City of Salem, MA - Approved Minutes, November 17, 2010

Approved Minutes, November 17, 2010

City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals

Minutes of Meeting

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.

Those present were: Beth Debski (chairing the meeting), Becky Curran, Rick Dionne, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Those absent were: Robin Stein (chair), Annie Harris and Bonnie Belair (alternate).

Also present were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services.

Debski opens the meeting at 6:40.

Debski announces that due to an illness, Chair Robin Stein is unable to attend this evening. She explains that when only four members of the Board are present, the Board always gives the applicant the option to continue the petition until the next meeting, and that Attorney Keilty had indicated he wished to continue to December 15, 2010. Several residents ask why the petition could not simply go ahead; Debski and Dionne reiterate that the applicant has the right to go before a full Board if they choose. Several questions were answered regarding scheduling the December meeting. The Board confirmed that in the case of a snow emergency, the hearing would be postponed. Curran moves to continue the matter to December 15, 2010, seconded by Dionne and approved 4-0.

Public hearing: Petition of FIRST CHURCH IN SALEM, seeking a Variance from minimum rear yard depth and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, and requesting a finding that no additional off-street parking is required, to construct an addition on the property located at 316 ESSEX ST., Salem, MA [R-2].

Attorney Bill Quinn presents the petition. He explains the church is not currently handicap accessible, and they wish to upgrade the facility so that the church and day care can be more easily used. He says the building is unusually large and sits at the back of the site. In order not to disrupt the meeting hall facility, they want to put the addition in the rear. He explains the addition would be 30-40 feet away from any residences. Attorney Quinn introduces the project’s architect, Patrick Guthrie, who indicates the site plan (titled “First Church Salem, 316 Essex St., Salem, MA,” prepared by Menders, Torrey & Spencer, Inc., 123 North Washington St., Boston, MA, dated August 15, 2009, available at in the Salem Building Department and hereby incorporated as part of these minutes). He explains that this addition will improve daily access and provide universal access to the church. He shows the location of the addition in relation to the parking area at the rear and the existing garden, explaining that entry could be from either side; people will be able to enter at grade and take the elevator up instead of having to take the stairs.

St. Pierre observes that this is a well-prepared plan, saying the applicant has managed to create handicap accessibility while preserving the “flavor” of the historic building. Guthrie notes that they had previously received a determination of no adverse impact from the Historical Commission. He shows the floor plans, roof plans and elevations and explains that the material used will be stucco, the same as the 1927 addition, noting this will give them a chance to clean up the stucco on the parish house.

Debski opens the issue up for public comment.

Mary Richards, 6 Federal Court, is a member of the church. She asks about the location and dimensions of the addition in relation to the garden and asks if the building has a nonconforming setback. Attorney Quinn answers that the setback isn’t nonconforming in that direction – it’s 32 feet, and the legal requirement is 30. He clarifies that the rear setback they have asked for relief from is being modified from 10.2 to 8.7 feet.

There are no further comments; Debski closes the public comment portion of the hearing.

Attorney Quinn summarizes the hardship argument he set forth in his application: due to the shape of the lot and the topography of the land, strict enforcement of zoning would create a financial hardship.

St. Pierre notes that the project does not increase any of the indoor space that would increase the parking requirements. Board members note that the project is appropriate and consistent with zoning.

Dionne moves to grant the petition with seven (7) standard conditions, and also to affirm that no additional parking is needed on the property due to the addition, seconded by Curran and approved 4-0 (Curran, Dionne, Debski and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed).

Public hearing: Petition of MADELINE JACKSON appealing a decision of the building inspector regarding the properties located at 3 BEDFORD ST. and 76 PIERPONT ST., Salem, MA [R-1].

Ms. Jackson and her daughter, Laura Ridley, present the appeal. Ms. Ridley says Mr. Denis, the neighbor at 3 Bedford Street, put in a driveway on Ms. Jackson’s property line, and that St. Pierre had sent a letter to him saying the driveway was illegal. A lawyer was then hired, and Ms. Jackson received a letter saying the driveway was legal after all. Ms. Ridley says Mr. Denis parks his truck right by Ms. Jackson’s bedroom window and the diesel fumes enter the house. She has been told the driveway must be five feet from the property line. She says Mr. Denis has been kind enough to not park his truck there most of the time. However, she says Mr. Denis has not gotten a variance for the driveway, so she doesn’t want it used at all. She says she feels having this driveway so close to the property devalues the house and asks what the distance must be by law. Debski notes that this is on a corner lot. The Board examines photos provided by Ms. Ridley (on file in the Building Department and hereby incorporated as part of these minutes) showing the driveway’s proximity to 76 Pierpont St.

St. Pierre explains that when this issue first came up, he looked at the off street parking regulations and inadvertently used those applicable to entrance corridors, which require a 5-foot buffer. However, in this district, only a 2-foot buffer is required. He says there is nothing in the zoning ordinance that would prohibit this driveway.

Attorney Michael McMahon, 583 Chestnut St., Lynn, representing Mr. Denis, hands the Board a packet of information (on file in the Building Department and hereby incorporated as part of these minutes), containing photos of the driveway, a police report filed about an incident involving Ms. Jackson and Mr. Denis, and a petition from neighbors in support of Mr. Denis’s driveway. He says the driveway and house have been the subject of multiple inspections and meet all requirements with regard to this Board. He states that Mr. Denis has a gas-powered vehicle, not a diesel one. He says the reason he has used that driveway in the recent past is because he had 3 significant lumbar back fusions – he would park the truck there when bringing in groceries, etc. and then usually move it. He says the driveway is not on Ms. Jackson’s property and shows a photograph of a stake from a survey that was done. He says Mr. Denis has attempted to make peace by grading and landscaping portions of his property.

Ms. Ridley comments that it’s fine to have 11 signatures from neighbors in support of Mr. Denis, but they aren’t the ones living with the driveway.

Mr. Denis, 3 Bedford St., says the driveway used to be gravel, but then was hottopped. The city put in curbstones in 1980.

Ms. Ridley refers to a previous ZBA petition, 12 Clark St., which required a variance to have a second driveway, and asks why the same does not apply to this property. St. Pierre explains that in the recodified zoning, driveway width is limited. However, he says he must use the old zoning ordinance to evaluate this property, since it was in effect at the time the driveway was put in. The old zoning did not limit driveway width.

Debski comments that this is a legal driveway that needs no relief from the Board of Appeals.

Curran moves to uphold the Building Inspector’s decision, seconded by Dionne and approved 4-0 (Debski, Dionne, Curran and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). The Building Inspector’s decision stands and the request for appeal is denied.

Curran moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Debski and approved 4-0.

Debski adjourns the meeting at 7:42 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner

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

Decisions

November 24, 2010

Decision

City of Salem Board of Appeals

Petition of MADELINE JACKSON requesting a reversal of Director of Inspectional Services’ decision to allow a second driveway on the property located at 3 BEDFORD STREET, abutting 76 PIERPONT STREET, Salem, MA (R-1 Zoning District).

A public hearing on the above petition was opened on November 17, 2010 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board of Appeals members were present: Elizabeth Debski (chairing the meeting), Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, and James Tsitsinos (alternate).

The petitioner, Madeline Jackson, sought a reversal of the Director of Inspectional Services’ finding that a second driveway on the abutting property, located at 3 Bedford Street, is legal.

The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact:

Madeline Jackson is the owner of 76 Pierpont Street, which abuts 3 Bedford Street, owned by James Denis.
Ms. Jackson and her daughter, Laura Ridley, presented the appeal at the hearing.
3 Bedford Street is within the Residential One-Family Zoning District.
3 Bedford Street is not located within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
There are two driveways on 3 Bedford Street, one of which is located more than two feet, but less than five feet, from Ms. Jackson’s property line, and is the subject of the appeal.
The petitioner is requesting reversal of a finding made by the Director of Inspectional Services that the second driveway conforms with the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances and may remain without any relief from the Board of Appeals.
At the hearing, Mr. Denis’ attorney, Michael E. McMahon, spoke in opposition to the request to appeal. He presented a petition with ten signatures in support of allowing the driveway to remain.
At the hearing, the Director of Inspectional Services stated that driveways must be within five feet of an abutting property line within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District; however, outside the Entrance Corridor, the required distance from abutting properties is two feet, and Mr. Denis’ driveway meets this requirement.

On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows:

The driveway located at 3 Bedford Street nearest to 76 Pierpont Street is legal and may remain. The decision of the Director of Inspectional Services regarding this property is upheld.

In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four (4) in favor (Curran, Dionne, Tsitsinos, and Debski) and none (0) opposed, to uphold the Director of Inspectional Services’ decision allowing the driveway on 3 Bedford Street to remain.

Elizabeth Debski

Salem Zoning 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 that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner’s Certificate of Title.

November 24, 2010

Decision

City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals

A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 17, 2010, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on November 17, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Elizabeth Debski (chairing the meeting) Richard Dionne, Rebecca Curran, and James Tsitsinos (alternate).

Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 4.1.1, a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.3, and a determination that no additional parking is needed pursuant to Section 5.1.3, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances.

Statements of fact:

Attorney William Quinn represented the petitioner at the hearing.
In a petition dated September 23, 2010, petitioner requested a Variance and Special Permit to construct a 24’ x 24’ addition at the rear of the First Church in Salem, in order to make the facility handicap accessible and increase interior storage space.
The building on 316 Essex Street houses the First Church in Salem’s religious meeting house and associated religious and educational facilities, offices and programs, including a day care program on the she second floor of the Church, which currently is not handicap accessible.
At the November 17, 2010 hearing, the Inspectional Services Director stated that the project did not increase any of the indoor space that would increase the parking requirements.
At the November 17, 2010 hearing, several residents and members of the Church’s congregation attended in support of the project. No members of the public spoke in opposition to the project.

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, as the lot is oddly shaped and the topography is such that the proposed improvements would be cost prohibitive if the zoning code were strictly enforced.
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 accessibility to the facility and does not create a need for additional parking.
The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to allow for the addition to the First Church of Salem as proposed.
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:

A Variance from rear yard setback is granted to allow for the addition to the church facility, as shown on the submitted plans.
A Special Permit is granted to expand the currently nonconforming church building, as shown on the submitted plans.
The project does not trigger the need for additional parking on the site.

In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four (4) in favor (Curran, Debski, Dionne and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner’s requests for a Variance, a Special Permit and determination that no additional parking is required, 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.

Elizabeth Debski,

Salem Board of Appeals

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