City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, June 17, 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, Bonnie Belair (alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate).
Those absent were: Annie Harris.
Also present were Thomas St. Pierre (Building Commissioner) and Danielle McKnight (Staff Planner).
Stein opens the meeting at 6:40 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
Minutes – Debski moves to approve minutes of the 5/20/09 meeting; Curran seconds. Motion passes 5-0.
Public Hearings
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 matter to the August 19, 2009 meeting. Curran moves to continue the petition, Dionne seconds. Motion passes 5-0.
Petition of DEBRA KIRCHHEIMER seeking Variances from Accessory Structure regulations (side and rear yard setbacks) to replace an existing 10’x16’ shed with a new 8’x12’ shed on the property at 14 LEMON STREET, Salem, MA (R2 zoning district).
Mary DeLai, co-owner of the house, presents the petition. She says that once the old shed is demolished, she wants to put the shed on a bed of gravel; it will sit on timbers to prevent animals from coming in.
The Board has no questions, and Stein opens the public comment portion of the hearing.
Mrs. Kobierski, 16 Lemon St., requested a few years ago that the applicant do something about the damaged shed because she was getting potholes in the pavement on her property. Asks who will repair damage to her property.
Stain says this isn’t an issue for the Board, but says she’s unaware of sheds causing this kind of damage and asks St. Pierre if he knows whether shed could damage a neighbor’s property. St. Pierre says no.
Mary explains that due to a disintegrated water pipe, there are sinkholes on both properties.
Stein clarifies that Mrs. Patorsky wants the shed to be fixed; she says she does and want damage on her property fixed.
St. Pierre says as a condition the petitioner should have to ask the city to ensure there are no additional leaking pipes causing the pothole problem.
Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Stein says the petition is not inconsistent with bylaws. Belair moves to approve with 7 conditions; Debski seconds, and the motion passes 5-0.
Petition of PETER COPELAS seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum number of parking spaces required, and a Special Permit to change from one nonconforming use to another, to allow for the conversion of a warehouse/woodworking business to six (6) residential units on the property at 3 WEBSTER STREET, Salem, MA (R2 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover.
Attorney Grover presents the petition, for the potential developer, Lewis Legon. Also present are Peter Pitman, architect, and Peter Copelas, whose family owns the property. Attorney Grover explains the property is on Webster St., a short but wide street. He shows the site plan, pointing out that the building occupies the entire site up to lot lines, and there is no room around the building. He says the building itself is unusual – it was built in the late 1800s as maintenance facility for the Bridge St. trolley. He shows photos of the building and says it is different from the rest of this residential neighborhood. He says has been used in the past as a warehouse. The lot is 5000 SF, and the building is two stories and just under 10,000 SF of space. The plan is to
convert it from a commercial to a residential use permanently. The applicant proposes 6 condo units and 3 interior parking spaces. Attorney Grover says there is no room for parking outside, so they designed 3 spaces inside. He says there will be no enlargement of exterior structure of the building. However, it will be changed dramatically in terms of architectural design, but no dimensional zoning relief is needed. Attorney Grover says given this is a residential zone, he doesn’t think there’s much question that it’s in keeping with intent of the zoning. He says it’s unrealistic for a 10,000 SF building to be two-family. He says this is a legal nonconforming use (commercial), and if not developed for residential, will be sold for commercial use. The most recent use was woodworking shop. He says making it residential instead of commercial would be a public benefit, and also discusses the potential tax
revenue of the condos. For variance requirements, he says this is very different from the other properties in the neighborhood, and there would be a hardship for the owner to do only what zoning requires. He says it would not be a detriment to the neighborhood.
Lewis Legon, of 37 Walter St. and the potential developer, speaks about the plans. He says much of his work is in Salem and shows his other condo developments in historic buildings. He says he and his team have a lot of experience with distressed buildings. He also says when he put property under agreement, he knew he needed neighborhood support, so he got a list of abutters from the City, sent out letters, and spoke to the neighbors. He says that originally, the plan was 8 units with no parking, and the neighbors were unhappy with this. He says they wanted the building renovated, but didn’t want that many units. Legon says he got price concession from Copelas because he would not be able to do as many units as he hoped. He then went back to the neighborhood with a
new plan. Now there are 6 units planned and 3 parking spaces in the building. Legon says this is the best he can do. He says not everyone liked new plan, but some did. He says the biggest issue has been parking; he has calculated what parking would be available on the street. He shows an aerial photo of the neighborhood and says he counted out linear feet from pleasant to Webb and estimated there was room for 27 spaces for parking on Webster St. He says all other residences on street have their own off street parking, there are two spaces right in front of the building, and its unlikely every resident would have two cars. In order to anticipate how many cars would come, he asked Roland Brophy, a trustee and resident of 254 Lafayette St., another project developed by Legon, to comment on the parking experience at 254 Lafayette St. Legon passes out a letter from Roland Brophy.
Peter Copelas speaks about the property, saying his family has used the first floor for storage of laundry equipment, spare parts, and for a linen delivery business, and rented out parts of the first floor and all of second to a variety of tenants. He says he no longer needs that space for business purposes and intends to sell the building. He says if they can’t go forward with this project, his family was unlikely to pursue any other residential options here and would move forward with marketing the building commercially to a buyer. He says he has been asked about commercial use of the building; he tells Board that Peter Laundry is a corporation and has openly used the first floor for over 25 years for commercial uses. He feels a residential use would be a better use going forward.
Peter Pitman of Pitman & Wardley Architects presents renderings, discussing historic details. He shows the juliette balconies flush with surface of balconies; he says they will use the existing garage openings. He says there are no dormers being added or any enlargements of the building.
Curran asks for parking layout; Pitman says they don’t have it yet pending decision.
Dionne asks how exhaust will be handled; Pitman says through the HVAC ventilation.
Stein opens public comment portion of the hearing.
Stein reads aloud the letter Mr. Legon handed out, then summarizes each of the nine letters McKnight has received in last few days. Five letters were in support of the project, and four letters were in opposition, including one from Ward 2 Councillor Michael Sosnowski. Stein says the letters are on file if anyone wants to read them in their entirety.
Paul Guido, 15 Pleasant St., is concerned about density. He says it’s a problem that there won’t be any outside space for the property, and thinks with small apartments there will be quick turnover, and this would be negative to the neighborhood. He also has concerns about parking and disposal of trash – he says there is nowhere to put a dumpster on the property, and all trash would have to be within the building. He thinks six units is too much for the space, and it would be nicer if four were built instead.
Joe Schork, 16 Pleasant St., says parking is a problem on the street, especially in summer. Stein asks if some parking could be dedicated resident parking with stickers.
Paul Guido says the nearby music studio has applied for a permit for a café in music school, and this would bring more parking if granted.
Valence Prina, 19 Pleasant St., says parking is a problem on the street.
Don Tucker, 5 Webster St. introduces his attorney, William Delaney, who represents Donald and his wife, Tina Tucker, direct abutters. He passes out photos and a diagram showing the houses near the development and notes that all five direct abutters are opposed. He says the neighbors measured the parking area available on street to show that of the 21 spaces near development, 19 are used on a regular basis. He also shows a photo of the back yard near the development, belonging to the Tuckers. The yard goes to property line of 3 Webster. He notes that on the plan, there are trees shown on either side of building, but they don’t exist now; they are shown on driveways, so they couldn’t be planted because they aren’t on their property. He encourages the Board to focus on
legal zoning issues instead of historic issues; he doesn’t wish to disparage the development team, he simply wants the applicant to meet requirements for the Special Permit and variances. He says they fall short of they legal standard, that most of the presentation was about aesthetics. He says the request is more akin to a zoning change request and that this project would require variance approval even if it was in the R3 zone. This lot would not even have enough square footage per unit for one unit. He says R3 is more appropriate for apartment accommodations than R2 and suggests this would be a substantial derogation from the intent and criteria of zoning ordinance. He says the hardship is economic; certainly for any business person it must be worthwhile for anyone to do, but this isn’t what zoning is about. The Tuckers had a commercial building near here, and a few years ago were faced with same dilemma – to sell or develop – and they converted their commercial building
into their single family home. This building could also be converted into a one or two family home with limited variances required. He says this wouldn’t be as profitable, but this isn’t what zoning is about. He says because of privacy, density, parking, impact on character of the neighborhood, this would be a detriment.
Stein asks him if his clients are saying that none of the neighbors have off street parking. He says no, but those spaces are used regularly.
Christine Michelini, 8 Pleasant St., is concerned about parking, especially considering the new music school and overflow from Bridge St.
Duncan Cox, 1 Webster St. opposes, and says his biggest problem is the idea that a commercial use is bad for the neighborhood – abutters prefer a commercial use. He says the density would be too much, and parking would be a problem. He says he will have serious privacy issues, along with the Tuckers. He says the benefit of a commercial use is that the people who work in the building or have business there leave at the end of the day, and this wouldn’t increase density. He opposes resident-only parking because public curbs should be for the public and doesn’t think it’s fair for visitors and workers from outside the area.
Celia Erwin, 4 Webster St., is afraid this would set a precedent. Stein says the Board evaluates each project it its own merit separately.
Gus Sousa, 117 Webb St. opposes because of the density and says the project would take quality of life away from neighborhood. He says he owns another piece of property next to his house, a developable piece that he might develop if the neighborhood is going to be this way.
Sarah Spencer, 7 Spring St., speaks for herself and the other condo owner in her building. She says she respects other neighbors opinions, but her property also abuts the building. At first was she opposed to this but says Lewis has tried to meet them halfway and it’s her feeling that this would bring a positive renovation project to neighborhood, so she supports it.
Jerry Smith, 24 Pickman St., says this comes down to a decision of whether this meets zoning requirements, but also what kind of impact it will have on the neighborhood. He says this will be an improvement to the neighborhood and will clean up blight. He concedes there are privacy issues, but this is already an issue in neighborhood; he says they can all see into each other’s houses. He feels the parking issue has been addressed, and also that everyone has off street parking. He doesn’t see why resident-only parking would be a problem. He says the parking issue won’t be overcome by not improving the neighborhood – he thinks there’s adequate parking to support this building. He wants to see these ownership units in neighborhood, which these are, rather than
rentals. This is where transience comes from, not from the owners of small condos. He doesn’t think anyone would be able to do anything else with this property other than this.
Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Curran: is the building vacant now? Grover says no. Curran asks if the top floor is vacant. Copelas says for last 6 months, no tenant has been on the 2nd floor. Attorney Grover says it’s used for storage and machinery.
Curran says the building presents a problem because it sits on the lot lines. She would be inclined to approve this, but thinks the parking relief asked for, given the neighborhood, is too great. She says if it’s possible to reconfigure some of the ground floor units so they are providing at least one space per unit, given there’s some on-street parking, and given their other similar projects, she thinks that would work. She says it’s not practical for such a large building to be a 1 or 2 family house, but at least one parking space per unit is appropriate.
Stein says she wouldn’t require 6 spaces, but there should be more than 3. Overall, she thinks it’s a great project, but a two to one variance request is steep anywhere in Salem. She appreciates they’ve worked with the neighborhood before coming in, but this is hard to grant. She recognizes it’s not practical to do a 2 family house.
Belair sympathizes with them about the parking and says everyone who lives downtown struggles with it – it’s the nature of city living. But she says the hardship associated with the building is the fact that it sits on the entire lot, and not much can be done with that situation. Having said that, she’s also seen Mr. Legon’s developments, and they are of a high quality and would only be an improvement to the neighborhood. She is in favor of the project as is.
Debski says she has no issue with the parking, and says it was good they were able to provide 3 spaces. She visited the site twice and no cars were on the street; she also noticed everyone had off street parking. She says this would be a wonderful reuse of this building. She asks if they will go to the Planning Board for site plan review; Attorney Grover says yes. Debski says the neighbor made an important point about trash. Attorney Delaney interjects that the trash photo was staged by the neighborhood to show what it would look like. Attorney Grover says his client agrees to put in a trash compactor as an appliance, and they would need to have common recycling. Attorney Grover says the staging is exaggerated and the trash receptacles could be addressed with condo rules. Debski asks if there is some storage space in parking area. Pitman says there is, as well as storage on both floors, mechanical and trash storage.
Dionne says Mr. Lagon has done some wonderful work, and reminds neighbors that if this building is marketed commercially they don’t know what they are going to get. In his neighborhood, Salem Glass had a lot of trucks, a lot of employees, and they parked everywhere in neighborhood. He doesn’t want people to think that by keeping it commercial, they will know what it will be like or used for. Vehicles could be a huge problem. He says he doesn’t know if there’s a way to reduce the units – he knows this kind of renovation is expensive. He asks if offsite parking is possible; Attorney Grover says possibly, but they have not yet been successful in finding anything. He says it’s a major issue, and agrees they are requesting substantial relief, but one
thing that convinced him it was appropriate was the abundance of parking that appears to be on Webster St. He points out that in their random satellite photo, only one car was on the street. He also points out this is within walking distance of the train station.
Tsitsinos says he likes the project, and that parking is a problem in much of Salem. He says Webster street, most of the time, is half empty. He thinks there’s plenty of space. He points out this is right off Bridge St., and he doesn’t want to see a body shop or storage unit – those won’t be attractive. He asks about the prices of the condos; Legon says the first floor would be starter units, $225,000-$235,000. The 2nd floor condos would be 1200 SF and would be in the $279 range.
Grover says they tried to find more parking, and it was just not feasible. He says if sold, the new use could be much more intense, and it required a certain amount of density to make worth developing.
Attorney Delaney says the Board is missing the point about the hardship criteria; there is a viable economic use, a commercial one, and all the abutters support it. He suggests the hardship argument fails. Stein asks if the Board is ready to vote and asks which members are voting tonight, since two alternates are present. By seniority, Belair has the vote, not Tsitsinos.
Debski moves to approve the petition with eight (8) conditions; Stein seconds. The motion passes 4-1 (Debski, Stein, Dionne and Belair in favor; Curran opposed).
Stein asks the Board to take a five-minute break.
Petition of BVS CORPORATION seeking Variances from required lot area, lot width and minimum rear yard depth to allow for the subdivision into four single-family house lots of the property at 16 SCOTIA STREET, Salem, MA (R1 zoning district). Attorney William A. Quigley, Jr.
Attorney Bill Quigley presents the petition (owner Bill Sullivan is also present) and explains the history of the property: the current owner purchased it in 2008. It was one large vacant lot, where the street ends. He passes out a 1961 plan approved by the Planning Board of the originally proposed subdivision; the lots don’t meet today’s standards for area. Attorney Quigley says the previous owners applied to subdivide into four lots in 2005 according to the 1961 plan; the ZBA denied this because the applicant failed to appear and failed to do a number of things he promised the city. Attorney Quigley says the current applicant and owner has met with city departments, including Planning, about the proposal. One concern of the departments was the lack of turnaround space. He says that while there will be ample parking, right now, there’s no turnaround for safety vehicles on the road. They are proposing to grant an easement to the city at the end of the roadway into a T that
would come into the properties and allow for a turnaround. He says the lots will be between 4800 and 5200 SF, and that this won’t be a detriment to neighborhood, but will fit in. He says the lots are larger than the majority of those in area.
Stein asks if the Board has questions.
Tsitsinos asks where the driveways are for last two houses. Curran asks if the fire department has seen the plan. Attorney Quigley says yes, and that it meets code.
Stein says if the turnaround easement is to work, they need to keep it clear at all times, and it doesn’t make sense for cars to park there.
St. Pierre says he was at the One Stop meeting where Fire Marshall Griffin was present – and that she was not that concerned about the proposal, because vehicles can’t turn around now. For their purposes, it’s no different - possibly better - but there’s still no room for a fire truck to turn around.
Chris Sparages from Hayes Engineering says that in calculating the turnaround area, they didn’t have the numbers for the largest truck for Salem, so they used Beverly’s ladder truck dimensions.
Attorney Quigley says when the applicant acquired the land, it was contaminated with asbestos, and this has been cleaned up. Curran asked if there was a use limitation; Attorney Quigley said no.
Curran asks if the 1961 lot layout lost its status because the lots merged; Attorney Quigley said yes.
Debski asks if garages are proposed. Sullivan says yes, a garage for each house is planned.
Debski asks if blasting will be required; Attorney Quigley says they haven’t done testing yet for ledge.
Tsitsinos asks how they would maintain the access easement. Attorney Quigley says they will need to address that, and says that on a private road in Salem, the snow removal is the residents’ responsibility.
Dionne asks where the snow would go; Attorney Quigley says at the backs and sides of the property.
Debski asks if they will file a definitive subdivision plan with the Planning Board; Attorney Quigley says they will, but this is the first step.
Stein opens the public comment portion of the hearing.
Ward 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols St., states his opposition, saying the project would be way too dense in that area. He says his mother’s family lived in that area – much has changed in Gallows Hill – and it is very cramped. He says this proposal was already turned down in 2005, and that when the petitioner bought the property, he knew the site was contaminated. He says he talked with Mr. Sullivan on phone about meeting with the neighbors, but the meeting never happened, and that communication with abutters had been poor, and during the cleanup, the neighbors had a lot of questions/concerns. He says there’s no reason four houses should be at end of that street.
At-Large Councillor Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus Ave., says he was on the Board in 2005 when they came to the decision to deny the proposal. He noted that a lot of relief was needed and questioned where garages could be put on the lots. He notes the lots are very undersized, and says four houses are too many for this under-20,000 square foot lot. He suggests two houses would be better. He asks if the turnaround easement is included in the square footage; if not, these are even smaller lots. In talking with the neighbors, he feels it’s too dense.
Ward 3 Councillor Arthur Sargeant, 8 Maple Avenue, says a variance shouldn’t be given for 5,000 SF lots where 15,000 SF are required, pointing out that that’s 33% of the required size, and on four different lots He says this property really consists of one buildable lot and another 5,000 SF. As to the hardship, he says the property was bought after the hardship happened, and the Board can’t consider that a real hardship. He notes there is a lot of neighborhood opposition and asks the Board not to put a burden on the neighbors.
Bob Cormier, 25 Summit St., says he and wife the own abutting property, behind lot 4. He notes that the plan looks like nearly the same one presented in 2005. He says he and his wife and neighbors are lower down from this property, and they are concerned about the potential height of the new houses. From his house, the property is at eye level. He compares the proposed houses with some of houses in neighborhood, and says he has 13000 SF, as do several neighbors. He says Mr. Sullivan bought the property knowing about its problems, and trying to put four houses in such a small area is not a good idea. He says the previous owner built up the land, dug a hole, and buried trees, and the proposed lots will have problems with sinkholes. He also says there’s ledge five feet down so
they won’t be able to put garages underneath.
Dorothea Cormier, 25 Summit St., said they should do something about the drainage, and that she gets the water now on her property. She says if they start building, she will get more water, and there’s now four feet of fill in there. She is concerned that the houses will block her sunlight and asks how high they will be.
Dana Duhaime, 11 South St., says she was here in 2005 and this looks like the same project. She is opposed and says the small lots don’t fit with the neighborhood. She’s also concerned about snow plowing.
James Moscoviz, 10 Rollins St., opposes because of concerns about density and traffic.
Scott Weisberg, 17 Tanglewood, is concerned about accuracy of the fire truck calculations, since the Salem truck is a hook and ladder, unlike the Beverly truck the applicants based their calculations on.
Cathy Von Cory, 23 Summit St. says she and Larry Olcott, also of 23 Summit, oppose because of flooding concerns; she says flooding is already serious.
Debra Conroy, 12 Scotia St., opposes.
Tom Walsh, 9 Scotia St., says he always thought they could legally build 2 houses. He gives a history of previous proposals for 8 and 4 units and says fire dept. felt there should be a cul-de-sac there. He hopes they could build 2 houses – this would be good for the neighborhood. He says during the cleanup, there were disturbances.
Kimberly Roberts, 11 Scotia St., is opposed because of flooding, traffic concerns and the safety of the children on the street. She says it’s too small a parcel for that many houses.
Suzanne Kao, 14 Scotia St., says there are no sidewalks – they have on street parking – and only one car can get through. She is against four lots because of safety and traffic concerns.
Ivan Kao, 14 Scotia St , says that in winter, snow removal is a problem and makes the street narrower.
Suzanne Kao says she would appreciate being informed if there is any other work/cleanup on the site.
Irene Fleming, 4-6 Scotia, says there is not enough room for 4 houses.
Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Stein says she can’t see four houses there, and the gentleman’s suggestion for a cul-de-sac might be worth pursuing. She says one or two houses may still require variances, but she would be more willing to entertain that, and these lots are tiny.
Curran asks if the Board could we vote, if the applicant was willing, to approve 2 lots. Stein says yes, since that would be less intense than what was asked for, and this would help with fire and other issues.
Stein asks Chris Sparages to contact the Salem fire department about the dimensions of Salem trucks..
Dionne says he was on the Board in 2005, when this was denied, and he doesn’t think anything’s changed at this point; he can’t see any real differences.
St. Pierre says that this petitioner differs from the previous one in that the prior owner caused the contamination, but this applicant has done the cleanup. The Board had said no to four lots, then he asked to come back with three, but failed to show at the meeting. St. Pierre says this is different group, and they have shown good faith by doing the cleanup. Additionally, they have a professional engineer on board.
Curran says two or three lots might work and a better turnaround could be accomplished through that. She asks if they are allowed to use the private way at the end; could they incorporate it into the lot if needed? Attorney Quigley says they can only assume direct control of the property they own. Curran asks if that part of the private street could be abandoned. Attorney Quigley says yes. Given the direction of the Board, he asks if he could request a continuance.
Debski asks if he could hold a neighborhood meeting as Councillor Ryan suggested. Stein says she knows it’s a lot, but could they show the garages, etc.?
Attorney Quigley asks if all the Board members need to be present at all the hearings; Stein says any five of the six present.
Curran makes a motion to continue the hearing to August 19, 2009, seconded by Dionne and passed 5-0.
Petition of ERIC COUTURE, seeking a Variance from required lot area per dwelling unit to allow for the replacement of a single-family home with a two-family home at 43 SCHOOL STREET, Salem, MA (R2 zoning district).
St. Pierre tells the Board this petition was here 6 months ago, brought by Joe Barbeau, who withdrew without prejudice.
Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. He says the applicant is under agreement to purchase the property, and that a prior petition was filed a year ago on the same property. He hands out to the Board a more finished plan than that which was filed, and says it is not substantially different.
Attorney Grover shows photos of the existing house. He says it has not been officially condemned, but probably should be, and it is not habitable. He shows how close the house is to abutting houses. He says his clients are proposing to raze the structure and rebuild in a different location on the lot. They want to move the building to a central location on lot so it complies with the zoning setbacks. They are not seeking any dimensional relief. He says one variance required is lot area wouldn’t even support a single family residence. His client has researched consistency of this proposal with others in neighborhood; he shows how the proposed dimensions are similar to others on School St. He says he is not proposing something inconsistent with surrounding neighborhood;
additionally, this is a slightly bigger lot than most. He says there is plenty of opportunity for new landscaping, green space. He shows how the old driveway came right against the abutters, and now it will be moved to front of building. He says they can screen the parking from the street.
Stein asks Board if they have questions. Debski asks if the proposed building is smaller than the house there; Attorney Grover says yes, and that it is modular construction.
David Langlois, 43 Barr St., says he is here because no one showed him the plans. He says the lot is too small and he has questions about drainage. He says the land is pitched toward his house and the foundation will push water toward his house. He is concerned about the large number of trees in that yard and their effect on the foundation and whether they might fall. Attorney Grover says the trees are not very healthy. Stein says it may make sense to take them down. Grover asks if it’s the neighbors’ preference to take them down; Langlois says yes; Grover says they can do that.
St. Pierre says a drainage plan is required if more than 2 feet of land is altered, though he says that if the land is pitched, it’s very slight and the grass area should take care of that. He’s more concerned about the parking area – the drain water from the parking lot should be taken care of . Grover says they could submit a drainage alteration plan. Curran says they will need to – this will be more than 2 feet. St. Pierre says the parking area could easily be pitched to School St.
Carol Bannister, 41 Barr St. – says she wouldn’t oppose as long as there’s no pavement going in back. She is bothered by the trees, and says two fences have been broken by them in her yard. She is also concerned about parking. Stein says they will have four spaces on the property.
Curran asks if they are fencing the yard; Grover says yes.
Jacqueline Langlois, 43 Barr St., is concerned about the distance between the doorway and her yard; Grover says it’s 15 feet. Stein says this is more than the city requires.
Sheryl Holstead – School St. – opposes because it’s too large for the property. She’s concerned about parking. She doesn’t see how four cars will fit on property. Stein says the plan shows four spaces. Curran explains they are moving the existing house.
Ellen Hayes, 44 Barr St. is opposed because she feels there will be trash, too many people, and too much noise.
Maria Vasilakis, 45 Barr St., is opposed because she doesn’t want a rental property. Stein says their intent is to sell as condos.
Councillor Steven Pinto says new condos are appearing all over the city in neglected properties; many of these are run down and foreclosed. He says that statistically, this brings down neighbors’ property values 5%. He says they have an eyesore here, and while this project isn’t perfect, it will keep their property values up. He says these developers are very approachable and tells the neighbors to just communicate with them.
Belair says this is an eyesore, and the proposal is a 100% improvement, and is definitely consistent with the neighborhood; it will only increase property values; you can’t control who your property will be sold to, and any house can be sold to anyone. She would think the neighbors would embrace this as a benefit. She says parking is tight – but they’ve accommodated parking. The neighbors don’t like the trees, and they’re taking them down.
Debski agrees that this is a good project and applauds the applicants for providing parking.
Stein echoes their comments, and is also glad the developer is taking care of drainage and other problems. She is surprised by the dissent – she says this is a wild improvement over what is there now, especially considering the parking and tree removal; this will be a fresh, new house. Curran says this is an allowed use, and they have eliminated all nonconformities on lot the except those they can’t control. She asks why lot width is not part of the variance. Grover says because they are not changing it. Curran says going forward she thinks there is new case law that has changed that. She says this is a good project, and asks if they can require rodent baiting prior to demo. St. Pierre says the demo permit has the Health department on the routing slip, and they
will take care of that.
Dionne says this is a good project, especially from a safety perspective. Stein says it’s good they are getting those two houses away from each other. Tsitsinos says the houses are so close together they are a fire hazard, and this will also clean up that whole area.
Tsitsinos moves to approve, the petition with eleven (11) conditions, seconded by Dionne. The motion passes 5-0 (Debski, Stein, Curran, Belair, and Dionne in favor, none opposed).
Curran moves to adjourn the meeting, Stein seconds, and the motion passes unanimously.
Stein closes the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
| 
