Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes, February 16, 2011
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, February 16, 2011

A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, February 16, 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), Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, and Bonnie Belair (alternate).  Those absent were: Annie Harris and James Tsitsinos (alternate).  Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner.

Debski opens the meeting at 6:35 p.m.  She announces there are only four members present and so some applicants have requested to continue to next month in order to be heard by a full Board.

Continuation of 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 164 and 166-168 BOSTON STREET to an auto body shop (I Zoning District).

Debski announces they have requested to continue.  Curran moves to continue the petition to March 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).  

Attorney George Atkins requests to continue the petition; Curran moves to continue the matter to March 16, 2011, seconded by Dionne and approved 4-0.

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 requests to continue the petition; Curran moves to continue the matter to March 16, 2011, seconded by Dionne and approved 4-0.

Debski says the Board is going to move to executive session to discuss strategy for litigation on several cases – the Assistant City Solicitor is present for this purpose.  She says that discussion of these cases in public could be detrimental to the City’s position on litigation.  She notes that the Board will continue in open session after the executive session.  She announces the Board members will be moving into the adjacent small conference room for the executive session and will return to the large conference room for the rest of the open session.  She says the cases to be discussed are:

  • Levesque et al. v. United Financial Consultants, LLC ;
  • Wallace et al. v. Wharff et al.; and
  • McKinnon et al. v. Byrne et al.
Dionne makes a motion to go into executive session; Curran seconds, and the motion passes 4-0 (Debski, Dionne, Curran and Belair in favor, none opposed).  The Board leaves the room at 6:40 p.m.

The Board members return at 7:03 p.m.  Debski announces the Board is back in open session.

Continuation of 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; accompanying plot plan and other materials
  • Elevation drawings titled “LeBlanc Residence, 11 Winter Island Rd., Salem, MA,” dated 2/8/11, prepared by Esoteric Residential Design, Inc.
  • Photographs submitted to Board (no date)
Russell and Norma LeBlanc present the petition.  Mr. LeBlanc describes the one story addition he is proposing.  He says the plans have been submitted to Board and shown to neighbors, and asks if the Board has any questions.  Curran asks him to confirm that he is just going up, within the same footprint; LeBlanc says yes. Belair asks what material would be used.  LeBlanc says he planned on vinyl siding but would reconsider if the Board preferred something else.  Debski asks St. Pierre if the only relief they need is a Special Permit; St. Pierre says yes, and prior to the zoning recodification, they wouldn’t even have needed that.  He notes that there is a provision in ordinance that allows him to allow the applicant to rebuild the porch area without a Special Permit; it’s just the addition that requires one.
 
Debski opens issue up for public comment.

Scott Johnston, 12 Winter Island Rd. notes there is no parking on that lot and asks where they will be parking cars?  LeBlanc says there is a 20 foot wide access road that goes down to water.  He says the paving often used on golf courses will be put in adjacent to this access road to park cars on, in front of the home, between the home and water.  Debski asks him to clarify where the access road is – she couldn’t see it on the plan.  St. Pierre explains it’s a public right of way.  LeBlanc presents photos of the property and shows the access road to the Board.  

Debski asks if there is parking for 2 cars, LeBlanc says yes.  

Debski: there is no parking presently?  LeBlanc says the current residents have been parking on the easement.

Paul O’Shea, 15 Winter Island Rd., asks for clarification about the parking.  Debski explains there is to be parking for two cars between the house and water; Curran adds that parking is not intended for the easement.  St. Pierre notes there should be a condition that there will be no parking on the right of way.

Anne O’Shea, 15 Winter Island Road, asks what will happen with the section of wall that was damaged years ago and rubble has been left behind.  LeBlanc says he doesn’t know what she’s referring to.  He says he saw debris in the right of way but this doesn’t have anything to do with him.  Ms. O’Shea says this time of year there’s a lot of trash that washes up there, but this is separate issue.  Debski notes he’ll probably need to go to the Conservation Commission, and this would be worth discussing there.

Debski closes public portion of the hearing.

Curran says she likes the addition of parking.  

Belair moves to approve the petition with the following standard conditions: Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations.

  • 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.
  • 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.
and two special conditions:

  • Two off-street spaces shall be created on petitioner’s lot.
  • Petitioner shall not park in public right of way adjacent to the property.
Motion is seconded by Dionne and passed 4-0 (Dionne, Debski, Curran and Belair in favor, none opposed).

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).  

Attachments:

  • Application date-stamped 12/28/10 and accompanying plot plan, photographs and other materials
  • Letter from Louis P. Izzi, Esq. to Richard G. DiGirolamo, Esq., dated 2/16/11
  • Parking plan titled, “RS Design & Construction Corp., 138 Bridge St., Salem MA, Parking Proposed,” no date.
Louis Izzi, Esq. presents the petition on behalf of Mr. Garcia, who is also present.  He says that in his statement of hardship he explains the property is in very difficult shape.  He says it is currently held in the estate of William Paradise. The owners haven’t paid taxes to the City in about 20 years.  He says there was a tax taking done in 90s that was reversed because of a defect in land court proceeding, but it has been taken again.  Most recently he says he was told the building was condemned.  His client is interested in rehabbing – inside and out.  In order to be economically feasible to do so he says they are recommending it be converted to a two family.  Since petition was filed, Mr. Izzi says his client has been trying to find ways of securing parking.  He says today he was able to secure a commitment from the neighbor at 136 to allow an easement for passage to a place on the property where on-site parking will be provided.  He passes the board a letter signed by Richard Di Giralomo agreeing to this.  He says the lot line between the properties is 71 feet.  Along that boundary, the easement, 8 feet wide, will allow access to the rear of 138.  He passes out a parking plan sketch to the Board.  He feels this will alleviate concern that has previously been expressed by neighbors.  He says he would be seeking relief from parking space area, since the lot configuration doesn’t afford space.  He notes that this is an odd shaped lot.  He says his client has made an effort to alleviate the legitimate parking concerns of neighbors, and notes that adding parking could be seen as eliminating a parking nonconformity.  Debski says piggy back spots don’t count as legal -  is there an area for turning around?  Izzi says no, and  this parking would require backing out onto Bridge St.  He says that acquisition of the easement is not insignificant in terms of costs and notes that many of the existing buildings in the neighborhood have the same situation in terms of backing out.  

Curran asks Attorney Izzi to confirm they are staying within the house’s footprint and no expansion is proposed; he says yes.  Garcia says some of the property might be demolished.  Debski asks if this would allow room for a turnaround – St. Pierre says probably not.  He notes that someone has been parking there for several years.  

Steven Smith, 140 Bridge St., comments that that area of Bridge St. has very little off street parking and he supports the plan.  

Curran asks what materials would be used.  Atty Izzi says the plan to assess what’s under the shingle; hopefully it’s clapboard.  They would attempt to refinish what’s existing.  

Belair is concerned about letter saying the conversation about the easement is confirmed; tomorrow there could be no agreement.  St. Pierre suggests adding this as a condition.  Belair asks what happens if it falls through?  Izzi says this approval is dependent on their ability to have the easement.  St. Pierre says to make it a condition, so it’s enforceable through the building permit process.  Belair acknowledges the neighbors’ concerns about parking.  Izzi says he spoke to Councillor Sosnowski, who had been concerned about parking, about this prior to obtaining the easement, and he has since emailed him with an update.  Izzi recognizes parking is a major issue in the neighborhood.  

Dionne asks if during renovation they would install any kind of firewall on the end of the house which is about a foot from the neighboring house?  Garcia says the plans are preliminary, but will meet all regulations of the city.  Because he doesn’t own the property lot, he can’t invest in exact detailed plan of the inside.  St. Pierre says there are no windows on that side of the house, and the code wouldn’t allow openings to be put in.  They need to  maintain a solid wall.  

Debski opens the issue up for public comment.

Steve Smith, 140 Bridge St.,  says the roof is pitched and water runs into his house because it’s so close – he would request gutters on that side.  St. Pierre said that sounded reasonable.  Smith said he wasn’t originally supportive of the plan, but he’s just glad to get it repaired – the shed in back is dangerous, and there could be animals living there.  He does want to make sure there’s no damage to his house when they do the siding.  He says the bedrooms of his house are on very close.  He asks about construction times allowed by the city; St. Pierre says the hours are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. - that’s enforceable city ordinance.  Smith says that proximity to construction could be hard for his tenants.  However, it would be great to fix up the house.  

Debski refers to letters the Board has received (from Ward 2 Councillor Michael Sosnowski, 17 Collins St., and Alyssa Jones, Northey St.).  

Debski closes the public comment portion of the hearing.

Dionne says he has a hard time allowing them to increase the density here.  He understands the financial reasons for that, however.  St. Pierre notes that the calls he receives on this property indicate that its appeal is its proximity to the train station.  Curran says she has no problem with increased density - this is how this property can be renovated.  She says the parking isn’t the best – but it does get cars off the street.

Dionne asks if this doesn’t go through – will it go up for auction?  St. Pierre says yes.

Debski says when she came in she was really concerned about the lack of parking, but realizes how hard the petitioner has worked and how expensive it must be to get that easement.  It’s not ideal, but they have been accommodating.

Belair says she is concerned with increasing density.  For a two family – you’d have at least two cars.  She says she is really on the fence.  

Curran moves to approve the petition, with the following 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 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.
and the following special conditions:   

  • Petitioner shall secure an easement to allow for parking on the site, as described in the letter signed by Richard G. DiGirolamo dated February 16, 2011.
  • Gutters are to be installed on the roof to prevent runoff into the house located on 140 Bridge Street.
The motion is seconded by Dionne and approved 4-0 (Dionne, Debski, Belair and Curran in favor, none opposed).  

Approval of Minutes: The minutes of December 15, 2010 are reviewed.  Dionne moves to approve, seconded by Debski, and passed 4-0 (Curran, Debski, Belair and Dionne in favor, none opposed).

The minutes of January 19, 2011 were reviewed.  Dionne moves to approve them, seconded by Debski and passed 3-0 (Debski, Dionne and Belair in favor, none opposed, Curran abstaining).

Old/New business: Dionne moves to continue Board elections to the March 16, 2011 meeting, seconded by Debski and passed 4-0.  

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

Meeting adjourns at 8:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner

Approved by the Board of Appeals 3/16/11