City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 in the third floor conference room (314) at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.
Those present were: Robin Stein (Chair), Becky Curran, Beth Debski, Rick Dionne, Bonnie Belair (alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Those absent were: Annie Harris
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 March 1, 2010 are reviewed. There being no comments, Debski moves to approve them, seconded by Curran and approved 4-0.
The minutes of March 17, 2010 are reviewed. There being no comments, Debski moves to approve them, seconded by Stein and approved 4-0.
Petition of MAUREEN BUCK requesting a Variance from number of stories to allow for the construction of a roof deck over one unit, and the addition of two gable dormers and one shed dormer to the second unit on the two-family home at 11 CURTIS STREET (Residential Two-Family Zone).
Dan Skolski, architect for 11 Curtis St., presents the petition. He explains they are proposing to add roof dormers to increase attic space.
Stein asks St. Pierre for his opinion on the relief needed for the roof deck. St. Pierre says that once removed, they do need to ask relief for the third story.
Belair asks about the interior configuration of the addition. Skolski refers to sheet A3 of the plans and explains the interior – a home office, sewing room, and bathroom are planned for the attic space.
Stein reads aloud the statement of hardship.
Stein opens the public comment portion of the hearing; no one is here to speak; she closes the public comment portion.
Stein asks St. Pierre if it’s a variance needed, or a Special Permit. St. Pierre explains that in the old zoning, a variance from number of stories was required, not just a Special Permit to increase nonconformity.
Curran asks about their hardship – how big is the lot? Dionne notes that the lot is 2600 SF
Stein: it’s a minimal dimensional variance, the neighbors don’t object, it’s appropriate, and it’s not going outside the footprint of the house.
Skolski: again, we’re not getting taller.
Curran: I also think it’s minimal, and I don’t think they have any other option to expand.
Stein: this won’t be a detriment to neighborhood.
Dionne moves to approve the petition with eight (8) standard conditions, seconded by Stein and approved 5-0 (Belair, Debski, Curran, Stein and Dionne in favor, none opposed).
Petition of CHRISTOS AND ELENI LIRANTONAKIS requesting Variances from lot size and lot width/frontage in order to subdivide the existing property located at 20 MAPLE AVENUE into two lots (Residential One-Family Zone).
Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. He introduces the owner and his daughters, who are present. He explains this was once known as 18 Maple Ave., but because of assessor changes, it’s now 20 Maple Ave. He indicates the property on a locus plan. He explains the owner resides there in his single family house. The property consists of three legal lots, it was subdivided in late 1800s, at some point it was held in common ownership, and now the lots have merged for zoning purposes into a single lot and has been used as a single lot for many years. The owner now would like to divide the lot into two separate, buildable lots. He indicates lots A and B on the plot plan. They are proposing to remove the garage and split the lot exactly in two. Each lot would be just
over 7000 SF. In order to do this, they need two areas of relief: lot area (this is R1, minimum 15K SF) and frontage/lot width requirement, which is 100 SF. Atty Grover shows a rendering of the single family house the owner wants to build on lot B. He says there is no dimensional relief required other than what he mentioned.
To give the Board a sense of how this fits into neighborhood, he shows the assessor plate and indicates the size of the neighboring lots; every lot he put a check mark on is smaller than the proposed new lots he proposes to create. He says it’s in keeping with the character of neighborhood. Many surrounding properties are checked. He says this lot is almost 3 times as large as most of the surrounding properties. He says it has unique characteristics that qualify it for the variance requested. He says the hardship is that this is a large piece of land for neighborhood, a large part of it is unusable - the house is in one corner, and the rest of the yard is unusable. The owner, Mr. Lirantonakis, wants to make a separate building lot to be used by his daughter.
Belair asks if the house will have a garage or driveway; the owner says it will have a driveway. He says there will be parking, indicates the location of two parking spaces on the plan. Belair says people in neighborhood might object if street parking is increased. Mr. Lirantonakis says the neighbors support the project. Atty Grover hands the Board a petition showing the support of 5 neighbors, and notes that the parking complies with zoning.
Stein opens the public comment portion of the hearing.
Councillor Arthur Sargeant, 8 Maple Ave. says he is a direct abutter and secondary abutter – he owns two properties in neighborhood. He came to strongly support the petition. He knows the lot and the neighborhood very well, and this is a case where there are typically 5000 SF lots on street, they’ll have 7000 SF lots and that’s in keeping with the neighborhood. He says there is no opposition, and strong support in neighborhood. He says this family will get to stay neighbors. There is already a house there, and that was a shack and Chris did a tremendous job fixing it up. He says petitioners often make claims, but this family has been great neighbors and friends to street and have earned the support for this.
There being no further comments, Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Curran says the size is in keeping with neighborhood, she just wonders about the hardship statement and asks Atty Grover to articulate what the hardship is again. Atty Grover says it’s the size of the lot itself – it’s three times the size of any lot around it but can only be used for one dwelling. He says the hardship isn’t related to the R1 district as a whole, but this neighborhood in particular – this lot just doesn’t fit with rest of it.
Stein says the thing about the project that pleases me is they are not asking for setback relief – they are proposing a reasonable-sized house, set back appropriately, not a huge house. The scale is appropriate. Tsitsinos agrees and says it will be a good project.
Debski moves to approve the petition with seven (7) standard conditions, seconded by Stein and approved 5-0 (Belair, Debski, Curran, Stein and Dionne in favor, none opposed).
Petition of CABOT STREET GROUP, LLC, seeking a Special Permit under Section 3.1.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to convert a historic carriage house into one dwelling unit on the property located at 24 CABOT STREET, Salem, MA (Residential Two-Family Zone).
Dionne recuses himself because he is a direct abutter and sits in the audience.
Attorney James Mears presents the petition. Mr. Bates, the owner, is also present. Atty Mears explains the history of property. Prior to current ownership of this property, a prior owner impermissibly used the carriage house for two units. He says his client has come in and corrected a number of violations including replacing defective stairs and removing the improper use in the carriage house. No exterior changes are proposed. He says the parking spaces are not yet designated for particular units, but the spaces are there.
Debski asks St. Pierre to comment on the parking plan. Space numbers 4 and 5, and then 1 and 2 look problematic – there appears to be no setback or anything. St. Pierre says two of those spaces are in a garage.
Stein says it’s just 4 and 5 she has questions about. St. Pierre says those spaces aren’t legal because they are tandem spaces.
Mears: if we need to move one of the spaces, we could move space 5. I thought tandem spaces were legal.
Debski notes the width of space #6 – is it 16 feet across? Stein says 9 jogs in a little, so it’s probably more like 12 feet. She asks St. Pierre what the width of driveway has to be.
St. Pierre checks the zoning ordinance, and says he generally uses 9 feet with a 2 foot buffer to neighbors. 9 feet is workable. Debski: is there fire access to the carriage house? St. Pierre: they would have to run a hose down, they can’t bring a truck off the street.
Curran: if they proposed this with one less space, would that require a variance? St. Pierre says yes, they’d be one short.
Stein: do they need 6 spaces since there’s already an existing residence that didn’t have parking requirements? Or just enough for the new use?
St. Pierre: I’d say they’re asking for something new, so we’d look at the site. This property petitioned the board in the 80’s for the third unit, so there should have been parking there then.
Curran: in the 2 car garage, it looks like a single entrance door – would that change?
Mears: we hadn’t planned to make exterior changes, but we can widen that drive.
Stein: I have no problem with carriage house being used that way, but we are concerned that this should be usable parking.
Curran: if you request less parking than required, you’d need a variance.
St. Pierre: based on the assessor photo, it looks like the garage door could be altered. How do you want to treat the parking, do you want to ask for relief?
Mears: we would like to request relief from the additional parking space and get rid of #5. Stein says this makes everything else more usable, though still tight.
Stein opens the public comment portion of the hearing.
Richard Dionne, 23 Gardner St., speaking as an abutter, says right now there’s a van parked in the 4th spot – he can’t see where they have any parking. As far as putting cars in the garage, they wouldn’t be able to fit 2.
Stein says we would condition that they had to put in a 2 car garage.
Dionne says this was once a 2 family, then got a variance for a 3 family, then the carriage house became an illegal 2 family. Will this be maintained as rental, or sold as condos? He says it’s too dense from Cabot St. from Hancock up, where there are 1 and 2 family homes, primarily, but no 4 units. On Gardner St., there’s not enough parking. He isn’t convinced parking areas will be used. The carriage house does need repair, but he thinks it’s too dense for neighborhood.
Belair: will these be condos or apartments?
Mears: the plan is condos. The point of the plan is to preserve the carriage house. The carriage house has been improperly used and left in disrepair, they prefer to use both buildings. They want to provide parking to keep residents off the street. They acquired a property that clearly was in violation – building and zoning – and they are interested in preserving the historical site and improving the neighborhood. The history was renters who didn’t take care of properties. The new owner wants to provide more permanent residency with owners rather than renters.
Mr. Bates says the van that was parked there is now gone, and only one unit is occupied on the first floor. We’ll happily widen the garage space. The surveyer said there would be enough room for cars.
There being no further comments, Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Stein: I’m concerned about the tightness of the site and parking, but I don’t have an issue with the petition.
Debski: where would snow go? I’m really concerned about space 6, how would someone get around that?
Curran: Have you considered putting parking in the carriage space?
Stein: You have 4 legitimate spaces on the site, and I don’t see where 5th and 6th spaces would come from.
Curran: this seems more suited for proper maneuvering to 3 spaces.
Stein: 4 would work – this has been complicated by the property’s history and the density has increased already.
Belair: we granted relief for carriage house recently, and I like to be consistent.
Stein: but that had parking.
Curran: Space 3 – you have to back around the corner – that’s very difficult.
St. Pierre: would you consider continuing and working on the parking?
Stein: it’s worth an effort.
Atty Mears agrees to continue.
Curran move to continue the hearing to May 19, seconded by Debski and approved 5-0.
Petition of LEE and MAUREEN DAVIS, seeking Variances from lot coverage and side yard setback to allow for the construction of an addition onto the existing single-family home on the property located at 22 EDEN STREET, Salem, MA (Residential One-Family Zone).
Mr. Davis introduces his father in law, John Walsh, who will be moving in with them, and also introduces the builder. Lee explains the 2-story addition would consist of a 2-car garage which would allow them to keep 4 car parking. There is storage and upstairs a large family room, bedroom, bathroom, laundry room, wet bar, and entrance from the kitchen.
McKnight explains board has received revised plans in their packets since the original submittal.
Belair: you’re not adding a kitchen?
Walsh: no.
St. Pierre: they reconfigured entrances and exits because that was a concern – they were separate before.
Stein asks about the 4 parking spaces, does someone have to move car to leave?
St. Pierre: Yes, but they’re only required to have 2 spaces.
Curran: 46 is the dimension of the addition? What’s existing?
Lee: 21X42.
Stein: The yard is very large. I like to see lots continue to have green space.
Stein opens public comment portion; no one is here to comment; closes public comment portion.
Ms. Davis gives the Board a petition with signatures from supporting neighbors.
St. Pierre says he spoke to petitioner last year, and encouraged them to talk to neighbors, which they clearly did.
Ms. Davis says her next door neighbor is in Iraq and those who live there rent, but they tried to get in touch with the owner.
Curran asks if they can we condition that no kitchen be installed? St. Pierre says they can’t dictate the interior, but they can condition that it remain a single family house. Stein: I just want to be careful not to cut it into 2 units.
St. Pierre: our concern last month was that it looked like a second unit, so we talked and they reconfigured it, which is why they continued.
Lee: our house is the smallest in the neighborhood. He passes around new statement of hardship.
Stein: I think the statement of hardship is appropriate, and minimal dimensional relief is requested.
Curran moves to approve the petition with eight (8) standard conditions and one (1) special condition: the property is to remain a single family residential use, seconded by Stein and approved 5-0 (Belair, Curran, Stein, Dionne, Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed).
Dionne moves to close hearing, seconded by Stein and approved 5-0.
Meeting adjourned at 7:35.
Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
| 
