Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes, April 20, 2011
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, April 20, 2011

A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, April 20, 2011 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:00 p.m.

Those present were:  Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Beth Debski, Jamie Metsch, Rick Dionne, Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate), and Bonnie Belair (alternate).  Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner.

Ms. Curran opens the meeting at 6:00 p.m.  She announces the Board will be going into executive session to discuss litigation of Easley et al. v. Salem Lafayette Development LLC et al.  Essex County Superior Court Docket No. 2006-01820 and Dzierzek et al. v. Salem Lafayette Development LLC et al. Essex County Superior Court Docket No. 2007-00617.  She says the Board feels that discussion of these matters in public session could potentially detrimental to the cases.  She says the Board will be reconvening in open session at 6:30 p.m. to hear the regular agenda.  Mr. Dionne moves to go into executive session, seconded by Ms. Debski and approved 7-0 (Ms. Curran, Ms. Debski, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Harris, Mr. Tsitsinos and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed).

Public session recommences at 6:30 p.m.

Approval of minutes:  The minutes of March 16, 2011 are reviewed; no corrections are made.  Mr. Dionne moves to approve the minutes, seconded by Ms. Debski and approved 5-0 (Ms. Debski, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Tsitsinos, Ms. Belair and Ms. Curran in favor, none opposed).

Continuation of 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 & Exhibits:
  • Plan titled “Site Improvement Plan,” sheet C-1, prepared by Ayoub Engineering, last revised 4/14/11
  • Application date-stamped 12/22/11 and accompanying materials
Ms. Curran says she understands there are revised plans.  Atty Atkins distributes them.  

Atty Atkins presents the petition, says the board has a revised plan before them.  He says the major change is there are three pump stations rather than the four originally presented.  He says this in turn changed the zoning dimensional requirements, so less area and width are required.  He reviews the relief requested and says there is an updated matrix on the plans.  He says the major impact is the number of pumps (the new plans show 3 pumps, not 4), so there is now more maneuverability on site.  There is also temporary snow storage location on site, intended to be used from 48 to 72 hours before complete snow removal from site.  He notes the landscaping on the plan – to the rear of the convenience store, on the Palmer St. side.  He says this will be reviewed in greater detail by the Planning Board.  But he says this was raised at the last meeting, so he is noting.  He also discusses traffic movement through the site – they have examined and, subject to the Planning Board, they will create “do not enter signs” from Palmer for one way flow through site.  They also looked at the location – there was much comment about the location of crosswalk across Lafayette on center of the site.  He says they have no control over this, but notes there are City improvements to take place on Lafayette St.  He suggests, and they would be happy to submit it to those doing the work on Lafayette St., that the crosswalk should be moved to corner of Palmer St; this would bring it directly to the bus waiting stand to make for safer passage.  They will discuss further with the Planning Board.  He says they have addressed all the major issues from the last meeting.  The original cause of looking at the site was the queuing on Lafayette.  He says they have some misgivings that fewer pumps will impact that, but they think the situation will still be improved.

Mr. Metsch:  in terms of the curb cut on Lafayette, is there a purpose for keeping it 80 feet, 79 rather?  The intention of the curb cut ordinance is to minimize the on site confusion for how to get on and off and that’s part of the problem with Lafayette on existing site.  Any thought to shortening that?  Atty Atkins says allowing more room allows people to access pumps in more orderly way, particularly if it’s one way.  He says the current, wider curb cut, an existing nonconforming condition, is better as is.  

Ms. Curran says they had closed public comment portion at the last meeting, but if members agree, the Board should reopen that given the new information presented.  She says if there are any public comments we can entertain them now.

Ward 7 Councillor Joseph O’Keeffe, 28 Surrey Rd., says he previously testified about the safety aspect.  Currently, the tanks are smaller and fueling is more dangerous.  The new proposal would put all fueling on property, control vapors and have an installed fire protection system in the canopy.  This is automatic or easily triggered by an employee.  He says the situation currently is horrendous – queuing and traffic circulation is very bad.  The proposal is a much safer operation and in his experience a state fire marshal for 15 years, he approved thousands of these and there has never been a fire in one.

Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion of the hearing.

Ms. Curran notes something new on the plan – they are retaining evergreens, and are these new plantings?  Atty Atkins – to the south?  Ms. Curran – yes, to the south and east side.  You are planting something new?  Yes – this landscaping is existing on the south, and there is new green on east and north sides.  He says they will, in the Planning Board application, as required, give specific species designations.  Ms. Curran says it’s much improved with the elimination of one tank.  She says it’s not within their authority to move this crosswalk, but clearly that would be better.  The way it is now is unsafe.  To the extent that we can make mention of that in granting this relief, that would make it a better project.  

Mr. Dionne says it’s certainly improved; there is space for the snow, and better access to the store.  He likes this much better with no entrance from Palmer St., and three pumps make more sense.  Mr. Metsch agrees – the site improvements make it more efficient. He asks the Board if he’s the only one concerned about the curb cut on Lafayette.  He says it makes for a possibility of disorderly entry/exit onto Lafayette.  Ms. Curran says she agrees, she thinks it could become chaotic – I’m assuming the big trucks that fill tanks come from Lafayette, and that’s why you need to keep open?  Mr. Metsch – 30 feet would be adequate.  Several other gas stations in town are similar in size, all have something breaking up the large span.  Ms. Debski asks if they could address with arrows on pavement?  She says she has no issue with curb cut – she says it’s an existing condition, and she thinks you need that room for trucks to be able to get in safely.  Ms. Curran - what if you closed a little on north side?  Atty Atkins – the reason for this is to get cars off Lafayette st.  There’s a potential for confusion, but after it begins working it will get people off Lafayette.  He says this is certainly an issue for the Planning Board to deal with.  Ms. Belair likes that they reconsidered and reduced the number of pumps.  She does feel the density on the site is high, but it’s a situation that has existed there already.  She says she had originally had doubts, but after the changes, and considering she feels strongly about supporting local businesses, and so she now supports.  Atty Atkins – currently the site has 3 businesses on it, right now it’s not working, we think this is a significant improvement.  Ms. Curran – I agree, though there is a school and there is a break in the two businesses between the curb cut.  So, I hope that does get addressed in positive way at the Planning Board, which will be proper juridiction.  She thinks this board could ask for certain things if it will make the project work.  Mr. Metsch still feels the curb cut will be disorderly and unsafe for pedestrians.  Ms. Curran – we could approve with condition that curb cut be reduced.  Ms. Belair – the Planning Board will address this issue.  Mr. St. Pierre notes that this, as a zoning regulation, is their purview.  Atty Atkins says they will do traffic study with the Planning Board.  Ms. Curran – that would be good info for this board to have.  We are giving you 55 additional feet of relief for driveway. We could do it by a condition and let the Planning Board work it out.  Atty Atkins points out that the Planning Board might not want a certain number of feet and they would have to come back to the ZBA.  Ms. Debski suggests they leave as is, and the Planning Board may require this change anyway.  Ms. Curran suggests conveying concern about the crosswalk and width of the curb cut to the Planning Board.  Atty Atkins says they will do this too.  

Mr. Dionne says pedestrian safety would be greater with a smaller curb cut, but on the other hand they need the room for the trucks.  They are closing off part of entrance on right but allowing access for trucks?  Atty Atkins – trucks need certain radius to turn in and out.  From the point of view of consumers who want gas – we don’t want to put barriers up for cars coming in.  He requests they allow the Planning Board to make this decision.  

Ms. Debski says the benefit is getting traffic off Lafayette St., and this is really important goal; if we start tightening this up, we’ll have a worse situation than we have now.  Ms. Curran notes that there is also an elementary school and children walking, and she would be satisfied if they send a letter to the Planning Board, including mention of a crosswalk, and stressing they want it to be a minimum width for allowing cars/trucks to function but also for pedestrian safety.  Mr. Metsch says they are proposing 30 feet on the Palmer St. side to come in, so presumably this is enough.  Could they condition approval to 40 feet?  Ms. Debski and Mr. Tsitsinos say they are not comfortable with this.  Mr. Dionne says there are young children going to school nearby, and that must be a prime concern.  Mr. Tsitsinos still thinks the new configuration will be safer and will afford more visibility. Atty  Atkins again points to the current conditions.  Ms. Curran points out that it would be helpful to have the traffic information presented here as well as the Planning Board.  

Ms. Belair moves to approve the petition with six (6) standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Dionne and passed 5-0 (Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran, Ms. Debski and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed).  The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

Public hearing: Petition of RENEWAL VENTURES, LLC requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance allow a change of nonconforming use by addition of one (1) residential unit to an existing four (4) residential unit building, and requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking requirements, for the property located at 28 EDEN STREET (R-1).  

Attachments & Exhibitions:

  • Application form date-stamped March 17, 2011 and accompanying materials
  • Plot Plan, 28 Eden Street, Salem, MA prepared by LeBlanc Survey Assoc., dated 12/17/10
Atty George Atkins presents the petition.  He introduces principals of the project – Dick, Diane and David Pabich.  He says they recently purchased the building.  The current building contains a nonconforming use and is a nonconforming structure. It contains four residential units in an R1 zone; it has been there a long time and it qualifies as a nonconforming use.  The lot is 5000 SF, with 50 feet frontage; it doesn’t meet most dimensional requirements.  This building also contains a fifth unit on the third floor.  There are two on the first floor, two on the second, and one on the third.  Atty Atkins says his client thinks the unit has been there about 20 years based on construction.  He says this isn’t captured by the nonconforming status - a prior owner put it in.  Their proposal is to legitimize that unit.  No exterior changes are proposed.  Currently it doesn’t meet standards for square footage or parking requirements – there are 3 spaces that fit in the rear.  No change is intended to that.  He says the standard is that the change or extension of nonconforming use should not be more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use.  He believes this standard is met.  Ms. Curran: how big are the units?  Atty Atkins says 900 SF for each unit including the fifth.  Mr. Dionne – the third floor was illegal fifth unit?  Atty Atkins – yes, and we did buy it that way.   Ms. Debski asks if fifth unit complies with building code.  The Pabichs say yes.  Ms. Debski – is there a kitchen existing?  Yes.  Atty Atkins passes out photos of the unit.  Atty Atkins confirms they knew about this when purchasing, and in rehabilitation, they could choose to make this into a town house type unit instead.  Ms. Debski asks about the size of the unit on the third floor – 2 bedrooms, 1 bath, 2 means of egress.  Mr. Dionne – 7 parking spaces required?  Atty Atkins – 8.  

Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment.

Ann Kobuszewski, 31 Foster Dr., says her family owns the property at 24 Eden St., and asks how many windows are in the apartment.  David Pabich says 5, and there is no proposal for dormers.  Ms. Kobuszewski says she is concerned about the parking issue.  By adding a fifth tenant, where will they park?  Parking is tight in the neighborhood.  Winter was particularly difficult.  

Catherine Mr. St. Pierre, 11 Eden St., says parking is very difficult on the street.  She refers to the parking area, and says that for years people have come up the wrong way up the one way street to park there.  

Roger LaMontagne – 58 Leach St. also has concerns about parking.

Louis Morin, 6 Glover St., says he lives around the corner and has concerns about parking.  He doesn’t think the fact that this is already nonconforming makes it okay to give relief.  He thinks this is a created hardship.  As to the three spaces that exist, he questions their dimensions.  Is there an easement?  Ms. Curran asks where access is to the spaces.  Atty Atkins says to the left of the building from Eden St.  Mr. Morin thinks people will just park on the street.

Caroline Curley, 24 Eden St., is also concerned about parking and snow.  She noticed this winter, even though it seems two cars could fit on either side of her driveway, she often was blocked into her driveway.  

Susan Raines, 20 Green St., is also concerned about parking.  Green and Eden Streets are both one-way, which makes it especially difficult.

Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion of the hearing.

Atty Atkins responds, recognizing that there is a parking problem in that neighborhood.  However, he says there hasn’t been sufficient parking for 20 years.  He doesn’t think this one unit makes much of an impact, since it’s already existing.  He corrects Mr. Morrin’s statement because this is a special permit, which does not require a hardship finding.  Ms. Harris says there are dimensional variances requested.  Atty Atkins says the dimensional issues are different.  He feels the change to the neighborhood is de minimus, not substantial, and in fact it already exists.  

Ms. Belair sympathizes with everyone with the parking problem.  She has also seen several of the Pabich’s projects throughout the city and feels they would increase values of property in the neighborhood. Parking is simply a city wide problem.  Ms. Harris says there is significant opposition because of parking.  Ms. Curran asks Atty Atkins, this is preexisting nonconforming four units now, with the current parking in place?  Mr. Dionne says he would have a hard time approving this.  He thinks it’s too much congestion and to make a legal unit out of 20 year illegal unit – he’s not comfortable with that.  Ms. Debski asks if the unit is vacant.  David Pabich says he bought it vacant, but had been occupied.  Ms. Harris asks if they are renovating?  Mr. Pabich says yes, that’s the plan.  Ms. Debski asks about the building next door.  David Pabich says he bought 3 contiguous lots.  Ms. Debski – do the others have any extra parking?  Atty Atkins – on those lots, there is some parking available.  Some parking is available, but it’s not sufficient to handle additional parking from this project.  David Pabich says there are a total of 11 spaces on all 3 parcels.  Ms. Curran – in an area where there’s deficient parking to begin with, it’s difficult for this board to grant that kind of relief.  We know the unit has existed for a while, but the fact that was illegal doesn’t change things – to legalize it now with a parking problem is an issue.  Ms. Harris also comments on the high quality of Pabich’s work.  However, she says the Board should consider that so many neighbors are completely against it.  She notes that the neighbors feel they will suffer a hardship.  She suggests the applicant may want to withdraw.  Atty Atkins says they have no way to resolve this – it’s an up or down situation, so it doesn’t matter whether they vote or withdraw.  Ms. Debski moves to approve, with 5 standard conditions, seconded by Ms. Belair, and denied 3-2 (Ms. Belair and Ms. Debski in favor, Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris and Mr. Dionne opposed).  The petition is denied.  The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

Ms. Belair leaves at 7:35

Public hearing: Petition of KIERAN HURLEY requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance alter a nonconforming structure by constructing a second story on an existing garage on the property located at 4 PATTON ROAD (R-1).  

Attachments & Exhibitions:
  • Petition date-stamped March 17, 2011 and accompanying materials
  • Mortgage plan dated 4/20/09
  • Elevation drawings, untitled
Kieran Hurley presents his petition.  He says he is hoping to add to his house, he has a three bedroom house, one room is quite small, and he would like to expand the area to accommodate his family.  He says the tried to come up with a design that would fit well with the neighborhood.  He says two houses in the neighborhood have made similar changes and he has taken care to make sure his are aesthetic.  Ms. Curran – you are staying in the footprint, just going up from existing garage?  Mr. Hurley says yes.  Ms. Curran – this is not separate from existing house?  Hurley – right, it’s connected.  

Mr. Metsch – from the plans, it looks seamless.  Ms. Harris – you’re keeping the garage and eliminating one door?  Yes, the architect felt it was too busy with three doors.  It’s more work but we think it’s worth it.  

Ms. Curran opens public comment portion.

Ward 7 Councillor O’Keefe, 28 Surrey Rd., says the proposed addition will have little impact on neighbors and is worthy of being granted the special permit.  

Ms. Curran closes public comment portion of the hearing.  

Ms. Curran notes that it will improve the house.  

Mr. Metsch moves to approve the addition with 7 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Dionne, and approved 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Debski, Ms. Harris and Ms. Curran in favor, none opposed).  The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

Public hearing: Petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a Variance from Sec. 3.2.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, Accessory Building Structures, including side yard setback, number of stories, and height, in order to demolish the existing shed on 38 CABOT STREET and construct a garage with second-story storage (R-2).  

Attachments & Exhibitions:
  • Application date-stamped 3/30/11 and accompanying materials
  • Plot plan dated 10/4/05
  • Plans titled “Proposed single car garge with additional 2nd fl storage, 38 Cabot Street”
Mr. Dominguez presents his petition, says the garage is rotting out and he wants to replace it.  Mr. Dionne asks if there will be a unit added.  Dominguez says no, just storage, no kitchen or running water.  Mr. Metsch asks about the hand drawn plan - access to the second floor is from the side?  Mr. Dominguez says yes.  Ms. Debski notes that the plan shows a deck off the second floor.  Mr. Dominguez says yes, he was trying to make it look nice, with large doors.  

Ms. Debski says it appears to be rather large compared to what’s there now and he really has no room.  She asks about the distance between the back of the garage and the property line.  Mr. Dominguez says there’s 8 feet setback now, but he wants to put it as close as he can to the line.  Ms. Debski confirms there will be only 2 feet from line?   Mr. Dominguez says yes.  Ms. Curran – you’re maintaining the wall along side yard?  Mr. Dominguez – yes.  Mr. Metsch notes that on the side wall, the left hand side, if the south side is maintained, there wouldn’t be enough room for the 3 foot proposed stairway – is that correct?  I’m imagining that being only 2 feet, as you said.  Mr. Dominguez – that’s on the side.  Ms. Harris – so it’s 15 x 24 plus the 3 foot stair in addition to that.  Ms. Curran – asks Mr. St. Pierre if there are different code requirements for fire because of this being an accessory structure.  Mr. St. Pierre says openings are limited, same as a building.  

Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion of the hearing.  No one comments, and she closes the public comment portion.

Ms. Curran – now it will be almost twice as high, it’s the same side line, so I wonder what the impact is on the neighbor and structures.  If this is storage, I suggest a deck isn’t necessary.  It makes the building larger – if you want a big door, I suggest a barn type arrangement.  Perhaps an interior stairway would be better.  I have no problem with a large garage, but this particular plan makes a full second story and so it is quite a bit larger than what’s existing.  

Ms. Debski says this is a very large structure.   She is concerned about the outside staircase.  At some point someone will probably want to put in a unit.  

Mr. St. Pierre – Jamie is correct, there is no room for the stair on left.  The applicant says he will put an interior stair in instead.

Ms. Curran and others note their concern about the balcony.

Mr. St. Pierre says enforcement is difficult unless the specific changes are made to the plan.  The plan must be attached to the decision.  He refers to the differences between the pre-made plan with dimensions and the hand drawn plan.  He says a 6 foot wall won’t support the doorway.  This isn’t to scale, something is off.  The Board discusses proposed setbacks and doesn’t understand the proposed dimensions.  Ms. Curran requests the plans be drawn up – the dimensions must be shown exactly as is, where it sits on the plot plan with dimensions.  She says the plan must be updated because there is inconsistency between the two renderings.  She asks the applicant to submit a plan of what he wants to do and they will continue to 5/18/11.  Mr. Metsch feels the Board has the information and could make the decision if they condition the internal stairwell, no balcony, and the door system changed.  Ms. Debski is not comfortable that she doesn’t know what the height is.  Mr. St. Pierre says if the Board is comfortable with the drawing, he could enforce it.  Ms. Curran- if anything is different from what’s on the drawing, you may have to come back.  Mr. Dionne says it’s an improvement on property, the garage is in bad shape.  

Ms. Curran explains to the applicant the consequences of not having enough votes – his options are continuing to May or having the Board vote now.  Ms. Harris says these are legally binding documents and they must be sure they are enforceable and clear.  

Ms. Debski asks if he has talked to his neighbors; Mr. Dominguez says yes, and they are in favor.  

Ms. Debski moved to continue the petition to the May 18, 2011 meeting, Mr. Metsch seconds, all in favor 5-0.

Public hearing: Petition of ANDREW LYALL requesting a Variance from minimum width of side yard, and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, to allow an attached garage approx. 10’ x 19’ at 40 COLUMBUS AVENUE (R-1).  


Attachments & Exhibitions:

  • Application date-stamped 3/30/11 and accompanying materials
  • Plans dated 7/29/08, titled “Lyall Residence Renovation”
  • Plans dated 8/20/08, titled “Proposed addition & improvements, Salem, Mass. Plan of Land prepared for: Andrew G. Lyall, Map 44, Parcel 148,” Reid Land Surveyors.”
Andrew Lyall presents his petition, says both his abutting neighbors are here in support.  

Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment.  

Ruth Ann Fitzgerald, 38 Columbus, supports the petition.  

Lewis Lagon, 44 Columbus Ave, supports the petition.

Bob Jackson, 30 Columbus Ave, supports the petition.  

Ms. Curran closes public comment portion of the hearing.

Mr. Metsch says one concern he had was whether the immediate neighbor would support this, and this has been addressed by Lewis Lagon and his wife.  One other question – is there a fire hazard given the proximity to this house?  Is there going to be a vehicle here?  Mr. Lyall says yes.  Mr. St. Pierre says the construction would have to be according to fire code, with a sheet rock wall, and this is very common.  Mr. Metsch says he meant that he was concerned about the proximity to the adjacent structure.  Mr. St. Pierre looks at the plan and asks what he has for openings on the left hand side.  Lyall says there are no openings planned.  Mr. St. Pierre suggests as long as the petitioner agrees to what code requires – there is an option of a fireglass window if he wants one, as long as he agrees to go by the code.  

Ms. Harris says the Board has seen this before, and notes that the applicant has done his homework, talked to the neighbors, and this is a big improvement.  She is glad he has neighborhood support.  Mr. Metsch says if we’re changing the plans you’ve worked out with neighbors – do neighbors have any problems if the window is eliminated?  Mr. Lagon says he has no problem.  

Ms. Harris moves to approve with 8 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Metsch, 5-0 in favor (Ms. Debski, Ms. Harris, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne and Mr. Metsch in favor, none opposed).  The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

Public hearing: Petition of MARC BOUCHARD requesting a Variance from minimum side yard setback and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a breezeway on the property located at 55 TREMONT ST. (R-2).  

Attachments & Exhibitions:
  • Application date-stamped 3/30/11 and accompanying materials
  • Plot plan dated 2/23/92
  • Plans and elevations, no title
Marc Bouchard presents his petition for a breezeway.  Ms. Curran asks if the breezeway connects to the carport; Mr. Bouchard says no, to the house.  Ms. Harris asks for clarification on the area we’re talking about.  Mr. Bouchard indicates on the plans where the construction will be and where the stairs are to be located.  Mr. St. Pierre explains that normally this wouldn’t be an issue, it’s just the way the lot is shaped that makes the relief necessary.  He notes the stairs are in terrible condition.  

Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion of the hearing.

No one is here to speak, Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion.

Ms. McKnight and Mr. St. Pierre point out that a hardship argument could be made, and Ms. Curran and Ms. Debski note that the hardship is due to the unusual shape of the lot.

Ms. Debski moves to approve with 6 standard conditions, seconded by Ms. Harris and approved 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran, Ms. Debski, Ms. Harris and Mr. Dionne in favor, none opposed).  The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

Public hearing: Petition of PAULA PEARCE requesting a Special Permit and Variances from height, number of stories, lot area per dwelling unit, lot coverage, and front, side and rear setbacks in order to demolish the existing building on 15 HIGH STREET and construct a one-unit, three-story residence (R-2).  

Attachments & Exhibitions:
  • Application date-stamped 4/7/11 and accompanying materials
  • Photographs and renderings, no date
  • Plan titled “Conceptual Plan at 15 High St., Salem, MA,” prepared by Bartram Land Survey, dated 4/3/11
  • Plans and elevations titled “15 High Street – Residence,” prepared by HND Architects, dated 3/28/11
Paula Pearce, 25 Gale Rd., Swampscott, presents her petition.  She introduces her attorney, Alessandra Baldizzone Donovan.  She says the house is in poor condition and explains the new proposal.

Ms. Curran asks about the front setback – Ms. Pearce says it would be directly on the sidewalk, which it is already.  Ms. Curran asks if there is a curb cut there.  Pearce says no, it’s just sidewalk currently.  

Pearce explains that she is trying to keep the new house looking like the house next door.  Mr. Metsch asks if the 3 parking spaces are for this unit.  Ms. Pearce says she’s purchasing the building next door too, so she’d be using the parking at #15 for the two units at #17.  She plans to sell #17, which has two units, and keep #15.  Each unit is to have one parking space.  Ms. Harris asks if the lots are to be combined – is the Board looking at them together as three condos?    Ms. Curran notes that  no changes are proposed to the other building.

Mr. St. Pierre says these are two buildings with separate uses.  If this were an empty lot they would have merged – but even though they are owned by the same person, they have been taxed separately and are not merged.  Mr. Metsch asks if they are separated down the road in ownership, if the parcels remain same, how would parking be distributed?  Would parking go to 17?  Attorney Donavan says they were looking into merging them in the future for one condo use, but they haven’t explored that yet.  First they wanted to explore demo and reconstruction of first house.  But, she says, that is probably how it will go.  Space could be deeded to the units.  

Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion of the hearing.

John Capece, 30 Spring St., Danvers, says he owns the parking lot next door at number four.  He is just concerned about the windows on his side.  He doesn’t know how many feet away from his building it must be.  Mr. St. Pierre says the proposed structure is smaller than the house currently there.  Mr. St. Pierre invites him to look at proposed plan and shows how the footprint is smaller.  Mr. Capece says he is concerned he will be affected if he wants to build a garage in the future.  Mr. St. Pierre says they had this discussion earlier today, but anything 5 feet from a building can’t have a window unless it’s a fire window – there are codes that protect abutters.  He says Mr. Capece would be bound to the same code if he put in a garage, and he would also have to come to the Board for a new structure if it was not within the required setbacks.  Ms. Harris points out there will be almost four feet more space than they have now.  Ms. Pearce says she doesn’t have to have the window.  Mr. Capece notes that this plan improves the neighborhood.

Julie Pottier Brown, 2 Gedney Ct., thinks the three new parking spaces will be a boon.  She is concerned that the property should be well cared for.  Ms. Pearce says she’s not selling #17 for a long time.  Ms. Brown says she really just wanted to see the plans, and she thinks it’s attractive.

Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion of the hearing.

Ms. Harris addresses the parking, saying that using 2 properties together for 3 spaces is a nice concept.  She says she does worry about the properties getting separated, however, and doesn’t know if there’s a way to ensure the parking does go together.  Ms. Curran says we they could condition that.  Attorney Donavan says she’d prefer not to have that condition in the decision.  She wouldn’t foresee this would be a problem if the two lots merge in future.  She is fine with having the 2 spaces bound to #17.  

Mr. Metsch asks about the exterior materials – will this be shingle?  Pearce says it will be clapboard, not vinyl.  

Atty Donovan asks whether if the Board wants the sidewalk kept all the way to the garage.  Ms. Curran notes this may be a question for DPW.  Mr. St. Pierre says it’s a zoning question – the maximum is 20 feet on a residential property.  Ms. Curran suggests a future petition for relief if she needs more than this.  

Mr. Dionne moves to approve with 7 standard conditions, and one special condition – the applicant will provide 2 spaces at 15 high St. for use at 17 High Street; spaces will be secured by deed.  Ms. Harris notes this is an improvement to the neighborhood, since it is a residential use and it provides parking, and there are good reasons for granting so much relief.  Ms. Debski seconds the motion to approve, and the petition passes 5-0 (Mr. Dionne, Ms. Debski, Ms. Curran, Mr. Metsch and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed).  The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

Public hearing: Petition of NICOLE BARLETTA requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, and Variances from number of stories, lot coverage, and side and rear setbacks, in order to construct a shed dormer and two rear decks on the two-family house at 31 ARBELLA ST (R-2).  

Attachments & Exhibitions:

  • Application date-stamped 3/31/11 and accompanying materials
  • Mortgage plan dated 2/2/11
  • Untitled elevations, floor plans and renderings
  • Letter from Theresa Miaskiewicz, 18 Arbella St., dated 4/17/11
  • Letter from Kathleen Callahan, 7 Warner St., not dated
  • Letter from Councillor Joan Lovely dated 4/20/11
  • Letter from J.M. Curley, 35 Arbella St., dated 4/19/11
  • Photographs
Tony Barletta presents the petition.  He says he is trying to improve the property.  He says it has a very narrow driveway, just under 11 feet at the smallest point, and it is difficult even to get one car in.  He says moving the side stair would free up a lot of space, and the stairway is also falling apart.  He shows photos of the property.  He says the third floor was being used as living space, has a bathroom, and is finished.  They want to dormer the roof back from the third floor, and take advantage of the water use up there.  

Mr. Metsch asks if the makeshift bulkhead is proposed to be torn down.  Mr. Barletta says yes, they will tear it down but keep access to the basement with the bulkhead.  It now protrudes from property by 5 or 6 feet.  He says he has spoken with most of the abutters, those impacted, and in his opinion there are not many negatives, especially considering his plan will resolve snow removal and parking issues.  He says his main goal is to have a second means of egress for the second unit.  Ms. Harris asks how the third floor will be accessed.  Mr. Barletta says there are stairs inside.  He says there was confusion with neighbors about what they are proposing.  He says he did his best to communicate with abutters and ask what they would suggest – he notes that the entrance on the side makes no sense and prevents access to the back of the house.  In his opinion, it’s an improvement with parking especially with snow emergencies.  He says those neighbors with a view of Collins Cove are in agreement with the plan.  

Mr. St. Pierre asks if the stairs are external to the decks.  Mr. Barletta says no;  8 feet is the number the contractor came up with.  Ms. Harris ask about the stairs from the first to the second floor – is the stairway in the deck?  Mr. Barletta says yes, its purpose is as a second means of egress.  Ms. Harris asks where the bulkhead is.  Mr. Barletta still doesn’t know if he wants a deck on first floor, or just stairs, but if he puts one in, it will have to be high enough so you can access the bulkhead.  

Mr. Metsch asks about how the stairs will fit.  Mr. Barletta explains the configuration. He says he got a lot of opposition and just wants the staircase to not block driveway – he is flexible.  

Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion of the hearing.  

Jerome Curley, 35 Arbella St., says he sent a letter with photos.  He is a direct abutter to the driveway.  He has a fence on the property line, and there is about 9 feet from the house to the fence.  He says the proposed setback puts his fence at risk and is a hardship to him when he tries to park his car.  He says this is a very small lot in a dense neighborhood, and adding decks and parking spaces doesn’t seem feasible.  He shows a photo of the house and driveway.  He says the lot area is 2200 SF and the decks will hang over other properties.  

Doris Curley, 35 Arbella St., says Mr. Barletta’s letter to neighbors said he only wanted one deck and tonight he’s asking for three.  She says the decks aren’t just for access, and she isn’t clear on what the structure will be.  She says it would impact neighbors as far as noise if they put a grill on the decks.  

Ms. Curran says she wants to do a site visit on this property.

Mr. Barletta says what he submitted for paperwork was clear – the house has water views – he has proposed to the dormer for the purpose of taking advantage of the water views.  He says the abutters who just spoke talked to the construction workers and they were not qualified to answer questions that were asked.   He says the reason he sent the letter was to let people know his main objective was the second egress.  He says he can appreciate that people will see the decks, but if they notice where the existing entrance is, it stares into abutters’ yards.  He is having a hard time understanding why someone would oppose this when he is creating more parking and allowing access to the backyard.  He says snow can be put back there.  If a plow hits someone’s fence, I will have to pay for it.  He says a site visit might be a good idea, but those pictures show there’s more room than people are suggesting.  

Mr. Metsch says he was able to look at property.  He asks if the whole foundation will be demoed, and the stairway.  Mr. Barletta says yes.  Mr. Tsitsinos asks what the lip is for; Mr. Barletta says this was a bad shot at structural repair.  Mr. Metsch says there’s room for parking.  Regarding the deck in rear, he says he’s familiar with the neighborhood, and stacked decks are in keeping with that neighborhood.  His only concern would be within that tight 8 x 12 area, without seeing how the stairs are proposed, he just wanst to make sure it stays to that size getting up and down.  With the third story work, he says this is a great amenity, but he wouldn’t want to create an ability to create a third unit.  Ms. Harris says she’s mostly comfortable with the proposal, and says it’s a nice drawing.  She says, however, that the thing they are giving a variance on is missing – the deck.  She says the concept of eliminating the side stair is fine, but she is not comfortable with lack of detail provided.  Ms. McKnight reads letters from Theresa Miaskiewicz, 18 Arbella St. (opposing), Kathleen Callahan, 7 Warner St. (opposing), and Councillor Joan Lovely (in support).  She also notes that a letter was received from Mr. Curley, but Mr. Curley says it is not necessary to read it since he has spoken.

Ms. Harris says the deck and stair detail should be drawn and this should continue to next month.  She says the description sounds all right to her – she just wants the plans drawn.  She says the applicant needs to decide about first floor deck, however.  Removal of the side stair and the dormer sound fine – this would be an improvement to the  property.  

Amy Wallick, 2 Meadow St., says she is working on the project with Tony.  She addresses third unit question, saying it is not being considered.  She asks the Board for suggestions for how to alleviate the concerns of neighbors.  Ms. McKnight says floor plans were included in the application specifically to show this was not a proposed third unit.

Ms. Harris says the parking plan should be shown.  Mr. Barletta says no variance for parking is needed.  He’s not trying to say the driveway conforms, he simply doesn’t need relief.  He says the cars do fit.  In reference to decks – he understands the confusion because he had not yet decided about number of decks when communicating with the neighbors, but this is clear on the application.  He makes the suggestion to just put a condition in that the stairs couldn’t exceed certain dimensions.  Mr. Metsch agrees this is a good idea; he does not see a problem with the size of the decks.  Ms. Harris says the plan isn’t to scale.  Mr. Barletta says the floor plans aren’t to scale, but the exterior plans are.  

Mr. St. Pierre says we are not clear on parking – we do have off-street parking regulations.  If they are talking about creating two new spaces in the rear yard, the applicant does need to meet certain dimensions.  He says what the Board grants is what they need to build.  He suggests clarifying the drawings.

Ms. Curran asks for clarification on what’s being done with the bulkhead.  Mr. Barletta says he can do better drawings of the stairs.  

Mr. Barletta asks if he can withdraw part of the petition and just go forward with dormer, and reapply for the other relief.  

Ms. Wallick reviews the materials the Board requests to see:
Rear elevation
Side elevation
Sketches of two decks
Bulkhead
Entrance to rear floor
Parking plan    

Mr. Barletta questions why they need a parking plan; TSP explains he must ensure zoning compliance.

Ms. Wallick says they’d rather move ahead with the dormer and reapply for the rest of the relief.

Ms. Harris moves to split the petition: withdraw without prejudice the request for lot coverage and side and rear setbacks and the Special Permit for the decks, and allow the variances and Special Permit for the dormer, per the drawings provided the owner agrees to withdraw without prejudice the rest of petition.  She makes the motion to approve the relief for the dormer with 8 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Metsch, and approved 5-0 (Ms. Debski, Ms. Curran, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Harris and Mr. Dionne in favor, none opposed).  The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

Public hearing: Petition of CHARLIE RICKER requesting a Variance from number of stories and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a third floor porch on the property located at 112 LORING AVE (R-1).  

Attachments & Exhibitions:
  • Application date-stamped 3/30/11 and accompanying materials
  • Plot Plan dated 12/13/10
  • Elevation drawing, no title
Charlie Ricker presents his petition.  He explains he wants to make roof area a porch area by adding hand rails; he is not extending above the roof line or outward in any direction.  Mr. St. Pierre notes that the Special Permit is needed because it’s already nonconforming, and this would be considered a third story.  Currently it’s 2.5 stories.  Mr. Metsch asks if there are any planned stairs.  Mr. Ricker says no.  However, he says it would provide another means of egress because of the door – if there was a fire there, people could escape to the deck.  He says he is renovating the property.  Ms. Harris asks about the other work he’s doing; Mr. Ricker explains other updates he’s making.  He says he might change the units to condos.  He says he wants to be a good neighbor.  Mr. Metsch shows the Board photos of the property.  

Janine Judge, 6 Sumner Rd., opposes the petition.  She says their home is on a hill and on ledge and is directly behind this property.  Their main floor is in line with Mr. Ricker’s third story.  By extending the porch, there would be a direct view to her kitchen and would impact her privacy.  She also questions how many people would be living there.  

Bob Griffith, 24 Sigourney St., Lynn, says he suggested this porch because it would provide another means of escape and there is no means of egress from that part of the building.  Every other level has the rear deck to go out – it’s the lowest drop to the ground.  On third floor, this doesn’t exist.  

Ms. Curran notes that it’s 42 feet back to the property line and asks if there is any opportunity for planting trees.  Ricker suggests large arborvitae there.  He says there currently are cherry trees growing poorly, and he would rather put decent trees there.  He offers to put up a fence or whatever buffer they want.  

Ms. Judge and the applicant discuss with the Board various possibilities for buffering.  Mr. Metsch suggests addressing the problem with landscaping of a narrow row of some type of evergreen.  

Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with 9 standard conditions, and a special condition that the applicant will work with the rear abutting neighbors on lot 79 to provide landscaping screening that screens the first floor from the deck with fast- growing trees, to be planted this planting season, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran, Ms. Debski, Ms. Harris and Mr. Metsch in favor, none opposed).  The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

Mr. Dionne moves to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0.

Meeting adjourns at 10:15 pm.

Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner

Approved by the Board of Appeals 5/18/11


For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at: http://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_ZoningAppealsMin/