City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 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, Rebecca Curran, Beth Debski, Annie Harris, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Bonnie Belair (alternate) was absent. Also present were Thomas St. Pierre (Building Commissioner) and Danielle McKnight (Staff Planner).
Stein opens the meeting at 6:35 PM.
Approval of Minutes
Dionne moves to approve minutes of the 3/18/09 meeting; Stein seconds. Motion passes 3-0 (Dionne, Stein, Tsitsinos). Harris moves to approve corrections to the 2/18/09 minutes; Dionne seconds. Motion passes 4-0 (Curran, Dionne, Harris, Tsitsinos).
Old/New Business
Request of EDWARD AND JUDY BURGE to extend variances granted on May 21, 2008 to June 5, 2010 for the property at 29 LINDEN STREET.
Edward Burge presents his request, explains that his wife has suffered from an illness, and that this and financial difficulties have prevented them from going forward with the work. However, they still wish to complete the work and request an extension for the variances through June 5, 2010. Stein notes that this seems like a reasonable amount of time to request. Curran moves to approve the request; Stein seconds, and the motion passes 6-0 (Curran, Stein, Dionne, Tsitsinos, Debski, Harris).
Public Hearings
Continued petition of UNITED FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, LLC seeking variances for lot area; lot width; front, side, and rear yard setbacks; allowance of two dwelling structures on the lot; and allowance of five parking spaces; and a special permit to reconstruct a nonconforming structure for the property located at 272 JEFFERSON AVENUE, Salem, MA (B1 zoning district). Attorney George Atkins.
Attorney Atkins presents the petition, noting it had been continued previously because of negotiations with the other condo owners and because time was needed to complete a new plan in response to Board and neighbor comments. Atkins reviews the history of the project, explaining the financing issues the project has had. He says his client wishes to replace the old building with a new one on the same footprint. He explains the previous plan had allowed more parking, but in response to the Board’s comments that the building should be on the original footprint, some parking would be lost from the previous plan. Atkins distributes the floor layout plan from the original plan, which didn’t show elevations, height, correct parking space size, or setbacks correctly. He then distributes
a photo showing the original building. He explains the new design is 925 SF of floor area for the building, compared with the original footprint of 1272 SF. He shows the new elevation drawings and says the new building is shorter than the original. He also says they tried to get as close as possible to the original plan. He then shows the new parking plan. He notes that the plans have been shown to the other residents, and that they are not happy with them.
Curran asks if each owner has a deeded parking space; Atkins responds that no, the condo owns each space. Stein asks if the Board is being asked to approve something that takes parking rights away from anyone; Atkins says no.
Stein opens the issue up for public comment.
Bob Levesque, 373 Essex St., and his son, Joshua Levesque, owner of 268 Jefferson Ave., say they bought their house to restore but didn’t know the history of this property. Bob Levesque shows pictures of their house when it was purchased and the work subsequently done on it to the Board.
Harris asks if the Levesque’s issue with the proposal is the design. Bob Levesque says yes, the property is better without the rebuilt condo, since it would block views. He says their property is already devalued because of the market.
Kevin McGrath, 3 Arthur St., said the applicant had said he would keep neighbors informed, but this has not happened. He states his opposition to the rebuilding of the original structure, since it’s been three years since it was there. He also says the original structure was not as tall as the proposed one.
Attorney Anthony Keck, who represents 272 Jefferson Ave. units 2, 4 and 5 (unit 3 is in foreclosure), shows a picture of the old building from unit 5’s perspective. He says the original plan is probably not accurate, but that this photo shows there were at least 4 parking spaces. The photo shows how people got in and out of the property to park; he says the space was tight. He then says that on the original site plan, there is a plan for a porch that is not in the new plans. He says that the condo master deed allows for the porch construction by unit 2.
Stein says that the site plan before the Board is not a condominium site plan; Keck says he will get to why the plan of this space is important.
Keck says the original footprint of the building can be seen in the photo, since it was never repaved, and that the new proposal is larger than the original footprint. He says the old building was 27’ by 19’, without a porch, and the proposed structure is 30’ by 20’11”. He says the proposal would make it difficult to enter and exit the driveway. He also questions how the original height was calculated by the applicant, since the original building had a mansard roof. He says the proposed plan would involve building on common areas, which the applicant doesn’t have the right to do. He also says the applicant doesn’t have the right to redraw the parking spaces. Additionally, he says they would need the lenders’ approval from all units to
have the right to do either of these. He says the owners have the exclusive right to the parking, and two spaces would be gone with the new plan. He asks who would lose a parking space.
Stein asks what would happen to the title if nothing was built. Keck responds that there could be various solutions; a court could divide it up. He also says the residents were not opposed to something rebuilt of a similar size square footage of the original, but that counting the old porch area had added square footage to the proposed building.
Mike Goderre, 272 Jefferson Ave. unit 5, shows the dimensions in his photos of the driveway, and points out how tight it was, with room for four cars. Harris says she has trouble seeing that the proposal is much larger than the original. Goderre shows on the photo where the porch came to. Tom St. Pierre says the new house elevation would be 27’7” to the ridge in height. Goderre says the new plan is better than the old one, but not good, and the loss of parking was a problem.
Harris asks if the main issue is the size. Goderre says it’s the intrusion on the common area, the loss of parking, and mistrust of the owner since he doesn’t like the way this has been handled. Stein asks what unit 1 was when Goderre purchased unit 5; he responds that he thought they were simply going to renovate unit 1. Debski asks if the building was exactly the same as the original, would the condo association object to it; Goderre says the applicant had already had a chance to do that.
Paul Trellopoulos, 272 Jefferson Ave. unit 4, asked why the applicant wanted to reconstruct the unit, since he says there is no longer a sewer or gas connection, and the foundation is gone. Laura Trellopoulos, also of 272 Jefferson Ave. unit 4, says the other condo owners had paid for the demolition of that building, which was $6,000 that won’t be recouped; she says they needed to do it to keep their insurance. She says they also paid for a fence, which cost about $1500. She says they now need a roof and don’t have it, and expresses frustration at this long process and the fact that no conclusion has been reached yet.
Silvia Updegrave, 272 Jefferson Ave., unit 2, agrees with the other two condo owners, saying she does not want to give up parking spaces or common areas.
Brandy McGrath, 3 Arthur St., says the proposed 27’ height is taller than what was there previously. She says the excess parking will end up on her street, and that the former house was right on the property line. She opposes the project.
Ward 3 Councillor Jean Pelletier, 17 Lawrence Street, says the previous owner created the problem. He asks if the applicant will separate from the condo association. Stein says she doesn’t know, but the applicant has not asked for that relief. Pelletier points out the applicant was the mortager and resold to himself at auction. He says the building was demolished at the residents’ cost, and he has heard some of the unit owners say that if the building was rebuilt as it was then that would be fine. He also says he feels for the condo owners, who are out a lot of money and aren’t getting condo fees from the applicant. He knows the applicant wants to make his money back, which he has no problem with, but not at the expense of the other owners, who have already lost money
and risked their insurance.
Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Stein asks St. Pierre if the new plan is scaled and if he could check the dimensions. St. Pierre says according to the scaled plan, the building footprint is 17’ by 31’, and the proposed structure is 20’11” by 35’. Stein asks if the 31’ dimension includes the porch; St. Pierre says no, they would need to add another 6.5’ to account for the porch, meaning the old footprint was 17’ by 37.5’ and the proposed building would be 20’ 11” by 35’.
Stein says she doesn’t see the point in the Board giving relief for this project if the applicant doesn’t have the authority to build it. She says in order to rebuild it must be in the exact footprint of the original, otherwise it will encroach on condominium common space. Also, she says the new building cannot take away exclusive use parking – this would require a change in the condo master plan.
Atkins says the last plan he submitted had more parking in order to comply with zoning; that was objected to, so they revised the plans trying to replicate the original footprint – a plan which does not leave enough room for parking. Atkins says the condo documents for units 1 through 5 show easements for the exclusive use for the use of spaces in the open parking area shown in the condominium plans, so the obvious design was to arrange something for the open area, whatever it is. Stein disagrees, saying that as shown on the plan, there are five spaces and five units with easements for exclusive use for the parking as shown in the open area on the plan. Atkins says if the building still existed as shown on the plan, cars would not actually be able to access those spaces. Stein says it is the
residents’ problem to deal with whether they can get in there, but they have a right to that space. Atkins says he agrees.
Atkins says as to the height issue, they made the best judgment they could based on what they knew about the original. He asks Paul Durand, the architect who prepared the new submittal, to explain how they arrived at the dimensions, and says they were not trying to be deceitful.
Durand says he tried to approximate the footprint based on what they had; the first pan submitted was “parking centric.” When they heard the residents didn’t like that and were clear that parking was not the priority, they came up with this plan, using estimates for the new building dimensions based on the original plan available. He says the mass is different, but they tried to make the best estimate for the original dimensions.
Curran asks why they went outside the original footprint. Durand responds that their calculations were slightly off. Curran asked if their intention was to stay within the footprint. Durand says yes. Stein tells Durand he should get the full-sized original plan at the Registry of Deeds; Durand says they tried to find it, but what they found was just a small one they had to enlarge. Durand says they could scale the building back.
Atkins says he wants to respond to a number of comments made about his client and clarifies that he has been paying his condo fees, contrary to other residents’ comments. Atkins invites his client to speak.
DJ Scholl, the owner, says that for 50 years, the building was there, and abutters saw the building. Later on, he says those people bought a condo with a building there. He says his condo fees are current. He says all he wants to do is rebuild.
Curran asks if he considered building the original again.
Atkins says it could be a choice, but he doesn’t think it’s attractive. He also says perhaps it’s his fault for not involving the neighbors more and apologizes for that; he thought he had a relationship through the condo association. That wasn’t so, and he says it’s his error. He says there have been constant efforts to resolve this, and that it will probably go to some form of litigation, though he would rather this not happen. He says they are not trying to take away land from anyone; they simply want to rebuild.
Stein says the sentiment of the Board last time was that they had no problem with building something comparable to the original structure, but this plan looks bigger. Also, she says a lot of logistics needed to be worked out regarding the relationship between the applicant and the condo association, and this is a private matter.
Scholl says he wants a resolution – he wants to rebuild. Stein says she understands, but according to zoning, the Board can’t approve something bigger than the original.
Curran says they can’t take any common area, and both the massing and the footprint can’t be bigger than the original. She also says the fact that the parking never worked with the original isn’t the applicant’s problem, but they can’t infringe on any area outside the original building.
Harris also says she’s uncomfortable allowing the building to go outside the original footprint, and says it’s hard to resolve this fairly because how does the Board know what the footprint really was?
Stein says there could be some give and take with the exact design of the second floor structure., but the total space this building takes up on the ground cannot be different, and that she would not be inclined to approve a second floor that was substantially larger than the previous second floor. She says she has no problem putting things back to the way they were before, not just in utility but in function.
Atkins asks if they should continue the hearing and redesign again, trying again to get the original footprint correct? And would the Board take a plan that ignores parking? Stein says that is a quagmire; either the Board needs to approve a plan that conforms with zoning, or they need to issue variances. She says the Board’s responsibility is respecting the zoning ordinance, and if the applicant comes in with a plan that doesn’t show enough legal parking, he must request a variance. She says to get the most legal parking they can.
Curran says the condo association would have to be a co-applicant for a plan that took away parking; Stein says no, because just because the Board approves something doesn’t change it in the condo association’s master deed.
Dionne asks, once the building was demolished, what dictates the proximity of the buildings? St. Pierre explains the building code takes care of that through required materials.
Stein asks how much time the applicant needs to resubmit. Durand says they can do it quickly and could have it by the next meeting.
Debski says space 3 has the correct dimensions, but is a setback required? St. Pierre says it needs a 2-foot buffer to the property line, which they have.
Dionne notes that there are differences in how mansard roofs were once counted as stories; St. Pierre says today it’s considered 2 stories. Stein says the original did not have a full second floor, and the Board did not want to see one.
Dionne moves to continue the hearing to May 20, 2009; Stein seconds. The motion passes 6-0 (Dionne, Stein, Tsitsinos, Curran, Harris, Debski in favor, none opposed).
Petition of RIVERSIDE REALTY TRUST, seeking Variances from minimum lot width, minimum lot area; rear yard setback and lot area per unit to accommodate two duplex (two-family) homes at 24 SAUNDERS STREET, Salem, MA (R2 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover.
Attorney Grover presents the petition. He gives a brief history of the property, explaining it was once a baby shoe factory. He says a form A subdivision plan was filed but withdrawn because a taking for the bypass road was imminent. He shows on the plan the land that remains of 24 Saunders St. and shows the dimensions, explaining the relief requested. He explains Saunders St. was extended as a result of the bypass construction, and there is now access to one of the proposed lots that had previously not been accessible. Grover explains the hardship associated with the property: the lots were created as a result of the taking – the are large but don’t comply with zoning because of how they are now configured. He says the soil has been tested, and lead contamination was found
in the middle of a state mandated cleanup. He says cleaning up the lead will be costly, and that if the property could be used as a residential use, it would be cleaned to a higher standard; if it could not be developed for residential use, it would simply be capped, fenced, left undeveloped, and cleaned to a lower standard.
Grover shows the lots around the neighborhood, pointing out that many are undersized. He says he attended a One Stop meeting with City departments the previous week and no major objections were voiced. However, he says the City Planner commented on the ability of cars to back out of the driveway of Lot C, and that St. Pierre had suggested a hammerhead to turn around.
Stein opens the issue up for public comment.
Sean Mahoney, 1 Lemon Street Court, speaks in opposition to the project, citing concerns about loss of property value and blocking of his view of the water. Curran asks if he has a view easement. Mahoney asks what a view easement is.
Ward 2 Councillor Michael Sosnowski, 17 Collins St., says he met with George Fallon, the developer, who gave him the plans, which he took to neighbors. He says he spoke to all direct abutters except for two properties.
Frank Brown, 16 Pearl St., spoke in favor of the project, saying what’s there now is an eyesore.
Tom McKinnon, 14 Saunders St., opposes the project. He says the land is contaminated, and also, the owners knew the bypass, and therefore the land taking, was coming. He says the view from their house will be lost, and also that snow removal on the street is a problem – it’s a dead end.
Elizabeth McKinnon, 14 Saunders St., complains about an illegally built house at 14 Pearl St. She says the neighborhood was originally promised extra parking spaces. She says she doesn’t want more illegally built homes. She says the property is neglected and she doesn’t trust the owner. She said they’d always been told the lot across from them was unbuildable. She is also concerned about decreasing property values.
Joe DeVincentis, 12 Saunders St., is also concerned about the view.
Andy Goldman, 11 Pearl St., reads a letter from resident Debra Kirschheimer of 14 Lemon St., who opposes the project: when the taking occurred, she says the owner received compensation from the taking because the lot was “unbuildable.” She says the neighborhood is overcrowded with houses and the housing market is saturated. She also says there is a history with the neighborhood with the building of the Pearl St. houses, and that the residents were promised green space.
Goldman also says he opposes issuing variances for this project; he says one lot is too small and zoning should be strictly adhered to. He points out that a fire hydrant would have to be rerouted to accommodate construction. He says there has been recent flooding on the street and the neighborhood is too dense anyway. He says the property was bought on speculation, and the owner knew about the taking for the bypass, so he could not claim hardship. He says the owner sold part of the original land, which landlocked the other part. He also says state had negotiated with the Bridge St. neighborhood and residents were told the park would be built during the bypass negotiations. He also has concerns about views, lowered property values and snow removal.
David Brickner, 12 Pearl St., opposes, citing concerns about snow removal.
Dan Dugery, 11 Saunders St., opposes, citing concerns about views and the lead contamination on the property – he fears risks from airborne particulates, and says capping would be much safer.
Marlys Vaughan, 14 Cross St., says there is not enough room on the property for what they propose.
Valerie Calamese., 12 Saunders St., opposes, saying the view will be lost and the project will “box in” the neighborhood.
Leslie Byrne, 16 Saunders St., mentions the selection of the area as a neighborhood preservation district. She also says the property had once been considered unbuildable. She opposes the proposal, saying the dimensions are not right for the neighborhood. She is also concerned about property values. She says the project doesn’t fit with neighborhood character or historic preservation goals. She also says the neighborhood was once promised a park there.
Carol Chilton, 13 Saunders St., opposes, agreeing with her neighbors.
Councillor Sosnowski says a series of meetings took place when the bypass was proposed, and Mass Highway and previous City Planner Joe Walsh had promised pocket parks at the ends of the side streets, and that there was a lot discussed that never happened. He supports the neighbors’ position in opposing the project.
Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Curran asks if there is a DEP order on the property to clean it up; Grover says yes.
Harris asks if the lots on most surrounding properties were mostly one or two family homes; Leslie Byrne says they are mostly two family, with some single family and some three family homes. Harris asks if the same relief would be needed for one family homes. Grover says it’s an interesting question; they would still need lot area, but not lot area per dwelling unit, still a lot width variance, and it would probably fix the setback problem.
Curran asks if an AUL will be needed, and would it be allowed for single family homes; Grover says only if the property isn’t used as a residence because of the level of cleanup required. Because of the contamination, he says it can’t be a park – it would be capped and fenced. Grover reads a letter from the 14 Pearl St. owners, who support the project since the lots are currently unkempt.
George Fallon explains why the houses are positioned as they are toward cross St. Court, saying they had spoken to neighbors and agreed to give Leslie Byrne a sight easement and position houses so they didn’t block her view. He says the site is flexible and no one behind #16 would be affected.
Stein proposes a site visit – not a scheduled one as a Board, but suggests members visit the site individually. She also suggests submitting revised plans and speaking to abutters first about different possibilities for building locations.
Harris asks why one of the homes doesn’t have a garage; Fallon says to keep the building small.
Stein encourages soliciting more neighborhood input and suggests continuing to the next meeting.
Dionne asks for further explanation of the site cleanup plans; Curran asks if there is an LSP assigned, and if so, who is it? Grover says George Fallon is responsible and is conducting air quality monitoring. Fallon also paid for the city to relocate the water line that was misplaced and for the engineer to design the new location.
Curran moves to continue the matter to the May 20, 2009 hearing; Dionne seconds. The motion passes 6-0 (Dionne, Curran, Stein, Debski, Harris, Tsitsinos in favor; none opposed).
Stein says the Board will take a five-minute break.
Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to nine (9) residential condominium units, on the property located at 162 FEDERAL STREET, Salem, MA (R2 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover.
Attorney Grover presents the petition on behalf of the applicant and shows the Board a letter from the owner giving permission to go forward with this application.
Grover shows photos of the building, explaining it was once used as a convent and then as a nonprofit counseling service. It’s now a mental health clinic, which wants to relocate. Wharff has the property under agreement subject to his ability to convert it to a residential use. He is proposing a conversion into 9 units. Grover explains the relief needed and says the exterior is to remain the same except for a new entryway. He discusses access, which would be from Federal St., with traffic now diverted to Bridge St. He says there is an access easement over the Archdiocese property, a logical place for a curb cut. He says this proposal would turn a heavy commercial use into a residential one, also rerouting traffic away from Federal St.
As to the matter of hardship, Grover says there is 16,000 SF of space and a leaking oil tank. He says the cleanup would be expensive, and the property is being remediated now. Grover says this is different from other properties on the street because of the size and contamination. He says the proposal is consistent with zoning – it would change an intense commercial use to a residential use more appropriate to the R2 zone.
Dionne asks if this was originally a one family property. Grover says no, it was built as a convent. Curran asks what size the units would be; Grover responds by inviting Wharff to speak about the proposed layout. He says each unit would be 1500 to 2000 SF. There would be 8 flats and one townhouse. Each would be a 2 or 3 bedroom unit with a minimum of 2 to 2 ½ baths. He says finishings would be well done. He says he could contractually do 12 units, but felt that was too many.
Harris asks for clarification about the square footage, saying there is a discrepancy between the assessor’s records and the plan, and wants to know if the fourth floor and basement are included in the calculations.
Curran notes that the Board must determine whether the proposed use would be less detrimental to the neighborhood than the current use and asks the applicant to explain more about the current use. Grover says the property has constant regular traffic with people getting counseling and medication, and employees coming and going.
Stein opens up the issue for public comment.
John Carr, 7 River St., representing the Federal St. Neighborhood Association, says he opposes the density. He says this would be a substantial increase in use, and that the mental health clinic hours were just 9-4 – this use would be 24/7. He passes out an analysis of the buildings on Federal St. based on assessor records. He says he wants to strike a balance between the number of units, parking and yard space.
Harris asks if his numbers were from the assessor; Carr says yes.
Meg Twohey, 122 Federal St., says the neighborhood association has met twice about this proposal and feels the number if units is too high.
Shelby Hypes, 157 Federal St., expresses concerns about the neighborhood character considering the location in the McIntyre District. She says there are mostly one and two family homes here and opposes the construction of a basement apartment. She says she has confidence in Wharff to do a beautiful job, she just opposes the number of units. She gives the Board a petition with 53 signatures opposing the project.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal St., says Carr’s records on the size of the property are more accurate than the applicant’s. She says the current use generates mostly clients on foot and traffic is not currently a problem. She also says the building’s size is not unique and that many of the houses on the street are very large. She says the proposal has too many units.
Ken Wallace, 172 Federal St., says the broker gave out information on area sale history and that bigger units sell better than small ones.
Erica Udoff, 155 Federal St., opposes the project, saying it was too many people for the neighborhood.
Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal St., says most homes in the neighborhood are 2000 to 3000 SF, and he wants larger homes in the neighborhood to attract less transient residents. He also says there are too many units proposed.
Martin Imm, 174 Federal St., says the current use is not intense, and that the clients are quiet. He says there are occasional pickups. He wants fewer units.
Councillor Sosnowski notes the character of the homes on the streets and says the interiors are important as well as the exteriors, and that a building needed to have large units to keep the indoor detail that gives character to the homes on this street. He would support 4 units, maybe 5, but not 9, and opposes the current plan.
Stein closes the public portion of the hearing.
Stein notes that it may be helpful to the applicant to know that 95 Federal St. is averaging 1888 SF per unit, and another nearby building is averaging 2492 SF per unit.
William Wharff introduces himself and says he has a history of working with this neighborhood, and he is not the type of developer to force too many units on a neighborhood for a greater return on his investment. Wharff says, however, that with 4 or 5 units in the building, with each floor being 3000 to 4000 SF, the units wouldn’t sell in the current market. He says he welcomes the Board and neighborhood’s input, but he does have to be able to sell what he builds.
Harris says the density is too high. She is also concerned about the discrepancies in the size on the plan and the assessors’ numbers. She also doesn’t think the current use is detrimental to the neighborhood. She says people want large condos.
Stein says the applicant has the right to measure the building to develop livable space.
Harris says she wants to see revised plans, and Grover says they will have them for the next meeting.
Debski says she would like to see more open space. They could keep the parking layout and reduce the units. She says two spaces per unit and some visitor parking would be good, since this is an issue in the neighborhood. She also requests to see plans showing the footprints of each floor.
Curran asks applicant to look at the unit sizes and make sure they are in keeping with the neighborhood, and also to compare the lot area per dwelling unit with the rest of the neighborhood. She says she is stuck on the issue of whether this would be less detrimental to the neighborhood than the current use; she wants the plan quantified in terms of the current use’s number of people, hours of operation, trips per day, etc., and provide a comparison with this proposal.
Curran moves to continue the hearing to May 20, 2009; Stein seconds. The motion passes 6-0 (Debski, Tsitsinos, Dionne, Curran, Stein, Harris in favor, none opposed).
Stein and Debski leave at 10:20 p.m. Dionne assumes the chair role.
Continued petition of STEPHEN MORRIS, seeking a Special Permit to modify the currently nonconforming use (office space) to another nonconforming use (multifamily residential) to allow conversion of the existing structure to five residential units on the property located at 315-317 ESSEX STREET, Salem, MA (R2 zoning district). Attorney George Atkins.
Attorney Atkins presents the petition, showing updated illustrations in response to Board requests from the last hearing for front elevations and fenestration. He reviews the recent history of uses of this space, including a garage, photography studio and hair salon. He says they are changing their proposal from five to four units on the first floor since the last hearing. He explains these units are not additional Single Resident Occupancy units, as on the upper floors. He says the change from an office use to a residential one would not make the use more intense. He also notes the Historical Commission approved the change earlier that evening.
Dionne opens the issue up for public comment.
McKnight reads four letters received by the Board into the record. Two were in opposition (Mary Whitney and Nicholas Nowak, 356 Essex St. No. 2, and Jim Kearney, 1A Cambridge St.) and two were in support of the project (Jon T. Skerry, 348 Essex St. and Jim McAllister, 86 Federal St).
Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge St., speaks against the petition. He says there have been problems with obscenity and disturbances from the SRO units at that property, citing police records that show 136 complaint calls in 3 years. He says that while the first-floor units wouldn’t be an extension of the SRO use, he still opposes the project because it would increase density. He also says a residential use is not necessarily better for the neighborhood. He thinks the proposed use would be more detrimental.
Meg Twohey, 122 Federal St., spoke in opposition to the project, echoing Morris Schopf’s concerns.
Russ Felt, 31 Flint St., spoke in support of the project, saying it would enhance the neighborhood by getting rid of commercial uses.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal St., asks what size units these would be.
David Jaquith, the project architect, says they would be 500 to 800 square feet.
Shelby Hypes, 157 Federal St., says she has no problem with the exterior changes proposed, but she opposes it project because it will cause an increase of residential density. She also feels the apartments will be too small for a neighborhood of larger homes.
Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal St., speaks in opposition to the project. He says he is concerned that 500 to 800 square foot apartments aren’t going to be attracting the same kind of people that R2 districts are there to attract. He also says there’s a difference between upgrading the exterior and downgrading the average density and character of the neighborhood. He says Mr. Morris should fix the exterior décor of the building first and then come in with a better proposal.
Martin Imm, 174 Federal St., speaks in opposition. He says he doesn’t believe there aren’t prospective commercial available for the currently allowed use as office space. He also says the Federal St. neighborhood cares about and takes care of their homes, and has a stake in the neighborhood, but that you won’t find those kinds of people living in 500 square foot apartments. He says this project would denigrate meaning of the R2 district and the character of the McIntyre district.
At-Large Councillor Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus Ave., speaks in support of the project, saying it will add to the neighborhood. He wants to see the owner investing in and fixing up the building, which this project would help accomplish.
Ward 3 Councillor Jean Pelletier, 7 Lawrence St., says those who have spoken in opposition and who live on Federal St. are not direct abutters. He says the remarks made about socioeconomic class are insulting.
Jerry Schuerger, 319 Essex St., speaks in opposition, citing issues with noise, fire engines and police cars. He says he doesn’t care who the people are who rent the apartments, he just has an issue with the noise.
Ward 2 Councillor Michael Sosnowski, 17 Collins St., says he knows Mr. Morris and is familiar with his other rooming houses, and that he has responded well to problems there. However, this is an entrance corridor, and he says that a visionary statement for an entrance corridor doesn’t include 600 square foot apartments, and therefore he cannot support the project.
Dionne closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Curran comments that the SRO units are an existing use which will not be changing. She says this project was discussed for a long time at the last meeting, and that the proposal had included five residential units and commercial space in front. She says the Board asked the applicant to reduce the density and redo the façade, and both have been done. She also says the 500-600 square foot apartments are appropriate for this building, since it would make no sense for high end apartments to be located under SRO units. She says the SRO units are needed, since they are occupied. She also says that for a Special Permit application, the applicant does not need to show hardship.
Harris comments that the units are small. She says she’d be more comfortable with three units. She agrees there is not much demand for office space, but she does have concerns about the size of the proposed units.
Dionne asks Atkins to respond to this concern; he says the units are small, but there is a demand for this size unit. He says they have made the requested changes, and that the parking is onsite, which had been brought up as a concern at the last meeting.
Harris moves to approve the plan with three units, seconded by Curran. McKnight takes a role call vote; the Board votes 4-0 in favor (Harris, Curran, Dionne, Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed), with nine (9) standard conditions.
Continued petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO, seeking variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for twelve (12) single-family homes at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem, MA (R1 zoning district). Attorney George Atkins.
Attorney Atkins presents the petition, explaining revisions to the plans which were made in response to Board comments. He explains that one fewer house lot is being proposed, and the remaining lots are larger. He also explains that while the Board had suggested moving the entryway to align with Olde Village Drive, this was not possible because of the location of the traffic light control box. However, they were able to landscape a buffer area between the proposed subdivision and the abutter at 403 Highland Ave.
Dionne opens the issue up for public comment.
Wayne Silva, 20 Barnes Circle, opposes the project, saying zoning should be strictly adhered to and only the number of lots allowed by right should be built.
Dennis Colbert, 37 Clark St., speaks in opposition, saying 11 houses is too many. He also says that the ledge is not unique to this property, and that everyone in the neighborhood has it. He also has concerns about traffic congestion and feels the density would be too high.
Kevin Doherty, 24 Barnes Circle, asks if the ledge counts as buildable square footage. Curran says that it does. He expresses concerns about water pressure in the neighborhood.
Josephine D’Amato, 16 Barnes Circle, opposes, saying 7 houses would be fine, but not 11.
Ward 3 Councillor Jean Pelletier also says there are concerns about water pressure, but that the plans involving the new Wal-Mart design would improve it. He also says the city is working on the drainage issues on Clark Ave. and the Chapel Hill developer is also supposed to be doing something with drainage. He also notes that many lots in the area are undersized, and that many of those that are oversized abut and contain wetlands. He also asks for clarification on how many houses can actually be built there by right. Patrowicz says seven.
Christopher Lane, 403 Highland Ave, says he has met with the applicant and most of his concerns have been addressed. An easement has been proposed for the landscaped buffer area between his property and the proposed subdivision.
Attorney Atkins notes that this will have to go before the Planning Board also, and that through the subdivision application process, issues such as drainage, etc. would be addressed. Atkins also notes that if seven homes are built by right, rather than getting relief for a larger development containing a new street, all the homes would front onto Highland Ave.
Dionne closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Harris says the applicant has made the changes the Board requested. She says the topography is difficult, but that this is a nice design, and they have proposed a good solution. She says smaller lots make sense here, and it would be dangerous to have the homes fronting onto Highland. She says she disagrees that this would devalue surrounding properties.
Curran says the entrances onto Highland wouldn’t serve the city well, and that the additional cost of putting in a road is four additional units. She says this is a nice project.
Tsitsinos also says he likes the project.
Dionne says the project is well thought out and the design is good.
Curran moves to approve the application (plan revised 3/2/09), with eight (8) standard conditions. Dionne seconds, McKnight takes a role call vote, and the motion passes 4-0 (Curran, Harris, Dionne and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed).
Curran moves to adjourn the meeting; Tsitsinos seconds; all in favor. Meeting adjourns at 11:20 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
| 
