City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.
Those present were: Beth Debski, Rebecca Curran, Robin Stein (chair), Richard Dionne, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate).
Those absent were: Bonnie Belair (alternate) and Annie Harris.
Also present were Thomas St. Pierre (Building Commissioner) and Danielle McKnight (Staff Planner).
Stein opens the meeting at 6:38 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
Dionne moves to approve minutes of the 4/15/09 meeting; Stein seconds. Motion passes 5-0 (Tsitsinos, Dionne, Stein, Curran, Debski in favor, none opposed).
Public Hearings
Stein says the Board has received a request to continue the 32 Beach Ave. petition. McKnight confirms that written confirmation has been received requesting to continue the matter to the August 19, 2009 meeting. Dionne moves to continue the petition to August 19, 2009; Stein seconds. Motion passes 5-0 (Tsitsinos, Dionne, Stein, Curran, Debski in favor, none opposed).
Petition of EMAD S. YOUNAN, M.D., seeking a Special Permit in order to change one nonconforming use (adjunct to a dermatological clinic) to another nonconforming use (physician’s office), for the property at 111 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem, MA (R2 zoning district). Attorney George Atkins.
Attorney Atkins presents the petition. He says Dr. Younan is the prospective purchaser of property, which is currently owned by Dr. Hans Van Weiss, also in attendance. Atkins gives a brief history of the uses of the building, saying it was previously used as gas station, garage and used car lot. Now, they wants to use it as an adjunct to a dermatological practice that is located next door. Atkins says there will be one physician and two assistants on site at any one time. He says Dr. Younan is affiliated with North Shore Medical center, and his practice is pain management, not physical therapy. He says the number of patient appointments at this facility will be limited, and hours would be 9 a.m. – 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. Appointments will be set in 3 hour
blocks, and not every day, since he has other sites in addition to this proposed office. Atkins gives the Board Dr. Younan’s resume and a brochure explaining his practice.
Atkins says he met at the site with Councillors Steven Pinto (At-Large), Joan Lovely (At-Large) with neighbors and went over a number of issues and concerns with them. The issues identified at this meeting were expansion of the building, traffic and parking. Atkins says the building is planned to be expanded, but within allowed setbacks; they do not want to increase its nonconformity. He says the addition complies with the R-1 zone dimensional requirements. Atkins also says this complies with the parking ordinances, which deal with professional offices and medical clinics – he says this is not a medical clinic. They are using the professional office standard – three spaces are required, and this plan shows nine. The flow of traffic will be from an entry at the existing curb
cut on Highland, one way, around the rear of the building and exiting to Wilson Rd. Atkins says the neighbors were concerned about the exit, since this area is subject to a lot of cut through traffic from cars avoiding Highland Ave., and there are also speeding problems. Atkins says they talked about trying to not add to those issues with this project, and after talking with the neighbors and councillors, they have made improvements. He hands out a summary of proposed changes including contouring the exit to force traffic to the right out of the site so cars couldn’t turn left. This would also include “right turn only” signage onto Wilson, and “no entry” signage” from Wilson St. into the exit. Atkins says they are willing to have the Board put in conditions related to these restrictions.
Atkins then explains the planned landscaping: hedges along the left and rear between the site and the neighborhood behind. He says he spoke to the neighbors about the height of the vegetation, and they have agreed to put in 6 foot shrubs. There will also be a grass buffer along Wilson and Highland. Atkins says the councillors also agreed to pursue no parking signs along Wilson and they will follow up with City Council with that effort. Atkins also says the grounds will be repaved – they are in poor condition now. He says no dumpster is associated with this, since the practice has no need for anything but regular trash collection. He also says the building will be improvement over the current building; the siding will be clapboard, and the appearance will be significantly
improved. He says this is a limited, non-intense use.
Currans asks if any other Board needs to approve this; Atkins says no.
Stein opens the issue up for public comment.
Stan Poirier, 8 Cottage St, lives near the back end of the existing parking lot. He says he is glad to see they’re willing to put in 6 foot planted shrubs. He says that years ago the old trees were cut down; now he is more exposed to the property and wants that buffer again. He says if the shrubs are planted, that should satisfy his immediate concerns, and asks the Board to make this a written condition. He says he’s happy there won’t be dumpster on the property. He also says he’s been assured that this change of use doesn’t mean the property is not able to have an R1 use again.
Stein says the Board doesn’t have the authority to change the zoning.
Poirier applauds the applicant for trying to control traffic issues and says this is a problem on Highland. He says there has been a lot of cut-through traffic on Wilson when Highland Ave is backed up to the light, and that’s the reason the neighbors are asking for a right turn only restriction out of site.
John Lunt, 6 Greenway Rd., supports the proposal and thinks the applicant has shown a lot of consideration for the neighborhood. He says the traffic situation is what it is; this project probably won’t impact it much. Other than that, the only other concerns he has is the trash; trash is constantly coming off Highland. He’s glad there won’t be a dumpster. He wants to make sure the landscaping is conditioned. He says that as long as the concerns brought up are addressed, he thinks this is the best possible use for that corner.
At-Large Councilor Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus Ave., thanks Atkins and Younan and says he had a good meeting and that they had addressed the neighborhood’s issues. He says he and Councilors Pelletier and Lovely will work to get “no parking” signs along Wilson Rd. He says the plan is a good fit for the neighborhood.
Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
St. Pierre comments that the required handicapped van spot is missing from the plan, but that this is easy to fix. Also, he says the City is cracking down on snow plowing, and he doesn’t see a snow storage spot. He doesn’t want to hold things up tonight, but before the applicant starts building, he will want to see a plan showing where he will put snow. Atkins says this is a small lot, but it has more parking than they need, so they may use one parking spot for snow.
Stein says they may have to lose a spot if they make spot 9 into a van spot. Atkins says he doesn’t want to pile snow at the intersection, which would block car views.
Curran says the landscaping should be done prior to occupancy.
Debski says this is a huge improvement over what’s there now.
Stein says the plan is consistent with City site plan standards, and she is always happy to see applicants and neighbors working together before coming to the Board.
Debski moves to approve the petition with five (5) standard conditions, and the following special conditions: parking signs shall be installed that show right turn only out of site ontoWilson, and two signs that say No Entry from Wilson Rd.; curbing on the left side of the exit as shown on the 8.5 x 11 plan; six foot high shrubs shall be installed as per the plan on the rear property line on north and east side of property prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy; a snow storage plan is to be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. Dionne seconds. McKnight takes a role call vote; the petition passes 5-0 (Dionne, Stein, Curran, Tsitsinos and Debski in favor, none opposed).
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.
Atkins presents the petition. He says the Board asked them to try again to reconstruct the building on its original footprint. He says he has shared the new plans with the neighbors who appeared at last meeting and Attorney Keck, who represents the condo association.
Atkins says the photo of the original structure is their best guide for the reconstruction, along with the floor plan they obtained from the Registry of Deeds. He says the architects made a similar design to what was there, but with a smaller basement level and living space. He notes the height is 23 feet from the peak of the mansard roof to the ground, and that this would seem to qualify as the type of “dollhouse” described by neighbors at the previous meeting. He says the entry porch and deck are similar to the original. He shows the location of the old and new buildings, using the footprint drawn on trace paper over the new plan to show they are in the same place. He shows how the building is set back a foot from the property line on two sides, a little closer in than the
original. He says the total square footage is 1277; the original was 1272. Also, the parking is from a parking plan that was provided with Registry plan.
Stein opens the issue up for public comment.
Kevin McGrath, 3 Arthur St., asks what the legal dimensional requirements are for the B1 zone; St. Pierre reads them from the zoning ordinance. McGrath says there wasn’t a second egress in the original; it wasn’t added until later. He comments on the location of the building at one foot off property line and asks if construction will encroach on his property.
Atkins responds that legally, they can’t go onto Mr. McGrath’s land. St. Pierre says the foundation can certainly be poured and the building constructed without going onto neighboring land. However, the fact that it’s on a 1 foot setback will restrict the amount of windows/glazing allowed because of fire safety regulations. Atkins shows how windows were eliminated on that side on the first story. The window on the mansard roof is set further back.
McGrath asks if they will keep the fence that is up. Atkins responds that they will work with McGrath and discuss his preferences about the fence before construction.
Josh Levesque, 268 Jefferson Ave. states his opposition, and says he’s concerned about the value of his house. He does not like the project.
Attorney Keck, representing the condo association, says this is vastly improved from what it was, but notes the issue of the 1 foot perimeter – by bringing in footprint closer, he says the parking will be more difficult. He notes the side porch is clearly different from the original, and that it comes into parking area a little, making the last space difficult to access. He is also concerned about not having a dumpster in parking lot. He also says the fence is the condo association’s fence, that they’ve spent money on it and want to keep it in good repair. He says they also don’t want their parking blocked by construction. He says there should be no overnight parking by construction vehicles. He says most other issues have been addressed; the building is similar
to what it was. For that reason, the condo association isn’t opposed to the building. They are just concerned about effects on the driveway.
Stein closes public comment portion.
Stein asks Atkins if they can shorten the porch a little. Atkins says they can redesign that and the deck. He also says they don’t want to block parking, and suggests they meet with the condo association, contractor and neighbors, to agree how to approach construction.
Debski says the plan seems to satisfy the issues that have been raised and that it looks similar to what was there originally. She is glad the condo assoc is not opposed. Stein understands there are people who don’t want anything at all, but this does look like what was there before, and she doesn’t think it would be appropriate for the Board to require more than what was there. She strongly encourages continuing to work with the neighbors.
Tsitsinos says the stairs have to come back a foot and half. Atkins asks what the building code requires. St. Pierre says this won’t be a problem.
Curran moves to approve petition with nine (9) standard conditions and the following special conditions: construction vehicles on the site can’t be parked there permanently; no dumpster can block any of the parking; and any common area damage sustained during construction is to be restored to its original condition, including the fence. Stein seconds; the motion passes 5-0 (Stein, Curran, Debski, Dionne and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed).
Continued 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 requests to continue the petition to August 19, 2009. Debski moves to continue the hearing, Stein seconds; the motion passes 5-0 (Stein, Curran, Debski, Dionne and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed).
Continued 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 briefly revisits the history of site and says it is important to the hardship element of the case. He shows plan with the portion the state took by eminent domain outlined. He says when his clients purchased the land, they had wanted to file a full subdivision. They did file plans, but withdrew them when it became clear the state would taking some of the land for the bypass. He says two parcels were left, and that they are large, but with dimensional oddities that make development difficult.
He explains the differences between the previously proposed plan and the newly revised one. Last time, two duplexes were proposed for a total of four units. He shows the old plans with original configuration. He says the biggest change is that they’ve reduced the density from four to two units: they are now proposing single family dwelling units. At the last meeting, there was concern about density, the size of the buildings, and interference with views. After that meeting, George Fallon, the developer, who is also present at tonight’s hearing, scheduled a meeting with Ward 2 Councillor Michael Sosnowski and neighbors. Grover shows a map showing the locations of the residents George spoke to. He says they also brought out their engineer to figure out how to relocate
the buildings to preserve site lines of abutters. As a result, the new plan shows the building locations have changed to maximize views from neighbors. Grover says there is a substantial change in elevation from the neighbors to the proposed structures, and as a result, the proposed houses are set much lower than the houses behind them, so views shouldn’t be too impacted. He hands out renderings of the proposed houses.
Grover says the variances requested are very minor; on lot C1, 100 feet of lot width is required, and 91 is requested. In all other respects, this lot complies with zoning. Lot coverage is 9%; 30% is permitted. For Lot C2, two variances required: lot size and rear yard setback – 18 feet is proposed and 30 is required for the rear yard. Grover discusses the other lot sizes around this property; he shows the assessor’s plate showing properties he has marked that are smaller than this one. He then asks Fallon to talk about the selections he made to try to meet the neighbors’ needs.
George Fallon, 36 March St., says that after listening to neighbors’ concerns about views at last meeting he brought the engineer out to position houses so they’d have minimum impact; they also we shrunk and lowered them. In response to the concerns that the duplexes were too bulky, he says he tried to find home designs and plans that would accommodate those concerns. He notes the neighborhood has an eclectic mix of architecture, and thought building a small house on C2 presented a good opportunity for a seaside cottage style with a partially exposed foundation. He used a design similar to bungalows popular in the first half of the 20th century. He says even though they’re single family houses and most of neighborhood is 2, 3 and some 4 family houses, these would
be compatible with the neighborhood.
Dionne says the plans are altered considerably, they are very nice, and the applicant really listened to neighbors; he says the project would be minimally invasive.
Stein opens the issue up for public comment.
Joe DeVincentis, 12 Saunders St., has a concern with the entrance driveway of lot C1 – he says entry will be challenging. He points to the boulder in the road, part of the new state design at roadway extension, and says the driveway entrance doesn’t look right by that boulder, and wouldn’t this be a fire hazard? He also says the fire hydrant would have to be moved. He shows the Board a picture at the end of the roadway. Tsitsinos looks at photo, says he’s looked at the site a lot and doesn’t think it will be problem. Stein says the Board we always conditions their approvals on fire department. approval.
Grover tells the Board he attended a One Stop meeting with the City, and Lt. Griffin says fine to pay to move the fire hydrant.
Bob Chilton, 13 Saunders St., says he’s not opposed, but was confused about how many stories the houses were. Fallon says one house is one story and the other is 1 ½ stories. Since the elevation goes down, they would build into the site a little. Chilton apologizes for not being able to meet with Fallon sooner and says he would like the opportunity to meet with him and look at the plans; Fallon agrees.
Jamie Donovan, 20 Cross St., says the bike path is being built, and won’t it cut across this land?
Stein says the bike path easement doesn’t go across this property.
Donovan says this is too small a property to put a house on, and he opposes. He also says the City was supposed to put a drainage pond near the site. Stein says that pond is already there.
Andy Goldman, 11 Pearl St., says the applicant came back with nice designs and the closest abutters happier. Based on these designs, if he decided to change them after approval, would he have to come back? Stein says the Board normally requires applicants to build according to submitted plans, and that it’s St. Pierre’s call to decide if a plan is different. St Pierre says it would have to be a very minor change not to have to come back to the Board, and that any footprint, dimensional change, etc. would have to come back – unless they were building less.
Goldman says that at the last meeting, there were a lot of people opposed but that didn’t seem to have an effect. He says the Board should take the public’s interest into account and that a lot of people were in favor of keeping this land as open space. He says that before the applicant bought the land, it was clear it would be taken for the bypass, and as far back as 1996 there were conversations between state, city and neighborhood recommending a park. He says Fallon bought the property and had access to the recommendations that it be a park. As to the hardship argument, Goldman says the previous owner was compensated, then sold part of land, and there was therefore no hardship. However, he says he’s more pleased with the designs, that they take into consideration what
the neighbors want.
Liz McKinnon, 14 Saunders St., says if she had her choice, nothing would be built, but the second version of the plans is much better than first. Her biggest concern besides views is parking. She says there is a lot of space left on that land, and it would be nice to reserve some of that space for parking. Stein says the new plan has a long turnaround in the driveway and invites McKinnon to come look. McKinnon also says the houses were moved to accommodate only one neighbor.
McKinnon says at the first hearing on this project, there were people who spoke in support of the project who worked for Tache Realty. Fallon says that’s not true, one of the people who spoke last time had worked for them once but hasn’t for years. McKinnon says she is concerned that any illegal building will not be addressed as had happened in the past in this neighborhood. Grover says they can only build what’s approved.
Leslie Byrne, 16 Saunders St., says that although Mrs. McKinnon thinks the house was moved for her benefit, it was actually built for everyone’s view, it’s at a lower scale, and is a nicer home. She says Mr. Fallon worked hard to make the plan work with the neighborhood, and that it’s better than it was.
Valerie Calemese, 12 Saunders St., asks how snow removal will be addressed. Fallon says there is room at the end of the driveway. Tsitsinos says he agrees there’s plenty of room. Stein asks if the Board can condition plowing; St. Pierre says we don’t typically for single family homes, but that the City does go out to clear out dead end streets after storms.
McKnight says she received documents pertaining to the hearing from Ward 2 Councillor Michael Sosnowski, who asked her to distribute them. She passes them out to the Board; they consist of: “Renewing the Bridge Street Neighborhood: A Report and Recommendations from the Bridge Street Neighborhood Advisory Committee, October 17, 1996”; a report from a Mass Highway Department public hearing held on 1/21/97; an untitled map showing a park at 24 Saunders St.; and a letter from John Cogliano, Commissioner, Mass Highway dated 12/4/03. McKnight explains these documents contain recommendations that were once made that the property be turned into a park if the City acquired it, and that the Mass Highway letter explains that not all of the property was taken by the State for the Bypass Road.
Debski raises the hardship issue, say that as a contaminated site, it would be costly to clean up. Grover says this hardship is not a stretch – they have a very strong hardship case; the state took what was otherwise developable land and left a difficult parcel, and the applicant has also spent money cleaning it.
Stein comments that if left undeveloped, the land would not be a park because it won’t be cleaned to that level. Grover confirms this and says it would will be capped and fenced.
Stein says the architectural styles should be included in the conditions.
Debski moves to approve the petition with seven (7) standard conditions and the special condition that the houses are to be built consistent with the drawings and plans submitted to the Board, with the house on lot C1 consistent with the bungalow style and the house on Lot C2 consistent with the cottage style. Stein seconds the motion; a role call vote is taken. The motion passes 5-0 (Stein, Curran, Debski, Dionne and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed).
Debski moves to adjourn the meeting; Stein seconds. Motion passes 5-0 (Tsitsinos, Curran, Dionne, Debski and Stein in favor, none opposed). Meeting adjourns at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight
Staff Planner
| 
