City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Special Meeting
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
A Special Meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 7:00 p.m.
Those present were: Nina Cohen, Chair; Richard Dionne; Annie Harris; Elizabeth Debski and Bonnie Belair. Also present was Staff Planner Dan Merhalski.
Public Hearing – Request for Variance from Lot Area per Dwelling Unit –North River Canal, LLC – 28 Goodhue Street NRCC Zoning District
Atty. Joseph Correnti addressed the Board and presented the project. The proposal is requesting a variance to maximum density from the required 3,500 sq.ft. per dwelling unit to approximately 1,800 sq.ft. per dwelling unit to allow for construction of a four (4) story, 78,780 sq. ft. mixed-use residential and commercial building.
Mr. Correnti explained the history of the site as an industrial and commercial space, and the demolition process of the former three (3) story wooden structure. The reason for this demolition was that the structure was deemed be a safety risk and was cost prohibitive to repair the building.
Mr. Correnti displayed a site plan of the old structure and the lot coverage, and then displayed another board of the proposed structure with the previous building overlaid on the footprint of the proposed one.
The new building will consist of forty-four (44) dwelling units on the second to fourth floors with four (4) of the units to be reserved as affordable units, according to 40B. The first floor would be reserved as commercial/retail/office space for tenants under the required 3,000 sq.ft. retail space required in the North River Canal Corridor (NRCC). Parking for the site would comply with the required 2 spaces per dwelling unit and would also allow thirty-two (32) spaces for the retail/commercial units. The total number of parking spaces would be one-hundred and twenty (120) parking spaces.
Mr. Correnti stressed that the commercial uses would only be those that are allowed in the NRCC district. He further explained the proposed site plan and highlighted the permitting process, including the Special Permit that was granted by the Salem Planning Board for use in the NRCC district. As a part of the Site Plan Review with the Planning Board, the project will have to be heard by the Design Review Board, and will have to receive a recommendation from this Board before the Planning Board can vote on the Site Plan application.
Mr. Correnti also summarized the permitted process to date and highlighted that the Planning Board approved the Special Permit for Use for the site in the NRCC, according to the requirements of the NRCC Ordinance, by a unanimous decision.
Mr. Correnti further described the project site and detailed the landscaping of the parking area, and the feature of a bike path along the site border with the North River Canal, which would include benches, landscaping and period lighting.
Mr. Correnti then introduced Tom Galvin of Joseph McGrath and Associates, the project architect.
Mr. Galvin reviewed the site plan and elevations for the project, highlighting the commercial/retail space, the landscaping for the parking lot and the floor plan of the building. He described the exterior of the building as having brick on the first floor with glass windows for storefronts, and clapboard for the remaining floors of the building. The structure will have a mansard roof with fiberglass shingles. All of the building’s mechanical units will be screened in a sunken roof areas running the length of the building. The floor plan showed approximately fifteen (15) residential units per floor on the upper three floors, and the common areas and commercial spaces on the first floor. There would be no dwelling units on the first floor. Mr. Galvin showed aerial photos of the project site and a rendering side by side of what
the propose4d structure would look like in an aerial image. The artist space proposed for the first floor would be owned by the residents as a condo unit.
At this time Chair Cohen opened the Public Hearing.
James Treadwell of 36 Felt Street addressed the Board and described the historic building for the site. He asked the board to consider the commercial space as not meeting the ten percent (10%) required for commercial space in the NRCC district. He pointed out that the JPI project on Bridge Street meets the requirement for tow (2) spaces per dwelling unit and that the amount of spaces is needed there. He also urged the board to make sure that the project meets the criteria of the NRCC district.
Chair Cohen read a memo from Mr. Treadwell to the Board detailing his concerns and submitted it to the file.
Beverly McSwiggin of 30 Japonica Street addressed the Board and stated that she is in favor of the project, but not the number of dwelling units proposed.
Bill Luster of 190 Bridge Street addressed the board and stated that he is speaking on behalf of Allied Lumber and gave their support for the project and stated that the project will be of benefit to other properties in the area.
Lisa Dubreuil of 28 Upham Street addressed the Board and stated that the city needs to be careful the housing market doesn’t bottom out and leave a problem at the site. She questioned why forty-four (44) units were needed for the project and asked what the city would gain in return.
Rita Alberghini of 27 Foster Street addressed the Board and stated that the utilities for the site could be an issue and asked if the service would be enough to support the project.
Ed Plecinoga of 166 Ocean Ave. spoke in support of Mr. Treadwell’s comments and stated that 3,500 sq. ft. is enough for a development and it is not necessary to give the applicant a variance. He further stated that he had been before the Board in the past with a similar project and had been turned down by the ZBA for a variance request. He wants to see fairness and consistency and not see another developer get a variance.
Pat Donahue of 12 Dearborn Lane stated that she is not against the development, just the issuance of a variance.
Ward Six Councilor Paul Prevey addressed the Board and offered his support for the variance for the project. He stated that the area is blighted and that this development proposal will bring in further development to the area of the North River and Blubber Hollow. He admitted that traffic is an issue on the site, but that the project is a good one and should be granted the variance.
Ward Two Councilor Michael Sosnowski addressed the Board and spoke against the proposed project receiving a variance. He stated that zoning is there for a reason and that it shouldn’t be changed. A lot of people worked very hard on the NRCC zoning ordinance and it should not be ignored or deviated from. He stated that another developer is building a project down the road from the project site and is not requesting any variances. Developers can build in the NRCC without the need for a variance.
Ward Seven Councilor Joseph O’Keefe addressed the Board and stated that he supports the requested variance for the project site.
Meg Twoey of 122 Federal Street addressed the Board and presented a letter from the Federal Street Neighborhood Association. She stated that they support the project, but only if it stays within the requirements of the NRCC zoning Ordinance. She requested that the city’s Planning board and the Design Review Board should rule on the project first, then the ZBA should hear the request for a variance.
Nancy Burns of 22 Bedford Street addressed the Board and stated that she thinks that the density is too large for the site and believed that the quality of other developments would be negatively affected by the project if a variance is granted.
David Hart of 104 Federal Street addressed the Board and stated that a hardship doesn’t apply here as the dimensions of the lot are the issue. He cautioned the Board that they would be setting a precedent if they allowed a variance for the project.
Joan Sweney of 22 Silver Street addressed the Board and said that this project has no opposition n the neighborhood that is adjacent to the project site.
James Moskowitz of 10 Marion Street addressed the Board and stated that he is a Ward Four resident and had tried to save the historic building on the project site. He noted that he supports the variance request and that the developer has worked to reduce the number of units on the site from forty-four (54) to the current forty-four (44). He further stated that the neighborhood is in support of the project.
Leslie Limon of 18 Southwick Street addressed the Board and stated that she was once opposed to the project, but now is not thinking that it is so bad. She then went on to state that she is opposed to the project because blight is bad, but not as bad as this project would be for the area.
Chuck Bartman of Ward Four on Marlborough Road addressed the Board and stated that the Ward Four group wants the building to be changed. He asked is thirty-two (32) people too much for the area?
At this time Chair Cohen closed the public hearing.
Anthony Roberto, the developer for the project site asked to address the Board. He said that he is not greedy and spent a lot of money trying to save the historic building, and a lot of work has already been done on the site. He stated that the decision to grant a zoning variance has been given to the Boards and commission of the city by the city council, and this includes the number of units on the site, even if the requirement of 3,500 sq.ft. per unit is on the books. He stated that he knows what the market is like and that the site needs the forty-four (44) units. If he could build the project site with less units, he would, but the costs involved in the remediation of the site and the current market conditions require the number of units that he has presented to the Board.
Ward Three Councilor Jean Pelletier addressed the Board and stated that he is not opposed to the project, but neither is he in favor of it. He wants there to be a long deliberation on this issue and that the Board needs to make uniform decisions. He stated that the zoning in the city is out of whack and needs some work, but that this is why Boards exist.
Atty. Correnti addressed the Board and responded to some of the concerns posed by the public for the site. He stated that the city will review the utility usage for the site at the Panning Board level during Site Plan Review. He said that the condo market is known to the developer and that if the market was bad, the developer wouldn’t develop the site. He added that the project has the support of the Mayor and the Ward four residents, as well as many others in the city.
He went on to state that precedent is not a part of the ZBA decision process as each case that comes to the Board is unique. He added that a variance doesn’t need a precedent because they are always pertain only to a particular site.
He stated that traffic is dangerous at the location due to the configuration of the street near the site. He offered that the developer will contribute $10,000 to a traffic analysis for the city.
He stated that the support for the project at 401 Bridge Street by the Federal Street neighborhood is good, but that project is completely different in its nature to this one as it is for a three-story commercial building, not a residential, mixed-use structure.
Atty. Corenti continued by saying that variances are a part of the zoning ordinance for a reason. The current zoning ordinance was written in 1965 and has been updated, but that it still needs work. This project meets or exceeds all of the zoning requirements save one: the square footage per dwelling unit.
He then addressed the issue of hardship and state that the huge building that was demolished was condemned by the city and incurred a huge cost to the developer. Further, the shape of the parcel is unusual with 450 feet along the North River Canal which limits the side of the development from access, and the NRCC requires a building to be located along the street frontage. He added that the cost of the riverwalk is a financial hardship that will benefit the city.
Chair Cohen asked Mr. Correnti if there was any consideration for permeable parking with the large coverage of the parking area?
Mr. Correnti said that the developer would be willing to investigate that and if it is doable.
Annie Harris asked if the multi-bedroom units could be used as home offices?
Mr. Roberto said that there are storage units on the first floor that are assigned to each of the units and that he has seen people using similar units for home offices.
Mrs. Harris asked if there was a specific order of permitting that needed ot be followed with reference to the Planning Board and the ZBA being applied to at different times.
Chair Cohen responded that it is usually up to the applicant to decide when to apply to the Boards and which ones they want to go before first. At times a project needs to gain an approval from one Board before they can go on with the permitting for another.
Mrs. Harris asked if the affordable units would be preserved in perpetuity?
Mr. Correnti said that the units would be protected as affordable under 40B and that the owners of the affordable units would not be able to re-sell them at market rates.
Mr. Dionne asked if it has been determined that land remediation would be necessary for the site given its past uses?
Mr. Correnti explained that the work has already been done and that there was surprisingly little remediation work needed for the site.
Mr. Dionne commented that the only objection he had to the design was that the design doesn’t have any place for the children that may live on the site to play, except by the wall on the river.
Mr. Correnti commented that they are providing active recreational space along the river and that the site is within walking distance of numerous city parks including Leslie’s Retreat Park and Mack Park.
John Penny, the owner of the Flynn Tan site nearby addressed the Board and asked if the developer would be open to design issues and traffic and would be willing to work together with him to resolve these?
A motion was made by chair Cohen and seconded by Annie Harris to grant the petition for a variance from the minimum lot area per dwelling area from 3,500 sq.ft. per unit to approximately 1,800 sq.ft. per dwelling unit, with conditions that included the developer providing a 450 foot bike path that would be ten (10) feet wide with three (3) to six (6) foot buffers on wither side along the North River Canal side of the lot; that the developer shall pay the city $10,000 for a traffic study prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall provide four (4) affordable units or ten percent (10%) of the total number of units as affordable units; the petitioner shall examine design options including permeable paving, outdoor recreational uses, and design innovation for the site.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board (5-0).
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals this evening a motion was made by Nina Cohen to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Beth Debski and approved (5-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
__________________________
Daniel J. Merhalski, Staff Planner/Clerk
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
| 
