City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Approved Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.
Those present were: Robin Stein (Chair), Beth Debski, Rick Dionne, 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 May 19, 2010 are reviewed. There being no comments, Debski moves to approve them, seconded by Dionne and approved 5-0.
Public hearing: Petition of DILULLO ASSOC., INC. seeking a Variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces on the property located at 142 CANAL ST. (I). Applicant requests to continue to July 21, 2010.
Stein explains she has a conflict with this item and leaves the room. Debski explains the Board has received a request from the applicant to open the hearing on July 21, 2010 instead of today.
Jim Rose, 25 Linden St., suggests getting the email sign-in sheet from the previous night’s neighborhood meeting to notify neighbors about the next meeting. The Board discussed the possibility of alternative location given the large number of people who would want to attend. The Board and McKnight answer a few questions from the public regarding scheduling.
Dionne moves to continue the hearing to July 21, 2010 seconded by Belair and approved 4-0 (Belair, Dionne, Tsitsinos and Debski in favor, none opposed).
Request to extend Variances issued to ROY LAPHAM for the property located at 2 ATLANTIC AVENUE AKA 17 LUSSIER STREET (R-2).
Pam Shute explains her family’s request to extend the previously granted Variances for six months. Debski moves to approve the request, seconded by Stein, and the motion passes 5-0 (Tsitsinos, Belair, Dionne, Stein and Debski in favor, none opposed).
Public hearing: Petition of CLIFFORD GOODMAN seeking to alter a nonconforming structure (add 2nd floor) on the property located at 22 BERTUCCIO AVENUE (R-1).
Cliff Goodman presents his petition. He presents the Board with a revised elevation drawing with dimensions. He explains he needs more room in the house, which is why he is proposing the work.
Stein opens up the issue for public comment.
Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., asks for more detail about the addition. Stein explains the owner has a currently nonconforming structure, and since he wants to add on to it, he needs a Special Permit to do so. St. Pierre explains why the permit is needed according to the Zoning Ordinance. Stein confirms with the applicant that this is to stay a single family; Goodman responds that this is correct. Stein says it would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood. St. Pierre says the applicant was very thorough in his application and has shown concern about complying with all rules and regulations.
There being no further comments, Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Belair moves to approve the petition with eight (8) standard conditions, seconded by Stein and approved 5-0 (Belair, Debski, Stein, Dionne, Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed).
Public hearing: Petition of MATTHEW BANKO seeking to amend a previously granted Special Permit for the property located at 9-11 OCEAN TERRACE (R-1).
Matthew and Joseph Banko present the petition. Joseph explains the house is a three-family right now. Matthew explains they would like conditions removed preventing the number of people who live in the house and owner occupancy. He says they have sufficient parking. Stein asks if they are in the R-1 zone; they are. Debski asks when they purchased the property; Matthew says 1996. Debski asks if they lived in the house now; they confirm that they do.
Stein asks St. Pierre if this is of record; St. Pierre says yes.
Stein summarizes the petition. She explains the conditions the petitioner is asking to remove – numbers 1, 2 and 3 from the original decision. She asks St. Pierre – if the property is sold, doesn’t that mean it reverts to a two-family? St. Pierre says yes, that’s the case with this property.
Stein opens the issue up for public comment.
Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., says if these conditions were put on the property, there must have been a reason for it. Stein explains that the Board at the time put these conditions on the Special Permit granted at the time. Goggin asks what would happen to the property if the request were denied; and if the request were granted and the limit on the number of people living there lifted – could there be 77 people in there? Stein says if denied, the property would remain the same, with the conditions in place. St. Pierre explains how City ordinance and state regulations limit the number of unrelated people in a residence anyway.
Julie Pelletier, 29 Hazel St., asks what this means for ownership versus rental? Stein explains that the request would allow, among other things, for the units to be turned into condos.
There being no further comments, Stein closes public comment portion of the hearing.
Belair asks how many parking spaces they have; Joseph says 5.
Tsitsinos says he thinks there is only room for 3 cars. Joseph explains where on the property there is room for 4 spaces; they plan to remove an oak tree to make room for a fifth space. Debski points to the condition that since the house was sold, the house was to revert to a two-family. Stein says this should have been now converted to a two-family; this isn’t really an owner occupancy condition, it pertained specifically to the old owner. Tsitsinos asks, we’re actually working with a two-family then? Belair says she’s concerned that they don’t have enough parking for a 3-family. Debski notes that the Board is getting a lot of these requests lately, and in the 80s people were concerned about absentee landlords. Stein says she’s fine with it being a three-family
that’s owner-occupied. St. Pierre says that would give the applicant the ability to condo it. Stein says if they make it into condos, all must be owner occupied. She says they technically should only have a two-family right now; we do want to maintain the owner occupancy condition if it is to stay a three-family. She says the Board is not prepared to make it just a free-standing three-family. However, she says she is not inclined to ask for the third unit to be removed. She proposes changing the conditions such that conditions 1 and 2 say the building had to be owner occupied, without specifically naming the previous owner as the person who had to occupy it. For condition 3 – Stein says given the limits the City and state already have, this condition seems unnecessary and she’d be willing to take it out.
Tsitsinos moves to amend the previous decision for the property for 9-11 Ocean Terrace by removing conditions 3 and 2 and amending 1 to say it the property must be owner occupied, otherwise it’s subject to the requirements of the original special permit. He reads the original conditions 1, 2 and 3 in their entirety to clarify what the changes are. The motion is seconded by Stein and passes 5-0 (Belair, Debski, Stein, Dionne and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed).
Public hearing: Petition of ROBERT WILLWERTH seeking a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit to allow for the addition of a seventh unit on the property located at 278 LAFAYETTE STREET (R-3).
Attorney Stephen Zolotas presents the petition on behalf of the owner. He explains the current configuration of the property and the relief previously granted allowing the use of a carriage house as a bridal shop. He says they would like to turn the carriage house into a two-family structure. He explains that previously, the bridal shop was on the first floor and the upstairs was vacant; it had a kitchen and bedrooms in it. He says when his client purchased the property, kitchens already existed up and downstairs. The upstairs was renovated, per a special permit granted in 2001, to be a finished unit. He shows photos to the Board of the unit. He says his client wants to keep the building as historic as possible and explains the work that has been done to keep it up. He says internal
construction was required for interior changes to make it a single-family unit. He explains what the new configuration of the house would be. He says the number of bedrooms would remain the same, the only change would be the number of parking spots. He passes photos of the property around to the Board and shows them updated parking plans. He says there are other uses that would be allowed by right, including another commercial use or renting it out as a huge single family house.
Debski asks about the parking – she notes the spaces don’t look like they are to scale – what are the dimensions? Zalotas says 9’x20’ at a minimum. Tsitsinos says he’s seen the property and there is plenty of area for parking. Stein says the relief is not that far off – all they’re looking for is lot area per dwelling unit – and all the units have a lot area of over 3,000, which is not that small.
Stein opens up the issue for public comment.
David Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., says this petition was improperly advertised. He says the property should be limited to five families and this should have been advertised as the rear of 278. Stein says the advertisement was sufficient for people to know where the property is. She also points out that the property on which this building is located is 278. She says his point is taken, but this was properly advertised in her opinion. She says anything they approve would require street numbering by the Assessor’s office.
Goggin says the access and egresses are perfect and parking is sufficient.
John Ronan, 274 Lafayette Street, says he is here as an abutter and not as the Ward 5 Councillor; he says his comments reflect his own personal opinions. He lives at 274, next door. He says this exact same meeting occurred 10 years ago with many of the same neighbors. He says his house is a single-family and points out other owners of single-family houses that also abut the property. He says the block has improved and details how the density on the street has decreased and more of the properties have become owner-occupied. He says this property is an exception. The carriage house is right on the property line. He says a variance was requested 10 years ago. He says there would be an effect on the neighborhood, since this is the only property on the street not owner occupied, and adding a
unit would add to the problem. He also says there is no hardship to base a variance on – the property just sold and the buyer was well aware of the situation. He explains the grounds for variances. He brings up the carriage house special permit provision in the zoning ordinance and says it only allows for a single-family use. When the bridal shop came in, he says they tried to put in another unit, then tried again in later years. At that time, a special permit was issued allowing the property to be used as a single-family use. He says the request is not permitted by zoning because this isn’t what the carriage house special permit allows. He says granting the relief would be detrimental to the community and not in accordance with the zoning ordinance. He says there are already six apartments on the property and a landlord who doesn’t live there; he refers to zoning’s intent to prevent overcrowding and reiterates
that the request is not in keeping with zoning.
Carol Sullivan, 50 Ocean Ave., says her home is very close to the property. She is concerned about owner occupancy; she’s a landlord and rents to her tenants downstairs. She says if another unit is added, who will be responsible; they don’t yet know the new owner.
Kevin Sullivan, 50 Ocean Ave., also talks about the proximity of the carriage house to his property. He says in the past there have been problems with the roof of that house with snow and slates falling down; he says he’s concerned with maintenance down the line. He says the property was not kept up with the previous owners.
James Rose, 25 Linden St., says he is also close to the property and he opposes the petition. He wants the carriage house to remain a one-family.
Pat Kessler, 284 Lafayette St., says she is concerned about fire – there’s no one living there now. She says she hears people talking from that building because of how close she is; she doesn’t want to be living next to two families instead of one.
There being no further comments, Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Mr. Zolotas responds: the slate roof has been completely renovated, so nothing should be falling off the roof. Also, the owner is readily available for any problems on the property. He also explains that no exterior changes are proposed. He says in order to keep the property in good repair, this request was necessary. Stein says the concern is about the intensity of use, not the building itself.
Robert Woolworth, the owner, apologizes for not introducing himself sooner. He says if he converts to a two-family, then he could rent to two single people. If it is a single family, there would likely be more people in the house. He says the building won’t go away; he understands the building is close to neighbors, but there will be people living in it. He says the third floor unit would be one bedroom. He says he fully intends to care for property; he will give neighbors his number if they have any concerns; he did not buy house to be a slumlord. He wants to renovate the house. He says he wants to restore it to its former state of 100 years ago. He plans on putting a lot of money into it, and his tenants are quality people, and he has been there almost every single day
since he bought the property. He notes the neglect the property has suffered over the years and explains the renovations he has completed and plans to do.
Belair asks Zalotas what the hardship is other than economic. He responds that in order to make the building completely usable as a one family house, it would require much more work. Belair says she doesn’t think this meets the standard for hardship required for a variance. Zalotas says the utilities in the building also create a hardship. He refers to case law saying the hardship only needs to be minimal when the requested relief is minimal.
Stein says she’s more concerned about relief he hasn’t asked for. She wants to read the decision granted itself; she doesn’t know that the Board actually said this could be used as a free standing separate primary structure and the carriage house could be made into two units. She says she’s concerned they can’t give the relief they are asking for. Zalotas gives Stein a copy of the 1984 decision. Zalotas says it allowed the accessory use. Stein says she doesn’t think the Board ever made a declaration that they had two independent principal buildings on the property. She says this would be a use variance and/or the increase of a carriage house to two dwelling units, neither of which the zoning ordinance allows.
Stein: if they had enough dwelling unit square footage, and they came to pull a permit to make it a two family, wouldn’t Tom reject it?
St. Pierre says the point is well taken that there would need to be a determination of whether the buildings were principal structures. Stein says the building could be used for anything an accessory structure can be used for, but that they can’t increase the density legally. Stein explains the provisions of the ordinance pertaining to carriage houses – they need not be accessory, but the bylaw only permits one dwelling unit in a carriage house. Stein asks if a special permit to alter a nonconforming structure would be allowed in this case. St. Pierre says this carriage house only allows one unit. Zalotas says in 1984, the bridal shop wouldn’t have been allowed either; Stein says this was a variance that was granted at the time. Stein says at the time, the Board had the apparently
had the ability to grant use variances, which they do not now. However, that doesn’t permanently change the status of the building – it’s still an accessory structure, not a principal one. Stein says she does not think the Board has the authority to allow two units in a carriage house. Dionne says this bylaw is specific to carriage houses, and Belair says people have been held strictly to the carriage house bylaw.
Zalotas says his concern is that the tenant upstairs is under lease; first floor must remain unoccupied, and this will prevent the building from being rehabbed. Stein says this is a risk his client knew he was undertaking; they can’t change the law to resolve a lease issue. Debski points out a condition in the previous decision and asks whether construction was permitted; if they wanted to do something different inside, such as enlarge the unit, would they just apply for a building permit? St. Pierre says yes. Stein says Land Court has been very clear they cannot grant use variances, and she believes this still qualifies as a carriage house accessory structure.
Tsitsinos says it was a two unit before; Stein says it was never a legal two-unit. St. Pierre says Assess Pro has the building assessed as two units, but this is not a legal determination; assessors must assess a structure as it’s currently used; this is just a statement of what’s on the ground, not a declaration of zoning status.
St. Pierre says the carriage house special permit is clear; he was under the impression that this was once declared a principal structure, but the previous carriage house special permit makes this clear. The 2001 decision is what’s really in play. A proper use was granted in 2001, and that’s what we need to go on.
Zalotas request a few minutes to confer with his client; he leaves the room and returns.
Zalotas request to withdraw without prejudice. Debski moves to permit the applicant to withdraw without prejudice, seconded by Stein and approved 5-0.
There being no further business before the Board, Belair moves to adjourn the meeting; Stein seconds, and the motion passes unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 8:15.
Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
Approved by the Board of Appeals 7/21/10
| 
