Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes, June 15, 2011
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, June 15, 2011

A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, June 15, 2011 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.

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

Ms. Curran opens the meeting at 6:35 p.m.

Approval of minutes:  The minutes of May 18, 2011 are reviewed.  No changes are proposed.  Mr. Dionne moves to approve the minutes, seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 4-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed, Ms. Debski abstaining).   

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).

Attorney Matthew Kavanaugh requests to continue the petition to the July 20, 2011 hearing in order to allow more time to research some of the issues relating to the appeal.  Ms. Curran confirms he is requesting to continue the matter with no evidence taken.  Mr. Dionne moves to approve the request, seconded by Ms. Harris and approved 5-0 (Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, Ms. Debski, Ms. Curran and Mr. Metsch in favor, none opposed).  

Public hearing: Petition of JULI MACDONALD requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a third floor shed dormer, and a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5.3 to construct second and third story decks on the two-family home located at 7 ESSEX ST, Salem, MA (R-2 zoning district).

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Application date-stamped 5/12/11 and accompanying materials
  • Existing Conditions Plan dated 5/18/11
  • Floor plans and elevation drawings dated 5/12/11
Juli MacDonald, architect and representative for owner Elizabeth Coughlin, presents the petition.  She presents the plans, saying the Special Permits are requested because of the height of the building, and because the existing side yard is nonconforming.  She shows the floor plans and explains the dimensions for the decks on the survey are more exact than those shown on the plans.  She says they are adding the shed dormer to provide full head height.  She says the third floor deck with pergola requires a Special Permit because it is on the third floor and extends that floor’s existing nonconformity.  She shows drawings of the rear elevation with and without the decks.  She notes it is similar to the neighbors it faces.  

Ms. Curran asks her to confirm she is not changing the two family use; Ms. MacDonald says this is true.  Ms. Curran asks if there are stairs to the third floor deck; Ms. MacDonald says no, just access from the unit.

Ms. Harris asks for clarification of where rooms will be in the interior, and Ms. MacDonald explains the floor plans.  Ms. Curran asks if the chimney will be removed; Ms. MacDonald says yes.  Ms. Curran asks about the materials; Ms. MacDonald says they will be using vinyl siding and probably a pressure treated deck, though they are pricing cedar with solid stain also.  

Ms. Debski asks Mr. St. Pierre if they need a variance.  He says it appears a Special Permit will take care of it – this is a nonconforming structure with a conforming use.  

Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment.  No one in the public is here to speak about this; she closes the public comment portion.

Mr. Dionne says these are lovely plans.  Mr. Metsch notes they are in keeping with the neighborhood, and he likes that the pergola does not extend all the way toward the neighboring house.  Ms. Debski asks if the proposed Jacuzzi needs additional structural support; Ms. MacDonald says yes, and Mr. St. Pierre says an engineer will need to stamp their plans.

Mr. St. Pierre also comments that this is a well-prepared set of plans and the owner is investing in the property in order to live there herself.  He says he met with the applicant several times about the plans.

Mr. Dionne moves to approve the petition with eight (8) standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 5-0 (Mr. Dionne, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Debski, Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed).

Public hearing: Petition of JAY LEVY AND NEAL LEVY, TRUSTEES OF 66 DERBY STREET REALTY TRUST, requesting Variances from lot area, lot area per dwelling unit, frontage, lot width, front and rear yard setbacks, and off-street parking regulations, and a Special Permit to allow the reconstruction, extension, alteration and changing of an existing nonconforming two-family structure on a nonconforming lot to a single-family house, in order to subdivide the property located at 66 DERBY ST, Salem, MA, into two lots, construct an addition on one lot, and construct a new single-family home on the other (R-2 zoning district).

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Application date-stamped 6/1/11 and accompanying materials
  • Plans titled “Proposed Restoration & Rebuilding of 66-68 Derby Street, Salem, MA for Bedrock Properties,” dated 5/12/11, prepared by David Jaquith Architects
  • Site plan titled “Proposed subdivision, 66 Derby Street, Salem, Property of Jay Levy, Neal Levy,” dated 5/12/11, prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation
  • Elevations, no date
  • Letter from Salem Historical Commission dated 3/25/11
  • Letter from Joan B. Lovely, Councillor At Large, dated 6/15/11
  • Petition signed by residents supporting the project
  • Photos and renderings, no date
Attorney Mark Glovsky presents the petition.  He introduces David Jaquith, architect, and the applicants, Jay and Neal Levy.  Atty Glovsky presents the plans and photos of the property.  He gives a brief history of the house on 66 Derby St.  He says that originally, they had wished to demolish the historic house, and were expecting a delay in demolition.  However, the Historical Commission would not permit the demolition due to the house’s historical significance and location in the historic district.  They proposed to tear off the rear addition, restore it to a one-family house, and build a new two-family on the lot for a total of three units, intending to treat them as condos.  They received a conceptual endorsement from the Historical Commission in March.  However, there was a question about having two principal buildings on one lot, so they revised the plans and reduced the density.  He says the existing building has been condemned.  He says in order to make this economically feasible, they need to divide the lot and place a single-family on each new lot.  He says a total of two buildings are proposed, and they have maximized the open space between the buildings.  He says they have tried to make the architecture compatible with the neighborhood.  They have not gone back to the Historical Commission, but they are just eliminating a unit.

David Jaquith, 81 Railroad Ave., Rowley, architect for the project, explains the floor plans.  He explains the site was a sea captain’s house once with six units.  He says the driveway will consist of pavers.  Now, he says there is a “tooth missing” on the street, referring to the empty lot.  He says the project will be for sale, not a rental.  

Jay Levy, 145 Cabot St., Beverly, says they met with the historic Derby St. association and were well received – many have signed the petition they submitted tonight.  He says they have had a good neighborhood response, and this is a benefit, getting rid of blight, and putting in a project of an appropriate density.  

Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment.

Angela Connery, 6 Connors Rd., says her mother grew up in the historic house.  She is very pleased it will be preserved, and also supports the new house being built.  

Noreen Casey, 123 Bay View Ave., asked where the parking would be.  Mr. Jaquith shows the four required parking spaces on the plans.

Mr. Levy notes that they will probably do something to buffer between the two houses, such as repair the wall.  He also notes they are asking for relief from tandem parking.

Ms. McKnight reads a letter from Councillor At-Large Joan Lovely in support of the petition.  

The public comment portion is closed.

Ms. Curran says she does not have a problem with the petition – they are not increasing density – they are staying with two units.  She says filling in the lot is in keeping with the neighborhood.  She says tandem parking will not be a problem with single-family houses.  She says the project is nice, intelligently sited, and a good addition to the neighborhood.

Mr. Dionne agrees and says the plans are good.

Ms. Harris notes this is a dense neighborhood already, and this is a moderate proposal.  She asks Mr. St. Pierre if he has any comments.  He says the project is well thought out, and the petition is reasonable.

Ms. Harris moves to approve with eight (8) standard conditions and one special condition, that the two houses remain single-family houses.  The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Mr. Dionne, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran, Ms. Debski and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed).  

Public hearing: Petition of THE SALEM MISSION LLC D/B/A LIFEBRIDGE requesting Variances from rear yard setback, height (feet), height (stories), minimum area per dwelling unit, and parking, to add two stories to the existing building at 56 MARGIN ST, Salem, MA, creating twenty (20) units of residential housing (R-2 zoning district).   

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Application date-stamped 5/25/11 and accompanying materials
  • Plot plan dated 5/25/11
  • Exterior Elevations dated 5/25/11
  • Photos and elevations titled “Seeds of Hope III,” dated 6/15/11
  • Letter from Jeffrey M. Cox, LICSW, BCD, dated 6/14/11
  • Letter from Thomas Furey, Councillor At Large, 77 Linden St., dated 6/13/11
Attorney George Atkins presents the petition.  He introduces Executive Director Mark Cote and Chair Andrew Oliver of Lifebridge, as well as Dana Weeder of Winter St. Architects.  Atty Atkins says that contrary to what was reported in the newspaper, they are proposing an expansion not of the shelter, but of permanent housing.  He also clarifies that there was a typo in the application, which says they are looking for 20 units.  However, in the narrative, they explain they are looking for relief for 22 units; Atty Atkins confirms the plan is for 22.  He reviews the standards to be applied to the petition and explains the use is exempt under MGL Ch. 40A Sec. 3, the Dover Amendment.  He says that “reasonable” dimensional regulations do apply, but he says these can’t impede, frustrate or cause harm to carrying out the use.  He also says in the Salem Zoning Ordinance recodification, there is a section stating that these exempt uses must comply with all dimensional requirements.  However, he notes that local ordinances cannot override state statute.  He says he doesn’t want to challenge the Zoning Ordinance, but he does need to write a zoning opinion for this property, and so he is asking for traditional variances.  He says this review should consider the reasonableness of the application.  

Atty Atkins explains the five dimensional variances sought, including rear yard setback, which is already nonconforming, but will become more so with the proposed rear addition, consisting of an elevator and stairway.  He also describes the parking requirements – 33 spaces – and says it is evident that some of the requirements of zoning frustrate the use.  He notes the unusual lot shape and says the lot contains an unusual set of buildings compared to the district.  He requests the Board to consider the reasonableness of the project when applying the regulations.

Atty Atkins says they have met with the neighborhood group.  He addresses a letter the Board received from Mr. Cox.  He notes there are some residents who don’t want Lifebridge to be there at all, but says they are trying to work with the neighborhood.  He says the project is not yet funded, so they don’t yet have a contractor, and they need one before making certain construction decisions.  He refers to the letter’s request for a traffic engineer, and explains he doesn’t think they need one, since cars are only used by employees.  There are currently 17 employees, 8 of whom drive to work.  He says there are two parking areas on High Street and Endicott Street on the site.  He says if the project is constructed, there may be one more employee, meaning one more car.  He says Lifebridge will limit employee parking – they will make arrangements for this.  He agrees there is a traffic issue, but changing traffic direction is an issue for the police and Council.  He addresses the criteria for residents, saying they get Federal, state and local funds and must abide by discrimination laws.  However, there are two areas in which they can discriminate – convicted felons and level 3 sex offenders.  He says they will not take people from either category.  

Atty Atkins explains that they have tied the project to a reduction in shelter beds.  He says several factors apply here, but they will try to reduce shelter beds by up to 10.  He says there are no plans for additional housing on the site or plans to buy another building.

Mark Cote, 22 Troy St., Lowell, is Executive Director of Lightbridge.  He says they have four buildings at the corner of High and Endicott St.  The housing units are in two anchor buildings and are occupied by men and women who are sober and drug tested, who meet with staff, have a curfew and pay 30% of their income in rent.  He says they have an 88% retention rate – they are no longer homeless and are living in the neighborhood.  He says they also have shelter beds, and they want to decrease these and increase the housing.  He says they have a good track record of moving people from shelter to permanent housing, and people are successful because of the on-site supportive services.  He says the Board voted today, and they have decided not to rent to level 3 sex offenders in Salem – this is a new policy.  

Ms. Curran asks him to go through each building’s existing uses.  Mr. Cote says there are 10 units of housing, dorm style, with a shared kitchen and bath on High Street, which will remain.  He says the thrift store at St. Mary’s will move – the building is currently on the market.  He says between the two housing buildings, there are 22 units and community meals and support services provided.  On the main floor, they will move the kitchen and dining to the basement, add 6 units, and reduce the shelter in the basement.  There will be a total of 22 new units.  

Dana Weeder hands out photos and renderings and explains the renovations to the existing building: front of the main floor will have six units; rear of the main floor will be offices; they will take off the roof, lower it 7 feet, and build two levels on top.  He shows the elevation of the project site with the existing buildings around it and shows how the height will be similar.  He says there will be 8 units each on the second and third floors.  The first floor will have a conference room, where the educational components of the project will be.  The low level will contain the kitchen and fewer shelter beds.

Ms. Harris notes it looks as though the plans show an even larger reduction of beds than proposed; Mr. Cote says these are bunk beds.  

Ms. Debski asks if the units have kitchens; Mr. Weeder says there will be cooking in the upper units.  

Mr. Metsch asks about the average stay in the 22 units they already operate.  Mr. Cote says people can stay forever – this is permanent housing.  But in three years, they have had an 88% retention rate.  There have been two or three evictions of people who didn’t adhere to the program expectations.  Mr. Dionne asks if this is a dry house; Mr. Cote says yes, it is sober and drug testing is done on site.  He says state police come unannounced with drug sniffing dogs to search the property, and it has been amazingly clean.

Atty Atkins says this plan resulted after the first plan to use the church was proposed, and this was suggested by the chair of the Historical Commission.  He says it developed over time with the funders and neighborhood.

Ms. Curran asks what other review this will need; Atty Atkins says it would be exempt from site plan review.

Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment.

Jeffrey Cox, 58 Endicott St., says he would like to speak instead of having his letter read.  He says over the last two years, people have gone from being negative to open to Lifebridge.  He says not everyone is excited about having the shelter.  He says the current management runs a very tight ship and he appreciates the talks with the neighborhood.  However, he says the plan they saw was a photo of the plan and requests they continue the hearing so the neighborhood can review the plans further.  He suggests a Lifebridge neighborhood advisory board to address concerns.  He says this is a large construction project – as large as Derby Lofts – and they want time to discuss the information presented.  He says the main issues in the neighborhood are parking and traffic.  Speed is a concern – the area is dangerous.  He doesn’t want a study to be a barrier to the project, but he’s concerned about pedestrian safety.  He also questions what would happen if the shelter/housing were under different management in the future.  He asks what the long term parking needs of the building are.  He says this was a low traffic area when it was a church, and now more people are there.  He also asks where people will park who can’t afford meters.  He says this is the only Board to review, so they should take more time.

Mr. St. Pierre says he will check whether site plan review is required for projects exempt under the Dover Amendment.

Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., asks where the shelter residents will be relocated to during construction.

Mary Beth Bainbridge, 7 Prescott St., says she appreciates the conversations Lifebridge has had with the neighbors.  She asks what the green components are to the architecture, and how this fits into Salem’s 10 year homelessness plan.  She would also like the hearing to be continued to allow more time for review.  

Joe Hillshire, 7 Prescott St., questions the current plans for further expansion; he wants in writing if they will be limiting the expansion.  He also doesn’t like the aesthetics of the plan.

John Femino, 90 Margin St., says he asked for a tour, saw the floor plans, and says they are pushing a lot downstairs.  He’s not trying to stop the project – he just wants more time to review.

Ms. McKnight notes they have a letter from At-Large Councillor Thomas Furey strongly supporting the project.  Ms. Curran asks her to summarize the letter.

Mr. Weeder, a LEED accredited professional, addresses the question about green building.  He says the single most important thing they can do in terms of sustainability is reuse a building, which they are doing.  This will be an energy efficient building with thermal bridging fiberglass windows, insulation and reduced infiltration.  It will have a white or light colored roof to reduce heat gain, a high-efficiency HVAC, and operable windows.  They will use recycled materials to the extent possible.  They are not sure if they will go for LEED certification, but they will meet many of the standards.  He says the MA energy code applies here, and Salem requires the stretch code.  

Atty Atkins says this is their first step – the approval is required for government funding.  They don’t yet have construction drawings, and the timing of their funding will affect this.  He is willing to continue this to have further conversations with the neighborhood.  However, he says they can’t solve the traffic issue, and they will not have those drawings available.  As to putting it in writing that they won’t expand any further, he says they can’t predict the future, and they are limited in the commitments they can make.  He doesn’t know what will happen with the church – the Archdiocese decided to sell it.  They will try to answer, and will come back in a month.

Ms. Debski suggests speaking to Councillor Jean Pelletier about the traffic issues, and possibly setting up a meeting with the police.  

Janine Camarda, 143 Tedesco St., Marblehead, says she grew up in the neighborhood, and traffic was a problem then – the shelter is not adding to that.  She says people speed, but it’s nothing to do with the shelter.  This is a 40-year-old problem.  She asks about the reduction in beds, and wants to know if that means fewer people will be coming in.

Mr. Cote explains the plan to reduce the shelter beds, and saying the floor plan hasn’t been configured yet, but they could potentially go from 34 to 24 beds.  They will be used as transitional beds until stable before providing permanent housing.  Ms. Camarda asks if there will be enough shelter beds for Salem’s needs; Mr. Cote says yes.  Ms. Camarda asks where the people come from using the beds; Mr. Cote says the majority are from the North Shore, and more than 50% are from Salem.  

Mr. Femino disagrees that the shelter does not bring in more traffic.

Ms. Harris asks for a further explanation of the Dover Amendment.  Mr. St. Pierre explains that the exemption allows religious or educational uses, though he doesn’t know if he agrees that site plan review is not needed.  Ms. Curran says they will discuss this with counsel before the next meeting.  Mr. Cote notes that the educational exemption applies here because they hold classes on site.

Mr. Femino says Atty Atkins has not been up front and there have been misconceptions passed along the the neighbors.  He says some have been bullied.  

Mr. Cox thanks the applicant for being willing to continue; he looks forward to continuing their conversations, and thinks it will be a success.  Ms. Curran says she thinks continuing would be a good idea for the neighborhood, and she would like to do a second visit.

Ms. Harris says the applicant doesn’t have to promise certain things, but an MOU might be helpful to outline the specifics of the project.

Ms. Debski moves to continue the hearing to July 20, 2011, seconded by Ms. Harris and approved 5-0 (Ms. Debski, Ms. Harris, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne and Mr. Metsch in favor, none opposed).

Public hearing: the petition of LESLIE R. ABCUNAS, requesting a Home Occupation Special Permit for a massage business in the single-family home at 24 BELLEAU RD, Salem, MA (R-1 zoning district).

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Application date-stamped 5/26/11 and accompanying materials
  • Addendum to application, distributed at meeting
  • Letter from Cynthia Hincman Bourgault, 19 Belleau Rd.
  • Letter from Anne Marie and Richard St. Pierre, 26 Belleau Rd., dated 6/15/11
  • Letter from Councillor At Large Joan B. Lovely, dated 6/15/11
  • Letter from Councillor At Large Thomas H. Furey, dated 6/12/11
  • Letter from Councillor At Large Thomas H. Furey, dated 6/14/11
Ms. Abcunas presents her petition, saying she would like to have a massage studio in her parents’ house, where she grew up, and now lives again.  She says there was flooding damage in the basement, which they have renovated.  She says her father is also present.  She speaks about her schooling at the Spa Tech Institute in Ipswich.  She says she is licensed and carries a $2 million insurance policy for liability.  She says her project is supported by her insurance company, which has an attorney to make sure massage therapists are treated fairly in the state.  He is not present tonight.  She says she tried to rent space for this, but she doesn’t yet have the clientele to rent downtown space, which is her ultimate goal.  She doesn’t want to work from home forever.  Currently she is traveling to her clients.  She says she looked into working in a spa, but she prefers a different approach to working with clients than the schedule of a spa permits – she likes to take the time to learn clients’ history, injuries, etc.

Ms. Abcunas says the parking area in the driveway fits three cars, and a neighbor has offered driveway space if needed.  She says there will be no external changes and no signs.  She says not everyone can afford massage, but she keeps her pricing in line with the area market.  She has no plans to have a lot of people come to the house.  She has five friends here to support her.  She says she does not advertise the business.  She refers to some who have opposed the petition and notes that she is offended by the use of the word “parlor” – she does not want her services to be confused with anything but professional massage.  She says the police were called when a friend came over.  She now cannot have visitors without the police being called.  When the police were called, she says the basement was not finished.  She says she has suffered defamation of character.  She refers to the petition she has submitted with signatures in favor of the project.

Ms. Curran asks if she has employees; Ms. Abcunas says no.  Ms. Curran asks if the business takes up less than 25% of the house; Ms. Abcunas says yes, it’s less than half the basement.  Ms. Curran asks about signage; Ms. Abcunas says she has none, and there is no advertising of her address – her clients are all from word of mouth.  Ms. Debski asks how many clients she has.  Ms. Abcunas says she doesn’t have any now – she was practicing massage only.  She says no one can prohibit free practice massages.  She estimates she would have 8 clients weekly – this would be about 8 hours per week.  However, it would vary – some weeks it could be 2, 5, etc.

Jane Camarda, 20 Bellleau Rd., supports the petition.  She says she got a training massage and was impressed by Ms. Abcunas’s training.  She says she’s helped her with a chronic problem.  She also wanted to give an endorsement of Ms. Abcunas’s character.  

Deborah Gregory, 22 Belleau Rd., also supports the petition and says she knows Ms. Abcunas well.

Helen Brown, 35 Belleau Rd., also says she knows Ms. Abcunas well.  She supports the petition and would look to her for help with her mother’s sciatica.  

Cynthia Bourgault, 19 Belleau Rd., opposes the petition.  She says they have not talked about hours.  She says there is a discrepancy in what Ms. Abcunas has said about the amount of money she is insured for.  She also says she has not been doing only practice massage but has been traveling to clients.  She says there are lots of elderly people and kids in the neighborhood and the house is on a blind curve.  She doesn’t want a business in the neighborhood.  She says this is a quiet dead end.  She also says Ms. Abcunas isn’t beyond making threats.  

Ms. Curran asks about the business’s hours of operation.  Ms. Abcunas says it would vary – it could be 7 days a week, but she wouldn’t have anyone before 12 or after 8.

Ms. McKnight reads letters from Ms. Bourgault (opposed), Anne Marie and Richard St. Pierre, 26 Belleau Rd. (opposed), and At-Large Councillor Joan Lovely (opposed).  She explains that she first received a letter in opposition from Councillor Thomas Furey, but she then received a letter supporting the petition after the Councillor met with the applicant about the project and toured her house.  

Ms. Abcunas notes that there would be no overlapping appointments, so there would never be more than one car parked, and no one would be waiting.  

Ms. Curran asks Mr. St. Pierre that this is allowed by Special Permit in the R1 zone; he says yes, it meets the definition of a home occupation.  Ms. Curran reviews the criteria for home occupations and confirms that no goods are produced; she asks if Ms. Abcunas if she sells any products, to which she replies no.

Ms. Debski asks if there is resident sticker parking on the street; Ms. Abcunas says yes.  

Ward 7 Councillor Joseph O’Keefe speaks in opposition.  He says this is a dead end street and people have to turn around.  He says this changes the R1 zoning and an office in a house shouldn’t be allowed.  He doesn’t want to set a precedent.  He says this would alter the fabric of the neighborhood.  He says the house has a car blocking the sidewalk, which is a violation, and there are unregistered cars on the property.  He asks where clients will park, since this is a resident sticker only street.  He also asks what Ms. Abcunas’s tagline “massage and more” means on her business card?  He says this belongs in a business district.

Ms. Camarda says the majority of the neighborhood supports the applicant, and she feels they are being bullied by other neighbors calling officials and calling the police.

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

Ms. Debski says the applicant has answered their questions.  Mr. St. Pierre refers to a state requirement for a different permit for an operation of more than 8 hours, and asks if Ms. Abcunas would be requesting this; she says she will apply for that if she gets approval for the license.  Mr. St. Pierre notes that this is a different license, and she still needs a special permit for a home occupation from the city.  

Mr. Dionne says the dead end street is his only concern, but also notes that they would be setting a precedent by allowing this in R1.  Ms. Curran asks Mr. St. Pierre to confirm that the special permit would run with the applicant and not the property; he says they can limit this to just the applicant.

Ms. Debski says this would not be a big impact on the neighborhood – it would be one car at a time with no overlap.  Ms. Harris says there is not adequate parking.  Ms. Debski says the applicant could park on the street with her resident sticker – she has a right to two per household.  She says she is much more comfortable with this application after hearing from the applicant and neighbors.  She says there is not much opposition.

Ms. Curran says she is struggling to see the impact this would have, especially since this would be limited to the applicant and would not be forever.  Mr. St. Pierre says they could limit the time the permit is good for.  Ms. Harris asks if they could do it for a year, or six months perhaps?  She notes there is both support and opposition in the neighborhood.  Ms. Debski notes that they have done this before.  Mr. Metsch says this is in keeping with the idea of a Special Permit, and it’s no different from a lawyer, etc. with a home occupation.  He notes this would just be one person at a time with no overlap.  He likes the idea of issuing the permit for a certain amount of time as a trial, and suggests 2 years.  He doesn’t think parking is a problem, since the residents have the option to park on the street, and one car in the driveway is not an issue.  

Ms. Harris does not like offices in people’s houses – doctors, lawyers, etc. – she feels this is too intense for residences.  Ms. Curran points out that in those cases, the intensity of use is greater than what is proposed here.  Mr. Metsch asks whether this sets a precedent for the Board issuing special permits; Ms. Curran says they are just evaluated case by case.  

Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with the following special conditions: the business use is to operate 12 noon to 8 p.m., Monday through Saturday; the Special Permit term expires in two years; no signage is to be posted; there are to be no employees; and the applicant is to maintain all needed licenses, permits and insurance.  Ms. Debski seconds the motion, and the Board votes 3-2 (Ms. Debski, Mr. Metsch and Ms. Curran in favor, Ms. Harris and Mr. Dionne opposed); the petition is denied.

Mr. Dionne moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Ms. Harris and approved 5-0.

The meeting adjourns at 9:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner

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/