City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.
Those present were: Robin Stein (Chair), Becky Curran, Beth Debski, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Those absent were: Rick Dionne, Annie Harris and Bonnie Belair (alternate).
Also present were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner.
Stein opens the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of 11/18/09 are reviewed. Debski moves to approve the minutes, seconded by Curran and passed 3-0 (Curran, Debski and Tsitsinos).
Petition of THOMAS McDONALD, seeking to remove a clause from a previous Zoning Board decision requiring owner occupancy for 3 family use for the property located at 11-13 BRYANT STREET, Salem, MA (Residential Two-Family Zoning District).
Mr. McDonald, the owner, presents his petition. He explains he purchased a 2-family building that had a third unit, and he came to understand that there was a stipulation previously made that the building be owner occupied to keep the third unit. He says for 12 years he operated the building as a three-family without knowing about the restriction; he says the previous owner did not disclose this to him. He says he has neighbors who have objected, believing he did know about the restriction. He presents documentation from when he purchased the house indicating it was a three-family. He says he found out when neighbors with a broken down car parked in front; and neighbor told the owner of the car she couldn’t park there. The neighbor called the city to complain, and Mr. McDonald says this is how
he first came to be aware of the restriction. He says once he discovered it, he came to the ZBA to amend the Special Permit decision. He says he hired someone to build a retaining wall and double his parking area. He explains the configuration of the parking area. He says when he hired for the wall to be constructed, his contractor ripped him off, he lost $6K and he never got the wall built – the contractor is now in prison for this and other schemes. He says this is why the parking area was never finished.
Mr. McDonald explains that once he discovered neighbors opposed the petition, he spent 50-60 hours, he went to everyone in the neighborhood – all who would speak with him, he asked them to contact him if they had any problems. He presents the Board with a map of the properties he spoke to – the length of Bryant St., School St. corridor extension, School St., and Buffum St. He said everyone he could find whom he spoke to supported him. He presents a petition with 105 signatures of people who supported him.
Curran: Do you live there now?
McDonald: No.
Curran: It’s a three family now?
McDonald: No – I’m limited to two apartments now.
Mr. McDonald explains that he has lost 1/3 of the rental income from the property. He details the construction and improvements he has done to remedy the parking situation. He shows the Board photos of the property.
Mr. McDonald says he has 11 feet of backfill that was in there and took time to settle. He says he replaced the length of sidewalk and hot topped the parking area. He shows the retaining wall which was replaced. He says the driveway is now 57 feet wide and can now accommodate 6 cars.
Stein asks the Board members if they have any questions.
Curran asks when he bought the property; Mr. McDonald said 14 years ago.
Curran asked him to explain the parking situation. Mr. McDonald said the previous special permit required him to have 7 non piggy back spaces. He says he now has space for 10 spaces.
Curran: It was a three-family until you found out it was legally only a 2-family?
McDonald: yes
Debski: The special permit was granted with the condition that 3 units be owner occupied.
Stein says that when she first started on the Board, they did this a lot…when there were concerns about increases in density, there were worries about absentee landlords.
Debski says she had just started on the Board when this came in the last time – there were quite a few people at that meeting and it was withdrawn. She says that when the Special Permit was granted in 1986, the Board had a good reason for the building to be owner occupied, and she has a hard time going against what that Board decided.
McDonald says the house is set up as a three family; what he’d like to do is keep it as three smaller 2 bedroom units. He says he screens all his tenants, does court checks, etc. He says he’s surrounded by three families, a 6 family and a couple of 2 families. He says as a 2 family, he would have a deleaded 10 room house which is going to get turned into a 6 or 7 room unit. He says he has much larger units elsewhere, and those are his more difficult properties because of kids, etc. As a two family, he says he thinks it would be more detrimental to the neighborhood because of the size of the units. He says a smaller family group would be better for the neighborhood. He’s worried about having one jumbo unit, and wouldn’t have as much choice of tenant.
Stein says her memory is that in this case, if the neighbors don’t have a problem, she doesn’t, but procedurally, she wants to check with Tom St. Pierre what exactly the Board needs to do to grant this request – is it an amendment to the special permit? St. Pierre says that’s what it is; he clarifies that the request is to remove a clause from the previous special permit decision requiring owner occupancy for the third unit.
Debski wants to know the exact language of the legal ad. McKnight reviews it.
Tsitsinos says the concern is about absentee landlords, but he’s seen the property and McDonald has done a nice job.
Curran says she doesn’t have a problem either.
McKnight says she has a few letters to distribute to the Board concerning the application. She says Peter Copelas, 55 and 57 Buffum St. called to oppose the petition. McDonald explains what he thinks the problem is – parking situation, which he says is now remedied. He shows the Board in his photos the parking area that had once been a problem; he says it’s now resolved.
Curran asks if McDonald plows the snow; he responds that the tenants shovel it.
McKnight distributes a letter to the Board from John MacDonald, who opposes the project.
Stein says there are 3 families living there, according to John MacDonald’s photos of the mailboxes fixed to the house. McDonald says these are old and there are only 2 families living there. He also says he does not want to advertise that he has a vacant unit because of fear of vandalism/theft. He says one tenant was vacated when he found out about the restriction. He explains the tenant history.
McKnight distributes letters from the Board from Councillor Prevey, who opposes the project. She then reviews letters from neighbors supporting the petition.
Stein opens the issue up for public comment.
Tony Marfongelli speaks in support of the petition. He says his impression is there is hostility against McDonald. He says as a captain in the Salem fire department he’s very familiar with code violations. He speaks highly of McDonald’s character and his abilities as a landlord.
Scott Houseman, a Beverly resident, is a friend of Tom’s and a former member and chair of the Beverly ZBA. He says he is familiar with what McDonald does for a living and with this property in particular. He speaks in support of McDonald’s character and says that clearly the area has plenty of parking. He points out there are 105 signatures of support and no one has come to the meeting to oppose the petition.
There being no further comments, Stein closes the public portion of the hearing.
Debski says she doesn’t like being put in this position, and the previous board did the right thing by putting in the condition restricting the use. She says to McDonald: If this is your full time job, you should have been more careful about knowing what the restrictions on the property were. She points out that this was on record. While she says she doesn’t really want to, she will support the petition. Stein agrees and says these decisions are recorded and will show up in a title search.
Curran makes a motion to remove the clause from the previously granted special permit requiring owner occupancy to continue the use as a three-family house; all other terms and conditions of the 1986 special permit decision are to remain in effect and be incorporated into the new decision. The motion is seconded by Stein and passes 4-0 (Debski, Stein, Tsitsinos and Curran in favor, none opposed).
McKnight says there is a request to continue the 10 Gardner St. petition to January 20. Curran moves to grant the request to continue, seconded by Stein. The motion passes 4-0 (Stein, Curran, Tsitsinos and Debski in favor, none opposed).
The upcoming yearly meeting schedule is briefly discussed.
There being no further business before the Board, Curran moves to adjourn the meeting, Stein seconds and the motion passes 4-0 (Stein, Curran, Tsitsinos and Debski in favor, none opposed).
The meeting adjourns at 7:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
Approved by the Board of Appeals 3/1/10
| 
