City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, July 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), Rick Dionne, Annie Harris, Beth Debski, Bonnie Belair (Alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate). Absent: Becky Curran. Also present were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner and Thomas St. Pierre Building Commissioner.
Stein opens the meeting at 6:35 p.m.
Approval of Minutes - June 17, 2009
Tsitsinos made a motion to approve the minutes of June 17, 2009, seconded by Stein and approved (5-0).
Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, seeking a Special Permit in order to increase the size of a legally nonconforming structure, and Variances from front and side setback requirements, to allow for the addition of a second story (with attic) and expansion of the footprint of the house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS STREET, Salem, MA, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District (R-2).
Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. He shows aerial photos of the lots on Saunders St., and refers to the last petition on Saunders St. where ZBA previously approved two new building lots. He shows photos of the property at 16 Saunders T.. Atty. Grover says Leslie wants to put in a second story and shows the architectural renderings and plans of the addition. He explains the property would be expanded about six feet into the rear yard. He says there are also two small “carve-out” areas that would be filled in to create more living space. He explains that if they were to go up a story only within the existing footprint, they could do that by right – it would not require a special permit for expansion of a nonconforming structure – so the height of the house is
not an issue. He says many of the properties in this neighborhood are two stories, and they are built close together, so the proximity proposed between buildings is in harmony with the neighborhood. Atty Grover invites Leslie Byrne to speak to the Board.
Ms. Byrne, 16 Saunders St., reads a statement to the Board explaining the previous uses in the neighborhood. She explains she has been involved with her neighborhood for many years. She says her house is unusually out of scale with the neighborhood because it is so small. She says she tried to purchase land from the property at 24 Saunders St. but was unsuccessful. She explains that she needs to extra space to accommodate stepchildren.
Harris asks for clarification of the one or two family exception; Stein and St. Pierre explain that if they stayed within their footprint, they could expand the house by right under the city bylaw.
Stein opens the issue up for public comment.
McKnight reads two letters in support and reports a voice message in support of the petition.
Frank Brown, 16 Pearl St., is in favor of the petition – he says it will be an improvement for the neighborhood.
Andy Goldman, 11 Pearl St. supports the project - he says the Board recently issued similar variances.
Liz McKinnon, 14 Saunders St., opposes the petition and hands the Board letters in opposition as well as a petition signed by several neighbors. She says her house would lose value and says she has an appraisal showing this. She says she would be too close to Leslie’s house, and she would also lose her view. She shows the Board pictures showing the distance between 14 and 16 Saunders St. Stein asks what part of her house this is. McKinnon indicates the kitchen window, by the middle of the house. Stein explains they have an absolute right to put in a second floor, and the only reason they need relief is because they want to expand the footprint. Stein says the Board needs to determine the appropriateness of closing in the porch and having additional space in the carve-outs; but that even
if the petition is denied Leslie could put in a second story. McKinnon says she should stay within her footprint and not increase nonconformity. Stein asks if that would impact her, or is it only the height? If she puts the extra six feet in the back, would it impact their house? Eric McKinnon, 14 Saunders St., says two windows at the back of their house would be blocked.
Grover says to clarify, the first floor would be an open porch, not enclosed, only the second floor space would be enclosed .
Harris says that what Leslie could build as of right still blocks the windows.
Kevin Carr, 12 Southwick St., speaks in opposition; he says they aren’t here under Section 8.4, but Stein says they are. St. Pierre clarifies the ordinance and says they need variances to expand the footprint as proposed, and a special permit to increase the nonconformity.
Stein says the McKinnons have given the Board 5 letters in opposition, and a market analysis, which she says is different from an appraisal. She says this is all in the file if anyone wishes to read it in its entirety.
Councillor Joe O’Keefe, 28 Surrey Rd., representing Ward 7, says he recognizes the applicant is in Ward 2. He says he was once Ward councilor of 2. He says he was on the city council when the zoning ordinance was adopted. He quotes the purpose of the zoning ordinance and states his opposition. He refers to another property on that street, but Stein says this doesn’t relate to this petition and says this is not relevant. O’Keefe asks why the petitioner doesn’t go out instead of up. Stein says they would need the exact same relief. She also says this would be more nonconformity than they are actually proposing. O’Keefe says the burden of hardship has not been shown and the zoning ordinance should be adhered to.
Melanie McKinnon, 14 Saunders St., first floor, speaks in opposition. She says if they expand back they will block her windows, affecting the light in her apartment, and it will devalue her parents’ home; these would cause hardship to her and her family.
George Fallon, 36 March St., speaks in support, and says enlarging the house would improve the vista of the street and would give the house architectural integrity. He says every house on the street could make the claim that any expansion would block view, and zoning rendered all these houses nonconforming. He also says every house on the street has a second story but this one.
Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Grover clarifies questions of going “out” – he points out the grade difference on the property and an existing retaining wall that is not structurally sound, and says that’s why they want to go up. He acknowledges the impact on the abutters’ property, but says these abutters in 1989 put on an addition and shows this in the photos, using the same section of the zoning ordinance we’re discussing tonight.
Grover then shows a photo of the factory that used to be at 24 Saunders and says there was no view at that time, that the factory was demolished in 1989 according to the building records. He says that property wasn’t purchased with the expectation of water views.
Belair says Leslie can go up by right, which would preclude the McKinnon’s view, tomorrow if they wanted to. She says she’s not minimizing the abutters’ concern, but she doesn’t see that not granting relief would address their concerns. She would be in favor. Debski agrees – she says by right she can go up. She says the additional relief requested really is minimal. Harris agrees that the real damage is that as of right she can build a second floor – this is the view problem. Dionne agrees – an additional six feet won’t make that much difference – one window is already blocked.
Stein clarifies the criteria for hardship for a variance, reading from the ordinance, and says the application is consistent with the ordinance: due to the shape and topography of the property and the size of building, Leslie has a hardship affecting her land and building, which does not affect others in the neighborhood. She notes that all the other houses are at least 2 stories, and that the shape of the land is such that it makes it hard to do anything. This addresses the first two requirements for a variance. As to the third: considering she can build up of right, the relief the Board would be granting is de minimus. She says no one has a problem with or has commented on the porch in front, so they are only talking about the extra 6 feet at the back of the house. Stein says this does not
nullify/derogate from the intent of the bylaw.
Belair moves to approve the petition, seconded by Debski, with eight (8) standard conditions. The motion passes 5-0 (Stein, Belair, Debski, Dionne and Harris in favor; none opposed).
Petition of KEN CORNEAU, seeking Variances from maximum lot coverage and minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks, to allow for the construction of a 14’ x 20’ one-story garage and breezeway attached to the house on the property at 30 ALBION STREET, Salem, MA, in the Residential One-Family Zoning District (R-1).
Jesse Tremblay, a contractor working on the project, presents the petition; the owners are also present. Tremblay gives the Board photos showing examples in the neighborhood of other garages. Ken Corneau, the petitioner, explains he was diagnosed with muscular dystrophy and says shoveling is difficult for him. Mrs. Corneau says her mother, who resides there, is elderly and this garage would make mobility physically easier for her.
Stein opens the issue up for public comment.
Paul Butler, 32 Albion St., opposes any variances granted. He shows photos of the view from his property. He says the vent for his propane tank is near the proposed garage and says it would be a fire hazard. Stein says they already park cars there, and Belair says isn’t it more of a danger to park the cars there if they are not enclosed in a garage? Belair says there is more danger of a car hitting the tank than the garage catching on fire. Stein says the tank is far from where the garage is proposed. Butler also says the construction would devalue his property. He gives the Board a petition from neighbors opposing the project. He says runoff from his garage roof would come onto his property and go into his cellar. Stein says his house is quite a ways away from the proposed
garage. Butler says the area is all ledge so he would get the runoff; Stein says it’s already paved.
Belair says he could bury his propane tank if he was worried about its safety. Butler says he can’t because of the ledge.
Ward 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols St., speaks against the petition, saying Gallows Hill is crowded and a adding garage on wouldn’t be justified. He says it’s too close to the neighbors. He also discloses that Mr. Butler is his uncle.
Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Belair says a garage would create more of a safety and buffer from propane tank, and it’s not problematic. She says the driveway is already paved. She thinks this is minimal relief, and there is hardship in the family that would justify this addition.
Stein asks what materials the garage will be; St. Pierre says it’s a very standard plywood garage, nothing unusual about it. Stein asks if he has any comments on fire safety issue. St. Pierre says he doesn’t understand the concerns about the tank; it’s far away and the garage would protect it. As to the runoff, it’s already paved, and gutters could direct the water elsewhere.
Dionne says he supports the petition – the project would help elderly and sick people.
Harris says it’s a small lot and a lot of relief is required.
Belair agrees, but says it’s consistent.
St. Pierre says a regular garage, detached, can have a 5 foot setback – that was investigated here to see if it could fit, but this wasn’t possible. Debski asks about what height it would be: St. Pierre says 12-14 feet to the top.
Stein says she’s surprised to hear such opposition to this project.
Debski moves to approve the petition with six (6) standard conditions, seconded by Dionne; the motion passes 5-0 (Debski, Dionne, Stein, Belair and Harris in favor, none opposed).
Petition of BASLAND DEVELOPMENT, seeking Variances from lot area and lot area per dwelling unit on 134 BRIDGE STREET and Variances from required side and rear yard setbacks, lot width, lot coverage, minimum lot area, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit on 142 BRIDGE STREET, to allow for the construction of a two-family house on the property at 142 BRIDGE STREET, Salem, MA, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District (R-2).
Brian Boches, the owner, presents his petition, and explains he negotiated purchase of the property and demolished the structure, which was condemned. He shows the plan and explains how access is limited to the property due to very little frontage. St. Pierre explains that this had been a problem property, it was derelict and had a lot of police activity. The city was in the process of tearing it down, but had to approach Mr. Boches for permission to access it across his property. St. Pierre says the City was fortunate that they didn’t have to tear it down, since Mr. Boches acquired it and demolished it himself. St. Pierre had also suggested granting an easement to allow for parking on the neighboring property.
Stein opens the issue up for public comment.
Steve Smith, 140 Bridge St., says he appreciates that the house was torn down. He’s not opposed, he just wants to make sure it’s not too congested and that there is enough green space on the lot. He is concerned about the size of the house. He says he owns part of the gravel right-of-way adjacent to the property.
Liz Hewitt, 9 Northey St., says she also appreciates that the house was torn down, but says she’s concerned about so much of the area next to her home being dedicated to parking. She asks if perhaps a fence or some type of buffer could be put up. St. Pierre says there is a requirement for a two-foot buffer, a grass strip of some kind, which keeps the parking back a bit.
Ward 7 Councillor O’Keefe examines the plans and asks for clarification of the property’s history. He asks how far the building would be from the adjacent one.
St. Pierre says if the councilor thought this could be a fire problem, the developer could come to City Council to ask for renumbering to ensure the Fire Dept could find it. He explains the process – when the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, the police discuss whether an address can be located, and if necessary, Council is approached for it.
Stein explains that an access easement could be granted to neighbors, but Mr. Boches must retain ownership of the strip for his frontage.
146 Bridge St., Bob Cummings, says during the teardown, part of the fence came down and asks if he is responsible for repairing that. Stein says they would talk about the fence. Cummings asks if the footprint of the building would be larger than what was there previously; St. Pierre shows him the plans. The applicant confirms the footprint is a little smaller than the original.
Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Stein asks if the fence at the rear of the property would remain and asks if parking could fit there with the required two-foot buffer. St. Pierre says the buffer must be impervious – either grass or mulch.
Belair asks how big the two units would be. Boches says 24 x 30 – two bedroom units. Stein asks about the condition of the fence; the applicant says they plan on putting up a new fence.
Stein says she thinks this is consistent with the bylaw, and an appropriate use for the property, and that the addition of parking is a benefit.
Harris moves to approve the petition with seven (7) standard conditions and special conditions: that the fence would be replaced, and the petitioner is to coordinate with the neighboring condo association to resolve the fence issue. The motion is seconded by Bonnie and passes 5-0 (Harris, Debski, Stein, Dionne, and Belair in favor, none opposed).
Petition of WOODBURY CT. TRUST, seeking Variances from required side and front yard setbacks, minimum lot area, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit, to allow for the construction of a two-family house on the property at 12 WOODBURY COURT, Salem, MA, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District (R-2).
Wayne Scott, the owner, presents his petition. He says he has spoken to his neighbors who have little parking and would like to use part of his property to access their parking space. He also says the property has coal tar contamination; St. Pierre says he will have an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) on the property.
Stein opens the issue up for public comment.
Chris Foley, 10 Woodbury Ct., says he is the one getting access to the right of way. He says the parking on Northey St. is difficult because of the narrowness. He says he’s happy Mr. Scott has included that in his petition. He says he had had concerns about the design of the house, but he met with the petitioner, and Mr. Scott has agreed to certain details, such as wood siding instead of vinyl and shuttered windows. He says his concerns are now satisfied. Mr. Foley gives the Board a letter with the items spelled out; St. Pierre says this should go in the decision, so Stein reads them into the record.
Rick Bettencourt, 5-11 Woodbury Ct., supports the plans provided that the conditions set forth by Chris happen. He asks if there could be no parking sign in front of the property. Chris Foley adds that he is concerned about snow removal on Northey because of flooding on their property. Stein says City Council has the authority to do this, but the ZBA does not, and they should speak to their ward councilor.
Chris Weaver, 11 Woodbury Ct., also supports the petition.
Stein says it’s an appropriate project, and also she is pleased about the provision of parking. She says there is a sufficient amount of green space.
The Board and St. Pierre discuss the neighbors’ request that the siding be clapboard finish, non-vinyl.
Dionne moves to approve the petition with seven (7) standard conditions and the following six (6) special conditions: outside construction to be wood or wood composite clapboards, but in any case not vinyl; shutters will be placed around all windows except when too close to be possible; decorative details will be added to doorways; more windows will be added to the side of the house facing the street, for a total of four windows on that side, and also on the side facing the backyard; six over six lattice windows will be used; applicant will provide a permanent easement of 10 feet in width. There are thirteen (13) conditions total.
Stein seconds the motion and it passes 5-0 (Stein, Dionne, Harris, Belair and Debski in favor; none opposed).
Petition of YMCA OF THE NORTH SHORE, seeking a determination under Sec. 7-3 (g) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow for proposed additional parking for 90 cars, in addition to the 246 spaces previously approved by the Board, on the YMCA recreation facility located at 40 LEGGS HILL ROAD, Salem and Marblehead, MA, in the Residential One-Family Zoning District (R-1).
Attorney George Atkins presents the petition. Also present are Paul Gorman, and Jack Meaney , Executive Director of the North Shore YMCA, Scott Patrowicz, engineer, Doug Jones, landscape architect, and Nick Menino, contractor.
Atty Atkins says the zoning gives the Board the authority to make a determination on the parking for this facility. He says the original parking determination was made based on an estimate of 4200 “units,” or users. He says the plan says if it is found that the parking is inadequate, a playing field could be turned into more parking. He says about 1,000 more users use the facility than anticipated. He says they are trying to prevent parking on the access road. He says Paul Gorman met today with Lt. Griffin of the fire department, since one lot blocked the fire access road, but Lt. Griffin had no objections. Atkins says Scott Patrowicz, the engineer, will meet with the city engineer to confirm that the parking lot meets all requirements for drainage and other requirements.
Atkins says they are taking away some green space, but would like to add green space elsewhere. He says they would like to speak about landscaping, since Councillor O’Keefe and neighbors have been asking about landscaping plans for the Y; he says the Planning Board provided its standard condition that says the landscaping plan must be submitted and approved by the City Planner. However, he says they missed the planting season. He says Doug has a preliminary phase I plan that will address the west end, east end by Riverside Ave., and throughout the lot as Phase I. The YMCA board also wants to proceed with a further master plan of landscaping which calls for Phases 2 and 3, which could involve walking trails in the Forest River estuary, connecting with other trails in the area. In the short term, they
want to address screening and buffering concerns.
Scott Patriwicz, 14 Brown St., the project’s engineer, shows the layout plan of the parking, which does not show landscaping. He says the fire road, which is 18 feet wide except for one area, will be flanked with two rows of parking, one on each side. He shows where some of the current parking will be removed and additional green space added. He says there will be a 10 foot wide pedestrian connection to the field. He says they are also adding 2 handicapped spaces, and that some parking spaces don’t meet criteria for size for parking spaces – they are striped but won’t count as legal spaces.
Doug Jones shows his full landscape plan. Atty Atkins passes out copies of the plans to the Board. He then presents the Phase I plan, which shows buffered areas between the site and neighboring properties. He explains his choice of trees and that they would allow for snow removal and would work well with the slope of the site.
Atkins says he knows timing is a concern of neighbors; he says if the Board approves the parking, they hope to go forward in the fall and take advantage of the phasing.
Dionne says people are concerned about the drainage and asks if grass pavers could be used on the site. Atkins says much of this was discussed with the Planning Board, and the original plan has a lot of drainage capacity in it, and improved the site’s drainage. He says they cannot have additional drainage flowing off the site.
Stein asks if they are going back to the Planning Board; Atkins says no, this was not a full site plan review, since it was originally proposed as a subdivision but then with modifications, it did not have to be filed under subdivision control.
Harris asks why parking wasn’t put on the entrance road; Atkins explains the geography of the site prevented it from being used, and also so parking on Leggs Hill Rd. would be avoided.
Stein opens the public comment portion.
Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., asks about flooding conditions on Loring Ave. across from the bridge; Atty Atkins says this is far off their site and the site doesn’t contribute to it. He explains stormwater capture and removal offsite is required.
Councillor O’Keefe, Ward 7, says he met with Marblehead’s Town Planner and Town Administrator about the landscaping program and he’s happy about it. He says he want the numbers of trees and their caliper to be part of the record, and that this should be the minimum. He also says the YMCA is before the Conservation Commission now for a Notice of Intent, and that he received a letter from David Knowlton about the separation of the pavement. He says any future trails should be for bicycles and not mountain bikes. Stein says the Board cannot decide that. Councillor O’Keefe says this as an opportunity for Salem and Marblehead to collaborate for the best possible outcome. He also says City Council woudn’t want additional parking on Leggs Hill Rd. He says he is
encouraged by the plan and supports it.
Ralph Roberto, 8 Riverside Dr., stated his support for the landscaping plan.
Brian Murray, 70 Leggs Hill Rd., asks about traffic studies – he wonders if additional parking spaces would attract more traffic. Atty Atkins says Marblehead required a post construction traffic study, and he says the traffic from additional parking would be negligible, according to the engineer.
Laura Zunick , 1 Angenica Terrace, is thankful no parking would be on lots across from her house, and hopes this doesn’t happen. She says it looks like near Angenica Terr there would be bushes, not trees, and that they were told the neighbors would not be able to see the building. She says they can see it, and it’s painted red, and she wants more trees to screen the area. She asks what the timeframe would be for the plantings. She refers to the house lots, and whether parking could go there. Atty Atkins says it is not currently part of any plan they have; it was reject by the Y. She asks about construction vehicles currently on those house lots. Nick Menino says rocks are being cleared away from it currently, and it may be used as a staging area for further construction.
Zunick says she wouldn’t want that.
St. Pierre says those lots are in Salem, he has not granted permission for them to be used in this way, and it must stop. Atty Atkins says he will discuss the construction with St. Pierre and with neighbors.
Tony Sasso, Marblehead Town Administrator, says that if additional parking is granted, the landscape work should be part of the condition, they should go hand in hand. He says the site needs to be cleaned up, and there is currently a basketball hoop on it, as though it were a court.
Harris asks if he is talking about the first phase of the landscape plan as a condition; Sasso says yes.
Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Stein says she has no problem with the parking proposal and asks if the cleaning of the lots could be conditioned; St. Pierre says he will require this from the YMCA.
Debski asks what can control the landscaping plan, since it was usually the purview of the planning board. Atkins says he would be happy to use as a condition for this decision. Stein says a condition should be added to screen spaces. Atkins says this is enforceable through the building inspector.
Harris asks St. Pierre if they start planting and the planting season isn’t favorable, where does that leaves us – could they still occupy the parking spaces? St. Pierre says it’s usually tied to a CO. In this case, it’s different. Atkins says if they anticipate a delay, they will come back to this board and discuss it. Harris asks if they can post a bond?
Belair makes a motion to approve the petition with the condition that the Phase I landscaping plan be done, referencing the July 15 2009 Phase I Landscaping Plan, subject to approval by the City Planner. Dionne seconds the motion and it passes 5-0 (Harris, Dionne, Debski, Stein and Belair in favor, none opposed).
Old/New Business
McKnight says she has received a letter from the City Solicitor regarding 7 English St. – she passes out the letter and explains that the condo owners have been told they must apply for variances to keep their parking spaces. St. Pierre explains the owner sold the two units he didn’t get parking approval for. This decision itself hasn’t been remanded – but the parking spots need further relief if they are to remain.
Adjournment
There being no further business before the Board of Appeals this evening, Belair made a motion to adjourn the meeting seconded by Dionne and approved (5-0).
Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight
Staff Planner
Approved by the Board of Appeals 8/19/09
| 
