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

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

Debski opens the meeting at 6:30 p.m.

Approval of minutes:  The minutes of 2/16/11 are reviewed.  McKnight says she has an addition: when the Board voted to go into executive session, she neglected to note the role call vote that was held in the draft minutes and suggests making this addition to the approved minutes.  Curran moves to approve the minutes with this change, seconded by Dionne and passed 5-0.

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).

Attachments:

  • Application date-stamped 11/18/10
  • Assessor’s map of the property and vicinity
  • Site and Parking plan (no date or title)
Debski notes the petitioner is not here, the Board has requested info they have not received, and there are people here in the public for this petition.  

Deski opens the issue up for public comment.

Ward 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols St., speaks in opposition, saying the proposal in addition to what is there would be too much for that one property.  

Mike Shea, 160 Boston St., concurs with the Councilor.

Bob Brophy 165 Boston St., says he opposes because of parking issues, not because the applicant proposes opening a shop competing with his.

Debski asks the Board for any comments.  She closes the public comment portion of the hearing.

Dionne says the petitioner hasn’t shown up and suggests he’s lost interest.

St. Pierre says the owner, Mr. Cucurull, was asked to submit a parking plan.

Curran: we haven’t received a letter?  McKnight says she has not received one, and a phone call and email to Petitioner about what he wanted to do were not answered.

Curran moves to approve, seconded by Belair.  The Board votes: five (5) are opposed (Curran, Belair, Tsitsinos, Dionne and Debski).  None are in favor.  Petition is denied.

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).  

Attachments:
  • Application date-stamped 12/22/10, with supplementary material
  • Plans titled “Site Improvement Plan” and “Proposed Floor Plan and Elevations,” prepared by Ayoube Engineering, last dated 11/19/10
  • Photographs and property cards from Assessor database (submitted by resident Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar St.)
  • Letter submitted by resident Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar St.
Attorney George Atkins presents the petition and introduces Tony Guba of Ayoube Engineering.

Atty Atkins describes the existing conditions of the site – a gas station and office building. He says AL Prime has entered into purchase agreement with the owner of 183, this is contingent on petitioner getting permits to do what both would like.  They want to take down the buildings and put in four gas pumps with a canopy and a convenience store to the rear. He says this reduces number of businesses on these two lots – instead of four it will be reduced to two, gas station and convenience store.  He says the plan is also intended to address the queuing of cars on Lafayette St. for people trying to get gas, and this proposal will prevent this.  He says pumps will be self serve - currently it’s attendant service - and the plan will allow for easy entrance and exit.  Previously, there could be numerous vehicles trying to access the site for various reasons.  There also is a crosswalk here that’s dangerous.  They think this plan will solve these problems.

Atty Atkins says they’ve asked for a Special Permit on 175 Lafayette.  He says this is needed because this was a use established prior to zoning; current ordinance requires a SP for gas station; convenience store is an allowed use.  He says the property extends into the R3 zone in the rear.  The SP is to change a nonconforming use on 175.  They are taking down the building on 183; need a SP because they will use for gas station use, “motor vehicle light service,” and this is a B1 lot.  They are requesting two Special Permits.  He says that unfortunately, the dimensional regulations they are asking for are complex, since this is a corner lot.  Because it is a gas station, or “motor vehicle light service,” there are special regulations in section 6-4 of the Zoning Ordinance which change the dimensional regulations in section 4.  He passes out a copy of table of the relief requested and explains each dimensional variance requested.  Front setback is normally 15 feet in B1, requirements of special regs increase it to 40, and it’s on the corner, so it has to be looked at from both sides.  The existing structure, the garage, is not in conformance with that, and neither will the convenience store and canopy.  At the south side, that refers to the side nearer to Marblehead.  Requirement there is 10 feet currently; garage sits on the line or goes over. Convenience store is 2 feet across the side line.  Convenience store and canopy must be looked at; to south, no relief is needed for the canopy.  Convenience store is still 3 feet off the line and needs relief.  

Atty Atkins says the rear setback is 30 feet, this is not changed by the special regulations; the garage did qualify but the convenience store set back on 175 doesn’t conform to the zoning requirements.  The  minimum area and lot width is substantially increased by the special regulations, from 6,000 to 16,000 SF, this is a function of the number of pumps they have.  They need relief from lot area.  Number of pumps increases what is normally allowed for lot width – from 40 to 160 feet.  They are short of lot width on both streets.  Frontage, a new requirement in the new ordinance, doesn’t do have separate requirements as dictated by special regulations, as lot width does.   He says no relief is needed for frontage.

Atty Atkins addresses building lot coverage – he says 40% is allowed in B1 – current site has 26% building coverage.  He says the chart shows proposed conditions will have 38% coverage including canopies, meaning no relief is required.

Atkins says the pump setback is currently nonconforming; plan doesn’t require relief.  We’re pushing pumps back, getting cars off the street, there’s queuing available on the site.  Another requirement for max driveway width is in the special regs.  What the plan shows is two existing driveways, both will be closed, and new access will be back from corner.  This will provide more sensible parking.  He thinks the neighborhood group was satisfied with that.

Atkins says the driveway width can’t be more than 24 feet according to Zoning; a 30 foot driveway will be on Palmer and the existing opening is now 79 feet.  Relief will be required there.  The nonstorage space in convenience store requires 10 spaces; the area between current buildings requires 9 spaces; they have 10 available.  Evergreen screening is also required; we’re asking for relief there because both lots are very small and adding screening would create a difficult problem in terms of laying out effectively.  

Atty Atkins explains changes proposed to the gas storage tanks.  He says the tanks, currently in front, are very small by current standards for gas stations - two 6000 gallon tanks.  They plan to remove them and install a larger, more common version of 20,000 gallons each.  This will enable truck delivery without shutting down operations on site.  With the small tanks, he says there are 10 deliveries a week; the larger tanks will only require 3 or 4, a big reduction.  He says the delivery of fuel to a site is a dangerous point for producing spills; this substantially reduces that risk.  There are 3 employees on site, hours of operation are 6 to 10, Sunday 8 to 8, and they will continue to use these hours.  They may go to council for permission for 24 hour operation.  This is not yet determined and will depend on council.  Atty Atkins says the neighborhood group was very concerned about this issue if this could be a youth gathering place. He says this operation keeps stations clean and orderly and have no problems at their sites.  Also, he says neighbors were concerned about truck idling while delivering.  Atty Atkins says it’s an absolute rule of the company, possibly even state law, that trucks must be shut down while delivering.  He says another concern was regarding construction – he says there are minimal employment opportunities, but he thinks the company will advertise locally.  He addresses the construction time period – an estimated 3 to 4 months.  New tanks must be put in.  As a personal observation, in dealing with this company, councilors have been concerned a bout queuing of cars, we’ve met with them about this, they are very responsive.  He thinks it will be a considerable improvement for the neighborhood and Lafayette St.   

Belair asks about the neighborhood meeting.  Atkins says he was invited to meet with Point neighborhood, but hasn’t met with immediate neighbors.  He did meet with one resident who was concerned after the item was continued at the last meeting and answered her questions; he explained what they were doing and she was satisfied.

Belair asks about the notation “and pizza” on the convenience store plans.  Atkins says this would not be the principle activity of store; it will have pizza and subs as part of other food items for sale.  Belair – most convenience stores don’t sell pizza.  Atkins – one of the other gas stations in Salem does a form of food service; it’s quite common now.  Belair – they’ll be making pizza there?  Atkins: Yes.  Curran: are there seats?  Atkins: No.

Dionne: will there be access to the variety store from Lafayette ST. from pump stations?  Seems awkward.  Atkins points out the access on the map.  Dionne: you’ll have four pumping stations that can serve 8 cars?  Atkins: theoretically, but I’m not sure it’s ever maximized.  He says one thing the company has told him is gas stations aren’t destination locations.  Unless they are really driven by price, people won’t come from elsewhere.  They don’t expect an increase in traffic.

Curran: Palmer entrance is a 2 way entrance and exit?  Atkins: yes.  Curran: what’s the reason for 30 feet instead of 24?  Atkins: for more comfortable traffic.  Curran: that’s pretty wide.  Tony Guba: It’s to accommodate the swing of tractor trailor; Palmer is narrow.  They’d be exiting out that way.  Curran: Lafayette St. is just one way in?  Guba: No, but the tanker truck would be coming in Lafayette, driving counterclockwise and exiting to Palmer.  Dionne asks for clarification of distance between pump, storage area and exit.  

Ward 7 Councillor O’Keefe: state fire regs require a truck to shut down while delivering the fuel.  If there’s a 10,000 gallon tank truck, no one can be on the property while they are dispensing fuel.  They must put cones up to prevent other cars from accessing.

St. Pierre: this isn’t happening around Salem.

O’Keefe – this is a fire department issue; there should be no cars on property while fuel is delivering.

Debski: can trucks fit under height of canopy?  Atkins: yes.

Tony: canopy is lit with task area, recessed lighting.  There’s no glare; company uses LED lights.

Atkins: this plan will also be reviewed, including lighting, by the planning board.  Debski and Curran ask wither SPR will be triggered; Atkins says they will go before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review.  

Curran: some relief I have no issue with, some is preexisting, but in back – this is residential – 3 feet for this use seems really close to me.  Any way you can shift up or reduce size?  Can it be pulled back from that house?  I see a conflict with those uses being so close.  Atkins: I suppose you could – but you wouldn’t want to go into parking area.  You need space between parking and building.  Curran: I’d almost rather see it come out to the street with less setback and provide more distance from that house.  It’s very close.  

Guba says the lot is higher than what’s next door.  He points on the plan to the open stairwell – the building is actually further back than it looks on plan.  He says it’s just a deck with stairwell.  A retaining wall is there now; if the building was moved in, the wall is still a divider.  Wouldn’t open that area; and there’s a fence there.  

Curran: there will be a stockade fence instead of evergreen screening?  Guba – we’re showing the fence all along property.  Belair: what’s the height?  Guba thinks it’s 6 feet.  St. Pierre says it can be 8 feet between a business and residence.

Dionne: what’s the requirement for gas storage underground tanks – what proximity to houses can they be?

St. Pierre asks Councillor O’Keefe, who responds that they are underground.  Debski: no minimum?  

St. Pierre asks about snow removal – he notes there’s no proviso for snow and it will be pushed out to street. Atkins says it will have to be removed; St. Pierre says you have to have a plan to have it temporarily stored, perhaps that’s for the Planning Board to review, but it’s not realistic during a blizzard that it won’t go onto street.  
Atkins: it’s the company’s practice to remove snow; all their sites are small.  There isn’t room to store snow.

Dionne: most gas stations not so close to residential neighborhoods.  I don’t think they would allow that today.  How close is the building to the right?

Atkins says these tanks are the new standard; state of the art allowed by regulation.  Dionne says he’s concerned about traffic.  Atkins says that’s a problem they are trying to solve.  Dionne points out increased capacity for pumping.  Atkins says the experience of the company is that volume of cars won’t go up, but the queuing will disappear.  

Tsitsinos says this is exactly the same as the Hess on New Derby, and on North St.  Both are totally free flowing.  

Belair thinks these are larger.  Tsitsinos thinks they are comparable to, if not smaller than, this property.  

Belair: from my perspective, you’re increasing the use.  Atkins: keep in mind we started with a convenience store, office use, garage and pumping of gas, all on same site; all with deliveries and customers.  He disagrees that they are increasing business activities.  Tsitsinos agrees, and also thinks the backing out problem will be solved.

Debski: garage that’s there now – they repair vehicles?  Atkins: yes, and this is just gas.

Belair: people are concerned about people hanging around; in my mind pizza will attract this.  Atkins: it’s not a sit down restaurant.  He does not think it will encourage loitering.  

Guba addresses increasing the number of dispensers – we find that there’s a perception that more pumps equals more customers; but a good analogy is a grocery store with more checkout counters.  He says it just means people are moved through faster, not that number of customers increases.  

Dionne – now people will have to come in to the store for transactions.
Guba says the average transaction time will be 4 minutes.  He says with all self serve, time is decreased because people aren’t waiting for an attendant.  

Debski opens the issue up for public comment.  

Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar St., lives across street.  She passes out photos of site and says this speaks to St. Pierre’s concerns about snow.  She says it’s dangerous now, there is queuing on Lafayette, not sure any changes will diminish that.  Doesn’t think Salem needs it, thinks this project is because Marblehead has only one gas station and this is for them.  Curran says actually, Marblehead has zero gas stations.
Wilbert says kids loiter there.  She’s concerned about late hours.  However, it would be nice for the liquor license to go away.  She passes out information about local gas stations and their lot area and says they are significantly larger than this site.  

Wilbert asks if they are aware of plans for Lafayette St. and Dow and Harbor’s proposed signals.  She says she asked about queuing to traffic signals, and up to 20 cars are expected.  She says that will bring the queue to this gas station.  There will be problems getting people in and out because of the queue.  Also, the bus stop across from office building is a busy one.  She says in winter, snow blocked crosswalk to bus stop.  We’ve had pedestrians hit there multiple times because of that crosswalk.  There would be lots of problems changing this site.  It would be great if they could be fixed, but lots are too small, there’s too little turning radius.  Cars come onto lot from every direction.  She says it’s dangerous, and urges the Board not to approve.

Jamie Metch, 18 Oliver St., says he had a chance to look at the plans and view the site.  He e agrees with the applicant that the proposal creates efficiency that could alleviate queuing.  He still has concerns about congestion.  He addresses the concern from neighbors about cars coming on and off lot every which way, with a 79 foot curb cut from Lafayette, that still will allow random ability to come and go.  He suggests perhaps narrowing that down to 30 feet, pushing to right where the trucks would come in, and creating a one way in, one way out scenario like on Highland Ave. near the transfer station.  Creating flow of traffic that only allows flow to go one way onto Palmer.  Also, there is a pedestrian car conflict; he refers to the redevelopment of Lafayette and University growing, and says  there hopefully will be more pedestrian/bike activity, so shortening the curb cut would be better.  As to the evergreen screening – maybe it could be done on north side between sidewalk on Palmer and the north side of building, something to make more active to that neighborhood, keeping friendly instead of concrete wall.  Ultimately proposed plan probably more efficient use; would agree that self serve is quicker than attendants.  

Ward 1 Councillor Bob McCarthy, 153 Bay View Ave., agrees with a lot of what was just said; he occasionally goes there, and the attendant is very slow.  He concurs with the belief that reconfiguration of site will benefit Lafayette with regard to traffic.  When he went to look at this and met the owner of company, the previous owner was having major conflicts and congestion.  Council brought them in and discussed reconfiguring lot.  Agrees with St. Pierre that stacking snow is an issue they have to resolve.  When first made aware of plan, he looked at one owned by this company in Lynn and noticed an employee was inspecting trash facilities outside.  He says they run a very clean operation.  He thinks it’s a plus to get queuing off Lafayette St.  He’s been in lots of gas stations, and there’s a D&D in every one these days, or subs.  Doesn’t think food sale will attract new business from outside the neighborhood.  Perhaps the crosswalk could be addressed at some point.  The convenience store won’t be selling liquor; that license won’t go along with sale.

Councillor Joseph O’Keefe – 28 Surrey Rd., not as a councilor, but as a fire protection engineer, says this station has been there since 1922 as a gas station and garage.  Current tanks are single wall steel.  They want to replace with new, double wall fiber glass, which is much safer in preventing a spill.  This would be solving a problem with regard to storage.  He goes there because it’s cheap.  He says the attendant system is slow.  He has seen people going through station and drive all the way through to buy liquor.  This plan will prevent that.  This will also alleviate problem of access and circulation on site with the double sided pumps.  Currently, there is no fire prevention system.  These canopies will have a fire system.  He says he’s here not with any interest in the company but because of the fire safety problems, and the congestion.  He respectfully requests the Board approve this project.

Debski closes public comment portion

Atkins: Ms. Wilbert’s comments argue in favor of doing something for this site.  This is an opportunity to make it better rather than leave it the way it is.  There certainly were legitimate comments around snow removal, the bus stop crosswalk, not sure the narrowing of driveway to Lafayette is good idea, but there could perhaps be changes here.  We have to go through Site Plan Review, and the Planning Board often will put conditions in their decision requiring snow removal, and this can be enforced by Building Inspector if it’s not being done.  The company can control kids hanging around.  Can’t control number of Marblehead residents coming, and he’s not sure this is a problem.  

Curran: Much of the relief I have no problem with.  There are issues the Planning Board should look at – can we give them a letter asking them to look at these things?

Debski – we’ve conditioned snow removal before.  She notes that St. Pierre has said they could, though this would also be looked at by the Planning Board.  
Atkins: if you send letter with your concerns, we can talk more about the opening, crosswalk position, snow, etc., and we will voluntarily bring these to the Planning Board.  

Debski asks how they will be addressing the Commerce St. side - with landscaping?  Atkins says he is not sure, but it will be some solution to make the property look better on that side.

Dionne asks if there is any consideration to looking at 3 instead of 4 pumps?  Atkins says he must ask his client.  

Belair: no problem with a  lot of the relief requested, but she can’t support petition as it is before the Board, however, because of the increase in density.  Dionne -  if they went to 3 pumps he would be in favor.  

Curran: timing of planning board?  Atkins: after your decision.  However, if it’s critical to your vote, we could continue, and I will ask about 3 stations instead of 4, and this would also change the dimensional relief.  

Debski says she has no problem with 4 pumps, and thinks this is much better than what’s there now.  She says what Councillor O’Keefe brought up with regard to fire safety - that’s huge.  She does think this is a reduction in uses; what’s there does not work, and this design is a big improvement.  Curran says she has no problem with it, and some tweaks would be addressed during site plan review.  She says that’s not a place for a crosswalk, it should be at the intersection.  That is not before the Board, however.  

Atkins: four pumps were planned with the idea of reducing queuing on Lafayette St.; three works against this idea.

Tsitsinos: I’m all for this – I’m comparing it with Bridge St., the Mobile station, all the Hess stations – the site is a mess now.  I see nothing wrong with this plan at all.  It cleans up the whole corner.  Instead of 5 signs there will be 1.

Atkins requests to continue to the next meeting so he can speak with his client about the issues raised.  McKnight says before the Board votes, she would request Atty. Atkins sign an extension form so that the variances are not constructively approved.  He agrees.

Curran moves to continue to April 20, 2011, Dionne seconds, approved 5-0.  

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).

Attachments:
  • Application date-stamped 12/22/10, with associated narrative and supplementary information
  • Decision of ZBA date-stamped 5/6/09 for same property
  • Approved plan from 2009, titled “Site Plan Layout Geometry at #405-427 Highland Ave., Salem, MA,” prepared by Patrowicz Land Development Engineering, last dated 3/2/09 (Revised per ZBA Comments)
Atty Atkins presents the petition.  He refers to the May 2009 Board decision previously issued on this project and introduces the engineer, Scott Patrowicz, and owner, Paul Ferragamo.  He says that because this is on a state highway, they need permission for entry of the property, which you can’t get without local approvals. He notes that during the previous review, the city engineer did not think Mass DOT would accept the plans.  As it turned out, they did not, and we spoke to them about alternatives, we have a good feeling of what they will accept.  The location of entryway from Highland Ave. was changed as a result.  Intersection now moved and this changes where lots are, and their area and frontage.  The actual intersection will involve a change of equipment and poles, movement of the mechanical box, and installation of a light facing the project’s entryway.  These are required by the Highway dept.  As a result, there is one more lot on the east side, one less on the southerly side.  He says the upper lots averaged 7500 SF; now they average 7400 SF.  The lower average was 6000, that’s increased to 7000.  He addresses the widths of the lots approved – at the time the frontage calculations were not required, just width, so frontage is now being requested – now relief is requested for 8 lots instead of 6, with exact same average of 77 feet.  He says the new ordinance requires 100 feet of frontage, and frontage now averages 74 feet on the 7 lots that need relief.  He says the front setbacks have changed little.  He says they did speak at the time of the last decision with the abutter at the immediate northerly side – he had concerns to be addressed with a landscape buffer  - they are leaving landscape easement as it was, but the his situation is improved, since the roadway will be moved further away from his property.  

Debski asks if board members have questions.

Atkins notes that Mr. Ferragamo is paying for improvements to the intersection, not Mass Highway.

Debski opens the issue up for public comment.

Dennis Colbert, 7 Clark St., likes this roadway entrance much better.  He has no problem with the rest of the project.

Jamie Metch, 18 Oliver St., agrees that squaring off at the intersection at Olde Village Dr. makes sense, and this will help the state highway.  He says this is a good use of the lot.

Debski closes the public comment portion of the hearing.

Curran: I thought the project was really well thought out before, and this is an improvement.  Dionne and Tsitsinos agree.  Tsitsinos says this is much better for the gentleman on left.  Debski says the lights are a big improvement.  Curran notes that the improvements may increase the value of property.

Curran moves to approve the project with the following seven (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.
  • 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.
Atkins notes there is a typo in the petition –in the body of the narrative, 12 lots are referred to – this is a typo, it’s just 11 lots, as it says in rest of petition.  Dionne seconds and the petition is approved 5-0 (Dionne, Curran, Tsitsinos, Belair and Debski in favor, none opposed).  

Old/New Business: Board of Appeals elections

Debski moves to nominate Curran for the Chair position, seconded Dionne and approved 5-0 (Dionne, Curran, Debski, Belair and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed).  

Curran moves to nominate Debski as Vice Chair, seconded by Dionne and approved 5-0 (Dionne, Curran, Debski, Belair and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed).  

Curran moves to adjourn, seconded by Dionne and passed 5-0.  The meeting adjourns at 8:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner

Approved by the Board of Appeals 4/20/11