2016-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS o 4fpza-)s ac)j � � � �1�
a�,gUNDI-91Q
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
J
120 WASFIINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
KimmRLEY DRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR
MEETING NOTICE
You am hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppealr will hold its rgularyscheduled meeting on
Wednesday,Janumy20,2016at 6.30 p.m. at City HallAnnex, RM 313, 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA
Rebecca Curran,Chair
n_
� N
MEETING AGENDA < o
I. ROLL CALL r ¢
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES w
➢ August 19,2015 _
December 16, 2015 N
N
�,( W
III. REGULAR AGENDA
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)
Project A continuation of a public bearing 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 tise 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)(Bl, R1,R2)
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on JAN 13 2016
at 10.'2-3 PH in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25. Page 1 of
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Agenda for January 20,2016 Meeting
Project A public hearing for a reapplication seeking Special Permits from Sec. 3.3.3
Nonconforming Structures and 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two-Family Residential Structures
and a Variance per 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)
IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
None
V. ADJOURNMENT
r'
Page 2 of 2
�EONUITq„r
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
°�74111Y5> 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALE'K NfASSACHUSETTS 01970
KIMBERLEY Dmscou- TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846
NLWOR
STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Appeals Members
FROM: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
DATE: 1/13/2016
RE: Meeting Agenda for January 20, 2016
Board Members,
Please find the following in your packets:
1. Agenda
2. Staff Memorandum
3. 1-3 East Collins Street
4. 331-335 Lafayette Street, 5-7 West Ave, 11 West Ave.
5. 11 Herbert 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,January 20, 2016.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
1. 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 nonconforming use
of fourteen (14) residential dwelling units. The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from
Sec. 4./.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.
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—January 13,2016
Page 2 of 4
As discussed at the public meeting on November 18, 2015, 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. Revisions include breaking up building"A" along
Planters Street to include three (3) individual buildings each with separate entrances to better match
the existing architectural character of the neighborhood.
I have requested additional information and confirmation from the petitioner on the following items:
1. The traffic circulation in and out of the parking lots is a little unclear. The last two (2) parking
spaces on the beach side of Building"A" seem like unusable spaces as the building footprint or
footings may block access in and out of these spaces? Or maybe cars can pull straight in under
the building?
2. It appears that there are two (2) curb cuts along the property at East Collins Street. Please note
that the curbcut width dimensional regulations are "a maximum of twenty (20) feet at the street
lot line in residence districts". The current widths of the curbcuts shown on the plan are 12 feet
for building"B" and 14 feet for building"A". I have requested additional information from
Tom St. Pierre to better understand the dimensional requirement of the curbcut here to convey
to the petitioner.
3. Lot coverage-The original percentage lot coverage proposed was 31.8°/x- slightly over the •
maximum allowed coverage of 30%. Now that Building"A" has been broken up into several
buildings,what is the new calculation for lot coverage and is it under the maximum allowable
coverage?
For this project, the Board needs to consider whether the requested 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 following Variance
requests: 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 property is located in an R1 Zoning District.
R1 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
Frontage
Maximum Lot 30 % 31.8%
Coverage
Minimum Front 15 feet 1.8 feet •
Yard Setback
2
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—January 13,2016
Page 3 of 4
1� 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. 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 ofDimensiona/Requirements to exceed the maximum height and
front yard setbacks located at the properties located at 331-335 LAFAYETTE ST, 5-7 WEST
AVE, 11 WEST AVE (Map 32 Lots 231, 232,233,234)(Bl, Rl, 112)
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 December 16, 2015 the Board requested that the petitioner further reduce the overall square
footage of the proposed building, expand the proposed buffer between the commercial property and
abutting residential properties, and relocate the dumpster pad.
In response, the petitioner has reduced the overall building size from 29500 square feet to
approximately 24,000 square feet and reconfigured parking to provide a larger buffer between the
residential properties and the subject property and ° duce the total number of parking spaces needed
on the site. The reduction in gross floo a has also reduced the need for nine (9) parking spaces for a
total of seventy-three (73) parking spache petitioner has also proposed to keep the existing—two-
family residential dwelling unit on 11 West Avenue such that the parking lot does not encroach further
into the residential neighborhood. — d - Q t 01"v \, St`� dovb\e c\ ko S l zC
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.
I have no additional questions for the petitioner and this revised plan responds to all of the Board's
• I concerns expressed at the last meeting.
3
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—January 13, 2016
Page 4 of 4
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 dated 1/12/2016 is included in this packet. Please note that revised
elevation plans will be presented at the meeting.
3. A public hearing for the reapplication of BLUE WATERS VERO, LLC, seeking Special
Permits from Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures and 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and
Two- Family Residential Structures and a Variance per 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)(112 Zoning District).
The Zoning Board of Appeals reviewed an application for 11 Herbert Street in August 2015 and
denied the petition. Recently, the petitioner has reapplied within two (2) years of the Zoning Board of
Appeals denial.
The Zoning Board of Appeals cannot consider the merits of a repetitive petition until the Planning
Board provides consent based on a finding of specific and material change in the conditions upon
which the previous unfavorable action was based within a two-year (2) timeframe from the Zoning
Board of Appeals Decision. As the petitioner applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals before
requesting to be heard by the Planning Board, the petitioner is requesting to continue this public
hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting on February, 17, 2015 should the Planning Board find •
that there is a specific and material change in the reapplication.
4
/r�c0l1�Dl A�
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board
Date —/ To / ZG l (o
Nme Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
G�PN �'C..Cr,.b� /�'[4�✓!�C{�-G S� �SoiOoGl S7 -.�c�6.ar �Y
'( 30 Orj�
0t,!�, l-;; W es--t-
C ,AiZ)"
• �'��, L'n< 13 4i—) A ut-
r k'1 19 l,.ail-A-s 5
CAVO &a; aq
Z > /a , s s TS% /�a>
TO J&-c LVzy 2�S LCYJe� e ri-err
t ' '5 P- , Q11rs 54 ,
�Aeoe" r R(M(Cv i 4 G—SS�c 213 a�P21°i�11 I'� �1 aw��Cv�Salcwt-
Page of
• City of Salem Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday,January 20, 2016
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA")was held on Wednesday,January
20, 2016 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts
at 6:30 p.m.
Ms.Cutmncalls the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.
ROLL CALL
Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas, Tom Watkins,Paul Viccica
(alternate). Also in attendance—Michael Lutrzykowski-Assistant Building Inspector, and
Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
*The Board hears the petitions out of order. The request for a continuation of
11 Herbert Street is heard first followed by 1-3 East Collins Street is heard first.
OEGULAR AGENDA
Applicant BLUE WATERS VERO, LLC
• Location 11 HERBERT STREET (Map 35 Lot 320)(112 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the reapplication of BLUE
WATERS VERO, LLC, seeking Special Permits from Sec. 3.3.3
Nonconforming Structures and 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two-
Family Residential Structures and a Variance per 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.
George Atkins of 59 Federal St. requests to continue this item to the next regularly
scheduled meeting on February 17, 2016. It was the opinion of the City Solicitor that the
petitioner will need to be heard before the Planning Board first for a reapplication.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the requested
continuation of a public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting on February
17, 2016. The motion was seconded by Mr. Viccica. The vote was with four (4)
(Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Tom Watkins, and Paul Viccica
(alternate) in favor and none (0) opposed.
•
Project A continuation of a public hearing for an amended petition requesting a
Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconjorming 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. 3.0 Table of Parking Requirements and 3.1.3
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)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated September 25, 2015 and supporting documentation
Chair Curran-This is the third public hearing with evidence heard. The original building was
about 40,000 square feet and was then reduced and some land was added. The Board
requested that the building be further reduced. •
Attorney Grover- Introduces Robert Burr, the developer of the project, and members of the
project team,including civil engineer Scott Cameron of the Morin- Cameron Group, Inc.
and Peter Pittman, architect of Pitman and Wardley Architects.
Attorney Grover presents the changes to the original petition.At the last public hearing, the
Board had requested that the applicant consider a reduction in the size of the building, in
order to provide a meaningful buffer to the adjacent residences.Attorney Grover presents
plans to demonstrate the additional building reduction. Along Lafayette Street, the linear feet
of the building has been decreased by 26' and decreased by an additional 8' on the West
Street. The building was further reduced, for the third time, from 29,000 square feet to
24,000 square feet. More significantly, the footprint has diminished significantly from 11,000
square feet to about 8,000 square feet.
What this reduction has allowed the petitioner to accomplish are: 1) the mass of the building
has been substantially reduced particularly along the Lafayette Street side the length of the
building has been reduced by about 26' (twenty-six feet) and along West Avenue the building
has been reduced by another eight feet (8 feet);2)_Another major change to the proposal is
that the building at 11 West Avenue, formerly slated for demolition,will now be restored and
maintained as a two-family residential property, to provide a buffer between the subject
property and the abutting residential properties; 3) Due to a further decrease in the building
square footage, parking demands have been reduced from 84 to 72 spaces; 4) Additionally,
the planting strip along parking area has increased in width from 3.5 feet to 5 feet. Two (2) •
• previous areas of proposed pavement will now be made available for cutouts for greenspace
to expand the buffer between the parking and abutting residential properties; 5) The curb cut
is also proposed to be moved closer to the commercial building; 6) The proposed building is
now also located exclusively in the commercially zoned parcel,whereas previously plans
showed a small portion of the building within the R2 zoning district.
The relief required has not changed. There are two (2) minor dimensional variances for
height because the height in the B-1 zoning district is 30 feet,but the proposed building is 39
feet. The reason for the added height is to hide the HVAC system and have a varied
architectural design of the fagade. The Board, at the last meeting recognized that there were
some significant neighborhood benefits to the additional requested height. The second
Variance requested is for relief from the requirements of front yard setbacks. The petitioner
has pulled the proposed building back along Lafayette Street and West Avenue a little, but
not enough to comply with the fifteen foot (15') setback requirements. On West Avenue the
building is setback thirteen feet (13') and on Lafayette Street the building is setback twelve
(12') feet. The existing buildings have no setbacks and the proposal is improving the
nonconformities with this development. The applicant is also requesting relief in the form of
a special permit to change from one nonconforming use to another commercial/retail uses
and accessory parking. Mr. Grover feels that the grounds for relief are now stronger than
before as the changes have addressed the concerns of both the neighborhood and Board.
Mr. Scott Cameron outlines the details of the landscape plans and Mr. Peter Pittman will
• outline elevations.
Mr. Cameron states that more detail will be provided for the Planning Board,but a landscape
architect has not provided a plan. Preserving the existing residential building at 11 West
Avenue will provide a significant buffer. There are also two (2) landscaped bump outs in the
northeast corner and behind 11 West Avenue approximately 24' x 24'to provide further
buffers between the parking lot and abutting residences. Another strip has been increased
from 3.5' to 5.5',which will accommodate an evergreen planting hedge,rather than just a
screening fence. Deciduous or evergreen plantings will also be in the top right corner.
Additional green space in top left is being provided, and the dumpster has been moved to a
more centralized location, and will be fenced in.
The curb cut (existing) will remain for the house at 11 West Avenue and the curbcut that
serves the commercial/retail building will be sixty-five feet (65') away from the abutting
residences.
Mr. Pittman describes the elevations of the building,which have not changed, although the
building itself will be smaller. The structure has been proportionally reduced—windows,
brick, clapboard and storefront all remain the same on the front. There is no parking
underneath the building on West Avenue; it is now storefront. There is no overhang as
previously proposed in the rear of the building
. Chair Curran- opens up further comments from the Board.
Mr. Copelas- Regarding the parking that was previously proposed underneath the building, .
has the overhang simply been removed or has the rear wall of the building also been moved
closer or further from Lafayette Street?
Mr. Burr- The entire footprint of the building has been compressed. By eliminating some
square footage there is no need for parking to be located under the building,because there is
enough land to conform to the parking needs.
Mr. Copelas-There was previously a square footage on the second and thud floor that was
larger than the first floor because there was an overhang. Has the petitioner simply reduced
the overhang to achieve the reduction in the overall square footage of the building?
Mr Burr- It's not quite that simple. The building went through a complete redesign.
Mr. Cameron-All floors are roughly the same square footage now,rather than the top two
having more square footage than the first.
Chair Curran- confirms that all floors are about 8,000 square feet. Originally, Ms. Curran
asked about gross floor area of the existing buildings along Lafayette Street. The existing
buildings are about 22,000 square feet and the proposed plan is for a building with 24,000
square feet. The petitioner is requesting a minor increase in square footage on the property.
Ms. Curran asks whether the building at 11 West Avenue will be on the same lot rather than •
creating a new lot.
Attorney Grover- Correct. The proposal is to eventually have one (1) lot. The applicant will
be improving parking, creating three (3) spaces for the two (2) units that will be there.
Mr. Burr- 11 West Avenue is in poor shape. He outlines the exterior enhancements that will
be made.
Mr. Copelas- Have the buffers changed along West Avenue and Lafayette Street.
Mr. Cameron- Slightly. West Avenue is about the same. There are not as many linear feet
along West Avenue because the width of the building is shorter now. The setback on West
Avenue was previously 2.1', but will now be four feet (4) at the shortest point.
Mr. Copelas-Was there any progress in conversations with the City regarding an easement or
turning lane on West Avenue?
Mr. Burr- Not since the last public meeting, but the City is doing internal work for the
redesign of the intersection.
Attorney Grover- reiterates that the project can accommodate either option. •
• Chair Curran takes public comment.
Philip Moran, attorney, of 415 Lafayette Street- opposes the project, and in his opinion if
variances were granted there would be a significant legal challenge.
Mr. Burr- rebuts that much legal advice has been sought, and he is confident that a decision
to grant the variance would be stable.
Attorney Grover- states that the petitioner is requesting minor dimensional variances, and
the court views dimensional variances them differently than use or even parking variances.
Mary Weissenberger of 53 Summit Ave- Speaks in strong support of the project.
Greg Zawislak- 13 West Avenue- Speaks in support of the project particularly with the
decision to keep 11 West Avenue and provide an additional landscape buffer.
Victoria Nadel - 20 West Avenue- speaks in support of the petition and states that the
zoning code is not progressive enough for modern times particularly that too much parking
is required.
Ms. Curran- Reads a letter from Councillor Turiel,Ward 5. Councillor Turiel is in support of
• the project. He describes how the changes made are positive and again compliments the
applicant on their willingness to work with the City and the neighborhood.
Councillor Arthur Sargent, Councilor at Large- asks about the backyard at 11 West Ave. He
asks about the distance to a fence and Mr. Cameron outlines again. It is 5.5'with a 24' buffer
m another area, plus an additional 20' on another side. Mr. Sargent makes a comparison to
the North St. Shell gas station. In that case, trees meant to serve as a buffer to the resident
were removed by a new owner, despite the fact that they were listed on the deed. He
suggests that any trees planted as buffer should be listed on the encumbrance page of the
deed. That way, they cannot be changed. This Board could revise its decisions in the future
but deeds may not be altered. The buffer should remain even though properties may change
hands over time.
Attorney Grover - suggests the Zoning Board of Appeals decision will be recorded, so if
there is a clear decision that the trees may not be removed, it will show up in the chain of
title to the property. Removal of trees would be in violation of the variance,undermining the
approval of the entire project.
Councillor Sargent points out that that is how it was with the North Street gas station, and
having protections in place is what the neighbors deserve, as they are giving something up.
• Erin Schaeffer asks for clarification of which trees are referenced.
Councillor Sargent- refers to the whole buffer zone—no greenery should be removed, no
trees cut down. Site planning will show that. The buffer will make the project less •
detrimental. Site planning will be more specific as to plantings, but generally an evergreen
hedge and fencing are desired.
Chair Curran agrees that this should be a condition; the buffer should be there, and
removing it is a violation;if the trees die they should be replaced by something similar.
Attorney Grover is amenable; the Planning Board will also specify that so this Board's
requirement will be redundant, but he is happy to accommodate it.
Joyce Kenney- 285 Lafayette Street- states that there is a nesting pair of red tailed hawks in
the horse chestnut tree near 11 West Avenue. The red tailed hawk is a protected species.
Chair Curran—States that the tree will not be disturbed as the property will remain.
Chair Curran-To meet the requirements of the special permit, the project must be less
detrimental, but there the issue of the variance remains. None is now being sought for
parking, but height and setback still do not meet the ordinance requirements. She asks the
applicant to review the reasoning for the hardship. She sees reasons for height; if required to
be limited to 30' this would be a different proposal with the HVAC lower, and it would be
more detrimental, so this is a benefit. Setback is more difficult to see, as this plan will open it
up. She approves of keeping 11 West Ave as a buffer and a residence, and that they are •
keeping it so will be landlord.
Mr. Viccica states that he understands need for and agrees with the height variance, so is
inclined to grant it. HVAC and floor to floor height requirements necessitate it. He would
also like more information about the variance for setbacks. Mr. Grover and Mr. Cameron
elaborate as it relates to parking.
Mr. Grover reiterates the conditions that lead to the need for the variance: the shape of the
lot and how the parcels were assembled. The irregular lot line on the North side also
constricted the layout of parking on the site; high demands for parking under zoning
ordinance in combination with the shape of that lot line made it impossible to comply with
the ordinance without pushing the building into the setback. It is due to statutory
circumstances, i.e., one part of the ordinance makes it difficult to comply with another part
of the ordinance. Mr. Cameron elaborates the parking setup now. If the setback requirement
would be met, there would be no room for parking, the accessibility ramp, sidewalk and
buffer. The irregularity of the lot forces the issue. Accessibility would be compromised if the
building were moved. Mr. Grover also states that re statutory circumstances, the fact that this
is in an entrance corridor district requires planting beds greater than those in other districts,
so that further diminishes the area the building can be in and where the parking can be.
Mr. Sargent asks if the buffer zone includes the residence at 11 West; it does and that •
property will remain part of the buffer zone. It's part of this lot, not its own separate lot, as
• Chair Curran elaborates, so is subject to this approval, and can't be bought and changed to
commercial zoning usage.
Attorney Philip Moran submits that there is no hardship re shape of lot and that any
hardships are created by Mr. Burr; he still believes it is a legal challenge that will be upheld if
the variance is granted. He cites the cases he mentioned at the last meeting.
Chair Curran outlines the requirements for a special permit; an office building could go in as
a matter of right but she feels that this setup with retail is beneficial to the neighborhood,
and so meets the needs of the community. Traffic safety, parking and loading will be
improved. There is no change with regards to the adequacy of utilities. There is no increase
in runoff and it will be more controlled, so there is no impact on the natural environment.
She feels that this project is in keeping with the neighborhood character. It is a change in the
look of the building, but since they are keeping 11 West Ave it helps with the character.
There is a potential fiscal impact: this is an improvement. For all those reasons, she is
inclined to grant the special permit.
Ms. Curran then outlines again the requirements for a variance. The applicant must show a
hardship (see requirements); she does feel that some hardships are self imposed,but having
said that, this is a lot within three different zones (or the overlay and two zones,it is not
square, and the jog is different. A literal enforcement, she feels, would involve hardship to
the applicant;if literally enforced, the project could not be made less detrimental to the
• neighborhood;height and a bit more setback are good things. The public good is definitely
being served, and it does meet the intention of the district.
Mr. Watkins concurs, stating that Mr. Burr listened to and addressed the concerns of this
Board re setbacks and buffers. He approves of the proposal and project as submitted,
particularly the changes as submitted since last month. He is in favor of the project moving
forward and agrees with statement of hardship and grounds for special permit.
Chair Curran reiterates that the buffer must be maintained, and if removed or it dies, must
be maintained, and this should be referenced on the plans of record.
Seeking a unanimous vote,which is required with only four Board members present for a
quorum, Mr. Grover asks how the others feel. Mr. Copelas states that his concerns have
been met. Mr. Viccica comments on the 13' setback, asking for clarification as to why the 15'
requirement cannot be met. He thinks it deserves the full setback, as it is on a main
thoroughfare, and wonders if citing the crook as a hardship makes a difference. A total of
800 square feet are in question, and Mr. Grover opines that since a setback variance is
needed anyway, the difference between 13' and 15'is de minimus. It will still be there no
matter what. The building's face is in line with the existing building. It is no closer to West
St. Existing structures protrude out further than what is proposed in some areas. Mr. Viccica
comments that one building in the area is 6" taller than the height of the proposed, so he is
in favor of the project.
•
All standard conditions are outlined. Street numbering may change;it is now 331 and 335, •
but petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the assessor's office, etc. The Board is also
striking the last requirement.
Special conditions:
- The existing two family structure at 11 West Ave. will remain.
- Fence and buffers as proposed are to be maintained going forward; trees and buffer
zones are to be recorded in the chain of title of the property.
- A letter from the ZBA will be submitted to the planning Board outlining these issues
- HVAC units shall be located on the roof of the building, sufficiently away from the
perimeter so as not to be seen from street level, and will have visual screening.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the 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. The motion is seconded by Mr.
Copelas. The vote was unanimous with all present (4) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter
A. Copelas,Tom Watkins, and Paul Viccica (alternate)) in favor and none (0)
opposed.
Applicant MICHAEL MEYER
Location 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277)( R1 Zoning
District)
Project A continuation of a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition
of MICHAEL MEYER 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 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).
Documents and Exhibitions
•
• ➢ Application dated September 25, 2015 and supporting documentation
Chair Curran states that the petitioner came before the Board on November 18, 2015 and
talked about some of the reasons for the Variance requests and the Board requested that the
petitioner make the proposal fit more with the neighborhood character.
Attorney Scott Grover,presents this petition.Attorney Grover states that the applicant is
proceeding tonight with only four (4) Board members present, but would like to reserve
whether or not they ask the board to vote tonight vs. waiting for five (5) members in case the
vote is not unanimous.
Chair Curran agrees to allow the petitioner to request a continuance for Board consideration.
Attorney Grover- Representing Mr. Michael Meyer, owner of the property.Attorney Grover
also introduces architect Dan Ricciarelli of Seger Architects. Attorney Grover reviews the
project as it has been a few months since the project has been heard.
Originally, the petition was filed on September 25, 2015 to be heard at the October meeting,
but the petitioner requested a continuation because the team still needed to do more work
through neighborhood meetings. Before the petitioner filed with the Board, the project team
had conducted a series of neighborhood meetings to inform the neighbors about the project.
• The fust plan before the neighbors called for twenty-four (24) units,but with feedback from
the neighborhood was subsequently reduced to eighteen (18) units at the time of the filing
with the Board of Appeals.
When the applicant appeared before the Board at the November meeting, the petitioner
agreed to reduce the number of units to fourteen (14) and provide two (2) parking spaces per
unit to address neighborhood concerns about the potential overflow of residents parking in
the neighborhood.
Attorney Grover presents current photos of the property. At its last meeting, the Board had
asked the petitioner to look at ways to break up the two (2) large buildings to fit in with the
scale of neighborhood. The neighbors were also concerned with the size and scale of the
proposed buildings. The petitioner proposes to keep fourteen (14) units, but the building
along Planters Street will be broken up into three (3) different buildings. The petitioner
proposes a three (3) unit building, two (2) unit building, and another three (3) unit building
along Planters Street. Instead of"walling off' the neighborhood, as some people have
described, the petitioner has now opened up two (2) view corridors between the buildings.
The building on East Collins Street show the "ends" of the buildings and the majority of the
massing extends along the side lot line.
The petitioner is requesting a special permit to allow the petitioner to change the property
use from one nonconforming use of a social club to another nonconforming use of multi-
family residential dwelling units in the R1 zoning District. The Variances requested are
dimensional variances from the front, side, and rear yard setbacks. The buildings comply
with the 35 feet height limitation, but exceed the 2.5 story limitation. The petitioner is also .
requesting a variance for minimum lot area per dwelling unit. The petitioner is proposed to
have 3,000 square feet per unit where the requirement is 15,000 square feet.The subject
property is also less than one (1) acre in size.
At the October meeting, the petitioner presented a density study of the acre surrounding this
property and found that the average density in the neighborhood was 22.1 units per acre
with an average lot area of 2,613 square feet (0.06 acres).
This board recently approved a project on Planters Street and Bridge Street where the
density ratio was significantly less. The lot sizes are approximately 2,600 square feet. The
petitioner states that the proposed project, as it is revised, fits with the character of the
neighborhood and is entirely consistent with the existing density in that neighborhood.
Mr. Copelas-Asks whether the Board has a copy of the density study as part of the packet.
Attorney Grover- Distributes copies to the Board.
Mr. Ricciarelli of Seger Architects- presents the revised plans. Mr. Ricciatelli states that he
redesigned the buildings so that there are now three (3) separate buildings along Planters
Street. The volume/massing of Building`B" on East Collins Street also decreased.
Characteristics of the neighborhood include houses on small lots that are constructed right at
the front yard lot line. There are a lot of homes with Uictori n architectural features and
massing that are incorporated into the proposed design. Mr. Ricciarelli presents a ground •
plane study showing the fronts of the homes down the street to show the rhythm of the
architecture. Many of these streets were completed years ago, and the proposal would be
completing Planters Street with the same rhythm of houses and architectural features with
gables facing Planters Street and East Collins Street. The location of the buildings is also
close to the street.
The petitioner proposes twenty-six (26) parking spaces,which is over the number of parking
spaces required by the zoning ordinance. The parking is located underneath the buildings
with a single driveway. The original petition proposed two (2) curbcuts and driveways, one
(1) for each proposed building as a temporary fixture to provide access to parking for the
series of buildings along Planters Street during the Chapter 91 review process for Building
"B". The petitioner proposes to ultimately have one driveway to serve both parking areas.
The site is currently mostly paved,with 36 parking spaces. The petitioner is proposing to will
open up the site with view corridors and introducing Low-Impact Development design
including rain gardens. The dunes will be preserved the applicant will provide a direct path to
the beach and will provide kayak racks and bike racks. There will also be native plantings
and a landscape plan that will be further developed with a landscape architect and reviewed
by the Planning Board through site plan review. The petitioner is also proposing a decrease
in pervious area of 5,700 square feet.
•
Mr. Ricciarelli presents the elevation plans and states that a challenge is that there is a
separate egress for each of the proposed buildings and the buildings will be fully sprinkled.
Materials will be natural claddings, shingles, beach front style, contemporary New England
vernacular,with clean, simple, open rails and rafters, in keeping with other houses in the
neighborhood. All parking will be screened.
Chair Curran-Along Planters Street, restates the changes made to the plan including
breaking up the building into three (3) separate buildings. Looking at the building on East
Collins Street, states that a duplex would be more appropriate. There are no multi-family
houses in the surrounding neighborhood with six (6) units with this massing like this. Ms.
Curran asks the petitioner to consider reducing building`B" to be consistent with the
neighborhood. Ms. Curran states that there are many encumbrances on the site including the
flood zone, gas easement, coastal dune and wetlands and agrees that there is necessity for
relief from side yard setbacks, minimum distances and the height variances.
As for the lot area per dwelling unit... In relation to the new development on Planters Street
and Bridge Street, that property was long and narrow and the literal enforcement would have
created a six (6) foot wide house without a Variance for minimum lot area per dwelling unit.
In this case, the proposed buildings,particularly building`B" could fit better with the
neighborhood character.
• Attorney Grover- States that what one sees along East Collins Street is the width of the
building and not the long massing. The building does not present as a large mass.
Mr. Ricciarelli-Asks for clarification on the design suggestion. Is the suggestion to break up
building`B" into two (2) separate buildings?
Ms. Curran- No.Just to have a smaller building right at the frontage without the units in the
back. That is something that is new and may be excessive in the request for lot area per
dwelling unit.
Mr. Watkins-Agrees with Ms. Curran and states that from East Collins St. the proposed
looks like it fits, but on the long side it looks out of character.
Mr. Viccica-What is the reason why Building`B" is contiguous?
Mr. Ricciarel i-There are wetlands on the site that limited the location of this building. To
keep the number of units and not increase the height of the building, the design is a long
building.
Mr. Viccica-The work done on the elevations along Planters Street fits better with the
neighborhood. However,the six (6) unit condo building on East Collins Street is out of
• character. Mr. Viccica states that losing a unit or two (2) in building`B" so there are gaps in
the building would be acceptable. Mr. Viccica states concern about the neighbors having
one large obstruction of contiguous building. There is nothing like this anywhere else in the •
neighborhood.
Mr. Meyers asks about adding a unit in front and taking one from the back.
Mr. Viccica- suggests removing the middle unit to create two (2) separate buildings and
reduce the number of units by one or two (2).
Mr. Copelas- confirms that the petitioner cannot place the building any further back toward
the water because there are wetlands.
Attorney Grover-Yes.
Mr.Viccia- Confirms with the petitioner that building`B" may or may not be built
depending on Chapter 91 Review.
Attorney Grover- Confirms that the state has Chapter 91 jurisdiction of a large portion of
the property and expects to get through a lengthy process to ultimately be able to build.
Under Chapter 91 jurisdiction the state tends to be more concerned about public access to
the water than with the number of units or design of building.
Mr. Viccica- Is there a current public way that is adjacent to the proposed location show on
the plan? •
Attorney Grover- Currently there is no public way as it is entirely private property, so access
has been proposed along the property line on the right side in anticipation of Ch. 91
licensing. There may be an alternative required or multiple public access points through this
property for Chapter 91 licensing.
Mr. Viccica- states that there was some objection from the public about the location of this
pathway. Why not let the public access be through the development rather than along the
property line that would negatively impact the abutting property?
Attorney Grover- This could be an outcome of the Chapter 91 Licensing process to relocate
the public access through the site.
Mr. Viccica-Why not propose that now?
Attorney Grover-states that originally the thinking was that it would provide more privacy to
condo owners by placing it at the side of the lot rather than through the site.
Mr. Viccica-But perhaps at the detriment of the next door neighbors. Mr. Viccica states that
the petitioner is protecting the privacy of the future residents at the expense of the abutters.
If it were only for the use of the condominiums that would be different,but this pathway is •
inviting the general public.
• Attorney Grover- States that the petitioner can remove the public pathway from the plan
and apply for Chapter 91 Licensing to see how and where the state may require public
access.
Mr. Viccica- This is a great amenity to have public access.
Attorney Grover It is a requirement for the public to have access to the water through this
site.
Mr. Viccica- Hopes that the state will require a pathway through the center of the property
and not along the property line that may be a detriment to the abutters.
Ms. Curran-Asks whether Mr. Viccica's suggestion is to have public access along the gas
easement.
Mr. Viccica- It could, but was thinking that it could be located between the two sets of
buildings through the center of the property. The open space on the property is a great
amenity to the future residents and should be a great amenity to the neighborhood. This
does not have anything to do with the hardship requirement as this proposal for public
access would not be moving the buildings. A lot of the revised plan is already less
• detrimental to the neighborhood.
Chair Curran opens to the public.
Ms. Mary Knight of 5 East Collins Street- submitted a letter and reads it into the record in
opposition to the revised proposal and requests single family homes.
Mr. Glenn and Kara Maynard of 51 Osgood Street- speak in opposition to the petition and is
concerned that people will trespass on his private property to try to access the beach.
Attorney Grover- states that the public would not have access to private property and
restates that the Chapter 91 license will ensure public access to the water through Mr.
Meyer's property only.
Mr. Viccica- If the applicant is going to be required to provide public access,it needs to be
done in a way that impinge upon the neighbors. When the applicant gets to the Chapter 91
process, the applicant needs to propose a public pathway that can actually work.
Attorney Grover—This is a concern of the neighbors and the Board. Attorney Grover states
that the petitioner can remove the proposed pathway.
• Mr. Viccica-If it is a requirement to have a pathway to provide public access and may be
through the site,why not show a design for this.
Attorney Grover-That is a great suggestion that has evolved through this process of being •
reviewed by the Board.
Ms. Copelas- By providing access down the middle of 1-3 East Collins Street still does not
solve the problem that it would encourage people to access private coastal property owned
by the power company.
Kara Maynard of 51 Osgood Street- How is the petitioner going to keep people off of the
privately owned portion of the beach?This is not public beach property.
Jay Canti of Collins Cove- states that people can walk on any part of the beach and not be on
anyone's property.
Attorney Grover- clarifies that there is public access along the tidelands between low and
high tide and this area is considered public property.
Mr. Scott Truhart—4 East Collins Street- Spoke highly of the Planters Street and Bridge
Street development,but strongly opposes the proposed project at 1-3 East Collins Street. In
particular Mr. Truhart opposes the density of the project, elevated design of the homes, and
potential loss of public parking along East Collins Street.
Mr. Adam Craig- 29 Planter Street- reads a letter in opposition to the project. •
Eric Shanabrook- 10 East Collins Street—speaks in opposition to the project.
Tim Connell, 6 East Collins Street—Speaks in opposition to the project.
Tim Surles, 27 Planters Street- Speaks in opposition to the project.
Linda McIlvene, 7 East Collins- Speaks in opposition to the project and has also submitted a
letter.
Patricia Parady, 23 Planter Street—Speaks in opposition to the project.
Flora Tonthat- 30 Northey Street- Speaks in opposition to the project due to concerns about
the aesthetic of the parking and concern about building in the flood zone.
Ms. Curran- What is the base flood elevation? Is this why the buildings are designed with
parking underneath?
Attorney Grover-Yes, and to eliminate a lot of the existing impervious area because the
development is in such a sensitive area.
•
• Ms. Curran- Is there a stormwater management plan?
Attorney Grover-There is not a stormwater management plan designed yet, but the
petitioner will have one should the project be heard before the Planning Board.
Mr. Meyer- There is a partial drain that exists, that Ward 2 incorrectly installed and it does
not work.
Attorney Grover- Confident that drainage and flooding will be improved compared to what
is there now with the redevelopment of the site.
Chair Curran- states that the large building is out of character and a smaller building located
at the frontage would be more appropriate similar to the way that the rest of the
neighborhood is developed. The additional units that elongate the building are not
appropriate as other buildings in the area are one (1) and two (2) family homes. The
proposed density for building`B" is not appropriate and would be an overdevelopment.
It appears that there are other duplexes in the neighborhood, but three (3) family homes
would be out of character.
Ms. Curran- asks the petitioner looked at the possibility of constructing single family homes
along the existing frontage.
• Attorney Grover-Yes. The problem with this is that the only frontage for the site is ninety-
five feet (95 feet) along East Collins Street,which does not allow for even a single
conforming lot.
Mr. Meyer- The neighbors also expressed that they wanted a water view.
Chair Curran-suggests that the applicant consider duplexes hugging the property boundaries.
In this case, there are limitations to the site such as its location in the flood zone and an
existing gas easement among other things that create reasons to not conforming to the
zoning requirements.
Chair Curran- restates that the petitioner is requesting a special permit to go from one
nonconforming use to another, but this is an overdevelopment of the site and may not be
less detrimental. Ms. Curran urges the petitioner to look at alternative development
scenarios.
Mr. Copelas- asks for clarification on size and location of the proposed curb cut. How many
on street parking spaces would be lost from the proposed curb cut?
Ms. Curran-What is the existing curb cut?
Attorney Grover-There is no existing curb cut on East Collins Street. It is an open curb on •
Planter Street over the National Grid property.
Dan Riccicarelli- Proposes a 20' foot curb cut to allow for two-way traffic, but can do a 12'
foot curb cut. The petitioner was proposing two (2) curb cuts, but is now proposing one (1)
curb cut with the possible elimination of two (2) on-street parking spaces.
Attorney Grover-The petitioner is proposing parking in excess of the required number of
spaces. In terms of the density, the proposal is not inconsistent with the density of the
neighborhood.
Chair Curran -states that number of units proposed is considerably over what is allowed by
zoning and large building is inconsistent with other aspects of neighborhood character, not
just density.
Mary Knight- 5 East Collins Street- speaks again in opposition to the project and requests
that the petitioner consider single family homes.
Mr. Truhart- 4 East Collins Street- requests that the petitioner consider four (4) to five (5)
single family homes and speaks in opposition to the proposal.
Jim Carney- Cambridge Street- Speaks in opposition to the project due to concerns about a
demand for more on-street parking, density, construction in close proximity to the gas line, .
and possible trespassing on private property along the water.
Mr. Meyer- States that the location of the gas line is 60-80 feet below the surface.
Mr. Truhart- 4 East Collins Street- Why is the parking under the units?
Attorney Grover- States that the units are elevated due to requirements to building in a
floodplain.
Mr. Truhart- 4 East Collins Street- Speaks in opposition to the proposal due to concerns
about flooding and does not think it would be responsible to build anything there.
Arthur Sargent- Councilor at Large- How much buildable land is there on this site? How
much land is actually buildable if you exclude the wetlands? Councilor Sargent states that the
actual buildable land should be used in the calculations for lot area per dwelling unit
(density). The development is detrimental to the neighborhood due to parking alone. The
neighbors,who were members of the social club and owners, could park on this property
and this is not going to be the case because the neighborhood will not have ownership rights
to the parking. Councilor Sargent suggests that the Social Club is not a nonconforming use
as it was an exempt educational use through the Dover amendment. There really is no •
nonconformity here. The social club is an exempt use that could be built by right.
• Ms. Curran- disagrees with the interpretation that the social club was an exempt use.
Attorney Grover- On the density question, the petitioner is not suggesting that 100% of the
site is buildable, but the entire parcel square footage counts toward the overall land area. If
there is a 15,000 square foot lot with 7,500 square feet of wetland,it does not mean that the
lot is not 15,000 square feet. Attorney Grover disagrees with the analysis of Councilor
Sargent that one would only count buildable land area when calculating density and not
count the total square footage of the entire lot. Attorney Grover presents the density analysis
conducted and states that the average lot size in the area within a mile of this site is 2,613
square feet and the average lot of the new development on Planters Street and Bridge Street
is less than this.
Attorney Grover- States that the social club does not have any educational features that
would allow it to be an exempt use under the Dover Amendment.Attorney Grover states
that the use is a preexisting nonconforming use as it is not an R1 residential use. Exempt
uses under case law are considered nonconforming status for zoning purposes. Even if it was
accepted that the property had an exempt use under the Dover Amendment, exempt uses
are nonconforming.
Ms. Curran- asks for additional comments from the Board.
• Mr. Viccica-Asks Attorney Grover to summarize the hardships related to the Variances
requested:
Attorney Grover-
1. Special conditions: Land subject to Ch. 91 jurisdiction, including coastal dune and
wetlands. There is also a gas line easement running through property. There are all
kinds of special conditions of this property that generally do not affect other land in
the same district and because of these special conditions, there is a limited part of the
site available for development. In order to be able to building on these limited areas
of the site, the petitioner needs variances from the zoning ordinance to exceed the
height and setback requirements because there is such a narrow building envelope.
2. These same special conditions also make it a very expensive site to develop,requiring
a certain level of density to make development economical feasible.
3. Granting relief without detriment to public good: The current site is in deplorable
condition. There have been over sixty (60) police calls over the last three (3) years to
this site and is a serious detriment to the neighborhood. The suggestion from the
neighborhood that taking away the parking lot would be detrimental to the
neighborhood does not seem to be genuine as this is private property. To suggest
that losing the right to park on private property is detrimental just does not seem
reasonable. The site is an environmentally sensitive area, currently covered by
• pavement. Opening the site by cleaning it up, providing landscaping, and providing
public access will improve the site. Attorney Grover states understanding about
concerns about the proposed public access location and is open to change the public .
access away from the corner of the property.
Mr. Watkins-Why does single fanvly homes not work on this site?
Attorney Grover- From a zoning perspective, even a single lot would not conform to the
dimensional requirements. The petitioner would be before the Board requesting zoning relief
for any project including a single family home. To actually create individual lots from this
parcel would be a subdivision and the lots could not comply with the zoning requirement
because there is no sufficient frontage for one (1) lot,let alone two (2), three (3) or four (4)
lots.
Mr. Meyer- The cost of construction is cost prohibitive.
Mr. Truhart 4 East Collins Street- Is that not a self-imposed hardship?
Ms. Curran- states that the financial burden to develop is not a hardship.
Resident of Forrester Street- Speaks in opposition to the project and states that Mr. Meyer
bought a bad piece of land.
Mr. Truhart 4 East Collins Street- Continues to speak in opposition to the project. .
Chair Curran-requests that the applicant meet with the neighborhood.
Attorney Grover- The conditions that we talked about would affect any owner of this
property and not just Mr. Meyer.
Chair Curran-The flood zones and wetlands limits where the developer can build,but what
are the limits of Chapter 91?Ms. Curran thinks of this as another permit that needs to be
obtained, but does not share the opinion that Chapter 91 Licensing is a hardship.
Attorney Grover- states that under Chapter 91 licensing, there are some areas that can be
developed with the license and may expand development opportunities, but there are
various jurisdictional lines that may be limited to only water dependent usage.
Chair Curran-The applicant must show that the proposal is not more detrimental. It is not
clear here that this petition is less detrimental and encourages the petitioner to meet with the
neighbors and revise plans that better fit with the neighborhood character.
Attorney Grover- States that the petitioner will continue to meet with the neighborhood, but
has had three (3) neighborhood meetings already.
•
• Councillor Sargent- it seems that having a nonconforming use is a license for no zoning on
the property.
Chair Curran- states that there are some legitimate reasons for the Variances requested and a
special permit to change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, such
that the Board finds that the proposal is not more detrimental than the existing
nonconforming use is allowed under Chapter 40A.
Councillor Sargent-reiterates his previous comments about density and buildable land. To
have five (5) times what the zoning would allow seems like a huge bonus. The definition of a
hardship is something that changes the conditions of something you have. Not looking at a
property and knowing what is there. Councillor Sargent states that a hardship is when there
are ten (10) conforming lots and then there is a hurricane that knocks off ten (10) feet from
the lots making them dimensionally nonconforming. That is a hardship. Nothing changed
the conditions of the land that they own.
Chair Curran- offers to have an offline discussion about hardships.
Councillor Sargent-Variances are meant to allow the developer to achieve what could
normally be achieved by right. For example if there is a house in the middle of a property,
that cannot be built, the variances are not supposed to give a developer a density bonus to
make the project more profitable. Councillor Sargent speaks in favor of Mr. Skomurski's
development on Planters Street and Bridge Street as an example of a development that
matches the neighborhood.
Chair Curran- States that the project received variances because the lot was narrow.
Ms. Maynard—Why can people live next to 1-3 East Collins Street with a single family home
with unit on the ground not ten (10) feet off the ground?
Chair Curran- states that there is a base flood elevation plan and it also has to do with
insurance. If there is new construction, they could not replicate that. FEMA does not want
anecdotal information on flooding, but goes by the FEMA flood maps.
Ms. Maynard- States that the developer knew that this piece of property had wetlands and is
located in a floodplain.
Ms. Curran-Asks the petitioner how they would like to proceed.
Attorney Grover- requests a continuance to the next regularly scheduled meeting on
February 17, 2016.
• Chair Curran-The petitioner has requested a continuance to go back to the drawing board.
Mr. Truhart- Requests that the Board make a decision tonight. How many times can a •
hearing be continued? How does this work?
Chair Curran-The petitioner has taken some input from the neighbors and the Board and
they will go back to the drawing Board. Sometimes this process of input happens a few
times,but at some point, if this kept happening, the Board would not allow a continuance
and the petitioner would withdraw without prejudice to allow the petitioner to re-apply and
return at a future date. The Board will not let this project go on indefinitely. For it to come
back to address the needs of the Board and neighborhood is part of the process.
Mr. Truhart- Hopes the next attempt is significantly different. Mr. Truhart requests that the
Board vote now and deny the project in entirety and ask the petitioner to come back with a
completely new project.
There is a request to continue to the next,regularly scheduled meeting on February 17, 2016.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Viccica makes a motion to allow the petitioner to continue to
next regularly scheduled meeting on February 17, 2016. The motion is seconded by
Mr. Copelas. The vote was unanimous with four (4) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter
A. Copelas,Tom Watkins, and Paul Viccica (alternate) in favor and none (0)
opposed.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
No vote will be taken on the August minutes as not all Board members were present.
Ms. Schaeffer comments that the first project descriptions were copied from a previous one,
and she will correct it on the final version of the minutes.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the December 18, 2015
minutes as written, seconded by Mr. Watkins. The vote was four (4) (Rebecca
Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair), Tom Watkins, and Paul Viccica in
favor and none (0) opposed.
OLD/NEW BUSINESS — -
ADJOURNMENT
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins made a motion to adjourn the January 20, 2016 regular
meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Viccica, and the vote is
unanimous with four (4) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),
Tom Watkins, and Paul Viccica in favor and none (0) opposed. •
• The meeting ends at 9:17PM.
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/SalenlMA ZoningAp�ealsMin/
Respectfully submitted,
Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
•
•
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
i 120 WASHINGTON STREET* SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 FAX:978-740-0404
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
n S
r-
1
L:♦T
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Ln
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the reapplication of BLUE WATERS VERO, LLC,
seeking Special Permits from Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures and 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two- Family
Residential5tructures and a Variance per Sec. 5.1 Of`- 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)(82 Zoning District).
• The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3`d at 120
Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 1/6/2016 & 1/13/2016
This notice posted on "OffiiaI Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. un (p �1G/6.
at of ;5' pm in accordant with PGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
•
NOIT,t�,�,
CITY OF SALEM, IVL/kSSACHUSETTS
• Sqj
BOARD OF APPEAL
201 b FES 9a. �
i _ C
��q�MRVE- 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 9. O S
KIMaERLEY DRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FA-x:978-740-9846
MAYOR 0 T Y
February 3, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
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 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 at the properties located at 331-335 LAFAYETTE ST, 5-7
WEST AVE, 11 WEST AVE (Map 32 Lots 231,232, 233, 234)(B1, R1, R2).
• A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 21, 2015 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11.
The public hearing was continued on November 11, 2015, December 16, 2015 and January 20, 2016. The
hearing was closed on January 20, 2016 with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms.
Curran (Chair), Mr. Copelas, Mt. Watkins, and Mr. Viccica (alternate).
The Petitioner is 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 property 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.
Statements of fact:
1. Attorney Grover presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner.
2. In the petition date-stamped September 25,2015, the Petitioner requested 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 property to another nonconforming use of mixed use commercial
office/retail. The petitioner also requested Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional
Requirements to exceed the maximurn 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 Street and
5-7 West Ave (Map 32 Lots 231, 232, 233).
3. A public hearing for the petition was opened on October 21, 2015 and continued to the next regularly
scheduled meeting on November 11, 2015 ,December 16, 2015 and January 20,2016 at the request
of the applicant to revise the original plans to eliminate the request for a variance from the parking
City of Salem Board of Appeals
2/3/2016
Project: 331-335 Lafayette Street, 5-7 West Ave and 11 West Ave
• Page 2 of 6
requirements and lessen the impact of the proposed development on the neighborhood character
particularly along the eastern boundary of the property.
4. The original petition, dated September 25, 2015, proposed a three (3) story building with
approximately 7,000 square feet of retail space on the first floor and approximately 32, 000 square feet
of office space on the upper two (2) floors.
5. The original petition, proposed a building with a height of 39.5 feet, which exceeds the allowable
height of the B-1 and R-2 zoning districts. The proposed building also had setbacks proposed along
Lafayette Street and West Avenue that encroached on the fifteen (15) feet front yard setback
requirements.
6. The original petition, dated September 25, 2016, proposed to provide 55 parking spaces for a 39,000
square foot building. To meet the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, the petitioner
would need to provide 132 parking spaces for the proposed building square footage and uses.
7. At the public hearing on October 21, 2015, the Board stated concerns about the impacts of the
proposal on the neighborhood character and concerns that the proposed square footage was directly
causing the petitioner to request a Variance from the parking requirements.
8. At the public hearing on October 21, 2015, the petitioner requested a continuation to the next
regularly scheduled meeting on November 11, 2015 to respond to the concerns of the Board and the
public.
9. The applicant submitted a revised petition dated November 24, 2015. The petitioner withdrew the
• request for Variances for relief from Sec. 5.0 Table of Parking Beguirementr and 5.1.1 Parking Design. In
addition, the petitioner entered into a purchase and sales agreement to purchase the property located
at 11 West Avenue (Map 32 Lot 234).
10. The petitioner submitted a revised petition form dated November 24, 2015 and the legal notice was
re-advertised to include the additional property at 11 West Avenue (Map 32 Lot 234).
11. On November 11, 2015 the petitioner requested a continuation of the public hearing to the next
regularly scheduled meeting on December 16, 2015 for more time to revise plans. The Board granted
the request.
12. On December 16,2015,Attorney Grover presented the revised petition requesting a Special Permit
per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Utes of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change and existing
nonconforming use of a multifamily residential property 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.
13. The revised petition proposed to reduce the square footage of the three (3) story building by
approximately 10,000 square feet. The total square footage of the revised building included
approximately 6,300 square feet of retail on the first floor and 23,000 square feet of office space on
the upper two (2) floors.
• 14. The applicant states that a two (2) - story office building would be more detrimental to the
neighborhood than the proposed mixed use building.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
2/3/2016
Project: 331-335 Lafayette Street, 5-7 West Ave and i l West Ave
• Page 3 of 6
15. The revised petition proposed to provide the required eighty-three (83) parking spaces to be in
conformance with the zoning requirements associated with the reduced building square footage and
associated uses as proposed in the revised plans.
16. There were no dimensional changes proposed to the setbacks or building height in the revised plan
dated November 24, 2015.
17. Mr. Burr also proposed to grant an easement to the City to accommodate ongoing traffic
improvements at the intersection of West Avenue and Lafayette Street.: if the City Engineer
determines it would be beneficial.
18. Attorney Grover presented the following grounds for the Variance requests:
• 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 are that parcel at
331 Lafayette Street is an odd "L" shaped lot that that cannot be commercially developed as
allowed by-right. The irregular shape of this parcel required the petitioners to aggregate several
parcels in order to create a site that could be practically developed. The property at 5-7 West Street
is a six (6) unit residential property surrounded by two (2) commercially zoned properties including
a portion of 331 Lafayette Street and 335 Lafayette Street is also a unique circumstance.Another
unique feature of these properties is that there are four (4) separate parcels in three (3) different
zoning districts. Since the public hearing in October, the petitioner has added an additional parcel
to the project properties, 11 West Avenue, to meet the required parking regulations and piece
together property can be developed.
• • Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the
applicant because the shape of 331 Lafayette Street has forced the applicant to The one irregularity
along the northern edge of 331 Lafayette Street still presents some physical challenges and directly
affects where a building can be located and how high the building needs to be. The irregular shape
of 331 Lafayette along the northern edge also forced the location of the building to be within the
front yard setbacks along Lafayette Street and West Avenue in order to make space for the
required parking and on-site traffic circulation. The other reason for the proposed location of the
building is to lessen the impact on the abutting residential properties. Both the Board and the
neighborhood are concerned about the impacts of a commercial use on abutting residential
properties. The proposed building height Variance is directly in response to these site-specific
physical challenges.
• 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.
The site is in poor condition with a series of commercial and residential properties that are in
disrepair. The petitioner proposes put a program in place that significantly improves the properties
and does so in a way to maintain a first floor retail space that is important to the neighborhood and
also keeps a reasonable buffer between the proposed commercial and existing residential
neighborhood. Diminishing the size of the building and increasing the parking addresses the
negative aspects and concerns from the neighborhood that the project would cause increased
traffic and parking overflow into the neighborhood. The petitioner has addressed the concerns of
• the neighborhood with the revised plan presented.
19. Mr. Cameron- Engineer- testified that the odd shape of the lot along the northern boundary presents
significant challenges to the overall site design. The proposed building angle is designed in this way to
accommodate the parking requirements. If the jog in the lot line were not irregularly shaped, along the
City of Salem Board of Appeals
2/3/2016
Project: 331-335 Lafayette Street,5-7 West Ave and I1 West Ave
• Page 4 of 6
northern edge of 331 Lafayette, there would be space for another parking lane and alternative options
for building location. However, this lot line angle pushes the building down further onto the comer of
Lafayette Street and West Avenue. The proposed building is no closer to the street than any of the
existing buildings.
20. Mr. Cameron-Engineer and Mr. Pittman-Architect testify that the project team studied the design and
building orientation and found that the proposed configuration was the best option for three (3)
reasons. 1) The comer has a major sight distance deficiency. By pulling the building back from the
comer and placing it at this angle, the sight distance around the comer from West Avenue to
Lafayette Street is significantly improved and will help with traffic circulation; 2) Given the irregular
shaped lot, there is no ability to orient the parking spaces at the 11 West Avenue property and meet
the parking requirements and a safe parking lot design without this building orientation; 3) From an
architectural perspective, the angle of the building also reduces the visual mass of the building along
Lafayette Street.
21. The existing footprint square footage at 331-335 Lafayette Street is approximately 12,000 square feet
with approximately 130 +/- linear feet along Lafayette Street. The existing width of the property is
approximately seventy (70') feet.
22. The proposed footprint square footage is approximately 11,500 square feet with ninety- two (92') +/-
linear feet along Lafayette Street,which is less than the existing development.
23. The existing buildings vary in height from eighteen (18') feet to thirty-nine (39') feet tall.
• 24. The proposed building height is thirty-nine (39') feet tall.
25. Mr. Pittman-Architect- testified that the additional building height beyond the maximum dimensional
requirement of thirty (30') feet is necessary to provide visual and auditory screening for various
mechanical systems including the elevator and HVAC. In order to construct a three (3) story structure
within the 30' foot building height requirement is not physically possible. Mr. Pittman demonstrated
that with this height restriction, the interior ceiling height would be seven (7) feet tall in many
locations with a peak height of 7.8 (feet) tall. This height does not account for the roof,parapet, slope
edges and mechanical systems. The thirty (30') feet requirement is unrealistic for a three (3) story
structure. The height of the building to the bottom of the cornice detail is twenty (20') feet and to the
top of the gutter and assembly is twenty-two (22) feet. From the grade level to the top of the dormer
is thirty-one and a half feet (31.5) feet.
26. At the public hearing on December 16, 2015,in response to public concerns from abutters, the Board
requested that the developer consider expanding the buffer between the development and residential
neighborhood along the eastern edge of the property,move the dumpster pad location from any
property edges, and further reduce the size of the proposed building to help reallocate space to lessen
the impacts of the proposal on the neighborhood.
27. The applicant submitted revised plans to the Board on January 13, 2015 with the following changes:
1) A reduction in the building size from 29,000 square feet to 24,000 square feet; 2) An expansion of
the buffer between the eastern edge of the subject property and abutting residential properties by
• shortening the proposed building along West Avenue by thirty (30') feet 3) A reconfiguration of the
parking lot design and reduction in the number of parking spaces to include a total of seventy-two
(72) parking spaces; 4) The location of the dumpster pad is located away from the property
boundaries; 5) The petitioner proposed to keep and restore the existing two (2)- family dwelling unit
City of Salem Board of Appeals
2/3/2016
Project: 331-335 Lafayette Street,5-7 West Ave and 11 West Ave
• Page 5 of 6
at the property of 11 West Avenue (Map 32 Lot 234) and using the back portion of the 11 west street
lot as parking and buffer for the proposed structure.
28. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to change and existing nonconforming
use of a multifamily residential units to another nonconforming use of mixed use commercial
office/retail and to exceed the maximum height and front yard setbacks in accordance with the
revised site plan dated January 13, 2016.
29. At the public hearings, a petition in opposition to the request was submitted and signed by one
hundred and sixteen (116) residents. In addition, eight (8) letters of opposition were submitted. Three
(3) letters of support were submitted and many people spoke both in opposition and support of the
proposal. At the final hearing,residents expressed broad support for the revised plans.
The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration.of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and
after thorough review of the petitions, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's
presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the
provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance:
Findings—Special Permit:
The Board finds that the proposed project is not substantially more detrimental that the existing
nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
1. Social, economic and community needs are served by the proposal. An office building could be
constructed on the parcel as of right, but the first floor retail component is an important use that
• provides a better opportunity to meet the needs of the community.
2. Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading are adequate as the proposal meets the parking
requirements.
3. There are no changes to the impact on utilities and other public services.
4. Impacts on the natural environment, including drainage are no more than what already exists. In
particular, the petitioner has shown that there is a decrease in impervious surfaces than the existing
development.
5. The proposal is in keeping with the neighborhood character. The proposal is a change to the overall
look of the building, .the board determined that in order for the project to be less detrimental than the
existing use, a landscape buffer and fencing and dumpster location were critical to this. a significant
buffer between the proposed building and the residential neighborhood as the petitioner is proposing
to keep the use and structure of 11 West Avenue
6. The potential fiscal impact, including the impact on the City tax base is positive as this will be an
improved property.
For these reasons, the special permit is warranted.
Findings—Variances from maximum height (feet) and front yard setback requirements.
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 property is
within three (3) different zoning districts and an Overlay District, the irregular shape of the property
• along the northern boundary is different.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the
applicant in that any alternative proposal to develop this site, including what is allowable by right,
would not be less detrimental to the neighborhood.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
2/3/2016
Project: 331-335 Lafayette Street, 5-7 West Ave and 11 West Ave
• Page 6 of 6
3. The desired relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or
purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance.
On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in
favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Watkins,Mr. Copelas,Mr. Viccica (alternate)) and none (o) opposed, to grant 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, a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconformiig Structures to alter a nonconforming structure and
Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the maximum height and front
yard setbacks, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards:
1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the
Building Commissioner
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly
adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
5. Exterior finishes of new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
• 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but
not limited to, the Planning Board.
Special Conditions:
1. The existing structure and residential dwelling at 11 West Avenue will remain.
2. The fence and vegetative buffers shall be maintained by the petitioner, his successors or assigns.
3. This decision requiring the buffer between the approved proposal and the residential properties shall
be recorded in the chain of title on the deed of the property.
i
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 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 effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South
Registry of Deeds.
v��ion7UtT,q,�
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
9�otMifVE
- 120 WASHINGTON STREET+ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 i
KIMBERLEY DlnscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR
MEETING NOTICE
You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Wednesday, February 17,2016at 6:30 p.m. at City HallAnnex, RM 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA
Rebecca Curran, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
h
I. ROLL CALL — o
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
➢ August 19, 2015 m p
➢ January 20, 2016 D
III. REGULAR AGENDA =- co
w
• Project A public hearing for a petition of seeking 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 of residential
dwelling units.
Applicant SCHIAVUZZO REALTY LLC
Location 93-95 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lots 164, 165)(B4 Zoning District)
Project A continuation of a public hearing for a reapplication seeking Special Permits from Sec.
3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures and 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two- Family Residential
Structures and a Variance per 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)
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variances requesting relief from 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 KIM YOUNGWORTH
• Location 14 WINTER STREET (Map 35 Lot 88)(R2 Zoning District)
Page 1 of 2
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Agenda for February 17,2016 Meeting
• Project A public hearing for a petition of seeking a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec.
3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two Family Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to
extend, alter or change the structure to allow the construction of a rear deck.
Applicant MAURA MCGRANE
Location 29 CHESTNUT STREET (Map 25 Lots 240)(R1 Zoning District)
Project A request for a six (6) month extension to exercise the rights granted by the March 4,
2015 Decision that approved Variances 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.
Applicant MARIA and WAYNE MALIONEK
Location 23 JACKSON STREET and 17 VALE STREET (Map 25 Lot 661 and Map 25
Lot 660) (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
• 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)
IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
107 FEDERAL STREET -Vote to authorize execution of Agreement for Judgment in the Superior Court
action, Arlander v. Sinclair, CA No. 2014-10506 as recommended by City Solicitor's Office.
V. ADJOURNMENT
This notice posted on "OfficirkRu?Ji jA?ard"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on 1rt 11 111 [C�lOo
at 6'344M in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
•
Page 2 of 2
5 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
9 . C
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
KIMBERLEYDRISCOLL TEI.E:978-745-9595 FAx:978-740-9846
MAYOR
STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Appeals Members
FROM: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
DATE: 2/10/2016
RE: Meeting Agenda for February 17, 2016
Board Members,
Please find the following in your packets:
1. Agenda
2. Staff Memorandum
3. 93-95 Canal Street
4. 11 Herbert Street (Copy of the Planning Board Decision)
• 5. 14 Winter Street
6. 29 Chestnut Street
7. 23 Jackson Street/17 Vale Street
8. 1-3 East Collins Street
9. 107 Federal Street (Copy of the Agreement for judgement)
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, February 17, 2016.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
1. A public hearing for all persons interested in the 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 of residential dwelling units at the property of 93-95 CANAL
STREET (Map 33 Lots 164, 165)(B4 Zoning District).
On November 18, 2015, the above petitioner proposed a similar project and requested to withdraw
without prejudice.
The petitioner is now back before the Board with a petition requesting a special permit from Sec.
3.3.1 Nonconforming Uses to allow a change from one nonconforming use of a candy factory to
another nonconforming use of a multi-family residential dwelling unit. The petitioner is proposing the
adaptive reuse of the existing building into eight (8) residential dwelling units. The petitioner is also
• proposing to provide fifteen (15) parking spaces, three (3) more spaces than what is required by the
Zoning Ordinance (1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit).
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—February 10, 2016
• Page 2 of 5
i, �a { IaitSS
a
A -
n � m
I k X
ii j v I
i
Above: The subject property is located at 93-95 Canal Street an includes the large building that is
proposed to be renovated and converted into multi-family residential dwelling units and the smaller
• building to the right, is no longer there,but the land is part of the proposal to provide parking
accessory to the proposed housing.
The Board needs to weigh whether the request for a special permit to change a nonconforming use in
accordance to Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses if the Board determines that the proposed change of
use shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the
neighborhood.
This project will also be required to go before the Planning Board to be reviewed for Site Plan Review
and an Overlay District Special Permit. The property is also located in a flood zone and may be
subject to Conservation Commission jurisdiction.
A copy of the petition and supporting documentation is in this packet.
2. Reapplication of BLUE WATERS VERO, LLC, seeking Special Permits from Sec. 3.3.3
Nonconforming Structures and 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two- Family Residential
Structures and a Variance per 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)(112
Zoning District).
The Zoning Board of Appeals reviewed an application for 11 Herbert Street in August 2015 and
denied the petition. Recently, the petitioner has reapplied within two (2) years of the Zoning Board of
• Appeals denial.
2
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—February 10,2016
• Page 3 of 5
The Zoning Board of Appeals cannot consider the merits of a repetitive petition until the Planning
Board provides consent based on a finding of specific and material change in the conditions upon
which the previous unfavorable action was based within a two-year (2) timeframe from the Zoning
Board of Appeals Decision. The Planning Board reviewed the project and found that there was not a
specific and material change in the reapplication and denied the reapplication. As a result, the
petitioner will be requesting to withdraw the pending Zoning Board of Appeals petition.
A copy of the Planning Board Decision is included in this packet.
3. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of HIM YOUNGWORTH, seeking
a Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.11 able 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 14 WINTER
STREET (Map 35 Lot 88)(R2 Zoning District).
The petitioner is proposing to remove the existing unheated addition,which is severely decayed. The
petitioner proposes to rebuild the addition and extend it an additional 1.5 feet in order to
accommodate an interior staircase that meets building code.
Pleases note that the petitioner requested Variances,but a Special Permit from Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming
Single and Tvo-FanyResidential Structures is applicable here. After a second review, the Building
• Commissioner determined that the nonconforming nature of the structure would be increased by the
proposed reconstruction, extension, alteration or change, and that the Board of Appeals, may, by
special permit, allow the proposed modification if the Board finds that the modification will not be
substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood.
R2 Zoning District
g16 ° 9a
Minimum Rear 30 feet 12.28 feet
Yard Setback
Minimum Side Yard 10 feet 0.71 feet
Setback
A copy of this petition and supporting documentation are in this packet.
4. A public hearing for the petition of MAURA MCGRANE seeking a Special Permit from the
provisions of Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two-Family Structures of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance to extend, alter or change the structure to allow the construction of a teat
deck at the property of 29 CHESTNUT STREET (Map 25 Lots 240)(111 Zoning District).
The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend, alter or change the structure to allow the
. construction of a rear deck. The petitioner proposes to construct a 19' x 14'rear deck that does not
increase the dimensional nonconformities of the existing structure.
3
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—February 10,2016
• Page 4 of 5
This property is located within the McIntire local historic district and will be subject to Historic
Commission review.
A copy of the petition and materials are included in this packet.
5. A request for a six (6) month extension of the petitioners MARIA and WAYNE MALIONEK
to exercise the rights granted by the March 4, 2015 Decision that approved Variances from the
minimum lot frontage requirements, lot area requirements, and maximum lot area coverage
requirements to realign lot lines for parcels held in common ownership and to allow an
increase in maximum lot coverage for an existing residence at the property of 23 JACKSON
STREET and 17 VALE STREET ( Map 25 Lot 661 and Map 25 Lot 660)(R2 Zoning District).
The petitioners are requesting a six (6) month extension because the property is both registered and
recorded land and the petitioner has filed an action by the petitioner in Land Court to withdraw the
registered land portion from registration. Until the Land Court proceeding is complete, the Petitioner
cannot file the subdivision plan of the land and proceed with construction authorized by the
Variances.
A copy of this request is included in the packet.
6. A continuation of 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 nonconforming use
of fourteen (14) residential dwelling 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.
As discussed at the public meeting on November 18, 2015, 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. Revisions include breaking up building"A" along
Planters Street to include three (3) individual buildings each with separate entrances to better match
the existing architectural character of the neighborhood.
4
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—February 10,2016
Page 5 of 5
• At the January 20, 2016 meeting, the petitioner presented revised architectural plans and the Board
requested that building`B" also be reduced to a two (2) family dwelling unit to better fit with the
character of the neighborhood. At this time. I do not have a revised set of plans, but do expect to
receive revisions in the near future.
For this project, the Board needs to consider whether the requested 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 following Variance
requests: minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minitnum lot frontage, minimum lot coverage, front
and side yard setbacks, minimum distance between buildings, and number of stories.
The property is located in an R1 Zoning District.
R1 Zoning District Dimensional Requirements
--
t�re
ss
Minimum Lot Area 15,000 square feet 2,324 square feet
Per Dwelling Unit
Minitnum 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
Old/New Business
107 Federal Street-Vote to authorize the execution of Agreement for Judgement in the Superior
Court action,Arlander v. Sinclair, CA No. 2014-1050B as recommended by the City Solicitor's Office.
The Board needs to vote to allow the City Solicitor to act on the Agreement for Judgement that
would throw would nullify the Special Permit that the Board granted the petitioner as the petitioner is
no longer the tenant and has not filed an appearance or answer in this action. A copy of the
Agreement for Judgement is in this packet.
•
5
/r��U1IIDITq�
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board PI a nv�ty�a �3o a�c��
Date 2-
Name
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
6VI(Owd �l rANpc- 5 Ilf— 6- cf&,i7
f C0J(O �� CA -S �j7� � 7yy-
Lahn_j
•
•
d
Page of
• City of Salem Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday,February 17, 2016
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA')was held on Wednesday,February
17, 2016 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts
at 6:30 p.m.
Peter Copelas (Vice-Chair)calls the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.
ROLL CALL
Those present were: Peter A. Copelas (Vice- Chair),Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,Jimmy
Tsitsinos, and James Hacker (alternate). Also in attendance Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner and
Tom St Pierre-Building Commissioner.
REGULAR AGENDA
Project A public hearing for a petition of seeking 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 of residential dwelling units.
• Applicant SCHIAVUZZO REALTY LLC
Location 93-95 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lots 164, 165)(B4 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated January 26, 2016 and supporting documentation
Attorney Atkins presents the petition. The petitioner was before the Board in September
2015, with a similar proposal on the same property, but due to neighborhood concerns, the
applicant withdrew the project without prejudice to be allowed to come back before the
Board with a revised proposal.
Originally, the proposal was for twelve (12) residential units and had plans to build a third
story. Councillor Turiel and neighbors had three (3) major concerns regarding this proposal
including: 1) Privacy at the rear of the building with the addition 2) Parking overflow
concerns onto Canal Street 3) Preference for commercial use rather than residential use.
The petitioner has altered the proposal such that he is now proposing eight (8) residential
units and without the previously proposed third story. As a result, the reduction of units has
eliminated the need for a parking variance. Additionally, the petitioner is now proposing to
use the existing structure and footprint with no change in height. The petitioner is proposing
four (4) residential units with three (3) bedrooms each on the first and second floors.
•
Attorney Atkins states that the property is located in the B-4 Zoning District and food •
production is not allowed and a residential use is also not allowed. Therefore, the candy
factory is an existing nonconforming use and under Section 3.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, a
petitioner can request a special permit to go from one nonconfomung use to another
nonconforming use such that the Board finds that the proposed use is less detrimental to the
neighborhood.
The petitioner is proposing to sell these residential units as condominiums with a price range
between $250,000 to $275,000 per unit. The site plan and elevation plans are presented.
Should the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a special permit the next step for the petitioner is
to be reviewed by the Planning Board for a Site Plan Review special permit as the petitioner is
proposing more than six (6) units on the parcel.
There are several criteria that the project needs to meet for the Board to grant a special
permit. For community need served by the proposal, the petitioner makes the case citing an
article in the Salem News that there is a significant need for more affordable housing options.
Since the average price for a two (2) bedroom rental unit in Boston is $2,900, people are
looking for more affordable housing options. In a Boston Globe article,it stated that
homeownership is in significant decline and has dipped below 60% for the first time on
record due to an increase in the price of housing and the ability for young people to afford
housing. As for Salem, the City conducted a Salem Housing Needs and Demand Analysis
(July 2015). Salem is expected to see significant increases in housing demand over the next ten
(10) years. It is clear that there is a need for affordable housing and this project gives the city •
this opportunity. The three (3) major employers in the area are Shetland Park,North Shore
Medical Center and Salem State University.
The neighbors are really concerned about the possibility of Salem State students living in this
proposed housing. The petitioner is not an agent of Salem State University and has no
agreement with him and Salem State has no interest in purchasing this building from him. The
intent is to sell these units to families. While this is a concern, this is a policing,building
department, and health department concern that should not be related to this particular
proposal.
There is a sentiment in the neighborhood that a residential use in this neighborhood is an
imposition to the neighbors. This is where the type of ownership is important and
condominium documents have rules,regulations and fines. There is also built in value in
having eight (8) units rather than two (2). The cost of keeping up the building is shared over
eight (8) units;mortgage lenders look at condominium documents carefully to look at the
number of renters versus owners in a building. Condominium owners can rent their spaces,
but it is now very difficult to get financing if over 30% of a condominium building is rented.
There are some built in controls over negative connotations that the neighbors are concerned
about regarding renters.
The neighbors have legitimate flooding concerns in this neighborhood. However, the owners
of the property have been operating the candy factory for more than forty (40) years without •
any flooding issues. If it is necessary to repave the existing parking lot it will be done at the
• same grade. There is no intent to build and barriers that may reduce the ability of stormwater
to flow from the site.
The neighbors were concerned about noise that future owners would encounter from the
train and traffic on Canal Street. The petitioner has made a determination that the ambient
noise from the neighborhood will not hinder the ability for the petitioner to sell the proposed
housing units. The neighbors were also concerned about additional noise created from any
HVAC units required for this building. There are currently three (3) commercial HVAC units.
Although there will be eight (8) HVAC units associated with the proposed residence, the units
will be shielded and the amount of noise is also restricted and regulated.
The petitioner is proposing to convert an existing candy factory into eight (8) residential
dwelling units within the same building footprint. The allowable uses in a B-4 Zoning District
include medical offices, auto repair shops, among other commercial uses. The small
residential development would be an improvement.
A letter of opposition received by the Board and applicant suggested that the petitioner is
requesting a change of zone. The applicant is not proposing a change in the underlying
zoning, but rather requesting a special permit that is allowed under our Zoning Ordinance
and the state statute that allows someone to change a non-conforming use to another non-
conforming use such that the other non-conforming use is less detrimental to the
neighborhood.
• The same letter of opposition alleges that Mr. Schiavuzzo will construct substandard housing
conditions. Mr. Schiavuzzo is an experienced contractor that has done 50-60 projects in other
communities and will be a substantial improvement to the building with quality work.
Mr. Copelas (Acting Chair)-Asks the petitioner a clarifying question regarding the proposed
addition on the rear of the building. Is there an existing addition?
There is an existing one (1) story addition on the rear of the building. The petitioner is
proposing to add a second story to the existing one (1) story for a total of two (2) stories to
square the building off.
Attorney Atkins-There was a building to the side of the property, a shed/storage building
that was ordered by the building inspector to be taken down last year. If you look at pictures
of the property on google maps, you will notice that the building still appears in the images,
but note that it is no longer there.
Mr. Watkins-Who are the other direct abutters?Are they commercial properties?
Attorney Atkins-Two (2) commercial properties, one on either side. There are also
residences at the rear of the property as well as along Canal Street.
•
Mr. Watkins-Parking that is proposed is more than required by zoning. Is this paved •
currently?
Mr. Corcum-The parking is asphalt and stone.
Mr. Watkins- So the petitioner is not proposing to have less green space than what already
exists? Is there fencing proposed around the site or buffer?
Attorney Atkins-We have left this review to the Planning Board for when this project goes
to site plan review. There is a two foot buffer all the way around the property.
Mr. Watkins- Is restriction of use to only condominiums a special condition that the
petitioner would accept?
Attorney Atkins-Yes. The applicant intends to sell these units.
Mr. Watkins- Is there any decking or outside communal space proposed?
Attorney Atkins- No. Not on the present plan and it would be difficult to provide because of
the parking requirements. There is also no proposed roof deck due to concerns about
privacy for the neighbors.
Ms. Schaeffer-Asks the petitioner for more information regarding access to the driveway. •
Attorney Atkins-The existing driveway is shared with the neighbors with the lot line that
runs down the center of the driveway. The petitioner states that the commercial neighbors
have shared this driveway for years,but anticipate having a formal easement for both parties
and would accept the easement as a special condition.
Mr. Copelas- Opens public comment.
Councillor Turiel- Reads letter into the record and states that the preference is to see this
building used as a commercial use,but understands that the building has been sitting vacant
for a while and the owners were not able to successfully find commercial interest. Councillor
Turiel requested that the Board consider a condition that the property would have a
covenant restricting the use to only owner occupied residents or strict enforcement of
unrelated tenant laws to prohibit the use of the building from a college student rental
opportunity. Councillor Turiel also requests that there be a landscaping buffer to allow for
privacy and the quiet enjoyment for abutters.
Michael Salerno of 2 Geneva Street- Speaks in opposition to the proposal as per comments
submitted by Mr. Salerno and South Salem Neighborhood Association. Mr. Salerno also
requests that comments submitted by Polly Wilbert, Chair of the South Salem •
Neighborhood Association be read into the record.
• Councillor Turiel- Comments in relation to concerns about traffic and parking, construction
is expected to begin in the spring for Canal Street improvements and will take about two (2)
years to complete. During this time, there may be restricted parking along Canal Street due
to construction,but there are no plans for long term parking restrictions along Canal Street.
Through this project there will also be improved crossings at Hancock Street and Gardner
Street and along much of the length of Canal Street. There will be safety improvements, but
this is a two (2) year-long project that has not started yet.
Mr. Copelas-Asks Attorney Atkins to speak to the kinds of restrictions that may be imposed
to restrict condominium owner from renting units and also asks to speak about the
proposed parking, snow storage and removal.
Attorney Atkins- States that the biggest restriction that would control the ability for
condominium owners to rent is financing restrictions without strict assurances around giving
the trustees of the building power to take action should there be any violations. The
condominium documents can also specify requirements that the owner is responsible for
actions of the tenant and type of lease that a tenant can enter with requirements that can be
extensive and give the trustees of the building a way to take action should there be
violations.
As for snow removal, it is anticipated that the property owners will be responsible for
removal. It is standard in Planning Board decisions to have a plan for temporary snow
storage and a requirement for removal from the site as part of the standard maintenance
• requirements.
As for the driveway access, the zoning ordinance requires on 12' of width for residential
parking and overnight usage. A residential use may see less use than a commercial property.
Mr. Copelas- asks for clarification on the driveway usage and width.
Mr. Corcum states that the driveway is about 15' feet wide with the property boundary
through the center of the driveway.
Attorney Atkins states that with the City improvements to Canal Street and private
investment like the proposal will help improve the neighborhood over time.
Denise Dragons -18-20 Geneva Street- speaks in strong opposition to the proposal.
Specifically, she stated concerns about noise and neighborhood safety concerns once tenants
move into the proposed residences and states that she is worried about competition as she
owns a rental income property in the neighborhood.
Mr. Solerno- 2 Geneva Street- States that the current building is no conducive to commercial
a commercial use, but suggests that Fran and Dianne's kitchen is looking for space.
Mr. Copelas—Reads the a letter received from Polly Wilburt, Chair of the South Salem
Neighborhood Association in opposition to the proposal.
•
Mr. Copelas—The petitioner is proposing excess parking beyond the requirements. Is there •
a reason why the petitioner is including excess parking as opposed to providing green space
or larger buffer zones?
Attorney Atkins-The sense was that the petitioner wanted to provide closer to two (2)
parking spaces per dwelling unit to prevent people from parking on Canal Street.
Mr. Tsitsinos- States that the extra parking spaces could be used for temporary snow storage.
Mr. Copelas- Can you clarify the neighbor's concern in regard to the use of this property as
rental housing?The Board understand that from an initial purchase point of view that
mortgage lenders may look more favorably upon owner occupants. Is there any legal way
that conditions imposed to restrict rental units?
Attorney Atkins-To my knowledge I do not believe that the Board can impose restrictions
in that fashion. There would be eight (8) people who would be really concerned about the
conditions in this building and the owners and trustees could make things very difficult for
someone who is not respectful of other occupants in the building. Having eight (8) units as
opposed to two (2) or three (3) units is also a benefit as there would be more people able to
cover the costs of building maintenance.
Mr. Duffy-There is a need for the easement to be resolved for the driveway. There was
some discussion about some fencing and/or buffing of the property from the neighbors.
Can the Board make the determination that the proposal is not more substantially •
detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use?
Mr. Copelas- Reviews the standard criteria for a special permit.
Mr. Watkins- States that all of the standard criteria are being met. However, Mr. Watkins
states some concern regarding the neighborhood character criteria because there is
commercial property on either side of this property. Although, this is currently a vacant
building and this development would help clean up the site. Mr. Watkins states preference
for having condominiums (ownership) versus rental units. There are community needs being
met in terms of providing needed housing in the City, traffic flow and safety will not be that
much of an impact from this development. Canal Street is a busy street anyway. The
required number of parking spaces are met. There are no changes to the proposed utilities.
There are no significant changes to the site regarding environmental impact or drainage.
There is a positive impact on the City's tax base.
Mr. Copelas-As for the neighborhood character,it is difficult to have a commercial reuse of
this building. There are some pretty big impediments to using this building as a commercial
enterprise in its current form.
Mr. Hacker- Can the Board require as a condition that the condominium documents require
occupant ownership in perpetuity and prohibit rental units?
Mr. Copelas- No. This is not a legal condition that the Board could request. •
• Ms. Schaeffer- This is beyond the purview of the Board.
Mr. St. Pierre- Does not agree and recommends that the Board seek a legal opinion from the
City Solicitor.
Mr. Hacker- States that the Board has restricted ownership in the past.
Mr. Copelas-Asks for information from Attorney Atkins on the subject.
Attorney Atkins- States that it would not be a restriction that could be legally upheld
regardless of the Board imposing it.
Mr. Copelas-Mr. St. Pierre has a different opinion.
Mr. St. Pierre- Has seen restrictions in condominium documents.
Attorney Atkins- That has probably not been tested in court.
Mr. Copelas-As a resource to the Board, the Board would like to further investigate this
question.
Attorney Atkins-The petitioner may not have any objection to a special condition like this
because the intent of the developer is to sell the residential units, but Attorney Atkins does
• not give an opinion about the quest of whether the Board can impose restrictions regarding
the prohibition of rental units.
Mr. St. Pierre-Advises that the Board can include these restrictions as Special Condition as
long as it is found to be legal with the City Solicitor and suggests that the Board can make a
decision with the special conditions of ownership included and then later omitted if the City
Solicitor finds that it is not a legal condition.
After further discussion from the Board members on whether or not the Board has this
authority, Mr. St. Pierre advises the Board to seek a legal opinion and restates the suggested
option that the Board can include these restrictions as Special Condition as long as it is
found to be legal with the City Solicitor and suggests that the Board can make a decision
with the special conditions of ownership included and then later omitted if the City Solicitor
finds that it is not a legal condition.
The Board requests to seek a legal opinion from the City Solicitor before making a decision.
• Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to continue the petition to the next
regularly scheduled meeting on March 16, 2016. The motion is seconded by Mr.
Jimmy Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with five (5) (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-
Chair),Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos, and James Hacker (alternate) in .
favor and none (0) opposed.
Project A continuation of a public hearing for a reapplication seeking Special
Permits from Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures and 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single
and Two-Family Residential Structures and a Variance per Sec. 5.1 Of-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)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated December 26, 2015 and supporting documentation
Attorney Atkins presents the petition and makes a request to withdraw the petition without
prejudice. •
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the request to withdraw
without prejudice. The motion is seconded by Mr. Watkins. The vote was with five
(5) (Peter A. Copelas (Vice- Chair),Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos, and
James Hacker (alternate) in favor and none (0) opposed.
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)
Documents and Exhibitions •
• ➢ Application dated September 25, 2015 and supporting documentation
The petitioner requested a continuation to the next regularly scheduled meeting to allow for
more time to respond with architectural and site plan revisions.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the request to continue to
the next regularly scheduled meeting on March 16,2016. The motion is seconded by
Mr. Watkins. The vote was with five (5) (Peter A. Copelas (Vice- Chair),Tom
Watkins, Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos, and James Hacker (alternate) 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 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 HIM YOUNGWORTH
Location 14 WINTER STREET (Map 35 Lot 88)(112 Zoning District)
• Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated January 25, 2016 and supporting documentation
Ms. Youngworth,petitioner presents the petition and states that there is a historic rear
addition on the home that was built on dirt with no foundation and is now beyond repair.
The petitioner proposes to demolish the rear addition and reconstruct the rear addition
within the same footprint and construct to modern standards. The modern construction
standards also require that the addition be slightly extended by an additional 1.5 feet toward
the rear yard lot line beyond the existing dimensions.
Mr. Copelas- Clarifies with the petitioner that the original application was for Variances,but
upon further review from the Building Commissioner, it was his determination that the
petitioner could request a special permit Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two- Family
Residential Structures.
Mr. Copelas-Asks for clarification on whether the petitioner is going to demolish the
addition or restructure the existing addition.
Ms. Youngworth- Unfortunately, there is not much of the structure left. The corner posts
are sagging and there is no foundation. Ms. Youngworth intends to build the new addition
• with historically accurate materials including constructing a new slate roof from materials
that came from the demolition of a nearby roof.
I
Mr. Copelas- Confirms that the petitioner is extending the addition 1.5 feet further toward •
the rear yard setback.
Ms. Youngworth-Any change to the roofline is not higher than the existing house.
Mr. St. Pierre- States that he has visited the site and made a recommendation to the
homeowner that the existing addition is beyond repair and in need of reconstruction. The
special permit requested would allow the petitioner to build a code compliant addition to the
structure.
Mr. Watkins- Is there an existing foundation?
Ms. Youngworth- There is no existing foundation,but Ms. Youngworth plans to construct a
foundation and addition that has clapboard siding in keeping with the materials of the
existing house.
Mr. Copelas- Opens discussion for public comment.
Mary Manning-16 Oliver Street- Speaks in support of the petition.
Mr. Copelas- Reads two letters into the record in support the petition from residents at 16 •
Winter Street and 18 Oliver Street.
Mr. Copelas- closes the public hearing.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the request for a special
permit Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residendal Structures to
allow the reconstruction and the slight expansion of the rear addition. The motion is
seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was with five (5) (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-
Chair),Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos, and James Hacker (alternate) in
favor and none (0) opposed.
•
• Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit from the
provisions of Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconjorming Single and Two-Family Structures of the
Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend, alter or change the structure to allow
the construction of a rear deck.
Applicant MAURA MCGRANE
Location 29 CHESTNUT STREET (Map 25 Lots 240)(R1 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated January 26, 2016 and supporting documentation
Peter Cohen presents the petition on behalf of the petitioner. The property is a
nonconforming structure located in the historic district. There were a number of alterations
made to the historic home in the 1950's including the addition of sliding glass doors off of
the kitchen that do not lead to anything. The petitioner is proposing to construct a rear deck
that is in keeping with the architectural style of the house.
Mr. Copelas-Although the deck is not visible from Chestnut Street it is visible on Warren
Street.
• Ms. McGrane- It is only visible from Warren Street when the gate to the driveway is open.
Mr. Cohen- States that the applicant will be applying to the historic commission for
consideration.
Mr. Watkins-What is the request for relief and why?
Mr. Cohen-'I he petitioner is requesting a special permit See. 3.3.5 Nonconlorming Single and
Two-Family Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend, alter or change the structure
to allow the construction of a rear deck.
Mr. St. Pierre- Treats decks as accessory structure as long as it is open and one story and
could be allowed within five (5') feet of the property,but the petitioner declined to change
the design to be able to construct within five (5') feet of the property line and requested to
come to the Board to keep the aesthetic of the design.
Mr. St. Pierre-Very nice design.
Mr. Copelas- The presented statement of grounds described adequately meets the standard
criteria. Mr. Copelas reads a letter of support from Historic New England into the record.
•
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the request for a Special •
Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two-Family
Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend, alter or change the structure to
allow the construction of a rear deck. The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The
vote was with five (5) (Peter A. Copelas (Vice- Chair), Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,
Jimmy Tsitsinos, and James Hacker (alternate) in favor and none (0) opposed.
71
Project A request for a six (6) month extension to exercise the rights granted by
the March 4, 2015 Decision that approved Variances 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.
Applicant MARIA and WAYNE MALIONEK
Location 23 JACKSON STREET and 17 VALE STREET (Map 25 Lot 661 and
Map 25 Lot 660) (112 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated February 2, 2016 and supporting documentation •
The Board received a letter from Attorney Scott Grover requesting a six (6) month extension
to exercise the rights granted by the March 4, 2015 Decision that approved Variances 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.
Mr. St. Pierre- Some of the land is registered versus recorded land and the petitioner is
restricted by the timeline of the state for this consideration.
Mr. Watkins-What are the timelines for expiration for Variances and Special permits?
Mr. St. Pierre-A year (1) for variances and two (2) years for special permits. The Board can
grant six (6) month extensions, but it is not clear whether there is a limit on how many times
a petitioner may make this request. In this case, the six (6) months may not be enough,but
the petitioner can return for another extension.
•
• Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the request for a six (6)
month extension to exercise the rights granted by the March 4, 2015 Decision that
approved Variances 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 motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was with five
(5) (Peter A. Copelas (Vice- Chair),Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos, and
James Hacker (alternate) in favor and none (0) opposed.
OLD/NEW_BUSINESS_
107 FEDERAL STREET-Vote to authorize execution of Agreement for Judgment in the
Superior Court action, Arlander v. Sinclair, CA No. 2014-1050B as recommended by City
Solicitors Office.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the request to authorize
execution of Agreement for Judgment in the Superior Court action,Arlander v.
Sinclair, CA No. 2014-1050B as recommended by City Solicitor's Office.The motion is
seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was with five (5) (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-
Chair), Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos, and James Hacker (alternate) in
favor and none (0) opposed.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES__
August 19, 2015 meeting minutes were approved as written.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the minutes as written,
seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was in favor (Peter A. Copelas (Vice- Chair),
Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos, and James Hacker (alternate)) and
none (0) opposed.
January 20, 2016 draft meeting minutes to be approved at the March 17, 2016 meeting.
OLD/NEW_BUSINESS _
N/A
I OU MRN ENT
Mr. Duffy motioned for adjournment of the February 17, 2016 regular meeting of the Salem
Board of Appeals at 8:21 pm.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy made a motion to adjourn the February 17, 2016 regular
meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Watkins, and the vote is
unanimous with five (5) (Peter A. Copelas (Vice- Chair),Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,
Jimmy Tsitsinos, and James Hacker (alternate) in favor and none (0) opposed.
The meeting ends at 8:21PM. •
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.•
htty://salem.com/Pages/SalcmMA Zoning�yealsMin/
Respectfully submitted,
Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
•
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
gP �" BOARD OF APPEAL
Ci
-- 120 WASMNGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHt]WM 01970
?SLE.:978-619-5685 ♦FAX:978-740-0404
K[MRERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
"{ O
r
City of Salem ,
Zoning Board of Appeals
" D
P
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MAURA MCGRANB"seeking
a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two-FamijStruetures of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance to extend, alter or change the structure to allow the construction of a rear deck at the
property of 29 CHESTNUT STREET (Map 25 Lots 240)(R1 Zoning District).
• The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3`e 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`', 120 Washington St, Salem,MA,
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 2/3/2016 &2/10/2016
This notice poste.. orl (iitici Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salerrr M s or) 3 a0/(o
q:OCp/xrn r .,ccordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 1t,;
•
°"°'N CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
IF' :.. =f;1.
raj-a
120 WASHINGTON STREET+SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TEI-E:978-619-5685 0 FAX:978-740-0404
MfaERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
-( o
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals w
r=,
D
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of SCHIAVUZZO REALTY I0C seeking
a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Urex of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow
the change from one nonconforming use of a candy factory to another nonconforming use of residential
dwelling units at the property of 93-95 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lots 164, 165)(B-4 Zoning District).
• The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3' 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'", 120 Washington St,Salem,MA.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 2/3/2016&2/10/2016
This notice posted on "Otticl Bullletino2BG l rd"
City Hail, Salem, h"ass urs .w
at q,d� pm i15 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 DRIscoLL
MAYOR
--i N
O_
:7 Q•
_n
'� rn
City of Salem
^, w
Zoning Board of Appeals r, D
0
Cr
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of KIM YOUNGWORTH, seeking a
Variances requesting relief from 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 14 WINTER STREET (Map 35 Lot 88)(82 Zoning District).
• Said hearing will be held on WED,February 17,2016 at 6:30 p.m., P floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST,
ROOM 313.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Ad to run on: 2/3/2016 & 2/10/2016
This notice posted n l "Off'
cl�ulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, M,ss. on 3, aal i
at 9:aG Rn1 in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
•
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
13,
BOARD OF APPEAL
9 C"
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 0197416 MAR -2 A 8: 53
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846
FlLf r
MAYOR C11YCLF'! , S ';L4°i. :it; j.
March 2, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
A petition of MAURA MCGRANE seeking a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.5
Nonconforming Single and Two-Fatnify Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend, alter
or change the structure to allow the construction of a rear deck at the property of 29 CHESTNUT
STREET (Map 25 Lots 240)(R1 Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on February 17, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, � 11
and closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Peter A. Copelas (Vice-
Chair), Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,Jimmy Tsitsinos,Jim Hacker (Alternate).
The Petitioner seeking a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two-Family
• Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend, alter or change the structure to allow the construction of
a rear deck.
Statements of facts:
1. Peter Cohen of PB + C,presented the petition on behalf of the applicant.
2. In the petition date-stamped January 26, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit from the
provisions of Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two-Family Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance
to allow the construction of a rear deck.
3. The current property use is a single-family home located in an R-1 Zoning District.
4. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 14' x 19' rear deck off of the back of the existing non-
conforming structure within the side yard setback.
5. The existing structure is 2.7 feet from the side yard lot line. The proposed deck will be 3.1 feet from
the side yard lot line,where the dimensional requirement is 10 feet from the side yard setback.
6. The petitioner does not propose to increase the existing nonconforming dimension along the side
yard setback with the addition of the rear deck.
7. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to extend, alter or change the structure to
allow the construction of a rear deck.
8. At the public hearing one (1) 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:
City of Salem Board of Appeals
March 2,2016
Project: 29 Chestnut Street
• Page 2 of 2
Findings for Special Permit:
The Board finds the proposed modification will not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood.
1. Social, economic or community needs served by the proposal are that the modifications are in keeping
with Federal style architecture of the building.
2. Traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading will not be impacted.
3. Adequacy of utilities and other public services will not be changed.
4. Impacts on the natural environment,including drainage will not be changed.
5. The proposed architectural style of the deck is in keeping with the existing architectural style of the
building and surrounding neighborhood.
6. Potential fiscal impact,including impact on the 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 five (5) in favor
(Peter A. Copelas (Vice-chair), Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos, and Jim Hacker (alternate) and
none (0) opposed, to grant a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two-
Family Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend, alter or change the structure to allow the
construction of a rear deck, 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 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 fihng of this decision in the afce 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 bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed witb the Essex South
Registry of Deeds.
> CONWT
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
9i
� try6 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSE,10,#AR —2 A R' 53
KIMBERLEY DluscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR
CITY
2/25/2016
Maria and Wayne Malionek
c/o Attorney Scott Grover
Tinti, Quinn, Grover& Frey
27 Congress Street
Salem, MA 01970
Re: 23 Jackson Street and 17 Vale Street Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a six
(6) month extension to MARIA and WAYNE MALIONEK to exercise the rights granted by the
Match 4,2015 Decision that approved Variances 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 Salem Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday, February 17, 2016 to discuss your request for
the approval to grant a six (6) month extension to exercise the rights granted by the March 4,2015
Decision that approved Variances 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.
On February 2,2016, a letter was submitted by Attorney Grover on behalf of Maria and Wayne
Malionek requesting a six (6) month extension to commence March 4 2016 and expire September 4.
2016.
The Zoning Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-chair),Tom Watkins,
Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsmos,Jim Hacker (alternate)) and none (0) opposed, to grant the approval of
the six-month extension request to exercise the rights granted by the March 4,2015 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
��t,ONUIT,t�
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
a' BOARD OF APPEAL
��9�otMINE 11��
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 1970
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL T$LE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR
IT. y
March 2, 2016 T—_
Decision m'
City of Salem Board of Appeals o,
cn
Petition of HIM YOUNGWORTH, seeking Variances requesting relief from 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 14 WINTER STREET (Map 35 Lot 88)(R2 Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on February 17, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, � 11
and closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Peter A. Copelas (Vice-
Chair), Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,Jimmy Tsitsinos,Jim Hacker (Alternate).
The Petitioner seeking Variances requesting relief from 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.
Statements of facts:
1. The petitioner Kim Youngworth presented the petition.
2. In the petition date-stamped January 25, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Variance from Section 4./J
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.
3. After closer review of this project by the Building Commissioner, it was his determination that the
petitioner could request a special permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-
Family Residential Structures for the proposed reconstruction, extension, alteration, or change such that
the proposed modification will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming
structure to the neighborhood.
4. The current property is a dimensionally nonconforming two-family home located in an R2 Zoning
District.
5. The petitioner proposes to remove the existing dilapidated addition and rebuilt it. The petitioner
proposes to extend the addition toward the rear yard lot line by an additional 1.5 feet to allow an
internal stairway to meet building code requirements.
6. The petitioner also plans to construct a second egress where there was once a window on the first
floor of the addition.
• 7. The requested relief,if granted,would allow the Petitioner the proposed reconstruction, extension, .
alteration, or change such that the proposed modification will not be substantially more detrimental
than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
March 2,2016 -
Project: 14 Winter Street
• Page 2 of 3
8. At the public hearing three (3) members of the public spoke in favor of and none (0) 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:
The Board finds the proposed modification will not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood.
1. Social, economic or community needs are served by the proposal are that the modifications are in
keeping architecture of the building.
2. Traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading will not be impacted.
3. Adequacy of utilities and other public services will not be changed.
4. Impacts on the natural environment,including drainage will not be changed.
• 5. The proposed architectural style is in keeping with the existing architectural style of the building.
6. Potential fiscal impact,including impact on the 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 five (5) in favor
(Peter A. Copelas (Vice-chair), Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos, and Jim Hacker (alternate) and
none (0) opposed, to grant a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two-
Family Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend, alter or change the structure to allow the
construction of a rear deck, 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
March 2,2016
Project: 14 Winter 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 Lams Cbapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20
days of f fang of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Masxxhusettr General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Varsance 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.
•
•
CI`rY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
n ai!
BOARD OF APPEAL
7
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHU§STrS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 FAX:978-74o-o4P
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
r� 7a
March 2, 2016
D
Decision
m
City of Salem Board of Appeals u,
w
Reapplication of BLUE WATERS VERO, LLC, seeking Special Permits from Sec. 3.3.3
Nonconforming Structures and 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two- Family Residential
Structures and a Variance per 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 above petition was continued on January 20, 2016 pending a Planning Board decision regarding
• a reapplication pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, g 16.
As a result of a denial from the Planning Board to allow the petitioner to reapply to the Zoning
Board of Appeals, on February 17, 2016, the Board of Appeals considered the request to withdraw
the application without prejudice with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present:
Peter A. Copelas (Vice- Chau),Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins, and Jim Hacker
(alternate).
At the request of the Petitioner, the Board of Appeal voted 5-0 (Peter A. Copelas (Vice- Chau),
Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins, and Jim Hacker (alternate) to allow the Petitioner to
withdraw this petition without prejudice.
GRANTED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE
I�m e et C(.4
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH 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.
�cONU7T,tg,
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
' " BOARD OF APPEAL
'q`
. 101 , MAR -9 P I: 51
~9 '�1'lINE 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 FILE fi
M
KIMBERY RISCOLL CITY CLEM, Ji'i?LEM, r "'SS,
MAYOR
MEETING NOTICE
You are herefry noted that the Salem Zoning Board o(Appeals will hold its regularyscheduled meeting on
Wednesday,March 16,2016 at 630 p.m. at City HallAnnex, RM 313, 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA
Rebecca Curran,Chair
AMENDED MEETING AGENDA
I. ROLL CALL
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
➢ January 20, 2016
III. REGULAR AGENDA
• Project A public heating for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming
Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter an existing nonconforming
structure.
Applicant MELISSA VACON
Location 59 MEMORIAL DRIVE (Map 42 Lot 13)(R1 Zoning District)
Project A continuation public hearing for a petition of 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 nonconfomvng use of a candy factory to another nonconforming
use of residential dwelling units.
Applicant SCHIAVUZZO REALTY LLC
Location 93-95 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lots 164, 165)(B4 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance for relief from the provisions of Sec.
3.3.4 and a Special Permit from Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance to increase an existing non-conformity and alter a nonconforming
structure for a substantially different purpose.
Applicant 114 DERBY STREET NOMINEE TRUST
Location 114 DERBY STREET (Map 41 Lot 14)(B1 Zoning District)
•
Page 1 of 2
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Agenda for March 16,2016 Meeting
•
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)( RI Zoning District)
Project A request for a six (6) month extension to exercise the 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 DANIEL BOTWINIK
.� Location 162 FEDERAL STREET (Map 26 Lot 96)
IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
V. ADJOURNMENT
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on /mfg q0/b
at ' �1 Pin accordance(Huth MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18- 5.
•
Page 2 of 2
wit,I
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
HIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR
MEETING NOTICE
You are bereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals mall hold its regularly:cbeduled meeting on
Wednesday,March 16,2016at 6.30p.m. at City HallAnnex, RM 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA
Rebecca Curran,Chau
AMENDED MEETING AGENDA
n
I. ROLL CALL =
� e
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES s
➢ January 20, 2016 U
➢ February 17, 2016 ; D
III. REGULAR AGENDA
w
• Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming
Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter an existing nonconforming
structure.
Applicant MELISSA VACON
Location 59 MEMORIAL DRIVE (Map 42 Lot 13)(R1 Zoning District)
Project A continuation public hearing for a petition of 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 of residential dwelling units.
Applicant SCHIAVUZZO REALTY LLC
Location 93-95 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lots 164, 165)(B4 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance for relief from the provisions of Sec.
3.3.4 and a Special Permit from Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance to increase an existing non-conformity and alter a nonconforming
structure for a substantially different purpose.
Applicant 114 DERBY STREET NOMINEE TRUST
• Location 114 DERBY STREET (Map 41 Lot 14)(B1 Zoning District)
Page 1 of 2
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Agenda for March 16,2016 Meeting
Project A continuation of a public heating 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 pet 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 request for a six (6) month extension to exercise the rights granted by the September
28t', 2009 Board Decision that approved Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling
unit, and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase
existing side yard setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office
building to eight (8) residential units.
Applicant DANIEL BOTWINIK
• Location 162 FEDERAL STREET (Map 26 Lot 96)
IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
V. ADJOURNMENT
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on MAR 14 2015
at 1,3!P AY in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
Page 2 of 2
x IT49
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSET"T"S
IC dc,
9. BOARD OF APPEAL
SAM 120 WASHINGTON STRaE"r♦ SALEti,MASSACHUSI�rrS 01970
Kimm'R .EY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 1 Fax:978-740-9846
MAYOR
STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Appeals Members
FROM: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
DATE: 3/9/2016
RE: Meeting Agenda for March 9,2016
Board Members,
Please find the following in your packets:
1. Agenda
2. Staff Memorandum
3. Meeting Minutes
4. 59 Memorial Drive
5. 93-95 Canal Street
6. 114 Derby Street
7. 1-3 East Collins 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,March 16, 2016.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
1. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MELISSA VACON, seeking a
Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to
alter an existing nonconforming structure at the property of 59 MEMORIAL DRIVE (Map 42
Lot 13)(R1 Zoning District).
The petitioner is requesting a special permit to extend, alter or structurally change a nonconforming
single family structure to construct a rear addition. The existing building is dimensionally
nonconforming because it was originally built within the side yard setback requirements of ten (10')
feet.
The existing building is 57 from the side yard setback at the narrowest point. The proposed rear
addition is 7' feet from the side yard setback: Please note that the proposed addition meets all other
dimensional requirements including height, number of stories,lot coverage and other setback
requirements. This project has also been reviewed and received an order of conditions from the
• Conservation Commission.
For the special permit request, the Board needs to consider whether the proposal is more or less
detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure.
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—Match 9,2016
Page 2 of 4
•
2. A continuation of a public hearing for all persons interested in the 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 of residential dwelling units at the property of
93-95 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lots 164, 165)(B4 Zoning District).
At the Board of Appeals hearing on February 17, 2016, the Board received two (2) letters in
opposition to the proposal from the South Salem Neighborhood Association. The main concern of
the Association was that Salem State students may inhabit the proposed residential property.After a
discussion about whether the Board could restrict ownership of the proposed residents, the Board
requested a legal opinion from the City Solicitor on whether the ZBA has the following ability: 1) To
restrict a residential use as to restrict ownership to only condominiums? 2) To condition a special
permit that restricts the ability of a condo owner to rent? 3) To further require that the applicant
create condominium documents to prohibit rental of units?
The City Solicitor has provided a memo to the Board stating that the ZBA does not likely have the
authority to condition the approval of the proposal subject to the units being owner occupied and that
the a limitation as to ownership must related to the land.
The petitioner is before the Boatel with a petition requesting a special permit from Sec. 3.3.1
Nonconjonning Uses to allow a change from one nonconforming use of a candy factory to another •
nonconforming use of a multi-family residential dwelling unit. The petitioner is proposing the
adaptive reuse of the existing building into eight (8) residential dwelling units. The petitioner is also
proposing to provide fifteen (15) parking spaces, three (3) more spaces than what is required by the
Zoning Ordinance (1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit).
The Board needs to find that the proposal will not be more detrimental than the existing
nonconforming use.
This project will also be required to go before the Planning Board to be reviewed for Site Plan Review
and an Overlay District Special Permit. The property is also located in a flood zone and may be
subject to Conservation Commission jurisdiction.
3. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of 114 DERBY STREET
NOMINEE TRUST, seeking a Variance for relief from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.4 and a
Special Permit from Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to
increase an existing non-conformity and alter a nonconforming structure for a substantially
different purpose at the property of 114 Derby Street (Map 41 Lot 14)(B1 Zoning District).
The petitioner is seeking a dimensional variance for relief from Sec 3.3.4 and a Special Permit from
Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the petitioner to construct two (2) porches that will
cause the lot coverage nonconformity to increase from 42% to 43%. The petitioner is also seeking a
special permit for relief from Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to alter an existing nonconforming
structure for a substantially different purpose. •
2
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—March 9,2016
Page 3 of 4
•
4. A continuation of 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 nonconforming use
of fourteen (14) residential dwelling units. The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from
Sec. 4./.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minitnum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot
frontage, minimum lot coverage, front and side yard setbacks, minimum distance between buildings,
and number of stories.
• As discussed at the public meeting on November 18, 2015, 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. Revisions include breaking up building"A" along
Planters Street to include three (3) individual buildings each with separate entrances to better match
the existing architectural character of the neighborhood.
At the January 20, 2016 meeting, the petitioner presented revised architectural plans and the Board
requested that building`B" also be reduced to a two (2) family dwelling unit to better fit with the
character of the neighborhood.At this meeting, the Board felt strongly that the petitioner needed to
further reduce the number of units proposed in building"B" to better fit with the character of the
neighborhood. In particular, the Board requested to see a duplex. There were also some Board and
neighbor concerns regarding the location of public access to the water. It was suggested by the Board
that the petitioner consider an alternative location of the public access way either through the center
of the site or eliminate the public pathway until further review was done through Chapter 91 licensing.
At the February 17, 2016 meeting the petitioner requested a continuation to the next regularly
scheduled meeting on March 16, 2016. No testimony was heard at the February 17, 2016 meeting.
At this time, the petitioner has submitted updated site plans and building floor plans. The petitioner
also plans to submit updated landscape plans, but has not done so at this time.
• For this project, the Board needs to consider whether the requested change or substantial extension
of the use is or is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the
3
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—March 9,2016
Page 4 of 4
neighborhood. The Board also needs to consider the criteria applicable for the following Variance •
requests: 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 property is located in an R1 Zoning District.
R1 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
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 Buildin s
Maximum Number •
2.5 stories 3 stories
of Stories
A copy of the most recent plan revisions are included in this packet.
5. A request for a six (6) month extension to exercise the rights granted by the September 28h, 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
property of 162 FEDERAL STREET (Map 26 Lot 96).
The petitioner is requesting a third six (6) month extension that would allow the petitioner to convert
an existing office building to eight (8) residential units at the 162 Federal Street property.
There are no items related to this request in this packet.
•
4
/��eoem�r9�Q,
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board
vlroEoa:r 10V)c, r��C�—
Date _/ �
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
IYP.�t, {'✓lat fhw.y� Sl ®se,o� S1'
-Q) c 4:A nee '2q- ' LC, r9`/ Pi 1r 1T 9 7 �C=7Uy=U�I� Gam
C, 4sr. eT
2 f 7dr3 0 i R�
Mr,L,z;,5AV t( J Sg i01-IA IL94 qqt--�440 mn4l�rccr Trv,d�sc.cam
e r;nr.Sclnrc.�P/r�
lo E cl-olljtn S 1 R � ��/ 56 F.9
c_)//j, S� /S�S-h(J17� L ri G3�lyihY✓�`r�G/r��� \
7 4 iq F&AIAD.s St '7797y� 1907
•_fib xc. ER ANN /� E 17� 7�/5 IRo7 .i
79 S Y732
✓/ � /i C ih+ � Q ry r
CrhNnrl9tLo .CCAI
0 5 e c� f' S- U.7�/S M-A/
�-
� 2�
Page of
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board 29
Date __1
Name Mailing Address Phone # a E-mail ( �\
8.R_f) -1 .� S`-j_ �`�� •(c�g^( � �I'Ph,Ka.eW 4JUe«4-7
��a�he NIi1e
`noble
Page of
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday,March 16, 2016
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA") was held on Wednesday,March
16, 2016 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts
at 6:30 p.m.
Ms. Curran (Chair)calls the meeting to order at 635 pm.
ROLL CALL
Those present were: Rebecca Curran(Chair),Peter A. Copelas,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy,
Jimmy Tsitsinos, and Paul Viccica (alternate). Also in attendance Tom St.Pierre-Building
Commissioner,Erin Schaeffer-Staff Planner,and Colleen Anderson—Recorder.
REGULAR AGENDA
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3.
Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter an
existing nonconforming structure.
Applicant MELISSA VACON
• Location 59 MEMORIAL DRIVE (Map 42 Lot 13)(111 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions
Application dated February 23, 2016 and supporting documentation
Attorney Scott Grover- Presents the petition on behalf of the applicant, Owner-Melissa
Vacon. The property is on the left hand side of Memorial Drive,when heading towards The
Willows, and is before Camp Naumkeag. It is a two story single far ly cape style home,
with living areas on the first floor and bedrooms on the second floor. The proposal is to
construct a rear dormer addition to expand the second floor bedroom, creating a master
bedroom suite and to expand the first floor living space. No changes will be visible from the
street. All improvement will be seen from the rear and side elevations. The project is being
presented to the Board of Appeals because the existing building is nonconforming with
respect to the side setbacks. The left side setback is 5.7 feet and does not conform to the
required 10 foot setback. The proposed changes will not increase the nonconformity, but
because it is a nonconforming structure, any alteration of the structure per Sec. 3.3.3 -
Nonconfortning Structures, require a Special Permit from the Board of Appeals. The
proposed changes are not more detrimental than the existing use to the neighborhood, there
is no impact on the abutters, and this will increase the value of the home and will have a
positive impact on the City tax revenue.
Ms. Curran—questions if any new nonconformities were being created other than the
• proposed addition,which will be within 7 feet from the property line,which is less than what
is existing nonconformity and if this is the only area where they are building outside of the •
buildable area.
Attorney Grover—responds that there were not and added that the footprint of the building
would not be changing, and that the closest the proposed addition comes to the side setback
is 7 feet.
Ms. Curran—questions whether the shed on the property was being relocated.
Ms. Vacon—No.
AttorneyGrover—states that it complies with the side setback and that includes the addition
P
and the landing to the rear entry.
Ms. Curran—questions whether the ridge line—the height of the building—stays the same.
Attorney Grover—Yes. It will not get any higher than 20.5 feet.
Ms. Curran—opens public comment.
Mr. Thomas Cody—55 Memorial Drive—states that he has seen approvals of some rather
large additions to neighboring houses/buildings over the years. Almost every house on the
street is already dormered and he is not opposite to the proposed addition.
Ms. Curran—states that this is a minimal expansion and she has no problem with the •
project.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the petition seeking a
Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance to alter an existing nonconforming structure. The motion is seconded by
Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter
A. Copelas,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy, and Jimmy Tsitsinos in favor and none (0)
opposed.
Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition of 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 of residential dwelling units.
Applicant SCHIAVUZZO REALTY LLC
Location 93-95 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lots 164, 165)(B4 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated January 26, 2016 and supporting documentation •
Ms. Curran—states that this is a continued public hearing, that she has familiarized herself
with as she was not at the original meeting. One item that the Board has requested was an
opinion from the City Solicitor regarding whether the Board could impose a condition
requiring that the building be Owner occupied and not rented. The City Solicitor finds that
the Board cannot impose that condition.
Mr. Leo Schiavuzzo—potential Owner-Presents the petition.
Ms. Curran—states that the building is going from one nonconforming use to another
nonconforming use and the Board needs to determine whether or not the new use is more
detrimental than the existing use. The record did not describe the existing use. It was a
candy factory -what were the hours of operation, how many cars went in and out, etc. They
need that information to make a determination.
Mr. Raymond Forkham—93 Canal Street—It was a manufacturing plant for approximately
80 years. The hours of operation were 6am—4 or 5 pm. The number of employees ranged
from 6 —30 over the years. There is on-site parking for 6. In the past there were 2 shifts but
currently there is 1 shift. The machinery inside the plant did not produce noise outside the
budding. There could have been the odor of candy coming from the building. Deliveries
were once made at a shipping dock but in recent years deliveries were made at the street
using a forklift to make it more convenient. Deliveries are made two a day by both 18
• wheelers and box trucks.
Ms. Curran—questions whether Mr. Schiavuzzo brought any plans to present.
Mr. Schiavuzzo—states that the plans his attorney presented at the last meeting had not
changed.
Ms. Curran—questions if the reason for the continuation was solely about whether the
Owner was required to occupy the building.
Mr. Schiavuzzo—Yes.
Ms. Curran—questions if the public hearing was still open. Ms. Schaeffer responded that it
was closed at the last meeting.
Ms. Currant—states that they are not doing the third floor expansion as originally proposed.
They have the required parking spaces. A Special Permit is required because they are going
from one non-conforming use to another.
Mr. Viccica—states that he was not at the previous meeting and questioned whether the
Board had enough members to vote. Ms. Schaeffer,responded that there were enough
members to vote.
Ms. Curran—states that people were concerned that the units would be rented specifically to
• students. The records stated that there will be a condo association that will address rental in
the homeowners association.
Mr. Scluavuzzo—Yes. His lawyer would word the homeowners association in that manner. •
Mr. Watkins—states that the prior concerns were from the neighbors,despite the units
being condos, on whether the units would be rented out to families or to college students,
especially to college students. He will take the potential condo owner at his word that there
will be a condo association. The building will be Owner occupied and usually with Owner
occupancy, those buildings tend to have better upkeep in general,which will attract families.
The opinion of the City Solicitor, stated that the Board does not have the right to impose
Owner occupancy restrictions, he is in favor of the application.
Mr. Duffy—states that there was some discussion at the last meeting regarding the easement
for the shared driveway.
Mr. Schiavuzzo—states that he spoke with the neighbor and the easement is in the works
with the help of his attorney and there are no issues with that. Ms. Schaffer added that that
was a suggested special condition from the Board.
Ms. Curran—The easement is a condition that has to be recorded. Ms. Schaffer added that
it needed to be recorded with the deed.
Ms. Curran—questions the use of the building that will share the easement.
Mr. Schiavuzzo—It is a commercial space - a home design&upholstery store.
Ms. Curran—states that sometimes conflicts are created,when a residential building is next •
to a commercial building,by the commercial building after the residents have moved in.
That is something to consider.
Mr. Watkins—questions whether there were 6 or 8 condos going into the building.
Mr. Schiavuzzo—states that there were 8.
Ms. Curran—adds that originally there were 12, but there are now 8.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the petition seeking a
Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to allow the
change from one (1) nonconforming use of a candy factory to another nonconforming
use of residential dwelling units. The motion is seconded by Mr. Viccica. The vote
was unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Tom
Watkins, Mike Duffy, and Jimmy Tsitsinos)in favor and none (0) opposed.
•
• Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance for relief from the
provisions of Sec. 3.3.4 and a Special Permit from Sec. 3.3.3
Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to increase an
existing non-conformity and alter a nonconforming structure for a
substantially different purpose.
Applicant 114 DERBY STREET NOMINEE TRUST
Location 114 DERBY STREET (Map 41 Lot 14) (B1 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated February 23, 2016 and supporting documentation
*Board member Paul Viceica announces a potential conflict of interest and recuses
himself from participation on this agenda item.
Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition on behalf of the developers—Larry Frej and Joe
Skomurski. The developers have an agreement to purchase the property. Dan Ricciarelli of
Seger Architects will present the proposed plans. The building is known as the Gable
Settlement House and is both across the street from and owned by the House of Seven
• Gables. The building is used as an alternative high school. The City's lease of the school is
expiring, the school is moving to East India Mall,and the House of Seven Gables is ready to
sell the property to Mr. Frej and Mr. Skomurski.
The property consists of two distinct structures that are attached to one another and used as a
single building. The original Federal style building was constructed in 1806 and faces Derby
Street. In the 1980's a contemporary addition that faces Turner Street,was added to the rear
of the existing building. Attorney Grover presented photographs of the existing building.
The building has fallen into a state of disrepair.
The proposal is to convert the entire building into 6 condominium units—5 flats and 1
townhouse. A parking lot will be off of Turner Street—the 6 units will have 9 spaces. The
relief required is minimal because the property is located in the B1 zoning district—and multi-
family use is allowed by right. Relief is required for several reasons.The building is an
existing nonconforming structure as to the lot coverage and setback requirements. The lot
coverage requirement in a Bl zoning district is 40%. The petitioner proposes to increase the
lot coverage from the existing 42% to 43%. The existing addition facing Turners Street is at
the lot line, creating a nonconformity in regards to the current setback requirements.
The footprint is not changing significantly and the construction will mainly be at the interior.
A proposed covered porch will provide outside space for one First Floor and one Second
Floor unit, adds approximately 1% to the coverage—increasing the building coverage from
42% to 43%. Because of this increase, and the fact that the building is not an existing single
or two family,it does not qualify for Special Permit, and requires a Variance under Sec. 3.3.4.
• A Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures is also required to alter an existing
non-conforming structure for a substantially different purpose. It is presently used as an •
alternative high school and it is being changed to a multi-family residential—which is an
alteration to provide for a substantially different purpose.
In regards to the grounds—this project is not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood
and will be a significant benefit. A couple neighborhood meetings were held and the support
for the project has been unanimous. Written material from neighbors supporting the project
has been submitted to the Board. This is an opportunity to take a building that is no longer
productive under its current commercial use and provide a vehicle, through residential use to
restore the building.
There will be a substantial improvement to the grounds/landscape and lighting. There will be
no burden of on street parking because a parking lot will be provided due to the zoning
ordinance. The two proposed porches will provide usable outdoor space. Without those
porches a significant hardship would be created because no outside space would be provided
to the residential users—which is a hardship for the developers from a marketability
standpoint as well as for the users of the space that would have no outside space if the zoning
ordinance were strictly enforced.
Mr. Ricciarel i of Seger Architects—stated that proposed 6 units would range from 1,100 to
1,800 SF.—5 flats and 1 townhouse. Most of the unit will have their own dedicated entrance
and one or two units will share an entrance. The large Basement will become dedicated
storage for each unit and some units will have their own entrance or shared stairs to access
the Basement, and possibly a media room. The existing circulation of the two existing stairs •
will remain.
The elevation drawings show the proposed fa4ade restoration work,including new windows
and doors,repointing the facades,restoring the portico, and the newer roof will remain. The
siding on the 1982 back addition is deteriorating and will be replaced along with the windows.
New openings that will work with the proposed layouts will be created. Additional colors will
be introduced to give the building more definition,as opposed to the existing monochromatic
red tones. The covered porch will provide a view and access to the garden. The existing
garden off of Derby Street will remain and a new path will be created along with additional
trees and shrubbery. The parking will be buffered from the neighbors as best they can. The
niche off of Turner Street is dark and congested and removing the bell,door, and
handicapped ramp will be cleaned up the elevation/area, and create a welcoming courtyard
for the three unit in that area. The rendering show the view that will be seen when traveling
down Derby Street. The gable end on Turner Street will be modified to create the proposed
townhouse and additional windows will be introduced.
Ms. Curran—questions whether the porch requiring a Variance is an egress/main entrance to
one of the units and asked for the dimension of the porch.
Mr. Ricciarelli—Yes. 6 feet out from the building.
Ms.Joyce Kenney, 285 Lafayette Street—questions whether the Wheelchair Accessibility Act
has been addressed. Ms. Curran questioned whether any of the units were accessible. •
• Mr. Ricciarelli—No. Mr. St. Pierre added that not enough units are being built. A percentage
of the units must be accessible when 12 or more units are being constructed. This project
doesn't trigger that at 6.
Mr. Bob Berkinshaw, 119 Autrin Avenue,North Andover—Owns the abutting property—
118 Derby Street. —Questioned whether the garden was stay as is and the porches will enter
into it.
Mr. Ricciarelli—The space will remain but will be reconfigured,with a new path and
landscaping in accordance with the submitted plan.
Ms Kenney—questions whether the existing trees would remain. Ms. Curran questions
whether the exiting vegetation was being removed.
Mr. Ricciarelli—One tree has fallen and will be removed, one tree will remain and be pruned,
and new trees and buffer will be added.
Ms. Curran—All submitted letters from 125 Derby Street, 115 Derby Street—House of
Seven Gables,23 #5 Turner Street, 97 Derby Street,6 Palfrey Court, 58 Derby Street, 94
Derby Street #9, Mary Lee O'Connor of Lynnfield,4 Cousins Street, 6 Daniels St. are
recognized for the record in support of the project.
Ms. Curran—applauds the project for not increasing the footprint. It is not a burden and it is
• providing parking. The existing curb cut on Turners Street is being reduced. There is a
minimal increase in the coverage which is requiring them to seek a Variance. She has no
problem with the project but struggles with the hardship argument, other than it being an
egress. Although it is not the minimum egress width it does provide exterior living small on a
small lot with a pre-existing building that isn't expanding.
Ms. Curran—questions how trash would be handled. A developer stated that a trash
enclosure will be created along the West property line.
Attorney Grover—states that because there are 6 units the project is subject to Site Plan
Review with the Planning Board, so there will be a lot of scrutiny on trash location,lighting,
fencing,landscaping materials,etc.
Mr. Copelas—requests that the egress and pathways for the individual units be described.
There seem to be no building entrance near the parking and long distances need to be
traveling to enter the units.
Mr. Ricciarelli—replies that the majority of the tentants will be coming down Turners Street.
There is a rear entrance for one First Floor unit. The rear addition tenants will be entering
through the niche. Tenants facing Derby Street will need to follow the path around the
building to enter their units. Two tenants have multiple access points.
Ms. Curran—requests that Attorney Grover review the hardship concerns again.
•
Attorney Grover—The large commercial building trips over the 40% coverage requirement. •
Their goal is to convert it back to residential and there is a need to provide outside space and
that is the hardship. The absence of the opportunity to create that from a use standpoint for
potential residents, from the marketability of the property would be a significant hardship.
Ms. Curran—Questions whether desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good.
Attorney Grover—The same hardship arguments for the Special Permit apply. Is it less
detrimental but substantially beneficial.
Mr. Duffy—This is an old building that is unusually large on the lot and both the building
and the lot have unique features. It has been used as a commercial use and is being returned
to a residential use. The needs of residential use calls for some aspect of outdoor access that
cannot be allotted for in a meaningful way other than this 1% increase which creates a
dimensional issue. Given those factors and this minimal departure from what is strictly
required under the Zoning ordinances, this is the type of relief the Board can grant. Mr.
Curran agrees.
Mr. Waktins —questions whether parking spot #9 could be cut in half and turned
perpendicularly to create two spaces.
Mr. Ricciarelli—It cannot be done because of the required parking lot drive aisle width. It
works well because it also the dedicated spot for the townhouse. Various configurations were •
attempted and this configuration worked best.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the petition seeking a
Variance for relief from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.4 and a Special Permit from Sec.
3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to increase an existing non-conformity and alter a
nonconforming structure for a substantially different purpose. The motion is
seconded by Mr.Viceica.The vote was with five (5) (Rebecca Curran(Chair),Peter A.
Copelas,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy,and Jimmy Tsitsinos,) in favor and none (0)
opposed.
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)(111 Zoning District) •
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated September 25,2015 and supporting documentation
Ms. Curran - states that this project has been before the Board several times, the last time was
two months ago. The plans have been revised since the last meeting.
Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition on behalf of Michael Meyer, the owner of 1-3
East Collins Street, formerly the Ward 2 Social Club. Dan Ricciarelh of Seger Architects will
present the proposed plans. When they last presented to the Board in January,despite
concerted efforts to address the concerns of the neighbors about the project, there was
significant opposition to the project. They asked for the Board for a continuance, to continue
to address the concerns of the neighborhood and the Board,particularly the density of the
project and public access to the property.
Attorney Grover distributes a revised Site Plan to the Board for their review. The revised
plan reduces the number of units from 14 to 11. (When the project was first presented in the
fall of 2015 there were 18 units,when the project was last presented to the Board there were
14 units. The present plan shows 11 units—3 buildings with 3 units each and 1 building with
2 units.) The recent reduction in units was accomplished by eliminating 3 units from the East
• Collins end, because that's where most of the concern was from the Board and the
neighborhood.
The new plan shows the outline of the plan that was last as what it has been reduced to.
There has been a substantial reduction in the size of that building to lessen the impact on the
residential neighborhood, and this area is where most of the neighboring homes are located.
Along the Planters Street side of the property, the last house across the street end closer to
East Collins Street and abuts open space owned by National Grid. The proposed homes
further down Planters Street are across from densely packed trees.
Another concern from the last meeting was whether Mr. Meyer had considered constructing
single family homes. Mr. Meyer said that he had but that it wasn't feasible. To provide a
more thorough answer that question,Attorney Grover distributed a Pro Forma comparing
the cost of building four single family homes vs. 11 condominium units—both would also
require significant relief from the Board. The second page demonstrates the cost of building
each house would be$445,000 the projected sale price would be approximately$450,000,
creating a potential profit of$18,000. The cost of building 11 condominiums would be
$600,000 and the potential profit would be $58,000.
Ms. Curran—states that she is aware that the site is encumbered by a few things that require
them to place the buildings so close to the streets—the gas easement and the Chapter 91
jurisdiction line. Ms. Curran stated that she does not understand why there is a building
located within the Chapter 91 jurisdiction fine.
•
Attorney Grover—The plan is to construct the project in two phases. Build the three •
buildings outside of Chapter 91 jurisdiction initially and then apply for a Chapter 91 license
from the state to construct the last building. The Chapter 91 process is extremely lengthy
process,at least 1 year. There are other constraints with the site that would require Variances.
Ms. Curran—added the flood zone, coastal dune,etc.
Ms. Curran—The height is out of character, but one of the reasons for that is to keep the
base flood elevation above the flood line to conform with FEMA.
Attorney Grover—The parking is beneath the building because it is allowed within the
elevation with living areas above. There is very little impervious areas beyond what is under
the buildings,allowing for more open space.
Ms. Curran—states that they project is going from a pre-existing non-conforming use to
another pre-existing non-conforming use, and the approve project needs to be less
detrimental. Visually the structures are very high. Were dormers every considered to reduce
the height?
Attorney Grover—The buildings are within the height limit. The reason for the height
Variance is the number of stories,we tripped at 2 '/2 stories.
Ms. Curran—We need to look at the project from a detrimental standpoint. There is no view •
easement, but it is higher than the neighboring buildings. Mr. Ricciarelli has looked into
neighboring ridgelines and can address that.
Mr. Ricciarelli—states that dormers are something they can look into if the height is concern.
Lowering the eave line will increase the cost of construction,and will make it a more
interesting building.
Ms. Curran—replies that it would make it a more interesting building and would be more in
keeping with the scale of the neighboring buildings.
Mr. Ricciarelli—Because a portion of the road is higher,we have been able to lower some of
the living spaces and bring them closer to the street, and created a triplex. Parking for the
building is in the form of 4 private garages,accessed from a driveway on East Collins Street.
People can then enter the residences that will only be 2 or 3 feet above grade.
Mr. Copelas—Requests that they revisit/explain the public access portion of the project.
Attorney Grover—The previously submitted plan shows a public walkway, but that has been
removed.
Mr. Copelas—questions whether public access had to be created.
• Attorney Grover—Chapter 91 will require public access to the site. A concern of the
neighbors was that they didn't want the public access abutting the residences off of East
Collins Street. They wanted the access more towards the center of the property. It is not
being proposed now. They will wait for the input of DEP.
Ms. Curran—Access to what? You do not own the beach property past the trees.
Attorney Grover—Yes,we do not own that property. Is a bit of an anomaly that the
jurisdiction of Chapter 91 backs up to a couple of land owners.
Mr. Viccica—If you are anticipating public access being a mandate,why aren't you
committing to it now?
Attorney Grover—We don't know where Chapter 91 will suggest that it be. Maybe because
of the reasons that the Chair indicates, that it is not directly to the waterfront, they won't
require public access. We would prefer not to provide it, to maintain the privacy of the units.
Mr. Viccica—If public access is required will you exclude the pathway at edge of the property
that abuts the residences off of East Collins Street?
Attorney Grover—That area will not be used,it would have to come through the center of
• the site. The other possibility is the extension of Planters street,which looks like an actual
street but is privately owned by National Grid, although any one can access the water front
from that way.
Ms. Curran—National Grid owns the feed to that road?
Attorney Grover—They do. Plater Street public way ends in front of the last house on
Planters Street. The beach on the other side of our lot line is also owned by National Grid.
Attorney Grover—states that in terms of the view and the height of the buildings, the public
process and neighborhood meetings conducted have really improved the view corridors
through the site and 3 view corridors have been created. The buildings are no longer walling
off the waterfront.
Mr. Viccica—states that he appreciates the Pro Forma, but believes that the calculations are
incorrect.
Attorney Grover—replied that the math can be clarified but the main point of the Pro Forma
was to show that single family alternative wasn't a viable option.
Rebecca Curran—opens public comment and reads letters received by the Board into the
record.
•
Mary& Charles Knight— 5 East Collins Street,are opposed to the petition. They are not •
happy with the reduction in size, feel the new plan is almost identical to the previous plan,
found the time and day for neighborhood meetings inconvenient for the majority of
neighbors to attend,question whether it should be built at all since it is in a flood plan,a gas
line is running through it, and there are documented issued relating to storm and sewer
drainage.
Paul and Linda McClevin—7 East Collins Street, are opposed to the petition. It does not fit
the neighborhood,resembles a strip mall,it is over-utilizing the lot,it's an appreciable
reduction but is still not appropriate.
Catherine Schrader— 10 East Collins Street,is opposed to the petition. She is concerned
about the building, there are too many variances for someone who doesn't live in the
neighborhood,heard about a kayak ramp and beach access being offered that she doesn't
think should be considered, she has met with the neighbors but neither she or her husband
were invited.
Mary Knight—5 East Collins Street, speaks in opposition to the petition and read her letter
out loud.
Phil Bedard—21 East Collins Street,thanks the Board for the work they have done in the
area, but speaks in opposition to the petition.
Adam Craig—29 Planters Street, speaks in opposition to the petition and read his letter out •
loud.
Katie Schrader— 10 East Collins Street, speaks in opposition to the petition.
Tim Connell—6 East Collins Street, speaks in opposition to the petition.
Suzie Yates— 53 Osgood Street, speaks in opposition to the petition.
Barbara & George Leone - 9 1/z East Collins Street, speaks in opposition to the petition.
Kristin Hart—32 Osgood Street,speaks in opposition to the petition.
Scott Truheart—4 East Collins Street, speaks in opposition to the petition.
Jason Lang—43 Osgood Street, speaks in opposition to the petition.
Tim Jenkins— 18 Broad Street, speaks in opposition to the petition.
Trisha Truhart—4 East Collins Street, speaks in opposition to the petition.
•
• Scott Hiltunen— 18 East Collins Street, speaks in opposition to the petition.
Ms. Curran—states that when you have a non-conforming use and you are switching to
another non-conforming use this Board can find that is not more detrimental to the
neighborhood. If this was a vacant piece of land it would need to adhere to the zoning and a
Board meeting would not be necessary. As far as the Variances go you have to show that
there are hardships,not being able to build where the gas line is for example. If zoning
dictated that something needed to be over the gas line, zoning would dictate that it would
need to be in a different position, because the gas line is an existing problem. One of the
reasons the Board is being asked to give a variance is because the Chapter 91 jurisdictional
line. Given that,it makes sense to place the buildings where they are shown, and that is why
they are not requiring the front and side yard setbacks. If that is the reason for a hardship,
then proposing a building—Building B- within that area does not make sense,when the
setback relief for the hardship is that line.
Mr. Viccica—adds that in regards to that building in particular,if you are arguing a hardship
to get a Variance for 2 Yz stories,Building B is 3 stories, the highest out of all the buildings on
the lot. The 3 units causes the 3 stories, but I do not believe the same argument can be
applies to Building B. One less unit can be put into Building B and it will comply with the
zoning ordinance of 2 Yz stories or less.
Ms. Curran—states that although they are within the height they seem tall. If they did not
• have parking underneath they would be more in scale,but breaking up the mass of the
building and putting dormers within the roof line would bring down the height and make the
scale more in keeping with the neighborhood.
Ms. Curran—States that at the last meeting duplexes were discussed. She would prefer 4
duplexes rather than 3 unit buildings. That is not in keeping with the neighborhood.
Attorney Grover—States that he thought that was directed at Building B only, and that is the
building whose size has been reduced. Mr. Grover added that he did not understand that that
was in regards to all of the triplexes. They felt that the plan was coming a significant way to
where the Board wanted.
Mr. Viccica—If flood levels are the reason for raising the other buildings up and providing
parking below, then adding a lower level to Building B doesn't make sense. If the buildings
were lower and the occupiedspace on that floor were the '/2 a story,it would decrease the
square footage, and may affect the Pro Forma, but it seems that the Variances requested are
to maximize the number of units on the site for a financial benefit. Mr. Viccica states that he
does not understand the ability to grant all the Variances, that could be modified in some
case, and then see where things end up on the profit side.
Attorney Grover—This project is financially driven because they are trying to make a
financially viable project,while trying to accommodate all of the concerns.
•
Mr. Viccica—states that more importantly,whether that is a detriment to the neighborhood. •
With the number of units, things are out of balance.
Attorney Grover—Analysis of the density of the surrounding neighborhood has been
submitted to the Board a couple of times. The density of the 3 acres surrounding the
neighborhood was calculated, and the average density of the lots is approximately 2,600 SF
per acre.
Mr. Viccica—How many of those were 3 units houses? Many of 1 or 2 units and adding a
third is not in character with the neighborhood.
Attorney Grover—states that 3 families are not predominant,but they is not out of character
with the neighborhood. With the reduction of the units down to 11, we calculate 3,800 SF
per unit,which is almost 1,000 SF more than what is typical in the neighborhood.
Ms. Curran—Adds that they are so limited with what they can use on the site,you don't get a
sense of the additional space,because the structures are concentrated at one area.
Katie Schrader— 10 East Collins Street,questioned if the density and the lot includes the
areas of sand.
Attorney Grover—Yes. That is how coverage is calculated. •
Ms. Curran—Yes. The areas of sand are included.
Mr. Tsitsinos—Questioned why cars cannot park on Planters Street.
Attorney Grover—Is it not a street. It is owned by National Grid.
Ms. Curran.—Do you have the right to access it?
Attorney Grover—No.
Mr. Tsitsinos—How do the cars access the garages? Are they on Planters Street?
Attorney Grover—Garage access is at the middle of the site - East Collins Street. To access
the garages you have to drive underneath the buildings.
Heather Lang—43 Osgood Street, speaks in opposition to the petition,and mentioned the
logistics of the additional people on the street,East Collins Street having on-street parking as
well as,parking at Halloween,visitors in general, and the challenges of snow removal.
Ms. Curran—Does the parking complies with zoning? •
Attorney Grover—Yes.
Mr. Copelas—States that he struggles with the fact that the Petitioner is willing to ask for a
Chapter 91 license for Building B,but the Board is being asked to make a lot of design
compromises with the other buildings. Is it an unattractive design to squeeze them into the
buildable area. Mr. Copelas does not like the compromises that the Board is being asked to
make to accommodate the timing of the construction.
Mr. Watkins—Is not in favor of the project based on the Special Permit alone. The traffic
flow and safety aspects of adding 11 units to the particular parcel,is a lot. People in the
summer months use this area as a cut through from the Willows to by-pass the lights, so it is a
busy area.
Mr. Duffy—Some effort to reduce the size has been made but not to the level that the
neighborhood is looking for. A lot of relief is being requested for this project, for a Special
Permit and Variances,and there is a lot of opposition to that. This project may be over-
reaching in their requests.
Mr. Tsitsinos—States that with a better understanding of the parking he does not like that
cars must travel under the buildings to get to the garages.
• Councilor-At-Large Sargent—How would the lot be handled if it were to burn down?
Ms. Curran—If it were to burn down today,you would have two years that it would still be
considered a non-conforming use. Two years from now and someone decided to purchase
the site,it would be RI Zoning. They could get a variance based on a hardship for where the
building was located.
Councilor Sargent- On the corner of Lynn&Bridge Street a multi-unit building that burnt
down years ago. They could only use the current zoning when they rebuilt it, and it is a one
family now. They did not go to the zoning board. Councilor Sargent added that in the past,
when you had a non-conforming building that you wanted to renovate,you couldn't level it.
A renovation was done in sections.
Ms. Curran—states that a burning is an accidental use. If they took the building down that
would be different.
Councilor Sargent—States that you are allowing them to take the Ward 2 Social Club down,
but this is voluntary.
Ms. Curran—added that that would only be after permits.
Councilor Sargent—Argues that a non-conforming use is how you use something that is •
already there. We are getting away from Section 3.3.2 and 3.3.3, and not just with this project.
Ms. Curran—It is in 40A. It is not unique to Salem.
Councilor Sargent—The definition of 3.3.2 is a non-conforming use to change the use.
Ms. Curran—That is not particular to Salem, that is in the state zoning.
Councilor Sargent—The Ward 2 Club is used as a club/bar. If someone wanted to change
the use that would be fine. 3.3.3 is to alter a non-conforming structure, not to tear down and
rebuild a non-conforming structure. What they want to do does not fit into the City or State
statues.
Ms. Curran—They are going from one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use,
and the other non-conforming use is a multi-family. A non-conforming use is also a use that
is not allowed in that district.
Chuck Walsh—2 Planters Street, speaks in opposition to the petition.
Attorney Grover—States that they have not addresses the concerns of the Board or the
neighbors and requests to withdrawal the petition without prejudice. •
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to allow the applicant to withdrawal the
application without prejudice from the Board. The motion is seconded by Mr.
Watkins. The vote was with five (5) (Rebecca Conran(Chair),Peter A.Copelas,Tom
Watkins,Mike Duffy,and Paul Viccica,) in favor and none (0) opposed.
Project A request for a six (6) month extension to exercise the 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 DANIEL BOTWINIK
Location 162 FEDERAL STREET (Map 26 Lot 96)
Documents and Exhibitions
•
• ➢ Application dated March 14,2016 and supporting documentation
Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition on behalf of,the potential owner of 162 Federal
Street,Mr. Daniel Bominik.
Ms. Curran—Questions Attorney Grover is Special Permits can be granted an extension as
many times as the Board wants but are you limited to a six month extension for Variances?
Attorney Grover—Only if there is good cause.
Attorney Grover—stated that this building is the convent that is next to the Federal Street
School, formerly the St. Joesph's School. The Board granted a series of Variances in 2009,
which were appealed to the court and eventually settled. What prevented the project from
going forward was an environmental condition of the property. There was an oil tank leak in
the Basement of the convent. The leak has been clean up but the oil migrated to the
neighboring school building, so DEP cannot close the case because they are still monitoring
the school next door.
There have been several buys for this building, but because of the lack of sign off by the
DEP, they could not get the project financed. The potential buyer, Mr. Botwinik,is
proceeding with the purchase of the building regardless of the environmental conditions. A
• closing date is scheduled for March 28`x'. 6 months ago they have asked for a 6 month
extension,but are in need of another extension. The cause for the extension is because of
the environmental conditions.
Mr. Viccica—Questioned if this extension process could continue for years. Is there any
limitation on the extension?
Mt. StTierre—It could continue but only with good cause.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the request for a request for
a six (6) month extension to exercise the 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. Tsitsinos.The
vote was with five (5) (Rebecca Curran(Chair),Peter A.Copelas,Tom Watkins,Mike
Duffy,and Jimmy Tsitsinos,) in favor and none (0) opposed.
OLD/NEW_BUSINESS
NONE
•
APPROVAL OF_MEETING MINUTES _ — •
January 20, 2016 meeting minutes were approved as written.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the minutes as written,
seconded by Mr.Viccica. The vote was in favor (Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A.
Copelas,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy, and Jimmy Tsitsinos,) and none (0) opposed.
February 17, 2016 meeting minutes were approved as written.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the minutes as written,
seconded by Mr.Viccica. The vote was in favor (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A.
Copelas,Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy, and Jimmy Tsitsinos,) and none (0) opposed.
OLD/NEW BUSINESS
N/A
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Watkins motioned for adjournment of the March 16, 2016 regular meeting of the Salem
Board of Appeals at 9:00 PM.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins made a motion to adjourn the March 16, 2016 regular •
meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr.Viccica, and the vote is
unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran(Chair),Peter A.Copelas,Tom Watkins,Mike
Duffy,and Jimmy Tsitsinos,) in favor and none (0) opposed.
The meeting ends at 9:00 PM.
For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes,
copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at.
httn://salem.com/PagesISalemMA ZoningApnealsMin/
Respectfully submitted,
Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
•
�conwtTq� CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
kl'
07, BOARD OF APPEAL
Ae3
120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
%MtNa� / TELE:978-619-5685 FAX:978-740-0404
KTMBERLEY DRiscoLL
MAYOR
r
rj
,1 y
City of Salem -
Zoning Board of Appeals ~' D
w
.c -Q
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MELISSA VAgON, seeking a Special
Perrrit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Stmaures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter an existing
nonconforming structure at the property of 59 Memorial Drive (Map 42 Lot 13)(81 Zoning District).
The public hearing will be held on Wednesday,March 16, 2016, at 6:30pm 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 Street, Salem, MA,
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 3/2/2016 & 3/9/2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on MAR -- 2 2016
at 4,744" in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
a C„
120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
'' Min>sv
'I`:rLE:978-619-5685+FAX:978-740-0404 --
K wERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR n
O-
fTl 3s
:7 -Q
I
N
D
City of Salem r ,o
Zoning Board of Appeals ;
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of 114 DERBY STREET NOMINEE
TRUST, seeking a Variance for relief from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.4 and a Special Permit from Sec. 3.3.3
Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to increase an existing non-conformity and alter a
nonconforming structure for a substantially different purpose at the property of 114 Derby Street (Map 41
Lot 14)(B1 Zoning District).
The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 16,2016, at 6:30pm in Room 313, 3d 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`s, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 3/2/2016 & 3/9/2016
This notice posted on "Oficial Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on MAR - 2 20%
at ej.(//AH in accordance with MGL Chap.30A,
Sections 18-25.
•
�coipmr9
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
7
� .
BOARD OF APPEAL
Mitii p
120 WASHINGTON STREET+ SALEM,MASSACHIjg$V*hj9K p 12: 4b
MmBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR r
March 30, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of SCHIAVUZZO REALTY LLC seeldng 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 of residential dwelling units at the property of
93-95 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lots 164, 165)(B-4 Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on February 17, 2016 and continued on March 16, 2016
pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, � 11. The hearing was closed March 16, 2016 with the following Salem Board of
Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas, Mike Duffy, Tom Watkins, Jimmy
Tsitsinos.
The petitioner is 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 of residential dwelling units.
Statements of fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped January 26, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per 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 of residential dwelling units.
2. Attorney Atkins presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner.
3. The subject property is located in a B-4 Zoning District.
4. The property was previously used as a candy manufacturing facility for over forty years (40) and
employed between six (6) and thirty (30) employees. Shipping and deliveries were made from Canal
Street and included small box trucks and large trucks making deliveries twice (2) a day. The facility
operating hours were from Gam to 5pm.
5. The petitioner proposed to change an existing nonconforming use of a food and manufacturing facility
to eight (8) residential units within the existing building footprint.
6. There are commercial properties located directly on either side of the subject property and multi-family
residential buildings along Canal Street within the same zoning district.
7. The petitioner proposes to sell these residential units as condominiums.
8. The petitioner proposed to renovate the existing structure and add a ramp in the rear of the building
• for accessibility. The petitioner also proposed to extend the existing second story such that the entire
building will be a two (2)- story structure.
9. The petitioner will be providing fifteen (15) parking spaces, three (3) more spaces than required
number of spaces per the zoning ordinance.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
March 30,2016
Project: 93-95 Canal Street
Page 2 of 3
10. The petitioner proposed to continue to share an existing driveway with the property located at 89
Canal Street (Map 33 Lot 163).
11. In response to public concern that the residential units may be rented to Salem State students, the
Board weighed whether or not the approval of the proposal could be conditioned subject to the
residential units being owner occupied.
12. At the public meeting on February 17, 2016, the Board requested a legal opinion from the City
Solicitor for a decision on whether the ZBA has the authority to condition the approval of the
proposal subject to the residential units being owner occupied.
13. On March 2, 2016, the ZBA received a legal opinion from the City Solicitor with a statement that the
Board likely does not have the authority condition an approval of the proposal based on the units
being owner occupied.
14. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to allow the change from one
nonconforming use of a candy factory to another nonconforming use of residential dwelling units.
15. At the public hearing no (0) members of the public spoke in favor of and three (3) 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
The proposed change in use is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the
existing nonconforming use.
1. The proposed change in use 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 as it provides an affordable housing option for families.
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 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 (Chau), Peter A. Copelas, Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins) in favor and none (0)
opposed, to grant 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 of residential dwelling units subject to the following terms, conditions and safeguards:
1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
March 30,2016
Project: 93-95 Canal Street
• Page 3 of 3
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the
Building Commissioner
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly
adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
5. Exterior finishes of new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained.
7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but
not limited to, the Planning Board.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. An easement to allow shared passage over the existing driveway shall be recorded with the deed of the
property.
Rebecca Curran, Chau v
. 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 ibis decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Viniance 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.
5" p CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
A�AMI � 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTgg,pq}}9 A
KIMBERLEYDRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846
CU10 'YrnR 30 P 'Z 46
MAYOR r
March 30, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of MELISSA VACON, seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of
the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter an existing nonconforming structure at the property of 59
Memorial Drive (Map 42 Lot 13)(R1 Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 16, 2016 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 A. Copelas, Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,Jimmy Tsitsinos.
The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance to alter an existing nonconforming structure.
Statements of fact:
• 1. In the petition date-stamped February 23, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Special permit per Sec. 3.3.3
Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter an existing nonconforming
structure.
2. Attorney Scott Grover presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner.
3. The subject property is located in a Rl Zoning District and is a single family residence.
4. The petitioner proposes to construct a shed roof to expand the second floor and construct a rear
landing and stairs at the first floor level.
5. The existing structure is within 5.7' feet of the side yard setback and does not conform to the side yard
setback requirement of ten (10') feet. The proposed addition will not increase the nonconformity with
respect to this setback,which is proposed to stand at 7' feet from the side yard setback.
6. The height of the structure and number of stories proposed is within the dimensional requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance for an Rl Zoning District.
7. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to alter an existing nonconforming
structure.
8. 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:
City of Salem Board of Appeals
March 30,2016
Project: 59 Memorial Drive
Page 2 of 2
• Findings for Special Permit
The proposed change is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood that the existing
nonconforming structure.
1. The proposed building alteration of the 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 minimal 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,Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins) in favor and none (0)
opposed, t grant a Special Permit pp o p t per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconfornsing Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to
alter an existing nonconforming structure subject to the following terms, conditions and safeguards:
• 1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the
Building Commissioner
3. All requirements of the Salem Fixe 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 fmm this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed nnthin 20
Wis 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 Ckrk has been filed with the Essex South
Registry of Deeds.
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSAC 9 P 12: 41
4 �
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 # FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR
PITY
March 30, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of 114 DERBY STREET NOMINEE TRUST, seeking a Variance for relief from the
provisions of Sec. 3.3.4 and a Special Permit from Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance to increase an existing non-conformity and alter a nonconforming structure for a
substantially different purpose at the property of 114 Derby Street (Map 41 Lot 14)(B1 Zoning
District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on Match 16, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § I land.
closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chau),
Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,Jimmy Tsitsinos.
The petitioner is seeking a Variance for relief from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance to increase an existing non-conformity and a Special Permit from Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming
• Structures and alter a nonconforming structure for a substantially different purpose.
Statements of fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped February 23, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Variance for relief from the
provisions of Sec. 3.3.4 and a Special Pent it from Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance to increase an existing non-conformity and alter a nonconforming structure for a
substantially different purpose.
2. Attorney Grover presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner.
3. The subject property is located in a B1 Zoning District.
4. The petitioner proposes to renovate the existing building and the addition along Turner Street.
5. The property is dimensionally nonconforming with respect to lot coverage and side yard setback. The
petitioner proposed to construct two (2) porches that will cause the lot coverage to increase from the
existing 42% to 43%lot coverage and requested a Variance per Section 3.3.4 to allow an increase in
an existing nonconformity.
6. The petitioner proposed to convert the existing building, currently owned and operated by the House
of the Seven Gables Settlement Association, to six (6) residential dwelling units. The current use of
the structure is an alternative high school. The petitioner has requested a special permit per Section
3.3.3 to alter a nonconforming structure for a substantially different purpose.
• 7. The petitioner proposed nine (9) parking spaces, which meets the required number of parking spaces
per the Zoning Ordinance.
I
City of Salem Board of Appeals
March 30,2016
Project: 114 Derby Street
• Page 2 of 3
8. The requested relief,if granted, would allow the Petitioner to increase an existing non-conformity and
to alter a nonconforming structure for a substantially different purpose.
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. 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 this building is a
is unusually large on the lot. Both the building and the lot have unique features that are of historic
significance.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the
• applicant as residential use calls for some aspect of outdoor access that cannot be allotted in a
meaningful way other than other than this 1%increase which creates a further dimensional
nonconformity.
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:
The proposed change in use is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the
existing use.
1. The proposed change in use would not be more substantially detrimental as the building is no longer
in productive commercial use and a residential use will be a positive impact on the social, economic or
community needs served by the proposal.
2. There are no negative impacts on traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading as the
petitioner is providing the required number of parking spaces and making improvements to the
existing curbcut.
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.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
March 30,2016
Project: 114 Derby Street
• Page 3 of 3
On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5)
(Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas, Mike Duffy, Tom Watkins,Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0)
opposed, to grant a Variance in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 3.3.4 and a Special Permit from Sec.
3.3.3. Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to increase an existing non-conformity and
alter a nonconforming structure for a substantially different purpose 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 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.
e e cc !_un/L "
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 f:kd within 20
days of fik'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 deci.don bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South
Registry of Deeds.
0
A6 � CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET* SAM, SSACHOSETTS 01970
KiMBERLEYDRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 1 FAX:978-74Q{98,46
MAYOR
March 30, 2016
Daniel Botwinik
c/o Attorney Scott Grover
Tinti, Quinn, Grover& Frey
27 Congress 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 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 Salem Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday, March 16, 2016 to discuss your request for
the approval of a third six (6) month extension to exercise rights granted by the September28, 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 original Decision of September 28, 2009 was appealed to the Superior Court and an Agreement
for Judgement 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 March 14, 2016, a letter was submitted by Attorney Grover on behalf of Daniel Botwinik
requesting a third six (6)month extension to commence March 28 2016 and expire September 28
2016.
The Zoning Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor(Ms. Curran, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Duffy, Mr.
Tsitsinos and Mr. Watkins) and none (0) opposed, to grant the approval of the six-month extension
request to exercise the rights granted by the September 28, 2009 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
v��t;QtdU7T,g,��6
(p �� CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
• C �k... i
BOARD OF APPEAL
' 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 101b MAR 30 P 12: 41
MAYOR
cilr
March 30, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
A petition of MICHAEL MEYER 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.Z1 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)(RI Zoning District).
At the October 21, 2015 meeting 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 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 4 11. The public hearing was
continued on November 18, 2015, December 16, 2015,January 20, 2016, February 17,2016 and Match 16,
2016. The hearing was closed on March 16,2016 with the following Salem Board of Appeals members
present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins, and Paul Viccica (alternate).
The Petitioner is 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.
Statements of fact:
1. Attorney Grover presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner.
2. In the petition date-stamped September 25, 2015, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sec.
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 multi-family 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 located at 1-3 EAST
COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277)(R1 Zoning District).
• 3. The original petition, dated September 25, 2015, proposed two (2) three (3) story buildings with
eighteen (18) residential units in an R-1 Zoning District.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
3/30/2016
Project:3-1 East Collins Street
• Page 2 of 5
4. The proposed living areas are raised with parking proposed underneath the building by necessity
because the entire property is located within the flood zone.
5. The original petition, proposed
the following deviations from the dimensional requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance: 1) a lot area per dwelling unit of 2.324 square feet where the requirement per the
Zoning Ordinance is 15,000 square feet; 2) 94.5 feet of frontage where the requirement per the
Zoning Ordinance is 100 square feet of linear frontage; 3) exceeding the maximum lot coverage with
31.8% lot coverage where the requirement is 30%lot coverage; 4) 1.8 feet from the front yard setback
where 15 feet is required; 5) 0.25 feet from the side setback where 10 feet is required; 6) Three (3)
stories where the maximum requirement is 2.5 stories.
6. The petitioner proposed to provide twenty-seven (27) parking spaces to comply with the required
number of parking spaces as per the Zoning Ordinance and provide close to two (2) parking spaces
per dwelling unit in response to neighborhood concerns regarding parking.
7. The petitioner also requested a special permit from one nonconforming use of a social club to another
nonconforming use of multi-family residential dwelling units.
8. At a public hearing for the petition was opened on October 21, 2015 and continued to the next
regularly scheduled meeting on November 18, 2015 at the request of the applicant to revise the
original plans to respond to neighborhood concern about density,parking,view corridors to the water
• among other concerns.
9. Between the time that the petitioner submitted the proposal to the Board and the October 21,2015
meeting, the petitioner met with the neighborhood to listen to concerns about the proposal and
revised plans that were submitted thereafter to the Board and reviewed at a public meeting on
November 18, 2015.
10. At the public meeting on November 18, 2015, the petitioner presented revised plans and proposed
fourteen (14) residential units rather than the eighteen (18) proposed in the original petition in
response to continued concerns from the neighborhood.There were 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".
11. The petitioner proposed to construct the project in two (2) phases with the building 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 `Building B"would be built after the Chapter 91 process.
12. Attorney Grover stated that before the petitioner can apply to the state for a Chapter 91 license all
local approvals have to be received first. The project also would have to go through the Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act review before Chapter 91. Both MEPA and Chapter 91 can be a very long
process.
13. The project was designed 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 would take approximately a
year and a half for state approvals.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
3/30/2016
Project: 3-1 East Collins Street
• Page 3 of 5
14. Attorney Grover presented the following grounds for the Special Permit request:
• Social, community, or economic needs served by the proposal are that 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. This property is also a nuisance to the
neighborhood as there are illicit activities that occur frequently on the property and 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 which is a positive public
benefit.
• Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading are adequate as the petitioner is
providing more than the required number of parking spaces.
• Utilities and public services are adequate.
• Impacts on the natural environment including drainage will be greatly improved as the
impervious parking lot will be significantly reduced and new landscaping materials and
plantings will cover a significant portion of the site using low impact development design. In
addition, the petitioner proposes to improve an existing drain that was installed incorrectly in
the parking lot area.
• The design and proposed use fit better with the character of the neighborhood than the
existing use and structure. The proposed density of fourteen (14) units is not as a lot given the
• overall density in the area.
• The potential fiscal impact, including impact on City tax base and employment will be
positive.
15. The petitioner presented a density study of the acre surrounding the subject property to demonstrate
that the average density in the neighborhood was 22.1 units per acre with an average lot area of 2.613
square feet (0.06 acres).
16. At the November 11, 2015 meeting 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. Revisions requested included breaking up building"A"along Planters Street to
include three (3) individual buildings each with separate entrances to better match the existing
architectural character of the neighborhood.
17. At the November 11, 2015 the Board stated concerns about the request for Variances and design
choices to allow the petitioner to accept a design to fit with the regulatory and time constraints of the
Chapter 91 process.
18. The petitioner requested a continuation at the December 16, 2015 meeting to the next regularly
scheduled meeting on January 20, 2016 to allow more time for plan revisions.
• 19. At the January 20, 2016 meeting, the petitioner presented revised architectural plans. Changes
included the division of Building"A"along Planter Street into three (3) distinct multi-family
structures including a three (3) unit building, a two (2) unit building and another three (3) unit building
and the Board requested that building`B" also be reduced to a two (2) family dwelling unit to better
City of Salem Board of Appeals
3/30/2016
Project:3-1 East Collins Street
• Page 4 of 5
fit with the character of the neighborhood. The petitioner reduced the number of proposed units
from eighteen (18) to fourteen (14).
20. The petitioner proposed to have a public access way to the water along the southern lot line of the
property.
21. It was suggested by the Board that the petitioner consider an alternative location of the public access
way either through the center of the site or eliminate the public pathway until further review was done
through Chapter 91 licensing.
22. The Board also stated that the proposal for Building B,was not an appropriate density and is out of
character for the neighborhood.
23. The Board requested that the petitioner consider looking at the possibility of constructing single
family homes along the existing frontage.
24. Attorney Grover testified that the existing frontage is 95 feet along East Collins Street,which does
not allow for even a single conforming lot. Further to create individual lots from this parcel would be
a subdivision and the lots could not comply with the zoning requirements because there is no
sufficient frontage for one (1) or more lots.
25. The Board suggested that the petitioner consider duplexes hugging the property boundaries as there
. are unique limitations to the site including the location of the flood zone, an existing gas easement,
wetlands and other unique features of the property.
26. At the January 20,2016 meeting Attorney Grover presented the follow statement of hardship for the
request for Variances:
• Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building,or structure
generally not affecting other lands,buildings, and structures in the same district are that the
land is subject to Chapter 91 jurisdiction, there is a coastal dune and wetlands on the property,
there is also a gas line easement running through the property. These special conditions limit
part of the site available for development. The petitioner needs variances from the zoning
ordinance to exceed the height and setback requirements because there is such a narrow
building envelope.
• The special and unique site conditions also make it a very expensive site to develop, requiring
a certain level of density to make development economically feasible.
• Desirable relief can be granted without detriment to the public good as the current site is in
poor condition.
27. At the February 17, 2016 meeting the petitioner requested a continuation to the next regularly
scheduled meeting on March 16, 2016. No testimony was heard at the February 17,2016 meeting.
28. The requested relief,if granted,would allow the Petitioner to change and existing nonconforming use
of a social club to another nonconforming use multi-family residential units and relief from Sec. 4.1.1
Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage,
City of Salem Board of Appeals
3/30/2016
Project: 3-1 East Collins Street
• Page 5 of 5
minimum lot coverage, front and side yard setbacks, minimum distance between buildings, and
number of stories.
29. At the public hearings, twenty (20) residents submitted letters and spoke in opposition to the
proposal. No members of the public spoke in support of the petition.
30. At the March 17,2016 meeting the petitioner requested to withdraw the petition without prejudice.
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, Mike Duffy, Tom Watkins, and Paul Viccica (alternate).
and none (o) opposed, to allow the petitioner to withdraw without prejudice.
WITHDRAWN 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 Imus Chapter 40A, and.shall be filed noithin20
days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Lmvs Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or
Special Permit granted herein shall not take eea until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South
Registry of Deeds.
j
•
v��.CQNDIT9��i,
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
�sM
120 WASHINGTON STREET 4 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 0197•((i�lb APR 12 A IG 29
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 �0
MAYOR
OTYGLgf\1 , SAl .11.hS`155
MEETING NOTICE
You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Wednesday,Apr1120, 2016 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
➢ March 16 2016
•
III. REGULAR AGENDA
Project A public hearing for a petition of, seeking Variances from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1
Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for maximum lot
coverage, rear yard setbacks, and the number of stories to allow the reconstruction,
extension or structural change of an existing nonconforming structure.
Applicant THE CHARLES HOPE COMPANIES, LLP
Location 81 DERBY STREET (Map 41 Lot 275)( R2 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1
Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for minimum lot area
pet dwelling unit.
Applicant RICARDO GARCIA and ROSE HELEN GARCIA
Location 24 LEMON STREET (Map 36 Lot 44)(R2 Zoning District)
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on APR 12 2016
• at i0;29K in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A 5 18-25 and 00 Ordinance 5 2-2028 through g 2-2033.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Agenda for April 20,2016 Meeting
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)
IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
V. ADJOURNMENT
•
Page 2 of 2
OR
e;
5�( CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
9a �S
BOARD OF APPEAL
��tM1N6��0
120 WASHINGTON STRI3ET 1 SALED4,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
KIMBER]:EY Diuscoi..1, Teaae:978-745-95951 FAx:978-740-9846
MAYOR
STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Appeals Members
FROM: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
DATE: 4/11/2016
RE: Meeting Agenda for April 20,2016
Board Members,
Please find the following in your packets:
1. Agenda
2. Staff Memorandum
3. Meeting Minutes
• 4. 81 Derby Street
5. 24 Lemon Street
6. 44 Boston and 401 Bridge Street Extension Request
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,April 20,2016.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
1. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of THE CHARLES HOPE
COMPANIES, LLP, seeking Variances from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of
Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for maximum lot coverage, rear
yard setbacks, and the number of stories to allow the reconstruction, extension or structural
change of an existing nonconforming structure at the property of 81 DERBY STREET (Map
41 Lot 275)(R2 Zoning District).
The petitioner is requesting a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional
Requirements for maximum lot coverage,rear yard setbacks, and number of stories to all for the
reconstruction, extension or structural change of an existing nonconforming structure. The petitioner
has requested dimensional variances as the proposal will increase the nonconforming nature of the
structure.
The property is located in an R2 Zoning District and is currently a two-family structure. The property
• is currently under receivership with The Charles Hope Companies,LLC (petitioner).
The petitioner proposes to reconstruct and alter the structure in the following ways: 1) to reconstruct
the roof such that it will be three (3) feet taller exceeding the 2.5 story maximum to provide two
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—April 13,2016
Page 2of3
useable bedrooms and a bathroom for the second existing dwelling unit; 2) to construct a six (6) foot •
wide deck and stair structure at the rear of the building to provide a second means of egress for both
dwelling units where the structure is more nonconforming as to the side and rear yard setbacks and
maximum lot area coverage; 3) The petitioner is proposing to reconstruct the existing entry hall along
the existing nonconfomring building footprint that encroaches upon the required ten (10') foot side
yard requirement.
The petitioner is proposing these changes to be in compliance of current building code and life safety
requirements.
F y1+
1s
A copy of the petition, plans and petition to enforce state sanitary codes and motion to appoint a
receiver is included in this packet.
2. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of RICARDO GARCIA and ROSE
HELEN GARCIA, seeking a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional
Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for minimum lot area per dwelling unit at the
property of 24 Lemon Street (Map 36 Lot 44)( R2 Zoning District).
The petitioner is seeking a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional
Requirements to exceed the minimum lot area per dwelling unit. The property is located in an R-2
Zoning District and is currently a single family home on a lot that is approximately 4,000 square feet.
The petitioner is proposing to increase the density of the property by one additional dwelling unit and
is not proposing any changes to the footprint or exterior of the existing structure.
Additional information needs to be clarified on the proposed parking regarding whether there is an
existing curbcut. I have requested that the petitioner provide photo documentation of the existing
driveway.
A copy of the petition, plans and statement are included in this packet. •
2
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—April 13,2016
Page 3 of 3
•
3. 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 May 18,2016 to expire November 18,2016.
•
•
3
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Meeting_Minutes
Wednesday,April 20, 2016
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA") was held on Wednesday,April 20,
2016 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts at
6:30 p.m.
Ms. Curran (Chair)calls the meeting to order at 630 pm.
ROLL CALL
Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy,
Jimmy Tsitsinos,Jim Hacker (alternate), and Paul Viccica (alternate).Also in attendance Tom
St.Pierre-Building Commissioner,Erin Schaeffer-Staff Planner,and Colleen Anderson—
Recorder.
REGULAR AGENDA 71
Project A public hearing for a petition of requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.4
and Variances from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional
Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for maximum lot coverage,
rear yard setbacks, and the number of stories to allow the reconstruction,
• extension,or structural change of an existing nonconforming structure.
Applicant THE CHARLES HOPE COMPANIES, LLP
Location 81 DERBY STREET (Map 41 Lot 275)(R2 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated March 29, 2016 and supporting documentation
Dan Bumagin, of The Charles Hope Companies - Presents the petition along with Annette
Popp,Architect. The property has been boarded up &abandoned for over ten (10) years.
If the City is unable to make the property code compliant, the City is allowed to seek a
Receiver to take over the property. The property has entered into receivership by the
Northeast Housing Court of Salem,and is currently being held by The Charles Hope
Companies,LLP.
The property currently has Zoning and Historic Commission compliance concerns that need
to be addressed. This is the last house along the odd side of Derby Street that is in the
historic waterfront district. The neighboring properties consist of a residence &laundromat
across the street& to the North,green space/trees to the East that faces the power plant, a
garage to the South,and a residence to the West.
There are currently three zoning issues. 1) This existing two-family has no second means of
egress. The site plan shows that the structure is either on or close to the property line on
• three sides,leaving only the property along the South for a second egress,which infringes on
the rear yard setback requirements. 2) The petitioner seeks to add a second story over a •
small entrance hallway on the West side of the budding which will require a Special Permit.
The small entrance hallway will allow for a landing at the top of the second egress stair. 3)
The petitioner seeks to raise the roof three (3) feet,putting the building one (1) foot over
the maximum height limit,which requires a Variance. The height increase will make the
existing T/z story building into a 3 story building, and this is a 2'/2 story zone. The height
increase will maximize head height clearances in the two existing 3`d floor bedrooms.
Ms. Popp-. added that no new work is within two (2) feet of the property line and the design
changes were minimal to make it fit on such a small lot.
Ms. Curran—states that this is a very small lot. Ms. Curran confirms that the property is a
two-family and is an allowed use even though the property is abandoned.
Mr. St. Pierre—Yes.
Ms. Curran—questions that the landing addition at the back fagade was not the minimum
egress width.
Ms. Popp—states that some deck space has been added at the rear egress stair landing for
the 2"d floor unit and confirms the proposed deck space is larger than the minimum egress
width.
Ms. Curran—states that the addition over the existing West entrance bump-out was within •
the existing footprint and added that the only footprint increase occurs at the rear, South
fa4ade,with the proposed stairway and deck,making the rear yard and lot coverage more
non-confornung.
Mr. Bumagin—Correct.
Mr. Tsitsinos—asks how will the third floor be used and if they will be condominiums.
Mr. Bumagin—The third floor is a part of the second floor unit and will house two rooms
and a bathroom. We do not know if they will become condominiums.
Mr. Viccica—Asks whether the building at the rear of the property was a residence and how
far away it is from their structure.
Mr. Bumagin—The building immediately behind this building is a garage and the distance is
it shown away from their building on the Site Plan is approximate. They have had several
conversations with the owner of that garage and he is in favor of this project.
Mr. Tsitsinos—asks if there was parking.
Mr. Bumagin—There is no parking on the property, on-street parking in generally available,
and the ferry parking is also available, and neighbors have states that on-street parking is
generally not a problem. •
• Mr. Tsitsinos—asks if that portion of Derby Street was resident parking only.
Mr. St. Pierre—Side streets are resident only but that area of Derby Street is not.
Ms. Curran—States that there was no parking before and is a pre-existing nonconforming
condition that can remain.
Ms. Curran- opens public comment.
Ms.Jennifer Firth—President of Historic Salem—Asks whether the intention is to keep the
building a two family, asks what year the house was built,and applauded the applicant's
efforts to renovate the building.
Mr. Bumagin—The building will remain a two family. It was built in 1880 and renovated in
1890.
Ms. Curran—asks whether they have been to the Historic Commission.
Mr. Bumagin—states that the Historic Commission has requested that they make a few
changes;width of the comer boards,work on the window configuration, and suggested they
put these changes on the plans and present to the Historic Commission again. Mr.
Burmagin is scheduled to present on the May 18,2016 agenda.
• Mr. Greg Stefan—78 Derby Street—States that he lives directly across the street and the
issue he and his wife have is with the view. Mr. Stefan states that raising the roof three (3)
feet will hinder their already filtered view of the water,and light from the sun in the winter.
Mr. Stefan presented the Board with a photo of the view of the ocean from his upstairs
window. Mr. Stefan states that a cast shadow from 81 Derby Street may increase his heating
bills and privacy is another issue.
Ms. Curran—Asks the petitioner to confirm that the entire roof is being raised three (3) feet.
Mr. Bumagin—The dotted line on the plan is the existing roofline.
Ms,Curran- Confirms with the petitioner that they will be keeping the same pitch of the
roof.
Mr. Bumagin-Confirms.
Ms. Curran- Right now, there is no dormer on the left side of the roof.
Mr. Bumagin-Correct.
Mr. Tsitsinos-Asks the petitioner what exactly is being raised regarding the roof and why.—
•
Mr. Bumagin—Is proposing to raise the entire roof three (3) feet, but in order to comply •
with the maximum number of stories, the petitioner can by right only raise the roof two (2)
feet to be a 2.5 story structure...
Mr. Viccica- To the petitioner,would you mind talking about why the proposal is to raise the
roof rather than change the pitch of the existing roof line?
Ms. Popp—reviewed several scenarios keeping the roof as is. The purpose of raising the
roof is to make the third floor useable. The petitioner originally designed a full shed dormer
on both sides to achieve at least seven (7) foot tall ceilings on the third floor to be called a
room. They wanted to make the third floor usable. A full shed dormer on both sides of the
roof to achieve the seven (7) foot ceiling height is required to call it a room and changing the
roof pitch would destroyed the character of the house.
Mr Viccica- Currently,are there only two (2) rooms on the third floor? One (1) in the front
and one in the back?
Mr. Bumagin—Correct.
Mr. Tsitsinos—Asks the petitioner whether those two (2) rooms are usable.
Mr. Bumagin—replies that they are small rooms and areapproximately 5 or 6 feet wide and a
ceiling height of 7 feet in the center ,which does not meet today's standards of a decent size •
room.
Mr. Tsitsinos—asks about the total number of rooms in both units.
Mr. Bumagin—replies two (2) bedrooms in the first floor unit,and 3 bedrooms in the
second floor unit- 1 on the second floor and 2 on the third floor,depending on how the
rooms are used.
Ms. Curran—states that because the petitioner is asking for a Variance, the second egress at
the back of the building should be limited to the minimum egress, since,in the Chair's
opinion,there is no demonstrated hardship to substantiate an increased deck. If the zoning
was literally enforced, the petitioner could not use the building without the second egress. It
seems reasonable to request the Variance to provide a second egress and is a code
requirement;However, to do more than that is asking for a bit much.
Mr. Bumagin- States to the chair,it is only an additional six (6) feet requested beyond the
required egress.
Ms. Curran-Yes, but the lot is really small. The variance hardship criteria has to be met. In
terms of the request to increase the number of stories, the preference is to keep the roof
pitch the same. However, did the petitioner consider looking at having two (2),two (2)
bedroom units,without needing to increase the number of stories?
•
• Mr. Bumagin—states that economics is not a criteria for a Variance request, the building
historically had two (2) bedrooms on that level that do not meet today's standards for a
bedroom,which includes closet space. Regardless of the design issues, the economics have
to work and The Charles Hope Companies took a big risk when it received this problematic
property. Mr. Bumagin states that the inability to use all of the building as it had been used
in the past is a hardship.
Mr. Viccica—states that he lives in a similar home and uses the space under the eves along
the 6' 8" side walls as closet space. Mr.Viccica, does not see the hardship in relation to the
request to raise the roof three (3) feet. However, it is within the right for the petitioner to
request the dormer to be able to have the headroom to install a bathroom.
Half story concerns are not new to Salem,the roofs could be smaller and storage could be
added efficiently. The areas under the eaves can become closets. There is something about
the plan that is in excess and there does not seem to be a hardship to warrant the additional
three (3) feet of height requested. The roof should be able to stay within the allowable height
limit of 35' feet and 2.5 stories.
Mr. Bumagin—states his concern with the roof line at the 2" floor rear egress addition. The
roof has to intersect the building somewhere?
Mr.Viccica—states that flat roof could also be used and are also common.
Mr. Bumagin- speaks with the architect regarding the suggested design change. Mr. Bumagin
• states to the Board, suppose the plan was to raise the roof only two (2) feet?
Mr.Viccica- states that it is within the petitioner's right to do so.
Mr. St. Pierre-Building Commissioner- states that the proposed dormer on its own triggers
the Variance. Mr. St. Pierre states that any wall over (two) 2 feet high that is perpendicular
to the ridge will trigger a Variance. By adding the third floor dormer, triggers the need for a
Variance for a third floor,by putting the gabled end on the dormer wall. The request for a
Variance is still in play,whether the petitioner raises the entire roof or not.
Mr. Viccica—states that raising the roof and maximizing the porch to be within five (5) feet
of the rear lot lines is asking for too much. Mr. Viccica is not in favor of granting the
proposed plan,when a less detrimental option is a possibility.
Mr. Bumagin—asks whether the neighbor would oppose to a compromise of raising the
roof two (2) feet.
Mr. Greg Stefan—78 Derby Street—States that his concern is with the roof being raised at
all.
Mr. Bumagin—states that the economics don'work if they can't raise the roof. They already
have a marketing hurdle by having a lot that does not provide parking. No parking and no
deck will not bring in perspective buyers/renters. The petitioner feels that the proposed
design is minimally obtrusive.
•
Ms. Curran—states that the proposed is a better design,but the Board has specific criteria to •
follow.
Ms. Popp—states that deck would change the side yard setback and the side yard access
would remain. There isn't much access as it currently existing and access would still be from
the Power Plant side of the property.
Ms. Curran—states that the special conditions and circumstances the Applicant is requesting
for a Variance in this instance. 1) It is an existing two (2) family on a small lot that presently
doesn't meet building code requirements specifically in regard to egress requirements and is
in a dilapidated state. 2) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would
involve substantial hardship to the Applicant—which can't be economic. Ms. Curran
questions the hardship with providing the minimum egress width. A house without a deck is
not a hardship. Ms. Curran states that this is a derelict budding and as such, Mr. Bumagin
needs to invest in the property and this is a public good to be able to invest in the property.
However, the Board has to show that there is a hardship. Needing to provide a second
egress is a hardship even if the property is more nonconforming. However, to go beyond the
minimum request is requesting too much. This is hard because the Board does not deal as
much with design,but it is clearly a better design to keep the pitch of the roof.
Ms. Popp- On the size of the deck, the petitioner states that the setbacks are usually for fire
access and safety. There is sufficient access on the power plant side.
Mr. Bumagin—replies that he will have a house with no parking and no usable outdoor •
space. Mr. Bumagin states that he is proposing six (6) feet of usable outdoor space where
the yard will have none.
Ms. Curran—states that the first floor tenant will have access to the rear yard.
Mr. Bumagin—replies that it is land surrounded by buildings on three sides,and is not
usable.
Mr. Duffy—states that the structure is non-conforming,has been unlivable since 2003,it has
recently been put into receivership and the Applicant is the receiver. That should not
change the dynamic of the Variance. Mr. Duffy finds that the receiver must deal with a
property that has been unoccupied, has code violations,impairs health safety and wellbeing
of abutters & the community, and constitutes a public nuisance,which are all significant
issues. The receiver has no responsibility to remedy the code violations, etc. except where
the revenues would support it in their action as a receiver. The economics do play a
significant role in whether the present condition can be remedied at all. Does a significant
health safety risk persist in lieu of having a nice proposal? Given the condition of the
property, this proposal is not about changing the dimensional requirements to provide
someone with comfortable space, this is remedying a problem that has been here for over
thirteen (13) years.
Mr. Duffy wishes the neighbors' concerns could be remedied but understands the concerns
of the Applicant. Perhaps they could find some middle ground on raising the roof?
•
• Ms. Curran- Concurs with this finding.
Mr. Watkins—adds possibly going up just (two) 2 feet rather than the proposed three (3)
feet?
Mr. Duffy- something can preserve the view as much as possible while getting a property
back in use.
Mr.Viccica—states that there could be a possibility to satisfy both that doesn't require a
Variance. Mr.Viccica questions whether they could build the room they want for the
second floor on top of the existing structure and increase the third floor,without needing to
raise the roof Just looking for a middle ground, not to redesign the project.
Mr. Bumagin—states that they have considered that option,but they also have the Historical
Commissions requests and he believes they would not be pleased to see an addition that
large.
Ms. Curran—What does increasing two (2) feet rather than three (3) do?
Mr. Duffy- Mr. St. Pierre stated that the proposed dormer is what triggers the need for the
Variance request. Regardless of if the petitioner proposes an increase by two (2) or three (3)
feet, the Variance will be needed for the dormer. However,two (2) feet may have less of an
impact on the neighbor than three (3) feet. Raising the roof two (2) feet rather than three (3)
• feet does not meet all of the desires of the neighbor nor the applicant.
Ms. Popp—states that it would affect the head room in the third floor bedrooms,but can
manage.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the petition seeking a Special
Permit per Sec. 3.3.4 and Variances from provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional
Requirements Salem Zoning Ordinance for maximum lot coverage, rear yard
setbacks, and the number of stories to allow the reconstruction, extension, or change
of an existing nonconforming structure. Mr. Duffy also makes a motion to grant a
Special Permit pursuant to Sec. 3.3.4 in order to construct a second story above an
existing one story portion of the building with eight (S) standard conditions and one
special condition that the petitioner may increase the height of the roof by two (2) feet
rather than the proposed three (3) feet. The motion is seconded by Mr. Watkins. The
vote was unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Tom
Watkins, Mike Duffy, 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 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,
for minimum lot area per dwelling unit
Applicant RICARDO GARCIA and ROSE HELEN GARCIA
Location 24 LEMON STREET (Map 36 Lot 44)(R2 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions •
➢ Application dated March 14, 2016 and supporting documentation
Mr. Garcia—states that the proposal is to convert the single family house into a two(2)
family structure with parking for two (2) units. There are no proposed structural changes on
the exterior of the house. Mr. Garcia states that the only exterior construction is a second
egress from the second floor unit,as is required by the building code. The proposed rear
egress is proposed to be constructed on top of the existing back patio.,
Ms. Curran—States that the conversion of a single dwelling to a two (2) dwelling units is an
allowable use in the R2 Zoning District. However,Ms. Curran stated concern and asked the
petitioner to confirm whether there is an existing curb cut.
Mr. Garcia—No. We found out from the City that there is not an existing curb cut, but from
the real estate listing said there was. Mr. Garcia,would be happy to apply for a curbcut.
Ms. Curran—There is obviously a driveway,but doesn't seem that there is a curbcut. There
are three (3) parking spaces proposed,which meets the parking requirements.
Mr. Garcia- there is a mistake in the plan,which shows the proposed driveway to be nine (9')
feet wide instead of the twelve (12') feet required. There is plenty of space to widen the
proposed driveway to twelve (12') feet. •
Ms. Schaeffer—Asks the petitioner whether the new driveway will be constructed closer to
the home or whether the petitioner will be using the existing driveway.
Mr. Garcia—Proposes to use the existing driveway entrance, but reconfigure the parking
spaces.
Ms. Curran—Is the third parking space shown angled on the Site Plan,just after the end of
the house? If so,why can it not be in-line with the other two spaces?
Mr. Garcia—Yes it is. If the third parking space were placed next to the existing two,it
would hit the corner of the property and not be within the side yard setback requirements
Ms. Curran—opens Board comments.
Mr. Copelas—Does the rear deck exist? Mr. Copelas could not see the deck from the street.
Mr. Garcia—Yes. It is wood that is rotting and it will be changed to patio pavers.
Mr. Copelas — The proposed second floor egress, do you have a design or plans for this?
Mr. Garcia— No.
•
• Mr. Copelas-Petitioners need to do the design and plans for exterior work related to the
requested Variance.
Mr. Garcia-It will be a copy of what was done at 138 Bridge Street.
Mr. Duffy—Confirms with the petitioner, that the proposal for an egress is to have a landing
off of the second floor with an external stairway down to the new pavers on the rear patio.
Mr. Garcia—Yes.
Mr. Copelas —Will the egress have a cover?
Mr. Garcia—A cover will only be at the landing outside the second floor Kitchen door.
Mr. Copelas—asks whether that allows it to be considered a legal egress.
Mr. St. Pierre—Yes. There needs to be a plan to maintain it during snow and icy conditions
—shoveling.
Ms. Curran—introduces a letter from Lloyd Kropilak—6 Smith Street—Is in favor of the
application.
• Ms. Curran—opens public comment.
Ms.Jennifer Meger—27 Lemon Street—stated that she lives across the street and her
biggest concern with adding another unit is parking. Most of the housing on Smith Street
does not have driveway and cars will park on Lemon Street. There are a number of multi-
family houses, the neighborhood is densely packed with cars, and parking is only allowed on
one side of the street. Police call records will show there is a lot of illegal parking on the
street already. Two (2) cars fit in the existing driveway,but there is a fire hydrant in front of
the property which could the ability to affect additional parking.
Mr. St. Pierre—shares a copy of the parking plan with the public to view.
Ms. Flora Tonthat—30 Northey Street—states that parking is dense. Parking from a large
apartment building at the end of Northey Street spills over onto the street. Cars also park in
the park parking lot down the street and then people who want to go to the park are unable
to park their cars. R2 zones mean single and multi-family, but they shouldn't all be
two/multi-family buildings.
Ms. Curran—R2 means they are allowed uses.
Mr. Michael Falcheck—3 Lemon Street—speaks in opposition to the proposal due to
concerns about landlord disinvestment in the neighborhood, density, speeding cars and
illegal parking.
Mr. Matt Kaminski—23 Lemon Street—Speaks in opposition to the proposal with concern •
about future disinvestment in the property,parking availability and college student rentals.
Mr. Kaminski asks how many bedrooms will be in the building.
Mr. Garcia—Two (2) bedrooms on the second floor and one bedroom on the first floor. A
three (3) bedroom house will remain a three (3) bedroom house divided into two (2)
dwelling units. No new bedrooms are being added.
Ms. Garcia—states that she lives alone and will occupy the second unit on the second and
third floors.
Ms. Catherine Dawnworth—3 Smith Street—asks whether the two spots at the end of the
street by the Lemon Rock be affected by the proposed parking plan or driveway?
Ms. Curran- the petitioner proposes a single driveway.
Mr. Garcia—There is no parking on the 24 Lemon Street side of the road because of the fire
hydrant,but there are two (2) parking spaces at the end of the road for access to the walking
path. Mr. Garcia, does not believe that the parking spaces will be affected by the driveway.
Mr. Garcia checked in with the police to ask about where the two (2) parking spaces are
located and it turns out that the place where everyone parks by the circle is not a parking
place. But, that is up to the City.
Ms.Jennifer Meger—27 Lemon Street—She checked in with the Salem traffic division to
also clarify the location of the parking spaces and it was confirmed that the two(2) spots •
further away from the property are legitiunate parking spaces. Ms. Meger,requests to see the
parking plan and proposed driveway.
The plans are shared with the public.
Ms. Curran—requests the Applicant provide a revised parking plan to show a 12' driveway
width, the applicant needs to apply to the Engineering Department for a curb cut and
confirm that one is needed. As for parking, the petitioner is providing the required parking
on the property..A revised plot plan and architectural plans are needed to show the location
of the proposed egress and rear deck proposed.
Mr. Garcia—states that he will go to the Building Department to apply for a permit to start
repairing/remodeling the house, repair the windows,roof, siding. He is also the General
Contractor so he will produce ground floor plans.
Mr. Copelas—states that there is a lack of detail of for the proposed building for the egress
and also that there is no formal statement of hardship. The petition doesn't meet the
requirements to make a decision.
Ms. Curran—requests the following of the Applicant for a Variance request.
1- A revised parking plan
2- A proposed egress plan
3- Curbcut permit or similar from the Engineering Department is
• 4- A revised statement of hardship
Mr. Copelas—added that to be sure the egress is compliant with the dimensional
requirements the Board needs more detail and to determine if the stair will require a
Variance for a setback.
Mr. Duffy—adds that a checklist is on the application to use as a guide.
Ms. Edna Kobierski—16 Lemon Street—states that there is too much vehicular traffic that
speeds down Lemon Street,and the house should remain a one family.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to continue the public hearing on the
application the petition seeking a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1 at the next
regularly scheduled meeting on May 18, 2016. The motion is seconded by Mr.
Watkins. The vote was unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A.
Copelas,Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy, and Jimmy Tsitsinos)in favor and none (0)
opposed.
Project Request for a size (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, the
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 STREET
Location 44 BOSTON STREET and 401 BRIDGE STRET (Map 15 Lot 305,
165)(NRCC Zoning District)
Attorney Joseph Correnti—63 Federal Street—represents High Rock Bridge Street LLC.
Attorney Correnti states that he is asking for a six (6) month extension. The project, on the
corner of Boston and Bridge Streets,was fully permitted on 2010 by all necessary Salem
Boards. This location is the future home of the Community-Life Center. The petitioner
does not want the permits to lapse. This project should not be confused with the revised
project that is presently working its way through the Boards. When the revised project is
approved by the Planning Board,it will return to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The
petitioner expects that the Planning Board will make its decision in the next month or so.
Technically,the revised project is not before the Zoning Board of Appeals. The only request
before the Board is to extend the fully permitted project.
Ms. Curran—introduces a letter from the Federal Street Neighborhood Association,which
speaks in opposition to the request for an extension and requests that a new application for
this project be submitted because there is a change in use and a change in density. Ms.
Curran confirms that the petitioner is requesting a continuation of the rights granted by this
previously issued decision.
Attorney Correnti—Yes. •
Ms. Curran—confirms with the petitioner that when the revised project returns to the
Zoning Board it will be either a new application or a modification.
Attorney Correnti—Yes.
Ms.Curran—Will the revised project come back before the Board this year?
Attorney Correnti-Yes. It has to be. Yes, there has been substantial progress on the revised
plans.
Ms. Curran- opens public comment.
Ms.Jennifer Firth—President of Historic Salem— When the revised project comes back,
which is a proposed residential use rather than commercial,will there will there be an
opportunity for the public to discuss it.
Ms. Curran—Yes.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to grant the six (6) month extension on
the project. The motion is seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with
five (5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy, and •
Jimmy Tsitsinos,) in favor and none (0) opposed.
OLD/NEW_BUSINESS
NONE
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
March 16, 2016 meeting minutes were approved as written.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the minutes as written,
seconded by Mr. Duffy. The vote was in favor (Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A.
Copelas,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy,and Jimmy Tsitsinos,) and none (0) opposed.
,OLD/NEW BUSINESS
N/A
AD OURNMENT
Mr. Copelas-motions for adjournment of the April 20, 2016 regular meeting of the Salem
Board of Appeals at 9:50 PM.
•
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas made a motion to adjourn the April 20,2016 regular
meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr.Watkins, and the vote is
unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran(Chair),Peter A. Copelas,Tom Watkins,Mike
Duffy,and Jimmy Tsitsinos,) in favor and none (0) opposed.
The meeting ends at 9:50 PM.
For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes,
copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at.
hp://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA Zonin�AppealsMin
Respectfully submitted,
Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
®� Or
1 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELF:978-619-5685 1 FAX:978-740-0404
KIMEERLEY DRISCOLL -y
MAYOR o
r
o-
fir, A
_- TJ
J
D
City of Salem o
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of RICARDO GARCIA and ROSE
HELEN GARCIA, seeking a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of
the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for minimum lot area per dwelling unit at the property of 24 Lemon Street
(Map 36 Lot 44)(R2 Zoning District).
•The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3 s at 120
Washington Street.
Rebecca Curran, Chau
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 4/6/2016 & 4/13/2016
This notice posted on "Offici Bulletin ¢oard"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on APh ' / 2��$
at ?,'04A?-Iin accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
•
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
u BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 4 FAX:978-740-0404
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
r
r
� d
r
a
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
CP
0
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of THE CHAWLES HOPE
COMPANIES, LLP, seeking Variances from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimen.aonal Requirements of
the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for maximum lot coverage, rear yard setbacks, and the number of stories to
allow the reconstruction, extension or structural change of an existing nonconforming structure at the
property of 81 Derby Street (Map 41 Lot 275)(82 Zoning District).
*The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3`s at 120
Washington Street.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 4/6/2016 & 4/13/2016
This notice posted on "Official flet'
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on FF''KK // [7
at g,'04 4q 4 in accordance with MGL Chap. 30AI
Sections 18-25.
•
6NDIT9�
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
9 E 114 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 201b MAY - ~ 8' 53
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR
h,IIY C,I
May 4, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
A petition of THE CHARLES HOPE COMPANIES, LLP, seeking a Special Permit from the provisions of
Sec. 3.3.4 and Variances from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance, for maximum lot coverage, rear yard setbacks, and the number of stories to allow the
reconstruction, extension or structural change of an existing nonconforming structure at the property of 81
Derby Street (Map 41 Lot 275)(R2 Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 20, 2016 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. Tsitsinos.
The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.4 and Variances from the provisions of
• Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for maximum lot coverage, rear
yard setbacks, and the number of stories to allow the reconstruction, extension or structural change of an
existing nonconforming structure of the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
Statements of Fact:
1. Dan Bumagin,Project Manager of The Charles Hope Companies,LLP presents the petition.
2. The applicant,The Charles Hope Companies,LLP is the receiver of the property.
3. In 2003, the property was declared to be unlivable by the City of Salem and has recently been placed in
receivership.
4. In the petition date-stamped March 29, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.4
and Variances requesting relief from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the
Salem Zoning Ordinance, for maximum lot coverage, rear yard setbacks, and the number of stories to
allow the reconstruction, extension or structural change of an existing nonconforming structure.
5. The petitioner proposes to rehabilitate the currently existing two (2) family structure in an R2 Zoning
District and in the Salem Waterfront Historic District.
6. The property is an existing dimensionally non-conforming structure that does not conform as to lot
area, lot width, front yard setback, side yard setback,rear yard setback,parking and lot coverage.
7. As to parking, there are currently no parking spaces on the property and is a preexisting
• nonconforming condition that can remain because the existing use of the property is the same.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Project: 81 Derby Street
Page 2 of 3
• 8. The petitioner is proposing to construct a rear two (2) story egress and deck area that would reduce the
rear yard setback to 2' to 5' feet of the required thirty (30) feet required and provide a second means
of egress for the two (2) dwelling units.
9. The proposed rear deck and stairway increase the maximum lot coverage per dwelling unit from the
existing 50.6% to 62.4%.
10. The petitioner also proposed to add a dormer and lift the entire roof of the building by three (3) feet,
which exceeds the maximum number of stories. The petitioner proposes to have three (3) stories
where the requirement is a maximum of 2.5 stories.
11. The petitioner also proposed to construct a second story on an existing one story entry way.
12. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner Special Permit to exceed the dimensional
requirements for maximum lot coverage, rear yard setbacks, and the number of stories and to allow
the reconstruction, extension or structural change of an existing nonconforming structure of the
Salem Zoning Ordinance.
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 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 structure
has code violations, impairs health, safety and welfare of the abutters and community and constitutes
a public nuisance.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would create a substantial and unique
hardship as the receiver has no responsibility to remedy the code violations except where the revenue
would support it in their action as a receiver. The revenue generated from this property can have a
significant impact on whether the present condition of the property can be remedied at all. The literal
enforcement of the bylaw may result in revenue than may not support bringing the property back into
use and remedy the dilapidated property.
3. The desired relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially detogating 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
(Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Duffy, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed, to grant a
Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.4 and Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional
Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, from maximum lot coverage, rear yard setbacks, and the
number of stories to allow the reconstruction, extension or structural change of an existing nonconforming
structure, 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
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Project: 81 Derby Street
Page 3 of 3
• 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 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, Planning Board.
Special Conditions:
1. The petitioner may increase the height of the roof by two (2) feet rather than the proposed
three (3) feet.
-P�"e�C--�1 CADIi/I�G2itn/
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
A,tpea(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 fibng of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40,4, Section 11, the Variance or
Special Pemrit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk bas been filed with the Essex South
Registry of Deeds.
•
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
y a;; BORO OFAPPEI .AL
120 WAStntit ON SraF.Er o S v-t:M,% ASSACHUSID
' 7%Y -2 A 01: OrJ
K;!MHF.,RLEY DRtsCOU I'Ej,E:978-745-9595 0 FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR
DECISION
City of Salem Board of Appeals
High Rock Bridge, LLC
44 Boston Street and 401 Bridge Street
Salem, NiA 01970 ThI
aF
city FIri, ,;41er lr,, '. +al P1 jlletin Board"
at
c/o Attorney Correnti
4'.ns Inn inac ca;dance wxt,t MGL C�a .
Serafini, Darling& Correnti,LLP Sections 18-25. A 30q
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 Tune 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 (,'flap 15 Lot 305).
The Salem Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday,April 20, 2016 to discuss your request for
the approval of a six (6)month extension to exercise Lights granted by the granted lap 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, andnumber 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 hlap 18, 2015.
3
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, I-LC, requesting a six (6) month extension to commence on November 18,2015 and expire
on May 18,2016.The Zoning Board of Appeals determined that-good cause was shown to grant in
• extension. The Board granted an extension through May 18,2016.
)
r
City of Salem Board of Appeals
December 2,2015
Project:44 Boston 401 Bridge Street
Page 2 of 2
On March 31,2016, a letter was submitted by Attorney Correnti on behalf of High Rock Bridge
Street,LLC,requesting a six (6) month extension to commence on May 18, 2016 and expire on
November 18 2016 Mr. Correnti explained that the season for the extension is dne to prevent the
relief from lapsing while an alternative project is being pernntted.
The Zoning Board of Appeals determined that good cause was shown to grant an extension and
voted five(5) in favor(hos. Curran, Mr. Copelas,Mr. Duff}r, Mr, Watkins and Mr. Tsitsmos) and
none (0) opposed, to grant the approval of the six (6)-month extension request to exercise the rights
granted by the June 2, 2010 Board Decision as extended through November 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) 619-5085.
Rebecca Curran
Zoning Board of Appeal
Chair CC: Cheryl LaPointe,, City Clerk.
•
s
i
J
s
t
•
4
E
v$��oNI71Tq�
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
• 9 �t�7j(jpw"' f 120 WASHINGTON STREET 0 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
KIMBERLEY DRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 4 FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR
MEETING NOTICE
You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will hold its regmiaryscbedmIed meeting on
Wednesday, May 18,2016at 6:30 p.m. at City HallAnnex, RM 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA
Rebecca Curran, Chau
MEETING AGENDA �?
I. ROLL CALL ` o
e-
r a
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
➢ April 20, 2016 =-
III. REGULAR AGENDA .0
0
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1
Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for minimum lot area
per dwelling unit.
•Applicant RICARDO GARCIA and ROSE HELEN GARCIA
Location 24 LEMON STREET (Map 36 Lot 44)(R2 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming
Single and Two-Family Residential Structures to allow the petitioner to expand the existing
nonconforming structure.
Applicant NORMAN & MARGARET ROBERTS
Location 2 ROSEDALE AVE (Map 31 Lot 264)(R1 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 the petitioner to change the nonconforming
two (2) family structure to a three (3) family structure.
Applicant JACK and PATRICIA BURNS
Location 21 OCEAN AVE (Map 33 Lot 689)(R-1 Zoning District)
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
• City Hall, Salem, Mass. on MAY. JU hap. 30A,
at 00 Yflo i f in accordance wit
Sections 18-25.
Page 1 of 2
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Agenda for May 18,2016 Meeting
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance per Sec. 4-5.1 On-Premises Signs in
Nonresidential Districts of the Salem Code of Ordinances,in order to allow signage. •
Applicant NOTCH TAP ROOM, LLC
Location 283 Rear Derby Street (Map 34 Lot 439) (B-5).
A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance per Sec. 4-5.1 On-Premises Signs in
Project Nonresidential Districts of the Salem Code of Ordinances, to allow the petitioner to
install signs that are above the top of the sills of the first level of windows above the
first story.
Applicant GIDEON COLTOF (BIT BAR)
Location 50 ST. PETER STREET (Map 35 Lot 179)(B-5 Zoning District).
IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
➢ 29 Chestnut Street- Insignificant change
V. ADJOURNMENT
•
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
%9 BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WnsiiiNe'roN S'rU ii:r+ SALL'bl,D4nssnciiuse:rrs 01970
KjMBJ7RLj;Y DRiscou, T51.r:.:978-745-9595 FAx:978-740-9846
MAYOR
STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Appeals Members
FROM: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
DATE: 5/11/2016
RE: Meeting Agenda for May 18,2016
Board Members,
Please find the following in your packets:
1. Agenda
2. Staff Memorandum
3. Meeting Minutes (April 20, 2016)
• 4. 24 Lemon Street
5. 2 Rosedale Avenue
6. 21 Ocean Avenue
7. 283 Rear Derby Street
8. 50 St. Peter Street
9. 29 Chestnut 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,May 18, 2016.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
1. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of RICARDO GARCIA and ROSE
HELEN GARCIA, seeking a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional
Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for minimum lot area per dwelling unit at the
property of 24 Lemon Street (Map 36 Lot 44)( R2 Zoning District).
The petitioner is seeking a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements
to exceed the minimum lot area per dwelling unit to allow the petitioner to have one additional
dwelling unit. The property is located in an R-2 Zoning District and is currently a single family home
on a lot that is approximately 4,000 square feet.
At the public hearing on April 20, 2016, we learned that the petitioner also proposes to construct a
• rear egress. The Board requested the following additional information from the petitioner:
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff MemorandumMay11, 2016
Page 2 of 4
- Revised parking plan with additional measurements and labels to indicate the location of the fire •
hydrant, street name, and property measurements.
- Information from the City Engineer on whether to provide a formal curbcut.
- Elevation plans of the proposed rear entrance changes and an updated plot plan if the proposed
rear entrance changes the footprint of the existing structure.
- More information with the Statement of Hardship to describe why and how the proposed
project meets the standard criteria for the Variance request.
The petitioner has submitted an elevation plan, revised parking plan and has applied for a curb cut at
the property through the Engineering Department. A copy of the plans and modified statement of
hardship is included in this packet.
2. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of NORMAN & MARGARET
ROBERTS seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two-Family
Residential Structures to allow the petitioner to expand the existing nonconforming structure
at the property of 2 ROSEDALE AVE (Map 31 Lot 264)( R1 Zoning District).
The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two-Family
Residential Structures to allow the petitioner to expand the existing single family home that is a
dimensionally nonconforming structure. The petitioner is planning to expand the existing single •
family residence with additions on both sides of the house.
The existing structure does not comply with the ten (10') foot side yard setback requirements at
the sunroom location. The petitioner proposes to expand the sunroom and increase the
nonconformity of the side yard setback to seven (T) feet. The petitioner also proposes to
construct a two (2) story addition on the other side of the house that would create a new side yard
setback nonconformity of five (5) feet.
The Board needs to consider whether the request for the Special Permit is substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure.
3. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JACK and PATRICIA BURNS,
seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,
to allow the petitioner to change the nonconforming two (2) family structure to a three (3)
family structure at the property of 21 OCEAN AVE (Map 33 Lot 689)(R-1 Zoning District).
The petitioner is requesting to change the use of a property from a nonconforming two (2) family
structure to a three (3) family structure. The petitioner is providing five (5) parking spaces, which
conforms to the zoning requirements.
The Board needs to consider whether the request for an additional dwelling unit is substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming use. •
A copy of the application and supporting materials are included in the packet.
2
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—May 11,2016
• Page 3 of 4
Sign Variance Authority Information:
"The board of appeals may vary the sections of this article in specific cases which appear to it not to
have been contemplated by this article and when its enforcement would involve practical difficulties or
unnecessary hardship if, in each instance, desirable relief may be granted without substantially
derogating from the intent and purpose of this article, but not otherwise. Sections of this article may be
varied only by a decision of four of the five members of the board, which shall specify any variance
allowed and the reasons therefor..."
"The board of appeals, in granting variances to this article, shall set forth appropriate conditions and
safeguards whenever, in its opinion, they are desirable."
4. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of NOTCH TAP ROOM, LLC
seeking a Variance per Sec. 4-5.1 On-Premises Signs in Nonresidential Districts of the Salem
Code of Ordinances, in order to allow signage at the property of 283 Rear Derby Street (Map
34 Lot 439) (B-5).
At this property there is currently a sign for Brothers Taverna along Derby Street, which takes up the
total amount of allowable signage for the entire building, even though there are other businesses at
this property along the length of the building facing the parking lot.
• The building inspector has ruled that with strict interpretation of the City Ordinance for signage, that
no signage can be erected by the petitioner, because the allowable signage for this building has already
been taken by Brothers Taverna. Therefore, the petitioner is requesting a Variance per Sec. 4-5.1 On-
Premises Signs in Nonresidential Districts of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow signage at the
property at 283 Rear Derby Street.
The petitioner is requesting to place signage in two (2) locations on the building including along the
facade adjacent to the parking lot on Congress Street and on the building fa4ade along the South
River. The petitioner argues that the frontage of the building for this business is along the parking lot
side with frontage along Congress Street as the front of the business is along this facade and adjacent
approved public way (Congress Street). In addition, the petitioner has requested signage along the
South River.
The petitioner has requested 103 square feet of signage, which is within the total allowable signage if,
the building frontage were theoretically along the parking lot side.
The next step for the petitioner is to be reviewed by the Salem Redevelopment Authority as the
property is located in Central Development District.
A copy of the application,plans and supporting documentation are included in the packet.
•
3
t;
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—May 11,2016
Page 4 of 4
•
5. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of GIDEON COLTOF (BIT BAR)
seeking a Variance per Sec. 4-5.1 On-Premises Signs in Nonresidential Districts of the Salem
Code of Ordinances, to allow the petitioner to install signs that are above the top of the sills of
the first level of windows above the first story at the property of 50 ST. PETER STREET
(Map 35 Lot 179)(B-5 Zoning District).
The petitioner is proposing to install multiple signs at the Old Salem Jail property for a proposed
business where A & B Burger used to be. The petitioner is before the Board to request a Variance to
allow the signs to be installed above the top of the sills of the first level of windows above the first
story.
The proposal before the Board has been reviewed by the Design Review Board and will be reviewed
by the Salem Redevelopment Authority.
A copy of the application,plans and supporting materials are included in this packet.
Old/New Business
29 Chestnut Street- The petitioner received a Special Permit Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two-
FamiyStructures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend, alter or change the structure to allow the
construction of a rear deck. The petitioner has changed the approved plan, by including a rear •
stairway from the deck and different railings that are more in keeping with the existing metal work of
the structure. The Historic Commission has reviewed and approved the changes and ruled that the
proposal is in keeping with the historic character of the neighborhood. This is only information to let
the Board know that there is a minor modification in the approved plan and that there are no new
nonconformities with these slight design modifications beyond what the ZBA approved.
A copy of the modified plans are included in this packet.
•
4
/��GOAmITq.ti
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
• n
7'' 4pDNE �' Z0(11 Vll� �, A Board �
Date ( $ / Mc8 /2-0 f (a
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
CIX P6 911a?_3
�cz�k �ry�5 Z I q"ea v Ava 512 /-12Z Sgz G
101 r, L nes dArn�}Vr QZ� -618 -703.
19 �IIr CO �c.+ s`T- Z5'S 33/3 -SST@
,gym ` o ►,o G [�:(.�-LJ�" q�4 �H�-3�t� .. �1,0�
Page of
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday,May 18,2016
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA") was held on Wednesday,May 18,
2016 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts at
6:30 p.m.
Mr. Copelas (Vice-Chair)calls the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.
ROLL CALL
Those present were:Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy,Jimmy
Tsitsinos,Jim Hacker (alternate),and Paul Viccica (alternate). Also in attendance Tom St.
Pierre-Budding Commissioner and Erin Schaeffer-Staff Planner.
EGULAR AGENDA
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance from the provisions of
Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,
for minimum lot area per dwelling unit.
Applicant RICARDO GARCIA and ROSE HELEN GARCIA
• Location 24 Lemon Street (Map 36 Lot 44)(R2 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated March 14, 2016 and supporting documentation
The Board received a letter from the petitioners to withdraw the application without
prejudice to allow the petitioner to withdraw, reapply and come back to another public
hearing process at a later date.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the request to withdraw
without prejudice. The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy.The vote was unanimous
with five (5) (Peter A. Copelas (Vice- Chair),Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy, and Jimmy
Tsitsinos and James Hacker (Alternate) in favor and none (0) opposed.
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Pemrit per Sec. 3.3.5
Nonconforming Single and Tivo-Family Residential Structures to allow the
petitioner to expand the existing nonconforming structure.
Applicant NORMAN & MARGARET ROBERTS
Location 2 ROSEDALE AVE (Map 31 Lot 264)(Rl Zoning District)
•
Documents and Exhibitions •
➢ Application dated April 26 , 2016 and supporting documentation
Attorney Grover submitted a letter to the Board to request to continue the matter to the
next regularly scheduled meeting on June 15, 2016. No testimony was given at this hearing.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to continue the public hearing this
petition to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday,June 15, 2016.The
motion is seconded by Mr. Watkins.The vote was unanimous with five (5) (Peter A.
Copelas (Vice- Chair),Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos and Paul Viccica)
in favor and none (0) opposed.
Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of, seeking a
Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance, to allow the petitioner to change the nonconforming two (2)
family structure to a three (3) family structure.
Applicant JACK and PATRICIA BURNS
Location 21 OCEAN AVE (Map 33 Lot 689)(R-1 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions •
➢ Application dated April 26 , 2016 and supporting documentation
*Mr. Copelas recuses himself from this item. Mr. Duffy chairs this project's public hearing.
Attorney Atkins- 59 Federal Street- Presents the petition. The petitioners are before the
Board to seek a Special Permit to allow the petitioner to change the nonconforming two (2)
family structure to a three (3) family structure.Jack and Patricia Burns purchased this
property as a three (3) family back in 1999 when they had a larger family. Looking at the
plans,the three (3) units and the first and second floors were used by the petitioners for their
family while the third unit was rented. There is no longer a need for the second floor space
to serve the Burns as their children have moved out. Mr. and Mrs. Burns would like to
return the house to the original use as a three (3) family structure.
Attorney Atkins presents the following grounds for a special permit:
1) Social,Economic and Community needs served by the proposal: The neighborhood
is a mix of two, three,and four unit homes and always has been. Attorney Atkins
states that the petitioners intend to continue to stay and live in this home. There is a
lot of tension about who rents particularly in this neighborhood. These are small
•
• units that will not result in a large number of people and having the owners reside in
the building makes a big difference as well.
2) Traffic flow and Safety including parking and loading: There are five (5) existing
parking spaces with an existing curbcut along Cliff Street,which meet the parking
requirements.
3) Adequacy of utilities and other public services: There are no changes to the existing
utilities or public services
4) Impacts on the natural environment,including drainage: There are no changes to the
landscape. The petitioners have planted grass where there was once asphalt and
improved the environmental conditions at the site.
5) Neighborhood Character:The property was already a three family and there are
many multi-family dwelling units in the neighborhood.
6) Potential fiscal impact,including impact on City tax base and employment: The
potential fiscal impact to the City tax base is positive.
Attorney Atkins states that Chapter 40A requires that a change of non-conforming use
not be more substantially detrimental that the currently existing non-conforming use.
• This is a change that is in keeping with the neighborhood and has associated parking.
Mr. Viccica- How will the parking spaces be directly accessed?Is the petitioner installing
a curbcut?
Attorney Atkins- States that there are five (5) spaces already existing with a curbcut along
Cliff Ave. In the past, there have been five cars parked at the property when guests visit.
Chris and Diane Heppner- 3 Ocean Terrace-A letter is presented to the Board by Attorney
Atkins on behalf of the residents of 3 Ocean Terrace. The letter is in support of the project.
Mr. Watkins-What is the on-street parking situation? Is it resident only parking?
Attorney Atkins-yes.
Mr. Watkins-In the event that the on-site parking is occupied,where would family or friends
park?
David Seibert- 10 Cliff Ave- States that as a resident, there are parking permits plus one (1)
or two (2) guest permits to allow parking in residential permit zones.
Attorney Atkins- States that the intent of the resident parking only restriction was to limit
Salem State students from parking in the neighborhood.
•
1
Mr. Duffy-Looking at the plans,it seems that the majority of the work will be in connection •
with the second floor plan to remove a bedroom and install a kitchen for a unit and re-
configure the interior such that the two (2) existing internal stairways can be used for egress.
Mr. Duffy- Opens comment to the public.
Dave Seibert- 10 Cliff Avenue-Speaks highly of the quality of the neighborhood. The
petitioners have an eye for doing really nice work and are looking at the long-range rather
than turning over the property. Mr. Seibert speaks in strong support of the petition.
John Lyness- 22 Ocean Avenue- Submits a letter to the Board and speaks in strong support
of the petition.
Mr. Duffy- Opens further comment from the Board.
Mr.Watkins- States that the petitioner meets the standard requirements for the request for a
special permit.
1) Social,Economic and Community needs served by the proposal: No detriment to
the neighborhood.
2) Traffic flow and safety including parking and loading: The five (5) parking spaces
meet the parking requirements of this zoning district.
3) Adequacy of utilities and other public services: There are no changes to the existing •
utilities or public services
4) Impacts on the natural environment,including drainage: There are no changes to the
landscape.
5) Neighborhood Character: The property was already a three family and there are
many multi-family dwelling units in the neighborhood.
6) Potential fiscal impact,including impact on City tax base and employment: The
potential fiscal impact to the City tax base is positive.
Mr. Duffy-States in agreement with Mr. Watkins. Based on the discussion had, the change
can be made and would not be substantially more detrimental than the existing use to the
neighborhood.
Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to grant a Special Permit per Sec.
3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the petitioner to
change the nonconforming two (2) family structure to a three (3) family structure,
subject to eight (8) standard conditions.The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos.
The vote was unanimous with five (5) (Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos,
Paul Viccica (alternate) and James Hacker (Alternate))in favor and none (0) opposed.
•
Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition seeking a
Variance per Sec. 4-5.1 On-Premises Signs in Nonresidential Districts of
the Salem Code of Ordinances,in order to allow signage at the property.
Applicant NOTCH TAP ROOM, LLC
Location 283 Rear Derby Street (Map 34 Lot 439) (B-5)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated April 26 , 2016 and supporting documentation
Chris Loring- 283R Derby Street- Presents the petition. The petitioner is requesting a
Variance per Sec. 4-5.1 On-Premises Signs in Nonresidential Districts of the Salem Code of
Ordinances, to allow signage at the property. The interpretation of the City Ordinance is that
existing allowable signage based on the frontage of the structure along Derby Street is
completely occupied by Brothers Taverna. Mr. Loring requested that the Board consider the
associated frontage with the business to be along Congress Street as the business faces
Congress Street. The hardship is that vendors will not be able to deliver goods without
knowing where the business is located,wholesalers need to know where the location is to
pick up finished goods and for consumers to know the location of the facility.
• Mr. Loring also requests that some signage face the South River. There was signage from the
property that was removed from the property when Notch took over. Signs included one
from Murphy's Refinishing,Lance Woodwork and St. Pierre Salon.
Mr. Watkins-Are you using hand painted signs?
Mr. Loring-Yes, the signage will be hand painted directly onto the side of the building.
There has been a resurgence of this hand painted application. All of the signage proposed
will be painted on the brick.
Mr. Watkins-Asks Tom St. Pierre-Looking at the sign ordinance language,it seems to imply
that the threshold for a sign variance is lower than the typical bar of a variance. "The Board
of Appeals may vary the sections of this article in specific cases which appear to it not to
have been contemplated by this article and when its enforcement would involve practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardship if,in each instance, desirable relief may be granted
without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of this article, but not
otherwise..." The three prong test for Variances are not referenced in the sign ordinance
language. Is it implied that there is a lower bar, or does the Board need to weigh this
Variance request as strictly as other types of variances.
Mr. St. Pierre-The reason why a Variance is referenced in the Sign Ordinance is because
• nobody knows how to vary the sign rules.Technically, a variance should be related to the
land, structure or topography of the land. Not, sure if this is totally the right vehicle to vary •
the Sign Ordinance, but it is the only vehicle we have to be able to vary the Sign Ordinance
at this time. You don't have to meet the hardship of shape, contour of the land... There
should be some hardship. The petitioner has mentioned that the hardship is the way that the
building is laid out in relation to the location of the business at the back of the building, but
not really relating to the land.
Mr. Viccica-Did the petitioner go to the Planning Board?Mr. Viccica requests that the LED
lights...
Mr. Loring- The petition has been reviewed by the SRA/DRB and the LED light fixture has
been updated and will be replaced with what DRB suggested. It will be a wall mounted
fixture with light directed down and not up.
Mr. Viccica- Is it a cut off fixture?
Mr. Loring- I don't know the terminology...
Mr. Viccica-It's not within the Zoning Board purview.
Mr. Loring-The petitioner will be going back to SRA/DRB for further project review.
Mr.Viccica- Speaks in support of the proposed signage stating that the hardship is that you •
have a business here and the ordinance is not really applicable. There are multiple businesses
in this building that face the parking lot with existing signage.The little view corridor
through Congress Street is pretty much the only way to see this proposed signage. Mr.
Viccica clarifies with the petitioner whether the request is also a Variance for signage along
the North River.
Mr. Loring- In the spirit of the Variance,there is no hardship for the proposed signage along
the North River,but would like to have the signage wrap around to make signage look good.
If Congress Street,is considered as frontage, then the amount of signage requested would be
allowed in accordance with the dimensional requirements of the Sign Ordinance.
Mr. Copelas-The total amount of square footage of signage proposed including the river
side and Congress side could be accommodated with this liberal understanding of frontage.
Ms. Schaeffer- Confirms.
Mr. Copelas- Opens the public hearing.
Mr. Gideon Coltof- (Bit Bar- 50 St. Peter Street) Speaks in support of the petition.
No other public comments were made. •
• Motion and Vote: Mn Duffy makes a motion to approve a Variance per Sec. 4-5.1 On-
Premises Signs in Nonresidential Districts of the Salem Code of Ordinances, in order
to allow signage as proposed at the property. Seconded by Mr.Watkins. The vote
was in favor (Peter A. Copelas,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy,and Jimmy Tsitsinos,Paul
Viccica(alternate)) and none (0) opposed.
*Mr. St Pierre-The reason why it was decided long ago that these sign petitions need to
come to the Zoning Board of Appeals is because signs need a building permit. These sign
petitions are really at the Zoning Board by default.
Project Petition seeking a Variance per Sec. 4-5.1 On-Premises Signs in
Nonresidential Districts of the Salem Code of Ordinances, to allow the
petitioner to install signs that are above the top of the sills of the first level
of windows above the first story.
Applicant GIDEON COLTOF (BIT BAR)
Location 50 ST. PETER STREET (Map 35 Lot 179)(B-5 Zoning District).
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated April 26 ,2016 and supporting documentation
Steven Hall and Gideon Coltof,petitioners present the petition. The petitioners are
proposing to install signage above the maximum height allowed. Specifically, the Sign
Ordinance of Sec 45.1 a.4 and d.2 state that the signs may not be higher than the top of the
sills of the first level of windows above the first story. The proposed signage calls for the
highest point of the tallest sign to align with bottom sills of the second story.
The petitioner testifies that the restaurant location, building scale,and mass of the Old Jail
are significantly greater than other buildings in the area that contain retailers. Further the
building is physically set back about 150 feet from fast moving traffic on Bridge Street and
Church Street. All of these conditions are why the petitioner is requesting to raise the height
of the signage beyond the maximum allowed height.
If the literal enforcement of the sign ordinance were applied,it would only allow the
petitioner to have signs that are two (2) feet tall because of the large size of the existing
windows.Additionally,the previous two (2) tenants had signs that were significantly taller
than the proposed signage. The signage has also been reviewed and approved by the Design
Review Board and Salem Redevelopment Authority.
Mr. Viccica-Will the signs be lit?
Mr. Coltof-Yes. The signs will be a copper background with metal letters with back light •
reflected off... like a cutout.
Mr. Watkins- How many signs are proposed?
Mr. Coltof-Three (3) signs.
Mr. Watkins-Are there two (2) signs that hang off of the building and one (1) that is flush
with the building.
Mr. Coltof-Yes.
Mr. Copelas- Is the square footage of the signage appropriate for the frontage?
Ms. Schaeffer-The amount of signage requested is appropriate for the frontage. The
petitioner is before the Board requesting a Variance only related to the location of the
signage in relation to the window sills.
Mr. Copelas-Remembers the signage associated with the previous businesses in this location.
Is there any definitive understanding of whether that signage was approved or not? Clearly,
this proposal is similar to what previously existed.
Mr. Coltof-The Great Escape sign was actually taller than the proposed Bit Bar signage.
There were two (2) tall blade signs associated with the Great Escape. Mr. Coltof suspects
that the signs were approved,but no paperwork could be found.
Ms. Schaeffer- states that it is unclear.
Mr. Watkins-Were either of the Great Escape or A and B Burger signs lit?
Mr. St. Pierre-Yes, from below.
Mr. Watkins-And how will yours be lit?
Mr. Coltof-There will be a board and then cutout letters.
Mr.Watkins- Okay,light will not be shining up from below.
Mr. Coltof- No.
Mr. Watkins- Stated that he was concerned that light shining up would disturb residents who
live in apartments.
•
• Mr. Coltof- It appears that upward lighting is not allowed in the Ordinance.
Mr. Viccica-There is no light leakage from the sides of the blades?
Mr. Coltof-No. The lights would light the inside. There will be LEDs with cutoff letters.
Mr. Copelas- opens public comment. There are no members of the public that spoke either
for or against the petition.
Mr. Copelas-The property distance from the roadway and the literal enforcement of the Sign
Ordinance that would allow a two (2) foot sign would be difficult, the proposal was
approved by the Salem Redevelopment Authority and the Design Review Board, this
petition seems like a reasonable request.
The Board concurs.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Waktins makes a motion to approve a Variance per Sec. 4-5.1
On-Premises Signs in Nonresidential Districts of the Salem Code of Ordinances, to
allow the petitioner to install signs that are above the top of the sills of the first level
of windows above the first story. Seconded by Mr. Copelas. The vote was in favor
(Peter A.Copelas (Vice-Chair),Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy,and Jimmy Tsitsinos,Paul
Viccica(alternate)) and none (0) opposed.
OLD/NEW BUSINESS_
29 Chestnut Street-The Board was presented revised plans that were approved by the
Historic Commission regarding a rear deck that the Zoning Board of Appeals approved. The
revised plan does not change the non-conformity that was approved via Special Permit. This
is just an FYI that plans seen by the Board have been insignificantly modified. No action is
needed from the Board.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
May 18,2016 meeting minutes were approved as written.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the minutes as written,
seconded by Mr.Watkins. The vote was in favor (Peter A.Copelas (Vice-Chair),Tom
Watkins,Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos and Jim Hacker(alternate) and none (0) opposed.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Watkins-motions for adjournment of the May 18, 2016 regular meeting of the Salem
• Board of Appeals at 7:25 PM.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas made a motion to adjourn the April 20, 2016 regular
meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr.Watkins, and the vote is
unanimous with five (5) (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy, and
Jimmy Tsitsinos,Jim Hacker(alternate) in favor and none (0) opposed.
The meeting ends at 7:25 PM.
For actions where the decisions have not been fully written Into these minutes,
copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at.•
htr2://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA Zimin AppealsMin/
Respectfully subm tted,
Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner
•
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF AP ' I
o„ AY 2 A 4 ns
/ 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM, ACHIISETLS 1
n_v79;
fAjp�
TELE:978-619-5685 FAX:�9 40�046A':,
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of NORMAN & MARGARET
ROBERTS seeking a Special Pemnit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Tmo-Family Residential Structures to
allow the petitioner to expand the existing nonconforming structure at the property of 2 ROSEDALE AVE
(Map 31 Lot 264)(R1 Zoning District).
• The public hearing will be held on WED, May 18, 2016 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3`d at 120 Washington
Street.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 5/4/2016 and 5/11/2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on l-la d 1 00,I's
at cl,,uS Ota" in accordance witk MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
- ; BOARD OFA PPE I -2Agv os
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSAPMgrrS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685
KIMBERLEY DRIscoLL
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 Variance per Sec. 4-5.1 On-Premises Signs in Nonresidential Districts of the Salem Code of
Ordinances, in order to allow signage at the property of 283 Rear Derby Street(Map 34 Lot 439) (B-5).
Said hearing will be held on WED, May 18, 2016 at 6:30 p.m., P floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM
313.
• Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 5/4/2016 & 5/11/2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on I t a, oulle
at q',>r nl+ in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 98-25.
•
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
T BOARD OF APPEAL
y,
Il� �Qj
016 MAY -2 A 9: 05
IN /j/ 120 WASHINGTON STREET S M, sACHUSEM 01970-
rl
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL .TFj-e:978-619-5685*FAx:978- 04
�4P-�+:
MAYOR C I I Y
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of GIDEON COLTOF (BIT BAR)
seeking a Variance per Sec. 4-5.1 On-Premises Signs in Nonresidential Districts of the Salem Code of
Ordinances, to allow the petitioner to install signs that are above the top of the sills of the first level of
windows above the first story at the property of 50 ST. PETER STREET (Map 35 Lot 179)(B-5 Zoning
District).
• The public hearing will be held on WED, May 18, 2016 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3`s at 120 Washington
Street.
Rebecca Curran, Chau
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 5/4/2016 & 5/11/2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on LL -'L1 201t
at gloS AM in accordance wit% MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections '18-25.
•
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL,
�F
MAY -2 A ,� OS
a.
120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MAZAOH lSrms 01970
TELE:978-619-568.ttTFy ..27$-7400404=`�- �•'i-```
KIMBERLEY DRI$coLL
MAYOR
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JACK and PATRICIA BURNS, seeking
a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the petitioner to
change the nonconforming two (2) family structure to a three (3) family structure at the property of 21
OCEAN AVE (Map 33 Lot 689)(8-1 Zoning District).
• The public hearing will be held on WED, May 18, 2016 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, V at 120 Washington
Street.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 5/4/2016 & 5/11/2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on N-CW d1 -Jlte
at gto5 W in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
•
`���ONDITg��ls
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
9n q;
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846
MAYOR
June 1, 2016 Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
T
Petition of RICARDO GARCIA and ROSE HELEN GARCIA, seeking a Variance from.the provisions of
Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for minimum lotarea per dwelling
unit at the property of 24 Lemon Street (Map 36 Lot 44)(R2 Zoning District).
J
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 20, 2016 pursuant to M.G:L Ch. d9A, § 11.
Evidence was heard on that date and the petition was continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting on
May 18, 2016. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members
present: Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsmos, Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins and James Hacker
(alternate).
The Petitioner seeks seeking a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of
the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for minimum lot area per dwelling unit to allow two (2) dwelling units at the
• property.
Statements of fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped March 14, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Variance from the provisions
of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for minimum lot area
per dwelling unit to allow two (2) dwelling units on a 4,084 square foot lot.
2. Mr. Ricardo Garcia and Ms. Rose Helen Garcia,petitioners presented the petition.
3. The property is located in an R2 Zoning District and a two (2) family dwelling unit is an allowable use
by right.
4. The property is currently used as a single family home on an existing 4,084 square feet of the 15,000
square foot lot area required.
5. The petitioner proposed to formally create a driveway and three (3) parking spaces, which meets the
parking requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
6. At the March 14, 2016 Zoning Board of Appeal meeting, the petitioner also proposed to construct a
rear stairway for a second egress and railing above an existing single story rear deck.
7. At the March 14, 2016 Zoning Board of Appeal meeting, the Board requested additional information
from the petitioner including a revised parking plan - Revised parking plan with additional
measurements and labels to indicate the location of the fire hydrant, street name, and property
measurements; a permit for a curbcut from the Engineering Department for permission to provide a
formal curbcut, amended elevation plans of the proposed rear stairway and egress, an updated plot
• plan showing the proposed rear stairway location for review, a revised Statement of Hardship.
8. The petitioner provided the requested materials and information for the Board.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
June 1,2016
Project: 24 Lemon Street
Page 2 of 2
9. After review of the revised petition, the Building Commissioner ruled that the request for the rear
stairway would require a special permit from section 3.3.3 Non-conforming Single and Tmo-Family Structures
of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reconstruct, extend, alter or change the non-conforming structure.
10. On May 18, 2016 the petitioner requested to withdraw the application without prejudice to re-apply to
the Board with a revised application to include the request for a Special Permit.
11. The requested relief,if granted,would allow the petitioner to withdraw the petition without prejudice.
12. 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.
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 and James Hacker (alternate) and
none (0) opposed, to allow the petitioner to withdraw without prejudice.
THE PETITION IS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Zf
Rebecca Curran, Chau
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 fled 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 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
Regiag of Deeds.
•
B
�v' a CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
g BOARD OF APPEAL
"` - 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TFLE:978-745-9595 1 FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR
n
June 1, 2016 Decision o
City of Salem Board of Appeals o
Petition of NOTCH TAP ROOM, LLC seeking a Variance per Sec. 4-5.1 On-PremiF e's Signs in
Nonresidential Districts of the Salem Code of Ordinances,in order to allow signage at thgproperty
of 283 Rear Derby Street(Map 34 Lot 439) (B-5).
C3
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 18, 2016 pursuant to M. Ch. 40A, § 11. The
hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Peter A.
Copelas (Vice-Chau),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy, Tom Watkins,Paul Viccica (alternate).
The Petitioner seeks a Variance of the provisions of Sec. 4-5.1 On- Premises Signs in Nonresidential Districts
of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow signage.
Statements of fact:
• 1. In the petition date-stamped April 26, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Variance of the provisions of
Sec. 4-5.1 On- Premises Signs in Nonresidential Districts of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow
signage for this business at the property.
2. Chris Loring,petitioner,presented the petition.
3. Notch Tap Room LLC is located at the rear of the building on 283 Derby Street.
4. The Building Commissioner ruled that the allowable signage at the property, based on the frontage of
along Derby Street,is completely occupied by Brothers Taverna.
5. The petitioner is requesting a Variance to install 103 square feet of signage on the building along the
Congress Street and North River sides of the building, where the business is located at the rear of the
building.
6. The petitioner testified that the hardship is that vendors will not be able to deliver goods without
knowing where the business is located, wholesalers need to know where the location is to pick up
finished goods and for consumers to know the location of the facility.
7. There is 79.9 linear feet along the fagade where Notch Tap Room is located.
8. The requested relief,if granted,would allow signage for this business located at the rear of the
property.
9. At the public hearing, one (1) member of the public spoke in favor and none 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:
City of Salem Board of Appeals
June 1,2016
Project:283 Rear Derby Street
• Page 2 of 2
Findings Sign Variance:
1. Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building, or structure involved is
that the business is located at the rear of the building and current allowable square footage for signage
if strictly enforced would allow for no signage to be located anywhere on the property for this
business.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the
applicant as the Ordinance is not really applicable for a circumstance and vendors, wholesalers and
consumers need to know the location of this facility.
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 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 Variance to allow signage at the property subject to the following eight
(8) standard 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 Occupancy is to be obtained.
7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but
not limited to the Planning Board.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• Appeal 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 fik'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 fled with the Essex South
Registry of Deedf.
��:pONDIT,�
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
a. BOARD OF APPEAL
9E
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 0191! + c
MlvOERLEYDRiscou. TE1.E:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 0
MAYOR , c-=_
June 1, 2016 Decision `-
City of Salem Board of Appeals
00
Petition of GIDEON COLTOF (BIT BAR) seeking a Variance per Sec. 4-5.1 On4Premi�qs Signs in
Nonresidential Districts of the Salem Code of Ordinances, to allow the petitioner to install signs that
are above the top of the sills of the first level of windows above the fust story at the property of 50 ST.
PETER STREET (Map 35 Lot 179)(B-5 Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 18, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 5 11. The
hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Peter A.
Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins, Paul Viccica (alternate).
The Petitioner seeks a Variance of the provisions of Sec. 4-5.1 On-Premises Signs in Nonresidential Districts
of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow the petitioner to install signs that are above the top of the sills of
the fust level of windows above the first story.
• Statements of fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped April 26, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Variance of the provisions of
Sec. 4-5.1 On- Premises Signs in Nonresidential Districts of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow
the petitioner to install signs that are above the top of the sills of the first level of windows above the
first story.
2. Steven Hall and Gideon Coltof, of Bit Bar,presents the petition.
3. Bit Bar is located on the fust floor of the Old Salem Jail. The petitioners are proposing to install
signage above the maximum height allowed. Specifically, the Sign Ordinance of Sec 45.1 a.4 and d.2
state that the signs may not be higher than the top of the sills of the first level of windows above the
first story.
4. The proposed signage calls for the highest point of the tallest sign to align with bottom sills of the
second story.
5. The petitioners testify that the restaurant location, building scale, and mass of the Old Jail are
significantly greater than other buildings in the area that contain retailers. Further the building is
physically set back about 150 feet from fast moving traffic on Bridge Street and Church Street.
6. The Sign Ordinance states that "the bottom of the sign is at least ten (10) feet from grade and its top
is no higher than whichever of the following is lowest: ...the top of the sills of the first level of
windows above the first story..." If the literal enforcement of the sign ordinance were applied, it
would only allow the petitioner to have signs that are two (2) feet tall.
•
City of Salem Board of Appeals
June 1,2016
Project:'1Q' tmets S��{ 5'k-
• Page 2 of 3
7. The petitioners testify that two (2) feet tall signs are not sufficient in relation to the location, building
scale, building mass and location.
8. There are a total of three (3) signs proposed for this location including two (2) blade signs and one (1)
wall mounted sign.
9. The signage has been reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board and Salem Redevelopment
Authority.
10. The requested relief,if granted,would allow the petitioner to install signs that are above the top of the
sills of the first level of windows above the first story signage for this business located at the rear of
the property.
11. At the public hearing,no members of the public spoke in favor or 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 Sign Variance:
1. Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building, or structure involved is
• that the building scale, and mass of the Old Jail are significantly greater than other buildings in the
area that contain retailers. Further the building is physically set back about 150 feet from fast moving
traffic on Bridge Street and Church Street.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the
applicant as the Ordinance the literal enforcement of the sign ordinance were applied, it would only
allow the petitioner to have signs that are two (2) feet tall on a large building setback from the street.
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 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 Variance to allow signage at the property subject to the following eight
(8) standard 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 Occupancy is to be obtained.
7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
June 1,2016
• Project: $o S-t.\Q-Fpx °.-t.
Page 3 of 3
8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but
not limited to the Planning Board.
gRebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH TJIE 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 f:k'ng of thu deauion in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 71, 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.
•
•
�ONfA
C�
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
• �� ' BOARD OF APPEAL
E� 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 012M JUN -I A 9: 1 b
KIMSERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR
CITY GL ft G SA;1 i. ISASa.
June 7, 2016
AMENDED Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of JACK and PATRICIA BURNS, seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming
Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a change from a nonconforming two (2) family
structure to a three (3) family structure at the property of 21 OCEAN AVE (Map 33 Lot 689)(R-1
Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 18, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, g 11 and
closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy,
Jimmy Tsitsinos, Paul Viccica (alternate) and James Hacker (Alternate).
The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem
• Zoning Ordinance to allow a change from a nonconforming two (2) family structure to a three (3) family
structure.
Statements of fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped April 26, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2
Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change from a nonconforming two (2)
family structure to a three (3) family structure.
2. Attorney Atkins presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner.
3. The subject property is located in a R-1 Zoning District
4. In 1999, when the property was purchased by the petitioners, it was a non-conforming three (3) family
dwelling. The property owners, then reduced the number of dwelling units to have a non-conforming
two (2) family dwelling. The petitioner proposed to convert the property back into a non-confomvng
three (3) family dwelling.
5. There are no exterior structural changes proposed to the building.
6. There are five (5) existing parking spaces that meet the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Parking spaces will be accessed by an existing curbcut along Cliff Street.
7. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to allow the change from one
nonconforming use of a two (2) family structure to a three (3) family structure.
• 8. At the public hearing three (3) members of the public spoke in favor of and none (0) spoke in
opposition to the petition.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
June 7,2016
Project:21 Ocean Ave.
• 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 Special Permit
The proposed change in use is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the
existing nonconforming use.
1. The proposed change in use would not be more substantially detrimental than the existing non-
conforming structure to the impact on the social, economic or community needs.
2. There are no negative impacts on traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading as there are
five (5) existing parking spaces,which meets the parking requirements of the 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 the property was a three (3) family dwelling and
there are many multi-family dwelling units in the neighborhood.
• 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 (Tom
Watkins, Mike Duffy, Jimmy Tsitsinos, Paul Viccica (alternate) and James Hacker (Alternate) in favor and
none (0) opposed, to grant a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconfomring Uses of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance to allow a change from a nonconforming two (2) family structure to a three (3) family
structure subject to the following terms, conditions and safeguards:
1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the
Building Commissioner
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly
adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
5. Exterior finishes of new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall 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.
•
City of Salem Board of Appeals
June 7,2016
Project:21 Ocean Ave.
• Page 3 of 3
Rebecca Curran, Chats
Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal f vm this deasion, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Lmvt Chapter 40A, and shall be filed nnthin 70
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 bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South
Registry of Deeds.
•
�COIdUIT,t�
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
m,
BOARD OF APPEAL
\��MIiVEDQ 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
KCMBERLEYDRIscOLL 'FELE:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846 _n
MAYOR
C7 c
June 1, 2016 r
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals ` j3
qo
Petition of JACK and PATRICIA BURNS, seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.E Nonc&h1brming
Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a change from a nonconforming two-0) family
structure to a three (3) family structure at the property of 21 OCEAN AVE (Map 33 Lot 689)(R-1
Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 18, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 4 11 and
closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,
Jimmy Tsitsinos, Paul Viccica (alternate) and James Hacker (Alternate).
• The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance to allow a change from a nonconforming two (2) family structure to a three (3) family
structure.
Statements of fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped April 26, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2
Nonconforming User of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change from a nonconforming two (2)
family structure to a three (3) family structure.
2. Attorney Atkins presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner.
3. The subject property is located in a R-1 Zoning District
4. In 1999, when the property was purchased by the petitioners, it was a non-conforming three (3) family
dwelling. The property owners, then reduced the number of dwelling units to have a non-conforming
two (2) family dwelling. The petitioner proposed to convert the property back into a non-conforming
three (3) family dwelling.
5. There are no exterior structural changes proposed to the building.
6. There are five (5) existing parking spaces that meet the parking requnrements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Parking spaces will be accessed by an existing curbcut-along Cliff Street.
7. The requested relief, if granted, wouldlla ow the Petitioner to allow the change from one
• nonconforming use of a candyfactory to another nonconforming use of residential dwelling units.
8. At the public hearing three (3) members of the public spoke in favor of and none (0) spoke in
opposition to the petition.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
June 1,2016
Project:21 Ocean Ave.
• 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 Special Permit
The proposed change in use is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the
existing nonconforming use.
1. The proposed change in use would not be more substantially detrimental than the existing non-
conforrning structure to the impact on the social, economic or community needs.
2. There are no negative impacts on traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading as there are
five (5) existing parking spaces,which meets the parking requirements of the 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 the property was a three (3) family dwelling and
there are many multi-family dwelling units in the neighborhood.
• 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 (Tom
Watkins, Mike Duffy, Jimmy Tsitsinos, Paul Viccica (alternate) and James Hacker (Alternate) in favor and
none (0) opposed, to grant a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming User of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance to allow a change from a nonconforming two (2) family structure to a three (3) family
stricture 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 pemlit prior to beginning any constriction.
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 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
June 1,2016
Project:21 Ocean 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
Appealfrom this decision, if arty, 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 Vanance 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.
•
/th�ONU1T9d , .
CITY OF SALEM, NLASSACHUSETTS
" BOARD OF APPEAL
Y Cf
• s
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
KIMBERLEYDRIscou TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846
MAYOR 1016 JUN -8 A la 3b
P1
MEETING NOTICE CITY CLL-RK" S;;L
You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppeals will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Wednesday,June 15, 2016at 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 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on 75t*-e k, ,1elk
➢ May 18, 2016 at to A4 in ar,cr)-dance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
III. REGULAR AGENDA
Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5
Nonconforming Single and Two-Family Residential Structures to allow the petitioner to expand
the existing nonconforming structure.
Applicant NORMAN & MARGARET ROBERTS
Location 2 ROSEDALE AVE (Map 31 Lot 264)( R1 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance per Sec. 5.1.5 Off-Street Parking Design
of the Salem Zoning Ordinance 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 seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming
Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a change from one non-conforming use
to another non-conforming use.
Applicant RICHARD JAGOLTA
Location 107 FEDERAL STREET (Map 26 Lot 531)(R2 Zoning District)
A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming
Project Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to structurally change the existing
nonconforming structure.
•Applicant LARRISA LUCAS
Location 15 RIVER STREET (Map 26 Lot 606)(R2 Zoning District)
Page 1 of 2
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Agenda for June 15,2016 Meeting
• Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per 3.1 Princpal Urex of the
Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a dwelling unit in a historic carriage house.
Applicant THOMAS PELLETIER
Location 138 NORTH STREET (Map 27 Lot 272)(R2 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1 Table of
Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to for minimum depth of front
yard and side yard setbacks to allow two (2) 12' side additions and an enclosed front
entry.
Applicant ANNETTE POPP
Location 9 LOCUST STREET (Map 28 Lot 14) (Rl Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking an Appeal of the Decision of the Building
Inspector to contest the interpretation of fence and fence height.
Applicant JAMES W. LEWIS
Location 3 LILLIAN ROAD (Map 30 Lot 30)(R1 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming
Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reconstruct a garage.
• Applicant MATTHEW KEANE
Location 414 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 32 Lot 169) (Rl Zoning District)
IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
None
V. ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
c Mrro .
120 WASl-IINGTON STP:EET SAI,.P,M,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
KIMBBRLEY Dtuscou TLLE:978-745-9595 FAx:978-740-9846
MAYOR
STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Appeals Members
FROM: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
DATE: 6/7/2016
RE: Meeting Agenda for June 15, 2016
Board Members,
Please find the following in your packets:
1. Agenda
2. Staff Memorandum
• 3. Meeting Minutes (May 18, 2016)
4. 2 Rosedale Avenue
5. 76-78 Endicott Street
6. 107 Federal Street
7. 15 River Street
S. 138 North Street
9. 9 Locust Street
10. 3 Lillian Road
11. 414 Lafayette 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,June 15,2016.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
1. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of NORMAN & MARGARET
ROBERTS seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two-Family
Residential Structures to allow the petitioner to expand the existing nonconforming structure
at the property of 2 ROSEDALE AVE (Map 31 Lot 264)( R1 Zoning District).
At the May 18, 2016 Zoning Board meeting the petitioner requested a continuation of the public
hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting on June 15, 2016. No testimony was heard and the
public hearing was not opened.
The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two-Family
Residential Structures to allow the petitioner to expand the existing single family home that is a
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
• Staff Memorandum June 7,2016
Page 2 of 5
dimensionally nonconforming structure. The petitioner is planning to expand the existing single
family residence with additions on both sides of the house.
The existing structure does not comply with the ten (10') foot side yard setback requirements at
the sunroom location. The petitioner proposes to expand the sunroom and increase the
nonconformity of the side yard setback to seven (T) feet. The petitioner also proposes to
construct a two (2) story addition on the other side of the house that would create a new side yard
setback nonconformity of five (5) feet.
The Board needs to consider whether the request for the Special Permit is substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure.
2. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of CHRISTOPHER INGERSOLL,
seeking a Variance per Sec. 5.L5Off-Street Parking Design of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to
allow a 12' wide curb cut at the property located at 76 ENDICOTT STREET (Map 25 Lot
453)(R2 Zoning District).
Mx. Ingersoll came before the Zoning
Board on October 21, 2015 to
!" Appeal the Decision of the Building
Inspector. 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
1 shall be a maximum of twenty (20)
feet at the street lot line in residence
districts. The property has two
residential units with an existing 14'
" curb cut. The Building Inspector
„•
testified that the additional proposed
1 10' curb cut at the property exceeds
� s
the maximum linear feet allowed at
the property and therefore a Variance would need to be requested.
At the October 21, 2015 meeting, the Board upheld the opinion of the Building Inspector.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Ingersoll constructed a parking space without a curb cut and has been parking
at the property (see image). Tom St. Pierre has sent letters to enforce the zoning and has fined Mr.
Ingersoll for noncompliance. Mr. Ingersoll is in the process of appealing the fines in court with the
City. This aside, the petitioner is requesting a Variance per Ser. 5.1.5 Off-Street Parking Design to allow a
12' wide curb cut. 76-78 Endicott Street is a two (2) family structure in a townhouse configuration.
Unit#1 has an existing 14' curb cut. If the Zoning were literally enforced,it would allow Mr. Ingersoll
to construct a 6'wide driveway.
• Looking at the plans, I have requested comments from the Engineering Department and Building
Department for comment regarding the curb cut request. I have also reached out to Police because
2
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
• Staff Metnorandutn June 7,2016
Page 3 of 5
there is a public safety concern as the proposed driveway very close to an existing stop sign and corner.
I would recommend that the Board wait for comment from these departments before a decision (see
image below).
A copy of the petition and supporting documentation is enclosed.
3. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of RICHARD JAGOLTA, seeking a
Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow
a change from one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use at 107 FEDERAL
STREET (Map 26 Lot 531)(R-2 Zoning District).
The petitioner is seeking a special permit per sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to allow a change from
one non-conforming use of a mixed use property to another non-conforming use of a multi-family
residential dwelling. The property is located in an R-2 Zoning District and is divided into three (3)
condominium units. The property is current three (3) units with a first floor commercial space and
two (2) residential units. The petitioner owns the first floor unit and proposes to convert the first
floor commercial space to a residential unit, therefore making the building multi-family residential.
The Salem Historical Commission has submitted a letter to the ZBA in support of the proposed
restoration to the exterior of the building. There Nvill be no major structural changes to the building.
The Board needs to consider whether the request for the Special Permit is substantially more
• detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming use.
4. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of LARRISA LUCAS, seeking a
Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to
structurally change the existing nonconforming structure at the property of 15 RIVER
STREET (Map 26 Lot 606)(R2 Zoning District)
The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to reconstruct,
extend, or structurally change the existing nonconforming structure. The petitioner is proposing to
construct a 4 x 5 feet structure in the rear corner of the building to square off the building.
The Board needs to consider whether the request for the Special Permit for the structural change
is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure.
A copy of the petition and supporting documents are in this packet.
5. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of THOMAS PELLETIER, seeking
a Special Permit per sec. 3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a
dwelling unit in a historic carriage house at the property of 138 NORTH STREET (Map 27
Lot 272)(R2 Zoning District)
The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.1 Principal Uses to allow a dwelling unit in a
historic carriage house. The property currently has an existing two-family residence and a carriage
•
house. The petitioner is also proposing five (5) parking spaces, which complies with the parking
requirements.
3
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum June 7,2016
Page 4 of 5
The Board needs to consider whether the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its
beneficial impacts to the City or the neighborhood in accordance with the six (6) standard criteria for
a special permit.
Enclosed are a petition, plans and supporting documentation.
6. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of ANNETTE POPP seeking a
Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance for minimum depth of front yard and side yard setbacks to allow two (2)
12' side additions and an enclosed front entry located at 9 LOCUST STREET (Map 28 Lot 14)
(R1 Zoning District).
The petitioner is requesting a Variance
for relief from Sec. 4.1 Table of
Dimensional Requirements for
minimum depth of front yard and side
yard setbacks. The petitioner proposes
to extend the front entryway 9.6 feet
from the front yard lot line of the 15'
feet required. The petitioner also
• proposes to construct two (2) side
additions and reduce the left side yard
setback to 8.4' feet of the 10' feet
required. The right side addition
,i proposed is within the side yard
setback requirements.
Dimensional Requirements Rl
a sax �� ivx si ramiaa T : n : n s rc i :r: Nssauxeu
me
Minimum Depth of Front Yard 15 feet 9.6 feet
Minimum Side Yard Setback 10 feet 8.4 feet
The Board needs to consider the following for the Variance request:
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
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.
4
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
• Staff Memorandum-June 7,2016
Page 5 of 5
7. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JAMES W. LEWIS seeking an
Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to contest the interpretation of fence and
fence height at the property of 3 LILLIAN ROAD (Map 30 Lot 30)(R1 Zoning District).
The petitioner is seeking an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to contest the
interpretation of fence, fence height and enforcement of lot line dispute on an adjacent property. It
appears that this case is past the statute of limitation as no enforcement actions may be taken if the
work was permitted and a period of six (6) years has passed. As for lot line disputes, this is.a civil
matter.
MGL 40A Section 7: ...provided, further, that if real prcperty has been improved and used in
accordance with the terms of the original building permit issued by a person duly authorized to issue
such permits, no action, criminal or civil, the effect or purpose of which is to compel the
abandonment, limitation or modification of the use allowed by said permit or the removal, alteration
or relocation of any structure erected in reliance upon said permit by reason of any alleged violation of
the provisions of this chapter, or of any ordinance or by-law adopted thereunder, shall be maintained,
unless such action, suit or proceeding is commenced and notice thereof recorded in the registry of
deeds for each county or district in which the land lies within six years next after the cotmmencement
of the alleged violation of law...
In 2007, a pool, patio and wall was permitted by the City and constructed and the petitioner is before
the ZBA to contest the interpretation of fence and fence height. Please see the letter from Tom St.
• Pierre from April 29, 2016.
A copy of the application and supporting documentation are included in the packet.
8. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MATTHEW KEANE seeking a
Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to
reconstruct a garage at the property of 414 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 32 Lot 169) (R1
Zoning District)
The petitioner is seeking a special permit per sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to reconstruct and
expand and existing garage. Currently, the garage is a single bay and within one (1) foot of the rear
yard lot line. The petitioner is proposing to construct a two (2) car garage that is 24 x 24 feet and
within one (1) foot of the rear yard lot line. The structure is proposed to be reconstructed in the same
area because there is a right of way on the property that provides access to Lot B (see plan).
A copy of the application,plans and supporting materials are included in this packet.
Old/New Business
None.
•
5
' City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board Z k N
Date Zz,1,11L / 1S / Z
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
at- -2 M 5 (21
nvov r) 93 22- 7Vy-DqZC=,
T) Aj F 3c�ay /� �z �t 1JPi1 478 • Y/Y3 ,)
LIZ zonol:
l�
Page of
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday,June 15,2016
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals (`Salem BOA')was held on Wednesday,June 15,
2016 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts at
6:30 p.m.
Ms. Curran (Chair)calls the meeting to order at 630 pm.
ROLL CALL
Those present were: Rebecca Curran(Chair),Peter A. Copelas,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy,
Jimmy Tsitsinos,Jim Hacker (alternate), and Paul Viccica (alternate).Also in attendance Tom
St.Pierre-Building Commissioner,Erin Schaeffer-Staff Planner,and Colleen Anderson—
Recorder.
REGULAR AGENDA
Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Pennit
per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two-Family Residential Structures to
allow the petitioner to expand the existing nonconforming structure.
Applicant NORMAN & MARGARET ROBERTS
• Location 2 ROSEDALE AVE (Map 31 Lot 264)(Rl Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated April 26,2016 and supporting documentation
Attorney Scott Grover,representing Norman&Margaret Roberts,property owners -
present the petition. Heather Deschenes,architect,was also present. Attorney Grover
stated that the plans show the garage on the left and a sunroom on the right. The original
proposal was for a two story addition over the garage and an enlargement of the sunroom.
The abutter on the garage side expressed concerns regarding the scale of the addition and its
proximity to the property line,and that was the cause of the continuation. The abutters
concerns have been addressed in the revised the plans. The two (2) story addition at the
garage is now a one (1) story addition, further away from the property line. The original
addition was within five (5) feet of the property line and the revised plans have the addition
an additional three (3) feet away. The sunroom enlargement remains the same. The
applicant seeks a special pernzit because the existing structure doesn't conform to zoning
setback requirements, of ten (10) feet and the existing sunroom structure is at 9.7 feet. The
existing garage is 11.6 feet from the property line and the addition would be 8 feet. A relief
is requested for both additions. Mr. &Mrs. Roberts have circulated a petition in the
neighborhood and their neighbors are in support of the project.
•
Ms. Curran- asked if the garage was being eliminated. Attorney Grover—replied yes. In •
place of the garage will be a one story addition with a basement. The purpose of the
addition is to provide additional living space.
Mr. Curran -asked how many square feet were being added at the garage. Attorney Grover
replied that the site coverage is going from 16% to 18%,well within the 30% coverage limit.
Mr. Copelas - asked if the existing garage was on a slab and if the new addition would have a
full basement. Attorney Grover and Deschenes replied yes.
Mr. Copelas - asked if the deck shown on the plans was existing or new. Deschenes replied
yes.
Ms. Deschenes—stated that the existing garage is 245 square feet will now be a 403 square
foot addition. The sunroom is currently 171 square feet and will increase to 254 square feet.
Chair Curran opens public comment.
William Panzini 3 Riverway Road. Abutting neighbor on garage side is in favor of the
revised plans that will no longer block their view of the street. Wants to make sure that this
will not and will never be a two family home.
Chair Curran- asked if this structure will remain a single family home and if another kitchen
was being added. Attorney Grover replied no. •
Chair Curran—stated that the non-conforn�ities are not more detrimental to the
neighborhood given the existing non-conformides, applauds the efforts to include address
the reservations of the neighbor,and is in favor of the project.
Mr Watkins—Echos the Chairs comments,appreciates the applicant reaching out to the
neighborhood and including the feedback of the direct abutter, and is in favor of the project.
Chair Curran—asked if the driveway was being increased now that the garage was being
eliminated. Attorney Grover replied that the driveway is staying the same and currently
allow two cars to park both side by side and tandem, and the existing garage has never been
used for parking.
Mr. St. Pierre—suggests addition the condition that the building remains a single family.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the petition seeking a Special
Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two-Family Residential Structures
to allow the petitioner to expand the existing nonconforming structure.All Standard
Conditions apply, in addition to Condition 1—That the home is and will remain a
single family. The motion is seconded by Mr.Watkins. The vote was unanimous with
five (5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy, and
Jimmy Tsitsinos in favor and none (0) opposed.
•
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance per Sec. 5.1.5 Off-Street
Parking Design of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a 10'wide curb cut.
Applicant CHRISTOPHER INGERSOLL
Location 76 ENDICOTT STREET (Map 25 Lot 453)(R2 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated April 26,2016 and supporting documentation
Christopher Ingersoll of 76 Endicott Street—stated that he lives at the condominium at 76-
78 Endicott Street. The property has an existing 14 foot curb cut for 76 Endicott Street and
the Variance request is for a curb cut for 78 Endicott Street.
Chair Curran—stated that in September the Building Commissioner denied the application,
which the applicant appealed,and the Board upheld the BC's ruling because a Variance was
needed by the ZBA. The two family is unique because its on a corner lot and the applicant
constructed the parking spot on the property without seeking ZBA approval. The parking
spot has been placed close to the intersection and to a tree.
Chair Curran asked if the parking spot could have been placed on the Hathorne Street.
• Ingersoll replied that the curb cut is adjacent to the tree but further away from the
intersection so it wouldn't need to be removed. Chair Curran replied that driveways typically
should be 20 feet from intersections for safety concerns. Ingersoll replied that it could have
been placed there but it would have been just as close to the intersection.
Schaeffer stated that the Planning Board reached out to the police department to ensure that
it was safe to do a curb cut on this part of the property. Lt. Prosniewski replied that the
driveway would be considered safe as long as no one parks on the public sidewalk within 20
feet of the corner of the public street. It would be okay to pass over the sidewalk from the
street to the driveway.
Chair Curran—stated that the state law requires that you cannot park within 20 feet of an
intersection and this case falls within that, and the police department does not have an issue
with it. Schaeffer replied correct.
Schaeffer stated that Ron Malionek, of Public Works,made a statement regarding the tree by
e-mail. A substantial portion of the roots of the tree have been damaged by the pavers the
applicant installed. It is anticipated that the tree will need to be removed and that requires a
public hearing of the Tree Commission. The Tree Commission could require the
replacement of that tree or the planting of multiple trees.
Mr. Ingersoll—stated that he has spoken to Ron Malionek and has offered to plant 3 or 4
trees in that area depending on the decision of the Tree Commission.
•
Mr. Watkins—asked if the curb cut could be 6 feet wide. Mr. St. Pierre replied that 6'is too •
narrow for a car.
Chair Curran opens public comment.
Mr. Steve Lovely, 14 Storey Street and Ward 3 Councilor. He was involved with this issue
last fall, there are several quirks in the zoning by-laws that he hopes to change to make the
by-laws clearer as they relate to modern times. He is in favor of the petition.
Maggie Brobeck,76 Endicott Street, Unit 1. In favor of this petition. In regard to the curb
cut being located on the side of the house,Hawthorne Street would be the more dangerous
option because despite the two stop signs vehicles do not stop,whereas vehicles coming
down Endicott Street must stop because they are approaching a T intersection. The safer
location is a driveway on the Endicott Street. The applicant has also been a long time
resident and tax payer,and parking in the area has become an issue over time due to Airbnb
rentals which result in residents being displaced.
If there is no additional members of the public who wish to speak, Chair Curran closes the public comment.
Public comment it closed.
Chair Curran—stated that the Police find it safe,it is a unique situation because it is a 2
family, the lot is too narrow for shared resident parking, the special conditions and •
circumstance that effect the land and building generally do not affect other lands, buildings,
and structures in the district applies in this situation. Hardship hasn't been completely
articulated but the police say it will not create a traffic safety problem. It is not within 20
feet of the intersection and it does not eliminate a parking space which would be detrimental
to the neighborhood. The Tree Commission will make the determination on the existing
tree.
Mr. Duffy—stated that he is not in favor of this request or the procedural history of this
project. The applicant appealed the decision,was denied,but went forward with the project
and is now asking to for forgiveness rather than permission. This request has merit but
should have been brought to the ZBA first to request a Variance. Chair Curran replied that
the applicant is requesting approval for the continued existence of this parking spot. The
manner in which this was done is not respectful of the process.
Chair Curran—asked if the applicant consider installing a fence. Mr. Ingersoll replied that
there are zoning requirements for fence as well.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the petition seeking a
Variance per Sec. 5.Z5 Off-Street PatkingDesign of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to
allow a 10'wide curb cut. All Standard Conditions apply, in addition to Condition 1—
Approval from all Board under the jurisdiction, Condition 2- the curb cut shall be 10
feet wide, and Condition 3—The applicant comply with the decision of the Tree
Warden and his Board. The motion is seconded by Mr. Watkins.The vote was •
• unanimous with five (5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Tom Watkins,
Mike Duffy, and Jimmy Tsitsinos,)in favor 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 change
from one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use.
Applicant RICHARD JAGOLTA
Location 107 FEDERAL STREET (Map 26 Lot 531)(R2 Zoning District)
Richard Jagolta, 107 Federal Street,was present to discuss the project. The structure is a 3
unit building at the intersection of Federal and Beckford Streets, both built and presently a
mixed-use building. In 1880 it was a grocery store owned by John Chandler and there were
2 residential units on the two floors above. In the last 20 years this location has proven
unsuccessful for numerous businesses. The previous own hadn't paid condo fees and the
unit has fallen into a state of disrepair—rot,window damage, openings covered over by
plywood, etc. The historic door had been replaced by an aluminum storefront door with an
A/C unit above it and a jalousie window was added to the side of the building. The
proposal is to convert the first floor unit into a residential condominium,rent it,and move
from his Chestnut Street residence and into this unit in a few years. The aluminum entry
and A/C unit will be replaced by a historically appropriate entry,a French style window with
• a panel below will be added to the Beckford fayade,and will match the existing entry to the
second and third floor units. Three parking spaces are deeded to this unit—two tandem
spaces to the right of the building and one space on Beckford Street. When zoning went
into effect in 1965 the structure was already a 3 family. At the time of purchase Jagolta paid
the back condo association fees to begin the building maintenance process. Neighbors,
abutters, and the above unit owners,are in favor of this project.
Dan Ricciarelli of Seger Architects stated that the Historic Commission unanimously
approved the proposed project. The existing space is wide open with a bathroom and
kitchenette. The proposal is to add two bedrooms, a faux door on Beckford Street that will
actually be windows with a panel below to mimic the original door,and adding a window in
the back alley. Replacing jalousie windows with double hung and adding a couple new
windows on the Beckford Street fa4ade. No additions are proposed for this property.
Mr. Viccica—asked that the 3 deeded parking spaces be identified on the plan. Mr.Jagolta
replied that to there is a three car wide driveway to the right of the building on Federal
Street,with tandem spaces for each unit and a third single space on the Beckford Street side
for the first floor unit.
Chair Curran—Noted letter submitted from the Historic Commission, Rick&Cynthia
Johnson of 13 River Street, Christopher Sala 22 Beckford Street,Mary Hartfelder,Betsy
Bums,Dan Ricciarelli, Crystal Johnson, Caroline Cox,Bob Ouelette,Peggy&Tim Dodger,
Lee Hanola,Alexis Ogno,Bob Kendall,Richard Grognarino, Michelle Laroche,Louis
Johnson,Ann Knight of 11 River Street,Stan Schwartz,Josh Washburn of 13 River Street,
. Paul Bunker of 20 Beckford Street,Ian& Caroline Cox of 2 River Street,and Christine
Sullivan,a direct abutter,in support of this project. Daro Ledibisi wrote a letter of •
opposition and specifically lists the two year term of a special permit. Chair Curran
responded that typically if a units use had been discontinued for more than two years it loses
its non-conforming status but the City of Salem states that a space being vacant does not
cause it to lose its non-confornring status. Meg Twohey of 122 Federal Street wrote a letter
in opposition.
Clair Curran opens public comment.
Attorney John Carr, 7 River Street. This relief is sought based on 3.2.2 of the zoning
ordinances which states that the new non-confomung use is not more detrimental. He
represented a number of abutters on an appeal regarding the last special permit granted on
this property and one of the issues was that the buildings commercial space had extinguished
its grandfathered use by it being discontinued for more than 2 years. In March 2016 the City
and his clients entered into an agreement,in favor of the plaintiffs,including the
determination that the building is an R2. The appeal period ran and the previously
grandfathered use has been adjudicated. The special permit granted to Rodney Sinclair had
substantial conditions with regards to hours of operation, etc. He is unaware that is has as
many parking spaces that have been cited,he is aware of only one to the right of the
building. The Essex Superior Court now considers this structure a two family. An existing
owner needs to buy the first floor and possibly consolidate the units or a Variance needs to
be sought. The proposed plan is inappropriate based on the judgement entered into by the
City and his clients.
Jane Arlander, 92 Federal Street. She is one of the appellants on the previously mentioned •
appeal, she respect the owner and neighbors for not wanting to look at an vacant unit but
she is opposed to the ZBA granting a special permit and reverting this building back to a 3
family residence. Communities have successful historic districts because those zoning laws
have been upheld. This area needs to remain an R2 zone.
Carol Carr, 7 River Street. Is opposed to this project and potential for this unit being used
as an Airbnb type residence,when his actual residence on Chestnut Street is listed on a
similar website.
Peter Schozie, 15 '/z River Street. Is in favor of the project and asked what the real
difference was between having a business and two family above versus a three unit building,
if there are already 3 spaces. What does is matter if the third space is a business or residence?
If there is no additional members of the public mho avisb to speak, Chair Curran closer the public comment.
Public comment is closed.
Chair Curran -requested the applicant review the parking spaces again. Mr.Jagolta provided
the plot plan that shows the space closest to the building at approximately 11 feet wide and
30 feet deep on Federal Street and behind the building on the Beckford Street side,is an
additional space that a neighbor has been using with permission from the unit owners. Chair
Curran noted that the tandem parking is pre-existing non-conforming. •
• Chair Curran - asked Mr. St. Pierre his opinion on the non-conforming status in regards to
the City stating that vacancy doesn't negate usage. Mr. St. Pierre replied that this project
should be continued so the opinion of City Solicitor Beth Renard can be obtained. Mr.
Sinclair did not show up for the appeal so he believes a decision on the abandonment was
not reached at Attorney Carr indicated.
Chair Curran—asked if the applicant would have an issue with a continuance to the July 20`'
meeting so that the issued could be clarified. Mr.Jagolta replied no.
Mr. Viccica—asked that they provide a scaled site plan indicating the associated curb cuts so
the Board can determine how that affects the streetscape.
Mr.Jagolta noted that because this is a commercial unit the spaces in front of the building
are 15 minute parking only,and there would no longer be a need for limitation on parking,
and those spaces could be opened up to general resident parking.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to continue the vote and discussion until
the July 20, 2016 meeting. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. The vote was
unanimous in favor and none (0) opposed.
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3
Nonconforming Stnvctures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to structurally
• change the existing nonconforming structure.
Applicant LARRISA LUCAS
Location 15 RIVER STREET (Map 26 Lot 606)(R2 Zoning District)
Larissa Lucas, 15 River Street,was present to discuss the project. She has lived in the home
for 8 years and is seeking to expand the non-confomning home,4 feet x 5 feet, to extend the
kitchen. There is a storage shed in the location that will be torn down and the extension will
go in its place. It has been approved by the Historic Commission and in May they were
granted a building permit and a couple weeks later it was determined that the building did
not conform setbacks.
Chair Curran—asked if the lattice shed is what would be torn down and ask if it had a roof.
Ms. Lucas replied yes to both. The extension is the same footprint and it is 3.17 feet from
the rear property line and 9 feet from the side abutter at 13 River Street,which is within the
10 foot setback requirements.
Chair Curran—asked for a height of the proposed extension. Ms. Lucas replied 8 feet/ 1
story. It will square off the existing L shaped kitchen and it is not visible from River because
it will be at the back of the house or from Andover Street because of an existing high fence
in the backyard, unless you are looking down from a second story.
•
Chair Curran—noted letter in support of this project. Alexis of 180A Federal Street,Dan •
Madigan 14 River Street,Caroline Cox of 2 River Street,Keri Roark 6 Andover Street, and
Rick&Cindy Johns, direct abutters of 13 River Street.
Chair Curran opens public comment.
Peter Schozie, 15 '/2 River Street. Direct abutter,is in favor of this project.
Attorney John Carr-7 River Street. Noted the free standing shed will no longer be in use
and asked if this was a new shed or a kitchen expansion. Chair Curran replied that it is an
addition on the house that will be in the area where the shed was. Attorney Carr stated that
he is in favor.
Justin Whittier, 10 River Street. Lives diagonally across from applicant,is in favor of the
project, they have a need for it,and it will not be less detrimental to the neighborhood.
Jane Arlander,92 Federal Street. In favor of the project.
Carol Carr, 7 River Street. In favor of the project.
If there is no additional members of the public who wish to speak, Chair Curran closes the public comment.
Public comment is closed. •
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the petition seeking a Special
Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to
structurally change the existing nonconforming structure.All Standard Conditions
apply. The motion is seconded by Mr.Watkins. The vote was unanimous with five (5)
(Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy, and Jimmy
Tsitsinos in favor and none (0) opposed.
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per 3.1 Principal
Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a dwelling unit in a historic
carriage house.
Applicant THOMAS PELLETIER
Location 138 NORTH STREET (Map 27 Lot 272)(R2 Zoning District)
Mr. Copelas announces a potential conflict of interest and recuses himself from participating
on this agenda item.
Thomas Pelletier, 128 North Street,was present to discuss the proposed project. Mr.
Pelletier stated that 10 years ago the ZBA approved the renovation of the carriage house and
he is seeking the same approval.
•
• Chair Curran—asked if the previous Special Permit expired,if the work did not take place,
and if there were any changes to the plan. Mr. Pelletier replied yes, and there were no
changed.
Chair Curran—stated that there were 5 existing parking spaces and no new ones were added.
Mr. Pelletier stated that the property is a 3 family and he has converted the main house to a 2
family and the carriage house will be a single family,to maintain the 3 family status.
Mr. Watkins—asked if there will be two buildings on the same parcel and what is the second
building currently used for. Mr. Pelletier replied yes, storage. Mr. Watkins asked how many
bedrooms it will house. Mr. Pelletier replied 2.
Chair Curran opens public comment.
Dean Gantz, 136 North Street. Is a direct abutter,is not opposed to the project was
questioned whether the owner will need to go onto his property to access the building. Mr.
Pelletier replied that the carriage house lines up with their property line. When the time
comes he will ask to access their site and provide blocking to raise the building,but that will
only be for a short period of time while the foundation is poured,and any disturbance to
your property will be repaired. The fence between the two properties will also be replaced.
• Chair Curran—asked if the carriage house is being rebuilt or renovated. Mr. Pelletier replied
renovated. The floors will be replaced but the walls will remain, and the footprint will stay
the same.
If there is no additional members of the public who wish to speak, Chair Curran closes the public comment.
Public comment is closed.
Mr. St. Pierre—noted that the definition of a historic carriage house is an accessory or out
building originally built to house carriages,horses, for use as a barn that has been in
existence since 1900. The applicant should commit to the board that this is the case. Mr.
Pelletier replied the carriage house has been in place since 1856 and still has horse stalls.
Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve the petition seeking a
Special Permit per 3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a
dwelling unit in a historic carriage house. All Standard Conditions apply, in addition
to Condition 1—Exterior finishes shall be in harmony with the existing historic
structure, Condition 2—street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office if
needed. The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with five
(5) (Rebecca Curran (Chair),Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos, and Paul
Viccica in favor and none (0) opposed.
•
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance requesting relief from •
Sec. 4.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to
for minimum depth of front yard and side yard setbacks to allow two (2)
12' side additions and an enclosed front entry.
Applicant ANNETTE POPP
Location 9 LOCUST STREET (Map 28 Lot 14) (R1 Zoning District)
Annette Popp, 9 Locust Street, Owner and Architect,was present to discuss the project. Ms.
Popp stated that she has owned the property since 2003 and would like to construct two 12
long additions on each side and an enclosed front entry. The front setback is at the front of
the property and the front addition will be 5 feet into that setback. The house is skewed on
the property therefor creating an angled setback on each side of the existing house. The
house is within the rear setbacks. The provided elevations and perspective views show the
proposed addition. The left addition will accommodate a garage on the left and bedroom
above, and on the right living space on the first floor and a workshop and dining area above.
Chair Curran—asked what currently happens at the front fagade and if it currently
encroaches the setbacks. Ms. Popp replied that there are a landing and steps within the
setback but they don't count. Enclosing the landing puts it over the front setback. Mr.
Viccica asked if the steps would also be pushed out. Ms. Popp relied yes, to create a new
landing.
Mr. Viccica -asked if the right side addition requires a variance. Ms. Popp replies yes, •
because the site plan shows it at plus or minus 9 feet.
Mr. Viccica- asked if the deck was being enlarged. Mr. Popp replies yes, but it is within the
rear setback.
Chair Curran—stated that the additions extend 12 feet out on either side and the survey
indicated that the additions were over both setbacks. Ms. Popp replies yes.
Mr. Copelas—noted that there is no statement of hardship for the front enclosed entry
addition. Ms. Popp replies that the building could be moved away from the front setback
and the vestibule is a desired convenience. Chair Curran stated that a roof could be added to
cover the area but it wouldn't create a vestibule.
Mr. Viccica—asked if neighboring houses had similar additions. Mr. Popp replied there is a
mixture of varying sizes and some with enclosed entrances.
Chair Curran opens public comment.
Jerry Ryan, 11 Locust Street,right side abutter. Recently purchased the neighboring home,
their lots are sister lot He has concerns with the proposed workshop which would be next
to his bedroom, and that the addition would not be a right fit for the neighborhood. He
• heard about this project through a neighbor and the applicant made no mention of it to him.
Ms. Popp replied that the workshop will not be a business it will be for hobbies.
Chair Curran—asked if there is a business ran from the home. Ms. Popp replied no.
Maryanne Zielinski,20 Bay View Circle. The proposed additions will not fit in with the
neighborhood and is not in favor of the proposed workshop.
John Seceddy, 12 Salt Wall Lane,rear abutter. He was unaware of this project, he is not in
favor of it,it will be larger than all other homes in the neighborhood, the existing deck is
large enough,and the workshop concerns him.
Rich, 7 Locust Street, the left abutter. He was unaware of this project and is opposed to this
project,his home is 5 feet away from his property line and her left addition would be
approximately 13 feet away from his home which will block light and the view and creates
privacy concerns. He found out about this project from her surveyor but Ms. Popp did not
fully explain the extend of the proposed addition. He is also concerned with the use of her
proposed workshop—possible use of chemicals,traffic,deliveries, etc. and what will that
mean for the neighborhood.
If there is no additional members of the public who wish to speak, Chair Curran closes the public comment.
• Public comment is closed.
Chair Curran—asked Mr. St. Pierre if reducing the size of the additions by 1 foot on each
side and eliminating the front addition,could be done as a matter of right. Mr. St. Pierre
replied yes.
Mr. Viccica—asked if the additions are within the lot coverage limits. Ms. Popp replied yes.
Mr. Copelas—stated that the Variance requests are a matter of convenience not hardship.
The addition sizes could be reduced by 1 foot and the front addition eliminated. Chair
Curran agrees and states that the front addition is cosmetic only and suggests the applicant
reconfigure the proposed additions. Mr.Viccica agrees.
Chair Curran—states that 4 Board members need to be in favor of this project in order for it
to be approved but she also has the option to withdraw without prejudice and resubmitted.
Mr. Viccica noted that if the applicant chooses to move forward with the vote and is denied
there is a 2 year bar on applying for a Variance, unless is it is substantially different, or is a
continuation. Mr. St. Pierre noted that each addition was advertised so a Board decision on
just the front addition could take place at the applicant's request. Mr. Duffy and Mr.
Watkins note that no Board member seems to be in favor of the front addition because there
is no real case for hardship.
• Ms. Popp requests to withdrawal the petition.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to allow the applicant to withdrawal
without prejudice. The motion is seconded by Mr.Watkins.The vote was unanimous
in favor and none (0) opposed.
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking an Appeal of the Decision of the
Building Inspector to contest the interpretation of fence and fence height.
Applicant JAMES W. LEWIS
Location 3 LILLIAN ROAD (Map 30 Lot 30)(R1 Zoning District)
Attorney Stephen Zolotas,with an office at 133 Washington Street,was present to represent
James Lewis, 3 Lillian Road. In 2007 the Kelleher's of 19 Chandler Road installed an in-
ground pool and raised the grade at their rear property 4 feet, a property line that abuts both
1 & 3 Lillian Road. Plans on file with the City show a 4' high retaining wall with a 6 foot
high fence on top of it, creating a 10' high boarder wall on the Chandler Street property and
a 15-16 foot high boarder wall at the 3 Lillian Road property. The existing condition was a 6
foot high retaining wall also with a fence on top. The Building Inspector sent a letter in
March of 2016 stating that there was no drainage permit pulled for the 4 feet of fill and the •
City engineer was not notified about the additional fill,which is required if more than 2 feet
of fill is being added. The 4 foot high retaining wall was placed to keep the fill from spilling
over onto other properties and a Variance would be required for a 10'high fence. Mr. Lewis
would like 1) the zoning provisions enforced to reduce the height of the fence and 2)
necessary permits to be pulled for the fill to support the pool deck or the retaining wall. In
March of 2016 Mr. Lewis had a plot plan done of his property which determined that the
wall was 1 foot onto this property. The placement of the wall and fence would have been
correctly determined if a Variance had been sought prior to the completion of the work.
The Lewis' are open to speaking to the Kelleher's to come to a resolution. This appeal is
within the 10 year statute of limitations since no permits were pulled.
Chair Curran—asked if the fence and wall need a Variance. Mr. St. Pierre replied that the
work was permitted and this appeal is beyond the 6 year appeal period for perrnitted work.
The City Engineer stated that there was no drainage complaint as part of this appeal he
would not require a drainage information.
Mr. Duffy—asked if the possible request for a continuance was to come to resolution with
the neighbors without the Boards ruling. Mr. Zolotas replied yes.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the continuation until the
July 20, 2016 meeting. The motion is seconded by Mr.Watkins. The vote was
unanimous in favor and none (0) opposed.
•
• Sean Kelleher, 19 Chandler Road. The land at 19 Chandler Road is at a higher elevation than
3 Lillian Road,with an 8 foot long retaining wall there the properties meet. There were
some voids below an existing fence that caused the land to fall onto the neighboring
property, so approximately 2 feet of fill was added to fill in those voids and level off the
grade in their backyard at 19 Chandler Road. A 6 foot high fence was added for safety and
all neighbors,including the Lewis',were in favor of this fence prior to its construction. After
10 years, the neighbors' concerns with the fence is surprising. A new retaining wall was not
constructed. Several rail road ties were added to secure it, as it is holding their land in place.
A retaining wall and fence were already in place when they moved into the home,because of
the existing grade changes.
Danielle Kelleher, 19 Chandler Road. This began with a survey done without their
knowledge and another neighbor has now installed their own fence with blocks their view of
the road when existing their driveway. The original 4 foot high fence was replaced,at their
own expense, at Mr. Lewis' request, and a higher fence was installed.
Attorney Zolotas provide a rendering on file with the Building Department shows the fill, a
raised grade,4 foot retaining wall with a 6 foot high fence on top. The existing retaining wall
and fence were in compliance with zoning at the time,but the new plan shows a request for
drainage plans, a 4 foot high retaining wall,and a substantial area to be filled around the pool
that is at least the width of the pool,which is the portion that butts up to Mr. Lewis'
property.
• Mr. Viccica—stated that they are being asked to either uphold or deny the Inspectional
Service Report. The Board needs to be told why they should uphold or deny the report,
otherwise request a continuance.
Attorney Zolotas stated that he has one letter from Harry Wagg,dated March 21,2016,
addressed to the Kelleher's stating that if the fill added is greater than 2 feet the City
Engineer needs to be notified and a drainage permit needs to be obtained. The project
cannot proceed unless a draining permit has been issued. This work required building
permits and no permits were pulled. He has another letter dated 35 days later from Mr. St.
Pierre stating that there is no issue. There must have been an issue to warrant the first letter
from Mr. Wagg and questioned why are there two conflicting letters from the same
department. The 6 year statute of limitations for work complete with a permit extends to 10
years if a permit was not pulled,and a permit was not pulled for the retaining wall work.
Mr. St. Pierre spoke with the City Solicitor before writing his letter. Mr. St. Pierre stated the
decision they came to was that the fence and wall were part of the pool project, the drainage
alteration was mussed and not filed which they acknowledged,and therefore the 6 year
statute of limitations has run out.
Jim Lewis, 3 Lillian Road. Mr. Lewis asked if the pool project was inspected and wouldn't
any structure in association with the pool need to comply with zoning bylaws. Mr. St. Pierre
• replied yes,by someone in his department,and the City of Salem does not define a ground
level patio as not structure requiring inspection. This is a dispute that should be able to be •
resolved with the neighbors.
Mr. Copelas—asked if the Board was in agreement that boundary dispute is not within their
purview and the only item the Board needs to make a ruling on is whether the April 291h
letter from the Building Inspector should be upheld. Ms. Schaeffer replied yes.
Mr. Duffy—stated that upholding the letter will not resolve the conflicts between the
neighbors and the neighbors should try to resolve all of the disputes amongst themselves.
The Board needs to decide if they are acting on the continuance or the appeal? Mr. Duffy
and Mr. Copelas agree.
Attorney Zolotas requests a continuance until the September 21"meeting,when the
neighbors have returned from vacation.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to amend the approval and extend the
continuation until the September 21, 2016 meeting. The motion is seconded by Mr.
Watkins. The vote was unanimous in favor and none (0) opposed.
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3
Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reconstruct a
garage. •
Applicant MATTHEW KEANE
Location 414 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 32 Lot 169) (R1 Zoning District)
Attorney John Keilty,40 Lowell Street,Peabody,was present to represent Matthew Keane,
414 Lafayette Street. The foreclosure property was purchased in 2013 and Mr. Keane has
begun renovations to the property and would like to begin reconstructing the existing garage.
Two car garages existing at the neighboring buildings and Mr. Keane would like to construct
a 24 foot x 24 foot,2 car garage, one foot from the rear property line,like the existing garage
to not impede the right of way. Both existing and proposed plans were submitted and the
proposed will not exceed the height limit of 18-'/z feet. The rear abutter, and several other
neighbors,have been contacted and have no opposition to placing the new garage in the
same location.
Chair Curran—stated that the proposed garage should be placed 2 feet away from the
property line for maintenance purposes. Attorney Keilty replied that the garage could be
reduced in size to 24 feet x 23 feet.
Mr. Copelas—stated that the new roof would be peaked and asked what roof existed
previously. Attorney Keilty replied yes, a flat roof that is presently tarped and is in a state of
disrepair.
•
• Chair Curran—asked if there will be storage above. Attorney Keilty replied yes and they
have no issue accepting a condition stating that there will be no residence in the upper level.
Chair Curran opens public comment.
Fabio Bardini,416 Lafayette Street. Mr. Bardini stated that he spoke to the neighbor and
was under the impression that the garage would be fixed, not enlarged and made taller. This
is an R1 zone and questions why the property is a 2 family. This project seems to be
encroaching on the lifestyle of the neighborhood. Mr. St. Pierre replied that the applicants 2
family is a pre-existing condition.
Kristin Bardini,416 Lafayette Street. Ms. Bardini stated that they are the left abutter and the
garage is 1 foot from their property line. Ms. Bardini commented on the abundance of noise
coming from the property and inquired if it was being turned into a 3 family. Chair Curran
replied that the building is and will remain a 2 family. Attorney Keilty stated that the 2nd &
3`d floors are being combined. Mr. Keane replied that there are existing bedrooms on the 3"d
floor and no new bedrooms are being added. Chair Curran noted that the garage will not
rented out.
Ms. Bardini stated that the original owner was never given permission to change it into a 2
family and asked if R-2's were required to be owner occupied. Chair Curran replied no,
owner occupancy is not required. R-2's in an R-1 zoning are either grandfathered or illegal.
Attorney Keilty replied that he does not known if a permit was granted for the conversation
of a 1 family into a 2 family but it may have preceded zoning.
Fabio Bardini,416 Lafayette Street. The proposed garage is 2-3 feet from his fence and
appears to be a 2 story structure. He is in favor of rebuilding the garage to match is existing
but is not in favor of a 2 story garage.
Mr. St. Pierre stated that the drawings indicate a 21'height which is problematic because the
ordinance is 18 or 18—'/z feet on accessory structures.
Chair Curran—asked if the applicant has considered constructing a steeper pitched roof 2
car garage with storage above. Mr. Keane replied that the height was the reason for the
Special Permit. The 4/12 pitch created a height of 21.7 feet and a steeper pitch would make
it even taller. Attorney Keilty noted that relief can't be sought for the height without a
Variance so the roof pitch would need to be lowered to meet the 18 foot height requirement.
Mr. Keane replied that constructing a 1 story structure with storage above is acceptable.
Ms. Bardini asked if the construction of a 2 story garage encroaches on the neighbors right
of way and if it make the driveway a one way drive. Chair Curran replied no, the structure
will not encroach on the right of way.
•
Sue Moloney,414 '/:Lafayette Street, direct abutter. Ms. Moloney stated that she shares a •
driveway with Mr. Keane and wanted to make sure that the right of way would remain
unaffected. Mr. St. Pierre replied that you can encroach upon a right of way but not over it.
Attorney John Keilty requested a continuance to the next meeting to redesign and submit
revised plans.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion continue this discussion at the July 20,
2016 meeting. The motion is seconded by Mr.Watkins. The vote was unanimous in
favor and none (0) opposed.
OLD/NEW BUSINESS _
NONE
APPROVAL OE MEETING MINUTES
May 18, 2016 meeting minutes were approved as written.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the minutes as written,
seconded by Mr.Viccica. The vote was unanimous in favor and none (0) opposed.
OLD EWBUSINESS
N/A
ADJOURNMENT,_
Mr. Viccica motions for adjournment of the June 15, 2016 regular meeting of the Salem
Board of Appeals.
Motion and Vote: Mr.Viccica made a motion to adjourn the April 20, 2016 regular
meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Duffy, and the vote is
unanimous in favor and none (0) opposed.
The meeting ends at 9:00 PM.
For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes,
copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at.•
ht,p://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA Z2. ngAanealsMin/
Respectfully submitted,
Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner
•
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
:i% 8: l;3
( ��� n'- 720 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
'ISLE:978-619-5685 ♦FAX:978-740-0404
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of CHRISTOPHER INGERSOLL,
seeking a Variance per Sec. 5.1.5 Off-Street Parking Derign of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a 10' wide
curb cut at the property located at 76 ENDICOTT STREET (Map 25 Lot 453)(R2 Zoning District).
The public hearing will be held on WED. June 15, 2016 at 6:30 PM, 3`d Floor, 120 WASHINGTON
• STREET, Rm 313.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 6/1/2016 and 6/8/2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
city
F� t
_l j jj, in
atAccordance with MdL Chap. 30A,
Sections I8-25.
•
CI'T'Y OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
9� I6 111 - 1 A 8: 1'3
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 1 FAX:978-740-0404
KIMBERLEY DI
MAYOR
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of RICHARD JAGOLTA, seeking a
Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a change from
one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use at 107 FEDERAL STREET (Map 26 Lot 531)(R-2
Zoning District).
The public hearing will be held on WED. June 15, 2016 at 6:30 PM, 3`d Floor, 120 WASHINGTON
• STREET,Rm 313.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 6/1/2016 & 6/8/2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on ' t I )�bILe
at in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
•
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
At t 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
i
CIIY L. `s-�,. TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL Ll1, Ci j
MAYOR
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of LARRISA LUCAS, seeking a Special
Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to structurally change the existing
nonconforming structure at the property of 15 RIVER STREET (Map 26 Lot 606)(82 Zoning District)
The public hearing will be held on WED.,June 15, 2016 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3`d at 120 Washington
• Street.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 6/1/2016 & 6/8/2016
This notice posted on ,Official Teti td„
City lila!, Salem; A11ass. ith M61-Chap. 30A,
at � ;
,���0 °fT9gQr CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
i
120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
-. PIINL V0
TFT,E:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL CITY
MAYOR
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of THOMAS PELLETIER, seeking a
Special Permit per 3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a dwelling unit in a historic
carriage house at the property of 138 NORTH STREET (Map 27 Lot 272)(112 Zoning District)
The public hearing will be held on WED.,June 15, 2016 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3`d at 120 Washington
• Street.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 6/1/2016 & 6/8/2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on ��� 1
at y, u� in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections U-25.
•
CITY OF SALEM, NIASSACHUSET T'S
V�` Y
BOARD OF APPEAL
p
8: 1,1$20 WASHINGTON STREET+ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
� l
Tfi;M:978-619-5685♦ FAX:978-740-0404
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL I',LC
MAYOR (`.I j y ri - -
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of ANNETTE POPP seeking a Variance
requesting relief from Sec. 4.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to for minimum
depth of front yard and side yard setbacks to allow two (2) 12' side additions and an enclosed front entry
located at 9 LOCUST STREET (Map 28 Lot 14) (R1 Zoning District).
• The public hearing will be held on WED. June 15, 2016 at 6:30 PM, 3`d Floor, 120 WASHINGTON
STREET,Rm 313..
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 6/1/2016 & 6/8/2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Nall, Salem, Mass. on � � % I dulu
at 1-.,q y ;0 in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
•
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
!V311
BOARD OF APPEAL
i 120 WASHINGTON STREET 4 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 1 FAX:978-740-0404
KIHma'xiev Dwscof T Y �,,,,
MAYOR
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JAMES W. LEWIS seeking an Appeal
of the Decision of the Building Inspector to contest the interpretation of fence and fence height at the
property of 3 LILLIAN ROAD (Map 30 Lot 30)(R1 Zoning District).
The public hearing will be held on WED. June 15, 2016 at 6:30 PM, 3`d Floor, 120 WASHINGTON
• STREET,Rm 313.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 6/1/2016 & 6/8/2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on �u,�i t 0 -
at $ :`'is AA in accordance with M& Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
CITY OF SALEMMASSACHUSETTS
� BOARD OF APPEAL
Mi
l;
r !L"S�'�'V, 120 WASHINGTON STREET* SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
���MINT
CITY C! - TELE:978-619-5685 FAx:978-740-0404
W
KIMSERLEY DRlscoLL
MAYOR
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MATTHEW KEANE seeking a Special
Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reconstruct a garage at the
property of 414 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 32 Lot 169) (RI Zoning District)
The public hearing will be held on WED. June 15, 2016 at 6:30 PM, 3" Floor, 120 WASHINGTON
• STREET,Rm 313.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 6/1/2016 & 6/8/2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hail, Salem, Mass. on .� 1 da ils
at 'S"•`13 c,,k in accordance with MdL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
r
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
9�iMmE 4@��d".� 9N A 8: 1 S
- 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACH T
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846
MAYOR
June 29, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of NORMAN & MARGARET ROBERTS seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5
Nonconforming Single and Two-Family Residential Structures to allow the petitioner to expand the
existing nonconforming structure at the property of 2 ROSEDALE AVE (Map 31 Lot 264)( R1
Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 18, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 5 11. No
testimony was heard on that date. The petition was continued to June 15, 2016 and closed on that date with
the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chau), Mr. Duffy, Mr. Copelas, Mr.
Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins.
• The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two-Family Residential
Structures to allow the petitioner to expand the existing nonconforming structure.
Statements of fact:
1. Attorney Grover presented the petition on behalf of the applicants.
2. In the petition date-stamped April 26, 2016 the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5
Nonconforming Single and Two-Family Residential Structures.
3. The petitioner proposed to replace an existing garage with a one-story addition to create a new family
room on the fust floor. The petitioner also proposed to remove and replace a sunroom.
4. The existing sunroom does not comply with the side yard setback and the expansion of the sunroom
will further reduce the side yard setback to seven (T) feet where ten (10') feet is required.
5. The existing garage is 11.6' feet from the side yard setback. The proposed one-story addition will
create a side yard setback nonconformity of eight (8') feet where ten (10') feet is required.
6. There is parking on the existing driveway that does and will continue to accommodate two (2) cars
parked side-by-side.
7. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to expand the existing nonconforming
structure.
8. At the public hearing a petition was submitted by the applicant with sixteen (16) residents in support
• of the project.
9. At the public hearing members of the public spoke one (1) spoke in favor and none (0) spoke in
opposition to the petition.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
June 29,2016
Project:2 Rosedale Ave.
• 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 Special Permit:
The Board finds that the structural change is not substantially more detrimental that the existing
nonconforming structure to the neighborhood.
1. Social, economic and community needs served by the proposal- The property is a single family home
and will remain a single family home and does not impact the community.
2. Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading-There are no substantial changes to traffic flow
and safety,including parking and loading.
3. Adequacy of utilities and other public services—There are no changes to utilities or other public
services.
4. Impacts on the natural environment, including drainage- There are no significant changes that would
impact the natural environment,including drainage.
5. Neighborhood character-The proposal is in keeping with the neighborhood character.
• 6. Potential fiscal impact,including the impact on City tax base and employment is positive.
Special Conditions:
1. The structure will remain a single-family home.
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. Tsitsinos, Tom Watkins) and none (0) opposed, to grant a
Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two-Family Residential Structures to allow the
petitioner to expand the existing nonconforming structure, 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 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.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
June 29,2016
Project:2 Rosedale Ave.
• Page 3 of 3
Rebecca Curran, Chau
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 fik'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.
•
•
�v��co .igQls,
?� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
9ti}, q' BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM.,NACA401`l/U v ,I
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-984 .+
MAYOR CITY CU..a Si,.1_
June 29, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of CHRISTOPHER INGERSOLL, seeking a Variance per Sec. 5.1.5 Off-Street Parking
Design of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a 10' wide curb cut at the property located at 76
ENDICOTT STREET (Map 25 Lot 453)(R2 Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 15, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 5 11 and
closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr.
Duffy,Mr. Copelas,Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Watkins.
The Petitioner seeks a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.5 Off-Street Parking Design of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance to allow a 10' wide curb cut that would exceed the total maximum allowable curb cut at
the property.
• Statements of fact:
1. Mr. Ingersoll, petitioner,presents the petition.
2. In the petition date-stamped May 16, 2016 the Petitioner requested a Variance requesting relief from
Sec. 5.1.5 Off-Street Parking Derign for maximum curb cut width that would allow the petitioner to
construct a second driveway at the property.
3. The property is located on a corner between Endicott Street and Hathorne Street. The Department of
Planning and Community Development reached out to the Salem Traffic Division to review the safety
of the proposed curbcut.
4. Lt. Preczewski sent a letter to the Board stating that there is no problem with a vehicle passing over
the sidewalk and into the street as long as nobody parks on the public sidewalk or within 20' feet of
the corner of the public street.
5. There is an existing fourteen foot (14') wide curb cut at the property that serves Unit #1 of two. The
petitioner is proposing a second driveway, which would exceed the maximum allowable curb cut '
width of twenty feet (20').
6. The petitioner requested a twelve (12') wide driveway to serve Unit #2. With either proposed curbcut
width, the curbcut of the existing and proposed driveways exceed the maximum allowable curb cut
width of twenty feet (20').
7. Since an Appeal of the Building Inspector was upheld in September of 2015, Mr. Ingersoll has
constructed and used a hardscaped space for parking without a curbcut.
• 8. As a result of the construction of the hardscape, the City Tree Warden has notified the Zoning Board
of Appeals that the existing public shade tree has been compromised and would most likely not
survive.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
June 29, 2016
Project:76-78 Endicott Street
• Page 2 of 3
9. The petitioner was notified by the tree warden and Board of Appeals that the petitioner will need to
be heard at a public hearing for the removal of the shade tree and will likely be required to pay for the
removal and replacement as can be enforced under M.G.L. Chapter 87 Public Shade Tree Law.
10. Mr. Ingersoll, stated that he has spoken to the tree warden and will pay to remove the existing shade
tree and purchase four (4) replacement trees to be planted adjacent to 76-78 Endicott Street along
Endicott Street and Hathorne Street depending on the approval and request of the tree warden.
11. The Board requested that Mr. Ingersoll reduce the curbcut to 10' feet rather than the 12' feet
requested and as advertised.
12. The Board expressed discontent with the petitioner's process to request a Variance. The applicant was
notified that a request for a Variance could be sought from the Board, but chose to Appeal the
Decision of the Building Commissioner instead and further constructed a parking area without a
curbcut before requesting a Variance from the Board.
13. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to construct a ten foot (10') wide curb cut
as proposed and exceed the maximum allowable curb cut width at the property.
14. At the public hearing two (2) members of the public spoke in favor of, and none 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 because the property is
a two (2) unit structure, the existing driveway is narrow and there is no place for shared resident
parking. No public parking spaces will be removed as a result of this proposal.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would create a substantial and unique
hardship.
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
(Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Duffy, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Watkins) and none (0) opposed, to grant a
Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.5 Off-Street Parking Design of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow
the petitioner to exceed the maximum allowable curb cut at the property, 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.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
June 29,2016
Project: 76-78 Endicott Street
OPage 3 of 3
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.
Special Conditions:
1. The width of the curbcut shall be ten (10') feet wide.
2. The petitioner shall comply with the decision of the Public Shade Tree Commission.
�R dm--e" (iL J /?
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 filrog 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.
O
�coiwtT
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
9 tMnVEDa� 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSAcxusETrs2f1B7gUN 2q A 8- IS
MmBERLEY DRiscot . 17ELE:978-745-9595 1 FAx:978-740-9846
MAYOR ! E.
CITY C:LI`_i ?4, (;,'•.LENT hi.' �S.
June 29, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of LARISSA LUCAS, seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of
the Salem Zoning Ordinance to structurally change the existing nonconforming structure at the
property of 15 RIVER STREET (Map 26 Lot 606)(R2 Zoning District)
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 15, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 5 11 and
closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr.
Duffy, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos.
The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance to structurally change the existing nonconforming structure.
O Statements of fact:
1. Larissa Lucas, petitioner,presents the petition.
2. In the petition date-stamped May 23, 2016 the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3
Nonconforming Structures to allow the petitioner to structurally change the existing non-conforming
structure.
3. The petitioner proposes to construct an enclosed four (4) feet by five (5) feet structure in the rear
corner to square off the building where there is currently an existing shed of the same dimensions.
4. The expansion will provide for a small kitchen expansion and rear entrance to the house.
5. The property is located in a historic district and the Salem Historical Commission reviewed and
approved the proposed work ruling that the construction was in conformance with the historic
character of the building and neighborhood.
6. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to structurally change the existing non-
conforming structure. *'
7. At the public hearing nine (9) members of the public spoke in favor of, and none 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 29,2016
Project: 15 River Street
OPage 2 of 2
Findings for Special Permit:
The Board finds that the structural change is not substantially more detrimental that the existing
nonconforming structure to the neighborhood.
1. Social, economic and community needs served by the proposal are not affected.
2. Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading will not be affected.
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. Neighborhood character- The proposed addition conforms to the character of the
neighborhood and structure.
6. Potential fiscal impact, including the impact on City tax base and employment 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. Duffy, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed, to grant
a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the petitioner
to change a use from one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use, subject to the following
terms, conditions and safeguards:
OStandard 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. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but
not limited to the Planning Board.
R o" Cu n A,01W l
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 77 of the Massachusetts General Lams 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 77, the Variance or
Special Pemrit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the Cel Clerk has been filed with the Essex South
Registry of Deeds.
5" CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
M; BOARD OF APPEAL
9 9i
�IMtNED4 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 0
Phi Jlfd 29 A 8 I b
KIMEERLEr DRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 + FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR
� Y
_E
June 29, 2016 !I
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of THOMAS PELLETIER, seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance to allow a dwelling unit in a historic carriage house at the property of 138 NORTH STREET
(Map 27 Lot 272)(R2 Zoning District)
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 15, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, � 11 and
closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chau), Mr.
Duffy, Mr. Copelas,Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Watkins.
The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit per Sec. 3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a
dwelling unit in a historic carriage house.
• Statements of fact:
1. Thomas Pelletier, petitioner,presents the petition.
2. In the petition date-stamped May 23, 2016 the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sec. 3.1
Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a dwelling unit in a historic carriage house.
3. The petitioner proposes to covert an existing carriage house to a single family dwelling unit.
4. The existing carriage house is used as a place for storage.
5. There is currently an existing two (2) family dwelling unit on the property,which is an allowable use in
an R2 Zoning District.
6. The petitioner plans to rehabilitate the existing historic carriage house without any dimensional
changes to the structure.
7. There are currently five (5) parking spaces on site, which is more than the required number of parking
spaces for the property.
8. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to convert the existing historic carriage
house into a dwelling unit.
9. At the public hearing one (1) member 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:
City of Salem Board of Appeals
June 29,2016
Project: 138 North Street
• Page 2 of 3
Findings for Special Permit:
The Board finds that the carriage house is a historic structure and the change in use is not
substantially more detrimental that the existing use to the neighborhood.
1. Social, economic and community needs served by the proposal as an additional dwelling unit would
provide housing to the community.
2. Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading is adequate as there are five (5) parking spaces,
which exceed the number of required parking spaces.
3. Adequacy of utilities and other public services will not be negatively impacted.
4. Impacts on the natural environment,including drainage will remain the same.
5. The proposal fits with the character of the neighborhood.
6. Potential fiscal impact,including the impact on City tax base and employment 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. Duffy, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate)) and none (0) opposed, to grant a
Special Permit per 3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a dwelling unit in a historic
carriage house, 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 Occupancy is to be obtained.
7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
8. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display
said number so as to be visible from the street,if needed.
9. 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
June 29,2016
Project: 138 North Street
• Page 3 of 3
Special Condition:
1. The primary structure on the property shall remain a two (2) family dwelling unit.
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=thin 20
days of fihng of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Lams Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or
Special Peemit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed mitb the Essex South
Registry of Deeds.
•
•
cOOff
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
a BOARD OF APPEAL
9 �
iMlruE
- 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHIlAF71'I'S�7Qq A H' 1S
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 0
MAYOR f,i' F ?r
CITY CLERir '
June 29, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of ANNETTE POPP seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1 Table of
Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for minimum depth of front yard and
side yard setbacks to allow two (2) 12' side additions and an enclosed front entry located at 9
LOCUST STREET (Map 28 Lot 14) (R1 Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 15, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 5 11 and
closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr.
Duffy, Mt. Copelas,Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos.
The Petitioner seeks a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 4.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the
Salem Zoning Ordinance for minimum depth of front yard and side yard setbacks to allow two (2') 12' side
additions and an enclosed front entry.
• Statements of fact:
1. Annette Popp,petitioner,presents the petition.
2. In the petition date-stamped May 23, 2016 the Petitioner requested a Variance per Sec. 4.1 Table of
Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for minimum depth of front yard and
side yard setbacks to allow two (2) 12' side additions and an enclosed front entry.
3. The petitioner proposes to construct two (2) 12' side additions and an enclosed front entry. One (1)
of the two (2) proposed side additions is within 8.4' feet of the side yard lot line where ten (10') is
required.
4. The petitioner proposes to also construct an extended enclosed front entryway within 9.6' feet of the
front yard lot line where fifteen (15') feet is required.
5. The property is a single family home located in an R1 zoning district.
6. The petitioner states that one (1) of the additions will be used as a hobby workshop, but not intended
to be used as a business.
7. The petitioner testified that the angle of the buildable area causes a hardship as it is not a 90 degree
angle and therefore one (1) of the additions is within the side yard setback.
8. The petitioner testified that the statement of hardship for the Variance requested for the extended
front entryway is that the house could not be pulled back. The extended front entryway is to provide
more convenience and space,which cannot be addressed any other way.
9. The Board stated that the petitioner could pull back the proposed additions to meet the side yard
setbacks and the personal hardship for the variance requests do not meet the threshold for a variance.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
June 29,2016
Project: 9 Locust Street
• Page 2 of 2
10. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to construct one (1) of two (2) proposed
side additions within 8.4' feet of the side yard lot line and an enclosed front entry within 9.6' feet
where 15' feet is required.
11. At the public hearing no (0) members of the public spoke in favor of, and four (4) members spoke in
opposition to, the petition.
12. The petitioner requested to withdraw the petition without prejudice.
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, and Mr. Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed, to allow
the petitioner to withdraw the application without prejudice.
WITHDRAWN 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 decirion, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachuretti General Laws Chapter 40A, and.rba(1 be filed witbin 20
days of fzk'ng of this decision in the afce of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massacbuseas General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or
Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South
Registry of Deeds.
•
V��cpNotT9�ls�
AlCITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
' BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
KimmkLEYDRIscOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR
MEETING NOTICE
You are hereby notified tbat the Salem Zoning Board ofAppeals will bold its regularly scbeduled meeting on
Wednesday,Jury 20, 2016 at 6:30 p.m. at City HallAnnex, RM 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA
Rebecca Curran, Chair
n i
MEETING AGENDA o
I. ROLL CALL
c
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —
IV
➢ June 15, 2016 =
-r (V
III. REGULAR AGENDA c
_, cn
Continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3
Project Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reconstruct a garage.
S Applicant MATTHEW KEANE
Location 414 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 32 Lot 169) (RI Zoning District)
Project 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 allow a change from one
non-conforming use to another non-conforming use.
Applicant RICHARD JAGOLTA
Location 107 FEDERAL STREET (Map 26 Lot 531)(R2 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional
Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit; Sec. 8.4.13 Transitional Overlay
District of the NRCC to allow less than the required fifty (50') buffer; Sec. 8.2.3.1
Entrance Corridor Overlay District to allow a curb cut that exceeds the maximum curb cut
width. A Special Permit per Sec. 5.1.7 Shared Parking to permit shared parking where
parking usage would not occur simultaneously as determined by the Board.
Applicant HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET LLC
Location 401 BRIDGE STREET & 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 25 Lot 74; Map 15 Lot
205)(NRCC)
• This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. onJUL 12 20%
at 2.4c)?H in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25- I oft
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Agenda for July 20,2016 Meeting
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table
• of Dimensional Requirements from minimum side yard setback and rear yard setback to
allow the installation of a 6'x 6' outdoor refrigerator.
Applicant ROBERT LIANI,JR. (COFFEE TIME BAKE SHOP INC.)
Location 96 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 117) (R2 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Special Permits per Sec. 3.3.3 and 3.3.4
Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend an exterior wall along
the same non-conforming distance within a required yard and extend a non-
conforming structure to allow an addition to Vesuvius restaurant.
Applicant 2 PARADISE ROAD LLC
Location 2 PARADISE ROAD & 539 LORING AVE (Map 21 Lot 231; Map 21 Lot 232)
(B2 Zoning District & Entrance Corridor Overlay)
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table
of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, number of stories
and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Structures to construct a rear
egress.
Applicant RICARDO and ROSE HELEN GARCIA
• Location 24 LEMON STREET (Map 36 Lot 44)(R2 Zoning District)
IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
None
V. ADJOURNMENT
•
Page 2 of 2
� �OAfWT
'y City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board
Date -7 (o
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
car A C-4-
r�
Page of
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday,July 20>2016
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA")was held on Wednesday,April 20,
2016 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts at
6:30 p.m.
Ms. Curran (Chair)calls the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.
ROLL CALL
Those present were: Rebecca Curran(Chair),Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos, and Paul
Viccica (alternate). Those not present were:Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy, and Jim Hacker.
Also in attendance Tom St.Pierre-Building Commissioner,Erin Schaeffer-Staff Planner,and
Colleen Anderson—Recorder.
REGULAR AGENDA
Project Continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per
Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Stmaures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to
reconstruct a garage.
• Applicant MATTHEW KEANE
Location 414 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 32 Lot 169)(R1 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Letter from the Applicant dated May 24,2016
Chair Curran—stated that a letter from the Applicant has been received by the Board
requesting that the Special Permit application be withdrawn without prejudice.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to accept the request to withdrawal
their petition without prejudice. The motion is seconded by Mr.Viccica. The vote
was unanimous with four (4) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy
Tsitsinos, and Paul Viccica in favor and none (0) opposed.
Project Continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per
Sec. 9.4.2 and condition No. 7 of the previously issued decision of the
Board of Appeals.
Applicant RICHARD JAGOLTA
Location 107 FEDERAL STREET (Map 26 Lot 531)(R2 Zoning District)
•
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated May 20,2016 and supporting documentation
Chair Curran—stated that the project was continued from the June 15,2016 meeting to
allow the Board to request a legal opinion from the City Solicitor on whether the non-
conforming use had lapsed. The Board also requested additional information from the
petitioner to delineate on-site parking.
Richard Jagolta, 107 Federal Street,was present to discuss the project. Mr.Jagolta presented
a photograph of the parking spaces for each of the three (3) units showing three (3) existing
tandem parking spaces. There is a single space behind the building on the Beckford Street
side.
Chair Curran—read the ruling from the City Solicitor regarding the issue of the special
pemvt lapsing as a result of the discontinuance of the business for more than 2 years. The
conclusion was no,it did not lapse. The reason for this is that the business was not a pre-
existing non-conforming use because it was allowed by special permit. The suggestion was
that a new special permit under Sec. 9.4 could be issued and in accordance with one of the
conditions of the 2006 Special Permit that stated that any change in use would need to be
granted by the ZBA. The Applicant has asked for modification of the application siting the
requested relief under Sec. 9.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance provided that the new
proposed use is less detrimental that the existing use.
Mr.Jagolta—stated that the structure is a three (3) unit building, both built and presently a •
mixed-use building, since zoning laws went into effect in 1965. One commercial unit is on
the first floor and two residential units are on the second and third floors above. The
commercial use has not been successful and has met with opposition from the neighbors
and resulted in a lawsuit. There are no other commercial units in the Federal Street
neighborhood and converting the first floor unit to a residential use is the most sensible.
The building has fallen into a state of disrepair because of the lack of a use. The proposed
renovation would eliminate the commercial aspects of the unit and restore it to its historical
appropriateness.
Mr. Copelas—asked about the special permit and the ruling stating that there is only one (1)
parking space for this unit. Chair Curran replied that because the spaces are tandem it is
only being considered as one legal space. Mr. St. Pierre confirms this finding—two (2) off
street spaces can be provided but only one (1) legal space. Chair Curran noted that it legally
has less than the required parking, but that is not changing.
Chair Curran opens public comment.
Jane Arlander,93 Federal Street. Concerned that there was no legal advertisement when the
Special Permit was changed. Further,Ms. Arlander asked whether the residential use is
approved can the applicant use the space as an Airbnb. Ms.Arlander stated that she still
does not support an R3 use in the building. Mr.Jagolta reiterated that this building was R3
before the zoning laws went into effect and has every legal right to stay that way. •
• Chair Curran replied that the Attorney noted that because it is still a special permit and was
advertised as much,it could be done by a modification only. Ms. Schaeffer noted that the
Special Permit requested had a higher threshold for the request and under Sec. 9.4 and the
modified request is lower than what Sec. 9.3.3 was originally advertised and didn't need to be
re-advertised. Chair Curran replied that the ZBA's only concern is the use of the building
and not the length of tenancy.
Meg Twohey, 122 Federal Street. Restated her opposition to this project wants to keep the
neighborhood R2.
Joyce Wallace, 172 Federal Street. Would like the neighborhood to remain R2 and parking is
rare in this area.
Robert Kendall,95 Federal Street. In support of this project.
Connie Arlander, 91 Federal Street. In opposition of this project and questioned whether
the Beckford Street parking space was sold with this unit. Mr.Jagolta replied yes. Ms.
Arlander also questions the location of a buffer zone to place snow in the winter to keep the
tandem parking.
Rob Leani,96 Bridge Street. In support of this project. Keeping an empty commercial
space would be foolish.
• No one else in the public assembly wishes to speak.
Chair Curran closer public comment.
Chair Curran—stated that there are three existing units in this building and a resident above
cannot be compelled to purchase the lower unit. The Boards concern is the use of that first
floor space. Snow removal, etc. is typically discussed with a new development not an
existing building. The facade improvements are desirable and the character of the building
will be retained.
Mr. Viccica—stated that in terms of traffic flow and safety,residential use will less
detrimental than a commercial use,and a residential use will be much more stable use to for
the neighborhood. The character will not be changed, there will be some historic restoration
to the facade,and no additional square footage will be added. The current vacancy may not
be contributing fiscally to the City. Mr. Tsitsinos agrees.
Motion and Vote: Mr.Viccica makes a motion to grant the petition for a Special
Permit per Sec. 9.4.2, alter condition No. 7 of the previously issued decision of the
Board of Appeals, and any change in future use shall be require a new Special Permit
per Sec. 9.4.2. The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous
with four(4) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos, and Paul
Viccica in favor and none (0) opposed.
•
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of •
Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit; Sec. 8.4.13
Transitional Overlay District of the NRCC to allow less than the required fifty
(50') buffer; Sec. 8.2.3.1 Entrance Corridor Overlay District to allow a curb cut
that exceeds the maximum curb cut width. A Special Permit per Sec. 5.1.7
Share Parking to permit shared parking where parking usage would not
occur simultaneously as directed by the Board.
Applicant HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET LLC.
Location 401 BRIDGE STREET & 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 25 Lot 74;
Map 15 Lot 205)(NRCC)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated June 28, 2016 and supporting documentation
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, representing High Rock Bridge Street LLC.
Arty. Correnti introduced David Sweetser,principal of High Rock Development,LLC.
Attorney Correnti stated that this project started in 2009 and first came before the ZBA in
2010. In 2010, the petitioner proposed a single building with a first floor condominium unit
to serve as the Community Life Center (CLC).
The proposal is now for two (2) buildings on the site.The first building on the corner of •
Boston and Bridge Street is a mixed use residential building with first floor commercial space
and residential units above. The second building along Bridge Street is a separate stand-alone
building for the CLC.
The petitioner has had the plan reviewed by the Planning Board for about a year. This plan
has been to the Planning Board and Design Review Board. This lot is located within the
NRCC district and within a Transitional Overlay District. The plan before the Zoning
Board of Appeals has received unanimous votes by the Planning Board and Design Review
Board. Two curb cuts are on site,one on Boston Street and one on Bridge Street,both are
as far away from the Boston and Bridge Street intersections as possible. The project has
been before the Conservation Commission mice, most recently to approve an amended the
previously approved plan,which was approved unanimously. This project has also been
peer reviewed by the City for Civil Engineering,drainage,and traffic. Three variances and
one special permit are currently being requested;
1. Variance for curb cut at Boston Street—The petitioner is proposing two (2) curb
cuts on the site,including one on Boston Street and one on Bridge Street.These
curb cuts are similar locations of the previously approved project. The locations
of the curb cuts are as far away from each other as possible.The ordinance states
that for a residential use,which is the primary use of the first building on the
corner of Boston and Bridge Street,one curb cut cannot to exceed twenty-four
(24') feet.Twenty-four (24') feet is not big enough for this site. The City's peer
reviewer requested that the petitioner create a right-in and right-out only
entrance along Boston Street via a central island to direct traffic flow in this way. •
• Further,the expanded curb cut on Boston Street was requested by the Fire
Department for easy access into and out of the site. For these reasons, the
petitioner is requesting a curb cut of approximately 49 feet along Boston Street.
2. Variance for Buffer Zone—The Transitional Overlay District of the NRCC
requires a 50' foot buffer zone to transition from a residential neighborhood to
the core of the NRCC. The property abuts the Federal Street properties. The
applicant demonstrates where the 50' buffer line is located. All of the
landscaping,proposed pedestrian pathway and 83 parking spaces would be lost if
the Board literally enforced the 50' foot buffer zone. The topography on the site
is such that there is an existing14' foot wall that separates this site from a
P
portion of Federal Street by the church. Because of the way that this site is
shaped and because the NRCC ordinance also requires buildings to be placed on
the street edges with parking at the rear of the buildings, this is the only practical
layouts that can actually work. To lose 83 parking spaces would be prohibitive to
developing this site.
3. Variance for minimum lot area per dwelling unit—The NRCC ordinance requires
3,500 SF of land area per dwelling unit. This site has 117 dwelling units in this
four (4) story building. According to zoning requirements only 64 units would be
allowed by right. The Planning Board and NRCC approved a special permit to
allow a density bonus of twelve units (12),making 76 units as of right allowed for
this site.
• 4. Special Permit: Shared Parking—The Salem Zoning ordinance allows shared
parking by special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals if the Board
determines that usage of parking would not occur simultaneously. In the NRCC,
the parking requirements are two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit much to
the dismay of the Planning Board. The petitioner has reduced the number of
parking spaces from 375 (approved in 2010) to 275 parking spaces and more
greenspace. One of the concerns of the Planning Board was to make the site
more accessible to pedestrians. In response, a walkway was added through the
landscaped area to allow people to walk into the site from Boston Street.
•
USE WEEKDAY WEEKEND •
Night Day Evening Day Evening
Midnight to 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m.to Midnight 6:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m.to Midnight
Residential 100% 60% 90% 80% 90%
Office/industrial 5% 100% 109, 10% 5% _
Commerical
retail 5% 80% 90% 100% 70%
Hotel 70% 70% 100% 70% 100%
Restaurant 10% 50% 100% 50% 100%
Restaurant
associated with
hotel 10% 50% 60% 509/0 60%
Entertainment/
recreation
(theaters,
bowling alleys,
cocktail lounge
and similar) 10% 40% 100% 80% 100%
Day-care
facilities 5% low. 10% 20% 5%
All other 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
1 Metropolitan Area Planning Council,Shared Parking,Last Updated February 8,2010,http://www.mapc.org/resources/parking-
toolkit/strategies-topic/shared-parking/examples-offstreetparki ng#waltham-sharedparking
Parking Demands:
Residential •
Hours Soaces Required
Overnight peak 11PM to 7AM 2 for each dwelling unit = 234
Off-peak 7AM to 5PM 60% of peak total = 140
Evening peak 5PM to 11PM
Commercial/Retail
Overnight off-peak 11PM to 7AM 5% = 3
Daytime Peak 7AM to 5PM 100% = 27
CLC Building
(No category far municipal buildings therefore it is counted as `other"and 100%of the spaces
are required for `other':) The ordinance states 1 space for every 2 employees is
required (14 spaces) plus whatever the ZBA determines. The Council on Aging
requested 16 spaces plus 12 spaces for seasonal workers.
Overnight off-peak 11PM to 7AM 100% = 28
Daytime Peak 7AM to 5PM 100% = 75
Overnight shared parking Space totals:
234 (residences)
3 (4,000 SF of commercial/retail space)
+ 28 (CLC employees) •
• 265 (required overnight parking)
275 (total spaces provided)
Daytime shared parking space totals:
140 (residences)
27 (commercial/retail space)
+ 28 (CLC employees)
195 (spaces occupied — 80 remaining spaces for CLC visitors)
Ms. Schaeffer noted that a memo charting the CLC parking requirements and standard
shared parking schedule accepted by MAPC and the Commonwealth has been provided to
the Board members.
Attorney Correnti demonstrates that the usage of parking for each use on this site would not
occur simultaneously.
Chair Curran—asked about the enforcement of the shared parking and if the units were
rentals or condominiums. Attorney Correnti replied that parking spaces will not be assigned.
The residential units will be for sale as condominiums. Approval of the shared parking
special permit will allow a guarantee of one (1) parking space per dwelling unit.
Chair Curran—asked about the number of bedrooms per unit.
• Chris Semmelink of TAT,replied there is a mixture of 1,2,&3 bedroom units.
Attorney Correnti noted that twelve (12) units will be affordable housing.
Chair Curran—stated that at their last presentation they stated that the increase in the cost
was due to the remediation,asked if a Ch. 91 was needed,and asked if certain construction
standards needed to be met because of the underlying site.
Attorney Correnti -After 7 years most of that remediation has been completed to allow
residential use on the site. The soils and fill tides lands require specialized building
techniques.The remediation of the site and building techniques required to build on this
filled tideland site are extremely expensive.
Mr. Copelas—asked about two of the Variance requests regarding the minimum lot area and
the buffer zone. This zone is driven by the required parking spaces,which is driven by the
number of units,and the minimum lot area is also driven by the number of units.
The proposal states that the site would be unfeasible to develop given the brownfield costs,
and development costs related to the specialized construction required for this property.
Mr. Copelas- Petitioners in the past have sometimes been asked to provide the justification,
in the form of a pro forma to prove financial hardship and in this case to prove the need for
117 units to make this an economically feasible site. Why would that not be required in this
case?
Ms. Schaeffer noted that there is no standard for reviewing a pro forma and determining •
how much of a revenue margin is appropriate. When a pro forma is reviewed it is
considered in relation to other aspects of the project.
Chair Curran confirmed and noted that when reviewing a pro forma it's usually the purchase
price that drives the project. In this case it is the increased cost per square foot due to the
brownfield remediation costs.
Attorney Correnti—stated that he understands the concerns regarding how to judge this
project. The density and if its fits when compared to the costs. The CLC used to be a
condominium on the first floor and it is now a free standing building being constructed for
the same price. Costs are increasing and when looking at the land value and all that is
required;buffer zone, Ch. 91, historic tidelands. The structure that could be built without
relief makes this project a non-starter. Pro formas are not run on buildings that will not be
built. A memo from the former Planner,Lynn Duncan,is in the packet that talks about the
proposed density and her thoughts on how it fits.
Ms. Schaeffer—Requested information on how specific and unique conditions of the land
require construction that is more expensive when compared to other sites.
Ms. Schaeffer—reads a letter from Lynn Duncan, Salem's former Planning and Community
Development Director, dated June 29,2016.
Ms. Duncan letter stated that she is in support of the petitioner's requests for variances and •
a special permit for shared parking. Ms. Duncan stated that at approx. 23 units per acre this
project would be considered a medium density development and is comparable to other
projects in the NRCC that have been approved by the ZBA;28 Goodhue Street—the ZBA
granted 24 units per acre,Riverview Place—the ZBA granted 31 units per acre,& the Grove
Street Apartments—the ZBA granted 18 units per acre.
In addition, the Planning Board and NRCC granted a 12 unit affordable unit bonus to this
site,which is a goal of the NRCC neighborhood plan. This reduced the extent of the
Variance requests to provide 10% affordable units. The Planning Board reviewed and is
satisfied with the proposed plans.
Chair Curran opens public comment.
Amy Rabish, 176 Federal Street. If the buffer zone is not 50'what is the buffer distance?
William Bergeron stated that the buffer zone is 29.9' at its widest and 13.5' at its narrowest.
Parking for the previous Sylvania site was on the lot line. Chair Curran asked will happen at
the retaining wall. Mr. Bergeron replied that there is a 12'-14' elevation change between the
rear of the Federal Street properties and this site. Larger vegetation or trees and their roots
will affect the stability of the wall so only grass will be placed on top of it. Mr. Semmelink
noted that at the bottom of the wall there will be some plantings and some drainage.
Chair Curran asked if a fence will be placed there.
• Mr. Bergeron replied that a 6' high solid fence along the rear of the entire property could be
constructed.
Ken Wallace, 172 Federal Street. The neighborhood requested an 8' high fence.
Attorney Correnti replied that in the NRCC Transitional Overlay District a fence over 6'
high requires Planning Board approval,not ZBA. A single fence will be installed that
complies with the Planning Board decision.
Ms. Schaeffer noted that the Planning Board considered the fence to be a special permit and
the fence height may be increased to 10'with their approval.
Jane Arlander,93 Federal Street. If parking is going to be shared why can't it be reduced and
additional buffer space be added? Will snow be stored along that tear wall?
Attorney Correnti replied that snow storage areas will be on site and some of the parking
spaces will be used during light snow. Heavy snows will be trucked off site. Parking has
already been reduced by almost 90 spaces with greenspace added and a layout driven by
Planning Board and neighborhood comments.
Mr. Viccica—stated that the Overlay District requires 2 parking spots for residents and
elsewhere in Salem in held to 1 '/z spots. ZBA is being asked to determine the shared
parking amount for the CLC. Arty. Correnti reviewed the parking requirements again and
• reiterated that the ZBA determines the CLC shared parking requirements. A Variance is not
being requested for zoning because they wouldn't know which use to ask for relief on. The
Board could determine that there are not enough spaces or that a Special Permit for shared
parking will work as shown.
Meg Twohey, 122 Federal Street. The neighborhood was favor of the two prior plans for
the project, density is a great concern, questions why an elevation of the large residential
building has not been shown to give the Board a sense of the buildings scale. The density is
two times what is allowed by the ordinance,it was lowered from 5 stories to 4 but the
number of units remains the same,how many 1,2,& 3 bedroom units are there? Supports
Mr. Copelas'question regarding the number of units and Jane Arlanders' comments
regarding more landscaping and a larger buffer zone.
Ms. Birdie, 3 Lyons Lane. In favor of this project and the CLC building is needed and can't
come soon enough.
Allison Thibodaux, 64 Broad Street. Salem has changed in the 40 years she has lived here,
they have worked hard to accommodate everyone requests. The free standing building is
nice,it is time for this project to move forward.
Emily Udy,8 Buffum Street. Ms. Udy is speaking on behalf of Historic Salem. Historic
Salem has been a part of the North River Corridor process and has often been discouraged
by the increased density project that have been proposed and allowed in the Corridor.
Requests that the Board investigate the Pro Forma for hardship rather than taking the
• applicants word.
No one else in the assembly wishes to speak. •
Chair Curran closes public comment.
Mr. Viccica—asked about the hours of operation for the CLC. Meredith McDonald,
Director at Salem Council on Aging,replies that their hours of operation will continue. Peak
hours are between 8AM and 5PM, once a month there may be an evening event from 4PM
to 7PM, and seniors are on their way home by 6:15PM. Spaces will be freeing up as
residents return home,with a potential overlap. If anything, daytime activities will be
maximized.
Mr. Viccica—asked about the possibility for renting out the spaces within the building for
after-hours use or weekends. Ms. McDonald replied that that does not occur with their
present building and the same rules by which they operate carry over to this new building. If
applicants request to rent space,who they are and the size of their group is reviewed,and
many are well established group within the city, and use a small classroom size space for 6-10
people and they are out of the building by 7PM.
Mr. Viccica—asked if there was a large dining room available for rent. Ms. McDonald
replied that they have a main dining room in their currents space used for pizza parties and
dances, and that programming would continue.
Architect Harry Gundersen of 20 Central Street, noted that the Great Room in the new •
building is approximately 3,000 SF.
Attorney Correnti noted that that possibility was well vetted by the Planning Board and City
has plans to do occasional evening and weekend events. The traffic engineer and peer
reviewer determined that it is not appropriate to lay out sites based on special events, but
rather to plan for the normal use of the property.
Mr. Viccica asked if they rent primarily to seniors and senior events,or if they would rent the
space for a wedding reception. Ms. McDonald replied that the spaces are rented for a Board
or small neighborhood meeting where the dining room is not being used. They've never had
a request for a wedding reception.
Attorney Correnti noted that something like that is planned the City will need to make
arrangements with other facilities,to use the neighboring church parking lot, shuttle people
to the building, etc.
Mr. Copelas - noted that the Community Life Center(CLC)was envisioned to be of use to
more than just seniors,have programs been developed to attract people of all ages?
Ms. McDonald replied that additional programs have not been created but they have always
shared their space and programs are organized for when various groups are available; seniors
—morning and afternoon, families—late afternoon to evening,when children are home from
school and parents are home work. There has never been a problem with overlap.
Mr. Copelas noted that peak hours are around 5PM. •
• Attorney Correnti replied that demand exceeds the available parking that could dead to
people to not rent the spaces.
Ms. Schaeffer noted that this being a municipal building there is flexibility in the programing
and rental hours. This is mostly about the daily use of the building and the City will need to
experiment with the scheduling.
Mr. Viccica added that the City will be responsible to the neighborhood for what they allow
to happen in this building.
Attorney Correnti stated that Salem hired Elaine Bellow,a Senior Center Consultant who is
in the top the field of designing Senior Centers. The plan before the Board reflects years of
consideration of impacts and needs of programming the Community Life Center.
Chair Curran— 1) Speaks in support of the shared parking special permit. The literal
enforcement of two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit would result in a sea of asphalt and
be too much for this site. If there were less parking,which is advantageous generally, there
would not be enough parking. Shared parking and will work well for this site. This is also a
special permit request therefore no hardship is required with the request for shared parking.
2) As for the Variance request for a curb cut, signage is sometimes not enough to direct
traffic in and out by a right turns only. The proposed geometry will force traffic to flow on
and off of the site by right turns only. In order to provide this geometry, the curb cut needs
• to physically be larger than twenty-four(24') feet.
Attorney Correnti-wants to make sure the Boards questions regarding hardship have been
answered. Bill Bergeron, Site Engineer of Hayes Engineering,is present to discuss the issues
with the site and soils. Mr. Burgeron stated that the soils on site are not conducive and geo
piles will be required under the structures. One of the consequences between then and now
is that the flood plains have been re-evaluated and risen, and the building code has increased
the sea level has elevated the entire site 2 to 2 '/z feet. That additional material needs to be
placed on site which increases construction cost significantly. Planning Board and resident
meetings determined that the parking lot grades also needed to be raised to eliminate parked
car being flooded. Linking the CLC to the higher ground on Boston Street was also
necessary to get people to safety at times of flooding and eliminate higher waters from
flooding adjacent properties. During a severe storm event the site has been designed to keep
all of the flooding to the corridor and not on the site and Boston Street will be the way in
and out of the site. The CLC building is completely within the Ch. 91 area so the geo piles
at that building will be significantly longer. The heightened site elevation and geo piles will
significantly increase the project cost and justify the number of dwelling units.
Chair Curran—asked how close the building at its closest point to the nearest residence and
the height of the building. Mr. Burgeron replied 103.6 feet. Mr. Semmelink replied that the
four (4) story building is under 50 foot zoning height requirements.
Chair Curran states -Residents have been concerned with the proposed height,but at this
distance it won't seem as high, and a building similar to the height of Walgreens across the
•
street would be more detrimental as the height,massing and location does not add to the •
streetscape.
Chair Curran asked for the CLC building height. Mr. Gundersen replied that the 2 story
portion is less than 30 feet and the 1 story portion is 18 feet.
Mr. Copelas—Understands that the Planning Board has gone through lots of effort to
review the project, but the Zoning Board looks at other aspects of the project. Mr. Copelas
appreciates Lynn Duncan's letter where she talks about past variances that were approved by
the Board for increased density in the NRCC. However, Mr. Copelas states that he was not
on the ZBA when those projects were approved and does not know what was required to
allow those density amounts. The fact that the previous design was five (5) story structure
reduced to a four (4) story structure is not relevant. To approve a Variance for minimum lot
area per dwelling unit requires the Board to see a need for 117 dwelling units. The petitioner
is presenting an economic hardship. Mr. Copelas states that the petitioner is presenting an
economic hardship without substantial evidence and the Board is taking their word. How
does the Board deal with weighing an economic hardship in the future?
Mr.Viccica—states that his understanding of the kinds of remediation that is required to
develop the site in any manor is a pretty egregious amount of dollars to build here. On a case
by case basis, for the City and urban planning being developed,Mr. Viccica expresses
support and understanding for the increase density requested. Mr.Viccica states that the
Boards decisions should be based on a case by case basis. Mr. Copelas understands that the
Board is accepting an economic argument because of the specific problems with the land •
and the amount of money being spent.
Mr. Copelas-I am no denying that this investment is not an expensive project. There is no
question. This is part of the reason why we are willing to accept the financial hardship
argument for the minimum lot area per dwelling unit request. There are specific and unique
circumstances with the land that requires a significant level of investment. But again, I don't
know if this is a $5 million dollar project, $20 million dollar project... I know that it is not
our job to evaluate the finances of the project. But if the ZBA is asked to approve 117
dwelling units on this property because that is required to make the numbers work... I am
having a difficult time.
Ms. Schaeffer—To Mr. Copelas. Are you comparing this project to the case of the Ward 2
Social Club?
Mr. Copelas-Yes.
Ms. Schaeffer- In that case,the Board requested a pro forma because the density requested
was directly related to a claim of financial hardship incurred by the applicant in relation to
the time required to go through the Chapter 91 process,but not related to soil, topography
or other special conditions of the site. There were also other issues of the proposed scale of
the buildings in relation to fitting with the neighborhood character as well. In this case there
is a significant amount of investment needed that is directly to the topography and soil
conditions.
• Attorney Correnti replied that the economic argument is part of the overall argument for
hardship,what drives the higher costs is the NRCC's unique requirements and respectfully
suggests that this project be compare to something similar and not to a project across town
in a different zone, although variances are the same throughout the City.
Attorney Correnti states that this site is unique to this district and the only site in the NRCC,
TOD,Overlay District, and Ch. 91. Ms. Duncan's letter mentioned several similar projects
of similar densities, that have been approve although only one has been built. Does is fit
should be the argument and that's the case they are trying to make. If it fits should be based
on if it has parking,drive aisles,landscaping,pedestrian access,etc. The number of units is
what fits within this layout and was not a pre-selected number, originally there were more
units. The inclusion of the CLC is not a given and the cost of this project is rising every day,
regulations are changing, sea levels are rising,new FEMA maps are being implemented, and
each one of those has an impact on this site.
Chair Curran—understands the hardship requests and the Board benefited from knowing
that the Site Plan Review went fust because the ZBA now knows what has been approved
and lessens the neighborhood impact. A story taken off of the structure to reduce the
number of units would not make this proposal a better project.
Mr. Copelas replied that the comprehensive issues stated by their Council gave him a better
understanding of their hardship concerns.
• Mr. Viccica—stated that the curb cut is logical and makes the most sense,as safety is a
concern. The buffer zone is fine although there he has an issue with the house on Federal
Street that's closest to the site,hopefully the proposed buffer zone will be sufficient for
them. 10 feet is high for a fence behind the Federal Street residents but if it's want they
want he is OK with it. Parking is good, as is the layout. The less parking the better, but
does not want to circumvent the possibility that some residents may need two (2) parking
spaces,but there was sufficient information to determine that demand for each use will not
occur simultaneously and that there is sufficient parking to where there will not be a
clashing of need. Understands that there is a hardship related to the density and is in
support of the request.
Motion and Vote: Mr.Viccica makes a motion to grant the petition of High Rock
Bridge Street, LLC seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional
Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit; Sec. 8.4.13 Transitional Overlay
District of the NRCC to allow less than the required fifty (50') buffer; Sec. 8.2.3.1
Entrance Corridor Overlay District to allow a curb cut that exceeds the maximum
curb cut width. A Special Permit per Sec. 5.1.7 Share Parking to permit shared
parking where parking usage would not occur simultaneously as directed by the
Board. The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with four
(4) (Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos, and Paul Viccica 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 side yard setback
and rear yard setback to allow the installation of a 6'x6' outdoor
refrigerator.
Applicant ROBERT LIANI,JR (COFFEE TIME BAKE SHOP INC.)
Location 96 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 117)(R2 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated June 15,2016 and supporting documentation
Attorney William Quinn of Tinti Quinn Grover&Frey,representing the Owner. This is a
legal non-confornung use in an R2 District that pre-existed zoning in Salem. Maintaining his
successful business and additional storage is needed. The lot is on the corner of Bridge and
Pearl Streets, and has 2 fronts. Gail Smith of North Shore Survey consulted with Mr. St.
Pierre on that issue the Applicant has followed Mr. St. Pierre's recommendation in terms of
rear and side setbacks. Two rear setbacks are present where the employees and deliveries
take place at the side door next to the proposed refrigerator unit. Their existing freezer is on
the plan and a proposed refrigerator will be placed next to it, near the service door. The
dimension to the proposed refrigerator is 7.4 feet and 12' to the other corner of the rear lot •
line. The original rear setback was 29 feet from the outside corner of the existing freezer to
the rear lot line. The structure will be subject to all health codes and regulations. A literal
enforcement of the rear lot fines due to two comers, the rear lot lines, the shape of the lot,
the size of the building, and the location of the building on the site, all create a hardship for
keeping their products refrigerated. There is no other place to put it and the remainder of
the site is parking or access to the parking.
Chair Curran—asked if there is a door to access the refrigerator from the building and if this
is an addition. Arty. Quinn replied that it is free standing and access is from the outside only,
but it is considered a structure because it is an enclosed space.
Chair Curran asked if it makes noise. Arty. Quinn replied that is does have a compressor
that is small in comparison to the larger ones already on the roof of the building and some
decibels will be added to the site. Mr. Viccica asked if this refrigerator will be pre-
constructed and if sound dampening to reduce the decibels because an increase in decibels
will increase the noise levels bouncing off of the building. Mr. Liani,Jr. replied that he is
unaware if it does,is should make less noise than the others,but if it does not have a sound
package he is willing to erect screening around it. Mr. Tsitsinos noted that he has experience
with these units and they make hardly any noise at all. Mr. St. Pierre noted that the Health
Department has a standard for a certain number of decibels above a specific ambient noise
level,which is already significant on Bridge Street. The Department will take a reading
during a reasonable time with the new unit running and if it exceeds their pre-determined
limit then the Owner will need to address it.
•
Chair Curran opens public comment.
No one in the assembly wishes to speak.
Chair Curran closes public comment.
Motion and Vote: Mr.Viccica makes a motion to approve the Variances requesting
relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements from minimum side yard
setback and rear yard setback to allow the installation of a 6'x6' outdoor refrigerator.
The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with four (4)
(Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos, and Paul Viccica in
favor and none (0) opposed.
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permits per Sec. 3.3.3 and
3.3.4 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend an
exterior wall along the same non-conforming distances within a required
yard and extend a non-conforming structure to allow an addition to
Vesuvius restaurant.
Applicant 2 PARADISE ROAD LLC
Location 2 PARADISE ROAD & 539 LORING AVE (Map 21 Lot 231; Map 21
Lot 232) (112 Zoning District & Entrance Corridor Overlay)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated June 28, 2016 and supporting documentation
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, representing 2 Paradise Road LLC. Mr. Bart
Freddo is one of the proprietors of Vesuvius,and Bob Griffin the Civil Site Engineer. Arty.
Correnti states that this is the former KFC building at the intersection of Loring Ave. and
Paradise Road when headed towards Vinnin Square. The owners are seeking Special Permits
to construct a building expansion to locate a complimentary food service business on the
first floor and office space on the second floor of the addition.
Mr. Griffin stated that the existing lot at 2 Paradise Road is nonconforming with 10,000 SF
of lot area,where 12,000 SF of lot area is required. Merging the two sites creates an
approximate 18,000 SF area lot. The neighboring single family house will be torn down and
the addition will be added next to the existing Vesuvius restaurant and the front fine will be
extended South-West along Paradise Road, to construct approximately 4,000 SF of floor
. space in a two story building. An entrance with a stair to the second floor will be placed
within the addition. This project has not been before the Planning Board has not conducted •
Site Plan Review,but the rear lawn area can potentially be used for outdoor seating. In
terms of parking, 31 parking spaces will be provided where approximately 22 is required.
Atty. Correnti stated that the combination of 2 lots will merge and become a single
ownership. An existing single story dwelling exists on the rear lot has been declared
uninhabitable by the Board of Health. Mr. Freddo has cleaning out the home but the plan is
to demolish the home,which has existed for decades but is zoned business B2. The first
floor restaurant will serve breakfast and desserts,not a full service breakfast. For the rest of
the day it will be an ice cream shop with smoothies and candy.
Chair Curran—stated that there will be no new nonconfornuties and asked why the
proposed structure was not being pushed back away from the street. Mr. Griffin replied
keeping the same line makes the property more efficient and will provide space for outdoor
seating in the rear. It will also allow the structure to extend to the new building.
Mr. Copelas—noted that there is no connection between the two buildings and traffic will
not flow between them. Mr. Copelas asked if they will be two separate businesses. Arty.
Correnti replied yes, they will have the same owner but will be run separately. The rear of
Vesuvius is the kitchen so customers will not be able to walk through the building to the
neighboring building. The extension of the front line at the same distance off of Loring
Avenue,a Special Permit is required, to extend a nonconforming wall. Pushing the new wall
further away from the street would require a Variance. •
Mr. St. Pierre noted that he spoke with Councilor Sargent regarding this project who had no
problem with the project.
Mr.Viccica—asked if there would be any rooftop equipment. Mr. Freddo replied that
muffins will be baked so a small vent will be necessary and compressors to keep the ice
cream cold,but the specifics haven't been determined.
Chair Curran—asked if this project would be going before the Planning Board and Design
Review. Arty. Correnti replied yes for the Planning Board but not DRB. Windows are not
being added to the existing building,you are just adding on to the existing building. Arty.
Correnti replies yes.
Chair Curran opens public comment.
No one in the assembly wishes to speak.
Chair Curran closes public comment.
Ms. Schaeffer noted that Councilor Dibble stated that he wanted to see more landscaping,
particularly along Paradise Road and the Planning Board will landscaping—trees, planting
beds,etc. as part of their Site Plan Review and because the site is in the Overlay District. •
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the petition for the Special
Permits per Sec. 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance to extend an exterior wall along the same non-conforming distances within
a required yard and extend a non-conforming structure to allow an addition to
Vesuvius restaurant in a B2 and Entrance Corridor Overlay District, as well as the
demolition of an existing structure and the demolition required to add on the existing
building. The motion is seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with
four (4) (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos, and Paul Viccica
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 per
dwelling unit,number of stories,and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5
Nonconforming Structures to a rear egress.
Applicant RICARDO and ROSE HELEN GARCIA
Location 24 LEMON STREET (Map 36 Lot 44) (112 Zoning District)
• Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated June 27, 2016 and supporting documentation
Attorney Louis Izzi of Bell and Izzi,presented on behalf of the owner. Arty. Izzi withdrew
their previously proposed plan and has presented a new more comprehensive plan. The
single family residence will be rehabilitated and constructed as a two family as a matter of
right. The lot is uniquely shaped as shown on the Plot Plan provided and proposal is to
create a second means of egress off the rear of the house and install two dormers at the front
of the second story. A relief to for the minimum lot area required per dwelling unit is being
requested as is a relief for the dormers because they are considered a '/2 story addition
although they are not adding to the overall height of the building. The second means of
egress will end at an existing rear deck but because it is an existing non-conforming structure
a Special Permit is required with respect to the alteration. 3 parking spaces are being
provided on pervious material so that no drainage issues will be created. The rehabilitation
of this building and addition of a second unit is in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood and will not be a detriment.
Chair Curran—stated if this was an existing single family house that is not going outside the
existing footprint, and parking is not as issue, but asked if the deck was being expanded.
Arty. Izzi replied no, there is not deck expansion,but there is a proposal for a second means
. of egress.
Chair Curran—noted that at their previous presentation the Board requested clarification on
the hardship and curb cut wasn't clear on the Plot Plan. Atty. Izzi replied that the curb cut
permit is in the package submitted.
Chair Curran—asked if the attic was habitable. Mr. Garcia replied barely but it will be
converted to living space.
Mr. Copelas —stated that the petition states that the Special Permit is for the construction of
the stairway and the dormers. The memo sent to the Board implies that the dormers trigger
a Variance,can this be clarified. Mr. St. Pierre replied that the Variance is required for the
number of stories. Mr. Copelas noted that there is no hardship requiring dormers. Atty. Izzi
noted that in order to convert the third floor additional head height for a comfortable living
space is needed. Mr. Copelas noted that the first floor is one unit and the second and third
floors are for the second unit. The second unit can utilize the second floor without needing
more headroom.
Mr. St. Pierre noted that Sec. 3.3.5 makes an exception for 1 & 2 families. Arty. Izzi requests
that the dormer request be a Special Permit rather than a Variance because there is an
exception in the ordinance for existing non-conforming structures. Mr. St. Pierre noted that
the applicant advertised for more than what they need so they are covered in that respect.
Chair Curran—introduced a letter from Jennifer Merger of 27 Lemon Street,in opposition •
of the project,because of the impact on parking, owner may need to encroach on
neighboring City property to provide their proposed parking, that zoning law states that
Variances must be used sparingly, an argument can be made that the best use of this
structure is a single family.
Chair Curran—introduced a letter from Flora Tonthat, the Board granting a Variance
request will set a president for splitting 1 & 2 families, single family will encourage families to
move and discourage absentee landlords and developers.
Chair Curran—stated that the project meets the parking requirements and number,and there
is no encroachment on City land and 2 families are an allowed use.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the Variances requesting
relief from Sec.4.1.1 Table ofDimensiona/Requirements from minimum lot area per
dwelling unit and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Structures to a rear
egress, and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 for the number of stories. The motion is
seconded by Mr.Viccica. The vote was unanimous with four(4) (Rebecca Curran
(Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos, and Paul Viccica in favor and none (0)
opposed.
OLD/NEW_BUSINESS •
NONE
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
June 15,2016 meeting minutes were approved as written,with one notation by Chair Curran
to add either"No one / no one else in the assembly wishes to speak." prior to the closing of
the public comment portion of each petition.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the minutes amended per
Chair Curran' request. Seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous in
favor and none (0) opposed.
O I NEW BUSINESS
N/A
ADJOURNMENT _
Mr. Copelas motions for adjournment of the July 20,2016 regular meeting of the Salem
Board of Appeals.
• Motion and Vote: Mr. Tsitsinos made a motion to adjourn the July 20,2016 regular
meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos, and the vote is
unanimous in favor and none (0) opposed.
The meeting ends at 9:30 PM.
For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes,
copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at.
hyp://salem.com/PaZes/SalemMA Zonin AApyealsMin/
Respectfully submitted,
Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
•
�cuT�?os, CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APWADO A 8° 4u
720 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM.
TF=:978-679-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
lQmBERLEY DRlscou.
MAYOR
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET
LLC seeking Variances per Sec. 4.LI Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per
dwelling unit; Sec. 8.4.13 Transitional Overlay District of the NRCC to allow less than the required fifty
(50') buffer; Sec. 8.2.3.1 Entrance Corridor Overlay District to allow a curb cut that exceeds the
maximum curb cut width. A Special Permit per Sec. 5.1.7 Shared Parking to permit shared parking
where parking usage would not occur simultaneously as determined by the Board. The proposal is for the
property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET & 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 25 Lot 74; Map 15 Lot 305)
(NRCC).
Said hearing will be held on WED, July 20, 2016 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM
313.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 7/6/2016 & 7/13/2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall. Salem, Mass. on -X" ] 00 :;Pa/k,
at 8)yy4,. in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
71116 JUN In A 8: 4U
120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MnssacHusaTF�7970
TEL&:978-619-5685 ♦FAx: 0.0
KIMBERLEYDiuscocc
MAYOR
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of ROBERT LIANI, JR. (COFFEE
TIME BAKE SHOP INC.) seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional
Requirements from minimum side yard setback and rear yard setback to allow the installation of a 6' x 6'
outdoor refrigerator at the property of 96 BRIDGE STREET(Map 36 Lot 117) (R2 Zoning District).
Said hearing will be held on WED, July 20, 2016 at 6:30 p.m., 3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM
313.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 7/6/2016 & 7/13/2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Nail, Salem, mass. on 3Le 3 , � vws,
at Q'; L14m in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
•
i
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
0 ZI )fllh JUN 0 A 81 44
�QJ)r
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 I
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦FAX:978-740`ff4t CL Y ry
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of RICARDO and ROSE HELEN
GARCIA seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from
minimum lot area per dwelling unit, number of stories and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming
Structures to construct a rear egress at 24 LEMON STREET(Map 36 Lot 44)(R2)
Said hearing will be held on WED, July 20, 2016 at 6:30 p.m., P floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM
• 313.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 7/6/2016 & 7/13/2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City tia!i, Salem, Mass. on rnk bvl dslLp
at 8 t Hq G M in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
•
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OFAPPENN 30
120 WASHINGTON STREET# SALEM,MASSA& 4TTt01?7-0 .,. i
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
KIMBERLEY DRIScOLL
MAYOR
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of 2 PARADISE ROAD LLC seeking
Special Permits per Sec. 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to
extend an exterior wall along the same non-conforming distance within a required yard and extend a non-
conforming structure to allow an addition to Vesuvius restaurant located at 2 PARADISE ROAD & 539
LORING AVE (Map 21 Lot 231; Map 21 Lot 232) (132 & Entrance Corridor Overlay).
Said hearing will be held on WED, July 20, 2016 at 6:30 p.m., 3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM
• 313.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 7/6/2016 & 7/13/2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on � 3o, data
at 8 ;yyQM in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
•
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
€ 4 BOARD OF APPEAL
iClb AUG A 8: 11V1ry1NE- 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 j
KIMBERLEYDRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 ,3
MAYOR CITY (.1'
August 3, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of MATTHEW KEANE seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures
of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reconstruct a garage at the property of 414 LAFAYETTE
STREET (Map 32 Lot 169) (111 Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 15, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, � 11. The
hearing was closed July 20, 2016 with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca
Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos,Paul Viccica (alternate).
The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to reconstruct a garage.
Statements of fact:
• 1. In the petition date-stamped May 24, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3
Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reconstruct an existing garage.
2. Attorney John Keilty- 40 Lowell Street, Peabody, MA, presents the petition on behalf of the
petitioner.
3. The petitioner proposes to reconstruct and expand an existing single bay garage into a 24' x 24' two
(2) car garage.
4. The property is located within an R1 Zoning District.
5. The existing garage is located within one (1) foot of the rear property line.
6. The petitioner is proposing a 24' x 24' structure that is located within one (1) foot of the rear property
line and half of one (1) foot (0.5') from a shared right-of-way that provides access to a rear property.
7. The Board requested that the structure be two (2) feet away from the right-of-way to allow for
maintenance of the right-of-way.
8. The proposed height is 21.7 feet as per the plans. The second story is proposed to provide storage.
9. At the meeting, the Building Inspector informed the petitioner that the height limit for an accessory
structure and garage is 18' feet or 1.5 stories in height.
10. The Building Inspector informed the petitioner that the proposed height of 21.7' feet would require a
variance.
11. On the June 15, 2016 public hearing, the petition was continued to the next regularly scheduled
meeting to allow time for the petitioner decide whether to amend plans or re-apply with a request for
• a Special Permit and Variance.
12. On July 20, 2016, the petitioner requested to withdraw the application without prejudice.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
August 3,2016
Project:414 Lafayette Street
• Page 2 of 2
13. At the public hearing no members of the public spoke in favor of and one (1) spoke in opposition to,
the petition.
On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (Rebecca
Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos, Paul Viccica (alternate) in favor and none (0) opposed, to
allow the petitioner to withdraw the application without prejudice.
THE PETITION IS WITHDRAWN 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 fmm this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General-Laws Chapter 40A, and shall he filed within 10
days of filing of thti 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.
•
•
���t;ONDIT�,s
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
�� . . o BOARD OF APPEAL
A �
9��7MIrtl6DQ 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACI ,7 W19 A �• -
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR
C11'y
August 3, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of RICHARD JAGOLTA, seeking a Special
Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a change from
one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use at 107 FEDERAL STREET (Map 26 Lot
531)(R-2 Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 15, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, g 11. The
hearing continued to July 20, 2016 and closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals
members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos, Paul Viccica (alternate).
The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to allow a change from one
• non-conforming use to another non-conforming use.
Statements of fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped May 20, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2
Nonconforming Uses to allow a change from one non-conforming use of a commercial business to a
non-conforming residential use.
2. Mr.Jagolta, owner of the first floor unit and petitioner, presented the petition.
3. The three (3) story building, built around 1880, is an existing nonconforming structure located in an
R-2 Zoning District.
4. The building is divided into three (3) condominium units that include two (2) residences and one (1)
fust floor commercial space.
5. In 2014, a Special Permit was granted by the Board of Appeals to allow a real estate consulting office
at the property. The Special Permit of 2014 was appealed by abutters and an Agreement for
Judgement was executed by the City in the Superior Court action, Arlander v. Sinclair, CA No. 2014-
1030B.
6. In 2006, a Special Permit was issued by the Board of Appeals to allow a graphic design and art gallery
at the property.
7. At the June 15, 2016 public hearing, the Board requested an opinion of the City Solicitor to determine
whether a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses was the correct form of relief required for
the request. Further, the Board also requested an opinion on whether a previously issued Special
Permit was valid.
8. On July 20, 2016, the Board discussed the legal opinion of the City Solicitor.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
August 3,2016
Project: 107 Federal Street
• Page 2 of 3
9. The memorandum to the Board dated July 14, 2016 provided by Jill Mann of Mann & Mann P.C.
concluded the following findings: 1) The Special Permit of 2006 did not lapse as a result of the
discontinuation of the permitted business for a period in excess of two years; 2) The Special Permit
and the conditions set forth continue to be valid, however at the closure of the business, a Special
Condition was triggered that required that any future occupant return to the Board of Appeals to
request a new Special Permit for any future use of the property; 3) The current petitioner, Mr.Jagolta,
needed to request a special permit under Sec. 9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Salem in
accordance with Special Condition #7 of the 2006 Special Permit to convert the fust floor unit to a
residential dwelling unit.
10. On July 18, 2016, the petitioner requested a minor modification to the application to request relief a
Special Permit under Sec. 9.4 of the Ordinance in accordance with condition #7 of the 2006 Special
Permit and not a under Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Uses as requested in the petition form.
11. The petitioner is proposing to convert the first floor commercial unit into a residential unit.
12. The petitioner is proposing to restore the existing building exterior including the replacement of the
aluminum framed plate glass door with one to closely match the other existing front entry door,
removal of a large air conditioning unit above the front door entry, removal of plywood covering a
former entry door on Beckford Street and installing windows, and removing plywood on a rear
window and restoring the window, among other restoration measures.
13. The unit has three (3) existing parking spaces, two (2) tandem spaces in the Federal Street driveway
• and one (1) space behind the building with access on Beckford Street.
14. At the public hearing eight (8) members of the public spoke in favor of and six (6) 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:
The Board finds any adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts
to the City or the neighborhood as a residential dwelling unit and the use is consistent with the
existing building and neighborhood.
1. Social, economic and community needs are served by this proposal
2. There will be less impact on the neighborhood regarding traffic flow and safety as the proposal will
convert the first floor unit from a commercial space to a residential unit.
3. The utilities and other public services are adequate.
4. The proposal fits with the neighborhood character as the petitioner is proposing to rehabilitate the
exterior fust floor unit to be more in keeping with the historic character of the building and the
proposed residential unit is consistent with the existing uses in the building and neighborhood.
5. There are no changes to impacts on the natural environment.
6. The potential economic and fiscal impact,including impact on City services, tax base and employment
will be positive.
•
City of Salem Board of Appeals
August 3,2016
Project: 107 Federal Street
• Page 3 of 3
On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (Rebecca
Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos, Paul Viccica (alternate) in favor and none (0) opposed, to
allow the petitioner to convert the first floor unit to a residential dwelling unit subject to the following terms,
conditions and safeguards:
Standard:
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 Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
8. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display
said number so as to be visible from the street.
9. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but
not limited to, the Planning Board.
Special Condition:
1. Any person who proposes a change of use to occupy this space is required to apply for a new Special
Permit per Section 9.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
`R " C4-,i,&2 40 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 with the Essex South
Aegzstry of Deeds.
��i;061U1T,tgQ
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
9 MINE D� r 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACHUsn a7d2 S P 3' 4 q
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR FA.E 4i
CITY CES";,
July 25, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET LLC seeking Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of
Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit; Sec. 8.4.13 Transitional Overlay
District of the NRCC to allow less than the required fifty feet (501) buffer; Sec. 8.2.3.1 Entrance
Corridor Overlay District to allow a curb cut that exceeds the maximum curb cut width. A Special
Permit per Sec. 5.1.7 Shared Parking to permit shared parking where parking usage would not occur
simultaneously as determined by the Board. The proposal is for the property located at 401 BRIDGE
STREET & 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 25 Lot 74; Map 15 Lot 305) (NRCC).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 20, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, Q 11. The
hearing was closed that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran
• (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos,Paul Viccica(alternate).
The petitioner is seeking a Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per
dwelling unit, Sec. 8.4.13 Transitional Overlay District of the NRCC to allow less than the required fifty feet (50')
buffer; Section 8.2.3.1 Entrance Corridor Overlay District to allow a curb cut that exceeds the maximum curb cut
width. A Special Permit pet Sec. 5.1.7 Shared Parking to permit shared parking where usage would not occur
simultaneously as determined by the Board.
Statements of fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped June 28, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of
Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit, Sec. 8.4.13 Transitional Overlay District
of the NRCC to allow less than the required fifty feet (50') buffer; Section 8.2.3.1 Entrance Corridor
Overlay District to allow a curb cut that exceeds the maximum curb cut width. A Special Permit per Sec.
5.1.7 Sbared Parking to permit shared parking where usage would not occur simultaneously as
determined by the Board.
2. Attorney Correnti presented the petition along with the development team of the Petitioner, including
William Begeron, the Project Engineer from Hayes Engineering, as well as the architects for the
Project.
3. The petitioner is proposing to construct two (2) buildings including a four (4) — story residential
building with first floor retail space and a two (2) story municipal building, the Jean A Levesque
• Community Life Center.
4. The property is located in the North River Canal Corridor District (NRCC), Transitional Overlay
District TOD) and the site also falls within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District (ECOD).
City of Salem Board of Appeals
July 25,2016
Project: 401 BRIDGE STREET&44 BOSTON STREET
• Page 2 of 5
5. The project was reviewed and approved by the Planning Board with recommendations from the
Salem Design Review Board and the Conservation Commission.
6. The petitioner proposes 117 dwelling units where 76 units are allowed by-right including 12 units
granted by a Density Bonus permitted by the Planning Board under the NRCC Section 8.4.11.2
7. The 12 additional dwelling units granted by a Density Bonus will be year-round units that serve
households at or below eighty (80) percent of the area median income and shall remain affordable for
a minimum of ninety-nine years.
8. The petitioner is requesting a Variance for minimum lot area per dwelling unit to provide forty-one
(41) additional dwelling units beyond what is allowed by-right. The proposed density is approximately
23 units per acre,which is considered medium-density development.
9. The petitioner is requesting a Variance for minimum lot area per dwelling unit to construct 41
additional dwelling units due to the cost of redevelopment of this site related to the soil conditions
and location of this property within a flood zone.
10. This property is a brownfield site on filled tidelands. As such, the construction on this property will
require soil remediation to a level that will support residential use of the property. Significant pilings
will be needed to support any buildings at this location. In addition, the elevation for the entire 5.1
acre site will need to be raised approximately 2.5 feet with new material to account for 100-year flood
elevations and to account for sea level rise. The requirements to develop the site conditions have a
significant cost due to the unique conditions of this property.
• 11. The Board of Appeals has approved three (3) other Variances to other projects in the NRCC for
minimum lot area per dwelling unit to provide between 24-31 units per acre.
12. As the portion of the property on Boston Street is located in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District
and the primary use of the site is residential, only one (1) curbcut no greater than twenty-four (24')
feet is permitted for residential uses.
13 The petitioner is proposing a curbcut that exceeds the twenty-four (24') feet along Boston Street as
per the request of the Fire Department and the traffic engineers to provide adequate space for
emergency vehicles and for cats to enter and exit the site along Boston Street by only turning right.
14. The literal enforcement of the 24' wide curbcut along Boston Street would not provide adequate
safety and traffic flow on and off of the site.
15. The petitioner proposes to construct a landscaped buffer between the property and abutting
residential properties along Federal Street. The NRCC Zoning Ordinance requires a fifty-foot buffer
at this location.
16. The proposed buffer will be 28.9' feet at the widest point and narrow to 13.5' feet by the existing
retaining wall. The petitioner will provide a fence between the property and Federal Street that can be
up to ten (10') per the Planning Board Special Permit dated June 1, 2016.
17. If the fifty-foot (50') buffer requirement were literal enforced, the shape of the lot is such that 83
parking spaces would be lost and adequate parking could not be provided in a configuration that
allowed for the development of the property because the NRCC zoning ordinance also requires
• parking spaces at the rear of buildings with buildings to be located in a way to create a presence on
main corridor street edges. There would be no feasible alternatives to provide adequate parking on
this site.
f
City of Salem Board of Appeals
July 25,2016
Project: 401 BRIDGE STREET&44 BOSTON STREET
Page 3 of 5
18. The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 5.1.7 Shared Parking to permit shared parking
where parking usage would not occur simultaneously as determined by the Board.
19. There are a total of 275 parking spaces proposed for the property.
20. The NRCC requires two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit and the petitioner meets the requirement
by providing 234 parking spaces.
21. There is 4,000 square feet of first floor retail proposed for the site, which requires one (1) parking
space per 150 square feet. With 4,000 square feet of retail, 27 parking spaces are required and
provided by this proposal.
22. Parking requirements for municipal buildings are one (1) space for each two (2) employees, plus
additional spaces as shall be deemed necessary by the Board of Appeal. The petitioner is providing
fourteen (14) parking spaces to meet the requirement of providing parking for up to 28 employees.
23. Although the City of Salem zoning ordinance does not provide a method to determine whether
parking demand would not occur simultaneously, a standard method provided by the Metropolitan
Area Planning Council shared parking toolkit that is endorsed by the Commonwealth, was used to
demonstrate the maximum amount of parking anticipated at given times. The method of calculating
parking demand has been implemented in many cities and towns including Beverly, Waltham, and
Wilmington.
24. When applied to this project,it is anticipated that weekday night time use (midnight to 7:OOam) would
• require 234 parking spaces (100%) of required parking for the 117 residential units; two (2) parking
spaces for retail use (50/6) of the required of the required parking spaces for the 4,000 square feet; and
fourteen (14) parking spaces for "all other uses" (1009/6), even though the CLC will not be open all
night. The model does not provide anticipated parking for municipal buildings, therefore such use is
counted as requiring 100% count of required spaces.
25. During the weekday day time (7:OOam to S:OOpm), the anticipated parking demand is 141 parking
spaces for the 117 residential units (60% capacity), 22 parking spaces for retail use (70% capacity); 14
parking spaces for "all other uses" (100%) for the CLC.
26. During the week evening (S:OOpm to midnight), the anticipated parking demand is 211 parking spaces
for the 117 residential units (90% capacity); 25 parking spaces for retail use (90% capacity); 14 parking
spaces for "all other uses" (100% capacity) for the CLC.
27. During the weekend day (6:OOam to 6:OOpm), the anticipated parking demand 188 parking spaces for
the 117 residential units (80% capacity), 27 parking spaces for retail use (100% capacity); and 14
parking spaces for"all other uses" (100 % capacity) for the CLC.
28. During the weekend evening (6:OOpm to midnight), the anticipated parking demand is 211 parking
spaces for the 117 residential units (90% capacity), 19 parking spaces for retail use (70%) capacity, and
14 parking spaces (100% capacity) for the CLC.
29. A letter from Lynn Duncan, former Director of Planning and Community Development submitted a
letter to the Board in support of the project and testified that the proposed project complies with the
North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Master Plan.
• 30. The Petitioner demonstrated that the peak-hours of operation for each proposed use does not occur
simultaneously.
31. Meredith McDonald, Director of the Salem Council on Aging, testified that the anticipated peak
hours for the Community Life Center are from 9:OOam to S:OOpm, Monday through Friday. It is also
City of Salem Board of Appeals
July 25,2016
Project: 401 BRIDGE STREET&44 BOSTON STREET
• Page 4 of 5
anticipated that there will be occasional events in the evening and on weekends after normal hours of
operation.
32. Although there may be occasional events that may create parking demand overlap with the residential
use, the Board agrees that it is poor practice to plan a site for the occasional special event.
33. The Board states that if the Community Life Center were not owned by the City, the Board would
likely add a special condition to limit the number of special events per year and/or timing of such
events as to limit potential negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.
34. At the public hearing two (2) members of the public spoke in favor of and six (6) 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 Variances:
Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit Findings:
1. Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land is that this property is a brownfield
site on filled tidelands. As such, the construction on this property will require soil remediation to a
level that will support residential use of the property. Significant pilings will be needed to support any
buildings at this location. In addition, the elevation for much of the 5.1 acre site will need to be raised
• approximately 2.5 feet with new material to account for 100-year flood elevations. The requirements
to develop the site conditions have a significant cost due to the unique conditions of this property.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance to allow the construction of 76 dwelling units
by-right, including 12 long-term affordable housing units, would not allow the project to be feasible
due to the significant costs related to the redevelopment of this brownfield site on filled tidelands.
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.
Maximum Curbcut Width:
1. Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land is that traffic circulation on and off
of the site must occur at Boston Street by right turn only to provide safe access.
2. The literal enforcement of the 24'wide curbcut along Boston Street would not provide adequate
safety and traffic flow on and off of the site. The Fire Department and the City traffic engineers have
requested for the petitioner to provide adequate space for emergency vehicles and have cars enter and
exit the site along Boston Street by only turning right.
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.
Transitional Overlay District Buffer Width:
• 1. Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land is the shape of the lot.
2. If the fifty-foot (50') buffer requirement were literal enforced, the shape of the lot is such that 83
parking spaces would be lost and adequate parking could not be provided in a configuration that
allowed for the development of the property because the NRCC zoning ordinance also requires
City of Salem Board of Appeals
July 25,2016
Project: 401 BRIDGE STREET&44 BOSTON STREET
Page 5 of 5
parking spaces at the rear of buildings with buildings to be located in a way to create a presence on
main corridor street edges. There would be no feasible alternatives to provide parking on this site that
would be feasible to provide adequate parking.
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.
Special Permit for Shared Parking:
The Board finds that the peak parking demand for each associated use of the property (retail, residential and
Community Life Center) does not occur simultaneously.
On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (Rebecca
Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos, Paul Viccica (alternate) in favor and none (0) opposed, to
allow Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit; Sec.
8.4.13 Transitional Overlay District of the NRCC to allow less than the required fifty feet (50') buffer; Sec. 8.2.3.1
Entrance Corridor Overlay District to allow a curb cut that exceeds the maximum curb cut width. A Special
Permit per Sec. 5.1.7 Shared Parking to permit shared parking where parking usage would not occur
simultaneously as determined by the Board subject to the following terms, conditions and safeguards:
Standard:
• 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 Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but
not limited to, the Planning Board.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal 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 fihng of ibis decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40,4, Section 11, the Variance or
Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the demon bearing the certificate of the City Clerk bas been filed with the Essex South
Registry of Deeds.
5 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
`4BOARD OF APPEAL
9 ` O
�otMINPs"-"' 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSE1 dt' 3
KIMBERLEY DRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846�� �'"'" �
MAYOR { r-
CITY �. .._.sI. Fi. ._ .
August 3, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of ROBERT LIANI, JR. (COFFEE TIME BAKE SHOP INC.) seeking Variances
requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum side yard
setback and rear yard setback to allow the installation of a 6' x 6' outdoor refrigerator at the property
of 96 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 117) (112 Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 20, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, � 11 and
closed on this date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chau),
Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos, Paul Viccica (alternate).
• The petitioner is seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from
minimum side yard setback and rear yard setback to allow the installation of a 6' x 6' outdoor refrigerator.
Statements of fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped June 15, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of
Dimensional Requirements from minimum side yard setback and rear yard setback to allow the
installation of a 6' x 6' outdoor refrigerator.
2. Attorney Quinn presents the petition.
3. The petitioner, Coffee Time Bake Shop Inc., is proposing to install a refrigerator at the rear of the
property next to an existing freezer.
4. The proposed location of the refrigerator is 29.0' feet from the tear lot line where 30 feet is required,
and 7.4' feet from the side yard lot line where 10 feet is required.
5. At the public hearing no members 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 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
August 3,2016
Project: 96 Bridge Street
• Page 2 of 2
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 corner lot.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would create a substantial and unique hardship
as there is no alternative location for the outdoor refrigerator to be in the service area behind the
building.
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 four (Rebecca
Curran (Chau), Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos, Paul Viccica (alternate) in favor and none (0) opposed, to
allow the petitioner to installation a 6' x 6' outdoor refrigerator subject to the following terms, conditions
and safeguards:
Standard:
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.
S. 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.
I, <<ly� �-
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.
•
�ONoIt,�Q J6
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
720 WASHINGTON STREET * SALEM,MASSACHUSEMOID,,V(yl -3 A
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846
MAYOR ` . :.
August 3 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of 2 PARADISE ROAD LLC seeking Special Permits per Sec. 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 Nonconforming Structures
of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend an exterior wall along the same non-conforming distance within a
required yard and extend a non-conforming structure to allow an addition to Vesuvius restaurant located at 2
PARADISE ROAD & 539 LORING AVE (Map 21 Lot 231; Map 21 Lot 232) (132 & Entrance Corridor
Overlay).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 20, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, g 11 and
closed on this date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair),
Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos, Paul Viccica (alternate).
• The petitioner is seeking Special Permits per Sec. 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance to extend an exterior wall along the same non-conforming distance within a required yard and
extend a non-conforming structure to allow an addition to the existing restaurant.
Statements of fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped June 28, 2016, the Petitioner requested Special Permits per Sec. 3.3.3 and
3.3.4 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend an exterior wall along the same
non-conforming distance within a required yard and extend a non-conforming structure to allow an
addition to the existing restaurant.
2. Attorney Correnti presents the petition.
3. The petitioner is seeking zoning relief to allow for the construction of an addition onto the current
building located at 2 Paradise Road.
4. The property is located in a B2 Business Highway Zoning District.
5. The proposed use of the property is a dessert/coffee shop on the first floor with office space on the
second floor. Both proposed uses are allowed by-right in the B2 (Business Highway) Zoning District.
6. There is a condemned single family house located at 539 Loring Avenue,which will be demolished.
7. The restaurants will be owned and operated by the same family.
8. The petitioner is proposing to expand the existing Vesuvius restaurant along Loring Avenue. The
minimum front and rear yard setbacks in the B2 District are 30' feet.
9. The existing building along Loring Avenue is 2.2' feet from the lot line and is a pre-existing
• nonconforming building. The proposed addition will extend a non-conforming structure along the
existing wall, 2.2' feet from the lot line.
10. The petitioner is proposing thirty (30) parking spaces where twenty-four (24) parking spaces are
required.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
August 3,2016
Project:2 Paradise Road& 539 Loring Ave.
• Page 2 of 3
11. At the public hearing no members 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 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 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 in the business district.
• 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 (Rebecca
Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos, Paul Viccica (alternate) in favor and none (0) opposed, to
extend an exterior wall along the same non-conforming distance within a required yard and extend a non-
conforming structure to allow an addition to Vesuvius restaurant allow the subject to the following terms,
conditions and safeguards:
Standard:
1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the
Building Commissioner
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly
adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
8. Petitioner 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.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
August 3,2016
Project:2 Paradise Road&539 Loring Ave.
• Page 3 of 3
10. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or
authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to
an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (501/o) of its
replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent
of more than fifty (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at
the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the
Ordinance.
-,ov"
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal fmm this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laver Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20
days of filing of this derision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40,4, Section 11, the Variance or
Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been fled with the Essex South
Registry of Deeds.
•
�oN�IT
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
9n q' BOARD OF APPEAL
9�atMINED4 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS IffiN(AUG -3 A 8: 11
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846
MAYOR R August 3, 2016 Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of RICARDO and ROSE HELEN GARCIA seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec.
4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, number of
stories and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.S Nonconforming Structures to construct a rear egress at 24
LEMON STREET (Map 36 Lot 44)(112).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 20, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, g 11 and
closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair),
Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos, Paul Viccica (alternate).
The Petitioner seeks seeking a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of
the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for minimum lot area per dwelling unit, number of stories and a Special Permit
per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Structures to allow two (2) dwelling units at the property.
• Statements of fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped June 27, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Variance from the provisions of
Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for minimum lot area per
dwelling unit, number of stories and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Structures.
2. Attorney Louis Izzi of Bell& Izzi, Melrose, MA-presents the petition.
3. The property is an existing single-family home in an R-2 Zoning District.
4. The petitioner is proposing to create a second dwelling unit, which is allowed by-right in the R2
Zoning District.
5. The property is currently used as a single family home on an existing 4,084 square feet of the 15,000
square foot lot area per dwelling unit required.
6. The petitioner is proposing to construct two (2) dormers and a rear egress for the proposed second
unit.
7. The Building Inspector ruled at the July 20, 2016 meeting that the petitioner could request a special
permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two-Family Residential Structures to reconstruct, extend, or
structurally change the existing non-conforming structure to allow the construction of the dormers
and rear egress where the Board determines that the proposed modification will not be substantially
more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood.
8. The petitioner proposed to formally create a driveway and three (3) parking spaces, which meets the
• parking requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
9. The petitioner has requested and received a permit for a formal curbcut at the property.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
August 3,2016
Project: 24 Lemon Street
•
Page 2 of 3
10. The petitioner is proposing to construct a second unit, rear stairway to the second unit and construct
dormers in accordance with plans submitted, "24 Lemon Street", dated March 4, 2016 by RD Design
& Construction Corp.
11. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the petitioner to allow two (2) dwelling units, dormers
and a rear egress.
12. At the public hearing, no (0) members of the public spoke in support and two (2) members spoke in
opposition to the petition.
The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and
after thorough review of the petition, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's
presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the
provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance:
Findings for Special Permits:
The Board finds that the proposed modification will not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood.
1. The proposed change or extension of a non-conforming structure to allow the proposed dormers and
rear staircase 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 the on-site parking
requirements are met.
3. The capacity of the utilities is not affected by the project.
4. There are no impacts on the natural environment, including drainage as the petitioner is proposing to
use pervious materials for the new parking area.
5. The rehabilitation of the building and the creation of an additional dwelling unit conform to the
existing neighborhood character.
6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base is positive.
Findings for Variance:
1. Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building, or structure is that the lot is
an existing irregularly shaped and undersized lot.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the
applicant as the use requested is one that is available as a matter of right in the R2 Zoning District.
PP 9 g
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 (Rebecca Curran, Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos, Paul Viccica (alternate) and none (0) opposed, to
allow to two (2) dwelling units at the property subject to the following terms, conditions and safeguards:
City of Salem Board of Appeals
August 3,2016
• Project: 24 Lemon Street
Page 3 of 3
Standard Conditions:
1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the
Building Commissioner.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly
adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but
not limited to, the Planning Board.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
• Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed witbin 20
days of fih'ng of this decision in the ofice of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or
Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision hearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South
Registry of Deeds.
•
cawing --
_��' a;�6 CITY OF SALEM,
MASSACHUSETTS
{
a bBOARD OF APPEAL
_.
•� �"p?M[NE a��.� 120 IXA51 IhNGTON STREET a SALC3; 211S&KHUSEITS 01970
KIMI3EFi.Ey D1uscou, T(31.1Tr978-745-9595 0 1_ah:978-740-9846
NLASoR
MEETING NOTICE
You are beraby no yiiod tbat the Salem Zoning Board ofAppeals will/cold its tzgulrrrly,cbeduled meetinq on
1+'edne.rday,August 17, 2016at 6:30 p.m. at City HallAnnex, RM 313, 120 Washington St., Salem, A4151
Rebecca Curran, Chair "
n
MEETING AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
➢ _July 20, 2016 P
111. REGULAR AGENDA 6 _
Petition seeking a Variance per Set. 3.2.4_4ccesso7y Buildings and Structuref and a Special
Project Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonmtjorming Structwes of the Salem Zoning Ordimuice to allow
• the construction of a two-story garage. —� J
Applicant MATTHEW KEANE
Location 414 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 32 Lot 169) (R1 Zoning District)
Project Petition of seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 I�romonfo wing SNzrctur'es of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance to reconstruct, extend and structurally change an existing non-
conforming rear deck.
Applicant MATTHEW CORNELL
Location 18 BRIGGS STREET (Map 18 Lot 507) (R2 Zoning District)
Project Public hearing to consider the application of for an amendment to the; approved Special
Perisut in accordance with Sec. 3.0 Table of Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to
expand the hours of operation for public days to 12-8pm seven days a week to
accommodate primate functions and additional public retail hours at select times of the
year.
Applicant IAN HUNTER (DEACON GILES,INC)
Location 75 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lot 201) (B-4 Zoning District)
• tall-
Page 1 of
City or Salem board of Appeals
Agenda for August 17,2016 Meeting
• r
r
Project A public hearing for the petition of seeking a-Special Permit per Sec. 3J3 ncmr�onninq
Stntcturer of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a shed dormer.
Applicant TIMOTHY&KATHLEEN WALSH
Location 5 HOWARD STREET(Map 35 Lot 187)(R3 Zoning District)
Project Public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of seeking a Special Pemut per
Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to concert an existing
fur retail store into an office space.
Applicant: DINO STA'TI
Location 189 LORING AVE (Map 31 Lot 130) (RI Zoning District)
IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS _ -W
None -
V. ADJOURNMENT
srt,;§ mato posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
�,q fill{l, Salam, Mass on
alIIA in accordance w MGL Chap. 30A,
so me
Page 2 of 2 __
' rroNorrq
\ "? CITY OF SALEM, NIAsSACHUSETTS
r
.� BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
KIMBERL.EYDRIscoLL TEL.r::978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR
STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Appeals Members
FROM: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
DATE: 8/l/2016
RE: Meeting Agenda for August 17, 2016
Board Members,
Please find the following in your packets:
1. Agenda
2. Staff Memorandum
3. Meeting Minutes Quly 20, 2016)
•, 4. 414 Lafayette Street
5. 18 Briggs Street
6. 5 Howard Street
7. 189 Loring Ave.
8. 75 Canal 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,August 17, 2016.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
1. A public hearing for the petition of MATTHEW KEANE seeking a Variance per Sec. 3.2.4
Accessory Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and a Special Permit per
Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the construction of a two-story garage at the
property of 414 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 32 Lot 169) (Rl Zoning District)
At the July 20, 2016 public hearing, the petitioner withdrew an application without prejudice and has
reapplied with a change in relief requested. The petitioner is seeking a Variance per Sec. 3.2.4 Accessory
Buildings and Structures and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the construction
of a two-story garage at the property. There is currently a one-story garage located one (1) foot from
the rear property line.
The petitioner is proposing to reconstruct and expand the existing structure to build a two-story
• structure. The proposed height of the building is twenty-two (22) feet where eighteen (18) feet is
allowed by-right. The petitioner is also proposing to expand the footprint of the garage from 12' x 12'
feet to 24'x 23' feet.
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—August 1,2016
Page 2 of 5
Question about proposed use: •
It is unclear in the petition whether the proposed garage/accessory building and use will serve the
principal building or principal use. I would encourage the Board to ask the petitioner whether the use
of the proposed garage will serve the principal building or principal use.
Accessory building is defined in our zoning ordinance as "a subordinate building located on the
same lot as the main, or principal building or principal use, the use of which is customarily incidental
to that of the principal building or use of the land.
Accessory use is defined in our zoning ordinance as "a use customarily incidental to that of the main
or principal building or use of the land."
An accessory building must serve the principal building.
There is a right-of-way that provides access to the rear lot. Our Ordinance requires there to be a
minimum of ten (10') feet between buildings for fire safety and access. The petitioner is proposing
twelve feet (12') between the existing buildings,which meets the minimum requirement.
Out of courtesy, I reached out to Chief Cody (Fire Department) to let him know that this project is
before the Board and if there are any concerns regarding fire access to the rear lot with the proposed
expansion. Although there is enough space between the buildings, per our zoning ordinance, the
Board has the authority to require dimensional requirements stricter than the minimum required by •
the zoning bylaw.
Chief Cody was concerned about the condition of the right-of-way. The right of way is ill defined and
in need of repair to the rear property. The Chief has requested that parking on the site be defined so
as to not impede fire,medical, or police access in the future to access the rear property. The right of
way is the only emergency access to the rear property.
Board cannot directly request that the right of way be paved contingent upon the garage expansion
approval because the issue of maintenance of the right of way is unrelated to the garage expansion
request. However, should the Board grant this request I would recommend the following special
conditions: 1) prohibit parking on the right of way to ensure that there is ten (10') feet of clearance
between the buildings (garage and primary residence) at all times to provide emergency access to the
rear lot 2) The accessory building use shall serve the principal building or principal use.
For the Variance request
The Board needs to find that there are:
1) Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building or structure involved,
generally not affecting other lands,buildings and structure in the same district.
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. •
2
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—August 1, 2016
• Page 3 of 5
For the Special Permit:
The special permit may be granted if the Board finds that the proposal will not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure.
Enclosed is a copy of the petition and supporting documentation.
• Current conditions at 414 Lafayette Street.
2. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MATTHEW CORNELL
seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to reconstruct, extend
and structurally change an existing non-conforming rear deck at the property of 18
BRIGGS STREET (Map 18 Lot 507) (112 Zoning District).
The petitioner is seeking a special permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to reconstruct,
extend, alter a dimensionally non-conforming deck. The existing deck is located within three (3') feet
of the rear property line and within eight (8') feet of the side yard lot line. The petitioner is proposing
to reconstruct the existing deck and expand the deck by one (1) foot to square off the southwest
corner.
The special permit may be granted if the Board finds that the proposal will not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure.
Enclosed is a petition and supporting documentation.
3. A public hearing for the petition of TIMOTHY & KATHLEEN WALSH seeking a
Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance
to construct a shed dormer at the property of 5 HOWARD STREET (Map 35 Lot 187)(113
Zoning District)
•
3
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—August 1, 2016
Page 4 of 5
The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem •
Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a shed dormer. This property is located within an
R3 Zoning District.
Dimensional Requirements for R3 Zoning:
Re uixed
Existing _ Proposed
Maximum height 3.5 stories 2.5 stories 3.0 stories
of building
(stories)
Maximum height 45 feet 31ft 31ft
of building feet
Minimum side 20 feet < 20' No change
and setback
The petitioner is before the Board because the shed dormer is proposed to be constructed on the side
of the house within the side yard setback requirements. Therefore, the shed dormer will also be
located within the side yard setback requirements.
Note that the proposed building height for both number of feet and number of stories are in
compliance with the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Enclosed is a petition and supporting documentation. •
4. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of DINO STATI seeking a
Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to convert an existing fur retail store
into an office space at the property of 189 LORING AVE (Map 31 Lot 130) (Rl Zoning
District).
The petitioner is proposing to convert an existing fur retail store into an office space. The retail store
use is a pre-existing non-conforming use in the R1 Zoning District. The petitioner is proposing to use
the space as an office space for a construction contractor business. The petitioner is proposing to
improve the fagade of the building including new windows, new walkway, and painting the exterior of
the building. The footprint of the building will remain the same.
Enclosed is a petition and supporting documentation.
4
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum August 1,2016
Page 5 of 5
•
5. A public hearing to consider the application of IAN HUNTER (DEACON GILES, INC)
for an amendment to the approved Special Permit in accordance with Sec. 3.0 of the
Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand the hours of operation for public days to 12-8pm
seven days a week to accommodate private functions and additional public retail hours at
select times of the year at the property of 75 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lot 201) (B-4
Zoning District).
The petitioner is req sting to expand the existing hours of operation from Friday to Saturday from
12-5pm or 1-bpm t 12pm-8pm seven days a week in order to accommodate private functions and
additional public r ail hours at select times of the year.
In 2014, the Board granted a special permit to allow a brewery, distillery, winery with a tasting room
with special condition #1 that the hours of operation for the public to visit the distillery and tasting
room would be limited to Friday and Saturday 12-5pm OR 1-6pm with the possibility of expanding
hours dependent upon Board of Appeals approval.
The petitioner is requesting a change in public hours of operation to be able to use the tasting room
to hold private functions including birthday parties, rehearsal dinners and corporate meetings.
Further, the distillery is interested in hosting tours on holidays.
Enclosed is a petition and supporting documentation.
Old/New Business
None.
5
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
• !C0 mei
f Board ZEA
Date _/ 1 -7
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
�`R W1W 0/l�dlO[f /17 McLV- ST 55W fK,+ �7ZS Q317 5721
/�r h�,todan��hve��u�l�
/Lau _ 7 / 79"C.l)G!' � > -�� V � O`��J'�QO —r I I I•i C(.5� �J
�v�wa
W6 c
Page of
DID
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday,August 17, 2016
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA") was held on Wednesday,August
17, 2016 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts
at 6:30 p.m.
Mr. Copelas (Vice-Chair)calls the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.
ROLL CALL
Those present were:Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Paul Viccica (alternate),
and Tom Watkins. Those not present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Mike Duffy, and Jim
Hacker. Also in attendance Tom St Pierre-Building Commissioner,Erin Schaeffer-Staff
Planner,and Colleen Anderson—Recorder.
REGULAR AGENDA
Project Continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per
Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to
reconstruct a garage.
Applicant MATTHEW KEANE
Location 414 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 32 Lot 169)(111 Zoning District)
Attorney John Keilty, 40 Lowell Street,Peabody,was present to represent Matthew Keane,
414 Lafayette Street. Due to only 4 Board members being present at this meeting,Atty.
Keilty.requests a continuation on behalf of the petitioner to be heard at the next regularly
scheduled meeting on September 21,2016.
Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to approve the request to continue the
public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting on September 21, 2016. The
motion is seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos.The vote was unanimous with four (4) Peter A.
Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins, and Paul Viccica in favor and
none (0) opposed.
Project Petition of seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of
the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reconstruct, extend and structurally
change an existing non-conforming rear deck.
Applicant MATTHEW CORNELL
Location 18 BRIGGS STREET (Map 18 Lot 507) (R2 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions • 4
➢ Application dated July 26,2016 and supporting documentation
Jeff Braunell (Contractor), of 15 Forrester Street,was present to represent Matthew Cornell,
of 18 Briggs Street. In 1986, the previous property owner received a special permit from the
Zoning Board that allowed the construction of a rear deck within four (4) feet from the rear
property line. The deck is currently in poor structural condition.
Mr. Copelas- Confirms with the petitioner that the proposal is to remove the existing deck
and asks the petitioner to talk about the existing structure in comparison to the proposed
structure.
Mr. Braunell-The deck is currently 8' x 17' and located within four (4) feet from the rear lot
line. The petitioner is proposing to demolish deck and to reconstruct and expand the
structure. The petitioner proposes to extend an existing deck four(4) additional feet in the
side yard to square off the deck with the south side of the house to provide a code compliant
set of stairs and landing to the deck. The deck will be further expanded toward the existing
shed on the property and it will not further encroach along the rear yard setback.
Mr. Copelas-What type of materials will you be using for the deck?
Mr. Braunell-The deck will be a composite material,Trex pebble grey. The handrail will be
pressure treated wood in accordance with the Massachusetts construction code.
Mr. Watkins- States that the reasons for the special permit described in the statement of
grounds in the application are sufficient.
The Board finds that the reconstruction and expansion of the deck will promote safety and
welfare as the structure is currently hazardous and in poor condition.
1. The proposed deck is positioned at the rear of the residential lot with no impact on
traffic flow, traffic safety,or parking.
2. There will be no changes to utilities or public services related to the proposed deck.
3. The proposed deck fits with the existing neighborhood character.
4. The proposal conforms to the existing neighborhood character.
5. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base is positive.
Vice-Chair Copelas opens public comment.
Dan Cornell, 18 Briggs Street, (Partial Owner.) —Speaks in support of the petition and has
safety concerns with the existing structure.
r • No one else in the assembly wishes to speak.
Vice-Chair Copelas closes public comment.
Mr. St. Pierre—stated that he is in favor of this project.
Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins makes a motion to grant the petition requesting a
Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance to reconstruct,extend and structurally change an existing non-conforming
rear deck. The motion is seconded by Mr.Viccica. The vote was unanimous with four
(4) Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins, and Paul Viccica in
favor and none (0) opposed.
Project Public hearing to consider the application of for an amendment to the
approved Special Permit in accordance with Sec. 3.0 Table of Uses of the
Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand the hours of operation for public days
to 12-8pm seven days a week to accommodate private functions and
additional public retail hours at select times of the year.
Applicant IAN HUNTER(DEACON GILES, INC)
Location 75 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lot 201) (B-4 Zoning District)
Ian Hunter, 14 1/2Fort Avenue owner of Deacon Guiles distill
ery was present to discuss the
project. The petitioner is before the Board to amend an existing special permit that was
granted in 2014. The petitioner proposes to expand the public hours of operation of the
tasting room to seven (7) days a week 12pm—8pm.
Mr. Copelas-Stated that when there was a discussion about possibly coming back to the
Board for a modification. The petitioner requested to expand the hours of operation a little
bit in the future to include Thursdays through Sundays.
Mr. Copelas-States that the current request to expand the hours of operation to seven (7)
days a week is considerably more than what was expected when the Board granted the
special permit with the provision to allow the petitioner to return to expand the hours of
operation.
Mr. Hunter-The request is to operate the business with the greatest flexibility. Mr. Hunter
states that he does not expect the business to be open to the public seven (7) days a week.
Instead the expectations are that the business will most likely only be open to the public on
Friday and Saturday because the demand/foot traffic is not enough to support additional
staff and other hours of operation. However, the business has noticed demand for public
tours and tastings on holiday weekends in addition to special events such as corporate
events,birthdays and rehearsal dinners.The petitioner states that the business is not
interested in operating past 8pm to respect the residential neighbors. 8pm seems like a
reasonable time to shut down. For general public retail,stick with Friday and Saturday for •
now,but take advantage of other opportunities.
Mr. Copelas- Understands wanting to go until 8pm and capturing holidays and October
business. Is there a way to encapsulate most of what you want to accomplish without going
to a seven (7) day a week model?
Mr. Viccica-I just need more information. Is there currently existing parking?
Mr. Hunter-There is not. It was an existing building.
Mr.Viccica-Where to people currently park?
Mr. Hunter- Canal Street.
Mr. Viccica- So,if the business grows to what you are expecting it may be possible to need
35 to 40 parking spaces?
Mr. Hunter-Earlier this year there was a friends and family event with 30 to 40 people and
any small private group events would be limited to no more than that. For the most part,the
business is really interested in participating in the Salem Food Tours trolley tours and
anticipates that 25-30 people will come to the distillery this way. Most people have been
carpooling and coming as groups. There is rarely a single individual visiting.
Mr. Tsitsinos-Have you had any issues so far?
Mr. Hunter-Has not heard of anything. The business tries to be a good neighbor and had an
open house for the neighborhood recently that was well received. There were five or six
households come by to discuss the proposal to expand the hours of public operation. Mr.
Hunter hopes that if there are any issues with the business that the neighbors come over to
discuss. The immediate abutters have both been supportive.
Mr.Watkins-As far as the special conditions when the Board originally approved the
proposal,you were going to look into whether the City was planning on any public
improvements on Canal Street to provide a crosswalk in the vicinity of the business.Was
there progress on this?
Mr. Hunter- Spoke to David Knowlton,City Engineer, and learned that there will be a
crosswalk at the corner of Canal Street and Gardner Street.
Mr.Viccica-Are there other tenants in this building?Are there equal numbers of cars and
trips generated from the other tenants?
Mr. Hunter-There are four (4) other tenants in the building.The entrance to Deacon Guiles
is about 150 feet up Gardner Street.
Mr. Viccica-Are the other tenants drawing the same number of cars to their businesses? Not
familiar with the corner building. .
• Mr. Hunter- The biggest traffic impacts are with the daycare during pick up and drop off
times during the week. During the weekends,there has never been an issue not having
enough parking on Canal Street.
Mr.Watkins- Is there a church near your business that impacts parking on Sundays?
Mr. Hunter-Yes, I believe there is a Jehovah's Witness church two blocks away and have
services on Saturday morning. Services are over before Deacon Guiles opens.
Vice-Chair Copelas opens public comment.
Josh Turiel-Ward 5 City Councillor- Submits a letter to the Board in support of the
expanded hours of operation.
Mr. Viccica-What are your current hours of operation?
Mr.Hunter-The tasting room public hours are on Friday 1pm-6pm and Saturday from noon to
5pm. The business maintains the standard retail hours.The request to expand the tasting room
hours of operation until 8pm seven(7)days a week is to accommodate special events (rehearsal
dinners,corporate events,birthday parties). Mr.Hunter states that there is no intention of
operating later than 8pm. 8pm is a reasonable time to shut it down.
Mr.Hunter-Regular public hours are from 12pm-6pm and 6pm-8pm for private events.
Mr. Copelas-The request is a blanket seven(7) days a week from 12pm to 8pm.
Mr. Viccica-Think to honor the special permit that was issued before with the intent that put a
substantial limit on the business,not prepared to support a blanket request for seven(7)days a
week from 12pm-8pm. But realizing that you are a business and there is demand for this
businesses to be open in October and on holidays,that this seems like a more reasonable
expansion of hours. If this goes well,the reaction of the neighborhood would be quite different if
you were to be open seven(7)days a week from 12pm- 8pm.
Mr. Copelas-The nature of the business will be a substantial change to the type of business
currently operating,which is great and a testament to your business success. It is great that there
is a Ward Councillor who supports this expansion.But at the same time this is a substantial
change in the nature of your business.Just update us on the status of your licensing and future
plans are.
Mr. Hunter-States that the business will apply to the Licensing Board for a Pouring License that
is attached to the state Farmer Distillery License.The nature of this is pretty restrictive.
Mr. Copelas-States that right now you can sample...
Mr.Hunter-Right now the tasting room can pour four(4) quarter ounce(0.25 oz)samples per
person. These tastes are free of charge by law and the tasting room sells full sized bottles to go.
Everything that is sampled in a tasting room of a brewery,winery or distillery must be made on
the premise.
Mr. Copelas-The new license that you are planning on getting... ,
Mr. Hunter-The full pouring license would allow the tasting room to pour full cocktails for sale.
Mr. Hunter references Far From the Tree tasting room and Notch Brewery and Tap Room as
examples of where full pours of their product are sold.It is about the experience. The Pouring
License attached to the Farmer Distillery License is also very restrictive. We can only pour what
we produce. It is about giving the customer. Short Path in Everett,MA and Boston Harbor
Distillery,Boston,MA are referenced as other examples of distilleries in the state with a pouring
license.
Mr. Copelas-Is there food connected to this?
Mr. Hunter-There will be pre-packaged snack food.There will not be a kitchen or food prep at
the distillery.If someone wanted to have a private catered event that would be allowed,but the
distillery will not have a kitchen.
Mr. Tsitsinos- Speaks in support of the petition and in support of Far From the Tree and
Notch.
Mr. Hunter- States that the business does not want to stay open past 8pm and would like to
be respectful the neighbors. The request that is made is to give the business some flexibility.
A probationary period could make good sense. It is not an inexpensive venture to come
before the Zoning Board. Mr. Hunter requests that the decision be written in such a way as
to not require that the business return to the Board after it has proven that the expanded
hours are okay.
Ms. Schaeffer-For context of the request Far From the Tree Cider is open 55 hours a week
and Notch is open 51 hours per week and Deacon Guiles is currently open for 10 hours a
week.
Mr. Copelas-Agrees with Mr. Viccica that there may be a middle ground.This is a
substantially different establishment. There is a change in operation.
Mr. Viccica- Suggests extending the hours of operation on Friday and Saturday from noon
to 8pm. Federal and state holidays noon- 8pm. Month of October Thursday through Sunday
noon-8pm. Obviously,people will want to come on Monday and Tuesday in October,but
that is almost too far of an expansion of the hours.
Mr.Viccica-To extend the current Friday through Saturday 12pm-5pm or fpm to 6pm to
noon to 8pm. Federal and state holidays noon- 8pm. Month of October Thursday through
Sunday noon-8pm.
Mr. Copelas-And for six (6) months the hours will be extended automatically?
Mr. St. Pierre-The Board can allow the hours to extend unless notified that they need to
come back to the Board if any complaints have been received by the Building
Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer.
• Mr. Hunter-We are interested in having the business open for private functions on Mondays and
Wednesdays.
Ms. Schaeffer-In the Far From the Tree special permit decision, the Board allowed specific
public hours of operation and the ability for the business to hold private events during non-public
hours. Thursday through Sunday noon to Bpm and private events as scheduled until 8pm.
Mr.Viccica-Does this capture what you need?
Mr. Copelas-If we were to condition this to Thursdays through Sundays noon to 8pm federal and
state holidays, and Halloween from noon to 8pm and private events until 8pm for a six(6) month
period to be extended...
Mr. St.Pierre-The business will be before the Licensing Board long before it would come back
to the Zoning Board of Appeal.
Mr. Copelas-Could the Licensing Board change the hours of operation?
Mr. St. Pierre-The Licensing Board could not extend the hours of operation,but could cut the
hours back. The hours that are suggested by the Board are very reasonable.The Licensing Board
is the front line and would hear about a disturbance immediately.
Councillor Famico-Ward 2 Councillor-Requests clarification on the additional hours of
operation.
Mr. Copelas-We have had a lot of back and forth and in order to accomplish as much as possible
from a business point of view,and being sensitive to the neighbors and sensitive to the changing
nature of the establishment,the proposal is Thursdays through Sundays from noon to 8pm,
federal and state holidays and private parties as they are booked until 8pm.
Councillor Famico-Ward 2 Councillor-Does that mean that private parties are limited to
Thursdays through Sundays?
Mr. Copelas-No.Private events may be held any day until 8pm. For example,on a Wednesday
the business could hold a private corporate event,but not be open to the public.
Councillor Famico-Ward 2 Councillor-Speaks in support of the expanded hours.
No one else in the assembly wishes to speak.
Vice-Chair Copelas closes public comment.
Motion and Vote: Mr.Viccica makes a motion to grant and amend the Special Permit
decision from October 2014 to extend the business hours to Thursday through Sunday
12PM—BPM, Federal and State holidays from 12PM—8PM, Halloween, and private
functions as scheduled, for 6 months, to be automatically extended so that the
petitioner need not reapply, and to be approved by the Licensing Board. The vote
was unanimous with four (4) Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom
Watkins, and Paul Viccica in favor and none (0) opposed.
Project A public hearing for the petition of seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3
Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a shed
dormer.
Applicant TIMOTHY& KATHLEEN WALSH
Location 5 HOWARD STREET (Map 35 Lot 187)(83 Zoning District)
Tim
and Kathleen Walsh (Owners) and Brendan O'Donoghue (Architect- Ebben Creek
Architecture) were present to discuss the project. The petitioners are proposing to add a
shed dormer to their single family home. The petitioner is proposing to add a bedroom and
bathroom to the attic space. The property is located in a Residential Multi-Family (R-3)
zoning district.The petitioner proposes to keep the home as a single family property. The
building is dimensionally non-conforming in almost every way. Currently, the house is two-
and one-half stories. The petitioner is proposing to increase the height of a portion of the
roof to three (3) stories,which is allowed by-right in the R-3 zoning district. The petitioner
presents the heights of adjacent homes to demonstrate that the proposal for three (3) stories
on a dimensionally non-conforming structure fits with the existing character of the
neighborhood.
Brendan O'-Donoghue-Architect,Ebben Creek Architecture, Essex,MA- presents the
elevation plans to the Board. The shed dormer will provide the required headroom for a
stairway and bathroom. M
Mr. Copelas- Is the shed dormer proposed for the South side?
Mr. O'Donoghue-Yes, the simple shed dormer is proposed for the south side and the two
individual gable style dormers are proposed on the north side. Directly across the street there
are gable style dormers as well as examples of simple shed style dormers. Mr. O'Donoghue
continues to present the existing and proposed elevation plans. The shed dormer is not along
the length of the entire house,but rather setback quite a bit.
Mr. Copelas-Are you adding an additional egress from the third floor?Will you be creating
additional dwelling units?
Mr. Walsh- No. There are no plans to convert the single family home.
Mr. O'Donoghue-States that the windows will be four (4) double hung windows that will
provide egress for the third floor.
Vice-Chair Copelas opens public comment and additional comments to the Board.
No one in the assembly wishes to speak.
DID
Vice-Chair Copelas closes public comment.
Mr. Copelas- States that the applicant is requesting a special permit and the Board agrees
with the statement of grounds provided by the applicant for each criteria of the special
permit requested.
There are no further questions from the Board.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Viccica makes a motion to approve the Special Permit per Sec.
3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a shed
dormer. The motion is seconded by Mr. Watkins.The vote was unanimous with four
(4) Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins, and Paul Viccica in
favor and none (0) opposed.
Project Public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of seeking a Special
Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance to convert an existing fur retail store into an office space.
Applicant DINO STATI
Location 189 LORING AVE (Map 31 Lot 130) (R1 Zoning District)
Dino Stati, 189 Loring Avenue,was present to discuss the project. Mr. Stati is requesting to
change the space from a fur retail shop to construction company offices. The petitioner is
proposing five (5) office cubicles and a conference room. Currently,the space is a fur retail
shop with six (6) interior spaces for sales. The petitioner is proposing to use the existing
footprint and revitalize the building.
Mr. Copelas- Could you talk about some of the proposed exterior building upgrades?
Mr. Stati-The building currently has a metal grate over the glass and boarded up windows.
Mr. Staff presents elevation drawings and states that he would like to remove the metal grates
from the windows and install new windows where there are currently boarded up windows.
The company does commercial and retail projects.A sign will not be needed as the company
is not interested in attracting foot traffic to the business.
Mr. Tsitsinos-Any outside storage?
Mr. Stati-There is an existing shed on the property that is used to store a lawn mower and
snow blower.
Mi. Copelas-What about construction vehicles?
Mr. Stati-The company does not have any trucks because the business is a construction • 4
management company. There will be no construction equipment,construction vehicles and
no storage of equipment or vehicles overnight.
Mr. Viccica-How many employees are there?
Mr. Stati-There are currently eight (8) employees. Five (5) are always on job sites and will
not be in the office. There are currently three (3) employees who will use this office space.
The company is looking to expand and add one (1) or two (2) employees at this office
eventually.
Mr.Viccica-Will you be taking down the fur sign and replacing it with your business sign?
Mr. Stati-I will take down the fur sign and possibly replace the fabric awning and possibly
write the name of the company on the awning. Mr. Stati states that he has not yet applied for
a sign and may not even have a sign because the company does not really need one for sales.
Mr. Stad states that he will keep the 189 Loring Ave. street address on the glass.
Mr. Copelas-Will the flagstone be taken out?
Mr. Stati-Yes. We are also changing the angle and position of the front door. In a retail
space it makes sense to angle the front door toward the street, but we are an office space.
The proposal is to square off the setback corner keeping within the existing footprint and
changing the location of the front door to be in the center along Grant Road.
Mr. Stati-There are two (2) parking spaces on the Grant Road driveway. There are two (2)
parking spaces on Grant Road and two (2) to three (3) parking spaces along Loring Avenue.
Mr. St. Pierre-Asks whether the parking spaces on Grant Road and Loring Avenue are
posted for college students.
Mr. Watkins-There is a sign posted on Loring Ave.
Mr. Copelas- I don't remember seeing a resident sign only.
Vice-Cbair Copelas opens public comment.
Edward Walsh, 2 Grant Road- Speaks in favor of the petition. Noted that the parking on
Grant Street was resident only and there are three (3) service only parking spaces for the
retail store.
No one else in the assembly wishes to speak.
Vice- Cbair Copelas closes pub&c comment.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the petition for Special
Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to convert
an existing fur retail store into an office space. The motion is seconded by Mr.
Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with four (4) Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),
Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins, and Paul Viccica in favor and none (0) opposed.
OLD/NEWBUSINESS
Mr. Copelas requests that the Planning Department request a briefing from the City Solicitor
explaining the steps and licensing requirements for tastings and pourings.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
July 20,2016 meeting minutes were approved as written.
Motion and Vote: Mr.Viccica makes a motion to approve the minutes amended per
Chair Currans' request. Seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous in
favor and none (0) opposed.
• ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Copelas motions for adjournment of the August 17, 2016 regular meeting of the Salem
Board of Appeals.
Motion and Vote:Mr. Watkins made a motion to adjourn the August 17, 2016 regular
meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr.Viccica, and the vote is
unanimous in favor and none (0) opposed.
The meeting ends at 7:45 PM.
For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes,
copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at:
htm://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA ZorungApnealsMin/
Respectfully submitted,
Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner
•
�+cpND'T9ao� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET $ALE ,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 * FAX:978 740 44P4 c
K hmERLEY DRISCOLL -
MAYOR
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MATTHEW KEANE seeking a
Variance per Sec. 3.2.4 Accessory Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and a Special Perrnit per
Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures and to allow the construction of a two-story garage at the property of 414
LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 32 Lot 169) (R1 Zoning District)
The public hearing will be held on WED. August 17, 2016 at 6:30 PM, 3`d Floor, 120 WASHINGTON
• STREET, Rm 313.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 8/3/16 & 8/10/16
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on AUG 0 3 1016
at ?:t67,441 in accordance with MGL Chap. 30&
Sections 18-25.
•
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
' 61,
f"c
r120 WASHINGTON STREET 0 SALEM,IVIAS �CF7lu L 01970
0{MINE_IIDi, � TELE:978-619-5685 0 FAX:978-740-0404,
KIhmERLEYDR[scoLL
MAYOR CITY CL'.
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MATTHEW CORNELL seeking a
Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to reconstruct, extend and structurally change an
existing non-conforming rear deck at the property of 18 BRIGGS STREET (Map 18 Lot 507) (R2 Zoning
District)
• The public hearing will be held on WED. August 17, 2016 at 6:3C PM, 3 s Floor, 120 WASHINGTON
STREET,Rm 313.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 8/3/16 & 8/10/16
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Ulass, on AUG 0 3 2016
at � 1��At 1 in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
, BOARD OF APPEAL
Nib AUb -3 A Bt 15
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
��Mm�ue
TELE:978-619-5685 FAX:978-740-0404 <J r'
KIMRERLEY DRISCOLL CITY
MAYOR
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing to consider the application of IAN HUNTER (DEACON GILES, INC) for an
amendment to the approved Special Permit in accordance with Sec. 3.0 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to
expand the hours of operation for public days to 12-8pm seven days a week to accommodate private
functions and additional public retail hours at select times of the year at the property of 75 CANAL STREET
(Map 33 Lot 201) (13-4 Zoning District).
The public hearing will be held on WED. August 17, 2016 at 6:30 PM, 3rd Floor, 120 WASHINGTON
STREET, Rm 313.
• Rebecca Curran, Chau
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 8/3/16 & 8/10/16
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on AUG 0 3 1016
at 8;ISi*4 in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
6 �t9 3
��AAC, �✓ / 120 WASHINGTON$TAFFY SALEM,1�'IASSALSE"[TS V1A 8. 15
970
.....-„,,.. TELE:978-619-5685 FAX:978-740-0404
KIMBERLEY DRiscon
MAYOR CITY
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for the petition of TIMOTHY&KATHLEEN WALSH seeking a Special Permit
per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a shed dormer at the
property of 5 HOWARD STREET (Map 35 Lot 187)(R3 Zoning District)
The public hearing will be held on WED.August 17, 2016 at 6:30 PM, 3rd Floor, 120 WASHINGTON
STREET,Rm 313.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
• Board of Appeals
Salem News: 8/3/16 & 8/10/16
This notice posted on "Official BIletin Board”
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on AUG 012.010
at �,'/.�'�4F in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
•
I
� aNnlTq��rs. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
S
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
��G 0
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 i.-
KihoERLEY DRISCOLL ••c,
MAYOR CITY
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of DINO STATI seeking a Special Permit
per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to convert an existing fur retail store into an office space at the property
of 189 LORING AVE (Map 31 Lot 130) (R1 Zoning District)
The public hearing will be held on WED. August 17, 2016 at 6:30 PM, 3rd Floor, 120 WASHINGTON
• STREET, Rm 313.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 8/3/16 & 8/10/16
This notice posted on "Off�ffll WIP,tOOaBoard"
City Hall Salem, Mass. on
at in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
11
BOARD OF APPEA�LAX
120\\:ASI If N(;'I'ON STIZ I;PF# SAUN1,MASSAIJILISIXIS 01970
Tux:978,"45-9595 + FAX:979-74Q�TPFY C�j L-
Dws� of.j. ':,1nw to -
FILESALF
August 31, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of TIMOTHY & KATHLEEN WALSH seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3
Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a shed dormer at the
property of 5 HOWARD STREET (Map 35 Lot 187)(R3 Zoning District).
A public he-
aring on the above Petition was opened on August 17, 2016 pursuant to 1%4.G.l. Ch. 40A, 11.
The hearing was closed on this date with the following Solent Board of Appeals members present: Peter A.
Copelis (Vice-Chair),Tom Watkins, jimmy 1'sitsinos, Paul N7iccica (alternate),
I-Ile Petitioner seeks it Special Permit per Set. 3.3.3.ivmce qibrmih S/n/c/mTs of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to
construct 11 shed dormer.
• Statements of fact:
1 In the petition date-stamped.ju.]'v 25, 2016, the Petitioner requested Special Permits per Section 3.3.3
Non,&�;forvw�g Smv,'Iures to construct 1 shed dormer.
2 'I'lle petitioner, 1,111101111 Walsh, and Brendan O'Donoghue, contractor,presented the petition.
3. The existing house is it nonconforming single family.residential structure as to front yard and side yard
setback.
4. The petitioner is proposing to construct a shed dormer on the south elevation.
5. The proposed shed dormer is approximately six (6) feet from the side yard serbacl where ten (10)
feet is required,
0. Although the dormer will increase the height and the number of stories, die request is within height
and number of store dimensional requirements of the R3 Zoning District.
7. The requested relief,if granted, would allow the Petitioner to construct a shed dormer.
S. At the pubbc hearings no members of the public spoke in favor or in uppositioi) to the proposal.
Ilic 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
pr"c I it.tation and public testimony, makes the following findings Char the proposed project meers the
ProvIsIon,i of the Cir- of Salem Zoning Ordinallm
• City of Salem Board of Appeals
August 31.2016
project: i Hoeard Street
Page 2 of 2
Findings for Special Permit:
The Board finds that the proposed modification will not be substantially more detrimental than the.
existing nonconforming structure.
1. Thc. Board finds that the proposed changes will improve the su-ucrurc.
2. There is no impact on traffic flow or safety.
3. There is no impact on utilities or other public sets ices.
4. Thcre is no impact on the natural environment.
5. The proposal conforms to the existing neighborhood character.
6. The potential fiscal impact,includ ng 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 (Peter A. Cupelas (Vice- Chair), •'fan Watkins, loam) 7'sitsinos, Paul Viceici (alternate)) and none (0)
opposed, to grant a Special Permit, to construct a shed dormer 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.
?. all construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the
Building Commissioner
.3. All requirements of die Salem fire Department relative to smoke and fire safeti' shall be strictly
adlicred to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
1
5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
6. A Cerufieate of Occupancy shall be obtained.
A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained.
R. Petitioner is to obtain appnwal from any City Board or Conunnission having jurisdiction including, but
norlinuced to,the Planning Board.
---p
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
F
'R HS DECISION IL1S 131-E.-\ Pll.l{1)WITUTHli PLANNIM; BOARD ANDTfIL.CI'1'1' C1 L1iK
top d Ir:vn 11 Ah hirer„i� an ah all L; out purruani to S<ew7a 1.7 y the Ala:sa w ellL General f oar Chapter-10-1 and,hull be pe d aiMm 20
m a1 fihq t! 11w de .mj as IN(ffio qjl/e Cary-C7nk Pur want to thh Ma.rad wis reaeral Uwi C hupee 40,-4. Seelion 1/, Me 1 nrnar nr
pe-v/1)"n.' Crrrzt,;l/er.t ,1uGt uoi Bake qy'I ueail a erp, 011;, de.'.n,n bhang!h emficate of lk C,pOerk ha. Hw;/ilyd n-ai,Ih. Lees }iuttlt
IF[{4
1 I
e
�;gONBIT,�
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL265 8'
'M w
�� �tl'ANE 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 AU6 3 ' ~ 21
KIMBERLEYDRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 E4
MAYOR Ol7Y OLE ,SALEMo14A ,
August 31, 2016
Amended Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of IAN HUNTER,requesting an amendment to the approved Special Permit in accordance
with Sec. 3.0 Table ofPrincipal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in
order to expand the hours of operation for public days to 12pm to Bpm seven (7) days a week to
accommodate private functions and additional public retail hours at select times of the year at 75
CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lot 201) (134 Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 17, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 4 11.
The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Peter A.
Copelas (Vice- Chair), Tom Watkins,Jimmy Tsitsinos, and Paul Viccica (alternate).
The Petitioner seeks and amendment to a previously approved Special Permit in accordance with Sec. 3.0
Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to expand the hours of
operation.
• Statements of fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped July 26, 2016, the Petitioner requested to expand the hours of operation
for public days to 12pm to 8pm seven (7) days a week to accommodate private functions and
additional public retail hours at select times of the year.
2. The Zoning Board of Appeals approved a special permit date stamped on October 29, 2014. All
conditions of the October 29, 2014 special permit apply unless otherwise specified in this amended
decision.
3. Since opening on October 20, 2015, the business Deacon Guiles, has declined to hold private
functions at the facility,including birthday patties,rehearsal dinners, and corporate meetings.
4. Additionally, the business has received a number of requests for tours of the facility particularly on
Federal and State holidays.
5. The current hours of public operation, as limited by the October 29, 2014 decision. The current
permitted of hours of public operation are Friday and Saturday from 12pm -spm OR 1pm to 6pm
with the possibility of expanding hours dependent upon Board of Appeals approval.
6. The petitioner stated that Deacon Guiles will be applying to the Licensing Board for a pouring
license.
7. The Board stated that the nature of the business use will change with the addition of a pouring
license,if granted. Therefore, the Board requested that the petitioner reduce the request to expand the
proposed hours of operation from 12pm-8pm seven (7) days a week to Thursday through Sunday
• 12pm (noon) to 8pm, federal and state holidays, and private events as scheduled until 8pm.
8. The Board also requested that the expansion of the hours of operation shall be for a six (6) month
trial period and automatically extended if there are no complaints filed with the Building Inspector.
City of Salem Board of Appeals This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
August 31,2016 City Hall, Salem, Mass. on hv5or alt d-Di ¢
Project: 75 Canal Street at• .1',J}a,1, in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,Page 2 of Sections 18-25.
9. The Board supports business expansion while also recognizing that the change in hours may have an
impact on the residential neighborhood.
10. Special Condition #1 of the October 29,2014 special permit shall be replaced with the following
condition: "Hours of operation for the public to visit the distillery and tasting room shall be Thursday
through Sunday 12pm (noon) to 8pm, federal and state holidays, and private events as scheduled until
8pm. This expansion of hours of operation shall be for a six (6) month trial period and automatically
extended after six (6) months if there are no complaints filed with the Building Inspector.
1. Special Condition #6 of the October 29, 2014 special permit shall be replaced with the following
condition: "All retail sales at 75 Canal Street will be limited to the public hours. No retail sales from
this location may take place outside of approved public hours of operation.
11. At the public hearing, one (1) member of the public spoke in favor and no (0) members of the public
spoke in opposition to the amended decision.
On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in
favor (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chau), Tom Watkins, Jimmy Tsitsinos, Paul Viccica (alternate)) and none
opposed to approve the requested amendment to allow the addition of a tasting room to an existing brewery,
distillery,winery subject to the following terms, conditions and safeguards:
Standard Conditions:
• 1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the
Building Commissioner.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly
adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,
but not limited to, the Planning Board.
Special Conditions:
I. "Hours of operation for the public to visit the distillery and tasting room shall be Thursday through
Sunday 12pm (noon) to 8pm, federal and state holidays, and private events as scheduled until 8pm.
This expansion of hours of operation shall be for a six (6) month trial period and automatically
extended after six (6) months if there are no complaints filed with the Building Inspector.
2. Deliveries to the facility will be made during regular business hours of operation Monday through
• Friday from 8am-4pm and deliveries will be made on Canal Street only. The applicant will not have
deliveries during regular drop-off and pick-up times of the daycare facility located within 75 Canal
Street.
A n
A 4
City of Salem Board of Appeals
August 31,2016
Project: 75 Canal Street
• Page 3 of 3
3. The Petitioner will conduct research on ongoing City plans for Canal Street improvements to
understand whether there is a planned or existing cross-walk from in the vicinity to Canal Street and
Gardner Street and request the possibility of a cross-walk be added at this location if there is not one
proposed already.
4. The Petitioner will obtain all State and Federal permits including, but not limited to, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued Farmer Series License.
5. All retail sales at 75 Canal Street will be limited to theP ublic hours. No retail sales from this location
may take place outside of approved public hours of operation.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this derision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Lang 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 effect until a copy of the derision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk bar been fled with the Essex South
Regirtg of Deeds.
•
e
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
a9 BOARD OF APPEAL
%31 A 9 21
120 WASHINGTON STREET* SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
KIMSERLEY DRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 FILE;#
MAYOR CITY GLERK,,,qALEK.KASS,
August 31, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of MATTHEW CORNELL seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming
Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reconstruct, extend and structurally change an existing
non-conforming rear deck at the property of 18 BRIGGS STREET (Map 18 Lot 507) (112 Zoning
District)
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 17, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 4 11.
The hearing was closed on this date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Peter A.
Copelas (Vice- Chair),Tom Watkins,Jimmy Tsitsinos,Paul Viccica (alternate).
The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to
reconstruct, extend and structurally change an existing non-conforming rear deck.
• Statements of fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped July 26, 2016, the Petitioner requested Special Permits per Section 3.3.3
Nonconforming Structures to reconstruct, extend and structurally change an existing non-conforming rear
deck.
2. Matthew Cornell,petitioner, presented the petition.
3. In 1986, the existing non-conforming rear deck was constructed by special permit. The deck is
currently in poor condition and is located within three (3� feet of the rear property line and within
eight (8) feet of the side yard lot line.
4. The existing structure is 8' x 17' feet and includes a stairway.
5. The petitioner is proposing to reconstruct and extend a non-conforming 8'x 17' deck with an 8' x 20'
x 10'deck and stairway.
6. The existing deck is located within three (3') feet of the rear property line and within eight (8� feet of
the side yard lot line. The petitioner is proposing to extend the deck by one (1) foot along the existing
non-conforming distance within the required rear yard setback to square off the southwest comer.
7. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to reconstruct, extend, alter a non-
conforming rear deck.
8. At the public hearings one (1) member of the public spoke in favor and none (0) 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:
� A
This notice posted on "Officia! 11111letin Board"
City of Salem Board of Appeals City Hall, Salem, Mass. on p
August 31,2016 QvSv)Y 31l 'd%)tP
Project: 18 Briggs Street at V%pain in accordance wiih MGL Chap. 30A,
• Page 2 of 2 Sections 18-25.
Findings for Special Permit:
The Board finds that the proposed modification will not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming structure.
1. The Board finds that the reconstruction and expansion of the deck will promote safety and welfare as
the structure is currently hazardous and in poor condition.
2. The proposed deck is positioned at the rear of the residential lot with no impact on traffic flow, traffic
safety, or parking.
3. There will be no changes to utilities or public services related to the proposed deck.
4. The proposed deck fits with the existing neighborhood character.
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 (Peter A. Copelas (Vice- Chau), Tom Watkins,Jimmy Tsitsinos, Paul Viccica (alternate)) and none (0)
opposed, to grant a Special Permit, to reconstruct, extend and structurally change an existing non-conforming
rear deck subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards:
• Standard Conditions:
1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the
Building Commissioner
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly
adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy 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. pp
Rebecca Curran, Chau
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, uball be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Lama Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 10
days of fekng of this decision in the ofice of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or
Special Permit granted herein shall not take eed until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South
Regisdry of Deeds.
v�,coNDIT,
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
31
120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 A
KIMSERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 1 FAX:978-740-9846 X11€
MAYOR
e1TY CLERW;SALEK.44i4S""$.
August 31, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of DINO STATI seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconfomvng Uses of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance to convert an existing fur retail store into an office space at the property of 189
LORING AVE (Map 31 Lot 130) (Rl Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 17, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11.
The hearing was closed that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Peter A.
Copelas (Vice- Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins, Paul Viccica (alternate).
The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to convert an existing fur retail store
into an office space.
• Statements of fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped July 19, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2
Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to convert an existing fur retail store into an office
space.
2. Dino Stati, petitioner presents the petition.
3. The petitioner proposes to convert an existing fur retail store into an office space for a construction
contractor company.
4. The proposed office will have four (4) employees and no large trucks or equipment will be stored on
site.
5. There are four (4) parking spaces including two (2) legal parking spaces on the property and two (2)
parking spaces reserved for the associated business on the street.
6. The petitioner is planning to make improvements to the fayade of the building including constructing
new windows along the facade of Grant Road and Loring Ave. The petitioner is also proposing to re-
position the entryway and make landscape improvements.
7. No changes will be made to the footprint of the building.
8. 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:
( d,
City of Salem Board of Appeals This notice posted on "Official Bt:"'r-t ; Board"
August 31,2016 ( ;p.: k., Salem, li4h>s. ott
,, Mar 3), dQ(p
Project: 189 Loring Ave. G ,tee 1 ,;, iv. . >rdance It`• "< Chap. 30A,
• Page 2 of 2 D /' ��
Se�lwu.i iu ��.
Findings for Special Permit:
The Board finds that the proposed changed in non-conforming use will not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming use.
1. The Board finds that the change of use from a fur shop to a professional office will be a benefit to
social, economic and community needs.
2. There is no impact on traffic flow or safety.
3. There is no impact on the existing utilities or other public services.
4. There is no impact 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 (Peter A.
Copelas (Vice- Chair), Jimmy Tsitsinos, Tom Watkins, Paul Viccica (alternate)) in favor and none (0)
opposed, to allow the petitioner to convert an existing fur retail store into an office space subject to the
following terms, conditions, and safeguards:
• Standard Conditions:
1. The 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.
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 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.
n
Rebecca Curran, Chau
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 Lows Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20
days of ftkng 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 fEet until a copy of the derision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South
Registry of Deeds.
/6�;tbNBlT9��
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
KIMBERLEY DRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 4 FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR ?016 SEP �q p
MEETING NOTICE 52
You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals will hold its regularJd n
Wedne day, September 21, 2016 at 6.30 p.m. at City HallAnnex, BM 313, 120 Washington .,' p «SS.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
I. ROLL CALL
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
➢ August 17, 2016
III. REGULAR AGENDA
Project: Petition seeking an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to contest the
interpretation of fence and fence height.
• Applicant JAMES W. LEWIS
Location 3 LILLIAN ROAD (Map 30 Lot 30)(R1 Zoning District)
Project Petition seeking a Variance per Sec. 3.2.4 Accessory Buildings and Structures and a Special
Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the
construction of a two-story garage.
Applicant MATTHEW KEANE
Location 414 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 32 Lot 169) (Rl Zoning District)
Project Petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family
Residential Structures to expand the nonconforming structure.
Applicant JOAN DONOVAN OLIVER and THOMAS M. CITRINO
Location 49 FELT STREET (Map 27 Lot 585) (Rl Zoning District)
Project Petition seeking a Variance per Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design to exceed the maximum curb
cut.
Applicant DAVID POTTER
Location 40-42 WINTHROP STREET (Map 25 Lot 488) (R2 Zoning District)
IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
•
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"None City Hall, Salem, Mass. on
,� ; �
at pp-kn7
S- p,u in accordancel vith MGL Chap. 30A,
V. ADJOURNMENT Sections 18-25.
Page I of 1
wb
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
7
Board
c-
Date 1 / 21
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
Q tily2 -� r r I'f? fr3G��P ,l DvrtJaU Dl�d�
A.) waao w v,,l �-o,Q 517L 32J 2 sae s �, C cc(ac'<
f
Page of
���ontaT9"t4
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
4 BOARD OF APPEAL
r11N6 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
KIMBERLEYDwscOLL TELE:978-745-9595 FAx:978-740-9846
MAYOR
STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Appeals Members
FROM: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
DATE: 9/13/2016
RE: Meeting Agenda for September 21,2016
Board Members,
Please find the following in your packets:
1. Agenda
2. Staff Memorandum
3. Meeting Minutes (August 17, 2016)
4. 3 Lillian Avenue
5. 414 Lafayette Street
6. 49 Felt Street
7. 40-42 Winthrop 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 21, 2016.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
1. Continuation of a public hearing for the petition of JAMES W. LEWIS seeking and Appeal of
the Decision of the Building Inspector to contest the interpretation of fence and fence height
at the property of 3 Lillian Road (Map 30 Lot 30) (111 Zoning District).
The petitioner is seeking an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to contest the
interpretation of fence, fence height and enforcement of lot line dispute on an adjacent property. It
appears that this case is past the statute of limitation as no enforcement actions may be taken if the
work was permitted and a period of six (6) years has passed. As for lot line disputes, this is a civil
matter.
MGL 40A Section 7: ...provided, further, that if real property has been improved and used in
accordance with the terms of the original building permit issued by a person duly authorized to issue
such permits, no action, criminal or civil, the effect or purpose of which is to compel the
abandonment, limitation or modification of the use allowed by said permit or the removal, alteration
or relocation of any structure erected in reliance upon said permit by reason of any alleged violation of
\� the provisions of this chapter, or of any ordinance or by-law adopted thereunder, shall be maintained,
unless such action, suit or proceeding is commenced and notice thereof recorded in the registry of
deeds for each county or district in which the land lies within six years next after the commencement
of the alleged violation of law...
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—September 21, 2016
Page 2 of 6
In 2007, a pool, patio and wall was permitted by the City and constructed and the petitioner is before 104
the ZBA to contest the interpretation of fence and fence height.
2. Continuation of a public hearing for the petition of MATTHEW I SANE seeking a Variance
per Sec. 3.2.4 Accessory Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and a
Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the construction of a two-
story garage at the property of 414 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 32 Lot 169) (Rl Zoning
District)
At the July 20, 2016 public hearing, the petitioner withdrew an application without prejudice and has
reapplied with a change in relief requested. At the August 17, 2016 meeting, the petitioner requested
to continue the public hearing to the September 21, 2016 meeting. No testimony was heard at the
August 17, 2016 meeting. The petitioner is seeking a Variance per Sec. 3.2.4 Accessory Buildings and
Stractures and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the construction of a two-
story garage at the property. There is currently a one-story garage located one (1) foot from the rear
property line.
The petitioner is proposing to reconstruct and expand the existing structure to build a two-story
structure. The proposed height of the building is twenty-two (22) feet where eighteen (18) feet is
allowed by-right. The petitioner is also proposing to expand the footprint of the garage from 12' x 12'
feet to 24'x 23' feet. Ge
It seems that the proposed garage will serve the absentee landowner rather than serving the principal
building or principal use. 1 encourage the Board to ask the petitioner whether the use of the proposed
garage will serve the principal building or principal use.
Accessory building is defined in our zoning ordinance as "a subordinate building located on the
same lot as the main, or principal building or principal use, the use of which is customarily incidental
to that of the principal building or use of the land.
Accessory use is defined in our zoning ordinance as "a use customarily incidental to that of the main
or principal building or use of the land."
An accessory building must serve the principal building under the Zoning Ordinance.
There is a right-of-way that provides access to the rear lot. Our Ordinance requires there to be a
minimum of ten (10) feet between buildings for fire safety and access. The petitioner is proposing
twelve feet (12') between the existing buildings,which meets the minimum requirement.
Out of courtesy, I reached out to Chief Cody (Fire Department) to let him know that this project is
before the Board and if there are any concerns regarding fire access to the rear lot with the proposed
expansion. Although there is enough space between the buildings, per our zoning ordinance, the
Board has the authority to require dimensional requirements stricter than the minimum required by
the zoning bylaw.
2
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—September 21,2016
Page 3 of 6
.� Chief Cody was concerned about the condition of the right-of-way. The right of way is ill defined and
in need of repair to the rear property. The Chief has requested that parking on the site be defined so
as to not impede fire,medical, or police access in the future to access the rear property.The right of
way is the only emergency access to the rear property.
Board cannot directly request that the right of way be paved contingent upon the garage expansion
approval because the issue of maintenance of the right of way is unrelated to the garage expansion
request. However, should the Board grant this request I would recommend the following special
conditions: 1) Prohibit parking on the right of way to ensure that there is ten (10� feet of clearance
between the buildings (garage and primary residence) at all times to provide emergency access to the
rear lot 2) The accessory building use shall serve the principal building or principal use.
For the Variance:
The Board needs to find that there are:
1) Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land,building or structure involved,
generally not affecting other lands,buildings and structure in the same district.
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.
For the Special Permit:
The special permit may be granted if the Board finds that the proposal to construct a two (2) story 23
x 24 two (2) car garage at the rear property line will not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing dilapidated one (1) story one (1) car nonconforming structure.
Current conditions at 414 Lafayette Street.
3
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—September 21,2016
Page 4 of 6
3. A public hearing for the petition of JOAN DONOVAN OLIVER and THOMAS M. 40,..4
CITRONO seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-
Family Residential Structures to expand the existing nonconforming structure at the
property of 49 FELT STREET (Map 27 Lot 585) (Rl Zoning District)
The petitioner is seeking a special per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential
Structures. The petitioner proposed to construct a rear deck at the property, but then ended up
constructing an enclosed three season sunporch and open deck. Upon inspection of the expanded
project, the Building Commissioner requested that the petitioner come to the Zoning Board of
Appeal for consideration of an after the fact permit for the construction of the enclosed three season
sunporch that is already constructed. The room is an extension of the existing house, which is
nonconforming as to side yard setbacks.
The special permit may be granted if the Board fords that the proposal will not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure.
Enclosed is a petition and supporting documentation.
4. A public hearing for the petition of DAVID POTTER seeking a Variance per Sec 5.1.5.
Parking Design to exceed the maximum curb cut at the property of 40-42 WINTHROP
STREET (Map 25 Lot 488) (R2 Zoning District).
The petitioner is seeking a Variance per Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design to exceed the maximum curb
cut after the fact. Generally, the petitioner intends to provide a total of four parking spaces on this
property to serve the three (3) existing residential units.
Endicott Street:
The property originally had one curbcut approximately 12 feet wide with access to a two (2) car
garage on Endicott Street. The petitioner has installed a 26'wide curb cut along Endicott Street
and removed curbing, a grass planting strip, and sidewalk in the public way.The intent of the
curbcut and removal of landscaping on the property was to create a third parking space.
Endicott Street analysis:
The proposed new parking space (Unit#3) does not meet the standard parking dimensional
requirements of a 9' x 22' stall size. While we are looking at the curb cut dimensional requirements
in the petition form request, the intent of the curbcut is to provide a new parking space that must
meet the dimensional requirements of the ordinance. Additionally, the surfaced area of the
parking lot is not setback from the lot lines as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
Winthrop Street:
On Winthrop Street, the petitioner installed a 17'wide curbcut and associated driveway where the
petition form states that the curbcut is eight (8) feet. In the public way, the petitioner removed
curbing and installed a steep driveway apron. On the property, the existing landscaped side yard is
now paved over to create a new fourth parking space.
4
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—September 21,2016
Page 5 of 6
Winthrop Street analysis:
The proposed new parking space (Unit#3) does not meet the standard parking dimensional
requirements of a 9'x 22' stall size. While we are looking at the curb cut dimensional requirements
in the petition form request, the intent of the curbcut is to provide a new(second parking space for
Unit #3) that must meet the dimensional requirements of the ordinance. Additionally, the
surfaced area of the parking lot is not setback from the lot lines as required by the Zoning
Ordinance.
The paved area is up to the property line where the Zoning Code requires "the surfaced area of a
parking lot and all entrance and exit drives shall be set back a minimum of two (2) feet from all lot
lines except where an access driveway crosses the street lot line"
The petitioner conducted this work of installing and significantly expanding the curbcuts without
a permit from the Engineering Department and Building Department and without a Variance
from the Board knowingly.
Section 5.1.5 Design of the Zoning Ordinance states:
a. The widths of entrance and exit drives shall be:
b. A Minimum of twelve (12) feet for one-way use only;
c. 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
d. Maximum of twenty(20) feet at the street lot line in residence district's and thirty (30) feet
in business and industrial districts.
Currently, the petitioner has a total of 43' feet where a maximum of twenty (20) feet is allowed by right.
Please note that the plot plan measurements presented in the petition are inaccurately drawn and the City
Engineer and I visited the site and measured the installed curbcuts. Further,we are concerned that the
petitioner removed several pieces of granite curbing,which is City property, and used them for their own
purposes. The City Engineer requested that the petitioner either replace the curbing should the Board not
grant the Variance request, or pay the City back for the granite that was removed and not returned to the City.
Please see the pictures below for before and after changes.
5
1
if
I:Gi i�• N f I x '!
. . . . . ,
G„ $Aag
�
Mir
3111
r
i`
1 .
• City of Salem Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday,September 21,2016
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA")was held on Wednesday,September
21, 2016 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts
at 6:30 p.m.
Ms. Curran (Chair)calls the meeting to order at 630 pm.
ROLL CALL
Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair), Mike Duffy, ,
Jim Hacker (alternate),Paul Viccica (alternate),Jimmy Tsitsinos, and Tom Watkins. Also in
attendance Tom St Pierre-Building Commissioner,Erin Schaeffer-Staff Planner,and Colleen
Anderson—Recorder.
REGULAR AGENDA
Project Petition seeking a Variance per Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Desi
gn to exceed the
maximum curb cut.
Applicant DAVID POTTER
Location 40-42 WINTHROP STREET (Map 25 Lot 488) (112 Zoning District)
•
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Photographic support documentation of pre-existing and current conditions
Mike Becker, 48 School Street,was present to discuss the project.
Mr. Becker- States that the property is located on the corner of Winthrop Street and
Endicott Street. Previously, there were two (2) compact width,but oversized length parking
spaces, slightly askew,in front of the existing garage along the Endicott Street side of the
property. The petitioner repaved the driveway and wanted to increase the number of parking
spaces. The petitioner is proposing three (3) compact width parking spaces along the
Endicott Street side. The driveway is similar to the one across the street. There is no on-
street parking on this side of Endicott Street. Therefore, there is no on-street parking lost as
a result of the curbcut. Endicott Street is narrow, so making the turn into the driveway even
with no parking on that side of the street,is still tight. Two sections of curb have sunken into
the ground and a third slopes up to 6-8" above the street. The curb cut also goes past the lot
line by approximately 3'-4' feet. Mr. Becker presents images and states that is unclear where
the ccurbcut started and stopped because previously existing granite curbing was sunken and
at street level.
Is
Chair Curran— Asks the petitioner has expanded the curbcut? •
Mr. Becker-That is what they are telling me.
Chair Curran- Confirms that the petitioner has already expanded the curbcut.
Mr. Becker- Yes. This is an after the fact permit request. Certainly the second curb to the
left was above grade by four (4) or five (5) inches. The one immediately next to where the
parking is may or may not have been part of the curbcut.
Chair Curran- Did you remove any of the curbing?
Mr. Becker- Yes. The next section. The curb that is in the sidewalk is still in the sidewalk
and the curb that is under the grade, those two (2) are still there.
Chair Curran- Okay. So the existing driveway on Endicott Street was eight (8) feet wide
before?
Mr. Becker- It was about 16 feet including the three (3) to four (4) feet beyond the property
line. You can see that the curbcut is past the property line by several feet. Mr. Becker goes
on to describe how the granite was sunken to different depths along the property line.
Mr. Potter- 198 Loring Ave. Salem,MA-Petitioner is present. •
Chau Curran—stated that they are limited to a 20 foot curb cut and requesting any more
than that requires a variance which requires hardship. If a hardship is not found and a
variance is not granted the curb will need to be reinstalled. A flush curb does not equal a
curb cut and hardship needs to be proven.
Mr. Becker—The house is a pre-existing three (3) family, the lot is on the corner, and the
shape of the lot is skewed so it has more frontage than other lots on the street. On
Winthrop Street there was an existing double gate in a chain-link fence that was removed and
he believes it was a driveway.
Mr. Copelas—noted that a tree was removed from in front of the double gate and it was
most likely used as a side yard and not a driveway.
Mr. Viccica—asked if the fence on Winthrop Street went up to the property line.
Mr. Becker-Yes. The property line is 13' away from the house and the new paving goes up
to that side yard lot line. Mr. Becker states that there is a hydrant on the comer of Winthrop
Street and Endicott Street. The required hydrant clearances don't provide enough spaces for
two (2) standard size parking spaces in that area and presumes that no on-street parking •
spaces will be lost.
• Mr. St. Pierre- Building Commissioner- noted that a vehicle must be parked 10' feet away
from a fire hydrant.
Chair Curran—stated that vehicles of various lengths could park there and an on-street
parking spot would be eliminated.
Mr. Viccica—noted that the Winthrop Street curb extends 3'4 feet past the edge of the
house.
Mr. Becker- stated that the neighbor paved the entrance of their driveway up to the tree
stump and he continued the paving on the other side of the stump and up to the edge of the
house.
Mr.Viccica—noted that there is an existing curb cut on that side of the house that includes
the neighbor's curb cut.
Mr.Becker noted that the neighbor's curb cut is approximately 10'-12'wide.
Chair Curran—stated the request for a variance requires that the literal enforcement of
provisions would involve substantial hardship. Ms. Curran states that the applicant has not
provided a statement of substantial hardship in the written statement of hardship. Corner
• lots can have two (2) curb cuts, however;eliminating an on-street space in a congested area
negates the public good, despite the fact that it would create an off-street parking spot. The
lot angle is not drastic enough to create a special condition.
Mr. Copelas—noted that the two (2) undersized parking spaces are existing and city land on
Endicott Street has been expropriated to create a third additional undersized space which
eliminated an on-street parking space. That does not meet variance request requirements.
Mr.Potter- stated that it is hard to park on the street because the street is narrow. Creating an
off-street space would be an improvement and beneficial to the neighbors.
Mr. St. Pierre - confirmed that each property is allowed 20 feet of curb cut.
Chair Curran opens public comment.
Jane Tricomi, 52 Winthrop Street, asked if the property is and has always been a 3 family.
Chair Curran replied yes. Tricomi noted that the neighboring properties have minimal off-
street parking,parking is limited, and parking is only allowed on one side of the street.
Tricomi is not in favor of eliminating an on-street parking space.
Donna Doucette, 34 Winthrop Street, stated that the proposed driveway entrance location
• has been used to house a snow pile in the past and wonders where snow be placed if this is
approved.
Donna Romano, 40 Winthrop Street,Unit 1, stated that she purchased a unit in the •
applicants building. Wrote one letter in support of the third space and then wrote a second
letter rescinding the first, stating that the third spot was not feasible due to the cramped and
skewed angle of the driveway.
Chau Curran -reads Donna Romano's second letter stating that the curb cut on Endicott
Street should remain but to also allow use of the Winthrop Street curb cut along with the
City's recommendations for improvement at this location.
No one else in the assembly wishes to speak.
Chair Curran closes public comment.
Chau Curran - stated that there are no grounds for a variance, the section of curb and
sidewalk on Endicott Street that was removed should be put back in place,and all on-street
parking is necessary,however; and the curb can be widened on Endicott Street up to 20' feet.
Mr. Duffy- stated that no special condition of circumstance exists in terms of limited
amount of parking.
Mr. Copelas - asked what steps are necessary if the request for a Variance fails. •
St. Pierre—replied that a letter would be sent to the petitioner requesting that the existing
conditions be returned to the state that existing prior to the work they had done.
Mr. Viccica - stated that he sees no hardship on Endicott Street
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the request for a Variance per
Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design to exceed the maximum curb cut. The motion is seconded
by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was (1)Jimmy Tsitsinos in favor and (4) Chau Curran,
Peter A. Copelas, Mike Duffy, and Paul Viccica (4) opposed. The Variance request is
denied.
Project Petition seeking an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to
contest the interpretation of fence and fence height.
Applicant JAMES W. LEWIS
Location 3 LILLIAN ROAD (Map 30 Lot 30)(RI Zoning District)
Attorney Stephen Zolotas, 133 Washington Street,was present to represent James Lewis, 3
Lillian Road. Arty. Zolotas stated that there is a 6 year statute of limitations for work
completed with a permit extends and 10 years if a permit was not pulled. It has been 9 years •
r
• Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to continue this discussion and vote to
later in the agenda. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. The vote was
unanimous.
Motion and Vote: Chau Curran makes a motion to reconvene the discussion and vote
on 3 Lillian Road. The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy. The vote was unanimous.
Atty. Zolotas stated that after speaking with the abutters no agreements were made and they
will need the board to come to a decision.
Mr. Duffy—asked for clarification that the decision would be to either uphold or not uphold
the Building Commissioners decision.
Chau Curran—added that not upholding the decision would deny the petitioners appeal and
over-turning the Building Commissioners decision would uphold the petitioners appeal.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to uphold the Building Commissioners
interpretation and deny the appeal. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. The vote
was unanimous with four (5) Rebecca Curran (Chau), Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),
Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos, and Tom Watkins in favor and none (0) opposed.The
Building Commissioner's opinion was upheld.
• Project Petition seeking a Variance per Sec. 3.2.4 Accessory Buildings and Structures and
a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance to allow the construction of a two-story garage.
Applicant MATTHEW KEANE
Location 414 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 32 Lot 169) (111 Zoning District)
Chau Curran stated that the petitioner has asked for a continuation to allow time to adjust
plans and work with the neighbors.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion for a continuation,with no evidence
taken, to the October 19, 2016 meeting. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. The
vote was unanimous to allow the continuation of the public hearing to the next
regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, October 19, 2016.
•
Project Petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-
and Two-Family Residential Structures to expand the nonconforming
structure.
Applicant JOAN DONOVAN OLIVER and THOMAS M. CITRINO
Location 49 FELT STREET (Map 27 Lot 585) (R1 Zoning District)
Tom Citrino (Owner) was present to discuss the project.
Citrin stated that the home was purchased in May of 2015, a building permit was obtained
to demolish a 6 foot by 14 foot deck with a ramp. The intent was to add a new 12 foot by
12 foot deck off the back of the home. Partway through the project a roof was added and
the deck became a three season porch. Due to its proximity to the lot lines it requires a
special permit despite the fact the deck is in line with the edge of the house.
Chair Curran—asked if the project was completed. Citrino replied that it is almost complete.
Mr. Duffy—asked if only the side yard setback was triggering a special permit. Citrin
replied yes. Chair Curran—requested clarification that the Board has previously approved a
deck that was later partially enclosed. Citrino replied yes.
•
Mr. Copelas—asked why this was a special permit request and not a variance. St. Pierre—
noted that 1 & 2 family houses require a special permit and not a variance and this is a one
family.
Chair Curran opens public comment.
Robert Craso, 15 Roosevelt Road. Has a driveway close to their property and wanted
clarification on what was happening with their property.
Dennis Dulong,45 Felt Street. Wanted clarification on what was happening with their
property.
No one in the assembly wishes to speak.
Chair Curran closes public comment.
Mr. Copelas—asked if the request was for a three-season porch or the three-season porch
and the open deck. There is no reference in the application to the open deck. Citrino
replied both. The open porch is extended beyond the three-season porch.
•
• since the work was performed and the 10 year statute of limitation ends in May of 2017. A
permit was not pulled for the drainage,which is required if more than 2 feet of fill is added
and 4 feet of fill was added. A permit was also not pulled for the retaining wall that is more
than 4 feet high, and wall installed was 4 feet high. The interpretation of the fence height is
also an issue. Sec. 4.1.1 states that`retaining walls, boundary walls, and/or fences are to be
measured at the Owners side from the bottom of the structure." In May of 2007 a 5 foot 9
inch fence was in existence. When the pool was installed in 2007 and 4 feet of fill was
added,retaining wall constructed, and a 5 foot 9 inch fence was erected on top of it. Two
separate letters have been provided, the first from Mr. St. Pierre's letter dated April 29s' 2016
stating that the fence is lower than 6 feet and no Variance is required,which is what is being
appealed. A second letter from Assistant Inspector Wagg, dated March 21"2016, stated that
permits were not pulled and the fence exceeds 6 feet in height. The appellant is requesting
an adoption of the March 21"letter and requests that permits be pulled, the area be
inspected to ensure drainage for the security of the retaining wall, and the fence height
reduced. The incorrect boundary line is a civil issue and not a matter for the ZBA,however;
the height of this fence would not have been allowed if the Appellants interpretation of the
code was followed in 2007 because the ZBA cannot grant relief for someone else's property.
Chair Curran—asked why this is an issue 9 years later. Jim Lewis, 3 Lillian Road,replied that
he was unaware of the code or property line concerns.
Mr. St. Pierre—noted that he verified with the City Engineer but the pulling of a drainage
• permit would not come before the ZBA. An approved drainage alteration plan would have
made the new grade change legal and the 6 foot new fence height would have been measured
from the new grade level on the owners land. The zoning ordinance isn't clear on where the
fence height would start, but retaining walls under 4 feet high do not require a building
permit.
Mr. Copelas—requested clarification on what portion of the wall and fence are on the
Appellants property.
Arty. Zolotas- the existing 5 foot 6 inch retaining wall is on Mr. Lewis's property. The
Appellant believes that a portion of the abutter's new wall and at a minimum the wooden
fence, are on their property. If the Board upholds the appeal the remedy would be a partial
tear down and a new fence of the correct height on the abutter's property.
Mr. St. Pierre—noted that if the Board doesn't uphold his decision he would have to notify
the abutter about permitting their wall and the boundary line will remain a civil matter.
Mr. Duffy—asked if the retaining wall was part of the pool project when they pulled a
permit,and if it included the entire pool project.
Arty. Zolotas -only a pool permit was pulled, the abutters plan is included in the summary, a
reference is made to 1 to 2 feet of fill but there is no mention of a retaining wall.
•
Mr. St. Pierre—noted that the City Engineer felt there was no reason to issue a drainage •
permit when there has been no drainage issue. When the pool was built in 2007, the 6h or
7`s edition of the building code was in use, and the height of a retaining wall that did not
require a building permit was 6 feet, the new 4 foot height is a recent change. A drainage
alteration permit should have been issued for this project.
Mr. Duffy—stated that since a building permit would not have been required the 6 year
statute of limitations applies.
Chair Curran—agreed.
James Lewis, 3 Lillian Road,asked for clarification on 1) where heights are measured in
regard to the shape of the land not changing,2) if building one retaining wall over another
was permissible, and 3) when building a swimming pool with accessory buildings and
structures are the platform with pavers and retaining wall considered structures that require a
building permit.
Mr. St. Pierre—replied that the patio does not fit the definition of a structure per the
building code, the owners of the first retaining wall is not known at this time but the
retaining wall are set back from one another and are not on top of each other.
Mr. Viccica - noted that closely terraced retaining walls work together to hold back fill and
should have be engineered as one wall which would require a building permit and the 10 year •
statute would be applicable.
Mr. St. Pierre—noted that the retaining walls nearly abut each other.
Chair Curran—noted that the only item being appealed is the interpretation of the fence
height.
Cbair Curran opens public comment.
Sean Kelliher, 19 Chandler Road, (abutter). Stated that the retaining wall was existing and
only two new railroad ties were added to the top to help align the pavers.
Danielle Kelliher, 19 Chandler Road, (abutter). Stated that the additional fill was added to
level the lot and presented an option to move the fence.
No one else in the assembly wishes to speak.
Cbair Curran closes public comment.
The petitioner and abutter wish to speak in private.
•
• Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the Special Permit per Sec.
3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a shed
dormer. The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos.The vote was unanimous with four
(5) Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair), Mike Duffy,Jimmy
Tsitsinos, and Tom Watkins in favor and none (0) opposed.
OLD/NEW BUSINESS
None.
APPROVAL OF_MEETING MINUTES
No August 17, 2016 meeting minutes to approve at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Copelas motions for adjournment of the September 21, 2016 regular meeting of the
Salem Board of Appeals.
. Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins made a motion to adjourn the September 21, 2016
regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Duffy, and the vote
is unanimous in favor and none (0) opposed.
The meeting ends at 8:15 PM.
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/SalernMA ZonM AppealsMin/
Respectfully submitted,
Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
°�M �� CIS OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
T7,1n,7 BOARD OF APPEAL
7816 SEP b n n
120 WASHINGTON STREET 0 SALEM,MASSACH1flUSETTS 019 *rn
TELE:978-619-5685+ FAx:978-7
Ka,mEUEY DRIscou '1 f r R it 3 A:EM.M/4 .):
MAYOR
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JOAN DONOVAN OLIVER and
THOMAS M. CTTRINO seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family
Residential Structures to expand the nonconforming structure at the property located at 49 FELT
STREET (Map 27 Lot 585)
Said hearing will be held on WED, SEPT. 21, 2016 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST,
• ROOM 313.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 9/7/16 & 9/14/16
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on St L4,,,6iv lye X,Ity
at in accordance 3 ith MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
•
° g CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
Al
BOARD OF APPEAL
1016 SEP -b AID 47
{P / 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSE '
7 4 97
TF E:97s-619-5685# FAx:6tb_y4Rk S4LEM.MASS
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of DAVID POTTER seeking a
Variance per Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design to exceed the maximum curb cut at the property located at 40-42
WINTHROP STREET (Map 25 Lot 488).
Said hearing will be held on WED, SEPT. 21, 2016 at 6:30 p.m., 3rd floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST,
ROOM 313.
• Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 9/7/16 & 9/14/16
This noticr.
post(., , "Official Bulletin Board"
city Hail. Salem on
at I6`y u i h) tivith MGL Chap.Sections 18-25. p. 30A,
•
f
�Cd1YY1T�\
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MAssACHUsETTs01970 2016 SEP 28 IP (: Ob
KII,fBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846
FILE li
MAYOR CITY, -,CLERK, 5r1LEM,MASS,
September 26, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of DAVID POTTER seeking a Variance per Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design to exceed the maximum
curb cut at the property located at 40-42 WINTHROP STREET (Map 25 Lot 488) (R-2 Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on September 21, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, � 11.
The heating was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca
Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy, and Tom Watkins.
The Petitioner seeks a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design to exceed the maximum
curb cut.
• Statements of fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped August 30, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Variance from the provisions
of Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to exceed the maximum curb cut.
2. David Potter and Michael Becker presented the petition.
3. The property is located on the comer of Winthrop Street and Endicott Street in an R-2 Zoning
District.
4. The property use is an existing non-conforming three (3) family structure that was redeveloped by
David Potter and converted into three (3) condominiums.
5. The property originally had one (1) driveway approximately 12' feet wide along Endicott Street with
no curbcut. The granite curbing was sunken in the road allowing for the property owners to easily
drive into the private property. The driveway lead to a two (2) car garage and also has space for two
(2) dimensionally non-conforming side-by-side parking spaces.
6. On Winthrop Street, the property originally had a double gate and landscaped side yard and no
curbcut.
7. The petitioner expanded the curbcut from approximately 12' wide to 26' wide along Endicott Street
by removing approximately 14' feet of granite curbing, grass strip and sidewalk to create a curb cut.
8. The petitioner expanded the curbcut along Endicott Street to provide a third dimensionally non-
conforming parking space.
9. The petitioner also installed a 17' wide curbcut along Winthrop Street and removed existing sidewalk,
• curbing and at minimum one (1) public on-street parking space.
10. The newly paved parking areas are paved to the property lines where the requirement is to allow a two
(2) foot buffer.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
September 26,2016
Project:40-42 Winthrop Street
• Page 2 of 3
11. The petitioner installed approximately 43' feet of curbcut where the maximum curbcut allowed is 20'
feet.
12. The petitioner installed the curbcuts without a permit from the Salem Engineering Department and
took City property for private interests.
13. The petitioner argued that the hardship incurred by the petitioner is that it is a hardship to park on
street because Winthrop Street is narrow.
14. There is public parking allowed on both sides of Winthrop Street.
15. The requested relief,if granted,would allow the petitioner a Variance to exceed the maximum curbcut
requirement for a residential use.
16. The Board discussed the ramifications of a denial of the petition. Specifically, the petitioner has the
ability to have a 20' foot wide curbcut by-right.
17. The petitioner must meet all of the parking design and dimensional requirements.
18. The Board requested that the applicant work with the City Engineer to replace the sidewalk and
curbing that was removed on Winthrop Street in its entirety and to replace the sidewalk, planting strip
and granite curbing along Endicott Street where it was removed such that the dimensional
requirements for a curbcut be met and be in compliance with the Salem Engineering Department
curbcut permit requirements.
• 19. At the public hearing, three (3) members of the public spoke in opposition to the petition, and seven
(7) members of the public signed a petition in favor of 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:
Findings for Variance:
1. There are no specific 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.
2. There is no substantial hardship to the applicant.
3. Desirable relief cannot 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.
Specifically, taking away a public parking space on Winthrop Street negates a public good. The
petitioner took City land and property to create a private parking space on Endicott Street.
On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted one (1) in favor
Qimmy Tsitsinos) and four (4)(Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair), Mike Duffy, and Tom
Watkins) opposed, to approve the requested Variance to allow the petitioner to exceed the maximum
allowable curbcut. The petition has been denied.
•
City of Salem Board of Appeals
September 26,2016
Project:40-42 Winthrop Street• �Page 3 of 3 — 4 G(—�.,
Rebecca Curran, Chau
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 Cbapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20
days of fi4'ug of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or
Special Pernid granted herein shall not take f ct until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk bas been filed with the Essex South
Registry of Deeds.
•
•
gOIJDIT
'4z] 1 CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTIP1470 28 P,:1: 06
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846
GITY GtERK ALEM.
MAYOR MASS,
September 26, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of JOAN DONOVAN OLIVER and THOMAS M. CITRINO seeking a Special Permit per Sec.
3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures to expand the nonconforming
structure at the property located at 49 FELT STREET (Map 27 Lot 585)(8-I Zoning District)
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on September 21, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, Q 11.
The heating was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca
Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy, and Tom Watkins.
The Petitioner seeks a special permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential
Structures to expand the dimensionally nonconforming structure.
Statements of fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped August 25, 2016, the Petitioner requested a special permit per Sec. 3.3.5
Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures.
2. The property is located in an R-1 Zoning District and the building is dimensionally non-confonrnng
as to the side yard setback.
3. The petitioner is proposing to build a 12 x 12 three season porch and extend along an existing non-
conforming side wall of the house and a 9' x16' open air rear deck.
4. The petitioner originally received a building permit for a deck, but constructed a three season porch
and non-enclosed rear deck.
5. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the petitioner to keep the already constructed three
season porch and rear deck.
6. At the public hearing, no (0) members of the public spoke in opposition to the petition or in favor of
the petition.
The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing,
and after thorough review of the petition, including the application narrative and plans, makes the
following findings:
Special Permit Findings:
1. There are social, economic and community needs served by the proposal
2. There will be no impacts to traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading
• 3. There will be no impact to the adequacy of utilities and other public services
4. There will be no impacts on the natural environment,including drainage
5. The three season porch and associated deck fit with the existing character of the neighborhood.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
September 26,2016
Project:49 Felt Street
• Page 2 of 2
6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on City and tax base and employment 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 (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy, and Tom Watkins) and
none (0) opposed, to approve the special permit to expand the non-conforming structure 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 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 beating the certificate of the City Clerk bas been filed with the Essex South
Registry of Deeds
•
h ' CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS IM(SEP 28 P 1: Ob '
KIMSERLEY DRISCOLL nLE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846
MAYOR F ILE',#
CITY CLERK, SALEM,MASS
September 26, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of JAMES W. LEWIS seeking an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to contest the
interpretation of fence and fence height at the property of 3 1 J T IAN ROAD (Map 30 Lot 30)(81 Zoning
District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 15, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 4 11.
Public testimony was heard on that date and the public hearing was continue to September 21, 2016 and
closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair),
Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy, and Tom Watkins.
The Petitioner is seeking an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector to contest the interpretation of
fence and fence height.
•
Statements of fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped May 24, 2016, the Petitioner requested to appeal the Decision of the
Building Inspector to contest the interpretation of fence and fence height.
2. Attorney Stephen Zolotas of 133 Washington Street, Salem,MA presented the petition.
3. The petitioner, Mr. James W. Lewis, filed an appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector. Mr.
Lewis requested that the building inspector enforce the Salem Zoning Ordinance nine (9) years after a
building perrnit was issued for the construction of a swimming pool.
4. The petitioner states that a retaining wall constructed in relation to the swimming pool needed a
building permit and therefore, the statute of limitation on enforcement of other zoning matters could
be done.
5. In particular,Mr. Lewis requested that the building inspector enforce the fence height requirements of
the Salem Zoning ordinance due to concerns about the fence height and location installed by an
abutting neighbor.
6. The location of the installed fence is a civil matter.
7. In a letter dated March 21, 2016, the City's assistant building inspector provided a zoning opinion
stating that the permit for an in-ground pool was applied for and issued 5/21/2007. There is no
record on-file of a request for a zoning variance or for a building permit to increase the height of the
border/retaining wall above 6' feet. There is no record on-file that the City Engineer was notified of
. the intent to alter the grade of the land.
8. While there was no grade alteration permit applied for from the Engineering Department to alter the
grade of the land,it is not within the purview of the Zoning Board to discuss a permit of the
Engineering Department since it is not part of the zoning ordinance.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
September 26,2016
Project: 3 Lillian Road
• Page 2 of 2
9. In a letter dated April 29, 2016 the Building Inspector stated that he met with the neighbors and
discussed the construction work done at 19 Chandler Street. Work included the installation of a pool,
patio and raising of a retaining wall that was done in 2007. The Massachusetts General Law Ch.40A
Section 7 states that no enforcement actions may be taken if the work was permitted and a period of
six (6) years has passed.
10. It is the opinion of the Building Inspector officer that no enforcement actions may be taken as the
construction work received a building permit and a period of six (6) years has passed.
11. Regarding fence height, the Salem Zoning Ordinance states the following "retaining walls, boundary
walls and or fences may be built abutting the property line. The height of the retaining wall boundary
walls and or fences shall be measured on the inside face of the structure on the owners side." It is the
opinion of the Building Inspector that as long as the abutter's fence does not exceed six (6) feet
measured from their side, there is no zoning violation.
12. The height of the raised retaining wall is approximately three and a half feet (3.5� and would not have
required a building permit at the time of construction.
13. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the zoning enforcement officer to take any associated
enforcement actions.
14. At the public hearing, two (2) members of the public spoke in opposition and no members of the
public spoke in favor, of the petition.
The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and
after thorough review of the petition, including the application narrative and plans, makes the following
findings:
Findings:
1. A building permit was pulled on May 21, 2007 for the construction of the swimming pool. A building
permit was not required for the construction of the 3.5' foot retaining wall. Therefore, the statute of
limitation of six (6) years for any zoning enforcement action has passed.
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 (Vice-Chair),Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy, and Tom Watkins) and
none (0) opposed, to uphold the decision of the building inspector. The decision of the Building Inspector is
upheld.
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 brain 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.
�ONINT
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
rimBERLEYDRISCOLL 'ISLE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR
MEETING NOTICE
You an hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppeals mill hold its rgularyscheduled meeting on
Wednesday, October 19, 2016at 6.•30 p.m. at City HallAnnex, RM 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA
Rebecca Curran, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
➢ August 17, 2016 ..,
o
➢ September 21,2016
111. REGULAR AGENDA
m"
• Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking a Varian-cle per-kc. 3.2.4
Accessory Buildings and Structures and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Noncaformin iructures
of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a two-sfo*garaf
Applicant MATTHEW KEANE
Location 414 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 32 Lot 169) (R1 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for a petition requesting Variances from Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design and
Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow the construction of a 24' wide
curbcut and associated parking area within five (5) feet of the street line.
Applicant JASON& CHRISTINA ROBINS
Location 77 PROCTOR STREET (Map 25,Lot 5) (R-2 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5
Nonconforming Single and Two- Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance to construct an 8'x 8' dormer.
Applicant STEPHEN CUMMINGS
Location 241 NORTH STREET (Map 17 Lot 159)(R-1 Zoning District)
•
Pagel of 2
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Agenda for October 19,2016 Meeting
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming
Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures to expand the nonconfom-iing structure and a
Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance
for minimum lot area per dwelling unit.
Applicant ARSEN SHERAJ
Location 2 BRADFORD STREET (Map 17, Lot 50)(R-2 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Uses to allow the
conversion of a historic carriage house to a dwelling unit.
Applicant JAY FAMICO
Location 380 ESSEX STREET (Map 25,Lot 206)(R-2 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for a petition requesting Variances from the provisions of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance Sec. 8.4.5 to allow the distance between adjacent residential lots to be
less than the required 100' ft.; Sec.8.4.9 Parking Requirements to allow less than the
required on-site parking; Sec. 8.4.13Transitional Overlay District to allow less than the
• required 50' buffer area, and Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot
area per dwelling unit to construct a new residential development.
Applicant 139 GROVE STREET REALTY TRUST
Location 70-92 '/2 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) (NRCC, R-2,
B-2)
Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2
Nonconforming Uses and Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements for the
following minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, minimum
distance between buildings, and maximum number of stories to construct eight (8)
residential units.
Applicant MICHAEL MEYER,TRUSTEE,
Location 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277) (R-1 Zoning District)
IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
None
This notice posted on "Official Bulle in Board"
V. ADJOURNMENT City Hall, Salem, Mass. onG)ee /a, V
at SSS A M in accordance with MGL Chap, 30A,
Sections 18-25.
Page 2 of 2
v�,,conm►r
4 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
' BOARD OF APPEAL
• 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 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 regularly schedu(e�meeting on
Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hal(Annex, RM 313, 120 Washington�t., Sad$,MA
C')
Rebecca Curran, Chair m c�-I.
MEETING AGENDA cn m
I. ROLL CALL rn D
3 _
3
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES v CA
CP
Cnn
➢ August 17,2016
➢ September 21, 2016
III. REGULAR AGENDA
Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance per Sec. 3.2.4
Accessory Buildings and Structures and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures
of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a two-story garage.
Applicant MATTHEW KEANE
Location 414 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 32 Lot 169) (RI Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for a petition requesting Variances from Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design and
Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow the construction of a 24' wide
curbcut and associated parking area within five (5) feet of the street line.
Applicant JASON & CHRISTINA ROBINS
Location 77 PROCTOR STREET (Map 25,Lot 5) (R-2 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5
Nonconforming Single and Two- Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance to construct an 8'x 8'dormer.
Applicant STEPHEN CUMMINGS
Location 241 NORTH STREET (Map 17 Lot 159)(R-1 Zoning District)
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on OCT 12 2016
at 3 9/Pc/ in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
Page 1 of 2
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Agenda for October 19,2016 Meeting
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforwing •
Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures to expand the nonconforming structure and a
Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance
for minimum lot area per dwelling unit.
Applicant ARSEN SHERAJ
Location 2 BRADFORD STREET (Map 17,Lot 50)(R-2 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Uses to allow the
conversion of a historic carriage house to a dwelling unit.
Applicant JAY FAMICO
Location 380 ESSEX STREET (Map 25,Lot 206)( R-2 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for a petition requesting Variances from the provisions of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance Sec. 8.4.5 to allow the distance between adjacent residential lots to be
less than the required 100' ft.; Sec.8.4.9 Parking Requirements to allow less than the
required on-site parking; Sec. 8.4.13Transitional Overlay District to allow less than the
required 50' buffer area, and Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot
area per dwelling unit to construct a new residential development.
Applicant 139 GROVE STREET REALTY TRUST
Location 70-92 1/2 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) (NRCC, R-2, •
B-2)
Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2
Nonconforming Uses and Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements for the
following minimum lot area per dwelling unit,minimutn lot frontage, minimum
distance between buildings, and maximum number of stories to construct eight (8)
residential units.
Applicant MICHAEL MEYER,TRUSTEE,
Location 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277) (R-1 Zoning District)
IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
CPC is requesting that the ZBA discuss and provide written comments on community preservation needs,
possibilities and/or resources, evaluation criteria,priority projects or other comments related to CPA funding
in Salem.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 of 2
�ONUIT4
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
iq
7 _ - BOARD OF APPEAL
MINE 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
KIMBERLEv DRIscoLL TEiF:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR
STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Appeals Members
FROM: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
DATE: 9/27/2016
RE: Meeting Agenda for October 19, 2016
Board Members,
Please find the following in your packets:
1. Agenda
2. Staff Memorandum
3. Meeting Minutes (August 17 & September 21)
4. 414 Lafayette Street
5. 77 Proctor Street
6. 241 North Street
7. 2 Bradford Street
8. 380 Essex Street
9. 70-92 '/2 Boston Street
10. 1-3 East Collins 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, October 19,2016
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
1. A public hearing for the petition of MATTHEW KEANE seeking a Variance per Sec. 3.2.4
Accessory Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and a Special Permit per
Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the construction of a two-story garage at the
property of 414 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 32 Lot 169) (Rl Zoning District)
The petitioner has requested to withdraw the application without prejudice.
2. The petitioner is requesting Variances from Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design and Sec. 5.1.8 Table
of Required Parking Spaces to allow the construction of a 24' wide curbcut and associated
parking area within five (5) feet of the street line at the property of 77 PROCTOR
STREET (Map 25, Lot 5) (R-2 Zoning District)
• The petitioner is proposing to install an 18' x 24' wide parking area in the front yard. The
petitioner is requesting a Variance from Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design to exceed the maximum
allowable curbcut.The petitioner is proposing a 24'wide curbcut where the maximum is 20' feet.
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—October 19,2016
Page 2 of 5
The petitioner is also requesting a Variance from Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces to i
allow the parking area to be located within five (5) feet of the street line.
Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces states:
...Notwithstanding any restrictions in this Section 5.1.8, no area within five (5) feet of the street
line, including any driveway, shall be considered as a parking space in RC, R1, R2 and R3
Districts..."
Looking at this proposal it seems that the petitioner is also removing a front stairway that
provides access to the property. It is unclear how the petitioner proposes to access the property.
Please read through Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design and 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces of the
Zoning Ordinance.
https://www.municode.com/library/ma/salem/codes/zoning ordinance?nodeld=S50GERE 5.
1OREPA
For the Variance request
The Board needs to find that there are:
• Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land,building or structure
involved,generally not affecting other lands, buildings and structure in the same district.
• Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial
hardship to the applicant.
• Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and •
without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the
purpose of the ordinance
2
v���ONUIT,J�Q
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET* SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
KIMBERLr:Y DRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR
Gateway 28 Goodhue
117 Units 44 Units
5.14 Acres 1.8 Acres
23 units per acre 24 units per acre
Riverview Place Salem Oil & Grease
130 Units 141 Units
4.14 Acres 6.81 Acres
31 units per acre 21 units per acre
3) A variance from Sec. 8.4.5 for the distance of the proposed building to be less that the required
100' feet from adjacent residential lots. The petitioner is providing 89' feet of distance between
the mid-rise building and an adjacent residential lot.
4) A variance from Sec. 8.1.13 Transitional Overlay District to allow less than the required 50' foot
buffer area.
•
7. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MICHAEL MEYER,
TRUSTEE, requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses .and
Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements for the following minimum lot area
per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, minimum distance between buildings, and
maximum number of stories to construct eight (8) residential units at 1-3 EAST
COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277 ) (R-1 Zoning District)
The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to change from
one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use and variances per Sec. 4.1.1
Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit,minimum lot frontage,
minimum distance between buildings, and maximum number of stories to construct eight (8)
residential units.
Old/New Business
CPC is requesting that the ZBA discuss and provide written comments on community preservation
needs,possibilities and/or resources, evaluation criteria,priority projects or other comments
related to CPA funding in Salem.
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—October 19, 2016
• Page 4 of 5
For the Variance request
The Board needs to find that there are:
• Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land,building or structure
involved,generally not affecting other lands,buildings and structure in the same district.
• Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship
to the applicant.
• Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and
without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose
of the ordinance
Enclosed is a petition and supporting documentation.
5. A public hearing for a petition of JAY FAMICO seeking a Special Permit per See. 3.0 Uses
to allow the conversion of a historic carriage house to a dwelling unit at 380 ESSEX
STREET (Map 25,Lot 206)
The petitioner is requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.0 Table of Uses to allow the conversion of a
historic carriage house to a dwelling unit. The property is located in an R-2 Zoning District.
Enclosed is a petition and supporting documentation.
• 6. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of 139 GROVE STREET
REALTY TRUST requesting Variances from the provisions of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance Sec. 8.4.5 to allow the distance between adjacent residential lots to be less than
the required 100' ft.; Sec.8.4.9 Parking Requirements to allow less than the required on-
site parking; Sec. 8.4.13 Transitional Overlay District to allow less than the required 50'
buffer area, and Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per
dwelling unit to construct a new residential development at 70-921/2 BOSTON STREET
(Map 15,Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) (NRCC, R-2, B-2).
This project is the redevelopment of the former Flynntan site on the comer of Boston Street,Bridge
Street, and Goodhue Street. The project was recently approved by the Planning Board, Design Review
Board and Conservation Commission.At this time, the petitioner is before the Zoning Board of
Appeals to request the following:
1) A variance from Sec 8.4.9 Parking Requirements to allow less than the required on-site parking.
The petitioner is providing 96 of the 100 parking spaces required at the request of the Planning
Board to reduce the number of parking spaces for more greenspace and parking aisle width for
better site circulation.
2) A variance from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling
unit. The petitioner is proposing a total of 50 dwelling units including five (5) affordable units
with a 99 year affordability period that were granted as a density bonus by Special Permit from the
Planning Board. The property is 1.68 acres and the request is 31 units per acre on this property.
As we have seen in other projects within the NRCC, this Board has granted four (4) density
variances including the following:
4
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—October 19, 2016
Page 3 of 5
3. A public hearing for a petition of STEPHEN CUMMINGS, requesting a Special Permit
per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two- Family Residential Structures of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance to construct a 8' x 8' dormer at the property of 241 NORTH STREET
(Map 17 Lot 159)(R-1 Zoning District).
The petitioner is seeking a special permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two- Family
Residential Structures to construct an 8' x 8' foot dormer to provide headspace for a bathroom. The
property is a non-conforming structure.
For the Special Permit:
The special permit may be granted if the Board finds that the proposal will not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure.
Enclosed is a petition and supporting documents.
4. A public hearing for a petition of ARSEN SHERAJ seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5
Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures to expand the
nonconforming structure and a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional
Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot area per dwelling unit at 2
BRADFORD STREET (Map 17,Lot 50)(R-2 Zoning District).
The petitioner is proposing to construct a 24' x 28' addition on an existing single family home. •
The petitioner is requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-
Family Residential Structures to expand a nonconforming structure and a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1
Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit.
The property is located within an R-2 Zoning District. The petitioner is proposing to convert the
single family home into a two (2) family residential dwelling unit, which is an allowable use by -
right. However, the property area is 7,558 square feet where 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit is
required. The petitioner therefore is requesting a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional
Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit to allow a second dwelling unit on an
undersized lot.
Note that there is an existing driveway that is approximately 8' feet wide. The petitioner is
proposing to construct a second driveway and curbcut on the Bradford Street side to provide a
total of three (3) required parking spaces. The proposed curbcut widths do not exceed the
maximum of 20' feet and are in compliance.
The Board needs to make the following findings:
For the Special Permit:
The special permit may be granted if the Board finds that the proposal will not be substantially
more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure.
3
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board 7
Date % 0
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
u t- . t�TirA
P
C� _
cel e MQ o_ 2 �r d rd S 6 �4-8385 gI?
m lCcl.t E C�(t��s
�
�iteri nfaLe' /e F < o���, 9? 7YS-/ 8�6
1'r,c� sdM 1'�_as1, Ca/ins
IM qi ail Plao� eXS Sq , q�g-s78-3G9d'
7Yf �'7y
/ 4 5 s
y jC7 � y / �h1 - q .
Page of
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday,October 19, 2016
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA")was held on Wednesday,October
19,2016 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts
at 6:30 p.m.
Ms. Curran (Chair)calls the meeting to order at 630 pm.
ROLL CALL
Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Mike Duffy,Jim
Hacker (alternate),Paul Viccica (alternate),Jimmy Tsitsinos, and Tom Watkins. Also in
attendance Tom St.Pierre-Building Commissioner,Erin Schaeffer-Staff Planner,and Colleen
Anderson—Recorder.
REGULAR AGENDA
Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking a Variance per Sec.
3.2.4 Accessory Buildings and Structures and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3
Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the
construction of a two-story garage.
• Applicant MATTHEW KEANE
Location 414 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 32 Lot 169) (R1 Zoning District)
Chair Curran - stated that a letter has been received b the Board b the petitioner requesting
Y Y 1' � S
that the Variance request application be withdrawn without prejudice.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to accept the Applicants request to
withdrawal their petition without prejudice. The motion is seconded by Mr.Watkins.
The vote was unanimous in favor and none (0) opposed.
71
Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Pennit per Sec. 3.0 Uses to
allow the conversion of a historic carriage house to a dwelling unit.
Applicant JAY FAMICO
Location 380 ESSEX STREET (Map 25, Lot 206)(R-2 Zoning District)
Chair Curran—stated that the petitioner has asked for a continuance to the next regularly
scheduled meeting on November 16,2016. No evidence was taken.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to continue this discussion at the
November 16,2016 meeting with no evidence taken. The motion is seconded by Mr.
• Viccica. The vote was unanimous in favor and none (0) opposed.
Project A public hearing for a petition requesting Variances from Sec. 5.1.5
Parking Design and Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow
the construction of a 24' wide curb cut and associated parking area within
five (5) feet of the street line.
Applicant JASON & CHRISTINA ROBINS
Location 77 PROCTOR STREET (Map 25, Lot 5) (R-2 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated September 12,2016 and supporting documentation
Jason and Christina Robins,77 Proctor Street,were present to discuss the project.
Jason Robins stated that this is a multi-family structure with a four(4) foot high wall at the
front of the property up against the sidewalk. They propose to cut into this wall and install a
two (2) car driveway,24 feet wide and 5 feet in from the street line, to alleviate street parking
give them and their tenant's easy access to their cars during snow emergency parking bans.
The proposal is 24'wide and five (5) feet in from the street line.
Chair Curran—What is allowed is 20' foot wide curb cut. Ms. Curran asks the petitioners
why they are proposing a 24'wide curb cut? •
Mr. Robins- replied to fit two cars and stated that the existing stone would be reused at the
new rear retaining wall.
Ms. Curran-It looks like you are proposing to use the existing stone from the current
retaining wall for the proposed retaining wall?
Mr. Robins-yes.
Mr. Copelas— Confirms with the petitioner that there is on-street parking in front of the
property.
Mr. Robbins-Yes.
Mr. Copelas- So the construction of the proposed curb cut would eliminate two (2) or three
(3) public parking spaces?
Mr. Robins-Yes,replied that those spots are used primarily by him,his wife, and his tenants.
Chair Curran—asked if this project has been reviewed by the City for adequate site distances
for backing onto the street. Robins replied that their contactor has been working on this
plan with the City Engineering.
Mr. Copelas—asked for the distance from the side end of the proposed curb cut to the
existing fire hydrant. Robins replied 7 to 10 feet.
Mr.Watkins—asked if that distance needs to be verified.
St. Pierre replied that a vehicle must park 10 feet away from hydrants and asked if the 18
foot depth of the proposed driveway was so that the cars wouldn't extend over the sidewalk.
Robins replied yes, the driveway will start 2 feet away from the front porch as to not
interfere with the footings and the neighbor who shares that front stone wall is in favor of
this project.
Mr. Copelas—noted that 20 feet is an allowable curb cut distance, standard parking spaces
are 9 feet by 18 feet,reducing the curb cut request to 20 feet would not require a special
permit. Can a 20 foot curb cut be installed while leaving the front steps in place?
Robins replied that 20 feet would require still require them to cut into the step making them
very narrow. The previous owner created a new front porch entry and there is no longer a
need for those steps. The 24 foot curb cut would allow them to utilize the fight retaining
wall for the steps. The proposed retaining wall at the back of the driveway would be 7 feet
high.
Mr. Copelas—stated this project will result in a loss of public parking and the 24 foot wide
• request is also a concern,when 20 foot is what is allowed. Two cars can park in a 20 foot
wide driveway,the construction being within 5 feet of the street is legitimate since there
really is no side yard for them to place a driveway,but there is no clear hardship to request a
24 foot wide curb cut.
Chair Curran and Mr. Viccica—agreed that the right side retaining wall of the existing steps
could be used and the 20 foot curb cut heading left could start from that point,which would
also put them further away from the hydrant.
Chair Curran opens public comment.
No one in the assembly wishes to speak.
Chair Curran—asked why parking 5 feet from the street line is listed in the Variance request
when all driveways are 5 feet from the street.
St. Pierre replied that Sec. 5.1.8 states that a driveway may be considered a parking space
provided all vehicles have direct access to the street or public way notwithstanding any
restriction to this section,no area within 5 feet of the street line including the driveway shall
be considered as parking spaces in RC,Rl &R2 Districts. Meaning the full dimension plus
the 5 feet is needed.
Chair Curran—stated that the width is not a hardship.
• Robins noted that their hardship is parking during snow emergencies.
Chair Curran—noted that not having on-site parking does not meet the requirements of a •
hardship.
St. Pierre noted that in the photos provided there is not enough room for a legal space
between the hydrants and the left of the proposed driveway if the driveway was 20 feet or 24
feet wide.
Mr. Viccica—suggested that the curb cut could be 20 feet and the driveway could be
widened to 24 feet on their property and give them enough space to open their vehicle doors
next to the retaining wall.
Mr. Watkins—stated that the petitioner should return to the next meeting with a clearer
statement of hardship, a revised proposal.
Chair Curran—added that site distances from the Engineer and the presence of the Engineer
would be helpful. The curb cut should be kept at 20 feet wide and the public comments will
remain open. St. Pierre added that a dimension to the hydrant should also be included in the
site distances.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to this discussion at the November
16,2016 meeting. The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy. The vote was unanimous in
favor and none (0) opposed to continue the public hearing to the next regularly
scheduled meeting on November 16, 2016. •
Project A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5
Nonconforming Single and Two- Family Residential Structures of the
Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an 8'x 8' dormer.
Applicant STEPHEN CUMMINGS
Location 241 NORTH STREET (Map 17 Lot 159)(R-1 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated September 27, 2016 and supporting documentation
Stephen Cummings,241 North Street,was present to discuss the project.
Cummings stated that they would like to add a bathroom to the second floor of the home.
An 8 foot dormer is proposed to provide the proper headroom clearance for a new
bathroom.
St. Pierre noted that the house is non-conforming on that side of the house due to the side
yard setback.
Mr. Viccica—noted that the letter in the packet stated that the dormer will not have
windows due to the building code,and asked what section of the Building Code relates to
windows in a dormer. Cummings replied because the dormer will be less than 5 feet from
the property line and windows would impact the privacy of the neighbors.
Chair Curran opens public comment.
No one in the assembly wishes to speak.
Chair Curran closes public comment.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the application for a Special
Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two- Family Residential Structures
of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an 8'x 8' dormer. The motion is
seconded by Mr.Watkins. The vote was unanimous with five (5) Rebecca Curran
(Chair), Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy, and Jimmy
Tsitsinos, in favor and none (0) opposed.
• Project A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5
Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures to expand the
nonconforming structure and a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional
Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot area per
dwelling unit.
Applicant ARSEN SHERAJ
Location 2 BRADFORD STREET (Map 17, Lot 50)(R-2 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated September 27,2016 and supporting documentation
Nicole Magno,wife of Arsen Sheraj,2 Bradford Street,was present to discuss the project.
Magno stated that their current home has 2 bedrooms and the proposed project is to
construct a duplex addition to the house.
Chair Curran—stated that R2 is an allowed use in the district.
St. Pierre noted that both the existing house and the new addition would have a non-
conforming rear setback.
•
Ms. Magno noted that the existing home is 2.3 feet away from the rear lot line. •
Mr. Viccica—asked if the 6 foot area next to their house was their side yard.
Ms. Magno replied that it was the backyard of their neighbors on Balcomb Street and the
existing garage that is 2 feet away from the fence would be demolished.
Chair Curran—asked about existing and proposed parking.
Ms. Magno replied that there is currently a narrow driveway that can fit 3 cars,in front of the
existing garage. The proposal is to move the parking further away from the fence and park
the cars next to one another on a 45 degree angle. The existing curb cut is 9 feet wide and
10 feet is proposed.
Chair Curran opens public comment.
Monique&Richard Osgood,9 Balcomb Street, (direct abutters on the side of the 6 foot
clearance). The Osgood's are in favor of the project. Questions who would be responsible
to remove the tree that falls in the middle of the fence between their properties. Ms. Magno
—replied that they would cover the cost to clear the tree if that is what the neighbors would
prefer.
Chair Curran—reads a letter from Mary St. Pierre, 6 Lovett Street, stated that she is in favor •
of this project and believes it will be an enhancement to the neighborhood.
No one in the assembly wishes to speak.
Chair Curran—stated that the Variance is for less than the required lot coverage area. Mr.
Copelas—noted that the statement of hardship doesn't meet the criteria for a hardship.
Their preferences to design a residential duplex because the lot is undersized and their family
circumstances do not constitute a hardship.
St. Pierre noted that the required side setback is 10 feet and 30 feet at the rear.
Mr. Viccica—noted that the side setback required is 10 feet and they are seeking 6.
St. Pierre—added that at the rear 13 feet 4 inches is being requested where 30 feet is
required.
Mr. Viccica—stated that returning to the Board with a site plan showing the parking layout
and the house plans showing the hardship of keeping at 10 side yard setback,would require a
Special Permit and not a Variance which eliminates the need for a hardship.
•
• Schaeffer—noted that lot area per dwelling unit is the reason for a Variance request,because
they are adding another unit to the lot.
Chair Curran—stated that if this project was done as an addition and not a separate unit,it
would only require a Special Permit. Eliminating as many non-conformities as possible
would also be beneficial
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to continuance this discussion at the
November 16, 2016 meeting. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. The vote was
unanimous in favor and none (0) opposed to continue the public hearing to the next
regularly scheduled meeting on November 16,2016.
Project A public hearing for a petition requesting Variances from the provisions of
the Salem Zoning Ordinance Sec. 8.4.5 to allow the distance between
adjacent residential lots to be less than the required 100' ft.;Sec.8.4.9
Parking Requirements to allow less than the required on-site parking;Sec.
8.4.13TransitionalOverlay District to allow less than the required 50'buffer
area, and Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area
per dwelling unit to construct a new residential development.
Applicant 139 GROVE STREET REALTY TRUST
• Location 70-92 'A BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 299& Map 16, Lot 139)
(NRCC, R-2, B-2)
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street,represents the applicant
Other presenters include:
• Chris Sparages, P.E.; Project & Civil Engineer;Williams & Sparages, 189
North Main Street, Suite 101, Middleton,MA 01949
Others present include:
• Anthony Roberto,representing the ownership group (Owner of 28
Goodhue Street building perpendicular to this site)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated September 27, 2016 and supporting documentation
Atty. Correnti stated that this project has been presented to,reviewed,and approved by the
Planning Board,DRB,NRCC, and the Conservation Commission. The presentation
includes the end result of their input. The Conservation Commission review was because
the lower sidewalk,along Goodhue Street,is within the new flood zone. The Mack Park
Neighborhood Association and the Ward 4 Gallows Hill Neighborhood Association both
endorsed this project and made their support be known to the Planning Board. This is a
• unique site with multiple districts occurring at site;B2 zone,R2 zone,NRCC,Transitional
Overlay District of the NRCC,and the Entrance Corridor Overlay District along Boston
Street. This site is also unlike any other in the City of Salem;geographically,topographically, •
and location wise. The site has undergone a civil peer review by VHB for the site layout and
proposed drainage system, and traffic peer review by Stantec for traffic flow and on-site
circulation.
Chris Sparages, of Williams &Sparages,stated that the site has two frontages, approximately
470 feet at the high side (Boston Street) and approximately 400 feet at the low side
(Goodhue Street). The intersection of Beaver, Grove,&Goodhue Streets has been
reconfigured to include a City parking area. Three buildings on site have been demolished as
well as various retaining walls and concrete pads that once made up the Flynn Tannery site.
The approximate 1.7 acre site is an odd shape with drastic grade changes, the south-east
corner (Goodhue Street) has an elevation of 10 feet and the south-west corner along Boston
Street has an elevation of 38 feet. The elevation of 10 puts the site in the wetland
resource/flood plain district because it is within 100 feet of wetlands and therefore a permit
must also be filed with the Conservation Commission. Lieutenant Peter Schaeublin, of the
Salem Fire Department, has reviewed the plans and a fire apparatus plan was submitted to
prove that the City's largest apparatus truck traverse through the site. Many of the
comments/suggestions by the peer reviewers have been incorporated into the plans.
Sparages noted the various challengers for the owner across the site:
1. Significant grade change and the needs for extensive retaining walls
2. Cost of months of demolition (some of the concrete and brick will be recycled and
possibly re-used on site)
3. Unusual number of utilities that needed to be cut and capped (sewer,water,gas, etc.) •
4. Significant sidewalk reconstruction on both Boston and Goodhue Streets.
Sparages noted the proposed conditions for the site:
Building 1:
1. Mixed use with a 738 SF retail storefront component along Goodhue Street
2. Pedestrian access along Goodhue Street
3. 24 foot wide (two-way) entrance driveway along Beaver Street for vehicles to access
the underground parking
4. 41 (standard: 9 feet x 18 feet) parking spaces under the building and several ADA
parking spaces
5. The 4 story building will house 44 apartment units
6. The main entrance will be on Boston Street and will be one story higher than the
Goodhue Street entrance
7. Paver block of alternating colors will highlight the new central turnaround
Building 2:
1. 3 story townhouse style structure at the south-west end of the site
2. All residents will have direct access to Boston Street from their first floors
3. To make use of the grade difference on site parking will be at the rear(lower level)
4. Each unit has 1 parking garage with additional surface parking spaces behind the
units and elsewhere on the site
• Sparages stated that the total number of parking spaces proposed is 96. Zoning requires 105
parking spaces but in working with the Planning Board in an effort to provide more
greenspace on both levels and to include a small dog park along the south-east corner of
Goodhue Street, the number of spaces was reduced to 96. A second site access point will be
along Boston Street near the south-east corner of the site. Six curb cuts existing along
Boston Street and all of them will be closed and one new 24 foot wide (two-way) curb cut
will be added. Boston Street will be the entrance to the main parking lot. Pedestrian/ADA
access for pedestrians will occur next to the Boston Street entrance off of the existing
sidewalk. To continue with the City's HC access efforts at the City owned lot at the comer
of Beaver and Goodhue Streets,the Planning Board has asked if they would continue the
sidewalks down to Witch City Cycle.
Arty. Correnti noted that there are four reliefs being requested
1. Relief Request 1: On the western side of the site there is a 50 foot buffer zone in the
transitional overlay district of the North River Canal Corridor buffer zone,which is
measured from the nearest residentially used parcel and there is to be no
construction or de-construction of land within that buffer zone. Use of that buffer
zone must be landscaping. A portion of this buffer zone is needed for parking and a
portion of the townhouse structure.
2. Relief Request 2: A dimensional relief is being sought for a TOD and NRCC
required 100 foot setback for a structure adjacent to an existing residential structure.
The townhouse structure is 89 feet away. The requirement states that any structure
• built within 100 feet must have separate first floor entrances—townhouse style units.
Sparages noted that shifting the townhouse structure 11 feet to sit outside of the 100
foot setback would impact an apparatus's ability to turnaround on the site and 5 feet
was needed for handicapped access at the Boston Street entrance.
3. Relief Request 3: Land area per dwelling unit. NRCC requires 3,500 SF each which
would only allow 20 units which is not financially feasible. The Planning Board
awarded them a 5 unit bonus to become affordable housing = 50 units total.
4. Relief Request 4: 50 units in the NRCC require 100 spaces,commercial space
required 5 spaces equally 105 total and 96 spaces have been provided in the proposed
plan. (2 spaces per unit is not needed. This site is owned by same owners of 20
Goodhue Street,which is also in the NRCC district,is fully occupied has 45 units
and required 90 spaces, and only 42-46 vehicles park there at the most.
Chair Curran—stated that the plan was well done and understand the difficulties with the
site. Chair Curran—noted that she has no concern with the 2-D issues;change in
topography, jogs on the site,layout,size,and shape. She understands that less parking would
be better but a Variance cannot be based solely on the desire to provide more open space,
hardship must be proven.
Atty. Corrend noted that the plans with 105 spaces did not work once comments were
received from the various boards and reviewers. The most recent placement of the curb cut
resulted in the loss of 5-6 spaces due to a lack of sufficient space and the safety of vehicles
entering the site encountering vehicles maneuvering at the driveway entrance. Sparages
noted that the existing curb cut on Goodhue Street that was too narrow and too close to the
• City parking area entrance. Narrowing the access driveway to provide additional parking
would not be a "preferable scenario" for the maneuvering of trash truck,moving vans,and a •
fire apparatuses.
Atty. Correnti stated that 105 spaces would not be possible with the current plan that the
other Boards have approved. Due to site safety concerns, configuration of the lot,
topography,and the placement of the building,no additional spaces can be placed on the
site. Schaeffer noted that site safety is a big concern.
Chair Curran—replied that a building could be smaller therefore the parking hardship isn't
clear.
Mr. Copelas—noted that retail parking hasn't been provided.
Arty. Correnti replied that six (6) parking spots are available at the city lot and on-street
parking is available across the street near the 28 Goodhue building,making this area of
Goodhue Street pedestrian friendly. The commercial space was originally on the Boston
Street side of the building but Planning suggested that it move to the Goodhue side to
activate the space.
Mr. Viccica—asked how many parking spaces for retail the NRCC required.
Atty. Correnti—Five (5). .
Mr. Watkins—noted that those on-street and City lot will provide relief to the number of
spaces needed.
Mr. Watkins - asked if the handicapped access could be made closer from Boston Street to
the circle as opposed to next to the driveway or additional parking spaces. Atty. Correnti
replied that due to the substantial grade differences (4-5 feet) stairs could be introduced but
there is not sufficient room to include a switch-back ramp.
Mr. Watkins—asked if parking spaces could be added instead of the dog park.
Arty. Correnti replied that the dog park will be an amenity for residents,would require a curb
cut,and would be a challenge to include.
Chair Curran opens public comment.
No one in the assembly wishes to speak.
Chair Curran closes public comment.
•
• Mr. Viccica—requested a different hardship case for not meeting the required parking other
than the Planning Board would not allow it.
Atty. Correnti replied that Planning didn't force the decision;multiple points of input were
needed to make the site work, from the location of the curb cut, the city curb cut is not on
their property and was deemed unusable, there are no additional locations for parking due to
the size, shape, & topography of the lot (a 28 foot drop in grade from Boston to Goodhue
Street,and it is those constraints that have led them to request a variance for parking. A
project like this would only benefit the City since Mayor Driscoll has labeled this site the
biggest eye sore in the City especially on an entrance corridor, and this project will be a great
benefit to the City.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the application requesting
variances for; Sec. 8.4.5 to allow the distance between adjacent residential lots to be
less than the required 100' ft.;Sec.8.4.9 Parking Requirements to allow less than the
required on-site parking;Sec. 8.4.13Transitional Overlay District to allow less than
the required 50' buffer area, and Sec. 4.1.1 Table ofDimensional Requirements for
minimum lot area per dwelling unit to construct a new residential development. The
motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with five (5) Rebecca
Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),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 and Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Dimensional
Requirements for the following minimum lot area per dwelling unit,
minimum lot frontage,minimum distance between buildings,and
maximum number of stories to construct eight (8) residential units.
Applicant MICHAEL MEYER,TRUSTEE
Location 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277) (R-1 Zoning
District)
Attorney Scott Grover, of Tinti, Quinn, Grover&Frey, 27 Congress Street, Suite 414,
Salem, MA 01970, represents the applicant
Other presenters include:
• Dan Ricciarelli of Seger Architects, 10 Derby Square, 3N,Salem,MA 01970
• Scott Cameron, CE; Morin-Cameron Group, 66 Elm Street, Danvers, MA
01923
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated September 27,2016 and supporting documentation
•
I
Atty. Grover stated that several iterations of this project were presented to the Board over •
the course of the last year.The petitioner before the Board this evening, to present another
plan for residential development, that are significantly different from the plans that were
previously presented.
Attorney Grover briefly presents the multiple iterations of plans that were previously
submitted to the Board as part of a seven month long review process. The first plan,
consisted of eighteen (18) residential units that were located in two (2) residential buildings.
The first building had a density of twelve (12) units and the second building had a density of
six (6) units. The reason why there were two (2) buildings proposed was to keep a portion of
the proposed development outside of Ch. 91 license jurisdiction. There was a general
consensus from the neighborhood and the Board that the requested density and massing of
the buildings were too great and after much opposition the plans were modified. The
second iteration consisted of fourteen (14) units in two (2) residential buildings. This
proposal included eight (8) units in one building and six (6) in the second building. This
proposal was once again was met with much opposition from both the grounds that it was
designed to keep a portion of the proposed development outside of Ch. 91 license
jurisdiction and the density and massing was too great. The third iteration consisted of
eleven (11) units divided into four (4) residential buildings that were again met with the same
opposition. In March 2015, the applicant withdrew the application without prejudice.
The petitioner is now before the Board with significantly revised. Mr. Meyer is still
convinced that a residential use on this property is the highest and best use. The petitioner is
back before the Board one more time for residential use of the property before the petitioner
considers a non-residential alternative. •
Attorney Grover-After the series of public hearings conducted and the extensive series of
neighborhood meetings held,what the petitioner hear was that the neighbors really wanted
single and two-family residences that they felt were more fitting with the neighborhood
character. The plan that we have before you this evening calls for eight (8) units and the
design and layout is radically changed from what has been previously proposed. The current
plan calls for five (5) buildings,which include three (3) duplexes and two (2) single family
homes,which requires considerably less zoning relief than what was previously requested.
Any. Grover noted that relief required.
1. Relief Request 1: A Special Permit is required to go from one non-confomung use
to another non-confomning use. This property is in an R1 zoning district even
though the property is surrounded by an R2 (residential two family) zoning district.
The only use allowed in an RI is single family residential use. However,because the
social club is an existing non-conforming use, the zoning ordinance allows a change
from one non-conforming use to another non-confornring use by special pen-nit,as
long as the Board finds that the new use as multiple dwellings,is less detrimental to
the neighborhood than the existing use, the social club.
In this case,it can easily be said that there is more than ample evidence to support a
finding that the proposed residential use is less detrimental to the neighborhood than
a bar room on that site. The petitioner is proposing a change from a commercial use
•
• to a residential use,which is what the underlying zoning supports on the property;
the environmental impact will be very positive, the tax benefits to the City will be
much greater to have multiple residential units to increase the tax base. All of the
standard criteria for a special permit are met by this project.
Beyond the special permit request,there are three (3) variances that are being
requested:
2. Relief Request 2: Variance #1: Lot size per dwelling unit. The R1 Zoning District
requires 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit. The petitioner is proposing eight (8)
units on a 42,000 square foot lot. The petitioner is proposing a density of
approximately 5,200 square feet per dwelling unit.
3. Relief Request 3: Variance#2: Minimum distance between buildings. The zoning
ordinance requires that multiple buildings on a lot need to have at least 40' feet
between each building. The proposed distance between some of the buildings are
25' feet apart.
4. Relief Request 3: Variance #3: Height of the building in terms of stories. The
buildings comply with the 35 foot maximum height requirement,but the buildings
are 31/2 stories high to comply with the floodplain requirements where 2'/2 stories is
allowed.
• Atty. Grover stated that the Board must make several findings to approve the requested
Special Permit and 3 Variance requests.
1. Required Finding 1: Special conditions exist that affect this parcel, that don't affect
other parcels in the zoning district. The special conditions are as follows;an obsolete
commercial building that needs to be demolished,wetlands on site, Ch. 91
limitations,location in the coastal flood plain with an existing dune—environmental
factors, easement for natural gas on the site that can't be built upon,and the parcel is
20 times bigger than any other parcel in the area. All of these factors complicate the
site in terms of future construction.
2. Required Finding 2: Literal enforcement would cause a hardship. A literal
enforcement of the zoning ordinance would permit the construction of two (2) single
family dwellings maximum with the granting of a special permit. The cost to
construct those two (2) dwellings would exceed the market value for this area.
3. Required Finding 3:Variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without derogating from the intent of the public zoning ordinance.
The same aspects of the special permit would apply in this case and the density that
would be provided will be far less than the surrounding residences in the
neighborhood.
Scott Cameron,of Morin-Cameron Group,stated that the common driveway between the
dwellings has been designed to allow for a fire apparatus to maneuver around the property
without needing to back out onto the street. The beginning of the driveway would be paved
and the remainder a porous, surface material- possibly gravel or paving stones, as a method
• of storm water management. The existing pavement surface on the property is
approximately 12,000 SF and that will be reduced to approximately 5,500 SF. The building •
area will remain similar, the existing building is 5,200 SF and the proposed structures would
cover 6,400 SF,and there would be no basements to comply with coastal construction
standards,however; they will be open below. The open space on the property,lawn and
upland,is approximately 7,000 SF and 13,000 SF is proposed to improve storm water
management. The paving at the end of Planters Street belongs to National Grid and no
work is proposed in that area. Their frontage is limited to the 94 feet on E. Collins Street.
An analysis of the neighborhood showed that their site will provide the required front
setbacks unlike other single and two-family dwellings in the neighborhood. The average
density is 2,600 SF and 5,200 SF is proposed,making it 30%less dense than the neighboring
dwellings. In terms of building separation, neighboring buildings average 10-20 feet apart
and the proposed will be either 25 feet or 40 feet apart.
Dan Ricciarelli, of Seger Architects, stated that a study of the size, style,and height of the
houses on the street,as well as cladding,materials,and massing,etc. The neighboring design
and rhythm of the houses has been incorporated into the proposed dwellings. The ridge
height is under the allowed zoning height and the fronts are slender with massing towards
the rear,as well as simple cladding,bay windows, details, and elevated building at the rear to
allow for parking below. The space between the buildings has increased to approximately 90
feet.
Chair Curran—asked if the duplex at the front could be switched with the singles in the rear.
Scott replied that that was done because the duplexes provide enough length for a fire •
apparatus to maneuver onto the site. It was public safety issue. There are neighboring two
and three families so a two family at the front of the site will match the neighborhood and it
is also turned sideways so from the front it will look like a single family dwelling.
Chair Curran—asked if there was living space on the first floor and the flood elevation.
Ricciarelli replied—no living space on the first floor due to the floor plain and the flood
elevation is 10 feet.
Mr. Copelas—asked why public access has disappeared from the proposed plans. Atty.
Grover replied that it was removed at the neighbor's request,however; Chapter 91 will
require public access, so it will be addressed. Cameron added that the Ch. 91 relates to
access to the waterways so the public access component could be access to the property
along the coastal side and not necessarily through the site. Chair Curran—asked if they
needed to present at the Conservation Commission, Ch. 91 licensing,and site plan review.
Arty. Grover replied yes.
Mr. Copelas—asked if the plan was to building the dwellings in stages depending on when
they get their Ch. 91 license. Atty. Grover replied yes. There are two buildings that are
outside of the Ch. 91 jurisdiction because of how the site was laid out.
Cameron noted that Ch. 91 will take at least a year to get through with the State and the team
will continue development the plans needed for local review by the Planning Board and
•
• Conservation Commission. The Chapter 91 Application will also be filed concurrently with
the applications for local site plan review.
Ms. Curran-When you do your stormwater calculations,Chair Curran suggests doing the
stormwater calculations based on the entire driveways being impervious.
Mr. Viccica-Asks if the petitioner would be using pervious paving on the driveway?
Mr. Cameron-Yes, the team is considering pavers and a sub-drainage system to collect water
off of the site,allow the water to trickle into the system and be treated rather than creating
conditions for water to sheet flow off of the site.
Chair Curran opens public comment.
Scott Truhart,4 East Collins Street- speaks in opposition to the project and read his petition
letter into the record dated October 19,2016. The petition has twenty (20) signatures of
individuals in opposition to the project. Mr. Truhart argues that the previous non-
conforming use of a social club has been discontinued for more than 24 months and
contests the ability for the Board to grant a special permit.
Chair Curran—asks the petitioner if the club has been discontinued for more than two ears.
P Y
• Atty. Grover-not certain about how long the operation of the club has no longer been in
existence. But this is not really a measure of what abandonment is. There is pretty clear case
law that not using the property does not constitute abandonment of a use because two years
has lapsed. The liquor license has been maintained and filing permits for residential use also
doesn't qualify as abandonment. It is not an abandoned use.
Chair Curran- not positive that is true. Tom?
St. Pierre-it is an over simplification of our ordinance.There is a lot of case law regarding
abandonment and it has to do with intent. If you go into the Clerk's Office or Assessor's
Office,and one asked to reduce the property to reduce it to an RI lot, that would show
intent to abandon the use.John Carr likes to look at the zoning bylaw and say that it is two-
years and then done, but it is not that simple and not the way that the case law reads. It is an
over simplification.
Chair Curran- to Tom St. Pierre- So that is not how you interpret it?
Mr. St. Pierre-No.
Attorney Grover-There is not a clock ticking, simply applying for these permits for a
residential use does not indicate abandonment. The applicant has not abandoned the use.
• The petitioner has kept the associated liquor license with the property.
Mr. St. Pierre-The fact that the petitioner is trying to permit this is not abandonment.
Mary Knight, 5 E. Collins Street. Stated that she witness the property being emptied and
stripped, down to the copper piping. Knight also stated that a legal notice was published in
the October 19,2016 newspaper stating that Mr. Meyer is delinquent in the payment of his
taxes and the City is threatening to take possession of the property on November 2,2016,
until the $8,470+/- tax payment is made,and asked if a petitioner can make a request to a
Board with alien on their property.
Chair Curran—replied that permits are not issued to someone in arrears of taxes,although
the lien hasn't been issued yet, and stated that she would like the opinion from the City
Solicitor on both matters. St. Pierre noted that a City ordinance states that no permits can be
issued if money is owed, until the payments have been made.
Tim Connell, 60 E. Collins Street. In in opposition of the project, believes the site is being
over-developed, the various buildings will completely block out the water view, and
waterfront access is still desired by the neighborhood if it's done appropriately. Parking is
limited and tight in the area especially when it snows,duplexes show three cars but each unit
could require 2,based on parking there are too many units. Chair Curran replied that 12
spaces are required and 14 are proposed. Cameron noted that 2 spots are exposed and the
remaining 12 spaces under the units.
Adam Craig,29 Planters Street. States that in terms of abandonment- the building hasn't •
been maintained since it closed and fenced off, the parking lot provided parking relief during
snow bans,asked if the proposed parking meets the requirements, fire apparatuses have
trouble getting down Planters Street and that should be addressed. Two single family homes
would be a better fit for the site and neighborhood and the desire for 8 units seems to a push
for profit.
Erin Shall, 10 E. Collins Street. Questions the definition of a hardship and asks if the
hardship request only protects the owner. Chair Curran—replied that the hardship was
dimension and related to the site. The use does not require a variance because they are going
from one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use. The standard they have to
meet is that the proposed is less detrimental than the prior use. Cameron noted that the site
was just under an acre, the single families cannot be moved any further in towards the water
due to a required 5 foot buffer at the coastal area. Only supports a single family home on
the property.
Chair Curran—asked for the footprint and square footage of the buildings. Cameron replied
that the total footprint area of the six buildings is 6,400 SF averaging 1,500 SF per unit. The
singles are slightly less and the doubles are slightly more.
Tom Philbin,6 Planter Street. Compliments them on the reduction of units, the design
blends with the neighborhood,beach access is critical, the structure will wall off the beach
•
• from the neighborhood,is in favor of the paving reduction because it will reduce flooding to
the neighborhood. This project could increase the property values and quality of life in the
neighborhood.
Cameron added that not a single property in the neighborhood meets the density
requirements or the 40 foot required separation, this property will be the least dense with the
greatest building separation. The curb cut at the driveway will be angled away from the
neighboring houses. Public access off the access road at the end of Planters Street is owned
by the utility company and is not their property,however; public access on the site will be
addressed with a high level of scrutiny through Ch. 91,with an option to travel through the
property. Atty. Grover that Site Plan Review will look at the site in much greater detail to
provide proper public access through the site.
No one else in the assembly wishes to speak.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to continue this discussion at the
November 16,2016 meeting. The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote
was unanimous in favor and none (0) opposed.
AP ORVALOF MEETING MINUTES
• August 17,2016 meeting minutes were approve as written.
September 21,2016 meeting minutes were approved as written.
Mr. Copelas requested to amend the September 21,2016 meeting minutes to reflect that he
motioned for the adjournment of the September 21, 2016 meeting and not the August 17,
2016 meeting.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the August 17,2016
minutes and the September 21,2016 minutes amended per Vice-Chair Copelas'
request. Seconded by Mr.Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous in favor and none (0)
opposed.
,,OLD_/NEW BUSINESS
Schaeffer stated that the CPC is requesting a formal written statement of board comments
on any CPC related matters by the October 28,2016 deadline. The board agrees to provide
Schaeffer with their individual/informal comments before the deadline.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Watkins motions for adjournment of the October 19, 2016 regular meeting of the Salem
Board of Appeals.
•
Motion and Vote: Mr.Watkins made a motion to adjourn the October 19, 2016 •
regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Duffy, and the vote
is unanimous in favor and none (0) opposed.
The meeting ends at 9:30 PM.
For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes,
copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at.•
http://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA ZoningAealsMin/
Respectfully submitted,
Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner
•
•
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
201b :SEP 29 P i= 21
120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSETRe£97#
TELE:978-619-5685* FAX: 'f(ft4M(, SALEM. MASS.
KIMBERLEY DRIscoLL
MAYOR
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of 139 GROVE STREET REALTY
TRUST requesting Variances from the provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance Sec. 8.4.5 to allow the
distance between adjacent residential lots to be less than the required 100' ft.;Sec.8.4.9 Parking Requirements to
allow less than the required on-site parking;Sec. 8.4.13Transitional Overlay District to allow less than the required
50' buffer area, and Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit to
construct a new residential development at 70-92 1/2 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot
139) (NRCC,R-2,B-2)
•
The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, V 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: October 5, 2016 and October 12, 2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on k IK/ ,X% do)c.
at ( -)} M in accordance ivith MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
•
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF Apppp
VFSt4b P 1, 21
120 WASHINGTON STREET*SALEM,MASSACHUS
TELE.978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:%j-y4UjRSAlF-
M:MASS.
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JASON & CHRISTINA ROBINS,
requesting Variances from Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Desi
gn and Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance, to construct a 24' wide curbcut and associated parking area within five (5) feet of the
street line at the property of 77 PROCTOR STREET (Map 25,Lot 5) (R-2 Zoning District).
The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, October 19, 2016 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', 120 Washington St, Salem,MA.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: October 5, 2016 and October 12, 2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on
at in accordance With MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
•
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
/0�
�� BOARD OF APPEAL
1816 SEP 29 P 1: 2b
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01PTE #
'
Klhmeni..ev DRISCOLL �LE:978-619-5685♦FAX:978-fntT"LER1(. SALEM.MASS.
MAYOR
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of ARSEN SHERAJ seeking a Special
Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures to expand the
nonconforming structure and a Variance per Sec. 4.LI Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot area per dwelling unit at 2 BRADFORD STREET (Map 17, Lot
50)(R-2 Zoning District).
• Said hearing will be held on WED, Oct. 19, 2016 at 6:30 p.m., P floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST, ROOM
313.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: October 5, 2016 & October 12, 2016
Tl: s notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
C:iy Hall, Salem, Mass. on Jtf4t,V a,i A, do1N
at 1 W in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Suctions 18-25.
•
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
aJ� 7916 SEP 29 P 1: ?b
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
T.LE:978-619-5685♦FAX:97 � eN
� Q & RSAL
EM.MASS.KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MICHAEL MEYER,TRUSTEE,
requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Dimensional
Requirrments for the following minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, minimum distance
between buildings, and maximum number of stories to construct eight (8) residential units at 1-3 EAST
COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277) (R-1 Zoning District)
The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, October 19, 2016 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: October 5, 2016 and October 12,2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City ball, Salem, lalass. on )-Af4y,,, -1Alavl1,0
at i':)-4 rtA in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
•
%�0ND1T CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
1, BOARD OF APPEAL
a I) nib SEP 29 P It 2b
\ i 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETP, 1 E�7
\ �1aM11YBTA FR.. W
i
TELE:978-619-5685 • FAx:9M f-rItffRK, SALEM..MASS..
KIMBERLEY DRlscoLL
MAYOR
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JAY FAMICO seeking a Special
Permit per Sec. 3.0 Uses and Sec. 9.4.1 Special Permit to allow the conversion of a historic carriage house
to a dwelling unit at 380 ESSEX STREET (Map 25, Lot 206)
The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3' 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, 3d, 120 Washington St, Salem, MA.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: October 5, 2016 & October 12, 2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, tdiass. on S lz,,,ltii A, ko u
at 1, }4 P' in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
•
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSE"T"TS
BOARD OF APPEAL
�� 5 91 is
120 WASFLNGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACttuSEM 01,970
Ktt�EatrEYDRtscort TEm:978-745-95951 FAX:978-7 t LE #
MAYOR '1 CLEHK1 SALEM,MASS.
November 2, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of 139 GROVE STREET REALTY TRUST requesting Variances from the provisions of the
Salem Zoning Ordinance Sec, 8.4.5 to allow the distance between adjacent residential lots to be less
than the required 100' ft.; anal v Parlavtsg Requirements to allow less than the required on-site
parking;Sec 8.4.137ransitional Oveday Distdcr to allow less than the required 50' buffer area, and
Sec. 4.1.1 Table Of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit to construct a
new residential development at 70-92 'A BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139)
(NRCC,R-2,B-2)
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 19,2016 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),Mt.Duffy,Mr. Copelas,Mt. Watkins,Mr. Tsitsinos.
• The Petitioner seeks Variances requesting relief from the provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance 8.4.5
Sec.
to allow the distance between adjacent residential lots to be less than the required 100' ft;See. Parking
Requirements to allow]Ess than the required on parking;Sec 8.4.13Tramitianal Owrlay District to allow less
than the required 50' buffer area, and Sec 4.1.1 Table of Dimennonal RegraremeAu for minimum lot area per
dwelling unit to construct a new residential development
Statements of fact:
1. Attorney Correnti presented the petition on behalf of the applicant
2. In the petition date-stamped September 27, 2016, the Petitioner requested Variances requesting relief
from the provisions Of the Salem Zoning Ordinance Sec. 8.4.5 to allow the distance between adjacent
residential lots to be less than the required 100'ft;Sec.8.4.9 Parking Regsirww&to allow less than the
required on-site parking;See. 8.4.13TrawitionalOtvn/y District to allow less than the required 50'buffer
area, and Sec.4.1.1 Table of Dinewional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit to construct
a new residential development.
3. The petitioner proposes to construct two (2) new buildings consisting of a total of fifty (50) dwelling
units and a 736 square foot commercial space.
4. The project site is a combination of small parcels located at 70-92 '/z Boston Street in the NRCC
zone,with a portion of the site in the B2 and R2 zones.
5. The site also falls within the Transitional Overlay District (TOD) of the NRCC and the Entrance
Corridor Overlay District (ECOD).
6. The proposed project was reviewed and approved by the Planning Board, Design Review Board and
Conservation Commission. The site plan was peer reviewed for traffic and civil analysis.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
November 2,2016
Project: 70-92 '/2 BOSTON STREET •
Page 2 of 4
7. The property is an existing brownfield site.The petitioner is proposing to clean up the brownfield site
and redevelop it for resident and commercial uses,which are compatible with the NRCC zone.
8. The petitioner testified that due to the cost of the brownfields cleanup and the unique topographical
features of the site, the project would not be feasible without the requested relief.
9. The petitioner testified that the property is unique as to shape as the site has frontage on three (3)
streets including Boston, Beaver and Goodhue Streets. The property also wraps around a parking lot
owned by the City of Salem at the comer of Beaver Street and Goodhue Street. The unique shape of
the site impacts the design of pedestrian and vehicular access.
10. The petitioner provided evidence that the property is unique as to topography as there is a steep slope
of approximately twenty sive (25) feet from Boston Street down to Goodhue Street. There is also a
significant slope along Boston Street toward the intersection of Bridge Street and Goodhue Street.
The topography presents many design challenges which affect the configuration and location of the
buildings.
11. The petitioner is requesting relief from the provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance Sec. 8.4.5 to
allow the distance between adjacent residential lots to be less than the requited 100'feet. The building
is located 89' feet from the property line of an adjacent residential lot The unique topography of the
property does not allow the corner of the building to be moved as it would be located in a fire lane
and negatively impact pedestrian access.
12. The petitioner is requesting relief from the provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance Sea 8.4.13
TrannVonalOwrlay District of the NRCC to allow less than the requited 50'buffer area. The petitioner •
is proposing parking, a tiered retaining wall and a small piece of the proposed townhouse structure to
be located within the 50'foot buffer.
13. The petitioner is requesting relief from the provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance Sea 4.9
Parking Requirements to allow less than the required on-site parting. The petitioner is proposing 96
parking spaces where 105 are required. Specifically,the NRCC requires two (2)parking spaces per
dwelling unit and one (1)parking space per 150 Gross Square Feet for commercial retail, Thr
ough
traffic peer reviewer deemed an existing
Site Plan Review conducted by the Planning Board, the
curbcut on Beaver Street as not feasible or safe. The location of the cutbcut and some parking spaces
needed to be eliminated to provide safe site circulation and access.Due to the size,shape and
topography of this unique lot,there is no other feasible option to lay out this development. Further,
the petitioner testifies that there is great good to the City and the neighborhood with the
redevelopment of this site in comparison to its current condition as a deteriorated industrial
brownfield that is located at an entrance to our City.
14. The petitioner is requesting relief from the provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance Sec. 4.1.1 Table
of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit to construct a new residential
development. The petitioner is proposing to construct 50 dwelling units of which five (5) units will be
affordable dwelling units as granted by Special Permit by a Planning Board density bonus allowed in
the NRCC. The property size is approximately 1.68 acres, which would allow the petitioner to
construct approximately twenty (20) residential units as of right. The petitioner testifies that the by-
right density is not feasible due to unique construction and brownfield cleanup costs associated with
the site.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
November 2,2016
• Project 70-92 '/z BOSTON STREET
Page 3 of 4
15. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the distance between adjacent residential lots to be less
than the required 100' ft;allow,less than the required on-site parking allow less than the required less
buffer area, and allow the construction of a new residential development
16. 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:
I. Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building, or structure involved
the same district include the fact that
generally not affecting other lands, buildings and structures in
the property is a Brownfield site and that there is a steep slope of approximately twenty five (25) feet
from Boston Street down to Goodhue Street Thete is also a significant slope along Boston Street
toward the intersection of Bridge Street and Goodhue Street Further, the property is unique as to
shape as the site has frontage on three (3) streets including Boston,Beaver and Goodhue Streets.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would create a substantial and unique hardship
for the following reasons: 1)As to Sea 8.4.5 to allow the distance between adjacent residential lots to
be less than the required 100' feet, the building is located 89' feet from the property line of an
• adjacent residential lot The unique topography and shape of the properly does not allow the comer
of the building to be moved as it would be located in a fire lane and negatively impact pedestrian
access. 2) As to See. 8.4.13 Tiamidonal oxer y District of the NRCC to allow less than the required 50'
buffer area. The petitioner is proposing parking, a tiered retaining wall and a small piece of the
Proposed townhouse structure to be located within the 50' foot buffer due to the topography and
shape of the lot 3) As to Sec.8.4.9 Parking Regnirementr to allow less than the required on-site parking
the proposed plan is the site configuration that provides safe access and circulation. The unique shape
of the site impacts the design of pedestrian and vehicular access. 4) See. 4.1.1 Table of Dimmrional
Regnlrementr for minimum lot area per dwelling unit to construct a new residential development. The
by-tight density is not feasible due to unique demolition, construction and browafield cleanup costs
associated with the site.
3. The desired relief may be granted without nullifying or substantiall dero from the intent of the
district or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. y
On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5)in favor
(Ms. Curran,Mr. Copelas,Mr.Duffy,Mr.Watkins,Mr.Tsitsinos in favor)and none (0) opposed,to grant
Variances requesting relief from the provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance See. 8.4.5 to allow the distance
between adjacent residential lots to be less than the required 100'ft;Sec.8.4.9 Parking Regnirements to allow less
than the required on-site parking;See. 8.4.13Trono*.Ial0oer/ay Didrict to allow less than the required 50'
buffer area,and Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimennonal Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit to construct
a new residential development subject to the following terms, conditions and safeguards:
•
City of Salem Board of Appeals
November 2,2016
Project:70-92 '/2 BOSTON STREET
Page 4 of 4
Standard Conditions:
L The Petitioner shall comply withal]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 Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
8. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display
said number so as to be visible from the street
9. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but
not limited to, the Planning Board, y, AI
/
R.e lwO 41 a Ai AAS - /� •
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WrrH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appsal jinx tbir dednba,if aV,sball be made pxrrxaw to Se&ax 17 of the MmJac&wAF General Lmr Cbapkr 40A,axd shall be filed Pubis 20
day of fft of thin dedoox m the offix f the(5#C&A P=Amf to the A&uachwe&Gmeml Lj Chapter 404 SN4n 11, Me Varimra or
SfiradR,*.* Psnw ofDredraxkd herrix shall xot take°�ete axbl a ropy of lbe decuiox bewtxg the mtifmote of Abe C4Y Clerk bas beer frkd anth the Essex Soatb
Regirtry fDeadr.
I
•
i C�ND17-`
- ; CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
!3 ' ! BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
KIMSERLEr DRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR
MEETING NOTICE
You are hereby notoed that the Sakm Zoning Board ofAppealr will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Iy/ednesday, November M,,2016 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hal(Annex, RM 313, 120 Wlashington St., Salem,MA
� IV
Rebecca Curran, Chair
r o
m t-J
MEETING AGENDA ?Z= ~
r- w
I. ROLL CALL m: D
3
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CIO
➢ October 19,2016
III. REGULAR AGENDA
• Project Continuation of a public hearing for a petition requesting Variances from Sec. 5.1.5
Parking Design and Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow the
construction of a 24'wide curbcut and associated parking area within five (5) feet of the
street line.
Applicant JASON& CHRISTINA ROBINS
Location 77 PROCTOR STREET (Map 25, Lot 5) (R-2 Zoning District)
r
Project Continuation of a public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5
Nonconfomvng Single and Two- Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance to construct an 8'x 8' dormer.
Applicant STEPHEN CUMMINGS
Location 241 NORTH STREET (Map 17 Lot 159)(R-1 Zoning District)
Project Continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5
Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures to expand the nonconforming
structure and a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Tabk of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot area per dwelling unit.
Applicant ARSEN SHERAJ
Location 2 BRADFORD STREET (Map 17,Lot 50)(R-2 Zoning District)
This notice posted on "Offici I Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on MY S 12016
at 10,'1&,4" in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25. Page l of2
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Agenda for November 16,2016 Meeting
• Project Continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Uses
to allow the conversion of a historic carnage house to a dwelling unit.
Applicant JAY FAMICO
Location 380 ESSEX STREET (Map 25,Lot 206)(R-2 Zoning District)
Project Continuation of a public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2
Nonconfomring Uses and Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements for the
following minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage,mir imum
distance between buildings, and maximum number of stories to construct eight (8)
residential units.
Applicant MICHAEL MEYER,TRUSTEE,
Location 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277) (R-1 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of, seeking an amendment to
an existing Zoning Board of Appeal decision dated September 2, 2015 to construct an
additional four (4)parking spaces at the rear of the property.
Applicant 161 FEDERAL STREET LLC
Location 161 FEDERAL STREET (Map 25 Lot 112)(R2 Zoning District)
• Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of, seeking a Special Permit
per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to expand an existing rear deck and provide access
to an existing second floor unit by means of an exterior stairway to the expanded deck.
Applicant CHRISTOPHER B. CRONIN,TRUSTEE
Location 61 BROAD STREET (Map 25,Lot 275) (R-2 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of seeking a Special Perurit per
Sec. 3.3.5 Single and Two- Family Nonconforming Structures to allow new construction of a
front deck and rear addition.
Applicant MARIA CONNELL
Location 145 FORT AVE (Map 25,Lot 206) (R-1 Zoning District)
IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
None
V. ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
y' A BOARD OF APPEAL
• 120 WAMMGTON STRrET#SAteM,MASSACHUWM 01970
KWBERLEY DRISCOLL Ta.E:975.745-9595♦ FAX:975-740-9846
MAYOR
AMENDED MEETING NOTICE
Yom am herby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppealr mill bold its regularly stbedmled meeting on
Wednesday,November 16,2016at 6.30 p.m, at City Ha11Amxex,RM 313, 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA
Rebecca Curran,Chair
MEETING AGENDA o
I. ROLL CALL
m o
II- APPROVAL OF MINUTES
�p
r I
NrnCD
➢ October 19,2016 m D
3
III. REGULAR AGENDA v o
Project Continuation of a public hearing for a petition requesting Variances from Sec. 5.1.5
• Parking Design and Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Requited Parking Spaces to allow the
construction of a 24'wide curbcut and associated parking area within five (5) feet of the
street line.
Applicant JASON&CHRISTINA ROBINS
Location 77 PROCTOR STREET (Map 25,Lot 5) (R-2 Zoning District)
Project Continuation of a public heating for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5
Nonconforming Single- and Tmo-Family Residential Slmdwmr to expand the nonconforming
structure and a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Tabk of DimeAdonal Regmir wentr of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot area per dwelling unit
Applicant ARSEN SHERAJ
Location 2 BRADFORD STREET (Map 17,Lot 50)(R-2 Zoning District)
Project Continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec.3.0 User
to allow the conversion of a historic carriage house to a dwelling unit
Applicant JAY FAMICO
Location 380 ESSEX STREET (Map 25,Lot 206)(R-2 Zoning District)
• Page 1 of 2
I
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Agenda for November 16,2016 Meeting
•
Project Continuation of a public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec.3.3.2
Nonconforming Uses and Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements for the
following minimum lot area per dwelling unit,minimum lot frontage,minimum
distance between buildings,and maximum number of stories to construct eight(8)
residential units.
Applicant MICHAEL MEYER,TRUSTEE,
Location 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET(Map 36 Lot 277) (R-1 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of, seeking an amendment to
an existing Zoning Board of Appeal decision dated September 2, 2015 to construct an
additional four(4)parking spaces at the rear of the property.
Applicant 161 FEDERAL STREET LLC
Location 161 FEDERAL STREET(Map 25 Lot 112)(R2 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of, seeking a Special Permit
per Sec. 3.3.3 Nanwnfa ming Simcbms to expand an existing rear deck and provide access
to an existing second floor unit by means of an exterior stairway to the expanded deck.
Applicant CHRISTOPHER B. CRONIN,TRUSTEE
Location 61 BROAD STREET(Map 25,Lot 275) (R-2 Zoning District) •
Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of seeking a Special Permit per
Sec. 3.3.5 Single and Taro Family Non mrrforming Structures to allow new construction of a
front deck and rear addition.
Applicant MARIA CONNELL
Location 145 FORT AVE (Map 25,Lot 206) (R-1 Zoning District)
IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
2017 Zoning Board of Appeal Meeting Schedule-Discussion and Vote
V. ADJOURNMENT
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin.Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on `� �/ otoi6
at 9,0N/Vin accordance pith MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
Page 2 of 2
�v�conwrr9��'s
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
9 BOARD OF APPEAL
�r1I1V6 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MAssAci-ru Trs 01970
KIMaERLEYDRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 FAx:978-740-9846
MAYOR
STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Appeals Members
FROM: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
DATE: 11/8/2016
RE: Meeting Agenda for November 16,2016
Board Members,
Please find the following in your packets:
1. Agenda
2. Staff Memorandum
3. Meeting Minutes (October 19)
4. 77 Proctor Street
5. 2 Bradford Street
• 6. 380 Essex Street
7. 1-3 East Collins Street
8. 161 Federal Street
9. 61 Broad Street
10. 145 Fort 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,November 16,2016.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
1. The petitioner is requesting Variances from Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design and Sec. 5.1.8 Table
of Required Parking Spaces to allow the construction of a 24'wide curbcut and associated
parking area within five (5) feet of the street line at the property of 77 PROCTOR
STREET (Map 25, Lot 5) (R-2 Zoning District)
The petitioner is proposing to install an 18' x 24' wide parking area in the front yard. The
petitioner is requesting a Variance from Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design to exceed the maximum
allowable curbcut. The petitioner is proposing a 24'wide curbcut where the maximum is 20' feet.
The petitioner is also requesting a Variance from Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces to
allow the parking area to be located within five (5) feet of the street line.
•
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—November 16,2016
Page 2 of 6
Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces states: •
...Notwithstanding any restrictions in this Section 5.1.8, no area within five (5) feet of the street
line, including any driveway, shall be considered as a parking space in RC, Rl, R2 and R3
Districts..."
I AM
1.jo s •:e i
At the last public hearing,the Board requested that the petitioner revise his set of plans to comply
with the maximum curbcut width requirements of 20' feet and to indicate the distance between
the proposed curbcut and fire hydrant.
Enclosed is an updated site plan that includes a revised curbcut that meets the dimensional
requirements of a maximum of 20' feet. The petitioner is still requesting a variance from the
provisions of Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow the parking area to be located
within five (5) feet of the street line.
For the Variance request the Board needs to find that there are:
• Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land,building or structure
involved, generally not affecting other lands,buildings and structure in the same district.
• Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial
hardship to the applicant.
• Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and
without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the
purpose of the ordinance
•
2
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—November 16,2016
• Page 3 of 6
2. A public hearing for a petition of ARSEN SHERAJ seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5
Nonconforming Single- and Two-family Residential Structures to expand the
nonconforming structure and a Variance per Sec. 4.Z7 Table of Dimensional
Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot area per dwelling unit at 2
BRADFORD STREET (Map 17,Lot 50)(R-2 Zoning District).
The petitioner is proposing to construct a 24' x 28' addition on an existing single family home.
The petitioner is requesting a special pernit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-
Family Residential Structures to expand a nonconforming structure. The property is located
within an R-2 Zoning District.
The petitioner is proposing to expand an existing non-conforming single-family structure. The
petitioner is proposing to expand the non-conforming structure and proposing a two-family use.
The two-family use is allowed by right in the R-2 Zoning District.
Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two-Family Residential structures states:
"... In the event that the Building Commissioner determines that the nonconforming nature of
such structure would be increased by the proposed reconstruction, extension, alteration, or change,
the Board of Appeals may, by special permit, allow such reconstruction, extension, alteration, or
change where it determines that the proposed modification will not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood."
• It appears, that there may have been a mistake in the interpretation of the zoning ordinance
whereby the applicant may not need to request a Variance from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional
Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit. Tom St. Pierre is on vacation until
November 16, at which time I can clarify this interpretation with him.
Since our October 19 meeting, the petitioner has provided additional information requested by
the Board and is included in this packet.
3. A public hearing for a petition of JAY FAMICO seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Uses
to allow the conversion of a historic carriage house to a dwelling unit at 380 ESSEX
STREET (Map 25,Lot 206)
At the October 19, 2016 meeting, the petitioner requested to continue the public hearing until
November 16, 2016. No testimony was heard at the October 19, 2016 meeting.
The petitioner is requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.0 Table of Uses to allow the conversion of
a historic carriage house to a dwelling unit. The project includes the refurbishment and
restoration of an existing 31.5' x 37' carriage house. The scope of the project will include interior
renovations to create a recreation room on the first floor and a dwelling unit on the second floor.
The property is located in an R-2 Zoning District.
• A historic carriage house is defined as "an accessory or outbuilding, originally built to house
carriages, horses, or for use as a barn, that has been in existence since 1900 and its present
location."
3
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—November 16,2016
Page 4of6
•
Please note that there are two (2) plot plans that were submitted with this packet. The petitioner is
proposing the plot plan date October 7, 2016 that shows parking spaces that conserve the current
ally of trees on the property.
Enclosed is a copy of the Massachusetts Historic Commission property information sheet.
4. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MICHAEL MEYER,
TRUSTEE, requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and
Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements for the following minimum lot area
per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, minimum distance between buildings, and
maximum number of stories to construct eight (8) residential units at 1-3 EAST
COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277 ) (R-1 Zoning District)
The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to change from
one non-conforminguse to another non-conforming use and variances per Sec. 4.1.1
g
Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit,minimum lot frontage,
minimum distance between buildings, and maximum number of stories to construct eight (8)
residential units.
At the October 19`s public hearing, the Board requested a legal opinion from the City Solicitor on
whether the Ward 2 Social Club was abandoned and whether the social club has lost its non-
conforming status. •
A legal opinion is still pending,but is expected before our next public hearing.
5. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of 161 FEDERAL STREET
LLC, seeking an amendment to an existing Zoning Board of Appeal decision dated
September 2, 2015 to construct an additional four (4) parking spaces at the rear of the
property of 161 FEDERAL STREET (Map 25 Lot 112)(112 Zoning District).
The petitioner is proposing to amend a plan previously approved by the Board of Appeals to
increase the number of parking spaces on the property in order to provide parking for the
abutting property owner.
On September 2,2015, the Board of Appeals issued a decision to allow the conversion of 161
Federal Street, the former Rectory of St.James Church, to four (4) residential units. The plan that
was approved by the Board provided six (6) parking spaces in the rear yard of the property to be
accessed by a narrow driveway from Federal Street.
The petitioner has since purchased Griffin Place,which is located in the rear yard of 161 Federal
Street. There is a private Right-of-Way at Griffin Place. The petitioner is now proposing to use
the existing Right-of-Way at Griffin Place to provide access to parking at the rear of 161 Federal
Street by means of an easement. The petitioner is also proposing to increase the number of
parking spaces to a total of ten (10) parking spaces.Although the petitioner is not proposing to
use the narrow side yard between 161 Federal Street and 165 Federal Street for a through •
4
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—November 16,2016
• Page 5 of 6
driveway access, the petitioner is proposing to locate two (2) full sized parking spaces in the side
yard space between the two (2) buildings.
The Board needs to do a two (2) step process here: 1) Determine whether or not the new plan is a
significant or insignificant change;2) If the Board finds that the new plan is a significant change,
the Board needs to discuss whether the proposed changes continue to meet the standard criteria
of the original special permit request OR If the Board finds that the change is insignificant, the
Board can choose to approve the amendment to the plan.
6. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of CHRISTOPHER B.
CRONIN, TRUSEE, seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures
to expand an existing rear deck and provide access to an existing second floor unit by
means of an exterior stairway to the expanded deck at 61 BROAD STREET (Map 25, Lot
275) (R-2 Zoning District).
The petitioner is requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to expand
an existing rear deck and provide external access to an existing second floor unit. The property is
located in an R-2 Zoning District.
Currently there is an existing deck located within 20' feet of the required 30' foot setback. The
tenants of the existing second floor currently access the unit through a common hallway on the
interior of the building. The petitioner is proposing to expand the existing deck and construct an
• external stairwell such that the second floor tenants have access to the unit from the exterior of
the building.
The Board needs to find that the proposed expansion of a non-conforming structure is less
detrimental than the existing structure and meets the following special permit criteria:
a) Social, economic and 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
l) Potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base and employment
7. A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MARIA CONNELL seeking
a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Single and Two- Family Nonconforming Structures to
allow new construction of a front deck and rear addition 145 FORT AVE (Map 25, Lot
206) (R-1 Zoning District)
The petitioner is requesting a special permit per Sec 3.3.5 Single and Two-Family Nonconforming
Structures to allow new construction of a front deck and rear addition. The property is a single
family home located in an R-1 Zoning District.
The petitioner is proposing to construct a 6'x 22' deck along the second story on the front of the
• house above in the area where there is an existing roofline. The petitioner is also proposing a 10'x
22'rear second story addition. The new construction on the rear of the building will not change
the existing footprint of the home.
5
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum—November 16, 2016
Page 6 of 6
Below is a picture of the front elevation of the home. •
The Board needs to find that the proposed expansion of a non-conforming structure is less
detrimental than the existing structure and meets the following special permit criteria:
a) Social, economic and 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
l) Potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base and employment
The petition and supplemental materials are included in this packet.
hI
..;.� +.F+vim �����i -:N '1 "�^ t.•��Y �aLS_..
1 I
Old/New Business
2017 ZBA Meeting Schedule review and vote
•
6
%ynnQIW11l �::
�v
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
7�
4
`; Board t� `, t� f: A
Date
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
&L4-4 F
✓`i`ryy.,`nr�`O �r�i r�Pt�P //�9 r�l/ero�S� 97fiP 7�fv`—Gf'�lf
�Au�7 `T 1'E(�Li�u 2,1 14,J+ . Sf- �'j76 7zS sl�
`f!
7Gi WIN1W�+6 nuu`A+IT6�_6
l�
Page of
• City of Salem Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday,November 16,2016
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA")was held on Wednesday,
November 16, 2016 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem,
Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.
Ms. Curran (Chair)calls the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.
ROLL CALL
Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jim Hacker
(alternate), Paul Viccica (alternate), and Tom Watkins. Those not present were: Mike Duffy
and Jimmy Tsitsinos. Also in attendance Tom St Pierre-Building Commissioner,Erin
Schaeffer -Staff Planner,and Colleen Anderson—Recorder.
REGULAR AGENDA ',
Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition requesting a Special
Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Variances per Sec. 4.1.1
Dimensional Requirements for the following minimum lot area per
dwelling unit,minimum lot frontage, minimum distance between buildings,
and maximum number of stories to construct eight (8) residential units.
• Applicant MICHAEL MEYER,TRUSTEE
Location 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277 ) (R-1 Zoning
District)
Chair Curran - stated that a request has been received by the Board from the petitioner
requesting this discussion be continued to the December 21, 2016 meeting.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to continue the public hearing with no
evidence taken. The motion is seconded by Mr.Watkins. The vote was unanimous in
favor and none (0) opposed to continue the public hearing to the next regularly
scheduled meeting on Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 6:30pm.
Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition requesting Variances from
Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design and Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces
to allow the construction of a 24' wide curb cut and associated parking
area within five (5) feet of the street line.
Applicant JASON & CHRISTINA ROBINS
Location 77 PROCTOR STREET (Map 25, Lot 5) (R-2 Zoning District)
•
Documents and Exhibitions •
➢ Application dated September 12, 2016 and supporting documentation
Chair Curran- States that the Board of Appeals requested that the petitioner narrow the curb
cut from 24' feet to 20' feet and to submit some additional information about the distance
from the curb cut to the hydrant.
Jason Robins, 77 Proctor Street,were present to discuss the project.
Jason Robins stated that new plans were submitted reduced the curb cut from 24 feet to 20
feet, the distance from the curb cut to the existing fire hydrant is 20 feet, and a new letter of
hardship was also submitted.
Chair Curran—stated that the petitioner no longer needs a variance for the width of the
driveway because it now conforms to the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance,
however; a variance is needed for providing parking within five (5� feet of the street line,
which is needed because the lack of space between the house and the street. It would
otherwise not be physically possible to provide parking without the Variance.
Robins noted that in terms of hardship concerns, a list of accidents on Proctor Street from
the Salem Police Department has been provided, dating back to January 1, 2015. The prior •
owners tenant had their vehicle struck in front of the house.
Chair Curran askes for public comment.
No one in the assembly wishes to speak.
Chair Curran closes public comment.
Chair Curran—stated that with the curb cut reduced and no way to providing parking that is
not within five feet of the street line without needing a variance, she is in favor of granting a
variance.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Viccica makes a motion to grant a variance Sec. 5.1.8 Table of
Required Parking Spaces to allow the construction of a 20 foot wide curb cut and
associated parking area within five (5) feet of the street line. The motion is seconded
by Mr. Watkins. The vote was unanimous with five (5) Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter
A. Copelas (Vice-Chair), Tom Watkins,James Hacker, and Paul Viccica, in favor and
none (0) opposed.
Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit
per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures to •
expand the nonconforming structure and a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of
Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot
•
area per dwelling unit.
Applicant ARSEN SHERAJ
Location 2 BRADFORD STREET (Map 17, Lot 50)(R-2 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated September 27,2016 and supporting documentation
Attorney Billy Quinn, on behalf of Arsen Sheraj of 2 Bradford Street,was present to discuss
the project.
Arty. Quinn stated that space to accommodate their growing family is driving the need for
this duplex addition onto their existing dwelling. They have applied for a special permit for
dimensional changes and a variance because of their desire to add a new non-conformity of
lot area per dwelling unit. The odd shaped lot pre-dates zoning laws and its positioning of
the structure on the site will cause the addition to impose on the site in one way or another.
Their lot has 7,700 square feet and the lot area per dwelling unit is 7,500. 2 families are
allowed in this district and there are 29 lots, either single or double, that have less than 3,800
square feet per unit. This lot area per dwelling unit request is not out of the ordinary for the
neighborhood.
•
Arty. Quinn stated that the amended plans show the three dimensioned parking spaces and
new dwelling floor plans. His reading of the special permit indicates that this project can be
approved as a special permit without the need for a variance. St. Pierre told him prior to the
meeting that it's been the ZBA's practice has been to require a variance at the new non-
conformity being added with the request for dimensional non-conformity. Being an allowed
2 family like others in the neighborhood is not against the public interest, it will not be more
detrimental to the neighborhood because it is already non-conforming,it will have adequate
off-street parking for two units, there will be no natural habitat issue by construction on their
lawn, and the City will benefit from the additional taxes a second unit will provide.
Chair Curran— stated that an odd sizes lot,in terms of a hardship that requires a variance,
would apply as a side yard or a rear yard but not to lot area, despite it being a pre-existing
condition. She had previously suggested creating a large addition to the single family.
Appealing to the Building Commissions decision regarding his interpretation of the zoning
bylaws,would allow the ZBA to make a determination regarding the granting of a special
pertnit only.
Chair Curran—suggests a continuation to discuss the project with the Building Inspector or
altering the proposed plan to create a large addition and not a separate unit. Atty. Quinn
replied that a large addition will not provide the privacy they desire. They are seeking a
• dimensional relief which required a lower standard of qualification than a variance. A
variance can be granted which a hardship from circumstances regarding lot size or the
structure on the lot. The combination of their circumstances creates a hardship and asks if a •
special permit for two units was before the Board if it would be considered approvable.
Chair Curran—replied yes.
Atty. Quinn requests a continuance to the next regular meeting.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to continue the discussion at the
December 21,2016 meeting. The motion is seconded by Mr. Watkins. The vote was
unanimous in favor and none (0) opposed.
Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit
per Sec. 3.0 Uses to allow the conversion of a historic carriage house to a
dwelling unit.
Applicant JAY FAMICO
Location 380 ESSEX STREET (Map 25 Lot 206)(R-2 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated September 27, 2016 and supporting documentation
Attorney Scott Grover, of Tinti, Quinn, Grover & Frey, 27 Congress Street, Suite 414,
Salem, MA 01970,represents the applicant
Other presenters include:
• Dan Ricciarelli of Seger Architects, 10 Derby Square, 3N, Salem, MA 01970
Arty. Grover stated that the carriage house is in a state of disrepair. Salem adopted a zoning
ordinance aimed at historic carriage houses and gave people an incentive to restore them.
This ordinance allowed the BOA to grant a special permit for historic carriage houses (in
place on or before the year 1900) and to allow them to become separate dwelling units. It
needs to be determined that the adverse effects of this change in use don't outweigh the
beneficial impacts, a community need will be served—the preservation of a historic carriage
house will benefit the community,no overburdening of traffic or parking will be created—4
parking spots will be created to serve the two units (two for each unit), there are adequate
utilities on site—the utilities are on site and will be extended to the carriage house, and lastly
that there is positive fiscal impact—a second dwelling unit will increase tax revenue for the
City. The R2 use is consistent with the neighborhood and additional housing is a need in
Salem. This project will also go before the Historical Commission.
Ricciarelli stated that the carriage house was constructed in 1807,at the same as the house,in
the Federal style with McIntire details. The building has no foundation so a new one is •
proposed. All building finishes will be restored (wood clapboards, trim and a new roof),an
• egress door will be added at an existing front window,no additions are proposed, the
windows ate existing and will all be restored, sprinklers will be added,as well as utilities. The
first floor will remain as the owners' space for storage and recreation purposes with a
kitchenette. The second floor will become a one unit two bedroom 1,100 square foot
apartment. An area of paneling on the second floor will become a functioning set of French
doors and other exterior add-ons will be removed during the restoration.
Chair Curran—asked if there will be any dormers or changes to the footprint. Ricciarelli
replied no. Chair Curran—added that if this is approved a condition will be placed on it to
make sure that it remains a single dwelling unit.
Chair Curran opens public comment.
Jacqueline Washburn and Stanley Szwartz of 143 Federal Street, a direct abutter, read a
statement in opposition of Mr. Famico's desire to restore the carriage house to be used as a
separate dwelling unit and not as its intended use as an accessory building. The approval of
this project would eliminate their privacy as a neighbor since it is so close to the lot line,have
a negative affect on the property values of the neighbors, approving the building for another
use would limit the grandfathered status that is more intrusive is not reasonable, suggested
moving the building so that it complies with the current residential buffer zones ordinances,
requests that the underground oil tank be remediated, and if the special permit be requested
that the lease on the unit be no less than 1 year so transient housing will not be an allowable
• use and plantings be placed to block site lines from windows and for the noise and privacy
concerns of neighbors.
Washburn read a letter from abutter Chris Copelas who is in opposition of the project. He
has even less of a buffer zone, at times his home is within one foot from his property line
and some of its windows are directly across the windows of his home,namely a bedroom.
He is in favor of moving the structure to conform to zoning laws and to protect the privacy
of his family. He is also concerned with the decline in property value that will result from
the approval of this project.
Stephen Gregory of 141 Federal Street is a diagonal rear abutter. Is in opposition of this
project, agrees with the concerns already stated, and is concerned with the quality of the
neighborhood and the character of the McIntire District which is mostly single family
dwelling and the large open space backyards. The approval will allow a residence in the
middle of a group of rear yards.
Chair Curran - read a letter from Johnathan Bailey (no address was given),who is in favor of
the project. The structure will be preserved, has no parking concerns or its proposed rental
use, historic details will be restored in keeping with the neighborhood.
Atty. Grover stated that the privacy concerns by neighbors are understood and they will
• mitigate the impacts on the neighbors. Eliminating some windows and using skylights is an
option as well as adding a privacy fence to shield the view into the first floor, and plantings
can be added to the buffer zone. Ricciarelli added that windows could be blacked-out; flat
skylights could be added to the roof. The building would most likely fall apart if it were to •
be moved and three large trees would need to be cut down. Atty. Grover noted that Mr.
Famico would voluntary accept a condition that prohibits the unit from being used as a
transient housing. Chair Curran —noted that blacking out the windows from the interior
would be acceptable if the Historic Commission agrees, the use of vegetative screening for
privacy will work, and moving the carriage house doesn't make sense since they were
historically placed in the back corner of lots. Mrs. Washburn stated that allowing this change
will be in favor of Mr. Famico but at the detriment to the abutting neighbors.
Cbair Curran closes public comment.
Mr. Hacker—suggested that the owners and neighbor meet to discuss design alternative that
will work for all involved. Chair Curran—replied that the issues mentioned have been
addressed and moving the carriage house would defeat its historical purpose. She would
support this with the conditions that the 2"d story south side windows facing 143 Federal
Street be blacked out from the interior,vegetation of a sufficient height within the 4 foot
buffer zone for a privacy screen, a limit in rental terms of no less than 6 months, and that it
remain a single family dwelling unit.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the application for a
Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Uses to allow the conversion of a historic carriage house
to a dwelling unit with the following conditions; the structure shall remain a single
family dwelling unit on the second floor only, the second story window at the rear of •
the building shall be blacked out on the interior side, the side window will be
reviewed and approved by the Historical Commission shall have the same blacked
out treatment,vegetation at least 6 feet high will be planted in the buffer zone to
create a privacy screen, and the rental unit agreement will be limited to no less than 6
months. The motion is seconded by Mr.Viccica. The vote was (4) Paul Viccica,
James Hacker,Tom Watkins, and Rebecca Curran (Chair) in favor, and (1) Peter A.
Copelas (Vice-Chair) abstaining.
Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of, seeking an
amendment to an existing Zoning Board of Appeal decision dates
September 2, 2015 to construct four (4) parking spaces at the rear of the
property.
Applicant 161 FEDERAL STREET LLC
Location 161 FEDERAL STREET LLC (Map 36,Lot 277) (R-1 Zoning
District)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated October 25, 2016 and supporting documentation •
• Attorney Scott Grover of Tinti, Quinn, Grover&Frey, 27 Congress Street, Suite 414,
Salem, MA 01970, represents the applicant, Dan Botwinick.
Arty. Grover stated that the property is the former rectory of St.James Church on Federal
Street. The board approved a series of variances that allowed the rectory to be converted
into 4 dwelling units with 6 parking spaces. At the time there was concern with the ability to
access those spaces through an existing driveway that is less than 8 feet wide at its narrowest.
Converting the building to a more productive use outweighed the access to parking.
Mr. Botwinick has since acquired some ownership in the neighboring 3 unit building at 2
Griffin Place,which is currently being renovated. This brings the opportunity to use the
neighboring Griffin Place entrance and increase the number of parking spaces at the rear of
161 Federal Street to 10—6 spaces for 161 Federal Street and 4 spaces—for 2 Griffin Place.
There are currently no legal parking spaces at 2 Griffin Place. A reciprocal easement would
be created between the two properties so that the owners of 161 Federal can pass over
Griffin Place and the owners of 2 Griffin Place and park at of 161 Federal,which will
eliminate vehicles from needing to use the narrow driveway. No new relief is needed only an
amendment to a previous Board decision based on the newly submitted site plan.
M'r.Viccica—asked if this eliminate parking at 2 Griffin Place? If these are two separate
properties shouldn't this be two separate requests? This creates a potential conflict. Mr.
Copelas —replied that this request is not detrimental to 161 Federal because it will provide a
safe access to theii parking area.
• Atty. Grover stated that 2 Griffin Place legally has no parking. Chair Curran—noted that
legal parking for 2 Griffin Place will be provided where it previously did not.
Mr. Viccica—asked if legally those four (4) spaces would be deeded to the owners of 2
Griffin Place. Arty. Grover replied that those spaces would be considered "exclusive use
only."
Mr. Viccica—asked if once the owner sells his share in 2 Griffin Place,would those spaces
remain with the 2 Griffin Place unit owners.
Atty. Grover replied that a permanent easement between the two properties would be in
place. If this option was not approved by the Board the Applicant would request tandem
parking behind the building with the use of the easement, although an existing tree would
need to be removed to make that parking arrangement possible, but neighbors would like
the tree to remain.
Chair Curran opens public comment.
Chair Curran—read a letter from Tom Collins of 155 Federal Street,is favor of the project.
Chair Curran—read a letter from Sue Linder-Bean and Charles Bean of 19 Fowler Street,in
0
favor of the project. Requests that a fence be installed to keep headlights from vehicles
from shining into their windows and snow from being plowed onto their property, and •
suggests a permeable driveway.
Joyce Wallace of 172 Federal Street. The owner had a meeting with the neighbors and
everyone was pleased with their efforts and providing as much off street parking as possible.
She is in favor of this project.
Virginia Charette of 169 Federal Street. Asked for clarification on parking and driveway
access. Both Chair Curran and Mr. St. Pierre replied that the wider neighboring driveway at
2 Griffin Place will be used as the driveway for both buildings.
Chair Curran closer public comment.
Atty. Grover added that a solid fence will be attached to the existing chain-link fence to
create a screen and the area behind the building will be left as greenspace for snow storage.
Mr. Watkins asked who will maintain the private way. Arty. Grover replied the owners of 2
Griffin Place.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Viccica makes a motion to amend the September 2, 2015
decision and to approve the modified site plan dated September 29, 2016 adding four
rear parking spaces to 161 Federal Street,with the following conditions; adding a new
solid fence at the entire southern end (rear) of 161 Federal Street, a portion behind 2
Griffin Place and the South-Western corner up to the rear of 2 Griffin Place, and the •
reciprocal easement to allow 4 parking spaces at 161 Federal Street for 2 Griffin Place
be in place before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued at 2 Griffin Place. The motion
is seconded by Mr. Watkins. The vote was unanimous with five (5) Rebecca Curran
(Chair), Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Tom Watkins,James Hacker, and Paul
Viccica in favor and none (0) opposed.
Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of, seeking a
Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Strictures to expand an existing
rear deck and provide access to an existing second floor unit by means of
an exterior stairway to the expanded deck.
Applicant CHRISTOPHER B. CRONIN,TRUSTEE
Location 61 BROAD STREET (Map 25, Lot 275) (R-2 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated October 25,2016 and supporting documentation
Attorney Scott Grover of Tinti, Quinn, Grover&Frey, 27 Congress Street, Suite 414,
Salem, MA 01970, represents the applicant, Christopher B. Cronin. •
• Arty. Grover stated that Chris Cronin has purchased the structure and Joe Bates is doing the
renovation. The intention is to convert the building into two condominium units and the
use will remain. The clean-up of the site and renovation of the exterior have begun but they
would like to expand and existing deck at the rear of the building and add a new exterior
stair. There is an existing non-conformity, the rear setback is 30 feet and the existing deck is
at 22 feet. The non-conformity will not be increased, the proposed deck will only extend
further towards the side yard, to include the exterior stair,which will give the second floor
unit private access. The second floor is currently accessed through a common hallway and
up a set of stairs.
Arty. Grover stated that a special permit is required because it is a two-family house. This
minor change is not more detrimental, there is no change in parking, the fiscal impacts will
benefit the City and increase the property value,it will increase usability, and the stair will be
within the side yard setback but it will increase the rear yard non-conformity.
Mr. Copelas—asked if this access point was going to be the exclusive egress to the second
floor unit. Mr. Cronin replied that it will be a second egress; the existing front interior stair
through a common hallway will remain.
Chair Curran opens public comment.
Chris Burke of 65 Broad Street. If the interior stair works why add an exterior stair? This
• exterior stair will be seen from the street and no other houses in the area have that. A new
exterior stair will increase the square footage and density. Will there be any parking changes
or a new curb cut that will eliminate street parking which has been a problem? Will the trees
removed be replaced? Joe Bates (Contractor) replied that he cleared overgrown weeds along
the sidewalk but removed no trees. A tree across the street was removed but not by him.
An 18 foot curb cut will be done to create 4 off-street parking spots which will result in the
loss of 1 on-street parking spot.
Ellen Mcardle of 63 Broad Street, a direct abutter. The contractors work is exemplary,
however; an exterior stair is not inappropriate for their proposed design but it is not in
harmony with the rest of the neighborhood. Is in favor of the exterior stair if it stays on the
side of the house where it is currently proposed.
Atty. Grover stated that the exterior stair does not increase the footprint and will not
increase the number of rooms/bedrooms in the unit- the 2 family dwelling will remain a 2
family.
Mr. Copelas—asked if a window will be lost on the first floor due to the new exterior stair.
Mr. Bates replied no, the first floor will not be impacted by the new stair. He could add trees
at the side and rear of the property to help conceal it. Mr. Burke replied that he hopes a
vegetation that can quickly get overgrown is planted since the rear yards are all divided by
vegetation and not fences. It is important to keep the character of the neighborhood.
Chair Curran asked if placing the exterior stair along the back of the building and to come up •
within the existing deck was considered. Mr. Bates replied no,because the existing deck is
already in place and it made sense to keep the stair near the parking. Mr. Burke is in favor of
the rear stair and not the side stair. Ms. Mcardle is not in favor of the rear stair, because the
increase foot traffic on the stair will be able to look down onto her property.
Chair Curran closer public comment.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the petition for a Special
Permit to expand an existing non-conforming rear deck and provide access to an
existing second floor unit by means of an exterior stairway to the expanded deck.
The motion is seconded by Mr. Watkins. The vote was (4) Peter A. Copelas (Vice-
Chair),James Hacker, Tom Watkins, and Rebecca Curran (Chair) in favor, and (1)
Paul Viccica abstaining.
Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of, seeking a
Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Single and Two-Family Nonconforming Structures to
allow new construction for a new front deck and rear addition.
Applicant MARIA CONNELL •
Location 145 FORT AVENUE (Map 25, Lot 206) (R-1 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated;XXXX and supporting documentation
Maria Connell was present to discuss the project.
Ms. Connell stated that is seeking to add a rear addition and front deck to the front of her
existing non-conforming home. The proposed addition does not extend beyond the existing
footprint.
Chair Curran—asked if there was a second story deck on top of an existing front porch roof
and a new gable dormer in the rear. Ms. Connell replied yes, the rear is a 1 '/z story addition
to mirror the front roof. The second floor addition will allow the 2"d floor bathroom to be
enlarged without eliminating one of the 3 bedrooms.
Chair Curran—asked if the rear deck is existing. Ms. Connell replied yes, the rear yard
setback is 30 feet and 12 feet is what exists. The existing front yard setback is 48 feet.
•
Ms. Connell stated that a second non-conforming condition existing on the west side of the
• house. Towards the rear the existing side yard setback goes down to approximately 5 feet.
Chair Curran opens public comment.
Mark Meche of 1 Lowell Street, an abutter. Is in favor of the proposed project and the work
that has taken place so far. R1 zoning doesn't fit with the neighborhood so none of the
homes conform to the regulations.
Cbair Curran closer public comment.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the petition for a Special
Permit for the new construction of a new front deck and rear addition. The motion is
seconded by Mr. Viccica. The vote was unanimous with five (5) Rebecca Curran
(Chair), Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Tom Watkins,James Hacker, and Paul
Viccica in favor and none (0) opposed.
AP RP OVAL OF MEETINGMINUTES
Chair Curran requested to amend the October 19, 2016 meeting minutes to reflect that the
public hearing was to remain open for 77 Proctor Street.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the October 19, 2016
minutes as amended. Seconded by Mr. Viccica. The vote was unanimous in favor
and none (0) opposed.
OLD/NEW BUSINESS
2017 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Schedule—Discussion and Vote
Schaeffer stated that the only schedule changed is the December 20, 2016 submittal deadline
for the January 18, 2017 meeting, to allow time for the holidays. All meeting dates are the
typical dates.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the 2017 Board of Appeals
meeting schedule as proposed. The motion is seconded by Mr.Viccica. The vote
was unanimous with five (5) Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),
Tom Watkins,James Hacker, and Paul Viccica in favor and none (0) opposed.
?ri�DJOURNMENT
Mr. Watkins motions for adjournment of the November 16, 2016 regular meeting of the
Salem Board of Appeals.
•
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins made a motion to adjourn the November 16, 2016
regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Viccica, and the
vote is unanimous in favor and none (0) opposed.
The meeting ends at 9:00 PM.
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
•
rOND`� � CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
. BOARD OF APPEAL
' 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
�MiIVE
TELE:978-619-5685 0 FAx:978-740-0404
KIMBERI.EY DRIscoLL
MAYOR
_n
� N
O
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals v
ter- w
r 4t
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of 161 FEDERAL TfREFkLLC, seeking
an amendment to an existing Zoning Board of Appeal decision dated September 22015 4� construct an
additional four (4) parking spaces at the rear of the property of 161 FEDERAL t REE+-(Map 25 Lot
112)(82 Zoning District). `" tr
The public hearing will be held on WED., Nov. 16, 2016 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3`d at 120
• WASHINGTON STREET.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 11/2/2016 & 11/9/2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on WT $ 1 6
at /D•*/(c .'Y in accordance with Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
•
OND CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
�( BOARD OF APPEAL
r
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
--_E -/ TELE:978-619-5685 FAx:978-740-0404
KIbBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
n
o
V)
r- o
M
F W
cnm —
City of Salem M
Zoning Board of Appeals 3 D
3
D _
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of CHRISTOPHER B. CRONIN,
TRUSEE, seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to expand an existing rear deck and
provide access to an existing second floor unit by means of an exterior stairway to the expanded deck at 61
BROAD STREET (Map 25,Lot 275) (R-2 Zoning District).
The public hearing will be held on WED., Nov. 16, 2016 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3`d at 120
• WASHINGTON STREET.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 11/2/2016& 11/9/2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on OCT 3-12016
at /0. 16; A0-/ in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
•
���:0ND1T CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
yep ' BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET 4 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦FAX:978-740-0404
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR o
(7 P
r c
M c�
R ~
CA W
ym
r 7t
D
a
3 Q
City of SalemCn
Zoning Board of Appeals °-
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MARIA CONNELL seeking a
Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Single and Two- Family Nonconforming Structures to allow new
construction of a front deck and rear addition 145 FORT AVE (Map 25, Lot 206)(R-1 Zoning District)
Said hearing will be held on WED,Nov. 16, 2016 at 6:30 p.m., 3`d floor, 120 WASHINGTON ST,
ROOM 313.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 11/2/16 & 11/9/16
This notice posted on "Official Bulleti oard"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on Qci I Zik
at /0 ,'/11%¢M in accordance with MGL Chap.34A,
Sections 18-25.
•
icoxorr -
�!�� - CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 0 970
KIMBERLEYDRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-74MMOV �O P I: OO
MAYOR
FILE #
November 30, 2016 Decision CITY CLERK,SALEM, MASS.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of JASON& CHRISTINA ROBBINS, requesting Variances from Sec. 5.Z5 Parking Design and Sec.
.5 1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to construct a 24'wide curbcut and
associated parldng area within five (5) feet of the street line at the property of 77 PROCTOR STREET (Map
25, Lot 5) (R-2 Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 19,2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11 and
continued to the November 16,2016 meeting.The hearing was dosed on that date with the following Salem Board of
Appeals members present:Rebecca Curran (Chair) Peter A. Copdas,Tom Watkins,James Hacker (alternate),and Paul
Viccica (alternate).
The Petitioner is requesting Variances from Sec 5.1.5 Parking Design and Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces
of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the construction of a 24'widecurb cut and associated parking area within five
(5) feet of the street line.
• Statements of fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped September 12, 2016, the Petitioner requested Variances from Sec 5.1.5 Parking
Design to allow the construction of a 24'wide curbcut and Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces of the
Salem Zoning Ordinance, to construct an associated parking area within five (5) feet of the street line.
2. Jason and Christina Robbins presented the petition.
3. The property is located in a Residential Two- Family(R-2) zoning district.
4. The petitioner is proposing to remove an 18' x 24' wide section of the landscaped front yard and existing
stairway to construct a parking area,associated retaining walls,and curbcut to create parking for at least two (2)
cars.
5. At the October 19,2016 meeting, the Board requested that the applicant meet the dimensional requirement of
a curbcut for a residence as the Board found that there was no substantial hardship for the requested 24'feet.
6. At the October 19, 2016 meeting, the Board request a revised plan with a twenty (20� wide curbcut, a revised
statement of hardship for the Variance request, and additional information on the distance between the
proposed curbcut and existing fire hydrant.
7. At the November 16, 2016 meeting, the petitioner provided additional supporting documentation requested
and presented an amended plan with a twenty (20D foot wide curb cut. The petitioner rescinded the Variance
request for a twenty-four(24D foot wide curb cut.
8. The Board found that due to the existing location of the home, that there were no alternatives to the parking
area within five(5) feet of the street line.
• 9. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the petitioner to construct a 24' wide curb cut and associated
parking area within five (5) feet of the street he.
10. At the public hearing,no members of the public spoke in favor or in opposition to the petition.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
November 30,2016
Project: 77 Proctor Street
• Page 2 of 2
11. 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 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. The existing house is located within the
front yard setback and there are no alternative options.
2) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant as
the existing structure of the house cannot be easily moved to allow a parking area to be constructed beyond
five (5) feet of the street line.
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 five (5) voted (Rebecca Curran,
Peter A. Copelas, Tom Watkins, James Hacker (alternate), Paul Viccica (alternate) in favor and none opposed, to
approve the requested Variance to allow the petitioner to construct a parking area within five (5) feet of the street line
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.
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.
Special Condition:
1. The petitioner shall apply to the City of Salem Engineering Department for a curb cut permit.
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
day of fling of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts Genera!Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11
, the Variance or
Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Ckrk has been fled with the Essex South
Registry of Deeds.
" ; CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
��q � 100
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSAC SETTS 01 70
KIMBERLEY DRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 FILE Y
MAYOR CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS.
November 30, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of JAY FAMICO seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Uses to allow the conversion of a historic
carriage house to a dwelling unit at 380 ESSEX STREET (Map 25,Lot 206)(R2 Zoning District)
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 19, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, g 11
and no testimony was heard on that date. The public hearing was continued to the next regularly scheduled
meeting on November 16, 2016 and closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members
present:Ms. Curran (Chair),Mr. Copelas,Mr. Watkins,Mr. Hacker (alternate),and Mr. 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 the conversion of a historic carriage house to a dwelling
unit.
Statements of fact:
• 1. In the petition date-stamped September 27, 2016, 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 the conversions of a historic carriage house to a dwelling unit.
2. Attorney Scott Grover and Dan Ricciarelli of Seger Architects presented the petition.
3. The property is located within an R-2 Zoning District.
4. The petitioner is proposing to refurbish and renovate an existing 31'.5" x 37'.3" historic carriage
house. The scope of the project includes interior renovations to create a recreation room on the first
floor and a single dwelling unit on the second floor.
5. A bistoric carriage house is defined by the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance as "an accessory or
outbuilding, originally built to house carriages, horses, or for use as a barn, that has been in existence
since 1900 at its present location."
6. The house and carriage house was constructed circa 1807.
7. The petitioner testified the community need that is served by this proposal is the need to restore the
historic carriage houses because these structures significantly contribute to the Salem's historic fabric.
The continued use of the structure will ensure its sustainability for years to come. Further, there is a
significant need for housing and this project will provide one additional dwelling unit.
• 8. The petitioner presents a revised parking plan, dated September 7, 2016 that provides four (4) parking
spaces on the property, which exceeds the minimum number of parking spaces required for two (2)
City of Salem Board of Appeals
November 30,2016
Project: 380 Essex Street
Page 2 of 4
dwelling units. The petitioner proposed these locations for parking to keep the existing ally of mature
trees on the property that line the existing driveway.
9. The petitioner testified that the utilities for the historic carriage house will be provided from the
existing residence.
10. There is a positive fiscal impact to the City as an increase in property tax will be realized with the
addition of a living unit.
11. The existing structure is in disrepair and there is no existing foundation. The trim, clapboards, roof
and windows all need to be restored. The goal of this project is to stabilize and utilize this historic
structure.
12. Dan Ricciareli, architect, testified that the only major changes to the structure include adding an
egress door on the left hand side of the carnage house doors where there is currently a window. The
petitioner is also proposing to install French doors and a Juliette balcony in the existing second floor
archway.
13. The owner plans to use the first floor as a personal storage/recreation room and the second floor as a
single dwelling unit. The dwelling unit is approximately 1,100 square feet with two (2) bedrooms,
living room, dining room, and bathroom.
• 14. During the public hearing, the direct abutters, located at 38 Flint Street and 143 Federal Street
strongly opposed the petition primarily due to privacy concerns and requested that the petitioner
remove all windows on the first and second floor facing both properties and/or move the location of
the structure to fit the required 30'ft rear yard and 10' ft side yard setbacks.
15. The petitioner proposed to eliminate the bathroom window by keeping the existing window and
inserting black glass as to not allow anyone to see in or out. The petitioner proposes to provide a
skylight on the second story at the bathroom location in lieu of a window.
16. The Board clarified with the petitioner that the bathroom window will remain, but the glass will be
black spandrel glass as to not allow anyone to see in or out. The Board requested that the window
structure will remain because it is part of the structural historic fabric of the building.
17. The proposal to eliminate the' bathroom window black spandrel glass is subject, to Historic
Commission approval.
18. As to the neighbor request to remove the first floor windows, the petitioner stated that the first floor
is not part of the dwelling unit that is being considered by the Board. The first floor will be used as a
recreation room associated with the main house and is a use permissible by right.
19. The petitioner offered to landscape the 4' foot buffer between the historic carriage house and
property boundary with columnar evergreens to provide a vegetative screen between the carriage
house and the abutter.
• 20. The petitioner testified that the project team considered moving the building to fit the current setback
requirements, but felt that the preservation of the existing location of the historic carriage house and
historic landscape is important.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
November 30,2016
Project: 380 Essex Street
• Page 3 of 4
21. The petitioner also offered the prohibition of the residential dwelling unit to be used as a short-term
rental. This is a voluntary condition as the Board does not have the authority to limit the term of
rental properties.
22. At the public hearing, three (3) members of the public spoke in opposition to the petition. Two (2)
members of the public spoke in favor of the petition.
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:
The adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the City or the
neighborhood.
1. The proposed accessory use and associated building restoration will have a positive impact on the
social, economic or community needs served by the proposal as it will provide an additional dwelling
unit and allow the property owner to invest in the preservation and restoration of this historically
significant structure.
2. There are no impacts on traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading as adequate parking is
provided.
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 and will be a positive improvement to
preserve and restore the existing historic building.
6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base is positive.
On the basis of the above statements of facts and finding, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in
favor (Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Watkins,Mr. Hacker (alternate), and Mr. Viccica (alternate); none (0) opposed,
and Mr. Copelas abstained, to approve the requested Special permit to allow to the conversion of a historic
carriage house to a dwelling unit, 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.
�4 l
City of Salem Board of Appeals
November 30,2016
Project: 380 Essex Street
• Page 4 of 4
Special Conditions:
1. The property will remain a single family dwelling unit.
2. The petitioner shall voluntarily lease the property for no less than six (6) months at a time.
3. The petitioner shall install black spandrel glass in the bathroom window and install a skylight above the
bathroom,if approved by the Salem Historic Commission.
4. The petitioner shall install columnar evergreens to provide vegetative screening in the existing four (4)
buffer to provide privacy for the rear neighbors and carriage house tenant.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• Appealfrom this decision,if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and sball be fled within 20
days of fik'ng of this decision in the office of the City Clerk Purruant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance 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.
. ��CONUIT—`qs
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
1I BOARD OF APPEAL
1
120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACHUSETR 9� 0 P `: 00
KIMBERLEYDRIscou, TELE:978-745-95951 FAX:978-740-9846 FILE 0
MAYOR CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS.
November 30, 2016
Amended Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of 161 FEDERAL STREET LLC, seeking an amendment to an existing Zoning Board of
Appeal decision dated September 2, 2015 to construct an additional four (4) parking spaces at the
rear of the property of 161 FEDERAL STREET (Map 25 Lot 112)(112 Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above amendment to a previously approved petition was opened November 16, 2016
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: Rebecca
Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair), Tom Watkins, Paul Viccica (alternate), James Hacker
(alternate).
The Petitioner seeks an amendment to a previously approved decision dated September 2,2015, to amend the
previously approved plot plan in order to construct an additional four (4) parking spaces at the rear of the
property.
Statements of Fact:
1. Attorney Grover presents the proposed amendment to the decision.
2. In the petition date-stamped October 25,2016 the Petitioner requested an amendment to a previous
Zoning Board of Appeal decision to reflect the new parking plan titled, "Plot Plan of Land 161
Federal Street, Salem prepared for Dan Botwinik", dated September 29,2016.
3. The property served as a rectory for St.James church and is located in an R2 Zoning District.
4. The petitioner is proposing to construct an additional four (4) parking spaces for a total of ten (10)
parking spaces at the rear of the property.
5. The original site plan approved by the October 25, 2016 decisions for 161 Federal Street,provided six
(6) parking spaced required by the Ordinance to serve the four (4) approved residential units at the
property. As amended, the site plan for 161 Federal Street will provide an additional four (4) parking
spaces to serve the existing three (3) residential units at the Griffin Place property.
6. The owner of 161 Federal Street has recently acquired an ownership interest in the adjacent property
• at 2 Griffin Place and proposed to allow access to the rear of 161 Federal Street over 2 Griffin Place
via the private Right-Of-Way"Griffin Place"in exchange for providing parking to serve the Griffin
Place property in the rear yard of 161 Federal Street.This permits eliminating access through a narrow
driveway at 161 Federal Street.
C Z
City of Salem Board of Appeals
November 30,2016
Project: 161 Federal Street
• Page 2 of 3
7. A reciprocal easement will be granted to allow for access and parking by both parties.
8. The petitioner testified that a major benefit of the proposed amendment is to allow much easier
access to the parking area at the rear of 161 Federal Street. Originally, the Board approved a Variance
for a driveway to be less that the required twelve (12') feet wide to serve the property. The proposed
amendment to the plot plan now provides an easier way to access the parking behind 161 Federal
Street.
9. The property at 2 Griffin Place is a three-family dwelling unit with no legal parking spaces. Currently,
residents informally park in front of the building. The petitioner is proposing to formalize parking for
2 Griffin Place by providing four (4) parking spaces. The property at 2 Griffin Place is not required to
have any parking as there is no change of the number of units and there are currently no formal
parking spaces at the property.
10. The petitioner is proposing to provide four (4) parking spaces at 161 Federal Street to serve the three
(3) residential units at 2 Griffin Place. The parking at 161 Federal Street is specifically to allow for the
preservation of an existing large tree at the rear left corner of the 161 Federal Street property.
• 11. The petitioner requests that the plot plan that was originally approved as part of the September 2,
2015 decision be amended.
12. The maintenance of Griffin Way will continue to be done by the owner or their assigns as the Right-
Of-Way is privately owned.
13. At the public hearings three (3) members of the public spoke in favor and one (1) spoke opposition
to,the proposed amendment.
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:
The Board finds that the modified access to allow passage over Griffin Place for access at 161 Federal
Street and the request for four (4) additional parking spaces is not more detrimental than the
previously approved plan.
•
v
City of Salem Board of Appeals
November 30,2016
Project: 161 Federal Street
• Page 3 of 3
On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted with five (5) in
favor, (Rebecca Curran (Chau), Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair), Tom Watkins, Paul Viccica (alternate),James
Hacker (alternate)) and none (0) opposed subject to allow four (4) additional parking spaces amending an
original site plan associated with the September 2, 2015 Decision to the new site plan dated September 29,
2016, subject to the following terms, conditions and safeguards:
All conditions set forth in the original decision dated September 2,2015 shall remain and be adhered
to by the applicant, unless explicitly eliminated or amended in this decision.
Special Conditions:
1. The petitioner shall attach a solid fence to the existing chain link fence across the rear of 161 Federal
Street and along a portion between 161 Federal and 2 Griffin Place such that headlights will not shine
on neighboring properties and snow will not be pushed across rear property lines.
2. A reciprocal easement to allow access to the rear of 161 Federal Street via Griffin Way shall be in
place before a Certificate of Occupancy is obtained.
cc�'�
Rebecca Curran, Chau
• Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY
CLERK
Appeal fiam 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 fi4'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 fest until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been feted with the Essex South
Registry of Deeds.
•
yT w
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
• � 4' BOARD OF AP$gJPEAvvL(t�� (r��
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MA5'S��IiU KX)1R '' 00
KIMBERLEY DRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846ILE t#
MAYOR CITY CLERK, SALEM. MASS.
November 30, 2016 Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of CHRISTOPHER B. CRONIN, TRUSEE, seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3
Nonconforming Structures to expand an existing rear deck and provide access to an existing second
floor unit by means of an exterior stairway at 61 BROAD STREET (Map 25, Lot 275) (R-2 Zoning
District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 16, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 5 11
and closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran
(Chair),Peter A. Copelas,Tom Watkins,Jim Hacker (alternate),and Paul Viccica (alternate).
The Petitioner is seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to expand an existing rear deck
and provide access to an existing second floor unit by means of an exterior stairway at the property.
Statements of fact:
• 1. In the petition date-stamped October 25, 2016, the Petitioner requested a a Special Permit per Sec.
3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to expand an existing rear deck and provide access to an existing second
floor unit by means of an exterior stairway at the property.
2. Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition on behalf of the applicant.
3. The property is an existing two-family home in an R-2 Zoning District.
4. There is an existing nonconforming rear porch that is within the required 30' foot rear yard setback.
5. The petitioner is proposing to expand the second floor deck along the entire rear fagade and construct
an exterior stair to serve the second floor unit.
6. Currently, the property is a two-family home with access to both units through an interior common
hallway to create more interior space for the two (2) units.
7. The petitioner is also proposing to install a driveway where there is currently a landscaped side yard to
provide off-street parking spaces.
8. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the petitioner to expand an existing rear deck and
provide access to an existing second floor unit by means of an exterior stairway.
9. At the public hearing, two (2) members of the public spoke opposition to and no (0) members spoke
in support of the petition.
i
City of Salem Board of Appeals
November 30,2016
Project: 61 Broad 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 Special Permit:
The Board finds that expansion of the rear deck and associated stairway will not be substantially
more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood.
1. The proposed extension of a non-conforming 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.
3. The capacity of the utilities is not affected by the project.
4. There are no impacts on the natural environment,including drainage.
5. There are no significant impacts to the 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 (Rebecca Curran, Peter A. Copelas, Tom Watkins, and Jun Hacker (alternate)) and none (0) opposed,
Paul Viccica (alternate) abstained, to expand an existing rear deck and provide access to an existing second
floor unit by means of an exterior stairway subject to the following terms, conditions and safeguards:
Standard Conditions:
1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the
Building Commissioner.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly
adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but
not limited to, the Planning Board.
•
City of Salem Board of Appeals
November 30,2016
Project: 61 Broad Street
• Page 3 of 3
tC�rP.C.P� C,c�Jt/2�rf�n rZi1
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 decuion,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 deazsion bearing the certificate of the City Ckrk has been filed witb the Essex South
Registry of Deeds.
•
•
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
13 � BOARD OF APPEAL
�--�
120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSEY'IS'Pl9-AO P 12; 59
KIMBERLEY DRIscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846
MAYORFILE ll
CITY CLERK,SALEM,MASS
November 30; 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of MARIA CONNELL seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Single and Two- Family Nonconforming
Structures to allow new construction of a front deck and rear addition 145 FORT AVE (Map 25,Lot 206) (R-1
Zoning District)
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 16, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, � 11
and closed on that date with the Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Copelas,
Mr. Watkins, Mr. Hacker (alternate), and Mr.Viccica (alternate).
The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Single and Two-Family Nonconforming Structures to allow new
construction of a front deck and rear addition.
• Statements of fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped October 25,2016, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5
Single and Two- Family Nonconforming Structures to allow new construction of a front deck and rear
addition.
2. The petitioner Maria Connell presented the petition.
3. The property is located within an R-1 Zoning District.
4. The property is nonconforming as to the rear yard setback as it is within 12' feet of the required 30'
foot setback. The petitioner is before the Board to expand the non-conforming structure.
5. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 6' x 22' deck on the front second story of the property and
a 10' x 22' rear addition. The new construction will be built within the existing footprint and will not
change any of the side, front,or rear yard setbacks.
6. The proposed deck will not extend beyond the existing front porch.
7. The proposed rear addition will be within the 2.5-story and 25' foot height limit required by the
zoning ordinance.
8. At the public hearing, one (1) member of the public spoke in favor, and none (0) spoke in opposition
to the petition.
•
City of Salem Board of Appeals
November 30,2016
Project: 145 Fort Ave
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, makes the following
findings:
The proposed modification will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
nonconforming structure to the neighborhood.
1. The proposed expansion will have a positive impact on the social, economic or community needs.
2. There are no impacts on traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading as adequate parking is
provided.
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
(Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Copelas (Vice-Chair), Mr. Watkins, Mr. Hacker (alternate), and Mr. Viccica
(alternate) to approve the requested Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Single and Two-Family Nonconforming Structures
to allow new construction of a front deck and rear addition subject to the following conditions, terms, and
safeguards: ts1 •
Standard Conditions:
1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the
Building Commissioner
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly
adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy 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.
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 fik'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 Permitgranted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South
Registry of Deeds.
v�CONaT
�. CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
KiMBERLEY DRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846
MAYOR
MEETING NOTICE
You air herby notified that the Salem Zoning Board ofAppealr will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Wednesday, December 21,2016 at 630 p.m. at City Hall Annex, RM 313, 120 Warbington St., Salem,MA
Rebecca Curran, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
I. ROLL CALL
This notice posted on "offic' ey I tin Board"
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES City Hall, Salem, Mass, on2016
at JZis1v PM in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
➢ November 16, 2016 Sections 18-25.
III. REGULAR AGENDA o
-c
rCl) v
• Project Continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking a Special P pec. 3.3.5
Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures to expandt 11 F onforming
structure and a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional ofe Salem
Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot area per dwelling unit. e
Applicant ARSEN SHERAJ 3
r
Location 2 BRADFORD STREET (Map 17,Lot 50)(R-2 Zoning District)'Wn a-
Project Continuation of a public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2
Nonconforming Uses and Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements for the
following minimum lot area per dwelling unit,minimum lot frontage,minimum
distance between buildings,and maximum number of stories to construct eight (8)
residential units.
Applicant MICHAEL MEYER,TRUSTEE,
Location 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277) (R-1 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of,requesting a Special Permit
per Sec. 3.2.2 Home Occupation to allow a professional office to be located in an existing
dwelling.
Applicant TRYAD COUNSELING AND HEALING CENTER LLC
40 Location 22 HANCOCK STREET (Map 33 Lot 192)(R-2 Zoning District)
Page 1 of 2
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Agenda for December 21,2016 Meeting
• A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of, requesting Variances per
Project Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot frontage and minimum
lot width to create a second residential lot.
Applicant ANTHONY M.JERMYN,TRUSTEE OF JULIA TRUST
Location 50 RAVENNA AVE (Map S Lot 7) (R-1 Zoning District)
Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of requesting a Special Permit
per Sec. 3.3.3 Non-Conforming Structures and a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of
Dimensional Requirements for minimum size yard setbacks construct a new dormer and
exterior decks on the rear of the building.
Applicant CAROL and SCOTT PERRY
Location 7 ORANGE STREET (Map 35 Lot 366) (R-2 Zoning District)
IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
V. ADJOURNMENT
•
Page 2 of 2
/r��OIQDITgq�
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
• a' L 9 V1 l v) o��
Board 2-
Date
Date
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
rQau -� Ck S l ;IV?s 9-
L.
ALter- 'n
sedrr.A
r
�. CJ i
Page of
• City of Salem Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday,December 21,2016
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA')was held on Wednesday,December
21,2016 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts
at 6:30 p.m.
Ms. Curran (Chair)calls the meeting to order at 630 pm.
ROLL CALL
Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Tom Watkins,
Jimmy Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy,Jim Hacker (alternate), and Paul Viccica (alternate).Also in
attendance Tom St.Pierre-Building Commissioner,Erin Schaeffer-Staff Planner,and Colleen
Anderson—Recorder.
REGULAR AGENDA .
Project Continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit
per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures to
expand the nonconforming structure and a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of
Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot
• area per dwelling unit.
Applicant ARSEN SHERAJ
Location 2 BRADFORD STREET (Map 17, Lot 50)(R-2 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated September 27,2016 and supporting documentation
Ms. Curran- Stated that the Board of Appeals heard a public hearing at the October 19, 2016
meeting where the Board discussed a lack of hardship for the Variance requested. The
applicant requested a continuation of the public hearing to the next regularly schedule on
November 16,2016 with additional information from outside council. The attorney had a
different interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance that the applicant's request could be
facilitated by a special permit and did not require a Variance.At the November 16,2016
meeting, the Board requested a legal opinion from the City Solicitor on whether the request
could be granted by special permit.The Board continued the public hearing to the next
regularly scheduled meeting on December 21,2016. The City Solicitor concurred that the
request could be granted by special permit. The Building Commissioner also concurred with
the opinion. All Board members received the City Solicitor's opinion.
Ms. Curran- states that there was not a hardship for a variance request to allow less than the
required lot area. By special permit,the threshold of the criteria is less stringent.The public
• hearing is still open.
Attorney Bill Quinn- Submits a petition of support from five (5) abutters for the record. He •
also states that the petitioner is proposing a two-family dwelling unit in a two-family
residential district.The lot area per dwelling unit will be similar or greater than most in the
neighborhood.The proposed expansion of the two-family non-conforming structure will not
be substantially more detrimental than the existing structure to the neighborhood.
No one else in the assembly wishes to speak.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve a Special Permit per Sec.
3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures and Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-
Family Residential Structures to expand the nonconforming structure. The motion is
seconded by Mr. Watkins.The vote was unanimous with five (5) Rebecca Curran
(Chair), Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy and Jimmy
Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0) opposed.
Project A continuation of a public hearing for a petition requesting a Special
Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and VariancesP er Sec. 4.1.1
Dimensional Requirements for the following minimum lot area per
dwelling unit,minimum lot frontage,minimum distance between buildings,
and maximum number of stories to construct eight (8) residential units. •
Applicant MICHAEL MEYER,TRUSTEE
Location 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277) (R-1 Zoning
District)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated September 27, 2017 and supporting documentation
Ms. Curran-States that at the last public hearing the issue was raised of whether or not the
Ward 2 Social Club had lost its grandfathered use status.The reason that this is important is
because the use of the Ward 2 Social Club was a non-confortning use. Under the Salem
Zoning Ordinance and M.G.L. Ch40A, the change from one non-conforming use to another
non-conforming use can be done by special permit if the use has not been discontinued for
more than two (2) years. The issue was raised that it had been discontinued for more than
two (2) years.The Board requested a legal opinion that answered several questions:
1. Is the use of the Property (the"use") by the Ward II Social Club Salem,Inc. entitled
to protected status as a legally existing nonconforming use under M.G.L. Ch. 40A
Section 6 and under Section 6 of the Ordinance?
• The use of the property is entitled to protected status as a legally non-
conforming use under M.G.L. Ch. 40A Section 6. •
• 2. Did the Club abandon its Use of the Property in January 2014 when it closed the
Building to the Public?
• The club did not abandon its use of the property in January 2014, when it
closed the building to the public.
3. Did the sale of the Property to Michael Meyer, Trustee of 1-3 East Collins Street
Realty constitute a termination of the Use?
• The sale of the property to the petitioner does not constitute a termination of
the use of the property.
4. Is it within the authority of the Board of Appeals for the City of Salem to issue a
special permit to the Owner allowing a change in the use of the Property form one
non-conforming use to another"less" nonconforming use?
• It is within the authority of the City of Salem Board of Appeals to issue a
special permit to allow a non-conforring use of the Property to continue,
provided that the Board issues a finding that the proposed new use of the
Property,is less detrimental than the existing nonconforming use.
Attorney Scott Grover-Presents the petition on behalf of the petitioner. Attorney Grover
states that at the last public hearing, the petitioner presented the long history of this project.
The project consists of eight (8) units across five (5) buildings that are divided into single and
two-family structures. The relief that is requested has substantially diminished from when the
• petitioner was proposing eighteen (18) residential units last year.At the last public hearing,
the petitioner stated the relief that was requested and the grounds for that relief.
Ms. Curran- Confirms with the petitioner that the proposal consists of two (2) single family
homes and three (3) duplex structures for a total of eight (8) units.
Attorney Grover-At the last meeting there were three (3) major concerns raised.The first
was the question of abandonment and non-use and whether the property still qualified for a
special permit to go from one nonconforming use to another 2) payment of taxes;at the last
hearing the property owner had delinquent property taxes that would have prevented the
Board from the ability to grant a special permit.These taxes have been paid. 3) A concern
from the public that the public access is not shown on the plans.The owner of the property
is committed to providing public access through the site,but the location and nature of that
access has yet to be defined. It is anticipated that this public access will be designed and
developed during a site plan review process through the Planning Board and further revised
through the Chapter 91 DEP licensing process. Attorney Grover suggests a special condition
of the Zoning Board of Appeal decision, on providing public access, of which the location
and nature would be determined by the Planning Board and Massachusetts DEP.
Chair Curran- Opens the public comment period.
Tim Connell, 6 East Collins Street- speaks in opposition to the proposal due to the proposed
• density and argues that the proposed buildings are big and do not fit with the character of
the neighborhood. The public had access to the beach,views of the ocean,and plenty of •
street parking. In general,the proposed project will take away views and be very dense. From
a neighborhood perspective, this is a significant development that is taking away a lot and is
dense with too many units. The neighborhood is not opposed to this development, but the
size of this development is more detrimental.
Mary and Charles Knight 5 East Collins Street- Speaks in opposition to the proposal and
reads a letter aloud for the record. Ms. Knight argues that affidavit provided by Lorraine
Cody,manager of the Ward II Social Club,is false and the proposed project is too large for
the property and does not fit with the character of the neighborhood.
Scott Truhart- Speaks in opposition to the proposal and reads his letter aloud for the record.
Mr.Truhart states that the current proposal is detrimental and significantly alters the existing
neighborhood. The existing neighborhood has a "high density,but low density feeling
neighborhood."The neighborhood is a dense area,but the proposal will add to this density
and therefore negatively impact the neighborhood's low density feel. Mr. Truhart requests
that the Board consider a low impact development and would like to see a few single family
homes on the property.
Kim Surles, 27 Planters Street-Speaks in opposition to the proposal and is concerned about
the impacts of the proposal of flooding and drainage in the neighborhood and availability of
parking.
Scott Truhart- Continues to speak in opposition to the proposal due to density concerns and •
parking. In particular,Mr.Truhart presented copies of the proposal that was considered in
2015 and compared these plans to the current proposal to make the case that the proposed
density of project and there is no different in the footprint of the buildings from the
originally proposed eighteen (18) units to the current proposal of eight (8) residential units.
Ms. Curran-Asks the petitioner to clarify the size of the building footprints.
Attorney Grover-requests to address several public concerns and introduces Scott Cameron,
CE;Morin-Cameron Group to present the information.
Mr. Cameron-We presented this at the last meeting. Let's talk about the overall density. We
did an analysis of the whole neighborhood. There are a combination of single, two and three
family structures with an average density of one unit per 2,613 square feet. There is a four
family dwelling unit in the neighborhood that was not considered as part of this calculation.
The petitioner is proposing 5,229 square feet per dwelling unit. With consideration that a
substantial portion of the property is wetland area, the lot area per dwelling unit, with the
omission of the wetland area is one unit per 3,155 square feet. Mr. Cameron makes the case
that the proposed project density is less dense than the surrounding neighborhood, even
when the wetland of the subject property is not considered as part of the overall lot area per
dwelling unit.
•
• The petitioner did not just look at the overall number of units. The petitioner also looked at
the separation between the buildings in the neighborhood. In particular, the existing homes
in the neighborhood have relatively large footprints that are spaced approximately 10 to 20
feet apart. This is relatively narrow spacing between existing buildings. Then there is a small
gap and the face of the existing concrete block structure on the 1-3 East Collins Street
property,which is one story high. There is no view line (of the ocean) until out past Planters
Street. In breaking up the project from eighteen (18) units over two (2) buildings,which was
massive, the petitioner reduced the number of units to eleven (11) across four (4) buildings.
Now the petitioner is proposing eight(8) units over five (5) separate buildings.
Through that process, the petitioner has reduced the proposed footprint areas from 30% lot
coverage, 19% lot coverage, and presently the proposed lot coverage is 13.3%. This is
significant because the existing building covers 12.5%. Mr. Cameron states that the
petitioner is proposing the same footprint area as the existing building.
The other thing that Dan Riccarelli, project architect presented, was when you look at the
original plan that was submitted (with the proposed eighteen (18) units), there were two (2)
large buildings that were proposed with close separation. The current proposal, the five (5)
buildings are placed in such a way as to stagger the buildings and provide view corridors
between the buildings. Mr. Cameron presents elevation plans showing the view corridors.
The proposed buildings are not larger than the size and scale of the existing homes in the
neighborhood. Mr. Cameron presents aerial images of the neighborhood and proposed plan.
• The proposed buildings are the same general size and footprint area as the existing
properties in the neighborhood. The proposed single family and two-family homes relative
to the proposed single and two family homes are the same.
Regarding the public access, Mr. Cameron restates that the petitioner would accept a
condition from the Board to provide public access.
The property is uniquely large and compared to the neighborhood, even more density may
be appropriate. If you look at the street line and existing rows of houses, it would make
sense to continue that to match the neighborhood. The proposed development is slightly
less dense than that for good measure to help with the concerns of sight lines and visibility.
Regarding the heights of the buildings, the petitioner is in compliance with the maximum
building height of 35'.
The Zoning Ordinance requires that the petitioner provide twelve (12) parking spaces. The
petitioner will be providing fourteen (14) parking spaces. Through the Planning Board site
design process, the petitioner is considering providing more parking spaces. Already, the
petitioner is exceeding the zoning requirement for the project. This project would not
burden the public street.The homes do not generate a significant amount of traffic.
Impacts of sewer and water infrastructure are barely measurable because there are only eight
(8) units proposed. We look at hundred (100) unit projects and those are not of concern for
• waste water flow.
Single and two-family uses are typically a very low burden on emergency services and •
schools. The proposed dwelling units are planned to be two (2) bedrooms mainly. A lot of
thought has been put into this project and understands the concerns of the neighborhood.
This project is a change to the neighborhood and a change to the use of the property that
has been there for a long time. In a neighborhood like this and the introduction of a new
project like the one proposed there will be a higher land value and have people living there
rather than people coming to socialize. The proposed development will be an anchor to the
neighborhood and inspire other future developments, renovations and developments to
existing homes to the neighborhood. As a planning tool, this is an ideal use and very
reasonable density.
Ms. Curran-one member of the public had a comment about stormwater.
Mr. Cameron- The property is located in a flood zone. The lower levels including the first
floor area are above the flood zone, which is a requirement of coastal construction
regulations. So there are no mechanical systems or living areas that will be impacted by the
construction of these homes.
As for stormwater management, the petitioner is proposing to reduce the impervious surface
on the property. Currently, the pavement and paved areas encompass 30% of the property
and the buildings encompass 13% of the property. The proposed buildings will encompass
13% of the property and the associated pavement will be reduced to 15%, half of the
amount of pavement that currently exists on the property. There will be a significant •
reduction in impervious surface of the property. The rate of runoff from the property is not
considered as the ocean is viewed as infinite. The proposal will not impact flooding in the
ocean. The petitioner will consider the treatment of the runoff, which will be in full
compliance with the stormwater management regulations that are enforced by DPW and the
conservation commission through the Wetlands Protection Act.
Mr. Scott Truhart- On the pavement,we a number 30% or some percentage. I would like a
ruling on the paved area, this hammerhead driveway is not allowed to count toward the
square footage, the density. That is a road. I want to just quickly...cause I am glad that the
drawing is back. Maybe it was difficult to understand my letter when I was reading it and
talking about the shading (of the renderings). This is all building and multi-tiered roof and
the center building for some reason are not shaded. The proposal has small view corridors
compared to what is there now. It is exceptionally more detrimental to the open air space,
light,air flow and unprecedented view of the cove.
Ms. Curran- That is a driveway. In order to create a road, the petitioner would have to go
through the Subdivision control process administered by the Planning Board. The petitioner
is proposing an access driveway,not a road.
Mr.Truhart-Okay,I still would suggest that the paved area in this case as well as the curbcut
that we are losing. I would like a ruling on that.
Ms. Curran- Confirms with the petitioner that the curbcut complies with the Zoning •
Ordinance and is twenty (20') feet.
Mr. Cameron- Yes, the curbcut dimensions comply with the requirements of the zoning
ordinance and is also designed with a slight angle to not have car headlights pointing away
from the dwelling units directly across the street. The proposed driveway is not a road and
pavement is not used in the overall density calculation. The density calculation is lot anal dwelling
unit[inserted clarification]. Further the appropriate of driveway area per dwelling unit is not
different from the amount of driveway appropriate for each dwelling unit in the
neighborhood.
Mr. Viccica- Asks Attorney Grover to review the requested Variances and associated
hardship.
Mr.Truhart-There are more people with comments.
Ms. Curran-Yes. We know.
Attorney Grover- The most significant of the relief requested is the minimum lot area per
dwelling unit. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit
in the R-1 Zoning District. We are providing considerably less than that at 5,200 square feet
per dwelling unit. But the proposed density is still significantly greater that the existing
density in the surrounding neighborhood. 2) The second Variance requested is for the
maximum number of stories. As mentioned by Scott Cameron, the petitioner is not
requesting a Variance for the overall height of the buildings as they meet the maximum 35'
• feet requirement. The building in the number of stories measures three-stories rather than
the maximum of 2.5 stories. 3) The third Variance requested is to have less than the required
minimum distance between buildings. The requirement is to provide 40' feet of distance
between buildings. The petitioner is proposing a range of 25-30 feet. 4) The fourth variance
is for less than the required frontage.
The hardship is that if you were to literally enforce the zoning ordinance, the maximum
number of dwelling units that could be constructed is two (2)-units with a Variance for
minimum lot frontage. Due to the physical constraints of the site,it is impossible to develop
the site. Two (2) dwelling units are the most that could be constructed with a variance for
frontage. With the literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance and no variance for frontage,
a single family home would be the most that this site could be developed.
Ms. Curran- Confirms with the petitioner that there are also other constraints of the
property including a gas line easement.
Attorney Grover- States that there are all sorts of other unique features of the property and
constraints including the gas fine easement, wetland buffer, and coastal dune. The property
subject to Chapter 91 Licensing.,
Mr.Viccica- so why is the site not developable if it is not more than two (2) units.
Attorney Grover- The unique construction standards and features of the property make this
• site very expensive to develop and is not economically viable. And two units would not be
allowed with the literal enforcement of the ordinance, because a variance would be needed .
for less than the required lot frontage.
Ms. Curran- But the use is allowed by special permit. I am wondering, do you need a
variance for lot area per dwelling unit?
Attorney Grover- Yes. The use is by special permit and a dimensional variance is needed for
minimum lot size per dwelling unit.
Ms. Curran-What is the footprint of the two (2) single family homes?
Attorney Grover- We can provide that. I also want to address the suggestion that the lot
coverage that was originally proposed with eighteen (18) dwelling units to eight (8) units has
not changed. I would suggest that the lot coverage has dramatically changed from the
original proposal to the current proposal. Mr. Cameron stated that the original lot coverage
was 30% coverage to about 13% coverage. There has been a significant reduction in lot
coverage proposed. As for the percent coverage of the existing building, it is 12% lot
coverage and the proposed lot coverage of the proposed buildings is 13%, only marginally
more coverage than the existing structure.
Mr. Cameron- States that the footprint area for the single family homes is 840 square feet
with dimensions of 22'x 38'.
Ms. Curran-Takes additional public comment. •
Charles Knight 5 East Collins Street - Speaks in opposition to the petition citing flooding
concerns. The three back properties that are towards the berm, on any given storm surge,
there 10-15 inches of water. That whole side is grass and is permeable. I have pictures of that
area two- feet deep. The storm surge comes right in here and I have seen cars floating in that
parking lot half a dozen times. If I dig three inches below by basement floor the ground
water is high. At one point, the club put a stormdrain through the berm and the EPA came
by and shut it down. Unless there are elevational changes, those properties are going to have
floating cars when there are storm surges. I want to know where that water will go because if
it is going to come on my property, I am going to have other issues with this. There is
detriment to the parking because of the 20' curbcut proposed because it will take away on-
street parking for two cars right in the front. With the Planters Street project, which looks
good and fits, we are already feeling the effect of the lack of parking in the neighborhood
and affects all of us.
Ms. Curran- Confirms that the proposed buildings will not have basements and will all be
elevated above the flood elevation. He is concerned that there will be increased water on his
property. Can you address that?
Ms. Cameron- There will be not changes to the topography of the site. If there is coastal
flooding of the site, the other houses along the coastline will also be flooded and there is
nothing we can do about that. No water will be directed anywhere else. The berm will not be
modified because it is a protected natural resource. Everything will be elevated above the
flood elevation. •
• Ms. Cameron-What is the flood elevation?
Mr. Cameron- 10' feet.
Ms. Curran- So I am looking at the aerial view of the existing Ward II Social Club and there
are a bunch of parking spaces in front. So when that club was active, was this one big
curbcut here.
Mr. Cameron- Yes, you would pull. There was nothing defining the curb and the parking
spaces are perpendicular to the building and street, so you could not park on the street
without blocking someone in.
Ms. Curran- Okay, but now that it is proposed to be defined and closed, there will be on-
street parallel parking.
Mr. Cameron- Describes the plan. By defining a curbcut, the petitioner will be providing at
least four(4) on-street parking spaces.
Mr. Truhart-Interrupts the Board.
Mr. Cameron- There is a curbline that exists here, but anyone parking on the site will be
blocked by cars parked on the street.
• Ms. Curran- Confirms that the pavement that appears to be an extension of Planters Street is
owned by National Grid.
Mr. Cameron- Confirms. Some of the misperception of how open this is and how big this
street is,Planters Street ends right here.
Ms. Curran- Takes additional public comment. The chair requests that any new comments
be shared rather than repeating the same concerns. Mr. Truhart interrupts the chair and
speaks.
Mr. Truhart- The striped parking lot in front of the club used to be sidewalk that the club
striped and no one seemed to mind. The majority of those spaces are what the neighbors
used for parking especially for people who do not have off-streetg
P arkin . What occurred
there typically was that neighbors parked there on that property particularly during snow
emergencies, but there would generally be several parking spaces on the street blocking cars
parked on the property and the property owner allowed it.
Mary Knight, 5 East Collins Street- Disturbed that the Board is okay with the petitioner
proposing the construction of three new buildings in a flood zone. This is not sound and
responsible.This is crazy to me.
Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street-Just to refresh the Boards memory, by City Ordinance you
can't park 20' feet from a corner and four (4) feet from a driveway.
•
Mr. Hiltunen- 18 East Collins Street- Speaks in opposition to the project due to concerns •
about the lack of neighborhood parking. Fourteen (14) parking spaces are not enough.
Ms. Curran- States that the petitioner is providing adequate parking that exceeds the zoning
ordinance requirements.
Mr. Hiltunen- 18 East Collins Street-It's not enough.
Ms. Curran-Any comments or questions?
Attorney Grover- Reminds the Board that the project, if approved,would be subject to site
plan review by the Planning Board and Conservation Commission. A lot of the drainage
issues and stormwater management will be further engineered and developed through that
review.The City will review this project continuously on those issues.
Patricia Perry- 23 Planters Street- Speaks in opposition to the proposal due to parking
concerns.
Arthur Sargent- Councillor-At-Large- Speaks in opposition to the proposal due to concerns
about the preservation of views of the cove. If someone proposed a project that could be
done by right and blocked views, I would say sorry, there is nothing I can do about it, but
this project requires variances and special permits. The proposal to exceed the density is
piling on a reverse hardship. One person's hardship can't be fixed without causing a
hardship to the people who are losing property value. Councillor Sargent states that the •
petitioner might as well pay the neighbors thousand dollars a piece because that is what is
going to come up in their home appraisals. In some cases we can't help some without
hurting somebody else and how fair is that? If we were to have twice the density that would
be one thing, but not this much...Mr. Sargent goes on extensively about a story of his
neighbor and how he was a good person and the neighborhood supported his project that
increased the density of his property and how those buildings are in keeping with the
neighborhood.
Attorney Grover- Clarifies that the proposed density of this property is 5,200 square feet.
The Skomurski project that was referred to by the neighbors is about 2,300 as a good project
example has half of the density as the proposed development.
Tim Jenkins-18 Broad Street- Mr. Jenkins speaks in opposition to the proposal. Just a few
things.Just starting with the "substantially not more detrimental" issue.Just as one example,
this curbcut, which I believe is 20' feet, will take away two (2) on-street parking spaces,
which would be allowed right now even though the property has been fully cutoff from the
access. Once upon a time when it was a social club all of the people of the neighborhood
could join the club and personally used the parking at the social club, which they did,
particularly during snow storms. All of this parking, which was used by the neighborhood,
and this is supposed to not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, is all of
this is going to be lost now. As a private developer/owner can rightfully develop it, but this
is an existing benefit of the property. In particular at least two (2) parking spaces will be lost
that are in existence now. When people bring this up,yes,you are allowed to building two by
right, because you can include portions of this property that can be never be developed on. •
. You would also lose the benefit of this, which is already owned. You can walk here and a
member of the public can access the beach. So this new private ownership, which may also
impact, we have already heard that there are fourteen (14) spaces, that at one point the
proposal was for eighteen (18) units, which would have require 24 parking spaces. Where
you would put them I don't know. But they would have added more burden, apparently at
the time that was thought to be a reasonable application and probably would have not
succeeded. This is smaller but still substantially larger, and by the way, when you already
have a tight neighborhood, how can you add more tightness, and improve the situation? It
can only make it worse as far as I can see. But let's go back to the law, and what we have in
our ordinance that are based on the state statute M.G.L. 40A. One of the things is that you
"may" issue special permits,you don't have to if they meet all of the criterion. Or even if they
don't... But one of things it says here is, in the structures, back to Arty's point, there is
nothing in or existing ordinance that says you can build a new building, knock down an old
building and bring a new one. We are only talking uses so far. This is a new structure. Where
is it in our ordinance, "may award a special permit to reconstruct" that means to rebuild
something on site, extend, that means to presumably add to a building, alter, to change the
building in some way shape or form., or change,which change may be the only possible way
you can issue a special permit here. This is a radical change. It is taking down and old
building and putting up new buildings. I don't think this is permitted. I don't think you have
the authority as far as I can tell to do that, neverrnind uses where you seem to have more
discretion with this business of not substantially more detrimental, which is a qualitative
decision you have to make based on all the information being provided. But I want to just
get into if I can...
• Ms. Curran- Yes, but you don't have to get into what the Board can and cannot do. It is
getting late.
Mr. Jenkins- interrupts the Board chair and states, "I do not understand how this can be
done under our ordinance." Maybe you can explain it to me. Then going to an opinion. We
have an opinion that this building has not been abandoned. The law and everything that I
have read is a disjuctive. It is an"or" not and "either or".
Ms. Curran- Okay stop. I do not want to debate that. We asked for an opinion and we have
one. We are going to adhere to the opinion provided.
Mr. Jenkins-As far as I can tell the opinion only is directed at the club and subsequent
owners.The property was sold.
Ms. Curran- Yes that was a question and it was answered. I do not want to spend time
debating this.
Mr.Jenkins-Well...
Ms. Curran- I want to hear about your information that you have if you live in the
neighborhood and interested in stormwater or anything that can help us to make a...
Mr.Jenkins- Then all I will do is re-phrase and say is,is there an intent to abandoned when
the new owner is not a non-profit and cannot recreate what we have here. And the new
owner was not just the current owner. It was also the bank. The bank had partial ownership. .
This is not even dealt with in the legal opinion. But I'll just leave it there. And case law, they
refer to case law, but Dobbs is not referred to. Neither is Lakeville. These decisions all deal
with this and are clear with this. And I would like to hand out if I could a copy of Dobbs. It
deals with this particular issue.And you may want to look at this. The opinion does not refer
to this case at all. Just tried to check all of the case law that were not referred to in the
opinion. I think you are asking me to not go into it, so I won't go into it any more on that.
Ms. Curran- Okay thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to speak on this proposal?
Mr. Jenkins- Read what is does say in our ordinance about abandonment and that is non-
conforming use or structure that has been not use and abandoned for more than two years
loses its nonconforming status. Mr. Jenkins cites the zoning ordinance and goes on to
explain his interpretation of the ordinance that the loss of a nonconforming status is
instantaneous and argues that this has happened twice including the submittal of an
application to the Board.
Ms. Curran- There seems to be some confusion and there is not in my mind. Forget the
building. The use of the property runs with the land and a change of one non-conforming
use to another non-confortning use can be done with a special permit as long as the Board
finds that the proposed use is less detrimental. The building has nothing to do with it. It's
the use of the property. The building can come down and a new building can go up. It
happens a lot. Its very clear to me, but I can understand how this can be confusing. The
Board requested an opinion for a determination on whether or not the two years had lapsed •
and we got an opinion from the City Solicitor. Do we have a motion to close the public
hearing?
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the closure of the public comment
portion to allow the Board to continue their deliberation. Mr. Watkins seconds the motion.
The Board unanimously voted to close the public comment portion of the public hearing.
Ms. Curran-Let's talk about the use. The petitioner originally proposed two (2) big buildings
that were grossly out of character with the neighborhood and the Board requested that the
massing of the buildings be altered to better fit with the neighborhood character. The
petitioner came back with a reduction in the number of units and changes to the massing of
the buildings, but it just was not enough. The question here is,is this enough? So there are a
number of single and two family homes in the neighborhood and footprints of the proposed
buildings appear to be in keeping with the existing footprints of the existing structures in the
neighborhood. The density of this project also is in keeping with the neighborhood. Up the
street,the Board granted variances for the Skomurski project mainly because the lot was very
narrow for single family homes and is a higher density than what this project is proposing. A
view of the cove is not owned, unless you have a view easement. But, I do understand what
the Councillor was saying is that by asking for a special permit,you are asking for something
special. The Board requested that the petitioner maximize the views and that is why the
buildings are situated as they are proposed. As to public access, that is an important issue
here, but the location and design of the access will be largely dictated by the Chapter 91
Licensing process. The proposal has a driveway and parking. The building code allows •
construction in a flood zone. The current proposal is much better than what was proposed
iearlier. The fact that the units are two bedrooms does dictate the size of family that will live
there.
Chair Curran opens further discussion to the Board members.
Mr. Viccica- Speaks against the lot area per dwelling unit variance request. There is no
evidence before the Board that speaks to whether more or fewer units will be more or less
desirable to develop from a developers point of view. To me this is connected monetarily,
but if the developer paid too much for the property it is not the Boards problem and is not a
hardship. On the basis of this,I would not support this petition.
Ms. Curran- Variances for parking and minimum lot area per dwelling unit are always
difficult.
Mr. Viccica- the architecture is fine and the planning is as good as it gets, but the hardship is
not there.
Attorney Grover-Asks the Board if he could address the hardship again.
Mr.Truhart- Isn't the public comment period closed?
Chair Curran- Yes, public comment period is closed, but this portion of the meeting is for
the Board to deliberate. If the Board has questions, the applicant can respond.
Attorney Grover- anything other than a single family home is going to require a variance. I
think the cost of the land is almost irrelevant given the cost and physical constraints of
developing this site. The petitioner would need a variance for anything other than a single
family home because of the frontage. If the petitioner didn't pay anything for the land, a
single family home could not be constructed on this site. The cost to construct would be
significantly more than what the petitioner could sell it for. Without a variance, the Board
would render the site undevelopable.
Mr.Viccica-So what is a fair profit?
Attorney Grover- That is not really up to the Board. Attorney Grover a literal enforcement
of the zoning ordinance would allow a single family home and would render the land not
developable. That is the hardship.
Mr.Viccica- States that his opinion is that the density of the proposal is still too much and is
a detriment to the neighborhood it is too dense. The parking under the building that is
mandated by elevating the buildings, if it is in fact it is in the floodplain, the parking will not
be used very much. The cars will be forced out onto the street. No one wants to park their
car in a foot and a half of water one time a year. I get the idea about elevation and the need,
but do not think that the parking is legitimate parking for someone who does not want to
park in the water.
Mr. Copelas- I do see the special conditions of the land as rendering the property
undevelopable without a variance. Moving onto the special permit, it is a qualitative
discussion about whether the proposed changed is substantially detrimental. That is where i
we have heard considerable evidence and opinions from the public that the proposal is
substantially detrimental. That is a qualitative issue. In some ways, I am a little more hung up
on the special permit finding.
Mr. Duffy- I tend to agree with Peter on his opinion with the Variance. There is a
nonconforming use in place. The petitioner is not asking to start from scratch and build a
non-conforming use. There is already a non-conforming use of the property and the
petitioner is asking for another non-conforn�ing use, which is multi-family residential use. It
just so happens that the petitioner also needs dimensional variances, which trips us to
consider lots that are suitable for a single family home. Do we examine the variance and
hardship with scrutiny of a blank lot that is suitable for a single family home? Or do we look
at through the lens that this is a request to change from one nonconforming use to another
nonconforming use, which is allowed under the zoning with a special permit? When I look
at the work that the engineer has done to analyze the relative size of the buildings compared
to the existing buildings in the neighborhood, I think this is persuasive. The proposal
development is appropriate and makes additional concessions for sightlines,providing public
access, and the project size and massing has been significantly reduced. The developer has
shown a genuine good faith effort to listen to the concerns of the neighborhood. The
neighbors and developer are not getting 100% of what they are asking for. I do think that we
are down to that issue. Is this qualitatively not substantially more detrimental?
Ms. Curran- The analysis of the neighborhood is compelling that the proposal fits with the
neighborhood character. As for the parking in a flood zone, this might create problems, but •
this would have caused problems with the Ward II Social Club as well. I understand that the
neighborhood had a benefit to parking at this site. But this property is now privately owned.
Mr. Cameron- As mentioned, the petitioner has not been through a full site design to the
level required by the Planning Board and Conservation Commission. Mr. Cameron sites a
similar project with similar concerns in Gloucester. Mr. Cameron expects that there would
be an accommodation made in the full development of the site design and analysis to ensure
that the parked cars will not be flooded on a regular basis. The berm can be raised, by law
the petitioner cannot impact adjacent properties. This is something can be engineered. Even
from a sale perspective, potential buyers of this property would not want to buy a place with
parking that floods.
Mr. Watkins-To be clear, the petitioner can legally raise the berm?
Mr. Cameron- Yes. Because this is a coastal area, the petitioner is not required to provide
compensatory storage. If an area floods, the water will go into the ocean. With the
development of this project, we need to make sure that we are not changing existing
drainage patterns that would negatively impact another property and that can be controlled
with catch basins and sight grading.
Mr. Viccica-What is the height of the berm?
Mr. Cameron-The berm crests at elevation 9' ft. and is a foot below the flood elevation.
•
Mr. Viccica- Expresses further concern about residents of this development parking in the
neighborhood due to flooding. The engineering will help during the storm event, but not
during 100 year storm.
Mr. Cameron- If this property is experiencing flooding then every property is experiencing
flooding in the area. We do not want to create a condition that will create problems. This is
not a storm surge zone, this is a velocity zone that experiences tidal based flooding.
Ms. Curran- The site engineering work will also continue to be developed and reviewed by
the Planning Board and Conservation Commission.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve a Special Permit per Sec.
3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements
for the following minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage,
minimum distance between buildings, and maximum number of stories to construct
eight (8) residential units. The motion is seconded by Mr. Watkins. The vote was
unanimous with five (5) Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair), Tom
Watkins,Mike Duffy and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0) opposed.
F77-
Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of, requesting a
• Special Permit per Sec. 3.2.2 Home Occupation to allow a professional office
to be located in an existing dwelling.
Applicant TRYAD COUNSELING AND HEALING CENTER LLC
Location 22 HANCOCK STREET (Map 33 Lot 192)(R-2 Zoning District)
Sandrine Aegerter- 22 Hancock Street-Petitioner is proposing a home occupation to allow a
professional office to be located in an existing dwelling unit.
Ms. Curran-I have read the petition and the statement of grounds. Ms. Curran confirms the
following information with the petitioner: The petitioner is the sole practitioners of the
business;there are two (2) off-street parking spaces allocated to the petitioner;
Ms.Aegerter-Yes, I am the sole practitioner and there are two (2) parking spaces. One
parking space is occupied,but there will always be one (1) off-street parking space available
to clients.
Ms. Curran-Do you see one (1) client at a time?
Ms. Aegerter-I see individuals and couples who travel together in one car.
Ms. Curran-The petitioner has adequate parking. Do you have exterior signage related to
this?
•
Ms.Aegerter- Shows a sample sign that is approximately 2.5 inches x 12 inches and will be •
located on her front door. Ms. Aegerter also presents a picture of her front door to the
Board.
Mr. Copelas-Is this unit a condo?Do you own your unit?
Ms. Aegerter-Yes. I own my unit.
Mr. Watkins-There is one parking space in the back. Is that where your clients will park?
Where do you currently park?
Ms. Aegerter-There are two (2) parking spaces associated with this unit. Clients will park in
the rear parking space. I have one (1) car and park in the second space.
Ms. Curran-opens the public comment portion of the public hearing.
Polly Wilburt- 7 Cedar Street-President of the South Salem Neighborhood Association-
States that this block is severely under allocated with any parking. Ms.Wilburt requests that
the Board have a special condition to protect the neighborhood from expansion of the
business as it relates to parking.
Ms. Curran-Will you direct your clients to park in your parking area?
Ms.Aegerter-Yes. I have also said that in my proposal. •
Ms. Curran-The petitioner will see one client at a time or one couple at a time.
Ms.Aegerter-Yes. Sessions are about 45 minutes long with 15 minutes scheduled in
between to allow time for clients to not overlap.
Ms. Curran-How many clients do you see and what are your hours of operation?
Ms.Aegerter- In my petition I have indicated a maximum number of hours. I will never see
more than 25-30 clients per week. I am building up my private practice and am starting with
3-4 clients per week.
Mr. Copelas-What are the provisions that the Board can impose so that the business
remains with the sole proprietor so it cannot expand to have multiple providers?
Mr. Duffy-The zoning ordinance indicates that this kind of business is self-limiting. Right,
Tom?
Mr. St. Pierre-Reads the zoning ordinance section to the Board and concludes that the
business may have one additional employee beyond the proprietor.
Mr. Copelas-We do not put a condition on this, she could potentially have one additional
employee.
•
• Ms. Curran-We should probably limit this to the sole proprietor given that parking is so
limited and then if the practice expands it can move to another location.
Mr. Copelas- Concurs.
Mr. Duffy-Are we talking about allowing one practitioner and no employee or would we
allow one practitioner and an employee,like a part-time bookkeeper?
Ms. Curran-To limit to one practitioner so that there is not multiple practitioners and not
multiple office visits at the same time.
Ms.Aegerter- Can the business be limited to one practitioner at a time? For example,could I
have one (1) additional employee that could see clients when I am not seeing clients?Would
this be agreeable to the Board?My partner,who also lives at the residence and shares a car
with me,is a Reiki practitioner. I do not know if he would want to do that,but would like to
have the option in the future. Clients would not been seen at the same time.
Mr. Duffy- Does the accomplish objective that the volume of clients would not be increased
in such a way as to aggravate the parking issue?
Mr. Viccica-Suggests a special condition that one (1) of the two (2) parking spaces be
reserved for clients.
• Ms. Curran-When clients are on the premises there shall be an open parking space for
clients. I don't have a problem with two (2) practitioners who are both residents of the unit
and share a car.You are just speaking hypothetically now?
Ms.Aegerter-Yes,but it is expensive to apply to the Board and I am on a limited budget as I
am starting my private practice. I understand the Board's concerns. I was just thinking if at
one time only one client could be seen,by me or my partner,who is also living in the unit,
we are not increasing the traffic flow or parking need.
Mr. Duffy-What if it is conditioned such that a client can only be seen by one practitioner at
a time. The practitioner must be a resident on the premises.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to grant a Special Permit per Sec. 3.2.2
Home Occupation to allow a professional office to be located in an existing dwelling.
The motion is seconded by Mr. Watkins.The vote was unanimous with five (5)
Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,
Jimmy Tsitsinos) favor and none (0) opposed.
•
Project A public hearing requesting Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional
Requirements for minimum lot frontage and minimum lot width to create
a second residential lot.
Applicant ANTHONY M.JERMYN,TRUSTEE OF JULIA TRUST
Location 50 RAVENNA AVE (Map 8 Lot 7) (R-1 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions
Application dated November 23, 2016 and supporting documentation
Attorney Corrend-63 Federal Street- Presents the petition along with Bob Griffin,Griffin
Engineering Group.The petitioner is proposing to construct a single family house in an R-1
Zone. There is one (1) existing large lot that is approximately 1.25 acres located at the end of
Ravenna Ave. Salem Woods is located behind this lot owned by the City of Salem and on the
other side at the rear is the Osborne Realty Trust development. The Jermyn family has
owned this property for several decades now. The current house was constructed in 1985-86
and the land was part of an earlier Barcelona Ave and Ravenna Ave. subdivision that was laid
out back in 1928. These properties were always two (2) separate lots that were merged due to
the same ownership. Interesting these lots had frontage of 99.22 feet and 71 feet, for a total
of 172 feet of frontage. •
The petitioner is proposing to subdivide a piece of this land off to create a 16,000 square
foot lot for a single family home with approximately 72 feet of frontage. The petitioner is
requesting a variance for less than the required frontage and also for less than the required
lot width. The lot width is drawn to work with the existing topography of the land. The plan
is to build a single family home within a small building footprint. The first lot,which has an
existing single family home,is conforming in every way.The petitioner is creating a
conforming Lot#1.The second lot conforms to the lot area requirements, but does not
meet the lot frontage or lot width requirements. Attorney Correnti introduces Bob Griffin,
Griffin Engineering to explain why the proposed lot line is where it is.
Bob Griffin- Griffin Engineering-This supplemental plot plan shows the wetland line on the
far west side. Behind the existing house, there is a 10' foot drop followed by a wetland and
stream. There is also a ten (10') foot grade change in the front yard from the road to the
existing home and lot. There is a significant grade change from the road to the two (2) lots
and also a grade change along the existing stone wall.The petitioner is proposing an access
easement to allow access over an existing driveway.There is a stone wall,pool,pool house,
gardens,wetlands, and grade changes on the property.There are existing utilities for water
and sewer for this proposed house. The house is proposed to be about 1,800—2,3000 square
feet of living space.
Attorney Correnti-Lot#2 and proposed building envelope meets all of the zoning
dimensional requirements.The petitioner is requesting relief to have less than the minimum
•
• lot width and less than the required frontage. This is an R-1 Zoning District and the proposal
to place a single family home on this lot meets the intent of the district.A letter in support
from abutter resident Benjamin Hernando speaks in support of the petition.
Chair Curran- Confirms that the two existing lots merged under zoning. As a result of the
merged lot scenario,there is one lot that is three times the size of what is required with 171
feet of frontage. On the lot width,why not expand it? Is there some existing feature that the
applicant is trying to avoid?
Bob Griffin- States that the lot line location is intended to follow along an existing retaining
wall and vegetation. Lot width is measured 15' feet off of the front yard lot line. If the lot
line is moved to make Lot#2 conforming,it will make Lot#1 non-conforming as to the lot
width.
Chair Curran- this makes sense along the existing feature. Chair Curran confirms that the
curbcut will be shared.
Attorney Correnti-Yes. The petitioner is proposing to use the existing driveway and
easements will be granted from Lot#2 to Lot#1 to share the driveway.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve Variances per Sec. 4.1.1
Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot frontage and minimum lot
• width to create a second residential lot. The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy. The
vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas
(Vice-Chair),Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos) favor and none (0)
opposed.
Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of requesting a
Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Non-Conforming Structures and a Variance
per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum side yard
setbacks construct a new dormer and exterior decks on the rear of the
building.
Applicant CAROL and SCOTT PERRY
Location 7 ORANGE STREET (Map 35 Lot 366) (R-2 Zoning District)
Documents and Exhibitions
➢ Application dated November 28,2016 and supporting documentation
Attorney Scott Grover-27 Congress Street-presents the petition. 7 Orange Street is directly
behind the Customs House off of Derby Street. Carol and Scott Perry,bought the property
earlier this year with the intent of renovating the property and providing a residence for Scott
• when he was discharged from the military in the spring.
The building needs quite a bit of renovation and the petitioner is proposing to create a •
dormer at the rear of the structure to create more useable living space on the third floor and
add two (2) additional bedrooms.Attorney Grover shows the existing and proposed
elevation plans. In addition to the proposed dormer on the third floor, the petitioner is also
proposing to construct rear decks accessing the second and third floor.
Mr. Watkins-Are there currently decks?
Attorney Grover- No.There are currently no rear decks.
Ms. Curran-Is there living space proposed on the first floor under the deck area?
Clarifying discussion of the elevation plans.
The property is located in an R-2 Zoning District and the structure is non-conforming. The
relief that is required is two-fold. The petitioner is proposing a special permit for the
expansion of the existing non-conforming structure. The structure is non-conforming as to
side yard setbacks. The petitioner is also requesting a variance for the exterior decks on the
rear of the building as they are proposed to increase the non-conformity as to the rear yard
setbacks. The new non-conformity is an increase in lot coverage from 37% to 42%. Because
of the new non-conformities that are created and because this building is a four-family
structure,variances are requested.
A unique quality to this property is that there is a tremendous amount of open space. Adding •
the decks does not create any privacy issues and no real detriment to the neighborhood by
creating more quality space. Any expansion of the property at all would increase the lot
coverage.Any improvements to the exterior of the building would trigger this variance
because of the large size of the non-conforming building and size of the lot. This establishes
the grounds in this case.
Ms. Curran-Has no problem with the proposed dormer and associated special permit
request. No sure that there is a hardship for the decks.
Attorney Grover- States that the literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would not
allow for any improvements to the exterior of the building because of the large size of the
existing building and small lot.
Ms. Curran-you can do repairs to the existing exterior,but would need a variance for the
expansion of the structure.
Attorney Grover- states that there is currently no quality exterior space.
•
• Scott Carol-Petitioner state that the intent is to draw more rent as a result of the upgrades to
the building.The renovations will make the apartments more sought after. Mr. Carol shows
images of neighboring properties.
Attorney Grover- States that the standard for a hardship dimensional variance is de minimus.
Mr. Copelas-Acknowledges that applicants typically request variances for rear decks when
there is no outdoor space. In this case there is a large backyard space.There is a lot of
useable outdoor space associated with this building. Could you explain why the variance is
required?
Attorney Grover- States that the non-conforming setback requires a variance because the
applicant is proposing a new non-conformity.
Mr. Copelas-It does not diminish the amount of side setback that is already there.
Attorney Grover- Correct.The house encroaches even further into the side yard setbacks as
it exists now.The proposed decks are not increasing the side yard setback non-conformity.
[the decks are proposed to encroach on the side yard setbacks,but not more than the
existing structure]
Mr. Duffy- States that the requested Variance is de minimus as the rear decks are not
proposed to extend beyond the existing structure or the existing rear staircase.The decks will
simply square off the existing rear features. While there is the hardship challenge,where it is
a minimal dimensional variance, the hardship needs to be met,but not do not have to look at
it with the same weight [as a use variance].
Attorney Grover- States that the petitioner is trying to upgrade this property and improve
the property and fit with the changing neighborhood and have renters that will pay market
rate. The other thing that is an option is that the decks could be cut back so they do not
encroach on the side yard setbacks,but it doesn't fit the coverage problem.Any expansion
will increase the lot coverage. The idea is to give exclusive outdoor space to each unit.
Ms. Curran-There is no question that these will be nice units.
Mr. Copelas-You are going to increase the living area by addition bedrooms or units? Is that
correct?
Scott Carol-States that the living space will be expanded. The added dormer will allow two
(2) additional bedrooms.
Mr. Copelas-As the building is now, there are a total of four(4) units with two units on the
fust floor and two units on the second floor and no living space on the third floor.
•
Scott Carol-Confirms. •
Mr. Copelas-And the dormer will add to the living space of each of those two second story
units.
Scott Carol-yes.
Attorney Grover-Restates that the property is unique because there is a large building on a
small lot.
Ms. Curran- Is there a way to construct a patio and second story decks without a variance
request.
Mr. St. Pierre-No. This is a small variance request. If you want to hold that little standard on
everyone,we are not going to have any variances in the City of Salem.
Ms. Curran-might not be bad.
Councillor Arthur Sargent- Speaks in support of the project and request that for a person
who has served our country,it is a de minimus thing to ask?This building is dwarfed by the
Custom House,which we are happy to have including the open gardens back there.What a
beautiful area for residents to look at the gardens. To keep good people in our City and to
have these apartments,we are allowing good people to stay with decent quality housing.
Nothing against Section 8 Housing,but it is good to get people with a strong community
factor into these buildings and historic neighborhoods. I am strongly in favor.
Mr. Duffy- States that this is a four (4) unit building that is a unique configuration for this lot
and such a de minimus dimensional variance request for this structure.There are some
special conditions that affect this structure and potentially also the land. It is difficult to
provide a common type of amenity for a residential unit to have some type of outdoor
exclusive space. The decks are staying within the existing setbacks of the building and relief
request is very minor.The variance could 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. Duffy makes a motion to approve a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3
Non-Confomning Structures and a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for
minimum side yard setbacks construct a new dormer and exterior decks on the rear of the
building. The motion is seconded by Mr. Watkins. The vote was four in favor (4) (Peter A.
Copelas (Vice-Chair),Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy,Jimmy Tsitsinos) and one (1) opposed
(Rebecca Curran- Chair).
•
AP RP OVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the November 16,2016
minutes as amended. Seconded by Mr. Watkins. The vote was unanimous in favor
and none (0) opposed.
OLD/NEW BUSINESS
None
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Watkins motions for adjournment of the December 21,2016 regular meeting of the
Salem Board of Appeals.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins made a motion to adjourn the December 21, 2016
regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Duffy, and the vote
is unanimous in favor and none (0) opposed.
The meeting ends at 9:15 PM.
For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes,
• copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at.•
http://sa/em.com/paees/SalemMA Zoning pnealsMin/
Respectfully submitted,
Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
� �'' CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
#�! BOARD OF APPEAL
' 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
SLE:978-619-5685 • FAX:978-740-0404
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
7
y �
� o
fJ P
r
m rn
r-n c�
x _
Nr 1
!s rn J
r�c
City of Salem D
m 19
Zoning Board of Appeals o
va W
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of TRYAD COUNSELING AND
HEALING CENTER LLC, requesting a Special Pemlit per Sec. 3.2.2 Home Occupation to allow a professional
office to be located in an existing dwelling at 22 HANCOCK STREET (Map 33 Lot 192 )(R-2 Zoning
District)
The public hearing will be held on WED. December 21, 2016 at 6:30 PM, 3`s Floor, 120 WASHINGTON
STREET,Rm 313.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 12/7/16& 12/14/2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass, on DEC 0' 7 2016
at y'B3 r¢H in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
� 120 WASHINGTON STREET 0 SALEM,MA$$AcxusErrs 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 4 FAX:978-740-0404�„�
KIMBERLEY DR1scoLL
MAYOR
n �
r, o
m M
x_
D J.
^' D
z
City of Salem N o
Zoning Board of Appeals '
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of CAROL and SCOTT PERRY
requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Non-Conforming Structures and a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of
Dimensional Requirements for mmitmum size yard setbacks construct a new dormer and exterior decks on the
rear of the building at 7 ORANGE STREET (Map 35 Lot 366) (R-2 Zoning District).
The public hearing will be held on WED. DEC. 21, 2016 at 6:30 PM, 3' Floor, 120 WASHINGTON
STREET,Rm 313.
Rebecca Curran,Chau
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 12/7/2016& 12/14/2016
This nr,47rA nnr3 rS """ficial Bulletin Board"
r1�, ;;bass. onDEC 0 ] A
at C-7!j,3 try in accordance with MGL Chap. 30q,
Sections 18.25.
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSM-IS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 FAX:978-740-0404
KiMsERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
--I
"C o
n p
r
m o
�Z n
L' J
D
City of Salem Q
Zoning Board of Appeals w
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of ANTHONY M.JERMYN, TRUSTEE
OF JULIA TRUST,requesting Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot
frontage and minimum lot width to create a second residential lot at 50 RAVENNA AVE (Map 8 Lot 7) (R-1
ZoningDistrict).
The public hearing will b€--hE 3 on WED. DEC. 21, 2016 at 6:30 PM, 3`' Floor, 120 WASHINGTON
STREET,Rm 313.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: 12/7/2016 & 12/14/2016
This notice posted on "OfficiaLIJU Iletin Hoard"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on tel. 0 7 Y016
at 9,D3411 in accordance with MGL Chap. 38k
• Sections 18-25.