City of Salem, MA - Approved Minutes, January 19, 2011

Approved Minutes, January 19, 2011

City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals

APPROVED Minutes of Meeting

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, January 19, 2011 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.

Those present were: Elizabeth Debski (Chairing the meeting), Richard Dionne, Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate) and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Those absent were Annie Harris and Becky Curran. Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner.

Debski opens the meeting at 6:35 p.m.

Approval of minutes postponed until next meeting.

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.

Attachment:

Withdrawal letter from Attorney Grover dated January 19, 2011

McKnight explains the Board has received a letter from Attorney Scott Grover requesting to withdraw the petition. Dionne moves to allow to be withdrawn without prejudice, seconded by Tsitsinos and approved 4-0 (Dionne, Tsitsinos, Debski and Belair in favor, none opposed).

Public hearing: Petition submitted by PAUL FERRAGAMO seeking Variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width/frontage, and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for eleven (11) single-family house lots at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-1 Zoning District)

Attorney George Atkins explains that because only four board members are present tonight, he wishes to continue the matter to the next meeting. Dionne moves to continue the item to February 16, 2011, seconded by Belair and approved 4-0.

Public hearing: Petition of A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming use (gas station) and dimensional Variances under Sec. 3.3.3 to reconstruct a nonconforming structure (constructing a convenience store); requesting relief from frontage and lot area; and requesting relief from screening requirements of Sec. 6.3.4 , for the properties located at 175 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 and R-3) and 183 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-1 Zoning District).

Public hearing: Petition of RICARDO GARCIA requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and from parking requirements in order to renovate and convert the existing single-family house on the property located at 138 BRIDGE STREET to a two-family house (R-2 Zoning District).

Because only four board members are present tonight, applicant wishes to continue the matter to the next meeting. Belair moves to continue the item to February 16, 2011, seconded by Dionne and approved 4-0.

Public hearing: Petition of KEVIN & AMY KING requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure, in order to add a second story and 8’ x 12’ addition to the single family house on 7 NURSERY STREET (R-2 Zoning District).

Attachments:

Application date-stamped December 29, 2010
Plans titled “Proposed Addition to the King Residence,” dated December 26, 2010, prepared by AFAB Enterprises, Burlington MA

Debski asks if there is a larger plan with the elevation shown. Mr. King shows an enlarged copy of the submitted plan. Debski notes that the side setback is already nonconforming. St. Pierre says he will check whether this requires a variance or only a Special Permit.

Debski opens up the issue for public comment

Michelle Fitzgerald and Ray Fitzgerald, 6 Nursery St., support the petition.

Sarah Hayes, 21 Fairmont St., supports the petition, noting the Kings are good neighbors and in this economy they should be allowed to expand rather than having to buy a larger house.

St. Pierre notes that only a Special Permit is needed for this petition, not a Variance.

Belair notes that this is a nice proposal, in keeping with the neighborhood, and the abutters here support it.

Tsitsinos moves to approve the petition with the following 9 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.
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.

Motion seconded by Dionne and approved 4-0 (Debski, Dionne, Belair and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed).

Public hearing: Petition of RUSSELL & NORMA LEBLANC requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming structure, in order to add a second floor addition to the existing single family house on the property located at 11 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R-1 Zoning District).

Attachments:

Application date-stamped 1/5/11

Russell LeBlanc presents the petition. He says they are looking at purchasing the property. They would like to add a second floor on the right hand side of the house and will not be expanding the footprint.

Debski notes that no plan has been submitted. St. Pierre says legally the Board must tie their decision to a plan that’s been submitted. Belair says the Board really needs to see plans so they can understand what they are approving.

Debski says they don’t need to be a full set of plans done by an architect, but they do at least need elevations. Applicant agrees to submit elevations by February 9, 2011, in time for the next meeting.

Dionne moves to continue the petition to February 16 when scaled elevation drawings will have been submitted by Feb. 9, seconded by Belair, and approved 4-0 (Debski, Dionne, Belair and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed).

Continued 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).

Attachments:

Application date-stamped 11/18/10
Assessor’s map of the property and vicinity
Site and Parking plan (no date or title)

St. Pierre clarifies that the correct address for this property is 164-168 Boston St., and does not include 162 Boston St.

Attorney Peter Martino represents the petitioner. He says at the last hearing, there had been an issue with the parking. He apologizes that the plans were not submitted earlier and shows the Board a site plan. He explains the site layout and parking.

Belair asks how many employees would be working there. Farias says two or three. Martino confirms there are 6 spaces for staff people. Farias says no customer parking is necessary because they work on the cars and send them back. Martino says all repairs are done inside the building. Debski asks what would happen with the remainder of the property – is the owner here to address that? She says the Board needs to look at parking for the whole project.

Atty Martino shows on the plan where the existing rental office is. Farias says there is nothing in the front building.

Belair asks how cars will access parking – from Boston St.?

Martino says yes, there is a right of way along the back side, but that parking area isn’t part of this.

Belair questions how the staff is going to access their parking.

Atty Martino attempts to clarify on the plans how the spaces are to be accessed. Belair asks if these spaces are striped. She notes that the parking area is outside the property line. Debski says they asked at the last meeting for a plan showing each building’s use and associated parking. Martino says the other parts of the property have nothing to do with Express Auto and its parking. He says the whole parcel is owned by one owner.

St. Pierre said he thought it was clear at the last meeting that the Board requested an overall parking plan for the property. The Board must understand whether the body shop and other uses would work together and have enough parking. Belair notes there are five uses on this property. Belair asks where the truck rental office workers will park. Martino agrees that the Board needs a plan that will show the other uses and their parking. Debski says she doesn’t think the Board has enough information tonight to act tonight. She thought they had been clear, but perhaps there has been a misunderstanding. Belair says for the whole parcel, they want to know each use and the parking designated for each use. St. Pierre says the zoning ordinance requires parking to be designated for each use. One of the main issues is the congestion and parking on the site.

Debski opens the issue up for public comment.

Ward 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols St., says parking is a major issue in that area. He says the same owner owns the property across the street, and down the road this will create a bigger problem. He also has a problem with the fumes associated with the auto body shop and how it will affect the children next door. He says he does not support the petition.

Mike Shea, the owner of 116 Boston St., says the only access to the garage is through an easement on his property, but the only way to actually pull a truck into the garage is by going into his property. St. Pierre asks him to show the easement on the plan. Mr. Shea points out on the plans where the residential use next door and the easement is located. He also says the paint fumes will affect the children living next door. Debski asks about the width of the easement; Shea says approximately 10 feet.

Martino says they need to update the plan with the easement. He says people always got in that way – the access is for a car, not for large trucks. Belair asks if tow trucks wouldn’t be coming in? Martino says he doesn’t think so. Also, he says this was a use of that building previously. However, he thinks the easement is wide enough to allow a car. Shea says it used to be Jeffers Mill and trucks did not come in that garage door opening. Shea says the previous owner owned the whole site and accessed it from the front and side. Shea says if they are taking one nonconforming business and going to another nonconforming, would the new use have to be less detrimental? St. Pierre says yes, you’d have to determine that the new use wouldn’t be more detrimental. Shea says it will be a mess with the traffic and he doesn’t know how they will access the building without going on his property.

Bob Brophy, 165 Boston St., asks if the current use is allowed by right. Also, is the U-Haul allowed by the current zoning? He says the U-Haul takes up a lot of parking in the lower area where they are showing employee parking.

Debski asks if that’s where they are parking their trucks now; Brophy says yes, plus Budget trucks.

St. Piere says Mr. Cucurull came in for the truck rental question – and that use is allowed. Motor vehicle and body repair is by ZBA special permit. An inspection station would be allowed under current zoning.

Brophy asked about the Hertz car rental – does their parking plan include the Hertz? He says there are a lot of uses with things being stored and minimal storage space. He says he’s had his shop 40 years and they are running into problems with the owner’s multiple uses. He says there are too many things crammed into too small a property.

St. Pierre says it’s a good point that the owner has numerous uses and he needs to provide a parking plan for the property. He says Sec. 7 of the zoning is about off street parking requirements; it’s up to the owner to determine which uses have how much parking.

Debski says where they show their employee parking is perhaps already in use; Martino says he doesn’t think trucks park there currently.

Brophy says the owner’s vehicles have been blocking his driveway. He does not want to see more overcrowding.

Debski says she’s sorry for the petitioner, but they really need the owner to explain the site. St. Pierre says he is going to send a letter to Mr. Cucurull. He says the Board has the right to demand a parking plan, and he will request this.

Ed Ronan, 21 Bow St., says he opposes the plan. He says that considering this is an entrance corridor, the truck parking situation is terrible. He notes the many signs for various businesses on the property and he doesn’t see how the proposed uses can all fit on that lot. He doesn’t think it’s a good fit for the neighborhood.

St. Pierre confirms that he will require the plan from the property’s owner and says he will request it in time for the next meeting. He says a plan also must show the easement. Martino says they will provide that. Belair says the parking spaces and their dimensions must be shown.

Dionne moves to continue the petition to February 16, 2011, after the owner submits a parking plan, seconded Belair, and approved 4-0.

Debski says if people don’t have their plans ready when they apply, the applicant must continue to the following month. The Board briefly discusses scheduling and attendance in the upcoming months.

Dionne moves to adjourn, seconded by Tsitsinos and passed 4-0.

Meeting adjourns at 7:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner

Approved by the Board of Appeals 2/16/11