Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes, October 19, 2011
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, October 19, 2011

A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, October 19, 2011 in Council Chambers, second floor, 93 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.

Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Jamie Metsch, Richard Dionne and Bonnie Belair (alternate).  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 6:38 p.m.

Approval of Minutes
The minutes of September 21, 2011 are reviewed.  Ms. Belair moves to approve, seconded by Mr. Dionne; all are in favor (4-0).

Ms. Curran announces that while we are expecting five members, we so far only have four Board members in attendance and asks the first applicant, Peggy Arend, if she wants to proceed, since a unanimous vote will be required to pass her petition.  Ms. Arend would like to go ahead.

Public hearing: Petition of THREE SONS WINDOW & DOOR INC. requesting a Variance from number of stories and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure in order to construct a shed dormer on the house located at 25-25½ BARR ST (R-2).  

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Application date-stamped 8/31/11 and accompanying materials
  • Elevation drawings of 25 Barr St., Salem MA
Peggy Arend, 33 Main St., Fields, NH, presents the petition on behalf of the petitioner.  She explains the existing structure is a 2 story single family.  The family wants to add a shed dormer which would change the 2/12-story house to a 3-story.  The addition will house a master bedroom, shown in the plans.  Presently, the existing structure is nonconforming; Ms. Arend says the design stays with what’s already in the neighborhood.  Ms. Curran asks how much area is being added; Ms. Arend says the addition is 25 x 13.5 feet.  She says it doesn’t change the footprint, and because it’s a shed dormer it won’t go above the existing ridge line.   Ms. Curran asks if the materials used will be the same as the rest of the house.  Yes – wood on the outside.  Ms. Curran asks her to review her statement of hardship.  Ms. Arend says they have the existing 2 stories and attic space, and adding a dormer will make it a 3 story.  She says they have 2 small children and the family is growing; due to the economic times it’s impossible now to sell and find a new house without a hardship as far as finance.  They are not changing the footprint and just want to add a master bathroom for the family.

Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment.  No one comments; she closes the public comment portion.

Mr. Metsch asks for clarification on the materials being used.  Ms. Arend says asphalt shingle for roof, and wood clapboard siding for the dormer.  Mr. Metsch asks if there is a set of stairs to the attic; yes.  The existing stairs will stay.  Mr. St. Pierre says it looks like they are eliminating a set of stairs?  Ms. Arend says that’s an attic hatch.  

Mr. Dionne makes a motion to grant the petition with 9 standard conditions, and one condition that the property is to remain a two-family residence after construction.

Findings: Ms. Curran says this would not be a substantial detriment to the neighborhood; it’s a preexisting property; it’s staying within the footprint and air space of the currant building.  Mr. Metsch seconds the petition; all in favor 4-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed).  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

Public hearing: Petition of LAWRENCE GALLAGHER requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking regulations, for the property located at 11 DEARBORN STREET (R-2), in order to use the single-family house as a two-family house.

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Application date-stamped 9/13/11
  • Petition supporting the project, signed by neighbors
Lawrence Gallagher says he has lived in this house for 44 years.  Both he and his wife work at Kernwood 6 months out of the year, seasonally.  He says they are living on social security in a large house with big rooms, and they have big heating bills.  He has asked neighbors if they have any objections, and he says all support his petition.  He wants to stay in his house, doesn’t want to move to an elderly complex, but needs some help.  

Ms. Curran notes there is a little history to this site and asks Mr. St. Pierre to confirm that it’s been used as a two- family in the past.  Mr. St. Pierre says it was a two-family and also had a semi unit in the basement which we dealt with years ago.  Ms. Curran: Now a single family?  Yes.  Ms. Curran asks if it is the basement they want to rent out; Mr. Gallagher says no, the basement cannot be rented – it’s the second floor.  Ms. Curran asks if they will make renovations to bring up to code for a two-family.  He says yes, he had the house inspected and knows what needs to be done.  There will be no changes to outside of building.  He says he has enough space for parking.  Ms. Curran notes there is no plot plan here – how big is the lot?  Mr. Metsch notes there is no parking plan – are you using off street parking?  Mr. Gallagher says they don’t park on the property except in winter when there is a snow emergency.  They have two cars.  They would use four spaces as tandem spaces – one long row.  

Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment; no one comments and she closes the public comment portion of the hearing.

Ms. Curran asks for confirmation there are no exterior renovations; they are not making any changes to the yard and are providing four parking spaces in total, although they are tandem.  Mr. Metsch says he went by the property and the size of building seems ample to have two units if not more if allowed.  He says a lot of neighbors have multiple units; his only concern is the off street parking and how for 10 months of the year it’s a wall of picket fence, with no opportunity for one of the potentially four cars to access, making them rely on on-street parking.  He says he is fine with the use, just concerned about the provision of parking.  Ms. Curran asks if he could make parking part of the lease, making a space available to the renter.  Mr. Gallagher says he is willing to make this a condition of the permit.  Mr. Metsch asks if the gate swings open.  Mr. Gallagher says they can move the fence.  Ms. Curran suggests conditioning that that piece of fence be removed as part of this approval – that part of driveway would be permanently open.  Ms. Curran notes this is an allowed use in this district, the issue is area per dwelling unit and parking; the variance requires a statement of hardship.  She confirms that one was submitted.  Mr. Metsch suggests that the size of the building may also be a hardship.  Ms. Belair says the hardship is that the building is so large; it’s more than he can use.  She notes he’s been there 44 years and is a longtime Salem resident.  She thinks they could classify that as hardship.  Ms. Curran notes he is increasing the use but not the footprint, providing off-street parking.  Ms. Belair notes that no one is opposing, and his neighbors have signed his petition in support.

Mr. Metsch moves to approve with 9 standard conditions, and a special condition that petitioner is to provide two permanent, unobstructed year round parking spaces, and to provide a fencing system to provide easy access to the driveway.  Ms. Belair seconds; all are in favor (Metsch, Curran, Belair and Dionne in favor, none opposed).  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

Public hearing: Petition of HUGH MULLIGAN requesting Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use and modify a previously granted Variance in order to use the third floor for two residential units on the property located at 204 LAFAYETTE ST (R-3).

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Application date-stamped 9/28/11 and accompanying materials
  • Previously issued Variance decision letter date-stamped 6/17/88
Mr. Mulligan presents his petition, saying that in 1988 he purchased Ivy Manor nursing home, and in order to put his company in the building, got a variance to allow office use in the building.  That variance was granted in 1988.  He bought the building and moved the company in.  It occupied the first two floors; the = third floor was to be residential – the property is located in the R3 zone.  From the beginning, he says he didn’t realize it supposed to be limited to 1 unit, and he rented two 1 bedroom units for 19 years.  He says the building is sprinklered, has two entrances/exists, and he has used this configuration for 19 years.  He says 4 out of 5 of neighbors are multi residence properties, and no one had any problem with what he’s asking for.  Ms. Curran asks about the parking available; he says there are 18 spaces.  The building is just under 6000 SF.  One space is there for each residence and three on the side as well.  

Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment.  No one comments; she closes the public comment portion.

Ms. Curran asks if they need to issue a new variance or amend the existing one.  Mr. St. Pierre says they should amend the existing one.  He says he has walked the property, the two apartments have been there a long time, nothing is changing, and if not for this technicality no one would know anything had changed in the building.  Mr. Metsch asks if this petition was the result of a complaint; Mr. St. Pierre says no, Mr. Mulligan was  looking to do something with the building and wanted to straighten this out.  Ms. Curran notes that clearly there hasn’t been an issue; she doesn’t have a problem with the petition.  There are no exterior changes, and this is just business as usual.  Mr. Metsch makes a motion to amend the decision on petition dated June 17, 1988, so the property can have two residential units on the third floor.  Mr. St. Pierre says there was some confusion in the original petition; the Board didn’t understand at the time that the units were there; those units go back to the fifties.  Mr. Dionne seconds; petition passes 4-0 (Metsch, Curran, Dionne and Belair in favor, none opposed).  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of 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-two (22) units of residential housing (R-2).  

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 Arthur Sargeant, Councillor-at-Large
Attorney George Atkins, 59 Federal St., presents the petition.  He says they have agreed to go ahead with only four members.  Ms. Curran says the last time they were here, they were going to meet with neighbors, talk about some of the non-zoning issues.  He says the request for continuance at last meeting was so that he could meet with the board of directors; he was not planning on meeting again with neighbors.  He says they did meet with them when they first submitted the application.   He says they have presented evidence at the hearings concerning the nonprofit and educational status of the organization, in compliance with requirements for use.  They discussed whether site review would be required; the assistant city solicitor’s opinion was they would be required to go before the Planning Board for site plan review if the ZBA grants the variances.  In addition to that, the Board was sent a letter from Jeff Cox on behalf of the neighborhood group.  His client prepared a written response of particulars of that letter.  Parking and traffic – they indicated the tenants in the kind of housing they provide is similar to the kind of tenant they have at High St. and Endicott; there, only one person, a staff member, had a car.  They made a commitment to make sure tenants don’t park in the neighborhood, or visitors.  There is very close public parking available and they would make every effort to keep the parking out of the neighborhood.  They have also agreed to not rent to level 3 sex offenders.  In response to the request for details about shelter reduction, the concept is to increase the permanent housing and reduce shelter housing.  They move homeless people from shelter to permanent housing, while giving education addressing employment and health.  He estimates they could reduce the shelter by as many as 10 beds.  He hopes that can be done; it’s their intent.  Regarding construction – they would have to comply with all local ordinances; they indicated they would have an on-site contact for neighbor issues.  They must also go to the Planning Board for site plan review, and that decision would contain detailed requirements for construction.  He says he met with Lifebridge’s board and discussed the displeasure expressed by neighbors at the last meeting.  They recognize the concerns and wanted to reassure the neighborhood that there’s been contact with the city and police to minimize impact to the community.  As to the sale of the church, he says the archdiocese took the church away, not the Mission.  He says they have continued to work with neighbors and police.  They put forward the proposal of putting housing into the church; that was opposed, they backed away from it and adopted a view recommended by community leaders to build over the current structure, which is the proposal before the Board today.  He says the Board of Directors of Lifebridge suggests they have met their community obligations with regard to the proposal.  They consider the dimensional relief minor, the use is covered by the Dover amendment, and if the ZBA approves they will go before the Planning Board.  He says they have worked with the community and have a well run facility.  He suggests they have heard from everyone, they know what the issues are, and they’ll never be able to convince some in the neighborhood to support it, and so he respectfully suggests the Board vote on the particulars of the proposal.  

Ms. Curran asks Mr. Atkins to confirm there are 8 spaces on this lot?  Atty. Atkins – yes.  Ms. Curran – to clarify, all these buildings are on the same lot, including the church and the land under it, and that’s for sale.  Atty Atkins says all the buildings are individual condos on the land.  The land comprises the condo in total, with each building a separate unit.  You would only lose control over the land under the church.  

Ms. Curran -  You don’t feel that would nullify your approval because it’s a condo?  

Atty Atkins – correct.  

Ms. Curran – it’s 22 units you’re adding, and there are 8 parking spaces total, and no cars of tenants?  

Atty Atkins says it’s their experience from the Endicott and High St. housing that homeless people generally don’t own cars; in these developments, only one staff person has a car.  Ms. Curran says she doesn’t have an issue with the dimensional relief, but she does with the parking.   Would they be OK with a condition that no one can have a car except staff members?  Atty Atkins says yes.  

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

Barbara Mann, 29 Endicott St., chair of GESNA says she has been waiting to meet with Lifebridge but they have heard nothing from them.  They did not appear at their advisory committee meeting.  At the last hearing, the Board strongly encouraged working with neighbors further to address suggested conditions.  She says there are many residents who wish to stay in the neighborhood.  She expresses frustration that Lifebridge has not met with them.

Mary Beth Bainbridge, 7 Prescott St., expresses concerns that the proposed uses exceed what the property was zoned for.  She also doubts the assertion that the homeless don’t need cars; but given the work the organization does, enabling jobs and education, she feels they will need vehicles.  How will they enforce parking?  She notes there are no “hangout” areas, such as a yard, and so residents use the alley and sidewalk as a living room.  She says this situation is problematic – there is smoking outside, the 22 units of studios are like dorm rooms, but there is no common area or rooftop courtyard.  She also expresses concern they may be forced to accept level 3 sex offenders.  She also wants a firm number of shelter beds that will be reduced, and a timeline.  She asks what the timeframe is for the expansion, and asks how this will affect streets?  She notes the proposed expansion weren’t mentioned during any regular meetings with the neighborhood, and they waited until 2011 to propose the plan to community.  She also says Lifebridge walked out of the meeting last time they met on 7/17, and after the ZBA encouraged them to meet with the public, they did not show up to the next meeting.  She says they do good work, they fulfill a need, but she encourages expansion in other north shore cities, saying Salem is doing its fair share and bears the burden in terms of police services, etc.  

John Femino, 9 Margin St., spoke in opposition to the expansion.  He says they broke their promise to keep the church open.

Arthur Sargent, Councillor-at-Large, says the neighborhood was gracious when the shelter first moved in, but the expansion is too much for the neighborhood, which is on the brink of becoming rough.  He says the increased density will make it worse.  When the shelter first came, it was already too dense for R2.  This proposal will make it even more nonconforming.   He doubts the ban on tenant parking will be enforceable.  When circumstances change, residents might have cars.  He says the Dover amendment has sometimes been used to build rather than to promote education.  He quotes from Mark Bobrowski’s Handbook of Massachusetts Land Use and Planning Law.  He says the applicant bears burden of proving the local zoning is unreasonable for the use and the municipality may not disregard requirements that would normally apply.  He says the Board has the authority to decide if they are asking too much, and they can’t keep expanding.  

Joan Lovely, Councillor at Large, 14 Story St., says the last meeting, she spoke in favor of the petition; now she has to reverse her support.  Initially, Lifebridge would put housing in the church, she was part of that original proposal.  She’s still supportive of that at some point.  But many concessions need to be made.  She doesn’t think Lifebridge has met its obligations.  She likes what she heard tonight about the parking.  They need to commit to taking down at least 10 beds.  The purpose is to close the shelter – they should move toward that and make the commitment to the community.  An MOA should be drafted to guarantee 10 minimum beds to be reduced.  She also has a density issue with this project.  She thinks they should come back to the community with another plan that would include community space.  

Councillor Jean Pelletier, Ward 3, says Mr. Femino is correct that promises have not been kept; that’s why they started the shelter committee.  During a meeting, they asked Lifebridge if they would put a ban on level 3 sex offenders in writing but this has never happened.  His issue isn’t the density but the parking.  They can’t rely on Riley Plaza.  The have Norman St. condos pay a yearly fee to park there – why should the shelter get free parking there?  Atty Atkins said the homeless don’t have cars, but this isn’t true.  When the old Crombie St. development came in, they said artists don’t have cars, but the parking passes have been an issue.  He is concerned about where the residents hang out and panhandle.  He says the density is too much for the small neighborhood.  He notes the windows facing the High st. playground and says it’s bad enough to put a fence up, but putting windows in back – the city might as well shutter the playground because complaints will come in.  He also thinks that job training means people will need cars.  He urges the Board to deny the project.

Councillor Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus Ave, is also a member of the Lifebridge neighborhood association.  He says that 3 years ago Lifebridge wanted to build in the church, and since then much progress has been made.  It will never be perfect, but we worked on improvements for 3 years.  Lifebridge showed up to the meetings, they were cooperative, etc.  The issue with this particular project is the parking – we have just created a plan for 15% more parking in the city.  22 units without parking will be 3 steps backwards.  He is concerned about neighbors’ quality of life.  He asks the Board to deny parking variance.

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

Ms. Belair says the Board strongly recommended Lifebridge meet with neighbors, and they have chosen not to; she has no confidence that if problems arise they would even take the time to address them.  She says Lifebridge gives the impression of arrogance not to meet with the neighbors.  She says they do a disservice to their clients and the community, which needs this service.  She can’t support this petition because of Lifebridge’s unwillingness to work with the neighbors and Board.  She says they could have overlooked density, but can’t support because of this.  

Mr. Metsch is also disappointed in the unwillingness to meet with neighbors.  In terms of specifics, design density and parking, he similarly has no real issue with density, but does take issue with the lack of parking.   The suggestion of no cars for future tenants shackles people who are trying to climb to a better life and get a job, which can require a car – he doesn’t like that provision.  Parking is a big concern.  The current residents now don’t have transportation.  As the plans are currently proposed, he is not in favor.

Mr. Dionne says that others have covered his concerns, but he does feel that the proposed density is also an issue.  Ms. Curran says she has a lot of experience with the Dover amendment and she does accept that the use falls under it.  However, the board does get to look at density and parking, and dimensions; there have been excellent comments made about needing a rooftop courtyard, etc.  Parking is the issue it comes out to.  Even if they conditioned no cars, the expansion intensifies the use.  With more people comes more vehicles, whether loading, visiting, or working.  She feels this is an overuse of the campus without additional parking.  She is not in favor of it as presented.

Mr. Metsch says that in terms of parking, he would be open to a parking plan reduced from what the zoning code allows, even in the ballpark of half a space per unit due to the use, with the population typically not having cars, but only 8 spaces is not enough.

Ms. Belair moves to approve the petition with nine standard conditions and the special condition that no residents shall park in the eight designated spaces, only staff.  Mr. Metsch seconds, and the Board denies the petition 4-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran and Ms. Belair opposed, none in favor).  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.


Public hearing: Petition of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. requesting Variances from minimum lot area, lot area per dwelling unit, frontage, lot width, front yard setback and rear yard setback, in order to subdivide the property located at 18 THORNDIKE STREET (R-2) into five (5) single-family house lots.

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Application date-stamped 9/22/11 and accompanying materials
  • Letter submitted by Joe Bennett, 15 Hubon St., dated 10/19/11
  • Plan of Land, Thorndike Street & Hubon Street, dated 2/17/06
  • Estate of James Welch, plan dated 1/29/07
  • Preliminary Subdivision Layout Geometry for 5 Residential Lots for a site at Thorndike & Hubon Streets, Salem, Mass., dated 7/1/11
Patrick DeIulis presents the petition.  He says the Welch family has owned the property for a long time – in the application packet is a 1907 plan showing a single-family home development put forth, and some of those parcels were actually developed.  What’s left is a long, narrow parcel that runs down along the river, with 135 feet of street frontage on Hubon St., together with a 20 foot driveway.  The R2 zoning district has a larger lot requirement, but predominantly the property is single-family.  There was a prior commercial use of the property.  The residential zoning character prevented any non- residential development.  In 2005, he attempted to permit 6 units on this site.  He thought the neighborhood would welcome this development, but they didn’t.  He still went forward with the acquisition, but was then faced with the prospect of cleaning up some contaminants that a prior owner had left from a construction business.  This was a much greater undertaking than he anticipated.  As a result, he ended up with a costly cleanup, one that required removing the top 4 feet of soil from the entire site.  Because of the residential use they needed to allow for, they didn’t want to do anything less than full remediation.  They’ve met and presented plans to neighbors providing for 6 units of housing; he says they could never come to a meeting of the minds – they seem to have an impasse of 6 versus 5.  Originally they thought they would develop the whole property as a condo complex, but in consulting with real estate brokers, single-family was more marketable.  They came up with a workable division of property allowing for single-family homes and accommodated neighbors’ desire to have no more than 5 units.  The site plan shows limited frontage on Hubon St. into the property, and 2 driveways off Thorndike St.  There’s a brick garage behind 14 ½ Thorndike which they took down – it was a hazard to that home.  The other issue is the city has a 15-foot sewer easement that cuts through biggest part of property, makes a difficult undertaking to make a plan to develop for residential.  However, they’ve managed to work something out that has some marketability, enhances the neighborhood and is in keeping with the dominant use of neighborhood – single family homes.  

Mr. DeIulis says some of their discussions with neighbors took place 2 years ago – they talked about traffic along streets, mitigaing as much as possible the amount of traffic.  An earlier plan called for a driveway straight through from Hubon to Thorndike.  This plan shows no cut-through.  He reviews the dimensional Variances needed.  He says he tried to maintain an adequate distance from neighbors, put in garages and driveways, no street parking.  He says there are two other boards they need to go before in order for the project to go through – the Planning Board for subdivision, and they will also address some streetscape issues.  Also Con Com, since three of the parcels are in the 200 foot riverfront zone.  He thinks this is a good use of the property.  The challenge the parcel presents in terms of dimensions and limitations, coupled with prior commercial use which led to costly remediation, warrants some relief from the Board so they can undertake development of a parcel they have owned for 5 years.  

He asks that no vote be taken tonight, that they continue so he has an opportunity to speak with neighbors who have concerns.  He would like to come back next month.  He says he gave a copy of the plan to Councillor Sosnowski, and he has met with Bill Semons, the primary voice in the neighborhood in earlier meetings.  

Ms. Curran notes that they have enough frontage for 1 single family, and enough lot area for 2.  If he wanted duplexes, he could do 4 units.  Patrick – no, we could only do 1 for duplexes; there’s not enough frontage.  Ms. Curran asks how he came up with 5 units; her overall view is it’s a little crowded, probably by a unit.  She understands they’ve reduced from 6, but this is her first time looking at it.  She realizes it’s a difficult geometry.  Mr. DeIulis says the neighborhood told them 5 would be acceptable to them.  

Ms. Curran asks Mr. St. Pierre if a private way is counted as frontage.  He says the developer came in for a predevelopment meeting, which we appreciate.  Lynn Duncan, Erin Griffin, Frank Taormina and others were there; they discussed traffic and the idea of a through street was hashed over and decided against…It’s not the first time we looked at this.  We felt the developer had made every effort to minimize impact and this was a well thought out plan.  They added a hyrant at the elbow of lot four.  Ms. Curran asks if the driveway counts as frontage.  Ms. McKnight says it would only after being approved as a subdivision.

Patrick Murtagh, 17 Hubon St., says he met with Councillor Sosnowski at the Ward 2 social club, and 4 was the number of units they discussed.  Ms. Curran reads a letter in opposition submitted by Joe Bennett, 15 Hubon St.

Mr. DeIulis indicates Mr. Bennett’s house on the plan.  He says that all these homes are built up to the back property line and have no rear yard.  Their lots are 2000 SF and under.  We are proposing lots over double – our smallest lot is more than twice the size.  The two lots in that strip Mr. Bennett refers to are the largest – we’ve tried to minimize this impact on this end of the lot by only putting in two homes on that side.  We don’t need setback variances along the neighbor’s property.  We need variances primarily because we lack frontage.  When the bypass road went in, the state took part of the property for the bypass.  We took a prior commercial contaminated property, brought it to a residential standard, and that standard warrants the relief. We are going from 4 lots to 5 to help defray and recover some of the remediation costs.  

Mr. Metsch asks if there are any elevations.  Mr. DeIulis says they didn’t want to spend the money yet designing the houses, but they would need to for the Planning Board.  For that submittal, they will also submit plans showing the engineering, utilities, etc.  There is no discharge to the storm system.  Because we took the ground down 4 feet, we need to bring in clean fill to replace what we have to remove.  Ms. McKnight clarifies that the Planning Board typically will not review the design of single-family homes as part of the subdivision review.

Mr. Metsch says he is in favor of infill, especially in a residential area, and on a vacant parcel.  He says this neighborhood supports the density.  He says, however, that the current zoning really support a suburban model that’s not in keeping with an urban neighborhood.  He wishes, since they need so many variances, that instead they would look for footprints that match more the neighborhood.  Mr. DeIulis says the houses were set back this way to create driveways.  They are trying to minimize the amount of zoning relief needed.  Mr. Metsch says he would support even greater density.  Mr. DeIulis says he preferred six, but understands the concern of neighborhood and they tried to address that as best they could.  He says single-family homes are more appealing from a marketability standpoint.  Mr. Metsch says he’s not suggesting not doing single family, just suggesting looking at those streets down Bridge to Winter – looking at the rows of houses that mostly have no setback.  He understands they’re trying to fit within the existing rules, but the suburban character of the plan detracts from this.  

Ms. Curran says she’d almost rather see 3 houses on Hubon.  Tucking these houses behind really changes the character.  3 might make sense with long, thin lots.  Mr. DeIulis says the sewer easement precludes that.  Ms. Curran says it is different, they are asking for variances on everything, for everything.  Mr. Metsch says they already present the driveway as a street; what came out of discussion of having it go through?  Mr. St. Pierre says the City Planner thought it didn’t make sense to create more trips through in a circular pattern; this creates fewer trips without a cut through.  Ms. Curran says that no one would use a cut through except the people who lived there.  Mr. St. Pierre says that would further decrease the lot sizes.  Mr. DeIulis says a 26 foot row would be hard to build on either side of.  He thought the neighbors would appreeciate some space, given how dense the neighborhood is.  

Ms. Belair asks what style house he has in mind.  2 story colonial, probably.  Ms. Belair says she doesn’t think the houses in the neighborhood have attached garages, and this will set them apart.  She doesn’t have a problem with the plan as it’s laid out, but more it is problematic trying to fit in with existing setting.  Mr. DeIulis says the garages are set back from front of house so they don’t dominate; they are only visible from Hubon. He says this is a dead end street, narrow, hard to get down, and he is trying to keep cars off the street as much as possible.  Having a garage allows a car to be kept inside and another in the driveway.  Mr. Metsch asks about the pitch, the twist on lots 4 and 5, why the angle?  Mr. DeIulis says it’s in part to keep some separation from both parcels, giving it an orientation to the private way.  

Mr. Metsch says he thinks he should ask for greater variance to be more in keeping with neighborhood.  Mr. DeIulis says he’s willing to look at that but doesn’t know how the Planning Board will evaluate it.  Ms. Curran says she would like to see it taken further, and wishes the road would go through, so it would be more consistent rather than having a house surrounded by green, and having the houses on Thorndike surrounded by the road and houses in front.  She says it looks like a very difficult geometry.  Ms. Belair doesn’t have a problem with proximity of the houses to the street, but she would have a problem if the houses were significantly larger than what’s existing.  Mr. DeIulis says most of those buildings have another history…one house in the neighborhood used to be a paint factory.  The area was highly commercialized and industrialized.  Early development was very haphazard.  He doesn’t want to redesign, but they can look at greater density and smaller lots if the neighborhood is receptive.  Ms. Curran says she is not looking for more units, just concerned about the layout.  She wishes the fourth house could be reconfigured; it looks like it’s in the backyard of neighbors.  You don’t have a right to build this many units, you’re asking for relief.  You don’t have to engineer it, but see what you come up with.  Mr. DeIulis says 5 units is what he thought the neighborhood would accept.  He is hearing differently from Mr. Murtagh, but not from anyone else.  He would like to discuss this with the Councilor Sosnowski.  He asks the Board if they are looking for him to present something different, or amend their table to allow for movement if the Planning Board concurs?  Ms. Curran says to play around with this, it may be you don’t come up with a new plan, but you’ve gotten some feedback.  Don’t fully engineer it.  Mr. Metsch says the only two really sticking for me are lots 1 and 3, and how they sit on the lot, they are the most visible.  2, 4 and 5, having them twisted seems unnecessary.  Keeping 3, 4, 5 a is but opening a third lot somehow between 1 and 2, I would be open to that.  PD – unfort. Sewer easement restricts.

RD moves to continue to Nove. ,16, secondced by JM, all in favor to continue.

Public hearing: Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, MANAGER, 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, and a Variance under Sec. 5.1 (Off Street Parking), for the property located at 11R WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R-1).

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Application date-stamped 9/28/11 and accompanying materials
  • Plot Plan of Land, 11R Winter Island Road, Salem, dated 9/27/11
  • Elevation drawings submitted at meeting, prepared by Lew Oliver Inc.; supportive petition signed by neighbors attached to drawings
Ms. Curran asks if they wish to go ahead with four members present; Attorney Grover, who is representing Mr. Wharff, says yes.  Atty Grover says Mr. Wharff now owns the property and gives a brief history of his work in Salem.  He presents photos of the house, noting that the houses in this neighborhood are well-kept except for this one.  The property abuts a public way that runs from Winter Island Rd. to the water.  He shows views from the public way and from the cove.  He indicates the existing footprint on the plot plan, noting that changes to the footprint are minimal.  He says the Board saw this property in January.  The existing variance would allow the property to be reconstructed to add a story.  That petition was from an early prospective buyer, who didn’t go through with the purchase.  Mr. Wharff felt the structure couldn’t be economically be rebuilt that way and come out with a desirable product.  Atty Grover explains that the old plan created two parking spaces in front of the property by the water.  This plan allows parking in back and does not detract from views of the cove.  He shows the elevation drawings, explaining that they weren’t in Board’s packet, since they were going through changes and they just got the elevations on Friday.  He says they have met with the neighbors over the weekend with these elevations.  He explains Coastal Living magazine had been looking at this property, and their designer made these plans.  He says a Special Permit is needed to reconstruct a nonconforming structure, and this project is not more substantially detrimental to neighborhood than what’s existing.  He says a variance is also needed for the parking, since tandem parking is normally not permitted.

Ms. Belair asks for an explanation of how each floor would be used.  Mr. Wharff says the ground floor has a finished basement, mechanicals, a/c, ducts, and some finished space.  The 2nd floor has a kitchen, living room, and dining room, and the third floor has a bedroom and bathroom.  

Mr. St. Pierre notes that the Special Permit could allow the house to have three stories, and a separate variance would not be needed.

Atty Grover submits a petition signed by neighbors in support of the project.  

Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment.  

Paul O’Shea, 15 Winter Island Rd., lives on the other side of the right of way.  He is generally pleased with Mr. Wharff’s plan.  One concern is that the set of stairs comes out directly in line with his view to ocean; he wants Mr. Wharff to work with him on this issue.

Ms. Curran asks if Mr. Whaff has looked at this; he says yes, they can build the stair sideways, put in turns, etc.

Atty Grover, addressing the applicant’s hardship, says this is an environmentally sensitive area, and they want to use tandem parking to avoid putting parking closer to the water where it would be an environmental and an aesthetic issue.  He says it would impact the views of some abutters to put cars there too.

Ed Moriarty, 29 Winter Island Rd., spoke with Bill over the weekend, conditionally supports the project.  He is concerned that the previous owner used kerosene and wood burning stoves – this was a constant problem of in the upper topography of the neighborhood – these houses were exposed to the smoke.  He asks the Board to condition that there not be any wood burning or other fireplace in the new house.  He says the prevailing winds go upwards.  He has no problem with gas fire.  He says the plans are otherwise reasonable.  Ms. Curran asks Atty Grover if he was proposing a wood fire; Atty Grover says no, just gas.  Mr. St. Pierre suggests a condition prohibiting solid fuel burning devices.

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

Ms. Belair notes that the project is definitely in keeping with the area and would improve it.  She says Mr. Wharff does a nice job, and she supports the petition.  Mr. Dionne says it is well planned, a nice design, and the city has experience with his work.  He supports the project.  

Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with 9 standard conditions, and also a condition to prohibit solid fuel burning devices, and to work with the abutter at 15 Winter Island Rd. to create a less intrusive front stair design.  

Ms. Curran says that owing to the proximity of the property to the ocean/natural resource area, parking will be located on the south side away from ocean.  The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne and passed 4-0 (Dionne, Curran, Belair and Metsch in favor, none opposed).  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

Public hearing: Petition of ERIC COUTURE requesting Variances from lot area and lot area per dwelling unit to demolish the existing structure and construct a two-unit residential building on the property located at 12 RAWLINS ST (R-2).

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Letter from Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services/Building Commissioner, dated 9/29/11
  • Application date-stamped 10/5/11 and accompanying materials
  • Elevation drawings (incorrectly labeled “43 School Street Condominium” – this was clarified at meeting), dated 9/9/11
  • Cross Section, Residence for Eric Couture, 12 Rawling street condominium, Salem, Mass., dated 9/9/11
  • Rawlings Street Proposed Layout and Existing Condition, Plan of Land located in Salem, Mass., prepared by Eastern Land Survey Associates, Inc., dated 9/29/11
Eric Couture presents the plans.  He says there is an error on them – the title says 43 School St., but should say 12 Rawlins St.  Ms. Curran asks why they are demolishing the structure; Mr. Couture says it’s uninhabitable, there is no working plumbing, nothing is to code, and there are animals living in it.  

Ms. McKnight reads a letter from Mr. St. Pierre regarding the condition of the property.  Renderings of property are presented.  Ms. Curran asks if he considered doing a single family house; Mr. Couture says this is not what the investor wants.

James Moscovis, 10 Rawlins St., has concerns about the height of the property.  He says there should be a letter of understanding so they neighbors can have some guarantees.  He says owner occupancy should be required.  He says the neighborhood is being blighted with unoccupied units.  He also says each unit should have off street parking, and there should be fencing for privacy, as well as trees.  He asks about the height; Mr. Couture says 34 feet.  Mr. Moscovis is concerned about animals during demolition.  He says the trash needs to be maintained.  He asks if there will be city trash pickup, and if there is one single curb cut.  Mr. Couture says it’s a single driveway, and there are four parking spaces, two on each side.  Ms. Curran asks if there is parking in front of the door; yes.  She asks if that will look good.  Mr. Moscovis says parking is an issue, and the curb cut will eliminate some parking.  Mr. St. Pierre notes that there already is a driveway.  Ms. Curran says the Board can’t condition owner occupancy.  Mr. Moscovis says he needs a guarantee that it will be owner occupied.  Ms. McKnight says his concern is noted in the minutes.  Mr. St. Pierre says he can’t enforce that.  The developer could volunteer to put it in a deed restriction, but it’s not up to the City.  Mr. Couture says it could be advertised when sold as owner occupied; Ms. Curran says that could be a private agreement, but not part of this decision.

Ward 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols St., supports the project.  He says it will be an improvement to the neighborhood, and the property was in bad shape.  

Mr. Metsch says the proposed duplex really is not in keeping with the neighborhood.  He feels like having two units isn’t a problem – it’s the situation on the lot.  After seeing the neighborhood, the existing dwelling - all are pulled forward, have a more urban feel.  This proposal seems suburban.  He would like to see two separate structures; this would be more in keeping with neighborhood.  He thinks it would be more marketable and would address the issue of owner occupancy.  Mr. Couture says he did it this way so the setback requirement would be met.  Mr. Metsch says it doesn’t fit the neighborhood.  Mr. Couture doesn’t see the difference in marketability.  Ms. Belair asks if he worked with the neighbors in developing the design.  Mr. Couture says he showed them the design, and there were no issues.  

Jamie Lapensee, 61 Butler St., thinks the project is good but is concerned about owner occupancy.  He respects the idea of single occupancy, but there are three single-family homes in the neighborhood that are abandoned and in foreclosure.  He supports the redevelopment either of a single family or duplex if it gets someone to buy.  He is concerned about the parking.  He also wants the demolition to be done right because of contaminants.  

Ms. Belair suggests he continue to next month because he needs all four votes.  Ms. McKnight suggests another member could listen to the tape to be eligible to vote.

Mr. Metsch says as the layout is proposed, he doesn’t feel it fits the neighborhood.  

Councillor Ryan disagrees that it doesn’t fit with the neighborhood.  He doesn’t want two single family houses – he says there is not enough room.  He much prefers this design.  He also says they can’t enforce owner occupancy.  

Mr. Moscovis says the neighborhood doesn’t want two single-family houses.  He says there are a lot of different styles in the neighborhood.  A duplex would work in the neighborhood.

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

Ms. Curran says she has no problem with this, but she’s not sure he has the four votes necessary and suggests it’s in the applicant’s best interest to continue to Nov. 16.    

Mr. St. Pierre says he agrees with the chair, and he says there is a difference of opinion about owner occupancy they should look into.  The time could also be used to work out any other issues.  

Mr. Couture says he has the support of the neighbors and councilors, and is surprised the Board is discussing these other factors.  

Mr. Dionne moves to continue the hearing to Nov. 16, seconded by Ms. Belair.  All in favor (4-0).  Mr. Dionne moves to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Metsch; all in favor (4-0).    

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/ 

Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner

Approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals 11/16/11