City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 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 (arriving 7:30), Rick Dionne, Annie Harris (arriving 6:45), Bonnie Belair (alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (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 April 14, 2010 are reviewed. There being no comments, Dionne moves to approve them, seconded by Stein and approved 5-0.
Public hearing: Petition of SANDRA MEUSE requesting Variances from side yard setback and lot coverage to allow for the construction of a second-floor deck at the rear of the two-family home on the property located at 19 ORCHARD STREET (R-2).
Ms. Meuse presents her petition, explaining she wants to add a deck to the second floor of her house. Curran asks if there would be anything underneath it; Meuse says no, it would just be open.
St. Pierre explains that we treat second floor decks as a structure, unlike a first floor deck.
Stein asks if the Board has questions; no one does. Stein opens up the issue for public comment; no one is here to speak, so she closes the public comment portion.
Stein says this is a minimal dimensional variance, there is plenty of lot area left, and the deck would still be within the setbacks. Curran verifies that this is a 2-family and Meuse owns both; Meuse says she does. Stein says the request is de minimus, consistent with our bylaw, and there would be no negative impacts on neighbors. Dionne moves to approve the petition with six (6) standard conditions, seconded by Stein, and passed 5-0 (Tsistinos, Dionne, Stein, Curran, Belair in favor, none opposed).
The applicant for 14 Hubon St. is not yet here, so Stein invites the next petitioner to present.
Public hearing: Petition of AN HUI T. ANG requesting a Variance from number of stories to allow for the construction of two dormers on the single-family home at 3 HENRY STREET (R-1).
Mr. Ang presents his petition. He shows the Board a sketch of interior. Belair asks if the stairs are internal; Ang says yes. Curran and Stein ask if the dormers run the whole length of the house; Ang says yes.
Curran: Aesthetically it looks better if there’s an indent in there…I have no problem with the dormer, though. It does change the look of the building if it runs all the way to the end…if it can be indented that would be better.
Stein: we should craft language making it clear this is a dormer.
St. Pierre: We should say it comes in two feet on either side.
Mr. Ang agrees to this.
Stein opens up the issue for public comment. No one is here to speak; Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Curran moves to approve the application with seven (7) standard conditions and one (1) special condition, that the dormers be set back from the edge of the roof at least 2 feet. Stein seconds, and the petition passes 5-0 (Harris, Belair, Curran, Stein, Dionne in favor, none opposed).
Request of RIVERSIDE REALTY TRUST for extension of Variances granted to 24 SAUNDERS STREET for an additional six months.
Attorney Scott Grover requests an extension for the variances granted in June of last year to allow two remnant pieces left at the end of Saunders St. to be built upon. He says the development involved extensive cleanup, primarily of lead, and they are very close to being able to build, but probably not by one year from the date the variances were granted.
Curran asks if there are any changes to the plans; Grover says no, the only change is the timing, and the project has been continually worked on. He says DEP is involved, and it’s a reportable site.
Stein says a 6-month extension is fair.
Belair moves to extend the Variances to June 6, 2010, subject to all the original conditions. Curran second and the petition passes 5-0 (Stein, Curran, Debski, Harris and Belair in favor, none opposed).
Public hearing: Petition of MICKEY L. BENSON requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing historic carriage house into one dwelling unit on the property located at 150 NORTH STREET (R-2).
Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition and shows photos to the Board of the property. He says there has been a lot of work done to restore the property. Dionne asks where the parking is, and how many units are currently on the property. Atty Grover says there’s currently just a single family house, though this is the R-2 zone. Grover explains how the house’s living space was extended to behind the garage. Parking will remain up front, the first floor of the carriage house would remain, and they would complete the second story of the carriage house, and then create a wall. Harris asks if the second floor is finished – Grover says no. He presents a floor plan showing what the first floor looks like – half is a garage and half is part of the house.
Curran: and there are no dimensional changes?
Grover: no, and no exterior changes – just upgrades.
Curran asks for the size of the proposed unit – Grover says about 1695. Grover shows a photo from the mid 1800s showing the structure before the carriage house was added, but also says he has documentation showing the carriage house is historic – he presents a plate from the 1897 atlas of Salem showing this lot has a carriage house. He says the ordinance requires the carriage house date back to 1900. He distributes these records to the Board.
St. Pierre asks where he found the information – owner Mickey Benson says at the public library.
Grover says he asked the Bensons to talk to neighbors – he consulted all immediate abutters – and he has two short letters in support, which he reads to the Board.
To demonstrate consistency with the character of the neighborhood, Grover indicates on the Assessor plate of the neighborhood, showing many two-family properties surrounding it. He says there are no adverse effects, and would add to the city tax base. Harris asks about other neighbors – Grover says the Bensons spoke with them. He says many surrounding properties are larger properties converted to condos or rentals with absentee landlords. The Bensons plan to live in the back house, away from the street.
Mr. and Mrs. Benson say they have no immediate plans to sell now, but it’s too much space for just two of them, and they want to modernize the rear part of the property and live in it.
Stein opens up the public comment portion of the hearing.
Kathy O’Leary, 7 Riverbank St., Danvers, representing her mother, who lives on Stoddard Place, asks about how parking would be dealt with, especially during winter. She says any additional parking on the street would be difficult. However, she doesn’t oppose the project. Stein says the zoning normally requires 3 spaces for 2 units, so they do comply with that. In a snow emergency, the Bensons say they could squeeze in another car.
There are no further comments; Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Stein: they certainly have demonstrated compliance with the bylaw.
Curran: they meet the parking.
Stein: it’s not a detriment to the neighborhood. It’s nice to see carriage houses preserved when we can.
Curran moves to approve the petition with eight (8) standard conditions, seconded by Stein and approved 5-0 (Harris, Belair, Curran, Stein, Dionne in favor, none opposed).
Public hearing: Petition of COLLIAM, LLC/LUKE FABBRI requesting a Special Permit to alter and extend an existing nonconforming structure by adding a 600 square foot addition as a second floor over a portion of the existing roof on the property located at 14 HUBON STREET (R-2).
Luke Fabbri presents the petition. He says he was recently before the board to change the previous non-conforming foundry use to a light manufacturing use. He now wishes to add an addition above the building to use as office space. He says the first floor is dirty and they’ve taken out a lot of material. Building on the second floor would allow them to create a clean, new office space. He says they would continue to use the downstairs base for light manufacturing and storage area. They have applied for a building permit to make structural changes to the building.
St. Pierre says the building is steadily improving. Fabbri says he’s spoken to neighbors, who like the plan. Curran asks if the addition hangs over the building. Fabbri clarifies where it sits on the building and says the architect is trying to line it up over existing structural components. The existing concrete block has some structural issues. He took down 3 windows, and the concrete block was taken up to one corner and repaired (indicates plans). He says the middle window used to be a door.
Stein opens up the issue for public comment; no one is here to speak, so she closes the public comment portion.
Curran asks if they need to go to the Conservation Commission. Fabbri says no earthwork is proposed. St. Pierre says he doesn’t think they need an RDA. He says Fabbri is an LSP and is familiar with the Con Com process.
Debski arrives at 7:20 PM.
Fabbri: we’re not doing any excavation.
Stein: I think this is a benefit to the neighborhood, not a detriment - people will appreciate having the building fixed up.
Dionne: are you doing anything to the façade block itself?
Fabbri – we’ll paint it. We’ve repaired it.
Belair moves to approve the petition with seven (7) standard conditions, seconded by Stein and passed 5-0 (Dionne, Stein, Curran, Belair, Harris in favor, none opposed).
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of CABOT STREET GROUP, LLC, seeking a Special Permit to convert a historic carriage house into one dwelling unit on the property located at 24 CABOT STREET, Salem, MA (R-2). Attorney James Mears.
Rick Dionne states that he is a direct abutter to the property, recuses himself and says he will sit in the audience on his own behalf.
Attorney James Mears presents the petition. He says at the last meeting, there were questions raised about the parking. He hands out a revised parking plan and a letter from his engineer. The previous plan had shown 2 spaces on first floor of carriage house; this plan now shows 4 spaces. He says the plan shows 7 spaces are available for parking, and the plan now exceeds the required 1.5 spaces per unit. He says questions were raised about access into and out of garage; what wasn’t clear on the plans is there is depth of 27? Feet in garage, and vehicles would be able to pull in and out without having to pull over for each other. He says there is plenty of clearance coming in and out of garage, as shown on the new plan. He says they would be taking space that would have been allocated to
the unit in the carriage house and giving it to the parking area. He addresses spot 7, at the front of the lot, saying there was a question about whether they had a 5 foot setback – it was not depicted on previous plan, but is now on this plan. They believe they now adequately addressed not only the parking requirements but issues of whether they would have appropriate space for turning radius, etc. for getting out.
Atty Mears gives a brief history of the property. The owner doesn’t have any plans to do anything to the exterior of the carriage house itself – he says if there was any concern about structural modifications to be able to use first floor level for parking, his engineer has stated they do not need to put any additional supports in – there is sufficient support for the second floor, where the dwelling unit would be. The property was acquired in fall of 2009 – plans are for condos, already filed with the Registry. The plans will require modification, but their intention is to go forward if permitted and market as condos.
Stein asks about changes to the living space. Mears says they went from 1400 to about 1000 square feet. When they acquired the property, it was illegally being used for 2 apartments; they were directed to remove the kitchen facilities from the first floor.
In the carriage house plans, Curran indicates the stairway and says she’s having difficulty because of that – how would you maneuver into spaces 3, 4 and 5? She doesn’t see how someone could get into 5? What if someone was in 6?
Mears says they are not asking for affirmation of the 7 spaces – they would take those the Board found acceptable – if space 5 wasn’t usable they wouldn’t rely on that.
Curran: you need six spots, and I’m questioning 5 and 4.
Stein: if you into the garage far enough – because of the depth, you’d be able to get in. Mears: there’s an extra 6.5 feet there to allow the cars to pull in.
Debski: the space marked 7 – can they have parking there? Isn’t that considered the front yard – didn’t we talk about that last meeting?
St. Pierre: it’s unclear but it could be argued that that is the front yard setback.
Mears: we had our engineer look at it again, and it shows a 5 foot setback.
Stein: does this constitute parking in the front yard?
St. Pierre: it’s a gray area in our zoning, but if we said that that was a front yard setback, everyone with a driveway in front would be in violation if they didn’t park 15 feet back from property line. If there’s 19 feet from the house to pavement, that will work, and it appears there is.
Mears: we went out and looked at parking at different times during the day, took photos of how congested the area is – our intent is not to be parking on street. There are a number of multi families using the street for parking, but it’s not our intent to do that. We’re making sure we can stay off the street.
Curran: will this be a one or two bedroom?
Mears: the new unit would be a 1 bedroom.
Stein opens the issue up for public comment
Richard Dionne, 23 Gardner St., speaking as an abutter, says he is not opposed to this as long as it will be turned into condos, and not have an absentee landlord situation as it’s been. He says it would be nice to see a carriage house picked up. If these are condos, he thinks the owners will take care of them.
Mears says they’ve already “condo-ed” the main residence, but the plans will have to be amended to address these changes. He says there’s no question that when they received the property, they were immediately notified that property was not in compliance and they took steps to satisfy requirements.
Dionne asks about the parking in front of house – would they have to take the small front yard to make parking? Mears says he believes that’s true. Dionne notes that there would then be no green space.
St. Pierre asks if the Board wants to tie to the parking changes to the plans. Stein says yes, the plan should not include space 5. Curran says this area could be used for maneuvering. Stein says the Board doesn’t want to count that as a space. Mears says they will have deeded parking as well.
Debski: we talked last time about snow removal.
Stein: that would leave space for snow storage, if 5 isn’t used.
St. Pierre: you could condition that if they are willing to accept it.
The Board discusses the possibilities. Belair says she is conflicted over all the carriage house petitions – her issue is the increase in density. She says every month now there is one – some are clear that they’re a good idea, others are very borderline to her – this is one she is really struggling with wanting to approve - based on the density, she feels the petitioner is trying to make it work in any way, but given the area it doesn’t work really well for her.
St. Pierre points out that there were 2 illegal units there before, which was a higher density than what’s proposed now.
Stein says there’s tension in the bylaw between the density increase and the interest in keeping carriage houses – the Board wouldn’t be able to do this by variance, but the carriage house special permit is a way to make them feasible to keep. She’s more in favor of these applications when the cars can be kept off the street.
Belair : but you have four units, that means visitors, etc., and others on the street.
Stein: the drafters of the ordinance must have waived increased density, knowing it would increase.
Harris says people were losing the carriage houses because they couldn’t afford to save them – she was involved in the drafting of that ordinance.
Curran: we don’t have plans on how this will be changed, the exterior, etc. - how do we ensure it remains carriage house-y?
Mears: no exterior changes are proposed.
Curran: there are real windows, wood will remain wood, not vinyl?
Mears: there are no plans to change exterior, which is one of the reasons we wanted the opinion from an engineer on the structural integrity of garage.
Curran: we can tweak our usual condition on exterior changes to address that.
Tsitsinos says he’s okay with the petition, as long as they keep the historic character of the carriage house. Curran moves to approve the petition with nine (9) conditions (including the provisions that parking space 5 is not to be considered a legal space, and the carriage house is to maintain its appearance as a historic carriage house, including wood doors, siding, and windows). The motion is seconded by Stein and passes 4-1 (Stein, Curran, Debski and Tsitsinos in favor, Belair opposed).
Request of NORTH RIVER CANAL LLC for extension of Variances granted to property at 28 GOODHUE STREET to December 31, 2010. Attorney Joseph Correnti.
Atty Correnti represents Mr. Roberto, saying they have been here several times for extensions. He reminds the Board this is a four-story, multi-use building, the project was fully permitted by Con com, Planning, ZBA, and Hist Com on demo delay. It was a factory building in extreme disrepair, on fire watch for 6 months. Anthony Roberto purchased it in 2005-6, the factory was demolished, and new plans put forward. The plans were running simultaneously with the new NRCC regulations, and this was the first project permitted under it, which allowed for this mixed use building. The units are part market rate, some affordable. The Variance issued was for square footage of units to land area. He introduces Mr. Roberto, who says the advice from realtors is there is still a lot of inventory on the
market, and given the difficult financial market, they’d need at least another 6 months. He says the bank is still with them, which shows faith in what they’ll be doing. Curran asks if there are been any appeals on this; Correnti says no. Stein says she’s sympathetic about the economy as it applies to the housing market. Harris moves to approve the request to extend the variances for six (6) months, seconded by Curran and passed 5-0 (Debski, Harris, Belair, Curran, Stein in favor, none opposed).
Public hearing: Petition of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC requesting Variances from building height (feet), buffer zone width, and number of parking spaces to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional office building with retail and municipal space on the property located at 44 BOSTON STREET and 401 BRIDGE STREET (NRCC).
Atty Correnti presents the petition. Members of the development team - David Sweetser, Harry Gundersen (architect), and Peter Blaisdell (engineer) are also present. Correnti explains this is the old Sylvania Site. He says this has been before the Planning Board for the last several months. The Design Review Board has also reviewed it. Recently they received a positive recommendation from the DRB to the Planning Board. Tomorrow they are going back to the Planning Board with the full expectation of receiving a decision. He says Gundersen has redone the plans as a result of working with those boards. He says what makes the property difficult is its shape – it’s narrow, the Federal Street neighborhood is right behind it, the church is at one end and the storage facility at the
other, and the linear park. He says this property has been a challenge from day one in trying to figure out the layout with appropriate parking, and trying to meet the NRCC ordinance.
Atty Correnti says this is a four-story, multi-use building; he shows the rendering and explains the site. The building is the result of a lot of input from neighbors, the Planning Board and the DRB. He says they are very pleased with how it’s ended up.
Atty Correnti explains that in the NRCC, four stories are allowed, but it’s a 50 foot limit – it’s not story relief they need, but the height. They are going to between 55 and 60. They are asking for relief up to 60 feet, which they know they won’t exceed. He says the height is due to the particular uses involved in this building. The City has signed a P&S for a condominium - more than half the first floor of entire building. It will be used as community life center/senior center. The use requires particularly high ceilings. The idea is to create an open and spacious environment, including a stage area, and areas for a variety of activities that call for higher ceilings. The three stories above that are intended for medical office space. He says they don’t have tenants signed yet, but the developer has committed to going forward – this is unusual in this environment. There is a retail use in the other part of the first floor, which will be a fitness facility. This leaves
90,000 square feet of uncommitted upper floor space. They know we want to see a medical office, and there’s been some interest expressed. If they do attract medical offices, higher ceilings are also required because of the needed equipment and technology. Taking into account these needs, they exceed the 50 feet maximum allowed.
Atty Correnti explains they also need relief from the buffer. The NRCC requires a 50 foot buffer zone to residential properties. Gundersen points out the buffer area on the plans. Correnti says if this had to be followed, there would be no project – he says it’s shown on the plan where the 50 foot buffer line would be – they would lose 80-90 parking spaces if they had to follow it strictly. He says this property has sat fallow because there’s no reasonable way to develop this property without using that parking. He says they have met extensively with the Federal Street neighborhood over the last months, and most neighbors are satisfied. He explains concerns about shielding to the neighborhood, and says they have worked on a landscaping plan for 6 months. Abutters toward
Boston St. are on grade with the lot, so they will see more. On the other side, there’s a steeper vertical grade change. He says if they lost all that land, it would create a tremendous hardship. He says the project would not visually impact houses that sit on a different grade. He points out where 7 parking spaces were eliminated and added to the buffer area, requested by residents of Federal Street. He says most people during PB hearings asked why they had so much parking, yet they still need a variance from the ZBA.
He says the third variance needed is parking – this is tricky, because while they know they have two tenants committed (the municipal use – the City took the lead and required a minimum of 80 parking spaces for senior center use). They started off knowing 80 are allocated there; then added the retail space next to the senior center, which required about 109 spaces for a total of 189 total for the first floor. He says currently there are 95,000 SF of space not rented, but targeted for office use – professional includes medical, there’s also business, and another medical office use in the zoning – all use different formulas. He says they had to make certain assumptions based on what they hoped to get. While all have separate formulas, they took averages, and most came to about 400
spaces. Some calculations came out higher, some lower, but all were more than the 367 spaces they have planned on the lot. They need the variance to go forward with financing, stating zoning compliance, etc.
Curran: what’s the building total SF?
Gundersen: 140,700.
Stein: how tall is the storage across the street?
Correnti: 40 feet.
Stein opens the issue up for public comment.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., asks if all variances must be exposed at this time or can they come back with more?
Stein: you can always come back and ask for more relief.
Treadwell says the landscaping is subject to approval and points out parts of the Zoning Ordinance that require landscaping in the NRCC. He asks if the Board is considering relief from those requirements. Stein says the Board has not been asked to give relief from that.
Treadwell gives a history of the NRCC plan. He says the buffer is included in teh requirements for the transitional area only, abutting a residential district along the property boundary. This zoning based on the NRCC plan calls for a buffer of 50 feet to try to create development compatible with adjacent parcels. He points out there’s no 50 foot buffer between the parcel and the St. James property. He doesn’t know if those owners have a problem with the plan. He says there is a detriment to the public good – he thinks it could set a precedent that would create a detriment. He says there is too much parking, more than what the MBTA has. He says the buffer is an important element of the zoning ordinance and is based on the plan.
Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., says the idea of using the senior center use to justify the height doesn’t make sense, since there are other neighboring communities whose senior centers are one floor.
Ken Wallace, 172 Federal St., says the developers have communicated a lot with the Federal Street neighborhood. He says if the buffer is maintained and used the way it’s planned it will be sufficient – and there will also be a fence – there will be very dense shrubbery in the buffer, and all in all they have done enough work to make it almost impervious to visual impact. He says the building is on the far side of the lot – the buffer just protects the neighborhood from parked cars. He points out that the building has no “back” and the neighbors would be seeing a front of a building. He commends the developers for redoing this many times.
There being no further comments, Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Harris: have the landscape plans changed from what we have here?
Stein: the latest plans would be helpful given we’re asked for buffer relief.
Gundersen shows the landscape plan. He says an issue they’ve struggled with is that the four properties are at grade level, and the grade rises dramatically toward Federal St. The buffer is at widest at those four. He describes the combination of evergreens and deciduous trees of varying heights. He says there is already a canopy of large trees. He explains the various plantings proposed. He says they are planting heavily in the parking island and street trees – there is a lot of landscaping.
Correnti addresses the height of the fence – in the NRCC, the Planning Board has Special Permit granting authority for this. He says the two special permits they applied for from the Planning Board is for the height of the fence and size of the retail space. The height of the fence is 6 feet unless a Special Permit allows it to be 8. He says some neighbors want 6 feet, others 8 – they will ask for relief from 8 and then do what the neighborhood prefers. However, he says that’s not relief that comes back to the Board of Appeals.
Harris asks where the fence is; Gundersen shows it on the plan. Correnti notes that Michael Blier of the DRB had a lot of input into this plan as well.
Harris asks about the Planning Board requirements for maintaining plantings. Correnti says there will be a condition in the Planning Board decision that it’s to be maintained. He says they intend to maintain it – this will be a showcase property.
St. Pierre says a Planning Board decision is part of getting a building permit, and noncompliance with the decision has consequences up to and including revocation of a Certificate of Occupancy if it’s bad enough.
Stein says part of the point of the NRCC was to improve our entrance corridor – she’s concerned about the height – she knows it’s not the whole length of bldg, but she’s having a hard time picturing it in comparison to the storage facility.
Harris says that at most it’s 10 feet above what’s allowed. She thinks for the use – at the jail, the really neat units are the ones with the height. Having that height makes it more usable. Stein: it’s nice, possibly not a necessity for a senior center.
Curran asks about interior ceiling heights.
Gundersen says there is 18 feet floor to floor on ground floor, then 13 feet in successive stories. He says both the senior center and health club need high ceilings. They have performance, meeting spaces, and 10 foot heights would be restrictive. Windows on ground will be very high, there will be 10-12 foot ceilings.
Curran: are there fixed awnings?
Gundersen: yes
Belair: Is there a basement in this building? Gundersen – no.
Stein: the irregular rectangular shape of lot is the difficulty. I’m happy to see everything oriented toward the corner.
Correnti: the 2 story corner is nearly 30 feet, more typical of a three story building. He explains considerable effort went into making the corner.
Curran: as to the buffer – I think for a narrower buffer, the same effect can be achieved with landscaping, but clarify what’s happening along wall?
Gundersen shows on plan where retaining walls are, where they step up. Shows a 14 foot high masonry wall. There is some planting up there, but they can’t do trees up there, it would destroy the wall.
Correnti says the fence would be available for neighbors on top of the wall.
Harris: they’re already looking over top of everything. She says they will have a better view.
Stein: supporting hardship issue – the property has been undeveloped for as long as it’s been – if it wasn’t so hard to develop economically, it would have been done.
Debski says that 50 foot buffer requirement makes it hard – that’s a lot of land.
Stein: it’s because the lot is narrow.
Curran is more comfortable giving 57 feet, not 60, based on what it is planned now. As to the parking, the health club will be in use at night, offices during day; the parking is okay with her. Stein agrees.
Correnti: these aren’t construction drawings, just rough calcs, that’s why we asked for 60 feet.
Gundersen: that’s floor to roof level. It’s a very flat property, not a lot of variation. It’s not 57 from grade to roof, it’s slightly more than that, but not in excess of 60.
Belair: 3 feet is so minimal for a project of this size.
Dionne: 3 feet is not a problem.
Curran: total relief would be 10 feet.
Belair: it’s attractive, such an improvement.
Stein: it’s an improvement as far as the entrance corridor goes.
Debski: it’s an important project for the city, the Senior center finally has a place to go.
Stein: I won’t quibble over 3 feet – if you think it’s necessary, OK.
Correnti: I wish we knew what the exact finished height would be.
Stein: I don’t want you to have to come back for 7 feet. But don’t go over 60.
Harris moves to approve the petition – she reviews the hardship arguments:
Height: the reasons for this relief are the kinds of uses going in the building; it’s difficult to accommodate the uses. There is the social benefit of having the senior center, and their need for flexibility of space is important, as is accommodating potential medical office space. We need to consider the probable need for equipment, want to make sure the project is economically feasible, not limited because of height.
Stein: the irregularly shaped lot also applies the number of parking aisles available limits overall use options.
Harris : The thin shape of the lot makes the buffer difficult. The parking relief is justified. This has been a very prominent site in the city that’s been vacant for a long time; a number of people have tried to develop it, but in the meantime the property hasn’t been paying taxes, etc.
Harris moves to approve the petition with seven (7) standard conditions and one (1) special condition (the buffer zone is to be maintained as per the final landscape plan submitted and approved by the Planning Board). The motion is seconded by Curran and passes 5-0 (Debski, Harris, Curran, Stein, and Dionne in favor, none opposed).
Dionne moves to close the meeting, Stein seconds and the motion is unanimously approved.
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight
Staff Planner
Approved by the Board of Appeals 6/16/10
| 
