City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Zoning Board of Appeals
Date and Time: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, at 6:30 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor, Room 313, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chair Robin Stein, Rebecca Curran, Beth Debski, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Bonnie Belair (Alternate), Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate)
Members Absent:
Others Present: Staff Planner Tyson Lynch
Building Commissioner Tom St. Pierre
Recorder: Andrea Bray
Chair Stein calls the meeting to order.
1. Approval of Minutes: September 17, 2008 Meeting
The members review the minutes and suggest amendments.
Debski: Motion to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Curran. Passes 5-0.
2. 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).
Michael Ferris of AAA Enterprises states that he held a demonstration of the rock-crushing operation, and presents the list of attendees.
Stein reads the following letters into the record:
· Dated October 14, 2008, from Doyle Sail Makers, in opposition to the Special Permit.
· From Thermal Circuits, 1 Technology way, expressing reservations regarding the potential noise and airborne particle issues of the rock-crushing operation. He requests a Federal Air Quality Permit be required for this site.
Belair asks if they will wait to receive the environmental information.
Stein states that the board should see the environmental information before making a decision, but she wishes to hear from the pubic tonight. She adds the DEP requires the road to be widened for the trucks.
Stein opens this issue for public comment.
Jack O’Neil of 96 Swampscott Road, who owns a food manufacturing business in the area, speaks in opposition to the Special Permit.
David Groom, owner of Groom Construction and Groom Energy, states that he was not notified of this hearing.
Stein advises Groom that notices are not mailed for any continued hearings.
David Groom states that he is in the construction business and knows that the rock-crushing operation is the filthiest part of any construction process. He adds that the cakes of stone dust found on his property present an ongoing daily clean-up chore, and he moved from his original operation because of the filth. He expresses concerns about potential respiratory problems with his 120 employees. He claims that there will be an exodus of businesses in that area if the rock-crushing operation is approved.
Attorney Patrick Violas, representing the petitioner, asks the board to consider voting on this issue this evening, rather than wait for the consent order from DEP.
Ward 3 City Councilor Jean Pelletier reads the following letter into the record:
· From City Councilor O’Keefe, in which he describes the demonstration of the rock-crushing machine. O’Keefe writes in favor of the petition.
Pelletier says that this area was formerly zoned industrial, and the zoning change has imposed new restrictions on this site, which existed prior to the zoning change. He expresses disappointment with the Board for postponing the site visit. He adds that the new neighbors, who spoke in opposition, came to this area after the new zoning was imposed because they were offered a TIF from the City. He states that the DEP has no bearing on this operation except to order them to widen the road.
Stein states that the Board’s concern with the DEP is that the road must be widened for increased wide truck activity. Stein adds that she isn’t prepared to make a decision tonight, but if pushed, she will take a vote.
Pelletier states that the DEP consent order states that they have to have the paperwork in by February.
Groom clarifies that they did not move to Salem because they got a TIF; they moved to a beautiful area in a beautiful building, and he grew up in Salem.
Stein states that the use was never a legal use up there.
St. Pierre states that he does not know if it was ever allowed, and they would have to go back and see what the zoning was.
Stein states that they would not be here right now if this was a legally grandfathered use. She iterates that she doesn’t have all of the information that she would like to make a decision.
There being no further questions or comments from the public Stein closes the public hearing.
The members review the bylaws.
Belair states that she is happy to vote if the petitioner wishes, but she would like more information first.
Motion by Debski to approve the petition of AAA, seconded by Dionne. The vote was two in favor (Dionne and belair) and three opposed (Curran, Debski, and Stein).
The members clarify the hours of operation for the motion, and Stein suggests taking another vote with a new motion, listing all of the conditions to make it a clean vote.
Motion by Debski seconded by Belair, “To approve the Special Permit to allow for the receipt and processing of stone soil, and loam at 15 Robinson Road subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city, state and federal statues, ordinances, codes and regulations.
2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
3. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
4. The days of operation will be limited to Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.”
The vote was two (2) in favor (Dionne and Belair) and three (3) opposed (Stein, Curran, and Debski). The motion fails and the petition is denied.
3. Petition of SHAWN DONOVAN requesting a variance from off-street parking regulations of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 215 DERBY STREET (B5).
Attorney Bill Quinn, representing the petitioner, states that this site was once a chowder house. He explains that the Donovans also own the Bunghole liquor store across the street, and bought the property hoping to move their store into this property. Quinn says that the Donovans’ current Bunghole site was approved through a variance and any changes to that site would require a new hearing, so rather than moving the liquor store, the Donovans decided to lease the 215 Derby Street property. He adds that they have no tenant yet, but they wish to add six parking spaces to the site to make the building more attractive to potential tenants.
Quinn explains that the building originally had three storefronts, but was opened into one large unit for the chowder house. He adds that there is a small outdoor dining area on the right side. He submits a plan for 6 parking places in front of the 3 store fronts, stating that it is tight and doesn’t leave room for the set backs. He acknowledges some concerns about backing out into a public way, but states that the Parking and Traffic Commission had no problem with this plan.
Stein recuses herself for this issue and Debski takes the Chair.
Quinn states that there are two definite curb cuts on either side of the lot and the middle has a recessed curb, which is flush with the street even though there is a curb there. He adds that, if approved, the curb will be removed and hot-topped for the length of the building.
Harris expresses concern about having the access to the building obscured by parked cars.
St. Pierre states that a handicapped spot would be required, which would take up almost two spaces.
Donovan states that at one time that entire area was used for parking.
Quinn says that he has no problem with an approval of the plan, subject to having one handicapped space.
George Fallon, Tache Real Estate, speaks in opposition to the petition. He cites chapter 40A, stating they should not grant a variance, which would cause harm to the surrounding area. He claims that an approval would amount to taking what is one public spot and converting it to use by a private company. He states that angled parking requires 10 feet in width.
Debski corrects him stating that angled parking requires 9 feet.
Fallon states that if this is granted they would have the largest curb cut in the City. He adds that he is not sure if it is legal to take public parking for private use. He acknowledges that it is only one spot that will be lost, but he needs the spot. He maintains that this does not meet the threshold of chapter 40A.
Belair states that there is no pubic space there, and there hasn’t been a public space there for years. She disputes that there is curbing there.
Fallon states that there is curbing there, but it is depressed.
Curran asks if an opinion from the City Engineer would be needed if this is approved.
Quinn states that he spoke to Lieutenant Preczewski of the Traffic Department and he said they should put some type of lining to mark the parking spots, but he has no problem with this plan. He clarifies that this plan does not convert public property to private use, and iterates that at one time it had been used for parking.
Debski states that this is a great idea if they can get the cars off the street.
Fred Matei for Tache Real Estate states that there will be a danger with the cars backing out of that property.
Debski confirms that Attorney Quinn spoke with the Traffic Department and they had no problem with the plan.
Donovan states that Fallon sold him the building.
Debski closes the public hearing.
Belair state that this is a successful businessperson that is restoring an abandoned building, and there is not a loss of a public parking space. She adds that the cars parked at Brother’s and Waters and Brown all back into the street.
Harris states that she is not crazy about this idea, and expresses concern about having the cars backing into the street, and claims that it sets a bad precedent. Having said that, Harris acknowledges that parking is at a premium in this area. She concludes by stating that she would be in favor of a compromise because there has to be a handicapped space, which will be wider, taking up an extra space. She suggests having a small walkway on the remainder of the other parking space, resulting in a total of five spaces, one of which will be for handicapped parking. She claims that this measure would make the plan more urban and pedestrian-friendly.
Dionne agrees with Harris on having the need for the small walkway.
Quinn states that he would be happy if the board approved five spaces with one being ADA compliant.
Curran states that they can approve subject to ADA compliance and a pedestrian passageway.
St. Pierre suggests they require the parking space be in compliance with the Architectural Access Board rules.
Motion by Belair and seconded by Curran to approve the variance from off-street parking regulations of the Zoning Ordinance at 215 Derby Street subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations.
2. Parking must be designed within the specifications of the Architectural Access Board.
3. Subject to the approval of the Traffic Department of the Salem Police Department
4. There shall be no more than five (5) parking spaces
5. There shall be a walkway from Derby Street to front of building with a minimum width of three (3) feet.
The Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor (Curran, Debski, Harris and Belair) and one opposed (Dionne)
4. Petition of ATLANTIC COAST HOMES, LLC, appealing Building Inspector’s decision that property is a two-family dwelling not three-family dwelling located at 28 ½ GROVE STREET (R1).
Applicant Mike Becker, states that the name on the petition should not be Atlantic Coast Homes, but rather Mike Becker. He explains that he purchased the property in May, and it was in a dilapidated state. He describes the extensive restoration work that he completed on the building. He submits evidence to show that the property was used as a three-family, stating that he conducted research back to 1881. He provides the history of the usage of the house, citing cases when this was used as a three-family dwelling. Evidence that he presents includes:
· A photo of three electric meters believed to be installed around 1958.
· Assessment records from 1973 stating that this building was a 3-family dwelling.
· A photo of the 4 gas meters on the building.
· Voting records from 1963 and 1964.
Stein states that Becker did his homework on this. She reads an email from Philip J. Bonn at 28 Grove Street, expressing concern about the noise from the second floor deck and the path of egress, and parking. The letter asks the Board to approve this while stipulating that no furniture or grills be on the deck.
St. Pierre states that the new zoning took place on August 27, 1965, when they looked at what existed in 1964 and that use was grandfathered. He explains that tax assessors are charged by law to assess what they see, whether or not it is in compliance with zoning, so they cannot go by assessor’s records. St. Pierre states that he did his zoning report before the home was restored.
Becker states that the building card says that this zoning is R2. He iterates that it has 3 separate electrical meters.
There being no comments from the public, Stein closes the public hearing.
Curran states that it appears that the building was originally a 3-family dwelling and it was changed just before the rezoning.
Stein states that she is comfortable that the information before them is not definitive, but because there is evidence that this was a 3-family, she would vote to permit a 3-family.
Harris disputes the information stating that this information is inconclusive and she sees only evidence that this property was a 2-family in 1965.
Much discussion ensues regarding the proper use for this building.
Becker states that the neighborhood is in favor of this. He explains that if a unit has a place to bathe, a place to eat, and a place to sleep, it is a separate unit.
Motion by Curran and seconded by Debski to approve the petition to overturn the Building Inspector’s decision that this is a 2-family dwelling. Voted four (4) in favor (Stein, Curran, Debski, and Dionne) and one opposed (Harris) to approve the petition to overturn the Building Inspector’s decision that the subject property located at 28 ½ Grove Street is a two-family dwelling based on the Board’s determination that the subject property at the time of the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in Salem was a three-family dwelling.
Motion to adjourn by Curran and seconded by Debski. Passes 5-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 8:15 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrea Bray, Recording Secretary
| 
