicant Abutters Owners of land opposite any street or way Abutters and abutters to abutters within 300 feet Planning boards of abutting cities and towns This is to certify that the time of the last assessment for taxation made by the City of Salem, the names and addresses of those listed on the attached sheets are "parties in interest" (as defined by Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A, Section 11) to the parcel(s) of land listed above as the project site. Assessor's Signature: Date: 7 Number of initialed pages attached: .3 Once Certified,Return to: Dana Menon Department of Planning and Community Development t CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL f 4,' 1QIU AUG 13 P I: 29 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSE SQ 1970 FILE # KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL I` LE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846I1I 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 RIVERVIEW PLACE LLC requesting a Variance from the requirements of Section 8.4.9 Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow fewer than the required 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, and an Amendment to allow less of an encroachment on the 50 foot buffer required for construction activity abutting residential property than the previously issued decision allowed. The property is located at 72 FLINT ST, 67-69 MASON ST, AND 71 MASON ST (NRCC Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, AUG 27, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran Chair Salem News: 8/13/2104 & 8/20/2014 This notice posted on "Official BBulllle UG 3 2014d" CityHall, Salem, Mass. on ath 9r in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. sfP _q PITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 2 24 BOARD OF APPEAL -- _. CITY CLERK # SALEM.MA SVO WASU NGTON STREET*SALEM,MASSACHUSEITS 01970 KmERLEY DRISCOLL TE E:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,August 27,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: Petition of ANTHONY JERMYN&RICHARD JERMYN,requesting variances from the provisions of Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow less than the required 100-foot minimum lot frontage and less than the required 100-foot minimum lot width for two proposed lots. The proposed lots will take their &outage from a shared driveway off of Marlborough Road,at the property located at 148 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (RI Zoning District) Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on September 9th,2014 • Tbir notice it being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A,Sections 9&15 and does not require action by the recpient.Appeals,if any,shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17,and shall be filed within 10 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk F CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL • �� �� 1814 SEp _9 p -� - 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY MAYOR SCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 CITY CLV?FILE ABM,MAS,: September 9th, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of ANTHONY JERMYN& RICHARD JERMYN requesting Variances from the provisions of Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow less than the required 100-foot minimum lot frontage and less than the required 100-foot minimum lot width for two proposed lots. The proposed lots will take their frontage from a shared driveway off of Marlborough Road, at the property located at 148 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (RI Zoning District) A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 16, 2014 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11 and continued to August 27, 2014. The hearing was closed on August 27,2014 with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Copelas (Alternate), and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks Variances from the provisions of Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem .Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped May 28, 2014, the Petitioner requested:Variances from the provisions of Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow less than the required 100-foot minimum lot frontage and less than the required 100-foot minimum lot width for two proposed lots. 2. Attorney Correnti presented the petition for the property at 148 Marlborough Road. 3. The existing lot is a so called"porkchop lot" that was last modified in 1961. 4. Mr. Bill Ross, Engineer,illustrated that the southern third of the parcel is not buildable land due to an existing wetland resource area and ledges on the site. These environmental and topographic constraints, combined with setbacks required by the Salem Zoning Ordinance, established the proposed lot layout and building footprint locations. 5. The two proposed lots would each exceed the required minimum lot size (15,000 SF) to create two lots with a shared driveway and access easement over 146 Marlborough Street (Lot 250B). The proposed lots sizes are 26,199 square feet and 24,422 square feet. 6. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to create two lots with a shared driveway and access easement over 146 Marlborough Road. 7. Mr. Bill Ross addressed the drainage concern expressed by the abutters, explaining that a new pipe had been installed between Lot250B and Lot250C, replacing an old drainage pipe that had failed and . was causing flooding on the property in question. 8. On July 16, 2014, the Board of Appeals requested that alternative lot configurations for lot 250B and the two proposed lots be considered, including three conforming lots for a possible "by-right" configuration. City of Salem Board of Appeals September 9,2014 Project: 148 Marlborough Road . Page 2 of 3 9. On August 27, 2014 the applicant presented plans illustrating that alternative lot configurations had been explored, including the creation of three "by-right"lots. These alternatives were not feasible due to high costs and the existing natural features on the land limiting the areas where house construction is feasible. 10. At the public hearing, one abutter expressed their opposition to the petition and submitted a letter and photographs to the Board. Concerns included inadequate frontage and minimum lot width, traffic, emergency access, floodwater drainage, embankment erosion, and proximity of proposed new homes to the abutter's property. 11. Two letters of support were submitted by the applicant with the petition. 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: Findings 1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance requiring a 100-foot minimum lot frontage and a 100-foot minimum lot width for each of the two proposed lots would be a substantial hardship, as the existing lot is uniquely shaped and has unique natural features limiting the buildable area of the lots. 2. The proposed two new lots would not be a substantial detriment to the public good,provided that the • proposed common driveway be approved by the Fire Department. 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 five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy) and none (0) opposed to grant the requested Variances to allow less than the required 100-foot minimum lot frontage and less than the required 100-foot minimum lot width for two proposed lots 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 including the approval of the width, length and surface materials for the common driveway. 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 conservation commission and the Planning Board. 9. Petitioner shall obtain approval from the City of Salem Fire Department that the proposed driveway width,length,and surface material are adequate for fire safety City of Salem Board of Appeals September 9,2014 Project: 148 Marlborough Road . Page 3 of 3 10. Petitioner shall obtain any necessary approvals from the Salem Conservation Commission. --R Cwm'6� 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 airy,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Lamy 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 ropy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed witb the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • CrrY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSET'I"S BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KimBFRLEY DRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,August 27,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem,MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: Petition of 4 MILK STREET TRUST seeking a Variance from the minimum lot area requirement of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a reduction in size of the existing nonconforming lot by approximately 379 square feet. The Petitioner proposes to realign the rear lot line in order to square it off with an abutting property. The proposal is for the property located at 4 MILK ST(R2 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on September 10,2014 This notice is being sent in romphance with the Massachusetts General Lowy, Chapter 40A,Sections 9&15 and does not require action by the tv pient.Appeals, if any,shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17,and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which The decision was filed with the City Clerk. n r'7 e r— rn rn r+i x cn M 3 'D 3 N u4 �oew� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 1 BOARD OF APPEAL OYA � . 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 019 814 K[MBERLEYDRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 P l"0 P 12: 51 MAYOR fITY FILE # GLERff. September 10th, 2014 SALEM, t14SS. Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of 4 MILK STREET TRUST seeking a Variance from the minimum lot area requirement of Section of Sec. 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow a reduction in size of the existing nonconforming lot by approximately 379 square feet. The Petitioner proposes to realign the rear lot line in order to square it off with an abutting property. The proposal is for the property located at 4 MILK ST (112 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 27, 2014 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,Mr. Copelas (Alternate), and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Variance from Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped June 30, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Variance to allow a reduction in size of the existing nonconforming lot by approximately 379 square feet in order to realign the rear lot line and square it off with an abutting property,making the two lots saleable. 2. Attorney Correnti presented the petition and distributed a site plan to the Board to demonstrate the proposal to transfer an approximately 379 square foot triangular shaped piece of land from 4 Milk Street to 14 Pickman Street. 4 Milk Street is an existing nonconforming lot - it is currently 4,575 square feet, and the required minimum lot size in the R2 Zoning District is 15,000 square feet. The proposed transfer of land would further reduce the lot size by approximately 379 square feet to a total of 4,196 square feet. 3. 14 Pickman Street is also an existing nonconforming lot, being only 7,832 square feet in size, where the Zoning Code requires a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet. 4. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to reduce the size of the existing nonconforming lot at 4 Milk Street. 5. The petitioner submitted three letters of support from members of the public with the petition. 6. At the public hearing, two members of the public spoke in support of the petition. No members of the public spoke 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 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: City of Salem Board of Appeals September 10,2014 Project:4 Milk Street • Page 2 of 2 Findings 1. The lot is a unique shape, and literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would be a substantial hardship to the applicant. 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 five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Mr. Duffy) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Variance to allow a reduction in the size of the existing nonconforming lot by approximately 379 square feet,subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to,the Planning Board. Q Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal fmm this decision,if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be f:kd within 20 days of f:kng of this decision in the office of the City Clerk Pursuant to the Massachusetts General laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. ��ONDIT\ CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASMNGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,August 27,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: petition of MARC BERUBE & KEN KAYSER, seeking a Variance to allow the construction of a roof deck over an existing 2nd floor roof, which would exceed the 2.5-story maximum allowed height of buildings as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is for the property located at 14 FORRESTER ST, UNIT 2 (R2 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on September 10,2014 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9&15 and does not require action by the recipient.Appeals, if any,shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17,and shall be filed within 20 day from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk n � N O_ � T rn N rn rn XT O RF _ r >4t O rn 3 3 T � �rr U1 .co"—, CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHWGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS J 97�Cn KIMBERLEYDRiscoLL 'ISLE:978-745-95951 FAX:978-740-9846 (utU Lf 10 p 12; 5� MAYOR CtTYCLERtf SALEM. September 10th, 2014 MASS. Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of MARC BERRUBE and KEN KAYSER requesting a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a roof deck over an existing 2°'floor roof,which would exceed the 2.5-story maximum allowed height of buildings. The proposal is for the property located at 14 FORRESTER ST. UNIT 2 (R2 Zoning District) A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 27, 2014 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,Mr. Copelas (Alternate), and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped July 23d, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a roof deck over an existing 2"a floor roof, which would exceed the 2.5-story maximum allowed height of buildings. 2. Mr. Berube and Mr. Kayser, petitioners, presented the application for the property at 14 Forrester Street Unit 2. 3. The proposed location of the deck is on top of an existing flat roof with existing sliding door access, last modified in 1986. 4. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to construct a 12' x 18' deck and a 36" tall deck rail on top of an existing flat roof over the second floor. 5. Mr. Berube stated that the existing sliding door to roof access has potential safety issues without a railing and that this existing condition may negatively impact the ability to re-sell the property. 6. The petitioners submitted six (6) letters of support from abutters. 7. At the public hearing one (1) member of the public spoke in opposition to the petition, citing concerns about impact to the privacy of abutters. 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: City of Salem Board of Appeals September 10,2014 Project: 14 Forrester Street,Unit 2 Page 2 of 2 Findings 1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance to allow a maximum allowed height of 2.5 stories would be a substantial hardship due to unique conditions affecting the property including the existing sliding door to the roof poses a safety risk. Without relief, it would not be possible to build a 12'x 18' deck and 36" tall railing. 2. The proposed new deck and railing would not be a substantial detriment to the public good. 3. The proposed new deck and railing does not increase the Yd floor space significantly, but technically the increase in usable space requires a Variance to go from 2.5 stories to 3 stories. 4. 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 five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Variance to allow a 12'x 18' deck and 36" tall railing 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. 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. a 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 Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of fk'ng of this decision in the office of the Cidy Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted berein shall not take effect until a mpy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been fled with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. -�,,lk CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET* SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMEERLEY DRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,August 27,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: Petition of JOSEPH DIPIETRO, seeking a Variance to allow the creation of a 11-foot by 13-foot off-street parking stall, when the minimum allowed off-street parking stall dimensions are 9-feet by 19-feet, per Section 5.1 Off-Street Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is for the property located at 44 CHESTNUT ST (112 Zoning District). At the public hearing,no testimony was presented and no one appeared on behalf of the applicant. Decision: Denied Filed with the City Clerk on September 10L",2014 Thin notice it being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9&15 and doer not require action by the recipient Appeal,if any,shall be made purruant to Chapter 40A,Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days firm the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk ~ N h r rn ry+i m r^ O r 4k rn 3 1� cn N U9 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS �1 BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-98461014 SEP 10 P 12: 5 MAYOR FILE It September 10', 2014 CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of JOSEPH DIPIETRO requesting a Variance from the provisions of Section 5.1 Off-Street Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the creation of a 11-foot by 13-foot off-street parking stall,when the minimum allowed off-street parking stall dimensions are 9-feet by 19-feet. The proposal is for the property located at 44 CHESTNUT ST (112 Zoning District) A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 27, 2014 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, Mr. Copelas (Alternate), and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Variance from the provisions of Section 5.1 Off-Street Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped July 24h, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Variance from the provisions of Section 5.1 Off-Street Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the creation of a 11-foot by 13-foot off-street parking stall when the minimum allowed off-street parking stall dimensions are 9- feet P g feet by 19-feet. 2. The Petitioner was not in attendance,no testimony was presented. 3. Ms. Curran read a letter submitted to the Board by Jeffrey and Katherine Casiglia of 44 Chestnut Street, stating that they are the new property owners of 44 Chestnut Street, and that, while they did not submit the petition, they are not interested in pursuing this project at this time. The creation of the parking space would require removal of a healthy street tree and an historic iron fence. 4. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to construct an 11-foot by 13-foot off- street parking space. 5. At the public hearing, no members of the public spoke in opposition to or in favor of the petition. The Salem Board of Appeals, under the circumstances,makes the following findings: Findings 1. No testimony was presented. 2. No one appeared on behalf of the applicant 3. The applicant is no longer the property owner. 4. The current property owner submitted a letter expressing that at this time they do not wish to construct a parking space at the described location. City of Salem Board of Appeals September 10,2014 Project:44 Chestnut Street IsPage 2 of 2 On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) opposed (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy) and none (0) in favor, to approve the requested Variance to allow the creation of a 11-foot by 13-foot off-street parking space. 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 fmm this decision,if any, .shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Ma sachuteas Generall,;ur Chapter 40,4, and shall be filed unthin 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 Vanance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a ropy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deedy. _ /C�NIA'T CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS �I BOARD OF APPEAL "�aMflVBI� 120 WASHINGTON STREET 4 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,August 27,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem,MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: Petition of ERIC EASLEY,requesting a variance to allow the addition of two 14-foot dormers onto the third floor of the existing building,which exceeds the maximum allowed building height of 2.5 stories,as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The property is located at 19 NICHOLS ST(RI Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on September 10,2014 • This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General saws, Chapter 40A,Sections 9&15 and does not require action by the recipient.Appeals, if any,shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A,Section 17,and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk � N 1 O_ r GO rn rn �rn _ D m O r rn 3 3 fV b � rn • f �$ 1 n � CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • �; ' BOARD OF APPEAL \� 120 WASHINGTON STREET* SALEIvf,MASSACHUSET9R99P 10 P 2'. 58 KIMBERLEY DRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 FILE # MAYOR CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS, September 10' 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of ERIC EASLEY, requesting a variance to allow the addition of two 14-foot dormers onto the third floor of the existing building,which exceeds the maximum allowed building height of 2.5 stories, as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The property is located at 19 NICHOLS ST (Rl Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 27, 2014 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,Mr. Copelas (Alternate), and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks Variances from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: • 1. In the petition date-stamped July 24'", 2014, the Petitioner requested a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the addition of two 14-foot dormers onto the third floor of the existing building, which exceeds the maximum allowed building height of 2.5 stories 2. Mr. Easley,petitioner, presented the petition for the property at 19 Nichols Street. 3. The existing building was previously illegally in use as a four-unit residence. It is a legal pre-existing nonconforming three-family residence. 4. The property owner proposes to improve conditions in the third floor unit to bring the structure up to building code. 5. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to construct an addition of two 14-foot long dormers onto the third floor of the existing building to bring the third-floor unit up to building code standards. 6. At the public hearing, one member of the public expressed their opposition to the petition and submitted a letter and photographs to the Board. Concerns included inadequate parking, noise, and the intended use. The resident was also concerned that the dormers had already been partially constructed before going before the Board. Another member of the public asked about the adequacy of the on-site parking. No members of the public spoke in favor of the petition. 7. Mr. St. Pierre clarified that the construction prior to Board approval was a misunderstanding. Construction was stopped and Mr. Easley applied to the Board. 8. Mr. Easley stated that an existing shed had been removed from the driveway to allow space for 6 cars. • Mr. St. Pierre reminded the Board that the petitioner was not proposing changes to parking, therefore no relief was needed. City of Salem Board of Appeals September 10,2014 Project: 19 Nichols Street . 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 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: Findings 1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance requiring a maximum allowed building height of 2.5 stories would be a substantial and unique hardship as the existing third floor legal unit does not meet current building code requirements. 2. The proposed two 14-foot long dormers would not be a substantial detriment to the public good, particularly as the petitioner has created more space for on-site parking. 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 five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy) and none (0) opposed to grant the requested Variance to allow the addition of two 14-foot dormers onto the third floor of the existing building, 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. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to,the Planning Board. p 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 Lams Chapter 40A, and.shall be filed within 20 days of fihng 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 e ed until a copy of the decision bearing the cenificate of the City Clerk bar been filed with the Essex South 46 gutty of Deeds. /f CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSFM 01970 KiMBERLEY DRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,August 27,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: Petition of RIVERVIEW PLACE LLC requesting a Variance from the requirements of Section 8.4.9 Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow fewer than the required 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, and an Amendment to allow less of an encroachment on the 50 foot buffer required for construction activity abutting residential property than the previously issued decision allowed. The property is located at 72 FLINT ST, 67-69 MASON ST,AND 71 MASON ST (NRCC Zoning District). Decision: Denied Filed with the City Clerk on September 10,2014 This notice is being.rent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9& 15 and does not require action by the recipient.Appeals, if any,shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A,Section 17,and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which The decision was filed with the City Clerk. H -C o n � r- rn N f IDm O M m -� 3 3 N U (!t m o Salem _. Redevelopment Authority August 12, 2014 Rebecca Curran, Chair City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals City Hall Annex 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: Parking Requirements for Riverview Place Dear Ms. Curran: It is my understanding that the applicants proposing a mixed-use development at 72 Flint Street and 67-69 & 71 Mason Street (Riverview Place) are seeking a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to reduce required parking on-site from two (2) spaces per unit to one and a half(1.5) spaces per unit. Although the Design Review Board does not oversee parking requirements for projects it reviews, this topic came up with respect to • this project at our last regular meeting on July 23, 2014. Below are some of the comments made by Members of the Design Review Board (taken from the minutes) at that meeting. J. Michael Sullivan: "Is there a chance you (the applicant) could get a variance for the parking requirement to be 1.5 spaces per unit?" Sullivan continued by commentating that the presence of one- bedroom units are a "good thing." He commented that these sized units and fewer parking spaces are a "wave of the future" —the size of the units and less parking "go hand-in-hand." Glenn Kennedy: "There seems to be so much parking here, considering building size." Kennedy agreed with Sullivan's comments about smaller unit sizes being the wave of the future, and expanded further by noting that other developments with these unit sizes consider who lives in them and do not accommodate for two spaces per unit. There is more consideration given in those cases to foot traffic, bicyclists, e-bikes, and how they are used. The units shown here with the number of parking spaces provided almost seems contradictory to what one might find in similar developments, found for instance in Cambridge. • David Jaquith: Jaquith commented that if"we could fight to get you less parking we certainly would because I do not think the parking demand is going to be there." Christopher Dynia: Dynia commented that the size of units in the buildings does not necessitate 2 parking spaces per unit. "it seems overkill for this site." Please note that providing you with the above comments is only meant to show how Design Review Board Members reacted to the required amount.of parking as presented at the July 23`d meeting. I must emphasize that the Design Review Board has not yet reviewed any plans with a reduced parking count and will withhold any judgment of such plans until it has had an opportunity to review them. My hope is that any potential reduction in the amount of parking that is required for this site would not result in a deterioration of quality for the proposed design and ultimate development. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you have any questions, please do not hesistate to contact Andrew Shapiro in the Department of Planning of Community Development at 978-619-5686 or ashapiroAsalem.com. Sincerely, Paul Du and Chair, City of Salem Design Review Board • CC:. All Members of the Zoning Board of.Appeals All Members of the Design Review Board • q Z`1t • PARKING REQUIREMENTS INFORMATION > ZQ4)r <Ir 2� Some history on the NRCC zone requirement for 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit: The draft amendment to the zoning code that proposed creation of the NRCC district was developed over a year of meetings with the NRCC Implementation Committee, comprised of 13 community members. The draft zoning amendment submitted to City Council in October 2004 included the recommended parking requirement of 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit (see attached). The City Council referred this proposed amendment to the Planning Board, and the Planning Board made a recommendation to City Council. During the Council's discussion for passage of the zoning amendment, a recommendation was made on the floor to change the parking requirement to 2 spaces per dwelling unit. This recommendation was included by Council in their final passage of the NRCC zoning district amendment. Some examples from other Massachusetts municipalities for multifamily uses: Northampton, MA requires 1 space per 500 square feet of gross floor area with a maximum of 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit in any district other than their Central Business district. Additionally,they encourage allowed parking: "Through a special permit, allow a greater percentage reduction where joint use of the same spaces by two or more uses or establishments is justifiable by virtue of the fact that the uses or establishments generate peak demand at substantially different time periods." (Sec. • 350-8.6 Shared Parking) Amherst, MA requires 2 spaces per dwelling unit plus 1 guest space for every 10 units, but also allows for shared parking: "When there are two or more uses, including residential parking for non-peak business hours, there is a reduction in parking space needs that range between 1 and 1.7 spaces as required parking for individual use." Somerville, MA requires 1.0 per efficiency/studio unit or Artist Live/Work Space; 1.5 per unit with 1 or 2 bedrooms; 2.0 per unit with 3 or more bedrooms; unless specified differently elsewhere in this Article plus, in all cases: 1.0 for every 6 units(when 6 or more units)for visitors and/or service vehicles Transit-Oriented Development From MAPC "Growing Station Areas" report,June 2012: - Salem Station is classified as an "urban gateway" station: "Station areas in or adjacent to the downtown of Regional Urban Centers, with a moderate-intensity balance of residential and commercial development and a large population of low income residents, served by commuter rail or subway and often functioning as a hub for local MBTA or regional transit authority bus service." - The "Principles of TOD" are: o A diversity of land uses, including employment and common destinations • o Higher levels of density appropriate to the community context o A mix of housing options and dedicated housing affordability o Intermodal connectivity (pedestrian and bicycle connections, other transit) • o Green infrastructure and open space o Low parking requirements and alternatives to car ownership leg Zipcar) o High quality urban design and sense of place "Transit Oriented Development" is typically classified as being%: mile from a transportation node. In this instance, it would be the Salem Commuter Rail Station. • • m � T C. Qrona� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR Ocmber 28,-2004 Salem City Council Cir1 of Salem 93 Washington Street Salem, i A 01970 Proposed Amendment to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance to create the "North River Canal Corridor (NRCC) Neighborhood Mixed Use District' • Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council: Enclosed you will find a package of material for the proposed NRCC Neighborhood Mixed Use District. As you know, we have been working with the NRCC Implementation Connnittee over the last year to submit to you a ordinance that not only incorporates the vision set forth in the neighborhood master plan but provides the tool to allow for development that is in keeping with the residential character of the abutting neighborhoods. The next step in this process is for the City Council and the Planning Board to schedule another joint public hearing to discuss the proposed Zoning District. Thank you for your consideration of this proposal. Sincerely, Stanley J. Usovicz,Jr. Mayor • Member Home Address Home Telephone E-mail Address John Kermet 26 Walter Street 978-740-6929 Patricia Donahue 12 Dearborn Lane 978-744-7662 Paul Caisse 5 Friend Street 978-744-0524 Rita Markunas 192 Federal Street 978-745-9867 James Treadwell 36 Felt Street 978-744-6080 Joyce Wallace 172 Federal Street 978-744-0705 iovken@massed.net Mary Lee Storrs 26 Beckford Street 978-741-1461 mistorrs@statestreet.com Bob Sennett 9 North Pine Street 978-741-1524 rsennett@fas.harvard.edu Sara Harper 21A Pickman Street 978-741-2530 sharoer2la@msn.com John Carr 7 River Street 978-744-3400 Staley McDermet 30 Dearborn Street 978-745-1571 StalevMcDermet@hotmail.com John Moustakis 23 Dearborn Street 978-744-4648 Robert Gough, 201 Washington Street,Suite 9 978-741-7900 robaouah@salemsound.org Councilor Regina Flynn Councilor Michael Bencal Councilor Lenny O'Leary e. If a new public roadway is constructed by the developer on the site in accordance • with the NRCC Master Plan, a bonus of 50%of the maximum number of units permitted may be awarded. f. If a new public bikepath or pedestrian path is constructed by the developer on the site in accordance with the NRCC Master Plan, a bonus of 25%of the maximum number of units permitted may be awarded. Section 7-20(m): Parking Requirements Parking areas within the NRCC Neighborhood Mixed Use District shall meet the following criteria: 1. Parking facilities in this district should be located to the rear or side of the structure whenever physically feasible. 2. All parking areas of more than twelve (12)spaces shall be arranged and landscaped to properly screen vehicles from adjacent properties and streets. The requirements for such landscaping are as follows: a. . Landscaping shall include one (1)tree of three and one half inch to four inch caliper for each three (3) parking spaces. Trees shall be planted in plant beds bounded by six inch granite curbing. b. No plant bed shall be less than fifteen (15) square feet and no dimension of such plant bed shall be less than three(3)feet. C. A planting strip of no less than three (3)feet wide shall separate vehicles • parked face to face in a parking area. Such planting strip shall include one(1) three and one half inch to four(4) inch caliper tree every twenty seven (27)feet(in line with striping) and other appropriate landscaping. d. Parking Spaces for the following uses shall be provided as follows: Use Required Parking Dwellings and home One and a half(1.5) spaces per dwelling unit, Occupations with a minimum of two(2)spaces, plus one (1) space for each home occupation Artist space with a studio where One(1) space per dwelling unit, plus one (1) items are sold space for patrons. All other uses in the NRCC Neighborhood Mixed Use District shall follow the parking requirements as listed in this Zoning Ordinance. Section 7-20(n): Transitional Overlay District The Transitional Overlay District encompasses those parcels that are located at the boundaries of the NRCC Neighborhood Mixed Use District and that also abut a residential zone(either directly or across a public way)or abut a residentially,used parcel outside the NRCC Neighborhood Mixed Use District. This section of the Ordinance sets additional requirements for development of those parcels. It is intended to create development in the NRCC Neighborhood Mixed Use District that will be compatible with the adjacent residentially zoned and used parcels and that will provide a transition and buffer between the adjacent residentially zoned and used parcels in the NRCC Neighborhood Mixed Use District. I 011llgT CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL SEP I 0 P 12: 51 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 1QmBERLEYDRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 FILE # MAYOR 'ITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS, September 10, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of RIVERVIEW PLACE LLC requesting a Variance from the requirements of Section 8.4.9 Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow fewer than the required 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, and an Amendment to allow less of an encroachment on the 50 foot buffer required for construction activity abutting residential property than the previously issued decision allowed. The property is located at 72 FLINT ST,67-69 MASON ST,AND 71 MASON ST (NRCC Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 27,2014 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, Mr. Copelas (Alternate), and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Variance from the provisions of Section 8.4.9 Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning -Ordinance, and an Amendment to a previously issued decision to allow less of an encroachment on the 50- foot buffer required for construction activity abutting a residential property. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped August 6 h, 2014, the Petitioner requested: A Variance from Section 8.4.9 Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow fewer than the required 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit,and an amendment to a Board of Appeals decision issued on April 22, 2014, to allow less of an encroachment on the 50 foot buffer required for construction activity abutting residential property. 2. Attorney Scott Grover presented the petition for the property located at 72 Flint Street, 67-69 Mason Street and 71 Mason Street. 3. On April 22"d, 2014 the Zoning Board granted an amendment to existing variances to allow a reduction in the number of parking spaces allocated to the commercial use from 37 spaces to 10 spaces, and to allow a reconfiguration of a proposed surface parking lot. These amendments were sought by the petitioner in response to changes to the site plan necessitated by the determination that the property is subject to M.G.L Chapter 91 and MEPA regulations. 4. The changes to the project necessitated by the Chapter 91 and MEPA regulations also require approval by the Salem Planning Board and the Salem Design Review Board. 5. At the meeting of the Design Review Board to review the proposed project changes, members of the Design Review Board suggested that the applicant pursue the possibility of reducing the number of parking spaces to less than 2 spaces per unit. Cityof Salem Board of Appeals September 10,2014 Project: 72 FLINT ST,67-69 MASON ST,AND 71 MASON ST Page 2 of 3 6. Mr. Feinstein, Symes Associates stated that parking demand could be controlled by restricting parking in their lease agreements,to ensure adequate parking for residents. 7. The proposed reduction of required parking spaces would eliminate a previously proposed parking garage and utilize surface parking. Additionally, the reduction in parking spaces would allow the southwest parking area to be pulled further back from the abutting residential properties from the previously approved.7 feet from the property line. 8. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to have fewer than the required 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, and to have less of an encroachment on the 50 foot buffer required for construction activity abutting residential property. 9. Chair Curran read into the record two letters submitted to the Board stating opposition to the petition, citing a lack of parking in the neighborhood, an increase in the surface parking, and a lack of evidence and public input, as well as a third letter requesting additional information and documentation to justify the requested relief. 10. At the Public Hearing, ten (10) members of the public,including Councilors Beth Gerard and Arthur Sargent, spoke regarding the petition, with questions and concerns including: the existing limited parking available in the neighborhood, the negative impact on the neighborhood of any additional on- street parking demand, the reality of the residential units only utilizing 1.5 parking spaces per unit, parking accommodations for visitors, the adequacy of the petitioner's stated hardship, and an obligation to provide additional space for on-site public amenities if there is a reduction in on-site parking spaces. 11. The Board requested that the petitioner supply additional information to substantiate the petitioner's statements that 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit would adequately meet the parking demands of the future residents of the development. 12. The Petitioner stated that the project is on a tight timeline, and that they did not wish to extend the public hearing to the next Board of Appeals meeting. 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: Findings 1. The Board requested additional information and data which was deemed necessary in order to understand the effects of reducing on-site parking. 2. The application did not articulate a hardship as required by M.G.L. chapter 40A On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted none (0) in favor, and five (5) opposed (Mr. Watkins,Ms. Curran,Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy), to grant the requested Variance from the requirements of Section 8.4.9 Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow fewer than the required 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, and an Amendment to allow less of an encroachment on the 50 foot buffer required for construction activity abutting residential property ,than the previously issued decision allowed. The petition is denied. I City of Salem Board of Appeals September 10,2014 Project: 72 FLINT ST,67-69 MASON ST,AND 71 MASON ST Page 3 of 3 Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal fmm this decision, if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Lams Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of fbng of this derision in the offtce of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted heroin shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the Gty Clerk has been fled with the Essex South Regutry of Deedr. • City of Salem Board of Appeals APPROVED Meeting Minutes Wednesday,August 27,2014 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA') was held on Wednesday,August 27, 2014 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 6:30 p.m. a -rSP ' •=aE�mi a.,x,a.4:�. iiY���rir !'u s-. '« ROLL CALL rnvm s i�>aiGautlGxx u6fl[t§Wi4tµ,ahti m5.� .u,.._ Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,James Tsitsinos (Alternate) and Peter A. Copelas (Alternate).Also in attendance -Thomas St. Pierre,Building Commissioner,and Dana Menon, Staff Planner REGULAR�AGENDA b . O !� i: €! r ,, n „ "` ,,i !�4'�� rYs E ,.. il'iywrfrv+ism6x r4 '�4lyi{.1 11 T 7 n i n:i5'j i p , Project: Continuation of the petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure. Applicant: RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ Location: 38 CABOT STREET (R2 Zoning District) • Documents&Exhibitions: • Letter from the applicant dated August 1, 2014, requesting to continue the hearing to the next board hearing on September 17, 2014. The Board discussed requesting that the applicant either file complete drawings and be prepared to present at the September 17'h meeting, or withdraw the application without prejudice. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the applicant's request to continue to the September 17, 2014 Board of Appeals regularly scheduled meeting, noting that if the applicant is not prepared to present at the September 17 1hmeeting, the Board will request that the applicant withdraw without prejudice. The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Curran, Mr. Tsitsinos and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed. i a-r ANT � $$ I'flRfltu@H�6 '� 'aH'h3. {7{ i`l a.ss'a yst�t ilW�1'1 1.i g+,vat� 'ASP�s€�Fv.. ' s�v .irt:r,-.:y ,a $iE_....�3' Project: Continuation of the petition seeking Variances from the provisions of Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow less than the required 100-foot minimum lot frontage and less than the required 100- foot minimum lot width for two proposed lots. The proposed lots will take their frontage from a shared driveway off of Marlborough Road. • Applicant: ANTHONY JERMYN & RICHARD JERMYN Location: 148 MARLBOROUGH RD (R1 Zoning District) 1 SDocuments&Exhibitions: • Application date-stamped May 28, 2014 and accompanying materials • Plans C-IA, C-2, and C-1 dated August 27, 2014 Arty. Correnti presents the petition, and reviews the petition as presented at the previous meeting Quly 16's). This has been a "porkchop lot" and was last modified in 1961. Since 1961, the configuration of this lot has not changed. They are seeking relief from the required minimum lot frontage and lot width. Arty. Correnti reviews the Board's request from the previous meeting to look at other alternatives for configuring the lots. Atty. Correnti introduces Bill Ross, Engineer,who has looked at alternatives for dividing and developing the lot. Bill Ross, New England Civil Engineering,illustrates with submitted plans C-1, C-1A and C- 2 that the southern third of the parcel is not useable due to the wetland resource area, and the existing ledges on the site. These constraints, combined with the setbacks required by zoning, established the proposed locations of the two new houses and lots. Mr. Ross references plan C-1A, showing the various options for reconfiguration of the three lots (the two proposed lots and a reconfiguration of the existing Lot 250B). Mr. Ross references plan C-2, which shows the creation of the two lots while expanding Lot 250B to the largest extent practicable for retaining the ability to create two new lots. This would result in an undesirable layout of the two proposed lots and houses, as the houses would be • back-to-front,rather than side-by-side, and the driveway condition would not be substantially improved. Jefferey W. Bacon, 1 Outlook Avenue/Outlook Avenue West, Salem. Reads a letter (submitted to the Board) objecting to the proposal, stating that the minimum lot width and frontages are not adequate, concerns regarding emergency access to the two proposed homes, and also limiting access to their property. Also, that the two additional houses would increase traffic, and would loom on top of the existing ledges in the back of Mr. Bacon's property. Mr. Bacon also references photos submitted to the board. Mr. Bacon states that they have concerns about the erosion of the embankment in the concerned parcel, abutting their property, concerns about existing flooding being exacerbated, and visibility issues of the proposed gravel drive. Mr. Bacon states that there are other reasonable uses for the property, and personal profit does not justify these variances. Notes that a letter of support submitted earlier for the project was submitted by a relative of the petitioners. Ms. Curran asks about the proposed driveway surface. Atty. Correnti clarifies that the beginning of the driveway, off Marlborough Road,is paved in concrete pavers (hatched area on submitted C-1 plan). Arty. Correnti states that all of the drainage improvements have been done on the petitioners'property. The "buffer area" at the south of the property will be untouched. • Mr. Ross explains the drainage concern,which Mr. Ross assisted the City with addressing previously. He explains that there was a metal drainage pipe that had failed, resulting in q 2 . 1 • pending on the property in question. A new pipe was installed between Lot 250C and Lot 250B in a drainage easement,which has fixed the drainage issue. The driveway at the north side of the property has been shifted away from the north abutter as much as possible to create a buffer zone. The existing green area at the south of the property will remain untouched. There is an existing in-ground swimming pool (abandoned) in that area that will be removed and infilled with green space. Atty. Correnti and Mr. Ross highlight that the distance between the south property line and the proposed house is approximately 150 feet. The required setback in this zoning district is 10 feet. Ms. Curran asks about the option to reconfigure the existing lot 250B and the two proposed lots to create conforming lots. Is there a "by-right" scenario where you could create three lots by-right? Arty. Correnti states that the issue is house placement. The topography shown on the newly submitted plans, and the wetland resource area shown, illustrate the constraints on the site. Ms. Curran asks why there can't be a road at the north side of the lot, serving three houses,if the existing house was demolished/relocated. Mr. Ross states that it would result in a closer placement of the houses to the resource area. Arty. Correnti states that they went through 30-40 different scenarios over the past year, but buildable area is very limited. Demolishing the existing front house changes the economics of everything. Ms. Curran states that she thought that the applicant would present a study looking at a scenario for creating 3 lots and 3 house lots in a by-right configuration. • Margaret Leonard, 1 Outlook Avenue, states that she thought that the applicant was asked to get a letter from the Fire Department stating that access was acceptable. Arty. Correnti states that they are happy to do that,but the driveway as proposed meets the ordinance. Ms. Leonard states that the driveway would be serving more than one house. Mr. Ross estimates that the length of the proposed driveway is 200 feet. Ms. Leonard states that she believes that the fire department requires that the driveway be less than 150 feet long. Ms. Curran P q Y g asks Mr. St. Pierre if he knows about that. Mr. St. Pierre states that he has not spoken to the Fire Department about this, but his understanding is that if the driveway is too long, they require the installation of a hydrant part way down. Ms. Curran clarifies with Atty. Correnti that they do not have a letter from the Fire Department. Ms. Curran closes the public comment. Ms. Curran says that she believes that at the last meeting, the Board indicated that they could put in a condition requiring approval of the Fire Department. Ms. Curran states that they clearly have the area to put in a roadway, but she's not sure the geometry works. If they could have feasibly done a road, that would be one thing, but the driveway approach is still less impactful on the land and the neighbors than a full roadway would be. Ms. Curran states that the submitted plans show that if the existing lot were to be made more conforming,it would be at the detriment of the proposed two lots. Arty. Correnti states that a vote in support of this is not creating a porkchop lot—this has • been a porkchop lot for 53 years. It just hasn't had houses on it. We're just asking to split this into 2, and to put two homes on it. We could have asked for 3 lots, but it doesn't work with the topography. The hardship is that the lot is uniquely shaped,unlike anything else 3 • around it. Without relief, they can't build a single-family home on this lot. This is R-1, maybe the only other possible use for this lot would be agricultural. We think this is a minimalist plan, the least intrusive. The front house is over 60 years old, and we don't want to knock it down: Mr. Watkins states that he'd be in favor of the proposal as-is. With respect to the neighbor with concerns, the proposed houses are quite far back from the property line. There's quite a buffer there, and the recent drainage improvements have been made. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the applicant's request for Variances from the provisions of Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow less than the required 100-foot minimum lot frontage and less than the required 100-foot minimum lot width for two proposed lots, with the conditions that the project would have to be approved by the Fire Chief in regards to the width. Length, and surface materials of the driveway, and that the approval is subject to the filing of a Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission, and their issuing of an Order of Conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Curran, Mr. Tsitsinos and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed. Board Discussion: Ms. Curran clarifies that the hardship is as stated by the applicant in the submitted petition. tr••i"yp.n 114j Fig r—'"3 ?3t:_ __. ptS •• n. is et. ..t �t.l aL ..�`,.:,.5', '�" Project: Petition seeking a Variance from the minimum lot area requirement of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a reduction in size of the existing nonconforming lot by approximately 379 square feet. The Petitioner proposes to realign the rear lot line in order to square it off with an abutting property. Applicant: 4 MILK STREET TRUST Location: 4 MILK STREET (112 Zoning District) Documents&Exhibitions: • Application date-stamped June 30, 2014 and accompanying materials Atty. Correnti, 63 Federal Street,presents the petition. There are two lots in play here, and 4 Milk Street is the lot being requested. Arty. Correnti distributes to the Board a copy of the submitted plan with the lot lines highlighted. Art. Correnti demonstrates the proposed changes—to transfer a triangle of land to transfer approximately 379 square feet of land from 4 Milk Street to the adjacent Pickman Street lot. This proposal would make the 4 Milk Street lot more nonconforming, as it is already undersized, and would further reduce the lot size by 379 feet. Ms. Curran opens the hearing for public comment. • Lloyd Temes, 16 Pickman Street& 2 Milk Street. States that at one point 4 Milk Street was part of 16 Pickman Street. Mr. Ternes wants to purchase 4 Milk Street, to combine it with 16 Pickman/2 Milk Street. 4 • Jay Levy, 145 Cabot Street, Beverly,MA. Owns 1 Brooks Court. This is a very minimal variance request, and he supports the petition. William L'Heureux, applicant submits letters in support of the petition— from Martha Jarvis of 8 Milk Street, Elinor Ryan of 18 Pickman St,and Daniel Pierce of 22 Andrew Street. Ms. Curran states that this doesn't seem to have a negative impact, and this is an improvement. It is obviously a special circumstance,with a unique situation with the lot line coming right up to the building. The relief could be granted without any detriment to the public good. Literal enforcement of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship—the lot is a peculiar shape. Mr. Watkins states his support for the petition, particularly given the overall support from the abutters. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the applicant's request for a Variance from the minimum lot area requirement of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a reduction in size of the existing nonconforming lot by approximately 379 square feet. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Curran, Mr. Tsitsinos and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed. rm ia,,; rub SW Cl�hult9 k cu 'fin M Ym„ v�. ;§ III p . N Ii, n : i d nm6 9�°(M(ti:G �F E tl sI a e t i�ll� jag aa�a j b H Project: Petition seeking a Variance to allow the construction of a roof deck over an existing 2nd floor roof,which would exceed the 2.5-story maximum allowed height of buildings as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Applicant: MARC BERUBE & KEN KAYSER Location: 14 FORRESTER STREET UNIT 2 (112 Zoning District) Documents&Exhibitions: • Application date-stamped July 23, 2014 and accompanying materials • Plans Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Elevation of Current Conditions, Elevation of Proposed Conditions Dated July 17", 2014 • Packet of photos "14 Forrester St. #2 Photos of Proposed Deck Location Taken 7/20/2014" • Letters of support 10 Forrester Street, 12 Forrester Street, 14 Forrester Street, 16 Forrester Street, 17 Forrester Street, 18 Forrester Street Mr. Berube and Mr. Kayser, petitioners, present the application. The petitioners propose to construct a deck over on existing 2"d floor roof that would exceed the 2.5-story maximum allowed height of the building. The petitioners state that no changes to the footprint of the building are proposed. The deck is proposed on top of an existing second story flat roof • with an existing sliding glass door for roof access. 5 Ms. Curran clarifies the proposed location of the deck on to of an existing flat roof and • P P P g clarified that there is an existing sliding glass door for rooftop access. The petitioner clarifies that in 1986, the previous owners installed a sliding glass door for rooftop access. Ms. Curran clarifies that the proposal consists of decking and a railing. The Chair also clarifies that the size of the proposed deck is 12' x 18' feet and is confirmed by the petitioner. Ms. Curran clarifies with Mr. St. Pierre that a 42" rail is required for a three-unit structure. Mr. Watkins asks if any drainage/gutters are going to be affected. The petitioner indicates on the plan where the drain and gutter are, and that they would not be impacted. Board members examine an image "View from 14 Forrester St. Third Floor" to examine the location of the gutters in relation to the proposed deck. The petitioner states that the proposed deck will be one (1) foot from either side of the roof edges. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies whether the building is a two-unit or three-unit structure. The petitioner clarifies that the building is a two-unit structure. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that the building requirements for a railing are 36" for a two-unit structure rather than the previously stated 42" railing requirement for a three-unit building. • Petitioner notes the letters of support submitted with the application. Ms. Curran opens the hearing for public comment. Ann Czarnecki 12 Forrester St. She states that she has no problem with the petitioners constructing the proposed deck. She states that the proposed deck would overlook their property. A letter of support was submitted. Marie Resch 48 Essex St. She states that the proposed deck would violate the privacy of > P P P Y people in the area particularly of a directly abutting neighbor located at 10 Forrester Street. The petitioner asks for permission from the Chair to address the privacy concern that Ms. Resch stated. The applicant states that the owner of the condo unit closest to 14 Forrester, 10 Forrester, submitted a statement of support. Ms. Curran reads the abutters who submitted the letters of support. Petitioner states that the letters submitted are from the property owners completely surrounding their property. Mr. Copelas asks for a more clear statement of the hardship involved. Applicant states that the existing sliding door to the roof poses a safety issue and would negatively impact the ability to re-sell the property with these existing conditions. 6 Ms. Curran clarifies that what the Board has to consider is special conditions or • circumstances that affect the land, building or structure not affecting other lands, buildings or structures. Ms. Curran states that it is certainly peculiar to have a door to the roof. It is clear that the desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. Ms. Curran states that statement of hardship is in question. Applicant states that the hardship is privacy due to the distance between 14 Forrester and the abutting property. Ms. Curran states that issue doesn't really meet the requirements of Ch40A Zoning Law for a hardship. The Chair agrees that this circumstance of existing rooftop access to a place with no railing is unique to the property and a dangerous situation. The Chair states that it is difficult to articulate what the hardship is for this proposal. Mr. Watkins Pe th with w agrees agrees with Ms. Curran—a proposal, but is considering the g g P g hardship question. Mr. Duffy states that the hardship is that a small lot with minimal outdoor space in addition to the existing sliding door onto the roof with no railing. These are conditions affecting the land and building that are unique to this property that do not affect other land and buildings in the area. The proposed deck does not increase the 3" floor space dramatically. Based on the amount of existing usable outdoor space,it is a technicality that the increase in useable space requires a variance to go from 2.5 stories to 3 stories. • Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the applicant's request for a Variance from the maximum allowed height requirements of 2.5 stories as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a roof deck on an existing 2nd floor roof. The motion is seconded by Mr. Watkins. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Curran, Mr. Tsitsinos and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed. _..wli,,' S w�:fey' get t i " L1C v •:•:•_ Er,1!€v2n 91 :. __ :«.... atfY.�i! 4;5 Project: Petition seeking a Variance to allow the creation of a 11-foot by 13-foot off- street parking stall,when the minimum allowed off-street parking stall dimensions are 9-feet by 19-feet,per Section 5.1 Off-Street Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Applicant: JOSEPH DIPIETRO Location: 44 CHESTNUT ST (R2 Zoning District) Documents&Exhibitions: • Application date-stamped July 24,2014 and accompanying materials Ms. Curran introduces the petition, and asks if anyone is in attendance to present the petition. No one comes forward. Ms. Curran reads into the record a letter submitted by the new property owner of 44 Chestnut Street, stating that the petition was submitted by the previous owner of 44 Chestnut Street and the current owners were not aware of the particulars of the petition until after they had purchased the property. The letter stated that 7 • constructing the proposed driveway would require removal of a public shade tree and a historic iron fence, and the proposal is unappealing to the current property owners at this time. Mr. St. Pierre and Ms. Curran discuss the options for Board actions given the situation. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the applicant's request for a Variance from the minimum allowed off-street parking stall dimensions that are 9- feet by 19-feet,per Section 5.1 Off-Street Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the creation of a 11-foot by 13- foot off-street parking stall. The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos.The vote was unanimous with none (0) in favor and five (5) opposed (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Curran, Mr. Tsitsinos and Mr. Copelas). .ui� J Wv' M` 4CMtY G't - 5.Y j G r�q nvmljlldi�t�' I M1P�IIflI�9h }N Nt%i41t9h445W H 9�!Ak ,M m�`�e.,,,,U:,r9C�1,A{s0 U�.Ia.ia,A.a�x Project Petition requesting a Variance to allow the addition of two 14 foot dormers onto the third floor of the existing building,which exceeds the maximum allowed building height of 2.5 stories, as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Applicant: ERIC EASLEY Location: 19 NICHOLS ST (R1 Zoning District) Documents&Exhibitions: • Application date-stamped July 24`h. 2014 and accompanying materials • Eric Easley, 30 Winding Oaks Way,Boxford MA, petitioner, presents the application. The petitioner states that 19 Nichols was a foreclosure when he purchased the property. The petitioner states that the third floor existing unit does not have the headroom and light required for this unit. Therefore, the proposed dormers would alleviate this situation. The proposed dormers would not raise the overall building height. The petitioner also presented the proposed floor plan configuration (Plan A3). Ms. Curran clarifies that the existing building is a conforming 3-unit residential building. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that the building was previously illegally in use as a four-unit residence. Mr. Easley is attempting to improve the condition of the third floor unit in order to conform to building codes and improve interior conditions. Mr. Copelas asks if the dormers will improve the egress. Mr. Easley states that the dormers do not improve egress,but will bring the unit up to code in other ways. The entire house is being renovated and being brought up to code. Ms. Curran asks about the headroom and the doorway as existing, Mr. Easley clarifies that the headroom at the door is not up to code. Mr. St. Pierre states that this proposal is to improve third floor conditions in the existing unit and clarifies that the building is undergoing a complete renovation to bring it up to code. Ms. Curran opens the hearing for public comment. • 8 I • Mr.Jeff Silverman, 22 Nichols St. Expresses concerns about this petition. There are already parking issues on the street. Most of the houses have driveways that are too small for number of existing units. Mr. Easley has space for 4 cars. According to the zoning code, you are supposed to have 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit, so there is not enough parking. Mr. Silverman states that he objects to the way that the petition has happened as Mr. Easley, the petitioner, has constructed the dormers 1-2 months prior to seeking a Variance. Mr. Silverman also states his concerns about the occupancy of this building as Mr. Easley owns another house, 32 Hampton, adjacent to Mr. Silverman's property. According to Mr. Silverman, this property became a temporary shelter for battered women. Mr. Silverman states that he was not notified that the house adjacent to Mr. Silverman's property would be used this way. Additionally, Mr. Silverman stated concerns about parking at 32 Hampton and presented images to the Board to show there are 8-10 cars parked in front of that property. A ZBA Board member asks if Mr. Silverman's concerns are about 19 Nichols Street. Mr. Silverman clarifies that he is speaking about an adjacent property owned by Mr. Easley, 32 Hampton, and not 19 Nichols. Mr. Silverman states that he is speaking about this property as an example and to express concern about the occupancy and what Mr. Easley has done with other properties in the area. Ms. Curran clarifies that the house is a three-unit and was an existing illegal four-unit house. The Chair also states that the number of bedrooms is not the issue and that the number of units is not increasing. Ms. Curran clarifies that the petitioner is seeking a variance to • construct dormers. Mr. Easley is seeking to make this a legal three-unit house Ms. Curran asks about the installation of the dormers. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that it was a misunderstanding, and that when the situation was realized Mr. Easley applied to the Board. Y PP Mr. Easley states that they have removed an existing shed in the driveway to allow space for 6 cars in the driveway and presents a current picture of the driveway to the Board with the shed removed. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that as the petitioner asking for a variance to allow the addition of two dormers and is not asking for relief from parking. Martin Maillet, 24 Nichols Street. Mr. Maillet states that he is in favor of the proposed dormers, but is concerned about parking. Mr. Maillet states that there is not a lot of room for cars and that the problem is that the previous occupants from 19 Nichols Street have parked on the sidewalk in front of his house, blocking his gate. Ms. Curran speaks to Mr. Maillet and states that this petition is not asking to increase the number of units or parking. Mr. Maillet states that debris left in the street during the partial construction of the proposed dormers is an issue. Ms. Curran states that the petitioner is not seeking to increase the number of units or • proposing to change the use of the building in any way. The petitioner is seeking a variance to construct dormers that would bring an existing structure up to code. The hardship is having a legal unit that is not up to building code. Mr. Watkins states that parking will be a 9 • little better that it was as the number of parking spaces was increased from 4 to 6 spaces, and the number of units is decreasing from 4 to 3 units. Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the applicant's request for a Variance from the maximum allowed building height of 2.5 stories, as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the addition of two 14-foot dormers onto the thud floor of the existing building. The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Curran, Mr. Tsitsinos and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed. t�+r~�y {�{ji i ....L?lltk'( ..(. ` �i,_'ilsi' Project: Petition seeking to reconstruct and extend a three-story nonconforming structure that was damaged by fire. The Petitioner is requesting a Variance from the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow expansion of livable space on the third floor, as well as a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion of a nonconforming structure,in order to expand the previously existing nonconforming budding. Applicant: JOHN KALANTZIS,TRUSTEE Location: 12 SCHOOL ST (112 Zoning District) Documents& Exhibitions: • • Application date-stamped August 6`h, 2014 and accompanying materials • Revised Elevation Plans Stamped September 12'',2014 Patrick Chasse, 14 Cleveland St, Salem, MA—contractor -presents the petition. The building was destroyed by fire on March 31, 2014. Mr. Chasse stated that they are asking for a variance to allow the expansion of a nonconforming structure in order to square off the previously existing nonconforming building to increase the width of the interior stairs,which were only three (3) feet wide. The height of the building is the same, but the configuration will be simplified to be a four-pitch roofline. The previous building had porches and dormers. The porch area would be replaced with enclosed structure. Ms. Curran and Mr. Chasse clarify the previous conditions and the proposed building. Ms. Curran and Mr. Chasse also clarify that the existing structure was three-2 bedroom units with a large living room and will be three 3-bedroom units. Ms. Curran asks for clarification of the number of parking spaces. Mr. Chasse states that there are 7 parking spaces. Ms. Curran states that there is plenty of parking and the petitioner meets the zoning requirements. Mr. St. Pierre reminds the Board that MGL Ch40A allows replacement of the structure in the same footprint and same bulk and height. The petitioner is seeking relief to extend along an existing lot-line to square off the building. Ms. Curran clarifies with Mr. St. Pierre that the petitioner is also seeking relief from the 2.5-story maximum height requirement in order to construct a third floor. Mr. St. Pierre restates that the petitioner by-right can reconstruct the • same footprint and same bulk and building height. 10 • Ms. Curran and Mr. St. Pierre clarify that the previous building was 2.5 stories and the petitioner proposes to construct 3 stories with a shallow pitch. Michele Sweeney, 5 School Street- Concerned that the structure is going to be higher than the homes on either side of 12 School Street. Ms. Curran and Mr. St. Pierre clarify that the existing structure was 2.5 stories and the applicant proposes to construct a building that would be three (3) stories. Ms. Sweeney states that there is a smaller home on one side of 12 School Street and a taller home on the other side. She states that she is concerned that the petitioner for 12 School Street is proposing to construct a building that would be taller than the tall home on the right-hand side of the 12 School Street property. Ms. Curran and Mr. St. Pierre discuss the orientation of the proposed building for 12 School Street with Ms. Sweeney. Mr. St. Pierre states that the exterior elevations are legally binding and that the proposed plans if approved would be what can be built. Mr. Chasse clarifies that the proposed height of the new building would be approximately 37 feet. Ms. Curran asks for a clarification of Ms. Sweeney's concern. Ms. Sweeney's concern is the aesthetic of the building in relation to neighborhood character. Ms. Curran clarifies that it was a three-family, it will remain a three-family. The aesthetic is changing. Mr. St. Pierre states that it will be slightly higher, and the mass of the building will • be closer to the street front. Ms. Sweeney is concerned about the aesthetics of the proposal, and that it would be out of character of the neighborhood. Ms. Curran and the petitioner discuss the materials and finishes. Mr. Chasse states that the proposed building material is vinyl siding. The previously existing house material was wood clapboard siding. The houses on either side are vinyl siding. There will be shutters. Ms. Sweeney asks if the side of the house will be fronting on School Street,rather than a front entry. Ms. Curran and Mr. Chasse state that is correct. Ms. Curran clarifies that the orientation of the proposed building is different from the existing building. Ms. Sweeney asks the Chair for clarification about the orientation of the house and front door location. Ms. Curran states that it looks like a wholesale change in character and looks different from the previously existing building. It looks more like an apartment building in the proposal-it loses its neighborhood character. Ms. Curran also states that the Zoning Board of Appeals is not the Design Review Board. The proposed use is the same, but the petitioner is proposing to expand the structure by approximately 500 to 600 square feet (200 sf on each floor). Rosemary O'Connor, 111 Mason Street-Asks about the location of the parking area. Mr. St. Pierre states that the parking for 12 School Street is a driveway to the left of the home looking from the street to the rear of the property. 11 • Barbara Lewis,Tremont Street- states that right now there is a certain level of accessibility when homes have a doorway on the street. She expresses concern that when the building is oriented to the side that there will be a blank wall facing the street. Ms. Lewis asks about the orientation of the door. Mr. Chasse states that the door will be placed on the side of the house close to the driveway and side-yard. Ms. Sweeney states that she is still not happy with the proposal and states that she thinks that the orientation and design of the house is tacky. Ms. Sweeney states that it was nicer to have a house that faces the street. There is a house on the corner of School Street and Buffham Street with a doorway that faces Buffham, but Ms. Sweeney states that this orientation is understandable as the front of the house faces the other street. She states that there are nice homes on Buffham and it is important to keep the neighborhood character and keep School Street looking nice. Ms. Curran states that it changes the neighborhood character to orient the doorway on the side of the building rather than have a street entrance. She also states that she is unsure about the proposed building height. Mr. Copelas states that the Board needs to consider the effect on neighborhood character in order to grant a special permit. He states that he agrees with neighbors that not having a front door on the front of the building takes away from the existing neighborhood character. Ms. Curran agrees. Ms. Curran states that the massing is different and that is changes the neighborhood. She • states that she recognizes that the petitioner is not proposing to change the number of units, but suggests that it could remain oriented toward Schools Street that it would be better for the neighborhood character. She has no problem with the other elements of the petition. Mr. St. Pierre recommends that the petitioner work on revising the drawings, and come back to present them at the September 171h meeting. Mr. Chasse requests to continue the hearing to September 171h regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Motion to Continue: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to continue the petition to September 171h. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas.The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Curran, Mr. Tsitsinos and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed. N.IStX....__ 4''u &LCitlff'a3':8nr. E'ni m 09mia Project: Petition requesting a Variance from the requirements of Section 8.4.9 Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow fewer than the required 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit,and an Amendment to allow less of an encroachment on the 50 foot buffer required for construction activity abutting residential property than the previously issued decision allowed. Applicant: RIVERVIEW PLACE LLC • Location: 72 FLINT ST, 67-69 MASON ST,AND 71 MASON ST (NRCC Zoning District) 12 • Documents&Exhibitions: • Application date-stamped September 10`h and accompanying materials • Unit Size Comparison Chart Submitted to Board August 27th Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. Mr. Grover gives a brief overview of the mixed-use development location and describes the site plan called"Riverview Place Parking Level Plan" and also distributes an update to the plans with summary of changes from the time that it was first approved by the board. Mr. Grover provides a "Unit Size Comparison" chart to the Board about changes made in the project as a result of the Ch. 91 process and new FEMA regulations. Mr. Grover states that in March of 2014, the Board approved changes to the previously issued Board of Appeals decisions to accommodate the changes required by M.G.L. Ch. 91 and FEMA requirements. As a result, the proposed buildings were reduced and relocated to create a required 100-foot offset from the North River. There was a reduction in building footprint of a total of 27,000 square feet of which 17,000 square feet was residential. In March 2014, the petitioner came before the Zoning Board of Appeals to ask for a reduction in commercial parking spaces. Originally,when the project was approved in 2007, there were 37 spaces allocated by the zoning ordinance and the Board approved a reduction in commercial parking to 10 spaces. Since March of 2014, the petitioner brought back the amended plan to the Planning Board for approval of design and site plan modification. The Planning Board referred the petitioner to the Design Review Board. The feedback received from neighbors and the Design Review • Board was to look into reducing the required parking. Mr. Grover states that the petition is requesting a variance from the minimum required parking from two (2) spaces per unit to 1.5 spaces per unit particularly given the proximity of this development by the commuter train station. The reduction in parking would allow the applicant to eliminate the previously proposed parking garage and just use surface parking. Mr. Grover states that the hardship in this case is accommodating the requirements of M.G.L Ch. 91, and the changed FEMA flood areas,which has reduced the useable space on the site. The ability to eliminate some of the parking spaces makes important design improvements to the property—specifically removing the parking garage. Mr. Grover states that the Design Review Board recommended that the petitioner seek a reduction in parking. The new parking proposal in"Riverview Place Parking Level Plan"is now an at-grade parking area instead of a parking structure. Additionally, the reduction in parking spaces would allow the southwest parking area to be pulled further back from the residential neighbors —this lot was previously proposed (and approved) to be only 7 feet from the property line. Steve Feinstein, Symes Associates speaks about how parking is managed at several apartment buildings owned by Symes Associates. Mr. Feinstein states that parking demand would • potentially be controlled by parking leases to ensure that they have enough parking for the associated development. He states that managing parking on the property through leases 13 • does not necessarily prevent people from parking on the street,but 1.5 spaces in an area close to a commuter transit option is more than adequate. It is in the best interest of the development to ensure that there is adequate parking for our residents as well, rather than requiring them to park farther away. In this proposed development,units are smaller than typical units owned/operated by Symes Associates. Mr. Feinstein believes that 1.5 parking spaces per unit will certainly be adequate given the unit sizes. Mr. Feinstein states that Symes Associates is willing to look at various ways of restricting if needed. However, it is challenging to restrict parking on public streets when the people, Sing P g City of Salem allows public off-street parking on abutting properties.We heard from the Design Review Board that they believe that we have too much parking here. The reduction in parking spaces would also reduce the traffic to and from the site and minimize neighborhood impact. If you have more parking,people will use it, and there will be more traffic. Right down the street,Jefferson at Salem Station—they have larger units, and have about 1.5 spaces per unit there, and the management there has stated that they do not have any overflow issues there. It's a commuter area, as it will be at Riverview Place. Attorney Grover adds that there is no problem at Jefferson with overflow beyond the 1.5 spaces per unit provided there. Salem Oil& Grease was approved under a PUD by the 1111 Planning Board, and was approved with only 1.4 spaces per dwelling unit. That site is further from the train station than Riverview Place. Arty. Grover noted that the original task force and planning department recommendation for the parking requirement in the NRCC district was for 1.5 spaces, and the City Council changed it to 2 spaces. • Ms. Curran states that the Board sat through many meetings in 2007 about this project. Ms. Curran requested that the Board needs quantitative data to show parking needs and that more evidence is needed than what was presented. Mr. Watkins agrees quantitative data would be useful to consider granting a variance from the parking requirements. He stated that while the 1.5 spaces might work for the residents,it does not mean that it will be adequate for guests. Mr.Watkins asks for Attorney Grover to clarify the number in the reduction of parking spaces. Attorney Grover stated that the original proposal was for two (2) spaces per unit amounting to 206 spaces for the residential units to 195 spaces and a total of 10 spaces for commercial space that may be available for residents during after business hours. Additionally, there are 12 proposed parking spaces for the neighborhood for Flint Street. Ms. Curran reads (4) submitted letters into the record: - Federal Street Neighborhood Association,Jane Arlander—states that the Association is in opposition to the parking amendments to the proposed project, in opposition to the assertion made by the petitioner that a reduction in residential unit size would reduce parking demand, and questions the stated hardship as legitimate under M.G.L Ch.40A - Barbara Cleary—in opposition. Ms. Cleary expressed concern that the variance • granted previously for this project with respect to the number of units was not consistent with the NRCC Zoning Ordinance and is also concerned that new 14 • a, • proposed changes to the design should be considered. Ms. Cleary requested more time for public input on the matter. James Treadwell—requested additional information and assessments to serve as a basis for the requested relief. A thorough independent analysis should be done. Email from James Treadwell to Lynn Duncan,Director DPCD, requesting documentation and that an independent traffic analysis should be conducted. Atty. Grover requests that Ms. Curran read the memorandum from the Design Review Board into the record. The memorandum was distributed to the Board members with their Board Memorandum in advance of the meeting. Ms. Curran reads the memorandum. Ms. Curran opens the hearing for public comments. Barbara Lewis, 81 Tremont Street. Asks about the statement made regarding leasing parking spaces. Mr. Feinstein states that the number of cars would be limited, not the number of spaces. Depending on the specific unit, some units would not get any parking spaces. This is typical for Symes apartment complexes—some units come with a parking space, some do not because not everyone has a car. Mr. Watkins clarifies that parking needs would be reviewed on a unit-by-unit basis that is controlled through leases to ensure that there is enough residential parking for residents. Mr. Feinstein states that not all of the parking spaces on the site will be used at the same time. The commercial spaces would be available for residential parking in the evening particularly for visitors. Ms. Lewis asks for clarification and states that for those units without parking spaces associated with them, occupants of • those units will be looking for parking outside of the site. Mr. Feinstein states that is a valid point. Anecdotally, the experience at other Symes properties and other developments including Jefferson Station (269 assigned spaces for 266 units total and 111 visitor spaces) has parking to meet residential needs. Mr. Feinstein goes on to state that Jefferson Station provides each unit owner with a visitor tag. If you have two cars,you would use your visitor tag for your second car. At our complex, the anecdotal experience of Symes is that not every resident or visitor uses parking at the same time. It is also stated that it is a possibility that multiple visitors would not necessarily have access to on-site parking at peak parking demand. In this case,visitors would probably utilize off-street parking alternative modes of transportation. Mr. Feinstein states that with smaller units there will be less parking demand particularly in a Transit Oriented Development located in proximity to the Salem Commuter station. Symes will also provide more accommodations for bicycles. There are now 209 beds proposed (the petitioner eliminated the two three-bedroom units they are now 2-bedroom units). Mr. Treadwell's point about the number of bedrooms is a good point to consider parking needs based on the number of proposed bedrooms rather than a per-unit basis. Ken Wallace, 172 Federal Street, FSMA. Mr. Wallace expressed concern about the demand on parking. He stated that with smaller units that there would be two adults,with two cars and two jobs. With a larger unit, there might be higher parking demand particularly with caretakers for children. Also concerned with the threat that if there is too much parking that the petitioner will rent parking spaces. • Councilor Beth Gerard, 49 Larchmont Street. How many visitor spaces are you anticipating including in this plan? How can the parking be guaranteed to be restricted on-site and in the 15 ,, a • neighborhood? Ms. Gerard expressed that with business on Mason Street that residents are not able to have off-street parking during the day. With this proposal there is concern that off-street parking would be a big issue if not enough parking is provided to visitors for Riverview Place. Jim Treadwell,AICP, I was on the committee that prepared the plan that Council adopted for the NRCC. From the beginning, there was pressure to keep the number of parking spaces down. Mr. Treadwell does not know whether he would support 2 spaces or 1.5 spaces per unit—he wants to see some data. He would also ask that the developer come to one of their neighbor association meetings to discuss the project. Maureen Scanlon, 77 Mason Street, owns a unit at Mack Park condominiums. Ms. Scanlon is opposed to the requested variance because she opposes the elimination of the parking garage. The garage would have contained the noise from the parking. Ms. Scanlon also that this project cannot be compared to Jefferson Place because the proposed location states p � p J p p for Riverview Place is close to small residential homes that would negatively impact the existing neighborhood character. Abutters to the property would be looking at more surface parking. The developers are trying to build a development that is too big on a piece of land that is too small. Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street. States concerns about the hardship listed for this request. The petitioner uses M.G.L Ch40A and Chapter 91 license requirements as a hardship. Ms. Arlander has heard from environmental reviewers from the State that it seems illogical that • projects in Salem get local approvals before they get environmental approval. Ms. Curran responds that with the number of permits required, there are often conflicting elements that require going back and forth between the different permitting authorities, regardless of which permitting authority the project goes to first. Just because someone comes in with a variance request, does not mean that the Board will grant it. Ms. Arlander states that she does not believe that there is a hardship for this parking variance request. This project has already received three variances, a change of use, a special permit, a reduction in the number of parking spaces allocated for the commercial space. Morris Shaw, 1 Cambridge Street. Expresses concern that the new proposal has a reduction of 17,000 square feet of residential space with about the same number of units previously proposed. Mr. Shaw expresses concern over the interpretation of Design Review Board comments be the petitioners to reduce parking rather than increasing the amount of on-site common amenities. Mr. Shaw expressed that the Design Review Board may have been thinking about having a lot of common amenities rather than parking, not just a reduction in parking. He also stated that this is not the same project that was previously approved. Arthur Sargent, Councilor at Large, 8 Maple Ave. Mr. Sargent, expressed concern that this development was supposed to remove cars from the neighborhood. There has just been a proposal before City Council to remove on-street parking from this neighborhood, as the streets are very tight. • Ms. Curran asks for hard data and more information on guest parking demands. Mr. Feinstein replies that the 1.5 spaces/unit required elsewhere in the city includes a consideration that there will be visitors. 16 • Mr. Treadwell—a few years ago, there was a question of how many residents of Jefferson Place used the train, and it was something like 4 or 6%. Mr. Treadwell stated that MEPA review has not formally started and that parking is not a MEPA concern. Instead, MEPA only said to consider the issue, they did not require the reduction in parking spaces. Mr. Feinstein—stated that the MEPA review process had not started for this project because the project design is still unclear until feedback from all local boards to approve a plan for MEPA review. Mr. Feinstein states that the petitioner is on a tight timeline to try to start the MEPA and Chapter 91 process. Mr. Feinstein also states that there is not enough time to obtain additional information requested for the Board to consider this issue. Ms. Curran— states that the board requests additional information and data which was deemed necessary in order to understand the effects of reducing on-site parking and that the application did not clearly articulate a hardship as required by M.G.L Chapter 40A. Tun Jenkins, 18 Broad Street stated that this proposed development is not closer to the train station and parking is a realistic need here. Looking at number of bedrooms is more pertinent than the number of units to consider parking need. Mr.Jenkins favored the idea of more parking spaces with less paving by building a parking garage. He continues to say that there should be proper common amenities. There should be green space. The proposed parking layout does not have any trees around it. Mr. Feinstein replies that there is more open space with the proposed design than there was previously. The design of having more open space is a benefit to everyone. • Rosemary O'Connor, 111 Mason Street says consider the neighbors. Ms. Curran asks the applicant regarding a request to continue or have the Board vote. The applicant requested that the Board vote as the applicant chose not to continue to the next meeting due to the applicant's project timeline. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the applicant's request for a Variance from the requirements of Section 8.4.9 Parking Reguinments of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow fewer than the required 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, and an Amendment to allow less of an encroachment on the 50 foot buffer required for construction activity abutting residential property than the previously issued decision allowed. The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with none (0) in favor and five (5) opposed (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Curran, Mr. Tsitsinos and Mr. Copelas). '" .. •' r t�wya9m'a� i t .cr APPRO AI f)F.IYIEE INS IIl�VI`ES.,.; r r,, « „t , . G..,.r. w ..._ July 16, 2014 Draft Meeting Minutes Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins moves to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Mr. Duffy. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed. ADJo 1EV.,T „Mtit r,!t a rt i"t2`r L o� �s kr. u; i 17 . Mr. Duffy motioned for adjournment of the August 27, 2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 10:00 pm. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy made a motion to adjourn the August 27, 2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Watkins, and the vote is unanimous with five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed. .For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address orproject at: http://sadem.com/Pages/SalemMA ZoningAppealsMin/ Respectfully submitted, Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner • • 18 �m�ntrq CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS A BOARD OF APPEAL o� 1201'4':1SFIINGTO;\S"fRLLt ♦ S:1L7i�l,�L15Si1<}{I1SC1'ISQi9?Gl Km9I12RLL`Y DRISCOLL Tc=.LF:978-745-9595 ♦ F.x:978-740-9846' MLNyotc REVISED MEETING NOTICE I'au a r hereby natijiad that E!a Sulam 7ani7Jg Board of I fAedLr unl[hold rG rgrrlurdy sebedaled meelinS on W/edoerdog, Septenrberl7th,2014 at 630p.rt. at G1j I:lallAnxex, RM-313, 120 lVarbington St, Salem, Mll Rebecca Curran,Chair MEETING AGENDA I'M I. ROLL CALL o 1I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1 .`august 27th,2014 meeting m D II1, REGULAR AGENDA 3 qQ a cn t Project: Continuation of the peptiotrrequesnng a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonitinfomarn inq/r-and 7iUn- Fanreb�IIerederdrgl Structure)of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rettr of the,existing nonconforming structure. Applicant: RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ Location: 38 CABOT STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project: Continuation of the petition seeking a Variance to reconstruct and extend a three-story nonconforming structure that was damaged by fire. The Petitioner is requesting a Variance from the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow expansion of livable space on the third floor, as well as a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3,Vonconfot7ving Struelurer of the Salem Zoning. Ordinance to allow the expansion of a nonconforming structure,in order to expand the previously existing.nonconforming building. Applicant: JOHN KALANTZIS,TRUSTEE Location: 12 SCHOOL ST (R2 Zoning District) Project: Petition seeking a Special Peem t per Section 3.0 Table of Piinapaland.4eessag (ate Aegrrlalionx of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the addition of a tasting room to an existing brewery, distillery- or winery located at 102.jac-ksonStreet. Applicant: DENISE SNAPE Location: 102JACKSON STREET(B4 Zoning District) Project: Petition seekinga Special Permit per Section 3.3.2 Nonconfonviq Uyes of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow an existing nonconforming use of a barbershop to be changed to another nonconforming use of a dog grooming business at the propertq located at 198 Loring Ave. Applicant: JOSEPH C.FABIANO Location: 198 LORING AVE (RI Zoning District) Pagel oft City of Salem Board of Appeals • Agenda for September 17,2014 Meeting Project: Petition seeking a Special Permit per See.9.4.1 SPerial Perpat Giarling Aulhority and Sec.3.0 Fire Regulations'of the Salem Ordinance, to allow a bed and breakfast use and a Variance per Sec. 5.0 nbk of'Required Parking Spaces to allow 2-off street parking spaces instead of 4 off-street parking spaces required at the property located at 329 Essex Street. Applicant: MICHAEL SELBST and BRADLEY WILLIAMS Location: 329 ESSEX STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project; Petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec 3.3.2Nancorforming Uses and Sec.33.3 Nonconfor ring, Stiucturee of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow reconstruction and expansion of an existing storage building and an addition to a second existing storage building located at 23 Glendale Street. Applicant: FREDERICK J.ATKINS(FRED J.DION YACHT YARD) Location: 23 GLENDALE (RI Zoning District) Project Request for a six (6)month extension for exercise of the-rights granted by the September 28'h,2009 Board Decision that approved Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit;and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side card setback nonconformity,to accommodate conversion of an office building to eight(8)residential units. Applicant RENEWAL VENTURES, LLC,Assignee of rights granted to WILLIAM WHARFF Location 162 FEDERAL STREET(R2'Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Vote for Vice Chair • V. ADJOURNMENT This notice posted on "Officia Bulletin Board" City all, Salem, Mass. o / in accordan hap. 30A Sections 18-25. Page 2 of 2 • tea,. - \ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS i BOARD OF APPEAL 18I4 SEP —9 A ck 2b FILE # 120WASHINCTONSTREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS0197CITY CLERK, SALEM. MASS. KuNmERLEY DRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You are bereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will bold its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, September 17tb,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at City HallAnnex,RM 313, 120 WY asbington St. Salem,MA Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ➢ August 27th,2014 meeting III. REGULAR AGENDA Project: Continuation of the petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Shutters of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure. Applicant: RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ Location: 38 CABOT STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project Continuation of the petition seeking a Variance to reconstruct and extend a three-story nonconforming structure that was damaged by fire. The Petitioner is requesting a Variance from the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow expansion of livable space on the third floor, as well as a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion of a nonconforming structure,in order to expand the previously existing nonconforming building. Applicant: JOHN KALANTZIS,TRUSTEE Location: 12 SCHOOL ST (R2 Zoning District) Project. Petition seeking a Special Permit per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow an existing nonconforming use of a barbershop to be changed to another nonconforming use of a dog grooming business at the property located at 198 Loring Ave. Applicant JOSEPH C. FABIANO Location: 198 LORING AVE (R1 Zoning District) Project: Petition seeking a Special Permit per Section 3.0 Table of Principal and Acressog Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the addition of a tasting room to an existing brewery,distillery or winery located at 102 Jackson Street. Applicant: DENISE SNAPE Location: 102 JACKSON STREET (114 Zoning District) • Page 1 of 2 This notice poster] fm "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, [.lass. on SEP 0 9 2014 at in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, City of Salem Board of Appeals • Agenda for September 17,2014 Meeting Project: Petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 9.4.1 Special Permit GrantingAutbority and Sec. 3.0 Use Regulations of the Salem Ordinance,to allow a bed and breakfast use and a Variance per Sec. 5.0 Table of Required Parking Spares to allow 2-off street parking spaces instead of 4 off-street parking spaces required at the property located at 329 Essex Street. Applicant: MICHAEL SELBST and BRADLEY WILLIAMS Location: 329 ESSEX STREET (112 Zoning District) Project: Petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow reconstruction and expansion of an existing storage building and an addition to a second existing storage building located at 23 Glendale Street. Applicant: FREDERICK J.ATKINS (FRED J.DION YACHT YARD) Location: 23 GLENDALE (R1 Zoning District) Project Request for a six(6)month extension for exercise of the rights granted by the September 28t^, 2009 Board Decision that approved Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit,and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity,to accommodate conversion of an office building to eight(8)residential units. Applicant RENEWAL VENTURES,LLC,Assignee of rights granted to WILLIAM WHARFF Location 162 FEDERAL STREET (R2 Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS ➢ Vote for Vice Chair • V. ADJOURNMENT • Page 2 of 2 c CITY OF SALE M, IVIASSACHUSETTS 1 ' BOARD OF APPEAL a� 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHOS$TTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 'ISLE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner DATE: September 10th,2014 RE: Meeting Agenda for September 17th,2014 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Meeting Minutes from 8/27/2014 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 9/17/2014 meeting. 1. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS • 1. Continuation of the petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a special permit per Sec.3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure, at the property located at 38 CABOT STREET (R2 Zoning District). At the May 2Pt meeting the Board approved a modification to an earlier Variance, to allow the petitioner to move his garage to within one (1) foot of the south property line. At the same meeting, the petitioner presented his request for a Special Permit to allow the construction of an addition onto the existing nonconforming residence. The petitioner's drawings of the proposed addition were inconsistent and incomplete and the Board granted the petitioner's request to continue, so that he might present revised drawings at the June 18th meeting. At the June 18th meeting, the petitioner had not prepared sufficient drawings,and requested to continue to the July 16th meeting. The petitioner then submitted a request to continue to the August meeting,as the requested drawings were not ready.At the August 27t^meeting the Board granted the petitioner's request to continue provided that the petitioner withdraws the application without prejudice at September 17th meeting or continue should architectural drawings and plans be submitted. NOTE:Architectural plans and a plot plan were submitted on September 10th. 2. Continuation of the petition of JOHN KALANTZIS,TRUSTEE seeking a continuation of the petition seeking a Variance to reconstruct and extend a three-story nonconforming structure that was damaged by fire. The Petitioner is requesting a Variance from the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow expansion of livable space on the third floor, as well as a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion of a nonconforming structure, in order to expand the previously existing nonconforming building, at the property located at 12 SCHOOL STREET (R2 Zoning District). This application was submitted for the August 27th meeting. Members of the Board recommended that the petitioner work on revising architectural drawings to better reflect neighborhood character. The Board made a I City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—August 22,2014 Page 2 of 3 motion to continue the hearing to September 17th.Note:New plans have been submitted for review(see ZBA packet). 3. Petition of DENISE SNAPE seeking a Special Permit per Section 3.0 Table ofPrincipal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow the addition of a tasting room to an existing brewery,distillery,or winery located at 102 JACKSON STREET (B-4 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit to allow a 787 square foot tasting room.The proposed tasting room is less than 33% of existing warehouse space. The existing building has a pre-existing non-conforming use as a warehouse and distillery operated by Far From the Tree Cider.The current parking capacity is 5 on-site parking spaces and 10 off-street parking spaces.The proposed tasting room would provide public tours of traditional cider production,cider tasting,and retail sale of cider house related merchandise and the sale of bottles of cider for off premise consumption. Proposed hours of operation are Thursdays and Fridays 5-8pm and Saturdays from 1-8pm.NOTE:A copy of the new zoning code is attached to the project packet. 4. Petition of JOSEPH C. FABIANO seeking a Special Permit per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow an existing nonconforming use of a barbershop to be changed to another nonconforming use of a dog grooming business at the property located at 198 LORING AVE (Rl Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit to change an existing nonconforming use to be changed to another nonconforming use. The property at 198 LORING AVE is an existing mixed-use property consisting of a single family home with a barbershop on the ground level that does not conform to zoning requirements (Rl Zoning District). The applicant is seeking a Special Permit for a change in use from a barbershop to a dog grooming business that could accommodate between 8-10 dogs being groomed per day. 5. Petition of MICHAEL SELBST and BRADLEY WILLIAMS,requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 9.4.1 Special Permit Granting Authorityand Sec.3.0 Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow a bed and breakfast use and a Variance per Sec.5.0 Table ofReguired Parking Spaces to allow 2 off-street parking spaces instead of 4 off-street parking spaces required at the property located at 329 ESSEX ST (R2 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit to allow a bed and breakfast and a Variance to allow 2 off-street parking spaces instead of the 4 off-street parking spaces required.The existing use is a single-family residence with two on-site parking spaces. 6. Petition of FREDERICK J.ATKINS (FRED J. DION YACHT YARD) seeking a Special Permit per Section 3.3.2 Nonconfonning Uses and Sec.3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow reconstruction and expansion of an existing storage building and an addition to a second existing storage building located at 23 GLENDALE (R1 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking two Special Permits.The first Special Permit request is to allow a substantial extension of a non-conforming use in this zoning district(Rl Zoning District).The second Special Permit request is to reconstruct,extend and structurally change two non-conforming structures 'to extend a nonconforming side he dimension (See Plans). 2 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—August 22,2014 Page 3of3 • 7. Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF request for a six(6) month extension for exercise of the rights granted by the September 281h,2009 Board Decision that approved Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Special permits to change on nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity,to accommodate conversion of an office building to eight (8) residential units located at 162 FEDERAL STREET (R2 Zoning District). On September 28th,2009,the Zoning Board of Appeals granted Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity to allow for the redevelopment of the office budding on the property located at 162 Federal Street into eight(8)residential units. On September 5th,2012, the Decision was appealed to the Superior Court and the Decision was amended (See Superior Court Judgment in packet). The amended Decision qualified under the Massachusetts Permit Extension Act and was automatically extended to September 281h,2014. Today,the petitioner is seeking a six (6) month extension for exercise of the rights granted by the September 28th, 2009 Board Decision that approved Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit,and Special permits to change on nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to eight(8)residential units located at 162 FEDERAL STREET. • 3 i �- please S�c�r� -lr� -t-o e�� Su� e oar ��ctme Qv� 6 address u ;-c cocrccA- you Sulrlf"t ��� q�o pubic cow+rnlrlf +his tventA9 • City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet �q 411DR T i Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date S �vlbec%/ ZO 1 me Mailing Address Phone # E-mail s 3's Fv%ctIzsYn S — (p17-S77-Odes Sr.vH.tn (19/rygil•Cor✓I TJJ1 US/ly ��retif�C �rPPC��(a �✓ �.U�' sv��Y� /7 /btu/�LbwG�S� �oyw� - �iei�s' I N-744' '��l�Z. rrri L r 7p// jV�.40 � /4/ vIz C" � o �iuhClG Sw nt 3 c�'rihc�) �� Un�r 3 9 ��' �1v6]S o73 /yli cSu/ee�87�pia:(+n . f< � C ss� g�" UtiiE- ' 6 � �� L7g4- a393 SLr_ auk � a �Srheo�sf un�to2 a3S a3�-3�27 � . 97 1 has r5a, fit. ilk a r�rTs GT- 97311(oc Page of I ��.� CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS 4� '' BOARD OF APPEAL a q% 120 wnsFuN F: N STREET* � ,:aSlu s2fito A D 45 ry6^ KIMBEi i. DRISCOLL MAYOR FILE # CITY CLERIC, SALEM,MASS. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of DENISE SNAPE, requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the addition of a tasting room to an existing brewery, distillery or winery located at 102 JACKSON STREET(B-4 Zoning District). The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3`d at 120 • Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning & Community Development, City Hall Annex, 3`d, 120 Washington St, Salem, MA. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 9/3/2014 and 9/10/2014 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on AUG 2 9 2014 at in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • CI'rY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 20M AU13 2q A 0 45 g120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 f 'ISLE:978-619-5685♦ FAx:978-740-0404 FILE KIMRERI YDRiscoLL CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JOSEPH C. FABIANO, requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow an existing nonconforming use of a barbershop to be changed to another nonconforming use of a dog grooming business at the property located at 198 LORING AVE(RI Zoning District). • The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3`d Floor at 120 Washington St. in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning& Community Development, City Hall Annex, 3`d Floor, 120 Washington St, Salem, MA. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 9/3/2014 and 9/10/2014 This notice posted on "Offi ft13 lletinRoard" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on 88 [L0O1I�y at /0,'0/V-1 in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL r \I�.n 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM, 55A(a�aSra j�Ot A70'11. 1�C •_..].➢.„ TELE:978-619-5685*FAI 74a�U1'JIl�U7�4UJ4� f"� U' 4�l KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR FILE # CITY CLERK. SALEM, MASS. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MICHAEL SELBST and BRADLEY WILLIAMS, requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 9.4.1 Special Permit Granting Authority and Sec. 3.0 Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow a bed and breakfast use and a Variance per Sec. 5.0 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow 2 off-street parking spaces instead of 4 off-street parking spaces required at the property located at 329 ESSEX ST(R2 Zoning District). • The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3`d Floor at 120 Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning & Community Development, City Hall Annex, Third Floor, 120 Washington St, Salem, MA. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 9/3/2014 and 9/10/2014 ` =a This notice posted on "OfficialBuUetip'Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on Uubn Z 9 Ulf at /D'4�A4-/ in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS y` � ''` BOARD OF APPEAL II p /l 120 WASHINGTON STREET*SALEM, 5 S O7�OI�.' 45 ..;,.—� TELE:978 619 5685 FA7c:'�T78'746-0404 KIMBERLEY DRIscou MAYOR FILE K CITY CLERK, SALEM. MASS. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of FREDERICK J. ATKINS (FRED J. DION YACHT YARD), requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow reconstruction and expansion of an existing storage building and an addition to a second existing storage building located at 23 Glendale Street(RI Zoning District). • The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3111 Floor at 120 Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning & Community Development, City Hall Annex, P Floor, 120 Washington St, Salem,MA. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 9/3/2014 and 9/10/2014 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on AUG 2 ��� at /D.4 4�4 in accordance with hap. 30A, Sections 18-25. G�NDITjp \ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSET"TS 9 B PP+ OAM OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ICIM13ERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,September 17th,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem,MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: Petition of DENISE SNAPE,requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow the addition of a tasting room to an existing brewery, distillery or winery located at 102 JACKSON STREET (B-4 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on October 1st,2014 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laver, Chapter 40A, Sections 9&15 and doer not require action by the recipient.Appeals, if any,shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. n N O C <� r rn rn rn as � rn XF W rn O M 3 � N > U7 . Ut r�UNDlT�. ff �� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,September 17th,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: Petition of JOHN KALANTZIS,TRUSTEE, seeking to reconstruct and extend a three-story nonconforming structure that was damaged by fire. The Petitioner is requesting a Variance from the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow expansion of livable space on the third floor, as well as a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion of a nonconforming structure, in order to expand the previously existing nonconforming building for the property at 12 SCHOOL STREET (R2 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on October 1st,2014 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 40A, Sections 9 dam'15 and does not require action by the recipient.Appeal, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed witb the City Clerk. r rM m rr ern O m r 3 � tV D Ln Cn CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 0195 c KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9W rC- o MAYOR rq rrn October 1st, 2014 r;S Decision U City of Salem Board of Appeals y `" Lq Petition of JOHN KALANTZIS, TRUSTEE, seeldng to reconstruct and extenea three-story nonconforming structure that was damaged by fire. The Petitioner is requesting a Variance from the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow expansion of livable space on the third floor, as well as a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion of a nonconforming structure, in order to expand the previously existing nonconforming building for the property at 12 SCHOOL STREET (R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 27th, 2014 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, � 11. The hearing was continued to September 17" and closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas (Alternate), Mr. Tisitsinos (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Variance from Section 4.1.1 and Special Permit from Section 3.3.3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped August 6th, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Variance to construct a 3- story structure where 2.5-stories are allowed by the Zoning Ordinance and a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure. 2. On August 27", 2014,Mr. Patrick Chasse, contractor,presented the petition. 3. On March 31",2014, the previously existing 3-unit building was destroyed by fire. 4. By-right, the applicant may construct a building to the same bulk, height and building footprint as the previously existing building. The petitioner is seeking a Variance as the previously existing building, if replicated as allowed by-tight, would not provide adequate room for the construction of internal stairways in compliance with current building codes. The petitioner also seeks a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure along previously existing lot lines, in order to square-off the previously existing odd-shaped building footprint. The building has three (3) dwelling units. 5. At the August 27, 2014 meeting, no members if the public spoke in favor of the petition. Three (3) residents spoke in opposition to the petition. 6. On August 27 h, 2014, Zoning Board of Appeals members stated that the proposed building design takes away from the existing neighborhood character, and suggested that the petitioner revise the elevation and pans. ' 7. Mr. Chasse requested to continue to the hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting on September 17'", 2014,in order to make revisions to the elevations and plans 8. The heating was continued on September 17'", 2014. Attorney Lovely, representing John Kalantzis, trustee,presented the petition and amended elevation plans. City of Salem Board of Appeals October 1st,2014 Project: 12 School Street Page 2 of 3 9. The amended elevation plans dated September 12`s, 2014 show changes to the front facade including the addition of shutters and a central oval window on the third story facade. The right elevation was also amended to include nine (9) fewer windows and one (1) less doorway on the north side facade. 10. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to allow expansion of livable space on the third floor and to expand the previously existing nonconforming building for the property. 11. At the September 17`s, 2014 meeting, no members of the public spoke in favor of the petition and two (2) members spoke 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 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: Findings—Special Permit: 1. Because the building was damaged by fire, the applicant is allowed to build the same bulk, height and the previously existing building footprint as a matter of right within two years. 2. The structural infill proposed to square-off the building is minimal and will have little impact to the surrounding community. 3. There will be no impact on traffic flow and safety including parking and loading as there is no change. 4. There will be no impact on adequacy of utilities and other public services as there is no change. 5. The existing and proposed buildings are both three-units, and the proposed building as shown on the revised plans and elevations submitted at the September 17, 2014 meeting (drawings dated September 12, 2014) is consistent with the neighboring buildings and character. 6. The potential fiscal impact is positive for the City as this building will be back on the City's tax base. Findings—Variance: 1. The special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building or structure involved, and generally not affecting other lands, buildings, and structures of the same district, are that the existing building was a unique size and peculiar shape with a combination of 2.5-stories and 3-stories. 2. The literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance are that the combination of 2.5-stories and 3- stories would not allow for the construction of internal stairways that would be in compliance with current building code. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas, and Mr. Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Variance and Special Permit to allow expansion of livable space on the third floor and to expand the previously existing nonconfortng building subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. City of Salem Board of Appeals October I st,2014 Project: 12 School Street Page 3 of 3 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board 9. The Petitioner has agreed to a condition to construct, mulch, and plant a 2-3 foot wide flower bed from the foundation of the structure to the sidewalk edge across the entire length of the front fayade by May 1", 2015 or within 5 days of completion of construction of the front fayade. c,4A,,, 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 Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of frh'ng of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the I/ariance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk bas been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deetis. �ONUIT CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 3 120 WASH]NGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSEPTS 01970 KTMBERI,rY DRiscou. TELE:978-745-9595 1 FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday, September 17th, 20t4 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem,MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: Petition of DENISE SNAPE, requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow the addition of a tasting room to an existing brewery, distillery or winery located at 102 JACKSON STREET (13-4 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on October 1st,2014 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9 &15 and does not require action • by the recipient.Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. 0 1 ti L .. �ONUIT fill - CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ) BOARD OF APPEAL \ 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACHusETTS 01970 KmBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR , October 1st, 2014 r ti Decision M o City of Salem Board of Appeals D m o Petition of DENISE SNAPE, requesting a Special Permit per Sec.3.0 Table of Prima/andOccessog Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the addition of a tasting roonkjo an , existing brewery, distillery or winery located at 102 JACKSON STREET (B-4 Zonfg Diu ict). vt A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on September 17th, 2014 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. Copelas (Alternate), and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit from the provisions of Section 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped August 25th, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Section 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessary Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow the addition of a tasting room to an existing brewery,distillery or winery. 2. The Petitioner,Ms. Denise Snape,presented the petition. 3. The proposed tasting room would be approximately 787 square feet within a brewery, distillery, or winery no larger than 33% of the main building's square footage. 4. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to add a tasting room within an existing brewery, distillery or winery. 5. The parking area on the premises can accommodate 5 cars with additional street parking of up to 10 cars 6. The planned hours of operation for the tasting room are Thursday and Friday from 5-8pm and Saturday. from 1-8pm. 7. It is estimated that daily water usage and disposal will increase by approximately 15 gallons per week for washing glasses and 96 gallons per week for public bathroom use. 8. At the public hearing, no members of the public spoke in opposition to the petition. One member of the public spoke in favor of the petition. 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, makes the following findings: Findings The proposal is consistent with the definition of a tasting room Section 10.0 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. City of Salem Board of Appeals October 1 st,2014 Project: 102 Jackson Street Page 2 of 2 1. The parking area on the premises can accommodate 5 cars with additional street parking of up to 10 cars. The addition of a tasting room to the facility will have minimal impact on parking, traffic flow and safety. 2. The introduction of a tasting room has no impact the environment and adequacy of utilities. The tasting room does not significantly change the use and therefore would not be substantially more detrimental that the existing nonconforming use 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, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Tsitsinos) and none (0) in opposed, to approve the requested Special permit to allow the addition of a tasting room to an existing brewery, distillery, winery. The petition is granted. /r —pn Rebecca Curran,Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal fmm this decision,if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laver Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of fikng of this decision in the office of the GO Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or ,� Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a ropy of the decinon bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Regi.rtryofDeeds. CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS ( BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACHusET rs 01970 KIn>BERLEY DRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday, September 17th,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: Petition of JOSEPH C. FABIANO,requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow an existing nonconforming use of a barbershop to be changed to another nonconforming use of a dog grooming business at the property located at 198 LORING AVE (R1 Zoning District). THE APPLICANT REQUESTED TO WITHDRAW THE PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Decision: Permission granted to withdraw without prejudice Filed with the City Clerk on October 1st,2014 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A,Sections P&15 and doer not require action by the recipient.Appeals,if any,shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17,and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which The decision was filed with the City Clerk. H n � rn m r,> ;M o �; 3 !V Y t7t t!7 i CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KiMBERLEYDRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR October 1st, 2014 C r Decision o City of Salem Board of Appeals W m CD m Petition of JOSEPH C. FABIANO, requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Noncogfrming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow an existing nonconforming use of barbershop to be changed to another nonconforming use of a dog grooming business at the propet�harb rs at to LORING AVE (Rl Zoning District). 98 On September 17`s, 2014 the Board of Appeals met to discuss the petitioner's request to withdraw the above referenced petition. The follow Board of Appeals members were present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas (Alternate) and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). 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 (Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas (Alternate) and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate)) and none (0) opposed. ' BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE SEPTEMBER 17"',2014. 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 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 berein shall not take eea until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 2014 CT -2 A 0 13 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 MMBERLEYDRiscOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 FILE ii MAYOR CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS October 1st,2014- Correction to September306, 2014 Letter To Renewal Ventures,LLC c/o George W.Atkins III Ronan, Segal&Harrington 59 Federal Street Salem,MA 01970 Re: CORRECTED 162 Federal Street Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a request for a six(6) month extension for exercise of the rights granted by the September 280,2009 Board Decision that approved Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to eight(8) residential units. The Salem Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday,September 17, 2014 to discuss your request for the approval of a six (6) month extension to exercise rights granted by the September 28th, 2009 Board Decision • that approved Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit,and Special permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side year setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to eight(8) residential units. A letter submitted by Attorney Atkins,dated September 3rd,2014,on behalf of Renewal Ventures LLC requests a six (6) month extension to exercise the rights granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals Decision on September 28th,2009. The Decision was appealed to the Superior Court and an Agreement for Judgment amending the Decision was entered on September 5tb,2012. The Decision qualified under the Massachusetts Permit Extension Act and was automatically extended to September 28,2014.Renewal Ventures LLC has entered into an Assignment Agreement with the original petitioner whose counsel has submitted a letter of consent. In addition,a letter has been submitted by counsel for the Superior Court Plaintiffs approving the assignment to Renewal Ventures LLC. The Assignee of the rights granted by the Variance/Special Permit decision dated September 28,2009 is Renewal Ventures,LLC. The requested six-month extension would commence on September 28th,2014,which is the expiration date of the current Decision.The requested extension would expire on March 28th,2015. The Zoning Board of Appeals voted four(4)in favor(Ms. Curran,Mr.Dionne,Mr. Copelas and Mr. Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed, to grant the approval of the six-month extension request to exercise the rights granted by the September 28th,2009 Board Decision.This detemunation shall become part of the record for this project. If you require further information,please contact Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner,in the Department of • Planning&Community Development at(978) 619-5685 Thank you, l � cry Rebecca Curran ZBA Chair CC: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk 7 i��OND11T�\ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSET`I"S BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET* SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEYDRIScoTi TELE:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR October 1st,2014 :4 ro � e To Renewal Ventures,LLC -- c/o George W.Atkins III M rn Ronan, Segal&Harrington _K a c 59 Federal Street v m O Salem,MA 01970 >:U m 3 Re: 162 Federal Street Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a request foru six(month extension for exercise of the rights granted by the September 28th,2009 Board becision that approved Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit,and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity,to accommodate conversion of an office building to eight(8) residential units. The Salem Planning Board met on Wednesday, September 17,2014 to discuss your request for the approval of a six (6) month extension to exercise rights granted by the September 28t^,2009 Board Decision that approved Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit,and Special permits to change one nonconformung use to another and to increase existing side year setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to eight(8) residential units. A letter submitted by Attorney Atkins,dated September 31d,2014, on behalf of Renewal Ventures LLC requests a six (6)month extension to exercise the rights granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals Decision on September 28th,2009. The Decision was appealed to the Superior Court and an Agreement for Judgment amending the Decision was entered on September 5ffi,2012.The Decision qualified under the Massachusetts Permit Extension Act and was automatically extended to September 28,2014.The Assignee of the rights granted by the Variance/Special Permit decision dated September 28,2009 is Renewal Ventures,LLC. The requested six-month extension would commence on September 281',2014,which is the expiration date of the current Decision.The requested extension would expire on March 28d',2015. The Zoning Board of Appeals voted four(4)in favor(Ms. Curran,Mr.Dionne,Mr. Copelas and Mr. Tsitsinos) and none(0) opposed, to grant the approval of the six-month extension request to exercise the rights granted by the September 28d•,2009 Board Decision. This determination shall become part of the record for this protect. If you require further information,please contact Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner,in the Department of Planning& Community Development at (978) 619-5685 Thank you,Q Erin Schaeffer Staff Planner CC: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk • City of Salem Board of Appeals APPROVED Meeting Minutes Wednesday,September 17th, 2014 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA") was held on Wednesday, September 17th, 2014 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Ms.Gurus calls the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Curran states that there are only 4 Board members present out of 5 and that a number of applicants asked for a continuance to the next meeting. Curran states that the Board will first consider projects that have requested a continuance. ROLL GALL Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair),James Tsitsinos (Alternate) and Peter A. Copelas (Alternate) and Richard Dionne.Also in attendance -Thomas St. Pierre,Building Commissioner,and Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner REGLAR.IAEIDA '= i rc T 3dC i' '=3`t,t Itt F i tl FFIRRPiihi ltl ii i i. t lF '.f'.I iiil Fi � •. _ ..s ..Iv d Nanam Project: Continuation of the petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning • Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure. Applicant: RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ Location: 38 CABOT STREET (112 Zoning District) Documents&Exhibitions: • Letter from the applicant dated September 18`h,2014, requesting to a continuance to the next regularly scheduled meeting on October 151h,2014. The applicant has requested a continuance to the next scheduled meeting on October 151h, 2014. Motion and Vote: Mr. Dionne makes a motion to approve the applicant's request to continue to the October 15th, 2014 Board of Appeals regularly scheduled meeting. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed. S rtddl#dJ.rvlm I � ' i+ _p 3tlYrII 43� t I i pit s II1I4I91PI4 t kiI y iitN t�kr 'r�T . .t. . _a P L _ !.�i a hid Project: Petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow an existing nonconforming use of a barbershop to be changed to another nonconforming use of a dog grooming • business. Applicant: JOSEPH C. FABIANO Location: 198 LORING AVE (111 Zoning District) � Documents&Exhibitions: • Letter from applicant dated Wednesday, September 17", 2014, requesting to withdraw without prejudice. Ms. Curran read a letter for the record stating that the petitioner requested to withdraw the application without prejudice. Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the applicant's request to withdraw without prejudice. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed. " " Project: Petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 9.4.1 Special Permit Granting Authority and Sec. 3.0 Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow a bed and breakfast use and a Variance per Sec. 5.0 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow 2 off-street parking spaces instead of 4 off-street parking spaces required. Applicant: MIC14AEL SELBST and BRADLEY WILLIAMS Location: 329 ESSEX STREET (112 Zoning District) • Documents& Exhibitions: • Letter from the applicant dated September 17s', 2014,requesting to a continuance to the next regularly scheduled meeting on October 15`', 2014. The applicant has requested a continuance to the next scheduled meeting on October 15` , 2014. Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the applicant's request to continue to the October 15th, 2014 Board of Appeals regularly scheduled meeting. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed. W Project: Petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow reconstruction and expansion of an existing storage building and an addition to a second existing storage building. Applicant: FREDERICK J. ATKINS (FRED J. DION YACHT YARD) Location: 23 GLENDALE STREET (111 Zoning District) • Documents&Exhibitions: • Application date-stamped August 261h, 2014 and accompanying materials I • Letter from the applicant dated September 18`h, 2014, requesting to a continuance to the next regularly scheduled meeting on October 15t, 2014. The applicant has requested a continuance to the scheduled meeting on Wednesday, November 19th, 2014. Motion and Vote: Mr. Dionne makes a motion to approve the applicant's request to continue to the November 19'", 2014 Board of Appeals regularly scheduled meeting. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed. im,°„ iuea�S v�T�?,q'-9s .ti" ins: 3i SEN?* v.caIx4s __weea xu..+.... fdst4 66dtu:{u{ifYw4 w n Project: Petition seeking a six (6) month extension for exercise of the rights granted by the September 28`h, 2009 Board Decision that approved Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to eight (8) residential units. Applicant: RENEWAL VENTURES,LLC,Assignee of rights granted to WILLIAM WHARFF • Location: 162 FEDERAL STREET (R2 Zoning District) Documents&Exhibitions: • Application date-stamped September 3rd, 2014 and accompanying materials Attorney Atkins I1I 59 Federal Street representing Renewal Ventures,LLC,presents the petition. A Decision from the Zoning Board of Appeals,made in September 28`h, 2009, that was appealed in the Superior Court with a amended decision made September 5`h, 2012 has fallen within the timeframe to qualify under the Massachusetts Permit Extension Act as amended and was automatically extended to September 28`h, 2014. -._ The petitioner,'of this prolect-William Wharff has sold the sights to deal with the current owner of the property sinee the Amended Decision to Renewal Uentuxes LLC. There is also -- a piece of property that is owned by the Archdiocese of Boston that requires a Planning Board Approval Not Required plan to "put the pieces together" and both companies are involved with environmental mitigation that is close to completion. A letter was presented to the Board from Attorney Carr from the Decision appeal approving a substitution of Renewal Ventures LLC to complete this project. The petitioner is seeking a six (6) month extension for exercise of the rights granted by the September 281h, 2014 Board Decision that approved Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to • increase existing side yard setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to eight (8) residential units. • Curran confirms that by March the environmental mitigation and ANR plan will be complete to complete the transaction between William Wharff and Renewal Ventures LLC. Curran states that there is no problem granting with a six (6) month extension and opens the issue to the Board for comments. No comment from the Board. Issue is not open to the public for a hearing. Motion and Vote: Mr. Dionne makes a motion to approve the applicant's request for a six (6) month extension of a Decision granted on September 28', 2009 to William Wharf£ The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed. s..4urc6rwwwdnW.. ' :I3bttd 4§v e w w . ry h naw �dIan iI103��x "0.� 4�IJ Project: Continuation of a petition seeking to reconstruct and extend a three-story nonconforming structure that was damaged by fire. The Petitioner is requesting a Variance from the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow expansion of livable space on the third floor, as well as a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of • the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion of a nonconforming structure,in order to expand the previously existing nonconforming building. Applicant: JOHN KALANTZIS,TRUSTEE Location: 12 SCHOOL STREET (112 Zoning District) Documents&Exhibitions: • Application date-stamped August 6 s, 2014 and accompanying materials • Amended elevation plans date-stamped September 12`h, 2014 Attorney Lovely 10 Federal Street representing John Kalantizis, trustee. Attorney Lovely presents the petition and as presented by Mr. Patrick Chasse, contractor, on August 27`h, 2014. Mr. Lovely presented amended architectural drawings of the Front Elevation facade. Additions to the facade include the addition of shutters and a central oval window on the third story facade. Curran states that one of the issues was that the building facade did not fit in with the character of the existing neighborhood and the Board asked for the architect to explore the possibility of the construction of a door on the front elevation rather than the side of the building. Attorney Lovely speaks about the possibility and exploration of having a door on the front elevation of the building. There is a side courtyard where the doors are currently proposed. • The door closest to School Street on the side elevation will contain a stairway and the second door will have a stairway for the front units. Mr. Lovely states that he suggested to the architect that a false door could be placed on the front facade, but is unsure that this would make the appearance acceptable or better to the neighbors who are concerned about • the aesthetics of the front fagade. Curran opens discussion for Board comment. No comment before public discussion. Curran opens the discussion for public comment and views revised architectural plans. Michele Sweeney 5 School Street- States that she has some questions and concerns regarding the aesthetics of the propose building. Ms. Sweeney asks whether the footprint of the building will be placed up to the existing sidewalk. Mr. Lovely speaks through the Chair to address this question and states that by-right the proposed building can be built within the previously existing building footprint. Mr. Lovely also states that the Variance requested was to square-off the rear of the building from its previously odd-shaped footprint to bring the proposed staircases up to code. Ms. Curran clarifies the location of the proposed expansion of the building corners is on the front and side rear of the proposed building. Ms. Sweeney asks for clarification on what part of the proposed building can be built-by right and extended by Special Permit. Ms. Curran clarifies that if a building is damaged by fire that a building can be rebuilt within the existing footprint within two (2) years by-right. Ms. Curran clarifies that the applicant is asking for a footprint extension of 11 x10 and another smaller part to square-off the previously existing footprint of an odd shaped • building. i Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that the applicant can build to the same bulk, height and along the previously existing footprint. Ms. Sweeney 5 School Street- clarifies that the Board asked the applicant to continue from the August 17`h, 2014 meeting to the September 17`h meeting to amend architectural plans that better reflect the aesthetics and character of the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Sweeney asks the Board for comments on the amended architectural plans. Ms. Curran replies that what the Board was looking at last time looked like the side of building that did not contribute to the streetscape. Ms. Curran states that her preference is to locate a door on the front facade facing the street,but does not like the idea of a foe door and could potentially be dangerous. Ms. Curran states that there have been improvements to the facade of the building and better reflect the character of the streetscape. Ms. Sweeney 5 School Street- states that the applicant is proposing two (2) three-bedroom (3) unit to three (3) three (3) bedroom structure. What is the allowance for parking? Mr. St. Pierre addresses Ms. Sweeney's question about parking requirements. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that the Salem Zoning Ordinance requires 1.5 parking spaces per unit rather than by number of bedrooms. The previously existing structure had three units and the proposed structure has three units. The applicant has 6-7 parking spaces available,which is above the • number of parking spaces required. Mr. St. Pierre also clarifies that the applicant is not asking for a Variance from parking requirements. • Raquel Rodriguez 5 School Street-Asks to clarify the location of the side back parking lot. Ms. Curran and Mr. St. Pierre confirm the location of the side back parking lot. Ms. Rodriquez states that another concern is about the location of the front of the house sitting so closely to the sidewalk.There is a house on Mason Street with a similar fagade that has a little brick sidewalk about 2 feet wide and has plantings with mulch and flowers between the fa4ade of the house and street. Ms. Rodriguez suggests that this addition would make the house not really feel like it is sitting right on the sidewalk and help the proposed structure fit within the surrounding neighborhood character. Attorney Lovely responds that the builder would be willing to put plantings in and would accept this as a condition. Mr. Lovely states that the builder may have already intended to have plantings between the building front and sidewalk. Ms. Curran opens comment from the Board members. Mr. Tsitsinos states that it will be good to see the building rebuilt and that it would add the neighborhood. Ms. Curran states that the Board will go through the criteria for a special permit and variance. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that the petitioner has asked for a Variance from the maximum allowable building height of 2.5-stories to 3 stories. The previously existing structure demolished by fire was a combination of 2.5 and 3 stories because of dormers on the right side of the building. To make sure that everything is covered the Building Department suggested that the petitioner seek a Variance. • Michele Sweeney 5 School Street- states that the aesthetics proposed will not help the neighborhood. Ms. Curran states findings: As a matter of right the applicant is allowed to build on the previously existing footprint, the structural infill proposed to square-off the building is minimal and has little impact. The amended architectural design proposed is an improvement to the original design. Ms. Curran states that she liked the character of the previously existing building, but it may be cost prohibitive to reconstruct a replica. Traffic flow is not changing. The adequacy of the utilities and other public services is not changing. The neighborhood character, although it can be argued that the proposed construction is not as nice looking as the previously existing building in some eyes,was a three-family and will remain a three-family and is consistent with the neighboring building in terms of size. The potential fiscal impact is that this building will be back on the City's tax base. ._ .. P t.=...4 For the Variance, the special condition and circumstances that especially affecting the land; . building or structure involved;'generallynot affecting other'lands-buildings, and structures of the same district is that building burned down In'addition; the existing building was a 1- nique size and peculiar shape of particular to the previously existing building with'a combination of 2 5-"stories and 3 stoniest The hardship fos the variance'is that,if the previous building were to be replicated,the variation of 2.5 stones and 3-stories would not allow for the construction of internal stairways that would be in compliance with current • buildmg codes:' _ _. . Mr. Copelas Does a fire qualify as a hardship? Mr. St. Pierre states that petitioner is seeking a Variance because the previously existing structure with a combination of 2.5-stories and 3- • stories,which is legally allowed,would not allow the staircases to legally meet building code standards. The Board states eight (8) standard conditions and one (1) special condition to construct, mulch, and plant a 2-3 foot wide flower bed from the foundation of the structure to the sidewalk edge across the entire length of the front facade by May V, 2015 or within 5 days of construction completion of the front fagade. Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the applicant's request for a Variance from the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories as set forth in Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow expansion of livable space on the third floor, as well as a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion of a nonconforming structure, in order to expand the previously existing nonconforming building. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed. I , ma r ' n s H:: m r ! b i i ti H� RHHhn F. .9 N. t ,9 i�wwrySHNHkihSlig'H!,rtH yti�yi— "n Project: Petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table ofPrinapal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow the addition • of a tasting room to an existing brewery, distillery or winery located at 102 JACKSON STREET (B-4 Zoning District). Applicant: DENISE SNAPE Location: 102 JACKSON STREET (B-4 Zoning District) Denise and Al Snape, co-owners of Far from the Tree Cider,present the petition. The applicant states that the proposed tasting room is an important addition to an existing brewery, distillery,winery as a means to market product. Ms. Snape clarifies that the proposed tasting room is not a bar, but rather a place for people to sample a small amount product and have the public tour the facilities to see the hard cider production process. The proposed tasting room hours are Thursdays- Saturdays after 5pm and would have minimal impact on the surrounding businesses and their operation. Ms. Curran asks for clarification that a brewery, distillery,winery with a tasting room is now an allowed use that has-been codified in the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Mr. St. Pierre confirms that this zoning amendment was proposed by the applicant and has been consider through City's procedural process and passed. Ms. Curran asks the applicants whether they hold a Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued Farmer Series License and that the proposed tasting room does not exceed 33% of the main building's gross square footage. • Ms. Snape confirms that the company holds a Farmer Series License and that the proposed tasting room does not exceed the 33% of the main building's gross square footage. • Ms. Curran asks for clarification of existing use now of the facilities. Mr. Snape states that the current facility is used for the production and bottling of hard cider. With the addition of the tasting room it would allow the opportunity for the general public to access the facility to sample product of five (5) one (1) ounce pours, give tours of the facilities particularly of the barrels, purchase merchandise and bottles of cider to be consumed off-premise. Mr. St. Pierre states to the applicant that a tasting room, because it is open to the public, must be handicapped accessible with an entrance and bathroom. Mr. Snape states that the company leases the space,but the building owner is amenable to making the space open to the public and accessible. Mr. Copelas asks for clarification from the applicant about the current use of the facility. Mr. Snape clarifies that the apples are from Central Massachusetts, pressed in Stow,MA and brought to the warehouse to store and age/ferment the juice overtime. The company also hand bottles the product on the premise. Ms. Curran opens public comment. Phil Pelatier, owner of the building states his support for the proposed tasting room and • recognizes that renovations need to be done and will work with the budding department to bring the structure up to code for public accessibility. Ms. Curran closes public comment and opens comment for the Board. :. +n . ..„r -.. .. .. �flFleS!rvn t v ...s.. Mr.'St. Pierre applauds the applicants for teaming up wtth a few other applicants to propose that the City consider zoning`amendments to ind ade'this'particular use Mr. St.Pierre clarifies that when the applicants did not fit zoriirg thr when advised,worked ough City procedures for the-C" and public to consider. This is an example of the City working toward change`the away it'should.. Ms. Curran states this is certainly an emerging business type. There are seven (7) standard conditions. Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the applicant's request for a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table ofPiincipal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the addition of a tasting room to an existing brewery, distillery or winery. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed. • • h RCFF'AI:OF NFEETINGMINUTES� r ,'� E";i`_ �g,�,�i:_ ,�, � i August 27", 2014 Draft Meeting Minutes to be approved October 15", 2014 Mr. Copelas was appointed to the position of Planning Board of Appeals Vice Chair. Motion and Vote: Mr. Dionne makes a motion to approve the appointment of a new Zoning Board of Appeals Vice Chair. The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with three (3) in favor (Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed. Ms. Curran abstained from voting as Chair and reminded the Board that a simple majority is needed with three (3) votes. • • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL / 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 MmBERLEY DRISCOLL TE1.E:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppealr will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, Octohet 15th,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at City HallAnnex, RM 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL -'1 p -( O I1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES `') r- en m rn -D ➢ August 27th,2014 meeting ?cF W ➢ September 17th,2014 meeting p m III. REGULAR AGENDA 3 3 b Project: Continuation of the Public Hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permitter Sec..3t3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure. Applicant: RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ Location: 38 CABOT STREET (R-2 Zoning District) Project: Continuation of the Public Hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 9.4.1 Special Permit Granting Authority and Sec. 3.0 Use Regulations of the Salem Ordinance, to allow a bed and breakfast use and a Variance per Sec. 5.0 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow 2-off street parking spaces instead of 4 off-street parking spaces required. Applicant: MICHAEL SELBST and BRADLEY WILLIAMS Location: 329 ESSEX STREET (R-2 Zoning District) Project A Public Hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow a brewery, distillery, or winery with a tasting room. Applicant IAN HUNTER Location 75 CANAL STREET (B-4 Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT This notice posted on "Off' 1 u Ie Board" City Hail, Salem, Mass. on at 6.33 in accordance with MGL Chap..3Qi4; . Sections 18-25. Page 1 of 1 0(u11T ! CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 'a BOARD OF APPEAL 120 Wn$1-PING"1'ON S"I'RE@:t * SAI,Bbf,MnssACHt)SETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner DATE: October 1st, 2014 RE: Meeting Agenda for October 15th,2014 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Meeting Minutes from 8/27/2014 and 9/17/2014 Below is a summation of the requested petitions and any supplemental information for the Board of Appeals to consider when discussing each petition scheduled for public hearing on the 10/15/2014 meeting. • 1. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. Continuation of the petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a special permit per Sec.3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure, at the property located at 38 CABOT STREET (112 Zoning District). At the May 21,t meeting the Board approved a modification to an earlier Variance, to allow the petitioner to move his garage to within one (1) foot of the south property line. At the same meeting, the petitioner presented his request for a Special Permit to allow the construction of an addition onto the existing nonconforming residence. The petitioner's drawings of the proposed addition were inconsistent and incomplete and the Board granted the petitioner's request to continue, so that he might present revised drawings at the June 18th meeting. At the June 18th meeting, the petitioner had not prepared sufficient drawings, and requested to continue to the July 16th meeting. The petitioner then submitted a request to continue to the August meeting, as the requested drawings were not ready. At the August 27th meeting the Board granted the petitioner's request to continue provided that the petitioner withdraws the application without prejudice at September 17th meeting or continue should architectural drawings and plans be submitted. On September 10th,2014,revised elevation and plot plans were submitted. NOTE:The petitioner requested a continuation to the October 15th meeting due to ZBA member attendance. The Board granted a continuation to the next regularly scheduled meeting. 2. Continuation of the petition of MICHAEL SELBST and BRADLEY WILLIAMS,requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 9.4.1 Special Permit GrandngAuthority and Sec.3.0 Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow a bed and breakfast use and a Variance per Sec. 5.0 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow 2 off-street parking spaces instead of 4 off-street parking spaces required at the property located at 329 ESSEX ST (R2 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit to allow a bed and breakfast and a Variance to allow 2 off-street parking spaces instead of the 4 off-street parking spaces required.The existing use is a single-family residence City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—August 22,2014 Page 2 of 2 • with two on-site parking spaces. NOTE:No testimony was heard on September 17th,2014 and the petitioner was granted a continuation to next regularly scheduled meeting on October 15th,2014 meeting. 3. Petition of LAN HUNTER,requesting a Special Permit per Sec.3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow a brewery,distillery,or winery with a tasting room at the property located at 75 CANAL STREET (B4 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit to allow a brewery, distillery, or winery with a tasting room. Application states that the budding is a warehouse at 75 Canal Street is currently vacant. However,a Certificate of Occupancy was issued on September 2°d,2014 for the operation of Little Beginnings Day Care Center within this mixed-use building. The application also proposes "a modest change to the facade of the building by adding a new, smaller entrance to our proposed tasting room."At this time there are no external elevations or design review plans for review. However, the applicant did provide a photo of the existing building facade and a floor plan sketch that are included in the ZBA packet. • 2 THE FOLLOWING IS/ARE THE BEST IMAGES FROM POOR QUALITY ORIGINALS) I M ^ DATA k,..O�E SALEM N -CITY OF SALEM •' 1 £� 20N1NO SOAARRD OF APPEAlB ZONING B6AlIB BFr4PPrJ1LS j Will hold a public hearing for.ail Will hold,apublic heanng Tor ell ppee' interested in the petition of ppe�rsons interested in the petition of 1MICI-W SELBST .and BRADLEYI, MICHAEL SELBST and BRADLEY ,WILLIAMS, requesting a Specials; WILLIAMS, requesting at Special Y g Permit per Sec.9.4.1 Special Permki Permit per Sec.9A.1 Special Permit �n9 Authority and Sec.S. Use , Granting Authority and 30 Use ;?F SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS gulations of the Salem Zoning Or-\ Regulations of the Salem Zoning Or. ante,in order to allow a bed and tl break;in use and allow a bed and � BOARD OF APPEAL breaMasl`use and a Variance per fi, breakfast,use anda'Varianceper Sec. 5.0 Table of Required ParkingjSec.5.0 Table of Required Parking j Spaces to allow 2 oti-street parking. Spaces to allow 2 ofl-atreat parking;.j spaces instead of 4 oft-street park-J spaces instead of 4 off-street park ing spaces required at the-pmpedy%' ing spaces required at the pro.perty ' located at 329 ESSEX ST(R2 Zoning located at 329 ESSEX ST(R2 Zoning 120 WASFUNGTON STREET♦SALEM, S SrTdS O1A70I� 45 Diistrict). . District).• - a.. z 'IhtE:978-619-5G85♦FA1t:gjs d4`1 HH The public hearingwill be held The,puWic hearing will be hek1 'i on Wednesday,September 17,,20141 on Wednesday,September 17 2614 ''-at 6:30 PM,in Room 313,3rd Floors at 6:30,PM,in Room 313,3rd Floor FILE 0 at 120 Washington Street in actor- at 120 Washington Street in actor-• dance with Chapter 40A of the Mas-I dance with Chapter 40A of the Mas- CITY CLERK, SALEM,MASS. 'sachusetis General. Laws. A o0pyi eachusetis General Laws. A-copy of ft application and plans are on. of the application and plans are on file and available for review durringii Tile and'available for review during' normal business hours at the'De- nomral .business hours at the De- _partmentoT Planning&Community partment of Planning&Community. Developmen4 Cily Hall Third Development,City-Hall Annex,Third: Floor, 120 Washington St, Salem, Floor, 120 Washington.'St, Salem, . MA. _ MA. I I., . Rebecca Curran.Chair r Rebecca Curran,Chair Board of Appeals ., .0 ,,..� Board,of Appeals: Ci of Salem SN-9/3/14 SN 9/10/14 *' I zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MICHAEL SELBST and BRADLEY WILLIAMS, requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 9.4.1 Special Permit Granting Authority and Sec. 3.0 Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow a bed and breakfast use and a Variance per Sec. 5.0 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow 2 off-street parking spaces instead of 4 off-street parking spaces required at the property located at 329 ESSEX ST(R2 Zoning District). • The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3rd Floor at 120 Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning & Community Development, City Hall Annex, Third Floor, 120 Washington St, Salem, MA. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 9/3/2014 and 9/10/2014 This notice posted on "OfciaL lletlfoard" City Hall, Salem, Mass.,on uUbv ZZ 9 Z[0Oii44 at V'4�14H in accordance with MGL Chap.30A, Sections 18-25. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASIENGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 YiNmERLEY DRtscoLL TELE:978-745-9595♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You are hetrby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppeals=11 hold its ngxlar§scheduled meeting on Wlednesday, October ISO 2014 at 6.30 p.m. at City HallAnnex,RM 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Rebecca Curran,Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES C a m m ➢ August 27th,2014 meeting "� w ➢ September 17t^ 2014 meeting rq D 3 III. REGULAR AGENDA a og n w Project Continuation of the Public Hearing for a petition requesting a Special PermitgNrer Sec.L33.5 • Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Strnrtnres of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure. Applicant: RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ Location: 38 CABOT STREET(R-2 Zoning District) Project: Continuation of the Public Hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 9.4.1 Special Permit GmntingAnthority and Sec. 3.0 Use Regulations of the Salem Ordinance,to allow a bed and breakfast use and a Variance per Sec. 5.0 Table ofRegnired Parking Spaces to allow 2-off street parking spaces instead of 4 off-street parking spaces required. Applicant MICHAEL SELBST and BRADLEY WILLIAMS Location: 329 ESSEX STREET(R-2 Zoning District) Project A Public Hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow a brewery,distillery,or winery with a tasting room. Applicant IAN HUNTER Location 75 CANAL STREET(B-4 Zoning District) ,w IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT This notice posted on "Off y'a1 U610M Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on Sty' [ui4 at in accordance with MGL Chap. 38A, Sections 18-26. • Page 1 of 1 g�..03 CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL ��. �1tNK 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACFIUSE"PPS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRIscoLL TELL,:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner DATE: October 1st,2014 RE: Meeting Agenda for October 15th,2014 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Meeting Minutes from 8/27/2014 and 9/17/2014 Below is a summation of the requested petitions and any supplemental information for the Board of Appeals to consider when discussing each petition scheduled for public hearing on the 10/15/2014 meeting. • 1. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. Continuation of the petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a special permit per Sec.3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure, at the property located at 38 CABOT STREET (112 Zoning District). At the May 2Vt meeting the Board approved a modification to an earlier Variance, to allow the petitioner to move his garage to within one (1) foot of the south property line. At the same meeting, the petitioner presented his request for a Special Permit to allow the construction of an addition onto the existing nonconforming residence. The petitioner's drawings of the proposed addition were inconsistent and incomplete and the Board granted the petitioner's request to continue,so that he might present revised drawings at the June 18th meeting. At the June 18th meeting, the petitioner had not prepared sufficient drawings, and requested to continue to the July 16th meeting. The petitioner then submitted a request to continue to the August meeting, as the requested drawings were not ready.At the August 27th meeting the Board granted the petitioner's request to continue provided that the petitioner withdraws the application without prejudice at September 17th meeting or continue should architectural drawings and plans be submitted. On September loth, 2014,revised elevation and plot plans were submitted. NOTE:The petitioner requested a continuation to the October 15t' meeting due to ZBA member attendance. The Board granted a continuation to the next regularly scheduled meeting. 2. Continuation of the petition of MICHAEL SELBST and BRADLEY WILLIAMS, requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 9.4.1 Special Permit Granting Authority and Sec. 3.0 Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow a bed and breakfast use and a Variance per Sec. 5.0 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow 2 off-street parking spaces instead of 4 off-street parking spaces • required at the property located at 329 ESSEX ST (112 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit to allow a bed and breakfast and a Variance to allow 2 off-street parking spaces instead of the 4 off-street parking spaces required. The existing use is a single-family residence City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—August 22,2014 • Page 2 of 2 with two on-site parking spaces. NOTE:No testimony was heard on September 17th,2014 and the petitioner was granted a continuation to next regularly scheduled meeting on October 15�',2014 meeting. 3. Petition of IAN HUNTER, requesting a Special Permit per Sec.3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a brewery,distillery,or winery with a tasting room at the property located at 75 CANAL STREET (134 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit to allow a brewery,distillery,or winery with a tasting room. Application states that the building is a warehouse at 75 Canal Street is currently vacant. However,a Certificate of Occupancy was issued on September 2°d, 2014 for the operation of Little Beginnings Day Care Center within this mixed-use building.The application also proposes "a modest change to the facade of the building by adding a new, smaller entrance to our proposed tasting room."At this time there are no external elevations or design review plans for review. However, the applicant did provide a photo of the existing building facade and a floor plan sketch that are included in the ZBA packet. • • 2 C,ONUIT I CITY OF I SALEM, 1VIASSACHUSET"TS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 W:15I-IINGTON STREET* S.AI,CM,\L1SSACI-NSF:"CPS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRiscol.P, TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner DATE: October 1st,2014 RE: Meeting Agenda for October 15th,2014 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Meeting Minutes from 8/27/2014 and 9/17/2014 Below is a summation of the requested petitions and any supplemental information for the Board of Appeals to consider when discussing each petition scheduled for public hearing on the 10/15/2014 meeting. • 1. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. Continuation of the petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a special permit per Sec.3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure, at the property located at 38 CABOT STREET (112 Zoning District). At the May 2Pt meeting the Board approved a modification to an earlier Variance, to allow the petitioner to move his garage to within one (1) foot of the south property line. At the same meeting, the petitioner presented his request for a Special Permit to allow the construction of an addition onto the existing nonconforming residence. The petitioner's drawings of the proposed addition were inconsistent and incomplete and the Board granted the petitioner's request to continue, so that he might present revised drawings at the June 18th meeting. At the June 18th meeting, the petitioner had not prepared sufficient drawings, and requested to continue to the July 16th meeting. The petitioner then submitted a request to continue to the August meeting,as the requested drawings were not ready.At the August 27th meeting the Board granted the petitioner's request to continue provided that the petitioner withdraws the application without prejudice at September 17th meeting or continue should architectural drawings and plans be submitted. On September loth,2014,revised elevation and plot plans were submitted. NOTE:The petitioner requested a continuation to the October 15th meeting due to ZBA member attendance. The Board granted a continuation to the next meeting. 2. Continuation of the petition of MICHAEL SELBST and BRADLEY WILLIAMS, requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 9.4.1 Special Permit Granting Authority and Sec.3.0 Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow a bed and breakfast use and a Variance per Sec. 5.0 Table of Required Parlang Spaces to allow 2 off-street parking spaces instead of 4 off-street parking spaces • required at the property located at 329 ESSEX ST (R2 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit to allow a bed and breakfast and a Variance to allow 2 off-street parking spaces instead of the 4 off-street parking spaces required.The existing use is a single-family residence City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—August 22,2014 Page 2 of 2 • with two on-site parking spaces. NOTE:No testimony was heard on September 17th,2014 and the petitioner was granted a continuation to the November 19th,2014 meeting. 3. Petition of IAN HUNTER, requesting a Special Permit per Sec.3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a brewery,distillery,or winery with a tasting room at the property located at 75 CANAL STREET (134 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit to allow a brewery,distillery,or winery with a tasting room. Application states that the building at 75 Canal Street is currently vacant. However, a Certificate of Occupancy was issued on September 2vd,2014 for the operation of Little Beginnings Day Care Center within this mixed- use building. • 2 City of Salem c Zoni City of Salem r Zoning Board of Appeals , . ! YYY �g,�0 yY Will hold a public hearing for all WIII hot ad public h for all; ; Is.ns interested m:the petitionSpwial _t,,. '. Persons Interested in the one. oI Ian Hunts,requesting a Special �, of ten Muller, P� P ft per Sac.3.0 Table of Pdnci- c of I nit westing a Special l d Accessory Use Regulations , - per 3.0 Table of P.rinci-.� Salem Zoning:Ordinance, In Tr V,opal and Accessory Use Regulations P er to allow a brewery,tlistlllery a r« a of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, In or jwinery with a tasting room located at, 4 winery vnth attesting roer to allow a orri located 4844 Canal Street District). 93 Lot 201) -, 76 Canal Street.(dap 33 Lot 201 The Npugbli hearing will be held ,34 Zoning The Publicih ictl. Will be held � ion Wednesday, October 1Sth,^ on Wednesday, October ;15th,: 2014 at•(P.80 PM in_Room 313, p 2014 at 8:30 PM, in Room-313, 3rd at 120 Washington,Street in ac- !` "�,i 3rd at 120 Washington Street In+ac- 'cordance with Chapter,-40A of the"` cordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws.f Ai ant Massachusetts General Laws, A ' ' of the application and plaits�J .,,s = , copy of the application and plans COPY on file and available for review f am On file and available for review udng rwrrnal business:hours at the during normal business hours at the fly.D mem of Planning Hall n6x, +, . 4Departmem of Planning 8 Commu oily.Development, City Mall Annex, , nM1y Development, City Hell Annez, 3rd,120 Washington St,Salem,MA.• ' +� nit 120GIOPm _ - "Rebecca Curan,Chair Washington St;Salem,fdA. _. Board of APPea� ? Rebecca Curran,Chair N-10/1;10/8/14 _ t. F r ;, SN-10/1 10/8/1 Board of Appeals CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS f"gam k BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON$TAFFY SALEM,MASI&VA 9hJ70 A 33 TELE:978-619-5685♦ FAX:978-740-0404 KIMmERLEY DRuscou FILE I: MAYOR CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of IAN HUNTER,requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow a brewery, distillery or winery with a tasting room located at 75 CANAL STREET(Map 33 Lot 201) (B-4 Zoning District). The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, October 15th, 2014 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3`d at 120 Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning& Community Development, City Hall Annex, 3`d, 120 Washington St, Salem, MA. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Ad Dates to Run in Salem News: 10/1/2014 and 10/8/2014 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board". .City Hall, Salem, Mass. on SEP 3 0 2014 at oP.33�+ in accordance with MGL Chap. 3QA, Sections 18-25. • P1eaS auk scam e c �;cotaotfi,� City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet �., 4 Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date 00 / 05 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail CIOU, 0 5witrn — — i Son CHnu sue, • --� �n-,mot S� 7�S`�O' ,.32�U �l,n tieyr. Ca���r*,��' .Q/V/w POLO- macon S+- mussn a sab(-n Flo wn keL 3Ff �1-bo� S � G/7�-�/0-37y7 ,Payo/z��P� %„ • coH. 2 uj Q)em 97S IO`-NOT � ;nm7®QO/CD�j O rid/ 23A �a�ay�ffPs (c�ILYC-:9v A !L.Cou-` &1 2 L k3L b n(,Ybgl f ��� e o�✓ r,� `3 9, 4.., ff Q2r-)y/-o2/5S ELF Page of • City of Salem Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday,October 15th,2014 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA") was held on Wednesday,October 15th, 2014 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Ms.Cimancalls the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. ROLL CALL - w,;: t =- -- - Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas, Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins and Richard Dionne.Also in attendance -Thomas St. Pierre,Building Commissioner,and Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner REGULAR AGENDA , Project: Continuation of the petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure. Applicant: RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ Location: 38 CABOT STREET (112 Zoning District) Documents& Exhibitions: • Application dated April 22", 2014 and revised architectural drawings dated September 10`h, 2014 Ms. Curran states that the application was before the Board in May 2014, requesting a variance from the requirements of Sec. 3.2.4 Accessory Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion of a previously- approved garage. Raynaldo Dominguez 38 Cabot Street presents the petition and revised architectural drawings. The petitioner states that the proposal is for a 16 x 20 kitchen addition and second story deck. Ms. Curran asks for clarification on the design and asks the applicant if the stairs drawn are for access to the second story proposed deck. Mr. Dominguez confirms that the stairs are to access the second story deck. Curran states the issue that the side-yard and rear-yard dimensions are proposed to change. . The proposal is conforming to rear-yard and more non-conforming with the side-yard. Ms. • Curran asks Mr. St. Pierre, for clarification on the building code requirements for minimum stair width. Mr. St. Pierre confirms that the requirement is 3 (three) feet. Ms. Curran asks for clarification about the proposed size of the deck. Mr. Dominguez clarifies that the proposed addition is a one-story kitchen extension with a second story deck on the kitchen roof. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that the lower structure is a kitchen extension with a conventional deck off of the back of the kitchen addition. Then there is a proposed roof deck on top of the propose kitchen roof that runs the length of the second story facade. Ms. Curran opens discussion for comments from Board members. Mr. Dominguez also shows the Board pictures of the existing structure. Ms. Curran asks the applicant about the proposed materials for the siding and decking, specifically,whether the proposed materials will conform to the existing materials of the current structure. Mr. Dominguez confirms that the proposed materials for the decking and kitchen addition siding will be the same as the existing materials of the current structure. • Mr. Copelas asks Mr. St. Pierre about whether the density calculations were addressed. Mr. Saint Pierre clarifies that the applicant proposes 50% (fifty percent) lot coverage. The existing lot coverage is 34% (thirty- four percent). Mr. Watkins asks Mr. St. Pierre for clarification of proposed plans and whether the proposed second-story deck requires another special permit. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that the proposed second story deck is an open deck does not need an additional special permit because it is factored into the total lot coverage. The second story deck would be treated as a two story addition. If the project only proposed a deck, the applicant would have to apply for a special permit for the extension of a non-confornun PP PP Y P P g use. However, the applicant is asking for relief from the entire new structure. Mr. Copelas clarifies that the maximum lot coverage density number considered all pieces of the proposed project. Mr. Saint Pierre clarifies that the calculation for maximum lot coverage considered the garage, deck and kitchen addition. Ms. Curran states that the relief sought by the applicant is for side-yard dimensions and percent lot coverage. Ms. Curran opens hearing to the public. No (0) members of the public spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposal. • Ms. Curran opens discussion for Board members. Mr. Dionne states the applicant did a good job on the sketches and plan revisions. Ms. Curran states that the existing deck structure is in disrepair and the proposed changes will be an improvement to the structure. The location of the proposed side-yard as 2 (two) feet away from the lot-line is close, but no members of the public spoke in opposition to this circumstance. Mr. Watkins states the findings that there is no impact on social, economic or community impact is beneficial; there are no traffic flow and safety impacts; capacity utilities are not affected by the project; proposal improves neighborhood character and improves the property and helps with the City's tax base to improve the structure. Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Tvo-Famiy Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure with seven (7) standard conditions. Mr. St. Pierre states that the Board did not address that the applicant needed to request relief from maximum lot coverage requirements with a variance. Ms. Curran states that the applicant did not request a variance for relief from maximum lot • coverage requirements. Ms. Curran states that a Variance was approved that applied to a garage. Board members discuss that a variance was approved on May 21, 2014 from the requirements of Sec. 3.2.4 Accessory Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion of a previously-approved garage and not for a variance for relief from maximum lot coverage. The entire applicant was reviewed by Ms. Curran and it was determined that the applicant did not request a variance for relief from maximum lot coverage. Mr. St. Pierre on April 14`h, 2014 advised the applicant to request a special permit to expand a non-conforming two-family structure to add a kitchen addition, a variance from side-yard setback requirements for proposed garage and a variance from maximum lot coverage requirement. Mr. Watkins states that the agenda and legal advertisement also did not reflect that the applicant needed to request a variance for relief from maximum lot coverage. Mr. St. Pierre and Ms. Curran read the June 11, 2014 Decision and confirm that the variance for relief from the requirements of Sec. 2.3.4 Accessary Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion of a previously-approved garage was granted. However, request for a variance from maximum lot coverage requirements was not considered because it was not requested by the applicant. Mr. St. Pierre asks the Board to consider asking the applicant for a continuation. • Ms. Curran states that the Board would like to consult with the City Solicitor to determine how to best proceed. Ms. Curran asks the applicant if they would like to continue and I clarifies to the applicant that the Board considered and granted a variance of Sec. 2.3.4 Accessory Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion of a previously-approved garage and the applicant has asked for a special permit Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Fivy Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure. However, the applicant needs to request a second variance from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to allow the lot coverage to exceed the maximum allowable limit. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the applicant's request to continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting on November 19th, 2014. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Watkins) and none (0) opposed. Project: Petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 9.4.1 Special Permit Granting Autborio and Sec. 3.0 Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow a bed and breakfast use and a Variance per Sec. 5.0 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow 2 off-street parking spaces instead of 4 off-street parking spaces required. Applicant: MICHAEL SELBST and BRADLEY WILLIAMS • Location: 329 ESSEX STREET (R2 Zoning District) Documents& Exhibitions: • Application dated August 26`h, 2014 and accompanying materials Attorney Correnti,representative for the applicants,requested a continuance to the next regularly scheduled meeting on November 19`', 2014. No evidence was heard and the public hearing was not opened. Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting on November 19", 2014. The motion is seconded by Mr. Watkins. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Watkins) and none (0) opposed. Project: Petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to allow a brewery, distillery, or winery with a tasting room. Applicant: IAN HUNTER Location: 75 CANAL STREET (B-4 Zoning District) 0 • Documents& Exhibitions: • Application dated September 24`h and accompanying materials Mr. Richard Dionne, Zoning Board of Appeals Board Member, states for the record that he is not an abutter to the property located at 75 Canal Street, nor is an abutter to an abutter of the property where this project is proposed. Mr. Ian Hunter, petitioner,presents the petition. The petitioner states that the proposed distillery will be producing and distributing small batch craft spirits. The petitioner also states that if a Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued Farming Series License is obtained, the petitioners will also operate a visitor center/tasting room where the product may be sampled and merchandise can be sold. Samples will be limited to four quarter ounce samples. The applicant states that a Massachusetts State Pouring license will not be sought in connection with the Farming Series License. The applicant states that the hours of operation will be on Friday and Saturday afternoons from 12pm-5pm or 1pm-6pm with the possibility of expanding hours into Thursdays and Sundays seasonally. Mr. Hunter also states that the company will actively direct customers to park their cars along Canal Street through directions on the company website and social media. The petitioner states that the business expects to see between 25-50 visitors on a busy Saturday. It is anticipated that there will be limited truck traffic to one (1) inbound truck making deliveries to this business per week finished product will be self-distributed by the applicant in personal vehicles. Mr. Hunter discussed distillery safety and states that in international building code, safety risk anticipated in association with distilleries is comparable to the level of risk associated with auto repair facilities that are allowed by right in a B-4 zoning district. The petitioner states that safety is priority. The process will be powered by low pressure steam, atmospheric monitor systems will be tied to active ventilation to ensure that internal conditions are properly maintained. The distilling process is a closed and contained process with no anticipated odor or sounds. Ms. Curran asks the applicant to clarify what will occur in the proposed tasting room. Mr. Hunter states the tasting room is an outreach opportunity and a chance for visitors to meet distillery employees, learn about the distilling process through scheduled guided tours, sample limited portions of product and purchase merchandise. The petitioner refers to the tasting room as a visitor's center. Mr. Hunter states that the allowable limit of a sample of spirit in Massachusetts is limited to four (4) samples of a quarter ounce (1/4 ounce). Ms. Curran asks for clarification that tasdngs, tours and merchandise sales at the distillery will occur only during set hours of operation. Mr. Hunter confirms that the tasting room/ public space will be open to the public during set hours and days. • Ms. Curran asks the petitioner to clarify what kinds of spirits will be produced. Mr. Hunter states that a type of rum and gin will be produced and has historical significance in relation to the story of Deacon Giles. Ms. Curran asks the petitioner to clarify the proposed square footage of the facility. Mr. Hunter states that the entire facility will be slightly under 6,000 square feet (approximately 5,925 square feet) and the proposed visitor center will be slightly under 800 square feet. Mr. Dionne asks the petitioner to clarify how many people will be employed by this business. Mr. Hunter states that the total initial staff is anticipated to be three (3) full-time employees with the anticipated expansion to have between eight to ten (8-10) employees by the end of 2018. The petitioner clarifies that additional staff will be a mix of sales people,production and delivery staff. Ms. Curran asks Mr. St. Pierre whether the distillery and tasting room are an allowable use in a B-4 zoning district. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that a brewery, distillery, or winery with a tasting room is a use that is allowed by special permit from the Board of Appeals in accordance with Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal andAccessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Prior to a recent zoning amendment, the proposed use would not be an allowable use in the City. Mr. Copelas asks for clarification on whether the special permit applies to a brewery, distillery, or winery separately from a tasting room. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that the special permit applies to a brewery, distillery, or winery in addition to a tasting room. Ms. Curran states that the Board of Appeals has recently reviewed and approved 102 Jackson Street in accordance with this recent zoning amendment. Ms. Curran confirms that the primary use for the proposed distillery is for the production and distribution of spirits and samples are provided at no charge. Mr. Hunter confirms that samples are provided at no charge. Ms. Curran states that the special permit would have to be contingent on having a Massachusetts issued Farmer Series Ucense. • Mr. Hunter confirms that the Farmer Series License is one among many that are needed for the proposed business. • Mr. Dionne asks about parking availability. Mr. Hunter confirms that there is only on-street parking available for customers along Canal Street and states that 75 Canal Street is a grandfathered building. Ms. Curran confirms that any use in this budding does not require additional parking beyond the publically available spaces. Mr. Hunter restates that it is anticipated that not more than ten (10) people per hour will visit the business. In addition, it is likely that people will travel to visit the distillery in groups of two (2) or 4 (four) people. Ms. Curran asks for clarification that the petitioner proposes that the distillery be only open to the public on Friday and Saturday afternoons. Mr. Hunter confirms this information. Ms. Curran asks for the petitioner to confirm that hours of operation for public access are open to the public on Friday and Saturday afternoons and all other hours of operation will be for employees to distill product among other non-public business operations. Ms. Curran also asks the petitioner to confirm that there will be no retail sales during non-public hours. Mr. Hunter confirms the proposed public hours and states that no retail sales from the facility will take place during non-public hours of operation. Mr. Dionne restates concern about parking availability. Ms. Curran asks the Board for additional comments before opening the hearing to the public. Mr. Watkins asks for clarification from the applicant,in response to Mr. Dionne's concerns, that parking is available on the opposite side of 75 Canal Street Mr. Hunter states customers will be directed to park on the opposite side of Canal Street through the distillery's website. Mr. Watkins states concern for customers who need to cross Canal Street to access the proposed distillery particularly because there is no crosswalk located in close proximity to the business and vehicles travel fast through this corridor. Mr. Dionne expresses concern about possible vehicular traffic accidents resulting from a left turn out of Gardner Street onto Canal Street. Mr. Watkins asks the petitioner whether customers who purchase a bottle of spirits in the visitor center may continue to drink what they have purchased on the premises. . Mr. Hunter clarifies that customers can buy beverages by the bottle for off-site consumption only. • Mr. Watkins asks the petitioner whether there will be someone at the proposed distillery who will be checking identification. Mr. Hunter states that all staff will be TIP certified. Mr. Watkins asks the petitioner and the Board to confirm that a Certificate of Occupancy has been granted for the operation of a daycare center in the same mixed-use building as the proposed distillery. Mr. Copelas confirms that a daycare center is located at this site and faces Canal Street. Mr. Watkins asks the petitioner whether they have reached out to the daycare center to talk about the proposed plans for a distillery. Mr. Hunter states that the petitioner did reach out to the daycare center and discussed concerns. Mr. Hunter restates that safety is a priority for the distillery operation,which was a concern expressed by the daycare center. Mr. Dionne asks the petitioner whether the business had considered directing customers to the parking lot on Hancock Street. Mr. Hunter states that the petitioner has not discussed the possibility of asking for parking from other tenants. Mr. Hunter also requests from the Board that the building owner of 75 Canal Street,James Miller speak. Mr.James Miller, 45 Ralph Road Marblehead, clarifies that the parking lot on Hancock Street is currently parking for other tenants. Mr. Watkins asks the petitioner to clarify what materials will be transported on trucks making deliveries to the facility. Mr. Hunter states that trucks will deliver raw materials to the facility including grain and molasses needed for their operation. Mr. Watkins asks the petitioner to clarify anticipated hours of deliveries. Mr. Hunter states that deliveries will be made during normal business hours between the hours of 8am to 4pm. Mr. Watkins states concern about the possibility of truck deliveries being made during drop- off and pick-up times for the existing daycare center. Mr. Hunter anticipates that deliveries will not be made during daycare drop off and pick-up hours and will coordinate with the delivery service to plan a window of delivery times that do not overlap with the daycare center pick-up and drop-off times. Mr. St. Pierre asks the petitioner to clarify the volumetric size of bulk materials anticipated to be delivered and truck size. • Mr. Hunter states that grain deliveries will be 50 pound bags each and generally delivered as 4,000 pound pallets. For perspective, a pallet of grain is approximately enough raw materials for five (5) to six (6) batches out of mash time of three (3) to four (4) weeks. Mr. St. Pierre asks for clarification on anticipated volume deliveries for liquid raw materials including molasses. Mr. Hunter states that the molasses will be delivered in approximately three-hundred (300) gallon totes or pallets with fifty-five (55) gallon drums. Approximately sixty (60) gallons will be needed per batch. Ms. Curran opens discussion for public comment. Rachael Schmied- 22 Hanson Street states that there are cross-walks on Canal Street. Jen Sell- 26 Hancock Street concerned about pedestrians crossing and walking along Canal Street particularly during winter. Josh Turiel- 238 Layfayette Street statement of support for the proposed distillery and recognizes the need to address pedestrian access and safety. Vallerie Carnivale- 55 Canal Street in opposition to the distillery due to concerns about distillery operation safety • Chris Hudson- 28 Gardner Street expresses concern about parking and asks the Board to consider the possibility for Gardner Street to be posted as resident parking only Mary Goodwin- 30 Belmont Street expressed concern about the possibility of people accessing the daycare through a shared back egress Mr.James Miller- 45 Ralph Road Marblehead, owner of 75 Canal Street expresses support for the proposed distillery Ms. Curran states that some of the public comments heard were relevant to the proposed distillery and some are not. Ms. Curran asks the petitioner for clarification on the possible nature of special events and potential hours of operation. Mr. Hunter discusses that special events could be a local office wanting a private tour. Mr. Hunter goes on to state that the company will not be seeking a Massachusetts pouring license. If the distillery chooses to offer the consumption of spirits on sight beyond the allowable four (4) quarter ounce (1/4 ounce) samples, the distillery will seek a one day special event license through the Licensing Board. Special events would be held on days or hours outside of proposed public hours. Ms. Curran confirms that members of the public may only purchase spirits from the • distillery during public hours. • Ms. Curran states that parking and traffic on Canal Street is a problem for all businesses and residents in the area. Ms. Curran also states concerns about associated risks of distillery operations and asks the petitioner for more information regarding proposed safety measures and operation. Mr. Hunter states that the process of distillation is that the wash goes into the boiler and will be heated by a low-pressure steam rather than an open flame or electric coils. There will also be two (2) to three (3) VOC (volatile organic compound) monitors tied to an active ventilation system should levels of ethanol in the facility reach a certain level. Ethanol is flammable, but not explosive. Mr. Brenneman states that alcohol flammability is dependent physical state.Alcohol needs to be at least fifty (50%) percent alcohol in liquid state to be flammable. In the distilling process there is only one point in the process where the alcohol is fifty (50%) and the alcohol is completely contained and chilled so it cannot vaporize. This is a high tech facility and safety is priority. During the barrel aging process there is a possibility that volatile organic compounds will evaporate. The atmospheric concentration of volatile organic compounds must reach 3.3% to reach the risk of ignition. With a 6,000 square foot facility, the distillery would have to store approximately 4,375 barrels with 55 gallons of product in each and age for a full year for the possibility of reaching the 3.3% atmospheric concentration of volatile organic compounds for a possible of flammability. Mr. Brenneman states that it is not possible for a facility of this size to store this amount of barrels to pose a high risk of • flammability. Ms. Curran asks the petitioner to clarify how many barrels are anticipated to be produced and aged in this location. Mr. Hunter states that by the end of 2018 between twenty to thirty (20-30) barrels will be in storage Ms. Curran asks the applicant whether the fine department has special regulations for this proposed use Mr. Hunter states that under the Building Codes distilleries F2, moderate fire hazard, that requires proper construction with concrete block and fire suppression Mr. St. Pierre adds that the general automotive repair facility is listed as S2 which is equal to risk associated with F2. Ms. Curran states that the public comment regarding the possibility of resident parking only was a good idea,but not in the purview of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Copelas asks whether the petitioner will be required to provide a flammability license from the Fire Department. • Mr. St. Pierre states that this is a Fire Department question each department has the opportunity to review this project through a routing slip for comment and any regulations that need to be in place. • Mr. Copelas states that any industrial use has risk and the point of regulations is to minimize risk.Auto body repair and paint shops have equivalent or greater risk to the public than the proposed distillery. Mr. Hunter states that distilleries are the most heavily regulated uses to make this use as safe as possible. Mr. Dionne concerned about the daycare in relationship to the proposed distillery. Mr. Dionne states that it does not seem that these uses go together. Ms. Curran states that any tenant located in 75 Canal Street with the daycare center will have to address the concerns about a shared back egress. Mr. Hunter states that from a safety perspective, the proposed distillery will be equipped with approved deadbolts and security cameras. Mr. Dionne suggests that this business may be better suited for Technology Way. Ms. Curran states that it is not up to the Board to decide the location of a proposed project. Mr. Hunter states that the craft model is based on the ability for the company to personally • connect with the customer base. A place like Technology Way does not accommodate a small batch craft business. Ms. Curran states that distilleries are not allowed in any of the residential districts. A distillery is allowed in the following zoning districts by special permit: B1, B2,B3, B4, B5,BPD. A distillery is allowed by right in an Industrial zoning district. Ms. Curran asks for clarification about the zoning district for a brewery located on Jackson Street that recently received a special permit. Mr. Copelas states that Jackson Street was located in a B4 zoning district. Ms. Curran opens the discussion to the public for any last comments. Councilor Turiel-Ward 5 states that the Board should expect to see at least one more brewery, distillery, winery come before the Board. Mr. Hunter was part of the original group of petitioners to follow through on the process to amend the City ordinance to allow for a brewery, distillery, and winery. It is anticipated that Ipswich company is looking to open a small batch facility and tap room in Salem. Mr. St. Pierre-if there are any discussions to be had around cross-walks and traffic calming measures on Canal Street, the engineering plans are about finished. So any comments and requests for changes must be submitted to David Knowlton in engineering immediately. • Ms. Curran states findings of criteria required for a special permit: Traffic, in a B4 district there are a number of uses that could potentially be situated in this zoningdistrict b right that would also impact traffic. The proposed distillery will have Y g P P P n' • minimal traffic impacts because this is a small business,with few deliveries, and with very limited public hours. If approved, the Board will place special conditions in association with the special permit to limit hours of operation and delivery times to ensure that traffic impacts are limited. Adequacy of utilities and other public services will not be changed. Impact on the natural environment including drainage will not be impacted. The neighborhood character will remain the same as there are no significant changes proposed for the exterior of the building. The potential fiscal impact on the City tax base is positive. Mr. Duffy states that there are drawings suggesting that there are some drawings to show that there are proposed changes to the doors on the facade of the building. However, the structure will not be changing in any dramatic fashion and will still present as a commercial space and warehouse that is consistent with the existing structure. In terms of traffic impacts, there will be a low number of people that will access this building as employees that will access the building on a regular basis and slightly more people that will come visit the tasting room during limited hours. There are other types of uses that could be located on this site by right that would have more traffic impacts in comparison. On crosswalks, one of the issues raised is that speed and volume of traffic on Canal Street poses risk to pedestrians crossing the street. Mr. Duffy asks about the possibility that the Board may be able to have a special permit condition for the petitioner to request a crosswalk be included in the Canal Street improvement plans. Ms. Curran states that the Board cannot require that the petitioner be successful at having a • crosswalk be constructed, but can request that the petitioner look into the possibility by speaking with the engineering department. Mr. Duffy states that as to the issue of safety, there could be other uses in this building that are equally as "dangerous" as the proposed distillery as a fire hazard risk. This use and application does not need to be considered as highly dangerous as compared to other possible uses allowed by right in this area. One of the standard conditions of a special permit is that any other approvals or permits must be obtained by the petitioner. Mr. Dionne is un-decided. Ms. Curran asks for clarification on proposed signage. Mr. Hunter states that the petitioner is proposing to place a decal on the front door. Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the applicant's request for a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow brewery, distillery or winery with a tasting room with eight (8) standard conditions and five (5) special conditions. The five (5) special conditions include: 1) public hours are limited to Friday and Saturday afternoons from 12-5pm or 1-6pm. If the business would like to expand public hours the petitioner must come before the Planning Board for approval 2) Loading will be limited from 8am-4pm during normal business hours and customer parking will be • limited to Canal Street only 3) the petitioner is required to speak to the Engineering Department to investigate pedestrian safety 4) petitioner must obtain all associated federal and state permits to operate a distillery 5) no retail sales are to occur outside of designated public hours. The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy. The vote was with four (4) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Duffy) and one (1) opposed (Mr. Dionne). APPROVAL OF MEETIKG.MINUTES August 27`h, 2014 Draft Meeting Minutes were approved as printed Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas moves to approve the minutes as written,seconded by Mr.watkins. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor(Ms. Curran, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Dionne and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed. September 17`h, 2014 Draft Meeting Minutes were approved as printed Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas moves to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Mr.watkins. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor(Ms. Curran, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Dionne and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed. Mr. Watkins abstained as he was not present at the September 17', 2014 meeting. OLD/NEW BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT__ _ Mr. Dionne motioned for adjournment of the October 15`h regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 8:30 pm. Motion and Vote: Mr. Dionne made a motion to adjourn the October 15', 2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Watkins, and the vote is unanimous with five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Copelas, Mr.) and none (0) opposed. For actions wbere the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address orproject at.• hrtp://salemxom/Pages/SalemMA ZoningAvpea/shin/ Respectfully submitted, Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner • �,�ONU1T f CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACH&% 07 /0 A R. I KimBERLEYDRiscoLL TFLE:978-745-9595 ♦ FPx:978-740-9846 FILE #f MAYOR CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS October 29th, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of IAN HUNTER,requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow a brewery, distillery or winery with a tasting room located at 75 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lot 201) (B4 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 15th, 2014 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.Watkins, Mr. Duffy, and Mr. Copelas. The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit from the provisions of Section 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped September 24th, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per • Section 3.0 Table of Princpal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow a brewery, distillery or winery with a tasting room. 2. The Petitioner,Mr. Ian Hunter and co-founder Mr. Brenneman,presented the petition. 3. The proposed brewery, distillery, winery is approximately 6,000 square feet with a 800 square foot tasting room. The proposed tasting room is no larger than 33% of the main building's square footage. 4. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to operate a brewery, distillery or winery with a tasting room. 5. The distillery will provide tours, sell commercial goods branded by the brewery, distillery, winery and sell beverages by the bottle to consumers for consumption off the brewery premises during designated public hours. 6. The tasting room will only provide samples at no charge and will be limited in size as set forth in M.G:L. c. 138. All staff will have a TIPS certification (Training and Intervention Procedures for Servers of Alcohol). 7. No additional parking is needed because it is an existing building. 8. The permitted hours of operation for the tasting room are Friday and Saturday from 12-5pm or 1- 6pm with the possibility of expanding hours into Thursday and Sunday seasonally dependent on Planning Board approval. 9. Deliveries to the facility will be made during regular business hours of operation Monday through Friday from 8am-4pm. The applicant will not have deliveries during drop-off and pick-up times of the daycare facility located within 75 Canal Street. 10. At the public hearing, three (3) members of the public spoke in opposition to the petition. Two (2) members of the public spoke in favor of the petition. City of Salem Board of Appeals October 29th,2014 Project: 75 Canal Street • 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 petition, including the application narrative and plans, makes the following findings: Findings The proposal is consistent with the definition of a tasting room Section 10.0 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 1. The distillery and tasting room will have minimal impact on parking, traffic flow and safety as this is a small business with few deliveries and limited public hours of operation. 2. There are many uses that could be allowed as of right in this building that would have a greater impact on parking. There will be three full-time employees that will be on-site during regular non-public business hours and the public will be limited to visiting the distillery to Friday and Saturday afternoons from 12-5pm or 1-6pm. 3. The distillery and tasting room will not impact the adequacy of utilities and other public services will not be changed. 4. The impact on the environment including drainage will not be impacted. 5. The neighborhood character will remain the same as there are no significant changes proposed to the exterior of the building. 6. The potential fiscal impact on the City's tax base is positive. • On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy) and one (1) opposed (Mr. Dionne), to approve the requested Special permit to allow the addition of a tasting room to an existing brewery, distillery, winery subject to the following terms,conditions and safeguards: Standard Conditions: 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. 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. Special Conditions: • 1. Hours of operation for the public to visit the distillery and tasting room will be limited to Friday and Saturday 12-5pm OR 1-6pm with the possibility of expanding hours dependent upon Board of Appeals approval. City of Salem Board of Appeals October 29th,2014 Project: 75 Canal Street • Page 3 of 3 2. Deliveries to the facility will be made during regular business hours of operation Monday through Friday from 8am-4pm and deliveries will be made on Canal Street only. The applicant will not have deliveries during regular drop-off and pick-up times of the daycare facility located within 75 Canal Street. 3. The Petitioner will conduct research on ongoing City plans for Canal Street improvements to understand whether there is a planned or existing cross-walk from in the vicinity to Canal Street and Gardner Street and request the possibility of a cross-walk be added at this location if there is not one proposed already. 4. The Petitioner will obtain all State and Federal permits including, but not limited to, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued Farmer Series License. 5. All retail sales at 75 Canal Street will be limited to the public hours of operation from Friday and Saturday from 12-5pm OR 1-6pm with the possibility of expanding hours dependent upon Planning Board approval. No retail sales from this location may take place outside of approved public hours of operation. 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 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 fed until a copy of the dedsion bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. v��runlorr, CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS n � A� BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSEfTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL nLE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,October 15th, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St., Salem,MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: Petition of IAN HUNTER,requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow a brewery, distillery or winery with a tasting room located at 75 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lot 201) (134 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on October 29th,2014 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts Generallaws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9&15 and doer not require action by the recipient.Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed stab the City Clerk. • ' CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPF CT . ' 2 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SAI EMS MA S .ITS 0& (� ' KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELL:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-74 - 4Vff( i MAYOR sACey, MA SS City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals For all persons interested, the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing for the Petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage and a Special Pennit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure, at the property located at 38 CABOT STREET(Map 33 Lot 173) (R2 Zoning District). • Said hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 19`h, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board City Hall, Salem, 'vldss. on at "Q 04 in accordance with MG0L1Cha Sections 18-25. ` p. 30A, • ..COUNT - ' CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS Ali BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET* SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMaERLEY DRiscota. TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ojAppealr mill bold its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, November 19&,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at City HallAnnex, RM 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Rebecca Curran,Chair qP MEETING AGENDA m n _ I. ROLL CALL z 0 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES m N ➢ October 15th,2014 3 D a 44 III. REGULAR AGENDA Cn Project: Continuation of the Public Hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 9.4.1 Special Permit GrantingAuthonty and Sec. 3.0 Use Regulations of the Salem Ordinance, to allow a bed and • breakfast use and a Variance per Sec. 5.0 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow 2-off street parking spaces instead of 4 off-street parking spaces required.NOTE: the petitioner has requested to withdraw the application. Applicant: MICHAEL SELBST and BRADLEY WILLIAMS Location: 329 ESSEX STREET (R-2 Zoning District) Project: Continuation of the Public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow reconstruction and expansion of an existing storage building and an addition to a second existing storage building located at 23 Glendale Street. NOTE: the petitioner has requested to withdraw the application without prejudice. Applicant: FREDERICK J.ATKINS (FRED J.DION YACHT YARD) Location: 23 GLENDALE (R1 Zoning District) Project: Continuation of the public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure,at the property located at 38 CABOT STREET(Map 33 Lot 173) Applicant: RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ Location: '38 CABOT STREET (R-2 Zoning District) This notice posted on "Offi ` I BUlle 'n 8gard" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on i 2>, 094 • at k'30 h"�'f in accordance_with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Page 1 of 2 4, City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for October 15,2014 Meeting • Project: A public hearing for a petition requesting a Variance from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimennonal Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 5010 square feet to create an additional rear lot located at 46 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27, Lot 7) Applicant: MICHAEL BECKER Location: 46 SCHOOL STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project: A public hearing for a petition requesting a Variance from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimennonal Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 6837 square feet to create an additional rear lot located at 48 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27, Lot 5) Applicant: MICHAEL BECKER Location: 48 SCHOOL STREET (R2 Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT • • Page 2 of 2 � 0\J F)OVY) e C\,e0.���'� 44�'c� 1 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet � rot Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date 2 o I L �Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail (�z2 zz ��_ 0128 022117 r u�t QSA,i s S-KI 1 rG �J�cS J J Page of �CONDITq� CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 9s"N , 120 WA$I-I1NG'1'ON$"1'I2EET + SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KiNIBULEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner DATE: November 12st, 2014 RE: Meeting Agenda for November 19th, 2014 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Meeting Minutes from 10/15/2014 Below is a summation of the requested petitions and any supplemental information for the Board of Appeals to consider when discussing each petition scheduled for public hearing on the 11/19/2014 meeting. • REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. Continuation of the petition of MICHAEL SELBST and BRADLEY WILLIAMS, requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 9.4.1 Special Permit Granting Authority and Sec. 3.0 Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow a bed and breakfast use and a Variance per Sec. 5.0 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow 2 off-street parking spaces instead of 4 off-street parking spaces required at the property located at 329 ESSEX ST (112 Zoning District). NOTE: The petitioner has requested to withdraw this application. 2. Petition of FREDERICK J.ATKINS (FRED J. DION YACHT YARD), requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow reconstruction and expansion of an existing storage building and an addition to a second existing storage building located at 23 Glendale Street(R1 Zoning District). NOTE:The petitioner has requested to withdraw without prejudice. 3. Continuation of the petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure, at the property located at 38 CABOT STREET (Map 33 Lot 173) ( R2 District) At the May 211t meeting the Board approved a modification to an earlier Variance, to allow the petitioner to • move his garage to within one (1) foot of the south property line. At the same meeting, the petitioner presented his request for a Special Permit to allow the construction of an addition onto the existing nonconforming residence. The petitioner's drawings of the proposed addition were inconsistent and incomplete and the Board granted the petitioner's request to continue, so that he might present revised drawings at the June 18th meeting. At the June 18a'meeting, the petitioner had not prepared sufficient i City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—August 22,2014 • Page 2 of 2 drawings, and requested to continue to the July 16s, meeting. The petitioner then submitted a request to continue to the August meeting, as the requested drawings were nct ready.At the August 27th meeting the Board granted the petitioner's request to continue provided that the petitioner withdraws the application without prejudice at September 17'h meeting or continue should architectural drawings and plans not be submitted. On September 10th, 2014,revised elevation and plot plans were subm tted. At the October 15t' meeting, the Board asked the applicant to revise the application and re-advertise with the Salem News in order to include a request for a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage in addition to the previously requested Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures. NOTE: The petitioner requested a continuation to the November 19th meeting and the Board granted a continuation to the next regularly scheduled meeting. 4. Petition of MICHAEL BECKER, requesting a Variance from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 5010 square feet to create an additional rear lot located at 46 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27, Lot 7) The petitioner is seeking a Variance to allow a part of his lot and his neighbor's lot located at 48 SCHOOL STREET to be combined to create an additional rear lot behind these two parcels. The petitioner has applied for a Variance for 46 SCHOOL STREET and 48 SCHOOL STREET to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 5010 square feet for 46 SCHOOL STREET and a Variance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 6837 square feet for 48 SCHOOL STREET. These two locations were treated as two separate applications as the Board will consider the request for a Variance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size for two separate parcels. Mr. Becker owns 48 School • Street and intends to buy a portion of his neighbor's lot at 46 School Street. I have not received a letter from the resident located at 46 School Street stating her intent to sell a portion of her property. 5. Petition of MICHAEL BECKER,requesting a Variance from the requirements of Sec.4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 6837 square feet to create an additional rear lot located at 48 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27, Lot 7). See comments above. A copy of a plan is included in the Board Packets. • 2 /�l1�OSUD(Tq„�, CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS AV9r' BOARD OF APPEAL c�MIl4EDa 120 WASttuacrON S'1RRE'1'♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KiNiBb.,Rt.F.,Y DRiscoi,t. TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppeals will bold its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, November 19m,2014 at 630 p.m. at City HallAnnex, RM 313, 120 Washington St, Salem,MA Rebecca Curran,Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ➢ October 15,h, 2014 III. REGULAR AGENDA Project: Continuation of the Public Hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 9.4.1 Special • Permit Granting Authority and Sec. 3.0 Use Regulations of the Salem Ordinance, to allow a bed and breakfast use and a Variance per Sec. 5.0 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow 2-off street parking spaces instead of 4 off-street parking spaces required. NOTE: the petitioner has requested to withdraw the application. Applicant: MICHAEL SELBST and BRADLEY WILLIAMS Location: 329 ESSEX STREET (R-2 Zoning District) Project: Continuation of the Public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow reconstruction and expansion of an existing storage building and an addition to a second existing storage building located at 23 Glendale Street. NOTE:the petitioner has requested to withdraw the application without prejudice. Applicant: FREDERICK J.ATKINS (FRED J. DION YACHT YARD) Location: 23 GLENDALE (Rl Zoning District) Project: Continuation of the public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure, at the property located at 38 CABOT STREET(Map 33 Lot 173) Applicant: RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ Location: 38 CABOT STREET (R-2 Zoning District) Page 1 of Y City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for October 11,2014 Meeting • Project: A public hearing for a petition requesting a Variance from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 5010 square feet to create an additional rear lot located at 46 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27,Lot 7) Applicant: MICHAEL BECKER Location: 46 SCHOOL STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project: A public hearing for a petition requesting a Variance from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 6837 square feet to create an additional rear lot located at 48 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27, Lot 5) Applicant: MICHAEL BECKER Location: 48 SCHOOL STREET (R2 Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT • • Page 2 of 2 SERAFINI, DARLING & CORRENTI, LLP • ATTORNEYS AT LAW 63 FEDERAL STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 JOHN R. SERAFINI, SR. TELEPHONE JOHN E. DARLING 978-744-0212 JOSEPH C. CORRENTI FACSIMILE 978-741-4683 November 6, 2014 VIA HAND DELIVERY RECI""'VE Rebecca Curran, Chair City of Salem NOV 0 S 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals DEPT. OF PLANNWG 120 Washington Street COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: Application for Variance and Special Permit • 329 Essex Street Dear Ms. Curran: On behalf of the Applicant, Michael Selbst and Bradley Williams, I hereby request allowance to withdraw the Petition filed concerning the above property. ?ose , . Cor nti JCC:dl cc: client • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • J4. ` BOARD OF APPE 44 NOV -s A $ Ob 120 WASHINCTON STREET• SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 FILE It TFIF:978-619-5685♦FAx:978-740-44TY CLERK, SSALEM. MASS, KIMBERLEY DRIscoLL MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals For all persons interested, the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing for the petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure, at the property located at 38 CABOT STREET(Map 33 Lot 173) (R2 Zoning District). • Said hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 19`",2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3 d floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET,ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 11/5/2014 and 11/12/2014 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on NOV 0 5 2014 at e' b(off in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-26. CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL ail tgiq NOV -S A l: 06 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALE SALEK MASSACHUSETIS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685♦FAX:978-740- FILE ICRvmERCEY DRISCOLL T-7 Y CLERIC. SALEM. MASS, MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MIC14AEL BECKER requesting a Variance from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 5010 square feet to create an additional rear lot located at 46 SCHOOL STREET(Map 27, Lot 7) (R2 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, NOV 19th, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., P floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, . ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 11/5/2014 and 11/12/2014 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on NOV 0 5 2014 at d'oG.44 in accordance with MGL.Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGToN STREET♦SALEM,MAssAcHUSLPPs Pffl0 TELE:978-619-5685♦FAX:978-740-0404 FILE K11aERLEY DRIscou MAYOR CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MICHAEL BECKER requesting a Variance from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 6873 square feet to create an additional rear lot located at 48 SCHOOL STREET(Map 27, Lot 5) (R2 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, NOV 19th, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., 3`"floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. • Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 11/5/2014 and 11/12/2014 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on NOV 0 5 2014 at do s � in accordance with MGL Chap. 3QA, Sections 18-25. � .NNDIT • , 1% CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS LBOARD OF APPEAL r1�V6 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTON 98EC —3 P IZ' S KIMBERLEY DRiscol.L TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR PILE ff Cif Y CLERK, SALEM. MASS, December 3, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of FREDERICK J.ATKINS (FRED J. DION YACHT YARD),requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow reconstruction and expansion of an existing storage building and an addition to a second existing storage building located at 23 GLENDALE STREET (Map 33,Lot 646)(R1 District). On November 19th, 2014 the Board of Appeals met to discuss the petitioner's request to withdraw the above referenced petition without prejudice. The follow Board of Appeals members were present: Ms. Curran (Chair),Mr. Dionne,Mr. Copelas,Mr.Watkins and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). 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 (Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas. Mr. Watkins and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate)) and none (0) opposed. • BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE ON NOVEMBER 19, 2014. r 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 Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of fikng 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�ct until a to of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed vnth the Essex Sauth Registry of Deeds. I• 26 CITY OF S ALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 1 J� BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEYDRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,November 19,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: Petition of FREDERICK J.ATKINS,requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow reconstruction and expansion of an existing storage building and an addition to a second existing storage building located at 23 GLENDALE STREET (Map 33,Lot 646)(R1 District). THE APPLICANT REQUESTED TO WITHDRAW THE PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Decision: Permission granted to withdraw without prejudice Filed with the City Clerk on December 3rd,2014 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Lams, Chapter 40A, Sections 9&15 and doer not require action '• by the recipient.Appeals, if any,shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17,and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. ��p0A1U1T CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS q� BOARD OF APPEAL �Mm>s 120 WASMNGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSE 1 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-984G � Mt "3 P 51. MAYOR FILE It CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. December 3, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of MICHAEL SELBST and BRADLEY WILLIAMS, requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 9.4.1 Special Permit Granting Authority and Sec. 3.0 Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow a bed and breakfast use and a Variance per Sec. 5.0 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow 2- off street parking spaces instead of 4 off-street parking spaces required located at 329 ESSEX STREET (Map 26 Lot 483) (112 Zoning District). On November 19th, 2014 the Board of Appeals met to discuss the petitioner's request to withdraw the above referenced petition. The follow Board of Appeals members were present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas,Mr. Watkins and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). At the request of the Petitioner, the Board of Appeals voted to allow the Petitioner to withdraw the petition. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas. Mr. Watkins . and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate)) and none (0) opposed. BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW NOVEMBER 19,2014. 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 Laws Chapter 40,4, and.shall be filed within 20 days of fikng of This decision in the office of the Ctty Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Pomit granted herein shall not take ect until a ropy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeat. • ' ;pON�lT 5, CCITY o F S ALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET* Sr1LE:b[,Mr15SACHUSE'1"fS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL Tra.[::978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,November 19,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: Petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure, at the property located at 38 CABOT STREET (Map 33 Lot 173) (R2 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on December 3,d,2014 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laver, Chapter 40A, Sections 9 & 15 and does not require action by the recipient.Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17,and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. • r � CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL \� 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETI 090EC -3 .P 12: S KIMSERLEr DRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR CITY CLERK, SALEM,MASS. December 3, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconfomring Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure, at the property located at 38 CABOT STREET (Map 33 Lot 173) (R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 21, 2014 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, � 11. The hearing was continued at the request of the applicant on the following dates: June 18, 2014;July 16, 2014; August 28, 2014; September 17, 2014 and October 15, 2014. The public hearing was closed on November 19, 2014 with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Mr.Watkins. • The Petitioner seeks a Variance from the requirements of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped April 22"d, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures to allow the construction of a kitchen addition. 2. The petitioner requested to continue the public hearing in association with this project on June 18, 2014; July 16, 2014; August 28, 2014 and September 17, 2014 due to the inability to file complete elevation drawings. 3. On September 10, 2014 the applicant submitted completed elevation plans of the proposed project. On this date, the applicant requested a continuance to the October 15`s, 2014 meeting and submitted a formal letter of request on September 18s, 2014. 4. On October 15`s, 2014 the petitioner presented the application for 38 Cabot Street. It was brought to the attention of the Zoning Board by the Building Inspector, that the applicant did not include a request for a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements as needed to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage. 5. On October 15`s, 2014 the petitioner requested to continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting to amend the application and re-advertise the proposal. 6. On October 24 , 2014 the petitioner submitted an amended application with a request for a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential • Structures of the Salem Zoning ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure. City of Salem Board of Appeals December 3,2014 Project:38 Cabot Street • Page 2 of 3 7. On November 5, 2014 and November 12, 2014 the legal advertisement for the petition was corrected and re-advertised. 8. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage and construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure 9. At the public hearing no members of the public spoke in favor of, or 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 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: Findings for the Variance— 1. Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building, or structure involved, generally not affecting other lands, buildings, and structures in the same district is that the building at this property is in disrepair. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant as the Variance requested would allow the applicant to bring the building up to code. 3. 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. • Findings for Special Permit 1. There is no impact on the social,economic or community needs served by the proposal. 2. There are no impacts on traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading. 3. The capacity of the utilities is not affected by the project. 4. There are no impacts on the natural environment,including drainage 5. The proposal improves neighborhood character as it improves the property in need of repair. 6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base is positive as the structure will be improved. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Copelas,Mr,Dionne,and Mr. Tsitsinos)in favor and none (0) opposed, to grant a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two- Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. City of Salem Board of Appeals December 3,2014 Project: 38 Cabot Street • Page 3 of 3 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 'Rebecca Curran, Chair 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,sball be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of fih'ng 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 ber6n shall not take e�ed until a copy of the decision beating the certificate of the City Ckrk has been fled with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • • NDI CITY OF SALEM, NLA SSACH USETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 W�trlu(,ION Snm:t;1 S.al,itnf,\Llssncl RJSHTrS 0197o KlnlxltiasvDalsCot.t. Tiu,v:918-745-9595 ♦ F'vx:978-740-9846 MAYOR AMENDED MEETING NOTICE L'ou are hereby noltfred Ibal the Salem Zoning Board of:'Weull hill hold it.regsiarly xhedu1ed meelirJ no IFednesday,Decemberl7th,2014 a16:30 p.m. at Ci.) Hal(-4nnet, Rill 313, 120 11�a-rbington St,Sa/em,ilL 1 Rebecca Curran,Chair MEETING AGENDA 12 I. ROLL CALL 1 m c) r p II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M _. CD ' r — ➢November 19th 2014 v r D III. REGULAR AGENDA 3 Q0 9 U1 CIO J Project: A public hearing for a petition requesting a Variance from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requiremews of the Salem "Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 5010 square feet to create an additional rear lot located at 46 SCHOOL STREET (Reap 27,Lot 7) Applicant: MICHAELBECKER Location: 46 SCHOOL STREET(R2 Zoning District) i Project. A public hearing for a petition requesting a Variance from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of'Dimensional Regnirrmew of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 6837 square feet to create an additional rear lot located at 48 SCHOOL STREET (Nlap 27, Lot 5) Applicant: MICHAEL BECKER Location: 48 SCHOOL STREET(R2 Zoning District) i i IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS ? `t i - Review and vote to approve 2015 ZBA Draft Schedule gg' V. ADJOURNMENT f This notice posted on "Official-ayll8fin oard" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on UJE 00 L01144 at in in accordance with MGL Chap. 30q, Sections 18-25. t Page I of I E i noND CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120WASI71NGToNS1121i1'1' $:U.li9(,\1.\SS91:1lUSl'1'IS07970 Klnuxrw,e� DR xx>u . Trw::978-745-9595 ♦ Nx:978-74 1-9846 MAYOR AMENDED MEETING NOTICE I'ou are hereby nolified that the Salem Zoning Board of 4ppealr hill bold itf vaguhn.#nheduled meelhng on IY'ednesday,December 17th,2014 a16:30 p.m. al 017 Hall-$nnet} RM 313, 120 II%udtinylon St.Salem,;1L4 Rebecca Curran,Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL n II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES r rn m �a rrn� )'November 191h 2014 "^ o r it III. REGULAR AGENDA a D 2 q a cn n v J • Project: A public hearing for a petition requesting a Variance from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Regtntemenls of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 5010 square feet to create an additional rear lot located at 46 SCHOOL STREET(B1ap 27,Lot 7) Applicant: MICHAEL BECKER Location: 46 SCHOOL STREET(R2 Zoning District) Project: A public hearing for a petition requesting a Variance from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of'Dimeniional Regnitemenis of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 6837 square feet to create an additional rear lot located at 48 SCHOOL STREET Nap 27,Lot 5) Applicant: MICHAEL BECKER Location: 48 SCHOOL STREET(R2 Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS - Review and vote to approve 2015 ZBA Draft Schedule V. ADJOURNMENT This notice posted on "OfficiaLg�lletinBoard" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on JE 00 LL001144 at in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, • Sections 18-25. Page I of I 'Y CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120W OHM;]'ON S'110'X1'*SALEM, TFH :978-745-9595 4 FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR AMENDED MEETINGNOTICE Eom are hereby notified That the Sakm Zoning Board qf-4ppev/r hill hold il.r scheduled lneelhng on Wednesda y,December 17th,2014 at 630p.m. at Cio-Hall.'Innex &14 313, 120 IIxav&qg1ot1 St.,Salem A,[--I Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL C) C=1 [I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M rn C") ➢November 1911,2014 C3 is D Ill. REGULAR AGENDA cn —J • Project: A public hearing for a petition requesting a Variance from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table ot'Dimensional Req#brizvnIs of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 5010 square feet to create an additional rear lot located at 46 SCHOOL STREET(Map 27,Lot i) Applicant: MICHAEL BECKER Location: 46 SCHOOL STREET(R2 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for 2 petition requesting a Variance from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of DimensionalRequttements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 683 1 7 square feet to create an additional rear lot located at 48 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27,Lot 5) Applicant: MICHAEL BECKER Location: 48 SCHOOL STREET(R2 Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS - Review and vote to approve 2015 ZBA Draft Schedule V. ADJOURNMENT This notice Posted on "Officigaq Oard" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on DEC- at in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, • Sections 18-25. Page I of I CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASFIINGTGN STREET+ SALEM,MASSACI-IUSF.ITS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TCI,E:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR AMENDED MEETING NOTICE You are hereby noted that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppeals will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, December 17th,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at City HallAnnex, RYI313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES m r o ➢November 19th 2014 m m x T c-1) M 1 III. REGULAR AGENDA VIM w m U 3 • 3 Project: A public hearing for a petition requesting a Variance from the re&biremgts of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 5010 square feet to create an additional rear lot located at 46 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27,Lot 7) Applicant: MICHAEL BECKER Location: 46 SCHOOL STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project: A public hearing for a petition requesting a Variance from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 6837 square feet to create an additional rear lot located at 48 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27,Lot 5) Applicant: MICHAEL BECKER Location: 48 SCHOOL STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project: A public hearing for a petition seeking Special Permits per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures, to allow a change from an existing non- conforming single family structure to a two family residential structure and to reconstruct rear addition. The applicant is also seeking a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to allow a reduction in minimum lot size per dwelling unit. The proposal is for the property located at 20 LINDEN AVE (Map 30,Lot, 5) Applicant: J09EPH R. GAGNON and MARIA K. GAGNON Location 20 LINDEN STREET (112 Zoning District) This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall Salem, Mass. on DEC O 3 2014 at / b 9�M in accordance with MGL Chap.30A, Sections 18-25. Page I of2 + 'Cr[Af Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for December 17,2014 Meeting • Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow an existing nonconforming use of a barbershop to be changed to another nonconforming use of a general office at the property located at 198 LORING AVE (Map 31,Lot 31) Applicant DAVID POTTER Location 198 LORING AVE (R1 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements lot area,width, coverage,and setback requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of an accessory structure that is physically separated, but held in common ownership with 25 Winter Island Road. The proposal is for the property located at 24 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (Map 44 Lot 32) Applicant DOUGLAS and JEAN KARAM Location 24 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (111 Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS - Review and vote to approve 2015 ZBA Draft Schedule V. ADJOURNMENT • • Page 2 of 2 v���NUIT • gr CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS q BOARD OF APPEAL P11NSD� 120 WASHINGTON STREI T♦ SALIbM,MASSACHU56,1"CS 01970 KIMBEIu,LYDItISCOLL TIA,v:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner DATE: December 11,2014 RE: Meeting Agenda for December 17,2014 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Meeting Minutes from H/19/2014 Below is a summation of the requested petitions and any supplemental information for the Board of Appeals to consider when discussing each petition scheduled for public hearing on the 12/17/2014 meeting. • REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. Continuation of the petition of MICHAEL BECKER,requesting a Variance from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 5010 square feet to create an additional rear lot located at 46 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27, Lot 7) The petitioner is seeking a Variance to allow a part of his lot and his neighbor's lot located at 48 SCHOOL STREET to be combined to create an additional rear lot behind these two parcels.The petitioner has applied for a Variance for 46 SCHOOL STREET and 48 SCHOOL STREET to allow a reduction in minimum lot sue from the required 15,000 square feet to 5010 square feet for 46 SCHOOL STREET and a Variance to allow a reduction in minimum lot sue from the required 15,000 square feet to 6837 square feet for 48 SCHOOL STREET.These two locations were treated as two separate applications as the Board will consider the request for a Variance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size for two separate parcels. Mr.Becker owns 48 School Street and intends to buy a portion of his neighbor's lot at 46 School Street. 2. Petition of MICHAEL BECKER, requesting a Variance from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 6837 square feet to create an additional rear lot located at 48 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27, Lot 7). See comments above. • • City of Salem Board of Appeals Draft Meeting Minutes Wednesday,November 19th, 2014 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA') was held on Wednesday, November 19th, 2014 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Ms.Cut ancalls the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. �'A a �__ 4 _ € R.._k,..,, ":, ,".'�'.u::. �i�?G x� ��^�� sir•�6g � .,vay � .�ga,: ' v� �.. a� Thosepxesent were: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter ACopelas;Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins and Richard Dionne.Also n attendance�n Michael Lutrzykowski,Assistant Building Inspector,and Exin Schaeffer,Staff Planner�� �,��'` '`�sa�� REGULAR AGENDA Project: Continuation of the PubhkIlearing for a petinon'.eeking a Special Permit per Sec. 9.4.1 Special Permit Granting Authoni and Sec. 3.0 Use'Regulations of the Salem Ordinance, to allow a bed and breakfast use and a Vartarke per Sec. 5.0 Tabie,of Required Parking Spaces to allow t- off street parking spaces instead of 4 off street parking spaces required. NOTE: the � petitioner has requested to withdraw the",,ppltcanon a,>'1 Applicant: MICHAEL°SELBST and BRADLEY W. ILLL4MS Location: 329 ESSEX STREET;(R-2 Zoni4 Dnikuict) x r'' �. Documents & Exhibitions, ;A A� • Letter from the apphant dated`November 6 2014 requesting to withdraw the ` x.�'penuon. �E m s zr. Attorney Coxrenti, on behalf of the applicants, requested to withdraw the petition. Motion and Vote: Mr. Dionne makes a motion to approve the applicant's request to withdraw the application The motion is seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with fine (5) to>favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Tsitsinos and Mr. Watkins) and none (0) opposed. r, _ _ _ Project: Continuation of the Public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow reconstruction and expansion of an existing storage building and an addition to a second existing storage building located at 23 Glendale Street. Applicant: FREDERICK J.ATKINS (FRED J. DION YACHT YARD) • Location: 23 GLENDALE (R1 Zoning District) Documents & Exhibitions • Letter from the applicant dated November 11, 2014 requesting to withdraw the petition without prejudice. Attorney Atkins, on behalf of the applicant requested to withdraw the petition without prejudice. Motion and Vote: Mr. Dionne makes a motion to approve,the applicant's request to withdraw the application without prejudice. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Ms Gutian, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Tsitsinos and Mr. Watkins) and none (0) opposed. Project: Continuation of the petition requesting a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional guirementr to exceed the allowable ru ifnum lot s coverage and a Special P 3ernut per Sec 3 SNonconforming Single- and Two- Family Residential Strr) )6f=the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear ofthe,existiaguonconfo ming structure. • Applicant RAYNALDO�DOMINGUEZ Location: 38 CABOT STREET (R2 Zoning Disfric0 Project: Continuation of the petition requesting a Variance from the provisions of Sec. ..4.1.1 Table ' imensaonal'Beguitrments`ao exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage and a Specual Pe trut per Sec`3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two- 1` ama I�eyidentia!Structures of theSalem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addit on at the rear,ofthe ex sting nonconforming structure. Doc uments;&Exhibitions ='R • Application dated A&-T22, 2014 and revised architectural drawings dated September 10, 2014 k2) Ms. Curran presents a snmtnaiy of the petition and states that the project application was missing a request for a Variance required from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage in addition to the previously requested Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two- Family Residential Structures to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure. As a result, the project legal notices needed to be amended and re-advertised. Ms. Curran states that the Zoning Board of Appeals was prepared to vote at the meeting on October 15`h, 2014 and realized that there was an error in the advertisement. There were no members of the public who spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposal. • Ms. Curran asks whether there are any members of the public who have comments. • There were no (0) members of the public who spoke in approval and no (0) members who spoke in opposition of the proposal. Ms. Curran asks the applicant for any additional comments. Mr. Dominguez states that there are no additional comments. Ms. Curran entertains a motion to approve a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two- Family Residential Structures to construck,a'a addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure with six (6) standard conditions. Mr. Watkins asks the Chair for clarification of the.haidship discussed for the request for a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table:6f Dimensional Requirements to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage. Ms. Curran states that the special conditions and`circumstances that affeci=the land and building is that the stairs, porch, and roof are inn 6d of repair and does not ineet building ta code. Desirable relief can be granted without subsntrai;detrnnent to the public"good. No members of the public spoke for ox ag s1 the proposal ;�,, Mr. Watkins asks for clarification of theVaxiance'condition�xe gar ding the special conditions and circumstances that affect the land and builduig u, • ! y3�c;"S�a tiim ea � Ms. Curran states That this is an exist ng a a, Mr. Copelas states that fhe,Variance would allow'`the applicant improve the existing structure and bring it up to code Ag Motion and Vote: Mr Waktins makes a motion to approve the applicant's for a Variince_from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed`the gllowable maxiinum lot,,coverage and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance td construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming �Y 13 structure with six,(6) standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Tsitsinos and Mr Watkins) and none (0) opposed. -.Fir 77, ME Project: A public hearing for a petition requesting a Variance from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 5010 square feet located at 46 SCHOOL STREET (map 27, Lot 7) and to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 6837 square feet at 48 SCHOOL STREET to create an • additional rear lot. Bert Eisen, 9 Chandler Street- in opposition to the proposal and stated that a similar project • was before the Board in the early 1990's and was denied because of concerns about fire access. 11 Simons Street- speaks in support of the project. Richard Champigny, 10 Chandler Street-in opposition to the proposal and expresses concern about fire access and possible damage related to any possible blasting related to construction proposed. Marc Tiriaso, 39 Buffham Street-in support of the proposal rA e t;v Dave Potter, 67 Tremont Street-in support of the propo§al Ms. Curran asks the applicant whether the propo ed project to be constructed on the back lot will be a duplex or single family home �t Attorney Corrend states that the applicant proposed a duplex Kevin McCafferty- 6 '/z Folge Aver In support of the,pxolect ,w> y Mr. Becker states that the lot next door is less steep and has'lawn.The duplex that is n the City of, alem Zormg Ordinance,In relation to the ledge, Mx.proposed is conforming to • Becker states that the foundation will be pinned to the ledge Mr tBecker states that there is no intention to blast t lrockaedge to create a foundahon The property owner of 46 School Street is unable to maintain hex propertyTtt'eiefore;Mi.';Becker states, that his proposal would be`a,f£emendous;tmprovement;to an unmaintained cliff ledge, bowling alley 3 Ms Curran states that there s+one lot that is curreritl'y conform ng to the minimum lot size requirements that is overathe square footage requirement by approximately 300 square feet. The second lot is an existing non conforming lot that does not meet the minimum lot size regturetnents. Ms. Curran states that there is no hardship in accordance with M.G.L Chapter 40A that applies to this project,.,,Ms. Curran states that the unique topography argument does not apply in thisycase. In this.ptoposal, the applicant is asking to create non-conforming lots that are much more non confo hung. There is no hardship for this proposal that is consistent with M.G.L Cha 'ter'40A requirements. Attorney Correnti states tliat the lots are unique in size, shape and topography. The average lot in the neighborhood is under the 15,000 square foot requirement. There are very few lots that are shaped and sized like the lots in consideration. The issues of fire access and accessibility on School Street Court are important to the applicant as it is important to have clear access. The process is that if relief is granted by the Board of Appeals then the applicant will apply to the Planning Board for a subdivision. Ms. Curran asks Attorney Correntl if the applicant will apply to the Planning Board for a 40 division of land through an Approval Not Required process. Attorney Correnti states that the applicant will apply to the Planning Board to subdivide the • lots through an Approval Not Required process. Ms. Curran states that the Approval Not Required process has no input. Attorney Correnti states that in the City of Salem, in the last 24 years, there has not been an Approval Not Required that did not have some input and conditions as part of the approval process. The applicant expects that there will be comments from the Fire Department and that the applicant will accept any conditions in relation to emergency access. Part of the development would be to make sure that the lot will be cleared and cleaned up. The applicant will ensure that School Street Court is at its full widtlitand accept conditions from the Zoning Board of Appeals or Planning Board. There aredover a dozen neighbors who are in support of the project as shown by the submitted petition""'., Ms. Curran states that there is no hardship Mr. Watkins states that in general it's a great project and good for the'neighborhood. However, Mr. Watkins agrees that there is no'hardship. There are many unique properties and the Board cannot grant a Variance without all conditons-liem met. Is"there.a written statement of hardship e� j M Ms. Curran states the applicant's statement of hardship does;not meet the conditions of a Variance. Mr. Becker's application states that tfie'current lotrs unusable and difficult to maintain. �, > yE ➢� "� p «, ^.. 7 Mr. Watkins states that the applicant must submit'a statement of hardship in relation to the conditions of a Varian, . ". Ms Currari states that being difficult to use and maintain a property is not grounds for a hardship Met M G L Chapter,40A Ms. Curran states that[he,iiniquenessof lot, size, shape and topography needs to directly related to`the hardship oft ject The unique topography in this case, does not pose a direct hat dship>to the relate&; oject proposal. Attorney Correntt'states that- '6 applicant is not asking for relief for the rear lot. Instead the applicant is asking for relief fioin the minimum lot requirements for the two front lots located at 46 School Street and 48 School Street. These two lots are unique in size, shape and topography. This is a financial hardship that these owners could reap some benefit from using this land. To allow 46-48 to receive the Variances to subdivide and allow a conforming lot and use in the neighborhood fits the spirit of M. G.L. Chapter 40A. Ms. Curran states that she understands the argument, but does not agree. Mr. Copelas states that the proposal is clearly an attempt to better utilize the property and better profit. This in and of itself does not meet the hardship requirement to change the • non-conforming the nature of the front two units as drastically as it will simply to utilize the space. Mr. Copelas states that if the Board were to accept this argument as a premise, a lot of • extra space can be broken up in the City and does not meet the requirements of the law. Attorney Correnti states that no one can take advantage of this decision. Applicants must come before the Board for each project. What is wrong with being proposed? 46 and 48 School Street both fit the standards of hardship for Variances. Ms. Curran states that this project is not unique to Salem. It may be unique to the neighborhood. The zoning was specifically changed to make this area less dense. To take a fully conforming lot and reduce the lot size to a third of the required lot size it does not meet the requirements of M.G.L Chapter 40A. r Mr. Becker states that it is a hardship to maintain the lot M`.."Becker states that he pays taxes on a lot that is partially not useable. Ms. Curran opens comments to the Board v. Mr. Dionne comments in favor of the proposal b, a J .+ i A y�J Mr. Titsinos comments in favor of the,proposal. >_ tin"- , ' . Attorney Corrend asks S. Curran whether some of the concerns can be addressed. Ms. Curran comments,"' opposition to`the proposal Mr. Watkins asks the Board to consider a continuance of the petition to allow the applicant to resubmit a compiete;statement,pf hardshi ,� p Ms Curt n states her oppos"ition to the possrbilttX,of continuing the Variance request to the � �, M nextyreguTarly scheduled meehg�on December 17 2014. x Mouon`and Vote: Mr�Wtkins makes a motion to continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting on December 17 ,2014. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. The vote I as with Three(3.j in favor(Mr. Dionne, Mr. Titsinos, and Mr. Watkins) and two (2) opposed (Ms. Curran and Mr. Copelas). Ms. Curran states that a simple majority is need:;for,a continuance.Attorney Correnti accepts the continuation. APPROVAL OF MEET, __ tsY ING MINUTEST "� '' � �—4.�. �'"w ;s October 15h, 2014 Draft Meeting Minutes were approved as printed. Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas moves to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Mr. Dionne. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor(Ms. Curran, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Dionne and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed. • Applicant: MICI3AEL BECKER • Location: 46-48 School Street (112 Zoning District) Documents& Exhibitions: • Application dated October 29, 2014 and accompanying materials Attorney Cortenti presents the petition for 46 and 48 School Street. Attorney Correnti states that the applicant is requesting a Variance from the minimum lot size requirements for 46 School Street and 48 School Street jointly to create a buildable rear lot in the backyards of these two properties. t �N Attorney Correnti states that these lots are odd shaped lots. Attorney Correnti states that the uniqueness of the lots of 46 and 48 School Street areEconsistent-with the lot next door. Lot 46 and 48 School Street are not totally unique a-s the;lot next door.also has a similar lot in shape and size. However, these lots located on Sc400l Street are atypical of lot size and shape in North Salem. Attorney Correnti restates that the applicant is requesting to�subdivide 46 and 48 School Street more non-conforming to creafe�a buildable rear lot,=The new lot that is proposed is conforming in every way to meet all theCdunensional requrements of the R2 District. The relief sought for this project is to all6w46 and 48 School Street to be more non-conforming, to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the-required 15,000 square feet to 5010 square • feet located at 46 SCHOOL STREET (map 27, Lot 7) and to allow<a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15 000 square feet to 6837 square feet af48 SCHOOL STREET to create an additional rear lot: t� r z � Attorney Correnti states that the applicant, Mx Becker,has talked to the neighbors and has a petition of support for the proposedprolect Attgrxley Correnti states that the project can be done without detntnent to the neighborhood Ms.Curran opens discussion for tkeBoard. Mr. Watkins sks for clarification regarding whether the applicant Mr. Becker has received permission to purchase a partlo#46 School Street. Attorney Correnti states that,the application for 46 School Street is co-signed by the property owner of 46 School Street and that there is also a letter signed by the property owner delegating authority to be represented by Michael Becker. Ms. Curran opens comment to the public Cherly Halstead, 1 School Street Court- Stated that her son signed the petition and would like to withdraw his name. Ms. Halstead is concerned about emergency access as School Street Court is narrow and can be blocked by on-street parking and is oppose to the proposal. • 1 • Received New England Power Company decision for the Final Decision of the Energy d Facilities Siting Board is online and on file with the Department of Planning and Community Development Mr. Dionne motioned for adjournment of the November 19`', 2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 8:30 pm. Motion and Vote: Mr. Dionne made a motion to adloum`the November 19`h,2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Watkins, and the vote is unanimous with five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mt''rWatkins, Mt. Duffy, Mr. Copelas, Mr.) and none (0) opposed. y- For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into'these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by.address orproject atr http://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA Zon�ApnealstYTiv% 4� a =� Respectfully submitted, Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner .h 4 v " a J 'as. a„ 3cp a�A Air s A '. °. 2. \ 6 w;'{y 41 • I • City of Salem Board of Appeals Draft Meeting Minutes Wednesday,December 17, 2014 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA')was held on Wednesday, December 17, 2014 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Ms.Cuttancalls the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. ROLL'-CALL ., . A ,ram, zE �• .,, gk ge Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter ACopelas, arid_Mike Duffy. Also in attendance Tom St. Pierre,Building Inspector acid'Zoning Enforcement Officer,and Erin Schaeffer Staff PlannerT fib- REGULAR`AGEN 10 , Project: A public hearing for a p goon xequestmg a,Variance from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of D`uien`sronal Reg uxet ents of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reductio 'I": n' um lat size from the required 15,000 square feet,to 5010 squaii4eet lo6ate�d at 46 SCHOOL STREET (map 27, Lot 7);and to allow a reduction in minimum Jot size:ftom the required 15,000 square°feet to 6837"square feet at 48,SCHOOVSTREET to create an additional rear lot ", v Applicant: MICI-IAEL BECKER Location:"r,40748 School°Street (R2 Zontng District) Documents& ExhibrtionNs xY • Letter dated December 11, 2014 requesting a continuance to the next regularly scheduled meeting on January 21V2015 11,�' 14 Mx. Michael Becker, applicant was present. No testimony was presented at the meeting. Motion and Vote-*V' Copelas makes a motion to continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting on January 21,2015. The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy. The vote was with unanimous with three (3) (Ms. Curran, Mt. Duffy, and Mr. Copelas) in favor and none (0) opposed. Ms. Curran states that a simple majority of the Board is need for a continuance. APPROVAI;OF;MEETING MINUTES� Fz• November 19, 2014 meeting minutes were not approved at this time as there were not • enough voting members present. • OLD/NEW BUSINESS ,., r= - 7 -11 4" 77 7 . ;> 7 --6 77"V 7 w t :a Approval of Zoning Board of Appeals 2015 Schedule Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the 2015 schedule as printed. The Zoning Board of Appeals will meet the 3`d Wednesday of each month at 6:30pm. The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy. The vote was with unanimous with three (3) (Ms. Curran, Mr. Duffy, and Mr. Copelas in favor and none (0) opposed. ADJOURNMENTS • _ ,, , - ter• a$$ Mr. Duffy motioned for adjournment of the December 17;2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 6:34 pm. al,. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy made a motion,to adjourn the December 17,2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, see on' ed by Mr Copelas, and the vote is unanimous with three (3) in favor (Ms Curran, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Copelas) and none (0) p , opposed. .= ' For actions where the decisions haue not been wrinen into the minutes, copies of the decisions have been poi"ted separately b7,address orproject at.• htm.11salem.com/Pages/salenimA ZoningApyealsttilin/ Respectfully SllbrTlltted,�r �rj�.� PrP h Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner " ' ST •