44 BOSTON STREET - BUILDING JACKET 74520 40%0 P4
P
X13
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
``- M. BOARD OF APPEAL
A��IMINEQt! 120 WASHINGTON StREEir 1 SALEM,MASSAcxusnj}s M7(12 S p 3: 49
MpoBERLEYDRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR
CITY CLS:,.. ... ._.. ,.
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 (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.L7 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, g 11. The
hearing was closed that 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 a Variances per Sec. 4.9.1 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 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, See. 8.4.13 Transitional Overlay District
of the NRCC to allow less than the requited fifty feet (50) buffer; Section 8.2.3.1 Entrance Corridor
Overlay Dr}trict to allow a curb cut that exceeds the maximum curb cut width. A Special Permit per Set.
5.1.7 Shared 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).
t
f
1
f
e
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 (240 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 cars 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.
d
' 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 fust 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 7:00am) would
require 234 parking spaces (100%) of required parking for the 117 residential units; two (2) parking
spaces for retail use (59/6) of the required of the required parking spaces for the 4,000 square feet; and
fourteen (14) parking spaces for "all other uses" (1000/6), 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 (7:00am to 5:00pm), 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(5:00pm 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 (6:00am to 6:00pm), 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 (6:00pm to midnight), the anticipated parking demand is 211 parking
spaces for the 117 residential units (90% capacity), 19 parking spaces for retail use (709/6) 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 t
F
hours for the Community Life Center are from 9:00am to 5:00pm, Monday through Friday. It is also
a
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: j
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.
4
{
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.
i
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 y
allowed for the development of the property because the NRCC zoning ordinance also requires
{
i
t
r
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 mitdmum 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 Sbared 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.
I LkA"2' l
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals 1
j
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
f
3{e
}
Appeal from this decision, if aiy, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the.blassacbnsetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20
daw of fling of this deaiion in the ofice of the City Clerk Pursuant to the Massachusetis General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or
Special A mit granied herein shall not lake t(led unlil a ropy of the deu.nan bearing the certificate of the Ci r Clerk has been fled with the Essex Saudi
Regisi, ofI>eedr.
�odolr�„ro CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
�y BOARD OF APPEAL
1 20 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
' s TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595
INE FAX 978-740-9846 q
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 2010 i�'''' -2 P 2: 3
MAYOR
riIYCL
June 2, 2010
Decision
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Petition of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC requesting 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
(North River Canal Corridor Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 19, 2010 pursuant to Mass
General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on May 19, 2010 with the following
Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Rebecca Curran, Richard
Dionne, Beth Debski, Annie Harris,Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate) and Bonnie Belair
(alternate).
Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 8.4.13, Transitional Overlay District, of
the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances, under Section 8.4, North River Canal Corridor
Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC), and Section 5.1 et.seq., Off-Street Parking.
Statements of fact:
1. Attorney Joseph Correnti represented the petitioner at the hearing.
2. The property is currently vacant land except for a single garage type building
housing 2 businesses.
3. In a petition dated April 30, 2010, petitioner requested Variances from building
height, buffer zone and parking requirements.
4. At the hearing, Attorney Correnti explained that due to the site's narrow shape,
meeting the NRCC zoning requirements for the parking and buffer area was
difficult. He explained that if strictly followed, the buffer requirement would
eliminate so much parking (approximately 80 spaces) that any project would be
economically unfeasible.
5. At the hearing, testimony describing the uses proposed for portions of the
building was received and it was explained that these uses required high ceilings.
The proposed Salem Senior Center on the first floor was intended to have an
open, spacious feel, and also would have a stage area and would house other
2
activities for which high ceilings were desirable. Also, the medical offices
planned for the upper floors would need the extra ceiling height to accommodate
equipment, and a planned health club in the building would also require high
ceilings. The requirement of a maximum of 4 stories is being met per the plans
submitted.
6. At the hearing Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, objected to the proposed reduction
in the buffer area and felt the parking area was too large. Teasie Riley Goggin, 9
Wisteria Street, did not feel the proposed Senior Venter usejustified the requested
height variance.
7. Also at the hearing, Ken Wallace, 172 Federal Street, spoke in support of the
project, saying the proposed fence and landscaping in the buffer was enough to
shield the neighborhood from any visual impacts. He also expressed appreciation
for the developer's reworking of the project based on neighborhood concerns.
8. Board members expressed some concern about the height of the building, but
were satisfied with the limitation of 60 feet of height. .
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the
following findings:
1. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel, which do
not generally affect other land in the same district: the property is a long,
narrow, irregularly shaped rectangle, which makes meeting the parking
and buffer area requirements difficult. The shape of the site limits the
number of parking aisles available, which in turn limits the overall use
options for the site. The buffer area further limits the availability of
parking, while the parking area eliminates availability of space for the
buffer.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the NRCC Zoning District would
make development of the site economically unfeasible, since the required
buffer area would take up so much of the site that sufficient parking would
not be available. Additionally, the proposed uses of a Senior Center,
health club and medical offices have special requirements for high
ceilings, and without relief from maximum allowable height, these uses
would be difficult to accommodate.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or
purpose of the zoning ordinance, since the fence and dense landscaping in
the buffer area sufficiently shield the adjacent residential neighborhood
from visual impacts. Also, the amount of parking on the site is sufficient
because of the variety of uses proposed, with some creating parking
demand during the day and others in the evening. Board members also
noted the social benefit of locating the new Senior Center in the building,
3
and the overall benefits to the city of having a long-vacant site
redeveloped and back in productive, taxable use.
4. The applicant may vary the terms of the North River Canal Zoning District
to allow for the redevelopment of the site as shown on the submitted
plans; the petition is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of
Salem Zoning Ordinance.
5. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain
appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing
including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of
Appeals concludes:
1. Variances from building height (feet), buffer zone width, and number of
parking spaces are granted to allow the construction of a 2-4 story
professional office building with retail and municipal space, as shown on
the submitted plans titled "Gateway Center: A Multi-Use Building for the
Salem Senior Center and Professional Offices,"dated April 28, 2010,
prepared by Gundersen Associates Architects, Wellesley, Massachusetts.
In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five(5) in favor (Stein,
Harris, Debski, Dionne and Curran) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests
for a Variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and
regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and
approved by the Building Commissioner.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety
shall be strictly adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
6. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office
and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street.
7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having
jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
8. The proposed building may be up to 60' in height.
4
9. The buffer zone shall be maintained as per the final landscape plan submitted to
and approved by the Planning Board.
Robin Stein, Chair
Salem Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY
CLERK
Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit
granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has
been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds.
Y
CITY OF SALEM
PUBLIC PROPRERTY
DEPARTMENT
KNIIERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHLVGTON STREET•SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS01970
TEL 978-745-9595 ♦FAX:978-740-9846
April 26, 2006
SSSD, LLC
David Masse Manager
2 Long Hill Road
Georgetown, Ma. 01833
RE: 44 Boston Street
(Zoning Violation)
Dear Mr. Masse:
This Department has received and investigated complaints regarding the use of your
property. Trucks were observed dumping concrete and asphalt onto the property.
The property is in the B-6 Zoning District. Stockpiling construction materials and or
debris in not allowed in this district.
Therefore, you are directed to cease and desist dumping materials on this lot.
Furthermore, you are directed to immediately begin removing the dumped material
immediately.
Failure to comply with this order will result in a complaint being filed in Salem District
Court as wall as daily fines. If you feel you are aggrieved by this order, your appeal is to
the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal.
Si erely,
Thomas St. Pierre
Building Commissioner
Zoning Enforcement Officer
cc: Mayors Office
Attorney Joe Correnti
Joanne Scott, Health Agent
Elizabeth Rennard, City Solicitor
Councillor Paul Prevey, Ward 6
CITY OF SALEM
PUBLIC PROPRERTY
DEPARTMENT
UNI ERIPY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASFRNGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TEL:978-745-9595 •FAX:978-740-9846
April 26, 2006
SSSD,LLC
David Masse Manager
2 Long Hill Road
Georgetown, Ma. 01833
RE: 44 Boston Street
(Zoning Violation)
Dear Mr. Masse:
This Department has received and investigated complaints regarding the use of your
property. Trucks were observed dumping concrete and asphalt onto the property.
The property is in the B-6 Zoning District. Stockpiling construction materials and or
debris in not allowed in this district.
Therefore, you are directed to cease and desist dumping materials on this lot.
Furthermore, you are directed to immediately begin removing the dumped material
immediately.
Failure to comply with this order will result in a complaint being filed in Salem District
Court as wall as daily fines. If you feel you are aggrieved by this order, your appeal is to
the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal.
Si erely,
Thomas St. Pierre
Building Commissioner
Zoning Enforcement Officer
cc: Mayors Office
Attorney Joe Correnti
Joanne Scott, Health Agent
Elizabeth Rennard, City Solicitor
Councillor Paul Prevey, Ward 6