Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Draft Minutes, November 16, 2011
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
DRAFT Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, November 16, 2011

A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, November 16, 2011 in the third floor conference room of 120 Washington St., Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.

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

Ms. Curran opens the meeting at 6:34 p.m.

Approval of Minutes
The Board reviews the minutes; no changes are suggested.  Ms. Belair moves to approve them, seconded by Mr. Metsch and passed 5-0 (Ms. Harris abstaining).

Ms. Curran says the following item will be taken out of order:

Public hearing: Petition of JOSEPH BUKOWSKI requesting Variances and Special Permits in order to allow the first floor of the building on 19 BRIDGE ST to be used for commercial purposes, and for a Variance from the off-street parking regulations relating to such commercial use (B-2).

She says a written request has been received to continue the petition to December [the letter is dated November 16, 2011 and submitted by Attorney Scott M. Grover.]  Mr. Metsch moves to continue to December 21, 2011, seconded by Ms. Harris and passed 6-0.

Continuation of 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
Patrick DeIulis says that since Councillor Mike Sosnowski (Ward 2) has another commitment, he would like to give him a chance to address the Board regarding this project.  Councillor Sosnowski says he has met with neighbors from Hubon and Thorndike Streets, and they have a proposed plan they think everyone can agree on.  He says the site is challenging, and they want to minimize the impact on the neighborhood.  The neighbors met only a few days ago.  They have an idea, but the plan would need to be redrawn.  He says Mr. DeIulis is willing request to continue to January; Mr. DeIulis confirms this.  Mr. Metsch moves to continue the petition to January 18, 2012, seconded by Ms. Belair and unanimously approved.  Mr. DeIulis signs a request form to extend final action to February 1, 2012.  Mr. Metsch moves to extend final action on the project to February 1, 2012 seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved (Metsch, Dionne, Belair, Curran and Harris in favor, none opposed).  

Continuation of 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:
  • 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 says he has worked out the owner occupancy issue with his neighbors.  He presents the plans and explains the relief he needs.  He says there is an addendum in the condo documents saying the two units would be sold as owner occupied.  Ms. Curran asks him to discuss his hardship; Mr. Couture says it’s the size of the lot.  

James Moscovis, 10 Rawlins St., says he and Mr. Couture discussed the project and he’s satisfied with what he will put in the condo documents addressing owner occupancy.  Mr. Moscovis says the project will enhance the neighborhood and it’s better than what was there.

Jerry Ryan, Ward 4, speaks in support of the petition, also saying it will enhance the neighborhood.

Ms. Harris says they had two issues at first – one was that the neighbors wanted it owner occupied, and the other was that the A/C unit should be in the back; was there anything else?  

Ms. Belair says she has no problem with it, it’s in keeping with the general neighborhood, and an improvement over what’s there now.  She says this is more dense, but it’s only two units and she’d be in favor of the project.

Mr. Metsch asks about the parking.  Mr. Couture says it will be in front.  Mr. Metsch says at the last meeting he’d expressed he didn’t think it was in keeping with the neighborhood, since other buildings in the neighborhood were built right up to the street, and this doesn’t really fit that.  From a design perspective, he’s still wondering if it wouldn’t be better to move the structure forward more.  Mr. Couture says due to the current zoning, he couldn’t do two curb cuts and a fence.  Mr. St. Pierre says that actually he could have a total of 20 feet of curb cut – two 10 foot cuts.  Ms. Harris and Ms. Curran say this would look better and they would be more inclined to support the project this way.  Mr. Metsch – is it OK to have parking in this proximity to corner?  Mr. St. Pierre says yes.  Mr. Metsch suggests pulling the house forward to a 15 foot setback; Mr. Couture has no problem with this. Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions and 3 special conditions: there are to be two driveways, the A/C units will be located in back, and the house will be moved up to have a front setback of 15 feet.  Ms. Curran notes that the hardship is owing to the existing size of the lot.  She says it’s in keeping with the neighborhood since there are several other two-family houses in the neighborhood on smaller lots.  The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne, 5-0 in favor (Ms. Harris, Ms. Belair, Ms. Curran, Mr. Metsch and Mr. Dionne in favor, none opposed).  The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

Ms. Belair leaves the meeting

Public hearing: Petition of WLODEK MATCZAK requesting a Variance from number of stories, and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, to construct a shed dormer on the three-family home at 208 NORTH ST (R2).

Wlodek Matczak, 4 Kenney Rd., Middleton, explains the proposed addition – a dormer.  Ms. Curran notes this is a dormer within the existing footprint to accommodate a bathroom.  Mr. St. Pierre says this is a very minimal dormer.  Square footage is about 4’ x 5.’  Ms. Curran notes it’s an expansion of a nonconforming structure and use.  She says the hardship is due to the roofline of house – it makes that area unusable.  

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

Mr. Dionne says this is a reasonable request to make the bathroom usable, and a good plan.  Ms. Curran asks about the materials he will use.   Vinyl, like the whole house will be.  Right now it’s asbestos.  Ms. Curran – have you looked at what’s underneath?  Asbestos can sometimes preserve the clapboard really well.  

Mr. St. Pierre – the immediate abutter is Dennis Ross, who works in my department – he had no issues.  Ms. Curran – there is not much of an impact.  Mr. Metsch – this is a legal three unit building; he has no issues.  Mr. St. Pierre – this has been a rental for a long time, this gentleman is remodeling it.  He’s done good work on other properties.  Mr. Dionne moves to approve with 8 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Metsch (Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran, Mr. Metsch and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed).  
The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.  

Public hearing: Petition of PETER G. & JAN N. ESCHAUZIER requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a 3.5’x13,’ one-story addition on the single-family house on 15 ½ River Street (R-2).

Peter and Jan Eschauzier 15 ½ River St., present their petition.  Helen Sides, their architect, is there to answer any questions.  Mr. Eschauzier says the request is to build a half bath at the southwest corner of the house, which is the only place to put it.  The only bathroom they currently have is on the second floor.  Mrs. Eschauzier has elderly parents.  They are trying to minimize this, make it as small as possible, so it will have as little impact as possible on the property.  They went before the Historical Commission to make sure they comply with all requirements and are in keeping with the neighborhood; they have approved the request.  Mrs. Eschauzier says the neighbors are supportive and Mr. Couture, who is their abutter to the rear, has given permission for them to use their property so that any construction would be kept to a minimum and not disrupt River St.  Ms. Curran notes there are no windows.  The fence is to be replaced.  There will be a 0 lot line.  The fence is on their property.  Ms. Harris notes that it’s very tight.  

Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment.

David Hallowes, 15 River St., is concerned with the historic integrity of the room.  The houses in the neighborhood are from 1700s.  Ms. Harris asks if he has seen where this is; it isn’t visible from the street, what they are proposing.  

Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion.

Ms. Harris says there will be minimal impact; Ms. Curran says no one will see it.  Mr. Metsch notes that this neighborhood has a lot of buildings that are right up on top of each other; this would have no major impact.  Ms. Curran –this is the only place it can go.  Helen Sides says that a very competent and careful builder, Ed Brunis, will be building it.  Mr. Eschauzier says the fence is being replaced for Mr. Couture’s benefit – he gave him the option of not having it, but he preferred the fence to be there.  They will use the same exterior material as they have now.  Ms. Harris moves to grant the petition with 9 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Metsch, and approved 5-0 (Harris, Curran, Metsch, Dionne and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed).  The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

Public hearing: Petition of TARA KAWCZYNSKI requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a second story on the single-family house at 27 ½ FOSTER ST (R2).

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Application date-stamped October 26, 2011 and accompanying materials, including photographs
  • Photographs presented at the meeting by Laura Callahan
  • Mortgage plan of 27 ½ Foster St. dated 3/31/10
  • Elevation drawings dated 10/21/11, drawn by David C. Wyckoff
Tara Kawczynski presents her petition.  Ms. Curran confirms this is an existing house, and she is going up within the footprint – the final height is to be 23 feet.  

Ms. Kawczynski says all the other houses on the street are 2 stories; this house is very small.  The square footage now is 480; the proposal would double it.  Mr. Metsch notes that this looks like a complete remodel - changing the front entry, etc. – is she changing the floor plans.  Ms. Kawczynski says no, she’s just changing the door/entryway inside, nothing else on first floor.  Ms. Curran asks if she is improving the windows; Ms. Kawczynski says they are staying same.  

Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment.  

Laura Callahan, representing John Pelosi, 2 Walter St. on corner, says that historically, this was a single family lot subdivided by the prior owner, Mr. Albergini.  He owned both homes.  In 1978, Mr. Pelosi bought his home.  She says the addition will block Mr. Pelosi’s light and his view of the water and park.  She shows photos of his second story window views and back yard.  She says there is a distance of 10 feet from back of his house to Ms. Kawczynski’s yard.  She says snow storage will be a problem - it will go into Mr. Pelosi’s backyard and shed.  She says when Mr. Pelosi bought the house, an extra foot of land was given to him because of the location of his chimney – Mr. Albergini needed an extra foot to erect a fence there.  She says the current owner has a dog kennel in back and she can’t get between the fence and the house.  Ms. Callahan says this will diminish Mr. Pelosi’s property value by blocking his views, cause mold in his yard, and add snow and ice to the yard.  She says it will be a detriment to Mr. Pelosi and anyone else who has views of the park and water.  She says because of this detriment, the petition does not meet the criteria for granting a special permit.

Ms. Curran asks Ms. Kawczynski if there is any other way to gain square footage, such as with dormers from the roof.    Ms. Kawczynski says they we looked at it, but this was the best solution.  She says her house is so small she doesn’t think it will block the view as suggested by the Ms. Callahan.  

Ms. Harris asks Mr. St. Pierre if this needs a Special Permit or a Variance; Mr. St. Pierre confirms that a single-family house can be expanded in this way by Special Permit according to the zoning ordinance.   

Mr. Metsch says that the expansion seems in keeping with the neighborhood; he has seen the surrounding neighbors, and all are two if not more stories high.  However, there are concerns about snow, access, light and air flow.  He asks if there is a law that allows reasonable access for maintenance.  Mr. St. Pierre says yes, through the police department, but for construction, you’d have to figure out how to do it on the property.  Mr. Tsitsinos asks what the height is.  Mr. St. Pierre says she is adding 8 feet.  Mr. Tsitsinos says he doesn’t think any view would be lost except of the neighboring house.  Ms. Callahan refers again to the photos from the second story window and says she has concerns about the proximity of the chimney to the Pelosi house.  He and Mr. Dionne note that the chimney is already there and will be the same distance from the house.  Mr. Tsitsinos says he doesn’t think they’d be losing much.  Ms. Callahan asks what happens if there’s a fire, and notes concerns about snow falling from a higher roof.

Ms. Curran asks what the setback is from the Pelosi house to the lot line; Ms. Callahan says 10 feet 11 inches.  Mr. Tsitsinos says everything stays the same, except the house would be going up.  Ms. Curran asks if the roof pitch will be the same - Yes.  She asks if the snow goes into the yard currently; Ms. Kawczynski says it does from the shed.  Ms. Curran doesn’t see the difference in snow getting into the yard if the roof is the same pitch.  Ms. Harris says the addition will block the view.  Mr. Tsitsinos asks about the height of Mr. Pelosi’s house; Ms. Callahan doesn’t know.  Ms. Harris says she is sympathetic to the applicant, but this does impact the neighbor.  Mr. Curran asks if the Board wants the applicant to look at other ways to go up without impacting neighbor so much.  She doesn’t see how mold and snow are going to be a problem, but the view - yes.  Mr. Metsch says the expansion includes a sizeable master bed and bath – is there flexibility to cut this down, make it tighter?  Ms. Curran asks if Ms. Kawczynski would be agreeable to talking to her architect about revisiting this, and continue to Dec. 21?  Ms. Kawczynski says yes.  Mr. Metsch moves to continue to Dec. 21, 2011.  Ms. Harris tells Ms. Kawczynski to try to address the view issue – she says it’s really just the view from front, second floor window.  Motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne; all in favor 5-0.

Public hearing: Petition of BHCM, INC. D/B/A BREWER HAWTHORNE COVE MARINA requesting Variances from front, side and rear yard setback requirements to construct a new building on 10 WHITE STREET and 57 REAR TURNER STREET related to the boat yard/marina use of the property (I, R-2 and B-1).

Attorney George Atkins says they are in the midst of discussion with the neighbors and requests to continue to December.  Ms. Curran notes they are continuing the hearing with no evidence taken.  Mr. Dionne move to continue the hearing to Dec. 21, 2011, seconded by Mr. Metsch; all in favor.  Mr. Metsch moves to extend the Board’s final action to February 1, 2011, seconded by Ms. Harris; all in favor.

Public hearing: Petition of JAY GOLDBERG, GERREN REALTY TRUST requesting Special Permits under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure and to change one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, in order to open a Doggy Daycare/Training Business at 9-11 FRANKLIN ST, and to construct a 32’x24’ vinyl fenced area (B1 and R2).

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Application date-stamped 10/26/11 and accompanying materials
  • Plot Plan for 9-11 Franklin St. dated May 11, 1995
  • Letter from Dorothy Healey-Lemelin, 15R Franklin St. #2, dated November 16, 2011, in opposition
  • Letter from Ward 6 Councillor Paul Prevey, dated November 16, 2011, in opposition
  • Petition submitted by neighbors in opposition
Jay Goldberg, Goldberg Properties, 7 Rantoul St., Suite 100B, Beverly, presents the petition, saying the space previously was used by International Floors.  He introduces the prospective tenant from Royal Canines, Jermaine Anderson, who wants to open a doggie daycare/training business.  He says there will be no noise to the outside world.  They have a lot of land in back that’s not used.  The fenced in area would be open at the top to give an outdoor atmosphere, but the animals wouldn’t be seen.  7 a.m. – 7 p.m. would be the hours of operation, M-F.  Ms. Curran notes they are using the concrete block building that’s there, and the fenced area in the back, and what happens to the garage?   Mr. Goldberg says that stays – it’s   Ideal Transmissions.  Ms. Harris notes there are two uses on this property already; are there two principle uses?  Mr. St. Pierre says the transmission shop has been there for years.  There are several other tenant spaces; the last tenant space here was flooring; anything in this space is by Special Permit because these are nonconforming uses.  Switching from one to another, the Board has to find the new use not more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use.  Also, they need a Special Permit to increase a nonconforming use to expand in the back because that is currently vacant land.  Mr. Goldberg says that currently, the building’s uses are automotive, martial arts, and Ideal Transmission.  Ms. Curran – we have to determine whether your use is less or more detrimental than the current use.  Mr. Goldberg says that currently it’s vacant.  Ms. Curran – what kind of traffic does doggie daycare generate?  Mr. Anderson says he picks up the dogs, so there is not much traffic.  There are 50 spaces for dogs available for the day care.  Just 10 or 11 clients would attend classes.  There would be 4 classes/week.  Ms. Harris asks if they would operate in the evenings; yes – the classes would be 6-7 p.m., and also weekend classes.  Mr. Anderson says during the daytime, there’s not much coming and going.  He’d be starting with 20 dogs, and would like to grow to 50 dogs.  Once he expands, he will use a bus, not a van.  The pickup will be at 7-8 a.m.; people can also drop off their dogs.

Ms. Curran asks about impacts to the neighborhood.  Mr. Goldberg says most of the business for the martial arts center is after school, 3-6 p.m.  He’s not sure how many students – perhaps 130 total?  20-40 students during an evening.  Ms. Curran asks if they will be housing dogs overnight; Mr. Goldberg says that’s not the intention now, but at some point they want to have that option.  Mr. St. Pierre says that requires a kennel license, which is a separate procedure, not through this Board.  

Dorothy Lemelin, 15R Franklin St., faces the Franklin St. rear lot line shared with this property.  She is concerned about noise.  Now, there’s nothing there, the space has been empty for years.  She is concerned about air quality, barking, noise, and flow of air into her yard.  She says it will be unbearable.  She is concerned about health and welfare.  

Jonathan Pitts, 3 Franklin Ct., abuts the vacant lot that’s there now.  He says the fenced area will be close, and he is concerned about smell and noise, and says there are a lot of cats in the neighborhood.  He is concerned about traffic; since you can’t take a left onto North, people turn onto Foster, so that will increase traffic on an already damaged road.  

Darlene Palazzi, 10 ½ Foster St., says she and mother are concerned about the dumpster that was put there; she is also concerned about the smell and the noise of barking, and says this will be detrimental for the whole street.  She is also concerned about property values decreasing and child safety.  For the animals and people, wouldn’t it be better to be in a larger area where the animals could run?  

Kelly Montgomery, 16 Superior St., Lynn, has been a client of Mr. Anderson for last 18-24 months.  She says he is a wonderful dog trainer and behaviorist.  He won’t just stick the dogs in the backyard or let them run wild.  She speaks highly if his maintenance practices.  

Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., says a Special Permit can be issued only if the use is not more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use.  He says there are 12 residential properties that abut, and this property is zoned R2.  He discusses where kennels are permitted and under what circumstances.  

Beverly McSwiggin, 30 Japonica St., says in the last few months, neighbors have had difficulties with the property, including fumes.  She says it’s not fair to have another business come in.  There is a park across street, and the dogs will be out there barking.  Just two dogs barking would drive you crazy, let alone 50.  

Robert Scorzoni, 14 Larrabee Terrace, Peabody, encourages neighbors to give the business a chance and says Mr. Anderson is great trainer.

John Pelosi, 2 Walter St., says barking dogs are awful; he likes dogs, but they can’t guarantee the dogs won’t bark.  Particularly if the dogs are kept overnight, they will bark.  It’s not fair to the neighborhood.  Dogs barking in a building will echo.  He’s not questioning Mr. Anderson’s ability to train or handle dogs; he’s just concerned about the noise.

Karen McDonald, 3 Thomas Rd., Beverly, works for Goldberg properties.  She says the place is like a warehouse now, but they are putting in rubber flooring, there are cement walls, the noise will be maintained, and all uses in the building are commercial.  She says Mr. Anderson takes the dogs out to beaches, parks, trail walks, etc., and does not just keep them there on the premises.  He has a van, and takes them out all day.  The outdoor area is large and is located 125 feet from the nearest home.  They only want the fenced area to let dogs out for fresh air, but not to be kept out there playing all day.  Outdoors, there would be artificial turf, no smell, and any feces would be picked up and cleaned immediately; she says it will be spotless.  

Judy French, 16 Foster St., she says the dogs will be very close to her house.  She is concerned about the smell.  She submits a petition with the addresses and signatures of people who are opposed to the project.  She looks at the plot plan and Mr. Goldberg shows her where the proposal is in proximity to her property.  She is concerned about the number of dogs Mr. Anderson wants to have on the premises, the value of her home, and dander in the air.  

Kathy Meadowcroft, 22 Foster St., shows an aerial shot of the property and says there were problems with fumes after the trees were cut down.  There is a 9 foot fence with barbed wire on top.  She complains about the nonconforming uses already on the property and debris.  

Paul Prevey, Ward 6, opposes the petition.  He says Foster St. has a high amount of activity; he receives many complaints about the businesses there.  He has submitted a letter detailing his opposition.  This petition is simply too much for the neighbors.  He urges the Board to help the neighbors maintain some quality of life.  Ultimately, once the Special Permit is granted, he feels the applicant will do what he wants and he will continue to receive complaints; he suggests Mr. Anderson try to find a more appropriate location.

A Lynn resident, says Councillor Prevey mentioned this neighborhood has had complaints from businesses, and is not living up to the standards for residents.  He says businesses have to respect residents; he says they have been working with Jermaine and have two dogs in his care twice a week.  He says they love their dogs and trust Mr. Anderson.  He says the neighbors should want good businesses to come in to this nonconforming property, and this would be one.  He says the dogs will not be running amok.  He speaks to Anderson’s ability to keep the dogs controlled and respect the surrounding neighborhood.  

Patricia Murphy, 27 Foster and 1 Walter st., says this is a very busy, noisy neighborhood, and she agrees with her neighbors about traffic.  Foster St. is one way, many people who use the businesses go down the wrong way.  She is concerned about noise and the fact that the clients, friends and supporters of the project do not live in Salem.   

David Fitzpatrick, 22 Foster St., says that people who board dogs work long hours, and constant traffic will be a problem, as well as noise.  He says a rubber floor has to be washed, and this will just go into the surrounding yard.  

Melissa Brayton, 12 Reliance Row, Salem, does not think the business will disturb neighbors.

Karen McDonald says that Anderson picks up the dogs and then drops them off, so the number of additional cars is very small.

Judy French says traffic will have an impact, and she’s afraid this will turn into a boarding facility.  She says the business makes the character of a neighborhood more of a noisy business area rather than residential and debases it.

Darlene Palazzi, 10 ½ Foster St., notes there are elderly people in the neighborhood.

David Gavenda, 17 Buffum St., says north Salem is now a haven for coyotes and thinks this will attract them.  

Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion of hearing.

Mr. Metsch asks for a clarification of how the property is zoned.  Mr. St. Pierre says it’s mostly R2, with a small B1 section.  Mr. Goldberg says a lot of families do have dogs, and dogs add a component of life, health, safety, etc.  He says he hears neighbors’ concerns.   He says they have been trying to clean the place up and be good neighbors, and he wants to try to address concerns.

Ms. Curran notes that the Board would not just be allowing the use, they must determine if the proposed use is less detrimental than the prior use; this use has big potential for conflict with residential use, and without data telling industry standards, it seems so unlikely that there won’t be a noise issue.  How does this work?  From a common sense standpoint, it seems this many dogs would create noise.  

Mr. Anderson says he brings dogs to parks in the area – he had 21 dogs with him today – and he typically brings many dogs to close proximity of houses with no complaints.  He says that typically, dogs do not bark with training.  No dogs with aggression issues are allowed.  Mr. Goldberg notes that with the vinyl fence you can’t see in from a distance, so the dogs won’t be barking at things on the outside.

Mr. Metsch – for use change, we’re just talking about this building?  Ms. Curran – it’s grandfathered, nonconforming that there are several principle uses.  Mr. Dionne – the flooring business was pretty soundproof – and that’s a noisy business.  

Mr. Metsch – the cats, kids – this is private property, and those not the owner’s concern.  In terms of a kennel, you’re not proposing this today, that’s a different process.  As to expertise – you have had your clients address that.  We get down to noise, smell and traffic.  The traffic for me, this type of activity is already here on Franklin St. – this isn’t increasing it.  You can’t turn left on Franklin, so you loop around on North.  Now you’re having the dogs picked up, but do you feel that with this new location you will look to have your clients drop off more?  

Mr. Anderson – some clients cannot drop off dogs – it’s beneficial for me to pick up the dogs.  Mr. Metch: As to the noise – dogs definitely bark, I have three, could something be done as far as placement on the lot, erection of a taller, more sound barrier fence?  Could something be done to work with neighbors’ concerns?  Mr. Goldberg – dogs won’t set foot outside because the dogs will go right into the fenced in yard.  Mr. Dionne - that area is smaller than this room.  Mr. Anderson –that’s right, you couldn’t even put 15 dogs in the area.  Ms. Harris – why do you need the outdoor space if you’ll use it in such a limited way?  Mr. Goldberg – we want them to be confined but still have some short outside time in between trips out.  Mr. Metsch – notes substantial concerns from residents.  He encourages discussion with neighbors.  Ms. Curran – you need to prove to us, real specifics, why this is less detrimental than the last use.  Mr. Goldberg – the other use had trucks all day, noise, fork lifts operating, beeping noise, dragging carpet inside to warehouse space; it was just noisy.  For the majority of business hours, most people will be at work.  Ms. Curran – if another doggie day care comes in, do all doggie day cares not have barking – what is the industry standard?  Mr. Anderson says there are some who don’t know how to keep the dogs well behaved.  

Mr. St. Pierre notes the hours of operation would be – 7 am -7 pm Monday through Friday.

Mr. Tsitsinos – would it be unoccupied during weekend?  Mr. Anderson - Sometimes there are training slots during the weekend.  Mr. Tsitsinos – it’s 130-140 feet from any home, with a 9 foot fence around it.  Ms. Harris – it’s really the noise.  Mr. Tsitsinos – I don’t hear any from the one on Highland Ave.  Mr. Dionne says he doesn’t hear dogs there either.  

Mr. St. Pierre – will you do any retrofitting?  Mr. Goldberg - the door, fence, rubber flooring, fans.  Mr. St. Pierre says he asked about the amount of investment being made in case the Board was thinking of issuing the Special Permit only for a short time.

Ms. Curran – for a Special Permit, we could just condition it for this owner.  Mr. Goldberg says he’d be unlikely to allow another doggie daycare.  Mr. St. Pierre confirms they could condition the Special Permit to just that business owner.  

Board members ask if the dogs ever be there without Mr. Anderson; he says that during the day, he might leave them with another employee if he has to pick up other dog during the day.  

Ms. Curran – first we have to determine if it’s more detrimental, then think about the permit.  

Mr. Metsch – truck traffic, fork lifts, loading and unloading.  So from a traffic and noise standpoint…Ms. Harris and Ms. Curran note that it’s hard to believe there won’t be noise.  Mr. Metsch – will it be more or less than what was there?  Mr. Tsitsinos says they won’t have fumes like there were with trucks for the previous use.

Ms. Curran says the traffic issue is minimal.  For noise, the jury is still out.  She asks about waste disposal; Mr. Goldberg says they use triple trash bags, disinfectant, a dumpster is used, and they remove waste daily from the premises.  Board of Health, Fire and Building Departments all regulate.  There is a whole section in the City ordinance on dumpsters and sanitation.  Ms. Harris – will you use A/C in summer?  Mr. Goldberg – no, we will install high powered fans.  Ms. Curran – will they be noisy?  Mr. Goldberg says they are still researching the type to be used.  

Mr. Dionne says he doesn’t know if it can be done, but he’d recommend a trial period of 6 months or so.  Mr. Goldberg – what if the neighbors are still upset?  Mr. St. Pierre – we’d hear the complaints if the problems couldn’t be solved.  Obviously this is a risk for you.  Mr. Tsitsinos – they still need to go to the Board of Health.  Would they need special traps, drains for feces, etc.?  Ms. Harris – it sounds like he runs a great business, but it’s very hard to take a chance that this is not going to be noisy.  I really dislike barking dogs.  

Mr. Metsch – will noise project toward neighbors?  

Mr. Tsitsinos – what if they did a trial period just for the outside?  That’s the part neighbors are concerned about.  We know we won’t hear dogs from the inside.  Ms. Harris - how do we know that?  Mr. Tsitsinos – from 120 feet away?  That would be difficult.  At 3 Bridge St. – there are always dogs in and out there – by Stromberg’s – I can’t hear them.

Ms. Curran - I think this is tough for a residential district.  Ms. Harris - there are so many people opposed to it.  Mr. Goldberg – I’m happy to do trial.  Ms. Harris – 9 months, a whole season, through the summer?  I don’t know if that would be OK with the neighbors; they are pretty upset.  Jan – Sept., perhaps.  It’s a risk.  I’m really uncomfortable with so many people opposed.  

Mr. Metsch – 1 year?  We need to include the summer – when cooling is needed, having the doors open, there’s more potential for dogs to get anxious and bark if they are going to.  

Mr. Anderson says they are very busy after Christmas, since a lot of people get puppies then.

Mr. Metsch – can outdoor hours be restricted?  That way there would only be complaints in a 1 hour zone on either side – morning and night.  

Mr. Tsitsinos – the first year is really tough for a new business.  2 ½ years is better.  Ms. Curran – but we’re more interested in finding out the negative impacts to neighborhood, not making sure the business survives.  Ms. Harris – better to have the whole thing tested to find out how this really will be.  

Ms. Curran – I’m wavering between a trial and feeling this is not the right place for this.  

Ms. Harris – I’d only do a trial.  Restrict to this operator.  Mr. Anderson – how will we know if it’s working?  Mr. St. Pierre – we’ll be hearing from the neighbors and ward councilor if there are problems.  Ms. Harris – there is definitely some risk; there are a lot of upset neighbors.

Ms. Curran – the Board finds this is not more detrimental than the previous use.

Conditions limit the hours to Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. -7 p.m., and training on the weekends.  

Mr. Metsch moves to approve with 6 standard conditions and the following special conditions: the Special Permit lasts 9 months from issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; the Special Permit runs with Loyal Canines, run by Jermaine Anderson; the operation of the business is for doggie daycare and training Monday through Friday, 7 a.m -7 p.m., and training only on weekends; the petitioner will contact the Board of Health and animal control officer about the petition, letting them know what they are doing.  

Seconded by Mr. Dionne, 5-0 approved (Metsch, Dionne, Harris, Curran and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed).  The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

Public hearing: Petition of TAMMIE FAVA requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to construct a third story dormer on the two-family home at 21 BUFFUM ST (R-2 Zoning District).

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Application date-stamped 11/10/11 and accompanying materials
  • Back elevation drawing, revised 11/10/11 and initialed by Rebecca Curran
  • Elevation drawings
  • Photographs, no date
  • Letter from Genevieve Gavenda, David Gavenda and Nancy Gavenda, 17 Buffum St., dated 11/16/11
Tammie Fava presents her petition, along with Michael Becker.  She is renovating and restoring the home, purchased 1 month ago.  It’s a 2-family home; the second floor apartment is where they want to live, and they want to make the 3rd floor a master bedroom.  They want to add a shed dormer.  She presents photos of the house.  She says this will be within the footprint of the house.  It will have an almost-flat roof.  They want to put a closet in there.  Ms. Harris asks if they looked at doing a more traditional dormer – what they propose doesn’t go with the house all that well.  Ms. Fava says it’s in the back.  Mr. Becker notes there is a dormer on the house next door.  The reason for the almost flat roof is to reach the height of the ridge required; to get the headroom required the pitch has to be flat.  Mr. St. Pierre says it looks like from the back view they’re only going 22 feet, not whole length of the house?  Mr. Becker says this is correct.  

Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment.

David Govenda, 17 Buffum St., is concerned this could become a three-family house.  He submits a letter stating his opposition if a third unit was allowed.  

Ms. Curran says they are not asking for a three-family - it is and will remain a two family.  Ms. Fava says there would not be enough room for a three-family.  Mr. St. Pierre says this Board is not empowered to make this a three-family.

John Walsh, 19 Buffum St., says he just wants to see what was going on; he says he has no problem with the dormer.  

Ms. Harris suggests changes to the drawing; Ms. Curran asks if her modification to the drawing would work.  Mr. St. Pierre suggests pulling in the dormer a foot and a half so the original lines remain.  Mr. Becker says the stair runs there.  Mr. St. Pierre says the Board is trying to make sure the property doesn’t look boxy or ugly.  Mr. Metsch – I’m fine with it as is.  Ms. Harris – I think it could be improved.  Ms. Curran – it could look better.  I have no problem with the concept.  

Robert Peterson, 26 Buffum St., says he is happy to hear they’re not looking to make this a three-family and appreciate the Board’s effort to refine the look.  

Mr. Govenda says he doesn’t oppose the concept, but he does not want to see the top ridge line raised.  

Ms. Curran closes the public portion of the hearing.  

Ms. Curran says she prefers some flexibility and the Board would trust Mr. St. Pierre to make sure it doesn’t leave the parameters of what is being approved.  Mr. St. Pierre – I’m looking for a better drawing; your footprint of the dormer would be approved.  Ms. Curran says she doesn’t mind approving giving Mr. St. Pierre the flexibility to raise the ridge line as well.  

The Board discusses approving the dimensions of the dormer, leaving the roofline flexible for Mr. St. Pierre’s approval.  Plans were revised and submitted at the meeting, the revised drawing was dated 11/16/11 and initialed by the chair, with the understanding that final drawings are to be submitted to Mr. St. Pierre for approval.

Ms. Harris moves to approve the petition with the above condition and 9 standard conditions.  Mr. Tsitsinos seconds; the Board votes 5-0 to approve the petition (Metsch, Tsistinos, Harris, Dionne and Curran in favor, none opposed).  The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

Mr. Dionne moves to adjourn, Mr. Tsitsinos seconds; all in favor.

The meeting adjourns at 10:15 p.m.

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
He