City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, March 1, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, March 1, 2010 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.
Those present were: Becky Curran, Beth Debski (chairing the meeting in Robin Stein’s absence), Annie Harris, Bonnie Belair (alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Those absent were: Robin Stein (chair) and Rick Dionne.
Also present were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner.
Debski opens the meeting at 6:32 p.m.
Approval of Minutes: The minutes of 12/16/10 are reviewed. Curran moves to approve them as is, seconded by Debski and unanimously approved.
Petition of LUKE FABBRI requesting a Special Permit to change one nonconforming use to another in order to convert an aluminum foundry to an office and light manufacturing use (environmental sampling devices/equipment repairs) on the property located at 14 HUBON STREET (R-2).
Luke Fabbri presents his petition, explaining that the business he is proposing for this location is the manufacture of environmental sampling equipment, mostly tool plastic, and repairs. He adds that he may do some interior work to address the building’s structural integrity, but there is currently no external work proposed.
Curran: any odor associated with the equipment manufactured?
Fabbri says no – they make groundwater sampling parts from food grade plastic, and it’s very clean. Curran asks if there will be any heating in the manufacturing process. Fabbri says no, just tooling with a C&C machine. He says the manufacturing is a smaller percent of his work – most of the work is consulting.
Harris asks if he rents the property. Fabbri clarifies that he is now the owner, not Brian Tamilio as listed on his petition, since he has closed on the property since he was originally supposed to appear in January (the January and February meetings were canceled).
St. Pierre adds that neighbors and City Council were a little concerned at first about the proposal, but the applicant has spoken to them and now he believes their concerns have been addressed. He notes that aluminum foundries (the previous use) are particularly dirty, and the newly proposed use is much cleaner.
Debski opens the issue up for public comment. No one in the public is present to speak on the matter, so Debski closes the public comment portion.
St. Pierre: we’ve also addressed parking – there’s an area to put vehicles. This was important to the neighbors.
Debski asks if the applicant had a meeting with the neighborhood.
St. Pierre says the applicant went around and talked to them.
Fabbri: there were questions, but people were generally happy we weren’t going to be generating the same noise and dust there is now. We also don’t take or make many deliveries – most go out by mail, and the parts are small. Occasionally there’s a truck delivery of plastic tubing, but things generally go by UPS.
There being no further comment, Curran moves to approve the petition with six (6) standard conditions, seconded by Harris and approved 5-0 (Curran, Harris, Tsitsinos, Debski, Belair in favor, none opposed).
Petition of TERRANCE NEYLON, seeking to amend a previously issued Special Permit allowing a third dwelling unit on the property located at 10 GARDNER STREET, Salem, MA (R-2). Petitioner seeks to remove a clause from the previous decision requiring the Neylons to live on the premises and to own the property, in order for the third floor dwelling unit to exist. Attorney John R. Keilty.
Attorney Keilty presents Terrance Neylon’s petition. He explains there has been a third floor apartment in the building. He says the Special Permit had a condition in it that if the building was sold to another owner, the third floor unit could not remain. He is here to amend this and request taking out the condition.
Curran asks what the reason was they made it owner occupied to begin with. Atty Keilty says he doesn’t know, but he thinks it was common practice at the time this Special Permit was issued. St. Pierre notes that it was to avoid absentee landlord problems.
Harris asks if there has been any correspondence from neighbors about the petition; McKnight says there has not.
Curran says she tends to think that’s an odd condition anyway – she thinks if there were still an issue, the Board would have heard from the neighbors.
Harris notes the condition has been in effect since 1981. She says she hates the condition – it’s crazy. The building should be either 2 or 3 family, regardless of ownership.
Tsitsinos says he doesn’t see any issues with revising the Special Permit.
There being no further comment, Belair moves to approve the petition with one (1) standard condition and one (1) special condition – that all other conditions of the original Special Permit decision remain in effect.
Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP, LLC requesting to modify previously granted variances in order to achieve Planning Board compliance. Modifications are proposed from the following previously granted relief: minimum lot area, lot width, frontage, depth of front yard, width of side yard, depth of rear yard, and lot coverage. The modified project includes construction of a proposed public roadway, with certain private amenities, ending in a cul-de-sac and fifteen single-family residences on land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE (R-2). Attorney John R. Keilty.
Atty Keilty presents the petition, explaining they were here about a year ago, when the Board voted to extend the Variances previously issued on the property. He says that since the original approval, the plans have changed slightly, because when they presented to the Planning Board, they wanted them to make the roadway wider to comply with city standards. The roadway went from 20 to 24 feet of pavement, and in so doing, he says they moved some of the units back slightly to have room to park in the driveways and keep all cars off the street. At the Planning Board, he says they also developed the notion that the two lots on Fort Ave. would be two stories, Garrisons or Colonials. However, all living space in others will be on first floors, and so the footprints of all the other homes are bigger. In some
cases, the gable areas won’t be finished – people will have a choice as to whether or not they want the gables. He says they also tried to address concerns of the neighbors by moving a wall which was directly on one neighbor’s property line and is now shown directly on the Shallop Landing property. He says they also moved some catch basins to the development’s property, and they will pick up stormwater that currently heads across the property and settles in low spots – the water will now be directed to the Shallop Lane drainage system. He says that all this has been presented to the Planning Board and Conservation Commission. He explains that they have started over at the Planning Board because with schedules and other matters, eligible voters are limited. He says they will be back at the Planning Board to open the petition again on April 1, and it’s this plan that’s being presented. He says some lots are
bigger, some smaller. He says when they widened the road, some of the frontages got smaller, and that’s what triggered their being back before the ZBA.
Debski notes that McKnight gave the Board members a chart showing the changes in what was approved and what’s before them now. She notes that some of the lots actually got larger - four are smaller, but most increased.
Harris: how did you get them larger? Keilty: we took from larger lots, gave to smaller lots. They end up now being pretty uniform.
Attorney Keilty: The neighbors have asked for a fence, which we will supply. There’s a wall that runs along here [indicates the plan]. As part of the capping plan, the grade will be raised. Some neighbors have asked that a fence be placed along the wall.
Harris: why raise the land so much?
Atty Keilty: Because of the capping plan – we’re putting in 3 feet of clean fill on top of the contaminated part.
Debski asks if the City Engineer has already looked at this. Atty Keilty says he has, and has done a drainage analysis. Debski asks if the street will become a public way. Atty Keilty says yes, but the stormwater management system will be maintained and snow removed through the Homeowner’s Association (HOA).
St Pierre: what would the snow plan be?
Atty Keilty: I’m not sure, but it probably would have to be removed from the site. We will probably keep easements over certain areas so the snow can be stacked.
Debski opens the issue up for public comment.
Amity Van Doren, 1 Essex St., lives adjacent to the parking lot. She asks what will happen to the grade of the parking lot between her property and the lot? Atty Keilty responds that the elevation is flat.
Van Doren asks about the drainage there; Atty Keilty says the lot will drain to Essex St.
Van Doren: What is the overall lot coverage now in terms of paving and building compared to the original ZBA decision?
Atty Keilty: it’s increased, because the roadway and building footprints have increased. In the new drainage analysis, we used a wider roadway and resubmitted the plan with the increased percentage.
Harris notes that buildings now take up 900 square feet more total than they did before and says that’s minimal. St. Pierre notes that’s about a 1% increase.
Van Doren asks if the neighbors were notified for this hearing. McKnight responds that they were, but they were notified about the originally scheduled meeting in January, which was canceled. She explains that when a hearing is continued, abutter notices don’t go out again for subsequent meetings, but they are posted.
St. Pierre asks if the parking lot will be constructed as part of this; Keilty says yes, it will be used by HH Propeller, and will be graded, etc.
Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., asks about the SESD easement on the property – has a plan been submitted to Council?
Atty Keilty says yes, but he is unsure of what the status of the matter is now that it is in committee.
Goggin asks if the developer is leasing or buying the HH propellor land.
Atty Keilty says they are buying it, but leasing it back with an easement. Goggin asks about the roadway changes; Keilty says they City wouldn’t accept street without them. Goggin asks what happens if the HOA doesn’t keep up with snow removal? Keilty says they would have to get another service provider. He says this HOA system is similar to a condo association, but also notes that cluster developments often take these on.
Goggin says she worries about this, since the condos on Highland Ave. were supposed to have their own trash pickup, but the residents found out that because they were paying taxes, the city now has to do the pickup. Keilty says the trash pickup will be done by the city. Goggin says she was talking about the snow removal. Debski says that may be an issue that comes up down the road, but that’s an issue for City Council; the ZBA can’t control that. She says she believes the Planning Board will put a condition addressing that in their decision. She then asks Keilty about the property’s closing schedule. Keilty says it is dependent upon the Planning Board’s approval.
Board members have no further comments. Harris moves to approve the petition and plans as amended on January 4, 2010, with all the previous decision’s conditions in effect, seconded by Belair and approved 4-0 (Harris, Belair, Tsitsinos and Debski in favor, none opposed).
Harris moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Belair and unanimously approved.
The meeting is adjourned at 7:15 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
Approved by the Board of Appeals 4/14/10
| 
