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

A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, July 20, 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, Beth Debski, Bonnie Belair (alternate), and Jamie Metsch.  Those absent were: Annie Harris and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate).  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 6/15/11 are reviewed.  Mr. Metsch moves to approve, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 4-0 (Mr. Dionne, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran and Ms. Debski in favor, Ms. Belair abstaining, none opposed).

Public hearing: Petition of MARC TRANOS requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure. Proposed addition will have a side yard setback of 5’ (10’ required) and add a 3rd story living space (2½ allowed) at the property located at 47 MEMORIAL DR. (R-1).

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Application dated 6/29/11 and accompanying materials
  • Plot Plan of Land, 47 Memorial Dr., Salem
  • Elevation drawings
  • Letter from Antonio Marfongelli, 49 Memorial Dr.
  • Photographs of 47 Memorial Dr., no date
Marc Tranos presents his petition.  He explains that he wants to remove the existing breezeway/mudroom and put on the proposed new addition.  He explains that he wants to bring his stairs up to code and constructing a new stair of the appropriate dimensions would take up interior bedroom space.  Therefore, he wants to extend the second story to give reasonable room for living space.  He shows photos of the interior of the house. He says the roof has shed dormer with almost 0 pitch, constructed by 2 x 6’s, and the ceiling height is only 6’2”; he wants to increase it to 8’3”.  

Ms. Curran asks how many square feet he is adding?  Mr. Tranos says he is going from 1448 to 2560 SF.  Ms. Curran notes that this is not quite doubling the area.  She asks Mr. Tranos to confirm the reason he can’t maintain the current setback is because of the stairs; Mr. Tranos says he could , but it would make the bedroom very small – 9 x 9; the new stairs would eat into the two bedrooms.  Ms. Belair asks what will be on the third floor; Mr. Tranos says storage.  He says it will not be full height – it will have knee walls coming up 3 to 4 feet and going up.  He notes on the back side – there will be a place with a roof deck, which will be accessible through spiral stair inside a peak.  Mr. Metsch notes the whole roofline would be raised.

Ms. Curran says she is having a hard time visualizing the proposal.  Mr. Metsch shows a photo he took on his phone of the house to Ms. Curran.  Mr. Tranos says the height of the existing house is 20 feet, and they are going up to 28.  He says that according to his architect, the average elevation on the ground is the point from which roof height is measured in Salem.  Ms. Curran says it just looks so much bigger - enormous.  

Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion of the hearing.  No one is here to speak about it.  She closes the public comment portion.

Mr. Tranos notes that a letter of support is included in his petition from his neighbor, Antonia Marfongelli, 49 Memorial Dr.  He introduces his other abutter, Brad Smith, 45 Memorial Drive, whom he says is also here in support.  Ms. Curran notes he is going from 1.5 to 3 stories.  She says it’s fine to use the top floor for living space, but if they are only using it for storage – and there’s a deck – and if the reason to go over further is to not to impact the size of the bedrooms, then why build up space for storage?  Could he reconfigure things to use that space as bedrooms and keep within current footprint – why go up that high?  Mr. Tranos says it would be to make house look that way – it currently is only 20 feet, and to get any type of attic space you have to go up that high, because it’s not a deep house.  He doesn’t want to put 20 feet of roof straight across – it wouldn’t look right.  Ms. Curran notes there isn’t a side elevation submitted.  

Mr. Dionne notes it will be a usable space, he likes the proportions, it looks nice, and if Mr. Tranos has no objections from neighbors, this makes sense.  Mr. Metsch says that as a plan it looks attractive – he says the house to the left is approximately the same size, it is in keeping with some of the houses on the street, and the neighbors across the street are up on a hill.  Ms. Curran asks what material he plans to use; Mr. Tranos says vinyl siding.

Ms. Curran says she likes the variation in lines and way he’s doing the dormers.  She notes that she would have liked a better visual.  She wishes they weren’t increasing the side setback, but she has no real objection.  

Ms. Curran says she had thought the bump was on both sides – Mr. Metsch explains that’s just on the back.  Noting the front elevation – he says the front has a line down it – it’s just on one plane – can we condition it to come out three feet – or do they need to redraw it?  Mr. Tranos says in order to bring that front portion out three feet, he’d have to re dig the foundation of the house.  Mr. Metsch and Ms. Debski say they would like to see even just something with trim board, just to break up the massing.  Mr. Tranos says he can try to bring it out a little – he has to talk to his architect.  Ms. Curran says she knows he is dealing with an existing house, but it’s a shame the door can’t be separate.  Ms. Belair asks Mr. Smith how tall his house is; he says approximately 31 or 32.  Ms. Belair asks if he’s in favor; he says he’d like to see some final renderings, but it’s ok.  He says the house really needs an overhaul; he’s fine with it as long as it looks good and it’s suitable for Mark.  

Mr. Metsch moves to approve with eight (8) standard conditions and one special condition, that the façade will be treated on both sides according to a revised elevation drawing showing a dimension of at least two inches, seconded by Mr. Dionne and passed 5-0 (Mr. Dionne, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran, Ms. Debski, and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated into these minutes.

Continuation of 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).

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Application dated 5/19/11 and accompanying materials
  • Special Permit decision for 15 Ropes St., date-stamped 3/21/83
  • Zoning violation notice from Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer
  • Aerial photograph, 2004
  • Aerial photograph, 2009
  • Letter from Attorney Matthew Kavanagh, dated June 15, 2011
Attorney Matthew Kavanagh, representing the petitioner, says he thinks a key issue has been resolved – the applicant will cease parking vehicles in back (tape) – free up street parking, approach council about striping some spots on Ropes St. so he and neighbors can use for parking.  Ms. Curran: this is no longer an issue?  Atty Kavanagh confirms that he is no longer appealing the decision of the building inspector.  He requests to withdraw the petition without prejudice.  Mr. Dionne moves to allow withdrawal of the petition without prejudice, seconded by Mr. Metsch and passed 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Belair, Ms. Debski and Ms. Curran in favor, none opposed).  The decision is hereby incorporated into these minutes.


Continuation of 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 submitted by the Greater Endicott Street Neighborhood Association (exhibit A), dated 7/18/11, and signature pages (exhibit B)
  • Letter from Lifebridge dated 7/19/11 (exhibit C)
  • Exerpt from Mark Bobrowski’s Handbook of Massachusetts Land Use and Planning Law, submitted by Councillor Michael Sosnowski, Ward 2
  • Letter from Thomas Furey, Councillor-At-Large
Ms. Curran says there were questions raised last time, and she understands the developer has met with neighbors about these issues.  She refers to the issue of the Dover amendment and says she has spoken with Robin Stein, Assistant City Solicitor, and the Board now has clarification about how that applies.

Atty Atkins, 59 Fderal St., represents the Mission.  He says last time he said he believed they were not required to go to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review, but says the Assistant City Solicitor has come to the conclusion that they do need to do this to proceed.  He says they will follow her determination and will present a petition to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review.  

Atty Atkins says the meeting with neighbors was Monday night.  He says they answered some questions, but not others; they won’t be able to satisfy some of the objections that were raised.  A letter dated June 14 was written by Jeff Cox and presented at the last meeting.  Atty Atkins has prepared a written response (exhibit C), which he passes out to the board.  They have highlighted in bold the responses of Lifebridge.  The second item refers to traffic – statements referring to speed and danger – they agree with these statements, but don’t agree that it’s due to the organization’s activities.  He says they would support any kind of traffic calming brought before council.  He says few employees have cars.  If the project goes forward, they will have one additional employee, and that person can be accommodated on site.  If additional parking is required, Atty Atkins says they can accommodate that on site or make arrangements in city owned lots and prohibit staff and residents from parking there.  For visitors and guests – there can be a provision in the leases that tenants must use their best efforts to park in municipal parking and not on the streets.  He says, however, that they would have limited control in this.  They would use all their efforts to keep on-street parking from happening.  

He addresses the next concern in Mr. Cox’s letter – the residents, and who is admitted.  He says it is a nonprofit subject to fair housing laws.  However, they always do a CORI check and will continue to do so.  Also, Board has voted on a new policy that would bar Level 3 sex offenders in any existing or proposed housing of ours.  There are two currently in the housing; they can’t evict them, but they won’t replace them once they move out with other Level 3 sex offenders.  

Atty Atkins refers to concerns about building additional housing in the future, and concerns about construction and process.  Lifebridge will add an on site contact for issues related to construction and email communication for construction related matters.  He says there has been successful use of those two items at SSU regarding contacts with neighbors.  They will commit to the same thing.  Those are in writing, as requested, in response to Mr. Cox’s letter.

He addresses the issue of the Dover Amendment he has a series of legal documents for Board review.  Ms. Curran says that Lifebridge should go through the reasoning of its educational purpose – it is not readily apparent when you think of a shelter for an educational purpose.  She requests this be explained, on the advice of Ms. Stein.  Atty Atkins says zoning ordinances can’t regulate nonprofit educational uses, but are subject to reasonable regulations.  He says the Articles of Organization of Lifebridge indicate it’s a nonprofit, and in its purpose indicates the educational nature of the organization’s purpose.  He refers to item 3 – a list of programs offered at Lifebridge – such as relapse prevention, anger management, job search skills, AA, case management including individual life plans, working with SSU student nurses, college writing courses (being developed), a women’s support group, and men’s support group.  He says programs and monitoring are offered not just to sheltered residents but to all tenants currently in the 22 residential units.  He says there is constant monitoring of the tenants.  Atty Atkins says there have been several cases in MA concerning “education” and what it means – the most important one is a Fitchburg case, which dealt with the conversion of a residential facility for former mental patients.  Quoting from the case, Atty Atkins says education is “broad and comprehensive…process of developing and training powers and capabilities of human beings, etc.”  The proposed facility fulfilled an educational goal by helping people live in a normal setting, etc. , and by teaching basic coping and life skills  -this qualified as an educational use.  Atty Atkins says what Lifebridge offers is incontestably an educational process.  Their intent is to move people from homelessness, move out of shelters, and move into permanent housing; all their efforts are designed to follow that.  He refers to two other cases, in which the courts found that the use was protected, but “reasonable” dimensional regulations apply.  He says they have asked for height variances, rear yard setback, relief from area per dwelling unit, and parking relief.  He says that even though there is a new setback violation to the rear, the building is already 2.3 feet off the rear line.  He says this is a de minimus request.  He says that for lot area per dwelling unit, 7500 is unreasonable, and it is impossible to meet that standard anywhere downtown.  He notes also that in the future, if some other group tried to use this as regular housing, they would have to come back for relief.  

Atty Atkins says that each of the dimensional requirements must meet some municipal need.  He doesn’t think any of these items meet a municipal need, so their imposition would be unreasonable.  The reason he is asking for variances instead of a determination of reasonableness is because in the Zoning recodification, there is language contrary to state statute that requires dimensional requirements to be met even for exempt uses, and they want to comply with the local ordinance.  

Ms. Curran asks him to run through this, saying the Board is trying to get a handle on the educational component.  People move in, stay for a while, learn life skills and move on?  Atty Atkins says they hope so, yes.  

Mark Cote, 22 Troy St, Lowell, Executive Director of Lifebridge., says that upon getting a bed at Lifebridge, everyone gets a case manager, and gets an ISP from entry to exit.  The case manager determines how often they must meet.  A series of benchmarks are met.  Even those who live in their 22 units have case management.  There are changes depending on the curriculum available and what they need.  They must attend two classes and volunteer each week.  Ms. Curran asks if each of the classes mentioned is a course?  Mr. Cote says some have a hard curriculum, and some have clinicians who run the courses.  There are 8 week cycles for some courses, and some are drop-in.  They are working with SSU to offer college courses on the campus.  Mr. Cote has an M.Ed, and Lifebridge has a strong educational component.  He says this is not a place where you can come and not participate – residents have to be active.  Everyone has chores daily.  If they don’t participate, they can’t be there.  There are other shelters where they can be.  Ms. Curran asks about the length of a typical stay.  Mr. Cote says some have been there for years.  They work with those who have been there a long time to help them move on.  The typical stay has gone from years to months, if not weeks.  Some people are gone in 24 hours.  But, he says, if they are there and have a bed, that’s their bed every night as long as they participate and meet expectations.  He says there is also monitoring – by contract with DHCD – and there are 2 shelter attendants, one male and one female, in the dorm, there 24/7.  They make rounds to the buildings.  There are cameras, recording systems, etc. and they know who is coming and going.

Mr. Metsch asks about the transition rate in the shelter.  And the 22 existing units – those are permanent housing?  Mr. Cote says they have one year leases.  There have only been 3 evictions; some moved, one was a death from an illness.  Mr. Dionne asks if there are 12 step meetings onsite; Mr. Cote says there are AA meetings weekly, as well as other groups run by his staff.  Ms. Belair asks about police calls; Mr. Cote says they can get any records the Board needs from police.  He says calls from their building are instigated by staff, or medical calls from nurses.  He says the call frequency has dropped.  He will get these numbers.  He says there are 9 members on the Board.  Ms. Belair asks if there is any requirement to have Salem residents on board; Mr. Cote says no, not in their bylaws.  Atty Atkins notes that there are Salem residents on the Board.  Ms. Belair says she would like there to always be a Salem resident on the Board.  Atty Atkins says they will consider that.  

Mr. Metsch asks for clarification on the Dover Amendment – is this a use by right in our zoning?  Does it meet the Dover Amendment criteria?   

Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment.

Mary Beth Bainbridge, 7 Prescott St.., of the Greater Endicott Street Neighborhood Association (GESNA) – passes out a petition with the signatures of residents who agree with an opposition letter she has submitted.  

Barbara Mann, cochair of GESNA – 29 Endicott St. – reads aloud letter that was submitted dated 7/18/11 from GESNA in opposition (exhibit B).  She summarizes 6 conditions, attached to the letter (exhibit A).  

John Femino, 90 Margin St., is on the neighborhood advisory committee.  He says they have made good strides in improving conditions.  At the last meeting, he says they discussed the verbal agreements made.  He says in 2004, this was brought before council, and what they have now, the two buildings, and the shelter, is what they promised they would do and that was all.  They would keep church open for community.  He says they went back on trying to build on the church.  He says they are expanding beyond what they told the neighborhood they would do.  He says he has a tape of 2004 meeting.  They initially proposed by leadership back then, and there should have been better cooperation.  He says the church should have stayed open.  He says it should have been preserved and used as community space.  However, he says the church was closed and is on the market, and this is not what was agreed to at the council meeting in 2004.  He says the proposed density is much too high for the area and says there is already too much traffic.  The thrift store goods block the sidewalk.  Parking and trash are also a problem.  

Ms. Curran says the Board can condition promises made for this application but cannot enforce anything that was previously agreed to verbally outside this Board’s review.

Mary Beth Bainbridge, 7 Prescott St., clerk of GESNA, says that on the neighborhood meeting on 7/18, Lifebridge left abruptly and many questions remain.  She says they haven’t named their funding source for the new construction.  She is concerned that changes could occur in the future if the funding they are getting is only good for 15 or 20 years.  She says this has serious implications for the future of the community.  She wants to know if their funder will have different requirements for sex offenders and if they will have to take them.  She wants to know exactly how many shelter beds will be reduced.  She has concerns about the parking.  She doesn’t think it’s reasonable to think Lifebridge won’t need additional parking for 22 new units, and says the current units have insufficient parking.  They can’t predict future, whether staff needs will change.  Just because current employees mostly don’t drive doesn’t guarantee parking needs won’t change, she says.  She also objects to adults living in studios the size of dorm rooms.  She has concerns about construction and how it will affect neighbors – she asks how long it will take.  She is concerned about the precedents this would be setting for the city.  

Robert Femino, 32 Endicott St., is also on GESNA and on the Lifebridge neighborhood committee.  He says sharing the neighborhood with the shelter has impacted the neighborhood by attracting mentally ill people and those with substance abuse issues.  He is not opposed to the organization’s mission.  He says the neighborhood has accepted the current clients but doesn’t think the neighborhood’s concerns have been addressed, and feels the plans are unclear.  He thinks expansion should happen in other communities.  He thinks the saturation point has been reached in the neighborhood.  He requests that Lifebridge agree to stop expanding if this is granted.  He says such an agreement would go a long way toward getting neighborhood support for this project.  

Doug Crystal, 47 Endicott St., says that in the last 3 or 4 years, there have been improvements, but he has concerns about the new expansion and thinks it will have a negative impact on the neighborhood.  He notes other investments in the neighborhood and worries that this project will erode property values.  He is concerned about parking, future expansion, and density.  

Dan Finamore, 59 Summer St., says he fully supports what Lifebridge does, but he also knows it is the long term residents have vehicles; they all park on Summer St.  Those living in the existing 22 units – these people are on their way up.

Steve Perry, 32 Endicott St. is concerned about the type of person he encounters on the sidewalk recently – they are much more scary, verbal, etc.  He says the shelter is a magnet for these people.  Mr. Cote says they have to complete 2 courses a year?  Are they pertinent to the issues these people have, and what if they don’t complete the courses?  He also supports social services, but as of now they can’t control the people in the neighborhood, and fears what the impacts will be if the number of units is increased.  

Joanne Mattera, 38 Endicott St., objects to the expansion.  She says sex offenders must stay away from playgrounds and schools – the Lifebriedge building is close to playground – how can that be there in the first place?  She is concerned about its proximity to children.  She also has concerns with property values being eroded and says they already have issues with this in the neighborhood.  

Councillor Mike Sosnowski, Ward 2, says he attended Monday’s meeting.  He refers to an older letter from Jeff Cox, and he was under the impression the neighborhood supported this.  In the last few days, it’s become clear the neighborhood does not support it.  He says his sympathies are limited, however.  He says Lifebridge has an honorable mission.  He says he thinks this does qualify under the Dover amendment for an exemption from zoning.  How far can the board go with exemption?  He quotes from Mark Bobrowski’s Handbook of Massachusetts Land Use and Planning Law, and says that land or structures may be subject to reasonable dimensional regulations.  He passes out excerpts to the Board.  Inasmuch as this is doing a great job, he says the Board has already been reasonable in allowing what’s there currently.  Now they are being asked to go beyond reasonable.  A cap should be put on the current limits.  He liked the suggestion about putting Salem residents on the Board – and the Board should only have Salem residents.  Salem shouldn’t have to pay the price for everyone.  He has concerns about parking; have they already exceeded what would be reasonable with the exemption?  The Board needs to consider this.  

Councillor-At-Large Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus Ave., says he was appointed to the neighborhood advisory board with Councillors Pelletier and Lovely, and they have made tremendous strides.  Lifebridge has been open to suggestions and they have accomplished a lot.  He says for this proposal – his only problem is parking – they administration just put forth a comprehensive parking plan in the city.  The whole objective was to create 15% more parking for the city.  They found that people with condos downtown pay for space in municipal lots and can’t get in because they are so crowded, and it will aggravate the problem if employees or tenants use these spaces too.  

Councillor-At-Large Joan Lovely, 14 Story St. – also on the Lifebridge committee – echoes what Councillor Pinto said – they have addressed many issues.  She says the mission of Lifebridge is to close the shelter which is very attractive to her.  They want to eventually just have permanent housing with those who can support themselves and use the education services, help people get GEDs, etc.  She supports the 22 units, but doesn’t think it’s unreasonable for Lifebridge to enter into some sort of MOU to limit future expansion.  This would max out the area. The church is available, hopefully for community purposes – they have listened to the neighborhood.  She can see why neighbors want firmer number for shelter beds reduced.  She is less concerned about parking, but has some concern about this.  There should also be strict income limits for these units.  

Ward 3 Councillor Jean Pelletier, Chairman of the Lifebridge neighborhood advisory committee, also is in favor of some kind of MOU for the neighborhood so that Lifebridge should not have more housing here after this and possibly say what they plan to do with the church.  He says this Board allowed no parking at some nearby condo developments.  Part of the new parking plan is to reconfigure Riley Plaza.  The Norman St. condos have passes there.  He says before the Board allows a variance on parking, Lifebridge should come up with an acceptable parking plan.  He says the shelter has had impacts on the neighborhood.  He says the police calls have gone way down – it’s all medical calls now.  The clients who are problematic do not live there.  He thinks their program works.  He says the neighborhood concerns are dealt with by the board.  He says the mentally ill clients are a small proportion of who’s there.  

Joan Pizzello, 37 Endicott St., opposes the project, and says the neighborhood has absorbed about as much as it could take.

Julia Pottier-Brown, 2 Gedney Ct., says she is resigned to 22 new units, but wants something in writing that no further expansion will be made.  She says the permanent housing won’t end homelessness.  

Joanne Mattera - Asks if the Dover Amendment applies and asks the Board to confirm this.  She asks that the Board members view the site and observe what the activity there is like.

Councillor-At-Large Arthur Sargent, 8 Maple Ave., says his main concerns are parking and density.  He refers to Bobrowski’s text and says a city shouldn’t disregard rules that would normally apply.  

John Femino says the plan is wrong – High St. court doesn’t exist.  The playground is much closer to their property.  He has concerns about the construction period and how the shelter will transition.  

Ms. McKnight read a letter from Councillor-At-Large Thomas Furey, 77 Linden St., dated July 20, 2011, in support of the project.

Ms. Curran says she has had extensive conversations with Assistant City Solicitor Robin Stein, which is why she asked the applicant to explain this.  At the last meeting, the Board was concerned there would be no Site Plan Review, and traffic is  normally dealt with at the Planning Board, so she is glad to hear they are agreeable to doing that.  She says if the ZBA were the only committee reviewing the project, they would have taken on that role, though not as well.  She says an educational use doesn’t have to be a school, and they have a lot of case law that further defines what is considered educational.  

Ms. Belair strongly encourages another neighborhood meeting.  She says there are six items on the GESNA letter that should be easy to accommodate.  She suggests having an open house and letting the neighbors see the building design.  She says a traffic study is not unreasonable.  She reviews the letter’s other requests and says they should be able to work these out.  She says there should be a firmer plan for shelter bed reduction, cap on future housing, etc.  She says Lifebridge and the neighborhood have to live together, she wants to support the project, it’s admirable, we or our family could need your services, and she strongly supports Lifebridge, but she feels for neighbors and they should at least try to come to some type of agreement.

Ms. Curran says lots of issues have come up.  She summarizes what is before the ZBA, and reviews the relief needed.  She says parking is an issue; it is difficult even if they condition no cars on the site, because people do have visitors.  There was some talk about conditions – but it’s hard to enforce.  There are zero spots being added and 22 new units.   The height she has no problem with.  She says Riley Plaza is so enormous it can easily support the height of this building.  She says it is a huge improvement aesthetically compared to the old building.  This is a very specific type of housing, so lot area per dwelling unit, she has no problem with.  The rear yard setback she has no issue with because we are dealing with an existing building.  However, the parking, she really does have an issue with.  She doesn’t know if there is a solution.  She echoes Ms. Belair’s comments – the ZBA wanted you to meet and deal with some of the non-zoning issues we don’t deal with.  The ZBA has to think about expanding a use with some of these issues out there.  

Ms. Belair refers to the parking, saying she drives by twice a day, and the parking across street is never seen full.  

Ms. Curran says the sex offender issue is not a zoning issue.  However, there is a state law about proximity of sex offenders to schools.  

Mr. St. Pierre says he called Sgt.  Rocheville from the Salem PD, and he said there is no law on the books about the proximity of sex offenders to a playground.  

Mr. Metsch addresses the design, saying he is generally in favor of it; the addition for the elevator is small, and the massing is appropriate.  For parking, he says it will be difficult to include visitors in a calculation, just as it would be hard to require visitor parking in his own neighborhood for each unit.  He notes that the 22 units are already there.  His hope is that the units will be transitional, despite being permanent housing; he notes that for those transitioning out of this housing, a car would become useful in finding a job.  As for the additional 22 units – he doesn’t think the parking required needs to be the one car per unit the Board would typically require, but there should be some provisions.  He asks Dana Weeder about the right of way between the existing building and St. Mary’s, and whether additional parking could be accessed from there.

Mr. Metsch suggests redesigning the interior to have the elevator shaft within the existing footprint – moved to the upper right side of the existing building – by moving the proposed uses, maybe reducing the number of units slightly; perhaps they could allow access for parking at the rear, adding 2 or 3 spaces.  Mr. Weeder notes they did play with the elevator location – it essentially came down to financing for foundation changes.  However, there is no access for cars to get back to the courtyard area – this is a narrow alley with no room for two-way traffic.  He says that programmatically, it makes sense to put elevator in front, but they didn’t want to affect the front of building that much, and they prefer people to use the stairs.  He says the top right of the building is a single story portion and has to remain on the larger mass of the building.   Mr. Metsch says what he is suggesting is the location would then be abutting the north face of the new two story – the tower would now be on back of the north face single story.  Mr. Weeder responds that putting the elevator in back used the lightest touch, and economics were also a factor.  

Mr. Metsch discusses the density, saying he understands it makes the project more affordable.  He supports the services Lifebridge provides.  However, he has concerns for any potential growth even beyond this if the Board were to support this today.  He is wondering if the Board can cap new expansion – is that an option?  Can the number of dwelling units be tied to this owner?  Ms. Curran says they could cap the portion they are looking at, but the church is for sale.

Atty. Atkins says that he is the person who abruptly ended the neighborhood meeting Monday.  He says this proposal is not about the use, it’s the dimensional request and the parking.  He suggests meeting with neighbors and with the Board of directors of Lifebridge so he can bring these questions to them.  He says they did commit to a number of these issues already, in writing, tonight, with regard to sex offenders, employee and tenant parking, and other issues.  He requests to continue the hearing to September.  He says they can’t answer all the questions that have been raised, but they can consider some other issues.  He also offers to schedule a site visit.  

Ward 2 Councillor Mike Sosnowski, 17 Collins St., asks if they are using HUD funding for this; Mr. Cote responds that they are not, and the only HUD funding they have is for the current 22 units.  Councillor Sosnowski says if something happens and this project goes away, what happens to the use?  Ms. Curran says it would have to conform to zoning and explains that relief granted is for a particular use.  Mr. St. Pierre says the Zoning Ordinance already covers this.  

Mr. Dionne moves to continue hearing to September 21, 2011, seconded by Mr. Metsch and unanimously approved.  

Old/New Business:  Mr. Metsch says he is interested in discussing ZBA member roles and connecting decisions to existing master plans.  Ms. Curran says this is a great idea, and Ms. Belair agrees that this should be discussed at a future meeting.

Ms. Debski moves to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Dionne, and the meeting adjourns at 9:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner  
Approved by the Board of Appeals 8/17/11

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/