Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes, December 15, 2010
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
APPROVED Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, December 15, 2010

A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, December 15, 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, Becky Curran, Rick Dionne, Bonnie Belair (alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate).   Those absent were: Annie Harris.

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

Stein opens the meeting at 6:38 p.m.

Review of October 20, 2010 minutes: Dionne moves to approve, seconded by Stein and approved 5-0 (Dionne, Debski, Curran, Belair and Stein in favor, none opposed).

Review of November 17, 2010 minutes: Dionne moves to approve, seconded by Curran and approved 4-0 (Dionne, Curran, Debski and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed).  

Public hearing: Petition of JOHN WHARFF requesting Variances from minimum lot area, lot width/frontage, and front yard setbacks, to subdivide the property located at 434 LAFAYETTE STREET into six (6) single-family house lots (R-1 zoning district).  Proposed access is from RAYMOND TERRACE.  
Attorney Scott Grover requests to continue the petition to the January meeting. Debski moves to continue the petition to January 19, 2011, seconded by Stein and approved 5-0 (Curran, Dionne, Stein, Debski, Belair in favor, none opposed).

Request of NORTH RIVER, LLC for extension of a Variance previously issued for the property located at 28 GOODHUE ST. [NRCC].
Goodhue St. – Correnti requests to extend the previously issued variances, explaining the financing for the project has been difficult, but they wish to go ahead with the project.

Stein says she has no problem with approving, but asks when the Board first approved.  Correnti says 2006.  Stein says she thinks the law has changed recently and thinks they may not need approval to extend the Variance.  Correnti says he thinks it’s still needed.  Dionne moves to approve extending the Variance for six months; seconded by Stein and approved 5-0 (Curran, Dionne, Stein, Debski, Belair in favor, none opposed)

Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE, INC. (owner) and HEALTH CARE RESOURCES, INC. (lessee), seeking a Special Permit for the operation of a medical clinic (methadone center) on the property located at 207 HIGHLAND AVENUE [B-2 Zoning District].

Attorney John Keilty, 40 Lowell St. Peabody presents the petition.  He explains they are seeking a Special Permit to operate a medical clinic, specifically a methadone clinic.  He says they have provided information about the clinic and how it operates, identified how many operations are run by his clients, and given testament to how the dosage takes place.  Since the first hearing, they have submitted the AUL, soil tests, stats from state dept. of public health showing the need for addiction services in Salem, a traffic study, and information about the clinic.  He refers to a tenant neighboring another center run by his client; he says this letter attests to the fact that there have been no incidents or threats to the neighbors.  He also refers to the memo submitted by Chief Paul Tucker of the Salem Police attesting to the need for such a clinic and that there was no undue burden on the police departments of other communities where his client’s clinics are operated, nor was there an increase in crime.  He stated that Chief Tucker noted that if the facility were cited, the police would work to keep the area safe.  Atty Keilty referred to the traffic study done by Ken Cram, which reports that the traffic in the area – studied during the clinic’s peak period and the current peak period on Highland Ave. – also covered crash data.  He said Highland Ave. seems to be becoming safer, exhibiting fewer crashes than in previous years.  He said the study also examines similar facilities in neighboring cities.  They applied these data using worst case scenarios – and came to the conclusion that there would be minimal impact.  He said they have elected not to limit access to the parking lot.  In response to concerns that clients may arrive very early and might queue up early, a crash gate was proposed – but now they are proposing its elimination, to enable anyone coming at early hours to have complete access to the parking lot.  Queueing then should not be an issue on Highland Ave.  He says their co-tenant, a church, has no problem with sharing the parking lot since their peak hours are different.  He says this is a facility of 7300 SF, with 300 clients expected.  There would be 110 additional spaces – a total 144 parking spaces available at all hours during the day.  He says this would have previously been allowed by right before a zoning amendment in Sept., which was passed in response to his client’s previous attempt to locate on Canal St.  He believes this was passed in good faith, and the council intended to give the city the chance to review such projects, and not discriminate against methadone facilities.  He says he believes they have shown the community need for the services, and its lack of negative impact on the project.  He says if not granted the Special Permit, they will appeal the denial.  He says this has happened in other communities, costing cities and towns money, and says the Board must weigh the evidence presented.  

Debski asks if the church would take the remainder of the space in the building?  Atty Keilty says they probably would not use the entire rest of the space, but the broker is close to landing the church as tenant.

Curran: traffic study talks about 300 patients per day; you expect this?  Can it be capped?  Keilty says it could be capped if the Board wanted to pursue that, and it would take about a year to get to 300 clients.  He says if things go as planned, they could ask for an amendment.  Curran: would there be a policy about no sleeping in parking lot?  Keilty says yes, though there have been no reports of people sleeping in parking lots in other communities.  

Stein opens the issue up for public comment

Miguel Andreattola, 9 Red Jacket Lane, says his children go to the nearby schools, and he is concerned about this location, since the children walk by the site on their way.  He believes this is a public safety issue.

Maria Andreattola, 9 Red Jacket Lane, says the location is not appropriate because of proximity to schools.

Sandra McMahon, 2 Madeline Ave., says that capping the clients sounds unrealistic and a housing complex is nearby.  If clients are waiting to be counseled, they are waiting around in Dunkin Donuts and other local places; they will be lingering, especially if they arrive on the bus and need to wait around to be seen.  She does think this will be a public safety issue.

Dorothy Hayes, Essex St., opposes because she feels it will be a public safety issue.  She says they won’t serve people who have fallen off the wagon, so where will those people go?  She knows people who have these facilities near them and says discarded needles are a problem.  She is also concerned about traffic during peak commuting hours.  Also, she says clients will be drowsy and then will drive away.  

Marty Miseranduno, 13 First St., said it was reported in paper that 17 or 18 people from Salem would be using clinic – where would the rest come from?  Stein: currently, Salem people are using the Peabody facility.  She does expect people would come from other communities.  Keilty says the focus is serving Salem citizens, but they will not be exclusive.  His statistics show there are as many as over a thousand who are being treated in opiate facilities from zip code 01970.  Miseranduno says the applicant has had two incidents, one resulting in a death, from getting methadone and then driving.  He says in Peabody on Rt. 1, a costumer drove away after getting treatment; he is concerned that the people running the business are not doing a good job controlling this situation.  He says this places an undue burden on police.

Keitly says the clients are allowed to drive away.  

Miseranduno says he is concerned about traffic.

Hedy Thibaut, 15 First St. is concerned about noise and drowsiness about methadone.    She asks what the business incentive is to get these people off methadone, given that the business is for profit?  She says she is concerned about the neighborhood, including children.

Veronica Ehrlich, 29 First ST., opposes the project, saying it will lower property values and will be a detriment to the neighborhood.  She says she and other taxpayers will move if this is approved.  She also asks about trash and dirt that will be generated by the clinic.

Todd Siegel, 28 Brittania Circle, says he is a criminal defense attorney.  He says at the first meeting, he handed the Board call for service logs from Chelsea and Lynn Police depts.. – he says police were called over 100 times in each city.  He says Keilty’s assertion that there will be no strain on community services is incorrect.  He says there was recently a death in Revere; the driver was on his way to a methadone clinic and killed a woman.  He cites another accident caused by a methadone clinic client in Peabody.  He also opposes the project on the grounds that a for-profit business has no incentive to get people off methadone.  

Tom Furey, Councillor at Large, 77 Linden St., says the process of bringing in a clinic has not been open.  He says no one knew about the original proposal on Canal St.  He says the ZBA has to now put up with the residual effect of not having a committee and public involvement in siting the facility.  He says if there is such a need for this clinic, this should not have been dealt with in this fashion.  He refers to the schools and residential neighborhoods nearby.  Says he hopes the board denies.

Amy Alpert, 8 Lightning Lane – president of her condo association – 108 units – representing group says they are opposed.  She says the Chelsea location Keilty referred to is in a remote area, not a residential neighborhood.  She also opposes the project on the grounds that the clinic is for-profit.  

Judy Cohen – 15 Flying Cloud Lane – president of the Sanctuary Association,  says her organization and their neighbors are opposed on the grounds of safety concerns.

Pat Liberti, 3 Lions Lane, says it is a dangerous area, especially for school children.  She says the clinic’s operation hours are the same as school hours.  She says leaving the site is very difficult, and it goes straight into a residential area.  She’s a nurse and thinks methadone treatment does not really treat addiction.  She opposes the site proposed.  

Lou Zikowski – opposes because of location of schools.  

Rick Johnson, 13 River St., opposes because of public safety hazards.  He says they’re being asked to put a great deal of trust in clinic’s operators and clients.  He says if this is a fee for service operation, we can assume they are looking to promote dispensing higher dosages.  He also says clients driving after dosing is a concern.  

Paulette Puleo, 5 Freeman Rd. – opposes because of proximity to schools and danger to children.  She says there is a bus stop at the end of her street and she’s concerned clients would use it frequently.  She understands there’s a need but this is the wrong site.  

Councillor Steven Pinto – 55 Columbus Ave., opposes because the business is for profit; he doesn’t deny that people need help, but feels impacts to quality of life and impacts to neighborhoods would be too great.  

Todd Siegal says the courts do not send people for this treatment.

David Pelletier, 12 Crombie St. – He opposes because the clinic is for-profit and will want as many clients as possible.  

Theresa Nadeau – 7 Gallows Circle – She says she and her husband own a number of properties in the area and they are strongly opposed.  

Arther Theoplilopoulus, 24 Valley St., says he is concerned about children, since clients may be in an altered state and pose a threat.  He also doesn’t think this makes economic sense and it’s not needed in Salem – there are other clinics who can take these patients.

Megan Romanovitz, 90 Ocean Ave. says at the last meeting it was discussed that clients may be able to take the drugs with them and fill prescriptions – the drugs could be sold and this poses a threat to children.  She says there already is a methadone clinic in Salem on Mason St. run by HES.  She says this would be the second one and this doesn’t make sense.  

Michelle Knox, 32 Cavendish Circle, is opposed.  She says criminal background checks aren’t run on clients, so perhaps dangerous people would be attending the clinic.  She is concerned about proximity to schools.  She says in Sept. – if someone shows without appointment or too high to be treated, and they would be escorted from property, but the client’s operator does not take responsibility for these individuals.  She also says there are discrepancies in information about the hours of operation.  She says people typically do not seek treatment in their own community, so how will people come in from other communities, and how will they be taken home?  She is also concerned about traffic.  

Rachel Doherty, 70 First St, is opposed – this is very close to her home.  Pequot Highlands apartments has 250 units, and the back part of the site is about a tenth of a mile; it’s in very close walking distance from the apartments.  Also very close to Hawthorn apartments, which are even closer.  She says the proposal isn’t appropriate for a residential area.  She is also concerned about traffic.  

Tony Germain, 15 Ravenna, is opposed. He says it will destroy neighborhood.  He says the city should maintain its tourist and historic character

Jim Rush, Ocean Ave., is opposed.  He says the number of residents needing the clinic has changed.  He refers to a Salem Gazette article this year – Mr. Potter quoted as saying it was a good business decision to come to Salem.  He says this is about money, not helping people.  He also says Potter’s quote that they will be in Salem eventually flies in the face of the citizens here who are opposed.  He says the city councilors, opposing this project, represent the people of Salem.  However, he says the applicant does not care about this.  He says the applicant is threatening litigation.  He says this is a quality of life issue.  He says no one has been coming to these meetings who is in favor of the project.  He says Salem does not need a methadone clinic.  

Jim Hacker, 4 Mayflower Lane, opposes the project and echoes comments said.  He says adverse effects of proposal must not outweigh benefits; he says this project would not benefit neighborhoods.  He says he lives in Mariner Village, with 108 units, and says this amounts to about a quarter million dollars a year in taxes.  He says if they lose even ten percent of value, that would be a great loss to the city.  He asks the Board to consider then when approving the special permit, there are standards that the permit granted shouldn’t be more detrimental than what’s in place.

Ricki Hacker, 4 Mayflower Lane, also opposes.  She says public transportation to the clinic – bus runs one way – must cross Highaldn Ave. to get return bus.  She is concerned about children in the area.  

Councillor Paul Prevey, Ward 6, opposes clinic. He points out in addition to negative impacts, looking at whole picture of Salem, what makes the city unique – this is a very small city to have a clinic. He feels the impact to Salem would be tremendous – not like some other cities that could more easily absorb such a facility.  Things are often crammed in; only 8 square miles.  Always a challenge with business coming into city and not negatively impacting residents; we must look at what makes Salem livable and growable.  He says Salem doesn’t have a large business base; we do rely on businesses for tax base – business will look at things that will impact new potential businesses – this will detract from Salem’s appeal for new businesses.  Many improvements have been made in the city; this would have a negative impact instead.  

Councillor John Ronan – Ward 5 – opposes clinic.  He says councilors disagree about many issues, but all love Salem and want to do what’s best for the city.  But all agree on this issue.  He says this is not something Salem wants.  He refers to standards articulated in the zoning ordinance in its introduction.  He points particularly to promotion of appropriate land use in the city.  He says council passed an ordinance allowing a clinic in Salem if they could demonstrate that grounds of Special Permit would be met.  The proposed use’s benefits must outweigh impacts to city and neighborhood.  However, the benefit is not to the applicant’s private benefit – it’s supposed to be for the city.  He says the city gets very little benefit – less than one quarter of one percent of the population of Salem needs this facility.  He says many clinics are state sponsored, but this one is not.  He also points out that if a resident of Salem needed treatment, they could go to the two clinics in Lynn, others in neighboring cities.  He says no place in Salem is further than a 10 minute drive to one of these other facilities.  He says he met with Mr. Potter during last proposal.  He says he is concerned about take-home dosages.  He looked up regulations with regard to this – he says these are carefully regulated by statute.  He reads from Federal statute.  He says these are allowed under certain conditions and at certain time intervals.  He says in later years of treatment, patients need to only report once or twice a month to center.  He says adverse effects to neighborhoods clearly outweigh saving a small number of Salem residents the trouble of driving to another facility.

Jerry Ryan, Ward 4 Councillor – he says he has not heard anyone in favor.  He has heard from many constituents who are opposed.  He objects to the siting of a for-profit clinic.  He says their ultimate goal is to make money.  He says the Board should not let the threat of litigation guide their decision, but instead should put themselves in the shoes of the neighbors who are dealing with this proposal.  

Stan Poirier, 8 Cottage St., opposes.  He says this should not be considered.  He strongly urges the Board to vote against.  He says if the applicant chooses to sue, his tax dollars couldn’t be better spent opposing.

Councillor Arthur Sargent urges Board to consider quality of life in Salem neighborhoods.  He says the more he hears about this, the more he believes it should be in a hospital setting.  There should be a staff present in case of a medical problem.  Also, in case of any problems there would be a security staff present.  If someone tried to leave in the wrong condition, it would be easier to prevent drivers.  Urges Board to turn this down, even knowing there could be litigation – there would be burden on applicant to appeal, rather than neighbors having to pay for an appeal if approved.

Councillor Bob McCarthy says the public has spoken loud and clear in opposition.  Concurs with Mr. Hacker and his colleagues – reminds Board of standards needed to issue Special Permit.  He says needs are already being met in clinics elsewhere.  He says he has not heard that the other clinics are at capacity.  He says if other clinics were turning away Salem residents and the need was not being met, he might feel differently.  He says the clinic hasn’t demonstrated that need isn’t being fulfilled elsewhere.  He says if it came to the point where Salem residents weren’t being served, let them come back – but right now the need wasn’t demonstrated.  He feels it would be a detriment to the neighborhood.  

Councillor Jean Pelletier asks Keilty expresses concerns about the hours of operation and also comments that it would be unsafe for children walking in the early morning in this area.  He is concerned about cars leaving site and heading toward First St.  He refers to Attorney Keilty’s threat about appealing and says the burden of proof should be on the applicant.  He says the applicant was trying to intimidate Board.  He says Bob Norton, president of Salem Hospital, spoke with the councilor; he had a clinic at hospital, says it got out of hand.  He says police were going there daily.  He says the hospital ended their clinic because they didn’t see a benefit to running it.  He says he hopes the Board will deny the SP for the greater good of the neighborhood and the city.  

Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing.

Stein reviews letters received for record: there is one from Women’s Life imaging center.  Co tenants with a clinic run by applicant.  The letter says there have been no issues.  Stein says not all letters will be read in entirety but are on file.  She notes they are available for review.

Curran is concerned that until dose is right, a user has the potential to be drowsy.  Since they can’t park there, would they be in the neighborhood?  Keilty says they had not stated they couldn’t park.  The crash gate no longer proposed.  If drowsy, the client would be kept inside facility.  Similar to giving blood, people are kept until they are steady on feet.

Stein asks questions about the traffic study.  She says she noticed identified peak hours 7:30 to 8:30 on Highland.  If there are 300 clients, how many will come before 7:30?  If 5-8 is peak dispensing time, how many are coming between 7:30 and 8:30?  Keilty: 174 trips during peak operating hour in Peabody and Chelsea.  

Stein: when you say during peak hours, is it 174 in that one hour?  
Ken Cram of Land Strategies, which performed the study, says they gathered several weeks’ worth of data from CCRC, data showed their peak was 5:30 to 6:30 – roughly – about a quarter of total trips occurred.  Assuming a worst case scenario, they matched up peak hours.

Stein asks for clarification various points in the traffic study which Cram provides.

Stein asks about a provision in the lease that others couldn’t use parking spaces.  Keilty: our 33 spaces complies with zoning, so other 111 spaces beyond the crash gate are available to remaining space in building.  

Stein says that one of factors is traffic and parking she doesn't think 33 spaces are adequate.  Trips are very concentrated because of type of service.  Her concern is if something else goes in rest of site – how would we weigh that?  Debski is also concerned about that.  

Stein says one of her issues is that 33 is even remotely adequate.  What would safeguard be, if the board approved, that more spaces would be dedicated?  Keilty says he can say with assurance they would have access to all spaces.  Stein asks if that's a risk the landlord is willing to run?  

Fred Massa, broker says the parking requirements already exist on site if building were full.  Church would occupy 12,000 SF.  Debski: are there other prospective tenants?  Massa: yes, prospective commercial, and no larger parking needs than already exist.  Keilty: the clinic’s significant use time is over when other commercial uses would open.  

Keilty says at the Sept. hearing, they stated that they were treating 100 from Salem in Peabody, then suggested they couldn’t guarantee they’d all come back to Salem for treatment because of issues of travel to work, etc., and people not wanting to be treated in their own community.  He assumed 20 or so people wouldn’t come back to Salem. He says they identified at least 600+  Salem people in need of services.  He says it's true that as Ronan stated, they have choices, there is another facility in Salem.  Many people were surprised to find out there’s one on Mason – this gets to our issue that these facilities don’t cause the kinds of problems people speculate about.

Debski:  what is your incentive to get clients off methadone?  How long are people in treatment?

Potter: average patient we see is late 20s, blue collar, has been addicted to Oxy or heroin.  If using 5 years, about 12-18 months.  Sometimes people stay in treatment longer, but this is a personal and not a business decision.  Can detoxify at any time, their goal is to get people drug free.  Drug treatment is long term and people do sometimes relapse, this is not a quick fix.  Keilty: incentive is to be successful.

Stein asks about take-home prescription.  What is your policy?  Potter: federal policy allows to close one day a week, but this isn’t good medicine.  Fed regs are more lenient – we need to see someone min 6 months. To be eligible, need to keep all appointments, safe home environment, clean urine, no legal issues, etc.  One bottle is given in child safe bottle.  Must bring bottle back or goes back to 6 month track.  This is an incentive to do well and not have to attend clinic every day.  Much more restrictive at CSAC than on Fed level.  

Stein: peak hour is 26% of your business.  Potter says there is one nurse’s line to confirm people are going to work.  Stein – you stop dispensing at 8?  Potter – it depends – it’s a slow operation to start.  As population grows, latest is 11 but these facilities are larger.  Stein: getting sense of traffic – most if not all is done by 8 a.m.?  Potter – yes.

Debski is very concerned about proximity to schools.  She notes the school dept. did not comment – we don’t have their input.  Do you have other facilities located near schools?  Potter – yes, one is from B&D properties – owns 10,000 SF building.  5,000 SF next door is girls dance studio.  A day care center then came in.  Owner’s daughter has a consignment shop there.  Over 10 years there has never been an issue.

Keilty: near public schools?  Potter – yes, in Chelsea.  

Debski – these are supervised settings – here you have kids walking along First in an isolated neighborhood and then down Highland.  Schools start at 7.

Potter – all facilities have play areas because mothers come with children.  

Stein: my issue isn’t kids being around – it’s kids walking to school with the amount of traffic.  I don’t doubt that drug use is a problem and we need to offer a variety of treatment opportunities – need to be fair to people who need services.  Concern I have with this location is the traffic numbers.  You are taking first st. from 20 to 77 trips.  Adding 57 in an hour. At 300 people – this would almost triple traffic on First St.  There are a lot of kids that walk there – I’m concerned about the traffic and the walking, not the proximity of methadone.  Unfortunate that your peak hour coincides with school starting.  This is near three schools.

Curran doesn’t think the benefit outweighs the negative impact.  It’s a strange site – zoning does allow as a SP use – but the topography is such that it’s isolated within the residential area as opposed to business area – there are parking and traffic issues.  She is concerned about the schools and timing, and parking issues related to everyone coming at once.  I don’t support this and don’t support that benefit outweighs.  A small percentage of the  community needs it, and the impact on the neighborhood is very great.

Debski: it disrupts the neighborhood character.  The impacts outweigh benefits. This is a prime location on Highland – if there were retail uses from that these neighbors could benefit from, that would be great.  

Stein didn’t know that HES was operating a site on Mason.  Potter – perhaps a private doctor is dispensing, but there is no actual clinic.

Tsistinos: what about the hospital?  Potter - hospital didn’t express interest in having clinic there.  

Curran: we also have a conflict between residential uses and proposed use.

Stein gives Keilty an opportunity to respond; says they have clarified everything they’ve been asked to.   
Curran moves to grant the petition, seconded by Dionne, and unanimously denied (Debski, Stein, Dionne, Curran, and Tsitsinos opposed, none in favor).

Documents & Exhibits:
  • Application, dated 8/26/11
  • AUL and soil test information, dated 3/3/96
  • Traffic Impact and Access Study, dated 11/12/10, prepared by Land Strategies, LLC
  • Data from state dept. of public health submitted by Community Substance Abuse Centers, dated 11/10/11
  • Information packet about the proposed clinic.
  • memo submitted by Chief Paul Tucker, dated 11/8/10
Public hearing: Petition of EXPRESS AUTO BODY, INC, seeking a Special Permit to change one nonconforming use to another in order to convert the existing building located at 162-168 BOSTON ST to an auto body shop (I Zoning District).

Attorney Peter Martino, 986 Saratoga St., East Boston, representing Express Auto Body Inc.  presents the petition.  He says the past use of the property was a mill works building, most recently used to manufacture windows.  Mr. Chavez intends to run an autobody shop.  Currently a warehouse.  6-8 cars expected.  Repair of auto body parts and bumpers is primary part of business.  No room on property for cars to be parked.

Debski clarifies this is the  old Jeffers Lumber.

Stein asks about ventilation; Martino says there is a good ventilation system.  All work would be done inside, must meet all codes for fire, fumes, etc.  No exterior work.  Cars would not be parked on street or at exterior of building.  Carlos Farias says there will be four employees.  

Curran: are there two principal uses on one lot?

Board asks for clarification on which building this is and how it’s accessed.  

Stein: how many uses on site now?

St. Pierre: there’s a third building.  Mill in back, but off to left of lot toward Boston St., in driveway there’s a steel building, 10 yrs old, in addition.  The problem is the owner is putting a lot of uses on the site.  We need to determine if there’s enough parking.  But he hasn’t defined parking.  Access, adequacy of parking are issues with special Permit.  Cars can’t come in because of elevation, have to go onto a common right of way and into back of mill building to come in and out.  

Martino: mill would have had same issue of traffic.  As far as we’re concerned, we won’t have people parking – if cars would be repaired, they would come into the shop.

Curran:  wouldn’t there be a lot of juggling of cars that happens outside?  

Martino explains that cars would be entering the building.  Could not park on street.  

Stein: under new recodification, what does this fall under?

St. Pierre: motor vehicle general and auto body.  He also notes that with this kind of use, he is concerned about parking situation – if this were the only use, no problem, but need clarification of other uses and parking on site.  Board members also ask for a site plan.  Are there two or three principal uses?  

St. Pierre: for your client’s sake, if he’s renting from Mr. Cucurull, he needs to have these defined.  

Martino: we will get this defined and then submit a site plan.

Stein opens the  public comment portion of the hearing.

Bob Brophy, 165 Boston St. asks questions about parking – where is employee parking?  Where would Uhaul and Hertz employees park?  Says there will be more congestion, also says they want to change the nonconforming use of the property.  St. Pierre says this is actually 164.   

St . Pierre then clarifies this is refers to 164 map 16, lot 0190, the lumber yard property only.  

Stein closes public comment portion

Applicant requests to continue to January 19, 2011.  Curran moves to continue, seconded by Dionne and approved 5-0 (Curran, Dionne, Belair, Debski and Stein in favor, none opposed).  

Documents & Exhibitions
  • Application dated 11/18/10 and accompanying undated drawing
  • Assessor’s plate of 164-168 Boston St.
Public hearing: Petition of JOSH GILLIS, seeking a Variance from rear yard setback, and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, in order to enclose and roof over a 12’ x 11’4” porch on the second story of the existing two-family home on the property located at 7 UNION ST.

7 Union St. – Marcus Springer, 319 A St.,  representing Josh Gillis, who is also present.  He says they are renovating and expanding  the property at 7 Union St.  Says current house was built around 1885, addition exists to south of house, not sure when it was made.  Does not meet current setback requirements.  Want to enclose the second floor porch to create a family room off kitchen.  Easiest way is to go up on current foundation and walls.  Says they have provided the existing plans of house, as well as elevations.

Stein: just closing existing porch?  Yes.

Curran: in historic district?  Springer – no.

Curran asks for clarification on window details; Springer explains.  

Stein opens public comment portion of petition; no one here to comment, she closes it.

Stein says this is minimal relief.  Board asks about roofline – Springer explains they are following line of existing addition.  

Curran moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions:

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 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.


seconded by Dionne and approved 5-0 (Belair, Debski, Stein, Dionne and Curran in favor, none opposed).

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Application dated 11/19/10
  • Plans dated 11/18/10
Public hearing: Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, seeking a Special Permit to change one nonconforming use to another, and a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit, in order to convert a three-unit bed and breakfast to three individual dwelling units, on the property located at 51-53 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH (R-2 Zoning District).
Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition.

St. Pierre says a Special Permit for Bed and Breakfast has been in place since 1999.

Attorney Grover says they want to convert back to the residential use it was prior to 1999.  Says the building is very large – the unit is 5000 SF, which is much larger than most units in the area.  He says the current zoning would not even allow one unit based on lot area per dwelling unit required.  He says parking requirements are met.  He says access from Pleasant St. Ave is easy, and five of spaces are allocated to unit 2, which is the inn.  For the 3 units proposed, they have enough spaces already.  He speaks about the benefit to the neighborhood of having a commercial use converted to a residential one.  

Curran: would these be 2 bedroom units?  

Grover – 3 floors, one unit per floor, Wharff - unit size would be about 1300 SF each.  Similar space to what we did at the Elk’s – similar finishes, etc.  No exterior work, stairs.  Stein: we're always happy to see a residential use reestablished in a residential neighborhood.  

Stein opens the issue up for public comment

Barbara Swartz, 47 Washington Square north, says she fully supports, saying it would be good for the  neighborhood
Richard Wise, has next door unit, supports, saying the  change from inn to residential owners would improve neighborhood.

Stein closes public comment portion

Stein: the benefit to neighborhood is great – there is a hardship because of the size of building versus size of lot.    

Debski moves to grant petition with 8 standard conditions:

  • 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.

Mr. Wharff explains why exterior finishes cannot match current finishes exactly; Board says this is fine, they just have to be in harmony, seconded by stein and approved 5-0 (Belair, Dionne, Stein, Curran and Debski in favor, none opposed).  

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Application dated 10/27/10
  • Plan dated 1/21/99
  • Undated photographs
Debski moves to adjourn, seconded by Dionne, all in favor.  Meeting adjourns at 10 pm.

Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner

Approved by the Board of Appeals 2/16/11