City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, May 18, 2011 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.
Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Bonnie Belair, Richard Dionne, Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate), Annie Harris and Jamie Metsch. Those absent were: Beth Debski. Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner.
Ms. Curran opens the meeting at 6:34 p.m.
Approval of minutes: The minutes of April 20, 2011 are reviewed. Mr. Metsch notes the correct spelling of his name (“Metsch,” not “Metch”). Mr. Dionne moves to approve the minutes with the change noted, seconded by Ms. Harris and approved 5-0 (Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor, Ms. Belair abstaining, none opposed).
Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC to extend Variances previously issued for construction of a 2-4 story professional office building with retail and municipal space on the property located at 44 BOSTON STREET and 401 BRIDGE STREET (NRCC).
Attachments & Exhibitions:
- Letter from Joseph Correnti on behalf of High Rock Bridge Street, LLC, dated May 12, 2011 , requesting the extension of Variances issued for a period of six (6) months
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal St., representing the petitioner, makes the request. He says all local approvals are in hand, and they are in the pre-construction phase. They are pursuing/closing the loop on all state approvals. He says the city is working on its end (buying a condo in the building – half the first floor will be the Senior Center). He says this is a large project with many moving parts; they want to be in the ground as soon as possible, but they want to be sure none of their permits lapse. He believes they don’t need to make the request because of the Permit Extension Act of 2010. He does not anticipate coming in to ask for extensions after this; they will likely rely on the act which gives them an extended period. However, they want to begin construction as soon
as possible. They are now requesting a six-month extension. Mr. Dionne moves to extend the variances for six months, seconded by Ms. Harris and approved 5-0 in (Ms. Belair, Ms. Harris, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, and Mr. Metsch in favor, none opposed).
Continuation of 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 ST. 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
- Revised plans (no title/date)
Ms. Curran says last time they asked for plans showing more clearly what was being proposed.
Raynaldo Dominguez presents his continued petition. He passes out a new set of drawings. Ms. Curran notes he’s shown on the plan that there will be 2 feet in rear; staircase will now be inside. She says he’s taken away the doorway and balcony on the second floor. The structure is 18 feet in height, 24 feet in width. Mr. Dominguez refers to photos included with his new materials. Ms. Curran notes that it’s all paved back there. Mr. Metsch asks for a reminder of what was needed for variances – Mr. St. Pierre says accessory structures must be 5 feet from the property line. Ms. Harris asks if they’re actually moving it from the side yard; Mr. Dominguez says no, he’s staying on that line with the foundation. He says what she is looking at might be the
older plot plan. It will stay the same setback. Ms. Harris – in the back it will be 2 feet from the property line. Ms. Curran asks him to confirm the dimensions. Ms. Harris says this is much clearer, and Ms. Curran agrees. Mr. St. Pierre says that rear and side setback, and number of stories, is also needed. He notes that this is slightly less than 2 stories.
Ms. Curran asks if anyone from the public is here to speak about the petition. No one is.
Ms. Curran asks about the materials he’ll be using, noting wood and asphalt shingles are shown. Mr. Dominguez says he’ll use vinyl siding.
Ms. Curran says it’s clearer than it was before; this is what they ask for. She doesn’t have a problem with it. Mr. Metsch asks about any other openings on the other three sides; Mr. Dominguez says just on the side for bigger things to make storage easier.
Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition, including relief from rear yard setback, with 7 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved (Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed).
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, and from off-street parking regulations, in order to construct two rear decks and create two parking spaces on the property located at 31 ARBELLA ST. (R-2).
Attachments & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped April 28, 2011 and accompanying materials, drawings and renderings (untitled)
- Parking plan drawing (untitled)
- “Alternative Parking Plan” drawing, revised on 5/18/11
- Revised sketch dated 5/18/11
- Letter from Ward Two Councillor Michael Sosnowski, 17 Collins St., dated 5/16/11
- Letter from Kevin Byrne and Frank Byrne, 5 Collins St., dated 5/15/11
- Letter from Jerome and Doris Curley, 35 Arbella St., dated 5/17/11
Amy Wallick presents the petition. She says they are back with new plans, clearer views and better measurements. She says they are proposing moving the egresses from the side of the house to the rear of property; they have also included in the plans what they are hoping to do with the parking. Currently there is one existing spot. The driveway is paved all the way to the back, but because the side stair is jutting out and preventing access. There was some confusion previously regarding the number of decks. She confirms there are two proposed; the third floor one is more of a balcony, while the second floor deck has stairs. She introduces Tony Barletta as well as their contractor, Andrew Balbone.
Ms. Curran – this is a two family now, and you’re keeping it as such? Ms. Wallick says she was able to review the letters submitted that suggested the property was not already a two-family, and she clarifies that it is an existing two-family structure. She says they checked with the assessor’s office and building department. Ms. Harris asks if two families live there now. Ms. Wallick responds that it is not currently habitable.
Ms. Curran asks her to explain the parking. Ms. Wallick indicates on the plan where the paving is. Mr. Balbone explains there previously was an egress stairwell into the driveway. He says they’ve eliminated that, so now you can access the rear of the property to park.
Mr. Metsch notes that they’ve already taken out the door. He asks what their plan would be for the second means of egress if they do not receive the Board’s approval. Ms. Wallick says it would be as it exists currently. Mr. Barletta says they’ve had to do some repair to the foundation, and it would have had to go regardless. Mr. Metsch – that was the second egress – have you changed the interior layout to accommodate the new plan? Ms. Wallick says this is currently at a standstill pending this decision. Mr. Barletta says there is area that could still be used, but some living space would be lost. Mr. Balbone says the second unit on the upper level has the third floor as living space, and there are three stacked staircases inside the house. Mr. Metsch asks Mr. St.
Pierre if the second egress is still on the second floor coming out of what now is an unapproved deck, could they just build an exterior stair, or would that be encroaching as well? St. Pierre says they are not really protected with anything in zoning that’s not there. Where they’ve altered the building, they aren’t grandfathered and would need relief for a stair. Mr. Metsch addresses the parking, noting they show two spaces and questions if the width is adequate.
Ms. Harris asks why they need to provide more parking – why is a variance needed at all? Mr. St. Pierre says they don’t have to provide more parking, but they want to. Mr. Barletta says if they wanted to sell the units as condos, they would want to have them approved as legal spaces. Ms. Curran says she sees how the tandem works – do you envision them backing out? Ms. Wallick says yes, but they have also provided alternative plans. Mr. Barletta says there is also no way to deal with snow currently. This way, there’s some area in back. He says nine feet is enough to push a plow back and keep it on the property. Mr. St. Pierre says Mr. Metsch is correct, it’s showing a 9 foot width, but on the angle they wouldn’t be anywhere near that. Mr. Metsch says
they have the length, just not the width. Ms. Wallick offers to show them alternative plans for parking.
Ms. McKnight reads three letters into the record: one in opposition from Ward Two Councillor Michael Sosnowski, 17 Collins St., dated 5/16/11; one in opposition from Kevin Byrne and Frank Byrne, 5 Collins St., dated 5/15/11; and one in opposition from Jerome and Doris Curley, 35 Arbella St., dated 5/17/11.
Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment.
Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., asks if it is a two-family already, or are they requesting one? Mr. St. Pierre says city records indicate it’s an existing two-family. Ms. Curran says their petition is for the deck, parking and stair. They are not required to get the parking, but they are asking for it. They do need setback relief.
Ms. Wallick says there is already an existing spot on the property, and she asks about this as it is referenced in the last letter (from Mr. Curley). She asks if Mr. Curley extended his fence they couldn’t use that spot, because it would be too close to the fence; was that what the letter said? Ms. Harris says the letter implies that the car doors currently would open onto Mr. Curley’s property, and if the fence was extended to the sidewalk, the space would be too narrow for a car door to open. Mr. Barletta: as the neighbor noted last week, that’s why his fence ends there. Mr. Barletta asks why the parking aisle area is needed. Metsch explains that maneuvering space is needed. Mr. Barletta says that the letters say there is no room, but people should have the option to park on their
property. Mr. Balbone explains how parking is to be accessed. Mr. Metsch notes that most of this area isn’t accessible. Ms. Wallick says they know it’s tight.
Ms. Curran says there were three issues. One is off the table – this is a two-family, according to city records. Mr. St. Pierre confirms that abandonment of the two-family use hasn’t happened here, and there is case law to support this.
Ms. Curran then addresses the decks. She says last time, they approved the dormer but not the decks. Ms. Curran says for her, it’s a question of whether the deck is limited to minimum egress width; the back stair is all reasonable. She says the third floor deck is a reasonable size. She wonders if the second floor deck overpowers the small backyard. Mr. Balbone says they wanted to make this large enough to have a grill, and the balcony is self supporting. Mr. Barletta says there were two direct abutters who called the ward councilor and let him know they weren’t opposed. Mr. Metsch says it’s in keeping with the surrounding density, and cites an example of another property on Collins St. that has a similar deck. He says he has no problem with the plans as drawn – the
deck or the height. He would just want clarity on parking.
Ms. Harris suggests that if they make the deck smaller and self-supporting, or make the structure more integrated with the stairs below, the parking would work better. Now, at this size, she notes that it needs supports that go all the way down to the ground. It would be better with a smaller deck. Mr. Barletta says there is a bulkhead on the foundation that cuts into the parking, that’s why the deck is brought closer to the center of the building. Ms. Harris suggests lengthening the deck, keeping it closer to the house. Mr. Barbone says he tried to keep it farther from the neighbors. However, they are open to what the Board suggests. Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris suggest aligning the decks and keeping them narrower. Ms. Harris says eliminating the posts would be a huge help, and asks if
the deck could be supported off the house? Mr. Barbone says it can be cantilevered. Ms. Harris says the deck would be smaller, but it would allow them more room at the back and would look better. Mr. Barbone says he could do a girder, and could push back the posts by about three feet. Ms. Curran asks Mr. St. Pierre if he has any problem with that, from a building perspective; he says no, as long as it’s structurally sound.
The Board members discusses possible dimensions and suggest a four-foot width.
Ms. Curran addresses the third issue, which is parking, and says she appreciates trying to get parking. She says she would like to see the other parking plans; the diagonal doesn’t work in back. She also notes that it’s nice there’s a little yard in back. Mr. St. Pierre says they should revise their drawings – if the Board approves this, he needs a drawing to be approved. He suggests the applicant and contractor leave the meeting to create a new drawing and then come back. Mr. Barletta says he prefers a 5-foot width for the second deck. Mr. Metsch says this would be OK with him. Ms. Harris notes that the bulkhead doesn’t come out 5 feet. Ms. Wallick passes out a new parking plan. Ms. Barletta, Mr. Balbone and Ms. Wallick leave the room to revise drawings.
Curran notes this hearing is still open, but says they are going to move on to the next agenda item while the drawing is being revised.
Public hearing: Petition of PATRICK OSGOOD appealing a decision of the Building Commissioner, in order to continue operation of a business at 15 ROPES ST. (R-3).
Ms. Curran invites the petitioner’s attorney, Matthew Kavanagh, to come forward. She says she understands they want to continue the hearing with no evidence taken. Atty Kavanagh says continuing to June would allow him more time to research the matter. Ms. Harris moves to continue the petition to June 15, 2011, seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed).
Public hearing: Petition of BERTHA T. FAIRBANK, MARY COURTNEY & TIM WHEELER requesting Variances from Accessory Structure requirements, front and side yard setback, and lot coverage, in order to construct a garage on 2 FOSTER CT. (R-2).
Attachments & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped 5/4/11 and accompanying materials and plans
- Photographs (no date)
Tim Wheeler and Mary Courtney present the petition. He says he is requesting a 22 x 24 garage one foot off the side property line. He says there is no front yard setback.
Ms. Harris asks if there was there once a garage. Ms. Courtney says it was just land there. Mr. Wheeler explains there’s currently a prefabricated building. The new one would be wood and concrete. Ms. Harris asks for clarification about the size and configuration of the building; Mr. Wheeler and Ms. Courtney explain the plans.
Mr. Metsch says he is concerned about the one-foot setback on the left side – how tight is it, and is there any precedent for such a small setback? He asks Mr. St. Pierre how they would side it. Mr. St. Pierre explains that the fence would come down and then be put back up. Mr. Metsch says he is just concerned about someone building a fence on their property line and you couldn’t take down the fence – especially just having approved something with a two-foot setback, he notes that in that project, one would have room to come in and do the siding. Mr. Wheeler says if he does get approval for the garage, he could stop the fence at the corner of the building. Mr. Metsch is just concerned about future maintenance with such a tiny yard. Mr. St. Pierre says the Mass General Laws cover
intentional trespass – this requires the Chief of Police to enforce allowing trespassing for repairs. He says this comes up regularly. Ms. Curran agrees that two feet would be better, but they are trying to maintain distance from the other structure.
Ms. Belair notes that no neighbors are here to speak about the petition.
Ms. Belair says the relief requested is minor. Mr. St. Pierre asks about the finish of the garage. Mr. Wheeler says it will be vinyl. Ms. Harris moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris, Ms. Belair, Mr. Metsch and Mr. Dionne in favor, none opposed).
The petitioners from 31 Arbella St. return, and the revised plans are presented. Mr. St. Pierre explains that if the parking space were required and they were adding a new unit, they couldn’t do a tandem space. However, he says they don’t have to have additional parking. Ms. Curran notes again that this is a pre-existing two-family. Mr. St. Pierre says the Board probably should at least give a dimensional variance for the second space. Mr. Barletta asks if he needs relief from aisle width. Mr. St. Pierre says no, because this isn’t that sort of parking.
Ms. Harris says Mr. St. Pierre should make sure the drawing is clear enough. Ms. Curran says there should be a written condition that no deck shall be a width greater than five feet. Mr. St. Pierre suggests dating the drawing for today, and we’ll ask them to produce a final drawing for him to approve; if he doesn’t agree with that drawing the applicant will need to come back to the Board.
Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with eight (8) standard conditions and the following four (4) special conditions: that a new set of drawings is to be submitted to Building finalizing those already submitted dated 5/18/11; the dimensions of second floor deck are to be no more than 5 feet off the building; the second story deck platform is to be a maximum of 14 feet and the third story deck is to be 4 x 8 feet, as per the plans submitted; and the backyard is to be restricted from parking. Relief from tandem parking is granted. Mr. St. Pierre notes there are 12 conditions. Ms. Curran seconds, and the petition passes 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed).
Mr. Dionne moves to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Harris and approved 6-0.
The meeting adjourns at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
| 
