The URL can be used to link to this page

2015-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS o�7 Mee-�r� M`,nv�es yuv �_ r,)avy) e COW71T�.� City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Lww, 9„ Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail 11 A Ilerly / 97�...697-E5'S3V{� i26�� ,�-c�L:4 I Page 'of City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for December 16,2015 Meeting Project A public hearing for an amended petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change an existing nonconforming use of multifamily residential units to another nonconforming use of mixed use commercial office/retail. The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the maximum height, front yard setbacks and relief from Sec. 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements and 5.1.5 Parking Design. Applicant ROBERT BURR Location 331-335 LAFAYETTE ST, 5-7 WEST AVE, 11 WEST AVE (Map 32 Lots 231, 232,233,234)(B1, R1, R2) Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Stinctures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure and alter it for a substantially different purpose and Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from lot area per dwelling unit, side yard setbacks and a Variance for relief from Sec 5.1 Table of Parking Requirements to allow less than the required parking spaces. Applicant 7 HOWARD STREET REALTY TRUST Location 7 HOWARD STREET (AKA 26-30 ST PETER STREET) (Map 35 Lot 180) (R3) Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition requesting Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for a minimum side yard setback and minimum rear setback to allow the petitioners to construct a shared 12' x 12' deck. Applicant MICHAEL GIARDI and JOANNE MATTERA Location 73 SUMMER STREET and 38 ENDICOTT STREET (Map 25 Lot 614 and 616) (R2) Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition requesting Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot frontage and minimum lot width to all lots and minimum lot area per dwelling unit for Lot 3 to create three (3) lots. Applicant MATTHEW and MARIE GAGNON, TRUSTEES of HENRIE REALTY TRUST Location 186-190 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (Map 10 Lot 32) (R1) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS None V. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 2 .OSJUIT CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL �r72g1NLD0 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALc.m,MASSA(:HUSI-TTS 01970 MMRGRI.Hv DRISCOLL TFu. :978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You air hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on lVednesday, December K,,2015 at 6:30 p.m. at Ci13 HallAnnex, RM 313, 120 Ir/arbington St., Salem,MA Rebecca Curran,Chair AMENDED MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ➢ August 19, 2015 ➢ November 18, 2015 III. REGULAR AGENDA Project A continuation of a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design to allow a 40'wide curb cut. Applicant PETER LUTTS Location 24 WINTER STREET (Map 35 Lot 83)(R2 Zoning District) Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change and existing nonconforming use of a social club to another nonconforming use of eighteen (18) residential units. The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, minimum lot coverage, front and side yard setbacks, minimum distance between buildings, and number of stories. Applicant MICHAEL MEYER Location 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277)( R1 Zoning District) "PLEASE NOTE THAT THE PETITIONER of 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET HAS REQUESTED TO CONTINUE TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON WEDNESDAY,JANUARY 20`s. 2015 at 6:30pm. Page 1 of 2 • v�:cot�wr''� CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL ' 120 WAMw6TON STREET♦SAi AM MASSACHUSET1s 01970 KimBr.R1.sYDRiscou TEi.E:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will bold its regularly nbeduled meeting on Wednesday;January2l,2015 at 6:30p.m. at City HallAnnex,RM313, 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA Rebecca Curran,Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL -t II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES rn m ➢November 19,2014 and December 17,2014 ID m t III. REGULAR AGENDA rn D 3 9P Cr NProject. 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) 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 15) Applicant. JOSEPH R.GAGNON and MARIA IL GAGNON Location 20 LINDEN STREET (R2 Zoning District) Page 1 of 2 City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for January 21,2015 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(RI 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 (RI Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Special Permits from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures, to allow a change from an existing non-conforming two family structure to a multi-family structure and to construct a rear addition. The proposal is for the property located at 103 BRIDGE STREET(Map 36,Lot 378) (Bl Zoning District). Applicant JUNIPER POINT 103 BRIDGE STREET LLC - Location 103 BRIDGE STREET(B1 Zoning District) This notice posted on "Official Bulletin oard" Cil•; Hall, Salem, Mass. on ( Q 5r at g,'Ob AfA in accordanc wi �GL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Page 2 of 2 yjvc- rnavy,e c\eq�A�-Y-- 9 , City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Z, -7 =� ) Y 3660 Joue.�vu t'�Cs,w,� ( ,l�dsts aceAc4 .1 v�i ob �fut. 53e• 83 t a job. jNv� C nCH.d TUN INti! �doNM�i_l!`� 6eer ia�ga-M Fia 61T d!T 4($Q /r7t,{.r r1H.t'Yld nnR ,fti Soseph C. CAb4v 3 N kckvro� P 7 Gn$ 8'8y"2oC�`t J�u�,,o 93C52•R�iS .co`� 971 J6e La LQ B(Q..e ter-I�� l o /ka 9Z i'-?9-S' 31,j-7 JOPL�40 A ff, , �Z�+"frS3Sc33 $ �lfagac-rm �C PIP(, �J?SIG ►— /2`^�' kv1's 2A, wig-2Yl-al�yua.nAu. leak Page.. of :2- CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL nl 7a ►M►NE��0 120 WA$I'IING'1'ON S'I'RIiSITI'♦ SALEM,MASSACI-IUSETTS 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: January 14,2015 RE: Meeting Agenda for January 21,2015 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Meeting Minutes from11/19/2014 4. Draft Meeting Minutes from 12/17/2014 5. 20 Linden Street Application 6. 198 Loring Avenue Application 7. 24 Winter Island Road Application 8. 103 Bridge Street Application 9. 4 Technology Way Applicaton 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 the public hearing at the 1/21/2015 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)(R2 Zoning District) 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. 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)(R2 Zoning District) See comments above. City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—January 21,2015 Page 2 of 3 3. Petition of JOSEPH R. GAGNON and MARIA K. GAGNON,requesting Special Permits per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a change from an existing non-conforming single family structure to a two family residential structure and to reconstruct a 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(Map 30, Lot 15)(112 Zoning District) The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit to allow a change from a single residential structure to a two-family structure. In addition,the petitioner is seeking a Special Permit to demolish an existing 199.5 sq. ft. existing kitchen addition to reconstruct a 196 sq. ft. new kitchen addition that will increase the right side yard from 1.5 feet to 4 feet. The applicant is also seeking a Variance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size per dwelling unit.The existing lot size is 8,250 sq. ft. and the required minimum lot area is 7,500 sq. ft. per unit.A plot plan is included in this packet. 4. Petition of DAVID POTTER,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) (RI Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit for a change of use from an existing nonconforming use to another nonconforming use. 5. Petition of DOUGLAS and JEAN KARAM requesting a Variances 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) (RI Zoning District). The petitioner is requesting a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of lot area,width, coverage,and setback requirements to allow the construction of an accessory structure that is physically separated, but held in common ownership with 25 Winter Island Road.The proposed accessory structure is located at 24 Winter Island Road.A plot plan is included in this packet. 6. Petition of JUNIPER POINT 103 BRIDGE STREET LLC requesting Special Permits per Sec.3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures,to allow a change from an existing non-conforming two family structure to a multi-family structure and to construct a rear addition.The proposal is for the property located at 103 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36,Lot 378) (BI Zoning District). The petitioner is requesting Special Permits per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Structures, to allow a change from and existing non-conforming two family structure to five (5) unit non-conforming multi-family structure and to construct a rear addition. Enclosed is a plot plan,proposed elevation plans for a rear addition and other supporting documents. 7. Petition of JUDYLYNN MONACO requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.1 Principal Uses, to operate a medical clinic for a portion of the property located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY(Map 7, Lot 79) (BPD Zoning District). Enclosed is a plot plan. • 2 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—January 21,2015 Page 3 of 3 OLD/NEW BUSINESS FYI—Chapter 91 License No. 1590-Amendment Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina 3 THE FOLLOWING IS/ARE THE BEST IMAGES FROM POOR QUALITY ORIGINALS) I M /A-\C DATA CIt1l M Salem - city of salem - Zoning Board of Appeals y Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a is hearing for all Will tic hearing for all parsoru irdepetition of, Persons interested in the petition of ;JOSEPH R. GAGNON and MARIA JOSEPH R.-GAGNON and MARIA C GAGNON seeking Special Per- K. GAGNON seeking Special Per nits per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming MILES per Sec.3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-t and Two-Family Residential Single- and 7Wo-Family Residential Structures,to allow a change from .Structures,to allow a change from in existing non-conforming single I ,existing non-conforming single'; family atruclure to a two(amity resil SALEM MAS SACHU SETTS _ Wily structure to a two family resi. ;dbni l structure and to reconstruct i ) w al structure,and fo reconstruct addition.V.The applicantSe is also BOARD OF APPEAL rear addiflan.yThe applicant is also eseeMrtg a Variance per Sec. 4-1.1 (�. Tabling a Variance par So . 4.1.1 �pto allow a ireduucctionniiRequirements m n mum b] I - 7Alll DEC 12 A Ill O I Table w Dimensional R ulemems ,.... fo allow a reduction in minimum lot :ca¢e per dwelling unit.The proposal she per dwoiling unit.The proposal `N�for the property located at 20 LIN- Is for the'' roperty located at 20 LIN- �7DEN STREET(Map 30, Lot IS)�(R2 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SAr r•M MASSACHUSeTTS 01970 FILE �l DEN AVE(Map 30,Lot 15)(R2 Zon- Zoning Distract). Tel F:978-G]9-SG85 4 FAx:978-740-0404 Ing District). sam hearingwiil to heldon WED; CITY CLERK, SALEM. MASS Said hearing win be held on WED, January 21, 2015 at 8:30 pm.,Sri - DEC 17,2014 at 6:30 p.m.,3rd floor floor,120 WASHINGTON ST,ROOM 120 WASHINGTON ST;ROOM 313. M3. Rebecca Curran,Chair Rebecca Curran,Chair - SN-12/3,12/10/1 Board of Appeals Board -1p/i5 Ord of Appeals 7 ,k City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JOSEPH R. GAGNON and MARIA K. GAGNON 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 STREET(Map 30, Lot 15) (R2 Zoning District). The public hearing will be held on WED, January 21, 2015 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3rd 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`s Floor, 120 Washington St, Salem, MA. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 1/7/2015 & 1/14/2015 e m seism fill h J g Board of Appealsill hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JOSEPH R. GAGNON andMARIA - . GAGNON seeking Special Per- Its per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Ingle-and -Family Residential ctures,t l allow a change from, _ existing on-conforming single family all re to a two family rest—a]stru re and to reconstruct reareddMon.The applicant is also r seeking a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1- Table a Dimensional Requirements 4 This notice posted oil "Official Bulletin Board" to allow a reduction in minimum lot, CI Hall, Salem, M . OOQEC 12 2014 size per dwelling unit.The proposal' II `7 ass is for the properly located at 20 Ull at in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, - DEN STREET(Map 30, Lot 15) (R2.- Zoning District). - <, Sections 18-25. , ',hearing will beheld on WED,-_ J 121, 2015 at 6:30 pm.,3rd It ,20 WASHINGTON ST,ROOM . 313; Rebecca Cunan,Chair: : .,.. Board of Appeals, !SN-1/7,1/14/15 - AI �: ZONIN CITY OF SALEM ZONIN CITY OF SALEM M SOARnPEAlBOAHP_OF APPEALS I Will hold in a will hold a pu hearing(Persons iota 8 for all ; 8 for all Of JUNIPERinterested in the petition � pereons interested In the petition l LPOINT 103 Of JUNIPERPOINT 103 BRIDGE STREET LLC se BRIDGE IISTREET LLC seeking Special Per- m per Sec. 3..3 Non �j,tPa I:mhs per Sec. 3.3.3 Noncorrforming SWcWres,to allow a than ,Structures,to allow a chap a from �/{ /� r�-+.�-�e>us0ngnon-corrrorming f,en existing noncorNorming two tam- {Dr+ SALEM 1Y111SSACHUSE 1 1 S �re to a mulq fly sNiclure iy structure to a mutiitern ysttuoWrg i -"wIs for�'Got a rear paetlrdtyq on.The ► and to construct a rear addition.located The' BOARD OF APPEAL 103 BRIDGE�pro " � , proposal is for the-propery located 378)(B1 THE ) aP at 103 BRIDGE STREET (Map 38,' 911 [ ,1 g Dlsmor(M I.' Lot 37�1(81 Zoning District). t {U IJ JXN — p,D Jan Will he held on :AI • Said hearing Will he held on' l A 8: Ob emery 21`2015 at 830 +f �., January 21, 2015, at 6:30I m.,_3rd Boor, 120 WASHINGTON J P.M., 3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON, 120 WASHINGTON STREET 4 SALEM,MASSACHUSETT S 01970 ROOM 313. i ST.,ROOM 313. 7 FILE R� fan Chaa .�I Rebecca tluorran,Chairs �-E:978-619-5685 4 FAST:978-740-0404 eITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. 1/7,1/14/15 APPealsj i SN-1/7,1/14/15 BoaAppeals City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JUNIPER POINT 103 BRIDGE STREET LLC seeking Special Permits per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures, to allow a change from an existing non-conforming two family structure to a multi-family structure and to construct a rear addition. The proposal is for the property located at 103 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36, Lot 378) (131 Zoning District). • Said hearing will be held on WED,January 21, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 1/7/2015 & 1/14/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on JAN 0 7 2015 at ( 4�l in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A Sections 18-26. p • City of Salem _ WIII hold a public he 'rig a all Zoning Board of Appeals rsons.interested in the petl8on of Will hold,g�public hearingfor ell g Board of Saf A AVID'POTTER requeatlng a SPe- persons intMbteo5�the pettition of WIII hold a Public hearing Mr'a11 Y} PermB per Sec: 3.3.2 Noncon- DAVID POTTER, uesffh a 6 rming Uses of the Salem Zonin ciel Permit req SPA ns interested in the petition of f{I rdinance, in order.to allow an ez Per Sec. 3.3.2 Noncon- Vto POTTER requesting a Spe- rig nonconforming use M abet-'- torming Uses of the Salem Zoning Permit per Sec,:3.3 2 Noncon- Ordinance,in order to allow an ex- rshop to be changed - frig Uses of the oSalem allow Zonm9 ISSACHUSETTS to another � iatihg nonconforming use of a bar- finance, in order to allow an ex n n' rming use of a general bershop to be changed to another g nonconforming use M a bar. . ,the Properly located at 198 nonconforming use M a general shop to be changed to another T AVE (Map 31, Lot 31) (Rl. office at the property located at 198 conforming use of a garleral APPEAL rig DlsViiict). LORING AVE (Map 31, Lot 31) (RI at the propertylocated at 198 ( pp �f �r1. Said hearing wi�be held on.WED,, Zoning District). ING AVE (Map 31, Lot 31) (RI. �IY DEC (L A 4Y O i 2IN at 8:30 p R 3rd Boor, . Said hearing will be held on WED,, ng District). WASHINRe ST,ROOM 313. January 21,2015 at 6:30 p.m., 3rd Id hearingwill be held on WED Rebecca Curran,Chetr floor,120 WASHINGTON ST,ROOM Board M - 21,2015 at 8:30 p,m., 3rd xf,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 FILE / 12/10/14 APPeals 313. 120 WASHINGTON ST,ROOM ,I Rebecca Curran,Chair - 6973-740-04040ITY CLERX, SALEM,MASS, Board of Appeals 0 Rebecca Curran,Chair . MAYO, 1SN-1p/15 - Board of Appeals 117r 1/14/15 1 City of Salem her Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of DAVID POTTER,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) (RI Zoning District). The public hearing will be held on WED, January 21, 2015 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, 3rd Floor, 120 Washington St, Salem,MA. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 1/7/2015 & 1/14/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on DEC 12 2014 at/0;01 AP in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, . Sections 8-25. • J of$aI m CYry GF SALEM OF SALEM Zoning Board of.Appeefa MASSACHUS_'--fig ZONIN �F SALEM gIg Will hold r public hearing for ell. y 120 OARD OF APPEAL Will hold a public ppeersons Interested JE In KA AM se of MTON STREET Persons Interested in the hearing for all' DOUGLAS and JEAN KARAM seek- SAI.EM, US$E'TTS 01970 D a VAS and JEAN KARAM.seek-+-+r ing Variances from the rovisions TELE:97&619 ances.from of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional FAX 978.740.04p4 of Sec, 4.1.1 T Ih0 provisional Requirements lot area,width,rover �� - CBy of Salem .Requirements loth 8 °f Dimenaionall age,-and setback requirements of Zon1n9 Board Ot age, and nt area width,Dover-4 f e'3alco Zoning Ordinance sto SI s ry I Will hold a public he�anPr g for all '91e Salem Zonning requirements elf, SSACHUSETTS II, e construction of an accessory ns interested in the W„low the constructlon of an accesso ,re that is Physically sepanst I. DUGLAS and JEAN KARAM seek. re that is ,ut held in common ownership In a VarianDea Prom tl1e ro- 0tl, but bald in Physically Separa" F APPEAL ilh•25 Winter,-Island Road. The of • 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional with 25 Wi corhmoo ownersftd- roposal is for the property Requkema,rts lot a .prq ra r the ter Islantl Roed.. The, P PaRY located Salem Zonl ck Ordinance to alrl a< 2Ict.SLAND ROB Rj, 24 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R7, requiremerns of. oSaidhearict). - low thetonatrucyDn rdin Zonin Zr+f4 DEC 12 Ala i Said heart will be held on WED, Saitl head ` C.17,2014 W 6:3o p.m. 3rd floor, plhyNcel � ,y n9 wit be held on WEp Sn1.Etu.,MassacxusErrs 01970 sfrucWre that is rylJanua 2Y,2015 at 6,30 20 WAS" WON ST,ROOM 313, ad,but held In'common ownershl .floor,120 WASHINGTON SP.M.,ROM 5♦Fax 978-740-0404 Rebecca Cunan,Chair 25 Wmter Island Road. The 313. FILE' 11 Board Dl Appeals Proposal WINrea isi;N-on1oo�a�.. CITY GIERit. SALEM, MA: N-12(3,12/10/14 Rebecca.Curran Chair -.-. Zoning Dismo[). ( SN-1/14/15 Board of Ap aji wIll be d On WED January 21,Said „ZD14 at 8:301 P m..3rd'^ c.' ,. "?` •�00r,120 WASHINGTON ST,,ROpM; _ �,.•,'313. Rebecca Curran,Cheki (SM-117,1/14/1s Boardof APpeals� City of Salem toning Board of Appeals -.w�r1bY Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of DOUGLAS and JEAN KARAM seeking a Variances 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)(RI Zoning District). • The public hearing will be held on WED, January 21, 2015 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3rd 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, P Floor, 120 Washington St, Salem, MA. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 1/7/2015 & 1/14/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Ma--s. on DEC 12 2014 at 10V Ah in accordance With MGL Chap, 30A, Sections 18-25. Z'.'11'►'OP'SALEM ZONING CITY O�F,,S�A�LEM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Wli III hold a'�° r'PEAL.S sera ill hold a rater stedcin earl petir all ar8oD IWlic heaiing for albf JUDYLYNN MONACO aeeldh a Special pamlif.MLYNN NACO 9"ItInng aU�toPoperaermit te a medipI clinic for ^ T 7� Usea,to operate rh c.3. 'Plincfor a portion L the property located at 4 OF SAI,EM MAS SACHU SETTS e n o7 the Pro etll�l dlnlc for fECHNOLOGV WAY(Map 7,Lot 79) �OLOCiY WA ,'u tat4 BPD Zoning DiWI Q. p -onln9 Dlalricf), >8) Said headng,WRl be held on WED BOARD OF APPE�'f��[ ry 2earingwillbe.11abon Lary 21,2015 at 630 pm.,3rd . '-'iliSl JbN =l A 8' Ob Lb'onrua 201$aL B. WED, oor 120 WASHINGTON ST-ROOM 13..c120 WASLIINGTON P m" 3rtl ,313 , ',, R S7 ROOM ` Rebecca Curran,'hair F t� # ebe�Qa'Urran C /' Board of Appeala j 120 WASHINGTON STREET*$ALEM,MASSACHUmngry OQ RX, S LE M. MFi.IJ•r�� -in.1/14/15 Board ol.Appeals N-1F7,,1/14/15 TELE:978-619-5685 1 FAx:978-740-0404 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JUDYLYNN MONACO seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.1 Principal Uses, to operate a medical clinic for a portion of the property located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY (Map 7, Lot 79) (BPD Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, January 21, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., P floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. • Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 1/7/2015 & 1/14/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" Cilem, Mass. on NdkI U p at in accordan t ha 30A, Sections 18-25. J City of Salem Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday,January 21,2015 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA")was held on Wednesday,January 21, 2015 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Ms.Cueancalls the meeting to order at 6:42p.m. ROLL CALL Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins and jimmy Tsitsinos.Also in attendance—Michael Lutrzykowski,Assistant Building Inspector,and Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner REGULAR AGENDA Project: A continuation of 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. Applicant: MICHAEL BECKER Location: 46-48 School Street(112 Zoning District) Documents&Exhibitions: • Letter dated January 21, 2015 requesting to withdraw without prejudice. Curran: Continued public hearing reads the letter to request to withdraw without prejudice. Motion and Vote:Watkins makes a motion to allow Mr. Becker to withdraw the petition without prejudice. The motion is seconded by Copelas.The vote was with unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran,Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0) opposed. 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 LINDENS STREET (Map 30,Lot 15) Applicant: JOSEPH R. GAGNON and MARIA K. GAGNON Location 20 LINDEN STREET (R2 Zoning District) • Documents and Exhibitions • • Application dated November 19,2014 and supporting documentation Mr. Gagnon, applicant,presents the petition.Mr. Gagnon states that he is changing the use of a non- conforming single family home to a conforming two-family structure in an R2 Zoning District and would like to reconstruct an existing rear porch addition that includes a kitchen and bathroom. Mr. Gagnon states that the existing rear porch kitchen and bathroom has been demolished and the applicant intends to build a smaller structure and increase the side yard setback from the existing non-conforming 1.3 feet to 5 feet from the right-side lot line that does not conform to the side yard setback requirements.The existing structure also did not conform to the lot coverage requirements. Mr. Gagnon is seeking special permits for allow a change in an existing non-conforming structure and to allow a reduction in minimum lot size per dwelling unit.The proposed footprint of the rear porch reconstruction is smaller than the pre-existing structure that was recently demolished. Mr. Gagnon spoke to all of the abutters about the application and that there were no objections to the reconstruction of an existing rear porch addition that includes a kitchen and bathroom. Ms. Curran states that a change of use from a single-family home to a two-family home can be done by-right in an R2 zoning district. Ms. Curran asks for clarification of the existing and proposed right side yard setback and restates that the existing structure was 1.3 feet from the lot line and the applicant intends to increase the side yard setback to 5 feet.The current zoning side yard setback requirements are 10 feet. Use is an allowed use by right. Ms. Curran also states that there is than enough parking for the two units. Ms. Curran asks for elevation plans of the rear addition. • Mr. Gagnon states that there are plot plans as part of the application and that the proposed structure will be a box that is approximately what existed. Mr. Gagnon states that the Building Department will be required a more detailed architectural plan prior to construction. Mr. Watkins asks for clarification on whether the applicant is seeking special permits and a variance as the advertisement states that the applicant is asking for special permits and a variance,but the application states that the applicant is seeking special permits only. Ms. Schaeffer clarifies that the applicant is seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures to reconstruct rear addition and a Special Permit per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to allow a reduction in minimum lot size per dwelling unit. Ms. Curran opens the discussion for public comment. Jim Rose 25 Linden Street: Had an opportunity to tour the property and is supportive of the project. Mr. Rose requested a graphic for a better visual of what the front of the house and the parking in the back will look like. Mr. Gagnon states that the front porch architectural detail will remain and will be enhanced by cutting the rotten post and rebuild the porch. The granite staircase will stay.As fax as the parking, Mr. Gagnon will have the minimal requirement of provide four(4) parking spaces and to try to preserve the backyard. • • Mr. Rose asks for more description of the driveway. Mr. Gagnon states that the driveway will be straight back and the parking will be 4-5 feet off of the lot line. Cars will have enough room to turn around in the driveway to not have to back out of the driveway. Mr. Rose asks for more clarification on the porch. Mr. Gagnon states that the porch will be repaired and that the Victorian architectural detail will remain. Mr. Rose requests that Mr. Gagnon places images of architectural detail of the fa4ade and the parking on his website for the neighbors to have a visual of what is proposed. Ms. Curran states that typically a decision has an elevation plans. Mr. Gagnon provided pictures of the house and current existing rear addition. Ms. Curran opens the discussion to board members. Mr.Titsinos states that there is no problem with this project. Mr. Watkins states that this will be a major improvement to the property. Mr. Duffy states that it is better to have elevation plans in addition to a plot plan. • Mr. Curran asks if there are proposed windows. Mr.Titsinos asks if there is a proposed back door on the addition. Mr. Gagnon states that the structure will be slightly smaller than the previously existing structure. The materials will match the remaining structure and the windows and back porch will be the same as the previously existing structure. Mr. Duffy states the findings for the special permits. With this description,this is a good discussion of statement of grounds.To touch on the conditions and the requirements the proposal,the project serves social and economic needs by taking a dwelling in disrepair and proposing to renovate and rehabilitate it and bring back to productive use.There is not a major introduction of high demand traffic and off-street parking proposed is within the parking requirements for this use.The existing utilities are adequate to accommodate the one additional dwelling unit proposed and there are no significant environmental impacts. This restoration fits and will upgrade neighborhood character. In addition, this project has the potential for positive fiscal impacts and property values. Support for all of these findings and there are benefits and would not derogate from the zoning. Motion and Vote:Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the petition for a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures to reconstruct a rear addition and a Special Permit per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to allow a reduction in minimum lot size per dwelling unit. Conditions include eight(8) standard conditions and one special condition that architectural plans be submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner as per the project proposal.The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy. The vote was with unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca • Curran,Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and none • (0) opposed. 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 (RI Zoning District) Documentation&Exhibition • Application date stamped November 25,2014 and supporting documentation Attorney Mcgloin presents the petition on behalf of the applicant. The petitioner is asking for a special permit for a change of use from one non-conforming use to another.The petitioner proposes to have a real estate general office space at this property location. Ms. Curran asks for clarification of the number of employees and the hours of operation. Attorney Mcgloin states that the applicant has two employees, he and his wife and that the hours of operation are sporadic.The space is intended for general office space for paperwork. • Mr.Tsitsinos asks whether any tools or storage will be associated with this office space. Attorney Mcgloin states that there will be no special tools or storage associated with this business other than general office items such as computers. Ms.Curran asks for clarification of the location of this proposed business particularly that it is proposed to be on the first floor. Attorney Mcgloin states that the proposed office space will be on the fast floor and the second floor is an existing apartment. Ms. Curran opens discussion to the public. Councillor O'Keefe states that he is in favor of the petition and specifically asks that the Board consider a special condition that there shall not be any motor vehicle parking on the sidewalk. Curran: Is there an) parking? Attorney Mcgloin states that there is one (1) off-street and two (2) on-street parking spaces. Mr. Watkins asks for clarification on the number of employees. Attorney Mcgloin states that there will be two (2) employees. • • Ms. Curran states that this location has had a non-conforming business use historically and that the proposed change of use is not more detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Duffy states that the proposed use is not as intense of a use as the previous barbershop.There is a handwritten statement of reasons and criteria that address the standard conditions.The existing utilities are adequate to accommodate the proposed change of use and there are no significant environmental impacts. The proposed office space is in keeping of the neighborhood character. There is less of a need for parking and less impact on traffic with this particular use.All criteria have been met from the special permit. Motion and Vote: Copelas makes a motion to approve the 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 with six(6) standard conditions and one (1) special condition that the petitioner agrees to prohibit all motor vehicle parking on the sidewalk.The motion is seconded by Mr.Watkins.The vote was with unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran, Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0) opposed. 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 (R1 Zoning District) Documentation&Exhibition • Application date stamped November 24,2014 and supporting documentation Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition.The petitioners own 25 Winter Island Road and 24 Winter Island Road.The property located at 24 Winter Island Road has historically always been conveyed with the property located at 25 Winter Island Road.The existing use on this property has been for outdoor storage,and the petitioner would like to construct and accessory structure on the parcel located at 24 Winter Island Road. Attorney Grover presents elevation plans and plot plans to the board. Elevation plans are presented for the proposed accessory structure with a one car garage and storage shed. Attorney Grover also submits a petition with abutter signatures in approval of the project.The proposed accessory structure fits all the current dimensional requirements for an accessory structure. However, interesting thing about this proposal is that the two lots are physically separated from one another and may not qualify as an accessory structure as defined in the zoning ordinance.Therefore, the petitioner is asking for a Variance from all dimensional requirements for a building as if 24 Winter Island Road is an independent lot from 25 Winter Island Road. As 24 Winter Island Road is a small lot,with current zoning regulations,it is not possible to place a structure on this property without relief.As for meeting the requirements of a Variance,the unique size, shape and topography is that • that 24 Winter Island Road,although jointly conveyed with 25 Winter Island Road,is physically separated from the primary structure by a road.The hardship is that if the literal requirements of the • zoning ordinance were enforced particularly for dimensional requirements,it would not be possible to build a structure on the property. In keeping with the neighborhood, the structure is consistent with other accessory storage uses and storage sheds on properties in the vicinity of 24 Winter Island Road. Ms. Curran asks for affirmation that 24 and 25 Winter Island Road are under the same ownership and same deed. Attorney Grover states that in the seventy-year(70) history of deeds, that 24 and 25 Winter Island Road have always remained deeded together. Ms. Curran opens discussion to the public. Mr. Richard Pabich 35 Winter Island Road-States his support for the project proposal. Mr. Lutrzykowski states that the Building Department would like to suggest special conditions related to this project including that the accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit and that 25 Winter Island Road and 24 Winter Island Road deed never be separated. Ms.Curran asks whether there is any plumbing proposed for the accessory structure. Attorney Grover states that there is no plumbing proposed. Ms. Curran states the findings for a Variance including that the lot located at 24 Winter Island Road • is unique because it is physically separated from 25 Winter Island Road, but deeded together.The proposed structure is in keeping with the neighborhood as the structure is consistent with other accessory storage uses and storage sheds on properties in close vicinity to the property. The literal enforcement of the zoning provisions would not allow for structure on the property.Ms. Curran also suggests that the board consider the following special conditions including: 1) that 24 and 25 Winter Island Road shall remain deeded together 2) the accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit 3) no bathroom shall be installed in the accessory structure located at 24 Winter Island Road. Mr. Duffy stated that the stated grounds for a Variance as described by Ms. Curran and Attorney Grover are supported. Mr. Copelas states that this is an appropriate use for the property and requested more information on the history of how the large and small lot were physically separated. Mr. Pabich stated that when the land was subdivided, each of the small and large lots were intended for little building lots about 100-years ago. Motion and Vote: Mr. Daffy makes a motion to approve the 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 subject to six(6) standard conditions and the following three (3) special conditions: 1) the approved accessory building shall not be used as a dwelling unit 2) the • • property located at 24 Winter Island Road shall not be deeded separately from the property located at 25 Winter Island Road 3)No bathroom shall be installed in the accessory building. The motion is seconded by Mr.Watkins.The vote was with unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran,Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins and Jimmy Tsitsmos) in favor and none (0) opposed. Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Special Permits from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures, to allow a change from an existing non- conforming two family structure to a multi-family structure and to construct a rear addition. The proposal is for the property located at 103 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36,Lot 378) (B1 Zoning District). Applicant JUNIPER POINT 103 BRIDGE STREET LLC Location 103 BRIDGE STREET (Bl Zoning District) Documentation&Exhibition • Application date stamped December 20, 2014 and supporting documentation Attorney Correnti presents the petition on behalf of the petitioner Marc Tranos.The applicant, the owner of the property,is seeking a special permit from a non-conforming structure to construct a rear addition and add on to the existing non-conforming structure.The proposed structure and parking conforms to the dimensional and parking requirements of the zoning ordinance. The existing structure is a non-conforming two (2) family structure.The petitioner would like to add three units to • the existing two-unit structure and provide eight(8)parking spaces in the rear of the property. Mr.Tranos,property owner,presents part of the petition. Mr.Tranos states that the property was purchased in September 2014 and has the intention to restore the historic home and add a rear addition of three (3) units. Ms. Curran asks the applicant about the present use. Mr.Tranos stated that the current use of the property is a two-family non-conforming structure. Ms. Curran asks for clarification about why the applicant is before the Board as a two-family and multi-family is an allowed use. Correnti states that this project is before the Board because this is an existing non-conforming structure and the applicant is adding to the non-conforming structure. Mr. Correnti states that when there is an extension of a non-conforming structure a special permit is required as the applicant is increasing the physical structure from a two (2)-unit to five (5) unit structure. In relation to the Special Permit criteria the applicant intends to preserve the historic house,but needs to build the addition to support the cost of preserving the historic structure. In keeping with the neighborhood character, there are other multi-family homes along Bridge Street.The proposed height of the building will not be taller than the existing building and will conform with the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance. . Mr. Copelas asks for clarification about the density requirements for this lot. Attorney Correnti states that the proposal meets the density and dimensional requirements of the • zoning ordinance of a B1 Zoning District. Ms. Curran asks for clarification on the location of the current driveway condition and whether the back of the lot is paved. Mr. Copelas is going on with the current construction going on at this property including the large cellar hole. Mr.Tranos stated that a building foundation permit was obtained to dig around the foundation of the existing structure to look at the condition of the foundation. Mr. Tranos stated that the foundation of the existing structure needed to be patched and that was undenvay. Mr.Lutrzuykowski confirmed that the applicant has obtained a foundation permit. Ms. Curran opens the discussion for public comment. Charlene Salvage 8 Warner Street- owns house behind the backyard and her back bedroom faces the proposed parking and proposed density. There is already a 6 foot high fence and proposes. Ms. Curran asks the applicant whether there is a proposed fence between the property and 8 Warner Street. Mr.Tranos stated that he intends to construct a white vinyl fence behind the property. • Ms. Salvage states that there is already a fence. She also states that she has not seen any pictures or the applicant's proposal. She asks for clarification on the proposed number of units increased and the location and orientation of the proposed 8 (eight) parking spaces. Ms. Curran shows Ms.Salvage the plot plan for the proposed project. Ms. Salvage restates her concerns that her bedroom window will be next to a parking lot and is concerned about noise. Zoda Marquez 10 Warner Street-The resident presented Ms. Curran with a plot plan of her property and a photo of the rear yard fence of 103 Bridge Street. Ms. Marquez stated that part of the bump out along the rear yard fence of 103 Bridge Street may be her property. Mr. Currant states that there seems to be a discrepancy between the plot plan for 103 Bridge Street and 10 Warner Street. Ms. Marquez also states her concerns that the proposed building height is too high. Lorraine Cody 8 Barton Street- spoke in opposition to the project and states the proposed density in the context of social and community, the addition of more units in a currently narrow section of Warner Street and Bridge Street is concerning. Ms. Cody is also concerned with adequate parking for visitors and runoff from the proposed impervious surface of the 8 (eight) parking spaces. Ms. Cody stated her disappointment that the petitioner did not reach out to the community or neighbors to discuss the project. • • Mr. Cappozi 4 and 2 Saunders Street: Expresses opposition to the proposal over concerns about parking, traffic and additional density. Ms.Lorraine Cody 8 Barton Street: Requests that the developer meets with the neighbors to discuss the project and possible mitigation related to the proposal. Tom Doucette-Beverly,MA states his concerns to preserve the historic structure on the property and concerns regarding drainage. Ms.Jessica Herbert,Salem Historic Commission-requests that the applicant consider replacing the bay window on the£made to a flat window in keeping with the historic design. Ms. Herbert also states that it is important to keep the house located at the 0' ft. lot line because it conforms to the standing streetscape. She states that she is happy to see the possibility of restoration of the historic structure. Virginia Carson 104 Bridge Street-States her opposition to the project proposal due to concerns over parking. Ms. Curran states that the parking proposed by the applicant conforms to current zoning requirements. Ms. Curran states concerns about drainage and runoff.The applicant is asked if there has been a drainage study done and states that the proposed project will create a lot that will be completely impervious. Ms. Curran also states concerns about an on-site location for snow removal. • Attorney Correnti states that there have been historic issues regarding drainage on the site and the applicant hopes to improve these conditions.The applicant has not had a drainage study completed, however there is a contractor and surveyor that can look at this. Ms. Curran asks whether the applicant would consider meeting with the neighbors to discuss the project proposal as suggested by a concerned resident.Ms. Curran also states that the applicant needs to also submit drainage information about how the driveway will impact runoff and drainage on the property for Board for consideration. Attorney Correnti asks the Chair for a moment to confer with his client. Ms. Curran asks the applicant to clarify the number of units and bedrooms proposed. Mr.Tranos states that the proposal is for 5 units with 2-3 bedrooms each. Attorney Correnti asks the Chair for a moment to confer with his client. Attorney Corrend has conferred with his client and has accepted a request to continue to the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on February 18, 2015. Ms. Curran restates the request to provide drainage information from an engineer at the next regularly scheduled meeting at 6:30pm on Wednesday,February 18,2015. • Motion and Vote: Duffy makes a motion to continue the hearing of the petition to the next • meeting on Feb 18,2015. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. The vote was with unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran,Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0) opposed. Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.1 Principal Uses, to operate a medical clinic for a portion of the property, located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY(Map 7,Lot 79) (BPD Zoning District), Applicant JUDYLYNN MONACO Location 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY(BPD Zoning District) Documentation& Exhibition • Application date stamped December 29,2014 and supporting documentation Joanne O'Connell of NEMD Architects,Providence,Rhode Island,presents the petition. Julie Higgins Van Sickle, facility administrator for Davita Healthcare services in Salem,MA and Judylynn Monaco,Project Manager of Davita Healthcare Partners Inc. are also present. The proposed clinic would see about 95 patients a day.About half of the patients would drive themselves and the other half would be dropped off by ambulance services.The proposed facility would employ about 30-40 staff and would have two (2) delivery trucks a week. Interior build out with the exception of building a canopy over the patient drop off area. Ms. Curran asks the representative to clarify the proposed use of the facility. • Ms. O'Connell states that the proposed use is a dialysis center that will provide service for approximately 95 patients. The way dialysis works is that they clean the blood and clean out contaminants. Patient treatment periods are 3-6 hours and there will be three shifts. The hours of operation proposed are from 5am-8pm.There will be a patient shift starting at Gam, 11 am and 4pm. Mr.Tsitsutos asks for clarification on the current cl ue's hours of operation. Ms. Higgins Van Sickle, facilities administrator at 10 Colonial Road states that the current facility is at capacity and three days a week there are now four (4) shifts that start at Gam, 11am,4pm and 8pm. Ms. Higgins Van Sickle also states that the current facility is located on Colonial Road and does not meet the current needs of the facility. Therefore,Davits Healthcare regional office is requesting to move to this proposed location. Ms. Curran states that the current use of 4 Technology Way is a technology park and asks whether this use is consistent with or compatible with the current existing uses. Ms. O'Connell states that the proposed space located at 4 Technology Way would be located separately from the existing business in the business park. • • Ms. Curran looks at the proposed plot plan and asks the applicant to clarify what types of businesses currently exist inside the large corrugated metal building where Davita Healthcare Partners is interested in locating. Ms.Judylynn Monaco states that the corrugated building describes a prior use for the structure. Ms. O'Connell states that the corrugated building designation on the plot plan is a description of the building type. Ms. Curran states that the applicant proposes to be housed in the large corrugated metal building and asks the applicant to clarify the other types of businesses that currently exist inside the building. Ms. O'Connell states that the first floor is a bio-technology lab and storage,the second floor of the facility is occupied by offices and the other half is vacant Ms. Curran asks the applicant to clarify if there is any medical waste produced by this use. Ms. O'Connell states that there will be medical waste produced and red bagged taken off site and disposed in a dtimpster. Ms. Monaco, clarifies that medical waste cannot be stored outside and the proposal includes a medical waste room with ventilation and vinyl protection that is required. No medical waste will be stored outside of the building. • Mr.Tsitsinos ask the applicant whether anything will be stored on the outside of the building. Ms. O'Connell states that there is no storage outside of the building except for two (2) six (6) to eight (8)yard dumpsters designated for regular trash and recyclables. Ms. Curran asks for information on proposed deliveries. Ms. O'Connell states that there are between one (1) and two (2) deliveries per week and the truck is a 18 wheel truck. Ms. Monaco states that the deliveries are made between 5am and 6am. Ms. Higgins Van Sickle states that the proposed delivery hours may change from 8am to 9am. Ms. O'Connell states that deliveries will be made during regular business hours. Ms. Curran asks the applicant about traffic generation and asks for clarification on how patients get to the clinic. Ms. O'Connell states that a little less than half of the clients drive themselves and a little more than half of the clients are dropped off by an ambulance service. • Ms. Curran asks the Board whether there are additional comments or questions before opening • public comment. Mr. Watkins:Asks the applicant to clarify whether the proposed space for Davita Healthcare is occupied. Ms. O'Connell states that the space is currently vacant. Mr. Watkins asks whether there are any utilities as it is now. Ms. O'Connell states that there are utilities and clarifies that the suite where the clinic is proposed is currently vacant.There are other businesses that share the larger building including the bio-tech lab. Mr. Watkins states that the applicant will be adding utilities,plumbing and electrical. Ms. O'Connell-yes. Ms. Curran reads a letter of public comment from Thermal Circuits,Inc located on One Technology Way,The Salem Glass Company,3 Technology Way and Jacqueline's Wholesale Bakery, Inc,94 Swampscott Road into the record in opposition. Mr. Watkins asks for clarification of the statement of grounds description that a total of 88 patients will use services at the facility per day in addition to 30-40 staff members. Ms. O'Connell—there will be 88 patients coming in and out of the facility per day in addition to the • 30-40 staff members. Ms. O'Connell state that the clinic runs in three shifts with 22 patients per shift starting at 6am, l lam and 4pm. Ms. Monaco asks Ms. O'Connell and Ms. Higgins Van Sickle why the proposal states that there are 88 patients when the total number of patients per shift is a maximum of 22 with 66 patients. Ms. Higgins Van Sickle states that there are 22 in-home patients included in the petition that also visit the facility twice (2) a month minimum. Twenty-one to twenty-two (21-22)patients are treated in the clinic per shift. Mr. Watkins asks whether the patients run concurrently.A treatment can run between 3-6 hours, therefore patients may start at the same time and leave and different times. Ms. O'Connell states that the patients run concurrently in three (3) shifts per day and leave the clinic at staggered times depending on the length of their treatment. Ms. Curran asks for clarification on the number of employees. Ms. O'Connell states that there will be thirty-two (32) employees. 40 • Ms. Curran asks how many parking spaces ate available and allocated to the proposed facility. Ms. O'Connell states that there are ninety-five (95) parking spaces available. Not all patients drive themselves therefore less parking is required,but there is more traffic generation. Mr. Copelas states that the ninety-five (95) spaces are allocated for the entire building and not only for the proposed medical clinic. Mr. Copelas states that the proposed clinic would take up a quarter of the first floor. Ms. Curran asks for clarification on the designation and allocation of parking spaces for the dialysis center. Ms. O'Connell states that the handicapped spaces that are closest to the entrance would be designated for the dialysis center only,while the remaining parking spaces would be available on a first come first serve basis. Ms. Curran states that the proposed medical clinic seems to have a significant traffic impact. If there are ten (10) people per shift per day driving independently and ten (10) patients per shift per day are transported by ambulance service and there are thirty-two (32) employees per day, this seems to generate a lot of traffic trips. Mr.Tsitsinos asks the applicant to give more information regarding the potential noise of the exhaust fan that is required for the building. Mr.Tsitsinos asks Councilor Siegel to speak about buffers built • around an industrial exhaust fan for one of the existing businesses in the area. Ms. O'Connell states that the exhaust fan needed as part of the proposed facility is not an industrial sized fan. It is similar to the size of an exhaust fan in a residential home. Mr. Tsitsinos asks the applicant why an interior room for medical waste needs to have an exhaust fan. Ms. O'Connell states that the interior room for medical waste is specifically for used sharps including IV needles and that is part of budding requirements to have an exhaust fan in a room that stores trash. O'Connell restates that the proposed exhaust fan is not industrial sized. Ms. Curran opens the discussion to public comment. Mr.Todd Siegel,Ward 3 Councilor speaks in opposition of the proposal. Specifically,the industrial area was specifically built for industrial use and not retail. Councilor Siegel states that this location is not a retail space.There is also concern that should this petitioner be allowed to operate in this location and expand in the future,there may be a significant increase in traffic in the future. Councilor Siegel recognizes that there is a need in the community for the proposed service,but opposes the proposed location. Dave Ekstrom 98 Swampscott Road- Concerned about the proposed use as a clinic in an industrial area. • Jack O'Neil, CFO Jacqueline's Wholesale Bakery,Inc,states concern that the proposed use is . retail/consumer based in an industrial area. There is also concern about traffic generation from a proposed retail use. Judylynn Monaco,Davita Healthcare- states that dialysis is a life-saving treatment in people with kidney failure and without this service they will not five. There is a need in this community for this service and unfortunately because of regulations with the Department of Health, there are not many places in this area that can meet the requirements of needing first floor space and parking. Technology Way was not a first choice for placement,but met requirements and regulations that are in compliance to provide treatment. Mr. Arthur Sargent,Councilor at Large- states sympathy and recognizes the need for this service. Thermal Circuits and the relocation of Salem Glass Company to this industrial park provides significant investment in manufacturing and jobs for the area and the proposed medical clinic is incompatible with the existing uses of the industrial park. Jun Miller,Vice President and Owner of Salem Glass-business is relocated to Technology Way and is specifically for technology and research. There is significant investment from the existing business with proposals to expand.The proposal is not compatible with the existing uses of this manufacturing park. Attorney Correnti 63 Federal Street,Representing Thermal Circuits -Davita Healthcare is a very successful business and there is a clear need for this facility in the community. Comments are about this particularly location at Technology Way.Attorney Correnti states there are plans at Thermal Circuits to significant expand the manufacturing company.There is concern that the medical clinic • proposal will generate significant traffic located at the facility. The proposed use does not fit the character of the existing neighborhood as the facilities located at Technology Way are specifically manufacturing and research uses. Ms. O'Connell- states that the estimated number of ambulance trips is about 40 trips per day. Mr. Copelas asked for clarification on whether ambulatory service trips will drop off and stay. Ms. O'Connell states that the ambulatory services will not stay. Often times the ambulance will drop off and leave.Then an ambulance will come back at the end of a shift and pick up clients. Mr. Copelas asks for further clarification on whether a patient using ambulatory services requires two ambulance trips. Ms. O'Connell states that ambulatory services often drop-off patients and pick-up patients in one trip. Ms. Curran states that the proposed medical clinic conflicts and is incompatible with the existing manufacturing and technology uses in the industrial park. The existing traffic flow on the property and parking is incompatible with the proposed service use. Swampscott Road is also difficult to travel due to existing traffic.As proposed, the medical clinic would generate traffic that is not well suited for the area,particularly along Swampscott Road and existing site use. 40 • Judylynn Monaco,Davita Healthcare-Where is Colonial Road in reference with 4 Technology Way in where traffic is different? Ms. Curran states that Swampscott Road is a connector road. People travel fast on Swampscott Road and there is a lot of retail off of Highland Ave.where there is a non-signalized intersection.There is a gym,transfer station and man},other traffic generators on this road. Many people also use this road to commute. Many people use this road and the traffic is busier than the Colonial Road area. Mr. Copleas- according to the criteria for a Special Permit is neighborhood character.The proposed clinic is a customer based/consumer use proposed in a location with existing manufacturing and research uses.The proposed use seems to be contrary to the character of the existing neighborhood. There are also traffic flow and safety issues as proposed. There are significant problems with this application. Mr.Tsitsinos—there are too many large trucks for the average person to come in and out of the facility. There are 18-wheeler trucks that are currently operating at this facility. Ms. O'Connell states that the traffic for the proposed clinic will not overlap with the manufacturing traffic.The clinic will have a shift at 6am and l lam.The delivery hours for the manufacturing businesses are from 7am to llam. Mr.Tsitsinos states that the bylaws are that there is no delivery to be made before 7am. It is also dangerous to have people driving to and load at this location with the existing large truck traffic from • the current manufacturing facilities. Mr. Duffy: based on the concerns of the current businesses at this location and residents in the community there are issues and concerns about traffic flow and safety and that the proposed use is inconsistent and incompatible with manufacturing use. Mr. Duffy sympathizes with the need and would like to keep in Salem in limiting the ability for this company to serve the community. This is not the right place for it. Motion and Vote:Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the petition for a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.1 Principal Uses,to operate a medical clinic for a portion of the property located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY.The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy.The vote was with unanimous with none(0)in favor and five (5) (Rebecca Curran,Peter A. Copelas, Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins and Jimmy Tsitsinos) opposed. APP OVR�AI.OF MEETING MINUTES November 19, 2014 meeting minutes were approved as printed. Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve the minutes as written,seconded by Mr. Copelas.The vote was with 4(four) (Rebecca Curran,Peter A. Copelas,Tom Watkins and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0) opposed. Mr. Duffy abstained due to not being present at the November 19,2014 meeting. • December 17,2014 meeting minutes were approved as printed. • Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve the minutes as written,seconded by Mr. Copelas.The vote was with 3 (three) (Ms. Curran,Mr. Duffy,Peter A. Copelas) in favor and none (0) opposed. Mr.Watkins and Mr.Tsitsinos abstained due to not being present at the December 17,2014 meeting. OLD/NEW.BUSINESS Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina Chapter 91 -FYI AD OURNMENT Mr. Watkins motioned for adjournment of the January 21,2015 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 215pm. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins made a motion to adjourn the January 21,2015 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals,seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos, and the vote is unanimous with five (5) in favor(Rebecca Curran,Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins and Jimmy Tsitsinos) 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 or project at hLtp:llsalem.com/P`ages/S`ilemAM ZoningMppealsMin/ • Respectfully submitted, Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner 41 CoNN a CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL • � -4 A & 2b 120 WASHAIGTON STREET# $ALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRIsCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-98U MAYOR 6ITY g FILE #f LESK, SALEM, MASS. February 4, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals 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) (R2 Zoning District). On December 17, 2014, the petition was opened and continued to the following regularly scheduled meeting on January 21, 2015. On this date, the Board of Appeals met to discuss the petitioner's request to withdraw the above referenced petition without prejudice. The following Board of Appeals members were present. Ms. Curran (Chair),Mr. Copelas,Mr. Watkins,Mr. Duffy 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. Copepe do Watkins, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate) and none (0) opposed. • BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE JANUARY 21,2015. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLEW K Appeal from this detwon, if any,.shall be made pnrraant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General laws Chapter 40 q and shall be filed within 20 days of fUng of this decision in the office of the City Ckrk pnnwaot to the Marsachwetts General Jaws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance Spedal Permit granted herein shall not take�ct until a copy of the deciaon bearing the tertifi ate of the City Clerk bar been filed with the Essex South Begag ofDeedr. or -OWN' CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL A 8* 2b 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSFnS 01970 KIAMERLEY DRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 FILE # MAYOR CITY CLERK, SALEM.MASS. February 4, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals 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). On December 17, 2014, the petition was opened and continued to the following regularly scheduled meeting on January 21, 2015. On this date, the Board of Appeals met to discuss the petitioner's request to withdraw the above referenced petition without prejudice. The following Board of Appeals members were present: Ms. Curran (Chair),Mr. Copelas,Mr. Watkins,Mr. Duffy 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. Copelas, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate) and none (0) opposed. BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTED PERMISSIO N TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE JANUARY 21,2015. 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 detrdon, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Lams Chapter 40A,and shall be filed=thin 10 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Lams Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision beating the aertiftcate of the City Clerk bar been filed with the Essex nie or Reguig of Deeds. 9�Vg� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS �. BOARD OF APPEAL i 120 WASHINGTON STREET#SALEM,MASSACHUSET s 01970 S FEB -4 q 26 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR fIIY(,' FILE # LERK, SALEM,MASS. February 4, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of JOSEPH R. GAGNON and MARIA K GAGNON seeking Special Permits per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconfomring 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 ofDtmenslonal Requirements to allow a reduction in minimum lot size per dwelling unit. The proposal is for the property located at 20 LINDEN STREET (Map 30,Lot 15) (R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on January 21, 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 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,Mr. Tsitsinos (alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Non-Conforming Single- and Two-Family Residential • Structures and a Special Permit per Sec. 4.1A Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: ]. In the petition date-stamped December 4, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit to allow the reconstruction of a rear addition to an existing non-conforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structure and a Special Permit to allow a reduction in the minimum lot size per dwelling unit. 2. Mr.Joseph Gagnon,petitioner,presented the application for 20 Linden Street. 3. The petitioner has demolished an existing 199.5 square foot existing rear addition and would like to rebuild a new 196 square foot addition at the rear of the residential structure. 4. The existing 199.5 square foot rear addition of this historic structure did not meet current zoning requirements as the structure was located 1.3 feet from the side yard lot line. The applicant requested a Special Permit for the proposed new addition does not meet the minimum side yard setback zoning requirements. 5. The proposed side yard setback for the new rear addition is 5 feet and the current zoning requirement is 10 feet. The existing rear addition had a rear 1.3 foot side yard setback. 6. The applicant also requested a Special Permit for the minimum lot area per dwelling unit. The required minimum lot area is 7,500 square feet per unit. The petitioner proposes to convert the existing single-family home to a two-family, which is allowed by right. The petitioner requested a Special Permit for minimum lot area as the proposed lot area is 8,250 square feet for two-units. • 7. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to reconstruct a rear addition with a five (5) foot side yard setback and allow a reduction in the minimum lot size per dwelling unit to 8,250 square feet for two-units. City of Salem Board of Appeals February 4,2015 Project:20 Linden Street Page 2 of 3 8. At the public hearing one (1) members of the public spoke in favor of and none (0) 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 for Special Permits: 1. The project serves social, economic and community needs by rehabilitating and renovating an existing dilapidated structure. 2. There are no negative impacts on traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading, as there is no major introduction of high demand traffic and off-street parking proposed is within P g P P thin the parking requirements for this use. 3. The existingutilities are adequate e to accommodate date an additional dwelling unit P proposed 4. There are no detrimental impacts on the natural environment and drainage. 5. The proposal fits with the character of the neighborhood. 6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on City tax base and employment are positive. 7. 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. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Rebecca Curran,Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins and Jimmy Tsitsinos) and none(0) opposed, to grant Special Permits, to allow the reconstruction of a rear addition and to allow a reduction in minimum lot size pet dwelling unit, 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 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. Architectural plans shall be submitted to the Building Department as described in this petition. • Rebecca Cuaan, Chair Board of Appeals City of Salem Board of Appeals February 4,2015 Project:20 Linden Street Page 3 of 3 • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massacbuseits General LowJ Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days affidng of this dedsiox in the office of the City Clerk Pursuant to the Massachusetts Genera!Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permitgranted herein shall not take effect until a ropy of the de i ion bearing the certifuate of the City Clerk has beex filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSAGHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL EAL KIMbERLEY DRISCOLL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,jylASSACHUSEM 70 -4 P 2: 05 MAYOR TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 FILE # CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS: February 4, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of DAVID POTTER,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 cAVE ed to another nonconforming use of a general office at the property located at 198 LORING (Map 31,Lot 31) (RI Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on January 21, 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 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,Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit from the requirements of Section 3.3.2 Nonconfornring User of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: L In the petition date-stamped November 25, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit to allow . an existing nonconforming use of a barbershop to be changed to another nonconforming use of a general office. 2. Attorney Lisa Mcgloin,presented the petition on behalf of the applicant. 3. The office space will be a real estate office with a total of two (2) employees. 4. The requested relief,if granted,would allow the Petitioner to convert a previously existing barbershop to a real estate office use. 5. At the public hearing one (1) member of the public spoke in Favor and none (0) 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 for Special Permit: 1. This change in use shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. 2. The proposed use is not more detrimental re is no impact on the social, econ needs served by the proposal. omic or community • 3. There are no impacts on traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading. City of Salem Board of Appeals February 4,2015 Project: 198 Loring Ave Page 2 of 2 is 5. The capacity of the utilities is not affected by the project. 5. There are no impacts on the natural environment,including drainage. 6. The proposal fits with the existing neighborhood character as there has been a small�business in operation at this location for over 50 years. 7. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base is positive. (MOn the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5)in favor s. Curran, Mr. Watkins,Mr Copelas,Mr. Duffy and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant 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 de a general office at the property, subject to the following terms,conditions, and safeguards: 1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All 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 adhered to. to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of new construction shall be in hanmony with the existing structure 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. • 7. No motor vehicles shall be parked on the sidewalk. Rebecca Curran, Chant Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this deasion, if any,shad be made pursuant to Seetion 17 of the MacrachweAr General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed uithin 20 days of fihn8 of thu detwon in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Marracburetts General Lams Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Voiance or Speaal o fDeeds.granted herein shall mat take s antil a ropy Registry of Dee of the deasion bearing the te#ificate of the Gy Ckrk has been filed with the Essex South • i /pONDIT� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 _ - A KIMBERLEYDRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR C+'rr CLE FILE . SALEM, MASS, February 4, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of DOUGLAS and JEAN KARAM seeking Variances from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional 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 (Rl Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on January 21, 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 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,Mr. Tsitsinos (alternate). The Petitioner seeks Variances from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimennonal Reglarments lot area, width, coverage, and setback requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: • 1. In the petition date-stamped November 24, 2014, the Petitioner requested Variances to allow the construction of an accessory structure that is physically separated, but held in common ownership with 25 Winter Island Road. 2. Attorney Grover,presented the petition on behalf of the application for 24 Winter Island Road. 3. The petitioners are requesting relief from the provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a garage and storage shed on the vacant parcel located at 24 Winter Island Road. 4. The proposed structure could be considered an accessory structure to the dwelling located at 25 Winter Island Road, the Zoning Ordinance describes an accessory building as "a subordinate building located on the same lot as the main or principal use of the land." 5. The proposed accessory structure located at 24 Winter Island Road is incidental to the main use of the land located at 25 Winter Island Road by a the roadway, but both parcels are held in common ownership and have historically been held together with one deed. 6. The applicant assumed that the dimensional requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 apply to the structure as opposed to the less stringent provisions of Sec. 3.2.4 relating to accessory structures. Therefore, the petitioner requests Variances from the lot area,width,lot coverage and setback requirements of the R- 1 Zoning District where the property is located to be considered a building rather than an accessory structure. 7. The requested relief,if granted,would allow the Petitioner to construct a garage and shed storage area located on 24 Winter Island Road. • 8. A petition of support was submitted as part of the records for this petition. City of Salem Board of Appeals February 4,2015 Project:24 Winter Island Road Page 2 of 3 • 9. At the public hearing one (1) member of the public spoke in favor of and none (0) 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 for Variances: 1. The lot located at 24 Winter Island Road is unique because it is physically separated, but held in common deed with 25 Winter Island Road. Therefore the special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building, or structure involved, does not generally affect other lands, buildings and structures in the same district. 2. The literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant as the literal enforcement of the zoning provisions would prohibit any structure from being place on this parcel. 3. The 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 as the proposed structure is in keeping with the neighborhood as the structure is consistent with other accessory storage uses and storage sheds on the properties in close vicinity to 24 Winter Island Road. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor • (Rebecca Curran,Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins and Jimmy Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed,to grant Special Permits, to allow the reconstruction of a rear addition and to allow a reduction in minimum lot size 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 Fite Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. The properties of 24 and 25 Winter Island Road shall remain deeded together in perpetuity. 9. The accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit. 10. No bathroom shall be installed in the accessory structure located at 24 Winter Island Road. • Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals City of Salem Board of Appeals February 4,2015 Project:24 Winter Island Road Page 3 of 3 • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this dearlon,if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days offsling of this deasion in the office of the City Clerk. Pursesant to the Maaacbusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or SPeRgixi l Permit grouted heran shall not take effect until a ropy of the deasion bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry ofDeedr. • i • I / ' ••�s CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHWGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 _4 A 8, 2b KIMBERLEY DRcscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR CIIYcLE FII8A1€M. MASS: February 4, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of JUDYLYNN MONACO seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.1 Prinoal User, to operate a medical clinic for a portion of the property located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY (Map 7, Lot 79) (BPD Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on January 21, 2015 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,Mr. Tsitsinos (alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.1 PriflOal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped December 29, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit to allow • the use of a medical clinic for a portion of the property located at 4 Technology Way. 2. Ms.Joanne O'Connell, architect with NEMD Architects, Inc. of Providence, Rhode Island presented the petition on behalf of the applicant Davita Healthcare Partners. The petitioner,Judylynn Monaco, project manager and Ms.Julie Higgins Van Sickle,facility administrator for Davita Healthcare Services regional office located in Salem,MA were also present. 3. The petitioner, Davita Healthcare Partners is requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.1 Principal Uses to operate a medical clinic in a portion of property located at 4 Technology Way. 4. The current use of 4 Technology Way is research, technology and general office space. 5. The proposed medical clinic is a dialysis center that would provide services to approximately 66-88 patients per day and staff thirty-two (32) employees per day. 6. The current facility located at 10 Colonial Road in Salem does not meet current service demand. Therefore the company is seeking the possibility of relocation to 4 Technology Way. 7. The proposed hours of operation of the dialysis clinic are from 5am to 8pm. 8. Approximately 22 patients would access the site independently by car or by ambulance services in three shifts per day starting at Gam, 1lam,and 4pm. 9. The facility will also have 1-2 deliveries made per week by a tractor trailer. 10. There are a total of ninety-five (95) parking spaces for the entire shared facility. The handicapped spaces that are located closest to the proposed clinic entrance would be designated for the dialysis center,while the remaining parking options for patients and employees will be fast come first serve. • 11. The requested relief,if granted, would allow the Petitioner to operate a medical clinic for a portion of the property at 4 Technology Way. City of Salem Board of Appeals February 4,2015 Project: 4 Technology Way Page 2 of 2 • 12. A petition in opposition was submitted as part of the records for this petition. 13. At the public hearing no (0) members of the public spoke in favor of and five (5) members spoke in Opposition to, the petition. The opposition was generally on conflict with the industrial park, the grounds that the proposed use was in 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 Special Permit The Board expressed its understanding that Technology Way was created as an industrial park. Therefore commercial and retail based uses present conflicts with the existing and future industrial uses in this building and industrial park area. In particular, the proposed heavy client traffic was found to be in conflict with other uses in the building and industrial park area. The Board therefore finds that this use is inconsistent with the existing uses and in conflict with park specifically the current industrial 1. The social,economic and community needs would be served by the proposal. 2. Traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading as proposed and discussed are inadequate for this location. 3. The utilities and other public services are adequate. • 4. There are no impacts on the natural environment including drainage as no additional construction is Proposed. 5. A medical clinic, as proposed,is inconsistent and incompatible with current uses at this location. G. The potential fiscal positive. th impact,including impact on e City's tax base and employment would be 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 (Rebecca Curran,Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins and Jimmy Tsitsinos), to grant a Special Permit to allow the operation of a medical clinic located at 4 Technology Way. THE PETITION IS DENIED. n !� CC Rebecca Curran,Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal fiom ibis deal on,if aey,shall be made pnrruant to Section 17 ojthe Ma sarhurettr Genemllamr,Chapter 40A, and shall be frkd nnthin 20 days of fik'ng of this deezizon in the offtm of the Clty Ckrk. Purruant to the Marsach General Special Permit8ranted bemin shall not take effect until a mpy of the dediion beating the cer urettr tificate of the Go Clek has been filed with the Essexananee South Vy of Deeas. v��ONU1T,1,r�! 5Is CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS a� o BOARD OF APPEAL 9 �n�S \�l!'IINE 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01wf19 FEU I I A 35 KIMBERLEYDRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 FILE 41 MAYOR CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. AMENDED MEETING NOTICE You are hereby noted that the Salem Zoning Board o(Appeals unll hold its regularly rcheduled meeting on Wednesday, February 18,2015 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 ➢January 21,2015 III. REGULAR AGENDA • Project: A public hearing for a petition seeking Special Permits from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures, to allow a change from an existing non-conforming two family structure to a multi-family structure and to construct a rear addition. The proposal is for the property located at 103 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36,Lot 378) (B1 Zoning District). Applicant: JUNIPER POINT 103 BRIDGE STREET LLC Location: 103 BRIDGE STREET (B1 Zoning District) Project: A public hearing for a petition seeking Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow an existing nonconforming use of a commercial storefront to be converted to a non-conforming one bedroom apartment at the property located at 98 BOSTON STREET (Map 16,Lot 145) (132 Zoning District). Applicant: DUARTE MACHADO Location: 98 BOSTON STREET (B2 Zoning District) Project: A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow an increase in the number of stories from 2.5 stories to 3 stories. The proposal is for the property located at 410 LORING AVE (Map 30 Lot 60) (R1 Zoning District). Applicant: DIKRAN YAKNBIAN • Location 410 LORING AVE This notice posted on-"Official Bulletin Board" Cit Hall Saler�iaM 9V. on FEB 1 12015 at qW in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Se tions 8-25. City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for February 18,2015 Meeting A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table • Project of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, from the minimum lot frontage requirements, lot area requirements, and lot coverage maximum requirements to realign lot lines for parcels held in common ownership and to allow an increase in lot coverage maximum for an existing residence. The proposal is for the property located at 23 JACKSON STREET and 17 VALE STREET (Map 25 Lot 661 and Map 25 Lot 660) (R2 Zoning District). Applicant MARIA and WAYNE MALIONEK Location 23 JACKSON STREET and 17 VALE STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area,minimum lot frontage,maximum lot coverage,minimum side setbacks,minimum rear setbacks and maximum number of stories to allow the division of property into six (6) lots for the construction of five (5) single family homes and one (1) three-story duplex. The petitioner is also seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow tandem parking at each of the proposed single family homes.The proposal is for the property located at 43 BRIDGE STREET(Map 36 Lot 238) (R2 Zoning District). Applicant JOSEPH SKOMURSKI Location 43 BRIDGE STREET (R2 Zoning District) • IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS - None V. ADJOURNMENT • Page 2 of 2 r .�'.0 ND}T9,.... '��> CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ar .= it BOARD OF APPEAL ! Cf! 20 9 \� M 120 WASHINGTON STREET+ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 O 2: 02 KIMBERLEYDRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 FILE €1 MAYOR CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, February 18,2015 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 ➢January 21,2015 III. REGULAR AGENDA • Project: A public hearing for a petition seeking Special Permits from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures, to allow a change from an existing non-conforming two family structure to a multi-family structure and to construct a rear addition. The proposal is for the property located at 103 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36,Lot 378) (B1 Zoning District). Applicant: JUNIPER POINT 103 BRIDGE STREET LLC Location: 103 BRIDGE STREET (B1 Zoning District) Project: A public hearing for a petition seeking Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow an existing nonconforming use of a commercial storefront to be converted to a non-conforming one bedroom apartment at the property located at 98 BOSTON STREET (Map 16, Lot 145) (B2 Zoning District). Applicant: DUARTE MACHADO Location: 98 BOSTON STREET (B2 Zoning District) Project: A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow an increase in the number of stories from 2.5 stories to 3 stories. The proposal is for the property located at 410 LORING AVE (Map 30 Lot 60) (R1 Zoning District). Applicant: DIKRAN YAKNBIAN • Location 410 LORING AVE This notice posted_ogn "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, FEB 11121 at a`W M in accordance with hap. 30A, Sections 18-25, City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for February 18,2015 Meeting A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table Project of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, from the minimum lot frontage requirements, lot area requirements, and lot coverage maximum requirements to realign lot lines for parcels held in common ownership and to allow an increase in lot coverage maximum for an existing residence. The proposal is for the property located at 23 JACKSON STREET and 17 VALE STREET (Map 25 Lot 661 and Map 25 Lot 660) (R2 Zoning District). Applicant MARIA and WAYNE MALIONEK Location 23 JACKSON STREET and 17 VALE STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area,minimum lot frontage,maximum lot coverage,minimum side setbacks,minimum rear setbacks and maximum number of stories to allow the division of property into six (6) lots for the construction of five (5) single family homes and one (1) three-story duplex.The petitioner is also seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow tandem parking at each of the proposed single family homes.The proposal is for the property located at 43 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 238) (R2 Zoning District). Applicant JOSEPH SKOMURSKI Location 43 BRIDGE STREET (R2 Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS - 84-86 Bayview Avenue V. ADJOURNMENT • Page 2 of 2 kkecxJkz-, � � kV , ywI C�Lme iecL�-\,j-)f 0 r; City of Salem Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail ri 4.,fi �al�l6�Qa 97 7S/- 7fS��UGS Wi/�u�•� vi��i PCs arwr SF — h�)2vkcr Sf S'�(ei�� Be er Furv�ico1S C-sg-ex q91-2-"Cf t � l"Sa fern-cory� • �"I/k�u; _ma c(, Sw 2VF 77-129 ) J� 97� 33 ZIGr j T n _Sr ig- Oggr r J / t e,� ��pnv,vt �o�- (�r/�St►-e,�� l�ah�1—�)�-fi7-a �FS�jo�. nt'f- v%'x? ddhn (1o4e� In Brid oIP fig 5oa O0 - ` e Qs e C) V r Page of y - City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet � t Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail J t, uCIL� Z S tityr� �ICAUe 9 7 G97 �� Page of 54 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS �1 BOARD OF APPEAL 9�%M➢VE . _ 120 WASI-IINGTON$TREGT 1 SAI.El\d,1VIASSACI-IUSL'Pl'S 01970 I4nat3r_RLI-Y DRISCOLL Tt'LE'':978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner DATE: February 11,2015 RE: Meeting Agenda for February 18, 2015 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Meeting Minutes from1/21/2015 4. 98 Boston Street Application 5. 410 Loring Ave Application 6. 23 Jackson Street and 17 Vale Street Application (1 project) 7. 43 Bridge Street Application 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 the public hearing at the 02/18/2015 meeting. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. Continuation of the petition of JUNIPER POINT 103 BRIDGE STREET LLC,requesting Special Permits from the provisions of Sec.3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a change from an existing non-conforming two family structure to a multi-family structure and to construct a rear addition at the property located at 103 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36, Lot 378) (B1 Zoning District). The petitioner is requesting Special Permits per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Structures, to allow a change from and existing non-conforming two family structure to five (5) unit non-conform ng multi-family structure and to construct a rear addition. This project is continued from our last meeting on January 21,2015. 2. Petition of DUARTE MACHADO,requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an existing nonconforming use of a commercial storefront to be converted to a non-conforming one bedroom apartment at the property located at 98 BOSTON STREET (map 16, Lot, 145) (B2 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit for a change of use from an existing nonconforming use to another nonconforming use.Application materials are included in this packet. 3. Petition of DIKRAN YAKNBIAN seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of • Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow an increase in the number of stories from 2.5 stories to 3 stories. The proposal is for the property located at 410 LORING AVE (Map 30 Lot 60) (R1 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a Variance to allow an increase in the number of stories from 2.5 stories to 3 stories to construct a shed roof dormer and a gable dormer. The petitioner is also seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—February 18, 2015 Page 2 of 2 Nonconforming Structures to reconstruct, extend,alter or change a nonconforming structure. Application materials including a plot plan and elevation drawings are in this packet. 4. Petition of MARIA and WAYNE MALIONEK seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, from the minimum lot frontage requirements, lot area requirements, and lot coverage maximum requirements to realign lot lines for parcels held in common ownership and to allow an increase in lot coverage maximum for an existing residence.The proposal is for the property located at 23 JACKSON STREET and 17 VALE STREET (Map 25 Lot 661 and Map 25 Lot 660) (112 Zoning District). The petitioner is requesting Variances from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, from the minimum lot frontage requirements,lot area requirements, and lot coverage maximum requirements to realign lot lines for parcels held in common ownership and to allow an increase in lot coverage maximum for an existing residence. The proposal is for the property located at 23 Jackson Street and 17 Vale Street. Application materials are included in this packet. 5. Petition of JOSEPH SKOMURSKI seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area,minimum lot frontage, maximum lot coverage, minimum side setbacks,minimum rear setbacks and maximum number of stories to allow the division of property into six (6) lots for the construction of five (5) single family homes and one (1) three-story duplex. The petitioner is also seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow tandem parking at each of the proposed single family homes.The proposal is for the property located at 43 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 238) (R2 Zoning District). • The petitioner is requesting Variances from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area,nutinnum lot frontage,maximum lot coverage,minimum side setbacks,minimum rear setbacks and maximum number of stories to allow the division of property into six (6) lots for the construction of five (5) single family homes and one (1) three-story duplex.The petitioner is also seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow tandem parking at each of the proposed single family homes. The petitioner will be holding a neighborhood meeting on February 16,2015. On October,20, 2014 the Planning Board and City Council held a joint public hearing to approve a zoning change for this property to extend the Residential Two-Family(R-2) District to include the entire parcel located at 43 Bridge Street. OLD NEW BUSINESS None 2 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 2-* 21 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TALE:978-619-5685 * FAX:978-740-0404 FILE # MMBERLEYURISCOLL CITY GLERX: SALEM. MASS. MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MARIA and WAYNE MALIONEK seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, from the minimum lot frontage requirements, lot area requirements, and lot coverage maximum requirements to realign lot lines for parcels held in common ownership and to allow an increase in lot coverage maximum for an existing residence. The proposal is for the property located at 23 JACKSON STREET and 17 VALE STREET (Map 25 Lot 661 and Map 25 Lot 660) (R2 Zoning District). • Said hearing will be held on WED, FEB 18, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., P floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 2/4/2015 & 2/11/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall,Salem, Mass. on FEB 0 3 2015 atol; in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Section 18-25. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL ,I 1015 FFR -I P 2 21 i; 120 WASHINGTON STREET 0 SALEM,MASSACHUSEI75 019 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦FAX:978-74�. �A GLE�tSA#EM. MASS. KIMaERLEY DRIscOLL MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of DIKRAN YAKNBIAN seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow an increase in the number of stories from 2.5 stories to 3 stories. The proposal is for the property located at 410 LORING AVE (Map 30 Lot 60) (RI Zoning District). • Said hearing will be held on WED, FEB 18, 2015 at 6:30pm, 3`d Floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 2/4/2015 & 2/11/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on FEB 0 3 2015 at a,,dgl `'f in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-26. • � s CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ,V BOARD OF APPEAL A q 2, (liS _ 120 wASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIbIDERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-619-5685♦ FAX:978-740-0404 FILE # 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 DUARTE MACHADO 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 commercial storefront to be converted to a non-conforming one bedroom apartment at the property located at 98 Boston Street(Map 16, Lot 145) (B2 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, FEB 18,2015 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. ! • Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 2/4/2015 & 2/11/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Bo&,-d" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on FEB 0 3 2015 at a;�?PM in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 1015 FEB 3 P 21 21 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUS=01970 TELE 978-619-5685♦ FAx:978-740-0404 FILE N M rABERLEY DRiscou. 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 SKOMURSKI seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area, minimum lot frontage, maximum lot coverage, minimum side setbacks, minimum rear setbacks and maximum number of stories to allow the division of property into six (6) lots for the construction of five (5) single family homes and one (1) three-story duplex. The petitioner is also seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow tandem parking at each of the proposed single family homes. The proposal is for the property located at 43 BRIDGE STREET(Map 36 Lot 238) (R2 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, FEB 18, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., P floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 2/4/2015 &2/11/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on FEB 0 3 99np atd` ;d'�� in accordance with MA%hap. 30A,. Sections 18-25. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL KiMBERLEy DRISCOLL 120 WASJUNGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MA SSA@l�[1 A � 29 p�J7 MAYOR TELE:978-745-9595 ♦FAX:978-740-9846 FILE # CITY BLEW SALEM. MASS. March 4, 2015 -Decision Petition of MARIA and WAYNE City of Salem Board of Appeals MALIONE%seeldng Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, from the minimum lot frontage requirements,lot area requirements, and lot coverage lines for parcels held in common ownershipmaximum re quirements to realign existing residence. The proposal is n increase in lot for the roperty located at 23 JACKSON STREET and 17 VALE t STREETcoveragemaximum for an (Map 25 Lot 661 and Map 25 Lot 660) (R2 Zoning District). A public heating on the above Petition was o The hearing was closed on that Paned on February 18, 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, date with the following Salem Board of A 11. Curran (Chair),Mr, Duffy Mr. Watkins � Copelas,Mr Tsitsinos (Alternate),pp� members present. Ms. The Petitioner seeks Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of D' s of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, from the minimum lot frontage Dimensional Re coveragein ge requirements, lot area requirements,quire tand of • g maximum requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Quinn presented the petition on behalf of the applicants. 2. In the petition date-stamped January 8, 2015, the Petitioner requested Variance to realign lot lines for Parcels held in common ownership and to allow an increase in lot coverage maximum for an existing residence as shown plot plan "Plot Plan of Land Salem,AM", dated December 15, 2014. . The petitioner proposes to construct an additional single-family dwelling unit on the parcel. 4 The ex' ttag lots are legally merged into one (1) lot. 5. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to subdivide the property into two lots and to allow an incense in lot coverage maximum in accordance with "Plot Plan of Land Salem, MA", dated December 15,2014. 6. There are no new non-conformities being created in the proposed structure. 7. At the public hearing one (1) member of the public spoke in favor of, and no 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 Presentation and public testimonPetitioner's Provisions of the City of Salem Zoningy, makes the following dings that the Proposed project eetdie Ordinance: 0 f' City of Salem Board of Appeals March 4,2015 Project:23 Jackson Street and 14 Vale Street Page 2 of 3 Findings for Variances: 1' Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building,generally not affecting other lands or structure involved , tures in the same district is that the existing lot buildings and struc Is an odd shape and has steep topography adjacent to existing frontage. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would create a substantial and unique hardship as the odd shape lot and steep topography adjacent to frontage on Vale Street is not accessible and would restrict the petitioner from using the parcel. 3. The desired relief may be granted without n district or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning or substantially derogating from the intent of the and two g Ordinance. The property is located in an R2 district units could be located on this property as a matter of right. (M the basis oMr.f the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor ari Curran, ues Watkins,Mr. Copelas,Mr. Duffy and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor) and none 0 opposed, to ant Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, from the �minimum lot frontage requirements,lot area requirements and lot coverage maximum requirements to realign lot lines for parcels held in common ownership and to allow an increase in lot coverage maximum for an existing residence, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: Standard Conditions: i• The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and re • 2• All construction shall be done as per the Plans and regulations. Building Commissioner p dimensions submitted to and approved by the 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 shall be obtained 7. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 8. Petitioner shall obtain a 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 Bo not limited to, the Planning Board. aid or Commission having jurisdiction including, but Special Conditions: 1. The both the proposed dwelling unit and the existing dwelling on the property shall remain a single family homes and may not be converted to two family structures. fl ebecca Curran, Chair 0 Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOA RD AND THE CITY CLERK f City of Salem Board of Appeals March 4,2015 Project:23 Jackson Street and 14 Vale Street Page 3 of 3 • `9pyeal f rim tbu deeznox,f ay,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Ma sachusettr General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed azthin 20 days IhSng of thir deciion in the office of the Gry Clerk, Pursuant to the Massachusetts General L"s Chapter 40A, Sectiox 11, the Variance or Special q fDeegranted herein shall not take�ct until a ropy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been fled with the Essex South J{egirtry ofDeeeL: • • CITY OF SALE BOAS A1ASSACHUSETTS ERQ,yDRISGGyt OF APPEAL IlggyoR 120 WASHpVGTpNS )(�ff.SS �1epp �..9j8-7�ET# �ALEM,MA.SSAQ�ES'rs'Ol'970 4 A 8-' 29 AX:978-740-9846 rf , March 4, 2915 CITY CLERK SALEM,Miss. Pe CityDecision Dime o f DI of$alern B loon o�onal Re meAKUBIr]N see oatd ofAPPea1s eta 1d The pmpos�tnsgfor tbe�es to ow aal in nag Or ances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1. A propertylocaa n i crease 'RING mace and a S 1 Table of public h d at 410I,p G weber of stories from 2r stoners to Son 3.3.3 The bearin g°n the aboveN eana (Chao Mtg was closed on Petition wasOpened � (Map 30 Lot 60) (R1 Zoningstories. The pe Duffy Mr. Wa ass date with the fo ened on Feb District). Ordin htr.net seeks a special ' Copelas, po�g Salernn B card'at3 18 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A Statements offact.. pennriPer Sec. 41.1 Table os (alternat)f Appeals members present: Ms. Curran • 1• ct: Of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning T Table of"ion date-stain S Dimensional Ped ctutes to allow Req -UaI 29 2015, the 3 Attorney XQtp Pteaae luerease m the ntmub d a Special Pe er requested a Variance per Section n nc nfohnr proPonesdto e aPPhcation on behsa�oe" ftorh�5 stories o 3 stories. Nonconforming stories to thteenung structure and construct two f the petitioner. 4. The (3) stories. Increase the (2) shed roOf dormers a,,J gables on 5. Con requested ofndgehne�11elitemain number of stordes from an exis g two and an existing to nfornun9 ef if structure granted, wo the same height at � half (2.5) three (3)stories. and allow a' .would allow the trip-three (33) feet. 6. "'crease ' petition At the public he m the mm�ber of t to reconstruct, extend, alter a cgs no members of oriel from tcvo and a half 2.5 non- thepublic ( ) stories and afterPtiti.ale"' hBoardughf re after care spoke m favor or in opposition to petition. thoto PPeals ner's review consider,etition . meets the proois Provisions ' City bli al p�O Y, make non of th P Bdence public heating, the a presentecd at the 0 the enr Zoning Otdinance.ollo g findfngsrtha te d Pis, and the the • Proposed project City of Salem Board of Appeals March 4,2015 Project:410 Loring Avenue Page 2 of 3 Findings_ Variance from the 2.5 stories maximum allowed height of buildings to allow the building to be three (3) stories: I. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance requiring a maximum allowed number of 2.5 stories would be a substantial and unique hardship as the existing third floor cannot a used because it does not meet current building code requirements. 2. The proposed dormers and gables would not be a substantial det riment to the public good. 3• The desired relief may be granted without n ' purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinancue tg or substantially derogating from the in or Findings for Special Permit: 1. The proposed expansion of a non-conforming use is not more detrimental than the existing use to the 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 conforms to the existing neighborhood character. 6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base is positive. • On the basis of the above statements of facts and findin favor (Rebecca Curran,grant Mike Duffy, gs, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four(4)in opposed, to ant a Variance and Sp Tom Watkins and Jimmy Tsitsinos) and one (1) (Peter A. Copelas) stories 3 stories, subject to the Special Permits, and allow an increase in the number of stories from 2.5 safeguards: following seven (7) standard and two (2) special terms, conditions, and 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 Budding Commissioner 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to adhered to. smoke and fire safety shall be strictly 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 shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board, Special Conditions: • 1. The non-conforming structure shall remain a two (2) unit structure. 2. No kitchen shall be installed on the third (31 floor. City of Salem Board of Appeals March 4,2015 Project:410 Loring Avenue 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 Phis deairion,if arry,shall be made pmnsmant to Section 17 of the Massachasetts Generallaw.r Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of ftb'ng of this decuxan in the office of the Gty Clerk Pmmtant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter¢OA, Section 11, the Tlanamee or Special Permitgranted herein shall not take ffert until a ropy of the de=on bearing the artlfrcate of the Gty Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • • CI'I'I' OF SALEM BOAS � MASSACHUSETTS OF APPEAL, I{IMBERLEYDRISCOLL 120 WASHIIyGTpNS ,TRE1 S MAYOR ALEM,MA SSACHUSETTS 01970 R '4 A 8& 29 TELE:978-745-9595 FAX 978-740-9846 CITY CtERN SALEH.MASS: March 4, 2015 Deccis Petition OfDUARTE City of Salem Board ofA of the Salem Zo MACHr1D0 requestinga Appeals storeftoat to be converted non order towancexiPermit e g nonc Sec. 3.3.2 BOSTON ST coafO noncottfo �'O�conforming Uses REET (Map 16, Lot 145 Orating one bedroom apartment th use of a commercial (B2 Zoning District), Pattrnettt at the ptoPertY located at 98 A public he The hearing °n the above Petition g was closed a as opened on February Curran (Chan),Mr.Duffy, at date wtth the folio 18, 2015 pursuant to Watkins,Ml th wing Salem Board of A M•G.L Ch. 40A The Petitioner seeks a S e pelas,Mr. Tsits' ppeals members mOs (Alternate). present: Ms. Zoning Ordinance. p Permit from the requirements ) State of Section 3.3.2 Nonconfornrrn8 Uses of ments of fact: the Salem • 1 In the petition date-stamped nonconfo sped f 29 2015, the petitioner use of a one Ong use t. a commercial storefront to be Yequested a S (1)unit apartment. pedal Permit to allow 2. Pazaally converted an The petitioner presented the a to a nonconforming 3, The Proposed application. p posed one (1)4' The unit apartment will be located Proposed apartment is approximate, portion of map the first floor. 5 There are n°Proposed changesY 650 square feet. 6 to the windows or fagade of the c A total of nine (9)Parking p current structure. � � p spaces are currently The requested relief Y available for the mixed-use building. 1 if granted, would allow existing commercial storefront to a one 1 the Pent user 8• At the ( ) unit a TO convert a portion of a previously Public he apartment use. The Salem Bo seals a (0)members of the public spoke after thorough °f Appeals' a fret careful consideration P m favor or in opposition of the ugh review of the ration of the Petition. presentation and petition in evidence presented at the Provisions of public tes ' g the application narrative and Public he the City oy' makes the following fin plans the hearing, and ty of Salem ning Ordinance: wtn �ngs that the P and Petitioner's Proposed project meets the • r City of Salem Board of Appeals March 4,2015 Project:98 Boston Street Page 2 of Findings for Special Permit: 1. This change in use shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. 2. The proposed use is not more detrimental there is no impact on the social, economic or community needs served by the proposal. 3. There are no impacts on traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading. 4. The capacity of the utilities is not affected by the project. 5. There are no impacts on the natural environment,including drainage. 6. The proposal conforms to the existing neighborhood character. 7. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City 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. Tsitsinos in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant 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 commercial storefront to be partially converted to another nonconforming use of a one (1) unit apartment at the property, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: • 1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All 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 shall be obtained 7. A Certificat e of Ins pection ection shall be p 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 dec::rion, if any, shall be made purmant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts Genera!Lamy Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 •days offtk'ng of this detirion in the offer of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the T/anancc or Special Pemritgranted herein shall not take ect until a copy of the decision beating the certificate of the City Clerk har been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. CITY OF SA LEM, MASSACHUSETTS _ BOARD OF AP PEAL K7hrBERLEY DRISCOLL 120 WASWNGTON STREET♦SALEM, MAYOR T13LE:978-745-9595 4 FAX:g g o�� AR7a4 A & 29 CITY OLEXF LE, #F March 4, 2015 S MASS. _Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of JUNIPER POINT NT 103 BRIDGE STREET to a conlo multi-fa trig Structures, to allow a ch I I C seeking Special Pe m"y structure and to coastruct change addi onri he on-conforming t� Peni r Sec. 3.3.3 at 103 BRIDGE STREET(Ma 36 rnrrng two family structure A public hearin P 'Lot 37$) (B1 Zoning proposal is for the properly located meeting on Fe b above Petition p ned on JanuaryDistrict). scheduled was o e date with the followin S�' 18, 2015 pursuant to 21, 2015 and continued to the next regularly g em Board of Appeals members Ch. 40A, § I1. The hea g Y Watkins, Mr. Copelas,Mr. Tsitsinos ( present: Ms. Curran rn was closed on this The Petitioner alternate). (Chair), Mr. Duffy, Mr. Ordinance. seeks a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconformin S Statements of fa g structures of the Salem Zo• rung fact. 1. In the petition date-s 3.3.3 �Ped December 29, 2014, the Petitioner re Nonconforming Structures to allow a change from a non-conforimin two multi f�Y st ucture b quested Special Permits per Sec tion y constructing a tear addition. g (2) familys 2• A public hear for �cmre to scheduled g the petition was opened on Jan 21 2015 gularly inf 01 ormation regarding February brute➢ 18, 2015 at the request of the Zoning con the next re continued to g drainage mitigation on the site. rung Board of Appeals for additional 3• Attorney Correnti presented the 4. petition. The petitioner proposes to co ns 5 two (2) family structure. truct a rear addition with five ( ) units to an existing nonconforming 5• There are eight(8)packing spaces Proposed on-site at the tear of the G. A drainage narrative and Property. Part of the record for Pam'written by NATIVEtec, and dated February Stortntech Systems this Pro)ect. As shown on this 17,2015 Y ems for dr ' Plan, the petitioner t was submitted as y drainage mitigation on this site. Proposes to install 3 (three) The existing two (2) family structure is a historic home. )8• The requested relief, if Therequested s granted, would allow the Petitioner conforming tructure by constructing a rear addition on to reconstruct, extend 9. At the public hearings four 4 the existing s , alter a non- ( ) members spoke ' g structure. the proposal. P m favor and nine 9 ( ) members spoke in opposition to • City of Salem Board of Appeals March 4,2015 Project: 103 Bridge 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 Petitioner's presentation and public testimony, makes the fo application narrative and plans, and the meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: ]lowing that the proposed project Findings for Special Permit: 1. The Board finds that the proposal, to construct amulti-family dwelling in a B 1 Zonin District is an allowable use by right and b requesting g to struc Structures turally extend, alter Or structurallySpecial thepexistinSecg sIItr3uc 3.3 a preserves an�ignificandy historic structure. 2• The board finds that the proposed expansion of this dimensionally non-conforming building is not more detrimental than the existing structure to the impact on the social, economic or community needs served by the proposal. The construction of the allowed use of a configuration preserves a historically significant structure multi-family in this 3. There are no impacts on traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading. The proposal includes the required parking for a residential use. 4. The capacity of the utilities is not affected by the project. 5. There are no impacts on the natural environment, including drainage as the proposed drainage mitigation plan addresses stormwater management/drainage concerns. The drainage on this property • is being improved by the addition of 3(three) StormTech Systems. 6. The proposal conforms to the existing neighborhood character. 7. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base is positive. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Rebecca Curran,Mike Duffy, Peter Copelas,Tom Watkins and Jimmy Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed, to grant a Special Permit, to allow a change from an existing non-conforming two family structure to a multi- family structure and to construct a rear addition, subject to the following eight (8) standard and six (6) special 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 approv Building Commissioner ed by the 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 shall be obtained. • 7. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. g. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planting Board. City of Salem Board of Appeals March 4,2015 Project: 103 Bridge Street Page 3 of 3 • Special Conditions: 1. The petitioner shall remove the 1970's era bay window on the fagade of the historic building and replace the windows with two windows that match the existing windows of the front fagade; 2. A solid 6 (six) foot high fence shall be installed along the perimeter of the property 3• The drainage plan written by NATIVEtec, dated February 17, 2015, as presented shall be adhered to; 4. No trash storage shall be located on the property line,along the fence line, or in front of the prope 5. Snow storage rty shall be off site and a snow removal plan shall be incorporated into the homeowner/condo association documents 6. The total number of bedrooms in the building shall be limited to ten (10) bedrooms. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • Appeal from thin decision,if any,.Thall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts Genera!Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 dayr of fik'n8 f&F deddon in the office of the Gty Ckrk. Panuant to the M=achwettt General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permitgranted herein shall not take�ct until a ropy of the dedsian bearing the cerkftcate of the City Ckrk has been filed with the Essex South Registry ofDeedr. • • City of Salem Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday,February 18,2015 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA")was held on Wednesday,February 18,2015 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Ms.Cunancalls the meeting to order at 6:50 p.m. In the interest of starting the meeting,98 Boston Street was taken out of order and opened,with permission from the applicant,to be considered with four(4) Board members present. ROLL CALL Those present were:Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,Tom Watkins, and Jimmy Tsitsinos. Mike Duffy arrived late, but was present.Also in attendance—Thomas St. Pierre,Budding Commissioner,and Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner REGULAR AGENDA Project: A public hearing for a petition seeking Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow an existing nonconforming use of a commercial storefront to be converted to a non- conforming one bedroom apartment at the property located at 98 BOSTON STREET (Map 16,Lot 145) (B2 Zoning District). Applicant: DUARTE MACHADO Location 98 Boston Street (132 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions • Application dated January 29,2015 and supporting documentation Mr. Duarte Machado,the applicant,presents the petition. Ms. Curran confirms that the applicant proposes to convert an existing commercial space into a one (1) bedroom apartment. Mr. Machado states that the proposed one (1) bedroom apartment would be for his daughter. Ms. Curran asks for clarification on the existing use of the commercial storefront. Mr. Machado states that it is a storefront. Ms. Curran asks the applicant if there are any changes to the building front. • Mr. Machado states that the storefront will stay the same. Ms. Curran confirms that there will be no changes to the existing storefront windows. • Ms. Curran restates that the applicant is seeking a special permit for a change of use and states that there are no social, economic impacts, there will be less traffic,no impacts on the environment, conforms to the neighborhood character. Ms. Curran asks the applicant if there is parking on-site. Mr.Machado confirms that there is parking on-site that meet City parking requirements. Ms. Curran asks the applicant for more information on the current number of units in the building. Mr. Machado states that the building has three (3) units. Ms. Curran confirms that the building has a total of three (3) units,a salon,an apartment and commercial storefront space. Ms. Curran states that there is no change in the configuration of the driveway proposed. Ms. Curran asks the applicant whether the proposed one (1) unit apartment will be located in the entire first floor. Ms. Machado states that the proposed apartment would be located in a portion of the first floor.The • current commercial storefront will be split.Where one side will be converted to a residence and the other side will remain a commercial storefront. Mr.Watkins asks the applicant to clarify the location and number of current parking spaces.There are a total of nine (9) parking spaces. Ms. Curran opens comment to the public. No members of the public spoke in opposition to or favor of the petition. Ms. Curran states that there are two (2) commercial spaces on the first floor and one (1) large apartment on the second floor.The proposal is to convert one (1) of the commercial spaces on the first floor into a one (1) bedroom apartment.The building will consist of two (2) residential spaces and one (1) first floor commercial space. Ms. Curran asks the applicant for the total square footage of the proposed apartment. Mr.Machado states that the apartment will be approximately 650 square feet. Ms. Curran states that the proposal has less of an impact that a commercial use. Mr.Watkins asks what the past commercial use was in the building. • • Ms.Machado states that it was a plumbing company. Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve the petition for 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 commercial storefront to be converted to a non-conforming one (1) bedroom apartment at the property located at 98 BOSTON STREET,subject to eight(8) standard conditions.The motion is seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos.The vote was with unanimous with four(4) (Rebecca Curran,Peter A. Copelas,Tom Watkins and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0) opposed. *ZBA member Mike Duffy is present. Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Special Permits from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures, to allow a change from an existing non- conforming two family structure to a multi-family structure and to construct a rear addition. The proposal is for the property located at 103 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36,Lot 378) (B1 Zoning District). Applicant JUNIPER POINT 103 BRIDGE STREET LLC Location 103 BRIDGE STREET (B1 Zoning District) Documentation& Exhibition • • Application date stamped January 29,2015 and supporting documentation • NAT1VEtec Engineering report date stamped February 18,2015 Ms. Curran states that this is a continuation of a hearing that was opened at the last regularly h 1 sc edu ed meeting on January 21,2015.The Board requested additional information on drainage and petitioner had agreed to meet with the neighbors to address issues including drainage, fencing,and screening. Attorney Corrend,63 Federal Street-presented the petition. The petitioner hired an engineer to look at the drainage on 103 Bridge Street.Attorney Correnti presents the engineering report and plan written by NATIVEtec Engineering firm.A portion of the site will be regarded to help pitch the property so that water will run into the drains. The engineer recommended three different locations for a Stormtech system that is an underground containment system for a slow infiltration release to avoid sheet runoff from the site. There are stormceptors proposed for the back right rear,left, and front of the property along Bridge Street. The grade on the property will also be slightly re-pitched to direct stonnwater into the Stormtech containment systems.The engineer used EPA standards to guide the design of this system.The applicant would like to implement this system to mitigate the currently poor drainage conditions of the site. Mr. Copelas asks for clarification on the number of proposed Stormtech system locations. Attorney Correnti states that in accordance with the Drainage Study plan submitted as part of the NATIVEtec report, there are 3 (three) proposed Stormtech systems. • Attorney Correnti states that the petitioner is seeking a special permit to add to an existing non- • conforming structure.The proposed addition meets dimensional requirements and parking requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Marc Tranos, 103 Bayview Ave,petitioner presents a portion of the petition. Mr.Tranos states that last Wednesday he held a meeting for residents and placed notifications on mailboxes to speak to the neighbors about resolutions to concerns including drainage,parking,green areas,and headlights from cars.A central concern from the neighbors was that there was a lot of house proposed for the lot. The proposal shows that that the addition will be below the maximum lot coverage dimensional requirements. Mr.Tranos presents the Board with an analysis of existing lot coverage percentage in the neighborhood.The six (6) properties in the analysis show that the existing average lot coverage is approximately 43%. The petitioner states that the proposal for 103 Bridge Street proposed lot coverage of 39%. Mr.Tranos also states that there are three (3) buildings in the vicinity of proposed location with six (6) units. Two (2) existing multi-family units have no parking.The petitioner states that the proposal is consistent with the existing conditions of the neighborhood. Mr. Watkins asks if the six (6) properties presented in the analysis are direct abutters. Mr.Tranos states that the six (6) properties are surrounding properties. Some are direct abutters and some are behind the proposal location.The petitioner states that Attorney Correnti presented information about drainage mitigation and parking concerns were addressed. Mr.Tranos states that the petitioner originally planned to have a total of five (5) units and sixteen • (16) bedrooms. In response to concerns about density,the petitioner has reduced the proposed number of bedrooms to a total of ten (10) bedrooms within five (5) units.Another concern was a lack of green areas on the property.There is a proposed green area in the front of the property. It is not a lot,but Bridge Street generally does not have a lot of green space. Lastly,with headlight concerns, the petitioner proposes to construct a six (6) foot high solid fence to mitigate potential impacts on neighbors from headlights of cars parking on the property. Mr. Tranos presents four(4) letters of support from neighbors and acknowledges a letter of opposition that was also filed. Ms. Curran reads the written public comment into the record. A petition dated February 18, 2015, signed by nine (9) abutters,was read into the record in opposition to the project. Concerns stated include drainage, density, snow removal,green space,trash placement and the preservation of a historic structure. A petition dated February 18, 2015, signed by four(4) residents spoke in favor of the petition. Ms. Curran opens comments to the public. Robert Liani- 96 Bridge Street of Coffeetime- states that he served on a committee to work on the Bridge Street Neck revitalization plan with the Cecil Group and served on the Mayor's committee ad hoc committee for zoning and unfortunately nothing has changed. Because of this experience, Mr. • • Liani goes on to describe the neighborhood vision. Mr. Liam states his approval of the possibility of homeownership. Currently, the neighborhood is about 50%renters and 50% owners and it is important to keep this ratio. States concerns about density and a lack of green/recreation space that may attract families that are wanted in the neighborhood. There are concerns that the proposed units will become investment properties rather than have present owners. Five (5) units are too many. If there were three (3) units proposed, the density would fit.The parking meets the 1.5 parking space requirements.The existing houses in the neighborhood lack parking due to the historic nature of the homes. At the neighborhood meeting,hosted by the petitioner,Mr.Liam was taken aback by the petitioner's statement that should the Board not approve the proposal, the petitioner by-right can build a box in the middle of the lot,with an in-driveway on one side and out-driveway on the other side with no green space legally. This construction will show the character of the petitioner and maybe this project will spur the City to reform the zoning to be what the neighborhood wants. Flora Tonthat,30 Northey Street-Works with the Salem Chamber and Bridge Street Neck Plan Task Force interested in working toward the goals of the Bridge Street Neck Cecil Group plan and update to zoning in this area. Ms. Tonthat states concerns about the possibility of an absentee landlord, potential disinvestment in the neighborhood and property. Victor Cappozi,2&4 Senders Street- states that abutters were not well notified by the petitioner about the neighborhood meeting.Approximately four(4) abutters out of about twenty(20)were present at the meeting.Mr. Cappozi states concerns about the quality and validity of the drainage report presented and states concerns about the location of onsite snow storage. Mr.Tranos,petitioner, states through the Chair, that at the meeting, only one (1) tenant potential • tenant would need to move their car for on-site snow removal. Kathleen Madeiros, 3 Lemon Street Court—concerns about parking and density. Over the last few years the City has done a nice job with Bridge Street and a project like this is going in the wrong direction.There is too much on a small space. Tom Doucette,Beverly,MA- present on behalf of his mother,who was the previous owner of the property. Concerns include drainage, snow removal and the conservation of the current historic structure. Mike Becker,real estate agent of petitioner,states that it is not economically viable to restore the 1800's house and new construction meets current zoning guidelines. The petitioner would like to keep the historic home.The grading is not set.The final grading for the site is unknown and the current draining is irrelevant to how the site is going to be re-graded after it is completed. Attorney Correnti-regarding the engineer drainage,it is well done. The plan specifically delineates existing and proposed contours for re-grading the site and shows locations stormwater catchment systems as proposed in the report and on the plan.Drainage issues for this site have been taken into consideration. In regard to parking, the applicant meets parking requirements and dimensional requirements. Ms. Curran- Glad to see the engineering report and plan that it was done by a professional engineer. The plan looks like a viable plan.There is a contoured plan and seems like it would be an improvement.The proposal meets the parking requirements in accordance with the City's zoning. The applicant was proposing to have 5 (five) units with three (3) bedrooms each.The unit mixed has been reduced so that there are 5 (five) units that are all 2 (two) bedroom units. There is not a lot of • open space yet, the petitioner is not asking for relief on maximum lot coverage.The proposal meets the current dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance.The benefit to this building is that it proposed to be saved and there were members of the Historic Commission spoke at the previous meeting about the importance of this structure. The Historic Commission also asked that the applicant consider that the 1970's era bay window on the fagade be replace to reflect the original character and mirror the window type on the other side of the front fagade.This is an important structure and it would be a shame to lose it only to build. It is a reality that this exact building could be built as a matter of right on this lot in a different configuration.The concerns about drainage on this site and concerns that the neighbors had including the impact from car headlights in bedroom windows have been addressed.The petitioner will be building a six (6) foot high solid fence around the perimeter. In regard to snow storage, the proposed units will be condos and will have an association that documents something about snow removal requirements. Ms. Curran asks the applicant to clarify the plan for snow removal.There are enough parking spaces for the proposed number of units,but with snow,what is the plan? Attorney Correnti-Snow storage areas will be on top of the Stormtech System locations as proposed. If there is a foot or more of snow, the association will have to do what everyone else is doing and clear snow and have it removed from the site so the 8 (eight) parking spaces will have to be available. . Attorney Correnti-To address the potential mix of buyers,this area of Bridge Street is walking distance from the train and the improvements on Bridge Street including the lighting and sidewalk improvements done by the City is great.The petitioner believes that these units will be sold to commuters,professionals,or someone who would like to live and walk to downtown would be • interested.This is an exciting prospect for the neighborhood.The petitioner understands that homeownership is important to the neighborhood. Ms. Curran asks the applicant to clarify the location of where the trash will be stored. Attorney Correnti-we do not have the detail yet about whether trash will be contained inside or outside.We understand that this is a real question.The building will not have a dumpster, but it is unknown whether trash will be stored inside or outside in barrels.Trash will not be placed along fences or on the property line. Ms. Curran states that there may not be enough space outside. Mr.Tranos and Attorney Correnti state that it may be possible to place barrels along the rear of the proposed building and that it is unknown at this time. It is possible to state that trash barrels will not be placed along fences or along the property line.Attorney Correnti states that the units will have trash compactors. Ms. Curran states that there is concern from an aesthetic perspective that trash barrels will not be located in the front of the building,along the fence line,or property fine. Ms. Curran opens comment for Board discussion or questions. Mr.Watkins asks for clarification that the proposed fence will be a six (6) foot high solid fence. • Ms. Curran opens for public comment. Councillor Famico,Ward 2-Note that hopefully there will be less trash and more recycling. The City has noticed that with the increase in compost and more recycling that each household is producing less that a bag of trash per household per week. In addition to the recycling bins it would be great to also provide space for composting bins at this location. Councillor Famico states that with the number of parking spaces as proposed, this is valid for the number of units proposed.There may be some people who may have two (2) cars for a single unit, but the target market for this housing will be to commuters and possibly individuals with only one (1) car. Please continue to work the neighbors on making this space look nice,including the landscaping. In general,whether these units are owner occupied or rented,it is necessary to have parking spaces available for occupants. Hopefully, there will be people interested in these units who will be getting rid of their cars, but it is important to have these spaces available. Ms. Curran opens discussion to Board members. Ms. Curran special conditions for this petition include the removal of the bay window and replacing the window with period windows that match the existing windows;a solid six (6) fence shall be installed along the perimeter;the drainage plan as presented shall be adhered to;no trash shall be located on the property line,along the fence line, or in front of the property;snow removal shall be incorporated into the homeowner/condo association documents. • Mr. Copelas suggests to the Chair that the total number of bedrooms shall be limited to ten (10) bedrooms. Ms. Curran states that the project as proposed is not inconsistent with the neighborhood character it meets the zoning requirements and conforms to the parking requirements. Mr.Watkins states that the project is overall good project. Especially with the streetscape improvements over the years,we would like to see developers rehabilitate some of the historic/older homes on this street. From a personal perspective,having young professionals who could potentially walk to the commuter train and downtown is good. The applicant is in conformance with the parking requirements. Mr. Duffy states that the proposal the significant benefit of preserving a historic house.The proposal is seeking to improve the drainage on the property. With this expectation, the concerns about drainage from the neighborhood residents have been addressed. There is adequate parking and the propose addition complies with dimensional requirements.This is not a basis for a decision here,but there is potential for building something of similar size and density without incurring any of these neighborhood benefits. Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve the petition for a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec.3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures, to allow a change from an existing non-conforming two family structure to a multi-family structure and to construct a rear addition for the property located at 103 Bridge Street,subject to eight (8) standard conditions and six(6) special conditions including the following: 1) the petitioner shall remove the 1970's era bay window on the fagade of the historic building and replace the windows with two windows that match the existing windows of the front fa5ade;2) a solid 6 (sir) foot high fence shall be installed along the perimeter of the property;3) the drainage • plan written by NATIVEtec,dated February 17,2015, as presented shall be adhered to;4) no trash shall be located on the property line,along the fence line, or in front of the property;5) snow removal shall be incorporated into the homeowner/condo association documents 6) the total number of bedrooms shall be limited to ten (10) bedrooms.The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy.The vote was with unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran,Peter A. Copelas, Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0) opposed. A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Project Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow an increase in the number of stories from 2.5 stories to 3 stories.The proposal is for the property located at 410 LORING AVE (Map 30 Lot 60) (Rl Zoning District). Applicant DIKRAN YAKUBIAN Location 410 LORING AVE (Rl Zoning District) Documentation &Exhibition • Application date stamped January 29, 2015 and supporting documentation Attorney Keilty-40 Lowell Street,Peabody,MA,presents the petition.The applicant is seeking a variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforting Structures to allow an increase in the number of stories from 2.5 stories to 3 stories on a non-conforming two-family structure. • Ms. Curran asks for clarification on whether the existing roof ridgeline will remain the same height at thirty-three (33) feet. Mr.Yakubian, the petitioner,presented the proposal and elevation drawings to the Board to show that the existing roof ridgeline will remain the same height and the proposal is for the addition of two dormers on both sides and a twenty-eight (28) foot shed roof. Ms. Curran asks the petitioner to clarify the additional square footage created through the proposed roof changes. Mr.Yakubian states that there will be an additional 448 square feet. The existing space is not useable as the height does not meet building code. There are stairways that lead to the third floor space, without the ability to use the space.The petitioner states that for the convenience, the petitioner proposes to install a bar sink in this space. Ms. Curran states that the petitioner is requesting a Special Permit for enlarging the non-conforming structure and the Variance is for the dimensional requirements to expand the number of stories from 2.5 stories to 3 stories. Ms. Curran opens comment to the Board. Mr. Copelas-is there a statement of grounds? 40 I� • Ms. Curran states that there is a statement of grounds. Mr. Copelas asks the applicant to elaborate on the hardship argument for the statement of grounds. Attorney Keilty- One of the reasons to speak directly to land, topography etc.is difficult when speaking about the structure of the building and the third floor.We are talking about something that is up in the air.Attorney Keilty states that the Variance will provide a safe means of egress and access to the third floor. Mr.Watkins states that the statement of hardship is not clear and asks the applicant to elaborate more on the hardship argument. Mr. Copelas states that the existing building is a two (2) - family house with an apartment on the first floor and an apartment on the second floor. Understand the requirement for what relief is needed with the proposal.Where does the hardship play into this? Attorney Keilty states that the applicant is not asking for a Variance to exceed the height requirement.The petitioner is seeking a variance from the number of stories requirement.The roofline will remain at thirty-three (33) feet. The petitioner is not asking for a Variance to build up in excess of 35 feet,and the applicant is not able to build out left or right. Therefore,the applicant is somewhat bound by the shape and configuration of the existing lot.The applicant will not exceed the maximum height requirement,but is asking for a Variance from the number of stories from 2.5 to 3 stories. Ms. Curran states that its owing to the conditions that exist there. You have this house there. Attorney Keilty- the existing condition to respect with this house, existing conditions and the way it was designed. Mr.Yakubian states that the stairways exist without dormers and it is not possible to use the space. Mr. Copelas- struggling with the literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance and states that this is not a technicality. Attorney Keilty states that petitioner does not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the zoning and the literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would impact the petitioner in that the third floor would not be able to be used. Ms. Curran opens discussion for public comment. No members of the public spoke in favor or opposition to the proposal. Mr. Watkins asks the applicant to clarify the previously stated hardship argument. Mr. Keilty- states that the hardship is the inability to access the third floor. Mr. Copelas states that this is not an inherently bad idea as proposed,but there is no hardship that is • required for a variance. Mr.Watkins asks the Chair for clarification on the requirements in granting a Variance. Ms. Curran states that all three requirements must be met to grant a variance. Attorney Keilty- special conditions that especially affect the land,building and structure include that the budding is where it is and that there are special conditions that relate to the existence of this building having been constructed prior to this zoning. Effort to access the third floor space creates a situation in which literal enforcement of the zoning creates a hardship on the applicant.This does not impact other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district. Ms. Curran states in the past the Board has granted a Variance for dimensional requirements on the number of stories where the budding has not expanded outside of the existing envelope of the building.The literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would not allow the homeowner to expand into the third floor. Mr. Copelas states that this would be the status quo, that it would have to remain as it has been. Ms. Curran states the opinion that the proposal meets the special conditions and circumstances affecting the land... Attorney Kedty-The purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance is to not keep the petitioner from . accessing the existing third floor. Ms. Curran states that in order to get to the third floor there are building code issues. Mr. St.Pierre states that the Board has granted this type of Variance many times before. Ms. Curran states that the improvement to the code requirement has been used in the past as an argument for hardship. There was a project on Buffham Street recently. Mr. Duffy states the uniqueness of this house is that it is a pre-existing nonconforming two (2) family structure rather than a conforming single (1) family structure.The nonconforming quality of the structure may be a unique condition affecting this building that does not generally affect other buildings, structures and land.The literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would mean that there would not be safe access to the third floor. The height of the building will not change.The roofline orientation will change to allow for the third floor of the building to be compliant with building code.There is no substantial detriment to the public good and will not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance.As proposed, the structure will not be an extremely tall building and is in keeping with the neighborhood character. Mr. St. Pierre states that the property is located along wetlands and there are no abutters on one side of the building that would be affected by the proposal. Mr. Copelas clarifies that the shed roof will be on both sides of the building. • 1 • Ms. Curran states that a possible special condition may be that the area cannot be a separate dwelling unit or contain a kitchen. Mr. Duffy states that the applicant offered and stated that there is no intent to create a third (3) unit. Mr. Copelas states that there is not a need to convince other members of the Board,as a personal opinion,to be able to access a portion of the attic and convert it to a living space is not a hardship. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the petition requesting a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements and a Special Permit per Sec.3.3.3 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow an increase'in the number of stories from 2.5 stories to 3 stories,subject to seven(7) standard conditions and two (2) standard conditions that the building shall remain a two (2) family structure and no kitchen shall be installed on the third floor.The motion is seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos.The vote was with four(4) (Rebecca Curran,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and one (1) (Peter Copelas) opposed. Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, from the minimum lot frontage requirements,lot area requirements,and lot coverage maximum requirements to realign lot lines for parcels held in common ownership and to allow an increase in lot coverage maximum for an existing residence.The proposal is for the property located at 23 JACKSON STREET and 17 VALE • STREET(Map 25 Lot 661 and Map 25 Lot 660) (R2 Zoning District). Applicant MARIA and WAYNE MALIONEK Location 23 JACKSON and 17 VALE STREET (112 Zoning District) Documentation&Exhibition • Application date stamped January 8, 2015 and supporting documentation Attorney Quinn presents the petition on behalf of the applicants.When the property was purchased, the current property owners purchased two (2) lots.There is currently one (1) single family home on one of the lots held in common ownership.The petitioner would like to realign lot lines for parcels held in common ownership and to allow an increase in lot coverage maximum for an existing residence. Attorney Quinn states that the lot area requirements need to be relieved for both lots because even though there is 16,000 square feet, enough for a single 2 (two) family home.The new configured lot would be about 9,500 square feet. The proposed lot area is not undersized compared to the existing neighborhood character of the surrounding historic development in the area. It is unusual to see a house crowded to the front of the property and the sharp grade in the backyard makes a portion of the property unusable and un-accessible.The shape of the lot is triangular and unusual because it has a point on Broad Street with no frontage and touches Jackson Street no frontage, and the 31 feet of frontage on Vale Street is not accessible due to topography.The hardship is that the unusual shape of the existing and steep topography on the second parcel does not allow the lot to be useable.There are four(4) proposed parking spaces that are conforming. There is an existing driveway that is • proposed to be extended to serve as frontage and access to both properties. The petitioner will need to go before the Planning Board for a Waiver of Frontage for additional approval. Ms. Curran asks the applicant whether the existing lot is one (1) or two (2) lots. • Attorney Quinn: From a legal and historical perspective this parcel is one merged lot. Ms. Curran states that if the applicant were to deconstruct the house that is currently there and build a two family structure, the result would be a density of two (2) units. The petitioner is seeking a Variance to construct a second unit in the form of a single family house.Therefore, the density would not change. However, the petitioner would not be able to construct a two- family dwelling in addition to the existing single family home. Ms. Curran asks the applicant why the applicant did not change the lot line to have frontage on Jackson Street. Ms. Mahonek-the triangular lot is a land court lot and registered land. Attorney Quinn: re-configuration of registered land would require special approval with the state and land court engineers. Mr. Copelas:Asks for clarification that the second lot will have a Vale Street address and for all intent and purposes the access to the properties as proposed will have a Jackson Street address. Ms. Malionek states that the second lot may not need a Vale Street address. Mr. St.Pierre-When the occupancy permit is issued, the permit is also forwarded to the Fire and • Police Departments to establish a 911 address. Ms. Curran asks Mr. St.Pierre whether the frontage on Vale Street counts as frontage even though the frontage does not provide access to the site. Mr. St. Pierre states that the frontage on Vale Street counts as frontage. Ms. Curran states that this lot is in an R2 district,but the existing and proposed home are both single family units.A special condition is suggested that the petitioner shall have two (2) single family homes for a net total of two (2) units. Ms. Curran opens comment to the public. Marshall Sargent-Vale Street- speaks in favor of the petition. Ms. Curran asks the applicant to restate the hardship for a variance. Attorney Quinn-states that that although the parcel is merged from a legal point of view,based on the odd shape of the lot,and topography creates inaccessible frontage on Vale Street are hardships that limit the ability of the petitioner to use the property. • Ms. Curran states that the net result will be two (2) single family homes.The project is proposed as if there are two (2) separate lots;however, the existing lots are actually merged into a single (1) parcel. There are no new nonconformities being created in the proposed structure. Mr.Watkins hardship requirements are difficult. Mr. St. Pierre states that the proposal meets the requirements of a hardship in that the lot is unique in its shape and topography. Mr.Watkins desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance.The proposed structure will be placed next to the existing structure and held in common ownership. Mr. Copelas the hardship is clear that the frontage on Vale Street is not accessible due to the topography. Mr. Duffy states that this is an odd shaped lot and challenging topography that poses a substantial and unique hardship to the applicant. In order to have a legal two (2) family,the existing home would have to be demolished with the same net result as proposed. Ms. Curran restates the suggestion for a special condition that each building remain as two (2) single family homes. • Mr. Mahonek- the hill on the back of the property poses a significant problem to access Vale Street. The trees and hill are proposed to remain.The proposed structure will be down in the middle of parcel as shown on the plot plan. Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec.4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,from the minimum lot frontage requirements,lot area requirements,and lot coverage maximum requirements to realign lot lines for parcels held in common ownership and to allow an increase in lot coverage maximum for an existing residence subject to nine (9) standard conditions and the following one (1) special condition: 1) The proposed dwelling will be limited to a single family home.The motion is seconded by Mr.Watkins. The vote was with unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran,Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy, Tom Watkins and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0) opposed. Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area, minimum lot frontage, maximum lot coverage, minimum side setbacks, minimum rear setbacks and maximum number of stories to allow the division of property into six (6) lots for the construction of five (5) single family homes and one (1) three-story duplex. The petitioner is also seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow tandem parking at each of the • proposed single family homes. The proposal is for the property located at 43 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 238) (R2 Zoning District). Applicant JOSEPH SKOMURSKI Location 43 BRIDGE STREET (R2 Zoning District) • Documentation&Exhibition • Application date stamped January 29, 2015 and supporting documentation Attorney Lovely 10 Federal Street- presents the petition on behalf of the applicant.The lot is long and narrow with an old abandon building that is expensive to tear down. Salem Plumbing used to own the building. The applicant has met with the neighbors and met with the Planning Board for a joint public hearing with City Council on October 20,2014 in regard to a zoning change. As shown at City Council, the petitioner showed six (6) single family homes for this parcel. Members of the Planning Board commented on the proposal and requested that a facade of the proposed single family on the corner of Planters Street and Bridge Street be located on Bridge Street.The neighbors asked for a more substantial building on Bridge Street that would better fit the character of the neighborhood and other buildings along Bridge Street.Ward Councilors were active in neighborhood meetings,there were large turn outs at the resident meetings, the City has expressed interested that this project is positive and may spur other positive development in the area. Ms. Curran states that zoning was changed,but the proposal does not conform to any aspect of the zoning. Attorney Lovely states that although the project does not conform to the zoning,development on the opposite side of Planters Street, there are seven (7) small lots.Although these proposed buildings are not to size, the scale of the proposed lots fits with the existing neighborhood character. Ms. Curran states whether the petitioner could possibly build two (2) single family homes. • Attorney Lovely states that any lots would require a dimensional variance for this property as the lots are only fifty (50) feet deep. Ms. Curran states that the narrowness of the lot would not allow for conformance to the zoning dimensional requirements. One of the issues is that there is proposed tandem parking and it may be possible to reconfigure the lots to meet the parking requirements. Ms. Curran states concern about the density. If the argument for a hardship is related to the expense of demolition of a building,the Board usually asks to see a pro forma. Is this a 21E site? Ms. Curran states that usually if some is stating that a hardship is the expense of site clean-up or demolition to remove that building, the Board asks to see a pro forma. Attorney Lovely states that site is not a 21E site.The site is clean. Ms. Curran states that if the hardship is the expense of removing the existing building then the Board asks to see a pro forma. Attorney Lovely states that the hardship that the scope of the land, the long narrow piece of the land is a hardship.There is also an additional hardship with the cost associated with the demolition of the • budding. • Ms. Curran states that it seems the applicant can reduce the amount of relief the applicant is asking for by reconfiguring the lots. In particular,the tandem parking,it seems that the lots could be reconfigured make the lots a little bit bigger to allow for two parking spaces instead of tandem parking. It looks like the lots can be reconfigured easily to get rid of the parking non-confornuty. Attorney Lovely asks the Board how so? Mr. Copelas states that the original proposal was six (6) living units and now the proposal is for seven (7) units. If the applicant kept the newly proposed duplex and reduced the number of single family homes by one (I)-unit,the proposal would still have a total of six (6) units. If the applicant proposed 6 (units) as previously proposed by keeping the duplex and eliminating one (1) lot, the net result would still be 6 (units). It was originally stated that the plan worked with six (6) units. It may also be possible that by eliminating one lot, that there may be additional space that can be allocated to the remaining single family lots to eliminate the tandem parking. Attorney Lovely states that the tandem parking would be the same in both scenarios. Mr. Copelas,states an understanding that tandem parking was proposed in both scenarios. In terms of the way that the project was designed,when the Planning Board asked to do something different on Bridge Street, the proposal currently includes a duplex located on the lot rather than a single family home. However, the total number of proposed units is now seven (7) rather than the six (6) units originally proposed. • Attorney Lovely states that in order to justify construction the substantial building to fit with the character of the neighborhood on Bridge Street, this was suggested to the applicant.To build a substantial single-family home on this lot would be expensive. Mr. Copelas this is a mis-interpretation. Mr. Copelas restates that if the applicant keeps the duplex and stayed with a total of six (6) units as originally proposed,by removing one of the proposed lots, rather than a total of seven (7) units divided among a duplex and five (5) single family homes,the six (6) units originally made sense for the applicant. Ms. Curran agrees with the scenario proposed by Mr. Copelas and states that this lot configuration would also possibly allow for additional square footage to allow for the elimination of tandem parking. Attorney Lovely- the duplex... to build a single family home is not as expensive as constructing a duplex and rate of return on a single family home is much more palatable to make this project work. The applicant paid a substantial amount of money for the property. Ms. Curran states that the applicant could have over paid for the property and this is not the Board's issue to allow an increase in density. Ms. Curran restates that if the hardship to the applicant is financial, the Board needs to see a pro forma that shoes the cost of the demolition of the existing structure, square foot costs for construction of the proposed structures, the purchase price of the property... this is what we do to consider a financial hardship. • Attorney Lovely states that the hardship incurred is the unique narrow shape of the lot. Additionally • there is also a hardship due to the cost of the demolition of the current structure and construction of the proposed duplex. Ms. Curran states support for Variances regarding side and rear setbacks for the lots as there would not be any other possibility. In regard to the relief sought for parking, there may be a possibility that with one less lot,there would be enough space for required parking and side-yard setbacks to be confirming. In addition,the proposed lots could be increased.The proposed lots are very small and the amount of relief being sought a lot.The proposed lots could at least be increased to 3,000 square feet.The applicant is asking for a Variance from every dimensional requirement. Overall there is an understanding of the concept. Mr. Copelas if the finances worked at six (6) units,I would need to see that it does not work to accept the proposal for seven (7) units. If the pro forma worked with six (6) units divided among six (6) single family homes,it would not be that different financially to have a total of four(4) single family homes and a duplex for a total of six (6) units. Attorney Lovely- In a meeting with the Planning Department there did not seem to be an issue with tandem parking and like the idea of this proposal.Attorney Lovely stated recognition that it is not the decision of the Planning Department to make. Residents were in favor of the project,particularly because the small lots mirrored the lots on the opposite side of the street. Ms. Curran states with one less lot, the character of the development will not be that different. Tandem parking is not a problem generally,but with new construction and a blank slate it is possible to create parking that conforms to the zoning requirements,which may be possible by eliminating a • lot. If the applicant would want to show the Board a revised plan with one less lot to see if it is possible to redesign the project to create conforming parking this may be possible,if the applicant would like to show a pro forma that this project does not work it is up to the applicant to show the Board the pro forma. Attorney Lovely- there are no sidewalks, curbing,all of these expenses. If we were to work with the Planning Department and come back with exactly what the costs are... rather surprised because there has been so much support for this project. Not prepared for this reaction. Ms. Curran states that working with the Planning Department is fine,but it cannot say what the Board will say. This project asks for Variances from every dimensional requirement. Ms. Curran requests that the applicant continues to the next meeting and bring a plot plan that shows one (1) less lot or if the applicant would like to present a pro forma, this would be fine too. Attorney Lovely-maybe we should have had more of the neighbors come to the meeting Ms. Curran-residents coming with support are fine,but asking for these Variances is precedent setting.The petitioner is requesting Variances from every dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance. Attorney Lovely- states an understanding of precedent setting and that it may be the hope of the Planning Department that people would be coming in and go to City Council regarding zoning changes on Bridge Street or other people would come and do projects similar to this. • • Ms. Curran states that if the zoning changed that would be a different circumstance.We are looking at this project in accordance to the zoning district that this parcel is located.This zoning district is not unique to Bridge Street,it is all over town. Even though the Board looks at every project differently there is the ability to set precedent with a decision like this.The other times that Variances were given, there were parcels that were 21E's with real significant costs associated to the projects. Attorney Lovely- states that he will speak with his client. Robert Liani-96 Bridge Street of Coffeetime-The Salem Plumbing building has been an eyesore in the neighborhood for a number of years and the neighbors have been hoping that something would be developed there.A concern regarding the duplex is that there are only three (3) parking spaces. The parking proposed meets the zoning requirements. Overall, this is the kind of project that the neighbors want.The neighbors want to promote homeownership.Postage sized lots that people can get into as a first home is what this neighborhood is about. This is a working class neighborhood where people can own it. Expresses support for the project and concept.The neighbors do not want to see this project stopped. Flora Tonthat,30 Northey Street- expresses surprise for Board approval for 103 Bridge Street in juxtaposition to this project and expresses support for 43 Bridge Street. Ms. Curran states that 103 Bridge Street meets the zoning requirements whereas the proposal for 43 Bridge Street does not. Councilor Famico-in favor of neighborhood development,and it is important to have a return on • key investment. Councilor Famico asks the Board for clarification on next steps for the applicants.As proposed, the applicant shows six (6) lots,if the applicant changes the proposal to five (5) lots, does the applicant come back to the Board of Appeals for approval. Ms. Curran—yes,the applicant is asking for relief from all dimensional requirements. There are no elements of this project that can occur as a matter of right in accordance with the zoning ordinance. Councilor Famico asks whether the actual lot cards are created by the Board. Mr. St. Pierre states that these lots are proposed. Councilor Famico asks if the new proposed lots would come to the Board as well. Ms. Curran states that a proposal with five (5) lots would also come to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Copelas states that if the applicant choses to come to the Zoning Board of Appeals will an amended proposal showing five (5) lots rather than six (6) lots, the number of Variances requested would be fewer because some of the proposed exceptions would no longer be exceptions and conform to zoning.There would still be Variances requested,but not as many. Ms. Curran states that with one (1) less lot, the sideyard setbacks would be conforming. No matter what the design for development on this parcel,the rear yard setback requirement would not be met • and would require Variances. Mr. Copelas states that the maximum lot coverage requirement may also be met with one (1) less lot. • Ms. Curran states that this idea is appropriate for the neighborhood,but there is so much relief being asked for here, that there is concern that this project would set precedent throughout the City in this zoning district. Either look at taking one (1) lot away or provide a pro forma to show that there would be a substantial hardship.The Board has looked at a pro forma before on Highland Avenue to show that the purchase price and the square footage were not overblown.The pro forma showed that the density asked for was okay. It is up to the applicant to present the Board with a pro forma or explore looking at one (1) less lot. Ms. Curran states that she is one member of the Board. Ms. Curran opens discussion to Board members. Mr. Watkins agrees with the Chair and suggests to the Board that it ask the applicant to continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting with additional information including either a pro forma or alternative site plans to include one less lot than proposed. Ms. Curran states that if the applicant agrees to a continuance and decides to provide a pro forma, that it be submitted to the Board prior to the meeting. Mr. Watkins asks the applicant for approval to continue. Attorney Lovely agrees to continue. Mr. Curran states for the record her approval for this type of project proposed,but disapproval for • the amount of requested relief as proposed. Mr.Duffy states that Board is proposing to make a motion to continue the project to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Ms. Curran asks the applicant whether this is agreeable. Attorney Lovely agrees. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to continue the hearing of the petition to the next regularly scheduled meeting on March 18,2015.The motion is seconded by Mr. Watkins.The vote was with unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran,Peter A. Copelas, Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0) opposed. ArPPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES February 18,2015 meeting minutes were approved as printed. Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve the minutes as written,seconded by Mr. Copelas.The vote was with five (5) (Rebecca Curran,Peter A. Copelas,Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0) opposed. • • OLD/NEW.BUSINESS _ None ADJOURNMENT Mx.Watkins motioned for adjournment of the February 18,2015 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 9:15pm. Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins made a motion to adjourn the February 18,2015 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals,seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos, and the vote is unanimous with five (5) in favor(Rebecca Curran,Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins and Jimmy Tsitsinos) 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://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA ZoningAppealsMm/ Respectfully submitted, Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner • MUIT,p,9�\\ CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS to , BOARD OF APPEAL a ��1!'llNED 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 MmBERLEYDRISCOLL. 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 fVednesday,March 18,2015 at 6:30 p.m. at City HaIlAnnex, RM 313, 120 Ir/asbington St.,Salem,MA Rebecca Curran,Chair MEETING AGENDA n I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a � 9 x=' ➢ February 18,2015 nm m� D III. REGULAR AGENDA � 3 99 En to • Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area,minimum lot frontage, maximum lot coverage,minimum side setbacks,minimum rear setbacks and maximum number of stories to allow the division of property into six (6)lots for the construction of five (5) single i family homes and one (1)three-story duplex.The petitioner is also seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow tandem parking at each of the proposed single family homes.The proposal is for the property located at 43 BRIDGE STREET(Map 36 Lot 238) (R2 Zoning District). Applicant JOSEPH SKOMURSKI Location 43 BRIDGE STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project: A public hearing for a petition 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 and a tasting room located at 209 ESSEX STREET(Map 35 Lot 241) (B-5 Zoning District). Applicant: FAR FROM THE TREE CIDER Location: 209 ESSEX STREET (B-5 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to allow an extension of a non-confornung use and a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec.3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the extension of a non- conforming front setback dimension for the property located at 220 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 8 Lot 124) (B2 Zoning District). Applicant: TROPICAL PRODUCTS INC Location: 220 HIGHLAND AVENUE (B2 Zoning District) • This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" Ci Hall, Salem, Massa OP f2MAR 1 1 2015 at '// J4� in acco�ance with MGL Chap.30A, Sections 18-25. City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for March 18,2015 Meeting • Project: Request for a six (6) month extension for exercise of rights granted by the September 28,2009 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 (Map 26 Lot 96). Applicant: RENEWAL VENTURES,LLC Location 162 FEDERAL STREET (R2 Zoning District) Request for a six (6) month extension for exercise of rights granted by the June 2, 2010 Project Board Decision, as previously extended by request of the applicant as well as the Permit Extension Acts of 2010 and 2012, that approved Variances from building height(feet), buffer zone width, and number of parking spaces to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional office building with retail and municipal space on the property (Map 15 Lot 305). Applicant HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC Location 44 BOSTON STREET and 401 BRIDGE STREET (NRCC) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS - None V. ADJOURNMENT • •I Page 2 of 2 W City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet rofi Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date �o�..s ame Mailing Address Phone # E-mail CW ��/ 23 G'�'/J3srr �5 fz9-GZ9T ?` 3 B �hQ i«r. St - - (nl7-� 17-oSlzc c�v�,sr.� .s �c»o • I•car� � NS [i 227 7;7-r..3a kr t 13nercc aUCtc�frq( � ao toJ?-83 �T 3YSg My-8 (posf@g1�c er,,3o, 20eenr L -y72/c! Z2LlfLO Vic 14 0 <oMaaSTAe 20oS�at S� �`a�( - 91y`281G etc�cax�( gi2�® f�PiLt N� 'W c � GAIS-T 2vCEJrxaj sr2 s Page of ��gOND1Tq� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • 1 BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STRE:EP ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSE rrs 01970 KIMBERIJ?Y Dwscou. TELE:978-745-9595 1 FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner DATE: March 11,2015 RE: Meeting Agenda for March 18,2015 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Meeting Minutes from 2/18/2015 4. 43 Bridge Street Continuation 5. 209 Essex Street 6. 220 Highland Avenue • 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 the public hearing at the 03/18/2015 meeting. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. A continuation in the petition of JOSEPH SKOMURSKI seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area,minimum lot frontage,maximum lot coverage, minimum side setbacks,minimum rear setbacks and maximum number of stories to allow the division of property into six(6) lots for the construction of five (5) single family homes and one (1) three-story duplex.The petitioner is also seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow tandem parking at each of the proposed single family homes.The proposal is for the property located at 43 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 238) (112 Zoning District). At the ZBA meeting on February 18,2015 the public hearing was opened for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area, minimum lot frontage,maximum lot coverage,minimum side setbacks,minimum rear setbacks and maximum number of stories to allow the division of property into six (6) lots for the construction of five (5) single family homes and one (1) three-story duplex. In addition the petitioner is also seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow tandem parking.At the request of the Board, the petitioner has provided revised site plans that show a total of five (5) lots,with four(4) single family homes and one (1) three- story duplex that fronts Bridge Street"Proposed Site Plan 43 Bridge Street",dated March 10,2015 The plan shows four (4) single family lots are able to accommodate two (2) side-by-side parking spaces. An alternative plan called"Proposed Site Plan 43 Bridge Street",dated March 10,2015 is included in this packet. This project is continued from our last meeting on February 18,2015. 2. Petition of FAR FROM THE TREE CIDER,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 and a tasting room located at 209 ESSEX STREET (Map 35 Lot 241) (B-5 Zoning District). City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—March 18,2015 Page 2 of 3 • The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations to allow a -74 brewery,distillery or winery and a tasting room. This s yk�V a building is located on the pedestrian mall in the same j *= building as Addicted Clothing Store (see picture below). The 'x proposed space is a total of 1,476 square feet. In addition to the 102 Jackson Street location, the petitioner proposed to r operate a winery,distillery,brewery, and tasting room located at 209 Essex Street. It is anticipated that the city parking lots will provide parking spaces required for this location.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 Monday through Sunday 12pm-12am. Application materials and a copy of the Ordinance are included in this packet. Parking Requirements in a B5 Zoning District: 1. Nonresidential uses in the B5 District shall not be required to provide off-street parking since the • community will accept the responsibility for non-residential parking in the district. Loading Requirements in a B5 Zoning District: 1. New non-residential uses in the B-5 Zoning District shall be subject to the follow schedule: .. — Gross Floor Area of Require—d loading bays Structures S uare feet 0-20,000 None* *Loading facilities and service areas for these uses shall be publicly provided through incorporation of service access privileges in public open spaces and rights-of-way,provided they do not adversely affect desired vehicular or pedestrian traffic flows. 3. Petition of TROPICAL PRODUCTS, INC seeking Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to allow an extension of a non-conforming use and a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the extension of a non-conforming front setback dimension for the property located at 220 HIGHLAND AVENUE(Map 8 Lot 124) (112 Zoning District). The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to allow an extension of a non-conforming use and a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the extension of a non-conforming front setback dimension.The proposal is for the property located at 220 Highland Avenue.Application materials and plans are included in this packet. 2 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—March 18,2015 Page 3 of 3 4. Request for a six (6) month extension for exercise of rights granted by the September 28,2009 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 (Map 26 Lot 96).The proposal is located at 162 Federal Street. On September 17,2015, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted approval of a 6 (six) month extension request than will expire on March 28,2014. Enclosed is a letter dated October 1, 2014 with information regarding the history of the permit process for this project and decision for a six (6) month extension. 5. Request for a six (6) month extension for exercise of rights granted by the June 2,2010 Board Decision, as previously extended by request of the applicant as well as the Permit Extension Acts of 2010 and 2012,that approved Variances from building height(feet),buffer zone width, and number of parking spaces to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional office building with retail and municipal space on the property(Map 15 Lot 305). The current request is for a six (6) month extension effective May 18, 2015 through November 18,2015. OLD/NEW BUSINESS • - None 3 THE FOLLOWING IS/ARE THE BEST IMAGES FROM POOR QUALITY ORIGINALS) I M ^�� DATA tl x CITY OF SALEM BALEM t ` ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ( +,a public hearing for ell oos I Id r public hewing for all„ - merestetl in the TROPICAL PROD i�se 1�0 AOPICAL PRODUCTS, INCPeiraon of - fifig Special Permit from the seek :ing Special Permit from the prow-'. �ons of 3 prow alone of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming SALEM, IVIASSACHUSETTS FMees to allow e2 nsi o of a nin- Uses to allow a extension of a non- v xtension of a non .^corrForming use and a S 1 Per- ormith use and a Pecial Per- .the provisions of ma hom the provisions of S Sec 333 the exh sion St eto c.3.3.3 BOARD OF APPEAL 0 ion Structures to allow the extension of a non-coh{orming partyion of a non-co no_ front setback dimension for the setback tlat 220 HI for Property located at 220 HIGHLAND located at t 12 HIGH the' .AVENUE Ma 8 Lot.124) (62 Zon- �NistricfMaP S Lot 124) (B2LZAND i:: Ing Distrir.Y). p - �tl hearing will be held on WED, ird Said hearing will behold on WED, 20 What-nxGTON STREET 4 Su�{�t�e�rygtuHtf [-t'�19 2C� ch 13, 20is at 5:90 flood, 1 W2015 at:3 ST.ROOM �'978-619-5685*FAX:978-740-0404 120 WASHINGTON ST ROOM 1=- 313. P m., 3rd FILE tF Rebecca Curran,Chair Rebecca Curran,Chair CITY &LEM, SALEM,MASS, 3/4,3/1.1/15 Boats°i Appeals i _ a SN-3/4,3/11/15 Board of APpealg.. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of TROPICAL PRODUCTS, INC seeking Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to allow an extension of a non-conforming use and a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the extension of a non-conforming front setback dimension for the property located at 220 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 8 Lot 124) (B2 Zoning District). • Said hearing will be held on WED, March 18, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., 3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 3/4/2015 & 3/11/2015 This notice posted on "Official B Itta�tin card" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on MAR 4 2011r at P,.0h in accordance with.MGL Chap, 30A, Sections 18-25. CITY O •CITY OF SALEM NING BOARD OF A EALS ZONON&YOARD OF EALS Will hold a public hearing for all yypl hold a public he for all Wins interested in the petition ofpersons interested in the petition of AR FROM THE TREE CIDER, c. ;FAR FROM THE TREE CIDER, re- Guesting a.5beclal`Permit per Sec. questing a Special Permit par Sec.' 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory.. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory 4s(,OR �uiatrons of the Salem ZOn-.:Use Re ulations of the Salem ZanpT�,{ CCdnance, In order to allow a,'ing Ordnance; in order to allow aOF S n1 'E1V15 UlJ CHUSES �oom located at 209 ESSt7C or winery and a brewery, distlllery or winery and a �77��T(B-5 Zoning District) tasting room located at 209 ESSFJ(I BOARD OF APPEAL STREET(B-5 Zoning District). The public hearing will be held on The public hearing will be held on Wadnesday March 18,2015 at6:30 Pednesday,March 18;2015 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313,.3rd floor at 120, M, in Room 313,3rd floor at 120 (� o Washington Street in accordance' ,/mhington Street in accordance 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SAL.EM,MASSACHUSETTS 019� a 29 wHh Chapter 40A of the Massachu-with Chapter 40A of the Massachu- setts General laws. A copy of they.General Laws.A copy of the Tie..978-619-5685 1 FAX:978-740-04(�,4�E applicafion and plans are on file and'application and plans are on file and f 1T Y CLERK,, # evadable for review during artment available for review during normal, $Q LEM, business hours at the DeP business hours at the Department D1.4JS. 61 Planning & Community:Devel-of. Planning & Community Devel- WasMngto City Annex, 3rd, 120opment, City Hall Annex, 3rd, 120 ' Rebecca Curran;Chair Washington St,Salem,MA. Rebecca Curran,Chair Board of Appeals. Board of Appeals, SN-314,3/11/15 . :,,SN 3/4,3/11/15 I 1- t a City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of FAR FROM THE TREE CIDER, 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 and a tasting room located at 209 ESSEX STREET(B-5 Zoning District). The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 18, 2015 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, 3`d, 120 Washington St, Salem, MA. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 3/4/15 and 3/11/15 This notice posted on:"Officinal Bulletin Board" City Hail, Salem, Massaon MAR 0 4,2015 at,P.Z9,hV-/ in accordance with-MGL Chap.30A, Sections 18.25. City of Salem Board of Appeals Draft Meeting Minutes Wednesday,March 18,2015 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA')was held on Wednesday,March 18,2015 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Ms.Cttmattcalls the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Those present were:Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,M ke Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate).Also in attendance—Thomas St. Pierre,Build ng, g Comm ssioner,and Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner Ms. Curran states that the REGULAR-AGENDA Project A continuation of xpublic hearing fora pet nonseekin' g� requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area,minimum lot f Fontage maw mum lot coverage,minimum side setbacks, minimum rear setbacks and`maximum number ofstories to allow the division of property into six (6) lots for the construction oPfivv(5) single family homes and one (1) di er e-story duplex. The petitioner ts,also seeking a Variance requesting i hU from S c 5.1.8 Table oNR fqui.r Parking Spaces to allow tandem parking a�eaci of the proposed single family/homes.The proposal is for the property locate.aat43 BRIDE E STREET (Map 36 Lot 238) (112 Zoning District). Applicant JOSEPH SKOMURSKIi Loca�tionn 43-BR�IDGE ST,REET�(R22ontng District) Documents' and Exlh biaons�� N,• Application dated�J�uary,29, 2015 and supporting documentation Ms. Curran states that the peon was cowed at the Zoning Board of Appeal meeting on February 18,2015. It is stated that with only four (4) Board members present, a unanimous vote is needed for petition IN and asks if the applicant would like to present the petition. I/ Attorney Lovely states that-th'e applicant would like to be heard. Ms. Curran states at the February 18,2015 meeting,the Board asked the applicant to consider alternatives to the proposed plan.As a result, the applicant provided a revised plan dated March 10, 2015. Attorney Lovely,presents the application on behalf of the applicant. On the revised plan dated March 10,2015,the applicant removed one (1) single-family lot and reconfigured the proposed • parking for each of the single-family lots to include two (2) parking spaces per single-family lot rather that the previously proposed tandem parking.The alignment of the single-family house lots were re- aligned to allow for an easement on "Lot 2"to be granted to the City of Salem for access to an • existing sewer pipe.The hardship is that the lot is narrow and an odd shaped lot.At a joint public hearing with City Council and the Planning Board on October 20,2014,the Planning Board recommended having a building with frontage on Bridge Street.The petitioner has proposed a duplex for the comer of Bridge Street and Planters Street with frontage on Bridge Street. Ms. Curran states that the applicant has eliminated the need for relief from side-yard setback requirements and parking.The applicant needs relief from rear and front setback requirements, as the width of the lot,would only allow a six (6) foot wide house if the literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance were imposed.The lot frontage as proposed with five (5) single-family lots was 57 feet and the requirement is 50 feet.The amended plan wah four(4) single-family lots has frontage that is now 70 feet+/-. The lot coverage as proposed is closer to the requirement,but in some cases the maximum lot coverage requirement is exceeded. The parking is not tandem and is now proposed to be side-by-side. Ms. Curran opens discussion to the public. Ms. Curran asks the applicant to clarify that the house plans have not changed. The proposed houses are 1,600 square feet and will,havbet\tet e 3, (thxee)'bedrooms. Mr. Copelas states that the amendedplan is,a much p1paan`/ No members of the public spoke in favor or in`opposition to the.pxoposal. Ms. Curran states that the�a ended plan is d ddMaarrch 1`'5. V Mr. Copelas states (the petlaon itself was not,modified. What he variances that the Board is considexing�� Ms. Curran-states that the applicant is asking-for variances from minimum lot area,minimum lot fx stage maximum lot coverage minimum reaar setbacks, and maximum number of stories for the one (1)��three-story duplex. \10ts Ms. Curransates that the ex sting i narrow and the proposal is eliminating a blighted building. The propose&duplex is oriented toward Bridge Street at the request of the Planning Board to fit in with the streetscap � Attorney Lovely states that proposed duplex would be placed in a way that would fit with the character of the streetscape>The sidewalk on Bridge Street is approximately twelve (12) feet wide. Ms. Curran asks the applicant if will be new sidewalks and granite curbing installed on Planters Street. Attorney Lovely states that it is the intent of the applicant to install sidewalks and granite curbing, although the existing sidewalks are narrow. The applicant will go before the Planning Board to receive more information regarding what is needed.The street is very narrow,with an estimated 24- 25 foot right of way. Whatever the Planning Board recommends,the applicant is amenable. • Tom St. Pierre-states a technical point that the duplex frontage is on Bridge Street,the applicant will also need relief from the side yard setback requirements for only"Lot 5". Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area, minimum lot frontage,maximum lot coverage,minimum rear setbacks and maximum number of stories to allow the division of property into five (5) lots for the construction of four(4) single family homes and one (1) three-story duplex and also to provide a variance for side setbacks as to "Lot 5" shown on the plan dated March 10,2015, at the property located at 43 BRIDGE STREET,subject to eight(8) standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas.The vote was with unanimous with four(4) (Rebecca Curran,Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0)yopposed. Project: A public hearing for a petition requ�esting a Special Perm t 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 and a tasting room�located at 209 ESSEX STREET (Map 35 Lot 241) (B-5 Zoning District). Applicant: FAR FROM THE TREE CIDER Location: 209 ESSEX STREET,,(B-5 Zoning tri` ct) Documentation & Exhibition • Application date stamped Februaryl24,22015 and dssupporting\\documentation • Denise and Al Snapee, Far Tree(tder,present theRp�on primary purpose is to ferment,age and btotde cider.The business would also have a tasiing�room for the public to taste product and purchase,bottles for off Premise consumption. Ms. Curranasks the apWhca"rpl'a n erahon that would occur in the proposed location. Sexiis�t\ing ZnaPe states that there is an fac lily located at 102 Jackson Street.The proposed new location at,209 Essex Street would be similar to the operation of the existing facility at 102 Jackson Street,but smaller.The business is expanding,and interested in having a second location.At 209 Essex Street,, the pro sal is t a�fermentation in barrels,hand bottling and tasting. Ms. Curran asks \\wha go s on i�tasting room.Are there certain hours? Ms. Snape states that in the last application for 102 Jackson Street,the business did not have enough flexibility in hours of operation.The petition states that the hours of operation would be from 12pm to 12am. It is not the intention to have these hours seven (7) days a week. With Essex Street being such a great location, there is a request for flexibility to see what works best. It is anticipated that the tasting room would be open more Thursday through Sunday, close Monday.The days and hours of operation are unknown. Ms. Curran asks whether the company will continue to operate at 102 Jackson. • Mr. Snape states that the business would operate at both locations. Tom St. Pierre can you explain to the public what other approvals are needed at the state level to • operate a brewery,winery or distillery for a farmer winery license Ms. Snape the first step of approvals is on the federal level with the Alcohol,Tax and Trade Bureau. Then there is state approval to allow the business to act as a farmer winery.The proposed winery of Far From the Tree is fermenting apples like wineries ferment grapes.The next step is to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Special Permit. Fax from the Tree Cider worked with the City of Salem,City Council and Mayor's Office to propose an ordinance to add a brewery,winery or distillery as an allowable use in the Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations. Ms. Curran asks whether the proposed retail would be open all zrs the bate. Ms. Snape states that retail would be open during regular hof oeration. Mr. Copelas,what are the different processes and stages of Produ\cti'ojt will take place at this location?What is happening at Jackson Street ve�rsusswwhat is proposed for Es sex Street? Mr. Snape all production is currently located at Jackson Street. Currently, in Massachusetts and pressed in Stow, MA.Apple juiced!hroughtto Salem and is femented in barrels at 102 Jackson Street. Product is also'b'ottled at 102 JacksomStreet/nd distributed fromafhis location. At the new proposed space on Essex Stxee'product will be fermented,bottled and distributed in smaller batches.At 209 Essex, the barrens c n b kept at a constant temperature for barrel aging, while fermentation at 102 Jackson Stree mmaay occur u larger scale ta, nks. Ms. Curran opens discussi' own o'public comment. � \\�\J • \� Gale Allen 20 Central Street- concerned about the hours of operation of the proposed tasting room and concerned that the back door of the building maybe used as an exit. Ms. Cux�n'states tl arthe hoursEopexatJon 102 Jackson were limited and asks the applicant to clan he proposed hours\of operation at 209 E"ssex Street. The proposed hours of operation are from\l2pm to 12am to allow theapplicant maximum flexibility. Ms. Snape statesjhat the prop' se'd hours of operation are to allow for maximum flexibility. Mr. Snape states that the back en Ice will not be used by Fax From the Tree Cider. Gale Allen 20 Central Street- asis whether the side entrance will be used. Mr. Snape states that the side entrance may be used to load equipment for initial setup, however it is also possible for the front entrance to be used.The side entrance will not be used by the public and serves as an emergency exit only. Gale Allen 20 Central Street-asks whether there will be entertainment and asks for a definition of a tasting room. Ms. Curran asks the applicant to describe he amount of alcohol allowed in a tasting room. • • Ms. Snape states that in accordance with the Massachusetts Farmers License, the winery would be allowed to serve up to five (5) one ounce (1 oz) samples per person. Far From the Tree Cider does have plans to apply to the City for a pouring license to sell a full glass of cider. Ms. Curran states that a pouring license is not part of the Zoning Board of Appeals application. The applicants recognized that a pouring license is not part of the Special Permit application. Ms. Curran states that it could operate like a bar. Mr. Snape states that the intention is to not open a bar.The pr/opo" seddhours of operation are to allow the business be open for tourist during the October season. n�. Ms. Snape states that most wineries are not open late„outmost bxewexi�d�hether es are open until midnight. Jane Wall 20 Central Street- asks about how a tasti" ng room operates there is a fee. Mr. Snape states that a tasting room allows potentlalcu tomexs to'taste up to five (5) one ounce (1 oz) samples and purchase bottles for off premise consumption Ms. Snape states that there is no fee forTh�ples. Brian Best 20 Central Stxeet�concerneda6out� bopexadon and concerned about any by- product that may be�as ociated with manufacturing,and location of deliveries. Ms. Curran asks whether there is a ;pxoduct a�v deliveries would be made. �� Mr. Snape states that the amount of ctder`prod�ced a�209 Essex Street is not the same amount produced at 102 Jackson Street.There will"be,juice,delivgnes about three (3) times per year and deliveries could be made through the,side or front door.All large deliveries would be made at 102 Jackson Street during nexmal,hours of operation. The by-product of cider is carbon dioxide. Product�iis proposed to b'esmall a[20�Esssex Street and would produce negligible carbon dioxide levels. In current production there are 102 barrels located at Jackson Street and there is no smell.A store selling incense is going to)rri)H significantly more than the proposed winery operation. Mr. Best-where is the\, byproduct stored and disposed? Mr. Snape states that car bon,dioxid e is not stored it naturally enters into the air,just like when we exhale. There is no waste that would be produced. Apples are squeezed offsite in Stow,and the apple juice is delivered to Far from the Tree Cider. Chris Loring 19 Carlton Street-professional brewer from Notch that will be before the Zoning Board of Appeals in two (2) months. Salem Beer Works is a great scale to understand the scale of the proposal from Far From the Tree Cider.A type of business like this is really good for Salem. This is happening in great degrees in Vermont and Maine to drive tourism and local economies.This is the future of local small manufacturing is handcrafted high quality product. States support for the petition. Victoria Morrison 20 Central Street-concerned about the hours of operation. • Mr. Pabich Winter Island Road-welcomes Far From the Tree Cider to the downtown.This business is the best kind of amenity that can be offered to tourists and will improve the local economy.This proposal is a win-win for the City. Garet Wohl 20 Central Street- asks whether the business will be selling any other types of beverages. Ms. Snape- according to the farmer license the business can only sell-what is produced by the business. Ms.Wohl- concerned about the location of the business,hour" s.of operation and existing poor conditions of the alleyway adjacent to the busines�udinglightmg. Mr.Best-Essex Street has too many for lease signs mIt?windows and welcome the idea of new businesses that are not fortune teller or magic shop businesses. Expresses support for the petition with the idea that the business would make the area b r and rse. � Nick Helides 20 Central Street-will`he der produced onpremise at Essex Street be enough to sell to other locations or only through retail R�Re same site. Expresses concern that the proposed business is an industrial use among retail and residential area. Ho many gallons will be produced at this location?How will deliveries made�� Mx. Snape that the business would like to be evolved widirthe community and have people see how • the product is made. It i anticipated that there will be fifty (50)barrels with fifty (50) gallons of product each located,at Essex Street,which is very small for a winery. Ms. Curra/n k w�hethert e�,will be on.displa`yy so.,people can see the fermenting process. �/ �� Mr:�nape states that the!arr�els will�be*on display.t1s far as the public concerns about increasing or encouraging alcoholics or vandalism in area,bottles of product are expensive at$9.00 per bottle. If someone would like to ge Na cheap beverage,it is unlikely that someone would come to Far From the Tree Cider and drink in the alley way. Ms. Curran asks th applicant I the percentage of alcohol content. Ms. Snape states that heol content is 6.9%. Ms. Curran acknowledges neighborhood concerns and states that Essex Street is a good spot for the proposed business,but would like to minimize conflict with the residential use. The hours of operation seem excessive and understand that October is a high time for tourism. Maybe the Board can think about hours of operation other than October.There are some allowed uses by our zoning ordinance that may also have greater impacts on nearby residents that are allowed by right.What trash will be generated and how will it be handled?How will deliveries be made and how frequently? Mr. Snape- Cider produced on site,will be sold through the retail component on-site rather than shipped off site.Jackson Street is a larger,bigger operation. • Tom St. Pierre- listening to the comments from the public it was suggested to limit the hours of operation to start out with the possibility of having the applicants return to adjust their hours of operation if needed. Mr. Tsitsinos in agreement with the suggestion to limit the hours of operation and have the applicants return should the hours need to be adjusted. Mr. Copelas asks the applicants whether Sunday to Thursday to 6-7pm for eleven (11) months of the year may be reasonable to operate a tasting room to stay away from the idea of operating a bar. Ms. Snape states that the assumption is that most business will occ�Thursday through Sunday. Hours on Thursday could be from 4pm-9pm,Friday- Saturda}4pm 10pm,Sunday 12pm-10pm and Monday—Wednesday would be more limited from 4pm 8pm.The first year would be the test to understand what hours make sense. Ms. Curran states Thursday 4pm-9pm,Friday 4ptn-1" Opm,and Saturday-Sunday 12-10pm. Mr.Tom St.Pierre-if this was approved woulde a'pphcant entertain the i��talking to the landlord to improve lighting in the alleyway? \�s Ms. Curran asks whether the petitioner` is amenable to restricting retail trafFc to the front entrance only. The applicants agree to provide htin in and restrict retail traffic to the front entrance • PP gr P hg g i Yu Y only. Gale Tre or 20 Central Street- Is there an a e restriction for to sample product? Mr. Snape states evSry'V'personente e pre se must be 21 years or older. Kay`he SullivanStreet- Salem ain S peaks in support of the petition. Mt. Pabtch-restates . es support for th+e peuuon Mr.Best- expresses concern abut how the business will track customers that have received samples coming back for additional ples. How would this be controlled? Ms. Curran asks the apphcant'how customers will be regulated. Mr. Snape states that it is not a good business model to have non-stop customers consuming samples. Ms. Snape we cannot afford to give away free samples. Ms. Curran asks the applicant if there are a maximum number of people at one time. • Mr. Snape states that the capacity will be determined by the building occupancy limit and the capacity • of staff to attend to customers. Ms. Curran the hours of operation and limiting side door access are the big issues that can be limited by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Antonio Fresco- 20 Central Street- speaks in support of the petition. Tom St. Pierre- asks the Chair to speak about hours of operation during October. Mr. Snape- there are many ways to control crowds including closing during the October season,or being open at having bouncers and/or wristbands. / Ms. Curran suggests that hours may be extended during the�mo" nthO ctober by coming back to the Zoning Board of Appeals.There may be a possibilitythat the business could increase daytime hours and keep night hours from 12pm-9pm on weekdays and 12pm-10pm on weekends.To expand these hours the business would need to come before�thg Board of Appeals for,consideration. Concern expressed from the public that the side door�be ill; na" ted.. Mr. St. Pierre- the side door is required` to'be illuminated and will be addressed as part of the building occupancy permit. Ms. Curran closes the public hearing. • Motion and Vote`Mr W��kes a motion to approve the-petition requesting a Special Permit from the provi�ns of Sec.3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations,to allow a brewery, distillery or winery and a tasting room located at 209 ESSEX STREET, subject to eight#(8).standard'conditions and.four (4)special conditions including the foll wing:1)A limittah i on the<ours of op r ti inyexcluding the month of October such that the hours would be Monday-Wed esday 4pm-8pm,Thursday 4pm-9pm,Friday 4pm-10pm Saturday-,,Sunday day Sunday 12pm-10pm. During October the hours operation will be Monday— Thursday 12pm -9pm and+riday-Sunday 12pm-10pm;2) Front entrance is the entrance and egress to the building and the sided o r will be an egress for emergencies only;3) Special Permit is limited to the current applicant, Far From the Tree Cider. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. The vote was with unanimous with four(4) (Rebecca Curran,Peter A. Copelas, Mike Duffy and�Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0) opposed. Project: Request fox a six (6) month extension for exercise of rights granted by the September 28,2009 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 (Map 26 Lot 96). Applicant: RENEWAL VENTURES,LLC Location 162 FEDERAL STREET (R2 Zoning District) • Documentation&Exhibition • • Letter of request for a six month (6) extension date stamped February 20,2015 and supporting documentation Attorney Atkins presents the petition.The reason for the request for a six month (6) extension is that there was an environmental oil spill that has since been treated and mitigated,but there is still some question about what will be accepted by DEP because part of the spill occurred under a building owned by the Archdiocese of Boston and not to the owners of 162 Federal Street. DEP is treating the oil spill as one issue. The applicant is trying to work with the Archdiocese of Boston to accept the determinations of owners LSP's.This is a cast of thousands and need more time.The Pabich family is luckily sticking with the project. A member from the public asked to speak. 6^x Ms. Curran stated that the discussion on the extensi n r�quest was not a public hearing as the matter had already been approved through a public hearin 11 g process. The Board`needs to determine that there is good cause shown for the extension request.;/ / Attorney Atkins states that there was a discussion with the attorne' y y from th��rule to appeal the original decision and there were rid objections. Meg Twohey- asked the applicant wheth`he,property that was being transferred by the church for parking was still part of the project. ��(heapph&\ntbefore Ms. Curran states mat It iiss� still p t of the project an the Board to ask for an extension of time on rights previously granted by the Septembei,28,2009 Zoning Board of Appeal decision. . s MsCrranaes that deangviith DDEP istme coonning. ' A�s:�\\ Attorney Att woxking unth th�chdiocesese of Boston is even longer. Motion`annd\ote: Mr. Duffy'makesa\m(tion to approve the request seeking a petition for a six (6) month extension for exercise of rights granted by the September 28, 2009 Board Decision that approved Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Special Permits, o 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 (Map 26 Lot 96). The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos.The vote was with unanimous with four(4) (Rebecca Curran,Peter A. Copelas, Mike Duffy, and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0) opposed. • Request for a six (6) month extension for exercise of rights granted by the June 2, • Project 2010 Board Decision, as previously extended by request of the applicant as well as the Permit Extension Acts of 2010 and 2012, that approved Variances from building height (feet), buffer zone width, and number of parking spaces to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional office building with retail and municipal space on the property(Map 15 Lot 305). Applicant HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC Location 44 BOSTON STREET and 401 BRIDGE STREET (NRCC) Documentation&Exhibition • Letter of request for a six (6) month extension date,st ma ped February 25, 2015 and supporting documentation Attorney Coxrenti 63 Federal Street- presents the petition The l as been constant and ongoing discussion with the expect at t be efore the of Appeals again as there yor willbe some ome potsitivelm applicant clonstructbthe Semo ZCenterBTheapplicant would not like to take the chance that the permits may lapse. The applicant would like to keep all the permits in place so there is a permitted project.Themany changes to the project can go through the normal course. Ms. Curran asks the applicant for a rear son by the extensio�d. Attorney Contend states that there were D ,P 21�e aSve�beejn resolved, there were engineering issues,and then-there are economic issues.surrounding the originally permitted plan that • was approved from 2009. The project that was approved was cletirm ned[o be financially unfeasible. There will be some positive e s on this site soonn a�mattereeks. The permit is coming up for expiration in May. � Lamotion �Motion and-Vote: Mr. Duffymake to approve the request for a six (6) month extension.for_execcise of'rights granted by theJ ne 2,2010 Board Decision, as previously extended by requestof the applicant as well as the Permit Extension Acts of 2010,and 2012, that approved Variances from building height (feet), buffer zone widthand number of parking sp ces to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional`office building with retaihand municipal space on the property (Map 15 Lot 305).The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas.The vote was with unanimous with four (4) (Rebecca Curran,Peter A,)Copelas,Mike Duffy, and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0) opposed. Project: A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to allow an extension of a non-conforming use and a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the extension of a non-conforming front setback dimension for the property located at 220 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 8 Lot 124) (B2 Zoning District). Applicant: TROPICAL PRODUCTS INC Location: 220 HIGHLAND AVENUE (B2 Zoning District) • Documentation&Exhibition • • Application date stamped February 24,2015 and supporting documentation Attorney Atkins presents the petition on behalf of the applicant.Also present are Ed Berman, President of Tropical Products Inc.,Renee Dionne,VP of Operations and Finance and Bill Medingex,Project Architect.The applicant is requesting an extension of a non-conforming front setback for a 14 foot long addition in the front of the building and an extension of a non-conform ng use.The current operations of the plant require additional storage space. Much of the building is used for storage and warehousing.As the applicant was planning to come to the Zoning Board of Appeals, a part of the roof collapsed and provided the applicant urgency in moving forward with the proposal. The applicant is requesting to take down the white silos on the leftZde and construct a 574 square i ✓ foot expansion.The construction does not violate or increase any of-the non-conformities for the building.The construction will improve the fagade of the building and remove the ugly silos.There is sufficient parking on the premise with a total of 45 parking spaces of-the required 39 spaces. Parking is not an issue and is conformance with zoning requirements.. Light manufacturing as a use is technically not allowed in this zoning district �� Ms. Curran asks the applicant whether the light manufacturing use was grandfather, ed in as a non- conforming use. Attorney Atkins states that the ro e�`as, andfa�d i�n-conformm use and was at d one time a fruit stand.Then it was occupie by Sunburst. T iexe are not many light manufacturing facilities in the City anymore. \the�apph�cant ��Ms. Curran states that<it i�pful that wed tlle,e�shhg and proposed elevations side-by-side. � ��r� Mr. Berman states that('Tropical cts Inc.is a�private label manufacture bottler of personal care products and-pet shampoos for othe�mpanies. No once knows that we make product for Walmart, Target;CVS,RiteAid and also make national brands. Customers are other manufacturers who outsource prod ion m addition to,retad chains and-the'business needs room to grow.The City has been a good business nvtronmentand,location oraccess to major highways and receive large trucks on Fltg land Ave. Mr.Tsitsmos asks about the silos. Mr. Medingex,Pxoje t'Architeet-o�states the silos will be removed and recycled at the Jefferson Ave. scrap yard.There is also,n.8�foot chain link fence that will be removed. Mr. St. Pierre- states from aVtechnical perspective the addition is proposed in the location of where the roof collapse has a wood roof where everything else is made of a non-combustible construction. A major advantage of this new construction is that the whole building would bring the entire plant up to modern construction standards of non- combustible materials. Renee Dionne,VP of Operations and Finance- the silos have never been used by Tropical Products, Inc. they were originally used by Sunburst to hold plastic pellets that were used to make bottles.All bottles at Tropical Products,Inc. are shipped to the plant rather than made on sight. • Mr. St. Pierre- states that with the roof collapse the inspector found that the high pressure gas line • shut off was not in the correct location. This will also be remedied through the new construction. Ms. Curran opens discussion to the Board. Attorney Atkins states that one of the requirements of a special permit is that change or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. The addition is a general improvement to the building. Ms. Curran opens and closes public comment for the meeting.No one member of the public spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposal. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the petition requesting a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming,Uses to allow an extension of a non- conforming use and a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec:3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the extension of a non-conforming front setback dimension for the property located at 220 HIGHLAND AVENUE,,s`ubject to seven (71�)\staitdard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos.The vote was with four(4) (Rebecca Curran,Peter A.Copelas,Mike Duffy, and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in`avor and.no^ne (0) o� pp sedd APP OR V L OF MEETING MINUTES *Ms. Curran leaves the meeting' early. C` February 18,2015 meeting minutes were approved as • Motion and Vote:�MriDuffy makes a motion to approve the-minutes as written, seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos. The vote1Zas with three (3) (Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and, none OLD/NEW BUSINESS No e ADJOURNMENT Mr.Waters mot oned�rnment of the March 18,2015 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 8:00pphi. Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins made a motion to adjourn the March 18,2015 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos, and the vote is unanimous with three (3) in favor(Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,and Jimmy Tsitsinos) 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: htW://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA ZoningAppealsMin/ Respectfully submitted, • Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner i • D� oQ O VQ�CO . n ' .._. ., CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL "�MINE� 120 WASHINGTON STREET* SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEYDRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:9f{8YWL I P 4, 1 8 MAYOR aauu�l flflT FILE !# April 1, 2015 CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS, Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area, minimum lot frontage,maximum lot coverage, minimum side setbacks, minimum rear setbacks and maximum number of stories to allow the division of property into six (6) lots for the construction of five (5) single family homes and one (1) three-story duplex. The petitioner is also seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow tandem parking at each of the proposed single family homes. The proposal is for the property located at 43 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 238) (R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on February 18, 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11. and continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting on March 18, 2015. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Duffy, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate). \ The Petitioner seeks Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, from minimum lot area, minimum lot frontage, maximum lot coverage, minimum side setbacks, minimum rear setbacks and maximum number of stories of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Lovely presented the petition on behalf of the applicant. 2. A public hearing for the petition was opened on February 18, 2015 and continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting on March 18, 2015 at the request of the Zoning Board of Appeal to revise plans to look at revising the plan reduce the number of variances sought including the parking requirements or provide financial data to support their claims. 3. In the petition date-stamped January 29, 2015, the Petitioner requested Variances requesting relief from minimum lot area, minimum lot frontage, maximum lot coverage, minimum side setbacks, minimum rear setbacks and maximum number of stories to allow the division of property into six (6) lots for the construction of five (5) single family homes and one (1) three-story duplex and Variances from Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow tandem parking at each of the proposed single family homes. 4. The petitioner presented revised plans dated March 10, 2015 to reduce the number of Variances sought. The petitioner requested relief from the following: minimum lot area, minimum lot frontage, maximum lot coverage, minimum rear setbacks and maximum number of stories to allow the division of property into five (5) lots for the construction of four (4) single family homes and one (1) three- story duplex and also to provide a variance for side setbacks as to "Lot 5" shown on the plan dated March 10, 2015. City of Salem Board of Appeals April 1,2015 Project:43 Bridge Street Page 2 of 3 • 5. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to allow the division of property into five (5) lots for the construction of four (4) single family homes and one (1) three-story duplex in accordance with the site plan for 43 Bridge Street dated March, 10, 2015. 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 for Variances: 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 existing lot is an odd shape narrow lot. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would create a substantial and unique hardship as the lot is narrow and would restrict the petitioner from using the parcel. Literal enforcement of the bylaw would result in a building envelope that is too narrow to construct a house. 3. The desired relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. The existing building on the property is blighted, and the proposed new construction would be in keeping with the general density of 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. Copelas,Mr. Duffy and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, from minimum lot area,minimum lot frontage, maximum lot coverage, minimum rear setbacks and maximum number of stories to allow the division of property into five (5) lots for the construction of four (4) single family homes and one (1) three-story duplex and also to provide a variance for side setbacks as to "Lot 5" shown on the plan dated March 10, 2015, 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. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained 6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain a street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. City of Salem Board of Appeals April 1,2015 Project:43 Bridge 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 fmm this decinon, if any, .shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed witbin 20 days of fkng 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 berein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been fled witb the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS l ' BOARD OF APPEAL 1�IAIE� 120 WAS141NGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSEM 01970 KiMBERLEY DRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 N"RI-71013'4. ' 9 MAYOR L0 n --'' FILE April 11 201SITY CLEF€K. SALEM.MASS, Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of FAR FROM THE TREE CIDER,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 and a tasting room located at 209 ESSEX STREET (Map 35 Lot 241) (B-5 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 18, 2015 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. Copelas, Mr. Duffy 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 March 4, 2015, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Section 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow a brewery, distillery or winery and a tasting room. 2. Denise and Al Snape, owners of Far From the Tree Cider,presented the petition. 3. The proposed winery and tasting room would occupy a total of 1,476 square feet. 4. In addition to an existing winery located at 102 Jackson Street, the winery at 209 Essex Street would be used to ferment, hand bottle and distribute small batches of product. The 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. 5. Nearby city parking lots will provide parking spaces for this location as allowed in accordance with the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance for this district. 6. It is estimated that daily water usage and disposal will increase by approximately 448 gallons per week for washing glasses and public bathroom use. 7. Proposed hours of operation are Monday through Sunday 12pm -12am. 8. The requested relief,if granted,would allow the Petitioner to operate a brewery,winery, distillery with a tasting room. • 9. At the public hearing, seven (7) members of the public spoke in opposition to the petition. Three (3) members of the public spoke in favor of the petition. City of Salem Board of Appeals April 1,2015 Project:209 Essex 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 1. The proposed brewery, distillery, winery and tasting room is will have a positive 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 conforms to the existing neighborhood character. 6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City 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. Dionne, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Tsitsinos) and none (0) in opposed, to approve the requested Special permit to allow a brewery, distillery, winery and tasting room, subject to the following conditions, terms, 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. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained 6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 7. 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 are Monday-Wednesday 4pm-8pm,Thursday 4pm-9pm, Friday 4pm-10pm Saturday- Sunday 12pm-10pm. During October the hours operation will be Monday—Thursday 12pm -9pm and Friday-Sunday 12pm-10pm 2. The front entrance is the entrance and egress to the building and the side door will be an egress for emergencies only. 3. Special Permit is limited to the current applicant, Far From the Tree Cider. • City of Salem Board of Appeals April 1,2015 Project:209 Essex 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 Appea!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 f:k'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 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 ar<' CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS i BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970-< o KIMSERLEYDRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 1 FAX:978-740-9846 r y MAYOR ym„ - ,A M J H TO: City of Salem,City Clerk, 120 Washington Street D 3 FROM: Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner 3 r w DATE: April 17,2015 RE: Board of Appeal Amended Decision-220 Highland Ave. Dear City Clerk, The Zoning Board of Appeal decision stamped April 1,2015 had a clerical error that stated under the Findings For Special Permit, "1.The Board finds that the proposal,to construct a mull-family dwelling un a B1 Zoning District,is an allowable use by right and by requesting Special Permits per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to structurally extend, alter or structurally change the existing structure preserves a significantly historic structure."This finding was accidentally carried over from an unrelated decision and is irrelevant to the ZBA decision for 220 HIGHLAND AVENUE. At a regularly scheduled Zoning Board of Appeal meeting held on April 16,2015, the Salem Board of • Appeals voted five (5)in favor(Ms. Curran (Chair),Mr.Duffy,Mr.Watkins,Mr. Copelas,Mr.Dionne) in favor and none opposed,to strike Findings for Special Permit#1 as extraneous and irrelevant and correct the record as to who voted on the Zoning Board of Appeal Decision stamped April 1,2015. This letter shall be part of the record. Sincerely Erin Schaeffer Staff Planner • ��C►T CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL • J�IOVB 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR April 17, 2015 Amended Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals m >- h, Petition of TROPICAL PRODUCTS, INC seeking Special Permit from the provisioa�s of SeD 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to allow an extension of a non-conforming use and a Special P r.t fLJ LJm the provisions of Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the extension of a non-coMformIR front setback dimension for the property located at 220 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 8 Lot 124) (B2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 18, 2015 close on that date pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 5 11 with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Duffy, Mr. Copelas,Mr. Tsitsinos (alternate). The Petitioner seeks Special Permits per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to allow an extension of a non- conforming use and a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped February 24, 2015, the Petitioner requested Special Permits per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to all the extension of a non- conforming front setback dimension. 2. Attorney Atkins presented the petition. 3. The petitioner proposes to construct a 574 square foot addition to the first floor and a 3, 485 square foot addition to the second floor on the front left side of the existing structure in accordance with plans tided "220 Highland Avenue"A-1 through A-4 and C-1 dated February 24,2015. 4. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to allow the extension of a non- conforming front setback dimension. 5. At the public hearings no members spoke in favor 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 for Special Permit: 1. The board finds that the proposed expansion of this dimensionally non-conforming building is not • more detrimental than the existing structure to the 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. City of Salem Board of Appeals April 17,2015 Project: • Page 2 of 2 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 conforms to the existing neighborhood character. 6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City 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 (Chair), Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Tsitsinos (alternate) and none (0) opposed, to grant a Special Permit, to allow the extension of a non-conforming front setback dimension., 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to, the Planning Board. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED 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 natbin 20 days of fi4'ng of this decision in the office of the 00 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 dedsion beating the certificate of the City Ckrk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS WE, BOARD OF APPEAL 4 - t%INE� 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-74pt06*R _ ' P 4 MAYOR cu�J �Y April 1, 2015 F, elrY e�e�tc. SALEM, Mmss: Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of TROPICAL PRODUCTS, INC seeking Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconfornring Uses to allow an extension of a non-conforming use and a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the extension of a non-conforming front setback dimension for the property located at 220 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 8 Lot 124) (132 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 18, 2015 close on that date pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, g 11 with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Duffy, 1V .'fib a ' i ,Mr. Copelas,Mr. Tsitsinos (alternate). The Petitioner seeks Special Permits per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to allow an extension of a non- conforming use and a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped February 24, 2015, the Petitioner requested Special Permits per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Section 3.3.3 Nonconforvng Structures to all the extension of a non- conforming front setback dimension. 2. Attorney Atkins presented the petition. 3. The petitioner proposes to construct a 574 square foot addition to the first floor and a 3, 485 square foot addition to the second floor on the front left side of the existing structure in accordance with plans titled "220 Highland Avenue"A-1 through A-4 and C-1 dated February 24, 2015. 4. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to allow the extension of a non- conforming front setback dimension. 5. At the public hearings no members spoke in favor 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 for Special Permit: `fs�.The Board finds that the proposal, to construct a multi-family dwelling in a B1 Zoning District, is an • allowable use by right and by requesting Special Permits per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to structurally extend, alter or structurally change the existing structure preserves a significantly historic structure. City of Salem Board of Appeals April 1,2015 Project: Page 2 of 2 • 2. The board finds that the proposed expansion of this dimensionally non-conforming building is not more detrimental than the existing structure to the impact on the social, economic or community needs served by the proposal. 3. There are no impacts on traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading. 4. The capacity of the utilities is not affected by the project. 5. There are no impacts on the natural environment,including drainage. 6. The proposal conforms to the existing neighborhood character. 7. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City 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 (Chair), Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Tsitsinos (alternate) and none (0) opposed, to grant a Special Permit, to allow the extension of a non-conforming front setback dimension., 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. e C ( ran 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 sball 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 Valiance 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. • /CONUIT� -Vrw CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET* SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRiscOLL "ISLE:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740APR — I P 4: 18 MAYOR March 25,2015 CITY CLEW FILE # SALEM,MASS To Renewal Ventures,LLC C/o George W.Atkins III Ronan,Segal&Harrington 59 Federal Street Salem,MA 01970 Re: 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 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. The Salem Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday,March 18,2015 to discuss your request for the approval of a second six (6)month extension to exercise rights granted by the September 28,9009 Board • Decision that that approved Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit,and Special permits to change one nonconfomvng use to another and to increase existing side year setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to eight(8)residential units. The original Decision of September 28,2009 was appealed to the Superior Court and an Agreement for Judgment amending the Decision was entered on September 5,2012. The Decision qualified under the Massachusetts Permit Extension Act and was automatically extended to September 28,2014. On October 2, 2014,the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a six (6)month extension to commence September 28,2014 and expire on March 28. 2015. On February 20,2015,a letter was submitted by Attorney Atkins on behalf of Renewal Ventures LLC requesting a second six (6) month extension to commence on March 28,2015 and expire on September 28, 2015. The Zoning Board of Appeals voted four(4)in favor(Ms. Curran,Mr. Copelas,Mr.Duffy 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 determination 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, Ct"'4 "/f--d Rebecca Curran Zoning Board of Appeal Chair CC: Cheryl LaPointe,City Clerk 4otanta,, , 6 � CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL `yt ov 120R'Ast4NGTrvSrac-1 #,Suh'nt,,NlASST��55�"Of" :��" 190 Ivvtnt ata,.t DRtsC:oLt. Z'ta r 97Fi 745.959n o Frkx:918 r40`9,84G .P MAYOR F I H CITY CLERt . SAHM. MP;SS. April '1,2015 i i High Rock Bridge Street,LLC C/o Attorney Corrend f Serafini,Darling&Correnti,LLP 63 Federal Street Salem,ICIA 01970 Re:44 Boston Street and 401 Bridge Street High Rock Bridge Street,LLC to grant a request for a six (6)month extension for exercise of rights granted by the June 2,2010 Board Decision,as previously extended by request of the applicant as well as the Permit Extension Acts of 2010 and 2012, that approved Variances from building height(Feet), buffer zone width;and number of parking spaces to allow,the construction of a 2-4 story 1 professional office lxailding with retail and municipal space on the property (ttitap"15 Lot 305). ) The Salem Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday,March 18,2015 to discuss your request for the approval of a six(6)month extension to exercise rights granted by the granted by die June 2,2010 Board Decision, as previousl,extended by request of the applicant as well as the Permit Extension Acts of 2010 and 2012,that approved Variances from building height(Feet),buffer zone width,and number of parking spaces < to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional office building with retail and municipal space on the property. I t t The original Decision of June 2, 2010 qualified under the Massachusetts Perttut Extension.Acts of 2010 and 2012,and was automatically extended to May 18,2015. On February 25,2015, a letter was subtr teed by Attorney Corrertti on behalf of High Rock Bridge Street, LLC,requesting a second six (6) month extension to commence on May 18,2015 and expire on November 18,2015. Mr. Corrend explained that the reason For the extension is due to DEP:process,engineering,and financial feasibility of the approved project, i i The Zoning Board of Appeals determine(] that good cause was shown to grant an extension aiul voted four (4)in favor(Ms. Curran,Mr. Copelas, Mr. Duffy and Mr.Tsitsinos) and none(0) opposed, to grant the approval of the six-month extension request to exercise the rights granted by-the June 2,2010 Board Decision.This determination shall become part of the record for this project. 1 If you require further information,please contact Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner,in the Department of t Planning&Community Development at(978) 619-5685 ( Thank you, t / t Rebecca Curran Zoning Board of Appeal Chair CC.: Cheryl LaPointe,City Clerk e i 4 , l CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 MMBERLEYDR[ScoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR AMENDED MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppealr will hold its ngulary scheduled meeting on Wednesday,Aprill5,2013 at 630 p.m. at City HallAnnex,RLI 313, 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA Rebecca Curran,Chair MEETING AGENDA a, I. ROLL CALL � ti cn II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES m -p ➢ March 18,2015 x� t �m co H III. REGULAR AGENDA 0 Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit from the provisions of Ste. 3.3.3N Nonconforming Structures to allow the extension of a non-conforming structure allolm 4,928 square foot addition,without narrowing the side yard for the property located at 347 • HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 7 Lot 44) (BPD Zoning District). Applicant NORTHEAST ANIMAL SHELTER,INC Location 347 HIGHLAND AVE (BPD Zoning District) rV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS - FYI Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina- Chapter 91 Notification-Marina Dredge Project ➢ ZBA Executive Session-220 Highland to correct a clerical error on a decision.The Board will not reconvene after this session. V. ADJOURNMENT This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall S lem, Mass. on APR 0 8 2015 - - — --- at Z'` � in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • 9o. BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KtMSERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You are bereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppeal will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday,Apr1115,2015 at 6:30 p.m. at City HallAnnex, BM 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Rebecca Curran,Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL o I1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Cn r -moo r7 � ➢ March 18,2015 x t cn rn a0 III. REGULAR AGENDA rn D 3 Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit from the provisio4 of Sec S.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the extension of a non-conforming s"cture t(�allow,a • 4,928 square foot addition,without narrowing the side yard for the properly locateCl at 347 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 7 Lot 44) (BPD Zoning District). Applicant NORTHEAST ANIMAL SHELTER, INC Location 347 HIGHLAND AVE (BPD Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS - FYI Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina- Chapter 91 Notification- Marina Dredge Project V. ADJOURNMENT This notice posted on "Officl ��II tin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on AA2015 at /PO&44Y in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • Page 1 of 1 .1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS r ZONINOvF APP7for '. + Will hWd 3 ptibpc hearing for all Will.hold a public hearinI Persons Interested in the petition of peBc^s interested in the pettion of a ! JNORT,HEAST ANIMAL SHELTER,1 NORTHEAST ANIMAL SHELTER,-' IN seeking.a Special .3 No from INC.seeking a-S Sec permit from 5S A T L'T,i ' S SACHUSETTS tl Mil or Sec.all 3 Nthe ex- . foa provisions W Sec,3.3,3 N0%n S n I ,EM Structures to allow the ex- forming ng Structures to albw the ex to ..to of a nonconforming foot lure to of a non-confonnmg strut ABOARD OF APPEAL Nre to allow a 4926 square toot Lure io ,allowwith u 4928 square foot + ' addition,without narrowing the side addition,without narrowing the side Yard for the property located at 347 ,yard for the property located at side e 1015 .MAR 3� � HIGHLAND A VENUE(Map 7 Lot 44) HIGHLAND AVENUE(Map7Lot 44)t'""' °a - (BPD Zoning District) (BPD Za1ing Distri t ct) .. S Said hearing will be held on WED, -- hearing w111 be held on WED "=1 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM, SETTS 01970 April 15,2015 at 6 30 P.M.,3rd floor, Apri115,2015 at 6 3o p m.;3rd floor '1pLE:978-679- ��' �120 WASHINGTON ST`ROOM 313.a 1120 WASHINGTON T.ROOM 313 �, ,-. l MASS.Rebecca Curran,Chair RebeocaCurrsn,Chair n _ }N-4/1,4/8/15d of Appeals SN 4/1,4/6/15d of APpeals 1 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of NORTHEAST ANIMAL SHELTER, INC. seeking a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 33.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the extension of a non-conforming structure to allow a 4,928 square foot addition, without narrowing the side yard for the property located at 347 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 7 Lot 44) (BPD Zoning District). �• JSaid hearing will be held on WED, April 15, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 4/1/2015 & 4/8/2015 This notice posted on "Offici I Bulletin Boa1rd11 City Hall, Salem, Mass. on � at �L35 AI'►'1 in accordance it MGL Chap. 30A, Sec ions 18-25. tANDIT� City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail �2o/ia s 1 .� Tc1 .21 S i16.: +i f2Py6 F 0fo i2 c�iAs /;74- d(ofp C� Page of City of Salem Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday,April 15, 2015 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA')was held on Wednesday,April 15,2015 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Ms.Ctum calls the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,Richard Dionne,Jim Hacker(alternate).Also in attendance—Thomas St. Pierre,Building Commissioner,and Eras Schaeffer,Staff Planner REGULAR AGENDA Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the extension of a non-conforming structure to allow a 4,928 square foot addition,without narrowing the side yard. Applicant NORTHEAST ANIMAL SHELTER, INC. Location 347 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 7 Lot 44)(BPD Zoning District) • Documents and Exhibitions • Application dated March 24,2015 and supporting documentation John Seger,Seger Architects presents the petition seeking a special permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow an extension of a non-conforming structure to allow a 4,928 square foot single story addition. Also present are:Jared Eigerman,attorney for Northeast Animal shelter and Betty Ozolins,representative for Don Shapiro,owner of Northeast Animal Shelter. The existing site is a little over 2-acres. In 2006,the site was approved for a special permit from a non-conforming use of a car dealership to another non-conforming use for the animal shelter. Improvements made including the structural changes to re-use the existing building were the addition of front curb cuts,lawn, sidewalk, fencing and entrance way. Other improvements included was the outdoor dog play areas that are currently astro-turf and used for supervised short play periods and a place for adopters to meet and greet dogs for potential adoption. Propane tanks were also added to the facility outside as there is no natural gas hook-up through Highland Avenue. The remaining car dealership site was left as is with an extensive parking area in the back and pavement. The proposed addition 4,800 square foot 1-story addition and the addition will maintain the existing non-conforming setback. The property is located within the Business Park District, with a dimensional requirement of a 30-foot setback. Therefore, this proposal acknowledges • the existing non-conformity and proposes to continue to maintain the exiting 8.8 feet.A portion of this property is also within the Entrance Corridor District, but the property is • located more than 150 feet from the centerline and does not affect the proposed addition. The exterior of the proposed building will match the existing materials. Water from the roof currently drains through internal roof drains and is proposed to be kept to re-charge onsite. Stormwater management may include a new drywell, but it may be possible to use the existing system to be determined. The proposal also includes the relocation of the existing outdoor dog play areas to be in two (2) locations including one behind the existing building and a second small outdoor play area for smaller dogs in front of the building. There is a connecting path with pavers to bring dogs out to meet and greet potential adopters. Betty Ozolins- Dogs are never left in play areas unattended and are not left in the area for an extended period of time. Mr. Seger- states that a portion of pavement will be removed and replaced with a permeable gravel base and artificial permeable turf. The petitioner would also like to construct the possibility sunshades that can be removed during the winter months over the outdoor play areas. Mr. Seger presents cut sheets of the proposed canopy. There are proposed lights that have sharp cut-off dark sky down-light fixtures and wall sconces. No light will be cast into the sky or off the property. Parking there will be 25-26 parking spaces to be reduced to make space for proposed outdoor play areas. However,a total of 86 parking spaces will remain. Based on retail numbers for parking requirements, there is more than enough parking that will remain. Traffic flow and patterns will remain the same. Utilities will remain the same. • The program for the building addition will include the public areas, animal intake, the proposed addition will have a surgical room and other veterinary services and isolation/quarantine space. There is a substantial need for space for medical services. Attorney Eigerman-The previous Zoning Board of Appeal approval from 2006 states special conditions including the following: 9. No animal shall be left unattended outside; 10. Runs must be maintained indoors and 12. If there is any expansion of the use of the premises,Petitioner shall come back to the Board of Appeals for another Special Permit. Over the last nine (9) years, the shelter has created outdoor play areas. Through this Special Permit that applicant would like to be forthright and as the Board for approval. The adjacent property could have been residential,but it is known that the adjacent property may become a family entertainment center. The track record for Northeast Animal shelter has been good and there have not been any objections to the operations. Ms. Curran-Are there currently outdoor runs? Ms. Ozolins- States that there are outdoor play areas,but have not been viewed as a "run". Other shelters who have outdoor runs, typically leave animals outside for hours at a time unattended.The fenced in areas outside that exist are play areas that are meant for short- term play periods and animals are never left unattended or housed outside. • • Ms. Curran states that a special condition of the 2006 ZBA approval states that"runs must be maintained indoors" and states that the intention of this condition may have been that there would be no outdoor runs. Ms. Ozolins- states that there are plenty of runs that are maintained indoors. Ms. Curran- asks the applicant whether the animals are left outside unattended. Ms. Ozolins- states that animals are never left outside unattended. Ms. Curran- opens discussion up to Board member comment. Mr. Watkins asks the petitioner to clarify whether the proposed addition would be identical and seamlessly fit with the existing structure. Mr. Seger- states that a number of doorways will need to be introduced inside. From a design perspective,it makes sense to construct the proposed addition and use the same materials and architectural style of the existing structure. Mr. Copelas-How do the previous special conditions of the previously issued permit affect the current legal notice? In the 2006 decision,it is documented that neighbors were concerned about animals being kept outside and that there would be no outdoor runs. From a legal perspective is there a problem that the current use is in contradiction of what was • approved in 2006. Ms. Ozolins- states that what may need to be defined is a `run'. The existing outdoor play areas are not considered as a run. Mr. Copelas- states that looking at the testimony in the 2006 decision it was clearly the intent to not have outdoor runs. Attorney Eigerman-states that the petitioner's intent is to receive a new and different special permit. The previous Board of 2006 cannot bind a further Board's decision. Not sure about the level of detail required for the legal notification for the Special Permit. Mr. St. Pierre- the Special Permit was advertised that a hearing would be held this evening for some changes at the site and puts people on notice.Yes, there should not be major substitutions for large items,but the petitioner is not requesting to construct dog runs as part of the newly requested permit and the applicant is maintaining dog runs inside,which full-fills this technical requirement of the 2006 Special Permit. In nine (9) years that the animal shelter has been at this location, there have been no complaints received. Mr. St. Pierre was present during the 2006 hearing and what the neighbors were thinking of when the Northeast Animal shelter first proposed opening, there was an existing animal shelter across the street where animals were housed outside and making noise all day and all night long. The neighbor were concerned that Northeast Animal shelter would leave animals outside. • Mr. Copelas states that the Northeast Animal shelter is a clean and well-run enterprise. Just • wanted to make sure that the animal shelter is meeting the technical requirements. Mr. St. Pierre- from the 2006 decision, the petitioner has legally met the conditions and to the petitioner the outdoor spaces are play areas and not dog runs. No animals are left unattended or outside for prolonged periods of time. There are no members of the public in attendance or public comment received for this special permit request. Mr. Duffy- states that a condition of the present special pemut request shall include a special condition that states that no animals shall be left unattended outside. Ms. Curran states that all existing special conditions from the 2006 Decision shall remain. Mr. St. Pierre- states that outdoor play areas shall be maintained. Ms. Curran- states that from the 2006 Decision, one of the special conditions is that indoor play areas must be maintained. From an enforcement perspective,the applicants have maintained and continue to maintain play areas. Mr. St. Pierre- states that the new plans show a relocation of existing outdoor play areas. There have not been any issues with the outdoor play areas in the past and it is not anticipated that there will be any issues in the future. Ms. Curran opens the public portion of the meeting. • No members of the public spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposal. Ms. Curran opens discussion to Board members for final comments. Mr. St. Pierre asks the applicant for an expected timetable. Ms. Ozolins states that the animal shelter would like to move forward with plans as soon as possible. Mr. Seger- states that it is anticipated to break ground in the fall. Mr. St. Pierre- asks the applicant if there will be any blasting involved. Mr. Seger- states that there is bad soil on site and it is unknown at this time.A geotechnical engineer is needed to evaluate the soils and site conditions. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the petition requesting a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the extension of a non-conforming structure to allow a 4,928 square foot addition,without narrowing the side yard at the property located at 347 Highland Ave. The approval also includes the relocation of an existing play area, subject to the existing standard and special conditions that were approved in the Zoning Board of Appeal Decision dated April 11,2006.The motion is seconded by Mr.Dionne.The vote was with unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran • • (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,Richard Dionne) in favor and none (0) opposed. APPROVAL 01 MEETING MINUTES March 18,2015 meeting minutes were approved with a correction to a clerical error. Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the minutes as corrected, seconded by Mr. Dionne.The vote was with five (5) (Rebecca Curran(Chair),Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins, Richard Dionne) in favor and none (0) opposed. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Bimer Hawthorne Cove Marina-Chapter 91 Notification-Marina Dredge Project Mr. Watkins asks about why the dredging is needed. Mr. St. Pierre stated that the dredging is needed to maintain the marina. Mr. Copelas asks whether the applicant plans to expand the number of boat slips in this location. Mr. St.Pierre states that the applicant does not have plans to expand,but rather needs to maintain what is already,there.The basin fills in with silt and needs to be periodically maintained to maintain an existing navigational depth. 220 Highland Zoning Board ofAppeal Deti ion Amendment The Board voted five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran (Chair),Mr. Duffy,Mr.Watkins,Mr. Copelas,Mr. Dionne)in favor and none opposed,to strike Findings for Special Permit#1 in the Zoning Board of Appeal decision stamped April 1, 2015,as extraneous and irrelevant and to correct the record. ADJOURNMENT Mr.Watkins motioned for adjournment of the March 18, 2015 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 7:15pm. Motion and Vote: Mr. Wakins made a motion to adjourn the March 18,2015 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Ms. Curran,and the vote is unanimous with five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran (Chair),Mr.Duffy,Mr.Watkins,Mr. Copelas,Mr. Dionne) 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 or project at. htrp://salem.com/papes/SalemMA Zoning ppealsMin/ Respectfully submitted, Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner ��.CUN01P� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS V70 KIMBERLEY DRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR ,-, f'?1 -p April 29, 2015 3�1 9 Y` N Decision >r : City of Salem Board of Appeals D A petition of NORTHEAST ANIMAL SHELTER seeking a Special Permit fr(im the p.rovisions of Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the extension of a non-conforming strucfare to allow a 4,928 square foot addition,without narrowing the side yard for the property located at 347 HIGHLAND AVE (Map 7 Lot 44)(BPD Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 15 , 2015 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.Copelas, Mr. Duffy,Mr.Watkins,Mr. Dionne. The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.3.3. Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow for an extension of a non-conforming structure. • Statement of facts: 1. John Seger of Seger Architects presents the petition on behalf of the applicant.Attorney Jared Eigerman and Ms. Betty Ozolins, representative for Don Shapiro, also presented portions of the petition. 2. Northeast Animal Shelter received a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals on April 11, 2006. 3. Permit In the petition date-stamped March 24, 2015, the Petitioner requested a new and separate Special Perot requesting relief from Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a 4,928 square foot single story addition and relocate existing outdoor play areas in accordance with plans tided"Northeast Animal Shelter"prepared by Seger Architects EX-0 through EX-6 dated March 22,2015. 4. The proposed 4,928 square foot addition will extend along an existing non-conformmming structure with an existing 8.8 feet side-yard setback. 5. There are a total of 86 parking spaces proposed. There will be 25-26 parking spaces removed to provide spaces for the proposed outdoor play areas. 6. Traffic flow and circulation patterns will remain the same. • 7. There will be no impact on the adequacy of utilities or other public services. City of Salem Board of Appeals April 29,2015 Project: 347 Highland Ave Page 2 of 3 8. The petitioner will to work with a geotechnical engineer to complete a site analysis and possible stormwater management plan to construct an onsite drywell, if needed, to manage any additional stormwater that may be generated by the proposed addition. 9. The petitioner stated that the outdoor play areas are not dog runs as animals are never left in outdoor play areas unattended and are not left in the area for an extended period of time. 10. The Zoning Enforcement Officer confirmed that the petitioner has legally met the all conditions of the 2006 Special Permit and will continue to be bound by the Decision. 11. The proposed addition materials and architectural style will be in harmony with the existing structure. 12. The requested relief,if granted,would allow the Petitioner to allow the construction of a 4,928 square foot addition that will extend along and existing non-conforming structure and to relocate and expand the outdoor play areas in accordance with the titled "Northeast Animal Shelter" prepared by Seger Architects EX-0 through EX-6 dated March 22, 2015. 13. 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 Special Permit 1. The Board finds that the proposed expansion of the Northeast Animal Shelter of this dimensionally non-conforming building is not more detrimental than the existing structure to the 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 as the number of parking spaces proposed are in compliance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance and traffic flow will remain the same. 3. The capacity of the utilities is not affected by the project. 4. There will be no impacts on the natural environment, including drainage as any stormwater management impacts will be mitigated through the construction of a drywell, if needed. 5. The proposal conforms to the existing neighborhood character. 6. The potential fiscal impact is positive. 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. Copelas,Mr. Duffy,Mr. Watkins,Mr. Dionne) in favor and none (0) opposed, to grant a Special Permit for relief from Sec. 3.3.3 Non-conforming Structures to allow the extension of a non- conforming structure to allow a 4,928 square foot addition,without narrowing the side-yard at the property located at 347 Highland Ave. The approval also includes the relocation of an existing play area, subject to the • existing conditions that were approved in the Zoning Board of Appeals decision dated April 11,2006. City of Salem Board of Appeals April 29,2015 • Project: 347 Highland Ave 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 sball be filed within 20 days offiling of this decision in the office of the Cidy Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General lows Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Vanance or Special Permit granted herein sball not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • • CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 015 NAY 13 A KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL T ELE:978-745-9595♦ FAX:978-740-9W MAYOR 01.TY l,'LI RK, SALEM, MAS- MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppealr sill hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday,May20,2015 at 6.30p.m. at City 11allAnnex,RM 313, 120 Washington St.,Sakm,MA Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 15,2015 III. REGULAR AGENDA Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table fPrincipal and Acressory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,in order to allow a tasting • room to an adjacent space to an existing brewery,distillery or winery with a tasting room. Applicant FAR FROM THE TREE CIDER -C 0 Location 102- 108 JACKSON STREET (Map 25 Lot 390) (B4 Zoning District) T d W m 0 t Project M U l A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table :�. o(� of Dimensional Beguirrments from minimum lot area per dwelling unit to convert a garage Ng into a dwelling unit. The petitioner is also seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 �.t. Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to alter the use of an existing m nonconforming structure. Applicant MARZA,LLC Ai '—% \ z—Z O v Location 114 MARGIN STREET (Map 25 Lot 500) (R2 Zoning District) a Q C 0 0 0 Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table «m C of Dimensional Requirements from a side-yard setback of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to 0 0 y construct a rear deck. � 51�1I Applicant M. PERRY MCINTOSH and RICHARD LUECKE e N a Location 2 RIVER STREET (Map 26 Lot 617) (R2 Zoning District) 0 � � • Pagel of 2 City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for May 20,2015 Meeting Project A public heating for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from the • requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow a reduction in minimum lot area,minimum lot size per dwelling unit, and minimum lot frontage requited to create a rear lot. /Z Applicant MICHAEL BECKER `/ Location 46 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27,Lot 7) (112 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from the requirements of Sec. 4.1;1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow a reduction in minimum lot area and minimum lot size per dwelling unit to create a rear lot. Applicant MICHAEL BECKER Location 48 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27,Lot 5) (R2 Zoning District) Project A public heating for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum front yard setback and ma)dmum'lot coverage of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to construct a 15,600 square foot building. Applicant SHETLAND PARK Location 29 CONGRESS STREET (Map 34 Lot 448) Dirystrict) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS 1 C� • correction V. ADJOURNMENT • Page 2 of 2 Se ��oAtDIT�� City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet � g Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail /9eG�OD OUYT c � C 11 11 r • e��ef an0 e.� �i-.�-, C� 2c�e�5' 3yC�7a�oo,cor� T 2 n t�\t,I.�rr,Q ��e �� '�Se� / 1'iebA•vt$, �ueche Cvyrita..,ti,,.,p- tt>e4v) Ge (iI +9 (Ay*VY k Zi be waird6C�� SEAn) NFL I I NA t�i�1 yJ S c17�- $.lJ3�I SaN F_tLcV_ SAr-CI Acnnc�. avc- r,raw� a`t e J � V F 7S�rA a b� v�" S�ilLO Ao,-tV /b 51mLhif 97- O S o,--TIV )Y G a� «-j 605 Page of may! . CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 1 i 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSEM 01970 015 MAY 13 A 51 KIMBERLEY DRiscOLL TELE:978-745-9595♦ FAX:978-740,9846 FILE R MAYOR CITY CLERK. SALEM, MASS, MEETING NOTICE You are bettiby notified that the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals sill bold itr regularly rcbedukd meeting on Wednesday,May 20,201 S at 690 p.m.at City HallAnnex,RM 313, 120 Washington St,Sakm, MA Rebecca Curran,Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ➢ April 15,2015 III. REGULAR AGENDA 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,in order to allow a tasting • room to an adjacent space to an existing brewery, distillery or winery with a tasting room. Applicant FAR FROM THE TREE CIDER o M Location 102- 108 JACKSON STREET (Map 25 Lot 390) (B-4 Zoning District) 1i o r m � Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table « o0 of Dimensional Requitements from minimum lot area per dwelling unit to convert a garage d into a dwelling unit. The petitioner is also seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 m Cni Nonconforriting Simautrs of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to alter the use of an existing r nonconforming structure. a Applicant MARZA,LLC A Location 114 MARGIN STREET (Map 25 Lot 500) (R2 Zoning District) o � Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table vi of Dimensional Requirements from a side-yard setback of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to 0 0 N coconstructai a rear deck. m N Applicant M. PERRY MCINTOSH and RICHARD LUECKE u �e Location 2 RIVER STREET (Map 26 Lot 617) (R2 Zoning District) C = FV AW • Pagel of 2 City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for May 20,2015 Meeting • Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a reduction in minimum lot area,minimum lot size per dwelling unit,and minimum lot frontage required to create a rear lot. Applicant MICHAEL BECKER Location 46 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27,Lot 7) (112 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a reduction in minimum lot area and minimum lot size per dwelling unit to create a rear lot. Applicant MICHAEL BECKER Location 48 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27,Lot 5) (R2 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum front yard setback and maximum lot coverage of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to construct a 15,600 square foot building. Applicant SHETLAND PARK Location 29 CONGRESS STREET (Map 34 Lot 448) (I Zoning District) • IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS 43 Bridge Street—Clerical conection V. ADJOURNMENT • Page 2 of 2 NUITq��' CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS aJq BOARD OF APPEAL 9�. 9 ��/MINE Do 120 WASHINGTON STREET* SALf.�:M,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KiMB[..Iu.EYDluscou. TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner DATE: May 13, 2015 RE: Meeting Agenda for May 20, 2015 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. Draft Me eting Minutes from 4/15/2015 4. 102-108 Jackson Street Application • 5. 114 Margin Street Application 6. 2 River Street Application 7. 46 School Street Application 8. 48 School Street Application 9. 29 Congress Street Application Below is a summation of the requested petition and any supplemental information for the Board of Appeals to consider when discussing the petition scheduled for a public hearing on Wednesday, May 20, 2015. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. Petition of FAR FROM THE TREE CIDER, seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a tasting room in an adjacent space to an existing brewery, distillery or winery with a tasting room for the property located at 102-108 JACKSON STREET (Map 25 Lot 390)(134 Zoning District). Stamped September 30, 2015, Fax From the Tree Cider received a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the addition of a tasting room to an existing brewery, distillery or winery located at 102 Jackson Street. Since approval, the company has expanded in 102 Jackson Street and is proposing to locate a tasting room in an adjacent building to the current location of the winery operations. The proposed location of the tasting room is where the Scooter Doctor is currently located. Application materials and a copy of the ordinance are included in this packet • City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—May 20, 2015 Page 2 of 4 • 2. Petition of MARZA, LLC, seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area per dwelling unit to convert an existing garage into a dwelling unit. The petitioner is also seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to alter the use of an existing nonconforming structure located at the property of 114 MARGIN STREET (Map 25 Lot 500) (R2 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table to Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to alter an existing nonconforming structure to provide for a substantially different purpose from an attached garage to serve as an additional dwelling unit. The conversion of a single family home into a two-family dwelling unit is allowed by right in an R2 Zoning District. Dimensional Requirements for R2 Required Proposed Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (Square 7,500 2,176 feet) • A copy of the application and supporting materials are included in this packet. 3. Petition of M. PERRY MCINTOSH and RICHARD LUECKE seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements from a side-yard setback of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to construct a rear deck located at 2 RIVER STREET (Map 26 Lot 617) (R2 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from side-yard setback to construct a rear deck and stairs located at 2 RIVER STREET. The property is located in a local historic district and a certificate of non-applicability was issued on April 30, 2015. Dimensional Requirements for R2 Required Proposed Minimum side yard 10 0 setback Feet A copy of the application and supporting materials are included in this packet. • 2 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—May 20,2015 Page 3 of 4 4. Petition of MICHAEL BECKER seeking Variances requesting relief from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a reduction in minimum lot area, minimum lot size pet dwelling unit and minimum lot frontage required to create a rear lot located at 46 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27, Lot 7) (R2 Zoning District). See Description Below 5. Petition of MICHAEL BECKER seeking Variances requesting relief from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a reduction in minimum lot area and minimum lot size per dwelling unit to create a rear lot located at 48 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27 Lot 5)(R2 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking Variances requesting relief from the requirements of 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for 46 SCHOOL STREET to allow a reduction in minimum lot area, minimurn lot area per dwelling unit,and minimum lot frontage on this parcel. In addition, the petitioner is also seeking Variances requesting relief from the requirements of 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to allow a reduction in minimum lot area and minimum lot size per dwelling unit for the property located at 48 SCHOOL STREET. When merged, a portion of 46 SCHOOL STREET and 48 SCHOOL STREET will be used to create a new conforming lot. 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. Please note that 46 SCHOOL STREET will also be before the Planning Board for a Waiver of Frontage request and require a public hearing. A table of dimensional requirements for an R2 Zoning District with the required and proposed dimensions for 46 SCHOOL STREET this property is below: Dimensional Requirements for R2 Required Proposed Minimum lot area (square 15,000 5,010 feet Minimum lot area per 7,500 5,010 dwelling unit (square feet Minimum lot frontage 100 16.15 feet A table of dimensional requirements for an R2 Zoning District with the required and proposed dimensions for 48 SCHOOL STREET this property is below: • 3 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—May 20, 2015 Page 4 of 4 Dimensional Requirements for R2- 48 School Street Continued Required Proposed Minimum lot area (square 15,000 6,873 feet Minimum lot area per 7,500 6,873 dwelling unit (square feet A copy of the application and supporting materials are included in this packet. 6. Petition of SHETLAND PARK seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum front yard setback and maximum lot coverage of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to construct a 15,600 square foot building located at 29 CONGRESS STREET (Map 34 Lot 448)( I Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum front yard setback and maximum lot coverage to construct a single-story 15,088 square foot building to be leased to the Salem Academy Charter School for a new athletic and arts center. The proposed new building will be constructed in an open paved area adjacent to an existing parking garage adjacent to Pingree Street. Required Proposed Minimum front yard 30 15 setback Feet Maximum lot coverage by 45% 51.8% all buildings (percent) A copy of the application and supporting materials are included in this packet. OLD/NEW BUSINESS N/A • 4 • City of Salem Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday,May 20,2015 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA')was held on Wednesday,April 15,2015 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Ms.Currancalls the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Those present were:Rebecca Curran (Chair),James Tsitsinos,Peter A. Copelas,Tom Watkins,Jim Hacker (alternate).Also in attendance—Thomas St. Pierre,Building Commissioner,and Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner REGULAR AGENDA 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,in order to allow a tasting room to an adjacent space to an existing brewery, distillery or winery with a tasting room. Applicant FAR FROM THE TREE CIDER Location 102-108 JACKSON STREET (Map 25 Lot 390) (B4 Zoning District) • Documents and Exhibitions • Application dated March 24,2015 and supporting documentation Denise Snape, Far From dhe Tree Cider,presents the petition. Ms. Snape states that Far From the Tree Cider would like to open a smaller winery with a tasting room in an adjacent space to their own existing winery located at 102 Jackson Street. Curran: States that the Zoning Board of Appeals recently approved a Special Permit for a brewery, distillery,winery with a tasting room at 209 Essex Street and asks the applicant whether the business will also be operating in this location. Ms. Snape- states that the opportunity at 209 Essex Street fell through as the current owner is selling the property. Curran: Asks the applicant for clarification and information to define a tasting room and describe what activities are proposed to take place at this location. Ms. Snape- states that this proposal is the same as the proposal from 209 Essex Street. The proposed new location would include 66%of the total building square footage to be dedicated to operations of a winery and 33% to a tasting room. • Curran:Asks the applicant whether the proposed location physically connected to the adjacent existing winery,brewery,distillery. Ms. Snape- states that the proposed location for this winery, brewery, distillery with a tasting room is • for a building that is adjacent to,but not attached to the current winery. The applicant states that ideally the business would like to have the proposed function of this adjacent space only serve as a tasting room as the adjacent winery has enough space for manufacturing in the other space at 102 Jackson. Possibly in the future the buildings could be physically connected to allow for this proposed space to serve as winery and be 33%of the entire winery, distillery,brewery located at 102 Jackson Street. For now,the business proposes to have a separate winery, distillery,brewery with a tasting room in an adjacent space to an existing brewery,distillery,winery. Curran:Asks the applicant for clarification on the proposed hours of operation. Ms. Snape- states that the proposed brewery, distillery,winery would operate from 12pm to 12am seven (7) days a week.The applicant states that the hours of operation may not be what is requested, but would like to have flexibility in the hours of operation. Curran: For people who were not present at the public hearing for 209 Essex Street,Ms. Curran asks the applicant to define a tasting room. Ms. Snape- the cider that is made at the facility would be sampled by the public.Ms. Snape states that the company plans to go before the Licensing Board to request a full pouring license.A tasting room is not a restaurant or bar as there will not be a kitchen and a bar serves other company's products. The products made under the company's Farmer Winery License would be the products offered for sampling to the public at the proposed tasting room. Curran: What are the limits to the number of samples and amount sampled? Ms. Snape- states that with a Farmer Winery License,the winery is limited to serving five (5) one ounce (1 oz) pours per customer.The Farmer Winery License is the First step and then the company intends to apply to the Licensing Board to allow the company to serve a full pour.The products that the winery is making would be the products served to the public. Ms. Curran- Clarifies that the special permit for winery,brewery,distillery with a tasting room can be permitted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.The Fanner Winery License allows the winery to serve samples. The Licensing Board may allow the company to serve a full pour. Ms. Curran- asks the applicant whether there will be any changes to the exterior of the building? Ms. Snape- there will be no exterior changes to the building except painting the exterior. Ms. Curran- opens discussion to Board members before opening the meeting to the public. Mr. Copelas-Ask the applicant for clarification on the proposed activities that will occur in the proposed building. Ms. Snape- states that there will be production and a tasting room.The applicant proposes to have 66%of the square footage of the building dedicated to production and 33% dedicated to a tasting room.The production would be dedicated to fermenting, aging and bottling a portion of cider in this • location in fifty-two (52) gallon barrels. No large kegs or tanks will be located in this building. f • Mr. Copelas- clarifies that there will be processing in the proposed location as opposed to exclusively being used for a tasting room. Ms. Snape-yes. Ms. Curran- states that as proposed, this is consistent with the definition of a tasting room. Mr. Copelas- asks the Zoning Enforcement Officer,Tom St. Pierre,whether this petition as proposed with 66%production and 33%of the square footage dedicated to a tasting room is consistent with the definition of a brewery, distillery,winery with a tasting room and as proposed negates the legal opinion. Mr. St.Pierre- Sounds like there was communication that I was not aware. Mr. Watkins-is the location of the proposed tasting room adjacent to the current,but separate building where the currently operating winery is located? Ms. Snape-yes. Mr. Watkins- the proposed tasting room is within the allowable square footage of the total building. Mr.Watkins-will employees be TIPS certified? • Ms. Snape-yes. Ms. Curran: states that it seems that customers will be visiting by car. Ms. Snape- states that this location is a ten (10) minute walk from downtown and can visit by car. Ms. Curran- opens discussion to the public. Councillor Todd Siegel,Ward 3 -Expresses concern about the possible impact of the hours of operation on nearby residential neighbors. Councillor Siegel asks for clarification on the location and number of parking spaces available for the proposed brewery, distillery,winery with a tasting room. Councillor Siegel expresses concern that there may not be enough parking for employees and customers. Ms. Snape- states that employees are all residents of Salem and may park in the residential zone directly across the street from the proposed brewery,distillery,winery with a tasting room and there are five (5) on-site parking spaces on the Jefferson Street side. Councilor Siegel- states that the resident parking stickers may be distinguished by zone and are meant to provide parking spaces for residents of the neighborhood. • Ms. Curran closes the public portion of the hearing. Ms. Curran- expresses concern about the proposed hours of operation.The proposed hours of • operation are until 1lpm on weekdays and 12pm on weekends. Ms. Snape- states that it is possible that the business will not be open seven (7) days a week. However,it would be advantageous to be open from 12pm to 1lpm on the weekends.During the week,the proposed hours closing at 9pm may be sufficient. Ms. Curran- opens discussion to Board. Mr.Watkins- expresses concern about the proposed hours of operation. In particular, the late evening hours of operation are of concern particularly because there are residential homes directly across the street from this proposed location. Ms. Snape- states that the surrounding area is industrial with few people in the area after 4pm. Mr. St. Pierre and Mr.Watkins- discuss the location of residences on Jackson Street across the street to the proposed brewery,distillery,and winery with a tasting room. Mr. Copelas-Asks the applicant whether she would be opposed to modification of the hours of operation to be Sunday through Thursday 12pm to 9pm and Friday through Saturday 2pm-llpm. Ms. Snape- agrees to the proposed hours of operation. Mr. Watkins- states that the hours of operation particularly during weekends may still be too late. • Ms. Curran-Asks the applicant whether there are plans for walk-in events. Ms. Snape- States that the benefit to not being located in the downtown area is that there may be more flexibility with hosting events. The company is interested in having the space serve as a community space and include art gatherings and acoustic guitar performances. Mr. St.Pierre- states that the Board may condition the proposed hours of operation to be a trial period if need be. Ms. Curran- concurs. Ms. Curran- states that the Board received a memo from the City Solicitor. In particular, the City's Zoning Ordinance permits a brewery, distillery, or winery with a tasting room only by special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeal. A brewery,distillery or winery with a tasting room is defined as "A business located in a building where the primary use is for the production and distribution of malt, spirituous,or vinous beverages with a tasting room as defined in Section 10.0..."A tasting room is defined as "A room attached to either a brewery, distillery or winery that allows patrons to sample or consume,wine,beer and other alcoholic beverages that are produced on-site in accordance with M.G.L. c. 138.A tasting room may not be greater than thirty-three (33) percent of the main building's gross square footage." Ms. Curran asks the applicant whether these requirements are anticipated to be met in that the applicant has proposed to the Board that the primary use of the • space is for production and distribution.The proposed tasting room will be no greater than thirty- three (33) percent of the main building's gross square footage. . Ms. Snape- concurs that the proposed brewery,distillery or winery with a tasting room will be primarily used for a production and distribution and the proposed tasting room will be no greater than thirty-three (33) percent of the main building's gross square footage. Mr. St.Pierre-concurs that as proposed at the public meeting, the proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Ms. Curran for 6 months to continue if there are no complaints. 12pm-11 Monday through Sunday to confirm hours going forward. Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve the petition requesting a Special Permit from the provisions of Section 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 at the property located at 102-108 Jackson Street subject to nine (9) standard conditions and one (1) special condition that the hours of operation shall be limited to Sunday-Thursday 12pm-9pm and Friday to Saturday 12pm-11pm to be adhered.After six (6) months the petitioner may request an expansion of hours of operation from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas.The vote was unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,James Hacker. Project A public hearing for seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of • Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area per dwelling unit to convert an existing garage into a dwelling unit. The petitioner is also seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to alter the use of an existing nonconforming structure. Applicant MARZA LLC Location 114 MARGIN STREET (Map 25 Lot 500)(112 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions • Application dated April 22,2015 and supporting documentation Emily Stuart and Paula Pierce of Marza LLC present the petition. The petitioners proposed to convert an existing 1,300 square foot attached garage into a dwelling unit.The petitioners state that they are seeking a Variance from minimum lot are per dwelling unit to convert an existing garage into a dwelling unit and a Special permit to alter the use of an existing nonconforming structure. The petitioners proposed to convert the existing single family home with an attached garage to a two (2) family dwelling unit. Ms. Curran: States that the petitioner did not present any architectural plans. • Ms. Stuart- states that there are no proposed structural changes to the existing footprint of the building. There will be structural changes inside and will have two-bedrooms and one bathroom. Ms. Curran-asks the applicant whether all three garage doors will remain the same or if there are any additional external changes to the building proposed. Ms. Pierce- states that the three garage doors will be replaced with walls and windows that will be similar to the look of the current facade,but will not function as garage doors. The windows will also be replaced as the garage doors and windows are not currently insulated. Ms. Curran- states that the applicant is asking for a variance and requests that the applicant state a hardship,which is one of the requirements for a variance. Ms. Stuart- the garage is 1,300 square feet and the hardship is that the garage is large and can be used for another use instead of serving as a two-car garage. Ms. Curran asks the applicant whether the entire current garage space would be converted into residential. Ms. Curran also asks about the number and location of parking spaces available as proposed. Ms. Stuart states that the dwelling unit proposed would take up the entire garage. There is enough space for four(4) on-site parking spaces outside. Ms. Curran asks the applicant whether there will be any expansion of the current building. Ms. Stuart states that the footprint of the building will not change,however three (3) sides of the brick building are proposed to be covered with insulated stucco.The brick is deteriorating and is not . insulated. Ms. Curran opens discussion to Board members. Mr.Watkins asks the applicant to clarify the current use of the garage. Plans of this size and nature typically have architectural plans. Mr.Watkins suggests a motion to continue pending further architectural plan submission. Ms. Stuart states that there are no exterior architectural changes. Mr.Watkins states that there are exterior changes including the replacement of the garage doors, upper windows and stucco over the brick facade. Ms.Pierce the garage doors are not insulated and need to be replaced.The windows also do not provide very much light inside of the garage.The windows will be replaced with something that keeps the character of the old garage doors,but is insulated and provides light into the proposed unit. Visually, the replacement garage doors and windows will look the similar to the existing garage doors and windows. Ms. Curran:Asks about the proposed location for the front door. Ms. Pierce states that one of the garage bays will serve as a front entrance.There is also a side • entrance for a second egress into the proposed unit. • Ms. Curran states that the Zoning Board of Appeals requires architectural elevation plans when there are changes to the outside of a building.Also, the applicant must meet the criteria for a hardship as considered under M.G.L. Chapter 40A for the Zoning Board to grant a variance. Ms. Curran states concern that the hardship stated for the variance meets the threshold of Chapter 40A. Ms. Curran- opens public comment. Todd Siegel,Ward 3 Councilor- expresses support for the project. In particular,the petitioners have done good work in the area. In support as long as the applicant meets the requirements of the Zoning Board of Appeals. William LeGault,City Councilor At Large-expresses support for the project. Ms. Curran-reads letter of support from Robert Pemino, 120-124 Margin Street. A petition of support was also submitted by the applicant with signatures from 90 Summer Street and 112 Margin Street. Mr. Copelas-in addition to requesting more information on architectural detail,more information regarding the hardship is needed for consideration.There are three specific requirements that must be met. Specifically,more information regarding the hardship is needed.There is no hardship in continuing the non-conformity in its present use as a single-family dwelling unit. • Ms. Curran-more detail on what is being proposed to the exterior of the building is needed. Ms. Curran asks the petitioners if they would like to continue to the next meeting and to submit architectural information and a revised statement of hardship. Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to continue the hearing seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec.4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements from minimum lot area per dwelling unit to convert an existing garage into a dwelling unit.The petitioner is also seeking a Special Permit per Sec.3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to alter the use of an existing nonconforming structure the next regularly scheduled meeting on June 17,2015 at 6:30pm.The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas.The vote was unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins,James Hacker. *Board member Mike Duffy is present. Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance requesting relief from Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirement'from a side-yard setback to construct a rear deck. Applicant M. PERRY MCINTOSH and RICHARD LUECKE Location 2 RIVER STREET (Map 26 Lot 617)(R2 Zoning District) • Documents and Exhibitions 0 Application dated April 28,2015 and supporting documentation Perry McIntosh and Richard Luecke,petitioners present the petition.The petitioners are seeking a Variance from the Table of Dimensional Requirements from a side-yard setback to construct a rear deck. The existing house,built in 1799,is built across the full width of the lot.The petitioners propose to build a 67.5 square foot deck and stairway to the backyard to serve as a secondary egress to the property. Ms. Curran states that the applicant does not have an option to provide rear access to the structure without the possibility of existing on the zero (0') lot fine. Mr. Copelas states that the petitioner proposes to build an expanded stairway with a large landing. It is clear that there is no access out of the back of the house from the living space. The hardship is clear that the topography, slope and grade down to Bridge Street.The proposal is modest and reasonable. Ms. Curran opens discussion for public comment. Ms. Curran reads a written comment of support from 4 River Street. Richard Griffin- 14 Beckford Street- speaks in support of the petition. Ms. Curran-States the following findings: 1. Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building or structure • generally not affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district include the steep slope and grade of the property and lack of a rear egress from the living quarters of the structure. 2. The literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant as the existing structure is on the zero (0') lot line and there is no other option to provide rear access to the structure. 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. Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve the petition seeking a Variance requesting relief from Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from a side-yard setback to construct a rear deck subject to six(6) standard conditions.The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy.The vote was unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Jimmy Tsitsinos,Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins). *Petitions for 46 School Street and 48 School Street heard together* Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variances requesting relief from Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a reduction in minimum lot area,minimum lot size per dwelling unit,and minimum lot frontage required to create a rear lot. Applicant JOYCE DUPRIS • Location 46 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27,Lot 7) (112 Zoning District) • I *Petitions for 46 School Street and 48 School Street heard together* Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variances requesting relief from Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a reduction in minimum lot area and minimum lot size per dwelling unit, to create a rear lot when merged with 46 School Street. Applicant MICHAEL BECKER Location 48 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27, Lot 5) (112 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions • Applications dated April 28,2015 and supporting documentation Attorney Correnti presents the petition for both 46 SCHOOL STREET and 48 SCHOOL STREET together to understand the purpose of these applications.These petitions are to take two (2) non- conforming lots and reduce them in size to be more dimensionally non-conforming. The requested relief for 46 SCHOOL STREET is to allow a reduction in minimum lot area, minimum lot size per dwelling unit, and minimum lot frontage. 46 SCHOOL STREET lot is unique in lot size, shape and topography as the lots are narrow and sometimes referred to as "bowling alley lots."The usable land on this lot is where the current house • is located. Ledge outcroppings in the rear yard prevent the homeowner from using the property to a fuller extent.The majority of the rear lot is unusable due to the topography of the ledge in the back of the lot. 46 School Street has a driveway that is a right-of-way with access on School Street to the house,while frontage on School Street Court provides frontage and vehicular access to the house located at 46 School Street. The existing lot size is 12,628 and a dimensionally non-conforming lot. The petitioner proposes to reduce the size of the existing lot from 12,628 square feet to 5,010 square feet and in doing so, requests relief from the lot size per dwelling unit dimensional requirement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The petitioner also proposes to reduce the existing frontage on School Street Court from 116.16 feet to 16.15 feet. The requested relief for 48 SCHOOL STREET is to allow a reduction in minimum lot area and minimum lot size per dwelling unit. 48 SCHOOL STREET lot is unique in lot size, shape and topography as the lots are narrow and sometimes referred to as "bowling alley lots."The usable land on this lot is where the current house is located.Ledge outcroppings in the rear yard prevent the homeowner from using the property to a fuller extent.The majority of the rear lot is unusable due to the topography of the ledge in the back of the lot. The existing lot size is 15,399 square feet.Although the lot is conforming in lot area,the property is dimensionally non-conforming in lot width,lot frontage and front and side setbacks. The petitioner proposes to reduce the size of the existing lot from 15,399 square feet to 6,973 square feet while not • changing the lot width or existing front and side setbacks.The petitioner also is requesting relief from the lot size per dwelling unit dimensional requirement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Attorney Correnti demonstrates that the resulting lots will be similar in size and shape to other lots in . the district. The intention is to merge a portion of 46 School Street and 48 School Street to create a new 15,000 square foot lot that conforms to the Salem Zoning Ordinance requirements. Attorney Correnti submits twelve (12) letters of support for the petitions of 46 and 48 School Street from real estate professionals in the area in support of the project. Ms. Curran states that the petitioner came to the Board in September 2014 with a proposal and asks the petitioner to clarify whether the current petitions is the same as the one presented in March. Attorney Correnti states that the petitions are very similar and the petitioners withdrew the applications without prejudice for 46 and 48 School Street in March.The owner in the joint petition for 46 School Street was not prepared to go forward with the proposed project at the time. Ms. Curran opens discussion to the Board. Mr. Copelas-Asks the applicant whether 46 and 48 School Street are currently single-family homes. Attorney Correnti- states that 46 and 48 School Street are currently both two-family in an R2 Zoning District. Ms. Curran states that 46 School Street is almost conforming in lot area and 48 School Street is • conforming in lot area. The petitioner proposes to reduce the size of the existing lot from 12,628 square feet to 5,010 square feet. The petitioner proposes to reduce the size of the existing lot from 15,399 square feet to 6,973 square feet.The petitioner proposes to decrease the lot areas of both lots and increase the density of units from an existing four(4) dwelling units to six (6) dwelling units. Attorney Correnti confirms that the density is proposed to increase from the existing four(4) dwelling units to either five (5) or six (6) dwelling units. In keeping with the zoning district,the petitioner may construct a duplex. Ms. Curran asks the petitioner to make the case for a hardship. Attorney Correnti states that the lots are a peculiar shape,the topography is unique and the petitioner would like to demonstrate that the request is not more detrimental to the neighborhood and are in keeping with the neighborhood and district. Ms. Curran asks the applicant to clarify the location of the existing frontage for 46 School Street. Attorney Correnti states that there is 116 feet on School Street Court Ms. Curran- Opens public comment and acknowledges twelve (12) letters and a petition in support of the proposals. • • Cheryl Louis Halstead- 1 School Street Court- Strongly opposed to the petitions. Expresses concerns about emergency access and parking Eric Deffer- 6 Chandler Street-in support of the petition. Beth Gerard,Ward 6 Councilor- expresses support for the petition. William LeGault,Councilor At Large- expresses support for the petition. Ms. Halstead- continues to express concern about illegal parking on School Street Court and emergency access. Joyce Dupris,46 School Street- states that her son-in-law was a firefighter and has driven a fire truck on School Street Court with no problem. Ms. Curran asks Attorney Correnti whether the applicant has spoken to Fire Prevention to discuss emergencyaccess. Attorney Correnti stated that School Street Court is narrow much like other historic streets in the neighborhood and the developer has committed to Fire Department that the proposed new structure will have sprinklers installed.The developer will take a condition that states that the developer will comply with all of the regulations and recommendations of the Salem Fire Department. • Ms. Curran asks the Board whether there are any comments. Ms. Curran asks the petitioner whether the depiction of a new building is a depiction or a plan and asks a clarification on whether the dashed line on the plan represents the building envelope. Attorney Correnti states that the proposed plan shows a depiction of a new building to show that it can fit on the new lot created without any relief. The dashed line represents the building envelope. Ms. Curran issues with this is the same issue as last time in that the petitioner is asking to take two lots,one that is dimensionally conforming and one that is almost conforming, to greatly reduce these exiting lots to make them significantly non-conforming to create a new conforming lot. In doing so, the petitioner is proposing to increase the density on this land from an existing four(4) dwelling units to six (6) dwelling units on what would by lot area be allow only four(4) dwelling units.There is no hardship as a long lot that is too large is not a hardship. Attorney Corrend states that for 46 School Street the petitioner is asking for a Variance from lot area, lot size per dwelling unit,and lot frontage. The lot width and side setbacks are not changing.What is changing,but does not need relief are lot coverage and rear yard setbacks.There are five (5) dimensional requirements that do not need relief under the proposed plan. For 48 School Street, relief is not needed from many of the setbacks,but do need relief from minimum lot area and minimum lot size per dwelling unit.This project fits in the neighborhood in a number of ways and is one,not all of the criteria that are needed for the requested relief. Robert 4 '/z Cushing Street-expresses support for petition. 38 Grove Street,Lynn MA-expresses support for the petition. • Marco Tranos 39 Buffham Street-expresses support for the petition. Mr. Becker, petitioner-presents the petition. Mr. Becker states that he proposes that the back half of 46 and 48 School Street both be cut off to create a square lot at 2 School Street Court. 46 and 48 School Street are adjacent lots and are a unique situation in that combined they could create a conforming lot that would have the required street frontage. In addition these lots are unique in topography as there is a cliff in the back and steep terrain.The new lot would allow for a home to be built on the embankment, a flat lot in the front and a flat usable terrace backyard resulting in an embankment colonial.The current hardships are that it physically and financially difficult to maintain the rear yard because of the cliff and topography.Although the back yards of 46 and 48 School Street are fenced, they are an attractive nuisance with teenagers skiing in the back yard.The petitioner states that this creates a liability for him. There is also graffiti on the rocks because people look at the rear yard as a vacant lot and is an eyesore. Mr.Becker presents pictures of the rear yard and existing topography. Stephanie Lynn 52 Beckett Street- daughter of petitioner Joyce Dupris of 46 School Street states that it has been difficult to maintain the rear yard.The side door to the home is uses as the main entrance from the right-of-way on School Street rather than the front door on School Street Court. The upkeep on School Street Court has always been a problem. She expresses support for the proposed project. Mr.Becker states that it is a physical hardship for Ms.Dupris to take care of the rear yard and is also a financial hardship to maintain the backyard much more so than it is for him to maintain his own • backyard. The Board closes the public hearing. Ms. Curran opens discussion to the Board. Mr. Watkins asks for clarification on the statement of hardship proposed and states that he is not seeing the hardship. Ms. Curran states that the proposed statement of hardship is that the backyard is too large and overgrown. Mr. Copelas states that of the three (3) hardship conditions the Board has accepted topography as a special condition and circumstance hi the past. As for the third condition, the overwhelming sentiment of the public is that this proposal would be in the best interest of the neighborhood. There needs to be more information on how the literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would provide a substantial hardship to the applicant. Ms. Curran states that having a large lot is not a substantial hardship and in addition the proposal is to make a lot significantly more non-conforming.This may not be a good application of a Variance for the City in general and these lots in particular even though this looks like a nice project with public support. • • Attorney Correnti clarifies that the conforming lot 48 School Street is proposed to be reduced in half rather than one third. Mr. St. Pierre asks the Chair whether the Board will hold two (2) separate votes even though the two (2) petitions for both 46 and 48 School Street were presented together. Ms. Curran states that there are two (2) separate petitions and need two (2) separate votes. 48 School Street Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Section 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a reduction in minimum lot area and minimum lot size per dwelling unit, to create a rear lot when merged with 46 School Street subject to eight(8) standard conditions.The motion is seconded by Mr.Watkins. The vote was four(4) in favor(Jimmy Tsitsinos, Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins) and one (1) Rebecca Curran (Chair), opposed. 46 School Street Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve the petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Section 4.1.1 Table o£Dirrtensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a reduction in minimum lot area,minimum lot size per dwelling unit, and minimum lot frontage required to create a rear lot subject to eight(8) standard conditions. Mr.Watkins states that the special conditions and circumstances especially • affecting the land,building or structure generally not affecting other lands,buildings or structure in the same district include the lot area,steep slope and grade of the property.The literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant.The hardship is that it is a physical and financial hardship to maintain the physical property for the petitioner. 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, as the resulting lot will be similar in size and shape to the other lots in the district.The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas.The vote was four(4) in favor(Jimmy Tsitsinos, Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins) and one (1) Rebecca Curran(Chair), opposed. Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of'Dimen.nonal Requirements from minimum front yard setback and maximum lot coverage to construct a 15,600 square foot building. Applicant SHETLAND PARK Location 29 CONGRESS STREET(Map 34 Lot 448) (I Zoning District) Zoning Board of Appeal alternate member Jim Hacker discloses for the record that his grandson is a current student at the Academy and will be transferring to another school next year.Therefore the outcome of this project will not benefit him and there is no conflict of interest. Mr.Hacker asks the petitioner whether they would like Mr. Hacker to recuse himself. • Attorney Quinn states that there is no problem with Mr. Hacker voting on the matter.There are • many people in the city who have some relationship to the school.Attorney Quinn thanks the Board member for his disclosure. Attorney Quinn presents the petition. Shetland Park is a huge facility with over 1.5 million square feet of industrial and commercial space. The land was originally developed as a linen mill and associated industry in the 1800-1900's and the facilities burned to the ground in the Salem Fire of 1914. The linen company built the current facilities soon after the Salem Fire.All of the buildings locations are exactly as they were rebuilt after the Salem Fire and were build covering more than fifty-percent (50%) of the lot coverage.Any new development on the site will always have to come before the Zoning Board of Appeal to ask for dimensional relief for the lot coverage. The buildings are uniquely solid construction because they were built to withstand another fire and were built to serve the function of manufacturing facilities.The buildings are difficult and expensive to maintain and renovate because the walls are made of thick structural steel and concrete. Salem Academy Charter School is a tenant that Shetland Park Trust has had successfully for approximately ten (10) years. It is a public charter school supported by the City of Salem and is free to its students and provides a free breakfast for students.The school serves many minority students with a growing and award winning program. Shetland Park Trust would like to keep the school in this location not only for income,but the school is an asset to the community,neighborhood and the City of Salem.The school occupies approximately 11,000 square feet of space and need more space to offer athletic and add to the art programs.A deal has been struck between the Salem Academy Charter School and Shetland Park Trust to extend the existing lease another fifteen (15) years at least if there is a possibility that Shetland Park can expand to accommodate the needs of the school. • The parking garage on Pingree Street that was built about ten (10) years ago holds at least 500 cars for all tenants. Industrial users work from 7am-4pm and the garage is empty next to the proposed athletic and arts center.The proposed structure is a single—structure with a height of twenty-one (21) feet with basketball courts, classrooms and music room facilities. The front of the building is oriented toward Pingree Street. The size of the proposed building is 15,600 square feet with a proposed setback of 15 feet. There is really not another location on this property where a building of this size can be located. Before the parking lot was built,the Zoning Board of Appeal granted a variance to allow the parking garage to be built with a 15 foot setback. Currently,the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the minimum from front yard setback to allow the proposed new building to be built in alignment with the existing parking garage.The lot has historically been covered by buildings that exceed the minimum lot coverage requirements of 45%.The current lot coverage is 50% and is anticipated to increase to 51.2%with the addition of the proposed athletic and arts center.Therefore the petitioner is also seeking a Variance from maximum lot coverage requirements. Attorney Quinn states that the property is unique in that three sides of the property are bounded by ocean and the fourth side is bounded by Pingree Street,Lynch Street and Congress Street.The property is a contiguous parcel of 29-acres of industrial property on the waterfront.The existing buildings are expensive to maintain and renovate and cover a large amount of the lot that does not allow for the applicant to provide the space required for the tenant. The proposal will not substantially impact the existing neighborhood. • Shawn O'Neil,Executive Director of the Charter School- expresses support for the petition and resents information regarding the demo a hits and number of students that are served b the • P � P 3 school. Mr. O'Neil also discusses programmatic programs and future needs of the school including the need for the space for additional enrollment and expanding visual arts and athletic programs. One of the key needs is that a new building needs to be located in close proximity to the existing school building to ensure safety and adequate supervision as students travel from building to building. There are no other sides that are as easily accessible and a rate opportunity, to suit the current and future needs of the school. Ms. Curran asks the applicant for an aerial view of the site and clarification questions to understand the proposed placement of the building and available parking. Attorney Quinn presents a plan showing the location of the proposed building. Ms. Curran asks the petitioner to confirm that the users of the space will be the school. Attorney Quinn states that the space will be exclusively used by the school at least for the next fifteen (15) years. Ms. Curran asks the petition to confirm that there is adequate parking available. Attorney Quinn states that the parking garage will provide a significant number of parking spaces particularly for evening events. Offices and other industry at Shetland Park close at 4pm therefore • there are hundreds of parking spaces available for evening games and performances.There will be a few additional employees for the facility,but it is anticipated that the parking garage will have adequate parking needed. Mr. Duffy asks the application where the school is currently located. Attorney Quinn and Mr. O'Neil specify where the school is currently located. Ms. Curran asks the Board if there are any more questions. Ms. Curran opens public comment and reads letters of support.Letters of support include North Shore CDC,Board Members of the Salem Academy Charter School,residents of 38 Dearborn Street. William LeGault,City Councilor at Large-expresses support for the petition. Concerned about the affects the neighborhood and would like to make sure that the neighbors are fully aware of what is going on.Maybe there is a chance for the school to work with the neighborhood kids over the summer time and allow them to use the facility. Attorney Quinn states that the applicant has reached out to the community and will continue to do so throughout the process. Drew Betts,Athletic Director- expresses support for the petition.There are over 200 students that participate in sports without on campus facilities. The building will allow the school to grow with • more opportunities for students. Mark Meche,Volunteer at the school- part of the early drawings looking at the planning of the facility for a long time.The school has looked all over for about 5-years to find space to locate a building of this size. It is sized the way that it is mostly to house a gymnasium and three classrooms. The proposed building is more of an extension of existing programs rather than an expansion of the student body. During initial stages of the architectural feasibility study, the architecture team discovered that it was not physically possible to renovate the existing infrastructure let alone financing the possibility of a renovation. In response, the alternative was to create a new building and locate it on-site in the currently proposed location.The location aligning with the parking garage is an improvement to the neighborhood to create a better barrier of the edge of what is a nice consistent fa4ade,to a parking lot, to an industrial zone.The proposed building will create a little more of a streetscape and be a better book end to the exiting features along Pingree Street. Susan St.Pierre-Salem Academy Facilities Committee—in support of the petition. Ms. Curran states that the specific Variances that the petitioner is requesting are from minimum front yard setback and maximum lot coverage to construct a 15,600 square foot building.This is a 29-acre industrial lot with 1.5 million square feet of commercial and industrial space. The petitioner proposes to have a 15 foot setback.Why can the proposed building not be setback to conform to the 30 feet setback requirements? Attorney Quinn states that there are already commercial users that need the space behind the proposed building for traffic flow. If the proposed building conformed to the 30 foot setback requirements, then it would block the flow of traffic. Ms. Curran opens discussion again to the Board. • Mr. Duffy states that the relief being requested, setback and lot coverage,is minimal as there is already a parking structure that received relief for the same distance off of Pingree Street. The proposed building would be right in line with the existing building. There is evidence to suggest that it would generate some potential benefit to the streetscape and visual impact of the buildings by having some consistency along the street edge.The increase of lot coverage is already over the allowable ratio,but this is a relatively minimal increase for what sounds to be a large benefit in the interest of the school and community members. Mr.Watkins concurs with Mr. Duffy. Ms. Curran asks whether the proposed structure is one-story. Attorney Quinn confirms. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Section 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow a reduction in minimum lot frontage and maximum lot coverage to construct a 15,600 square foot building, subject to eight(8) standard conditions.The motion is seconded by Mr.Watkins. The vote was five (5) in favor(Rebecca Curran (Chair), Jimmy Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,James Hacker) and none (0) opposed. • • APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES April 15, 2015 meeting minutes were approved. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the minutes as corrected, seconded by Mr.Watkins. The vote was with four(4) (Rebecca Curran(Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins) in favor and none (0) opposed. OLD/NEW.BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT Ms. Curran motioned for adjournment of the May 20, 2015 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 9:00 pm. Motion and Vote: Ms. Curran made a motion to adjourn the May 20,2015 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr.Watkins, and the vote is unanimous with four (4) in favor(Ms. Curran (Chair),Mr.Duffy,Mr.Watkins, Mr.Tsitsinos) 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 or project at. htV.11salem.com/paees/Sa1emMA ZoningAppealsMin/ Respectfully submitted, Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner • CITY OF SALEM 1VIASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-679-5685 4 FAX:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR � N City of Salem t ' Zoning Board of Appeals r 4k Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of DENISE SNAP " requksting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Sning Ordinance, in order to allow a tasting room to an adjacent space to an existing brewer, distilgry or winery with a tasting room located at 102- 108 JACKSON STREET (Map 25 Lot 390) (B-4 Zoning District). • The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 20, 2015 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: 5/6/2015 and 5/13/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on MAY 0 6 22015 at A',ff 1 �1 in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 FAx:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOIL MAYOR r'9 O_ Ln r?1 - b m Uf' rn D City of Salem 00 Zoning Board of Appeals N Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MARZA, LLC, requesting a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area per dwelling unit to convert a garage into a dwelling unit. The petitioner is also seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to alter the use of an existing nonconforming structure. The property is located at 114 MARGIN STREET(Map 25 Lot 500) (R2 Zoning District) • The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 20, 2015 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: 5/6/2015 and 5/13/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salern; Mass. on MAY Q 6 415 at t.2'J4. -/ in accordance with M Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 5 � BOARD OF APPEAL \7a� `��MiNEo° 120 WASHINGTON STREET 0 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 07970 TELE:978-619-5685 4 FAx:978-740-0404 Mum FY DRISCOLL MAYOR IP -4i V _O n f M m y, �F D m Cr City of Salem D Zoning Board of Appeals A °D N Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of M. PERRY MCINTOSH and RICHARD LIJECKE, seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from a side-yard setback to construct a rear deck. The property is located at 2 RIVER STREET (Map 26 Lot 617) (R2 Zoning District) The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 20, 2015 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, P, 120 Washington St, Salem, MA. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 5/6/2015 and 5/13/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on MAY O 6 at A'0914 f in accordance with M hap. 30A. Sections 18-25. CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL IIG� �II �1 ��r�-----' iZO WASHINGTON SIREE'l# SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 07970 ' TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ PAX:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR ti r g rn y XF 1 a m Cr City of Salem * D Zoning Board of Appeals .:K ell � fJ Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MICHAEL BECKER requesting Variances from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot area, minimum lot size per dwelling unit, and minimum lot frontage required to create a rear lot located at 46 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27, Lot 7) (R2 Zoning District). • Said hearing will be held on WED, May 20, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., P floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 5/6/2015 & 5/13/2015 This notice posted on ,6tricial Bulletin Board" City Hall,Salem, Mass. on MAY 0 6 2ffi 30A, at Z� in accordance with MGL Chap. Sections 18-25. • �`T CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS dye BOARD OF APPEAL n � III �i' OI 120 WASHINGTON STREET• SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 • rAx:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEr DRISCOLL MAYOR � o C.) Vf r rn y x_ 1 m Cr rat D City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals m c° N Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MICHAEL BECKER requesting Variances from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot area and minimum lot size per dwelling unit to create a rear lot located at 48 SCHOOL STREET(Map 27, Lot 5) (R2 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, May 20, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. • Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 5/6/2015 & 5/13/2015 This notice posted on "Official l 6 letin Boa City Hall, Salem, Mass, on M at �'Z9 At4LI in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A9 Sections 18-25. /rt9,Q ., CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS { K> p, BOARD OF APPEAL �a of �. 120 WASNINGTON STREH'C 1 SALEM,MA$$AGI'IUSETTS 01970 _ -� TELE:978-619-5685 FAX:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR m � o C r rn a City of Salem m D Zoning Board of Appeals 3 CO � N Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of SHETLAN TARK sseeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum front yard setback and maximum lot coverage to construct a 15,600 square foot building. The property is located at 29 CONGRESS STREET(Map 34 Lot 448) (I Zoning District) The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, P 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, 120 Washington St, Salem, MA. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 5/6/2015 and 5/13/2015 This notice posted on "Official ulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on MAP 0 6 2015 at in accordance with MGL Chap. 36A, Sections 18.25. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 9� g BOARD OF APPEAL !�1flUly_ 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 UN ' A 6 KiMBERLEY DR1scou TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR FILE N CITY CiEFIt, SALLM. MASS. June 3, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of DENISE SNAPE, FAR FROM THE TREE CIDER,requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table ofPiincipal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow a tasting room to an adjacent space to an existing brewery, distillery or winery with a tasting room located at 102- 108 JACKSON STREET (Map 25 Lot 390) (B-4 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 20, 2015 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: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins and James Hacker. • 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 to allow a brewery, distillery,winery with a tasting room. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped March 24, 2015, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Section 3.0 Table ofPrinapal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow winery, brewery, distillery with a tasting room adjacent to an existing brewery, distillery, and winery with a tasting room. 2. Petitioner, Ms. Denise Snape,presented the petition. 3. The written petition proposed a tasting room only located in an adjacent space to an existing brewery, distillery or winery. The petitioner amended the petition at the public meeting to include a proposal for a brewery, distillery, winery with a tasting room. The proposed brewery, distillery, winery with a tasting room is located in a detached and distinctly separate building from the existing brewery, distillery or winery with a tasting room located at 102 Jackson Street. 4. The City of Salem Zoning Ordinance defines a brewery, distillery, or winery with a tasting room as a business located in a building where the primary use is for the production and distribution of malt, spirituous, or vinous beverages with a tasting room as defined in Section 10.0. A tasting mom is defined as a room attached to either a brewery, distillery or winery that allows patrons to sample or consume wine, beer, and other alcoholic beverages that are produced on-site in accordance with M.G.L. c. 138. A tasting room may not be greater that thirty-three (33) percent of the main building's gross square footage. 5. At the May 21, 2015 public meeting, the petitioner testified that a portion of ptoduction from the adjacent existing brewery, distillery or winery will be moved to this new proposed adjacent location and operate as a brewery, distillery or winery with a tasting room in accordance with the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. In particular, the proposed brewery, distillery, winery production will be approximately 66% of the total square footage of the proposed location and the tasting room will be no larger than 33% of total square footage. The proposed tasting room is approximately 689.16 square feet. City of Salem Board of Appeals June 3,2015 Project: 102-108 Jackson Street Page 2 of 3 6. The Zoning Enforcement Officer, Thomas St. Pierre concurred that as presented, the petition to Ordinance. allow a brewery, distillery or winery with a tasting room is consistent with the Salem Zoning 7. The location has eight (8) on-site parking spaces. 8. The proposed hours of operation for the tasting room Sunday through Thursday, 12pm-9pm Friday through Saturday 12pm-11pm. 9. It is estimated that daily water usage and disposal will increase by approximately 150 gallons per week for washing glasses and 448 gallons per week for public bathroom use. 10. The requested relief,if granted, would allow a brewery, distillery or winery with a tasting room. 11. At the public hearing, one (1) member of the public spoke in support and no (0) 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, makes the • following findings: Findings The proposal at the public hearing is consistent with the definition of a brewery, distillery, winery with a tasting room Section 10.0 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Findings 1. The construction of a tasting room would serve social, economic or community needs by employing artists and interior decorators for the construction of the tasting room and employing two to four (2- 4) TIPS certified employees to conduct tastings. The tasting room will also improve the current tourism industry by increasing the quantity and diversity of options for those visiting the area. 2. The parking area on the premises can accommodate eight (8) on-site parking spaces. 3. The tasting room will have minimal impact on parking, traffic flow and safety. 4. The proposal has a minimal impact the environment and adequacy of utilities. It is estimated that daily water usage and disposal will increase by approximately 150 gallons per week for washing glasses and 448 gallons per week for public bathroom use. 5. The tasting room would not be substantially more detrimental that the existing nonconforming use of a scooter repair shop to the neighborhood. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter Copelas, Jimmy Tsitsinos, Tom Watkins and James Hacker) and none (0) opposed, to approve the requested Special Permit to allow a brewery, distillery and winery tasting room to an adjacent space to an existing brewery, distillery or winery subject to the following (1) Special Condition and nine (9) standard terms, conditions and safeguards: Special Condition: The hours of operation shall be limited to Sunday-Thursday, 12pm-9pm and Friday to Saturday 12pm-1lpm to be adhered. After six (6) months the petitioner may request an expansion of hours of operation from the Zoning Board of Appeals. City of Salem Board of Appeals June 3,2015 Project: 102-108 Jackson Street Page 3 of 3 Standard: 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 finished 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. Pettionet 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. Rebecca Curran, Chats 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 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 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. ' ��callotT � CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL �9 1� 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KiMBERLEYDRIScoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 1YOA CITY CLERK, SALEM.MASS. June 3, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of SHETLAND PARK seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum front yard setback and maximum lot coverage to construct a 15,600 square foot building. The property is located at 29 CONGRESS STREET(Map 34 Lot 448) (I Zoning District) A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 20, 2015 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), Peter Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos, Tom Watkins and Mike Duffy. • The petitioner is seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1:1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum front yard setback and maximum lot coverage of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct 15,600 square foot building. a I. In the petition date-stamped April 28, 2015, the Petitioner requested a Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum front yard setback and maximum lot coverage to construct a new 15,600 square foot building. 2. Attorney Quinn presented the petition on behalf of the applicant. 3. The proposed building is a one-story building oriented with frontage on Pingree Street. 4. The proposed building size is 15,600 square feet with a proposed a set-back of 15 feet. 5. The existing total lot coverage is 50.5%percent from buildings constructed in 1914. 6. The building will be leased to the Salem Academy Charter School to be used for a new athletic and arts center. 7. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to reduce the setback from the required 30 feet to 15 feet and to allow a total of 51.8% that exceeds the maximum allowable lot coverage of fifty percent (50%). 8. At the public heating seven (7) members of the public spoke in favor of and none (0) 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 for Variance: 1. Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building or structure generally not affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district include the pre-existing non- conforming dimension. The existing lot coverage from buildings built in 1914,is fifty-percent (50%). City of Salem Board of Appeals June 3,2015 Project:29 Congress Street Page 2 of 2 2. The literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship because the existing buildings that were built in 1914 are uniquely solid construction with steel and thick concrete to withstand fire and are expensive to maintain and/or renovate. 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 five (5) in favor (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter Copelas, Jimmy Tsitsinos, Tom Watkins and Mike Duffy and none (0) opposed, to grant Variances, to allow a reduction minimum front yard and increase in maximum lot coverage of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a 15,600 square foot buildin conditions, q g, subject to the foll a 1 following and safe terms guards: n$ > I. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. • 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. S. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. /fig Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal f om this decision, if any, sball be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Mauachuseas General L,,wr Chapter 40A, and shall be filed nzthin 20 days of fling 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 eect unfit a copy f the decision bearing the cedicate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Regirtry of Deeds. CITY OF SALEM ML 1SSACHUSET"TS BOARD OF APPEAL ~ r11VVEDa 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSE1409� N _ A % 3b KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL nLE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR OTY CLERK, MASS. June 3, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of M. PERRY MCINTOSH and RICHARD LUECKE, seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.Z1 Table ofDimensional Requirements from a side-yard setback to construct a rear deck. The property is located at 2 RIVER STREET (Map 26 Lot 617) (R2 Zoning District) A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 20, 2015 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),Peter Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins and Mike Duffy. The petitioner is seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table to Dimensional Requirements from a side-yard setback to construct a rear deck. 1. In the petition date-stamped May 20, 2015, the Petitioner requested a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from side-yard setback of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a rear deck. 2. Perry Mcintosh and Richard Luecke,petitioners,presented the petition. 3. The property is an 18`s century home built with the front fayade and side-yard setbacks constructed on the zero (0') foot lot line. The building is an existing dimensionally non-conforming structure. 4. The petitioners proposed to construct a 70 square foot deck and stairway to the backyard serve as a secondary egress to the property. 5. The requested relief,if granted,would allow the Petitioner construct a rear deck and stairway. 6. At the public hearing two (2) members of the public spoke in favor of and no (0) 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 for Variance: I. Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building or structure generally not affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district include the steep slope and grade of the property and lack of a rear egress from the living quartets of the structure. 2. The literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant as the existing structure is on the zero (0') lot he and there is no other option to provide rear access to the structure. City of Salem Board of Appeals June 3 ,2015 Project:2 River Street Page 2 of 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 five (5) in favor (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter Copelas, Jimmy Tsitsinos, Tom Watkins and Mike Duffy) and none (0) opposed, to grant a Variance, to allow the construction of a 70 square foot deck and stairs, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but • not limited to, the Planning Board. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND TIM CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, ihall be made purmant to Section 17 of the Marrachuseth Genera!laws Chapter 40A, and shall be f:kd within 20 days of f:h'ng of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Registry of Deeds. 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 nce NUIP CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS q BOARD OF APPEAL M- `--' 120 WASHINGTON STREET*SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR rot> June 5, 2015 x� z Decision Am to City of Salem Board of Appeals D s Petition of JOYCE DUPUIS requesting Variances from the requirements of$ec. 4iL1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in Animum lot area, minimum lot size per dwelling unit, and minimum lot frontage required to create a rear lot located at 46 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27,Lot 7) (R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 20, 2015 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), Peter Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins and Mike Duffy. The petitioner is seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot area, minimum lot size per dwelling unit, and minimum lot frontage required to create a rear lot when merged with a portion of 48 School Street. 1. In the petition date-stamped April 28, 2015, the Petitioner requested a Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requinments to allow a reduction in minimum lot area, minimum lot size per dwelling unit and minimum lot frontage to create a new rear lot when merged with a portion of 48 School Street. 2. Attorney Corrend presented the petition on behalf of the applicant. 3. The existing lot was 12,628 square feet and a dimensionally non-conforming lot. 4. The petitioner proposed to reduce the size of the lot from 12,628 square feet to 5,010 square feet and reduce the existing frontage of 116.16 feet to 16.15 feet of frontage located on School Street Court. 5. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to reduce the lot from 12,628 square feet and accordingly, the lot size per dwelling unit and reduce the existing frontage of the property from 116.16 feet to 16.15 feet of frontage located on School Street Court. Adequate access to the property remains from both School Street and School Street Court. 6. At the public hearing four (4) members of the public spoke in favor, of and one (1) 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 June 5,2015 Project:46 School Street Page 2 of 2 • Findings for Variance: 1. Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building or structure generally not affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district include the lot area, steep slope and grade of the property. 2. The literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant. 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, as the resulting lot will be similar in size and shape to other lots in the district. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four 4 in PP ( ) favor (Peter Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos, Tom Watkins and Mike Duffy) and one (1) Rebecca Curran (Chair), opposed, to grant Variances, to allow a reduction in minimum lot area, minimum lot size per dwelling unit, and minimum lot frontage required to create a rear lot, 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. Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained 7. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 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 Law,Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 •days of fikng of tbis 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. CtlNDIT �; CITY OF SALEM MASSAC IUSETTS AltBOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SAI EM,MASSACHUSETTJJJ$_AU -5 A $: 3 8 KiMBERLEYDRiscou TELF:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR r I.L E 1 CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS June 5, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of MICHAEL BECKER requesting Variances from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot area and minimum lot size per dwelling unit to create a rear lot located at 48 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27, Lot 5) (R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 20, 2015 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), Peter Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins and Mike Duffy. The petitioner is seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimenszonal Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot area and minimum lot size per dwelling unit to • create a rear lot when merged with a portion of 46 School Street. 1. In the petition date-stamped April 28, 2015, the Petitioner requested a Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to allow a reduction in minimum lot area and minimum lot size per dwelling unit to create a new rear lot when merged with a portion of 46 School Street. 2. Attorney Correnti presented the petition on behalf of the applicant. 3. The existing lot is 15,399 square feet but is nonconforming in lot width,lot frontage and front and side setbacks. 4. The petitioner proposed to reduce the size of the lot from 15,399 square feet to 6,873 square feet, while not changing the lot width or existing setbacks. 5. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to reduce the lot area from 15,399 square feet to 6,873 square feet. 6. At the public hearing four (4) members of the public spoke in favor, of and one (1) spoke in opposition to, the petition. A petition of support from numerous abutters was also submitted by the Petitioner. 7. The Petitioner demonstrated at the hearing that the lot was unique units size, shape and topography in the district by review of an assessor's map showing hundreds of lots in the neighborhood. 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 June 5,2015 Project:48 School Street Page 2 of 2 Go Findings for Variance: 1. Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building or structure generally not affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district include the steep slope and grade of the property, as well as the long, narrow shape of the lot. 2. The literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant. 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 (Peter Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos, Tom Watkins and Mike Duffy) and one (1) Rebecca Curran (Chair), opposed, to grant Variances, to allow a reduction in minimum lot area, minimum lot size per dwelling unit, and minimum lot frontage required , 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 P P 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. Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained 7. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal firom this decision, f any, shall be made purruant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be flied within 20 days of fikng of this decision in the offrce of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Lams Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Pennitgranted herein shall not take fea until a copy of the deewon bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has heen filed with the Essex South Registry of Ded,. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL �N'drTiiiEu�� 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMaERLEYDRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board o(Appeals will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday,June 17,2015 at 630 p.m. at City HallAnnex, RM 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Rebecca Curran,Chair "I N MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL c— �T z II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Cf)m o m D ➢ May 20, 2015 D III. REGULAR AGENDA Project Continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance requesting relief from • Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area per dwelling unit to convert a garage into a dwelling unit. The petitioner is also seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to alter the use of an existing nonconforming structure. Applicant MARZA,LLC Location 114 MARGIN STREET (Map 25 Lot 500) (112 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to alter or structurally change a non-conforming structure to allow the enclosure of an existing covered porch. Applicant LINDA ST. PIERRE Location 83 BAY VIEW (Map 44 Lot 95)(R1 Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS None This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hal Salem, Mass. on JUN 10 2015 V. ADJOURNMENT at `!16 /9" in accordance with MGL Chap. 3oA, Sections 18-25. Page 1 of 1 i City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date / _/ Z� 1 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail 4 0 ✓c 25 I Road Scv 710-25�/6 !4 ce 4-ia(dlee f L 7 � L ------------ Page of CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS - BOARD OF APPEAL 9 �'ptMllVts�� 120 WASHINGPON St1tEE"1'* SALEM,MASSACHUSI�"PTS 07970 KImIDEIu Ev DuscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner DATE: June 10, 2015 RE: Meeting Agenda for June 17, 2015 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. 114 Margin Street Application 4. 83 Bay View Road • Below is a summation of the requested petition and any supplemental information for the Board of Appeals to consider when discussing the petition scheduled for a public hearing on Wednesday,June 17, 2015. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. Continuation of a public hearing for the petition of MARZA,LLC,seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements from minimum lot area per dwelling unit to convert an existing garage into a dwelling unit. The petitioner is also seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to alter the use of an existing nonconforming structure located at the property of 114 MARGIN STREET (Map 25 Lot 500)(112 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table to Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to alter an existing nonconforming structure to provide for a substantially different purpose from an attached garage to serve as an additional dwelling unit. The conversion of a single family home into a two-family dwelling unit is allowed by right in an R2 Zoning District. Dimensional Requirements for R2 Required Proposed • Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (Square 7,500 2,176 feet City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—June 10,2015 Page 2 of 2 • At the Zoning Board of Appeal meeting on May 20, 2015, the Board requested additional information from the applicant including elevation plans and architectural drawings to show proposed changes to the exterior of the building and a revised Statement of Hardship. Requested materials are included in this packet. 2. Petition of LINDA ST. PIERRE, seeking a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to alter or structurally change a non-conforming structure to allow the enclosure of an existing covered porch located at the property of 83 BAY VIEW (Map 44 Lot 95)(R1 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a special permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two- Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The petition and supporting materials are enclosed in this packet. The Building Inspector did not issue a budding permit as allowed in certain instances under Section 4.2 Roofing Over or Enclosing Existing Porcbes of the Salem Zoning Ordinance as the petition does not meet condition #2. Therefore, the petitioner is before the Zoning Board of Appeal seeking a special permit to alter or structurally change a non-conforming structure to allow the enclosure of an existing covered porch. The rear setback of the existing porch is 2 feet from the rear lot line and 1 foot at the side yard setback. OLD/NEW BUSINESS • N/A • 2 • City of Salem Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday,June 17,2015 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA")was held on Wednesday,June 17,2015 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Ms.Cttrancalls the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Those present were:Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,James Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy, Jim Hacker(alternate),Paul Viccica (alternate).Also in attendance—Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner,and Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner GULAR AGENDA Project A public hearing seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area per dwelling unit to convert an existing garage into a dwelling unit.The petitioner is also seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to alter the use of an existing nonconforming structure. Applicant MARZA LLC • Location 114 MARGIN STREET (Map 25 Lot 500)(112 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions • Application dated April 22,2015 and supporting documentation Ms. Curran states that the Board asked for additional information from the applicant to articulate the Variance and specifically address why the literal enforcement of the provisions would impose a substantial hardship.The applicant has submitted a revised Statement of Hardship.The Board also asked for architectural drawings of the proposed facade improvements. Attorney Paul Lynch presents the petition on behalf of Paula Pierce.This is an unusual situation as this is a large brick structure that does not have direct access from the main unit.The existing structure contains 13,020 square feet and is more than two (2) times the size of a three car garage and has no useful existing use to the existing single-family structure that is there.This structure type and size does not appear anywhere else in the neighborhood and was at one time used to house horses. The hardship is that the structure large,has no functional use to the property, and is difficult to maintain something that has no function to the current use of the property. Ms. Curran asks the applicant to confirm that the doors are changing to a different door with more windows but the openings are staying the same and there is stucco being applied to three of the four sides of the building.The front doors will have two side operable doors and the front will remain a driveway with three (3) outdoor parking spaces that conform to the parking requirements. • Ms. Curran states that the literal enforcement has been explained adequately as we are dealing with a somewhat historic structure that functioned as a stable.The number of dwelling units proposed is allowed in an R2 Zoning District by right and the applicant does not proposed to change the • footprint or mass of the existing building.The variance is specifically for the area per dwelling unit and the footprint is not changing. Ms. Curran opens discussion to the Board. Mr. Copelas- other than the fact that there is a lot more information to act on,it is a lot easier to envision what is being proposed here. Mr. St.Pierre- In the past we have had numerous individuals trying to do something with this building. Most recently there was a woman who wanted to have a stable here.There is no way to use this building commercially because this property is in a residential zoning district.The building cannot be use for anything but residence. Ms. Curran concurs that the building is unique in that way. Ms. Curran opens public comment. A letter from a direct abutter was read into the record on May 20,2015. No new public comment was submitted or heard on June 17,2015. The public comment period is closed. • The Board finds: 1. The special conditions and circumstances that especially affecting land,building or structure involved generally not affecting other lands, buildings,and structures in the same district is its unique size and structure. 2. The literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant as the building is large and was once used as a commercial space and can no longer be used in this way. 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. Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the petition seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec.4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements from minimum lot area per dwelling unit to convert an existing garage into a dwelling unit. The petitioner is also seeking a Special Permit per Sec.3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to alter the use of an existing nonconforming structure subject to eight(8) standard conditions.The motion is seconded by Mr.Watkins.The vote was unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins,James Hacker. • • Project A public hearing seeking a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to alter or structurally change a non-conforming structure to allow the enclosure of an existing covered porch. Applicant SUSAN ST. PIERRE Location 83 BAY VIEW (Map 44 Lot 95)(R1 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions • Application dated May 26,2015 and supporting documentation Susan St. Pierre presents the petition on behalf of Linda St. Pierre. The petitioner would like to close in her back porch.Abutters and others have signed a petition in support of the project that was entered into the record.Photographs of the existing porch and architectural drawings were presented. Behind the house where the porch is proposed to be enclosed there is a fifteen (15) foot wide paper street that creates a large setback between the petitioner's house and the houses to the rear of the property. Even though legally there is not a large rear set-back, the paper street provides an additional buffer. The existing side set-back is located three (3) feet away from the adjacent parcel. Ms. Curran: confirms with the applicant that there is no additional square footage outside of the footprint proposed. Linda St.Pierre- confirms that the entire porch will not be enclosed. Rather a portion of the existing porch will be enclosed. The proposed area for enclosure is about nine (9) feet by twelve (12) feet. Tom St.Pierre- in terms of disclosure,I do not vote,but the applicant and her representative are my first cousins.The only reason that they are here is in Section 4.2 Roofing Over or Enclosing Existing Porches. Generally,any porch that was constructed before 1965 can be enclosed by right,but dimensional requirement is that the porch needs to be five (5) feet from any side or rear lot line.The existing porch is three (3) feet away from the side lot fine. This is technically why the petitioner is before the Zoning Board of Appeals.This is about as minimal relief as it gets. Ms. Curran opens the discussion for public comment. No member of the public was present at the meeting to speak in favor of or in opposition to the petition.The petitioner did present a petition with numerous signatures of support from abutters and were read into the record. Ms. Curran closes the public comment period and opens discussion to the Board. Mr. Duffy:This is a small request but for the right-of-way this relief would not be necessary.Based on the design,plans, and photos this proposed change or extension would not be more substantially detrimental than an existing non-conforming use and the Board may be able to grant the requested relief. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the petition seeking a Special • Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.3.9 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to alter or structurally change a non-conforming structure to allow the enclosure of an existing covered porch, subject to eight(8) standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos. The vote was five (5) in favor(Rebecca Curran (Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins, Peter A. Copelas) and none (0) opposed. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES May 20,2015 meeting minutes were approved. Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the minutes as printed, seconded by Mr. Duffy.The vote was with five (5) (Rebecca Curran(Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins, Peter A. Copelas) in favor and none (0) opposed. OLD/NEW BUSINESS None ADTOURNMENT Mr. Watkins motioned for adjournment of the June 17,2015 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 7:00 pm. Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins made a motion to adjourn the June 17,2015 regular meeting • of the Salem Board of Appeals,seconded by Mr.Tistsinos, and the vote is unanimous with five (5) in favor(Ms. Curran (Chair),Mr. Duffy,Mr.Watkins,Mr.Tsitsinos,Peter A. 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. httv://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA Zonm ApnealsMin/ Respectfully submitted, Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner • Y: City of Salem 2eningtoard of Appeals oMZ ng BoardSmfeappeals� Will hold a pudic hearing:for Will Ihold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petl all persons Interested In the Pali lion of LINDA ST PIERRE,seeking fion of LINDA ST. PIERRE, seeking a.from, Seal Permit requesting relief fr Special Porink requesting relief ming.�F SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS from Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming from Sec. 3.3.5 - Nonconforming ) 'a- and Two-Famlly RssidendalJ Single-.and Two-Family Residential. urea of the Salem Zoning Ordi-I Structures of the Salem Zoning Ord - a to alter or structurally change, nance,to after or structuralty change B OAiW OF APPEAL a non-conforming structure to allow, a non-conformfng structure to allow Me enclosure or an existing coverer!' the enclosure of an existing covered- Porch. Y VI located at the property of s3; .porch located at the proppeerrt(yy of 63 (Map 44 Lot 95)(R1 Zon- SAY VIEW(Map 44 Lot 95)71 Zon- ingDistriC[). - ) Ing District).• ?* 120 WASHINGTON$TAFFY♦SALEM,Mpc$ACHU$ETTSQ z0 w rf. The public hearing will be he The public hearing will be held 1bj) JQN —3 A 9t 36 on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at on Wednesday, June 17,�2015 at TELE:978-619-5685 4 FAx:978-740-0404 6:30 PM, in Room 313. 3rd at.120`I 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3rd at 120 Washington Street in accordance Washington Street in accordance with P FILE €f Chapter 40A of Me Massachu- with Chapter 40A of Me Massachu-, sells General Laws, A e le the( setts General Laws. A copy le the 91TY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. application and plans are on file and - application and lens are on file end available for review during normal. available for review during normal- business hours at the Department ) business hours at the Department., of Planning & Community Devel- of Planning & Community I Devel-.: _ opment, City Hall Annex, 3rd;-120� opment, City Hail Annex, 3rd, 120, Washington St,Salem,MA. - p Washington St,Salem;MA. Rebecca Curren,Chair' Rebecca Curran,Chair, I I SN-6/3,6/10/201 Board of Appeals.^ SN-�_,6/t 0/2615Bo�tl of A peals i City of Salem -0 Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of LINDA ST. PIERRE, seeking a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to alter or structurally change a non-conforming structure to allow the enclosure of an existing covered porch located at the property of 83 BAY VIEW (Map 44 Lot 95)(Rl Zoning District). • The public hearing will be held on Wednesday,June 17, 2015 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, V, 120 Washington St, Salem,MA. Rebecca.Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: June 3, 2015 and June 10,2015 This notice posted on "Official BW:(tin ard" City Hall, Salem, V<,ss. on JUN 0 3 2015 at 9.31umvl in i,.cordance witL IVIGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-26. CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS �n BOARD OF APPEAL 9 MlN�i10 120 WASI4INGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOI..L TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 IoJ5 JUN 29 P 151 . MAYOR FILE # June 29, 2015 Decision #11Y gLER1(, SALEKAASS. City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of LINDA ST. PIERRE, seeking a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to alter or structurally change a non-conforming structure to allow the enclosure of an existing covered porch located at the property of 83 BAY VIEW (Map 44 Lot 95)(Rl Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 17, 2015 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),Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy and Tom Watkins. The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to alter or structurally change a non-conforming structure to allow the enclosure of an existing covered porch. • Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped May 26, 2015, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to alter or structurally change a non-conforming structure to allow the enclosure of an existing covered porch. 2. Ms. Susan St. Pierre presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner. 3. The porch is dimensionally non-conforming as the side-setback is three (3) feet away from the side- yard lot line. In accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance, any porch that was constructed before 1965 can be enclosed by right provided that the porch is a minimum of five (5) feet from any side or rear lot line. 4. The petitioner proposes to enclose a 12 foot long section of an existing side porch. 5. The footprint of the porch is not proposed to change. 6. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the petitioner to alter or structurally change a non- conforming structure to allow the enclosure of an existing covered porch. 7. At the public hearing, no (0) member of the public spoke in support and no (0) members spoke in opposition to the petition. A petition of support with numerous abutters was presented to the Board for the record., The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after„th°ra ili ��fgyj of the petition yi clu, g,fgl ap&ation narrative and plans, makes the • following findings: t i City of Salem Board of Appeals June 29,2015 Project: 83 Bay View Avenue • Page 2 of 2 Findings for Special Permit: 1. The proposed change or extension of a non-conforming structure would not be more substantially detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure to the 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 conforms to the existing neighborhood character. 6. The potential fiscal impact, including impact on the City tax base is positive. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas, Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy and Tom Watkins) and none (0) opposed, to approve the requested Special Permit to allow the enclosure of an existing covered porch subject to the following terms, conditions and safeguards: Standard: 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 finished of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION 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 fi4ng of thu decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Iaws 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 RegislryofDeeds. This notice posted on `•OlfI a lleii Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. sus a0 l • at3:SL)V, in accord f.ce th MGLChap. 30AF Sections'18-25. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL jUN t^� p. `'tMINE� 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACIdUSGTTS 01970 2q r 3- J KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 FILE # MAYOR CITY BLEB!(, SALEM, MASS. June 29, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of MARZA, LLC, seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements from minimum lot area per dwelling unit to convert an existing garage into a dwelling unit. The petitioner is also seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to alter the use of an existing nonconforming structure located at the property of 114 MARGIN STREET (Map 25 Lot 500)(R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 20, 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed June with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Tom Watkins,Jimmy Tsitsinos,James Hacker. The petitioner is seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table to Dimensional Requirements from • minimum lot area per dwelling unit and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to alter an existing nonconforming structure to provide for a substantially different purpose from an attached garage to serve as an additional dwelling unit. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped May 20, 2015, the Petitioner requested a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area per dwelling unit to allow a reduction in the minimum lot size per dwelling unit and Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter an existing non-conforming structure to provide for a substantially different purpose from an attached garage to serve as an additional dwelling unit. 2. Emily Stuart and Paula Pearce of Marza,LLC, petitioners,presented the petition. 3. The petitioner proposes to convert an existing single-family home into 2 (two) dwelling units located in an existing attached garage. 4. The property is located in an R2 (Residential 2-Family) district. 5. There is a driveway with three (3) outdoor parking spaces on-site. 6. The petitioner requested a Variance from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements requesting relief from minimum lot area per dwelling unit to allow two (2) dwelling units on a lot that is approximately 4,352 square feet.The Salem Zoning Ordinance requires 7,500 per dwelling unit. 7. The petitioner also requested a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to provide for a substantially different purpose from an attached garage to serve as an additional dwelling unit. • 8. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner convert and existing single-family home into two (2) dwelling units on an existing non-conforming lot and structure. r I City of Salem Board of Appeals June 29,2015 Project: 114 Margin Street • Page 2 of 3 9. At the public hearing three (3) members of the public spoke in favor of and none (0) 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 for Variance: 1. The special conditions and circumstances that especially affecting land, building or structure involved generally not affecting other lands, buildings, and structures in the same district is its unique size and structure. In particular, the existing structure is 1320 square feet and has no functional use to the property. 2. The literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant as the building is large and was once used as a commercial space is not typically attached to a single family structure and is not zoned for a non-residential use. 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. • Findings for Special Permit 1. The proposed change use of a non-conforming structure would not be more substantially detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure to the 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 as there are three (3) on-site parking spaces that conform to the parking requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 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. 6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base is positive. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins,James Hacker) in favor and none (0) opposed, to grant a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of DimensionalBequinments from minimum lot area per dwelling unit to convertman existing garage into a dwelling unit and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to alter the use of an existing nonconforming structure subject to the following terms,'c6nditions and safeguards: • 1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. City of Salem Board of Appeals June 29,2015 Project: 114 Margin 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 Inspection shall be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Occupancy shall 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 from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS " t BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ICIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ISLE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals=I/hold its regularly scheduIe eeting on Wednesday,July 15,2015 at 6:30 p.m. at City HaIlAnnex,RM 313, 120 Wasbington St., Salem,MA Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL m c � r �T II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES >4t ➢ June 17, 2015 A 3ni III. REGULAR AGENDA w V: 00 Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.0 • Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change of use from a motor vehicle light service garage to a motor vehicle body repair shop. Applicant HIPOLITO L. MADERA Location 4 FLORENCE (Map 34 Lot 103) (I Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and minimum rear setback requirement to allow for the construction of a two-family residence with garage parking underneath. Applicant GREGORY INVESTMENT GROUP LLC Location 2 ATLANTIC STREET (AKA LUSSIER STREET) (Map 32 Lot 189) (R2 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition of requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 (2) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter an existing non-conforming structure for a substantially different purpose to restore the first floor of 105 CONGRESS STREET from a residential unit to a commercial space for retail or a restaurant and a Variance per Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces specifically from off-street parking requirements for retail or restaurant space to allow seven (7) off-site parking spaces & on-street parking. • Applicant CONGRESS & DOW LLC of the NORTH SHORE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COALITION, INC. Location 105-109& 111 CONGRESS STREET (Map 34,Lot 169) (Bl Zoning District) Page 1 of 3 City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for July 15,2015 Meeting Project A public hearing for a petition of seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 • Nonconforming Uses and 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to alter a nonconforming structure and extend a nonconforming use to allow the reconstruction of an existing storage shed. The applicant also requests Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table ofDimentional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from the maximum lot coverage and minimum distance between buildings. Applicant FRED J. DION YACHT YARD, INC., Location 23 GLENDALE STREET (Map 33 Lot 646) (111 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a partial change of a nonconforming use to another nonconforming use to allow the first floor to be converted from office space to an art gallery with an accessory gift shop located at the property of 64 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 153)(R2 Zoning District). Applicant SIXTY FOUR BRIDGE LLC Location 64 BRIDGE STREET Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforrniug use to allow four (4) residential dwelling units. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for relief from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and maximum height to allow a new dormer to slightly exceed the thirty-five (35') height limit.The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 5.1.2 Location of Parking to allow two (2) of the required parking to be located off-site and Sec. 5.1.5 Design to allow the one-way use driveway to be less than the required twelve (12) feet wide. Applicant 161 FEDERAL STREET LLC Location 161 FEDERAL STREET (Map 25 Lot 112)(R2 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structure to reconstruct, extend, alter or change a nonconforming structure to construct an addition on an existing two-family (2) residential unit. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from rear and side-yard setbacks, minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum lot area to construct a rear addition. Applicant WILLIAM PETERSON Location 4 WATSON STREET (Map 16 Lot 176) (R2 Zoning District). Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 8.2.6 Entrance Corridor Overlay District Signage of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an internally illuminated blade sign faced with Jimmy John's logo. at the property of Applicant JIMMY JOHN'S Location 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34 Lot 307)(R3 Zoning District) • Page 2 of 3 City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for July 15,2015 Meeting • Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance from the provisions of 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements requesting relief from maximum building height to allow an increase in building height from the existing thirty-feet (30D to thirty-five feet (35') and a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to extend the existing non-conforming structure to allow a 182 square foot addition. Applicant MARC TRANOS Location 87 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 373)(B1 Zoning District) Project Request for a six (6) month extension for exercise of rights granted by the September 9, 2014 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 Ma 9 Lot 21 IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS None V. ADJOURNMENT This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on at in accordance with L Chap. 30A, Sections 18-26. Page 3 of 3 ��ONDI CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGPON S"PREET 4 SALCSM,MnSSACHUSLTP501970 Ki Biml.iavDiuscou.. Tta.e7:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 UAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner DATE: 7/8/ 2015 RE: Meeting Agenda for July 15, 2015 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. 4 Florence Street 4. 2 Atlantic Street (AKA 17 Lussier Street) 5. 105-109 & 111 Congress Street 6. 23 Glendale Street 7. 64 Bridge Street 8. 161 Federal Street 9. 4 Watson Street 10. 135 Lafayette Street 11. 87 Bridge Street 12. 148 Marlborough Street Below is a summation of the requested petition and any supplemental information for the Board of Appeals to consider when discussing the petition scheduled for a public hearing on Wednesday,July 15, 2015. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. A public hearing for the petition of HIPOLITO L. MADERA seeking a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change of use from a motor vehicle light service garage to a motor vehicle body repair shop for the property located at 4 FLORENCE (Map 34 Lot 103) (1 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations to allow a change of use from a motor vehicle light service garage to a motor vehicle body • repair shop. The petitioner proposes to install a 240 square foot paint spray booth inside an existing auto repair shop. City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—July 15,2015 Page 2 of 6 • 2. A public hearing for the petition of GREGORY INVESTMENT GROUP LLC, seeking Variances requesting relief from 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and minimum rear setback requirement to allow for the construction of a two-family residence with garage parking underneath located at the property of 2 ATLANTIC STREET (AKA 17 LUSSIER STREET) (Map 32 Lot 189) (R2 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking Variances requesting relief from the requirements of 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional requirements from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and minimum rear setback requirements to construct a two-family residence with garage parking underneath. A summary of the property history and previous Zoning Board of Appeal decisions from 1995 and 2009 are included in the applicant's material and Statement of Hardship. In short, in 1995 and 2009, the Zoning Board granted variances to construct a 2-family structure on this property and Variances have subsequently expired and the approved structure was never built. Dimensional Requirements for R2 -- Required Proposed Minimum Lot Area 15,000 Sq. ft. 5,250 Sq. Ft. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (Square 7,500 Sq. Ft. 2,675 Sq. Ft. feet Minimum rear setback 30 ft. 3 ft. Petition materials and plans are included in this packet. 3. A public hearing for the petition of CONGRESS & DOW LLC of the NORTH SHORE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COALITION, INC. requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 (2) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter an existing non-conforming structure for a substantially different purpose to restore the first floor of 105 CONGRESS STREET from a residential unit to a commercial space for retail or a restaurant and a Variance per Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces specifically from off-street parking requirements for retail or restaurant space to allow seven (7) off-site parking spaces & on-street parking at the property located at 105-109 & 111 CONGRESS STREET (Map 34,Lot 169) (Bl Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 to alter an existing non-conforming structure for a substantially different purpose to restore the first floor of 105 Congress Street from two (2) residential units to a commercial space for either retail or a restaurant (no alcoholic beverages). Both proposed uses are allowed as of right in the B-I District. The petitioner is also requesting a Variance • for relief from the Table of Required Parking Spaces specifically from the off-street parking 2 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—July 15,2015 Page 3 of 6 . requirements for retail and restaurant uses to allow the seven (7) existing off-site parking spaces & on- street parking. B-1 Parking Requirements Sec. 5.18 Table of Required Parking Spaces Retail 1. One (1) spaces for each one hundred and fifty (15) square feet of gross area of building, excluding storage. Restaurant 2. One (1) space for each four (4) seats,plus one (1) space for each two (2) employees. The petition form and other supporting materials are included in this packet. 4. Petition of FRED J. DION YACHT YARD, INC., seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to alter a nonconforming structure and extend a nonconforming use to allow the reconstruction of an existing storage shed. The applicant also requests Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from the maximum lot coverage and minimum distance between buildings at the property of 23 GLENDALE STREET (Map 33 Lot 646) (R1 Zoning District) The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and 3.3.3. is Nonconforming Structures to alter and extend a nonconforming structure to allow the reconstruction of an existing storage shed. The applicant is also requesting Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for relief from the maximum lot coverage and minimum distance between buildings. Dimensional Requirements for R-1 Required Proposed j Maximum Lot 30 % 35.7% Coverage Minimum Distance 40 feet 36.8 feet and 4.5 feet Between Buildings A copy of the petition and plans are included in this packet. 5. Petition of SIXTY FOUR BRIDGE LLC, seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a partial change of a nonconforming use to another nonconforming use to allow the first floor to be converted from office space to an art gallery with an accessory gift shop located at the property of 64 BRIDGE • STREET (Map 36 Lot 153)( R2 Zoning District). 3 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—July 15, 2015 Page 4 of 6 The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to allow a partial • change of a nonconforming use to another nonconforming use. In particular, the petitioner is requesting that the first floor be converted from office space to an art gallery with an accessory gift shop. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures: The Board of Appeals may award a special permit to reconstruct, extend, alter, or change a nonconforming structure in accordance with this section only if it determines that such reconstruction, extension, alteration, or change shall not be substantially more detrimental that the existing nonconforming stmclure to the neighborhood. The following types of changes to nonconforming structures may be considered by the Board ofAppeals: 1. Reconstructed, extended or structurally changed. 2. Altered to provide for a substantially different purpose or for the same purpose in a substantialy different manner or to a substantialy greater extent. A copy of the petition and plans are included in this packet. 6. Petition of 161 FEDERAL STREET LLC seekinga Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 P Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use to allow four (4) residential dwelling units. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for relief from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and maximum height to allow a new dormer to slightly exceed the thirty-five (35') height limit. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 5.1.2 Location of Parking to allow two (2) of the required parking to be located off-site and Sec. 5.1.5 Design to allow the one-way use driveway to be less than the required twelve (12) feet wide at the property of 161 FEDERAL STREET (Map 25 Lot 112)(112 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to convert an existing a Rectory serving St. James Parish (nonconforming Use) to a multifamily residential use (non- conforming use). The petitioner is also seeking Variances per 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for relief from the minimum lot area per dwelling unit and maximum height to allow a new dormer to slightly exceed the thirty-five (35') height limit. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 5.1.2 Location of Parking to allow two (2) of the required parking spaces to be located off-site and Sec. 5.1.1 Design to allow the one-way use driveway to be less than the required twelve (12) feet wide. Dimensional Requirements for R-2 Required Proposed Minimum lot area per dwelling unit 7,500 Sq. Ft. 1,862 Sq. Ft. (Square feet Maximum Height 35 ft. 39 ft. • 4 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—July 15, 2015 Page 5 of 6 • Sec. 5.1.2 Location of Parkin¢ ...The Board of Appeals may permit the parking spaces to be provided within four hundred(400)fiet of the building or use intended to be served, if the Board determines that it is impractical to provide parking on the same lot with the building. If a separate lot is used forparking, the ownership of the lot must,for all times, be held by the same ownership as the lot on which the building is ended.. A copy of the petition and plans are included in this packet. 7. Petition of WILLIAM PETERSON, seeking a Special Permit per See. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structure to reconstruct, extend, alter or change a nonconforming structure to construct an addition on an existing two-family (2) residential unit. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from rear and side-yard setbacks and minimum lot area to construct a rear addition at the property of 4 WATSON STREET (Map 16 Lot 176) (112 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit per Sec 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structure to construct a rear addition on an existing two-family (2) residential unit. The petitioner is also seeking dimensional Variances for relief from rear and side-yard setbacks and minimum lot area. R2 Dimensional Requirements Required Proposed Minimum Lot Area 15,000 Sq. ft. 2,650 Sq. Ft. Minimum rear setback 30 ft. 22 ft. Minimum side-yard 10 ft. 2 ft. setback A copy of the petition and plans are included in this packet. 8. Petition of JIMMY JOHN'S, seeking a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 8.2.6 Entrance Corridor Overlay District Signage of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an internally illuminated blade sign faced with Jimmy John's logo at the property of 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34 Lot 307)(R3 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 8.2.6 Entrance Corridor Overlay District Signage to allow an internally illuminated blade sign faced with Jimmy John's logo. Enclosed are a petition form and a memo from the Department of Planning and Community Development recommends against the granting of a variance for this project. Please see memo for more details regarding this recommendation. • 5 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—July 15, 2015 Page 6 of 6 • 9. Petition of MARC TRANOS, seeking a Variance from the maximum building height to allow an increase in building height from the existing thirty-feet (301) to thirty-five feet (35') and a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to extend the existing non-conforming structure to allow a 182 square foot addition located at the property of 87 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 373)( B1 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a Variance from the maximum building height and a Special Permit to extend an existing non-conforming structure. The petitioner proposes to construct a 182 square foot addition to the property to square off the left back corner of the building. Enclosed is a copy of the petition and plans. 10. Request for a six (6) month extension for exercise of rights granted by the September 9, 2014 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 148 Marlborough Road. A copy of the decision date stamped September 9, 2014 is included in this packet. OLD/NEW BUSINESS N/A 6 OVA Co 44 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail i2cr. r3ea✓ Jrc <</ Gl�h��/� ST Stla. /: lGio sa :.a9kl&4 �aW11AG - D I 'ucaM MF _ UA 0/S32 Saj 393 L/16V/AyV/EvPaNT 1 �2�',rsto 3��/S�f�y a�6! SrbNe7 ,Aj zv �/(L4Grr�y maICw.r1 4 kpArenN) S0S 2/A !�� J 6 gdrrs c��RT' �37bZbZ- 15i�rAnr�,r6MAr�u» Ala Page of ��eoNorT,u \ City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet t } 4: \? ; Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail �fuce` PCAyo `ly Co�1c,r-csS 3� .i:) • � LaFIu ( �� o�-�IgY- FsoS7 -�/ AcliG F 7�, LIPTV 96� L� Z ,4 E iJ 0_/aT 17 D -2L1 V-7G.36, t Page of • City of Salem Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday,July 15, 2015 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA")was held on Wednesday,July 15,2015 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Copelas calls the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Those present were:Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),James Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy,Jim Hacker (alternate),Paul Viccica (alternate). Also in attendance—Thomas St. Pierre,Building Commissioner,and Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner GULAR AGENDA Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessog, Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change of use from a motor vehicle fight service garage to a motor vehicle body repair shop. Applicant HIPOLITO L.MADERA Location 4 FLORENCE (Map 34 Lot 103) (1 Zoning District) • Documents and Exhibitions • Application dated June 22,2015 and supporting documentation Mr.Madera and Mr. LaPointe present the petition.The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit for a change of use to allow the construction of a self—contained spray booth that would occupy about 240 square feet of space. The petitioner states that the proposed installation would be done in strict accordance with state and local codes. Mr. Watkins—asks the petitioner for clarification on what services are currently provided on the property. Mr. LaPointe states that the current shop is an automotive repair shop and the petitioner would like to install a spray booth to paint cars with plastic bumpers. Mr. Copelas- opens the public comment portion of the discussion. Anthony J. Piccolo, 1 Florence Street- Opposition to the proposal due to concerns about cars associated with the automotive repair shop parked and left in and around the business with particular concern for fire access and safety.There are too many dealers in there now.Mr. Piccolo shows the Board pictures of existing cars parked in and around 4 Florence Street. Do the other guys with little • garages have permits to operate? Mr. Copelas- asks Mr. Piccolo to clarify the location of his building. • Mr. Piccolo states that his business is located in 1 Florence Street Piccolo Machine Inc. Mr. Piccolo states that his business has been located here for thirty-five (35) years. Mr. Copelas clarifies that Mr. Piccolo's business is located across the street from the petitioner's business. Mr. Piccolo states that he cannot back out of his business because there are too many cars parked in and around] & G Transmission Auto Repair (4 Florence Street). Mr. Piccolo has contacted the Fire Department and the Building Commissioner and nothing has been done. Cars with no plates have been parked for months and months. Mr. Copelas states that this is not the issue that is in front of the Board. Mr. Piccolo states that he is paying taxes and cannot park on the street in the winter time. It's a disaster down there. I don't know if these other guys have permits to run these little garages. Plus the car wash in front.That's all street. Mr. Copelas- I understand your concerns and frustration regarding a number of issues on the street. Tonight the issue is the petition is in front of the Board.I sympathize with your feelings,however if there are other permit issues regarding other residence on the street, this is not issue for the Board today. Mt. Copelas- states that he was at the location of 4 Florence Street and saw the congestion on the • street.The issue before the Board is the application for a Special Permit for a change in use from a motor vehicle light service garage to a motor vehicle body repair shop. From the application,it looks like the petitioner is not proposing an expansion of the use,but a change of use from the current permitted application. Mr. Piccolo- asks the Board whether the] & G Transmission Auto Repair (4 Florence Street) has a permit to operate in this location.The car wash guy does not own the building. Mr. Copelas- states that the Board is not here to discuss the car wash. Mr. Duffy-asks Mr. St. Pierre whether the current automotive repair shop has a permit to operate in this location or if it is a light vehicle service garage. Mr. St. Pierre, Zoning Enforcement Officer- states that he does not know whether the business has a special permit. In accordance with the Industrial Zoning District, a light vehicle service garage and motor vehicle service are allowable uses by right. A motor vehicle general and body repair requires a Special Permit. Mr. Copelas—asks the public whether there are any additional comments. Patrick Osgood-Osgood Construction 15 Robes Street- concerned about the density of industrial uses in this location including the auto body shop, fabrication shop and other businesses. Mr. • • Osgood also states concerns regarding cars parked associated with the auto body shop blocking neighboring businesses. Mr.J. Piccolo - restates concerns about parking and safety. Shawn O'Brien-21,23 and 25 Cedar Street- States that the neighbors have fought this type of project for years. It seems that every five (5) years or someone wants to increase the use. Some of the noise that the fabrication and auto shops produce echoes up through the residential neighborhood on Cedar and Cherry Street. if there is an exhaust fan for an auto body shop,it may stop some of the dust, but it will not completely stop the fumes from the spray painting and lacquers. Right now Cherry Street has the most kids that Mr. O'Brien has seen in years.Who is breathing all of that stuff? The kids. Mr. O'Brien states that he has worked in chemical plants, power plant, and leather tanneries and knows what it's like.The proposed auto body shop is located on Bridge Street, [geographically] below Cherry Street. Unless, the auto body shop proposes to have an exhaust tower at least 150 feet tall, to get rid of the exhaust it will impact the residential neighborhood.The neighborhood has gone along with allowing light duty auto repair shops, but has always fought auto body repair shops. Mr. O'Brien restates concerned about-neighborhood impacts of health and wellbeing of neighbors with particular concerns regarding spray paint and lacquer fumes exhausted from the proposed spray paint and impacting children in the neighborhood. Mr. O'Brien states that other neighbors were not able to come to the meeting,but are also opposed to the proposal. Mr. Copelas- states that public comment from members who are present or have submitted a letter in writing will have their comment entered into the record and heard by the Board. • Mr.). Piccolo-asks the Board whether Mr.Madera has a permit to operate in this location. Mr. Copelas- states that Mr. St. Pierre answered this question and motor vehicle fight service and motor vehicle service are allowable uses by-right and do not require a special permit from the Zoning Board.The issue before the Board is a proposed change of use from a motor vehicle light service to an auto body shop. Mr. Demalis,22 Willow Ave.—Mr. Demalis states that Mr.Madera has been operating J & G Transmission Auto Repair for about four and a half years (4.5). When he moved in there were 3 (three) auto repair shops in this building. Now there are two auto repair shops.There used to be all kinds of parking [with 2 auto repair shops] and now there is no parking. Mr. O'Brien- states that many of the auto repair shops have probably moved out after neighborhood opposition to extra permits for auto body shops. Mr. LaPointe,representative for the petitioner- stated that parking has been an issue on this site long before Mr. Madera began operating an auto repair shop four (4) years ago. Mr. Copelas asks for additional comments from the public. Mr. Watkins- asks the applicant to clarify how the proposed exhaust vent associated with the proposed internal spray paint booth works and to describe the proposed location of the vent. • Mr.Madera, petitioner- states that the exhaust vent would sit on top of the roof.The vapors and • fumes from the paint are filtered and exhausted. Mr.Demalis—states that the property at 663 has an auto body shop with four (4) spray booths with a vent that is approximately 15 feet high.The stack will not capture all of the fumes. Expresses opposition to the proposal. Mr. O'Brien- restates opposition to the project with particular concerns about neighborhood health regarding exhaust from the proposed auto body shop. Mr.Demalis- asks Mr. St. Pierre, Zoning Enforcement Officer,whether this property is located in the R3 zoning district. Mr. St. Pierre- states that the property of 4 Florence Street is located in the Industrial Zoning District. Mr.Demalis- states that this location was a tough area and it has been cleaned up well in recent years. Mr.Demalis restates opposition to the proposed spray booth. Mr. Copelas-close the public comment and opens deliberation to the Board. Mr. Duffy- It sounds like there are issues of parking and traffic flow in this area that pertains to the application.What is the expected increase in the number of cars,do more cars need to be parked here because of this proposed change of use? With respect to the self-contained spray booth and • ventilation scrubber,does this have to be approved or have a license to be installed? Mr. St. Pierre- states that it is our understanding that DEP issues a permit for installation. This came up on Franklin Street and the neighbors continued to be frustrated because one of the comments was "if you five next to a bread factory you are going to smell bread and if you live next to a paint shop, you are going to smell paint.There is going to be a certain amount of organic materials that comes out you will smell paint. Some level of paint comes out and no filter catches it all."This was a comment from the neighbor to DEP. Air quality may meet the DEP requirements and guidelines, but neighbors notice the smell. Mr.Viccica- Is that determined after the installation? Can we see a specification for that particular exhaust fan before making a decision? Mr. St. Pierre-The DEP has guidelines and if there is a complaint,DEP does a testing or monitoring of the system.The systems are supposed to meet the DEP guidelines,but it is also based on using the system correctly, keeping the doors closed and maintenance. Mr.Viccica- since the change of use is predicated on the exhaust system being adequate is it right to ask to see the system and approve the system? Ms. Schaeffer- states that for a special permit the Board needs to consider the impacts on the following: a) Social,economic,or community needs served by the proposal b) traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading c) adequacy of utilities and other public services d) impacts on the • natural environment, including drainage e) neighborhood character 0 potential fiscal impact, • including impact on the City tax base and employment. Specifically,the Board needs to find that the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the City or the neighborhood. Mr. Tsitsinos-is there a requirement for a specific amount of space between any exhaust and a residential neighborhood? Mr. St. Pierre-not that I am aware,not in the building code. The DEP regulates an exhaust from this type of proposed use. Mr. Copelas-we have to assume that state and federal regulations will be followed in regard to installation and performance of the proposed exhaust mechanism. It is our job to determine that the change of use will not have adverse effects on the following: a) Social, economic,or community needs served by the proposal b) traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading c) adequacy of utilities and other public services d) impacts on the natural environment,including drainage e) neighborhood character 0 potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base and employment. Mr.Tsitsinos- How far away is the proposed ventilation system from the residential neighborhood? Mr. St. Pierre- the problem we have had in the past with shops down there is that the residential neighborhood sits at a higher elevation than the industrial use below so anything that happens below tends to carry up toward the residential neighborhood. • Mr. Copelas- nonetheless,we need to deal with the zoning of this particular address regardless of how close it may be to a residential address right? Mr. St. Pierre—states that the residential addresses are abutters of the proposal and impacts of the proposed project on the neighborhood/residential neighborhood need to be considered. Mr. Watkins-Parking does not concern me as much as the proposal to have a spray booth may help the parking at this location in that the applicant currently sends cars out to other locations for auto body repairs. Mr. Watkins' central concern is with the possible paint and chemical fumes and increased noise from the operation of an exhaust fan associated with the proposed spray paint booth that may affect the Cherry Street neighborhood. Mr.Viccica- the trouble is how do we know whether the applicant will comply with state and federal standards for a spray booth and associated ventilation system? Mr. St. Pierre- the problem with this kind of this is that there is no regular sampling and testing of body shops unless there is a complaint from residents to DEP.There are requirements that that applicant is supposed to meet legally,but unless a complaint goes to DEP,it will not be looked into. Mr.Tsitsinos-visited the location of the project and expresses concern about the negative impacts on the neighborhood including the impacts of the installation of an exhaust fan from the proposed paint booth including noise and fumes on the neighborhood. • Mr. Copelas asks the Board whether there are any additional comments. Motion and Vote: Mr.Duffy makes a motion to approve the petition seeking a Special Permit • requesting relief from Sec.3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations to allow a change of use from a motor vehicle light service garage to a motor vehicle body repair shop subject to six (6) standard conditions.The motion is seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos.The vote was unanimous with five (5) opposed (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),James Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy, Paul Viccica (alternate)). Project A public hearing for a petition of seeking Variances requesting relief from 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and minimum rear setback requirement to allow for the construction of a two-family residence with garage parking underneath. Applicant GREGORY INVESTMENT GROUP LLC, Location 2 ATLANTIC STREET (AKA 17 LUSSIER STREET) (Map 32 Lot 189) (R2 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions • Application dated June 22,2015 and supporting documentation Attorney Quinn- on behalf of Mr. Darius Gregory, presents the petition. Here with a small developer wanting to build a two (2) family with three (3) bedrooms each on an undersized lot.The developer,a long-time Salem State employee,intends to develop the property to provide housing for Salem State faculty/staff and their families. The location of the proposed development is a vacant lot on the - • corner of Atlantic Street and Lussier Street.The lot does not conform to current zoning dimensional requirements in terms of lot size as the property is a little over 5,000 square feet. Mr. Gregory is proposing to place a 2.5 story house and underground parking on the property with two rear decks. Attorney Quinn states- In 1995, this lot was before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a similar project and was approved unanimously.The project was never built and Variances from the Board lapsed.At about the same time, the applicant came before the Planning Board for an Approval Not Required plan to create the lot on the corner of Lussier Street and Atlantic Street.The Planning Board approved the creation of this lot and is still legally affective. In 2009, the lot came back before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a two-family house with tandem parking and again the Board approved the Variances.The project was not built and the Variances lapsed.The current applicant is before the Board wanting to build a two (2) family home with parking underneath. The applicant is asking for dimensional variances requesting relief from minimum lot area,minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum rear setback requirements. Without a Variance, nothing can be physically built here. Only a 5 foot wide house could be legally built on a site like this.The size and shape prevent any development in a zoning that is residential. The neighborhood has been development for many years and the current zoning allows for 2- family residential,which will provide good housing in the neighborhood. Mr. Copelas- asks a question regarding the specific relief required. It appears that there are four (4) dimensional variances needed rather than the requested three (3) variances. It appears that lot area • coverage is insufficient as the requirement is 30%and the proposed lot area is 35%. • Attorney Quinn- states that it is the other way around. The applicant proposes to cover 30%of the lot and the allowable amount is 35%. Mr.Viccica- On the submitted elevation plans there is no definition of the ground plane and relative height of the proposed building. Mr. Viccica asks the applicant to show these calculations before the Board approves the petition. Attorney Quinn- states that the lot is flat and there is no change in topography. Mr. Viccica- states that the height from the average grade is not shown. Mr. St.Pierre- states that the drawing is to scale and can be measured. Mr.Viccica- states that the building proposed building is a three (3) story structure and not two and a half(2.5) as allowed as the garage underneath the building. Mr. St. Pierre,Building Inspector- concurs with this concern. Attorney Quinn—states that the architect is present and can speak to this concern. Architect- Make sure that the building meets the 35 foot height requirement. • Attorney Quinn- asks the architect whether the proposed number of stories is two and a half(2.5) or three (3) stories. Architect-I don't befieve it is a two and a half(2.5) stories,but I would have to look at the drawings. Attorney Quinn—as long as the building meets the building requirements,I would ask the Board to consider granting the Variances. Is the issue a strict building code issue? [Question directed to Mr. St. Pierre] Mr. St. Pierre- the zoning requirement allows 2.5 stories by right.The question is whether the Variance request for number of stories has been advertised. Mr. Copelas-the specific nature of 2.5 stories or 3 stories needs to be clarified for the Board to consider. Attorney Quinn- asks for the Board to consider granting a continuation of the petition to allow the petitioner to provide more information regarding the proposed height and number of stories proposed. *The public hearing was no opened at this meeting and members of the public may continue to submit comments to the Board. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to a continue the petition seeking Variances . requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and minimum rear setback requirements to allow for the construction of a two-family residence with garage parking underneath. The motion is • seconded by Mr.Watkins. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,Jim Hacker(alternate)) and none (0) opposed to continue the petition to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, August 19, 2015. Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 (2) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter an existing non-conforming structure for a substantially different purpose to restore the first floor of 105 CONGRESS STREET from a residential unit to a commercial space for retail or a restaurant and a Variance per Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces specifically from off- street parking requirements for retail or restaurant space to allow seven (7) off- site parking spaces&on-street parking. Applicant CONGRESS&DOW LLC of the NORTH SHORE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COALITION,INC. Location 105-109& 111 CONGRESS STREET (Map 34, Lot 169) (131 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions • Application dated June 23,2015 and supporting documentation Attorney Grover-presents the petition on behalf of the North Shore Community Development • Center (CDC).Also present are-Mickey Northcutt,Chief Executive Officer of North Shore CDC and David Valecillos, Project Manager. Attorney Grover- 105 -109 and& 111 Congress Street located close to the end of Palmer Cove on the left had side.The property is located in the B-1 Zoning District.There are two-buildings on one lot and currently have eight(8) residential units per building with seven (7) existing parking spaces. The CDC is proposing to renovate all of the residential units at 105 Congress Street and convert the two (2) first floor residential units to commercial space. Attorney Grover-presents the architectural plans and appearance of the building will be a substantial improvement.The buildings are non-conforming and to alter the purpose of a non-conforming in a substantial way requires a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first part of the petition is a request for a Special permit to alter a non-conforming building for a substantially different purpose.The uses of a commercial retail store or a restaurant with no alcohol are allowed in a B-1 Zoning District by right.The other part of this petition is parking.There is no new parking proposed.The seven (7) existing parking spaces on-site are not restricted for the proposed commercial space,but are available for the commercial space to use. Due to the size of the existing buildings on this lot,whatever the commercial use may be, there is not sufficient parking to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The second part of the relief requested is a Variance from the off-site parking requirements. In terms of the finding is that this is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. As the application states the proposed first floor commercial space is more consistent with what the neighborhood has identified as a priority for the Point Vision Neighborhood Plan. • Not only is the proposal less detrimental,but is consistent with what the neighborhood would like to see. The commercial space will improve the tax base.There will be no negative impacts on the natural features of the lot There is unrestricted on-street parking that would be able to service the commercial space. It is also expected that residents will access commercial space by walking.The second part of the petition request is for a Variance for relief from off-street parking requirements. There is no place to physically expand the parking. Without the Variance it is not possible to convert the residence to commercial use. The revenue from the commercial use is what supports the rehabilitation of the property. The literal enforcement of the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance would be able to have a commercial use or finance the rehabilitation of the building. Mickey Northcutt,North Shore CDC- CDC has worked with the Mayor's Office,Department of Planning and Community Development and the neighborhood association to develop a couple of different plans to bring investment to the Point Neighborhood.Last year in 2014, the City commissioned the Salem Point Neighborhood Commercial Corridors Revitalization Plan with MAPC to look at infrastructure investments to targeting key properties to improve walkabil ty/livability in the Point Neighborhood. North Shore CDC purchased 105-109& 111 Congress Street after this plan was developed. From the planning process,residents wanted to see more retail available. Mr. Northcutt-presents historic photos of 105 Congress Street to show the historic first floor commercial space and architectural detail of the building.At one time,someone enclosed the first floor retail space and converted it into two (2) residential units. North Shore CDC is working to secure financing to rehabilitate seven (7) buildings in the area.All seven (7) of the buildings are eligible for state and federal tax credits as they are located in a National Historic District All • rehabilitation cannot detract from the historic character. For example windows and fixtures need to be replaced with more historically accurate materials. It is the goal to mimic, as close as possible, the historic character of the original building. Mr. Copelas—confirms with the applicant that the current use of the buildings at this location are eight(8) residential units in each building for a total of sixteen (16) units. The space on the ground floor would eliminate two (2) residential units to replace the space with a single commercial use. Mr. St. Pierre- asks the applicant whether there is a possibility of having two (2) smaller commercial spaces rather than one large one. Mr. Northcutt- states that the apartments are about 900 square feet each.The total square footage is about 2,067 square feet. Mr. Copelas- Confirms it is the intention of the applicant to replace the facade as close to the historic picture presented. Mr. Watkins- asks whether the opposite side of the street to this location is a convenience store. Mr. Watkin's also asks for clarification on whether the seven (7) parking spaces will be first come first serve for residents and the commercial space. Attorney Grover-clarifies that the on-site parking spaces are not specifically reserved for either residential or commercial use. • - - I Mr.Northcutt- states that the on-site parking spaces are currently gravel and not designated. CDC will pave, stripe and landscape the parking area. Peter Hackmeister- 55 Perkins Street- presents the Board with images of alternative restaurant locations and expresses opposition to the petition due to concerns about competition among restaurants and parking availability. Mr. Copelas- states whether a restaurant can succeed is not within the purview of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Attorney Quinn- states that the intended use of the space is for a commercial tenant or a restaurant that does not serve alcohol. For example a possible restaurant use might be a coffee shop. Mr. Copelas- Closes the public comment portion of the hearing and opens Board deliberation. Mr.Tsitsinos-expresses support for the project because it will clean up the block and be a great project for the neighborhood. Mr. Copelas- states that there will not be a tremendously greater burden on parking above and beyond the existing residential use with the small commercial use as proposed.The proposed use fits with the vision of the City and neighborhood and is an appropriate use to consider. Mr. Watkins- concurs with Mr.Tsitsinos and Mr. Copelas. The community needs will be served by the proposal; traffic flow, parking and safety will not be impacted; the proposal is in line with . neighborhood character and will have a significant positive fiscal impact. States support for the application. Mr. Copelas-Variance findings are a higher burden,but nonetheless in the application and testimony regarding the need for commercial development in order to redevelop the entire building meets the hardship requirement. Special Permit Findings: 1. There are significant social,economic and community need served by the proposal 2. No significant impact to the traffic flow and safety compared to the existing conditions including the parking and loading on the site. 3. Public services and utilities are sufficient 4. There are no negative impacts on the natural environment. 5. Proposal fits with the existing neighborhood character 6. Positive fiscal impact on the City's tax due to the rehabilitation of the residential and commercial spaces. Findings for Variance: Statement of Hardship—existing building size,location and density consumes entire lot and is not possible to physically meet the off-site parking needs required. Not allowing the variance would prevent the applicant from using the building for any other use and as presented would prevent the owner from making renovations and provide the opportunity to rehabilitate low income housing that is needed in the community in this location.These statements meet all requirements for Variances • including the following: 1)There are special conditions and circumstances generally affecting the • land,building and structure generally not affecting other lands,buildings and structures in the same district; literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance for off-street parking would involve substantial hardship to the applicant 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. Mr.Duffy—states that there is congested parking as it exists and there is not sufficient parking for the current use. By not allowing the Variance for parking significantly deprives the community of the opportunity for redevelopment and low-income housing. Not having the opportunity for rehabilitation and low-income housing may be more of a detriment to the community if the Board does not grant the Variance. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 (2) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter an existing non-conforming structure for a substantially different purpose to restore the first floor of 105 CONGRESS STREET from a residential unit to a commercial space for retail or a restaurant and a Variance per Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces specifically from off-street parking requirements for retail or restaurant space to allow seven (7) off-site parking spaces & on- street parking subject to eight (8) standard conditions.The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was five (5) in favor (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins, Paul Viccica) and none (0) opposed. Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to alter a nonconforming structure and extend a nonconforming use to allow the reconstruction of an existing storage shed. The applicant also requests Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from the maximum lot coverage and minimum distance between buildings. Applicant FRED J. DION YACHT YARD,INC. Location 23 GLENDALE STREET (Map 33 Lot 646) (RI Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions • Application dated June 23, 2015 and supporting documentation Attorney Atkins-presents the petition.The location is off of Lafayette Street and Summer Avenue. The Fred J. Dion Yacht Yard was founded in 1914 and in its 101 year of continued use and operation.The petitioner proposes to demolish a portion of an existing storage shed in the center of the property and build a new storage shed on the same location.The height of the proposed storage shed is 26 feet high and will provide additional storage and a place to work on boats.As a result, there will be a reduction in traffic as the boats are currently brought back and forth to/from Canal Street for maintenance. There will be no change in the operation and function of the yacht yard as a result of the new boat storage. The yacht yard does not have customers come to work on boats. This is full service boat yard and customers do not work on their own boats at this location.Traffic will not be negatively . impacted as a result of the proposed storage shed. The petitioner was before the Zoning Board of Appeals with a similar application last year,but the neighbor concerns about preserving views of Salem Harbor.As a result the applicant went back to the drawing board for an alternative project to provide additional on-site storage. The petitioner is before the Zoning Board of Appeals requesting variances for minimum distance between buildings and maximum lot coverage. The Variance for maximum lot coverage was requested to avoid any future misinterpretation about whether flats or upland is used in the calculation of lot coverage. Do you use the flats or just the upland for this calculation. The distance between buildings is slightly changed due to the proposed reconstruction and expansion of the existing storage shed.Therefore, the petitioner technically requests a dimensional variance for relief from the minimum distance between buildings.The petitioner is also requesting a Special Permit for an expansion of a non-conforming structure to extend a nonconforming use to allow the storage shed. Mr. Copelas- Please address the statement of hardship for the requested Variances. Attorney Atkins-minimal dimensional variances are requested.The existence of 200,000 square feet of land would not require a Variance.The hardship is that the structure is the heart of the facility and is an important economic base for the community.There are eighteen (18) employees that work here and the inability to operate would harm the community. Mr. Copelas- concurs with the statement of hardship presented. Mr. Copelas- Opens comment to the public. Roger Amodeo, 15 Glendale Street-in support of the petition and states that there looks like there will be no negative impacts. Thomas Demarcus, 22 Willow Ave.—asks clarification question on where the proposed shed will be located. Attorney Atkins- clarifies that the proposed shed will be located in the center of the property and presents the plot plan to the public. Mr. Copelas closes public comment portion. No further Board comment. Findings for Special Permit: 1. The proposed project will serve the social,economic and community needs. 2. There are no traffic flow and safety impacts including parking and loading. 3. Utilities and public services are adequate. 4. There are no significant impacts on the natural environment,including drainage. 5. The proposal fits with the neighborhood character. • • 6. The potential fiscal impact,including the impact on the City tax base and employment is positive. Findings for 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 although the deed shows the acreage of the property is 200,000 square feet a significant portion of the property is tidal. If the tidal flats were included in the calculation for maximum lot coverage, the Variance would not have been necessary in the first place. 2) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant in that without the expansion there would be an economic hardship and there is a need to expand to support the employment of eighteen (18) employees. ees. 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. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to alter a nonconforming structure and extend a nonconforming use to allow the reconstruction of an existing storage shed.The applicant also requests Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from the maximum lot coverage and minimum distance between buildings subject to seven (7) standard conditions and one special condition that the new building on the property be labeled or numbered in such a way as to assist the Fire Department.The motion is seconded by Mr. Hacker. The vote was unanimous with five (5)in favor(Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Mike • Duffy,Tom Watkins,James Hacker(Alternate)) and none (0) opposed. Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a partial change of a nonconforming use to another nonconforming use to allow the first floor to be converted from office space to an art gallery with an accessory gift shop. Applicant SIXTY FOUR BRIDGE LLC Location 64 BRIDGE STREET (lvfap 36 Lot 153)(R2 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions • Application dated June 23, 2015 and supporting documentation Attorney Atkins-presents the petition on behalf of the applicant, Cevin Soling of Sixty Four Bridge LLC and Doug Mesco, the tenant of the proposed art gallery and gift shop.The current use of the building is office space and the second story is a rental unit for a therapist. The plot plan shows a total of fifteen (15) parking spaces surrounding the building. The petitioner proposes a partial change of use to allow an art gallery with an accessory gift shop. The petitioner does not propose any external changes to the outside of the building.The parking consist of fifteen (15) on-site parking spaces and if this use is categorized as a retail space, the number • of parking spaces complies with the parking requirements.The traffic flow and circulation patterns on the property are well marked.The use will not substantially affect the neighbors as some other uses might.This is a non-substantial change of use. Doug Misico,Somerville, MA- art gallery that does not focus on individual artists, but rather historical and sociological segments of time. For example,Cold War propaganda and popular art produced by the Shakers.The gift shop will help out on costs in general and we will sell prints, books,coffee mugs and t-shirts. Attorney Atkins- states that the petitioner is asking for a change of one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use that is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Copelas- asks the applicant to confirm that the third floor is attic space that is unfinished. Attorney Atkins- the attic space is unfinished and will remain unfinished. Mr.Viccica- asks the applicant to confirm that there will be no modification of interior or exterior. Mr.Tsitsinos-is the interior wood work going to be changed? Mr. Soling- states that the interior wood work is stunning and will not be changed. Mr. Copelas- opens public comment. No members of the public spoke in favor or against the • petition. Mr. Copelas- Closes the public hearing. Mr. Copelas- states that this property is one of the few properties on Bridge Street with ample parking. It seems that this is a straight forward request. No additional Board comment. Change of use is not more substantially detrimental to neighborhood than current use. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec.3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a partial change of a nonconforming use to another nonconforming use to allow the first floor to be converted from office space to an art gallery with an accessory gift shop subject to seven (7) standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr.Watkins. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor(Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,Paul Viccica(altemate) and none (0) opposed. Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use to allow four (4) residential dwelling units. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for relief from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and maximum height to allow a new dormer to slightly exceed the thirty-Five (35) height limit. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 5.1.2 Location of Parking to allow two (2) of the required parking spaces to be located off-site and Sec. 5.1.5 Design to allow the one-way use driveway to be less than the required twelve (12) feet wide. Applicant 161 FEDERAL STREET LLC, Location 161 FEDERAL STREET (Map 25 Lot 112)(R2 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions • Application dated June 23,2015 and supporting documentation Attorney Grover- Presents the petitioner.The building is a former rectory of the St.James Church and had been home for priests for decades. The proposal is to convert the property into four (4) residential dwelling units. The building is over 7,000 square feet and the owner intends to change the use from the rectory to four(4) residential dwelling units.The owner intends to have these residential • units be apartments for the first five (5) years to apply for historic tax credits with the intent to sell the apartments as condos after five (5) years. The petitioner proposed to have four (4) parking spaces on the back of the property and two (2) spaces off-site. Since the application was filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals, the petitioner had met with the Federal Street Neighborhood Association and has changed the parking proposal to include all six (6) required parking spaces on the property. The applicant also has six (6) parking spaces off-site at the St.James Church property for continued use. The neighborhood association felt strongly that the petitioner not use the six (6) parking spaces on the St.James Church property for the proposed residential dwelling units.The applicant requests to withdraw the request for a Variance for parking. The petitioner is requesting a special permit to allow four (4) residential dwelling units.The property is located in an R2 Zoning District and does not permit a multi-family dwelling unit. However, the rectory was an exempt non-conforming use and the applicant can request a special permit from the Zoning Board to consider a special permit for another non-conforming use. The applicant also requests a number of variances including relief from minimum lot area per dwelling unit as the requirement is to have 7,500 per dwelling unit.The lot is only 7,400 +/-square feet and the literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would not allow the petitioner to have a single dwelling unit without a variance because the property does not meet the minimum lot area requirement. There is no viable use for the property without granting a variance.The other variances requested include a dimensional variance for the height. The petitioner proposes a new dormer to slightly exceed the thirty-five (35') foot height limit to allow the construction of a new dormer to access the attic space. One of the units is proposed to have living space in the attic and in order to make the unit more useable, the plans call for a dormer.As a result the building height will slightly exceed the height limit and is proposed to be thirty-eight(38) feet.The overall building height is already in excess of thirty- eight (38') therefore the dormer will not be above the exiting roof line. and maximum height to allow a new dormer to slightly exceed the thirty-five (35') height limit Lastly, • the petitioner requests a Variance per Sec. 5.1.5 Design to allow the one-way use driveway to be less than the required twelve (12) feet wide.There is a casement window (bay-window) on the side of the building that creates a narrowing of the proposed driveway.At this point the driveway is reduced to 7.8 feet wide and does not meet the twelve (12) feet width requirement. In terms of meeting the grounds for a special permit to allow four (4) residential dwelling units: The project provides rehabilitation of a historic building and provides a uses that is consistent with the neighborhood character. There are many existing multi-family uses in the area. The petitioner has gone through a detailed process with the neighborhood to listen to input. When this project was first designed there were originally seven (7) proposed units. After listening to neighborhood input, the developer reduced the number of units to four (4),which is the minimum to have a viable project to support the renovation project. On the plans, there is a small shed along the left side that is proposed to be removed. Tltis was added onto the building to provide access to the basement.The petitioner has also agreed to the following proposed conditions from the Federal Street Neighborhood Association: 1. The petitioner agrees to convert the property to a condominium no later than the expiration of the five (5) year holding period for the historic tax credits associated with the property and to market the units for sale,provided that the petitioner has the discretion to reasonably adjust the time of the sale of units in the event market conditions are not reasonably favorable at the expiration of the said 60 months,provided however the said sale should occur within a reasonable period thereafter.The neighborhood wants homeownership and understands the nature of the historic tax credits. • 2. The petitioner acknowledges that the four (4) approved units many not be further subdivided to create any additional units, and that at no time shall there be more than four (4) units at said property. 3. The petitioner shall provide six (6) off-street parking spaces on the premises, plus whatever additional spaces are provided by a formal easement between the petitioner and the Archdiocese of Boston behind the current St.James Church. 4. The petitioner shall remove the brick planter and shrubs at the front of the building and restore the brick sidewalk up to the foundation. 5. The petitioner shall replace the window that has been boarded up on the second floor of the western wall, and should attach matching shutters. 6. All work shall be done in compliance with the plans and elevations submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Copelas- asks the petitioner whether the sidewalk is now brick or asphalt. Attorney-states that the sidewalk is brick. Mr. Copelas-with all of the square footage in the building,could the petitioner explain why there is a need to add onto the fourth floor or why the fourth floor is needed. Architect- the attic is wide open and the petitioner would like to make this space useful. • Mr. Copelas-will the top floor be a unit in and of itself or will the space be incorporated into a unit that uses floors below? Architect- the top floor will be incorporated into a unit that uses floors below. Mr. Viccia- asks the petitioner to clarify that even with six (6) proposed parking spaces, that there is space for snow storage and the entire backyard space will not be paved over with asphalt. Attorney Grover- confirms that there will be landscaping in the rear and some large trees will also remain.There is also snow storage and the entire backyard will not be paved over. Mr. Watkins-will trash collection be curbside? Attorney Grover- Curbside for four (4) units with storage for bins in the back. Mr.Watkins- asks about emergency access. Attorney Grover- states that in addition to Federal Street,Kelleher Way is also a public way to allow for emergency access. Mr. St. Pierre- suggests that the trade-off would be that Fire Prevention may ask for the building to have sprinklers. • Mr. Copelas-is this something that is up for discussion or will the building have sprinklers? Mr. St. Pierre- the building will have sprinklers. Mr. Copelas- opens public hearing for public comment. Robert Sullivan and Kate Pratt, 165 Federal Street—states concern about driveway width and access to the proposed rear parking spaces and potential damage to the abutting property(165 Federal Street). Mr. Copelas-is there anything between your property and the petitioner's property like a fence or vegetation along the side. Mr. Sullivan-no there is no fence or landscaping. Brief board discussion on proposed width of driveway in relation to abutter's property Mr. Duffy-what is the snow removal plan? Attorney Grover- Proposes to use a snowblower or bobcat to remove snow from the driveway. • Mr. Viccica- is there any protection to neighbor property? The proposed width of the driveway at the narrowest part is 7.8 feet wide to the property line. Meg Tewy, 122 Federal Street-Expresses concern regarding density and using the basement as a living space and requests that the developer consider one less unit for a total of three(3) units.Also expresses concern regarding construction vehicles parking on the street. Architect- the building will have sprinklers and there are multiple egresses out of the basement. Mr. St.Pierre- states that the Building Department would confirm the number of egresses and conduct a code review before issuing a building permit. Mr. Copelas- asks the petitioner to speak about plans for construction and locating construction vehicles. Attorney Grover- states that there are six (6) parking spaces across the street at the church and would be willing to require all contractors and construction vehicles to uses these spaces during construction.The contractors may load and unload materials from Federal Street, but use park their vehicles across the street at the church parking lot. The property owner has an easement between the convent and the school to be able to walk down from Federal Street to the church parking lot below to access the six (6) parking spaces. Mr. Botwinik- there are also three (3) on-street parking spaces that were designated as rectory parking • that will be given back to the community.The curb was painted yellow to reserve these spaces for the rectory. Louis Sirianni, 6 Botts Court-opposed petition due to concerns of density,proposed architectural changes to the roof with a dormer, and interior location of living space in the attic and basement. Mr. Sirianni would like to see single family or two-family without allowing a living unit in the basement or attic space. Attorney Grover-in terms of the size of the units,the neighborhood association felt strongly about providing large units and that is why the developer decreased the number of units from seven (7) to four (4) units.The petitioner proposes to use the basement and attic space to provide very large living spaces for people to stay and provide enough space for families to live in. The basement was always used as living space for the priests and is finished living space. The basement will not be changed to become living space as it always has been used as living space. Mr. Copelas-Asked the staff planner if we had written public comment that was submitted from the Federal Street Neighborhood Association. Ms. Schaeffer-no written public comment had been received. Attorney Grover- states that according to Mr. Carr, the Federal Street Neighborhood Association voted unanimously to support the petition. 0 • Many neighbors in the audience in disagreement with the statement of support from the Neighborhood Association Mr. Copelas- states clearly that this opinion is not a matter of public record as there is no written statement from the Federal Street Neighborhood Association or Mr. Carr stating that the neighborhood association supported the petition. Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street-opposed to petition with concerns regarding potential changes to the neighborhood character including architectural changes to the building with the proposed dormer, concerns about parking, and density. Mr. Copelas- states concern to Attorney Grover that he and the applicant have met with the neighbors,but there does not seem to be a consensus from the comments in terms of neighborhood support that one would expect. Attorney Grover- states that the conditions that were read to the Board came out of the neighborhood meetings and was told that the neighborhood conditions were acceptable and the neighborhood association was in support of the project. Mr. Copelas- 1 am confused as to why the neighborhood association is in opposition after having agreed upon a list of conditions with the petitioner. It certainly does not sound that the neighborhood,despite the agreed upon conditions from the neighborhood association,is in agreement. • Mr. Wallace, 172 Federal Street,Member of FSNA- states that there were twenty(20) or so neighbors that met and voted to approve the project with these conditions. Mr. Wallace states support for the proposed project with the proposed conditions from the Federal Street Neighborhood Association. Mr. Copelas- opens board deliberation. Mr.Viccica-very concerned about the Variance for driveway and`potential impacts to the neighbor's property as there is no proposed barrier between the driveway and the neighbor's house. This is a difficult Variance to consider given the winter we had.Not in a position to suggest an alternative. Attorney Grover- suggests bollards. Mr. Viccica- states that the bollards cannot be on the neighbor's property and if they are proposed to be on the petitioner's property, the width of the driveway will be even smaller. Mr. Watkins- Shares the same concern as Mr.Viccia and asks whether there is something formal from the Federal Street Neighborhood Association. Mr. Copelas- shares concern with the public in regard to the proposed dormer. Is there a need for a dormer and what is the hardship?The building is massive. There is an understanding that having a dormer would add value to the space,but doing something that may be architecturally inappropriate and requires a variance is confusing. • Attorney Grover- states that the building is subject to the jurisdiction of the historic commission and • would have to hear the petition to approve the dormer. The proposed dormer is located in a way that is not visible from the street. if the Board feels strongly that dormer is inappropriate,the petitioner can withdraw the request and still have a viable project. Mr. Copelas- this is appreciated,but still does not address some of the concerns from the public and the Board.There needs to be more collaboration with the neighborhood association for something of this magnitude, this kind of development does not come along very often. Understanding that it may not be possible to get unanimity with the neighborhood association,but the Board would feel more comfortable if more people were in support of the project. Attorney Grover- states that it may not be possible to have more unanimity with the neighborhood association. Not sure if the petitioner will ever get to a point with the neighborhood association ever voting in favor (again). Mr. Copelas—states that it is up to the applicant to make a choice to ask for the Board to take a vote. Attorney Grover- states that the petitioner will go back to the neighborhood association and try to have further discussion on the project to garner additional support. Mr.Tsitsinos- states concern with living space in the basement.Why does the basement need to be used? How many square feet is each unit? Architect- states that each floor is about 2,500 square feet. • Attorney Grover- states that the intent was to have large three-bedroom units for families. Mr. Viccica-whether the basement can be used is a building code issue and may not be the purview of the Zoning Board. Attorney Grover- states that the Zoning Board does not regulate the interior of buildings. Mr. Copelas- confirms that the petitioner would like to continue the request to approve the petition at the next regularly scheduled meeting on August 19. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the continuation of the petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec.3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use to allow four (4) residential dwelling units.The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec.4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for relief from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and maximum height to allow a new dormer to slightly exceed the thirty-five (35')height limit. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 5.1.2 Location ofParkingto allow two (2) of the required parking to be located off-site and Sec. 5.1.5 Design to allow the one-way use driveway to be less than the required twelve (12) feet wide. The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with five (5)in favor (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair), Jimmy Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,Paul Viccica) and none (0)opposed. • Project A public hearing for a petition of seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Stmetuir to reconstruct, extend, alter or change a nonconforming structure to construct an addition on an existing two-family (2) residential unit. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from rear and side-yard setbacks, minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum lot area to construct a rear addition. Applicant WILLIAM PETERSON Location 4 WATSON STREET (Map 16 Lot 176) (112 Zoning District). Documents and Exhibitions • Application dated June 23,2015 and supporting documentation The petitioners,Bill Peterson and Alexandra Peterson,present the petition. The building is currently a single-family home and has a rear stairwell that is not wide enough for a compliant stairwell.The petitioner proposes to remove an existing back deck and construct a 2.5 story rear addition to provide for a code compliant stairwell. The petitioner also proposes to convert the existing family home to a two (2) family structure that is an allowable use by right in an R2 Zoning District. Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Stmdiere to reconstruct, extend,alter or change a nonconforming structure to construct an addition on an existing two-family (2) residential unit. The applicant is also • seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of'Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from rear and side-yard setbacks,minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum lot area to construct a rear addition. Petitioner presents a neighborhood petition in support of the project. The petitioner states that the attic space was uses as an apartment without serviceable plumbing and gas lines.The space is not currently being occupied. Mr. Copelas-has the attic space ever been occupied? Mr. Peterson- states that the attic was potentially uses as an apartment as there is plumbing,electrical and gas,but does not know because they are new owners of the property. Mr. St. Pierre- legally no. Mr. St. Pierre confirms that the attic space was an illegal apartment unit. Mr. Copelas- states that with egress issues to the attic, the attic space could not be legally occupied as a second unit. Mr.Viccica-There are two internally structured stairs. Do the proposed stairs meet the building code? is Mr. Peterson-There is a front stair that goes from the first floor to the second floor. There is also a • rear stairwell on the back of the building that is a winding staircase that provides access from the attic to the basement. Mr.Viccia- asks the applicant whether there are two (2) separate stairwells in the house. It appears there are two egresses proposed that are on the same side of the building for the proposed second unit. Does this meet building code to have two (2) means of egress side by side? Mr. St. Pierre-Not sure that this meets the building code.The language in the building code is to have two (2) means of egress to be located as "remote as possible" from one another. Mr.Viccia- states that there may be dimensional requirements for the distance between two (2) means of egress. Mr. Peterson- states that there are no dimensional requirements.The code does not even state that the egresses should be separate,but there should be two (2) means of egress. Mr. Peterson states that that several sets of plans have been reviewed by the building inspectors.This is the third (3,d) draft of the plan. Mr. St. Pierre- In the previous addition of the Massachusetts State building code there was a dimensional requirement for the distance between two (2) means of egress. Do not know if the most current addition of the building code from memory has a specified distance and the code would need to be reviewed. However,Mr. St. Pierre is confident that the building code states that two (2) means of egress are to be located as "remote as possible" from one another. Mr. Peterson-states that a second means of egress is not physically possible to construct on any of • the other sides of the house.There is a restriction in terms of where a second egress can be located. Mr.Viccia- expresses understanding of this.This is a matter of whether a second egress is required and if the proposed location meets building code. Mr. St. Pierre- states that the building inspectors expressed concerns regarding the proposal. Mr. Peterson- the two (2) means of egress side- by—side are obviously not ideal,but is the most feasible and most safe option. Mr. Peterson and Mr. St. Pierre- back and forth on code. Mr. Copelas- states that the Building Commissioner ultimately needs to approve a building plan. Does it make sense for the Board to go forward with a decision as opposed to request additional information. Mr. Peterson-requests a continuation to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Mr. Copelas- opens public comment period.A petition of four (4) members of the public signed a petition of approval for the proposed petition. No members of the public spoke in person at the public meeting. Is • Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to continue the petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec.3.3.3 Nonconforming Structure to reconstruct, extend, alter or change a nonconforming structure to construct an addition on an existing two-family (2) residential unit.The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from rear and side-yard setbacks, minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum lot area to construct a rear addition. The motion is seconded by Mr. Watkins. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,Paul Viccica) and none (0) opposed. 71 Project A public hearing a petition of seeking a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 8.2.6 Entrance Conidor Overlay District Signage of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an internally illuminated blade sign faced with Jimmy John's logo. Applicant JIMMY JOHN'S, Location 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34 Lot 307)(R3 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions • Application dated June 23, 2015 and supporting documentation • Lauren Cronin-Viewpoint Sign&Awning Northborough,MA-presents the petition on behalf of the applicant Bendsen Signs&Graphics to secure permits on behalf of Jimmy John's located at 135 Lafayette Street.The applicant is requesting a Variance for an internally illuminated blade sign to be manufactured and installed at 135 Lafayette Street. The bracket and logo are standard to Jimmy John's locations and are consistent with corporate identification and branding including internal illumination.The proposed location of the sign is on a new building and is appropriate to the style of this building as this location is not a historic building. There are residences above the apartments and a sign will help identify the entrance to the restaurant. David Liddell,Jimmy John's franchise owner-Jimmy John's is an up and coming national franchise with approximately 100 new restaurants in the greater Boston area.This location at 135 Lafayette is a family owned business and is their first restaurant.A lot of business comes through walk-by or brand recognition.There is a park in front of the business.There are no homes directly in front of the business. It is not anticipated that the sign will affect any residences.The proposed location is on a new modern building and the sign will not detract from the character of the building. Mr. Copelas- one of the requirements of submitting a petition is to have a written statement of hardship for a Variance request. Ms. Cronin- states that the cover letter addresses the hardship.The restaurant is a unique brand and the business would like to gain as much recognition as possible.There is a wall sign that is permitted for the building,but the business feels that there will be more recognition with a projecting blade sign. • Mr. Copelas- asks the applicant whether they are aware that the Board has received a letter from the • Department of Planning and Community Development in opposition to the proposed internally illuminated projecting blade sign. Ms. Cronin-Andrew Shapiro,Economic Development Planner, reviewed drawings of the proposed internally illuminated sign and referred the applicant to the City Design Review Guidelines. Mr. Cronin states that the guidelines are guidelines rather than requirements. With this particular sign, the majority of the face is blacked out vinyl.The parts of the sign with illumination are the white letters that are small text around the edge and the text around the edges. The sign is associated with the corporate image. Mr. Copelas- asks the applicant whether there are other examples of this brand having externally illuminated fighting. It is difficult to justify ignoring the Entrance Corridor Overlay District design review guidelines particularly for a new building. Mr.Viccica- asks the Chair to clarify the scope of the petition in that the Board is only discussing the proposed blade sign. Why is there a picture of a wall sign? Ms. Cronin- states that the wall sign was permitted through the City. Mr. St. Pierre- the internally illumination portion of the sign is not allowed. Mr. Liddell- states that the business was concern about the possibility of gooseneck lighting detracting from the building than an internally illuminated sign.Mr.Liddell states that he and his • family hope to open more than one(1)Jimmy John's and will provide jobs in the City. Mr. St. Pierre- asks the applicant for images of Jimmy John's in Boston for examples of alternative signage. Ms. Cronin- states that there are no images of alternative Jimmy John's signs to present to the Board. Mr. St. Pierre-asks the petitioner whether it was possible to bring images of alternative signs for the Board to see at the next Zoning Board of Appeal meeting or would this request prohibit you from moving forward in the timeframe that is needed by the applicant. Ms. Cronin- states that the applicant was hoping to install the signs at the end of August and it takes about three (3) to four (4) weeks to make the sign. Mr. Copelas- states that within the corporation that there may be a way to have a different. Mr. Copelas- opens the hearing for public comment. Councillor Legault- Councillor at Large- expresses opposition to illuminated sign and concerns with disturbance of surrounding residence and states examples of franchise business signs that are able to conform to local sign ordinances. Mr. Copelas- no other members of the public spoke in opposition to or in favor of the petition. • • Mr. Copelas- Closes public comment portion. Mr. Duffy-States understanding that there are some constraints here and there is a strong effort being made to meet the needs of the franchise. There are examples of externally illuminated signs for Jimmy John's associated with a letter from the Department of Planning and Community Development that fit the Entrance Corridor Overlay District design guidelines.Jimmy John's will not rely solely on the external signage to become well known and attract business. With the standards and high burden that needs to be shown by the applicant for the request for a Variance,it is not demonstrated that there is a substantial hardship. Mr. Hacker the sign does not make the business. If you have a good spot and product you will do well. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the petition seeking a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 8.2.6 Entrance Corridor OverlayDistdct Signage of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an internally illuminated blade sign faced with Jimmy John's logo subject to six (6) standard conditions.The motion is seconded by Mr.Watkins. The vote was none p) in favor and five (5) opposed (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins, and James Hacker (alternate). • Project A public hearing or a petition seeking a Variance from the maximum building height to allow an increase in building height from the existing thirty-feet (30') to thirty-five feet (35') and a Special Permit requesting relief from .Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to extend the existing non-conforming structure to allow a 182 square foot addition. Applicant MARC TRANOS Location 87 BRIDGE STREET (flap 36 Lot 373)(B1 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions • Application dated June 23, 2015 and supporting documentation Attorney Cortenti- presents the petition on behalf of the applicant. The building has three (3) residential and one commercial unit that has had various tenants over the years. The building is a mix of different additions and roof lines over the years. There is also a garage in the back of the building and the proposal is to remove the garage and rehab the building into four (4) residential units instead of three (3) residential units and one (1) commercial unit. The proposal is for townhouse style units to be built as condominiums to be sold to homeowners on Bridge Street. This neighborhood is desirable with young professionals and within walking distance from the train station and downtown.The petitioner proposes to tear down an existing garage and add on-site parking with a total of six (6) parking spaces with one (1) parking space on the side of the • building and five(5) parking spaces in the rear. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from dimensional requirements of the Salem Zoning • Ordinance from the maximum building height to allow an increase in building height from the existing thirty-feet (30) to tivrty-five feet (35�.The building is located in a small strip of B-1 Zoning District with dimensional regulations for maximum building height of thirty (30) feet.The petitioner proposes a building height of 35' feet,which is the maximum building height for residential buildings. Attorney Corrend requests that the Board consider that the zoning where the building is located is an anomaly as this is a small strip of B-1 Zoning District surrounded by an R-2 Zoning District. The five (5) feet allows the petitioner to do the townhouse style development.The building next door is a large residential structure that exceeds thirty-five (35) feet.The proposed building would be in conformance with the existing neighborhood character.The petitioner also requests that the building be squared-off on the right rear corner where there is an existing stair well. This special permit will allow the petitioner to build the townhouse style apartments.The special permit is required for extension of a non-conforming structure. Attorney Contend- presents public comment of support from two (2) abutters including residents of 4 Barton Street and 99 Bridge Street. Mr. Copelas- Asks the applicant whether a mixed use building with keeping street level commercial was considered. Mr.Tranos, developer- states that it is harder to find commercial tenants than occupants for residential units. Mr.Viccica- clarifies that the number of proposed units is a total of four (4) residential units. • Attorney Correnti- confirms. Mr. Copelas- opens discussion for public comment. Michael Sosnowski, past City Councilor—opposes the petition and opposes an increase in density and concerned about Bridge Street parking. Mr. Sosnowski is in favor of fixing the eyesore,but concerned about the quality of the neighborhood for parking and density. Mr. Copelas-states that in many cases the Zoning Board of Appeals needs consider parking; this proposal has enough parking spaces proposed to meet the zoning requirements. Attorney Correnti- states that the parking spaces will be deeded parking spaces as part of the units. Maybe this will be incentive for future property owners of the proposed condominiums to park on- site. Michael Becker,Real Estate Agent for owner- if the building was 25% commercial and 75% residential it would be an issue for financing. Having residential units vastly improves the architectural style and is in keeping with the neighborhood character than what currently exists. William LeGault,Councilor At Large-Bridge Street is a zoning mess with business built in residential zones. This project is a win for the neighborhood. Density aside some of the improvements have • been very positive for the neighborhood.The project proposes to take a non-usable space and • turning it into something positive for the neighborhood. Councilor LeGault supports with qualifications that it will create some negative and positive aspsects,but the positives outweigh the negatives. Mike Sosnowski,past City Councilor- asks whether a condition of owner occupied can be a condition. Attorney Correnti- states that the residential units will be sold as condominiums and assumed to be owner occupied.The parking spaces will be deeded with the condominiums. Mr. Copelas- states that the Board understands that even though the residential units will be sold a condominiums, that it may not be the case that they will be owner occupied. Attorney Correnti- states that the applicant will not take a condition stating that the residential units will be owner occupied and states that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board to require the applicant to so with a request for a height variance. Understand the concerns and what is trying to be protected. Mr. Duffy-if there is deeded parking it seems that the incentive would be to park in spaces. Can the Board condition that it prefers that occupants park in their own parking spaces rather than in a public parking space on the street? Mr. St. Pierre- states that this would be difficult to enforce. • Mr.Tsitsinos- states discontent with this suggestion. Mr. Watkins-also expresses disagreement with the suggested condition. Mr. Copelas- reads two (2) petitions of support from 4 Barton Street and 99 Bridge Street into the record. Mr. Copelas closes the public hearing. Motion and Vote: Mr.Duffy makes a motion to approve the petition seeking a Variance from the maximum building height to allow an increase in building height from the existing thirty-feet (30') to thirty-five feet (35') and a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to extend the existing non-conforming structure to allow a 182 square foot addition subject to nine (9) standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr.Watkins. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor(Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,Paul Viccica) and none (0) opposed. • Project Request for a six (6) month extension for exercise of rights granted by the • September 9, 2014 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 (Rl Zoning District)(Map 9 Lot 21) Documents and Exhibitions • Application dated June 23, 2015 and supporting documentation Attorney Correnti presents the petition and requests a six (6) month extension to exercise rights granted by the September 9,2014 Variance 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. Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve the petition requesting a six (6) month extension for exercise of rights granted by the September 9,2014 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 motion is seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos. The vote was five (5) in favor(Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy, Tom Watkins,Paul Viccica) and none (0) opposed. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES June 17, 2015 meeting minutes were approved. Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the minutes as printed, seconded by Mr. Duffy. The vote was with five (5) (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,James Hacker) in favor and none (0) opposed. LD/NEW BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT Mr. Watkins motioned for adjournment of the July 15,2015 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 10:30pm. Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins made a motion to adjourn the July 15,2015 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr.Tistsinos, and the vote is unanimous with five • • (5) in favor(Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins, James Hacker) 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 or project at. htW.11salem.com/Paees/SalemMA Zonin-AppealsMin/ Respectfully submitted, Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner • i CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS IOil' �� _ � BOARD OF APPEAL uN 2R p 12, JA 120 WASHINGTON STREET* $ALEM,MASSACHUSE7T5 07970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 CITYCLERK,IL$Q�l_':f'l.MASS. KrnrE6R VDR[scou. MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of HIPOLITO L. MADERA seeking a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change of use from a motor vehicle light service garage to a motor vehicle body repair shop for the property located at 4 FLORENCE (Map 34 Lot 103) (I Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, July 15, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., 3 d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. • Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 7/1/2015 & 7/8/2015 This notice posted,on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on JUN 2 9 2015 at t2V I ?F1 in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • `` BOARD OF APPEAL 1015 JUN 29 P 12: 19 120 WASHINGTON STREET 4 SALEM,MASSACHVSETTS 01970 FILE i TlmLE:978-619-5685♦ FAx:978-740-040 Y E;LEIi?S. 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 GREGORY INVESTMENT GROUP LLC, seeking Variances requesting relief from 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and minimum rear setback requirement to allow for the construction of a two-family residence with garage parking underneath on the property located at the property of 2 ATLANTIC STREET (AKA 17 LUSSIER STREET) (Map 32 Lot 189) (112 Zoning District). • The public hearing will be held on WED. July 15, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Yd Floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET,Rm 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 7/1/2015 &7/8/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall,Salem, Mass. on JUN 2 9 2015 at 1L'i9 Ph in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, • Sections 18-25. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS I�z A ,) BOARD OF APPEAL i7a9r 1015 JLIN 29 P 019 \�� M 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETISK9E) V" TELE:978-619-5685 FAx:97 - �I ��++-- xIMe�EYDRIscoll ��1`�' iCK. SALEM.MASS. MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of CONGRESS & DOW LLC of the NORTH SHORE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COALITION, INC. requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 (2) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter an existing non-conforming structure for a substantially different purpose to restore the first floor of 105 CONGRESS STREET from a residential unit to a commercial space for retail or a restaurant and a Variance per Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces specifically from off-street parking requirements for retail or restaurant space to allow seven (7) off-site parking spaces & on-street parking at the property located at 105-109 & III • CONGRESS STREET (Map 34, Lot 169) (B1 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, July 15, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 7/1/2015 & 7/8/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on JUN 2 9 2015 at f2�:!9 Ph in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS I�S - � BOARD OF APP 29 P 12: 20 An r 5 �1 a �� 120 WASHINGTON STREET 0 $ALEM,MAS T4U u4Ur 1E N T Le978-G79-5685 FAx:978-7&41UJU74.111 L kLEM. MASS. KIMBERLEY DluscoLL MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of FRED J. DION YACHT YARD, INC., seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to alter a nonconforming structure and extend a nonconforming use to allow the reconstruction of an existing storage shed. The applicant also requests Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from the maximum lot coverage and minimum distance between buildings at the property of 23 GLENDALE STREET (Map 33 Lot 646) (Rl Zoning District) • The public hearing will be held on WED., July 15, 2015 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3d at 120 WASHINGTON STREET. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 7/1/2015 & 7/8/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on JUN 2 9 2015 at /Llzo Vy in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-26. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS o,. ire `Y BOARD OF APPEAL 9" j915 juN 79 P 12- 19 120 WASHINGTON STREET* SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS.AY970 . TI.E:978 If MBERLEY DRISCOLL -619-5685 ♦ FAx:97A4,O�4YxttSCALEM. MASS. KI MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of SIXTY FOUR BRIDGE LLC, seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming User of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a partial change of a nonconforming use to another nonconforming use to allow the fast floor to be converted from office space to an art gallery with an accessory gift shop located at the property of 64 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 153)(R2 Zoning District). • The public hearing will be held on WED., July 15, 2015 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, Td at 120 WASHINGTON STREET. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Ad Run Date Salem News: 7/1/2015 & 7/8/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on SUN 2 9 2015 at /2-,r/9 Ph in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. °N°`T� CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL p a; 19 120 WASHINGTON$TREEr $ALFM MAA UTTES 01970 rEIF:978-679-5685 # FAX:97 M. MASS S . wMaE YOR R scoLL MAYOR CITY ELE MA City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of 161 FEDERAL STREET LLC, seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconfomung use to another nonconforming use to allow four (4) residential dwelling units. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for relief from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and maximum height to allow a new dormer to slightly exceed the thirty-five (35') height limit. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 5.1.2 Location of Parking to allow two (2) of the required • parking to be located off-site and Sec. 5.1.5 Design to allow the one-way use driveway to be less than the required twelve (12) feet wide at the property of 161 FEDERAL STREET (Map 25 Lot 112)(R2 Zoning District). The public hearing will be held on WED., July 15, 2015 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3`' at 120 WASHINGTON STREET. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 7/1/2015 & 7/8/2015 This notice posted on "Officiat.BUlI tip.l3pard" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on JJUUNN ZZ LL001199 at 14,79 ?ti in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ly if: BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET 4 SALEM,MASSACHUSET S 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 o FAX:978-740-0404 FILEKINBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR CITY CUR& SALEM. MASS. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of WILLIAM PETERSON, seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structure to reconstruct, extend, alter or change a nonconforming structure to construct an addition on an existing two-family (2) residential unit. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from rear and side-yard setbacks, minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum lot area to construct a rear addition at the property of 4 WATSON STREET (Map 16 Lot 176) (R2 Zoning District). • The public hearing will be held on WED., July 15, 2015 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3`' at 120 WASHINGTON STREET. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 7/1/2015 & 7/8/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall,Salem, Mass. on JUN 2 9 2015 at 12j24 ?14 in accordance with MGL Chap. Me Sections 18-26. CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS 'yew I ��-V BOARD OF APPEAL IRIS DIN 2 P 0 20 �.' 120 WASI4INGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSEM 01970 �IINB TELE:978-619-5685 • FAx:978-740-04 FILE # I wnmERLEYDRISCOLL tTY 6LE RA, SALEM.MASS. MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public heating persons interested in th p g for all p e petition of JIMMY JOHN S, seeking a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 8.2.6 Entrance Corridor Overlay Distract Signage of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an internally illuminated blade sign faced with Jimmy John's logo at the property of 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34 Lot 307)(113 Zoning District). • The public hearing will be held on WED., July 15, 2015 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, Yd at 120 WASHINGTON STREET. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 7/1/2015 & 7/8/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Bard" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on JUN L 9 L815 at /Z.'Zv 7" in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS age " BOARD OF APPEAL n, D 120 WASHINGTON STREET ISALEM,MASSACHUSETTs01970 TELE:978-619-5685 • FAX:978-740-0404 FILE KIMeER1,EYDRiscoL. 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 MARC TRANOS, seeking a Variance from the maximum building height to allow an increase in building height from the existing thirty-feet (30) to thirty-five feet (35') and a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to extend the existing non-conforming structure to allow a 182 square foot addition located at the property of 87 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 373)(Bl Zoning District). • The public hearing will be held on WED., July 15, 2015 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3.d at 120 WASHINGTON STREET. Rebecca Curran,Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 7/1/2015 & 7/8/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem,'IMass. on JUN 2 9 2015 at 1z-! `3 ?h1 in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. ��ONDIP�,9. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS a ' BOARD OF APPEAL �M1iU6 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 019' KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846 o MAYOR C•i tr rn c � r xF N m Anthony Jermyn and Richard Jermyn r� O C/o Attorney Correnti,Esquire 3 63 Federal Street N Salem,MA 01970 rn Re: 148 Marlborough Road 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 9,2014 Board Decision that approved Variances from the required 100- foot minimum lot frontage and 100400t 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. The Salem Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday,July 15,2015 to discuss your request for the approval of a six (6)month extension to exercise rights granted by the September 9,2014 Board Decision that approved Variances from the required 100- foot inuumum lot frontage and 100-foot minimum lot w dth 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. A letter submitted by Attorney Correnti,dated June 17,2015, on behalf of Anthony and Richard Jermyn requests a six (6)month extension to exercise the rights granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals Decision on September 9,2014. The requested six (6)-month extension would commence on September 9,2015,which is the expiration date of the current Decision. The requested extension would expire on March 9,2016. The Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously with (5)in favor(Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,James Hacker) and none(0) opposed, to grant the approval of the six (6)-month extension request to exercise the rights granted by the September 9, 2014 Board Decision.This determination 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, D p Rebecca Curran ZBA Chair CC: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS p' BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TE E:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR � e July 29, 2015 c r Decision Nrn City of Salem Board of Appeals m D s Petition of MARC TRANOS, seeking a Variance from the maximum buildinheighLto allow an increase in building height from the existing thirty-feet (30') to thirty-five fee"35') a-Rd a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to extend the existing non-conforming structure to allow a 182 square foot addition located at the property of 87 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 373)(B1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 15, 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, � 11 and closed on this date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Peter A. Copelas (Vice- Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,Paul Viccica (Alternate)). The Petitioner seeks a Variance requesting q g relief from the maximum buildingheight to allow an increase in • building height from the existing thirty-feet (30') to thirty-five feet (35') and a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to extend the existing non- conforming structure to allow a 182 square foot addition. Statements of Fact: 1. Attorney Correnti presents the petition. 2. In the petition date-stamped June 23,2015, the petitioner requests a Variance requesting relief from the maximum building height to allow an increase in building height from the existing thirty-feet (30') to thirty-five feet (35') and a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to extend the existing non-conforming structure to allow a 182 square foot addition. 3. The petitioner proposes to rehabilitate an existing building with three (3) residential units and one (1) commercial space to construct four (4) townhouse style units, to be built as condominiums. 4. The petitioner proposes to tear down an existing garage and accommodate for six (6) on-site parking spaces. 5. The proposed number of parking spaces meets the parking requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The on-site parking spaces will be deeded with each condominium to encourage residents to park on site. • 6. The building is located in a small strip of B-1 Zoning District with dimensional regulations for maximum building height of thirty (30) feet. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from dimensional City of Salem Board of Appeals July 29,2015 Project: 87 Bridge Street • Page 2 of 3 requirements to allow an increase in building height from the existing thirty (30) feet requirement to thirty-five (35) feet. 7. The petitioner requests a Special Permit to extend a non-confomvng structure to allow for a 182 square foot addition on the right rear to square off the existing building. 8. The requested relief,if granted,would allow the Petitioner to increase the building height from the required thirty-feet (30') to thirty-five (35') feet and extend the existing non-conforming structure to allow a 182 square foot addition. 9. At the public hearing one (1) members of the public spoke in favor and one (1) person spoke 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 does not meet the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: Findings for Variance: • 1. The special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building, or structure generally not affecting other land, buildings or structures is that the building is located in a small B-1 Zoning District surrounded by an R-2 Zoning District. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would create a substantial and unique hardship as without relief, the petitioner would not be able to meet building requirements to construct townhouse style units. 3. The desired relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Findings for Special Permit: 1. Social, economic and community needs served by the proposal will be positive. 2. Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading are adequate and comply with the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance requirements. 3. Utilities and other public services are adequate. 4. There are no impacts on the natural environment,including drainage. 5. The proposal fits with the neighborhood character. 6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on City tax base and employment will be positive. • On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings,the Salem Board of Appeals voted unanimously with five (5) in favor(Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Cbair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins, and Paul Viccica (alternate) and none (0) opposed, to grant a Variance requesting relief from the maximum building height to allow an increase in building height from the existing thirty-feet (30') to thirty-five feet (35') and a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to City of Salem Board of Appeals July 29,2015 Project: 87 Bridge Street • Page 3 of 3 extend the existing non-confam-iing structure to allow a 182 square foot addition, 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. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. m /C, c c a n /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 fmm this decision, tf any, shall be made purruant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be fekd within 20 days of fUng 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 ropy of the deasion bearing the certifcate of the City Clerk has been filed pith the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • ��onwT CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS a . q' BOARD OF APPEAL y� gh�Yr 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSETTSOf970 u+ KIMBERLEYDRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR F— N July 29, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals 3 3 fV S+ _ Petition of SIXTY FOUR BRIDGE LLC, seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Mncog6dming User of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a partial change of a nonconforming use to another nonconforming use to allow the first floor to be converted from office space to an art gallery with an accessory gift shop located at the property of 64 BRIDGE STREET(Map 36 Lot 153)(R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 15,2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins and Paul Viccica (alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a partial change of a non-conforming use to another non-conforming use to allow the first floor to be converted from office space to an art gallery with an accessory gift shop. • Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped June 23, 2015, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a partial change of a non-conforming use to another non-conforming use to allow the first floor to be converted from office space to an art gallery with an accessory gift shop 2. Attorney Atkins presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner proposes to partially change a non-conforming office building to an art gallery with an accessory gift shop. The second floor will remain as an office space for the current tenant. 4. There are no proposed structural changes to the exterior of the building. 5. There are fifteen (15) on-site parking spaces and meet the zoning requirements for a retail use. 6. There are no proposed changes to traffic flow and circulation. 7. The requested relief, if granted, would allow a partial change a nonconforming use to another nonconforming use to allow the first floor to be converted from office space to an art gallery with an accessory gift shop. 8. At the public hearing, no members of the public spoke in favor 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, makes the following findings: City of Salem Board of Appeals July 29,2015 Project:64 Bridge Street • Page 2 of 2 Findings for Special Permit: 1. The proposed change from would not be more substantially detrimental than the existing non- conforming structure and will significantly benefit 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. Adequacy of utilities and other public services are sufficient. 4. There are no impacts on the natural environment,including drainage. 5. The proposal conforms to the existing neighborhood character. 6. The potential fiscal impact, including impact on the City tax base is positive due to the anticipated rehabilitation of the residential units and new commercial space. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5)in favor (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair), Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy, Tom Watkins, Paul Viccica (alternate)) and none (0) opposed, to approve the requested Special Permit to allow a partial change of a nonconforming use to another nonconforming use to allow the first floor to be converted from office space to an art gallery with an accessory gift shop subject to the following terms, conditions and safeguards: Standard Conditions: • I. 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 finished of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. Rem 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 fsk'ng of this dednon in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Iawr Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or • Spedal Permitgranted herein shall not take effect until a ropy of the deciion bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. h" CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • m BOARD OF APPEAL M1N-E- 120 WASHINGTON STREET 0 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 0197(1 _o KTMSERLEY DRISCOTL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 r `^ r MAYOR m c July 29, 2015 Decision n^ --0 r�k City of Salem Board of Appeals � N G7 Petition of FRED J. DION YACHT YARD, INC., seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to alter a nonconforming structure and extend a nonconforming use to allow the reconstruction of an existing storage shed. The applicant also requests Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from the maximum lot coverage and minimum distance between buildings at the property of 23 GLENDALE STREET (Map 33 Lot 646) (R1 Zoning District) A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 15, 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chait),Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins and James Hacker (alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to alter a nonconforming structure and extend a nonconforming use to allow the reconstruction of an existing storage shed. The applicant also requests Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from the maximum lot coverage and minimum distance between buildings. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped June 23, 2015, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to alter a nonconforming structure and extend a nonconforming use to allow the reconstruction of an existing storage shed. The petitioner also requests Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from the maximum lot coverage and minimum distance between buildings. 2. Attorney Atkins presents the petition on behalf of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner proposes to construct additional boat storage space by reconstructing an existing storage shed. 4. The proposed storage shed will measure 60'wide, 80'long and 26'high. 5. The use of the entire parcel as a yacht storage and repair yard is nonconforming in the R-1 Zoning District. 6. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the petitioner to alter a nonconforming structure and extend a nonconforming use to allow the reconstruction of an existing storage shed 7. At the public hearing, one (1) member of the public spoke in support and none (0) spoke in opposition to the petition. • City of Salem Board of Appeals July 29,2015 Project: 23 Glendale 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 for Special Permit: 1. The proposed project will serve the social, economic and community needs. 2. There are no traffic flow and safety impacts including parking and loading. 3. Utilities and public services are adequate. 4. There are no significant impacts on the natural environment,including drainage. 5. The proposal fits with the neighborhood character. 6. The potential fiscal impact,including the impact on the City tax base and employment is positive. Findings for 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 although the deed shows the acreage of the property is 200,000 square feet a significant portion of the property is tidal. If the tidal flats were included in the calculation for maximum lot coverage, the Variance would not have been necessary. 2) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the • applicant in that the expansion is needed support the employment of eighteen (18) employees. 3) Desirable relief may be anted without substantial detriment to the public good and Y � p g 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 five (5)in favor (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair), Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy, Tom Watkins, James Hacker (alternate)) and none (0) opposed, to approve a Special Permit to alter a nonconforming structure and extend a nonconforming use to allow the reconstruction of an existing storage shed and Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from the maximum lot coverage and minimum distance between buildings requested subject to the following terms, conditions and safeguards: Standard: 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 finished of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Plantung Board. City of Salem Board of Appeals July 29,2015 Project:23 Glendale Street is Page 3 of 3 Special Condition 1. Petitioner shall number or label buildings in such away as to assist the Fire Department. (--Ar 1� J> @ t/� Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION I-LAS 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 10 days of fUng of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permitgranted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision beating the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South RTftg of Deeds. • • CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 y KIMBERLEYDRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 < o MAYOR n "' r L _C July 29, 2015 Decision `= ry City of Salem Board of Appeals rn r r« 3 Petition of CONGRESS & DOW LLC of the NORTH SHORE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COALITION, INC. requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 (2) of the Salem Zoning Of3inance to alter an existing non-conforming structure for a substantially different purpose to restore the first floor of 105 CONGRESS STREET from a residential unit to a commercial space for retail or a restaurant and a Variance per Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces specifically from off-street parking requirements for retail or restaurant space to allow seven (7) off-site parking spaces & on-street parking at the property located at 105- 109 & 111 CONGRESS STREET (Map 34,Lot 169) (B1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 15,2015 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: Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy, Tom Watkins and Paul Viccica (alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Pemut from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.3 (2) Non-Conforming Structures of the • Salem Zoning Ordinance, to alter to provide for a substantially different purpose to restore the first floor of 105 Congress Street from a residential unit to a commercial space for retail or a restaurant and a Variance per Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces specifically from off-street parking requirements for retail or restaurant space to allow seven (7) off-site parking spaces & on-street parking. Statements of facts: 1. In the petition date-stamped June 23, 2015, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.3 (2)Non-Conforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to alter to provide for a substantially different purpose to restore the first floor of 105 Congress Street from a residential unit to a commercial space for retail or a restaurant and a Variance per Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces specifically from off-street parking requirements for retail or restaurant space to allow seven (7) off-site parking spaces &on-street parking. 2. Attorney Grover presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner, North Shore Community Development Center. 3. The petitioner proposes to convert two (2) first floor residential units located at 105 CONGRESS STREET to a commercial retail or restaurant space provide seven (7) on-site parking spaces that service the proposed commercial and residential uses for 105-109 & 111 CONGRESS STREET. 4. North Shore CDC proposes to rehabilitate the existing buildings to restore the historic character of the original building as the location is newly designated as a National Historic District. • 5. The petitioner intends to leverage funds from the proposed commercial space, state and federal historic tax credits and other financing to rehabilitate seven (7) properties including the buildings on 105-109 & 111 CONGRESS STREET. City of Salem Board of Appeals July 29,2015 Project: 105-109& 111 Congress Street • Page 2 of 3 6. Currently, buildings located at 105-109 & 111 CONGRESS STREET have eight (8) residential units each with seven (7) existing off-street parking spaces. 7. There are two primary structures located on one lot and are non-conforming. 8. The property is located in a B-1 Zoning District and the proposed uses for the property, including a retail space or a restaurant without service of alcoholic beverages, are allowed by right. 9. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the petitioner alter an existing non-conforming structure for a substantially different purpose to restore the first floor of 105 CONGRESS STREET from a residential unit to a commercial space for retail or a restaurant and a Variance per Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces specifically from off-street parking requirements for retail or restaurant space to allow seven (7) off-site parking spaces & on-street parking. 10. At the public hearing, one (1) member of the public spoke in support and one (1) member 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, makes the following findings: Findings for Special Permit: 1. The proposed alteration of an existing non-conforming structure for a substantially different purpose to restore the first floor of 105 CONGRESS STREET from a residential unit to a commercial space for retail or a restaurant would not be more substantially detrimental than the existing non- conforming structure and will significantly benefit the social, economic or community needs served by the proposal. 2. There are no impacts on traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading compared to the existing conditions. 3. Adequacy of utilities and other public services are sufficient. 4. There are no impacts on the natural environment,including drainage. 5. The proposal conforms to the existing neighborhood character. 6. The potential fiscal impact, including impact on the City tax base is positive due to the anticipated rehabilitation of the residential units and new commercial space. Findings for Variance: 1. There are special conditions and circumstances generally affecting the land, building and structure generally not affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district in that the existing building size,location and density consumes the entire lot and it is physically possible to meet the off- street parking needs required. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance for off-street parking would involve substantial hardship to the applicant as not allowing the variance would prevent the applicant from using the building for any other use and as presented would prevent the owner from making renovations to the buildings on this property and others to rehabilitate low-income housing and • provide another economic development opportunity at this location. Further, the Variance will provide the opportunity to rehabilitate the property in a manner that is needed in the community in this location. City of Salem Board of Appeals July 29,2015 Project: 105-109& 111 Congress Street • Page 3 of 3 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 five (5) in favor (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair), Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy, Tom Watkins, Paul Viccica (alternate)) and none (0) opposed, to approve the requested Special Permit to alter an existing non-conforming structure for a substantially different purpose to restore the first floor of 105 CONGRESS STREET from a residential unit to a commercial space for retail or a restaurant and a Variance per Sec. 5.1.8 Table of required Parking Spaces specifically from off-street parking requirements for retail or restaurant space to allow seven (7) off-site parking spaces &on-street parking to allow subject to the following terms, conditions and safeguards: Standard Conditions: 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 finished of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 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 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 derision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusets 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 with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • �;�ONllIT�\ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 7.1 q- BOARD OF APPEAL '�---.- 120 WAS}iINGTON STREET* SALEM,MASSACHl1SETTS 01970 .. KuymERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 1 FAX:978-740-9846 `? MAYOR t o c7 va July 29, 2015 DecisionT City of Salem Board of Appeals nrn rm -D Petition of HIPOLITO L. MADERA seeking a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3 Tabhii Principal and Accessary Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change of use from a mot®r vehicle light service garage to a motor vehicle body repair shop for the property located at 4 FLORENCE (Map4 Lot-1.03) (I Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 15,2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A,�11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present:Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair), James Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy,Paul Viccica(alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to a allow a change of use from a motor vehicle light service garage to a motor vehicle body repair shop. Statements of fact: • 1. In the petition date-stamped June 22, 2015, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a change of use from a motor vehicle light service garage to a motor vehicle body repair shop. 2. Mr.Madera and Mr. La Pointe presents the petition. 3. The petitioner proposes to install a 240 square foot paint spray booth inside and existing auto repair shop. 4. The petitioner proposes to a spray paint booth for light auto body work and plastic bumper painting. 5. The entire shop is approximately 1,956 square feet and located in an industrial zoning district. 6. The requested relief,if granted,would allow the petitioner to change the use from a motor vehicle light service garage to a motor vehicle body repair shop. 7. At the public hearing,no (0) member of the public spoke in support and four(4) members spoke in opposition to the petition. 8. 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,makes the following findings: Findings for Special Permit: 1. Social, economic, or community needs served by the proposal- have negative impacts on the community with particular concern for health and welfare of the Cherry Street neighborhood regarding the effects of fumes from paint and lacquers used in the spray paint booth on the neighborhood. 2. There are negative impacts of traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading pertaining to the proposal. 3. Adequacy of utilities and other public services will not be affected. • 4. Impacts on the natural environment, including drainage may be affected from the effects of ventilation of the proposed spray booth. City of Salem Board of Appeals July 29,2015 Project:4 Florence Street • Page 2 of 2 5. The proposal will have negative impacts on the neighborhood character particularly pertaining to health and welfare regarding the effects of fumes vented from paint and lacquers used in the spray paint booth. 6. Potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base and employment maybe positive. 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, (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),James Tsitsinos, Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy, Paul Viccica (alternate)) to approve the requested Special Permit to allow a change of use from a motor vehicle light service garage to a motor vehicle body repair shop subject to the following terms,conditions and safeguards: Standard: 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. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. The Board denied the request. 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 deacon, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massacbusettr General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of fik'ng of this dea.aon in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Lows Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted berein 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. • �GOidUIT�, CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MAssAcffusETT5 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ALE:975-745-9595 1 FAX:978-740-9846 _, MAYOR o rn C July 29, 2015 _ r" N Decisionm m� City of Salem Board of Appeals 3 � IV Petition of JIMMY JOHN'S, seeking a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 8.2.CnEntrMice Corridor Overlay District Signage of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an internally illuminated blade sign faced with Jimmy John's logo at the property of 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34 Lot 307)(R3 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 15, 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11 and closed on this date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Peter A. Copelas (Vice- Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins, and James Hacker (alternate)). The Petitioner seeks a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 8.2.6 Entrance Corridor Overlay District Signage of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an internally illuminated blade sign faced with Jimmy John's logo. Statements of fact: • 1. Ms. Cronin of Viewpoint Sign &Awning Northborough, MA presented the petition on behalf of the applicant Bendsen Signs & Graphics to secure permits on behalf of Jimmy John's restaurant. 2. In the petition date-stamped June 23, 2015, the petitioner requested a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 8.2.6 Entrance Corridor Overlay District Signage to allow an internallyilluminated blade sign faced with $n the Jimmy John's logo. 3. The proposed internally illuminated blade sign is approximately 52"projection, 42"diameter and 6" deep, faced with the Jimmy John's logo to be mounted to the exterior brick wall at 135 Lafayette Street. 4. The Department of Planning and Community Development submitted a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals requesting the Board to deny the permit for the following reasons: a. The City's Commercial Design Guidelines, state, "Internally lighted signs are not recommended in the Urban Renewal Areas and Entrance Corridors." b. The City is emphatic about not approving internally illuminated signage in Salem's downtown or along entrance corridors and feels that the approval of the proposal will encourage additional similar proposals. c. The location of the proposed sign is at a newly developed building in the Point neighborhood where the City and other partners are improving the area's aesthetics. d. An externally illuminated blade sign is a more appropriate option for this location. e. Other Jimmy John's locations utilize externally illuminated signage. • 5. The requested relief,if granted,would allow the Petitioner to allow an internally illuminated blade sign faced with the Jimmy John's logo. f City of Salem Board of Appeals July 29, 2015 Project: 135 Lafayette Street-Jimmy John's Page 2 of 2 6. At the public hearing no members of the public spoke in favor and one (1) person spoke opposition to, the petition. The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public heating, 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 does not meet the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: Findings for Variance: 1. The Board found that there are no special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building, or structure involved as it is located in an entrance corridor with other businesses in the district. Further, allowing an internally illuminated sign would set precedent for other surrounding businesses in this district to install internally illuminated signs not in accordance with Commercial Design Guidelines and Sec. 8.2.6 Entrance Corridor Overlay District Signage. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not create a substantial and unique hardship and allowing an internally illuminated sign as there are many examples of alternative options that are in keeping with the Commercial Design Guidelines and Sec. 8.2.6 Entrance Corridor Overlay District Signage. 3. The desired relief may not be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district 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 none (0) in favor and five (5) opposed (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins, and James Hacker (alternate), to grant a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 8.2.6 Entrance Corridor Overlay District Signage of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an internally illuminated blade sign faced with Jimmy John's logo, 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. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. The Board denied the request. 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 deasion, 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 fib'ng of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Vanance or Special Pem itgranted herein sha!l not take ffect until a opy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. �;GiaNt11T�,.. CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS n BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHLISETTS 01970 KIMSERLEY DRISCOLL TUE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR REVISED MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppealr call hold its regularly stbeduled meeting on Wednesday,August 19,2015 at 630 p.m. at OLD TOWN LMLL 2"Floor Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL cl � N II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES r y. MT G7 ➢ July 15, 2015 rrn J >_ III. REGULAR AGENDA 3 l n! Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief fror�f''4.1.1 tfuble of • Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum rear yard setback, maximum height of building, number of stories and a Variance per Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow for the construction of a two-family residence and associated parking. Applicant GREGORY INVESTMENT GROUP LLC Location 2 ATLANTIC STREET (AKA LUSSIER STREET) (Map 32 Lot 189) (R2 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use to allow four (4) residential dwelling units. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for relief from minimum lot.area per dwelling unit and maximum height to,allow a new dormer to slightly exceed the thirty-five (35') height limit. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 5.1.2 Location of Parking to allow two (2) of the required parking to be located off-site and Sec. 5.1.5 Design to allow the one-way use driveway to be less than the required twelve (12) feet wide. Applicant 161 FEDERAL STREET LLC Location 161 FEDERAL STREET (Map 25 Lot 112)(R2 Zoning District) • Page 1 of 3 City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for August 19,2015 Meeting • Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structure to reconstruct, extend, alter or change a nonconforming structure to construct an addition on an existing two-family (2) residential unit. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from rear and side-yard setbacks, minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum lot area to construct a rear addition. Applicant WILLIAM PETERSON Location 4 WATSON STREET (Map 16 Lot 176) (112 Zoning District). Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.1.2 Special Permit:Zoning Board of Appeals and Sec. 9.4 Special Permits to allow a medical clinic (dialysis center) for a portion of the property and a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 5.1.7 Shared Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow for shared on-site parking with other tenants. Applicant SALEM NORTHEAST DIALYSIS CENTER (DAVITA DIALYSIS COMPANY) Location 207 HIGHLAND (Map 13 Lot 2) (B2 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from front yard depth and lot coverage to construct a 12,835 square foot Athletic & Arts Center for • lease to Salem Academy Charter School. Applicant SHETLAND PARK Location 16 LYNCH STREET(Map 34 Lot 182) (R3) Project A public hearing for a petition seekin -Sgaaces_per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot size,required frontage, side & front yard setbacks to allow the conversion of a single-family home into a two- family dwelling unit. Applicant ANTONIO BARLETTA JR Location 2 MEADOW STREET (Map 33 Lot 92) (112 Zoning District) Project A public heating for a petition seeking Variances per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend the current non-conforming use of an existing two-family dwelling unit to allow a three- family dwelling unit. Applicant ANTONIO BARLETTA JR Location 12 MEADOW STREET (Map 33 Lot 88) (112 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, in order to allow a brewery, distillery or winery with a tasting room and exterior beer garden. Applicant NOTCH TAP ROOM,LLC Location 283 REAR DERBY STREET(Map 34 Lot 439) (B-5) • Page 2 of 3 City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for August 19,2015 Meeting • IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS None V. ADJOURNMENT This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City H;dl, Salem. Mass. on /J 4.4 lj- at c3:*3 Jeff rij o,ccrdanc e MG L Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • • Page 3 of 3 3 -..AZ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACWSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9946 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified'bat the Salem Zoning Board ofAppealr mill hold its regularly scbeduled meeting on Wednesday,August 19,2015 at 6:30p.m. at City HallAnnex,RM 313, 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA Rebecca Curran,Chair MEETING AGENDA as I. ROLL CALL j m II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ➢ July 15,2015 Cam fJ III. REGULAR AGENDA r D 3 � A W Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief froTh 4.1.1 fable of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, • minimum rear yard setback, maximum height of building, number of stories and a Va riance per Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow for the construction of a two-family residence and associated Parking. Applicant GREGORY INVESTMENT GROUP LLC Location 2 ATLANTIC STREET (AKA LUSSIER STREET) (Map 32 Lot 189) (R2 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Pemvt per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use to allow four (4)residential dwelling units. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for relief from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and maximum height to allow a new dormer to slightly exceed the thirty-five (35) height limit. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 5.1.2 Location of Parking to allow two (2) of the required parking to be located off-site and Sec. 5.1.5 Design to allow the one-way use driveway to be less than the required twelve (12) feet wide. Applicant 161 FEDERAL STREET LLC Location 161 FEDERAL STREET (Map 25 Lot 112)(R2 Zoning District) This notice posted on "Official Bulletin.Board" • City Hall, Salem, Mass. on AUG 12 2015 at ,�'31 1i'1"1 in accor"ppoMth MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for August 19,2015 Meeting Project A public hearing for petition see king ektn a Special Pemu• P g p g p t per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structure to reconstruct, extend, alter or change a nonconforming structure to construct an addition on an existing two-family (2) residential unit. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from rear and side-yard setbacks, minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum lot area to construct a rear addition. Applicant WILLIAM PETERSON Location 4 WATSON STREET (Map 16 Lot 176) (R2 Zoning District). Project A public hearing for petition 1 P g p seeking a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.1.2 Special Permit-Zoning Board of Appeals and Sec. 9.4 Special Permits to allow a medical clinic (dialysis center) for a portion of the property and a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 5.1.7 Sbared Parkt'ng of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow for shared on-site parking with other tenants. Applicant SALEM NORTHEAST DIALYSIS CENTER (DAVITA DIALYSIS COMPANY) Location 207 HIGHLAND (Map 13 Lot 2) (B2 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from front yard depth and lot coverage to construct a 12,835 square foot Athletic & Arts Center for lease to Salem Academy Charter School. • Applicant SHETLAND PARK Location 16 LYNCH STREET(Map 34 Lot 182) (R3) Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot size,required frontage, side & front yard setbacks to allow the conversion of a single-family home into a two- family dwelling unit. Applicant ANTONIO BARLETTA JR Location 2 MEADOW STREET (Map 33 Lot 92) (R2 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend the current non-conforming use of an existing two-family dwelling unit to allow a three- family dwelling unit. Applicant ANTONIO BARLETTA JR Location 12 MEADOW STREET (Map 33 Lot 88) (R2 Zoning District) Project A public heating for a petition seeking a Special Pemvt 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 and exterior beer garden. Applicant NOTCH TAP ROOM,LLC Location 283 REAR DERBY STREET(Map 34 Lot 439) (B-5) • Page 2 of 3 City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for August 19,2015 Meeting IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS None V. ADJOURNMENT • Page 3 of 3 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet s r: o � Board: Zoning Board f A PPeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail ------------ Page of City of Salem Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday,August 19, 2015 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA")was held on Wednesday,July 15, 2015 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Copelas calls the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Those present were: Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),James Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,Jim Hacker (alternate),Paul Viccica (alternate). Also in attendance—Thomas St. Pierre,Building Commissioner,and Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner REGULAR AGENDA Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum rear yard setback, maximum height of building, number of stories and a Variance per Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow for the • construction of a two-family residence and associated parking. Applicant GREGORY INVESTMENT GROUP LLC Location 2 ATLANTIC STREET (AKA 17 LUSSIER STREET) (Map 32 Lot 189) (R2 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions • Application dated July 26, 2015 and supporting documentation Attorney Quinn presented the petition on behalf of the applicant.Attorney Quinn states that the applicant applied for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area, minimum lot are per dwelling unit, minimum rear yard setback to allow for the construction of a two-family residence with garage parking underneath. Technically, the building that the applicant proposed was three (3) stories and needed requested relief to exceed the 2.5 story maximum of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant had not asked for needed relief to exceed the number of stories. The proposal before the Board is the same proposal otherwise. The petitioner is proposing a two (2) —story residence,but the petitioner has filed amended plans that call out the elevation of the proposed structure requested by the Board. The petitioner proposes to construct a residence that is under thirty-five feet (35') with two parking garages underneath • the residential units therefore the entire building height does not exceed the Zoning Ordinance requirements. However, the petitioner proposes to construct a three (3) story structure which requires relief from the Zoning Ordinance. The petitioner filed a request to withdraw the June 22, 2015 file without prejudice and has also filed another application dated July 26, 2015 to amend the relief requested and re-advertise the project. The elevation plans in the July 26, 2015 petition show the requested labeled elevation and height of the building. There are no additional changes to the proposal and have now asked for the required relief from the maximum number of story requirement to exceed the two and a half (2.5) story requirements. For this building, the petitioner does not need parking relief as there are four (4) proposed parking spaces in garages under the residential units. However, there was some discussion at the last meeting from the Board asking how parking was going to be handled on-site should the structure be only two-half(2.5) stories and parking spaces would need to be placed on the lot somehow and not be able to meet the parking requirements. Therefore the petitioner filed a request for a variance from the parking requirements in the case that relief was needed. In 1995, the Zoning Board granted variances to construct a two-family dwelling unit on the, but the building was never constructed. In 2009, different property owners filed a petition that was similar to the 1995 proposal and the Zoning Board granted dimensional variances as to lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum yard set-backs to allow the construction of a two- family dwelling unit, but was also not constructed. The petitioner is requesting variances for relief from 4.1.1 Table of Dh?iensional Requirements from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum rear yard setback, • and number of stories. The Zoning Ordinance requires 15,000 square feet of lot area and 7,500 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. The existing lot is 5,250 square feet. Attorney Quinn- introduces Mr. Darius Gregory, the developer of the property. He is a recent graduate of Salem State University and currently employee of Salem State. He has recognized that there is a lack of faculty housing and hopes to provide for this need. Mr. Copelas- asks the petitioner to clarify a hardship for the requested relief. Attorney Quinn- the hardship is that the petitioner has a legal lot that is undersized and without the requested variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum rear yard setback setbacks the lot is unbuddable. As for the parking, there is not enough space to fulfill the parking requirement legally. The zoning ordinance allows a two- family to be constructed on the lot by right in an R2 Zoning District. The lot is a total of 52.5 feet wide. The literal enforcement of the setback requirements would allow the petitioner to construct a building that could only be five (5) feet wide. Mr. Copelas- Opens questions and comments from the Board. Mr. Viccica-Asks the petitioner to clarify which plans the Board is considering. Attorney Quinn-The attorney states that the Board is considering the site plan dated June 15, 2015 and other plans that were submitted in the application were previously approved plans • from 1995 and 2009. The intent of the previously approved plans was to show the Board that previous Variances were granted for this property and have since expired. Mr. Watkins- asks whether the owners of 46 Atlantic Street (Lot 2) have been contacted? Attorney Quinn- states that the owners of Lot 1 are the owners of Lot 2. Also all abutters within 300 feet have been notified by mail and legal notices were published. Mr. Copelas- opens the public hearing. Brian Cranney 13 Lussier Street- abutter of 17 Lussier Street, states that their house is a single family home and always considered the corner lot to be a "backyard" of the other house 4-6 Atlantic. Mr. Cranney understood that variances were granted in 1995 and 2009 to make 2 Atlantic Street (aka 17 Lussier Street) a buildable lot and always thought that it could be developed into a single-family home. After doing some research, Mr. Cranney realized that the lot could be developed into a two-family home. Mr. Cranney's concern is regarding the size and height of the proposed two-family that this development will have a negative financial impact on Mr. Cranney's home value and quality of life. Mr. Cranney states that he is not suggesting to not have the lot developed, but rather to consider a single-family home. The proposed two-family is a little too much for the neighborhood. Attorney Quinn- understands the concerns of the neighbors. There is value to two-family housing especially when single-family homes are so expensive and students and professors are trying to live somewhere in the neighborhood. Not everyone can afford to live in a single family home and building a two-family building is Zoning's the answer to that. Social benefit and housing need would be a benefit to the community. Mr. Watkins- asks the applicant whether there is any proposed fencing or vegetation next to Mr. Crannie's property. Attorney Quinn- states that the applicant would consider any reasonable condition from the Zoning Board of Appeals to provide fencing and/or vegetation between Mr. Cranney's property and the applicant's. Even with fencing and vegetation,you can't hide a house. Mr. Copelas- asks the public whether there are any other comments. Sherry Venezia,Listing Broker- The parcel of land has been in the Lapham family for a long time and has always shared the vacant lot with the abutters. The family specifically wanted to make sure that who ever bought the property would be sensitive to and work with the neighbors to enhance the property. The majority of the homes in this neighborhood are two-family units. Normally, new construction demands a higher property price and adds value to a neighborhood. Mr. Viccica- states that the requested variance on number of stories seems to be linked to the parking spaces below. Mr.Viccica asks the applicant to talk about why garage parking • below the residence is the preferred option rather than a 2.5 story building with surface parking. Attorney Quinn- states that the parking under the building was an architectural • determination and preference. As proposed the garage parking would provide the required number of parking spaces, but require a variance to exceed the maximum building stories. If there was surface parking proposed, a variance would need to be requested as the required number of parking spaces would not be met. Either way, the project needs a variance one- way or the other. Petitioner preferred to have inside parking and raise the value,make the property more marketable and usable. The overall height of the building is thirty-five (35') and meets the maximum height allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. However, the designation of the number of floors, despite the compliant building height is considered to be three- stories because a portion of the building will be below grade. Mr. Copelas- asks the public whether there is anyone else who would like to speak. No members of the public have further comment. Mr. Copelas- closes public portion of the meeting. Mr. Watkins- that the petitioner has a good proposal,but expresses concern for Mr. Cranney regarding privacy and suggests a special condition that Mr. Gregory, the developer,provide some sort of landscaping. Mr. Watkins asks Mr. Cranney whether a condition like this would appease some of his concerns. Mr. Cranney- appreciates the thought,but declines the proposed condition. Mr. Viccica- states concern that the variance requested for the proposed three-story building is caused by the wish to have it especially when there is a possibility of having surface parking. The proposed design, to have the garage doors fronting the street,will rob the neighborhood character. Attorney Quinn- states that the proposed garages are around the corner and face the Salem state parking lot. The height of the building stays the same and meets the thirty-five feet (35') height requirement. Mr. Tsitsinos- expresses support for the proposed garage compared to surface parking to allow there to be a backyard for the residents. No additional comments to the Board. Findings for variances: 1) Given the size and shape of the parcel of the lot relief is warranted because the lot would not be buildable without the requested relief. 2) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant as without the variances, the land could not be built on. 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. • • Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the petition seeking Variances requesting relief from 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum rear yard setback, maximum height of building to allow the construction of a two-family residence and associated parking subject to eight (8) standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy. The vote was four (4) (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),James Tsitsinos, Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy) in favor and one (1)(Paul Viccica (alternate)) opposed. Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use to allow four (4) residential dwelling units. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for relief from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and maximum height to allow a new dormer to slightly exceed the thirty-five (35') height limit. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 5.1.2 Location of Parking to allow two (2) of the required parking spaces to be located off-site and Sec. 5.1.5 Design to allow the one- way use driveway to be less than the required twelve (12) feet wide. Applicant 161 FEDERAL STREET LLC • Location 161 FEDERAL STREET Documents and Exhibitions • Application dated June 23, 2015 and supporting documentation Attorney Grover-presents the petition. The property located at 161 Federal Street is the old rectory of the St.James church located directly across the street from the school. This matter was continued at the last meeting to allow the petitioner to address some outstanding concerns with the neighborhood and the Board. To summarize the relief requested, the applicant is requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use, the rectory, to another nonconforming use, multi-family dwelling unit to allow four (4) residential dwelling units and a few dimensional variances. Since the public hearing in June, the applicant has met with the neighbors for a fourth (4) time to continue to listen to concerns and resolve outstanding issues. The petitioner is also working with the direct abutter to place a few bollards where the driveway significantly narrows to be able to protect the neighbor's property. Most of the driveway is the required except that the driveway narrows in the middle at the location of the bay window. The petitioner is also replacing the air conditioner for the neighbor. The other change that the petitioner is proposing is the elimination of the dormer on the back of the building that required the petitioner to request a variance for height after hearing comments from the neighbors and historic commission. Petitioner proposes six (6) parking spaces in the back of the property. The owner also has • the rights granted by an easement from St.James church to have six (6) additional parking spaces across the street at the back of St.James Church parking lot. The petitioner proposes to take a special condition that proposes that any construction vehicles will be using the six (6) parking spaces across the street. Contractors will unload materials in front of the building,but park their trucks on the St.James Church parking lot. Mr. Copelas- asks the petitioner to confirm that the petitioner requests to withdraw the request for a variance for relief from the maximum height requirement. Attorney Grover- confirms that there is no change in the existing height of the building therefore the requested Variance for height is not needed. Mr. Copelas- opens questions from the Board. Mr. Duffy- asks the petitioner whether there were conditions negotiated with the neighborhood. Attorney Grover-yes,nothing has been changed since the last meeting. Mr. Copelas- Opens public comment. Mr. Copelas-reads letter received from 161 Federal Street abutters and Neighborhood Statement. Specifically, the neighborhood association requests the follow special conditions: • 1) The petitioner agrees to convert the property to a condominium no later than the expiration of the five (5) year holding period for the historic tax credits associated with the property and to market the units for sale, provided that the petitioner has the discretion to reasonably adjust the timing of the sale of units in the event market conditions are not reasonably favorable at the expiration of 60 months,provided however the said sale should occur within a reasonable period thereafter. 2) The petitioner acknowledges that the four (4) approved units may not be further subdivided to create any additional units, and that at no time shall there be more than four (4) units at said property. 3) The petitioner shall provide six (6) off-street parking spaces on the premises,plus whatever additional spaces are provided by a formal easement between the petitioner and the Archdiocese of Boston behind the current St.James Church. 4) The petitioner shall remove the brick planter and shrubs at the front of the building and restore the brick sidewalk up to the foundation. 5) The petitioner shall replace the window that has been boarded up on the second floor of the western wall, and should attach matching shutters. 6) All work shall be done in compliance with the plans and elevations submitted to the ZBA. Louis Sirianni, 6 Botts Court- states opposition to the project and is concerned that the project will negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. In particular,Mr. Sirianni requests that the petitioner consider converting the rectory building into a single family or two-family home and that the basement not be used as a living space. Mr. Sirianni argues • that the use of the basement for living space does not comply with grounds for requested variances and the character of the neighborhood would be negatively affected. Use of the basement is not a hardship. Joyce Wallace, 172 Federal Street- expresses support for the project and appreciation of good faith effort of the developer to work with the neighborhood. Ms. Wallace presents a letter from Ms. Shelby Hypes in support of the project. The letter was submitted to the Board for the record. Attorney Grover- states that the use of the interior of the building is not part of the purview of the Board. The special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building or structure involved generally not affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district is that the size of the building is over 7,000 square feet and was most recently used as a rectory. In relation to the concern about having living space in the basement, the historical use of the basement was for living space for priests. Mr. Copelas- asks the public whether there were any additional comments or questions before closing the public hearing. No members of the public had additional comments or questions. Mr. Copelas- closes the public hearing and opens Board deliberation. • Mr. Tsitsinos-visited the site and observed that there are currently no brick sidewalks in front of the building. Mr. Copelas- asks the petitioner to clarify what is being proposed for the sidewalk and brick planter. Attorney Grover- states that the petitioner will remove the existing brick planter box and re- brick the existing asphalt sidewalk up to the foundation of the building. Mr. Viccica- did the direct abutter write a letter? Attorney Grover- the direct abutter is present in the audience. Mr. Duffy- the petitioner's statement of grounds regarding the requested special permit speaks to some of the issues of hardship that are applicable to the requested variances. The building is not suitable besides a multi-family dwelling unit as it would not be economical to undertake a project of this scale as a single-family home. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use to allow four (4) residential dwelling units. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 . Table ofDimensional Requirements for relief from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and maximum height to allow a new dormer to slightly exceed the thirty-five (351) height limit. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 5.1.2 Location of • Parking to allow two (2) of the required parking spaces to be located off-site and Sec. 5.1.5 Design to allow the one-way use driveway to be less than the required twelve (12) feet wide subject to eight (8) standard conditions and six (6) special conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Watkins. The vote was five (5) (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,James Hacker (alternate)) in favor and none (0) opposed. Project Continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structure to reconstruct, extend, alter or change a nonconforming structure to construct an addition on an existing two- family (2) residential unit.The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from rear and side-yard setbacks, minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum lot area to construct a rear addition. Applicant WILLIAM PETERSON Location 4 WATSON STREET (Map 16 Lot 176) (112 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions • Application dated June 23, 2015 and supporting documentation Mr. Peterson, applicant, presents the petition. Mrs. Peterson is also present. The petitioner • states that the property was originally a two-family building and is now a single-family home. Mr. Peterson states that the original intent of the application was to convert the single family home into two-residential units, but the petitioner has since revised the proposal to keep the building as a single-family home due to difficulty being able to structurally meet means of egress requirements for each unit. The petitioner requests variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for relief from rear and side-yard setbacks and minimum lot area to construct a rear addition. The rear addition is needed to expand an existing rear stairway that is two-feet wide and is not compliant with current building code. Hardship is that the size of the stairs pre-date zoning and that the second egress to the property does not meet building code. Mr. Peterson presents a petition of support from abutters. Mr. Copelas- asks the petitioner to confirm that the variances that are being requested are dimensional variances and a special permit. Mr. Peterson- no longer asking to convert the single-family home to a two family dwelling unit. The special permit to extend,reconstruct, alter or change a nonconforming structure is not needed. Mr. Peterson requests dimensional variances only to allow the construction of an addition to widen an existing rear stairway Mr. St Pierre- confirms. Mr. Copelas- confirms that Mr. St. Pierre has been working with the applicant and • conducted a code review of the proposed building plans. Mr. St. Pierre-yes, there were major sticky points with the proposed second dwelling unit. Mr. Copelas- opens the public hearing David Jacobs,Architect- 81 Rowley MA- speaks in support of the petition. Mr. Copelas- states that the public comment presented to the Board from the petitioner was already read into the record at the July 15, 2015 public meeting. Mr. Copelas- closes the public comment. Mr. Watkins- States that the petitioner is asking for a number of dimensional variances and asks the petitioner to confirm the proposed lot coverage. Mr. Peterson- states that proposed lot coverage is 29%. No further comment from the Board. Findings: 1) Given the size and shape of the nonconforming structure the variances requested are warranted because the second egress to the building would not meet current building code requirements without the requested relief. • 2) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant. 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. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from rear and side-yard setbacks, minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum lot area to construct a rear addition, subject to eight (8) standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy. The vote was five (5) (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy, Paul Viecica (alternate)) in favor and none (0) opposed. The petition is approved. Project A petition seeking a special permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.1.2 Special Permit: Zoning Board of Appeals and Sec. 9.4 Special Permits to allow a medical clinic (dialysis center) for a portion of the property and a special permit from the provisions of Sec. 5.1.7 Shared Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow for shared on-site parking with other tenants. Applicant SALEM NORTHEAST DIALYSIS CENTER (DAVITA DIALYSIS COMPANY) • Location 207 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 13 Lot 2)(132 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions • • Application dated July 22, 2015 and supporting documentation Attorney Quinn- presents the petition on behalf of Salem Northeast Dialysis Center owned by Davita Dialysis Company. Dialysis is a lifesaving procedure and is needed in the region. The local project manager,project manager and architect are present to answer questions. The center has operated in Salem for about twenty (20) years at 10 Colonial Road. The current facility is a second floor space in an old building and is not suitable for current needs. There is growing demand for services nationwide and in our region. The dialysis center needs a new space for expansion and also needs to be accessible. Over half of the patients served in this facility are residents from either Salem or Lynn. The proposed location on Highland Avenue is advantageous because of its vicinity to the Salem Hospital medical complex. 207 Highland Avenue is the site of an old Chevy dealership. The existing building is partially vacant and partially occupied by East Gate Christian Fellowship and Joseph's Storehouse food pantry. The petitioner proposes to share parking with the church and food pantry. Attorney Quinn states that these uses on the site and the proposed use of a dialysis center are complementary uses rather than competitive uses for parking. Attorney Quinn presents a letter to the Board from East Christian Fellowship in support of the petition and support for shared parking on the site. • The proposed dialysis center is a greatly needed and owned by a major company that is able to create a modern healthcare facility situated in an accessible location for patients and staff. The facility will help the City's economic interest to have this underutilized commercial property and improve the City's tax base. From a neighborhood perspective, instead of having this place be a vacant space and a nuisance, there will be a major and positive presence on the site with an active commercial operation. The petitioner proposes to operate Monday through Saturday. In regard to the special permit request for a medical clinic, the Attorney Quinn states that the intention of the medical clinic is to only operate a dialysis center. Salem Northeast Dialysis Center is a dialysis center. There are no mental health services or dispensary services. The petitioner proposes to operate a life-saving dialysis facility only. The neighborhood around this location mostly consists of large commercial users and apartment complexes. The impact of the medical dialysis clinic will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. As for the compatibility of uses on the same site and demand for parking, the church has daily services with small attendance except for Sundays with a maximum 60 people in attendance. The food pantry has its own space behind the church and operates on Saturdays from 10am-3pm. The needs for parking are small and sporadic. As the location was previously used as a car dealership, there are 156 parking spaces on-site that would more • • than accommodate the needs of all tenants. The petitioner proposes to have a substantial upgrade to the exterior of the building and meets the grounds for a special permit. The applicant is asking for a special permit to allow a medical dialysis center and shared parking with other tenants. Attorney Quinn- explains that the facility will have four (4) professional staff and ten (10) additional employees. The Zoning Ordinance requires three (3) spaces for each medical clinic professional and 1 (one) spaces for each two (2) other employees. Per the zoning ordinance, the facility will have seventeen (17) on-site parking spaces of which several of these spaces will be reserved for handicap and van parking. Under the terms of the pending lease Davita will be entitled to the required seventeen (17) designated exclusive spaces and twenty-three (23) shared parking spaces. There are two (2) existing curb-cuts on Highland Avenue that serve the property. For the special permit grounds regarding shared parking, the proposal is less detrimental to the neighborhood and is sufficient for all tenants to park on-site as the tenants will not be parking at the property simultaneously in such a way to cause a shortage of on-site parking. Other types of commercial uses may be more detrimental to the traffic and neighborhood than the medical dialysis clinic. The portion of the building has been vacant for approximately ten (10) years. All the utilities needed are there. From an environmental perspective the existing site has a building and parking lot. There will be no site work in association with this proposal. There will be substantial upgrades to the interior and exterior • within the current building footprint. Joanne O'Connell- NEMD Architects- presents a site plan and elevation plans. Mr. Copelas- asks the petitioner to talk about the scale and elaborate on how many patients will be served by the clinic. Ms. O'Connell- states that the current clinic serves sixteen (16) patients and the proposed medical dialysis center will serve twenty-two (22) patients. Mr. Copelas- asks the architect to show how traffic is expected to circulate on and off the property as there are currently multiple entrances and exits. Attorney Quinn- states that a large existing curb-cut currently provides an entrance and exit in one driveway. The petitioner proposes to use the first curb-cut as an entrance only and use the second curb-cut as an exit. Ms. Copelas- hard to imagine a better place for a facility like this. Mr. Tsitsinos- states that this is a better location than a previous proposal on Swampscott Road. Will there be entrance and exit signs on the driveways? Attorney Quinn- states that the petitioner proposes to have entrance and exit signage and to • work with the police department to provide safe driveways. Mr. St. Pierre- states the same concern and suggests a special condition that the petitioner • shall work with police safety for appropriate signage on Highland Ave. to mark the entrance and exit to the property. Mr. Viccia- how is waste handled at the facility? Cynthia Hubski, Facilities Administrator and Nurse- the facility is highly regulated and bio- hazard waste is kept inside of the building for removal once a week. Dum stern outside are P g P for regular trash and recycling. Mr. Copelas- asks the Board whether there are any additional questions. Mr. St. Pierre- asks the petitioner to clarify whether there will there be an expansion of the dialysis center into the other portion of the shared building. Ms. O'Connell - No plans to expand into the other portions of this shared budding. Attorney Quinn- states that the petitioner is asking for a special permit for a medical dialysis clinic only.A change in use would require the applicant to come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Copelas- opens public comment. Councillor Siegel,Ward 3— states support for Davita Healthcare Facility,but is concerned • about the possibility that the Special Permit may allow for another type of medical clinic. Mr. Copelas-we can only act on the proposal in front of us. The clinic that is proposed is a dialysis center. Attorney Quinn- States that the hours of operation are proposed to be 5am- 8pm. In terms of concerns on use of the medical clinic, the application clearly states that the medical clinic proposed is a medical dialysis clinic only. There is no other type of medical clinic proposed. Mr. Copelas- reads letter of public comment from East Christian fellowship in support of the petition. No additional public comment. The public comment period is closed. Mr. Watkins-There is a community need for this type of service and in terms of the Special Permit requirements and the Board concurs with the findings presented by the attorney. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy seeking a special permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.1.2 Special Permit: Zoning Board of Appeals and Sec. 9.4 Special Permits to allow a medical clinic (dialysis center) for a portion of the property and a special permit from the provisions of Sec. 5.1.7 Shared Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow for shared on-site parking with other tenants, subject to eight (8) standard conditions and two (2) special conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was five (5) (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy, Paul Viccica (alternate)) in favor and none (0) opposed. Project A Petition seeking Variances from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from front yard depth and lot coverage to construct a 12,835 square foot Athletic &Arts Center for lease to Salem Academy Charter School. Applicant SHETLAND PARK Location 16 LYNCH STREET (Map 34 Lot 182) (R3) *Peter Copleas (Acting Chair) recused himself from this petition. Mr. Duffy served as acting chair. Attorney Christina Mihos presents the petition. Shetland Park was before the Zoning Board of Appeals on May 20, 2015 and Variances were granted for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum front yard setback and maximum lot coverage to construct a 15,600 square foot building. After receiving these Variances, the project team realized that the proposed building was located in a flood zone and was not economically viable to construct what was proposed. In response, Shetland Park proposes a new structure that is not located in the flood zone and is also closer to the existing school building. The lease between Shetland Park and Salem Academy Charter School is dependent upon approval of the proposed project. The Salem Academy Charter School is an asset to the • community and Shetland Park is interested in retaining this tenant. Shawn O'Neil- Executive Director of Salem Academy Charter School- Speaks in support of the project. In particular the new proposed site is a safer and more accessible opportunity for students to access the proposed arts and athletic center. Mr. Duffy—Reads public comment in support of the project from Salem Renewal LLC. Reverend Jeff Barz-Snell- Minister of First Church- Speaks in support of the project. Mr. Duffy—No further comments from the public. The public portion of the hearing is closed. Mt. Duffy asks the Board for additional comments. Mr. Watkins- Is the proposed building location on an existing parking lot?Where will the displaced cars park? Attorney Mihos-The proposed building will be located on an existing parking lot and cars that are displaced can park on the Shetland Park property in an existing parking garage with capacity for five hundred cars on Pingree Street. There are also parking spots that are used by the school with teacher only designation. Mr. Hacker-This proposed plan compared to the plan previously proposed and approved . seems to be more advantageous to the school. Mr. St. Pierre-Asks the petitioner whether the State educational zoning exemption is being . used in this case to have this educational use in an R3 Zoning District. What happens to the use of this building when there is a request for a change of use after the Charter Street Academy School may be done with using this building? Attorney Quinn- States that a change of use would require a petitioner to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals to request a change of use. Mr. Duffy- The statement of hardship here is that the prior location being in flood plain proposes unique circumstances related to the features of the property and that there is a unique quality to the site. Having the facility within reasonable distance from the school is a benefit. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins make a motion to approve Variances from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from front yard depth and lot coverage to construct a 12,835 square foot Athletic &Arts Center for lease to Salem Academy Charter School, subject to eight (8) standard conditions and one (1) special condition that the facility only be used as a recreational facility to be used in conjunction with an educational facility. The motion is seconded by Mr.Viccica. The vote was five (5) (Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy, Paul Viccica (alternate),James Hacker (alternate)) in favor and none (0) opposed. • Project A petition of seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot size, required frontage, side & front yard setbacks to allow the conversion of a single-family home into a two- family dwelling unit. Applicant ANTONIO BARLETTA JR. Location 2 Meadow Street (Map 33 Lot 92) (112 Zoning District) Amy Walick-Presents the petition on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner is seeking variances for minimum lot size, minimum lot frontage, minimum side and front yard setbacks to allow the conversion of a single-family home into a two-family dwelling unit. The property is located in an R-2 Zoning District. There are four (4) parking spots on the property,which meets the zoning ordinance parking requirement. Mr. Copelas- Opens public comment. No public comment. Mr. Duffy-This is a pre-existing nonconforming structure and meets the parking requirements. Given the size and shape of the dimensionally nonconforming structure the variances requested are warranted and a two—family use is an allowable use by right. There are no proposed changes to the footprint of the existing building. 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 purpose of the ordinance. No comments to the board Duff move to approve petition seeking Variance. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy make a motion to approve petition seeking Variances per See. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot size, required frontage, side & front yard setbacks to allow the conversion of a single-family home into a two- family dwelling unit, subject to eight (8) standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Watkins. The vote was five (5) (Peter A. Copelas (Vice- Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy, Paul Viccica (alternate) in favor and none (0) opposed. Project A public hearing for the petition seeking Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend the current non-conforming use of an existing two-family dwelling unit to allow a three- family dwelling unit. Applicant ANTONIO BARLETTA JR. Location 12 Meadow Street (Map 33 Lot 92) (B-4 Zoning District) • Amy Walick- Petitioner presents the petition. The property is an existing two-family unit and is currently a nonconforming use. The petitioner proposes to extend the current nonconforming use to allow a three-family dwelling unit in a B-4 Zoning District. To address parking, the petitioner states that there are 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit proposed. There are no proposed changes to the existing footprint of the building. Mr. Copelas-Are you representing that this property is currently being used as a three-family dwelling unit? Ms. Walick-The property cannot currently be used as a three (3) family dwelling unit. There are currently two (2) electrical meters and no second egress in the second unit. Mr. Copelas- Sees a couple of differences in the two (2) proposals between 2 Meadow Street and this proposal at 12 Meadow Street. First, this property was represented as a two (2) family even though it seems that the property is an existing three (3) family. Second, the sketch of the parking does not give enough detail and information to understand the parking proposed. Mr. Copelas visited the site and the narrow driveway to access these parking spaces does not seem to fit. This drawing is not to scale and it seems that these proposed parking spaces may not actually fit on the property as proposed. Ms. Walick- Yes, the drawing is not to scale. • Mx. Viccica-Asks for lot plans to be drawn to scale with the parking stalls with the P P P is • measurements. It is not to say that this project is not feasible. There is just not enough information. Ms. Walick-Asks for clarification on parking stall width. With spot number six (6), how much space is needed? Mr. Copelas-Was not even counting number six (6) as the proposed parking spaces seem to not be feasible. Even the layout of the five (5) parking spaces may not be feasible. Tom St. Pierre, Building Comm-ussioner-A proposed basement unit may not be legal from a building code perspective. Maybe this is feasible, but a code review by an architect in relation to your plan needs to be done to show that a third unit in the basement can be done. Mr. Copelas- Regardless of what the Zoning Board of Appeals decides, the project will still need a building permit and be subject to building code requirements. Mr. Copelas suggests that it would be beneficial for the applicant to have a code review of the architectural plans and that the plot plan needs to be revised and drawn to scale. Mr. Watkins- The applicant also mentioned that a second egress would have to be constructed as well. Ms. Walick- One door would need to be improved internally to reconstruct the interior to create a second egress for the third proposed unit. • Mx. Watkins-Asks Tom St. Pierre whether the applicant needs to conduct a code review. Mr. St. Pierre- Requests that a building code review/analysis be conducted on the architectural plans to show whether a third unit could be constructed and to provide a site plan with parking. Mr. Copelas-Asks the petitioner whether she would like to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Ms. Walick- Requests a continuation of the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy make a motion to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, September 16, 2015. The motion is seconded by Mr. Watkins. The vote was five (5) (Peter A. Copelas (Vice- Chair), Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,James Hacker (alternate) in favor and none (0) opposed. The petition is continued. • Project A public hearing for the 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 and exterior beer garden. Applicant NOTCH TAP RO OM,LLC Location 283 Rear Derby Street (Map 34 Lot 439) (B-5) Attorney Atkins presents the petition on behalf of the petitioner. The project is requesting a special permit for a brewery with a tasting room. Principal use is as a brewery. Notch Brewing Company was started by Chris Loring in 2010 and has been using space in another location in Ipswich. He would like to relocate in Salem and is a resident of Salem. Notch Brewing Company is required to have several kinds of permits at the Federal, State and local levels including a federal permit, newly established state level license called the ABCC Farmer Series License, a special use permit from the Board of Appeals and a pouring license from the local Licensing Board. The business is restricted to the production and distribution of beer made at this location. There is a proposed accessory use. The ordinance has some specific language that the tasting room cannot be more than 33% of the building. The proposed plans were not specific enough in this regard so Winter Street Architects were asked to create a specific floor plan with this dimensional parameter. There is not kitchen proposed in this facility,but the concept is to have snacks available such as German pretzels other German fare and snacks. • In addition to this, the petitioner hopes to have relationships with other area restaurants to allow food from other restaurants to be brought into the brewery similarly to the Salem Ferry establishment. The location of this proposal is in the same building as Brothers Tavema Restaurant and is located in the B5 Zoning District. There is a current tenant in the space that the landlord has been working with the landlord to be relocated and this has been worked out. Chris Loring- 19 Carlton Street—Presents his brewing experience to the Board and states that Notch Brewing Company was opened in 2009 and has reached capacity in the Ipswich facility and the goal of this project is to bring the main production facility of Notch Brewing Company to Salem. Attorney Atkins-Presents the Statement of Grounds for the special permit. This kind of facility will add to the commercial mix of businesses in the community and will be attractive to consumers and other restaurants that Notch will deliver product adding to the vitality of the commercial businesses. The proposed hours of operation are Wednesday through Sunday 12pm to 1lpm, closed Monday and Tuesday except for special events arranged in advance. The development is located in the B5 Central Business Zoning District and existing neighborhood is commercial in nature. • There is no parking requirement for nonresidential uses in the B5 district. However, there is • on-street parking and a municipal parking garage next door to this property. There are two (2) points of access to this location including from Congress Street and a driveway on Derby Street. There is an existing circulation pattern for traffic that is sufficient through the site. There will be no change to the existing public utility requirements and there will be no significant impacts to the environment or any drainage issues that would result from this business. In the renderings completed by Winter Street Architects, there is a considerable improvement plan to the entrance and interior of the building. The business will create an estimated nine (9) to ten (10) full time jobs and twelve (12) part-time jobs. The existing neighborhood is commercial in nature. The central area is non-residential. The potential fiscal benefit including on the City tax base and employment is positive as the petitioner proposes 9-10 full time jobs 12 part-time jobs. Mr. Copelas- Could you speak briefly to the requirements of a tasting room and serving requirements? Attorney Atkins-The zoning ordinance calls for 33% of the building. Any serving has to follow the rules of the local licensing board and state ABCC regulations. The brewery can only sell products made at the facility. • Mr. Copelas-Asks Tom St. Pierre whether there are restrictions on how alcohol can be served in a tasting room in terms of portions. Mr. St. Pierre- Has no comment. Mr. Loring- States that the Farmer Brewer, Farmer Distillery, Farmer Winery License at the state level, limits the amount of alcohol that can be served in a tasting is one (1) two (2) ounce sample. Regulations at the state level used to be under Section 12 and a few years ago the state changed the regulations to have a fully contained,independent series of regulations under the umbrella of the Farmer Brewer license. To allow a brewery to serve full pours, a brewery, distillery,winery needs to apply to the local licensing Board and then this local approval is brought to the State under the ABCC for final approval. Mr. Copelas- States that this business is a bar and brewery or a brew pub. Mr. Loring- Explains that a brew pub is a separate license and is a different type of business. This type of license is for someone who is going to serve food at a restaurant like the Salem Brewing Company. For Notch, the tasting room is an on-site sampling opportunity. The interior will not have bar seating. This is something that is allowed at the state level and all over the country. The purpose of a tasting room is to allow a small brewer to market product on a small scale. • Attorney Atkins- States that using the term bar is not appropriate in this case. The craft brewing industry is really growing rapidly and consumer tastes have changed.This business is very limited in nature because a brewery can only sell what it produces with a European atmosphere. Mr. Copelas- Questions from the Board for the petitioner? Is there anyone from the public to speak? No Board members had additional qustions and no one spoke in support or against the petition. Mr. Viccica- Is this the first business of this kind in Salem? Ms. Schaffer- States that this is the third (3) business of this kind. The two (2) previous special permit applications that were approved for a brewery, distillery and winery with a tasting room includes Far From the Tree Cider on Jackson Street and Deacon Giles on Canal Street. Mr. Tsitsinos- Expresses support for the project. Mr. Copelas-What additional steps would be required to expand this operation outside of what is brewed by this company? . Attorney Atkins-These licenses are very specific in nature and created for this purpose. A brewery by definition may only sell beverages produced by the brewery. Anything to do with a license change has to go to the Licensing Board. If there was a change with managers, the business would need to go before the Licensing Board. If there was an alteration to the interior layout of the brewery, the business would need to go before the Licensing Board and the state ABCC. Mr. Duffy- States that the definition of a brewery, distillery, or winery with a tasting room only allows the facility to sell beverages produced by, and commercial goods branded by the brewery, distillery or winery. This special permit from the Zoning Board would not allow the brewery to sell other types of beverages. Mr. Loring-The ABCC is very strict about this definition that a brewery can only sell beverages produced by the brewery and that other types of beverages cannot be sold. Mr. Duffy-At what point is a patron here for a tasting does it convert into buying a full glass of beer? Mr. St. Pierre- If the Board approves the applicant will apply for a full pour license from the local Licensing Board next. Attorney Atkins- If you wanted to by a six (6) pack of beer, one could buy it to drink off- premises. • Mr. Viccica-The ordinance seems to be written specifically for the small samples. Mr. Loring-There are two (2) parts for Notch.The first is that the special permit from the • Zoning Board is for this use and then to the ABCC for a state license. Then Notch plans to apply to the local Licensing Board to allow full pours,which also has to be approved at the state level by the ABCC. Mr. Copelas-The Zoning Board of Appeals cannot regulate sample size and pouring. These things are regulated by the local Licensing Board and the ABCC at the state level. It appears that the proposal meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Viccica- If there is an issue with the Ordinance, City Council would need to take this up and amend the Zoning Ordinance if needed. Attorney Atkins-The Licensing Board is a check and balance to the Zoning Board of Appeal decision. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins make a motion to approve the petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table ofP ncipal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow a brewery, distillery or winery with a tasting room and exterior beer garden. The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy. The vote was five (5) (Peter A. Copelas (Vice- Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy, Paul Viccica (alternate) in favor and none (0) opposed. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES • Approval of meeting minutes for July 15, 2015 was held for the next regularly scheduled meeting on August 19,2015. OLD/NEW BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT Mr. Copelas motioned for adjournment of the August 19,2015 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 10:00pm. Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas made a motion to adjourn the August 19, 2015 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos, and the vote is unanimous with five (5) in favor (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins,James Hacker (alternate) and Paul Viccica (alternate) 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. hM.11sa1em.com/Pages/Sa1emMA ZoningAppealsMin/ Respectfully submitted, Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner • oT� CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS i BOARD OF APPEAL Y � 120 WASHINGTON STREET+SALEM,MASSACHUSETIS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 FAX:978-740-0461LE � KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 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 GREGORY INVESTMENT GROUP LLC, seeking Variances requesting relief from 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum rear yard setback, maximum height of building, number of stories and a Variance per Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow for the construction of a two-family residence and associated parking located at the property of 2 • ATLANTIC STREET (AKA 17 LUSSIER STREET) (Map 32 Lot 189) (R2 Zoning District). The public hearing will be held on WED. AUG. 19, 2015 at 6:30 PM, 3M Floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET,Rm 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 8/5/15 & 8/12/15 This notice posted on "Offic' I Bull in ,�qa " City Hall Salem, Mass. on Ul' at #m in accordance MGL Chap. 30A, • Sedtions 18-25. c°"DtTA CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS g` ° ` BOARD OF APPEAL o-i� logA4IG -5 A 9- 04 ANj 120 WASMNGTON STREET♦SACEM,MASSACHUSE7]$LO197O \�©M TELE:978-619-5685*FAX:97g�-T74� -ppg0¢,YY�� tt I{�� S$, KIMBERLEYDRISCOLL C`j T ftnK, SALFM. MA.. MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of NOTCH TAP ROOM, LLC 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 and exterior beer garden located at the property of 283 Rear Derby Street(Map 34 Lot 439) (B-5). • Said hearing will be held on WED, AUG19, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., P floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 8/5/2015 & 8/12/2015 This notice posted on "Official• Bulleti Board"City Hall, Salem, Massny� at accurdance wahMGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPE 1 AUG -5 A o; OU. 120 WASHINGTON STREET S SALEM,MASSACHFJSFsT'S�7 � ILE ff AI.E-M,MASS. �!MWBI TELE:978-679-5685 FAX:978 7,40-0404 KIMBERLEY DRIscOLL MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of ANTONIO BARLETTA JR. seeking Variances per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend the current non-conforming use of an existing two-family dwelling unit to allow a three- family dwelling unit located at the property of 12 Meadow Street(Map 33 Lot 88) (R2 Zoning District). • Said hearing will be held on WED, AUG 19, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., P floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 8/5/15 & 8/12/15 This notice posted on -of ticial Bulletin /5 Hall, Salem, N►ass ''" NIGL Chap. 30A, • City in acco,trance w at q: cgffm Sections J8-25• ID CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS ° BOARD OF APP BUG —5 A ct 04 FILE # 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACpjT"Q ,, SALEM, MASS_ <..._-:. TELE:978-619-5685 ♦FAX:978-740-0404 MmIiERLEY Dmscou MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of ANTONIO BARLETTA JR. seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot size, required frontage, side & front yard setbacks to allow the conversion of a single-family home into a two- family dwelling unit at the property of 2 Meadow Street (Map 33 Lot 92) (R2 Zoning District). • Said hearing will be held on WED,AUG 19, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 8/5/15 & 8/12/15 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass n 1:k� S 90/✓- • at Gf;Dq►y, in accuruance wit GL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS �N�p% BOARD OF APPEAL � M1N_EU / SASTG - 120 WASHNGTON$TAFFY SALEM,MAS 5 N TELE:978-619-5685♦ FAX:978-740-0404 KiMBERLEY DRiscoLL FILE N 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 SALEM NORTHEAST DIALYSIS CENTER (DAVITA DIALYSIS COMPANY) seeking a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.1.2 Special Permit: Zoning Board of Appeals and Sec. 9.4 Special Permits to allow a medical clinic (dialysis center) for a portion of the property and a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 5.1.7 Shared Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow for shared on-site parking with other tenants for the property located at 207 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 13 Lot 2) (132 Zoning District). • Said hearing will be held on WED, AUG19, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., P floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 8/5/2015 & 8/12/2015 posted on .,Off' I Bulletin f jBoard" This notice p Mass. o� � 30A, City Mal►, Salem, • at 9.0,V " 1n accordance ith MGLC Chap. Sections 18-25- CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF "Y615�!EAL UG —5 A cl; Otl 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ $ MASSACFdud$' rs(�1970 TELE:978-619-5685 ;7 ATEM. MAS . KQm RiEY DRISCOu. MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of SHETLAND PARK seeking Variances from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from front yard depth and lot coverage to construct a 12,835 square foot Athletic & Arts Center for lease to Salem Academy Charter School at the property located at 16 Lynch Street (Map 34 Lot 182) (R3) • Said hearing will be held on WED, AUG 19, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., 3111 floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 8/5/15 & 8/12/15 This notice posted r,h +aficial Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Ma �i on aalp S at 9.dq RA in d;.,ordance with MG1 Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. CITY OF SALEM MASSACHU SETTS ij BOARD OF APPEAL 720 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 079-M ^, KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 -< MAYOR r N P3 m wo 7C, September 2, 2015 VA N Decision -0 s City of Salem Board of Appeals _c N p -p Petition of GREGORY INVESTMENT GROUP LLC,seeking Variances requesting relief from 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum rear yard setback, maximum height of building, number of stories and a Variance per Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow for the construction of a two-family residence and associated parking located at the property of 2 ATLANTIC STREET (AKA 17 LUSSIER STREET) (Map 32 Lot 189) (112 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 19, 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11 and closed on this date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Peter A. Copelas (Vice- Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins, Paul Viccica (alternate). The Petitioner seeks Variances requesting relief from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, • minimum rear yard setback, maximum height of building, number of stories and a Variance per Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow for the construction of a two- family residence and associated parking. Statements of Fact: 1. Attorney Quinn presents the petition. 2. In the petition date-stamped July 26, 2015,the petitioner requests Variances requesting relief from 4.1.1 Table ofDimenrimal Requirements from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum rear yard setback,magnum height of building, number of stories and a Variance pet Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow for the construction of a two-family residence and associated parking. 3. The lot is 5,250 square feet and is located in a R2 Zoning District. 4. The petitioner withdrew the request for a variance for relief pet Sec. 5.1.8. Table of Required Parking Spaces of the Salem Zoning Ordinance as the proposal for garage parking underneath the two-family residential dwelling unit meets the number of parking spaces required.The garage parking will have two (2)parking spaces per dwelling unit. 5. The petitioner proposes to construct a 1,560 square foot two-family dwelling unit with four (4) parking spaces below the residential dwelling units. 6. In 1995 and 2009 the Zoning Board of Appeals granted dimensional variances to allow for the construction of a two-family residential unit that was never constructed. City of Salem Board of Appeals September 2,2015 Project:2 Atlantic Street• Page 2 of 3 7. The requested relief,if granted,would allow the Petitioner to allow for the construction of a two- family residence and associated parking. 8. At the public hearing one (1) member of the public spoke in favor and one (1) person spoke 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: Findings for Variance: 1) Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land,building, or structure involved generally not affecting other lands,buildings or structures in the same district is that the parcel is undersized and has a narrow shape. 2) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant as without the dimensional variances given the size and shape of the lot, the land could not be built on. 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 with four (4) in favor (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy, Tom Watkins) and one (1) opposed (Paul Viccica (alternate)) to grant Variances requesting relief from 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional requirements from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum rear yard setback, maximum height of building, number of stories to allow for the construction of a two-family residence and associated parking, 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. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. -' a,,e-P,a Cc.� Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals City of Salem Board of Appeals September 2,2015 . Project:2 Atlantic Street Page 3 of 3 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal jrom this dea.non, if any, shall be made purraant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts Genera!Laws Chapter 40A, and,shall be filed within 10 days of fik'ng of this decision in the oyice of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massacbwets Genera!Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Vanance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decmen bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS F BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR 17) e September 2, 2015 H m rn o p Decision xF City of Salem Board of Appeals S m NJ r, -p a Petition of 161 FEDERAL STREET LLC, seeking a Special Permit per Sec. g3.2 lfOnconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconformog ujj to another nonconforming use to allow four (4) residential dwelling units. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for relief from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and maximum height to allow a new dormer to slightly exceed the thirty-five (35') height limit. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 5.1.2 Location of Parking to allow two (2) of the required parking to be located off-site and Sec. 5.1.5 Design to allow the one-way use driveway to be less than the required twelve (12) feet wide at the property of 161 FEDERAL STREET (Map 25 Lot 112)(112 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened July 15, 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 4 11. The public hearing was continued at the request of the applicant to August 19, 2015 and closed on this date with • the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair), Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy,Tom Watkin s,s, ames Hacker (alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use to allow four (4) residential dwelling units. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requinments for relief from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and maximum height to allow a new dormer to slightly exceed the thirty- five (35D height limit. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 5.1.2 Location of Parking to allow two (2) of the required parking to be located off-site and Sec. 5.1.5 Design to allow the one-way use driveway to be less than the requited twelve (12) feet wide. Statements of Fact: 1. Attorney Grover presents the petition. 2. In the petition date-stamped June 23, 2015, the petitioner requests Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use to allow four (4) residential dwelling units. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for relief from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and maximum height to allow a new dormer to slightly exceed the thirty-five (35') height limit. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 5.1.2 Location of Parking to allow two (2) of the required • parking to be located off-site and Sec. 5.1.5 Design to allow the one-way use driveway to be less than the required twelve (12) feet wide. City of Salem Board of Appeals September 2,2015 Project: 161 Federal Street • Page 2 of 4 3. The property served as a rectory for St.James church and is located in an R2 Zoning District. 4. The parcel is approximately 7,500 square feet of land with a three-story historic structure that is approximately 7,000 square feet of improved living area plus a basement and attic. 5. The petitioner proposes to convert the building from one non-confortning use of the rectory building to another nonconforming use to four (4) large residential dwelling units that range in size from 1,825 square feet to 2,900 square feet. 6. There is a permanent easement associated with 161 Federal Street for the use of six (6) parking spaces in the St.James Church parking lot across the street. 7. The petitioner originally requested a variance per Sec. 5.1.2 Location of Parking to allow two (2) of the required parking to be located off-site at the St.James Church property and withdrew this request. The petitioner proposes to locate all six (6) required parking spaces on the property to serve the residential dwelling units and another six (6) parking spaces in the St.James Church parking lot across the street. 8. The petitioner proposed to construct a new dormer that slightly exceeded the total building height limit of 35' feet.After consideration, the petitioner withdrew this request for a variance for relief maximum height to allow a new dormer to slightly exceed the thirty-five (35D height limit and will not • construct a dormer. 9. The petitioner also requests a variance per Sec. 5.1.5 Design to allow the one-way use driveway to be less than the required twelve (12) feet wide. The petitioner plans to work with the abutter to place bollards or protective barrier between the property and driveway where the driveway significantly narrows. 10. The requested relief, if granted,would allow the Petitioner to change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use to allow four (4) residential dwelling units and to allow the one-way use driveway to be less than the required twelve (12) feet wide. 11. At the public bearings eight (8) members of the public spoke in favor and four (4) spoke 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: Findings for Special Permit: The proposed use of a four (4) residential dwelling unit is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. The building is not suitable for anything besides a multi-family dwelling unit as it would not be economically feasible to undertake the restoration of this scale as a single- family or two-family home. City of Salem Board of Appeals September 2,2015 Project: 161 Federal Street • Page 3 of 4 Findings for Variances: 1) Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land,building,or structure involved generally not affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district is that the building was used as a rectory and is over 7,000 square feet. 2) Litetal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant as without the relief the applicant could not provide on-site parking spaces that meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 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 with five (5) in favor (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair), Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy, Tom Watkins and James Hacker (alternate) and none (0) opposed to grant a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use to allow four (4) residential dwelling units and Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Begnirements for relief from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and Sec. 5.1.5 Design to allow the one-way use driveway to be less than the required twelve (12) feet wide 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. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Special Conditions: 1. The petitioner agrees to convert the property to a condominium no later than the expiration of the five (5) year holding period for the historic tax credits associated with the property and to market the units for sale,provided that the petitioner has the discretion to reasonably adjust the timing of the sale of units in the event market conditions are not reasonably favorable at the expiration of 60 months, • provided however the said sale should occur within a reasonable period thereafter. City of Salem Board of Appeals September 2,2015 Project: 161 Federal Street • Page 4 of 4 2. The petitioner acknowledges that the four (4) approved units may not be further subdivided to create any additional units, and that at no time shall there be more than four (4) units at said property. 3. The petitioner shall provide six (6) off-street parking spaces on the premises,plus whatever additional spaces are provided by a formal easement between the petitioner and the Archdiocese of Boston behind the current St.James Church. 4. The petitioner shall remove the brick planter and shrubs at the front of the building and restore the brick sidewalk up to the foundation. 5. The petitioner shall replace the window that has been boarded up on the second floor of the western wall, and should attach matching shutters. 6. All work shall be done in compliance with the plans and elevations submitted to the ZBA. Rebecca Curtan, 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,.Thall be made purruant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts Genera!Laws Chapter 40A,and.shall be filed witbin 20 days of fth'ng of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the MassachusettJ Genera!Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take e ea until a copy of the deeinon bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South kegistryofDeeds. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 1 ' BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHusETrS 09'70 KiMBERLEYDRIscou TELE:978-745-9595 4 FAX:978-740-9846 ~c o MAYOR r v, m rn September 2, 2015 "F -o N rn Na Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals N a CA m Petition of WILLIAM PETERSON, seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structure to reconstruct, extend, alter or change a nonconforming structure to construct an addition on an existing two-family (2) residential unit. The applicant is also seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Ta ble of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from rear and side- yard setbacks, minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum lot area to construct a rear addition at the property of 4 WATSON STREET (Map 16 Lot 176) (R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 15, 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11. The public hearing was continued at the request of the petitioner to August 19, 2015 and closed on this date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom • Watkins,Mike Duffy, Paul Viccica (alternate). The Petitioner seeks dimensional variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from rear and side-yard setbacks, minimum lot area, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit. The applicant withdrew the request for a special permit as the proposal was revised to use the structure as a single-family home. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped June 23, 2015 and revised on August 3, 2015, the Petitioner requested variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to allow the construction of a rear addition. 2. A public hearing for the petition was opened on July 15, 2015 and continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting on August 19, 2015 at the request of the applicant after a building code review showed that the proposed architectural plans were non-compliant with the building code. 3. William and Alexandra Peterson,petitioners,presented the petition. 4. The petitioner revised the petition to propose that the building be used as a single-family home due to difficulty being able to structurally meet the means of egress requirements for each unit. 5. The petitioner withdrew the request for a special permit to reconstruct, extend, alter or change a nonconforming structure to construct an additional unit, as the intent is to use the structure as a single-family home. 6. The petitioner requests variances for relief from rear and side-yard setbacks, minimum lot area, and • minimum lot area per dwelling unit to construct a rear addition to bring the rear stairwell up to current building code standards. City of Salem Board of Appeals September 2,2015 Project:4 Watson Street • Page 2 of 3 7. The rear addition is needed to expand an existing rear stairway that is two-feet wide and is not compliant with current building code. 8. The petitioner presented a petition from four (4) abutters in support of the project. 9. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to construct a rear addition to expand an existing rear stairway that does not met current building code standards. 10. At the public hearings four (4) members spoke in favor and no (0) members spoke 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 for Variance: 1) Given the size and shape of the nonconforming structure the variances requested are warranted because the second egress to the budding would not meet current building code requirements without the requested relief. • 2) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant. 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 five (5) in favor (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy, Paul Viccica (alternate) and none (0) opposed, to grant variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Begunamenlr of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from rear and side-yard setbacks, minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum lot area to construct a rear addition subject to the following eight (8) standard 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 pervrit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. • 7. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to, the Planning Board. City of Salem Board of Appeals September 2,2015 Project:4 Watson 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 40 4, and shall be filed within 20 days of f:k'ng of this decision in the ofice of the City Ckrk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Pemritgranted herein shall not take effect until a ropy of the decision beartug the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • • /cow 54v� CITY OF SALEM 1v1t�SSACHUSETTS ti� 1I ' BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 0L)70 rrnn KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 x" v MAYOR rn V September 2, 2015 3 !V Decision > _ City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of SALEM NORTHEAST DIALYSIS CENTER (DAVITA DIALYSIS COMPANY) seeking a special permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.1.2 Special Permit: Zoning Board of Appeals and Sec. 9.4 Special Permits to allow a medical clinic (dialysis center) for a portion of the property and a special permit from the provisions of Sec. 5.1.7 Shared Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow for shared on-site parting with other tenants at the property of 207 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 13 Lot 2)(B2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 19, 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 4 11 and closed on this date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Peter A. Copelas (Vice- Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy, Paul Viccica (alternate). The petitioner seeks a special permit per Sec. 3.1.2 Special Permit: Zoning Board of Appeals and a special • permit per Sec. 5.1.7 Shared Parking. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped July 22, 2015 the Petitioner requested a special permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.1.2 Special Permit: Zoning Board of Appeals and Sec. 9.4 Special Permits to allow a medical clinic (dialysis center) for a portion of the property and a special permit from the provisions of Sec. 5.1.7 Shared Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow for shared on-site parking with other tenants. 2. Attorney Quinn presented the petition on behalf of the applicant Salem Northeast Dialysis Center (Davita Dialysis Company). 3. The petitioner proposes to occupy a vacant portion of a building that is shared with East Gate Christian Fellowship and Joseph's Storehouse food pantry. 4. The petitioner requests a special permit for a medical dialysis clinic to operate a dialysis center only. 5. There are substantial structural upgrades proposed to the building to serve the medical dialysis clinic. 6. The medical dialysis clinic will serve twenty-two (22) patients and staff four (4) professional staff and ten (10) additional employees. 7. The site was previously used as a car dealership and has 156 on-site parking spaces. 8. The petitioner requests a special permit to allow shared on-site parking spaces. The medical dialysis clinic facility will have seventeen (17) reserved exclusive spaces to meet the required number of spaces • for professional staff and employees and twenty-three (23) shared parking spaces for patients. 9. The proposed hours of operation for the medical dialysis clinic are Monday-Saturday 5am to 8pm except when there are holidays or snow days to allow the clinic to operate on Sunday from 5am to 8pm. City of Salem Board of Appeals September 2,2015 Project:207 Highland Ave. • Page 2 of 3 10. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to operate a medical dialysis clinic and to allow shared on-site parking. 11. At the public hearings one (1) member spoke in favor and no (0) members spoke 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 for Special Permit: The Board finds that medical dialysis clinic is not more substantially detrimental than the existing vacant commercial space previously used as a car dealership. 1. There are significant social, economic and community needs served by this proposal. 2. Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading are adequate to serve the site as there are seventeen (17) reserved spaces for professional staff and employees and twenty-three (23) shared parking spaces in a parking lot with 156 total parking spaces for the church, food pantry and medical dialysis clinic and the entrance and exit to the facility will be well marked as recommended by police • safety to address flow and safety concerns with access points on Highland Avenue. 3. Utilities and other public services are existing and adequate. 4. There are no impacts on the natural environment, including drainage as the site is entirely paved and no new site changes are proposed. 5. No negative impacts on the neighborhood character. 6. The potential fiscal impact, including impact on the City tax base and employment are positive as a portion of this commercial property has been vacant for over ten (10) years. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy, Paul Viccica (alternate) and none (0) opposed, to grant variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Reguinments of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from rear and side-yard setbacks, minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum lot area to construct a rear addition subject to the following eight (8) standard 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. City of Salem Board of Appeals September 2,2015 Project:207 Highland Ave. • Page 3 of 3 7. A Certificate of Inspection shall 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. The petitioner will work with the Salem Police Department traffic division for approval of any required signage at the entrance and exit of the property off of Highland Ave. 2. Hours of operation are Monday through Saturday 5am to 8pm except for holidays and snow days where the clinic will be open on Sunday from 5am to 8pm. 3. The medical clinic will be used as a dialysis center only. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal fnm this dednon,if any, .shall be made pyrsuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of fik'ng of this decision in the ofice of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Varianre or Special Permit granted berein 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 Deeds. �CommT�,p� v� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 2 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 0!270 rN+t KIMBERLEY DRIScoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 :X^ v MAYOR m TN7� rn V September 2, 2015 s 3 tV Decision > _ City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of SALEM NORTHEAST DIALYSIS CENTER (DAVITA DIALYSIS COMPANY) seeking a special permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.1.2 Special Permit: Zoning Board of Appeals and Sec. 9.4 Special Permits to allow a medical clinic (dialysis center) for a portion of the property and a special permit from the provisions of Sec. 5.1.7 Shared Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow for shared on-site parking with other tenants at the property of 207 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 13 Lot 2)(B2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 19, 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11 and closed on this date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Peter A. Copelas (Vice- Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,Paul Vicdca (alternate). The petitioner seeks a special permit per Sec. 3.1.2 Special Permit: Zoning Board of Appeals and a special • permit per Sec. 5.1.7 Shared Parking. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped July 22, 2015 the Petitioner requested a special permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.1.2 Special Permit: Zoning Board of Appeals and Sec. 9.4 Special Permits to allow a medical clinic (dialysis center) for a portion of the property and a special permit from the provisions of Sec. 5.1.7 Shared Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow for shared on-site parking with other tenants. 2. Attorney Quinn presented the petition on behalf of the applicant Salem Northeast Dialysis Center (Davita Dialysis Company). 3. The petitioner proposes to occupy a vacant portion of a building that is shared with P East Gate Christian Fellowship and Joseph's Storehouse food pantry. 4. The petitioner requests a special permit for a medical dialysis clinic to operate a dialysis center only. 5. There are substantial structural upgrades proposed to the building to serve the medical dialysis clinic. 6. The medical dialysis clinic will serve twenty-two (22) patients and staff four (4) professional staff and ten (10) additional employees. 7. The site was previously used as a car dealership and has 156 on-site parking spaces. 8. The petitioner requests a special permit to allow shared on-site parking spaces. The medical dialysis clinic facility will have seventeen (17) reserved exclusive spaces to meet the required number of spaces for professional staff and employees and twenty-three (23) shared parking spaces for patients. • 9. The proposed hours of operation for the medical dialysis clinic are Monday-Saturday 5am to 8pm except when there are holidays or snow days to allow the clinic to operate on Sunday from 5am to 8pm. City of Salem Board of Appeals September 2,2015 Project:207 Highland Ave. • Page 2 of 3 10. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to operate a medical dialysis clinic and to allow shared on-site parking. 11. At the public hearings one (1) member spoke in favor and no (0) members spoke 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 for Special Permit: The Board finds that medical dialysis clinic is not more substantially detrimental than the existing vacant commercial space previously used as a car dealership. 1. There are significant social,economic and community needs served by this proposal. 2. Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading are adequate to serve the site as there are seventeen (17) reserved spaces for professional staff and employees and twenty-three (23) shared parking spaces in a parking lot with 156 total parking spaces for the church, food pantry and medical dialysis clinic and the entrance and exit to the facility will be well marked as recommended by police • safety to address flow and safety concerns with access points on Highland Avenue. 3. Utilities and other public services are existing and adequate. 4. There are no impacts on the natural environment, including drainage as the site is entirely paved and no new site changes are proposed. 5. No negative impacts on the neighborhood character. 6. The potential fiscal impact, including impact on the City tax base and employment are positive as a portion of this commercial property has been vacant for over ten (10) years. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings,the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy, Paul Viccica (alternate) and none (0) opposed, to grant variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from rear and side-yard setbacks, minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum lot area to construct a rear addition subject to the following eight (8) standard 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. City of Salem Board of Appeals September 2,2015 Project:207 Highland Ave. • Page 3 of 3 7. A Certificate of Inspection shall 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. The petitioner will work with the Salem Police Department traffic division for approval of any required signage at the entrance and exit of the property off of Highland Ave. 2. Hours of operation are Monday through Saturday 5am to 8pm except for holidays and snow days where the clinic will be open on Sunday from 5am to 8pm. 3. The medical clinic will be used as a dialysis center only. 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 fth'n8 of this decision in the ofice of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permitgranted berein shall not take e ea until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Ckrk has been filed witb the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSET°TS n: 4' BOARD OF APPEAL �9 %rri�iao ° IS SEP -9 A 4 30 -- - 120 WASHINGTON STREET +SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 , KIMBERLEYDRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 FILE H MAYOR CITY CLERK, SALEM. MASS, September 9, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of SHETLAND PARK seeking Variances from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from front yard depth and lot coverage to construct a 12,835 square foot Athletic &Arts Center for lease to Salem Academy Charter School at the property located at 16 LYNCH STREET (Map 34 Lot 182) (113). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 19, 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Mike Duffy (Acting Chair),James Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins, Paul Viccica (alternate), and James Hacker (alternate). The petitioner is seeking Variances from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the • Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from front yard depth and lot coverage to construct a 12,835 square foot building. 1. In the petition date-stamped July 28, 2015, the Petitioner requested a Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum front yard setback and maximum lot coverage to construct a new12,835 square foot building. 2. Attorney Mihos of Tinti, Quinn, Grover and Frey presents the petition on behalf of the applicant. 3. The applicant recently applied and received variances for an Athletic and Arts Center to be located at 29 Congress Street. After analysis regarding flooding, the applicant has returned to the Zoning Board of Appeals to request variances for relief from minimum front yard setback and maximum lot coverage for an alternative location at 16 Lynch Street. 4. The proposed building is a single-story 12,835 square foot Athletic and Arts Center oriented with frontage on Lynch Street. 5. The proposed building setback is eight (8) feet on Lynch Street. 6. With the construction of a new building, the lot coverage will increase to 46.1%. 7. The building will be leased to the Salem Academy Charter School to be used for a new athletic and arts center. 8. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to reduce the setback from the required 30 feet to between three (3) and eight (8) feet and to allow a total of forty-one (46.1%) lot coverage that • exceeds the maximum allowable lot coverage of thirty-five (351/o). 9. At the public hearing four (4) members of the public spoke in favor of and none (0) spoke in opposition to, the petition. City of Salem Board of Appeals September 9,2015 Project: 16 Lynch 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 for Variance: 1. Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building or structure generally not affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district is that Shetland Park is the size, age and density of the existing industrial-age buildings and location in a floodplain are special conditions affect the land that generally do not affect other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. 2. The literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship because the existing buildings that were built in 1914 are uniquely solid construction with steel and thick concrete to withstand fire and are expensive to maintain and/or renovate and the previously proposed location of the building was within a floodplain that would pose a substantial hardship to the applicant as the site is not suitable. 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 five (5) in favor (Mike Duffy (Acting Chair), James Tsitsinos, Tom Watkins, Paul Viccica (alternate), and James Hacker (alternate) and none (0) opposed, to grant Variances, to allow a reduction minimum front yard and increase in • maximum lot coverage of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a 12,835 square foot 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 to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Special Condition: 1. The use of the facility is only for an exempt educational use. • City of Salem Board of Appeals September 9,2015 Project: 16 Lynch Street • Page 3 of 3 TP 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 sball be filed within 20 days of fzk'ng of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General I aws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the derision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. r , CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETI"S + -i BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 0197� o KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR to rn September 2, 2015 s N r� Decision U City of Salem Board of AppealsCA Petition of ANTONIO BARLETTA JR for a petition seeking Variances per Sec 14.1.1 T-Ale of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot size per dwelling unit, required frontage, side & front yard setbacks to allow the conversion of a single-family home into a two- family dwelling unit located at 2 MEADOW STREET (Map 33 Lot 92) (112 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 19, 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 4 11 and closed on this date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Peter A. Copelas (Vice- Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,Paul Viccica (alternate). The petitioner seeks variances per sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot size per dwelling unit,required frontage, side& front yard setbacks. Statements of fact: • 1. In the petition date-stamped July 28, 2015 the Petitioner requested Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot size, required frontage, side & front yard setbacks to allow the conversion of a single-family home into a two- family dwelling unit. 2. The property is located in an R2 Zoning District and is a dimensionally non-conforming structure. 3. The lot is 7,875 square feet and does not meet the required 7,500 square foot lot area requirement per dwelling unit. The existing frontage is 75 feet and does not meet the required 100 feet of frontage. The side yard setback is two (2) feet and does not meet the required 10 foot minimum and the front yard setback is at the zero (0) lot line and does not meet the required 15 foot setback requirements. 4. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to convert an existing dimensionally non- conforming single-family home into a two-family dwelling unit. 5. At the public hearings no (0) members spoke in favor 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 for Variances: 1) Given the size and shape of the dimensionally nonconforming structure the variances requested are warranted and a two-family home is an allowable use by-right in an R-2 Zoning District. • 2) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant. City of Salem Board of Appeals September 2,2015 Project: 2 Meadow Street • Page 2 of 2 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 five (5) in favor (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair), Jimmy Tsitsinos, Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy, James Hacker (alternate) and none (0) opposed, to grant variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for relief from rear and side-yard setbacks, minimum lot area per dwelling unit to construct a rear addition subject to the following eight (8) standard 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. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. • 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to,the Planning Board. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION 14AS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal fmm this decision, if any,shall be made pursuant to Seaton 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shalt be filed within 70 days of ftkng of this decision in the ofice of the City Ckrk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Vanarsre or Special Permit granted herein shall not take eea until a copy of the decision bearing The certtficate of the Cidy Clerk has been filed witb the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • 5, CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 0 QV0 '-^ KIMBERLEY DRISCou TELE:978-745-9595♦ FAX:978-740-9846 m MAYOR >m IV September 2, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals 33 ly n Petition of NOTCH TAP ROOM,LLC seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 _able ofPrincipal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow a brewery, distillery or winery with a tasting room and exterior beer garden located at the property of 283 Rear Derby Street (Map 34 Lot 439) (B-5). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 19, 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, � 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy, Tom Watkins,Paul Viccica (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 to allow a brewery, distillery, winery with a tasting room and beer garden. • Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped July 28, 2015, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Section 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow winery, brewery, distillery with a tasting room and beer garden. 2. Attorney Atkins presented the petition. 3. Petitioner proposes a brewery, distillery or winery with a tasting room and beer garden. 4. The City of Salem Zoning Ordinance defines a bmweg, distillery, or winery with a tasting room as a business located in a building where the primary use is for the production and distribution of malt, spirituous, or vinous beverages with a tasting room as defined in Section 10.0. Any such facility that only provides samples at no charge and limited in size as set forth in M.G. L c. 138 shall have a Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued Farmer Series License and any such facility that sells alcoholic beverages to be consumed on the premises shall have a Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued Farmer Series Pouring License. The facility may host marketing events, special events, and/or factory tours. The facility may only sell beverages produced by, and commercial goods branded by, the brewery, distillery, or winery. The facility may sell permitted beverages by the bottle to consumers for consumption off the brewery premises. 5. A tasting room is defined as a room attached to either a brewery, distillery or winery that allows patrons to sample or consume wine, beer, and other alcoholic beverages that are produced on-site in accordance with M.G.L. c. 138.A tasting room may not be greater that thirty-three (33)percent of the main building's gross square footage. • 6. The petitioner proposes to have a 1,693 square foot tasting room and 3,149 square foot brewery. 7. The location of the proposed brewery is in a B-5 Central Development Business District and is not required to provide off-street parking spaces for nonresidential uses in this zoning district. There is a public parking garage and on-street parking available in close proximity. City of Salem Board of Appeals September 2,2015 Project:283 Rear Derby Street . Page 2 of 3 8. The proposed hours of operation are Wednesday through Sunday l2pm to 1lpm and closed Monday and Tuesday except for scheduled special events that are arranged in advance. 9. Notch proposes to employ 9-10 full time employees and 12 part-time employees. 10. All serving on the premises must follow ABCC State regulations and local licensing board regulations. 11. The requested relief,if granted,would allow a brewery, distillery or winery with a tasting room and beer garden. 12. At the public hearing, no (0) members of the public spoke in favor 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, makes the following findings: Findings The proposal at the public hearing is consistent with the definition of a brewery, distillery, winery with a tasting room Section 10.0 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. • 1. Social, economic and community needs served by this proposal is that the facility will add to a commercial mix of businesses in the community and be attractive to consumers and other restaurants in the community that Notch Brewing Company delivers product to. 2. Traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading is adequate as there are no requirements for nonresidential uses to provide off-street parking spaces in a B5 Central Business District.There is public parking along Derby Street and in the public parking garage one building over from the proposed location of Notch Brewing Company. There is also access to the site from Congress Street and Derby Street to facilitate traffic flow. 3. There are no changes to the proposed utilities and other public services. 4. There will be no significant impacts to the natural environment including drainage. 5. The proposal conforms to the neighborhood character as the company proposes to make considerable improvements to the interior and exterior of the building and the existing neighborhood is commercial in nature and will not disturb any residences with this proposed use. 6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base and employment is positive as the petitioner proposes to have 9-10 full time employees and 12 part-time employees. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5)in favor (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins, Paul Viccica (alternate) and none (0) opposed, to approve the requested Special Permit to allow a brewery, distillery and winery tasting room to an adjacent space to an existing brewery, distillery or winery subject to the following eight (8) standard terms, conditions and safeguards: City of Salem Board of Appeals September 2,2015 Project:283 Rear Derby Street Page 3 of 3 Standard: 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 finished 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. Q 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 Geneml 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 berrin shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed witb the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • �ioNDIT9� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS a -= BOARD OF APPEAL - 120 WASHINGTON STREET* SALEM,MASSACHOSETTS 01970 KIMaERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppealr will hold its regularly scbeduled meeting on Wednesday, September 16,2015 at 6:30 p.m. at City HallAnnex, ISM 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Rebecca Curran,Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL n II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES r cn s'� m ➢ July 15, 2015 -X ➢ August 19, 2015m r Y"t III. REGULAR AGENDA m • Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking Variances pecrosec. 312 Nonconforming Use of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend the current non- conforming use of an existing two-family dwelling unit to allow a three-family dwelling unit. Applicant ANTOMIO BARLETTA JR Location 12 MEADOW STREET (Map 33 Lot 88) (B4 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit seeking relief from Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another, less detrimental, nonconforming use to allow a change from a rooming house to a multifamily residential dwelling unit. Applicant HARBORLIGHT COMMUNITY PARTNERS Location 179 BOSTON STREET (Map 16 Lot 52) (B2 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit seeking relief from Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another, less detrimental, nonconforming use to allow a change from a rooming house to a multifamily residential dwelling unit. Applicant HARBORLIGHT COMMUNITY PARTNERS Location 43 BOSTON STREET (Map 15 Lot 302) (B2 Zoning District) This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" • City Hall, Salem, Mass. on SEP q p0� at Z,'IS-PM in accordance witp NIhaC hap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Pagel of 2 City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for September 16,2015 Meeting • Project A public hearing for a petition requesting Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area and minimum lot area per dwelling unit and Sec. 5.1 0f Street Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of a single-family dwelling unit to a two-family dwelling unit and associated parking. Applicant BLUE WATERS VERO, LLC Location 11 HERBERT STREET (Map 35 Lot 320)(R2 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition requesting an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to allow the use of a two-family dwelling unit as a three-family dwelling unit. Applicant CAROL and KEVIN CROOM Location 1 MILK STREET (Map 35 Lot 553) (R2 Zoning District) Project Request for a six (6) month extension for exercise of rights granted by the September 28, 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 WILLIAM WHARFF Location 162 FEDERAL STREET (Map 25 Lot 112)(R2 Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS None V. ADJOURNMENT • Page 2 of 2 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet • [� Y t HB ` Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date / /(� / IL Name Mailin Address Phone # E-mail �r — Mgr!�3(-$6 s I�eu •C' avauc r3tta � Page of y" aa� CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS ; BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SAI,.I�n7,M,\SSACHUSE'FFS 01970 KIMBERU..Y DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner DATE: 9/9/2015 RE: Meeting Agenda for September 16, 2015 Board Members Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. 12 Meadow Street 4. 179 Boston Street • 5. 43 Boston Street 6. 11 Herbert Street 7. 1 Milk Street 8. 162 Federal Street Below is a summation of the requested petition and any supplemental information for the Board of Appeals to consider when discussing the petition scheduled for a public hearing on Wednesday, September 16, 2015. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. A continuation of a public hearing for the petition of ANTONIO BARLETTA JR. seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend the current non-conforming use of an existing two-family dwelling unit to allow a three- family dwelling unit located at the property of 12 MEADOW STREET (Map 33 Lot 88) (B4 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to extend the current non- conforming use of an existing two-family dwelling unit to allow a three-family dwelling unit. The Board needs to consider whether this change or substantial extension of the use is or is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. At the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on August 19, 2015, the Board requested a plot plan and additional information regarding the size and location of parking spaces and plans of the proposed third • unit to have a code review conducted to ensure that the proposed third-unit could meet building code requirements. Enclosed is a 24 x 36 plan with a code review, architectural plan of the proposed thud unit, and plot plan with parking information. City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum-September 16,2015 Page 2 of 4 • 2. A public hearing for the petition of HARBORLIGHT COMMUNITY PARTNERS, seeking a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another, less detrimental, nonconforming use to allow a change from a rooming house to a multifamily residential dwelling unit located at the property of 179 BOSTON STREET (Map 16 Lot 52) (132 Zoning District). The petitioner proposes to restructure and existing non-conforming rooming house to a multi-family residential dwelling unit that would continue to house formerly homeless people. The current rooming house contains seventeen (17) rooms and shared bathrooms and no onsite management or social service office. The petitioner proposes to decrease the density of the building and construct 10-12 small studio apartments that will include a bathrooms and kitchenettes. The petitioner also proposes to significantly invest into the rehabilitation of the existing building and improve property management and supportive services. The property management company is a locally based non-profit organization and is also the developer. The proposed use of this building is to provide permanent, affordable, housing with on-site social service program and staffing. The Board needs to consider whether this change or substantial extension of the use is or is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. The petition application and supporting documentation are in this packet. • 3. A public hearing for the petition of HARBORLIGHT COMMUNITY PARTNERS, seeking a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another, less detrimental, nonconforming use to allow a change from a rooming house to a multifamily residential dwelling unit located at the property of 43 BOSTON STREET (Map 15 Lot 302) (B2 Zoning District). The petitioner proposes to restructure and existing non-conforming rooming house to a multi-family residential dwelling unit that would continue to house formerly homeless people. The current rooming house contains twenty (20) rooms and shared bathrooms and no onsite management or social service office. The petitioner proposes to decrease the density of the building and construct 10-15 small studio apartments that will include a bathrooms and kitchenettes. The petitioner also proposes to significantly invest into the rehabilitation of the existing building and improve property management and supportive services. The property management company is a locally based non-profit organization and is also the developer. The proposed use of this building is to provide permanent, affordable, housing with on-site social service program and staffing. The Board needs to consider whether this change or substantial extension of the use is or is not • substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. 2 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—September 16,2015 • Page 3 of 4 The petition application and supporting documentation are in this packet. 4. A public hearing for the petition of BLUE WATERS VERO, LLC, seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area and minimum lot area per dwelling unit and Sec. 5.1 Off- Street Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of a single-family dwelling unit to a two- family dwelling unit and associated parking at the property of 11 HERBERT STREET (Map 35 Lot 320)(R2 Zoning District). The petitioner is requested Variances for dimensional relief from minimum lot area and minimum lot area per dwelling unit and Sec. 5.1 Off-Street parking Requirements to allow the conversion of a single family home into a two (2) family dwelling unit with associated parking. The petitioner proposes four (4) tandem parking spaces. Please review Sec. 5.1 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding off-street parking requirements. A copy of the petition application and supporting materials are included in this packet. R2 Dimensional Requirements Required Proposed Minimum Lot Area 15,000 Sq. ft. 2,657 Sq. Ft. Minimum Lot Area Per 7,500 Sq. ft. 1,329 Sq. ft. Dwelling Unit 5. A public hearing for the petition of CAROL and KEVIN CROOM seeking an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to allow the use of a two-family dwelling unit as a three- family dwelling unit at the property of 1 MILK STREET (Map 35 Lot 553) (R2 Zoning District). On July 16, 2015, a letter of required inspection was issued to the petitioners Kevin and Carol Croom of 1 Milk Street following a report of an illegal apartment unit located in the attic of the building. An inspection was conducted on July 21, 2015 and a zoning violation was found. On July 22, 2015, a Zoning Violation letter was issued to the petitioners with a determination of the Zoning Enforcement Officer that there is an illegal 3'd floor dwelling unit that was created and occupied at the location of 1 Milk Street. Enclosed are copies of the letter of required inspection and a letter with a determination of a zoning violation issued to the petitioners in this packet. In response to a zoning violation notice enclosed, the petitioner has requested an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to allow the use of a two-family dwelling unit as a three-family dwelling unit in an R-2 Zoning District. The current owner has been operating an illegal 3'd floor dwelling unit created and occupied at 1 Milk Street and is in violation with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. • A petition form and supporting letter clarifying that the petitioner is seeking an appeal of the decision of the Building Inspector is enclosed. 3 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—September 16, 2015 Page 4 of 4 6. Request for a six (6) month extension for exercise of rights granted by the September 28, 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 at the location of 162 FEDERAL STREET (Map 26 Lot 96) (112 Zoning District). The current request is for a six (6) month extension effective September 25, 2015 to March 25,2016. OLD/NEW BUSINESS N/A 4 City of Salem Board of Appeals • Approved Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 16, 2015 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA') was held on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Ms.Cutrancalls the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,James Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins, Paul Viccica (alternate),Jim Hacker (alternate). Also in attendance—Thomas St. Pierre,Building Commissioner,and Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner REGULAR AGENDA Project Request for a six (6) month extension for exercise of rights granted by the September 28, 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 WILLIAM WHARFF Location 162 FEDERAL STREET (Map 25 Lot 112)(R2 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions • Application dated March 24, 2015 and supporting documentation Attorney Grover presents the petition. The Board of Appeals 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 the conversion of an office building to eight (8) residential units. The petitioner is requesting a six (6) month extension to exercise the rights granted by the September 28, 2009 Board Decision and has asked for two (2) previous extensions and hopes this is the last time to request an extension for this property. Since 2008 no one has been able to move on the project as there was an oil tank leak at 162 Federal Street that migrated onto the adjacent school property owned by the Archdiocese of Boston. The property at 162 Federal Street was cleaned-up, but oil migrated to the adjacent school property and DEP is in the process of reviewing the site to sign off and approve the clean-up. Until then,DEP will not release 162 Federal Street as this property was the source of the contamination. The agreements with the original developer and owner expired and then Salem Renewal LLC stepped in for a few years to try to develop the site and wait for DEP and decided not to proceed with the development. Now the owner of the property is working to enter into an agreement with Daniel Botwinick to try to develop the parcel. Confident that this property is close to being developed and hope that this is the last time to ask for another extension and there is a closing date on the PNS on November 16, 2015. • Ms. Curran- states that the good cause shown for the six (6) month extension is ongoing issues with DEP. Ms. Curran clarifies with Attorney Grover that the decision was issued in 2009 and was extended to 2012 under the Permit Extension Act. Mr. Copelas- What is the likelihood that the DEP issues will be resolved? Attorney Grover- We will know better in 30 days. The Archdiocese of Boston is holding back until a decision from DEP has been made. The P Pt1' ro er at 162 Federal Street is clean and the owner is waiting for a determination from DEP that the adjacent parcel with the school building is also clean from the oil spill. Everyone's expectation is that this is the last six (6) month extension request. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve a six (6) month extension for exercise of rights granted by the September 28, 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 motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. The vote was unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas, Tom Watkins, Paul Viccica, Jim Hacker. Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking Variances per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Use of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend the current non-conforming use of an existing two-family dwelling unit to allow a three-family dwelling unit. Applicant ANTONIO BARLETTA JR Location 12 MEADOW STREET (Map 33 Lot 88) (B4 Zoning District) The petitioner Antonio Barletta Jr. submitted a letter to the Board with a request to continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting on October 21, 2015. Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the request to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting on October 21, 2015. The motion is seconded by Mr. Viccica. The vote was unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas, Paul Viccica, Tom Watkins,Jim Hacker. Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit seeking relief from Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another, less detrimental, nonconforming use to allow a change from a rooming house to a multifamily residential dwelling unit. Applicant HARBORLIGHT COMMUNITY PARTNERS Location 43 BOSTON STREET (Map 15 Lot 302) (B2 Zoning District) *In consultation with the City Solicitor there is the appearance of a conflict of interest and Mr. Copelas will recuse himself for the petition of 179 Boston Street and 43 Boston Street. Ms. Curran states to the petitioner that there are four (4) eligible members of the Board and the applicant needs a super-majority with all four (4) Board members to vote in the affirmative for the petition to pass. Ms. Curran asks the petitioner if they would like to be heard. Mr. Tom St. Pierre asks the Board to hear both petitions of Harborlight Community Partners together and conduct a vote for each of the two (2) proposed projects separately. Andrew Defranza, Executive Director of Harborlight Community Partners affirms to be • heard by the Board and presents the petition. States that Harborlight Community Partners is a non-profit affordable housing organization based in Beverly,MA and is an affiliated with the First Baptist Church of Beverly. The organization does not have any projects in Salem, MA. Examples of projects in Beverly include Turtle Creek and Turtle Woods and Harbor Lighthouse. There are two existing rooming houses located at 179 Boston Street (hill Top Manor) and 43 Boston Street. The building at 43 Boston Street has twenty (20) rooms and 179 Boston Street has seventeen (17) rooms. Both buildings have small rooms and the buildings are in bad shape. Harborlight Community Partners is an affordable housing developer with three (3) goals for both buildings: 1) to reduce density by reducing the number of rooms from thirty- seven (37) to about twenty- eight (28) rooms when considering both locations; 2) dramatically improve the structure of the buildings and invest approximately 1.5 to 2 million dollars; 3) Improve services and management of the buildings to serve the existing population of formerly homeless individuals. The petitioner proposes to have management offices and have management offices at each location. There would also be a property manager that will visit every day and a case worker that will work on-site between the two properties. 43 Boston Street: Most of the proposed reduction of density is proposed at 43 Boston Street. Harborlight proposes to reduce the number of rooms from twenty (20) existing rooms to twelve (12) small studios,with accessible units on the first floor and also provide a common space. The • petitioner will update windows, improve the front facade and exterior of the building for a complete restoration and add a ramp for accessibility. 179 Boston Street: • There are currently seventeen (17) rooms that will be converted into sixteen (16) small apartments. The petitioner also proposes to dramatically improve the building by constructing apartment units instead of keeping the existing rooms with shared bathrooms. The petitioner will also update windows, repair roof,improve exterior siding, and restore the building. Harborlight Community Partners Headquarters are out of Beverly and has a strong management commitment to building management and providing social services. 43 Boston Street: At this property the petitioner proposes to change the interior of the building and convert the individual rooms and shared bathrooms into efficiency apartments. The building envelope will not change,although there will be significant improvements made to the building to restore it and upgrade the front fa$ade. A handicap ramp will be added, new windows will be installed and bricks may need to be repointed. The petitioner held a neighborhood meeting and the neighbors are particularly interested in the billboard. The question is who owns the billboard? The neighbors expressed interest in the removal of the billboard and the petitioner and the application would be willing to work with someone to remove the billboard. Ms. Curran-Is the billboard leased? Who owns it? Mr. Defranza- The billboard is leased, but it is not on the deed of the property. The owner • of 43 Boston Street does not control the billboard. It may be tied to the auto dealer next door. Behind the billboard is a frequent location for tagging and needs to be better managed. Ms. Curran- Is the billboard physically attached to the building?Are there windows behind the billboard? Mr. Defranza-The billboard is not physically attached to the building and is free standing. There are windows behind the billboard. There is a site survey being done and it seems that the entire building occupies the lot. There is no parking on the lot nor is there a place to put any parking on the property. The population that will be served, formerly homeless individuals do not have cars. 179 Boston: The petitioner proposes to completely restore the building including facade improvements, new windows, roof and front steps. A handicap ramp is proposed for the rear. There is no greenspace or outside space. There are seven (7) parking spaces located on this property. Ms. Curran: States to the public that the petitioner is requesting a special permit to change the property at both 43 Boston Street and 179 Boston Street from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use and demonstrating that the proposed use is less detrimental to the neighborhood. The petitioner is showing that the social, economic and community • needs served by this proposal is that the same population will be served. The density, number of people,will be reduced from twenty (20) rooms to 12 studio apartment units • located at 43 Boston Street and a reduction from seventeen (17) rooms to sixteen (16) studio apartment units at 179 Boston Street. Traffic, loading and parking will not change at either location. There are no changes to the utilities or other public services. There are no changes to the natural environmental including drainage. Ms. Curran states that it would be a positive improvement to work with the owner of the billboard to remove it. The potential fiscal impact is positive as the non-profit organization pays taxes on projects. Mr. Defranza- states that the taxes could be a tax credit transaction that is required to be held in a for profit subsidiary. For simplification and commitment, the organization pays taxes regardless of if they are held in a for-profit status or not. The assessor usually mitigates the value based on the income stream and restricts taxes based on income caps. In this case, the taxes are probably better. Yes, the organization pays taxes. Mr. Defranza-The population that these properties may serve will be individuals that are 50% below median income and 30% below median income,which is very similar to the population that is currently served. The population that will be served is very low income. Ms. Curran- opens questions and comments to the Board. Mr. Viccica- asks the petitioner to clarify that there are no parking spaces at 43 Boston Street and seven (7) spaces at 179 Boston Street. States that the petitioner is asking to change the use of both properties from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use for a • particular group of people. If we approve a Variance and the property is sold,what happens? St. Pierre and Ms. Curran- state that the petitioner is seeking a special permit and that the Board can condition a special permit to the property. Mr. Viccica- does the population served by this proposal typically not drive? Mr. Defranza- It is frequent that the individuals served by this kind of housing do not have cars. One of the benefits of 43 Boston Street and 179 Boston Street is that there are bus stops in front of both properties. Ms. Curran- asks the petitioner whether the organization could prohibit individuals from having cars. Mr. Defranza- probably not. Possession of a vehicle may not be able to be controlled through a lease agreement for an apartment. Mr. Watkins-where would residents who have vehicles park their cars? Mr. Defranza- In the unlikely scenario that a resident would have a car, there are public parking spaces on the street. Mr. St. Pierre- states that there are no cars currently parked at this location on street and it is • anticipated that residents will most likely not have a car. Mr. Watkins- asks about parking for the property manager. Mr. Defranza- states that the property manager and on-call case worker will likely use on- • street parking in front of the building. In the unlikely case that a resident may have a car, the petitioner may be able to park overnight at 179 Boston Street or prefer to live where there are on-site parking spaces. Mr. St. Pierre- In the SRO's in the rooming houses there are often two to three beds in a single room. How will this be managed?Are these studios for single occupants? Mr. Defranza- Residents seem to be single occupants and the proposed studio apartments are small. However, the current rooms are even smaller than what is proposed. Harborlight Community Partners controls the leases with individuals and also provides on-site property management and staff. If an individual is not on a lease, a person is not allowed to live in the space. There are two (2) scenarios, an individual on a lease could have a visitor, but there is a term period of time that a visitor can stay before it is a violation of the lease and can be enforced.A couple could potentially live together in one of the larger studio apartments. Odds are that these studios will be occupied by individuals. Mr. St. Pierre- states that in the rooming houses, one person rents a room and that person rents to several more people. Mr. Defranza- that scenario will not happen with on-site management and enforcement by the petitioner. • Mr. Watkins- 43 Boston- rooming houses legally can house one person per room. How many people could potentially live in this proposed multi-family dwelling unit as proposed? Mr. Defranza- As proposed, only one person can be in each unit because of the square footage. It is a requirement to have 150 square feet per person. At 43 Boston Street all of the apartments are proposed to house only one person per apartment. At 179 Boston Street there are a few apartments that are 300 square feet or slightly larger that would potentially house a couple. Mr. St. Pierre- Currently, rooming houses are difficult to manage and enforce occupancy limits. With on-site management and active monitoring someone on site there is someone able to monitor. Mr. Viccica- For management if someone is bringing additional people into the apartments? Mr. Defranza- 1) Demonstrate that another person is living in the apartment to make an accusation and move to evict the tenant 2) Management will let the resident know that it is known that an additional person has been present who is not on the lease and management will warn the tenant and let them know the potential consequences of having additional people in the unit is eviction. Ms. Curran-Asks the petitioner to show the proposed elevations of 179 Boston Street. • Mr. Defranza- states that there will not be any major architectural changes to the exterior of • 179 Boston Street. The exterior material is a synthetic clapboard materials. Ms. Viccia- asks the applicant to confirm that he is working with an architect to show improvements to the facade. Mr. Defranza- states that improvements to the fagade include new hardy plank siding, windows, roof, shutters and clapboards and soffits. The trim on the windows will be replaced and matched in kind. Mr. St. Pierre- Will there be a handicapped ramp at 179 Boston Street? Mr. Defranza-Yes, on the left rear side of the building to access handicapped units on the first floor of each building. Mr. Watkins- Asks the petitioner about the proposed HVAC system? Mr. Defranza- states that the heating systems in both 43 Boston Street and 179 Boston Street are in good condition. However, they are both not a forced air system. The petitioner is still looking at the possibility of installing a forced air system. Ms. Curran- Opens public comment. • Kurt Mertsch, 177 Boston Street- Strongly opposes the proposed conversion of a rooming house to a multi-family apartment building. Specifically, Mr. Mertsch opposes the proposed outdoor seating area and fears that the operation of the apartments will be a group home. The building is not always full and there are constantly people going in and out of the building and hanging around. Ms. Curran- asks the applicant to describe the proposed outdoor seating area. Mr. Defranza- states that the proposed outdoor seating area is not on the plan. It was assumed that there would be some outdoor seating, but does not need to be there if there is opposition. Mr. St. Pierre- asks the petitioner to talk about the proposed programming and operational use of the building. Assume that people who are living here are looking for jobs,getting jobs and working. Mr. Defranza- Residents who would live here varies from individuals with disabilities to people who are working. The proposals are not a group homes. This is a multi-family apartment building with the opportunity to live independently. The reason for the support systems of a building manager and case worker is to provide resources for residents to be successful and provide access to healthcare and income through disability income or employment. Mr. Defranza states that the proposals for the conversion of the existing rooming houses to apartments will be more successful. • Ms. Curran- Now there is some vacancy. What is the vacancy rate? Is it similar to other apartments where sometimes where the apartments are at capacity and sometimes they are • not? Mr. Defranza- States that vacancy rates are generally not very high as there is a need for this kind of housing. Currently, there is one (1) vacancy at each location, but there is some fluctuation in vacancy. Mr. Mertsch—asks the petition whether Harborlight Community Partners has purchased the properties or whether the sale is contingent upon the Zoning Board of Appeal approval process. Someone was working on the roof at 179 Boston Street last week. Mr. Defranza- States that Harborlight Community Partners does not own the properties, but has them under agreement. Mr. Defranza stated that the buildings could have been bought the way they are,but chose to not do so because the condition of the buildings are not good enough. Mr. Defranza states that the buildings could have been purchased, kept as rooming houses and incorporate Harborlight Community Partner's management model. However, the buildings are not in good condition and the operation as they are. Ms. Curran- states that the criteria for a special permit request to change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use is whether the proposed use is less detrimental to the neighborhood that the existing use. 43 Boston Street-The proposed density is a reduction of twenty (20) single occupancy rooms to twelve (12) single occupancy apartments and is less detrimental to the neighborhood based on the reduction of density, • proposed facade improvements and the population serves is the same with the addition of on-site building management and programming. Mr. Watkins- concurs with Ms. Curran that the proposed change of use will be less detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use. The fiscal impacts will be positive to the tenants and to the City. This is a good opportunity to rehab a building and provide good services to the residences at 43 Boston Street. Mr. Watkins- requests to restate any special conditions. Mr. Curran- states that if the population were to change to moderate income the Board would like to ensure that the management and services will remain. Mr. St. Pierre- suggests a condition that the applicant, successors or assigns shall use the property as presented to the Board including providing management offices, a manager that will visit the property daily and a case worker that will be available to residents on an on-call basis. If there is a change to the use and/or management the applicant, its successors or assigns shall return to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Watkins- asks whether there is another special condition suggested regarding the billboard. Ms. Curran- states that the petitioner shall make an effort to work with the owner of the • billboard to remove it. Mr. Defranza- states that the neighborhood group was particularly interested in seeing the • removal of the billboard. It may not be possible as someone else owns the billboard and the rights. Mr. Viccica- asks for clarification on whether the billboard is attached to 43 Boston Street. Mr. St. Pierre- states that the billboard is freestanding and may be on the neighbor's property. Mr. Copelas- states that when this property was marketed for sale,it was represented that the revenue from the sign went along with the building. At a previous time when it was marketed. Mr. Defranza- states this is not the case, but would be positive if it were the case. Mr. St. Pierre- suggests the Assessor's Office would have information regarding ownership of the billboard. Mr. St. Pierre—asks the Board to take two (2) separate votes; one for each petition proposed. *Further discussion is denoted below regarding 179 Boston Street. • Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve requesting a Special Permit seeking relief from Sec. 3.3.2Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another, less detrimental, nonconforming use to allow a change from a rooming house to a multifamily residential dwelling unit at the property located at 43 Boston Street. The motion is seconded by Mr. Viccica. The vote was unanimous with four (4) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Tom Watkins,Jimmy Tsitsinos, Paul Viccica). The petition is approved. Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit seeking rehef from Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another,less detrimental, nonconforming use to allow a change from a rooming house to a multifamily residential dwelling unit. Applicant HARBORLIGHT COMMUNITY PARTNERS Location 179 BOSTON STREET (Map 16 Lot 52) (B2 Zoning District) Ms. Curran- Continued discussion on 179 Boston Street. Ms. Curran confirms that the applicant proposes to reduce the number of units from seventeen (17) rooms to 16 studio apartments. As originally proposed in the petition form, the applicant proposed a reduction of rooms from seventeen (17) rooms to 10-12 small studio apartments. Is this a change? • Mr. Defranza- states that the intent was to have 10-12 studio apartments, but had trouble financing the project. Therefore, the petitioner is proposing a reduction of units from • seventeen (17) rooms to sixteen (16) studio apartments. Ms. Curran- states that the density reduction is not much of a change and this location is in more of a residential neighborhood with concerns from a neighbor. The apartments will serve the same or similar population as the rooming house serves now. The outdoor space might be detrimental to the neighborhood. Eliminating the outdoor space may be a good idea. Mr. Tsitsinos- asks the petitioner whether it would be beneficial for the neighborhood to have a fence installed along the property line. Mr. Defranza- states that there is a shared driveway and the property is already fenced. Mr. Viccica- This is a different property. The proposed change in density is not significant and there are only seven (7) parking spaces there would be much more of a problem here based on the existing character of the neighborhood. Mr. Viccica recommends that the density of units be reduced to 10-12 units. Ms. Curran- asks the petitioner to come back with additional information to show the feasibility of a reduction in the number of units proposed from 16 to 10 or 12 units. Mr. Viccica- states that the problem with reducing the number of units from the existing • seventeen (17) rooms to 10-12 units is that the apartments could be much larger square footage and accommodate more people and possibility. Mr. Defranza- states that the organization will not be able to finance one project without the other. Mr. Defranza- requests a continuation to be heard at the next regularly scheduled meeting on October 21, 2015 and provide information regarding the possible reduction of units to reduce the overall number of residents at this location. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the request to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting on October 21, 2015. The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with four (4) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Tom Watkins,Jimmy Tsitsinos, Paul Viccica). Project A public hearing for a petition requesting Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area and minimum lot area per dwelling unit and Sec. 5.1 Off-Street Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of a single-family dwelling unit to a-two-family dwelling unit and associated parking. • Applicant BLUE WATERS VERO, LLC • Location 11 HERBERT STREET (Map 35 Lot 320)(R2 Zoning District) Attorney McGloin presents the petition. The property was originally a two (2) family dwelling unit, but was converted into a single family home, at the request of the landowners, due to tax purposes. The new owner is now seeking to divide the house into a two (2) family dwelling unit. Although the home is a single family, the house is metered as a two (2) family and states that it would be costly for the current owner to improve the current single family home as the house is separately metered for two (2) units and internally is laid out as a two (2) family house. Attorney McGloin also states that the footprint of the building is not proposed to change. Ms. Curran- confirms with the petitioner that the request is for variances and states that the property is located in an R2 Zoning District. In this district, a two (2) family dwelling unit is allowed by right. However, the lot is dimensionally nonconforming as the lot size is 2,657 square feet and the zoning ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet and a minimum lot area per dwelling unit of 7,500 square feet. What's going on with the proposed parking? Attorney McGloin, the petitioner is proposing two (2) different parking plans and prefers to have the plan with two (2) tandem parking spaces for a total of four (4) parking spaces. There is also a plan with three (3) parking spaces with a tandem parking space. There is also on-street residential parking. • Ms. Curran- states that the petitioner is a variance for relief from the parking requirements and lot area per dwelling unit. Ms. Curran asks the applicant to explain the hardship. Attorney McGloin states that the hardship is financial because the house was originally a two (2) family home and it will be a financial hardship for the owner to renovate the newly purchased house as the house is divided and has two (2) electric meters and water hook-ups. Ms. Curran- asks the petitioner whether the property has changed hands recently. Attorney McGloin- the petitioner recently bought the home through an estate sale and bought it as a single-family home. Ms. Curran- asks Tom St. Pierre, Zoning Enforcement Officer, the home was once a legal two (2) family home and for tax purposes, the owner asked for the home to be converted into a single- family home. Did the conversion from a two (2) family home to a single- family home create a situation where the property lost its grandfathered status as a dimensionally nonconforming two (2) family dwelling unit? Mr. St. Pierre-Yes. Ms. Curran- opens comment for the Board. Mr. Viccica- as a two (2) family the three car scenario appears to work. Does this scenario require a variance because of the proposed tandem parking? Mr. St. Pierre- The parking requirement in an R2 Zoning District is one and a half (1.5) parking spaces per dwelling unit and tandem parking does not count as a legal space. Mr. Viccica- what is the hardship for the requested parking variance? Ms. Curran- as a single family use, there is adequate on-site parking. As a proposed two (2) family dwelling unit, the number of parking spaces is in adequate and requires a variance. • The financial hardship stated by the petitioner that it is uneconomic to rehabilitate the existing single-family home is not a legitimate hardship and suggests that the petitioner may have over paid for the home. Attorney McGloin- states that the hardship is that no matter who buys this property and how it is used, in order to live in it, there are significant repairs that need to be made to convert it into a single family home. The interior layout of the home is as a two (2) family house and utilities are metered separately. Anyone who owns this house has a significant financial burden to structurally convert this house into a single family home. The previous grandfathered use is how the home was previously designed. As for the requested relief for parking, if the petitioner used the home as a single-family, the owner could potentially use the space for four (4) or five (5) cars. Mr. Copelas- the current owner bought the property as a single family home with the knowledge that the property needed to be renovated. The definition of a hardship for a variance is not a personal hardship. The hardship must be related to 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. There is not anything that is unique with the property. Attorney McGloin- states that the property is unique in that every other property in the neighborhood is a multi-family dwelling unit. Owning a single-family home of this size is an abnormality in the district. Mr. Copelas- the petition does not meet the standard for a hardship. The petitioner • purchased the property as a single family home. Ms. Curran- opens public comment. Nancy Corral, 27 Derby Street- the streets in the historic districts are small streets and have been neglected. This is a dangerous situation and would like to not see any SUV's parked on the sidewalk. There are existing parking issues on this street. Garbage trucks cannot easily get by and there is not anymore on-street parking. The person who bought this place knew what he was going to do. Ms. Curran- closes public hearing and Board discussion. Mr. Curran- states that the petitioner is requesting Variances for parking and relief from the lot area requirements. Attorney McGloin- proposes a reduction in the number of parking spaces requested and asks the Board to consider allowing one (1) parking space per dwelling unit. Attorney McGloin states that a single family home could easily accommodate six (6) people and several cars with more impact on the neighborhood that a two (2) family home. The building is approximately 2,500 square feet. Ms. Curran: States that there is no legitimate hardship for variances requested. There is an understanding that the property was once used as a two (2) family home, however, the • grandfathered status of the property that could have allowed a dimensionally nonconforming two (2) family structure has been lost as the previous owners requested a conversion of the • two (2) family to a single family home for tax purposes. The requested conversion of the property to a two (2) family home cannot occur without the requested dimensional variance and parking variance. There are serious concerns regarding existing parking and traffic circulation on this street that may be compounded by an increase in density. There is no hardship. For variances, the petitioner must demonstrate that there are 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; literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant; and 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. Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements for minimum lot area and minimum lot area per dwelling unit and Sec. 9.1 Off-Street Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of a single-family dwelling unit to a two-family dwelling unit and associated parking. The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with one (1) in favor (Jimmy Tsitsinos) and four (4) (Rebecca Curran (Chair),Tom Watkins, Peter Copelas, Paul Viccica). The petition is not granted. • Project A public hearing for a petition requesting an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to allow the use of a two-family dwelling unit as a three- family dwelling unit. Applicant CAROL and KEVIN CROOM Location 1 MILK STREET (Map 35 Lot 553) (R2 Zoning District) Attorney Daniel Seligson- 185 Devenshire Street,Boston, MA presents the petition. Attorney Seligson- states that the property owners Carol and Kevin Croom were issued a notice of violation from the Building Inspector dated July 22, 2015 in which the property owners were deemed to be operating an illegal three (3) family dwelling unit. The petitioners are requesting an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector. Since 1984 the property owners have owned this building and have had 3 (three) dwelling units. The petitioners seek to keep the property as a three (3) family dwelling unit. The property is located in an R-2 Zoning District. Ms. Curran- Is this a grandfathered unit? Mr. St. Pierre- States that the Board packet on this case has numerous documents from the Building Department showing that the previous owners of the property and the Croom . family have had been notified on multiple occasions that the property was being used with I� an illegal third dwelling unit. The illegal pre-dates the Crooms. The property came before the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow a third family dwelling unit and was denied. In 1983, City . records show that a petitioner withdrew the request for a Special Permit to allow a third family dwelling unit. This unit has been identified as an illegal unit and has continue to be used this way beginning with a previous owner and continuing to be used by the Crooms. The Crooms attempted to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals and withdrew the application and the previous owners came before the Zoning Board of Appeals and were denied their request. Mr. Copelas- In 1986, the Assistant Building Inspector issued a notice of violation of the Zoning Ordinance to Mr. Croom for operating an illegal three (3) family dwelling unit. In 1992, Mr. Croom filed a petition with the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow a three (3) family dwelling unit, but withdrew the request. In 1998,Mr. Croom wrote a handwritten letter to the Building Department stating that the home is being used only as a two (2) family dwelling unit in response to a notice of violation of the Zoning Ordinance. There is a long history of documentation between the City and current property owners of violating the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Curran- Looking at the City documentation this property does not appear to have a grandfathered three (3) family dwelling unit use. It is clear that the request for a third unit has been denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the City's records show that the property was historically a two (2) family use and the current property owners are aware, as described in the 1998 letter from Mr. Croom to the Building Department, that the property is a two (2) family dwelling unit. • Mr. St. Pierre- In the opinion of the Zoning Enforcement Officer that is being appealed, the property is a two (2) family dwelling unit with an illegal third dwelling unit. The use of a three (3) family dwelling unit is not a grandfathered use. Ms. Curran- The petitioner is requesting an Appeal of the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Is there a mechanism to ask for relief from the Zoning Ordinance? Mr. St. Pierre- There is no mechanism for the petitioner to ask for relief from the Zoning Ordinance to allow a three (3) family dwelling unit as the City of Salem does not allow use Variances. Attorney Seligson- Confirms that the petitioner is requesting an Appeal of the Decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Should the Board uphold the Decision, is there a mechanism to allow the owners to continue to operate a three (3) family dwelling unit?The notice of violation states that the owner needs to secure permits for the removal of the third dwelling unit. The Attorney proposes to make one of the two (2) units larger than present size. Mr. St. Pierre- It is often the fix to allow the space of the illegal third unit to be allocated to one of the existing dwelling units to allow for there to be one larger and one smaller dwelling unit. However, this has been done before at this property and the owners converted the space back into a third unit. The conversion to a two (2) family dwelling unit can be done as • a matter of right with a building permit. Building permits must be secured to remove the third kitchen and reconfigure the building into a two (2) family dwelling unit. This was the • solution offered to the property owner, but the petitioner chose to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for an Appeal of the Zoning Enforcement Officer's Decision. Mrs. Kroom- States that the property is a two (2) family dwelling unit with extended family living on the third floor for sixteen (16) years. When the Krooms were told that the property could not be used as a three family dwelling, a dwelling unit was removed and a door was installed so that the second and third floor units were merged into one unit with multiple people living in the single apartment. Kevin has been paying taxes on the property as a two (2) family dwelling unit and it was listed as a two (2) family property when the Kroom's bought the property. There are currently three kitchens and operates as a three (3) family dwelling unit. Does one family only have one kitchen? Mr. St. Pierre- Ernest Boch vs. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Edgartown is a case that allows three kitchens in a single family home. However, if you have everything you need to live in a unit, including a sleeping area, kitchen, bathroom and separation from other living space it is a dwelling unit. Mr. St. Pierre requests that the petitioner request a building permit and have plans that address the violation and show a townhouse unit or something that cannot be easily converted back into a three family dwelling unit. The City has a long history with these property owners showing a series of Zoning Violations and remediation only to see that the property owners continue to convert the property back and operate an illegal dwelling unit. Mr. Copelas- Currently, the related parties are living on the first and third floor and the • P g unrelated party is on the second floor. Ms. Croom- asks the Board whether current tenants need to move out. Mr. St. Pierre- asks the petitioner to submit a plan that is acceptable to the Zoning Enforcement Officer/ Building Commissioner that addresses the violation and corrects the issue adequately. The plan needs to show two (2) residential units and can combine either the first and second floor in one unit or combine the second and third floor in one unit. The layout does not matter as long as the plan shows two (2) separated units rather than three (3) units. If the intent is to move forward and correct the issue, the City has no interest in fining the property owner. Continuing to operate an illegal third unit is not sufficient. Ms. Curran- Opens public comment. Wilma Degregorio- 18 112 Pickman Street- Supports the Decision of the Building Inspector and states that the Kroom's have not been honest or been good neighbors and have also trespassed on property. Ms. Degregorio urged the City to take action and pursue the option to fine the owners. The City has not done anything for years to pursue this issue. Ms. Curran- Letter from 18 Pickman Street read into the record in support of the Decision of the Building Inspector. • Mr. and Ms. Turn, 16 Pickman Street- in support of the Decision of the Building Inspector. A letter received was read into the record. 21 Andrews Street- in support of the Decision of the Building Inspector. A letter received • was read into the record. 22 Andrews Street- in support of the Decision of the Building Inspector. A letter received was read into the record. Ms. Curran- states that the Board is considering whether the building inspector was correct in his decision that this is a two family and the third unit is illegal. This is clearly the case based on the record. Kevin Kroom 12 Washington Street, Marblehead- Tried to rectify the situation, but due to other circumstances family members live. Apologizes to neighbor for trespassing and states willingness to work with the building inspector to fix the situation. Motion and Vote: Mr. Viccica makes a motion to uphold the Decision of the Building Inspector that the existing building is a two (2) family dwelling unit. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Rebecca Curran (Chair),Tom Watkins, Peter Copelas, Paul Viccica,Jimmy Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed. The Decision of the Building Inspector is upheld. "PROVAL OF.MEETING MINUTES July 15, 2015 meeting minutes were approved. • Motion and Vote: Mr.Viccica makes a motion to approve the minutes as printed, seconded by Mr. Duffy. The vote was with four(4) (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, Tom Watkins,James Hacker)in favor and none (0) opposed. OLD/NEW BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT Ms. Curran motioned for adjournment of the September 16,2015 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 8:45pm. Motion and Vote: Ms. Curran made a motion to adjourn the September 16, 2015 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr.Watkins, and the vote is unanimous with five (5) in favor (Rebecca Curran,Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, Tom Watkins,James Hacker) 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: httn://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA ZoningAppealsMin/ Respectfully submitted, Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTs 01970 ��MINE i TFLE:978-619-5685 FAx:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR n ".I O City of Salem T Zoning Board of Appeals x r 4^rn N Y� r- Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of HARBORLi?,HT MMUNITY PARTNERS, seeking a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming U a of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another, less detrimental, nonco aforinitj{1 use to allow a change from a rooming house to a multifamily residential dwelling unit located at the property of 179 BOSTON STREET (Map 16 Lot 52) (B2 Zoning District). The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 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, Td, 120 Washington St, Salem,MA. Rebecca Curran,Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 09/2/2015 and 09/9/2015 This notice posted on "Offi ' Bul a in Board" CityHall S 11 lem, Mass. on �� o Z �� at Z: . . M in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-26. • BOND CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSET[8 1970 TELE:978-619-5685 PAX:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR e_ r N m M 7u �rn N City of Salem m Zoning Board of Appeals r _ � J Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of HARBORLIGHT COMMUNITY PARTNERS, seeking a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another, less detrimental, nonconforming use to allow a change from a rooming house to a multifamily residential dwelling unit located at the property of 43 BOSTON STREET (Map 15 Lot 302) (B2 Zoning District). • The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 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: 09/2/2015 and 09/9/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on SEp 0 2 2015 in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. . ND1T CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON SITEET 4 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 —�' TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 KIMBERI.EY DRISCOLL MAYOR F'D C7 r- N m rn -p DM tV City of Salem` p Zoning Board of Appeals a tv n cn J Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of BLUE WATERS VERO, LLC, seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area and minimum lot area per dwelling unit and Sec. 5.1 Off- Street Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of a single-family dwelling unit to a two-family dwelling unit and associated parking at the property of 11 HERBERT STREET (Map 35 Lot 320)(R2 Zoning District). • The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3rd 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: 09/2/2015 and 09/9/2015 This notice posted on "Offic' 1Bu� City Hall, Salem, Mass. on Ttt' 'jig jate„ at Z` 0-P1l in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. /�OIBW� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 4P� 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSEllS 01970 'I�.LErrIONE:978-619-5685 4 FAX:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRIscou_ MAYOR `C o n r a x� 'a n r, 1 Ar N r+ 2 City of Salem y Zoning Board of Appeals J Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of CAROL and KEVIN CROOM seeking an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to allow the use of a two-family dwelling unit as a three- family dwelling unit at the property of 1 MILK STREET (Map 35 Lot 553) (R2 Zoning District). The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 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: 09/2/2015 and 09/9/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin 20�oard" City Hall, S9lem, Mass. on EE ll at L, in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. �O[IIDIT' CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • 'a a,, � .fr,m, BOARD OF APPEAL y` 120 WASHINGTON STREE'r 1 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 014%5 SEP 30 P 2: 20 KIMBERLFYDRIscoLL TELF:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR FILE # CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS, September 30, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of HARBORLIGHT COMMUNITY PARTNERS, seeking a Special Permit requesting relief from See. 3.3.2 Nonconforming User of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another, less detrimental, nonconforming use to allow a change from a rooming house to a multifanuly residential dwelling unit located at the property of 43 BOSTON STREET (Map 15 Lot 302) (132 Zoning District). Peter Copelas recused himself from the proceedings due to a potential conflict or perception of conflict of interest. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on September 16, 2015 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),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins, and Paul Viccica. The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, from one nonconforming use to another, less detrimental, nonconforming use to allow a change from a rooming house to a multifamily residential dwelling unit. Statements of fact 1. In the petition date-stamped August 25, 2015, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3. Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, from one nonconforming use to another, less detrimental, nonconforming use to allow a change from a rooming house to a multifamily residential dwelling unit. 2. Mr. Andrew Defranza, Executive Director of Harborlight Community Partners presented the petition. 3. The existing building serves as a rooming house and has twenty (20) rooms with shared bathroom facilities. The building is dimensionally nonconforming and covers almost the entire lot. There are no off-street parking spaces at this location and there is no space on the property to have off-street parking. 4. The petitioner proposes to reduce the density of the building occupancy by reducing the number of rooms from twenty (20) rooms and shared bathrooms to convert the existing space into twelve (12) small studio apartments with accessible units on the first floor and also provide a common space and office. 5. The footprint of the building is not proposed to change. The petitioner proposes to restore the • building, update windows, improve the front fa4ade and exterior of the building as presented in elevation plans titled "HCP Boston Street #43" dated September 14, 2015 by Siemasko &Verbridge, Beverly,MA. I City of Salem Board of Appeals September 30,2615 Project:43 Boston Street • Page 2 of 3 6. The petitioner proposes to have management offices, a manager that will visit the property daily and a case worker that will be available to residents on an on-call basis. 7. The petitioner held a neighborhood meeting and received comments that neighbors requested the removal of an existing billboard in the vicinity of the property. The petitioner does not own the billboard,but expressed interest in working with the owner for the possible removal of the billboard. 8. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the petitioner to alter or, structurally change a non- conforming structure to allow the enclosure of an existing covered porch. 9. At the public hearing, no (0) members of the public spoke in support and no (0) 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, makes the following findings: Findings for Special Permit: The petitioner has demonstrated that the change from a nonconforming rooming house to a proposed multifamily residential use is less detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming use. 1. The social, economic and community needs served by this proposal is positive and will continue to serve the same population as currently served. 2. There are no changes to the 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 would improve the existing neighborhood character as the petitioner proposes to decrease density, significantly invest in the restoration of the property, and improve management and access to services for occupants. 6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City 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 (Rebecca Curran (Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, , Tom Watkins and Paul Viccica) and none (0) opposed, to approve the requested Special Permit to allow a change from a nonconforming rooming house to a less detrimental nonconforming use of a multifamily residential dwelling unit subject to the following terms, conditions and safeguards: Standard: I. 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 finished of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. City of Salem Board of Appeals September 30,2015 • Project:43 Boston Street 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. Special Conditions: 1. The petitioner shall make an effort to work with the owner of the billboard to remove it. 2. The applicant, its successors or assigns shall use the property as presented to the Board including providing management offices, a manager that will visit the property daily and a case worker that will be available to residents on an on-call basis. If there is a change to the use and/or management the applicant,its successors or assigns shall return to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal fwN this dersion, if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Martathurem General Lawn Chapter 40A,and shall be filed unYhin 20 iI • days of filing of Ibis derision in the offire of the Cqy 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 artif:cate of the City Clerk has been filed witb the Essex South Reginry of Deeds. ConibtZ4 CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSET"FS • in BOARD OF APPEAL �9BgfMMSD 120 WASHINGTON STREET 4 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTSMOSEP 30 P 2: 20 KIMBERLEYDRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR FILE Y September 30, 2015 CITY CLEIK SALEM. MASS. Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of BLUE WATERS VERO, LLC, seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area and minimum lot area per dwelling unit and Sec. 5.1 Off- Street Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of a single-family dwelling unit to a two-family dwelling unit and associated parking at the property of 11 HERBERT STREET (Map 35 Lot 320)(R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on September 16,2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11. and closed on this date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Copelas, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Tsitsinos and Mr. Viccica. The Petitioner seeks Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area and minimum lot area per dwelling unit and Sec. 5.1 Off- Street Parking Requirements of • the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of a single-family dwelling unit to a two-family dwelling unit. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped August 25,2015, the Petitioner requested Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area and minimum lot area per dwelling unit and Sec. 5.1 Off- Street Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of a single-family dwelling unit to a two-family dwelling unit. 2. Attorney Mcgloin presents the petition on behalf of the applicant. 3. The property was at one time used as a two (2) family dwelling unit and has since been converted, at the request of previous owners, to a single family home. 4. The property is currently used as a single-family home, but is divided as a two family and is separately metered for two (2) units. 5. The lot size is 2,657 square feet. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet in an R2 Zoning District and also requires a minimum lot area per dwelling unit of 7,500 square feet. 6. No changes to the existing building footprint are proposed. 7. The petitioner proposes parking plans with two (2) parking spaces. The parking requirements per the Salem Zoning Ordinance for a residential use are 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. 8. The petitioner recently bought the home through an estate sale and bought it as a single-family home. 9. The petitioner states that without relief from the Zoning Ordinance there would be a substantial financial hardship incurred. City of Salem Board of Appeals September 30,2015 Project: 11 Herbert Street . Page 2 of 2 10. The requested relief,if granted, would allow the Petitioner to convert a single-family dwelling unit to a two-family dwelling unit with associated parking. 11. At the public hearing one (1) member of the public spoke in opposition to, the petition and no members of the public 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 petition, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project does not meet the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: Findings for Variances: I. There are no presented 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. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not create a substantial and unique hardship to the petitioner as a financial hardship caused by the petitioner does not meet the standard requirements of a legitimate hardship and does not directly correlate with any unique circumstances that especially affect the land, building or structure involved. 3. The desired relief may not be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district 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 one(1) in favor (Mr: Tsitsinos) and four (4) opposed (Ms. Curran, Mr. Copelas,Mr. Viccica,Mr. Watkins), to grant Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for rr+initnum lot area and minimum lot area per dwelling unit and Sec. 5.1 Off- Street Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of a single-family dwelling unit to a two-family dwelling unit and associated parking, 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 firm this decision, if airy, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of ibis decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Pemlitgranted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the Cite Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deedr. • • N -16 ';; CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSET°TS ..m Ia ?<=! BOARD OF APPEAL 9�MRJE U�t?4 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SAITM,MAssACHUSFTTS 01105 SEP 30 P 2: 20 KtI,tBEtu.FY IDIUSCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR FILE CITY CLERK. SALEM, MASS. September 30, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of CAROL and KEVIN CROOM seeking an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to allow the use of a two-family dwelling unit as a three-family dwelling unit at the property of 1 MILK STREET(Map 35 Lot 553) (R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on September 16,2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11. and closed on this date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Copelas,Mr. Watkins,Mr. Tsitsinos and Mr. Viccica. The Petitioner is seeking an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector that the building at I Milk Street is illegally being used as a three-family dwelling unit. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped August 19,2015, the Petitioner requested an Appeal of the Decision of the Budding Inspector to allow the use of a two-family dwelling unit as a three-family dwelling unit. 2. Attorney Seligson presents the petition on behalf of the applicants. 3. The property owners were issued a notice of violation from the Building Inspector dated July 22, 2015, which the property owners were deemed to be operating an illegal three family dwelling unit in an R2 Zoning District. 4. A building permit dated September 14, 1927 states that the building is a two-family dwelling unit. 5. On April 1, 1980, a letter from the Building Inspector to cease construction activity was issued to the property owner of the time. 6. On April 23, 1980 a decision on the petition of David Knight for a special permit to convert an existing two-family dwelling to a three-family dwelling was denied. 7. On August 11, 1983 the property owner at the time were issued a notice of violation from the building inspector for the occupancy of an illegal thud dwelling unit. 8. On April 1, 1984, the property owner at the time, Rodger Rotondi, submitted a letter to the Building Inspector with a request to join the 2nd and 3`d floors into a single large apartment. 9. On April 16, 1986, the Assistant Building Inspector issued a notice of violation of the Zoning Ordinance to Mr. Croom, the current property owner, for operating an illegal three family dwelling unit. 10. In 1992, the owners of the property, withdrew a Zoning Board of Appeals petition requesting a special permit to convert an existing tcvo-family house into a three family dwelling unit 11. On November 17, 1993, Mr. Croom provided a letter to the Building Inspector that the tenant of the illegal third dwelling unit would be vacating the unit. City of Salem Board of Appeals September 30,2015 Project: I 1 Herbert Street Page 2 of 2 12. On July 8, 1998, the Building Inspector issued a notice of violation for the operation of an illegal three family dwelling unit. 13. On July 20, 1998, Mr. Croom provided a letter to the Building Inspector stating that the current use of the building was used as a two-family dwelling unit. 14. On July 16, 2015 the Building Inspector sent a letter of required inspection to Mr. Croom following a complaint of an illegal third dwelling unit. Following an inspection,a notice of a Zoning Violation was sent to Mr. Croom with a determination that there is an illegal thud floor dwelling unit. 15. The use of a three-family dwelling unit is not a grandfathered use. 16. Mr. St. Pierre, Zoning Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector requests that the petitioner submit building plans to be approved by the Building Inspector, pull a building permit and remove the illegal third dwelling unit. 17. The requested relief, if granted, would appeal the opinion of the Zoning Enforcement Officer and allow the Petitioner to continue to occupy a third dwelling unit in an R2 Zoning District. 18. At the public hearing four (4) members of the public spoke in opposition to, the petition and no. members of the public 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 petition, including records of the City of Salem Building Department, the application narrative, and the Petitioner's presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings • that the proposed project does not meet the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: 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 (Ms. Curran, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Viccica, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Tsitsinos), to Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to allow the use of a two-family dwelling unit as a three-family dwelling unit at the property of 1 MILI{ STREET (Map 35 Lot 553) (R2 Zoning District). THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR IS UPHELD./ y 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 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 witb the Essex South Registry of Deeds. oNDFU CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS =� AIJBOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON SfRI, -T♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY Dmscor.L TeI,E:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR September 30,2015 William Wharff c/o Attorney Scott Grover Tin 6,Quinn, Grover& Frey 27 Congress 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 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 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 16,2015 to discuss your request for the • approval of a second six (6) month extension to exercise rights granted by the September 28, 9009 Board Decision that 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. The original Decision of September 28, 2009 was appealed to the Superior Court and an Agreement for Judgment amending the Decision was entered on September 5, 2012. The Decision qualified under the Massachusetts Permit Extension Act and was automatically extended to September 28, 2014. On October 2, 2014, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a six (6) month extension to commence September 28,2014 and expire on March 28,2015. On September 9,2015, a letter was submitted by Attorney Grover on behalf of William Wharff requesting a third six (6) month extension to commence September 28, 2015 and expire March 28, 2016. The Zoning Board of Appeals voted five (5)in favor (Ms. Curran,Mr. Copelas,Mr. Tsitsinos , Mr.Viccica, and Mr. Hacker) and none (0) opposed, to grant the approval of the six-month extension request to exercise the rights granted by the September 281h, 2009 Board Decision.This determination 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, • Rebecca Curran Zoning Board of Appeal Chair CC: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk C,oNwT CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMSERLEY DRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE You are bereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 6:30 p.m. at City HallAnnex, RM 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Rebecca Curran, Chair MEETING AGENDA -' � m I. ROLL CALL r cm rt n II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES _n —+ >m t ➢ July 15,2015 m-4 D ➢ September 16, 2015 m III. REGULAR AGENDA ° w • Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking Variances per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Use of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend the current non- conforming use of an existing two-family dwelling unit to allow a three-family dwelling unit. Applicant ANTOMIO BARLETTA JR Location 12 MEADOW STREET (Map 33 Lot 88) (B4 Zoning District) Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit seeking relief from Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another, less detrimental, nonconforming use to allow a change from a rooming house to a multifamily residential dwelling unit. Applicant HARBORLIGHT COMMUNITY PARTNERS Location 179 BOSTON STREET (Map 16 Lot 52) (B2 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition of seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from minimum side yard setback to allow the construction of a 6'x 10' one-story addition. Applicant GARY and ANN LAVOIE Location 33 NURSERY STREET (Map 27 Lot 183) (R2 Zoning District) Page 1 of 2 City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for October 21,2015 Meeting • Project A public hearing for a petition seeking an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to allow a 10'wide curb cut. Applicant CHRISTOPHER INGERSOLL Location 76 ENDICOTT STREET (Map 25 Lot 453)(R2 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the change from one nonconforming use of a candy factory to another nonconforming use to construct twelve (12) residential units and a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements to allow fifteen (15) of the required eighteen (18) off-street parking spaces. Applicant SCHIAVUZZO REALTY LLC Location 93-95 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lots 164, 165)(B-4 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change and existing nonconforming use of a social club to another nonconforming use of eighteen (18) residential units. The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, minimum lot coverage, front and side yard setbacks, minimum distance between buildings, and number of stories. • Applicant MICHAEL MEYER Location 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277)(Rl Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change an existing nonconforming use of multifamily residential units to another nonconforming use of mixed use commercial office/retail. The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the maximum height, front yard setbacks and relief from Sec. 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements and 5.1.5 Parking Design. Applicant ROBERT BURR Location 331-335 LAFAYETTE ST and 5-7 WEST AVE (Map 32 Lots 231, 232, 233)(B1, R1, R2) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS None• This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on l� I 'I c 01-5 V. ADJOURNMENT at 31 P m in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, J Sections 18-28. Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS �. BOARD OF APPEAL 9 1 9��1MINE ' 120 WASHINGTON SPREE'P * SALEM,MASSACHUSE'I"fS 01970 KIMBLRLEr DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR REVISED MEETING NOTICE You are bereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppeals will bold its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, October 21,2019 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 August 19, 2015 ➢ September 16, 2015 III. REGULARAGENDA • Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking Variances per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Use of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend the current non- conforming use of an existing two-family dwelling unit to allow a three-family dwelling unit. Applicant ANTOMIO BARLETTA JR Location 12 MEADOW STREET (Map 33 Lot 88) (B4 Zoning District) Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit seeking relief from Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another, less detrimental, nonconforming use to allow a change from a rooming house to a multifamily residential dwelling unit. Applicant HARBORLIGHT COMMUNITY PARTNERS Location 179 BOSTON STREET (Map 16 Lot 52) (B2 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition of seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from minimum side yard setback to allow the construction of a 6' x 10' one-story addition. Applicant GARY and ANN LAVOIE Location 33 NURSERY STREET (Map 27 Lot 183) (R2 Zoning District) • Page 1 of 2 City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for October 21,2015 Meeting • Project A public hearing for a petition seeking an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to allow a 10'wide curb cut. Applicant CHRISTOPHER INGERSOLL Location 76 ENDICOTT STREET (Map 25 Lot 453)(R2 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the change from one nonconforming use of a candy factory to another nonconforming use to construct twelve (12) residential units and a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements to allow fifteen (15) of the required eighteen (18) off-street parking spaces. * PLEASE NOTE THE PETITIONER HAS REQUESTED A CONTINUATION. Applicant SCHIAVUZZO REALTY LLC Location 93-95 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lots 164,165)(B-4 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change and existing nonconforming use of a social club to another nonconforming use of eighteen (18) residential units. The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, minimum • lot coverage, front and side yard setbacks, minimum distance between buildings, and number of stories. * PLEASE NOTE THE PETITIONER HAS REQUESTED A CONTINUATION. Applicant MICHAEL MEYER Location 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277)( R1 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change an existing nonconforming use of multifamily residential units to another nonconforming use of mixed use commercial office/retail. The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the maximum height, front yard setbacks and relief from Sec. 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements and 5.1.5 Parking Design. Applicant ROBERT BURR Location 331-335 LAFAYETTE ST and 5-7 WEST AVE (Map 32 Lots 231, 232, 233)(111, R1, 112) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS CPC - Comments on Community Preservation Plan Update V. ADJOURNMENT • Page 2 of 2 ��coNu1T��Qi CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL �tMM` E 120 WASHING'ION S'rer:r;r+ SAI.rm,llnssnc:iiusrri501970 KmayeRixYDiuscou. TLA,e::978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 TVLwoiz STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner DATE: 10/14/2015 RE: Meeting Agenda for October 21, 2015 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. 12 Meadow Street 4. 179 Boston Street 5. 33 Nursery Street 6. 76 Endicott Street 7. 93-95 Canal Street 8. 1-3 East Collins Street 9. 331-335 Lafayette Street and 5-7 West Ave Below is a summation of the requested petition and any supplemental information for the Board of Appeals to consider when discussing the petition scheduled for a public hearing on Wednesday, October 21, 2015. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. A continuation of a public hearing for the petition of ANTONIO BARLETTA JR. seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend the current non-conforming use of an existing two-family dwelling unit to allow a three- family dwelling unit located at the property of 12 MEADOW STREET (Map 33 Lot 88) (B4 Zoning District). At the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on August 19, 2015, the Board requested a plot plan and additional information regarding the size and location of parking spaces and plans of the proposed third unit to have a code review conducted to ensure that the proposed third-unit could meet building code requirements. The petitioner provided a code review, architectural plan of the proposed third unit, and plot plan with parking information. On September 16, 2015, the petitioner requested a continuation of the public hearing to the next regularly • scheduled meeting on October 21, 2015. The petitioner has submitted a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals to request to withdraw without prejudice. � w City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—October 21, 2015 Page 2 of 6 • 2. A continuation of a public hearing for the petition of HARBORLIGHT COMMUNITY PARTNERS, seeking a Special Permit requesting relief from Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another, less detrimental, nonconforming use to allow a change from a rooming house to a multifamily residential dwelling unit located at the property of 179 BOSTON STREET (Map 16 Lot 52) (B2 Zoning District). The petitioner proposes to restructure and existing non-conforming rooming house to a multi-family residential dwelling unit that would continue to house formerly homeless people. The current rooming house contains seventeen (17) rooms and shared bathrooms and no on-site management or access to social services. Harborlight Community Partners proposes to convert the existing seventeen (17) rooms and shared facilities with sixteen (16) studio apartments and provide significant investment in the rehabilitation of the existing building. Additionally, the organization proposes to provide property management and supportive on-call services. The Board needs to consider whether this change or substantial extension of the use is or is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. At the September 16, 2015 Zoning Board meeting, the Board asked for the petitioner to present additional information to show the feasibility of the reduction of units proposed. The applicant has also met with Mr. and Mrs. Mertsch, concerned abutters, and have revised plans to respond to these concerns. In response to density concerns from the Board and neighbors, the petitioner proposes to change from one nonconforming use of a rooming house with seventeen (17) rooms to a • nonconforming use of a multi-family dwelling unit with fourteen (14) single occupancy apartments. Supporting documentation requested by the Board to show the feasibility of the reduction of units proposed, plans and photos of the site are included in this packet. 3. A public hearing for a petition of GARY and ANN LAVOIE seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from minimum side yard setback to allow the construction of a 6' x 10' one-story addition at the property of 33 NURSERY STREET (Map 27 Lot 183) (112 Zoning District). The petitioner is requesting a Variance for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum side yard setback to allow the construction of a 6' x 10' one-story addition. A copy of the petition and supporting materials are included in this packet. R2 Dimensional Requirements Required - _ ...._... Proposed Minimum Side Yard 10 Feet 5 Feet Setback • 2 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—October 21,2015 Page 3 of 6 • 4. A public hearing for a petition of CHRISTOPHER INGERSOLL, seeking an appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to allow a 10'wide curb cut at the property located at 76 ENDICOTT STREET (Map 25 Lot 453)(112 Zoning District). The petitioner proposes to construct a 10' x 20' driveway with access from Endicott Street with a 10' curbcut. The petitioner was informed that a request to the Zoning Board of Appeals could be made to either appeal the Decision of the Building Inspector or request a Variance for relief from Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Space Design to allow a 10'wide curbcut. The petitioner has submitted a petition to the Zoning Board of Appeals requesting an appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector only. Section 5.1.5 (6) Design of the Salem Zoning Ordinance states: "The widths of entrance and exit drives shall be: a) Minimum of twelve (12) feet for one-way use only; b. Minimum of twenty (20) feet for two-way use, except that driveways providing access primarily for overnight parking,with incidental daytime use, may be a minimum of twelve (12) feet wide; and c) Maximum of twenty (20) feet at the street lot line in residence districts and thirty (30) feet in business and industrial districts." A copy of the petition and supporting materials are included in this packet. 5. A public hearing for a petition of SCHIAVUZZO REALTY LLC seeking a Special Permit • from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the change from one nonconforming use of a candy factory to another nonconforming use to construct twelve (12) residential units and a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements to allow fifteen (15) of the required eighteen (18) off-street parking spaces at the property of 93-95 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lots 164, 165)(B-4 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a Special permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to allow the change from one nonconforming use of a candy factory to another nonconforming use to construct twelve (12) residential mots.The applicant is also requesting a Variance for relief from Sec. 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements to allow fifteen (15) of the required eighteen (18) off-street parking spaces. The property is located in the B-4 Business Wholesale and Automotive District. The Board needs to consider whether this change or substantial extension of the use is or is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. The Board also needs to consider the criteria applicable for a Variance request. A copy of the petition and supporting materials are included in this packet. 6. A public hearing for a petition of MICHAEL MEYER requesting a Special Permit per Sec.3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change an existing nonconforming use of a social club to another nonconforming use of eighteen (18) residential units.The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit,minimum lot frontage,minimum lot coverage,front and side yard setbacks, • minimum distance between buildings, and number of stories at the property located at 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277)( R1 Zoning District). 3 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—October 21,2015 Page 4 of 6 • The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change an existing nonconforming use of a social club to another nonconforming use of eighteen (18) residential units. The petitioner is requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit,minimum lot frontage,minimum lot coverage, front and side yard setbacks,minimum distance between buildings, and number of stories.The petitioner proposes to provide twenty seven (27) parking spaces on site under the proposed buildings. Most of the property is located within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under Chapter 91 and the parcel is also traversed by an easement for a natural gas pipeline,which will be constricted soon. The Board needs to consider whether this change or substantial extension of the use is or is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. The Board also needs to consider the criteria applicable for a Variance request. The property is located in an R1 Zoning District. f jJ�¢Ji' O �IECN e F..Z t e Y !A r n, n 101 1 OaAry aJ �' City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—October 21,2015 Page 5 of 6 • Rl Zoning District Dimensional Requirements Required Proposed Minimum Lot Area 15,000 square feet 2,324 square feet Per DwellingUnit q Minimum Lot 100 feet 94.5 feet Frontage Maximum Lot 30 % o Coverage 31.8/o Minimum Front 15 feet 1.8 feet Yard Setback Minimum Side Yard 10 feet 0.25 feet Setback Minimum Distance 40 feet 10 feet Between Buildings Maximum Number 2.5 stories Variable (3-4 stories?) of Stories A copy of the petition and supporting materials are included in this packet. 6. A public hearing for a petition of ROBERT BURR requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change an existing nonconforming use of a multifamily residential units to another nonconforming use of mixed use commercial office/retail. The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the maximum height, front yard setbacks and relief from Sec. 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements and 5.1.5 Parking Design located at the properties located at 331-335 LAFAYETTE ST and 5-7 WEST AVE (Map 32 Lots 231, 232, 233)(Bl, Rl, R2) The proposed development site is located in three different zoning districts including B1, R1, and R2 and within an Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The proposed use of a retail and office building is allowed by right in a B-1 Zoning District,however a small section of the proposed building and parking extend into residential zones. Therefore, the petitioner is requesting a special permit from an existing nonconforming multifamily dwelling unit use to a nonconforming office/retail proposed to be partially located in residential zoning districts.A zoning map has been included in this packet for reference. The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed maximum height, front yard setbacks. Please see the table presented in the petition Site Plan and Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for reference. The petition is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements and 5.1.5 Parking Design. In particular, the petitioner proposes to provide 55 of the required 132 on-site • parking spaces. In addition parking spaces proposed are dimensionally under the required parking space size. 5 J3l leleK�51 Q r .ux.n ntee.aewvin (). naei�rcx-111Y15 "" „.y,,�, 'e i.• ,.' Sid J oo Tqq City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet � �%rluEa� Board ZpwaC�1rc� o4 ��5 Date A Z�0 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail 1��,,�- 33 uwsEw Sf 97�-9�g -��y� • �33�u��a►c�..._ �IQA7 cis I(m61r1?1 ST , O� IAAI& �zr/xA ye 2S- ��F 37) er cart 3 /9 csse-K 5q lD l 912 S 90 6011 � Iy y�-�S 3 T7 8-saw ,S/ GV^ n� - PdSoJ 1n7� S�o1 1�y� ao4- s�- L3 7 P ay Ano*Jgh ko") JAMef 644 w� f 7 CAN A L TT f 7 j ZNa AN Les IG Ce VA s-r (^rerae4( w, � S /�' Salo 1�7e 978 79�/ t%74a Edl en Itilc>urc�tt��. ,7 DS4Mbu� 61,ev14Ca�-A {U. A,,i d 1 1 or r oaa/ 5-1 c/7 5 ��c�+ GSi�- 6 I� wer-i Arc Sod 2�'�I 3Y�3 Page of rvw Q�s 5" City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet n f _- 9�otimiEo Board 26Wnu4 R(Oard 6F� ls Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail D2 fAm. c. A-Li , 93 F412, Af S+ 97g- 7'1q b916 iv Muss 3 �, � 4"v4 v � �7 � � Gt.� iZ� YI S 37 hns Itiiu� dkujtte- 6,i� 7 S hO�E uM T Il // // �z7u- Su ur� rf,.AA( L �NF 3y � ��v✓r_rrF S� 9�� yy-�36s �woo�u�•.4® a.rs,,.c, y o6A,4-nj Ana.ES ,f 17 5'-)f 7gY- LY fT�/��I EIJ I�G�Au7�3 iS 2 3 A ST 67&S. Q &N7D 74 y L c-cD - %.5-T 978-7�-bLatl ML8ro6� � A-ley- {o5hoLbs 7(0 c@.� ca7�1 �c i i co �cr�Sf 0 Page of City of Salem Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday,October 2015 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA")was held on Wednesday,October 21, 2015 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Ms.Cuuancalls the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. ROLL CALL Those present were:Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,James Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy,Paul Viccica (alternate),Jim Hacker(alternate).Also in attendance—Thomas St. Pierre,Building Commissioner,and Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner *The Board takes projects out of order for petitioners that have requested to withdraw without prejudice or continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, November 18,2015. REGULARAGENDA Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking Variances per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Use of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend the current non- conforming use of an existing two-family dwelling unit to allow a three-family • dwelling unit. Applicant ANTONIO BARLETTA JR Location 12 MEADOW STREET (Map 33 Lot 88) (B4 Zoning District) The petitioner Antonio Barletta Jr. submitted a letter to the Board with a request to withdraw the petition without prejudice. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the request of the petitioner to withdraw the petition without prejudice.The motion was seconded by Mr. Copelas.The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor, (Rebecca Curran(Chair),Peter A. Copelas,James Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy,Paul Viccica(alternate)) and none (0)opposed. Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the change from one nonconforming use of a candy factory to another nonconforming use to construct twelve (12)residential units and a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements to allow fifteen (15) of the required eighteen (18) off-street parking spaces. Applicant SCHIAVUZZO REALTY LLC Location 93-95 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lots 164,165)(B-4 Zoning District) Attorney Atkins requests a continuation on behalf of the petitioner to be heard at the next regularly • scheduled meeting on November 18,2015. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the request to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting on November 18,2015. The motion was seconded by Mr. Copelas.The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor, (Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,James Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy, Paul Viccica(alternate)) and none (0) opposed. Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sect 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change and existing nonconforming use of a social club to another nonconforming use of eighteen (18) residential units.The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage,minimum lot coverage, front and side yard setbacks, minimum distance between buildings,and number of stories. Applicant MICHAEL MEYER Location 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277)( RI Zoning District) *Board member James Tsitsinos discloses a potential conflict of interest and recuses himself for this item. Attorney Grover requested a continuation of the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting on November 18,2015 to allow more time for the petitioner to work with the neighborhood and receive additional input on the project before presenting the project to the Board. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the request for a continuation to the • next regularly scheduled meeting on November 18,2015.The motion was seconded by Mr. Copelas.The vote was unanimous with five in favor(5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Jim Hacker(alternate) and Paul Viccica (alternate)) and none (0) opposed. A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit seeking relief from See: Project 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another,less detrimental, nonconforming use to allow a change from a rooming house to a multifamily residential dwelling unit. Applicant HARBORLIGHT COMMUNITY PARTNERS Location 179 BOSTON STREET (Map 16 Lot 52) (132 Zoning District) *Board member Peter A. Copelas announces a potential conflict of interest and recuses himself from participation on this agenda item. Mr.Andrew Defranza,Executive Director of Harborlight Community Partners presents the petition. At the Zoning Board meeting on September 16,2015, there were two sets of questions including the need for additional clarification on the operations and management of the building in consideration of the abutters Mr. and Ms. Mertch.The Board requested additional information regarding the possibility of a reduction in the total number of units. • There are currently seventeen (17) rooms originally proposed to be converted into sixteen (16) studio apartment style residential units.The petitioner is now proposing to reduce the density further to fourteen (14) studio apartments with a limited square footage to only allow one (1) resident per unit. All units will be less than 249 square feet or less and there will be no bedrooms of 100 square feet or more. Only one (1)person per unit limit could be enforceable through the lease between Harborlight Community Partners and residents or through the health code. There will only be fourteen (14) studio apartments with a maximum capacity of fourteen (14) people compared to the current conditions of seventeen (17) rooms with capacity for many more people. Both the square footage per apartment has been decreased and the maximum number of people has also decreased. Mr.Defranza- states that in his discussion with abutters Mr. and Ms. Mertch, they asked for a limitation that prohibited the property from being converted into other things in the long-term use. No problem if there is a way to do this. Ms. Curran asks the petitioner whether there is an issue regarding proposed outdoor space and whether the petitioner plans to eliminate the outdoor space/patio. Mr. Defranza- states that the proposed outdoor space is not eliminated,but did speak extensively with the neighbors about the location of the space and how to relocate the space. From this discuss, Mr. Defranza proposes to eliminate the existing turn-around and locate the outdoor space in the rear right side of the property. Historically,on this property,there was not a turn-around for traffic circulation on site and the rear right side of the property was used as an outdoor space. In the process of finalizing plans,Mr. Defranza would be happy to work with the neighbors on where and how. Mr. Curran- States that the petitioner is requesting a special permit for one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use.The standard criteria are that the petitioner has to show that the proposed nonconforming use is less detrimental to the public than the existing nonconforming use. The current and proposed uses are both nonconforming uses and any future change of use from a nonconforming use to another nonconforming use would have to come back before the Zoning Board of Appeal. It is not necessary to have a special condition with this requirement because it is redundant. Ms. Curran asks the Board for questions or comments. No Board comments or questions. Ms. Curran opens public comment. Mr. Kirt Mertch, 177 Boston Street- speaks in support of the petition. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve a petition requesting a Special Permit seeking relief from Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another, less detrimental,nonconforming use to allow a change from a rooming house to a multifamily residential dwelling unit,subject to (8) standard conditions and one (1) special condition that the special permit be limited to Harborlight Community Partners and a change of owner or operator of this use would be required to return to the Zoning Board of Appeals.The motion was seconded by James Tsitsinos.The vote was unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair),James Tsitsinos, • Mike Duffy,Jim Hacker(alternate), (Paul Viceica (alternate)). Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from minimum side yard setback to allow the construction of a 6'x 10'one-story addition. Applicant GARY and ANN LAVOIE Location 33 NURSERY STREET (Map 27 Lot 183) (R2 Zoning District) The petitioners, Gary and Ann Lavoie,present the petition. Mr.Lavoie—states the request for a Variance requesting relief from the side-yard setback requirements to allow the construction of a 6'x 10'addition. Ms. Curran- states that there is currently a deck on the side of the house that is located within three (3) feet of the property fine and asks the petitioner to clarify the location of the proposed addition. Mr.Lavoie- states that the proposed addition will be on the deck and will not extend past the existing deck. Ms. Curran-is this an entryway? Mr.Lavoie- It is kind of like a breezeway. Ms. Curran- clarifies with the petitioner that the proposed addition will be located on the currently existing side deck structure. Mr.Lavoie-yes.The structure was built over twenty years ago. Ms. Curran- opens comment from the public. No members of the public spoke in favor or against the petition. No Board comments. Ms. Curran- states that the special conditions and circumstances that generally affect the land, building or structure generally not affecting other lands,buildings or structures in the same district and literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant and 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. In this case, there is an existing building located in the side-yard setback and there is a deck and the new structure would be on top of the existing structure. Mr. St. Pierre-Mr.Lavoie has done a lot of work to the home,has maintained it well and has been a good long-term neighbor. Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve a petition seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec.4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from minimum side yard setback to allow the construction of a 6'x 10'one-story addition.The motion was seconded by Mr.Viccica.The vote was unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,James Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy,Jim Hacker (alternate)). • Project A public hearing for a petition seeking an appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to allow a 10'wide curb cut. Applicant CHRISTOPHER INGERSOLL Location 76 ENDICOTT STREET (Map 25 Lot 453)(R2 Zoning District) *Board member Paul Viccica announces a potential conflict of interest and recuses himself from participation on this item. Chris Ingersoll,petitioner presents the application.The petitioner is requesting an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to allow a 10'wide curb cut to allow a driveway on this side of the building. Mr. Ingersoll states that his interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance is that a 10'wide curb cut is allowed by right.There are two-residential units at this property and there is an existing 14'wide curb cut to allow a driveway for one of the condo residence. Mr. Ingersoll presents other examples in the neighborhood where there are curb cuts that are larger than twenty(20) feet. Mr. Ingersoll states that a City tree will need to be removed and a portion of a sidewalk and granite curbing will also need to be removed for the proposed curb cut.Mr. Ingersoll states that two additional trees will be added in another location in exchange for the removal of a tree. Ms. Curran-States that this petition is for an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to not allow the 10'wide curb cut. Is there a letter of a decision of the building inspector? Mr.Tom St.Pierre-The building inspector denied an application with the proposed curb cut. Ms. Curran-Asks Mr.Tom St. Pierre to clarify what criteria were used to make this determination. Mr. St. Pierre- States that the criteria use are outlined in Section 5.1.5 Section 6 (c) —The widths of the entrance and exit drives shall be: c. Maximum of twenty(20) feet at the street lot fine in residence districts and thirty (30) feet in business and industrial districts. This has always been interpreted as twenty (20) feet per residential property. Mr. Ingersoll—states that the Ordinance reads "the widths of the entrance and exit drives shall be..." the Ordinance does say that the maximum of twenty (20) linear feet is per property. Ms. Curran- clarifies with the Building Inspector that the Ordinance has been interpreted as twenty (20) feet per residential property. Ms. Curran- asks the petitioner to clarify the width of the driveway. Mr. Ingersoll- states that the proposed driveway is ten (10) feet. Mr. St. Pierre—states that there is currently an existing fourteen (14� foot driveway and proposed additional ten (10') foot driveway would exceed the maximum allowable linear feet. Ms. Curran-Asks the petitioner to clarify that the structure is not a two-family,but individual condominiums, therefore the petition has no control over the existing driveway. Mr. Ingersoll- states that the deed of the condominium restricts use of the existing driveway. Ms. Curran- the granted authority to allow the 1'wide driveway would be the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. St. Pierre-What curb cut size is allowed is a zoning requirement and in the City there is a process to apply for a curb cut through the Engineering Department and then to the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer for review. In the opinion of the Zoning Enforcement Officer, the correct course of action for the petitioner would have been to apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a dimensional variance for the curb cut rather than Appeal the Decision of the Building Inspector,but this was the petitioner's choice. Ms. Curran- States understand to the application that the Building Inspector interprets the Ordinance differently from the petitioner,but there is a process for the petitioner to take to apply for a dimensional Variance for this request.The Board will consider whether or not the Board agrees with Building Inspector's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Ingersoll- States that he is not asking for a Variance because the petitioner feels strong difference of opinion on the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Ingersoll asks the Board to consider that the condominium is an individual residence with the right to construct a 10'wide driveway. Ms. Curran-Asks the petitioner whether the property is one lot. Mr. Ingersoll- states that this is one lot. If you look at Ome Square, there are many single lots with curb cuts over twenty (20) linear feet. Mr. St Pierre- Orne Square dates back 60-70 years ago. Ms. Curran- states that the curb cuts at Orne Square could have predated the current zoning Ordinance. Ms. Curran- opens Board discussion Opens discussion for Board comment. Mr. Hacker- It is pretty clear that the Building Inspector interpreted the Ordinance correctly. Twenty (20) feet is twenty (20) feet. Mr. Copelas- Comment directed to Mr. St. Pierre. In the petitioner's Zoning Board of Appeals petition,what seems like a relatively new construction down at the end of Endicott Street behind the pizza place has a curb cut that seems to exceed the twenty(20) foot curb cut limit.What happened at that property to allow that curb cut? Mr. St. Pierre-We would have to take a look at that development.That development was over ten (10) years ago and would have to look to see if the owner sought relief or if there were existing curb cuts. There have been petitions heard before the Zoning Board of Appeals for curb cuts. Ms. Curran- States that the petitioner proposes an attractive driveway,but would like to uphold the Building Inspector's decision. Waiving the Building Inspector's decision may have unintentional consequences and the Ordinance has consistently been interpreted this way. People have come before the Board to request a dimensional variance for curb cuts before and this option is available to the petitioner. IL • Mr. Copelas- to Mr. St. Pierre,is it your interpretation that if the other curb cut is 10'then Mr. Ingersoll could also have a 10'curb cut? Mr. St. Pierre-Yes.Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. St.Pierre had discussion about this possible alternative. Mr. Copelas- It is not at the discretion of the Board to suggest alternatives to a petition. Mr. Ingersoll- states that the other condominium driveway on the parcel is not his property. Ms. Curran opens public comment. Maggie Brobeck-76 Endicott,Unit 1- speaks in support of the proposal for a 10'curb cut. Ms. Curran-reads a letter in opposition to the petition from 74 Endicott Street. Ms. Curran- states that the Board is listening to an Appeal of the Building Inspectors interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance and is not requesting the ten (10') foot curb cut.However, the petitioner may come before the Board for a variance to allow the curb cut.To the petitioner, the process to request a variance is the same process as the request to Appeal the Building Inspector's Decision. Mr. Ingersoll- respectfully states that it is costly to reapply and the language of the Zoning Ordinance should be changed to clarify that the maximum curb cut is twenty (20) linear feet of the property. Ms. Curran-If Mr. Ingersoll applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Variance as opposed to Appealing the Decision of the Building Inspector,there would be a different conversation.As far as • upholding the Building Commissioner's Decision,his interpretation is correct and not upholding this decision could be a problem later in other circumstances. Ms. Curran opens Board discussion again. Mr. Duffy-The language does not speak to the number of driveways-it speaks to total maximum linear feet. Could it be clearer?Perhaps,but the Board cannot revise the Ordinance and the interpretation of the existing provision. It is the job of City Council to take up this issue to clarify the Zoning Ordinance if needed. Mr. Hacker-Can the petitioner come back to the Board should the request for an Appeal of the Building Commissioner be denied? Ms. Curran-yes, the petitioner does not have to wait 2—years to come before the Board because the petition is an appeal of the Building Commissioner's Decision, not an application.The petitioner can also withdraw the petition for the appeal. The petitioner declines to withdraw the appeal. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve a petition seeking an appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to allow a 10'wide curb cut.The motion was seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos.The vote was unanimous with none (0) in favor and five (5) opposed (Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,James Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy,Jim Hacker(alternate).The Decision of the Building Inspector is upheld. - - - Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 • Nonconforming User of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change an existing nonconforming use of a multifamily residential units to another nonconforming use of mixed use commercial office/retail.The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the maximum height, front yard setbacks and relief from Sec. 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements and 5.1.5 Parking Design. Applicant ROBERT BURR Location 331-335 LAFAYETTE ST and 5-7 WEST AVE (Map 32 Lots 231,232, 233)(B1,R1,R2) Attorney Grover,presents the petition on behalf of developer Robert Burr.The property is a prominent corner at the intersection of West Avenue and Lafayette.There are three separate parcels each under purchase and sales agreement. On 331-335 Lafayette Street,the property currently houses a Chinese restaurant, convenience store, sandwich shop,Fran and Dianne's Pizza, nail salon and residential units above.At the property 5-7 West Ave. are residential units. Attorney Grover presents photographs of the existing conditions of the buildings. The buildings are in a very serious state of disrepair. The redevelopment plan is to demolish all buildings on the site and construct a new building, three-story building,with Pt floor retail and second story commercial use.The first floor of the building is proposed to be 7,000 square feet of retail space and approximately 33,000 square feet of commercial office space on the second (2n') and third (3�d) floors. A significant portion of the proposed parking spaces are located underneath the building and around • the corner on West Avenue.The building fagade is extended to screen the parking from being seen from the public way off of West Avenue. Traffic is one-way on the site.Traffic enters into the site from Lafayette Street and out on West Avenue. The zoning on the site is unusual in that the site has three (3) zoning districts and a portion of the property is also located within and Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Portions of the property are located in a B-1,R-1 and R-2 zoning district.The proposed use of retail and commercial office space are allowable uses by right in the B-1 Zoning District,which is the zoning for the primary portion of the site except a small portion of building and the parking is in the R-1 zoning district,which requires a special permit from one nonconforming use of a multi-family residential in an R-1 zoning district to another nonconforming use of an office in the R-1 zoning district. The second and main area of relief requested relates to the parking.There are 55 parking spaces which is far less than what the zoning requires.The zoning ordinance parking is based on the estimated number employees which is difficult to determine before knowing who the office space user will be.The petitioner is also requesting relief from parking stall size as a few of the parking spaces are compact spaces. It is anticipated that the users and traffic to the site will be walking from Salem State or from the neighborhood. From the neighborhood meetings conducted by the petitioner, the neighborhood spoke about using the retail business frequently.With this information, the petitioner expects that people who may frequent a retail space on this site will likely be walking to this location and that the fifty-five (55)parking spaces would be mostly used by the office employees during the weekday. 40 Attorney Grover states that other variances are dimensional and minor in nature.The requested dimensional variances include front yard setback. Because this property is located on a corner lot, both West Ave and Lafayette Street are considered the front of the property and require a fifteen (15') foot setback. Currently, the buildings are located on the zero (0� foot lot line.This proposed project decreases the dimensional non-conformity by pulling the building back from the lot lines for the integration of a greenspace/seating area and the possible integration of public art. The petitioner is also requesting a variance for relief from the height requirements.The proposed building at its highest point is thirty-nine (39� feet high. The Zoning requirement for height in a B1 zoning district is thirty(30� feet;RI- thirty-five (35') and R2- thirty-five (35� feet. It is interesting to point out that the height requirement in a Bl Zoning District is less than a residential zone. Currently, the white residential portion of the existing building exceeds the height of the proposed building. Attorney Grover- states that the grounds for a special permit are that the project is less detrimental that what is there now. The existing conditions of the buildings are in bad shape and it is not unreasonable to suggest that the new proposed building is better than the existing structures.The team traffic consultant found that the number of trips generated by this development is minimal during the week and even less on the weekends because the office space would not be occupied on the weekend.The petitioner feels strongly that the criteria for a special permit have been met. Attorney Grover- states that that 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 property is zoned B1 surrounded by residentially zoned areas. The project also spans across three different zoning districts,which makes this property unique. • As for the hardship for the parking variance,if the parking requirements of the zoning ordinance were literally enforced, the retail component would absorb all of the parking that is available on the site. If the parking requirements were enforced,it would result in almost all parking and no building. In the B1 Zoning District,this property could also be developed by right into 35-40 residential units, comply with parking requirements and not need the variances requested. In neighborhood meetings, neighbors did not want residential dwelling units.Avoiding the development of multi-family residential units, at the request of the neighborhood,presents a hardship to the petitioner because the commercial and retail uses require more parking. Bob Burr, Commercial Real Estate Development,Developer-Mr.Burr speaks about his specialty in redevelopment and briefly speaks about the successful redevelopment of the Sylvania lightbulb manufacturing facility in Danvers in a residential zoning district and redevelopment.The property for the proposed development on Lafayette Street and West Avenue was actively on the market.As a redeveloper,Mr. Burr looked at the condition of the buildings,location, and determination of the highest and best use of the property in today's market place.The buildings have reached the end of their useful lives,well located, economic potential benefit to the community, of a size to do something meaningful. Mr. Burr then creates an economic proforma of the property and hires a project team including an architect, civil engineer, traffic engineer and other consultants to put together a schematic plan for the property.Then the schematic plan was presented to the neighborhood and direct abutters for feedback.There was a South Salem Neighborhood Association meeting to present an initial design.The initial design of the three-story office building was not well received and Mr.Burr immediately engaged Peter Pitmann, to redesign based on specific comments from approximately 80-90 residents who came to the neighborhood meeting.Mr. Burr,then reconvened with the neighborhood association with a modified design more in keeping with the • neighborhood. Comments on the initial design included requests for the proposed building to look more residential, a reduction in building mass,use of building materials that were more in keeping with the abutting residential property. Mr. Burr states that the proposal is commercially attractive and in keeping with the residential aesthetics of the neighborhood.A third neighborhood meeting was conducted and 185 households within 0.1 miles of the site were invited to attend and there were about 25 people who attended with additional feedback on architectural design,which was incorporated into the design before the ZBA. In summary, the goal is to redevelop the site in a positive way to redeploy obsolete real estate.The building is in need of demolition and re-building to turn an old eyesore into an attractive and functional economic benefit to the community. Peter Pitman-Presented architectural renderings and talked about changes made to the architecture in response to comments from the neighborhood meetings. In particular,neighbors wanted to see the material on the West Avenue side softened and materials were changed from brick to clapboard siding. Neighbors were also concerned about screening mechanical equipment and sound mitigation for HVAC,which resulted in slightly higher building. Neighbors were also concerned that the massing of the building was too large. In response,plans show a roof with gables that are stepped back.A portion of the building on West Avenue is screening for the parking lot.The budding fa4ade on Lafayette Street is stepped back to create an outdoor seating area and greenspace. The project team concludes the presentation. Ms. Curran-How many square feet are all the existing buildings including West Avenue and the residential units on Lafayette Street? Mr.Burr-The total current aggregate is approximately 20,000 square feet. Ms. Curran-How many residential units are there on the properties? Mr. Burr- 335 Lafayette Street has no residential units,331 Lafayette Street has four(4) residential • units and 5-7 West Ave have six (6) six residential units. Ms. Curran-What is the current retail square footage?How many parking spaces on 331-335 Lafayette and 5-7 West Ave? Mr.Burr- Current square footage of only retail is unknown.There are thirty (30) parking spaces and a small driveway at 331-335 Lafayette Street and 5-7 West Ave has a small driveway. Ms. Curran-There are a couple issues. The petitioner is requesting a special permit to go from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use. How is doubling the square footage of the space less detrimental to the neighborhood?Please explain how this project is less detrimental than the existing use. Attorney Grover-part of why the proposed project is less detrimental relates to the current condition of the properties and buildings.The buildings are well beyond their useful fife and an eyesore on a very prominent corner and entrance to the City. The new development will vastly improve the site. The project is also eliminating ten (10) residential units,which is positive for the neighborhood and will be replaced with more appropriate uses for a commercial corner.The parking is also being increased by about 25 parking spaces compared to the existing parking.Additionally, the proposed office space will be empty on the weekend and will have less impact on the neighborhood than the current residential use.There are a lot of areas where this project is less detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use. Ms. Curran- Confirms with the petitioner that retail users are anticipated to walk to the site or use alternative modes of transportation rather than the users of the office space. • Attorney Grover-Yes. If the petitioner is able to lease the building to Salem State,it may be likely that the customers and office employees could walk or use other modes of transportation to the site. Ms. Curran-The argument for a hardship that the project also spans across three different zoning districts is a created hardship. Regarding parking,Ms. Curran is interested in hearing back from the traffic consultant,this area has a lot of pedestrians,parking issues and general traffic and the lights at the intersection of West Ave and Lafayette Street are not great. It is not the best location to increase traffic.The proposed building is almost doubling the retail square footage compared to the current development and the parking demand for the proposed office space is unknown. Ms. Curran agrees with the rational to support that the project is less detrimental than the existing use. However, there is no hardship for the Variances.A hardship is a standard that the applicant needs to meet for a variance request. Expresses concerns regarding the total square footage added. If it is uneconomic to have a smaller building then the price was too high and the neighborhood should not have to pay the price to make this project economically feasible for someone.The additional building height to hide the HVAC system is okay,but the height variance may not be needed if the building has less square footage. Ms. Curran opens further discussion for Board comments. Attorney Grover- states he would like to address the hardship for variances requested, but would like to hear from the Board and public. Mr.Viccica-Will this project go to the Planning Board? Attorney Grover-Yes, this project is subject to site plan review by the Planning Board. • Mr.Viccica-Will the Planning Board make requests for revisions? Attorney Grover-Yes, the Planning Board may make requests for revisions related to lighting, landscaping, traffic flow within the site,utilities,or other items related to site plan review. Mr. Viccica-What about the Design Review Board? Attorney Grover-The project is not subject to the Design Review Board. However,if you have seen the Planning Board lately, the Board is taking an aggressive approach to design review and involved in architectural design, even when a project is subject to design review. Mr.Viccica- Is there potential for the Planning Board to make a recommendation on the building configuration on the site? Attorney Grover-Recommending an alternative location of a building on a site is not a typical recommendation of the Planning Board. The Planning Board typically comments on the appearance of the building,but not the configuration and the footprint,which would change the zoning relief that the petitioner is requesting. Mr. Viccica-Well, there may be some questions with the building configuration as it relates to the site in particular the aesthetics and location of the seating area on Lafayette Street. Attorney Grover-if the petitioner really did need to make a change in regard to the building as it relates to the site and it affected setback requirements, the petitioner would need to come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for an amendment to a decision. • Mr.Viccica-Are the proposed fifty-five (55) parking spaces what remains of the site?Is this all that • fits on the site and parking is maximized for the remaining space? Attorney Grover-Yes.Right now the site is entirely paved and there are thirty(30) parking spaces. The petitioner pulled the building back from the lot line on West Avenue to create a landscaped space between the building fagade and the sidewalk and between the residential neighbors and parking lot. However, these landscaped areas did not cause the site to lose any parking. Mr. Viccica-What is the current and proposed impervious surface? The proposed pervious (greenspace) surface is 15%whereas the current development does not have any. Even if there is parking on the entire, site there will not be any room for a building on the site. The petitioner tried to maximize parking space on the site,by creating parking underneath the building. Ms. Curran opens public comment. Josh Turiel-Ward 5 City Councillor-Not entirely opposed to a project going into this space in general and acknowledges the architectural work that was done in response to the neighborhood concerns. Councillor Turiel also expresses concern about the building size,aesthetics to blend into the neighborhood, traffic through the Lafayette and West Avenue intersection, and adequate parking on the site. It is a benefit to build a better building that has the highest and best use for the property as it fits with the neighborhood. Gregory Zawislak, 13 West Ave- In agreement with Councillor Turiel and restates concerns about the building size and massing in relation to the neighborhood,parking, and not enough greenspace • between the parking lot and neighborhood to soften the transition. TC Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street- Strongly opposes the petition with particular concern about the possibility that the building may be leased by Salem State University and impacts of the University on the neighborhood. Polly\K7dburt- 7 Cedar Street-Strongly opposes the petition with concern about the possibility that the building may be leased by Salem State University-and impacts of the University on the residential neighborhood. Other concerns include the displacement of neighborhood businesses that are well used on the weekends,building size and massing in relation to the neighborhood,parking,and traffic. Rich Osterberg, 17 West Avenue-Spoke in strong support of the project and architecture of the building.Mr. Osterberg states that the parking and traffic presently is not related to the current petition and concerns regarding building height are minimal as the petitioner is requesting four(4) extra feet in height The neighborhood needs to be rehabilitated. Mary Weissenberger, 53 Summit Ave. —opposes the project over concerns about the building size and asks for the developer to keep and fix the existing buildings due to concerns over the possible historic value of the existing buildings. Margerum Edward, 17 Plymouth Street- Strongly opposes the project over concerns regarding traffic at the intersection of Lafayette,Loring and West Ave;the size and massing of the proposed building and impacts of construction on the neighborhood. • • Steve Kapantais,23 Wisteria Street- Complements the development team in being open and responsive to the residents of South Salem. Mr. Kapantais speaks in opposition to the proposal with concerns regarding on-site parking availability. Carson Beote, 20 Clifton Ave. —Speaks in opposition to the proposal over concerns about on-site parking and wanting to keep the existing buildings. Mr. Beote asks the building inspector whether the buildings have been inspected by the City and if there are any issues with unsafe or deteriorating structures to back up the claims of the developer that the buildings are in disrepair and cannot be saved. Mr. St. Pierre-Yes,there were a few issues particularly with the residential structure on the corner with the apartments blocking egresses. Mr.Beote-Are there mostly college students who live in that residence? Mr. St. Pierre-Don't know the answer to that.The problems were regarding building code and additional occupancy in the basement. Francis Riggieri,450 Lafayette St.—Strongly opposes the project and presents a petition to the Board with one hundred and thirteen (113) signatures. Mr. Riggieri states concern regarding the current level of traffic particularly in the intersection of Lafayette,West Ave and Loring Ave and on alternative routes through the neighborhood. Mr. Riggieri states that the City should go after the landlords to fix the currently existing buildings. Lianne Cappuccio, 347 Lafayette-Expresses opposition to the project over concerns about traffic • and noise from emergency vehicles from Marblehead to Salem. Sarah Taistra, 12 Clifton Ave- States opposition to the petition with concerns regarding the back of the building architecture, traffic,noise,building magnitude and supports the preservation of the existing buildings and retail businesses. It is not the college students who use these stores, they are residents. The project team presents the architectural renderings and the four(4) elevations. Councillor Legault- Some of the issues that have been brought up from the public are issues that are City issues and Salem State University issues,not Mr. Burr's concerns. The main issue is one of the hardship. Mr. Burr has worked hard with the neighbors,but not sure that the hardship criteria are met. Mr.Riggieri-Ask the Board Chair to speak to the hardship.What is the hardship? Ms. Curran-The applicant is seeking both a special permit and a variance.When you have a Variance request there are particular thresholds that you have to meet with Chapter 40A.The criteria that the applicant must meet include: 1) Special conditions or circumstances that especially affect the land, building,or structure involved,generally not affecting other lands,buildings, and structures in the same district;b) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant;c) 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. One example that is easy to understand is say that you want to build a house into a hillside and you could only build a house that was thirty (30) feet tall,but in order to • build the house you had to build a taller house because of the slope.This would be an example of a hardship owing to the topography. Mr. Riggieri-What is the public good? • Ms. Curran-Well, this is the easiest criteria to meet, this could be clearing up a blighted building or cleaning up a contaminated site to increase the value of a property and tax value as a public benefit. Aviva Musk, 13 West Circle—Asks a clarifying question through the chair to confirm that the criteria for this special permit is whether the proposal is less detrimental to the public good that the current use,which is completely separate from the consideration for a variance. Ms. Curran-States in this case,the special permit requested is for a change in one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use provided that the proposed use is less detrimental. Aviva Musk, 13 West Circle-The have optimized the site for the highest and best use for Salem State and not the highest and best use for the neighborhood. States opposition to the project. Mr. Riggieri -What weight do petitions hold?What kind of consideration does the Board give to the concerns of the residents and neighborhood? Ms. Curran-The Board is looking at specific criteria and it's always good to have comments with information from the neighbors. Sometimes comments are not relevant to the purview of the ZBA, but many comments are relevant to the Board for consideration. It is definitely not a popularity contest to see who has more or less signatures on a petition. The Board considers the content of the comments in relation to the criteria that need to be met. Rich Osterberg, 17 West Ave- Strongly supports the project and states that the project may be • helpful to fix the property and kickstart redoing the intersection. If this project does not happen,the traffic will stay the same. Brian Forbes,4 Wisteria Street-Brian Forbes Building is nonconforming in the first place? Why were the ordinances written in the first place? Ms. Curran-When there is a grandfathered nonconforming,it was built before the zoning was in place. There is a provision in the current ordinance and in M.G.L Chapter 40A that allows a petitioner to request a special permit to go from one non-conforming use to another non- conforming use,if the petitioner can show it is less detrimental. That is how this happens. Earlier there was a Variance given for a side deck because the existing house was dimensionally nonconforming to begin with and built in the existing sideline.When taking down the entire building,begs the question of why not adhere to the requirements of the zoning ordinance.The petitioner has to make the case for why the project does not adhere to the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Sometimes there are different reasons for this including site distance. Mr. Riggieri-One more question-In order to claim hardship is it necessary to be the owner of the property? Ms. Curran-No.As long as you are the applicant and have the owners'permission. For example the Board often sees petitions with purchase and sales agreements that are dependent upon a decision from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr.Riggieri-Is there a purchase and sale agreement or permission? Ms. Schaeffer-There is permission granted from the current owner. • . Ms. Curran-The owner signed the application. Councillor Sargent- States opposition to the project because the proposal is more detrimental to the neighborhood than what is currently existing because of the change of use from residential to commercial office space and retail. Going from residential to commercial or business is different. The definition of a hardship is that would be able to achieve what you would normally be able to achieve with the zoning with exception that there may be a wetland or other unique feature to the property that would not allow for the development of the property. In that case there is a hardship to justify the variance, but not in this case.A developer cannot create a hardship and profit at the expense of the public.A building needs to blend in with the neighborhood,not the other way around. Peter Viselli,4 West Circle- Opposed to project due to concerns with traffic and short-cuts through neighborhood. Brian Forbes,4 Wisteria Street-Restates opposition to the project. Steve Dibble- 74 Moffatt Road-States opposition to the project with concerns that the use proposed is not a mom and pop type of use,the building is not in keeping with the neighborhood,and traffic. Ms. Curran-reads letters into the public record in opposition from the following: Mary Weissenberger, 53 Summit Avenue;Jeff Rougvie,422 Lafayette Street;Francis Riggieri,450 Lafayette Street;William Luster,420 Lafayette Street;and sixty four (64) additional residences with concerns regarding the change of use, scale of the building, traffic through the intersection on • Lafayette,Loring and West Ave. and the possibility of a zoning change. Mr. Curran reads a letter from Victoria Nadel,20 West Avenue-Expresses support for the proposed development and states that the slight height variance and the reduction of the number of parking spaces will serve the establishment and the neighborhood well. Attorney Grover- States that the petitioner is not requesting a change in the B1 zoning. The retail use and office space is allowed by right in the B1 Zoning District. In many ways, this project complies with the underlying zoning.The only reason the petitioner requests a variance for the front yard setbacks is to create a streetscape around the building,although the site could be redesigned to move the building back fifteen (15� feet and comply with the setback requirements.The height requirement in the R1 zoning district is thirty-five feet(35') and proposed height of the building is thirty-nine (39� feet.The motivation for the extra four(4) feet is to mitigate some noise that may be generated from the HVAC system. It is a misperception that this building substantially deviates from the Zoning requirements.The most significant variance is the parking variance. The parking variance is needed because the literal enforcement does not make sense in this neighborhood context.A lot of the traffic for this site will be pedestrian traffic,why have 150+ parking spaces?It is a hardship to the applicant to enforce the parking requirement. Mr. Burr-The proposed development will diminutively increase trip generations to and from the site. The intersection of Lafayette,Loring and West Avenue has a terrible traffic problem and the intent is not to add a project that will make the traffic worse. Mr.Burr lays out his own options for this property including the possibility of him abandoning the project altogether,go back to the drawing board a redesign a building and use that can be built as of right and not require variances, or to listen to the largest neighborhood concern,which is traffic in this already congested intersection and the general sentiment. If the project is residential or the scale of the building is much smaller, the project would not make economic sense. Mr. Burr offers to make a significant financial contribution recognizing that Salem State has also set aside $250,000 in a fund to fix the intersection as a part of • traffic mitigation from the new Salem State garage. Ms. Curran-Takes Board comment. Mr. Viccica-Asks the applicant whether he will go back to the drawing board to continue to work with the neighbors? Mr.Burr and Attorney Grover- request a continuation from the Board to the next regularly scheduled meeting on December 18 to continue to speak with the neighbors and continue to refine the project. Ms. Curran- states that it would be helpful also to hear the comments from the Board. Mr.Viccica-A traffic study is important part of the discussion and concern being heard and important for the Board to consider with this project. Heather Monticup,Traffic Engineer-A full traffic study was not required for submission to the Zoning Board of Appeal,but it is required for the Planning Board.At this time a traffic assessment and attended neighborhood meetings. At this no full traffic study and impact assessment has been done at this time.We will need to look at a study area, count the site,and count the area. What has been done is to date is to use the information from the parking garage,background development information,ran trip generation numbers,site distance, number of collisions and other access and safety information. The existing site has not been counted,however, the existing site does generate traffic.The change of use changes the traffic counts. Offices typically have a larger impact during the week whereas retail will have a larger traffic impact on the weekends. Looking at the site, there will • be an increase of 15 cars in the am peak hours,an increase of 17 cars in the pm peak hours and a decrease in 164 trips during a Saturday.These numbers show that there will be almost the same amount of traffic generated as the existing site during the week,with a larger decrease in trips on a Saturday. In order to keep the amount of parking on the site, the parking design should be limited to one-way traffic flow on the site.As proposed, traffic will enter the site from Lafayette Street and exit onto West Avenue. This information will all be analyzed in a full traffic study. Mr.Viccica- Requests a full traffic study could greatly inform the Zoning Board of Appeal decision regarding traffic flow and safety that are criteria for the Special Permit request. Ms. Curran-The overwhelming comments seem to be concerns about traffic,parking, building massing,and noise. Mr. Duffy-Is this one parcel or three? Attorney Grover-This project spans across three (3) parcels. Ms. Curran- states that these are three parcels.This is why there is trouble with the hardship argument.The petitioner seems to be creating a hardship with the argument that there are three lots with different zoning requirements,which makes this property unique.This uniqueness is created by the petitioner. Attorney Grover-The West Avenue parcel is partially zoned B-1 and R-1.The front parcel is already zoned partially B-1 and R-2.These circumstances were not created,but already existing conditions. Ms. Curran-Within half a mile of these parcels, there are also parcels in the same district that have the same zoning characteristics where there are single lots with two or more zoning districts. • Ms. Curran-To the petitioner-Are you going to merge these lots? Attorney Grover-yes. Ms. Curran-Are all lots current under separate ownership? Attorney Grover-yes. Mr. Duffy-Concerned about hardship for the parking variance.A lack of parking on the site is created by the applicant through the proposed use of an office space.The parking table on the plan shows that Zoning requires 84 parking spaces for just the office business. What suggests that 55 spaces will be sufficient?Assumptions that office space may be attractive to Salem State and the assumption that the retail uses will be more attractive to users who will walk to the site. Is this enough to say that the standard is met for the Variance resting on these assumptions? Mr. Duffy requests a parking or traffic analysis to support these assumptions. Mr.Viccica-Asks for clarification of Variances requested as there seems to be a need for a Variance request for maximum lot coverage. It looks like almost 50%of the lot will be covered. Attorney Grover- stated that the petitioner is requesting a Variance for relief from maximum height, front yard setbacks,parking requirements and parking design. The petitioner is not requesting a variance for maximum lot coverage. Lot coverage only includes what is in contact with the ground and is determined by the building footprint. • Ms. Curran-Asks the petitioner what the existing square footage is on the site. If you were not increasing the square footage and kept the parking this project may make sense. Did the petitioner look at reconfiguring the existing square footage and keeping the same amount of parking on site?Is this economically feasible? Mr. Burr-The current buildings are approximately 20,000 square feet.The project team looked at reconstructing 20,000 square feet and it is not economically feasible. Ms. Curran-Did the petitioner consider stepping the proposed building back? Peter Pitman,Architect-Yes, the whole third story would be setback. Ms. Curran-Did you think about placing the building closer to the lot line?Did this free up lot space for more parking? Peter Pitman-Yes,we thought about placing the building closer to the lot line,but it created more impervious surface,did not provide additional parking,and created a safety problem in regard to sight lines and traffic. By pulling the building back,cars have a much clearer site line turning from West Avenue onto Layfayette Street. Ms. Curran-This building is too large and the parking Variance is a large Variance. Hard to believe that 33,000 square feet of office space will only generate a few more cars. Attorney Grover- states that the applicant is assuming that the retail will not generate a significant • need for parking as customers are likely to be from the neighborhood and may walk to the site. Ms. Curran- states that it depends on what retail is there.The building may not be in great shape • currently,but the businesses appear to be thriving. I would expect any retail to do well in this space. Opens comment to further Board discussion. Mr. Duffy-Not usually what the Board of Appeal hears,but thought it was interesting to hear Mr. Burr offer compensation for traffic mitigation at the intersection of West Ave,Loring and Lafayette Street. Ms. Curran-What is the status of improvements of this intersection? Heather Monticup,Traffic Engineer- States that the project team is working with the City Engineering Department to learn more about plans for this intersection. Ms. Monticup has been unable to reach David Knowlton, City Engineer for information.There is an understanding that there is already money and plans for intersection improvements.The petitioner is interested in working with the City to further assist in traffic mitigation. Councillor Legault-The City Engineer,David Knowlton,presented traffic improvement plans for this intersection at Salem State University. Salem State University is contributing$250,000 toward traffic mitigation at the intersection. Ms. Curran- struggling with the hardship. Ms. Curran asks the petitioner whether they would like to request to continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Attorney Grover-The developer could potentially build multi-family residential on this site,but no one wants this type of use at this location. This sentiment presents a hardship to the applicant. • Ms. Curran-This does not meet the definition of a hardship. Even if there is a better project than what exists, the request for a Variance needs to meet the hardship.This is not a special permit. Ms. Curran asks the petitioner whether he would like to continue. Mr. Burr-If parking spaces were increased would this be more acceptable? Ms. Curran-It may be acceptable to keep the same square footage and number of parking spaces such that the project would not increase the nonconformity. Attorney Grover-The hardship threshold may not be met. Even if one additional parking space was provided, there still needs to be a hardship. Mr. Duffy-The Board is bound by the hardship. Ms. Curran-Suggests that the petitioner can take a month to think about the hardship and the project as a whole. Attorney Grover-Makes a request to continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting on November 18, 2015. • Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the petitioner's request to continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday,November 18,2015. The motion was seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos.The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,James Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy, Paul Viccica (alternate) and none (0)opposed. ADJOURNMENT Mx.Tsitsinos motioned for adjournment of the October 21, 2015 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 9:45 pm. Motion and Vote: Mr.Tsitsinos made a motion to adjourn the October 21,2015 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals,seconded by Mr. Duffy, and the vote is unanimous with five (5) in favor(Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,James Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy,James Hacker(alternate) 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 or project at: http://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA ZoningAppea/shin/ Respectfully submitted, Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner • CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL !A1, 0 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEbI,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 O _ 5685 619 TELE:978- - ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 i;_ KIMBERLEYDIuscou. �-��.� .; MAYOR CITY City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition f seeking an appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to allow o 10'H deTOPHER INGERSOLL, curb cu located at 76 ENDICOTT STREET (Map 25 Lot 453)(R2 Zoning District). tat the property The public hearing will be held on WED. OCT. 21, 2015 at 6:30 PM, 3`d Floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET,Rm 313. • Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 10/7/2015 & 10/14/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on OCT 0 ] 2015 at V,,o)—ftfii in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, 1 Sections 8-25. °"°"9 ' CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS vF' Qis BOARD OF APPEAL s .. 9, T -1 A 4 NP 120 WASHINGTON STREET4 SALEM,MASSACHUSETFS 01970 ��MINE11�, TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 F`I-E Tr` KIMBERLEY DRISCOIJ_ CITY r,t MAYOR "Il..�s tj City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in p g p the petition of MICHAEL MEYER requesting a Special p Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change and existing nonconforming use of a social club to another nonconforming use of eighteen (18) residential units. The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, minimum lot coverage, front and side yard setbacks, minimum distance between buildings, and number of stories at the property located at 1-3 EAST COLLINS • STREET (Map 36 Lot 277)(R1 Zoning District). The public hearing will be held on WED. OCT. 21, 2015 at 6:30 PM, 3" Floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, Rm 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 10/7/2015 & 10/14/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on OCT 0 7 2011 at 9-dj&-p-I in accordance with MGL C ap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ,. � ,,�. • .:F� ir,fi n, BOARD OF APPEAL Q. 9� -L4L , 120 WASHINGTON STRFLT SALEM,MASSACHUSHTTS 01970 (MINEO� TELL:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 {:!I E ICIMBERLEY DRISCOLL CITY CLE it. 5'Lct9. fa'S.>- MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of ROBERT BURR requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change an existing nonconforming use of a multifamily residential units to another nonconforming use of mixed use commercial office/retail. The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the maximum height, front yard setbacks and relief from Sec. 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements and 5.1.5 Parking Design located at the properties located at 331-335 LAFAYETTE ST and 5-7 • WEST AVE (Map 32 Lots 231, 232, 233)(Bl,R1, R2) The public hearing will be held on WED. OCT. 21, 2015 at 6:30 PM, 3`d Floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, Rm 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 10/7/2015 & 10/14/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on rr np 77 np99rr at / .dj t- 7 in accordance�wCfh1VIGCRap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS ..or? � :re . BOARD OF APPEAL a & t 05 720 WASHING'rON S'rREer+SnLeM,MnssncHuse'rrs 01970 ` r w TELEPHONE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 r 5 i MfIVER; KIMBERLEY Diziscou. C I I Y CLF ,'�Li.M ^ MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of SCHIAVUZZO REALTY LLC seeking P g P P g a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the change from one nonconforming use of a candy factory to another nonconforming use to construct twelve (12) residential units and a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements to allow fifteen (15) of the required eighteen (18) off-street parking spaces at the property of 93-95 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lots 164, 165)(B-4 Zoning District). • The public hearing will be held on WED., OCT. 21, 2015 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3`d at 120 WASHINGTON STREET. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 10/7/2015 & 10/14/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on OCT 0 7 2015 at �;�Sln in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 25. • WIN" CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS Aft BOARD OF APPEAL 7a9 120 WASHINGTON S'IREE7 * SALEM,MASSACHUSETIS U;t)7b'CT -1 A q: 05 TELEPHONE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978.740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR CITY City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of GARY and ANN LAVOIE seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from minimum side yard setback to allow the construction of a 6' x 10' one-story addition at the property of 33 NURSERY STREET (Map 27 Lot 183) (R2 Zoning District). The public hearing will be held on WED. OCT. 21, 2015 at 6:30 TIM, in Room 313, 3" at 120 Washington Street. • Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 10/7/2015 & 10/14/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on OCT 0 7 2015 at 6-ps j)f I in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. x CITY OF SALEM, IVIASSACHUSET"TS s� BOARD OF APPEAL ' D0 120 WASHINGTON STREET# SALEM,MASSACHUSERmo -4 P 12- 01 KihmERLEYDRiscoLL T)aE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR FILE 0 CITY CLERK, SALEM, M{,SS November 4, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of ANTONIO BARLETTA JR. seeking Variances per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend the current non-conforming use of an existing two-family dwelling unit to allow a three- family dwelling unit located at the property of 12 Meadow Street (Map 33 Lot 88) (112 Zoning District). On October 21,2015 the Board of Appeals met to discuss the petitioner's request to withdraw the above referenced petition without prejudice. The following Board of Appeals members were present: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,James Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy, Paul Viccica (alternate) At the request of the Petitioner, the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,James Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy, Paul Viccica (alternate)) and none (0) opposed to allow the Petitioner to withdraw this petition without prejudice. • GRANTED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 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 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 fling of this derision 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 ffect until a copy of the deeuion bearing She erdiftate of the Go Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Regi ig of Deeds. • q CITY OF SALEM5 MASSACHUSETTS • sg BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET* SALEM,MASSACHUSETB 0197Ek A_ KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL -MLE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR Z O November 4, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals -r 1V A petition of HARBORLIGHT COMMUNITY PARTNERS, seeking a Special Permit requestingkelief from Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one nonconforming use to another,less detrimental, nonconforming use to allow a change from a rooming house to a multifamily residential dwelling unit located at the property of 179 BOSTON STREET (Map 16 Lot 52) (B2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on September 16,2015 and continued to October 21, 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 4 11 and closed on this date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy,Jim Hacker (alternate), Paul Viccica (alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, from one nonconforming use to another,less detrimental, nonconforming use to allow a change • from a rooming house to a multifamily residential dwelling unit. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped August 25, 2015, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3. Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, from one nonconforming use to another, less detrimental, nonconforming use to allow a change from a rooming house to a multifamily residential dwelling unit. 2. The public hearing was opened on September 16,2015 and continued to October 21,2015. 3. Mr. Andrew Deftanza, Executive Director of Harborlight Community Partners presented the petition on September 16, 2015 and on October 21,2015. 4. The existing building serves as a rooming house and has seventeen (17) rooms with shared bathroom facilities. There are seven (7) off-street parking spaces. 5. The petitioner proposes to reduce the density of the building occupancy by reducing the number of rooms from seventeen (17) rooms and shared bathrooms to convert the existing space into fourteen (14) small studio apartments. The square footage of the units are less than 250 square feet such that only one (1) occupant may inhabit each residential unit. 6. Harborlight Community Partners will provide on-site staffing including a property manager, maintenance person, and case manager available. There will also be an on-site office with staff for part of every week day and on call staff for overnight and weekend hours. 7. The petitioner proposes to restore the building, update windows, improve the front facade and exterior of the building as presented in elevation plans titled "HCP Boston Street #179" dated October 13,2015 by Siemasko &Verbridge, Beverly,MA. i City of Salem Board of Appeals November 4,2015 Project: 179 Boston Street Page 2 of 3 • 8. The petitioner proposes to have management offices, a manager that will visit the property daily and a case worker that will be available to residents on an on-call basis. 9. The requested relief, if granted,would allow the petitioner to change from one nonconforming use to another, less detrimental, nonconforming use to allow a change from a rooming house to a multifamily residential dwelling unit. 10. At the public hearing, one (1) member of the public spoke in support and none (0) 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, makes the following findings: Findings for Special Permit: The petitioner has demonstrated that the change from a nonconforming rooming house to a proposed multifamily residential use is less detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming use. 1. The social, economic and community needs served by this proposal is positive and will continue to serve the same population as currently served. 2. There are no negative 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 would improve the existing neighborhood character as the petitioner proposes to decrease density, significantly invest in the restoration of the property, and improve management and access to services for occupants. 6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base is positive. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5)in favor (Rebecca Curran (Chair),James Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy, Jim Hacker (alternate), (Paul Viccica (alternate)) and none (0) opposed, to approve the requested Special Permit to allow a change from a nonconforming rooming house to a less detrimental nonconfomting use of a multifamily residential dwelling unit subject to the following terms, conditions and safeguards: Standard Conditions: 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 finished of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. • 7. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. City of Salem Board of Appeals November 4,2015 Project: 179 Boston Street Page 3 of • Special Condition: 1• The special permit shall be limited to Harborlight Community partners and a change of owner or operator of this use is required to return to the Zoning Board of Appeals. an ebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decinon, if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Lams Chapter 40A, and shall be filed nathin 20 days of filing 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 eect until a ropy of the deanon bearing the certifccade of the City Ckrk has been filed unth the Essex Variance South Registry of Deeds. • • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01 A7,Or NOV4 n_ I� 0'1 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 (O�J U t- 1 MAYOR FILE. Tt CITY GLERIk, SALE.".MASS- November 4, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of GARY and ANN LAVOIE seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from minimum side yard setback to allow the construction of a 6'x 10' one-story addition at the property of 33 NURSERY STREET (Map 27 Lot 183) (R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 21,2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, g 11. The heating was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,James Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy,Jim Hacker (alternate)). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from minimum side yard setback to allow the construction of a 6' x 10' one-story addition. • Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped September 22, 2015, the Petitioner requested a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from minimum side yard setback to allow the construction of a 6'x 10'one-story addition. 2. The petitioners, Gary and Ann Lavoie presented the petition. 3. The petitioner proposes to construct a 6' x 10' one-story addition within five (5) feet of the required ten (10) feet from the side yard property line. 4. The existing building on the property is located within three (3) feet of the property line with a side porch. The proposed addition is a breezeway that will be located on the I existingporch and not extend beyond the existing deck. 5. The requested relief,if granted,would allow the petitioner to construct a 6'x 10' one-story addition. 6. At the public hearing, no (0) members of the public spoke in support and no (0) members spoke in opposition to the petition. The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public heating, and after thorough review of the petition, including the application narrative and plans, makes the following findings: Findings for 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 in that there is an existing building located in the side-yard setback and there is a deck and the new structure would be • on top of the existing structure. RF City of Salem Board of Appeals November 4,2015 Project:33 Nursery Street Page 2 of 2 • 2) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant. 3) Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and without mollifying 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 five (5) in favor (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,James Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy,Jim Hacker (alternate) and none (0) opposed, to approve Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from minimum side yard setback to allow the construction of a 6'x 10' one-story addition subject to the following terms, conditions and safeguards: Standard Conditions: I. 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 finished 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 c- uz"'L-B /U 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 Lawn Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of fUng of this deasion in the ofice of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Speaal Permit granted herein shall not take�ed until a ropy of the deasion beating the orticate of the City Clerk bar been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • f e -• ��GONDIT�, CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS W qj BOARD OF APPEAL 9 11 p 12. 01 --- 120 WASHINGTON STREET* SALEM,MASSACHO$E . . KIMBERLEY DRIscoLL TEE E;978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 FILE MAYOR k PITY CLERK, 5;'.t-`M, hir;SS, November 4, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of CHRISTOPHER INGERSOLL, seeking an appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to allow a 10' wide curb cut at the property located at 76-78 ENDICOTT STREET (Map 25 Lot 453)(R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 21, 2015 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),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy, Peter Copelas,Jim Hacker (alternate). The Petitioner seeks an Appeal of the Building Inspector's Decision. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped September 22, 2015, the Petitioner requested an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector. 2. Mr. Ingersoll,petitioner, presented the petition. 3. The Building Inspector denied an application for a 10' wide curb cut based on the criteria of the Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 5.1.5 subsection 6 (c) that states that the widths of entrance and exit drives shall be a maximum of twenty (20) feet at the street lot line in residence districts. 4. The property has two-residential units with an existing 14' curb cut. The Building Inspector testifies that the additional proposed 10' curb cut at the property exceeds the maximum linear feet allowed at the property. 5. Mr. Ingersoll was informed that he could apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a dimensional variance. 6. The requested relief,if granted,would allow the petitioner to construct a 10'wide curb cut. 7. At the public hearing, one (1) member of the public spoke in support and one (1) member 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, makes the following findings that the proposed project does not meet the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. • City of Salem Board of Appeals November 4,2015 Project: 76-78 Endicott Street Page 2 of 2 • On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted none 0 in favor and five ( )e5o opp osed e O pp (Rebecca Curran (Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy, Peter Copelas,Jim Hacker (alternate), to Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to allow a 10' wide curb cut at the property located at 76 ENDICOTT STREET (Map 25 Lot 453)(R2 Zoning District). THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR IS UPHELD. becca 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 fling 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 fect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the Ci Clerk has been led wi Re it o Deeds. t1' th the Essex South � � l � h CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL V 120 WASHINGTON STREET* SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS OlK(Ij NOV 10 A H' Sb KiMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR FILE rr MEETING NOTICE CITY CLERIC: S,It[}-i. t i,~SS. You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppealr will hold itr regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 630 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 ➢ August 19, 2015 ➢ October 21, 2015 III. REGULAR AGENDA Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.5 • Parking Design of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow at 30' curb cut and to modify a previous Zoning Board of Appeal decision to reflect the new parking plan. Applicant JOSEPH SKOMURSKI o Location 43 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 238) (112 Zoning District) CO) � d R c0 Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table C of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from minimum side yard m J setback to allow the construction of a 3' x 4' square foot stairway and landing within y N the required 10' foot setback. p t Applicant ANN HARRISON m Location 26 GREENWAY ROAD (Map 14 Lot 179) (111 Zoning District) �> 3 UZ U Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of seeking a Variance O o a requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design to allow a 40'wide curb cut. c y 0 Applicant PETER LUTTS c Location 24 WINTER STREET (Map 35 Lot 83)(112 Zoning District) o ._ Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of requesting a Special Permit c°'i (n � C� from Sec. 3.1.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change of a motor vehicle service use to a motor vehicle general and body repair use. _ _ C Applicant HIPPOLITO MADERA t • Location 35 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 235) (B-4 Zoning District) ~ U Page 1 of 2 City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for November 18,2015 Meeting Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming User of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the change from one nonconforming use of a candy factory to another nonconforming use to construct twelve (12) residential units and a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements to allow fifteen (15) of the required eighteen (18) off-street parking spaces. Applicant SCHIAVUZZO REALTY LLC Location 93-95 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lots 164, 165)(B-4 Zoning District) Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change and existing nonconforming use of a social club to another nonconforming use of eighteen (18) residential units. The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, minimum lot coverage, front and side yard setbacks, minimum distance between buildings, and number of stories. Applicant MICHAEL MEYER Location 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277)( R1 Zoning District) Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change an existing nonconforming use of multifamily residential units to another nonconforming use of mixed use commercial office/retail. The petitioner is also requesting Variances for • relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the maximum height, front yard setbacks and relief from Sec. 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements and 5.1.5 Parking Design. *PLEASE NOTE THE PETITIONER HAS REQUESTED A CONTINUATION TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON DEC. 18 2015 Applicant ROBERT BURR Location 331-335 LAFAYETTE ST and 5-7 WEST AVE (Map 32 Lots 231, 232, 233)(Bl, Rl, 112) Project Request for a six (6) month extension to exercise tights granted by the June 2, 2010 Board Decision, as previously extended by request of the applicant as well as the Permit Extension Acts of 2010 and 2012, that approved Variances from budding height (feet), buffer zone width, and number of parking spaces to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional office building with retail and municipal space. Applicant HIGH ROCK BRIDGE, LLC Location 44 BOSTON STREET and 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 15 Lot 305)(NRCC Zoning District) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS 2016 Calendar-Vote to approve 2016 ZBA Meeting Dates V. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 2 ��.CONDIT�\ City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail /✓.c�,lr S did- 9ry-/by} Page of WONDITt CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL IrnrisD�� 120 WAS]uNGPON STRrr r♦ SAi.eM,MASSAGI IUSr i'rs 01970 KI\7BI2RLHY Diusco I. Tiv..c:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner DATE: 11/9/2015 RE: Meeting Agenda for November 18, 2015 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. 43 Bridge Street J 4. 26 Greenway Road • 5. 24 Winter Street 6. 35 Bridge Street 7. 93-95 Canal Street { 8. 1-3 East Collins Street 9. 331-335 Lafayette Street and 5-7 West Ave 10. 44 Boston Street and 401 Bridge Street Permit Extension Request (Community Life Center) Below is a summation of the requested petition and any supplemental information for the Board of Appeals to consider when discussing the petition scheduled for a public hearing on Wednesday, November 18,2015. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. A public hearing for the petition of JOSEPH SKOMURSKI seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow at 30' curb cut and to modify a previous Zoning Board of Appeal decision to reflect the new parking plan at the property located at 43 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 238) (R2 Zoning District). At the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on February 18, 2015, the Board approved Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, from minimum lot area, minimum lot frontage, maximum lot coverage, minimum rear setbacks and maximum number of stories to allow the division of property into five (5) lots for the construction of four (4) single family homes and one (1) three-story duplex and also to provide a variance for side setbacks as to "Lot 5" shown on the plan dated March 10, 2015. • Since receiving approvals from the Zoning Board of Appeal and Planning Board, the applicant has constructed two (2) single-family homes, installed foundations for the two (2) remaining single family homes, and has submitted a sidewalk plan to the Engineering Department for review. City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—November 18, 2015 Page 2 of 6 • At this time, the applicant is before the Zoning Board of Appeals to request a variance from Section 5.0 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow at 30' foot curb cut instead of the allowable 24' feet to reconfigure the parking for lot #5 and to modify the previous Zoning Board of Appeal Decision to reflect the new plan titled "Proposed Sidewalk & Utility Connection Location Plan", dated July 28, 2015. The original approved plan showed three (3) angled parking spaces directly behind the proposed duplex (See March 10, 2015 Plans). The petitioner is proposing to change orientation of the three (3) parking spaces such that the entire property does not need to be paved and a backyard with greenspace can be located directly behind the duplex (See Proposed Sidewalk&Utility Connection Location Plans dated July 28, 2015). An application and supporting material are included in this packet. 2. A public hearing for a petition of ANN HARRISON seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from minimum side yard setback to allow the construction of a 3'x 4' square foot stairway and landing within the required 10' foot setback at the property of 26 GREENWAY ROAD (Map 14 Lot 179) (111 Zoning District). The petitioner proposes to construct a 3' x 4' foot stairway within the required 10' foot setback. The property has a single family residence with one means of egress and the variance would allow the residence to meet current life safety and building code requirements. The current depth of the side setback is six (6') feet and the proposed stairs with a landing would reduce the side setback to three (3') feet. • An application and supporting materials are included in this packet. 3. A public hearing for a petition of PETER LUTTS seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design to allow a 40'wide curb cut at the property located at 24 WINTER STREET (Map 35 Lot 83)(R2 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a variance to allow a 40'wide curb cut along Oliver Street to provide off- street parking for the property located at 24 Winter Street. The property is a two (2) family home with frontage on 24 Winter Street and an existing nineteen (19') foot curb cut on Oliver Street. The petitioner proposes to expand the existing curb cut by approximately twenty-one (21') additional feet to provide two (2) additional parking spaces. An application and supporting materials are included in this packet. Please note that the petitioner submitted a revised plot plan. Please consider the plot plan which shows the garage and two (2) parking spaces rather than the plot plan that shows the garage and two (2) tandem parking spaces. 4. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of HIPPOLITO MADERA requesting a Special Permit from Sec. 3.1.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change of a motor vehicle service use to a motor vehicle general and body repair use at the property located at 35 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 235) (B-4 Zoning District). The petitioner is proposing to change a motor vehicle service use of an existing auto repair garage to a • motor vehicle general and body repair use and install a paint booth. A few months ago, this petitioner 2 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—November 18, 2015 • Page 3 of 6 was before the Board requesting a Special Permit for the same change of use for a property on Florence Street and was denied due to concerns regarding environmental impacts of a spray booth on an abutting residential neighborhood. The petitioner intends to relocate his current auto repair business from its present location on Florence Street to Bridge Street in the location of Witch City Autobody. 5. A public hearing for a petition of SCHIAVUZZO REALTY LLC seeking a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the change from one nonconforming use of a candy factory to another nonconforming use to construct twelve (12) residential units and a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements to allow fifteen (15) of the required eighteen (18) off-street parking spaces at the property of 93-95 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lots 164, 165)(B-4 Zoning District). On October 21, 2015 the Board granted the petitioner's request to continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting on November 18, 2015.The project was not presented and the public comment period was not opened. The petitioner is seeking a Special permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to allow the change from one nonconforming use of a candy factory to another nonconforming use to construct twelve (12) residential units.The applicant is also requesting a Variance for relief from Sec. 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements to allow fifteen (15) of the required eighteen (18) off-street parking spaces. The property is • located in the B-4 Business Wholesale and Automotive District. The Board needs to consider whether this change or substantial extension of the use is or is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. The Board also needs to consider the criteria applicable for a Variance request. A copy of the petition and supporting materials are included in this packet. 6. A public hearing for a petition of MICHAEL MEYER requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change an existing nonconforming use of a social club to another nonconforming use of eighteen (18) residential units.The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit,minimum lot frontage, minimum lot coverage, front and side yard setbacks, minimum distance between buildings,and number of stories at the property located at 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277)( R1 Zoning District). On October 21, 2015 the Board granted the petitioner's request to continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting on November 18,2015.The project was not presented and the public comment period was not opened. The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change an existing nonconforming use of a social club to another nonconforming use of eighteen (18) residential units.The petitioner is requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, minimum lot coverage, front and side yard setbacks,minimum distance between buildings,and number of stories.The petitioner proposes to • provide twenty seven (27) parking spaces on site under the proposed buildings. 3 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—November 18,2015 Page 4 of 6 • Most of the property is located within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under Chapter 91 and the parcel is also traversed by an easement for a natural gas pipeline,which will be constructed soon. Please see the letter received by Spectra Energy Partners regarding concerns that the proposed building cannot be constructed on the permanent easement between the property owner and the gas company.Additionally, there is a letter and report of Jurisdictional Determination that this project will require a Chapter 91 Waterways License pursuant to M.G.L. 310 CMR 9.00 for your information. The Board needs to consider whether this change or substantial extension of the use is or is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.The Board also needs to consider the criteria applicable for the Variance requests. The property is located in an Rl Zoning District. t ; . _ n � y 4 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—November 18, 2015 • Page 5 of 6 RI Zoning District Dimensional Requirements Required Proposed Minimum Lot Area 15,000 square feet 2,324 square feet Per Dwelling Unit Minimum Lot 100 feet 94.5 feet Fronta e Maximum Lot 30 % 31.8% Coverage Minimum Front 15 feet 1.8 feet Yard Setback Minimum Side Yard 10 feet 0.25 feet Setback Minimum Distance Between Buildings 40 feet 10 feet Maximum Number 2.5 stories Variable (3-4 stories?) of Stories A copy of the petition and supporting materials are included in this packet including letters of public comment received to date. • 6. A continuation of a public hearing for a petition of ROBERT BURR requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change an existing nonconforming use of a multifamily residential units to another nonconforming use of mixed use commercial office/retail. The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the maximum height, front yard setbacks and relief from Sec. 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements and 5.1.5 Parking Design located at the properties located at 331-335 LAFAYETTE ST and 5-7 WEST AVE (Map 32 Lots 231, 232,233)(Bl, R1, R2) On November 18, 2015 the petitioner and team presented to the Board and the Board also listened to public comments both for and against the proposed project. The Board requested additional information from the petitioner and is interested in hearing back from the traffic consultant with a parking and/or traffic analysis for the site and further consideration of a reduction in the total square footage of the proposed project. At this time, the petitioner has requested a continuation of public hearing until Wednesday, December 16, 2015. The proposed development site is located in three different zoning districts including B1, R1,and R2 and within an Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The proposed use of a retail and office building is allowed by right in a B-1 Zoning District, however a small section of the proposed building and parking extend into residential zones. Therefore, the petitioner is requesting a special permit from an existing nonconforming multifamily dwelling unit use to a nonconforming office/retail proposed to be partially • located in residential zoning districts.A zoning map has been included in this packet for reference. 5 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—November 18, 2015 Page 6 of 6 The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed maximum height, front yard setbacks. Please see the table presented in the petition Site Plan and Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for reference. The petition is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements and 5.1.5 Parking Design. In particular, the petitioner proposes to provide 55 of the required 132 on-site parking spaces. In addition parking spaces proposed are dimensionally under the required parking space size. A copy of the petition and supporting documentation are included in this packet. 7. Request for a six (6) month extension by High Rock Bridge Street, LLC for exercise of rights granted by the June 2, 2010 Board Decision, as previously extended by request of the applicant as well as the Permit Extension Acts of 2010 and 2012, that approved Variances from building height (feet), buffer zone width, and number of parking spaces to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional office building with retail and municipal space on the property located at 44 Boston Street and 401 Bridge Street (Map 15 Lot 305)(NRCC Zoning District). The current request is for a six (6) month extension effective November 18,2015 to May 18,2016. 6 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Wx �.. Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail 5Q 0/L r SA1rM 7-76 ` '—mac �WldGt ey u�_lya��e^s S1 GIeH �c�,��i UK�ry;na.�.rf St c�s�oav�S7` //�J G�t�c%✓ y� �/JNA� sT �$2raYl/a Lt�2Mr'ca SaCa� SAA�VS cx;fi ;A a �s Sc Page of City of Salem Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday,November 18, 2015 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals (`Salem BOA") was held on Wednesday, November 18,2015 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Ms.C urancalls the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,James Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy,Paul Viccica (alternate),Jim Hacker (alternate).Also in attendance— Thomas St. Pierre,Building Commissioner,and Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner REGULAR AGENDA *Heard out of order at the request of the petitioner. Project Petition seeking a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconfomling Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the change from one nonconforming use of a candy factory to another • nonconforming use to construct twelve (12) residential units and a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements to allow fifteen (15) of the required eighteen (18) off-street parking spaces. Applicant SCHIAVUZZO REALTY LLC Location 93-95 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lots 164, 165)(B-4 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions • Application dated September 22,2015 and supporting documentation Attorney Atkins requests for the petition to be withdrawn without prejudice.To bring this back to the Board, the petitioner needs time to clarify a few things on the plans. No comments from Board members. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to accept the request to withdraw the petition without prejudice. The motion is seconded by Mr. Watkins. The vote was unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas, Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos. • Project A continuation of a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change an existing nonconforming use of a multifamily residential units to another nonconforming use of nixed use commercial office/retail. The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the maximum height, front yard setbacks and relief from Sec. 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements and 5.1.5 Parking Design. Applicant ROBERT BURR Location 331-335 LAFAYETTE ST and 5-7 WEST AVE (Map 32 Lots 231, 232, 233)(131, R1, 112) Attorney Grover requested a continuation of the public hearing to be heard at the next regularly scheduled meeting on December 16, 2015. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the request to continue the to the next regularly scheduled meeting on December 16, 2015.The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas.The vote was unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos). Project Petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow at 30' curb cut and to modify a • previous Zoning Board of Appeal decision to reflect the new parking plan. Applicant JOSEPH SKOMURSKI Location 43 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 238) (R2 Zoning District) Petitioner Joseph Skomurski presents the petition. Mr. Skomurski states that the original approved plan shows three (3) parking spaces located in the back of the property. The proposed changes to the approved plan include moving the three (3) parking spaces to the Planters Street side of the property to allow greenspace in the backyard rather than paving a parking lot in the backyard of the duplex on the corner of Planters Street and Bridge Street. Ms. Curran- Clarifies with the petitioner that there will still be three (3) parking spaces total. Mr. Skomurski is proposing to reconfigure the parking spaces and the proposed reconfiguration is causing the need a curb cut that is six (6) feet larger than the required width. The allowable curb cut width is 24' feet. Before this project,what was the size of the curb cut? Mr. Skomurski- There was no curb cut along Planters Street and the previously approved plans did not have sidewalks. A sidewalk plan was later approved by the Engineering Department. Mr. Skomurski presents the sidewalk plan and requests to change the parking plan. • Ms. Curran- Confirms that the curb cut opening is the same location as the previously approved plans. Ms. Curran confirms that the building on this lot is a duplex rather than a single family home as the site plan may be mislabeled. Mr. Skomurski- Confirms that the building at 43 Bridge Street is a duplex. Ms. Curran- confirms that the intention of shifting the parking spaces to this new location is to create greenspace in the backyard for the duplex. Mr. Skomurski-yes. No comments from the Board. Ms. Curran- opens public hearing Councillor Famico,Ward 2-Requests that the curb cut maintain the same material and look of an extended sidewalk.As per Complete Streets practices,curb cuts should maintain the look of an extended sidewalk and to make sure that the driveway will be concrete instead of asphalt. Mr. Skomurski- The sidewalk and driveways will be asphalt and goes on to describe the sidewalk plan. • Councillor Famico-Requests that the Board requires all sidewalks and driveways be concrete to maintain the pedestrian look on the streets. Katie Schrader 10 East Collins-Expressed concern about whether the duplex will block the view to make a right hand turn around the corner. Mr. Skomurski-Yes, there will be a clear view. There will be no change to the location of the curb on the corner of Planters Street and Bridge Street and the duplex will not block the view for people turning onto Bridge Street. The position of the building is not change. Randy Green 50 Bridge Street- Clarification that the proposed curb cut is on Planters Street and not on Bridge Street. Flora Tonthat 30 Northey Street-What was the parking configuration before?Were there only two (2) parking spaces? Mr. Skomurski- Originally there was three (3) parking spaces in the backyard. The new proposal is to move the three (3) parking spaces to be perpendicular to Planters Street rather than have them in the backyard of the duplex. Ms. Curran- no additional public comments. Ms. Curran-The reconfiguration is adding some greenspace and the proposal is basically the same as what was approved. The opening of the curb cut is also not moving any closer to the corner. No additional Board comment. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the petition requesting Variances requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow at 30' curb cut and to modify a previous Zoning Board of Appeal decision to reflect the new parking plan at the property located at 43 Bridge Street. The motion is seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos.The vote was unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos).The petition is approved. Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from minimum side yard setback to allow the construction of a 3' x 4' square foot stairway and landing within the required 10' foot setback. Applicant ANN HARRISON Location 26 GREENWAY ROAD (Map 14 Lot 179) (R1 Zoning District) Ann Harrison-26 Greenway Road—Petitioner presents the petition. Ms. Curran- asks Building Inspector,Tom St. Pierre, to confirm that the building only has one means of egress. • Mr. St. Pierre-Yes, there is only one means of egress. Ms. Curran- States that the petitioner is proposing to have a second means of egress to comply with the building code and plans to construct a 3' x 4' square foot stairway and landing. There is no addition and no deck,only the required landing and length of the stairs. Mr. Viccica-Asks if there is a light proposed for the side door and asks whether the neighbor is close to the property line as well. Ms. Harrison-There was no light proposed for the side door. The neighbor is close and a letter of support is provided from her in the petition form packet. Ms. Curran- Reads letter from residents of 28 Greenway Road in support of the petition. No other public comment. Ms. Curran- States that the existing house is already located within the 10' foot setback requirement. The proposed egress with a stairway and landing is proposed to meet building code requirements and will not be creating new living space or a deck. The stairway and landing are simply for a second means of egress. Mr. Watkins-Ask for clarification on the hardship. r- • Mr. St. Pierre- States that the hardship is that the existing structure has only one means of egress and it is a building requirement that the structure needs two (2) means of egress. Ms. Curran- States that the hardship as it relates to the existing structure is that the home is already built within the setback and the petitioner does not proposed to take down the house and rebuild it. The physical layout of the structure itself poses a hardship. Mr. Duffy- In addition, the home is out of compliance with one (1) means of egress and poses life-safety e safe issue. P �' Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the petition seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from minimum side yard setback to allow the construction of a 3' x 4' square foot stairway and landing within the required 10' foot setback.The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas.The vote was unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos). Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition seeking a Variance requesting relief from See. 5.1.5 Parking Design to allow a 40' wide curb cut at the property located at 24 WINTER STREET (Map 35 Lot 83)(R2 Zoning District). • Applicant PETER LUTTS Location 24 WINTER STREET (Map 35 Lot 83)(R2 Zoning District) Peter Lutts, petitioner, presents the petition. Mr. Lutts is the owner and resident of the property and is seeking relief from the parking design for an additional curb cut to allow a 40' foot curb cut on Oliver Street. The house is a two (2) family with frontage on Winter Street and Oliver Street. There is on-street parking on Winter Street and no on street parking on the north side of the street. Ms. Curran- Clarifies with the petitioner and Tom St. Pierre that the existing garage and curb cut are 20' feet and count toward the total maximum allowable curb cut requirements. Ms. Curran confirms with the petitioner that the proposed 40' foot curb cut would not be a continuous curb cut. Mr. Lutts- confirms that the existing garage curb cut is 20' feet and counts toward the total allowable curb cut requirements. The proposed expanded curb cut would not be continuous. Ms. Curran- states that the petitioner is not proposing to eliminate any on-street parking spaces as there is no parking allowed on that side of Oliver Street. Ms. Curran also confirms that the petitioner proposes a total of three (3) parking spaces. Mr. Lutts- States that he met with the neighbors and originally proposed four (4) tandem parking spaces,but in response to neighbor opposition, the total number of parking spaces • proposed has been reduced to three (3) parking spaces,one in the existing garage and two (2) side-by-side parking spaces along Oliver Street.Mr. Lutts presents architectural • renderings to the Board and public to show the proposed parking layout, driveway materials, landscaping,greenspace and curb cut. Mr. Lutts also presents three (3) letters of support from neighbors at 6, 7 and 8 Oliver Street. The home is a two (2) family house with one off- street parking space. Ms. Curran opens comment to Board members. Mr. Copelas-Would the telephone pole interfere with the proposed curb cut? Mr. Lutts- No. There is a proposed break in the curb cut to accommodate the telephone pole. Ms. Curran-Asks about the proposed material for the driveway. Mr. Lutts-states that the proposed material from the driveway is brick in keeping with the style of the neighborhood and house. Mr. Lutts references the architectural renderings. Ms. Curran- Reads letters of public comment into the record received in opposition from the following residents: 41 Washington Square, 24 '/2 Winter Street. Read letters of public comment in support from the following: 6 Oliver Street, 7 Oliver Street,and 8 Oliver Street. 18 Oliver Street-James Metsch-States that the proposal is in harmony with the existing neighborhood and requests that if the Board approves the proposal, that the name and date • of the plan be included as reference in the Decision. Mr. Lutts- States that the parking on the property is existing non-confornng. With this proposal, the proposed three (3) parking spaces are in conformance with the zoning requirements. Ms. Curran-The petitioner is asking for a Variance to exceed the maximum curb cut allowance and the reason for this is to not have large expanses of curb cuts. The proposal is making the property more conforming by adding on-site parking spaces because the lot currently does not have the number of required parking. Mr. Lutts-Looking at Oliver Street, one could argue that this side is all one big curb cut. Mr. Lutts presents pictures of the street. Ms. Curran- Right,I think the bylaw was trying to avoid this outcome. The purpose of the dimensional requirements for a curb cut is likely intended to avoid one expansive curb cut. Ms. Curran does not recall having a proposal for a curb cut before. I can see the benefit of this proposal and how it can be detrimental. How do you apply the standard for a Variance to a curb cut? Mr. Watkins-Didn't we just approve a curb cut? Ms. Curran- The petition for Mr. Ingersoll was a request to appeal the Decision of the Building Inspector and was upheld. • Ms. Curran-As long as it is not creating a huge expanse,a lot of times the Board does not approve things when there is not enough parking, but in this case the perition proposes to conform to the parking requirements without eliminating on-street parking. Mr. Lutts- Not taking anything away from the neighborhood,just taking a small piece of yard to turn it into parking. Mr. Copelas- Clarifies with the petitioner, that the existing curb cut to a garage is 19 feet and an additional 21 feet is proposed for a total curb cut of 40' feet along Oliver Street. Kate Leavy-18 Oliver Street-While the design is nice the one negative thing is that Oliver Street has become one giant curb cut. It is less aesthetically pleasing and may affect property values if Oliver Street continues to become the back alleyway for Winter Street. All of the parking for Winter Street residents seems to get pushed to Oliver Street in the form of curb cuts. Ms. Leavy requests that special attention to the aesthetics of a curb cut is considered. Originally,we wanted to see more of a garage with a window to look like a residence. Most of the trees on this street have been removed. Oliver Street continues to be losing more and more of the streetscape and continues to be chopped up. Ms. Leavy does not want this street to become a service alley for a street with a grant corridor entrance. Councillor Famico- Ward 2- Requests that parking spaces be used for all residents at 24 Winter Street and not only one person with multiple cars. • Mr. Lutts- States that the proposed parking spaces will be used by all three (3) residents and not only one person. Councillor Famico- Clarifies the address of the second unit. Mr. Lutts- 24R Winter Street. Mr. Metch, 18 Oliver Street- Having trouble understanding what the hardship may be and expresses concern about having too much curb cut along Oliver Street,but also expresses support for the design as it fits with the aesthetic of the neighborhood. Mr. Lutts- States that the hardship is difficulty with one parking space. When the house was purchased,Mr. Lutts anticipated constructing two (2) additional parking spaces. Not trying to develop the house or change the use. Mr. Copelas- States a concern about allowing the argument that because the curb cut will reduce a non-conformity, then the Board will allow a Variance. This concept could be considerably expanded when considering any other Variance anyone else asks for if by asking for it, the Variance reduces a non-conformity not sure that the Board should then grant the Variance. Struggling with the hardship argument. How is this a hardship?Not to say that the proposal is not an improvement,but the legal requirement is to prove a hardship. • Mr. Lutts- Parking in the garage during snow storms and walking to the house... Is that a hardship? Mr. Curran and Mr. Copelas-A personal hardship to the applicant is not a legal hardship. • Mr. Watkins-Agrees with Mr. Copelas. Mr. Watkins likes the proposal and may be better for the neighborhood, however, the hardship is lacking. How many cars fit in the garage? Has the applicant considered widening the garage to fit another car? Mr. Lutts- Only one car fits in the garage and the current proposal is the easiest solution. Mr. Curran-This is a good proposal and it is well thought out. It is difficult to grant a Variance. It would be easier to grant a special permit if this were permissible. In terms of the streetscape, a fence could even be installed that could close and diminish the view of parked cars. Mr. Lutts-Asks the Board to confirm that the maximum curb cut is 20 feet and then proposes an alternative. Theoretically,if the curb in front of the garage was replaced and no longer a curb cut, could there be a 20' ft curb cut next to the current curb cut? Ms. Curran-Yes, the maximum allowable limit is a 20'ft curb cut and it may be possible to replace the curb where the current curb cut is located and make a new curb cut next to the current one. Can you access your garage from the side to be able to have cars turn into the garage? Mr. Lutts- No. Mr. Tsitsinos-Sees the proposal as taking two (2) cars off the street • Ms. Curran-I agree, but it's the hardship that is missing. Mr. Copelas-There are many properties in Salem where there is frontage and people could snake to ask for curb cuts to have off-street parking. This does not satisfy the Variance requirements of a hardship. Mr. St. Pierre-There is a prohibition of parking in the front yard setback. Ms. Curran-To not do this,what is the hardship incurred by the literal enforcement of the bylaw?Less parking. Mr. Tsitsinos- Less parking and adding two (2) cars on the street. This proposal frees up two (2) on-street parking spaces on the public way. Ms. Curran-Yes, the public good argument can be made, although there are concerns regarding aesthetics from the neighbors. Mr. Watkins and Mr. Copelas- not having parking on-site is not a legal hardship. Ms. Curran-This is a nice project and wish the Board could approve it. With fencing the Board this project may be even better to conceal the cars and not change the aesthetic of what is there now. . • Mr. Lutts-Asks the Board whether he can replace the curb where there is an existing curb cut and then create a new 20' ft curb cut as proposed and theoretically park four (4) cars tandem. Ms. Curran and Mr. St. Pierre-Yes. Mr. Lutts- I don't want to do this,but I don't want to have one (1) parking space for this house either. Ms. Curran-Yes, this alternative does not become a negotiating point with the Board. Mr. Lutts-No intention to negotiate with the Board,just brainstorming an alternative option. Mr. Viccica-Tandem parking is allowed? Mr. St. Pierre-There is nothing that prohibits tandem parking. However, tandem parking does not count as a legal space. Ms. Curran- States that the petitioner can opt to continue to work on the hardship clause or request to withdraw, or vote. Mr. Lutts- Clarifies the conditions that if the Board denies the petition, the petitioner cannot • come back to the Board for another two (2) years. Ms. Curran- Confirms this requirement. Mr. Duffy-This is just a thought,but the request is really a dimensional variance. There is some precedence that suggests that the standard is a little less for a dimensional variance. A well articulated argument for how there may be a hardship may be enough to support the petition. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting on December 16, 2015.The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Rebecca Curran, Peter A. Copelas, Tom Watkins,Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy). Project A public hearing for the petition requesting a Special Pernut from Sec. 3.1.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change of a motor vehicle service use to a motor vehicle general and body repair use at the property. Applicant HIPPOLITO MADERA Location 35 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 235) (B-4 Zoning District) • Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. The petitioner,Hippolito Madera,plans to • relocate his business,J & G Transmission, from 4 Florence Street to this currently unoccupied building on 35 Bridge Street located at the end of Ferry Street. This summer, Mr. Madera was before the Zoning Board of Appeals,with a similar request and install a paint booth to operate a general motor vehicle repair business. That petition was denied by the Board over residential neighbor concerns that the spray booth could have had detrimental effects on the adjacent residential neighborhood. The currently proposed location is a much more suitable location for this kind of business. The property is located in a B-4 Wholesale Automotive Zoning District. The property is surrounded by commercial uses. The petitioner proposes to install a paint booth and operate a general motor vehicle repair business. Historically the property at 35 Bridge Street was used for an automotive vehicle repair business named Witch City Autobody. That company operated for decades and operated a much more intense use operation than what Mr. Madera proposes. Mr. Madera proposes to spray paint bumpers,but not a full auto body operation. In a B-4 Zoning District, requires a special permit for auto body repair. The parcel is located in a commercial area, surrounded by commercial uses. The will not have a net negative impacts on the environment, there are no issues regarding traffic or parking, the fiscal impact will be positive and allow an existing Salem business and its employees to remain in Salem. George Fallon, of Tache Real Estate, spoke with the Health Department and Fire Department to check if there were any concerns about the operation of a spray paint booth. George Fallon,Tache Real Estate-Yes, the Health Department and Fire Department felt • good about the product and the applicant needs to follow installation requirements and be in compliance with the Board of Health and Fire Department. The existing building sits at the rear of the site,because it was part of the original frame building that extended all the way out to the Bridge Street sidewalk.The rear building,where the applicant proposes to have a spray booth,was previously used as a spray booth for 30-40 years. Overtime the site has been cleaned up and the frame building was considered unsafe and taken down. Now this site is a car lot. The use of this site has been used as automotive since the early 1900's. Ms. Curran-How long has the building been vacant? Mr. Fallon-About 6-8 months. The property was continuously used as an automotive repair shop. The previous person who moved in to operate an automotive repair did not pay rent and subsequently moved out. Mr. Tsitsinos- Concern about where cars are going to be stored. Mr. Fallon-States that the petitioner will have an agreement with the used car lot owner to use the space to the right of the building to park 8-10 cars in tandem,two (2) cars wide along the depth of the lot.The garage also has the capacity to store 3-4 cars in tandem inside. Mr. Copelas-What is going on with the lot behind or to the side of the building at 35 Bridge Street?Mr. Copelas states that there appears to be a lot behind this building with 15-20 junk cars. • • Mr. Fallon-States that this area is the end of a paper street. A chainlink fence was also installed a while ago to keep people out of the area and now that area is used to put cars in there. Attorney Grover—This is all part of 35 Bridge Street and Ferry Street. Mr. Fallon-The egresses of the building are not dependent on that particular lot. Ms. Curran- Confirms that the proposed use of the building has been an existing use on the property in the past and the use of a automotive repair shop was within the last two (2) years. Mr. Fallon-Yes. Ms. Curran-Why is this not and existing non-conforming use? Attorney Grover-That is one way to approach this project,but either request would be for a special permit. Mr. St. Pierre-The most recent use of the property was a motor vehicle repair shop,which is allowed by right in a B-4 Zoning District whereas an autobody shop is only allowed by special permit. Ms. Curran-What is the difference between auto repair and what is being proposed? Attorney Grover- States that auto repairs are mechanical repairs rather than an autobody shop where cars can be repaired and paiated. Ms. Curran-There is a distinction in the by-law? Mr. St. Pierre-Yes. Attorney Grover- States that an autobody repair shop is distinctly only allowed by special permit from the ZBA. Ms. Curran- Understands the distinction. Mr. Copelas-Autorepair would have been allowed by right. Ms. Curran- Does the petitioner propose to make any improvements to the facade of the building? Mr. Fallon-Yes, the building is currently painted two (2) different colors and it will be painted one (1) color. Mr. Tsitsinos-The budding has been improved with a new hearing system,new roof and new siding recently. This site has been cleaned up recently. The only concern is that there • should be no cars on the street or anything blocking the property by the current concrete • barriers. Mr. Fallon- States that this site is a place where people dump garbage and stuff. There is no one with eyes on the property, but anticipates that with this new business,there will be less dumping. It gets better when there is a presence on the property. Ms. Curran- Opens public comment. Trisha Truhart- 4 East Collins Street-Wants to ensure that the proper air filters and air handling mechanisms are in place to limit odor in the neighborhood. Attorney Grover-States that the installation of a spray paint booth is subject to Fire Department and Board of Health installation requirements and regulations. It is a standard condition of the Zoning Board of Appeals to also require the applicant to be in compliance of Fire Department and Board of Health requirements. All state and local requirements must be met by the applicant. Mr. St. Pierre- In addition to meeting local regulations, the petitioner also needs to comply with state DEP requirements and monitoring. DEP is a regulator on air quality in relation to spray paint booths. Mr. Fallon- States that Larry Ramdin, from the Health Department spoke to the factory representative and felt comfortable with performance of the equipment filter for the spray paint booths. Mr. Duffy- This is a pretty good location for this type of use and was in the neighborhood before. This seems like a good site in terms of the surrounding uses. This is serving a community need to keep a Salem business in the city. It looks like there is plenty of access concerning traffic flow and safety and that compliance and oversight by DEP, the Fire Department and the Board of Health is adequate to address concerns regarding air quality related to the use of a spray booth. Utilities and public services are adequate. There is a positive potential fiscal impact from having a business operate in this location. The adverse effects of this proposed use will not outweigh the public benefits. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the petition requesting a Special Permit from Sec. 3.1.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change of a motor vehicle service use to a motor vehicle general and body repair use subject to eight (8) standard conditions and one (1) special condition that no vehicles or dumpsters may be located on the property along the entire length of Ferry Street. The motion is seconded by Jimmy Tsitsinos.The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Rebecca Curran (Chair),Tom Watkins, Peter Copelas, Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed. • • Project A public hearing for the petition of requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change and existing nonconforming use of a social club to another nonconforming use of eighteen (18) residential units. The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, minimum lot coverage, front and side yard setbacks, minimum distance between buildings, and number of stories. Applicant MICHAEL MEYER Location 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277)(R1 Zoning District). *Board member Jimmy Tsitsinos recuses himself due to a possible conflict of interest. Attorney Grover presents the petition. The property is located at the Planters Street and East Collins Street. It is the site of the old Ward 2 Social Club.Attorney Grover presents the existing conditions of the property. The site is an eyesore in the neighborhood and is not in very good condition. The site itself has a lot of attractive natural features including wetlands, beach,a coastal dune and waterfront views along Collins Cove. When Mr. Meyers purchased the property this summer, he wanted to convert the property from a commercial use to a residential use. He began the process by developing a plan for the site. The original site plan proposal was for twenty- four (24) residential units divided • into two (2) buildings and were about four (4) stories high. The proposal also had less than the required parking spaces. The plan was presented at a neighborhood meeting and was not well received. The neighborhood had serious concerns about the density of the project,massing of the building, height and parking. As a result, the plan was revised to reduce the number of dwelling units to eighteen (18) residential units,lower the building height, reduce the mass, provide enough parking to comply with the zoning requirements and provide a public walkway with access to the beach. The building was redesigned to be broken up to maintain view corridors to the neighborhood. This is the petition that was fled with the Board in September. Attorney Grover presents another revised plan to the Board. The petitioner proposes to further reduce the number of units from eighteen (18) to fourteen (14). There are eight (8) units proposed for the linear building that runs along Planters Street,Building"A" and six (6) residential units along East Collins Street,Building"B". The petitioner proposes to build the project in two (2) phases with the budding along Planters Street to be constructed first because this portion of the property is outside of the jurisdiction of state Chapter 91 licensing. The second would be built after the Chapter 91 process. The petitioner has had a series of three (3) neighborhood meetings before coming to the Board. One of the major concerns from the neighborhood was the potential for this project to have overflow parking negatively impact the neighborhood. In response, the revised plan • includes two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit,which exceeds the Zoning Ordinance requirements of 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. One of the nice things about the plan • is that parking is proposed to be located under the buildings and the current parking pavement will be replaced by landscape materials and plantings. The living areas are raised with parking proposed underneath by necessity because the entire site is located within the flood zone. The reduction of the number of dwelling units has also allowed the applicant to further reduce the building massing and height to be about thirty-two (32) feet and this is within what the zoning ordinance requires. There are a number of areas of relief being requested. The first is a special permit from one nonconforming use to another less detrimental nonconforming use. The petitioner is also requesting a series of dimensional Variances including relief from lot area per dwelling unit, side yard setback, front yard setback along East Collins Street, frontage and number of stories as the building is technically three (3) stories. The property is in an R-1 Zoning District. On the grounds for a special permit, the Board needs to find that the proposed use is less detrimental than the existing nonconforming use. There are several reasons why this project satisfies this requirement: 1) the petitioner is proposing to change the use from a commercial use to residential,which is closer to the underlying allowable use of the neighborhood 2) the petitioner is providing public access from East Collins Street to the beach,which is a public benefit 3) the proposal has more parking than required and is not more detrimental than what currently exists 4) fiscal impacts will be positive. Grounds for Variances: Special conditions that pertain to this land are that it is subject to • Chapter 91 and very little of the site can be developed due to wetlands, coastal dunes,and a major easement for the high powered gas line. Excluding the property that is subject to Chapter 91 review and given other environmental factors of the site, only 11,000 square feet is buildable land. The petitioner is requesting Variances from front and side setback requirements to build within the buildable land envelope outside the jurisdiction of Chapter 91 review and a variance for the number of stories to meet design requirements for building in a floodplain. Attorney Grover presents a map with a rudimentary density study to show residential density within a 3 acre area just outside of the subject property. The density shows there are twenty- two (22) dwelling units per acre with an average lot area of 2,613 square feet. The petitioner is proposing 14 dwelling units per acre and is considerably less density. The Board recently approved a project on 43 Bridge Street where six (6) units were approved on a parcel of 14,000 square feet. The petition of 1-3 East Collins Street regarding density is consistent with the district and the intent of the ordinance. Dan Ricciarelli-Seger Architects Presents proposed elevation plans and describes how the proposed architectural design is consistent with the architecture,massing, and density of the existing neighborhood.An architectural study was done to see how the buildings would be perceived from East Collins Street and along Planters Street. From East Collins Street,building"A"is perceived as a two-story townhome. The building massing is broken up by gables and a greater amount of space between Building"A" and Building`B" to keep neighborhood views of Collins Cove The architectural plans also integrate Low Impact Development best practices with • • landscaping and rain gardens. This development will also remove a significant amount of pavement from the site. Mr. Ricciarelli shows architectural drawings to the Board and the public. Mr. Meyer,Petitioner- States that he and his team have had three (3) neighborhood meetings and has significantly reduced the number of units proposed and accommodated neighborhood concerns. Mr. Meyer states that the development of this property will increase the value of neighboring properties tremendously. On Planters Street no one sees the frontage across from the National Grid property. Mr. Meyer states that the residential units will be two (2) bedrooms and very high quality. The number of units has decreased from twenty-four (24) to fourteen (14) and cannot go any lower to make a profit. Mr. Meyer states that he is donating a unit to Bridgewell. Ms. Curran- For the special permit, the Board needs to find that the proposal is less detrimental than the existing use. What was the old use of this property and how did it function?The building was a single story brick building. Attorney Grover-Ward 2 Social Club was a place for members to gather with a bar and community space. The Club has been in the neighborhood for decades. The space is currently vacant and has no productive use for the City. Mr. Viccica-Where are you in the regulatory process?What modifications to the plan may occur after the Zoning Board makes a decision? Attorney Grover-Before the petitioner can apply to the state for a Chapter 91 license all local approvals have to be received first. The project also has to go through the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act review before Chapter 91. Both MEPA and Chapter 91 can be a very long process. There are projects that were approved at the local level years ago that are still not built because the projects are hung up in the Chapter 91 process. One of the reasons this project is designed the way it is,is to have the opportunity to develop eight (8) units with local approvals that are required by the Zoning Board of Appeals,Planning Board, and Conservation Commission. Phase II to construct building`B" requires MEPA and Chapter 91 review and expect to take a year and a half for state approvals. Mr.Viciccia-What modifications to the plan may occur after the Zoning Board makes a decision? Attorney Grover-Building"A"is unlikely to change, but Building`B"is likely to change through the MEPA and Chapter 91 process and may need to come back to the Planning Board or Zoning Board and ask for an amendment to a decision if needed. Mr. Copelas-What was the status of the social club?Did they pay tax or were they tax exempt? Attorney Grover-The club paid taxes. • Mr. Hacker-What is the proposed size of the units and the number of rooms?What is the • anticipated selling price? Mr. McciareIli- Units will be about 1,300 square feet with two (2) bedrooms. Mr. Meyer- States that the selling price will be low to mid$300,000 range. Ms. Curran-There are many written comments to be read into the record. The Board is doing two (2) things here. The property is Zoned R-I and a single residence can be constructed in this zone as a matter of right, but because this is an existing nonconforming use, the State law that the Zoning Board of Appeals follows, can allow one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use as long as the applicant can show that the new use is less detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming use. The Zoning Board of Appeals is also looking at hardship in relation to uniqueness of the property and the literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance. If this were not a nonconforming use, this proposal for multi-family residential units could not be done in this zoning district. Ms. Curran-Reads the following letters into the record: Spectra Energy Partners and Algonquin Gas Transmission,LLC- On October 19, 2015 the Board received a letter to inform the Board that the plan submitted contained an error. The plan showed a building to be constructed on the Algonquin Gas right-of-way and was a violation of the easement conditions. On November 16, 2015,Algonquin Gar Transmission LLC submitted a letter to the Board with a statement that a revised plan that eliminates the • construction of a building over the easement meets the easement conditions. Jennifer Firth,President of Historic Salem Inc. —Strongly opposes the project over concerns about the proposed density and that the architecture of the proposed structure does not complement the character of the surrounding neighborhood. A newly constructed project on 43 Bridge and Planters Street is referenced as an appropriate housing type that fits with the character of the neighborhood. Courtney Heath, 17 Barton Street- Strongly opposes the project over concerns about the proposed density and strongly opposes the architecture/design of the proposed structure as it does not fit the existing neighborhood aesthetic from the street and on the water. Paul and Linda McIlvene-7 East Collins Street- Strongly opposes the petition over concerns about parking, traffic generation,building massing, privacy, architectural aesthetic, environmental concerns and safety concerns about construction over the proposed natural gas line. Mary and Charles Knight- 5 East Collins Street-Strongly opposes the petition over concerns about the size, obstruction of ocean views, traffic,loss of parking the parking lot that has been used by the neighborhood for off-street winter parking, environmental impacts to the coastal dune, opposition to the proposed public walkway along the length of 5 East Collins Street. • �I it • Kim Surles- 27 Planters Street- Strongly opposes the petition due to concerns about density, drainage, utility capacity,building size and architectural aesthetic in relation to the existing neighborhood character. Tim Connell, 6 East Collins Street- Strongly opposes the petition due to concerns about density and size. This proposal does not fit with the existing character of the neighborhood and the adverse effects of the proposal outweigh the beneficial impacts to the public. Scott and Trisha Truhart- 4 East Collins Street- Ms. Truhart requested read the letter dated November 17,2015 into the record in strong opposition to the proposal due to concerns about impacts on water views, density, flooding, and neighborhood character. Ms. Curran- Opens comment to the public. Katie Schrader- 10 East Collins Street- Opposes the project due to concerns about density and impacts to the existing neighborhood including traffic and environmental impacts. Ms. Schrader also expresses concern about the series of petition revisions and is unsure of what is being proposed. Ms. Curran- Clarifies with the petitioner that the most current proposal is for fourteen (14) units. Attorney Grover- States that the petitioner has reduced the number of units from twenty- eight (28) to fourteen (14) in response to the neighborhood concerns. Ms. Schrader-restates her opposition. Ms. Knight- 5 East Collins Street- reads her own letter into the record. Councillor Famico- Ward 2 City Councillor-This property has been a problem property over the last year due to noise complaints, licensing board incidences, and problems at the attention of the Building Department. Councillor Famico expresses support for the plans as they are a significant improvement to the original petition and is pleased to see that the proposal is for high end housing that will help property values in the neighborhood and that there are two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit above the zoning requirements. Councillor Famico supports a multi-family residential housing type in the neighborhood. Expresses concerns about traffic impacts to the neighborhood and asks the Board to consider a reduction in the density to better fit with the neighborhood. Eric Shanabrook- 10 East Collins Street- Opposes the project due to concerns regarding density and a lack of off-street parking during the winter for residents. Flora Tonthat- 30 Northey Street-Appreciates that the developer has been working with the neighborhood to continue to decrease the proposed density. Supports for Salem Alliance for the Environment and Salem Sound Coast Watch and expresses concern about building so close to the flood zone and environmentally sensitive area. Ms. Tonthat suggests pulling the building back from the beach and further reducing the density. Expresses concern over the • architectural design of the buildings particularly with the aesthetics of the parking area screening and suggests a hedge or something to soften the facade while screening the • parking. Mike Albert- 13 Beacon Street-Advocates for the project and expresses support for the redevelopment of the site and supports the design aesthetics of the already existing Collins Cove townhouses. The parking lot looks like a ghetto and would like to see the site developed. Trisha Truhart- 4 East Collins Street-Takes offense to Mr.Albert's reference to property looking like a ghetto. The neighborhood is turning around and having condominiums is not an acceptable way to turn this neighborhood around. Keep the R1 Zoning District. Ms. Curran- In terms of the Variances, there are actually constraints of the existing property that would allow the Board to grant the Variances because there is a very limited building envelope as a result of unique circumstances of the land. However,Ms. Curran struggles with the finding that this project is less detrimental that the currently existing use. Even though there were some issues with the club,but the visual impact of the club is less than what is being proposed as the club is a single story, the traffic in the neighborhood was probably less,and is concerned with the proposed density of the project. The petitioner is proposing another nonconforming use and can go to another nonconforming use. Did the petitioner consider duplexes or single family homes?Maybe duplexes or single family homes would be a better fit with the neighborhood and may have less of an impact than what was there. Attorney Grover- States that fundamentally,changing from a commercial use to a residential • use is less detrimental to the residential neighborhood. The existing building is a single story, but the site itself is completely paved over. The proposed project is a much more attractive use the property then was there before. There was a lot of discussion about the parking, but the petitioner has provided two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit,which is more than the required amount of parking per the zoning ordinance and most of the traffic will be during peak times in the morning and evening when residents leave for work and come home. The proposed density of fourteen (14) units is not as a lot given the overall density in the area. . The other issue to address is concerns about construction over the gas pipeline. The gas pipeline will be sixty (60) feet underground and the easement is specific about not building over it. The gas company has taken precaution there. The property is subject to Conservation Commission jurisdiction on the local level and on the state level, the project is subject to MEPA and Chapter 91 review. The redevelopment of the site is required to formalize meaningful access through a Chapter 91 requirement to provide public access and use of the waterfront. All of these things are positive and make this development less detrimental use of the site. Ms. Curran-Will this happen with whatever goes there? Attorney Grover- Redevelopment of this site of any kind will be subject to Chapter 91 jurisdiction. Redevelopment of this site will be a substantial public benefit than the existing use. • • Mr. Copelas-Agrees with the Chair that it is ironic that the Board is struggling to see the less detrimental nature of the proposal. Housing in general is less detrimental than an existing commercial space, however, the Board needs to look at this specific project. Given testimony from the neighbors, this is not black and white that the proposal is less detrimental. There have been many comments from the neighbors over concerns that this project does not fit in with the existing neighborhood character. Mr. Viccica- Is there a chance that"Building B" could not be constructed due to the possibility of denial through the Chapter 91 process? Attorney Grover-Yes. Mr. Viccica-Your proforma is based on not fourteen (14) units,but based on eight (8) units because there is a potential that the other six (6) units in Building`B"may not be constructed or not constructed within 3-4 years. Given the limitations of the site,DEP may theoretically not allow the construction of the second building. Attorney Grover- States that the proforma is based on fourteen (14) units and if Mr. Meyer is not allowed to building the second building he is going to be in trouble. Mr. Meyer- Heard the opposition from the neighbors and presents ways,which the project has been modified to make this property buildable including needing to elevate residential spaces out of the floodplain and separating the buildings as to not block neighborhood • views of the waterfront. There will also be a public walkway as a requirement for Chapter 91. Mr. Meyer also strongly supports the architecture of the building and how it does fit with the surrounding architecture of the neighborhood. From East Collins Street, the neighborhood will be seeing the narrow width of the building with a gabled roof line that is similar to the existing single family homes in the neighborhood. From Planters Street there are no houses on the other side of the street. There will be some ocean views blocked by the proposed buildings,but the original design was significantly changed to allow views from the neighborhood through the property. Upset that the neighborhood continues to use the private property for uses including parking,loitering, and changing oil in the existing parking lot. Ms. Curran- Since multi-family is not allowed by right,in order to fit better with the neighborhood character would you consider doing something in duplexes or single- fancily homes. Mr. Meyer-As far a views,if there are four (4) single family homes on the property, the views of the ocean will be blocked. Ms. Curran-Did you look or would you look at the possibility of duplexes or single family homes on this parcel? Mr. Meyer-Yes, the first architect tried doing single family homes and it looked ridiculous. Ms. Curran-Would duplexes work? • Mr. Meyer- Duplexes would certainly look better than single family homes. • Attorney Grover- Not everything has to be the same housing type in the neighborhood. There are two examples of multi-family residential buildings that fit with the character of the neighborhood including the Settler's Way condominiums and the multi-family housing behind the Salvation Army in North Salem near the Bentley School. Salem is not a City where everything is the same. To have a diversity of housing options is not a detriment to the neighborhood. What is difficult about a single family and duplex model, the property does not lend itself to developing a cul-de-sac and a series of single family homes would need to be approved at the local level and then approved at the state level and will take up to two (2) years for the state approval process. Ms. Curran- I do not want to design this project for you,but it may be helpful to have breaks in the buildings and would do a lot to break up the scale of the building and make it fit better with the neighborhood character and the parking could be screened in such a way that it could look like part of the building rather than a parking garage. This building on Planters Street looks massive compared to the other buildings in the neighborhood. Attorney Grover- States that it may be possible to create a break in the buildings where the gas easement is located so that there is not a bridge connecting building"A". Mr. Viccica- Could you look at or would you look at having each single unit with a separate entry rather than have a single entry rather than the connection?Then the bridge over the • easement would not have to exist and in the end the petitioner would get some floor area back into each unit. Mr. Ricciarelli-The entrances would have to be on the courtyard side and within Chapter 91 jurisdiction and the building is pushed right to the property line. This would be great. Ms. Curran-Then the lobby area could also be eliminated. Attorney Grover-That design may happen with Building`B". Mr. Viccica-This is why I am having a hard time with this project. If you design for single units each with an entry it can be done,but the limit is on time through the MEPA and Chapter 91 process this is not necessarily a reason to grant variances or special permits. Some things just have to take time and regulated for the right answer rather than the most expedient way just because the petitioner is constrained by the property itself. Is there a way to find out what the capacity of the regulation will be? Attorney Grover-There is not. DEP will not even look at projects until all local approvals have been obtained. Mr. Viccica-States that there is no problem with the typology,but rather a problem with the way that this building has been forced and articulated to go around the regulatory process. • Mr. Copelas-There seems to be a lot of design compromises that were made strictly because of regulatory requirements and timing of development. Again, those regulations are there for a reason and should not force the Board of Appeals to accept a less than optimal design to fit into these regulatory and time constraints that the developer is under. Attorney Grover-Will take a look at the some of the design elements that the Board has suggested. Ms. Curran- Can you come back in December? Attorney Grover- If we can come up with a plan that still keeps the development schedule with a better design this may be helpful and understands the Board concerns. Attorney Grover-Requests a continuation to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday,December 16, 2015. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the request for a continuation of the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday,December 17,2015. Seconded by Mr. Copelas.The vote was with five (5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy) in favor and none(0)opposed. • Project Request for a six (6) month extension to exercise rights granted by the June 2, 2010 Board Decision, as previously extended by request of the applicant as well as the Permit Extension Acts of 2010 and 2012, that approved Variances from building height (feet), buffer zone width, and number of parking spaces to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional office building with retail and municipal space. Applicant HIGH ROCK BRIDGE, LLC Location 44 BOSTON STREET and 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 15 Lot 305)(NRCC Zoning District) Ms. Curran- states that the Board has received a letter with a request for a six (6) month extension to exercise rights granted by June 2, 2010 Board Decision, as previously extended by request of the applicant as well as the Pertnit Extension Acts of 2010 and 2012,that approved Variances from building height (feet), buffer zone width, and number of parking spaces to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional office building with retail and municipal space. The extension request is due to prevent the relief from lapsing while an alternative project is being permitted by the Planning Board. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the request for a six(6)month extension to exercise rights granted by the June 2, 2010 Board Decision, as previously extended by request of the applicant as well as the Permit Extension Acts of 2010 and 2012,that approved Variances from building height (feet),buffer zone width, and number of parking spaces to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional office building with retail and municipal space. Seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos.The vote was with • five (5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins,Mike • Duffy) in favor and none (0) opposed. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES October 21,2015 meeting minutes. Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve the minutes as printed. Seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos.The vote was with five (5) (Rebecca Curran(Chair),Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins,James Hacker) in favor and none (0)opposed. 'OLD/NEW_BUSINESS - 2016 Meeting Schedule-Approval Motion and Vote:Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve the 2016 meeting schedule as printed.The Board will continue to meet every third Wednesday of each month. Seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos.The vote was with five (3) (Rebecca Curran(Chair),Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins,James Hacker)in favor and none (0) opposed. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Curran motioned for adjournment of the November 18, 2015 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 9:30pm. Motion and Vote: Ms. Curran made a motion to adjourn the November I8,2015 regular • meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos,and the vote is unanimous with five (5) in favor(Rebecca Curran,Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins,James Hacker) 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 or pro%ect at hh://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA Zoning pnealsMin/ Respectfully submitted, Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner • CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL Q,. 1015 NOT- 1 b 120 WASHMNGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSEM 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦FAR:97 KmmERLEYDRiscoLL 8-740-0404 F!L E P MAYOR CITY CLERK, SP;LEM,M SS. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JOSEPH SKOMURSKI seeking Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design to allow a 30' curb cut and to modify a previous Zoning Board of Appeal decision to reflect the new parking plan at the property located at 43 BRIDGE STREET(Map 36 Lot 238) (R2 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED,NOV 18, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., 3`"floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 11/4/2015 & 11/11/2015 This notice posted on ,Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on NOV 04 2015 at?,I( pVjj in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. I CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS f BOARD OF APPEAL 1 V -4 A 8: 1 120 WASt-INwGTON STREET#SA!FAIL MASSACHUsEM 01970 T)FIEPxoNe:978- 9-5685+FAx 978-740-0404 ICmteaRtsr DR[scou 61 FILE t� MAYOR CITY CLEI K+ SALEM.M.",S City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of ANN HARRISON seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Beguimments of the Salem Zoning Ordinance ng within from minimm u side yard setback to allow the construction of a Tx 4' square foot stairway and landing the required 10' foot setback at the property of 26 GREENWAY ROAD (Map 14 Lot 1 di Zoning District). •The public hearing will be held on WED. NOV 18, 2015 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3 e at 120 Washington Street. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 11/4/2015& I1/11/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" Ci Hall, Salem, Mass. on NOV 0 4 2815 at y j(p6�ft in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETT i"" ) U ggU BOARD OF APPEAL MP ` 120 wASHINGTON STREET•sALEM,MASSACHUsETI'S o NO o -4 A I b TELE:978-619-5685 ♦FAx:978-740-0404 FILE r KiNmERLEI'DxiscoLL MAYOR CITY CLERK, SAL€M. MASS, City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public heating for all persons interested in the petit ion of PET ER L UTTS seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.5 Parkin Des' allow g Design to a ow a 40 wide curb cut at the property located at 24 WINTER STREET(Map 35 Lot 83)(112 Zoning District). The public hearing will be held on WED. NOV 18, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Td Floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET,Rm 313. • Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 11/4/2015 & 11/11/2015 This notice posted on "OfficWff UU l�t%gDard" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on �NUUYV at ' in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sect ohY18-25. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS kti BOARD OF APPEAL r 1015 NOY -U A & lb i •� !% 120 WASHINGroN STREEr♦SALEM,MA&SACHUSETr3 0197F IL E ff KIMB—MIflaI uSCOLL TELE:978-619-5685♦FAX:978-740 CLER}(, SALEM. MASS. i ERLEY DRI MAYOR Cityf o Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of HIPPOLITO MADERA requesting a Special Permit from Sec. 3.1.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change of a motor vehicle service use to a motor vehicle general and body repair use at the property located at 35 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 235) (B-4 Zoning District). Said hearing will be held on WED, NOV 18, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., P floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, • ROOM 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 11/4/2015 & I1/I1/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" CityHall, Salemi.Mass. on NOV 0 y 2015 at /(o(c�, in accordance with MGL Chap. SOA, Sections 18-25. CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS 5� e� • 5 5, ,sA k�% BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETffisl 1ZC —2 P 2' TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 24 KIMI3ERLEY DRISCOLL FILE +• MAYOR CITY CLEF?K. Sa:;! I pI sSJ. December 2, 2015 AMENDED Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of JOSEPH SKOMURSKI seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow at 30' curb cut and to modify a previous Zoning Board of Appeal decision to reflect the new parking plan at the property located at 43 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 238) (112 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 18, 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11 and closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Peter A. Copelas, Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,Jimmy Tsitsinos. The Petitioner seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow at 30' curb cut and to modify a previous Zoning Board of Appeal decision to reflect the •new parking plan. Statements of fact: 1. Joseph Skomurski, the petitioner,presented the petition. 2. In the petition date-stamped October 27, 2015, the Petitioner requested Variances requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow at 30' curb cut and to modify a previous Zoning Board of Appeal decision to reflect the new parking plan. 3. The petitioner presented a new parking plan dated July 28, 2015 revised on August 16, 2015 to realign three (3) parking spaces from the rear yard to the side yard to allow the addition of greenspace and prevent paving the entire rear yard as previously approved on "Lot 5." 4. The requested relief, if granted,would allow the Petitioner to exceed the 24' maximum allowable curb cut to have a 30' curb cut along Planters Street at "Lot 5" and to modify a previous Zoning Board of Appeal decision to reflect the new parking plan dated July 28,2015,revised on August 16, 2015. 5. 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 Variances for the original variance for the project: 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 existing lot is an odd shape narrow lot. City of Salem Board of Appeals December 2,2015 Project:43 Bridge Street • Page 2 of 2 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would create a substantial and unique hardship as the lot is narrow and would restrict the petitioner from using the parcel. Literal enforcement of the bylaw would result in a building envelope that is too narrow to construct a house. 3. The desired relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. The existing building on the property is blighted, and the proposed new construction would be in keeping with the general density of the neighborhood. The Board now finds that the request for the Variance for a larger curb cut is a minor modification to the original plan and the reconfiguration of the parking spaces to provide greenspace to the rear of the property is positive. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Rebecca Curran, Peter A. Copelas, Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed, to grant a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow at 30' curb cut and to modify a previous Zoning Board of Appeal decision to reflect the new parking plan at "Lot 5" shown on the plan dated August 16, 2015, 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. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained 6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain a street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 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, i 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 Ckrk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Pemsit granted herein shall not take�ct until a copy of the decision beating the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South *Registry of Deeds. ��CONDIT,q,9 t CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSE T?9439 DgC -2 P 2 24' KIMBERLEY DRIscOLL "ISLE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 MAYOR FjLE It CITY CLU"K, SALEI-I. MASS. December 2, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of ANN HARRISON seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from minimum side yard setback to allow the construction of a 3' x 4' square foot stairway and landing within the required 10' foot setback at the property of 26 GREENWAY ROAD (Map 14 Lot 179) (R1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 18, 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11 and closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter Copelas, Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,Jimmy Tsitsinos. The Petitioner is seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from minimum side yard setback to allow the construction of a 3' x 4' square foot stairway and landing within the required 10' foot setback. • Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped October 16, 2015, the Petitioner Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from minimum side yard setback to allow the construction of a 3' x 4' square foot stairway and landing within the required 10' foot setback. 2. Ann Harrison,petitioner,presented the petition. 3. The single family home was built without a second egress. The petitioner proposes to provide a second egress to meet building code by constructing a side egress, 3' x 4' landing and stairway. The propose landing and stairway are within the required 10' foot setback. 4. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the petitioner to construct a 3' x 4' square foot stairway and landing within the required 10' foot setback 5. At the public hearing, one (1) member of the public spoke in support and no (0) 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, makes the following findings: • M) City of Salem Board of Appeals December 2,2015 Project:26 Greenway Road • Page 2 of 2 Findings for 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 existing house is an existing non-conforming structure. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would create a substantial and unique hardship as having only one (1) egress is a significant life-safety issue. 3. The desired relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district 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 (Rebecca Curran, Peter A. Copelas, Tom Watkins,James Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy) and none (0) opposed, to approve the requested Special Permit to allow the construction of a 3' x 4' square foot stairway and landing within the required 10' foot setback subject to the following terms, conditions and safeguards: Standard: 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 pertnit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finished of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 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 ofice of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Valiance 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. • �C6NOIT� CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 9��lMINE 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUS FS NCO—2 P 2: 214 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-98 J "• MAYOR FILE r CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. December 2, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of SCHIAVUZZO REALTY LLC seeking a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the change from one nonconforming use of a candy factory to another nonconforming use to construct twelve (12) residential units and a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements to allow fifteen (15) of the required eighteen (18) off-street parking spaces at the property of 93-95 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lots 164, 165)(B-4 Zoning District). On November 18, 2015 the Board of Appeals met to discuss the Petitioner's request to withdraw the above referenced petition without prejudice. The following Board of Appeals members were present: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,James Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins. At the request of the Petitioner, the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter •A. Copelas,James Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy, Tom Watkins) and none (0) opposed to allow the Petitioner to withdraw this petition without prejudice. GRANTED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 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 ofice of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Pemnt 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 a *9 BOARD OF APPEAL 9 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSE'�p KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-984, M MC —2 P 2: 20, MAYOR FILL: ti CITY CLFR`t'i; SALEK f1�,SS December 2, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of HIPPOLITO MADERA requesting a Special Permit from Sec. 3.1.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change of a motor vehicle service use to a motor vehicle general and body repair use at the property located at 35 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 235) (B-4 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 21,2015 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) Peter A. Copelas,James Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy. The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.0 Table ofPrindpal andAccessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to a allow a change of use from a motor vehicle general to a motor vehicle body repair shop. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped October 27, 2015, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table of • Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a change of use from a motor vehicle general service garage to a motor vehicle body repair shop. 2. Attorney Grover presented the petition on behalf of the applicant. 3. The property is located in a Wholesale Automotive Zoning District (B-4). 4. The property was used within two (2) years as an auto-repair garage,which has since vacated the building in the last several months.The property at one time operated a spray paint booth. 5. The petitioner intends to relocate an existing business on Florence Street to this location and install a spray paint booth. 6. Under the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, the proposed use of a motor vehicle body repair shop requires a Special Pexnut under Section 3.1.2. 7. The petitioner proposes to a spray paint booth for fight auto body work and plastic bumper painting. 8. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the petitioner to change the use from a motor vehicle service garage to a motor vehicle body repair shop. 9. At the public hearing, no (0) members of the public spoke in support and no (0) members spoke in opposition to the petition. 10. 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,makes the following findings: City of Salem Board of Appeals December 2,2015 Project: 35 Bridge Street Page 2 of 2 Findings for Special Permit: 1. Social, economic, or community needs served by the proposal to retain an existing business in the City that fits with the automotive and industrial character of the neighborhood. 2. There are no negative impacts of traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading pertaining to the proposal. 3. Adequacy of utilities and other public services will not be affected. 4. Impacts on the natural environment,including drainage will not be affected. 5. The proposal will not have negative impacts on the neighborhood character. 6. Potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base and employment may be positive. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings,the Salem Board f A g , o Appeals voted five (5)in favor and none (0) opposed, (Rebecca Curran, Peter A. Copelas,James Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy) to approve the requested Special Permit to allow a change of use from a motor vehicle service garage to a motor vehicle body repair shop subject to the following terms,conditions and safeguards: Standard: 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 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 Condition: 1. No vehicles or dumpsters may be located on the property along the entire length of Ferry Street. :R &fit C'C4 / 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 fikug 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 beating the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South •Registry of Deeds. ONDIT CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS s Al, BOARD OF APPEAL 29, 1015 DEC q \� 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 _ P L• 2u KIMBERLEYDRiscoLL TFLE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 F!!_E 1i MAYOR CITY CLE ih, ALF.M. MASS. DECISION City of Salem Board of Appeals High Rock Bridge,LLC 44 Boston Street and 401 Bridge Street Salem, MA 01970 c/o Attorney Correnti Serafini, Darling&Correnti, LLP 63 Federal Street Salem,MA 01970 Re: 44 Boston Street and 401 Bridge Street High Rock Bridge Street,LLC to grant a request for a six (6) • month extension for exercise of rights granted by the June 2,2010 Board Decision, as previously extended by request of the applicant as well as the Permit Extension Acts of 2010 and 2012, that approved Variances from building height (Feet), buffer zone width, and number of parking spaces to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional office building with retail and municipal space on the property (Map 15 Lot 305). The Salem Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday, November 18, 2015 to discuss your request for the approval of a six (6) month extension to exercise rights granted by the granted by the June 2, 2010 Board Decision, as previously extended by request of the applicant as well as the Permit Extension Acts of 2010 and 2012, that approved Variances from building height (feet), buffer zone width, and number of parking spaces to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional office building with retail and municipal space on the property. The original Decision of June 2, 2010 qualified under the Massachusetts Permit Extension Acts of 2010 and 2012, and was automatically extended to May 18, 2015. On February 25, 2015 a letter was submitted by Attorney Correnti on behalf of High Rock LLC requesting a second six (6) month extension to commence on May 18, 2015 and expire on November 18,2015. On November 6, 2015, a letter was submitted by Attorney Correnti on behalf of High Rock Bridge Street,LLC, requesting an additional six (6) month extension to commence on November 18, 2015 • and expire on May 18, 2016. Mr. Correnti explained that the reason for the extension is due to prevent the relief from lapsing while an alternative project is being permitted. The Zoning Board of Appeals determined that good cause was shown to grant an extension and voted five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Copelas,Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins and Mr. Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed, to grant the approval of the six (6)-month extension request to exercise the rights City of Salem Board of Appeals December 2,2015 Project: 44 Boston 401 Bridge Street • Page 2 of 2 granted by the June 2, 2010 Board Decision as extended through May 18, 2016. This determination 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. � ,x Rebecca Curran Zoning Board of Appeal Chair CC: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk • • pONDi� CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS a BOARD OF APPEAL ]p %fNCS 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTs 01P C "8 P 54 KIMBERLEYDRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 FILE t# MAYOR CITY CLERK, S,,LEM. MA;S. MEETING NOTICE You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppeals null hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 6.30 p.m. at City HallAnnex, AM 313, 120 Washington St, Salem,MA Rebecca Curran, Chair AMENDED MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ➢ August 19, 2015 ➢ November 18, 2015 III. REGULAR AGENDA • Project A continuation of a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design to allow a 40'wide curb cut. Applicant PETER LUTTS c Location 24 WINTER STREET (Map 35 Lot 83)(R2 Zoning District) o M d A eo Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. Cl u�U 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change and existing s o J nonconforming use of a social club to another nonconforming use of eighteen (18) a�� residential units. The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 m o r Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot c-> 3 frontage, minimum lot coverage, front and side yard setbacks, minimum distance LU u between buildings, and number of stories. V� c Applicant MICHAEL MEYER go Location 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277)(Rl Zoning District) c H v 0 R 0 ca Project A public hearing for an amended petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change an existing o y to nonconforming use of multifamily residential units to another nonconforming use of a R �co mixed use commercial office/retail. The petitioner is also requesting Variances for v relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the maximum height, o M c front yard setbacks and relief from Sec. 5.0 Table of Parking Requirements and 5.1.5 Parking Design. H U toYY V • Applicant ROBERT BURR Location 331-335 LAFAYETTE ST, 5-7 WEST AVE, 11 WEST AVE (Map 32 Lots 231, 232, 233, 234)(111, R1, R2) Page 1 of 2 City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for December 16,2015 Meeting • Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure and alter it for a substantially different purpose and Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from lot area per dwelling unit, side yard setbacks and a Variance for relief from Sec 5.1 Table of Parking Requirements to allow less than the required parking spaces. Applicant 7 HOWARD STREET REALTY TRUST Location 7 HOWARD STREET (AKA 26-30 ST PETER STREET) (Map 35 Lot 180) (R3) Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition requesting Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for a minimum side yard setback and minimum rear setback to allow the petitioners to construct a shared 12' x 12' deck. Applicant MICHAEL GIARDI and JOANNE MATTERA Location 73 SUMMER STREET and 38 ENDICOTT STREET (Map 25 Lot 614 and 616) (R2) Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition requesting Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot frontage and minimum lot width to all lots and minimum lot area per dwelling unit for Lot 3 to • create three (3) lots. Applicant MATTHEW and MARIE GAGNON, TRUSTEES of HENRIE REALTY TRUST Location 186-190 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (Map 10 Lot 32) (R1) IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS None V. ADJOURNMENT • Page 2 of 2 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Date lot ,Name Mailing Address �1Phone # p E-mail /`<a7/mil<vd y a+'! ��(i'si: l9vrt ��s/�i'�f/ 7��-�%Oz G'7.99Sra.yr@L•oN(1ti5� ncF- A I�Xc4�d«/VW �I �PruS1�J��/�er,oesSldl�,s�e 7 }r Q c 71-►7�glB pi h e.ro sa6�� eldi@/y� VKw4- b - 1. 'ems LO12 ' 1*21eA eV f7e' 7yy e4occam IdImO wg S e D,LU 7 y /k. �tzf Shwa 6 57 13 wu �e may.��ro3 c4:c �e (7��p� —,9� r/1Ffn- 3 q! Z "-f AA:T- ro S'�R, Z15v 4 rA'r1t�-11 ,e a13 grin lnS 2'16 (��y�,�e 5hr��(' G"�'SDp • 4`ia 5 NvPEu �9s2 C��G� .�- ire ► I-o o 4�yek S 9�lb .3�0 3526 J6 c s o\y /U� l��rlc Page_-of f � ��oewrr9�Qr City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet rb Board Date 1a A9 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail -b vW 2(,/CLq .1j.-Gye T-s r e n0y5r® c i Pr c /i' ijL(Z aia- • Page of CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS a: q' BOARD OF APPEAL 9��MINE�" - 120 WASHINGTON$TREF..'r * SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KiNiBLRLEYDRiscota. TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals Members FROM: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner DATE: 12/4/2015 RE: Meeting Agenda for December 16, 2015 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: 1. Agenda 2. Staff Memorandum 3. 24 Winter Street 4. 1-3 East Collins Street 5. 331-335 Lafayette Street, 5-7 West Ave, 11 West Ave • 6. 7 Howard Street (AKA 26-30 St Peter Street) 7. 73 Summer Street and 38 Endicott Street 8. 186-190 Marlborough Road Below is a summation of the requested petition and any supplemental information for the Board of Appeals to consider when discussing the petition scheduled for a public hearing on Wednesday, December 16, 2015. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. A public hearing for a petition of PETER LUTTS seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design to allow a 40'wide curb cut at the property located at 24 WINTER STREET (Map 35 Lot 83)(112 Zoning District). The petitioner is seeking a variance to allow a 40'wide curb cut along Oliver Street to provide off- street parking for the property located at 24 Winter Street. The property is a two (2) family home with frontage on 24 Winter Street and an existing nineteen (19') foot curb cut on Oliver Street. The petitioner proposes to expand the existing curb cut by approximately twenty-one (21') additional feet to provide two (2) additional parking spaces. At the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on November 18, 2015, the petitioner requested a continuation to have more time to work on a statement of hardship. Enclosed is a revised statement of hardship for Board consideration. Is City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—December 9, 2015 Page 2 of 5 • 2. A public hearing for a petition of MICHAEL MEYER requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change an existing nonconforming use of a social club to another nonconforming use of eighteen (18) residential units.The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit,minimum lot frontage, minimum lot coverage, front and side yard setbacks, minimum distance between buildings, and number of stories at the property located at 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277)(R1 Zoning District). On October 21,2015 the Board granted the petitioner's request to continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting on November 18, 2015.The project was not presented and the public comment period was not opened until November 18,2015. The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change an existing nonconforming use of a social club to another nonconforning use of fourteen (14) residential units.The petitioner is requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit,minimum lot frontage,minimum lot coverage, front and side yard setbacks,minimum distance between buildings,and number of stories.The petitioner proposes to provide twenty seven (27) parking spaces on site under the proposed buildings. As discussed at the public meeting on November 18, 2015, the Board felt a strong sentiment that the design of the building should not be compromised by the timing of development due to limitations of MEPA and Chapter 91 processes.The Board requested that the building be redesigned to better fit the existing architecture of the neighborhood.The Board suggested considering a design that was more akin to townhouses with stairways leading to each unit to break up the massing of the building along Planters Street. At this time,no • revised plans have been submitted, but I do expect to see revised plans at the next meeting. The Board needs to consider whether this change or substantial extension of the use is or is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. The Board also needs to consider the criteria applicable for the Variance requests.The property is located in an R1 Zoning District. R1R1 Zoning District Dimensional Requirements { p 'F' Requtret� � � , 1'ro sest r �: s NOW. ME Minimum Lot Area Per Dwellin Unit 15,000 square feet 2,324 square feet Minimum Lot 100 feet 94.5 feet Frontage Maximum Lot 30 % 31.8% Coverage Minimum Front 15 feet 1.8 feet Yard Setback Minimum Side Yard 10 feet 0.25 feet Setback Minimum Distance 40 feet 10 feet Between Buildings Maximum Number 2.5 stories 3 stories • of Stories 2 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—December 9,2015 Page 3 of 5 • 3. A continuation of a public hearing for the amended petition of ROBERT BURR requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change and existing nonconforming use of a multifamily residential units to another nonconforming use of mixed use commercial office/retail and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to alter a nonconforming structure. The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the maximum height and front yard setbacks located at the propetties'located at 331-335 LAFAYETTE ST, 5-7 WEST AVE, 11 WEST AVE (Map 32 Lots 231, 232, 233,234)(B1, R1, R2) On November 18, 2015 the petitioner and team presented to the Board and the Board also listened to public comments both for and against the proposed project. The Board requested additional information from the petitioner and is interested in hearing back from the traffic consultant with a parking and/or traffic analysis for the site and further consideration of a reduction in the total square footage of the proposed project. At the November 18, 2015 meeting, the petitioner requested a continuation until our next regularly scheduled meeting on December 16, 2015. On November 24, 2015 the petitioner submitted a revised petition form, a new legal notice was published in the Salem News and abutter's received notification of the revised petition form, as the petitioner has a purchase and sales agreement with the owners of 11 West Avenue to purchase this property to expand the project area in an effort to meet the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The total square footage of the building has also been greatly reduced from 32,000 square feet 23,000 square feet. The revised proposal has 6,300 square feet of first floor retail space and 16,700 • square feet of second and third floor office space. The proposed development site is located in three different zoning districts including B1,R1,and R2 and within an Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The proposed use of a retail and office building is allowed by right in a B-1 Zoning District, however a small section of the proposed building and parking ancillary to the commercial uses extend into residential zones. Therefore, the petitioner is requesting a special permit from an existing nonconforming multifamily dwelling unit use to a nonconforming office/retail proposed to be partially located in residential zoning districts. The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed maximum height, front yard setbacks. Please see the table presented in the petition Site Plan and Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for reference. A copy of the revised petition and supporting documentation are included in this packet. 4. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of 7 HOWARD STREET REALTY TRUST requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure and alter it for a substantially different purpose and Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements from lot area per dwelling unit, side yard setbacks and a Variance for relief from Sec 5.1 Table ofParking Requirements to allow less than the required parking spaces located at 7 HOWARD STREET (AKA 26-30 ST PETER STREET) (Map 35 Lot 180) (R3). • This petition is a proposal for an adaptive reuse of the former Convent of Saint John the Baptist Church located with frontage on Howard Street, but also known as 26-30 St. Peter Street. The 3 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—December 9,2015 Page 4 of 5 • petitioner has entered into a Purchase &Sale Agreement with the Archdiocese of Boston to purchase a portion of the property. The petitioner is proposing to redevelop the building into six (6) residential dwelling units and provide six (6) of the required nine (9) parking spaces on the site. The parcel is located in an R-3,multi-family residential zoning district. The proposed use is allowed by-right, however since the structure is nonconforming, a special permit is required under Sec. 3.3.3 to alter the existing nonconforming structure for a substantially different purpose. In addition the petitioner is requesting Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from lot area per dwelling unit, side yard setbacks (see table below). The petitioner is also requesting a Variances for relief from Sec 5.1 Table of Parking Requirements to allow six (6) of the required nine (9) off-street parking spaces and relief from other parking design related items (please see petition for more details). Dimensional Requirements in R3 Zoning District n �� u1Ced � ��' 111041 ,,g., ,� a�ai�i�kxm a �s . _ kt`i; MR,M. � ��il��'�9pQsed, =,P.t.= ;t�, ... IN I'm ,T�t��P!", I' L�Qd.�` E'a._ _ _ _ o�e��i R?, yy,wmsmi "Is", Minimum Lot Area 25,000 square feet —1,000 sq. ft. Per Dwelling Unit Minimum Back Yard 30 feet 17.7 feet Setback Mimmum Side Yard 20 feet 8 feet Setback • A copy of the petition form and supporting materials are included in this packet. 5. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MICHAEL GIARDI and JOANNE MATTERA, requesting Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for a minimum side yard setback and minimum rear setback to allow the petitioners to construct a shared 12' x 12' deck located at the properties 73 SUMMER STREET and 38 ENDICOTT STREET (Map 25 Lot 614 and 616) (112). The petitioners are requesting Variances seeking relief from the Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum side yard setback for 73 Summer Street and minimum rear yard setback for 38 Endicott Street to allow the petitioners to construct a shared 12' x 12' deck located between their properties. There are two separate proposals, one (1) for each parcel and will be required to have two (2) separate votes. A copy of the petition forms and supporting materials are included in this packet. 6. A public hearing for the petition of MATTHEW and MARIE GAGNON, TRUSTEES of HENRIE REALTY TRUST, requesting Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot frontage and minimum lot width to all lots and minimum lot area per dwelling unit for Lot 3 to create three (3) lots located at 186-190 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (Map 10 Lot 32) (111). • This petition is a proposal requesting Variances seeking relief from the Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot frontage and minimum lot width to all lots and minimum lot area 4 City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Memorandum—December 9, 2015 Page 5 of 5 • per dwelling unit for Lot 3 to create three (3) lots. This project will also be required to go before the Planning Board, should the Zoning Board of Appeals approve this petition. The Planning Board will review this project under the Subdivision Control Requirements for a Waiver of Frontage Request and an Approval Not Required request to allow the division of the property as decided by the Zoning Board of Appeals Decision regarding dimensional requirements. • 5 f CITY OF SALEM R.* ZONING OF SAI.EAPPEALS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Will holtl a blic headn for all t, Will hold a public hearing for all �. Will interested..in.the 0 persons interested in-the petition of ROBERT BURR regueating Spa" HA .ROBERT BURR requesting a Spe-, coal Permit � S.�z,E.M, ASS1 1^r rr Y� >�v-ry r Permh pea Sec. 332 Zoning n- forming Uses of 3Seand xonn J JJ (C1H11lJi 1 1_ ing Uses of the Salem Zoning I Ordinance to change and exietio nonce to change and existing nonconforming use of a muhifam ((`` DD T�'� /'�T� APPEAL noricomormmg use of,a muk fam Ily residential units to another noh BO.LIIUJ J,1,' iy residential units to another non- conforminngg uae of mixed use com- mercial use of m[ced use com-° merrJel 0 ce/retsll and a Special j martial office lreta)I and a Special! permit per Sec. 3.33 Nonconform- - DEC �0;_ Permit per Sec.-3.3.3 NoncodForm ing Structures to alter a nonconform- ]O�S- DEl, '�2- inl}Swcturestoaharanoncontorm ing structure. The 120 WASHING•iOK S'17t=4 SALEM,NIASSaclit,SunSo19, in structure.The etitioner is alsopetitioner is also recuesting Varian for for relief from requesting ablefVariances e relief from t'HLF 978-619-5685� }-Axr 978 740Ik'04 Sec.men Table of Dimensional Re- 11 F -ii- Sec.men Table of Dimensional Re- quiremend to exceed the maximum � height and to exceed the maximum het d and hoot CITY t. I `' ` •-' " I hated and from yard setbacks oat g Yard �� oat 'catetl at the properties Cefed at.the properties located at. P pefBST 5-7 WE at 331-M LAFAYETTE ST,5-7 WEST 331-335 LAFAYETTE ST,S7 WEST AVE, 11 WEST AVE (Map 32 Lots'; AVE, 11 WEST AVE (Map 32 tots 231,232,233,234)(B7,R7,R2) - 231,232 23%-234)(B1,R1,R2) The public hearing will be held The public hearing will be held on WED.December 16,2015 at 6:30 on WED December16,2015at6:30 PM, 3rd Floor, 120 WASHINGTON sfA PM, 3rd Floor, 120 WASHINGTON EET,Rm 313. STREET,Rm 313. Rebecca4uman,Chet{; Rebecca Curan,Chair Board of Board of Appeals N-12/2,12/9/15 Appeals SN-122,1z9A5 #z* 7ty of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing,for all persons interested in the amended petition of ROBERT BURR requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nmonfomling Uses of the 'Salem Zoning Ordinance to change and -existing nonconforming use of a muldfamtly residential units to another nonconforming use of mixed use commercial office/retail and a Special Permit per Sei: 33.3 N0J1C0nf0Mh7g Strrvdmns to alter a nonconfornaing Structure, The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4 1.1 Table of Danresinonal.Requiremenls to exceed the- maximum height and front }ard setbacks located at the properties located at 331-3-15 LAFAYE'ITN ST, 5-7 �WESTAVE, 11 WESTAVE (Map 32 Lots 231; 232, 233, 234)(B1, Rl, R2) The public hearing will, be held on WED. December 16, 2015 at 6:30 PTA, Yd Floor, 420 WASHIItiGfON STREET, Rio 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 12/2/2015 & 12/9/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Boord" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on ��yy�� 99 at �'S1 in accordanceR �GL2Rap,.30A, Sections 4.25. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS * o, BOARD OF APPEAL �YN 1013 DEC -2 A 10* 51 i 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MMSACHUSETTS 01970 ��!timEDfr""� � KIM6ERLEY DR[SCOLL TELs:978-619-5685 ♦FAx:978-740-0404 FILE 1. MAYOR CITY CEEriK. SI=;LEK MASS City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public heating for all persons interested in the petition of 7 HOWARD STREET REALTY TRUST requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure and alter it for a substantially different purpose and Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from lot area per dwelling unit, side yard setbacks and a Variance for relief from Sec 5.1 Table of Parking Requirements to allow less than the required parking spaces located at 7 HOWARD STREET (AKA 26-30 ST PETER STREET) (Map 35 Lot 180) (R3). The public hearing will be held on WED. December 16, 2015 at 6:30pm, 3`d Floor, 120 Washington Street, Rm 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 12/2/2015 & 12/9/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on DEC O 2 15 aV,y—/&k in accordance with M�ryPf_ Chap. 30A, • Sections 18-25. CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS i 3 r BOARD OF APPEAL rho4 99pp ij 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 019U IS DEC -2 A 'D' 5 TzEE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL H.E. 4 MAYOR CITY CLEF H' ; SflE-KL 11�6'5. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MICHAEL GIARDI and JOANNE MATTER-A,requesting Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for a minimum side yard setback and minimum rear setback to allow the petitioners to construct a shared 12' x 12' deck located at the properties 73 SUMMER STREET and 38 ENDICOTT STREET (Map 25 Lot 614 and 616) (R-2)' • The public hearing will be held on WED. December 16, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Yd Floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET,Rm 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 12/2/2015 & 12/9/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. onDEC 0 2 2015 at ft"t in accordance with MGL ,-`!e:p. 30A, • Sections 18-25. CITY of SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 7015 DEC_-z A t�14 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 FILE ## o o i KINIBERLEYDRISCOLL TELE:978-619-5685 FAX:978-740-0404 CITY Cl_EI\K. SALI-M, flr,5S MAYOR City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MATTHEW and MARIE GAGNON, TRUSTEES of HENRIE REALTY TRUST, requesting Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot frontage and minimum lot width to all lots and minimum lot area. per dwelling unit for Lot 3 to create three (3) lots located at 186-190 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (Map 10 Lot 32) (R1). • The public hearing will be held on WED. December 16, 2015 at 6:30 PM, 3`d Floor, 120 WASHINGTON STREET,Rm 313. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals Salem News: 12/2/2015 & 12/9/2015 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on EC 0 2 2615 at /0;5-/66 in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • �towtrq� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS << qg> BOARD OF APPKAJ. 11115 CEC 30 P r. y fi ��p�rMthL�� T2f1��AaH1VGIVh S1B}!:'[ 01AI}:�v4,_�y1S�1(.HUS13.l tp��14/�; t s, � . k ltUl.N..i31 DRi$C<)1,L "I`['j�N 9 8 i45-95)5 0 b9R:97$ . 10-9&4( _ I %LAYOR December 30 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals i A public hearing for the petition of 7 HOWARD S iREET RL.ALTY TRUST requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Noneonfarmino Slan-lPttrs of the Salem, Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure %nd i alter it for a substantially different purpose and Variances seeking relief from ,See. 4.1.1 %able of Dimensional Reyuirerneiw from lot area per dwelling unit, side yard setbacks and a Variance for relief from Sec 5,1 Fable of Parkii,g Requirements to allow less than the required parking spaces located at 7 HO\YjAIM STREET (AKA. 26-30 ST PETER STREET) (Map 35 Lot 1.80) (R3). i A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on December 16,2015 pursuant to 1vI.G.1,Ch. 40A, �,11. -1'lie hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present; Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas, Mike Duffy, Toma4'arkins and Paul Viccica (alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure and alter it for a substantially different purpose and Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 fable of Dimensional Requirements from lot area per dwelling unit, side yard setbacks and a Variance for relief from Sec 5.7 Table of Parking Requirements to allow less than the a required parking spaces and deviations from parking design requirements. Statements of facts: 1. In the petition date-stamped November 24, 2015, the Petitioner requested a Special Pernutper See: 3.3.31\�onsm forming Str clzur� of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure and alter it for a substantially different purpose and Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table, of Dimen.aonal Requiremenli frorn lot area per dwelling unit, side yard setbacks and a Variance for relief i from Sec 5"1 Table of Parking Requirements and to allow less than the required parking splices and deviations from parking design requirements to allow vehicles to back into a public way and d to allow } the existing curbcut that exceeds the maximrun of twenty (20') feet to remain. i 2. Attorney Scott Grover,presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner. 3. The property subject to this petition is the former Convent of Saint John the Baptist (-hutch and _ E Howard Street Realty Trust entered into a Purchase & Sale Agreement with the Archdiocese of Boston to purchase the property. a 4. .As part of the Purchase & Sale Agreement, the !archdiocese granted the petitioner a perpetual r easement for six (6)parking spaces.inunediately abutting the subject property with frontage and u6e of an existing curbcut along Howard Street, i a 5. The property is located in an K-3 Zoning District (Multi-Family Residential). The petitioner proposes to convert the previously existing Convent into a six (0) residential dwelling units with six (6) on-site parking spaces.The proposed use of a multi-family residential use is allowed by-right v { i 1 City of Salem Board of Appeals December 30.2015 • Project: 7 Howard Street Page 2 of 3 6. The existing lot area is 6,150 square feet with a building that is over 7,000 square feet. The petitioner requests a Variance from the lot area per dwelling unit of the 3,500 square foot requirement and a Variance for side yard setbacks to accommodate balconies that will encroach further into the already nonconforming setbacks. 7. The petitioner testifies that four (4) residential dwelling Units would not he f7na.nciAll viable as the site requires extensive utility work to disconnect the building from the church school building, install new utility connections and rehabilitate the solid concrete block structure. Therefore, the petitioner is proposing to construct six (6)residential dwelling units. 8. The petitioner testifies that the proximity of the site to the train station, municipal parking lot and demographic of potential residents for smaller units,it is likely that not all residents will need parking. 9. The requested relief,if granted,would allow thepetitioner to extend a no nconforriang structure and alter it for a substantially different purpose from a Convent to a multi-family residential dwelling with six (6) units within an existing dimensionallw non-conforming structure and allow less than the 1 required parking spaces and deviations from parking design requirements to allow vehicles to back into a public way and to allow the existing curbcut that exceeds the maximum of twenty (W) Meet to I remain_ l I' 10. At the public hearing, eight (8) members of the public spoke.in support and one. (1) member 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, 4 and after thorough review of the petition,_ including the application narrative and plans, makes the following findings: t Findings for Special Permit: 1. The proposed extension of a nonconforming structure and alter it for a substantially different purpose from a Convent to a multi-family residential dwelling with six (6) units would not be more substantially detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure to the impact on the social, economic or community needs served by theproposal. 2. There are no impacts on traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading. 3. The capacity of the,utilities is not affected by this project 9 I f 4. There are no impacts on the natural environment,including drainage. 5. The proposal conforms to the existing neighborhood character. 6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact:on the City tax base is positive. a Findings for the Variances: 1. Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building, or structure involved, p generally not affecting other lands, buildings, and smactures in the same district is Hutt the structure is a 7,000 square foot building that occupies the entire lot with no opportunity to create perking on the lot. • 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of die Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant it would prevent any use of the property and the literal enforcement of die lot area per P a i ( City of Salem Board of Appeals December 30.2015 Project:7 Howard Street Page 3 of 3 dwelling unit requir.emcrnt would only pernvt one unit, which is not a possible alternative for the use of tlus property. I 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 die purpose of the ordinance. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five, (5) in favor (llebecca Curran (Chair},Peter.A. Copclas;Alike Duffy; Torn Watkins and Paul Viccica (alternate) and none (0) opposed, to approve the requested Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure and alter it for a substantially different purpose and Variances seeking relief from.Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from lot area per dwelling Unit, side yard setbacks and a Variance for relief from Sec 5.1 Table of parking Requirements to allow less than the required parking spaces subject to the following terms, conditions and safeguards: Standard Conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city andstate states,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 Inc safety shall be strictly- adhered to. • 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior tirtished of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. F 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Comnussion having jurisdiction ittchiding, but j not limited to the Planning Board. j i 8 Special Condition: 1. Through the condominium association, the applicant will obtain three (3) parking passes at the I-luseum Place parking garage, ✓ ; Rebecca Curran, Chair i Board of Appeals g t 1 I A COPY OF THIS D1 CSION I I S BEEN FILED%VITH THE PLANNING BOAI(I)AN.D TIf.E CITY CLi W,- � s r ppril" m this decision, nary, shal/be made purnrans to Section 17 of tie Nlnrmchtrrem General hams Che2p2er 40A, and sball be frl d a dkw 20 :Lys of filing of emu deasiou in the afire of The Cis} Clerk. Pirrwmnt to the t14asrac1msetds Geneeul.f..aws Cbdpter 40_9, J`ecdion 7l; t;1e llarirntte or a Spe u+l Permit,grarrted herein shall nal take e�ecfuakl a copy of ibe decision bearing she czrtificale of the Cidp-,Clerk bas been filed with she Fssex Soutb s Registry of Deeds. a e f i CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 1015 OFr 30 P I: 120 WASt1ING'rON STREET• SALE\1,&LISSACI-IUSE'l-IS01970 I TELE:978-745-9595 • FAx:978-740-984G CITY Iz. KI\QBERI.EY DRISCOLL LL[.-FILE•� " 1d, H. MAYOR ��:.s. December 30, 2015 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of MICHAEL GIARDI and JOANNE MATTERA, requesting Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.L1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for a minimum side yard setback and minimum rear setback to allow the petitioners to construct a shared 12' x 12' deck located at the properties 73 SUMMER STREET and 38 ENDICOTT STREET (Map 25 Lot 614 and 616) (R2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on December 16,2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, g 11 and closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Duffy, Mr. Copelas,Mr. Watkins,Mr.Viccica (alternate). The Petitioner requests Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requiremenlr for a minimum side yard setback and minimum rear setback to allow the petitioners to construct a shared 12' x 12'deck. The Zoning Board of Appeals heard a joint public hearing for the two (2) petitions located at the properties • 73 SUMMER STREET and 38 ENDICOTT STREET (Map 25 Lot 614 and 616) (R2). Statements of fact: 1. Petitioner Joanne Mattera,presented the petitions. 2. In the petitions date-stamped November 23, 2015, the Petitioners requested Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for a minimum side yard setback and minimum rear setback to allow the petitioners to construct a shared 12'x 12'deck. 3. Property owner, Michael Giardi of 73 Summer Street requested a Variance for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum rear setback and property owner,Joanne Mattera, of 38 Endicott Street requested a Variance for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements and minimum side yard setback to allow the construction of a shared 12 x 12 deck. 4. Both petitioners propose to construct a portion of a shared 12' x 12' deck to the zero (0') lot line to each property. 5. Each petitioner will have access from their own properties to the shared outdoor space. 6. The Board suggests that the petitioners work with a land use attorney to write-up a deeded agreement between property owners for future neighbors. 7. The requested relief,if granted,would allow the Petitioners to have a shared 12' x 12'deck. 8. At the public hearings one (1) member of the public spoke in favor and none (0) spoke in opposition to the proposal. • City of Salem Board of Appeals December 30,2015 • Project:38 Endicott Street and 73 Summer 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 for Variance: I 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 buildings consume the entire lot and there is no existing outdoor space. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship due a lack of any outdoor space and the proposal will not affect anyone in the neighborhood or be a detriment to the public good. 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 five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Duffy, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Viccica (alternate) and none (0) opposed, to grant Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dirttettsional Requirements for a minimum side yard setback and minimum rear setback to allow the petitioners to construct a shared 12' x 12' deck located at the properties 73 SUMMER STREET and 38 ENDICO'TT STREET (Map 25 Lot 614 and 616), 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. The petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to the Planning Board. 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 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, Chao —� 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 sled within 20 • days offing of this decision in.the ofire of the Cio,Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permil granted heroin shall not take effect unlil a copy of the deasiou beanng the certificate of'the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. _ ;t- ifi--� - `� CITY OF SALEM5 MASSACHLSETTS ` ' ' ~' BOARD OF APPEAL x . A .9Fs7M6'VE lyttci + ))77''''120WASi-I1V('IoNS'reEt"r#.$AL.Ghr,'lL1CC�i�}q SETPS Of 970� Ip h llS t•:RLE 1,DItiJCOLL I'LLE:9',8-745-9595 0 FAX:978-740-984t MAY01t , `: December 30, 2015 Decision City of Salem. Board of Appeals Petition of MATTHEW and MARIE GAGNON, TRUSTEES of HENRIE REALTY TRUST, requesting Variances seeking relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requiranenrs from minimum lot frontage and minimum lot width to all lots and minimum lot area Per dwelling unit for Lot 3 to create three (3) lots located at 186-190 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (Map 10 Lot 32) (RI). S public hearing on the above Petition was opened on December 16, 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, C 91. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter Copelas,'Fom Watkins, Mike Duffj= and)pin Racket (alternate). She Petitioner is seekigroan ce fo Salem Zoning Ordinan ances requesting relief from :Sec. 4.1.1 ;Table of Diviensiona!Regrsize?nertls Of the i ce for tninirnum lot frontage and minimum lot width to all lots and_muninum lot are per dwelling unit for Lot 3 to divide the existing lot into three (3) lom Statement of facts: I Y 1. .In the petition date-stamped November 23, 2015, the Petitioner requested a Variances seeking relief 1 I rom Set. 4.1.1 Table of Dimeiinoral Beyuimmenti to from rnitrimum lot frontage and minimum lot width 1 to all lots and minimum lot area per dwelling unit for Lot 3'to create three(3) lots. 2. Attomey Atkins presents the petition on behalf of the applicants. 3. The existing property is one (1) lot with three (3) residential structures. The petitioner proposes to { create three (3) separate lots out of one (1) large existing lot with one building on each lot 4. The property is unique as there are three (3) existing houses on one (1) lot. g 5. The existing structure on Lot 1 is a single-family horse. The existing strucnuc on Lot 2 is a single i farnilp home that will be demolished and reconstructed and remain a single family home. Lot 3 is used I a non-conforining two (2)- family residential building that will remain. "I'he property is located in an R1 Single Family Residential Goring District 1 e 6. The petitioner proposes fifty (50) feet of the required 100' feet of frontage for each proposed lot, g '111e petitioner proposes approximately 3 57 feet, 31 feet and 62 feet of IOU width for Lots 1- consecutively of the required 100' feet. t 8. The petitioner seeks relief for minimum lot area per dwelling unit for Lot 3. This lot is 25,788 square feet of the required 15,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling Unlit on Lot 3. Tlus lot requires 30,000 square feet as the structure is an existing nonconforming two-family dwelling unit. 9 Attorney Atkins testifies that the existing lot is irregular in shape and a large portion of the proposed divided lots contain wet soil making the use of a large portion of each proposed tot impractical for development. l i i a City of Salem Board of Appeals December 30,2015 • Project: 186-1.90 Marlborough Road Page 2 of 10 Attorney Atkins testifies that the petitioner does not propose to change the 'nature of the lots as the use will remain residential 11. 'Ihe requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner tocreate three (3) dimensionally non- conforming lots. 12. At the public hearing one (1) member of die public spoke in favor, of and none (() 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 for Variance: 1. Special conditions and circuinstances that especially affect the land, building or structure generally not affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district are that there are three structures on a singlelot, a substantial portion of the proposed lots Have wet soils;and the topogtapl N, is such that the lot is lower than thee surrounding properties. 2. The literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would prevent the property .owner from dividing the property involve substantial hardship. n 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and without nullifying or substantially derogat ig from the intent of the district or the propose of the ordnance. i r On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five i5) in favor (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter Copelas, Tom Watkins, ]Yoke Duffy and Jun Hacker (alternate) and none (0) t s opposed, to grant Variances for minimum lot frontage and minimum lot width to all lots and nurriuumi lot area per dwelling unit for Lot 3 to create three (3) lots, subject, to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: i i. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done is per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the m ) Building Con issioner 3. All requirements of the. ;Salem fare Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be suictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building pertrut prior to beginning any construction. 1 r 5. Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained G. Petitioner shall obtaui street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but i not limited to, the Planning Board, l a iF r e{r } City of Salem Board of Appeals December 30,2015 Project- 186-190 Marlborough Road Pa,,>e 3 of 3 Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION}LA BEEN FILED WITEI THE.PL4NNLNG BO_aD AND THE C['15'CLEsRK Appeal frotu the r dacisior., of ay,shall be made pmnwant to Settiotr 17 op the iWa iachitset s General Lams Ch,pter 40A, aria sha.11 be 61ed within.20 days of hng of thu dccenon in the oj�tce of the Gig{,jerk. Pursuaia t the[19assaehaseitr General L,ms Chapter 42A, Seaion 11, tPe Varianee or' Specied Penmt granted herein shall trot take Beet antil a copy oJthe dea rion hearing the certificate t the City Clark iwf bean(j d.aith the Esfex South llegutay aJDeedr, " a F E B i 3 a [ s a i j fi l F e a s a Q6 5 II • li 1 3 I h 4 3 H