City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.
Those present were: Rick Dionne (chaired the meeting in the absence of Robin Stein), Beth Debski, Annie Harris (arrived at 7:30 p.m.), Bonnie Belair (alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate).
Also present were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner.
Those absent were: Robin Stein (Chair) and Becky Curran.
Rick Dionne opens the meeting at 6:32 p.m.
1. Approval of Minutes: August 19, 2009.
No comments or edits are suggested. Debski moves to approve the minutes of August 19, 2009, seconded by Tsitsinos and approved 3-0 (Belair, Tsitsinos and Debski in favor, none opposed).
2. Old/New Business: Request of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP, LLC to extend Variances previously granted for a period of six (6) months for land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE, Salem, MA. Attorney John Keilty.
Attorney Kielty presents the request. He says they are seeking an extension of the previously granted variance for this project. He says the extension is needed because there was a 1500 square foot parcel in the middle of the land that was acquired by the city which was thought to have been taken for taxes, but it was discovered it was not. He says there had been an effort to take the land, but the owners (the Livingston family) paid their taxes and were then in a position to put a price on the land. Since then, Atty Keilty says he has been working to acquire that land since the grant of the variance. He says the Livingstons were at all times aware of the application, and they have come to an amount they would like to be paid and the city is working with the developer to remedy that. He says because of
the situation, and another issue with the SESD – there is an alleged sewer pipe on the land that’s not used – but there doesn’t appear to be an easement, and SESD is in the process of working with the City Engineer to determine whether it will be moved or abandoned. He says he believes it will be abandoned, and once that situation is remedied, they will be able to finish the project.
Dionne asks if anyone in the public would like to comment.
Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., says she isn’t stating an objection to the project, but she has a question: she says she called, and Shallop Landing LLC is not registered with the state. Atty Keilty says it was fully registered in December of 2008.
Debski moves to approve the extension, seconded by Tsitsinos and approved 4-0 (Debski, Belair, Tsitsinis, and Dionne in favor, none opposed).
3. Public hearing: Petition of MICHAEL BUCCO seeking a Variance from maximum building height (number of stories) to allow for the addition of a dormer on the third floor of the two-family home on the property at 72-74 WEBB STREET, Salem, MA, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District.
Michael Bucco presents the petition. He explains there is already a third floor on the house, where the bedrooms and the existing bathroom are, and he and his wife would like to put a dormer on. The new dormer would become a new bathroom, and the existing bathroom would become a new bedroom.
Tom St. Pierre asks if it has been explained to the applicant that if only four board members are present, the vote will need to be unanimous for the petition to pass, and that the applicant has the right to wait until five members are present tonight or postpone the hearing. The applicant this has been explained to him, and he prefers to go forward.
Belair asks if there is another egress on the third floor – an interior stairway? Mr. Bucco confirms there is an interior stairway.
Dionne opens the issue up for public comment. No comments are made. Dionne closes the public comment portion.
Belair says she is satisfied – this is a reasonable thing to want to do; her only concern is that they cannot create a third floor rental unit. Dawna Bucco explains no part of the house is now or will be rented. Tsitsinos notes that they are taking out the second floor bathroom. Bucco clarifies that the bathroom that exists today will become a bedroom.
Belair moves to approve the petition with eight (8) standard conditions, seconded by Debski and approved 4-0 (Belair, Debski, Tsitsinos and Dionne in favor, none opposed).
Attorney George Atkins, who is here to present the petition for 284 Canal Street, requests to wait for five Board members before his petition is heard. McKnight explains Attorney Grover, who is presenting the 162 Federal Street petition, also wishes to wait for five members.
4. Continuation of public hearing: 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, in the Residential One-Family Zoning District. Attorney Bill Quigley.
Attorney Quigley presents the petition. He says when he was before the Board last time, there was considerable neighborhood opposition to the proposal, and his client has now revised the plans. He says the first plan showed a four-lot subdivision; the current proposal now shows two house lots. He says one concern had been emergency vehicle access. Now, a cul-de-sac is being proposed, and he thinks this will meet the requirements of the Fire Department, but he says this will be dealt with when they are before the Planning Board.
Attorney Quigley says another objection had been that neighbors had not been given an opportunity to see the plans and they have now had an opportunity to meet with the developer.
Debski asks what relief they are now asking for. Atty Quigley says the relief they are now asking for is significantly different from what they requested originally; he says the lot size is no longer an issue. He says he does have one question – lot 1 has a 13.5 foot setback and asks if this can be considered the side setback based on how the house is situated. He says if it’s the side, it’s conforming, but if it’s the rear, he would need relief, since the rear setback would be 10 feet. Debski points out that the rear setback requirement is actually 30 feet. Atty Quigley says they had positioned the houses to make them comply. Belair asks if the only relief they now need is the side and rear setback; Atty Quigley says that’s correct. St.
Pierre points out they still need relief from lot size, since the minimum size is 15,000 square feet; Atty Quigley agrees that he was mistaken.
Belair asks about the distance between the houses. Atty Quigley says the distance is 40 feet, and asks if they need a certain distance between buildings if those buildings are on separate lots. St. Pierre says his interpretation of the Zoning is that the distance requirement is between buildings on one lot, not adjacent lots. Atty Quigley says if there is any doubt that they do not meet side setbacks, he would like to request that relief as well. St. Pierre confirms that the petitioner now needs lot area, and side and rear setbacks.
Belair asks if this will now be going to the Planning Board; McKnight and St. Pierre say they do not need to go to the Planning Board for a subdivision, but for a two-lot ANR. St. Pierre says they may need a waiver of frontage from the Planning Board. Atty Quigley says he thought the frontage requirement was met. St. Pierre says the decision will state that the project is subject to any other approvals that may be needed by other City boards or commissions; and approval is given as per the plan submitted.
Dionne opens the issue up for public comment.
Ward 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols St., says the neighbors had opposed it when they had four lots proposed, and that two is a much better proposal. However, he says they are still concerned about flooding, since the area slopes down from Albion St.; the Cormiers and Olcotts have flooding problems. He says Mr. Sullivan has met with them and has said he would work on the drainage to alleviate the flooding.
Councillor Ryan says that Lawrence Olcott, 23 Summit St., sent him an email opposing the project because of the proximity of one of the houses to his property, the placement of the houses at an angle (which he says is not consistent with neighborhood), and flooding concerns. Councillor Ryan says Olcott’s house is pretty far from the property line but wonders if the house can be turned slightly. Councillor Ryan says he himself is not opposed to the proposal as long as there is a condition to alleviate the flooding and one to add trees as a buffer for privacy for abutters.
There being no further comment, Dionne closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Belair comments that the developers have significantly changed their proposal – they cut it in half – and have listened to the concerns of the neighbors. She says she will not have a problem with this as long as they condition the drainage and landscaping. Debski asks if there is a fence or wall along the property line; Councillor Ryan says there is a stone wall on part of it, but a few evergreens or a fence would help with buffering.
St. Pierre asks, through the Chair, what is proposed for the drainage. Atty Quigley says there was a drainage plan done for the roadway from the previous plan, but he can have the engineer update this to show drainage coming off the roof and going straight into dry wells. The proposal would be to drain everything out through the cul-de-sac toward the roadway. St. Pierre asks through the Chair if the applicant would be amenable to submitting a drainage alteration plan. Attorney Quigley says they would be willing to do that. Tsitsinos asks about the stone wall - would they be removing it? Councillor Ryan says there is a stone wall on part of the property, but he doesn’t know whose wall it is, so he’s unsure if it will be removed. He says the wall doesn’t have to be
removed, and they don’t want trees removed.
Belair asks what type of houses they will build; Sullivan says a 2200 to 2500 square foot, 2-story Colonial or Cape. Debski asks if they will be building garages; Sullivan says they are hoping to.
Debski moves to approve the petition with seven (7) standard conditions and three (3) special conditions: Petitioner will submit a drainage alteration plan to be approved by the engineering department; trees on the site will remain; and petitioner will submit a landscaping plan for the tree warden’s approval prior to issues. Belair seconds the motion, and it passes 4-0 (Belair, Debski, Dionne and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed).
At 6:00 p.m., Dionne announces the Board will take a short recess until the fifth Board member arrives.
The meeting resumes at 7:30 p.m. when Annie Harris arrives.
5. Public hearing: Petition of JOHN BERTINI, TRUSTEE, JAB TRUST, seeking a Variance from minimum front yard setback, and a Special Permit for the extension of a non-conforming structure, to allow for an addition onto the restaurant on the property at 284 CANAL STREET, Salem, MA, in the Business Highway Zoning District. Attorney George Atkins.
Attorney Atkins presents the petition. He says the petition is for a Special Permit and Variance because of the nonconformities of the building – the side and front yard setbacks. John and Frank Bertini, owners of the restaurant, are present. Atty Atkins says they wish to create additional bathroom space located at the front of the building, and in order to do that, they will need to reduce the setback. He says there are proposed City improvements to Canal Street, and one of the proposed changes is the elimination of parking in front of the building. This proposal will work with that. He says it will also eliminate a free-standing pylon sign. He says there are certain things that can’t be addressed until the City completes its plans for improvements, such as new telephone poles,
landscaping, etc. He says they will wait until the improvements are complete to do their construction. He also addresses the floor plan of the restaurant and says this is the only way to add bathroom space without eliminating seating or having an awkward foot traffic situation within the restaurant. He says there will also be handicapped access ramp and on the left of the building at the bar entrance, there will be another vestibule with handicapped access as well. He says this is not in the petition because this part of the plan does not require relief.
As to the Special Permit requirement that the increase of nonconformity may not be more detrimental to the neighborhood than what exists, Atty Atkins says there will be improved public safety due to the elimination of parking in front, visual improvements due to the removal of the pylon sign, and conformance with the Canal St. improvement plans. He says the use is already a conforming one.
Dionne opens the issue up for public comment.
At-Large Councillor Thomas Furey, 77 Linden St., speaks in favor of the proposal.
Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., speaks in favor of the proposal.
Attorney Atkins adds that there is sufficient parking on the site to meet the requirements of the Ordinance, even with the elimination of parking in front.
There being no further comment, Dionne closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Belair asks for clarification about the location of the bathrooms in relation to the front entrance. Attorney Atkins confirms there will still be access to the front, even with the new bathroom space.
Dionne asks if the existing bathrooms will be eliminated. Mr. Bertini says they have not yet made that decision.
Harris asks for clarification about why they need a Special Permit. Attorney Atkins explains that this is because they are changing a nonconforming structure; they are increasing that nonconformity.
Belair says removing the parking from the front will increase the safety – it’s currently dangerous. She agrees with everything that’s been said and says the Board should support a longtime Salem business. Dionne agrees that it’s a good proposal.
Belair moves to approve the petition with seven (7) standard conditions, seconded by Debski and approved 5-0 (Harris, Belair, Debski, Tsitsinos and Dionne in favor, none opposed).
6. Continuation of public hearing: 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, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District. Attorney Scott Grover.
Attorney Grover presents the petition. He thanks the three Board members who have listened to the meeting tapes and submitted Mullins affidavits in order to participate in the vote.
Atty Grover says Bill Wharff, the developer, and Peter Pitman, the architect, are here tonight. He briefly reviews the proposal. He hands out copies of a revised parking/site plan to the Board. He says the largest change since the beginning of the project is that Bill now has an agreement with the archdiocese to include a abutting parcel of land in the proposal, which has allowed the building to be moved on the site, and allows for more green space and additional parking. Atty Grover says at the last meeting, the Board asked them to provide a letter from the Archdiocese authorizing the use of this land in the plan, and he now gives the requested letter to the Board.
McKnight reads the letter into the record.
Atty Grover says the addition of 10,000 square feet of new land from the archdiocese significantly reduces the density of the project (which increases the lot area per dwelling unit), and adds parking spaces (18 now, in comparison to the originally proposed 15, and the required 12), as well as green space. He says the other major change in the project is the reduction of the number of proposed units from 9 to 8. He says that all of these changes were in response to a series of meetings they had with the Federal Street Neighborhood Association, to address their concerns. He says the lot area per dwelling unit is now significantly larger than originally proposed – about 3200 SF. He says at the last meeting, these plans were newly completed, so at the request of the neighborhood association to allow more
time for the neighbors to review, they continued to the petition to this month. He says, however, that they have a purchase and sales agreement with deadlines that need to be strictly adhered to, and would not like to move forward with a vote this evening.
Dionne asks if all the parking is now shown in the green area on the plan; Atty Grover says yes, and confirms that access to the parking area is from Bridge Street. Atty Grover says the other favorable thing about this plan is that the access easement, based on the original deed of the property from the Archdiocese, could have been anywhere over the parking lot of the St. James school, but the developer has agreed to extinguish this easement in exchange for the recently added parcel of land. Harris says it looks as though they are allowing the Archdiocese to continue using part of their parking area on the property at 162 Federal St., and asks if this was part of the agreement; Atty Grover says it is.
Harris asks if there is pedestrian access to Federal St.; Atty Grover says there is. Wharff says the front entrance is only for the first floor unit; in order to access the elevator, and the other units, the side entrance by the parking area must be used. Harris says it’s a shame since this is a walking neighborhood, and it would be nice for people to access the units from the front, but Atty Grover says this was in response to concerns of abutters, who were concerned that the new units would infringe on neighborhood parking, which is already scarce.
Dionne opens the issue up for public comment.
Kenneth Wallace, 172 Federal Street, gives the Board his own alternative floor plan and accompanying narrative. He discusses access from the street to each entrance. He says those who live in units 2,4, 5 and 6 will park on Federal St. because it’s easier to park there than the lot provided in back. He says the neighborhood association opposes this. He says they commend the developer on the addition of parking in the back but says the distance to walk from the back is too far for people to use.
Harris points out that these are private parking spaces versus street parking. Belair asks if parking is his objection to this petition; he says yes, he is opposed to new residents parking on Federal St.
Tsitsinos says he has been paying attention to Federal Street and there is no room for occupants of the building to park on the street.
Attorney John Carr, representing the Federal St. Neighborhood Association, 9 North Street, passes out a package for each member and says the proposal is very close to what the neighborhood wants. He says they had originally criticized the proposed nine units, and they felt the change to eight units was a big improvement. He also says they applaud the acquisition of the land that increases the minimum lot area per dwelling unit from roughly 1600 to 3100 SF. He also says they love the green space. He says the only problem they have, which the handout addresses, is one unit. He says they wanted to deal with the problem of math; the total square footage of the building as stated on the plans is 16,359 SF, whereas the assessor’s records indicate the building is 10,312 SF. He attributes the
discrepancy to the fact that the assessor doesn’t assess for living space the basement or attic, so they agree that based on the plans, the square footage is 16,359. He draws the Board’s attention to page 2 of his handout, indicating a comparison between this property and 95 Federal St., a former nursing home, and 7 Carpenter, particularly the latter. He says they are trying to bring something more in character with the neighborhood, such as these two projects. In order to achieve this, he would like the project to be reduced by another unit for a total of 7 units. He says the third floor units are small; he wants to see fewer, larger units in to make them more “of the neighborhood.” He says they have no problem with the units on the first and second floors, but the third floor unit has a duplex, and unit 8 is 660 SF and another is 550. He says they are advocating that the space in the third 3rd floor unit be
allocated to the other 3rd floor units so that the density would be more like that of 7 Carpenter. He says the rehab costs of 7 Carpenter were huge. He says they would enthusiastically endorse the plan and they think they have compromised more than halfway on the density. They want a development that will bring people invested in the neighborhood.
There being no further comment, Dionne closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Harris asks Atty Carr if he is commenting on the parking, as Mr. Wallace did.
Atty Carr says the real solution to the parking is the reduction of the number of units. He asks if the Board could put in conditions that would keep residents from parking on the street. He says he hopes there will be conditions in the Board’s decision putting controls on the parking on Federal St. from these residents – that they would be ineligible for parking stickers or passes. He says they are anxious about the parking situation, yet says they can endorse the plan with a slight tweaking of reducing one unit.
Belair says the Board can’t compare this property to 7 Carpenter St. and 95 Federal St. – those conversions were done over a decade ago, and with the economic climate having changed so much, renovations are much more costly now. She says she would rather see this residential use rather than something else that could be here; she says this proposal is definitely in harmony with the neighborhood. She says the relief requested is not that great – it’s two variances and a Special Permit just to change one use to another. She says she lived on Federal St. for 13 years and always parked in her assigned off street space rather than on the street because there just is not parking available on the street. She says she would support the project as is.
Debski says she agrees with Belair, and she says it would be unfair to restrict people who would be living on Federal St. from parking there – Federal St. is a public street, and they pay taxes too. However, she says this is not going to be an issue, because people will use their dedicated parking, not try to drive around the block to park on Federal St. In any case, she doesn’t think the Board would have the authority to restrict residents from parking on their own street. She says this is a much improved plan and she has no issue with 8 units.
Tsitsinos says he fully supports the petition.
Harris says this is a great improvement; she would prefer the building be access differently, but she doesn’t think the parking is a problem. She says the nice parking area in the back really is preferable to street parking. She says the entrance is awkward, but this plan is a good one.
Dionne says every effort has been made to meet the needs of the area. He notes that they have increased the green space and parking.
Harris asks if the Board should see whether the petitioner wants to make a modification as to the number of units; does the applicant want the Board to vote?
Grover says they have taken a hard look at whether the project would be economically feasible with fewer units, and also explored their ability to sell the larger unit in this market, and they felt they’d be unable to.
Dionne notes there has been considerable expense added to the project with the addition of new land. Grover says that this adds costs even though it was a land swap.
Debski says dropping down to 7 units would not raise the lot area per dwelling unit by very much.
Debski moves to approve the petition (including the parking plan dated August 4, 2009), with eight (8) standard conditions and one (1) special condition, seconded by Belair and approved 5-0 (Harris, Dionne, Belair, Tsitsinos, and Debski in favor, none opposed).
There being no further business before the Board, Dionne moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Belair and unanimously approved.
The meeting is adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
Approved by the Board of Appeals on 10/21/09
| 
