City of Salem, MA - Approved Minutes, October 20, 2010

Approved Minutes, October 20, 2010

City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals

Minutes of Meeting

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, October 20, 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, Rick Dionne, Annie Harris, 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 6:40.

The minutes from August and September are reviewed. Harris moves to approve both sets of minutes, seconded Stein, and unanimously approved.

Continued from July 21, 2010: Petition of ROBERT JACKSON seeking a Special Permit to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single or two family structure for the property located at 30 COLUMBUS AVENUE [R-1].

McKnight has a letter to the Board from the applicant requesting to withdraw without prejudice. Stein states that she has a conflict with this project and will abstain from the vote. Curran moves to permit 30 Columbus to withdraw without prejudice, seconded by Debski and approved 5-0 (Dionne, Curran, Harris, Debski, and Belair (alternate) in favor, Stein abstaining, none opposed).

McKnight says that the petitioner for 142 Canal St. has also submitted a letter withdrawing the application. Stein notes that she has a conflict for this petition too. Curran moves to allow the petitioner to withdraw without prejudice, seconded by Dionne and approved 5-0 (Dionne, Curran, Harris, Debski and Belair (alternate) in favor, Stein abstaining, none opposed).

Petition of IVETTE RIVERA, seeking Variances from side and rear yard setbacks, lot area per dwelling unit, and parking requirements, and a Special Permit to convert the current single-family home into a two-family home on the property located at 29 BOSTON STREET, Salem, MA [B-2].

29 Boston St. Ivette Rivera and Arthur La Fave present the petition. Ms. Rivera explains they would like to convert the single family home to a two family. She hands out an updated drawing showing the exterior stair (“Proposed Floor Two Second Egress,” Sheet A2, dated 10/3/10 and revised 10/11/2010;“Detail View Floor Two Second Egress,” Sheet D1, dated 10/11/2010; and “West Elevation,” Sheet A6, dated 10/3/10 and revised 10/11/10, hereby incorporated as part of these minutes). Ms. Rivera also shows the Board a plot plan (“Land of Dane Machine Co., Salem, Mass,” dated May 21, 1946, hereby incorporated as part of these minutes). Stein asks if this use is allowed in B-2; St. Pierre says no, this would be a Special Permit to alter a nonconforming single-family home. Stein asks if the stairs make the setback Variance necessary; St. Pierre says yes.

Debski asks if what’s shown on the plot plan is different from this drawing? Arthur La Fave explains the deck shown on the drawing needs to be rebuilt. Debski asks if the deck will block a parking space; Mr. La Fave says no and explains they want to cut back the porch to 4 feet. He explains the stairs would go along the left side. Harris asks if the dimensions of the stair meet code. St. Pierre says it does not; it needs a 3 foot minimum clearing. There would be room for this, but barely. Harris says she doesn’t think there would be room based on the submitted plan. St. Pierre says it’s tight but they could get 36 inches in, if the plan is accurate and to scale.

Curran asks if the use is by Special Permit. Stein says yes, it’s a Special Permit to alter/extend a nonconforming use and Variance for the stairs. Curran asks if the parking spaces are 9x18 according to the plot plan. St. Pierre says yes.

Curran asks what’s surrounding their property. La Fave says 2 businesses, a car dealership and parking lot with dry cleaner’s/Laundromat. Stein asks how many bedrooms are in the house now; Rivera says none. La Fave explains that there used to be four, but currently it’s all open. The goal is to have a one-bedroom unit on each floor.

He says they have had to redo all the electrical and plumbing.

Stein opens the issue up for public comment

Robert and Cathy Adam, 31 Boston St., own the business Ms. Rivera referred to. Mr. Adam says he is concerned about a dumpster being parked behind the house. He says he has deliveries to his building and doesn’t think parking was ever intended for the right of way shown behind the house. He says he already has issues with people trying to park there during snow emergencies. He is concerned about having his driveway blocked. Stein clarifies where the parking is proposed – it’s not in the right of way.

Harris asks if there is a problem when cars are parked in the rear; Mr. Adam says no. Belair asks if he has trouble with his deliveries; Adam says he has a 55 foot trailer making deliveries and it currently has to back out.

Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing

Curran asks if there is presently no parking on the site. La Fave says there wasn’t any when they bought it.

Belair says it’s a busy area, with parking at a premium. She says we have a nice young couple trying to improve a property in the city; she’d be in favor of approving. Stein says they’re actually taking cars off the street. Curran asks if the Board could condition the dumpster during construction – she says the neighbor brought up some good points about it not being in the way and says it needs to be kept on their own property. Ms. Rivera explains they had a permit for the dumpster, but when it arrived she was told it didn’t fit on the property. The dumpster is now in the rear.

Debski asks St. Pierre if he is comfortable about the stairway fitting at 36 inches wide; St. Pierre says they should be able to do it.

Stein proposes the following conditions: the building is limited to two single bedroom units, the dumpster is to be located on the property, and a 36 inch wide stairway is to be installed.

Curran moves to approves the petition with these three special conditions and 11 standard conditions, seconded by Dionne and approved 5-0 (Dionne, Curran, Stein, Harris, Debski in favor, none opposed). Decision is attached to these minutes.

Petition of JOAO P. REBELO, seeking a Variance maximum driveway width (Sec. 5.1.5 of Zoning Ordinance) to allow construction of an additional driveway on the property located at 12 CLARK AVE., Salem, MA [R-1].

Rebelo presents his petition. Stein asks how many cars he owns. Rebelo says four, but soon they will have another. Curran asks if it will be paved bituminous; Rebelo says yes. Stein asks if he will pave a whole new driveway? Rebelo says yes and indicates the plans, showing where the new driveway will be. Stein asks St. Pierre if there is any issue with paving or parking in front of the building. St. Pierre says he can’t park within 5 feet of the property line, and there is supposed to be a 2 foot buffer between parking and any abutter.

Stein opens and closes the public comment portion; no one is here to comment.

Stein says the proposal is not inconsistent with the bylaw. Curran moves to approve the petition with 1 standard condition, seconded by Stein, and approved 5-0 (Dionne, Curran, Stein, Harris and Debski in favor, none opposed).

Petition of JAMES SHEA, seeking a Special Permit and Variances to allow the demolition of the existing nonconforming structure at 78A WEBB STREET and to construct a new building containing two residential dwelling units with two parking spaces [R-2].

78A Webb St. Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. He presents photos of the property (“Proposed House 78A Webb Street” rendering and attached photos are available for review in the Building Department and are hereby incorporated as part of these minutes). Atty. Grover says Mr. Shea has owned the garage almost 40 years and it’s used to store equipment. He says the business has grown, and he’s outgrown this facility, so he’s proposing converting it into a two-family home. He indicates the rendering and says the petition says they want to demolish, but actually, the upper two floors are planned to be built above the garage. The first level is to be used for parking. The garage doors will be replaced with architecturally appropriate doors; there is ample room to pull in from the Andrew St. extension. He says the structure is legally nonconforming; they need a Special Permit to allow the conversion of the building to an allowed use. He says the new proposed use will be a vast improvement and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. He says the project is consistent with zoning. He says the building occupies almost the whole lot, which is very small. This won’t change; however, there is a great deal of open space surrounding it, and the space between it and surrounding buildings is ample. He says it’s consistent with the current streetscape; large Victorians line the street, and this building will be a similar height. It will be under the 35 foot limit of the zone. Mr. Grover presents a survey to the Board of properties on Webb St. to demonstrate that the two units are consistent with the multifamily character of the street. Mr. Grover says the height of the building is consistent with zoning, but not the number of stories. The third story counts as a full level, not a half story. The other variance needed is from parking requirements. He says the size of the building is a special condition; this lot is even smaller than most in the neighborhood and so the parking requirement cannot be met. He discusses the hardship requirement – in this case, literal enforcement would mean 3 spaces for 2 units; he says there is no way to put 3 on this site. Enforcement of this would prevent the applicant from using the property for an allowed use in the zone. Mr. Grover presents the petition to the board of 40 residents in support of the project.

Dionne says it’s an improvement in the neighborhood. He asks for confirmation that they will not be demolishing the structure; Atty. Grover confirms this. Curran asks if they are in the flood zone or out? An abutter says it is not in the flood zone.

Stein opens the issue up for public comment.

Jessica Herbert, 70 Webb St., presents a letter in support of the project from her neighbors, Michael and Dawna Bucco (72-74 Webb St.) She says she is happy to have the site developed but think it’s too small for a two family.

Lloyd Ternes owns the property across street at 81 Webb St., and says the building is not appropriate for the neighborhood. He is concerned about density and feels it’s a negative for the public welfare of the neighborhood.

Daniel Pierce, 22 Andrews St, presents a letter to the Board in opposition (letter is on file at the Building Department and is hereby incorporated into these minutes). He says he also submitted letters opposing a similar project in 2004, and at the time it was withdrawn without prejudice, but he still has the same concerns. He says the 3 car garage was built prior to current zoning. He says it was originally part of 78 Webb St – it belongs to the adjacent property, and was built in 1963. Later, he says it was sold and split off, and someone else bought it and used it as a 3 car garage. He doesn’t think it’s appropriate to convert a nonconforming use into an appropriate use on a nonconforming lot; the lot is far too small. He says the design is beautiful, but the issue is the lot is too small. He says if a 2 family were to be put on the property, he could support it if it met the requirement for number of stories and parking requirements. He says Webb St. is very busy, and parking is dangerous and limited. He asks the petitioner how many of the signatures are owners vs. renters – and how many own single family homes? Grover says he is unsure of the mix. He thinks they are owners; tenants tend to not be interested in such petitions. Mr. Shea says all are owners as far as he knows, except one. Mr. Pierce says this is significant because owners are more invested in the neighborhood than renters

The Board examines the signed petition.

Ms. Herbert, 70 Webb St. says this is a rare opportunity to clean up that site – it’s an eyesore. She says the parking underneath makes this a good design, and it’s closed – not parking “on stilts.” She says it might be worthwhile to continue because some of the neighbors aren’t aware of what this project could be. She says it would be a shame to miss the opportunity to redevelop the site. She says she would like to see good finishes, and the garage doors should be kept closed unless entering or exiting; it would be bad to have them up. There would probably be storage in there.

Mr. Pierce adds that private garages are allowed in R2 only as an accessory use. He says the current use is illegal. He asks Mr. St. Pierre if it’s now considered a commercial use. St. Pierre says he does not know its status.

Keith Willa, representing himself and his wife, owns 78 Webb St. He opposes the project on the basis of the size of the lot and proposed structure. He says his property will be crowded. He says he has owned his property since 2005, investigated the previous attempt to convert the property, and found it was not buildable. He says the Andrews St. extension is heavily trafficked. He says he has witnessed several accidents there. He says he does not see a hardship here.

At-Large Councillor Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus Ave., says he is familiar with the property; he says anything would be an improvement. He says he does not see how it could be a detriment to the surrounding properties – it would improve their property values. He says all the surrounding homes are 2 family homes. He supports the project – he wants to keep a residential neighborhood residential.

Katherine Bergeron, 29 Andrews St., says she questions the 40 signatures Mr. Shea presented. She says he aggressively pursued the signatures. She wants to know how many did not sign it; 40 is not that many for the neighborhood. She opposes the project based on the size of the lot; the building is too small. She does not think there is enough parking on the site; there should be 2 spaces per condo. She says people may use the garage as storage and park on the street; the limited parking on the street is a problem. She agrees that the building is an eyesore are she would like it redeveloped.

At-Large Councillor Arthur Sargent, 8 Maple Ave., says there was once a meat market in the neighborhood, and the parking situation is much improved there now. He speaks in support of the petition. He discusses the previous business uses in the neighborhood and says it’s better that the trend is toward all residential; this would be the last piece of that change. He says someone could take the garage and make it an active use, it could be much more detrimental to the neighborhood.

Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing.

Attorney Grover responds: the building wouldn’t look that different as a single family than as a two family; the first level is parking anyway. The idea of a different scale building doesn’t work there. He says the building is not large in comparison to what’s around it, it’s not out of character with the neighborhood. He says the view corridor down Andrews St. is preserved even with the proposed redevelopment. He says the limit to just residential trips would be an improvement to the traffic. He says the units will be small; there would likely be a single person living there. He also points out the proximity to the train.

Curran says on the existing plan, there are three garage bays – did they look at putting three parking spaces in there? Mr. Shea says that’s for mechanicals. Curran asks what makes this addition a full as opposed to a half story; St. Pierre says it’s the dormer – the wall perpendicular to the ridge that exceeds 2 feet. Curran says the residential use is an improvement over this.

Debski says it’s a huge improvement for the neighborhood, and it’s great to get rid of the commercial use in this neighborhood. She says it’s very consistent with what’s around it.

Stein is concerned about the parking – it’s a crowded area, the traffic volume there is high, getting in and out is difficult.

Mr. Grover says the good thing is people can pull in from Andrews St. extension – there’s a wide berth to get in.

Stein says she hates to put extra cars on the street.

Tsitsinos says he lives in the neighborhood – what else could you do with this? This is the best idea he’s seen for this property. He says there is plenty of space around the building. Mr. Grover says Mr. Shea’s intent is not to sell off the condos – he wants to hold onto the property and rent the units. Based on his plan, a single-family doesn’t meet his investment profile. He could only do this or sell it as a commercial use.

Harris asked if they really looked at putting in the third space. Stein says with a third space she would fully support the project. Grover says they also talked about an offsite parking space. Harris says it would be best to get it in the building. Belair says if they put in 3 spaces, there’s no room at all for storage. Harris says she’s comfortable with the height – it fits the neighborhood. It’s just the parking. Mr. Grover says his client thinks he could do the third parking space by changing the location of the mechanical equipment. Curran and Stein say the height requirement is met and they have no issue with the number of stories.

Curran moves to approve the petition with 9 standard conditions (changing, in the ninth condition, “demolition” to “reconstruction”), seconded by Stein and approved 5-0 (Dionne, Curran, Stein, Harris and Debski in favor, none opposed).

Petition of BRIAN & JENNIFER CARR, seeking a Variance from rear yard setback, side setback and lot coverage, to construct an addition on the single-family home on the property located at 38 JAPONICA ST., Salem, MA [R-2].

Tom Tremblay, contractor, presents the petition for Mr. and Mrs. Carr, who are also present.

Stein opens the issue up for public comment; no one is here to comment, she closes the public comment portion of the hearing.

Stein asks about the deck’s dimensions and the location of the stairs. Mr. Tremblay shows where the stairs lead back to the yard. There’s a level change; there’s a stairway and concrete walkway. The walkway is existing.

Harris clarifies with Tremblay which portions of the interior are new; she asks how many square feet he’s adding. Tremblay says roughly a 24x16 foot area.

Stein opens the issue up for public comment; no one comments; she closes the public comment portion.

Stein says she feels this is an appropriate project.

Curran moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions, seconded by Stein and approved, 5-0 (Dionne, Curran, Stein, Harris and Debski in favor, none opposed).

Petition of KEVIN TALBOT, seeking a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to expand a nonconforming structure (construct a second level over an existing first floor of a single-family home) on the property located at 134 OCEAN AVENUE WEST [R-2].

Kevin Talbot presents the petition. He shows a photo to the board to clarify the request. St. Pierre says in the past they would have allowed this; in the recodified zoning, he now needs relief; we had Jerry Parisella look at this. Stein says it seems like a reasonable project.

Stein opens up the issue for public comment.

Melissa Pagliaro, 136 Ocean Ave. West – commented about the trees hanging over to her property; Tremblay says she wants the tree taken out, he says he would lop the trees and shave her side of the fence so it’s not choking her yard.

Ward 3 Councillor Jean Pelletier, 7 Lawrence St., says this should be a condition as part of the permitting process.

Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing.

Debski moves to approve the petition with seven (7) standard conditions, and special condition that the applicant would maintain the trees at 136 Ocean Ave. West, seconded by Dionne and approved 5-0 (Dionne, Curran, Stein, Harris and Debski in favor, none opposed).

Petition of PRIDE CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, seeking a Variance from lot coverage and a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure, in order to construct a one and a half story addition on the existing single-story building on the property located at 75 NORTH ST., Salem, MA [NRCC].

Brian Dapice, KW Commercial, presents the petition with Sean Meyers, CFO for Pride Construction. Debski confirms this is the same plan that was approved in 2006; Curran confirms this has expired. No changes are proposed to the plan.

St Pierre, speaking about the proposed use, says this is a new owner and zoning has changed down there, though he’s sure this is a grandfathered building, commercially. Meyers says this would be Pride construction’s corporate office space, with standard materials held inside building. St. Pierre asks if there will be outside storage. Dapice says there will be parking only outside. St Pierre says he has to make sure this isn’t parking for construction vehicles. Meyer says any vehicles on the premises will go home at the end of the day. There will be 5-8 employees. Harris asks if there will be 3 parking spaces on the property. Dapice says the plan shows a trailer, and they could fit additional parking where that trailer currently is. Meyer says this will be removed; it’s not needed. Dapice shows photos of the property where the trailer could be removed. Harris asks what the parking requirement is there. Stein asks if they couldn’t use whatever parking they had before? Curran asks if this use is allowed in the NRCC? St. Pierre says the old petition was in 2006. What’s happened since then is the recodification – this now would be a Special Permit to alter a nonconforming use, which was not requested in the old application. Stein says she is fine with treating this that way.

Stein opens the issue up for public comment.

Eunice Santucci, 12 Waters St., says on Commercial St., there are metal containers on the sidewalk, which is blocked. The containers are rusting, and there could be chemicals leaking from them, as there are on a nearby property. St Pierre asks her to call him and clarifies that this has nothing to do with these developers. He invites her to look at this plan.

Stein asks if the Board wants to see a parking plan. St. Pierre notes that the whole front of the property has on-street parking.

Debski asks if they need to file with Con Com. Dave Jalbert, current owner, says they didn’t have to go in front of because the street divides the property from the river.

Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing.

Stein says it’s nice to see the properties getting better in that area.

Harris moves to approve the petition with eight (8) standard conditions, seconded by Stein and approved 5-0 (Debski, Harris, Stein, Curran and Dionne in favor, none opposed).

Debski asks about getting methadone clinic info prior to the next meeting, including traffic counts.

Curran moves to close the meeting, seconded by Stein seconds and approved 5-0, and the meeting adjourns at 8:45.

Respectfully submitted,

Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner

Minutes approved by the Board of Appeals 12/15/10

Attachments: Decisions

November 3, 2010

Dan DiLullo

DiLullo Associates, Inc.

16 Crystal Street

Melrose, MA 02176-2706

Re: Variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces on the property located at 142-144 CANAL ST. (Industrial Zoning District).

Dear Mr. DiLullo:

On October 20, 2010, the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Beth Debski, Becky Curran, Bonnie Belair, Rick Dionne, and Annie Harris), and none opposed, to allow withdrawal without prejudice of the above petition.

Robin Stein

Chair

CC: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk

November 3, 2010

Robert & Anthie Jackson

30 Columbus Avenue

Salem, MA 01970

Re: Request for Special Permit to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single-family residential structure on the property located at 30 COLUMBUS AVENUE.

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jackson:

Robin Stein

Chair

CC: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk

November 3, 2010

Decision

City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals

A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 20, 2010, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on October 20, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Beth Debski, Becky Curran, Bonnie Belair (alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate).

Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 4.1.1, and a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances.

Statements of fact:

The petitioner and owner of 29 Boston Street, Ivett Rivera, represented herself at the hearing along with owner Arthur La Fave.
In a petition dated September 22, 2010, petitioner requested a Special Permit to change the single-family home (a nonconforming use) on 29 Boston Street to another nonconforming use, a two-family home. The Building Commissioner also determined that relief from side and rear yard setbacks, lot area per dwelling unit, and parking requirements would also be required.
At the October 20, 2010 hearing, the petitioner presented revised plans showing a rear exterior stair, required for the proposed second unit.
At the October 20, 2010 hearing, the Building Commissioner noted that the proposed stairs did not meet code and must be 36 inches wide; the petitioner agreed to make this change.
At the October 20, 2010 hearing, the owners of an abutting property expressed concerns about a dumpster parked behind the house, not located fully on the site.
Also at the hearing, Board members noted that this proposal would take cars off the street because the plan provides three spaces not currently on the site.

The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings:

Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, as the proposal improves the property and provides parking not previously provided on the site.
The applicant may vary the terms of the Business Highway Zoning District to allow for the conversion of the single-family house to a two-family house.
In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below.

On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes:

Variances from side and rear yard setbacks, and lot area per dwelling unit are granted to allow for the conversion of the single-family home on 29 Boston Street to a two-family house, as shown on the submitted plans.
A Special Permit is granted to allow for the conversion of the single-family home on 29 Boston Street to a two-family house, as shown on the submitted plans.

In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Stein, Curran, Debski, Dionne and Harris) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner’s requests for a Variances and a Special Permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards:

Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations.
All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner.
All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor’s Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street.
Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board.
Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance.
Dumpster is to be kept on the property at 29 Boston Street.
The property’s use is limited to two one-bedroom units.
The exterior stairway is to be 36 inches in width, in accordance with the requirements of the Building Commissioner.

Robin Stein, Chair

Salem Board of Appeals

A copy of this decision has been filed with the Planning Board and the City Clerk

Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds.

November 3, 2010

Decision

City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals

Petition of JOAO P. REBELO, seeking a Variance from maximum driveway width (Sec. 5.1.5 (6) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance) to allow construction of an additional driveway on the property located at 12 CLARK AVE., Salem, MA (Residential One-Family Zone).

Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Section 5.1.5 (6) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances.

Statements of fact:

The petitioner and owner of 12 Clark Avenue, Joao Rebelo, represented himself at the hearing.
In a petition dated September 15, 2010, petitioner requested a Variance from Section 5.1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for relief from maximum driveway width, in order to construct a second driveway on his property.

The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings:

Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance.
The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential One-Family Zoning District to allow for the construction of the second driveway as proposed.
In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below.

A Variance from maximum width of driveways is granted to allow for the construction of a second driveway on the property located at 12 Clark Avenue, as shown on the submitted plans.

In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Stein, Curran, Debski, Dionne and Harris) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner’s requests for a Variance subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards:

Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board.

Robin Stein, Chair

Salem Board of Appeals

A copy of this decision has been filed with the Planning Board and the City Clerk

November 3, 2010

Decision

City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals

Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to 3.3.3, and Variances pursuant to Section 4.1.1 and Section 5.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances.

Statements of fact:

Attorney Scott Grover represented the petitioner at the hearing.
In a petition dated September 29, 2010, petitioner requested Variances from the number of parking spaces required per dwelling unit and the maximum number of stories permitted, as well as a Special Permit to reconstruct a nonconforming structure.
The current use of the property located at 78A Webb Street is a garage, currently used to store equipment.
Petitioner proposes an addition above the garage that would contain two residential dwelling units, with the existing garage used for parking.
At the hearing, Attorney Grover clarified that the request was to add on to and renovate the existing garage structure, not to demolish it, as indicated on the application form.
At the hearing, Attorney Grover stated that because the building occupied almost the entire lot, there would be no place to put additional parking spaces; therefore, meeting the requirement of three parking spaces for a two-family home, which is an allowed use in the R2 zoning district, would constitute a hardship.
At the hearing, Attorney Grover also presented a petition of approximately 40 neighbors in support of the project.
The Board of Appeals received a letter prior to the hearing in support of the project from Ward One Councillor Robert McCarthy, 153 Bay View Avenue, stating that the renovation and change in use would be a positive improvement to the neighborhood.
At the hearing, several residents, including At-Large Councillors Steven Pinto and Arthur Sargent, spoke in support of the project, saying it presented an opportunity to redevelop an unattractive site, and that the shift from a commercial to a residential use would be positive for the neighborhood and for property values.
At the hearing, several residents spoke in opposition to the project, citing concerns about traffic, density and appropriateness to neighborhood character.
At the hearing, Board members stated their concerns about the parking relief requested, indicating that they would be more inclined to support the project if three parking spaces were provided. In response, the petitioner agreed to change the plans for the interior of the garage structure in order to provide three spaces.
At the hearing, Board members indicated that they did not have concerns about allowing relief from the requirement for number of stories, since the height requirement for the building was being met.

The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings:

Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district;
Literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant;
Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, as the project provides an opportunity to redevelop an unattractive, underutilized site and to change the current commercial use to a residential use in a residential neighborhood.
The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to allow for the proposed addition and renovation.
In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below.

A Variance from the number of allowed stories is granted to allow for the proposed renovation and addition to the structure on 78A Webb Street.
A Special Permit to alter a nonconforming structure is granted to allow for the proposed renovation and addition to the structure on 78A Webb Street.

In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Stein, Curran, Debski, Dionne and Harris) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner’s requests for Variances and subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards:

Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations.
All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner.
All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
Exterior of the building is to comply with the submitted plan.
A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board.
Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance.

Robin Stein, Chair

Salem Board of Appeals

A copy of this decision has been filed with the Planning Board and the City Clerk

November 3, 2010

Decision

City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals

Petition of BRIAN & JENNIFER CARR, seeking Variances from rear yard setback, side setback and lot coverage, to construct an addition on the single-family home on the property located at 38 JAPONICA ST., Salem, MA (Residential Two-Family Zone).

Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 4.1.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances.

Statements of fact:

Tom Tremblay, contractor, presented the petition on behalf of owners Mr. and Mrs. Carr, who were also present.
In a petition dated September 29, 2010, petitioner requested Variances from rear setback, side setback and lot coverage and a Special Permit to extend a non-conforming structure. However, the Building Commissioner determined that only dimensional Variances were needed, and not the requested Special Permit.

The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings:

Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance.
The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to allow for the proposed addition.
In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below.

Variances from rear yard setback, side setback and lot coverage are granted to allow for the proposed addition to the home on 38 Japonica Street, as shown on the submitted plans.

In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Stein, Curran, Debski, Dionne and Harris) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner’s requests for Variances and subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards:

Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations.
All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner.
All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board.

Robin Stein, Chair

Salem Board of Appeals

A copy of this decision has been filed with the Planning Board and the City Clerk

November 3, 2010

Decision

City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals

Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3. of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances.

Statements of fact:

Petitioner and owner Kevin Talbot represented himself at the hearing.
In a petition dated October 6, 2010, petitioner requested a Special Permit to expand a non-conforming structure.
At the hearing, abutter Melissa Pagliaro, 136 Ocean Avenue West, commented that trees on 134 Ocean Avenue West are hanging over onto her property. In response, Mr. Tremblay agreed to trim the trees on Ms. Pagliaro’s side of the fence to keep them out of her yard.

The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings:

Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance.
The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to allow for the construction of the addition as shown on the submitted plans.
In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below.

A Special Permit to expand a non-conforming structure is granted to allow for the construction of an addition on the property located at 134 Ocean Avenue West, as shown on the submitted plans.

In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Stein, Curran, Debski, Dionne and Harris) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner’s requests for a Variance and a Special Permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards:

Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations.
All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner.
All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
Petitioner is to cut back and maintain the trees on the property along the property line between 134 and 136 Ocean Avenue West.

Robin Stein, Chair

Salem Board of Appeals

A copy of this decision has been filed with the Planning Board and the City Clerk

November 3, 2010

Decision

City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals

Petition of PRIDE CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, seeking Variances from lot coverage and parking requirements, and a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure, in order to construct a one and a half story addition on the existing single-story building on the property located at 75 NORTH ST., Salem, MA (NRCC Zoning District).

Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Section 4.1.1, and a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances.

Statements of fact:

At the hearing, Brian Dapice of KW Commercial presented the petition along with Sean Meyers, CFO of Pride Construction.
In a petition dated September 15, 2010, petitioner requested a Variance from lot coverage in order to construct an addition on the existing structure at 75 North Street. The Building Commissioner determined that a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure was also needed for the proposed project.
At the hearing, the Building Commissioner expressed concern that the site not become a construction yard and should not be used for storage of commercial vehicles. However, Mr. Meyer stated that most vehicles would be removed from the site at the end of each day.

The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings:

Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance.
The applicant may vary the terms of the North River Canal Corridor Zoning District to allow for the construction of the addition as shown on the submitted plans.
In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below.

A Variance from maximum lot coverage, and a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure, are granted to allow for the construction of an addition on the property located at 75 North Street, as shown on the submitted plans.

In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Stein, Curran, Debski, Dionne and Harris) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner’s requests for a Variance and a Special Permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards:

Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations.
All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner.
All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor’s Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street.
Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance.

Robin Stein, Chair

Salem Board of Appeals

A copy of this decision has been filed with the Planning Board and the City Clerk