City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.
Those present were: Bonnie Belair, Board Member (Alternate), Richard Dionne, Board Member, Jimmy Tsitsinos, Board Member (Alternate), Elizabeth Debski, Board Member (Vice Chair), Rebecca Curran, Board Member, Tom St. Pierre, Building Inspector
Absent: Robin Stein, Board Member (Chair),
Approval of Minutes
Minutes of August 27, 2008
Richard Dionne made a motion to approve the minutes seconded by Rebecca Curran and approved by 5-0 (Richard Dionne, Rebecca Curan, Elizabeth Debski, Bonnie Belair, Annie Harris).
Petition: Extension for variance for 28 Goodhue Street
Attorney Joseph Correnti, representative for the petitioner, came before the Board requesting a six (6) month extension to the property located at 28 Goodhue Street. Mr. Correnti explained that the development would consist of 44 units and would have retail space on the first floor. He noted that the petitioner has already had several extensions with the Board and with the Planning Board. Although, this project appears to be never ending, the petitioner has gotten all appropriate permits and is currently seeking financing and would like an extension for April 2009.
Board Member, Ms. Belair, thought the extension was appropriate due to the current economic climate.
Board Member, Ms. Harris, moved to approve the 6 month extension for the project at 28 Goodhue Street. Motion seconded by Board Member, Mr. Dionne. Roll call vote and motion approved by
5-0 (Richard Dionne, Rebecca Curan, Elizabeth Debski, Bonnie Belair, Annie Harris)
CONTINUED: Petition of AAA ENTERPRISES & SERVICES on behalf of MOUNTAIN REALTY TRUST requesting a Special Permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for the receipt and processing of stone, soil, and loam at 15 ROBINSON ROAD [BPD].
Representatives from AAA Enterprises & Services came before the Board to request a site visit, so that the Board and abutters could observe a rock crusher located at 15 Robinson Road in operation. Petitioner originally suggested the meeting should be held on October 11, 2008; however after consulting the calendar, members of the Board realized that the selected date was during the Columbus Day weekend and likely interested members of the public would be unable to attend.
Ms. Harris moved to schedule the site visit for October 4, 2008 at 10 A.M and to Continue this issue for the October 15, 2008 meeting. Ms. Curran, Seconded the Motion. Motion approved by 5-0 (Richard Dionne, Rebecca Curan, Elizabeth Debski, Bonnie Belair, Annie Harris)
After the vote, City Councilor, Jean M. Pelletier (Ward 3), came before the board and noted that due to the public interest of the rock crusher on this property, that abutters and Members of the City Council should be notified about the site visit. He also suggested that those visiting the property wear appropriate footwear.
Petition of LONA BELANGER requesting a variance from minimum lot area per dwelling unit to allow for the construction of a two-family structure following the demolition of the existing residence at 43 SCHOOL STREET (R-2).
Joseph Barbeau, son-in-law of the petitioner, came before the Board as her representative. He stated that until recently he was employed at the City of Salem Building Department and because of that conflict of interest, did not participate with this petition until his tenure there ended when he moved out of state. Mr. Barbeau described the property as decrepit and an eyesore, which the neighbors have been dealing with for too long, and that his family has been attempting to redevelop for years. He described the project which would consist of demolishing the existing building and constructing a two (2) family use modular type home. He stated that the resulting building would conform with other buildings in the neighborhood. He showed the Board a plan and noted that his parcel is an undersized
lot, but noted that most of the homes in the neighborhood are also on undersized lots and have 2-family homes present. Mr. Barbeau was seeking approval so that construction could be completed as quickly as possible to allow his elderly mother-in-law to move back into the property. He believed that this would be an improvement for the neighborhood.
Ms. Harris asked petitioner about the plan that he passed out. She is did not understand what it was illustrating. The petitioner responded that plan showed “the flavor” of the neighborhood in regards to other homes and their nonconforming uses. Ms. Curran noted that besides lot size the proposal conforms to other uses. The petitioner adds that the property will have 2 parking spaces for each unit and will be conserving green space.
Ms. Debski opened the public portion of the meeting.
Maria Velasquez, 44 Barr St, opposes the proposal. She noted that the lot does not meet requirements for a 1 family home let alone a 2 family dwelling. She also stated that the neighborhood is filled with absentee landlords and wass afraid this will happen with this property.
A resident from 43 Barr St, opposes the proposal. She raised concerns that lot is not sufficient for a 1 (one) family let alone a 2 family. Also concerned about trees, drainage, and how much distance between the structure and the property line.
Petitioner responded that he had not discussed the proposal with neighbors. He noted that the structure would be built right up to the property line, the drainage would not change, and he would remove some trees.
Resident, 41 Barr Street, was concerned with parking in the neighborhood. She believed placing another home would worsen the situation greatly. She agrees with the petitioner that the property is an eyesore and needs to be improved, but believes it should be done properly and have guarantees.
Ellen Hays, 44 Barr St. extension, opposed to the proposal. Adamant that she would rather have the property remain an eyesore than as a 2 (two) family dwelling. She noted that there was not enough room in the neighborhood, parking, or able to handle the influx of garbage.
Resident, 1 School Street Court, noted that the petitioner had lived at the property for a significant period. Concerned that representative of petitioner looking to rezone under the pretense that petitioner will move back into home, but will in fact rent both units or sell entire property more monetary profit.
Vice Chairperson, Ms. Debski, responded to member of public that this is not an issue that concerns the Board. Mr. Dionne inquired about if the parking area will be hot topped and how drainage will be addressed. The petitioner stated that he would use hot top and would be within the confines of the zoning laws, but he would not be paving the entire area. He also pointed out that there would be 2 parking spaces on each side of the building for each unit.
Ms. Harris found the plans confusing, because they were not drawn to scale. She suggested that the issue should be continued until the October 15, 2008 meeting, so that the plans could be drawn to scale and there could be more neighborhood involvement. Ms. Belair agreed, noting that this area is very dense and the proposal would have a significant impact on the neighborhood. She believed the issue should be continued.
The Petitioner responded that he currently lives in Virginia and it would cause him a financial burden to travel up here for another meeting. He noted that it was the fault of the City of Salem Planning Department, because this issue should have been heard in August, but due to proper notice being given the hearing was postponed.
Vice Chairperson, Ms. Debski, noted the error on the part of the Planning Department, but informed the petitioner that it was fundamentally unfair for the Board to make a decision based on plans not drawn to scale and the petitioner not having consulted with the neighbors. Mr. Dionne asks about the number of bedrooms in the units. Petitioner responded that there are 2 bedrooms in each unit.
Ms. Belair, did not feel comfortable moving forward even with the mishap with the Planning Department, because it was unfair to the neighbors.
Petitioner requested that the proposal be withdrawn without prejudice.
Ms Harris moved to have the petition withdrawn without prejudice. Motion seconded by Ms. Curran. 5-0 motion approved (Richard Dionne, Rebecca Curan, Elizabeth Debski, Bonnie Belair, Annie Harris)
Petition of LOUIS SEIBERT requesting to appeal the Building Inspector’s decision to deny a sign permit for Louis Restoration & Repair located at 22 HERSEY STREET (B4).
Louis Seibert, petitioner, came before the Board appealing the decision of the Building Inspector denying a sign permit. Mr. Seibert sought permission to paint a sign (“Louis Restoration + Repair”) on the building and to later add a mural. The Building Inspector, Thomas St. Pierre, stated that the Planning Department considered the proposal a sign and not a work of art. Vice Chairperson, Ms. Debski, read that the reasoning behind the denial of the permit was that the Planning Department considered the mural to be a part of the sign and as such the petitioner was over the allotted signage for that zone.
The petitioner described the mural to the Board. It will be on the façade of the building facing Hersey Street. The mural would have dimensions of 40 feet by 12 feet with a total area of 480 square feet.
Ms. Curran inquired if the Board had the ability to grant a sign permit for that size or even if it was a sign. The Building Inspector clarified that the Board could determine if the mural was a sign. Ms. Harris inquired why petitioner was before this Board. The Building Inspector clarified that the petitioner has a right of appeal through the Salem Sign Ordinance. Ms. Belair, notes that it was up to the Board to uphold the Building Inspector’s denial of the permit or to reverse the decision. Ms. Harris questioned the jurisdiction of this board to rule on the matter; should it be decided by the Planning Board. The Building inspector explained that signs are part of the Building Department, as such; any appeals will be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Ms. Debski opens meeting to the public.
The only public interaction came from of a letter written by Lauren Ouellete, 18 Hersey St. She greed with the original denial. Contends that the mural is “overboard.” Concerned that this will set bad precedent in the City and other companies will do the same if the Board reversed the original decision.
Ms. Belair did not believe that the mural was a sign. Mr. Dionne notes that he could see why neighbors might object to the project, due the configuration of Hersey St. He noted that Hersey Street transitions from a residential one way street into a commercial two way street just before 22 Hersey St.
Ms. Harris liked the mural, but is concerned about the proximity to the sign. She suggested that the mural should be more distinct from the sign; frame the picture so that the words are not blended together.
Ms. Belair equated the mural to painting the building and noted that there would be no issue if the petitioner decided to paint his building yellow. She agreed with the separation suggestion proposed by Ms. Harris.
The Building Inspector suggested that the issue should be continued. Members of the Board did not agree.
Mr. Dionne noted that the building is not facing the neighborhood, but another industrial building. Suggested that the petitioner paint the building in a more subtle color to appease the neighbors.
Ms. Belair moved to Reverse Denial of Sign Permit by Building Inspector, with the conditions that the petitioner reduce the size of the mural and “Louis Restoration + Repair” will be separate from the mural. Motion Second by Ms. Curran. Motion approved by 5-0 (Richard Dionne, Rebecca Curan, Elizabeth Debski, Bonnie Belair, Annie Harris)
Petition of ANDREW LYALL requesting a variance from minimum width of side yard to allow an attached garage approx. 10’ x 19’ at 40 COLUMBUS AVENUE (R-1).
Andrew Lyall, Petitioner, came before the Board. The Petitioner noted that he lives in a fantastic neighborhood and has great neighbors. For those reasons he hired an architect to draft plans allowing him to add an attached garage to his home, which would have a low profile and fit with the character of the neighborhood. He requested a variance for minimum width of side yard so that he could construct the garage. The petitioner noted that he did not want to construct a temporary structure, because that would not fit with the character of the neighborhood.
Ms. Harris questioned the plans members of the Board were given, because the plans consisted of a house not a garage. Petitioner clarified that he is also adding an addition to his home, but he does not require a variance for that. Mr. St. Pierre, resolved the issue by informing the Board that the petitioner has met all of the requirement for real and front setbacks for his second floor addition.
Mr. Dionne inquired about the size of the garage. The petitioner responded that the garage would be 10ft by 8 ft. Ms. Debski surprised by the small size inquired if the petitioner had a car small enough to fit that limited space. Ms. Harris inquired the distance from the structure to the property line. The petitioner duly noted that if approved, the structure will be 19 inches from the property line.
Vice Chairperson, Ms. Debski, opens the meeting to the public.
Nancy Perisan, 44 Columbus Ave. Opposed petition, but notes that petitioner is a wonderful neighbor. She was concerned that there would be only 19 inches between the proposed structure and her property. She was also very concerned about the possibility of the structure devaluing her property.
Jane Doyle, 41 Columbus Ave. She noted that the Petitioner was a wonderful neighbor, but brought to light that there has never been a garage there. She was very concerned about losing water views that she currently has if the structure was approved. Mrs. Doyle’s Daughter also noted that 90% of homes in neighborhood do not have a garage because to the proximity of homes there. She also noted that most homeowners in the neighborhood do not have a driveway and do not suffer a hardship because of it.
City Councilor, Steven A, Pinto (At Large), noted that the Perisians are attempting to sell their home and suggested that the petitioner should withdraw and refile at another time,.
Ms. Belair believes this is a tough decision, but does not support the proposal because of the neighborhood reaction, particularly the loss of water views. Mr. Diionne expressed concern about the petition because of potential fire hazard.
Ms Curran suggested that the petitioner has room in his backyard. Petitioner did not like that idea because he did not want a freestanding structure, a driveway running in the middle of his yard, and there would be a possible wetlands issue.
Petitioner requested withdrawing the petition without prejudice.
Ms. Harris moved to withdraw petition without Prejudice. Mr. Dionne Seconded the Motion. Motion approved by 5-0 (Richard Dionne, Rebecca Curan, Elizabeth Debski, Bonnie Belair, Annie Harris)
Petition of PATRICIA LEBRUN requesting to amend to the special permit decision dated November 9, 2006 to allow day and overnight boarding and to extend the hours of the pet grooming business at 8-10 BROADWAY (I).
Patricia LeBrun, Petitioner, came before the Board seeking modification of a special permit to allow day and overnight boarding, and to extend hours of operation of her pet grooming business. She wanted to extend her hours of operations from for her business, A Dog’s Best Friend to 7 a.m to 7 p.m. Tuesday through Saturday. She cited increased competition from Pet Smart who is opened seven days a week. The Petitioner also noted she receives several calls a day about boarding and has the room to accommodate. She cited New England Veterinary on Highland Avenue which has day boarding and is across the street from an apartment complex.
Ms. Belair inquired if dogs will be at the property all day. The petitioner responded that during the day she has other workers that will be tending to the animals. If the dogs are being boarded overnight then someone will check up at the at 11pm and from that point until 7 a.m. the animals will be alone.
Vice Chairperson, Ms. Debski, opens meeting to the public.
Customer of Petitioner, believed that Petitioner should receive variance because she does an amazing job with her animals.
Brooks Williams, Proprietor of Creature Comforts, 40 Boradway. Noted that her business was denied 4 years ago for boarding and had to be closed by 5 p.m. because of the neighborhood. She suggested that allowing another doggie daycare in the same building would violate terms of a lease. The petitioner, however, stated that nothing in the lease restricted business use.
Ms. Harris inquired if the petitioner should be requesting three things: business license for a doggie daycare, overnight and day boarding. She believed the board needs to know how many animals will be boarded. Petitioner responded that it varied between 6 and 15 dogs during the course of the day, but not all would be there the entire time.
Kevin Talbot, 135 Ocean Ave West. He was concerned about noise at night if petitioner allowed to do overnight boarding. Stated that part of an earlier agreement with Creature Comforts was due in part of the noise. He did not have any problems with the extension of hours of operation.
Councilor Jean Pelletier (Ward 3). Noted that the Board allowed Creature Comforts to open a doggie daycare in a residential neighborhood off of Jefferson Ave and should approve the petition. He also noted there would be no noise from the building at 10 Broadway, because of its construction. He supported the petition.
A Letter from Petitioner’s Landlord was introduced. Petitioner claimed she did not receive the letter. The letter stated that due to clauses in the lease agreement protecting tenant mix of the property, which having a doggie daycare would be in violation of the Petitioner’s lease. However, Ms. Debski illustrated that the Landlord signed the petition. She also noted that the Board will not get involved into private contractual matters.
Mr. St. Pierre suggested that the Board could modify the special permit with conditions for a trail period.
Ms. Belair was in support of the petition. She noted that small businesses within the city should be embraced, especially when they are looking to expand their business. She suggested an overnight boarding limit of 2 dogs and a trial period of 3 months.
Ms. Harris agreed with Ms. Belair’s suggestion for the Doggie Daycare being temporary and with a maximum number of dogs. She was concerned, however, that Creature Comforts would return to the Board and seek modifications to their special permits. She thought that there should be a maximum of 2 dogs for overnight boarding, and 4 dogs in doggie daycare for 3 months. She did not extend the limitation on the dog grooming because that is a different kind of business.
Mr. St. Pierre inquired if the petitioner was soliciting from dogs present for grooming or purely boarding. The petitioner replied that they are from boarders, but if someone wanted her to board their animal she would not turn them away.
Ms. Debski inquired as to the number of dogs in play groups during the day. The petitioner stated it was more than 4 on average. Ms. Debski suggested that a maximum of 6 dogs should be allowed for doggie daycare.
Ms. Belair moved to modify special permit to allow day and overnight boarding and modification of business license subject to certain conditions. First the Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. Overnight boarding for a maximum of two dogs for a 3 month trial period. Day boarding allowed for a maximum of 6 dogs for 3 month trial period.
Motion Seconded by Mr. Dionne. Roll Call Vote. Motion approved by 5-0_(Richard Dionne, Rebecca Curan, Elizabeth Debski, Bonnie Belair, Annie Harris)
Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP, LLC requesting variances from minimum lot area, lot width, depth of front yard, width of side yard, and depth of rear yard to construct fifteen single family residences on land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE (Assessor’s Map 41, Parcels 235, 236, 243, 244, 246, and 274) (R-2).
Ms. Curran did not participate in this issue and recused herself from the meeting due to a conflict of interest. Alternate Board Member, Jimmy Tsitsinos sat and voted on this issue.
Bill Luster on behalf of Shallop Landing at Collins Cove Partnership, LLC, appeared before the Board. He described the subdivision would be good use of reclaiming this old tannery site as a seaside village. Noted that his partnership is appearing before other boards within the city to get permission so that they could move ahead with construction of the project. Discussed the challenging economic climate, but bidding on the this waterfront parcel of property was important so they were willing to send the appropriate amount of time to gain some financial rewards. Mr. Luster stated that the process was slowed by a title issue involving a small piece of property not owned by the city, which was resolved, and they were able to reach an agreement with the property owners.
Mr. Luster described the development which would maximize the views of Colin’s Cove. The proposal includes 15 units, 13 of which will have views of Collin’s cove. The remaining 2 units will be on Fort Avenue. There would be an entrance off of Szetella lane leading to a cul-du-sac and an individual entrance off of Fort Avenue.
Mr. Luster discussed how his Partnership has worked with the neighborhood to modify their plan and better address the needs of the neighbors. The first issue he noted was the elimination of a storage area owned by H&H, which currently stores lobster traps and an unregistered car. Mr. Luster’s Partnership bought that parcel of property and which will improve the appearance of the neighborhood. He also cited the lack of parking in the area, which the subdivision would address. He noted that employees at H&H routinely parked in a gravel lot owned by the city, but in the winter they would be forced to park on the street, thereby, congesting neighborhood streets. He also noted that the neighborhood was adamant that they did not want any thru traffic between Fort Avenue and Szetella
Lane. The Partnership, following the neighbors’ suggestion elected to the plans in its current form where there are 2 separate unconnected entrances to the development. Finally, Mr. Luster stated that his proposal aimed at protecting the view for the neighborhood. He stated that they could have opted for a midrise building or a community parking garage in the area, instead his proposal includes single family units surrounded by a 5 to 7 foot buffer zone to abutter neighbors. He also stated that the abutters could own the buffer zones in fee or through an easement. He recognized that due to the environmental hazards present on the site that most abutters would likely take an easement. Further noting his cooperation with neighbors, Mr. Luster pointed to an earlier proposal where the Partnership would move 3 homes from Federal Street to the the parcel on Fort Avenue, but due to neighborhood opposition, they did not move along with that
plan.
During his proposal, Mr. Lustter described the units of the development of having a 2 car garage, master unit suite on first floors, having 1300 square feet of living space and around 1700 square feet of total living space if garages are included. He compared the density of his development, which will average 6,573 square feet per dwelling, to that of the surrounding area. He stated that the abutters not including the Salem Housing for elderly averaged 2500 square feet per dwelling. Mr. Luster also indicated that per City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, the R-2 zone, which this development is a part, requires 7500 square feet per dwelling unit. He cited two recent projects on Cousins Street, which had total square footage of around 3000 square feet.
Attorney Jack Keilty, presented the proposed zoning variances required for development. He noted that there will be zero frontage for interior lots on a public way, however they will have frontage on a road created during development but would require approval by the Planning Board to be in order for public frontage to be recognized. Mr. Keilty also stated that the purchase of the H&H parcel will allow for the construction of a parking lot which will address neighborhood concerns about parking. The parking lot will comprise of 22 parking space and no storage will be permitted. Mr. Keilty also acknowledged the presence of a sewer pipe from SESD (Souther Essex Sewage District). He assumed that the sewer was abandoned, because there was no documentation detailing easements. He also
noted that the use limitation of the property, namely the environmental hazards of the property will increase the cost and that the Partnership is looking to get a certain yield for the land due to its unique shape, which R-2 zoning would not permit; thus the necessity for a variance.
Vice Chairperson, Ms. Debski, opens meeting for public discussion
Paul Grocki, 10 Cousins St., speaking on behalf of another abutter the Buckleys, 17 Webb St. Buckleys have been there for 38 years and wife recently ill and being on their deck and enjoying the view is part of her recovery process. Believes it is a quality of life issue for the Buckleys. Mr. Grocki questions the economic hardship of the petitioners.
Mr. Keilty responded that the he hardrship of the petitioners is not only the current economic conditions, but also the hazardous waste present on the site. Mr. Luster also notes that the City hired an environmental consultant, who concluded that it was uneconomical to remove waste from the site because it would be so much that it would cost prohibitive to any use of the site. He cited the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection as allowing capping of land that meets this uneconomic threshold with 2 to 3 feet of fill. Mr. Luster stressed that this additional expense resulted in the petitioners proposing a more dense development. Mr. Luster described placing the cap over the property will prohibit: the digging of a well for consumption; planting of vegetables; and digging
below the cap. He made clear that there would be no significant danger if these prohibitions were strictly adhered.
Amity VanDoren, 1 Essex Street, supports the development. It would make good use of the H&H property and has worked well with and taken into account neighborhood concerns. She also said that their presence will make allow for some easing in the parking situation if each abutter was given a 10’ easement to land abutting the development.
Raymond Page, 28 Webb St. Opposed to the development. Mr. Page pulled out a measuring tape to demonstrate the depth of three feet of soil. He questioned it that would be too high and what impact that would have on the views from his property.
Resident, 9 Fort Avenue, opposed proposal, because of density and number of variances required.
Councilor Steven Pinto (At Large), asked a series of questions. First he inquired what price the petitioner intended to sell each unit for. The Petitioner responded between the high 300k and mid 400k. Next, Mr. Pinto asked how much they paid for the property. The petitioners did not think it was appropriate to answer this question. Mr. Pinto asked about how many parking spaces will be in the new lot to which the petitioner answered 22. Mr. Pinto followed this question up by asking if the capping of the land will be truly expensive. The Petitioner responded that they will under take significant expense for the capping, but that construction management will be very costly. Mr. Pinto was also curious as to if the petitioners would monitor the cap after the units are
sold. The petitioners will continue to monitor the cap after the sale of the units.
Mr. Luster noted that the city attempted to rezone the parcel to R-3 but due to neighbor opposition that plan did not move forward. He continued that the plan could move forward because you can sell each unit and plan as you go, but there will be a lot of money sunk into the project, because of purchasing the property and the cap.
Councilor Robert McCarthy (Ward 1), questioned the SESD sewer pipe and whether an easement is there. He was concerned that an easement would run under the middle of the development. He suggested that another board should hear this matter before the Board so that the sewer pipe issue could be resolved.
Mr. Luster was very confident that nothing significant should come from the discovery of the sewer line. He cited a conversation with the SESD that the line was indeed abandoned
Councilor Jean Pelletier (Ward 3) had an issue about how drainage in the are would be addressed. Jim McDowell of Eastern Land Survey explained the land would be graded towards the private way in the middle of the parcel and will be directed to drains leading to Collin’s Cove. The two units on Fort Avenue will drain towards catch basis there. Mr. Pelletier noted that there are problems with draining in Colin’s Cove and suggested draining towards the power plant. Mr. McDowell could not answer that question, but promised to review the situation.
Ms. Harris asked if there will be drainage onto abutter’s properties. Mr. McDowell answered that there would be no draining onto abutting property.
Councilor McCarthy questions Building Inspector as to the minimum lot size of new construction in a R-2 zone. Mr. St. Pierre answered that according Salem Zoning new construction requires 15k square feet of lot space and 100ft of frontage.
Vice Chairperson, Ms Debski, noted that the city was aware that a more dense proposal would go on this parcel because of the RFP which allowed for between 12 and 15 units.
Ms. Belair liked the plan, but asked if there were basements. There are no basements in these houses. What the exterior of the units would consist of. The Petitioner noted that the units will be constructed partially from vinyl cedar and a composite type of siding. Finally she asked if they currently had financing. Mr. Luster stated that they did not, but that should not be a problem. Ms. Belair stated that the petitioner meets the hardship requirements, but the density was a problem she found difficult for the petitioner to overcome.
Mr. Dionne, noted that 9 to 12 ft between lots is relatively dense. Ms Harris and Ms. Debski have no problems with the density. Mr. Luster stated that the plan could be adjusted to give more lot square footage to units with lesser space.
Ms. Debski thought that the proposal responded well to the City’s RFP.
Mr. Tsinos, thought the proposal was good, especially because it was not in a duplex style. He did note that it would clean up both sides of the street considerably. He did have public safety concerns in case there as a fire. Ms. Debski noted however, that there was still more public input needed and if that were to become an issue it would come back to the Board. She also noted that the project would accommodate issues in the neighborhood quite well.
Ms. Harris moved to approve the Shallop Landing proposal subject to the following conditions:
(1) Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances codes and regulation; (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; (6) Petitioner is to obtain approval from any city Board or Commision having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
Motion Seconded by Mr. Dionne. Roll Call Vote 4-1(Richard Dionne, Elizabeth Debski, Annie Harris, Jimmy Tsitsinos)
Old/New Business: There was no old business
There being no further business before the Zoning Board of Appeals, (Annie Harris made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Rick Dionne and approved (5-0). The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 pm.)
Respectfully submitted,
Tyson J. Lynch, Acting Staff Planner
| 
