City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.
Those present were: Robin Stein (Chair), Richard Dionne, Beth Debski, Annie Harris, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate). Absent: Rebecca Curran and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Also present were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner.
Approval of Minutes – November 19, 2008
Debski makes a motion to approve the minutes from last month, seconded by Dionne and approved (5-0).
Pubic Hearings
Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, seeking variances from parking, maximum height, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit; and a Special Permit to change a nonconforming use and structure, in order to convert the property located at 17 NORTH STREET, Salem, MA from an assembly hall to a six-unit condominium (R-2 zoning district).
Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. He states that the petitioner has an agreement to purchase 17 North St. from the Elk’s Lodge and reminds the board he was before them previously with a similar petition. However, certain design elements had made the original project economically unfeasible to build. The last design was single structure with two distinct components – one was a recreation of the original historic structure, and the back part was more contemporary. From a construction standpoint, melding the two together was expensive. Grover states that they came up with new design – a single structure, and shows a rendering of the new building. He also shows a photo of the existing façade and the east and south elevations. He states the development
program has changed enough that they felt they had to come back before the ZBA. The original proposal had 7 units, and this one has one less unit and is a lower density than what they received relief from last time. There are also two fewer parking spaces. The last proposal had had 7 units and 8 spaces; this has 6 units and 6 spaces.
Grover shows where a parking space was lost and says this space could be used for something, but they are not counting it as a legal space for zoning purposes. Other than that, the development plan is the same. Grover states that the building is now less massive, and that they still need height relief, but less so. He shows the parking spaces along Eaton Place and states that these spaces are smaller than required.
Stein asks the board members if they have questions or comments. No one does.
Stein opens the issue up for public comment.
John Carr, 7 River St., has a law office next door. He expresses his preference for the new design over the original one. He felt that the combination of historic and contemporary styles of architecture did not meld well in the original proposal, and that the new design was much more cohesive. He states his support for the project.
Edward Nelson, 262 Essex St., echoes what Carr said, and also speaks in support of the new proposal.
Stein closes the public comment period.
Harris asks St. Pierre if this project is in the historic district. St. Pierre is not sure. Carr says it is. Harris comments this has nice detail in it – do they have to keep all these details with the permit the board is granting? St. Pierre says yes, the approval is subject to the plans submitted. Harris says it’s a lovely design. Stein says she wants to give the petitioner room to negotiate with the Historic Commission and allow them to make minor changes so that they would not have to come back to the ZBA if the Historic Commission requires alterations. Stein states that this certainly seems like an all around better project, and that lower density was preferred.
St. Pierre asks Grover whether the building would involve new construction. Grover states that they would be reusing the existing floors as much as possible.
Harris asks what the conditions were last time. Stein states that the one different condition would be the number of parking spaces and that there were no other special conditions. Harris makes a motion to approve, subject to all conditions formerly required, as well as minor changes as required by the Historic Commission, and with six parking spaces. Dionne seconds the motion, and it passes 5-0 (Harris, Debski Stein, Dionne and Tsitsinos all in favor).
Petition of D.L. COTE, seeking a variance for a third story on a 2 ½ story single-family house located at 5 SUTTON AVENUE, Salem, MA (R-1 zoning district).
Dee Cote presents his petition. Debski asks if there is a plot plan? McKnight says there is not; St. Pierre explains that one was not required because the building footprint isn’t changing. Tsitsinos passes out photos of the building, which he obtained online. St. Pierre asks the ZBA members to show those photos to the petitioner – these are “before” photos.
Debski asks if the construction is already done. Cote confirms that it is.
Debski asks what is up in the tower space. Cote says it’s just a small sitting area, 6 by 9 feet.
Dionne refers to the stairs going into the tower and asks for confirmation that there is no living area in the tower. Cote says there is no living space – it’s just a small sitting area with ocean views.
Stein asks if the board has questions or comments; no one does.
Stein opens the issue up for public comment.
Richard Roderick, 7 Sutton Ave., says that so far the construction looks very good, but if the variance requested allows a third floor, is the construction of that floor restricted only to what is on the proposed plan? Stein says that it is and confirms that the variance wouldn’t allow a full third floor.
John Doyle, 121 Columbus Ave, says that the back of his house faces the back of the project, and that the construction done looks nice, but he would be concerned if they could put a in whole third floor. Stein confirms they could not.
Stein reads an email from resident Larry Spang of 125 Columbus Avenue into the record. The letter expresses Sprang’s support of the project as long as the construction continues to be done in a way that enhances the historic character of the neighborhood.
Mary Roderick 7 Sutton Ave., also says that the house looks nice, but if this variance is granted, how does it impact the rest of the neighborhood in terms of setting a precedent? Stein says that each application is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Sharon Bickford of 8 Island Ave. echoes everyone else’s sentiments.
Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Harris confirms there should be no more added to the house than what has already been built there. St. Pierre agrees, and confirms with Cote that this space is only 6’ by 9.’ St. Pierre says this should be a condition.
Stein notes that this addition is consistent with what is in the neighborhood. Debski makes a motion to approve the petition, but then notes that Cote is not the owner of the property. McKnight confirms a letter was received by the Planning department signed by the owner authorizing Cote to represent him in this petition.
Debski makes a motion to approve the petition, as per the plan submitted, with nine (9) standard conditions. The new third floor space is to be no larger than 6’ by 9’.
Tsitsinos seconds the motion. McKnight takes a role call vote:
Harris: in favor
Debski: in favor
Stein: in favor
Dionne: in favor
Tsitsinos: in favor
The petition passes 5-0. Stein tells Cote to coordinate with St. Pierre to retrofit the permitting process, since construction has already taken place.
Petition of GEORGE BRANDENBURG, seeking a variance from the maximum number of stories (2 ½ allowed) to allow for the construction of a third-floor dormer on the roof of a two-and-a-half story, two-family dwelling at 91 ESSEX STREET (R-2 zoning district).
George and Helen Brandenburg present the petition. They are seeking a variance for a single dormer in the roof of their house, which would allow a bathroom to be built. They say they have consulted with their neighbors, none of whom have a problem with the project. Stein asks if the Board has any questions. No one does.
Stein opens the public comment portion of the hearing. No one comments, and Stein closes the public comment portion. Stein asks Brandenburg if they are under renovations now; he says they are not. Stein comments that this seems like a simple request; there is no additional living space, and it’s limited to a bathroom, not a whole floor. Harris notes that it seems minor. Stein says the petition seems consistent with the bylaw.
Tsitsinos makes motion to approve the petition with eight (8) standard conditions. Debski seconds the motion.
McKnight takes a role vote:
Harris: in favor
Debski: in favor
Stein: in favor
Dionne: in favor
Tsitsinos: in favor
The petition passes 5-0.
Stein explains the process and timeline for the appeals period. Brandenburg asks if he can start construction; Stein replies that he can’t until the appeal period is up. St. Pierre says he could, but he’d be at risk if someone appealed.
Debski makes a motion to close the regular Board of Appeals meeting. Dionne seconds. The regular meeting is adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Stein then moves on to introduce a presentation by Andrea Leary, who discusses the North Shore Traffic Management Association (TMA) and reviews the ways in which the Board of Appeals might use TMA membership as a condition for certain projects as a means of traffic congestion mitigation.
The meeting adjourns at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
| 
