City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 in the third floor conference room of 120 Washington St., Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.
Those present were: Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Jamie Metsch, Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Those absent were: Mike Duffy 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 6:30 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Dionne moves to approve the minutes of April 18, 2012, seconded Mr. Metsch and approved 4-0 (Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, Mr. Metsch and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed, Ms. Curran abstaining).
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS ST, Salem, MA (R2 Zoning District). PETITIONER REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO JUNE 20, 2012.
Mr. Metsch moves to continue, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, Ms. Curran and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed).
Public hearing: Petition of JAY GOLDBERG/WILLIAM GOLDBERG requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an obedience training and doggie daycare with grooming services and dog retail products on the property located at 50 GROVE ST, Salem, MA (BPD Zoning District).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped 4/25/12 and accompanying materials and photograph
- 50 Grove Street Parking Layout, prepared by Bay State Surveying Associates, dated 6/21/09
- Letter from Christine Thomson, owner of Decorative Arts Conservation, 50 Grove St., dated May 14, 2012
- Site Layout Plan for MRM Project Management for 60-64 Grove St. and 3 Harmony Grove Rd., dated 12/20/11, submitted by Beverlie McSwiggin
Jay Goldberg, 7 Rantoul St., Beverly, presents the petition. He says he represents the prospective tenant, Jermaine Anderson. He says two buildings are currently on the site – they are discussing the doggie day care for building 2. It has been vacant with little interest for rental. Ms. Curran asks which portion of the building would be used. Mr. Goldberg says 4,000 SF on the first floor. Ms. Harris notes the fence is not connected to building. Ms. Curran asks about other uses in the building. Mr. Goldberg says Decorated Arts, a furniture refurbishing business, is there, and next to her is a painting contractor. He has a letter from Christine Thomson, the most direct abutting neighbor/tenant, in support, and he says the other business owner also supports this. Jermaine has
spoken with both to explain everything. He submits the letter from Christine Thomson.
Mr. Metsch asks about access; Mr. Goldberg says it’s from the parking lot side. Ms. Harris asks how the dogs get from the building to the fence; Mr. Anderson says he walks them.
Ms. Curran: Run us through what goes on with this use, how many dogs, etc.
Jermaine Anderson, owner, explains his dog training/doggie daycare and grooming business, and sale of retail products. He gives training classes. He currently has 30 dogs, and is looking to grow to 50. Structural obedience classes are one hour. Hours are M-F 8-8, Sat 8-4, closed Sunday. Classes are given in the evening, at 7 p.m. Ms. Harris – might be 50 dogs at a time there? Mr. Anderson – yes, either in or outside. Ms. Harris – will you do overnight boarding? No.
Ms. Curran – how are dogs dropped off? Mr. Anderson – half are dropped off, the other half we pick up.
Ms. Curran opens up the public comment portion of the hearing
Beverlie McSwiggin, 30 Japonica St., says that before the Planning Board, there is a plan to build 141 units abutting this. She says it does not seem like this would be conducive to the quality of life for those tenants. She says Mr. Anderson said there will be overnight boarding, but the last time he was here he said he wanted to have overnight as an option. She notes that the fence abuts the canal.
Rosemary O’Connor, 111 Mason St. – where in the building proposed – who was the prior tenant? Mr. Goldberg – on the lower level. It’s been vacant for over 2 years. The prior user was an adult day care.
William Goldberg, one of the owners, says this is the building closest to the canal, on the ground floor.
Ms O’Connor asks where the dogs will be exercised outside. Mr. Anderson says it will be indoors and outside in the fenced area.
Ms. Curran shows the 60’ x 20’ area where dogs would be outdoors.
Mr. Goldberg describes the location of the fenced area within the larger grassy area behind the building.
Ms. Harris asks if the dogs will be leashed outdoors. Mr. Anderson – yes, always. They will be supervised.
Ms. O’Connor asks what period of time the dogs will be outdoors.
Mr. Anderson – periodically during the day. It will vary in shifts. Day care is 8-6, and classes are after that.
Ms. O’Connor asks how often they will be cleaning up waste, and where it will be stored, since this is right on the canal.
Mr. Anderson says they have special bags for waste to contain the smell, and it’s cleaned daily. Mr. Goldberg says they will use the dumpster on site or get a new one, whatever is needed. Summertime, they are double bagged. If there are complaints, they would ask for more frequent removal. One time per week is planned.
Ward 6 Councillor Paul Prevey says he appreciates that Mr. Goldberg contacted him. He does not have a lot of the concerns he had when this was proposed on Franklin St. He does have some concerns because there are residential neighbors. Perhaps the board could approve on a time limited basis, as they did before, for 6 months. He suggests postponing the decision and scheduling a site visit – Mr. Goldberg has offered to show the site. He asks how many employees there will be. Mr. Anderson says 3 currently, but he plans on 5 more, for a total of 8. Mr. Goldberg notes that he has no interest in moving forward if the permit is time limited.
Councillor Prevey asks if the dogs will be taken offsite. Ms. Curran – you do take for walks from that location offsite? Mr. Anderson – yes, for a 2-3 minute walk. They are leashed, and the dogs have good manners and habits.
William Goldberg, 8 Box Ct., Salem, one of the owners, says they are in a location far from any residential area – the location of property is significantly distant from residents. He says it’s all industrial or vacant buildings in the vicinity. He says they have upgraded the buildings. This location is still very difficult – the space has been vacant for 2 years. He says Mr. Anderson is a plus for the community and environment.
Beverlie McSwiggin, 30 Japonica St., agrees with Councillor Prevey that a site visit is necessary to see how close to the canal it is. Dogs will be urinating there, and that won’t be picked up.
Ms. Curran says she has viewed site and asked if the other Board members did also – they often go prior to a hearing. As to the proximity to the canal, would Con Com approval be required for the fence? Mr. St. Pierre doesn’t think so, but says they can check.
Jonathan, Pitts, 3 Franklin Ct., says that after the last hearing, a video was posted online of Mr. Anderson training dogs that was very scary to residents. Is that the type of training you will do onsite? Mr. Anderson – they found a video I do in my personal time – trainers sometimes do training for sports – I trained Doberman pinschers for competition – these are personal protection dogs. This is not the type of training we will do at this facility. He encourages the Board and public to research this.
Ms. Curran asks about this type of training; Mr. Anderson says it includes obedience and behavior modification for aggressive dogs.
Leslie Limon, 18 Franklin St. asks about the hours of operation – when the Board issued the Special Permit, there was no limit on weekend hours, and this was one of the issues we had a problem with. Ms. Curran repeats the hours the applicant has stated. Not open Sunday. Ms. Limon suggests that with 50 dogs all together, there would be noise. She says the number of dogs should be limited.
Ms. Curran asks if it will be air conditioned. Mr. Goldberg says yes. Ms. Curran asks how many dogs 4000 SF accommodates. Mr. Anderson – 30-40 dogs. Ms. Curran – you will typically be there for 8-6? Mr. Anderson – owners drop off the dogs on their way to work, at 8 or 9. Pickup is between 5-6 p.m.
Ms. Harris – 30-40 dogs – will they all be out? Are there cages? Handlers? Mr. Anderson – it’s a structured day care, with a lot of training. No cages. Some dogs will be getting exercised, some getting trained by myself and other trainers. Others in the morning will be arriving by shuttle, and there is also afternoon dropoff. There will be obedience training in structured classes at night, between 6 and 8, with one trainer. He says he will be teaching agility – dogs will be jumping through hoops, climbing ramps, going through tunnels, etc., which builds relationships with owners. They will be playing in kiddie pools. We control excessive barking. He says Mr. Metsch was at another facility recently and there was no barking. The dogs are kept
active. It’s structured, not just letting them run, play, bark.
Mr. Metsch says he was recently at the training facility down at end of Bridge St. – he saw the facility, and there was no barking. He has faith in the owner’s ability to control the dogs. Ms. Curran asks if there are substitutes of staff are out. Mr. Anderson says he has volunteers ready who will be joining to act as subs. Usually there are 10 dogs per employee. Ms. Harris asks he has a similar facility elsewhere. Mr. Anderson – no, but I have taught and trained at various facilities in MA.
Mr. Dionne – I’ve heard of no problems from the facility on Canal St., which is near me. The location is good, and there is a need. Mr. Metsch – the properties around it are all industrial and commercial, vacant – there are proposals for future development, but still, judging by this plan, that will be OK. He has no problem with this.
Ms. Curran notes there is new development in the permitting stage on abutting properties, but says that people who will buy or rent will know it’s there and can make informed decisions about whether they want to live there.
Ms. Limon asks if there will be a vet tech on staff. Mr. Anderson says yes.
Mr. Dionne moves to close the public hearing, seconded by and approved 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed).
Mr. Dionne moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions and the following special conditions: 1. Applicant is to check with Con Com about whether the fence requires any approval. 2) Hours are 8-6 for doggie day care, M-F, 8-4 Saturday, no hours Sunday. Obedience classes 6-8 p.m. M-F. No obedience class after 8 p.m. M-F or after 4 Saturday. 3) Limit to 50 dogs. Mr. Metsch notes this is serving a community need, the traffic will have a minimal if any impact, and it is within the character of the neighborhood around the property. Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris note it is a compatible use. Ms. Harris notes this is a commercial area. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor, none
opposed).
Public hearing: Petition of GEORGE F. FALLON requesting Variances from minimum lot area, frontage, lot width, and front and side setbacks, in order to subdivide the property located at 5 SUMMIT ST, Salem, MA (R-1 Zoning District), and to construct a single-family house on one of the newly created lots.
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped 4/25/12 and accompanying materials
- Plan to Accompany Petition to the board of Appeals located in Salem, Mass., 5 Summit St., prepared by Christopher Mello, dated 4/17/12
- Petition in favor of project with four signatures, submitted by applicant
- Plan of the Roberts Estate dated 4-18-1892, submitted by resident
- “What happened to Summit Court” information packet submitted by John Butler, 21 Butler St.
- Copy of Assessor plate for 5 Summit St.
Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. Owner George Fallon, 36 March St., is also present. Attorney Grover says the property is unusual – it consists of a two-family dwelling, Lot A. It has an old private right of way, Summit Ct., recorded. This provides access to the property to the rear of Lot C. The parcel is considerably larger than all others in neighborhood. He asks Mr. Fallon to address the paper street. He says the Right of Way was created 100 years ago, and is only legally used by people who touch it on the perimeter. This is not a public way, and is not recognized by the City. There was a farm and slaughterhouse to the rear, and five buildings were on the site at one point. The right of way was just to provide access, but it’s not a public way.
Attorney Grover says the proposal is to subdivide into 5 lots – 2 for dwelling purposes. They will convey the smaller lots to abutters to cure some issues with access and encroachment that they currently have. Most significant is Lot D – this would be conveyed to the L’Heureaux parcel. This squares off land and cures access problems. Lots E and F would be conveyed to abutters. There is a fence encroaching onto the Fallon property – he will convey those pieces to cure those encroachments.
Attorney Grover says the house would remain a 2 family. A new dwelling would be placed on the new Lot B.
Ms. Curran asks about parking. Attorney Grover says it will be behind the houses. The right of way is finished with gravel. He says there is plenty of room in back. They are conveying lot C but retaining the right to pass. He refers to the property’s unusual shape and size.
Attorney Grover passes out a printout of the assessor’s map to show how it compares with other lots in the neighborhood.
Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion of the hearing.
Eugene Polnicki, 12 Summit St, says he has had problems for the last 10 years with water pressure. He says the work was done by the City in the late nineties. This should be dealt with before a new building is constructed.
Ms. Curran asks Mr. St. Pierre if the area is overburdened. He says he is not in a position to comment, but is happy to talk to the water department.
Frank L’Heureux, 13 Summit St., supports the petition, saying the house is dilapidated and the property behind the house has junk on it. Mr. Fallon has cleaned it up. This is good for area – parking seems sufficient.
John Butler, 21 Butler St., is opposed. He says the traffic is very bad in the area. He passes out a packet of information to the Board. He says Summit Ct., in 1963, was listed in a city record as a city street. It was later conveyed to the property. He says this was not done properly. He says there is no hardship – the variance is requested to create a lot.
Ms. Curran asks if a title search was done. Attorney Grover says the deed includes the ROW and always has. He says a lot of streets were listed as accepted, but this was incorrect. Mr. St. Pierre says the former city engineer improperly listed many streets and that had to be reversed. Mr. Fallon says two lawyers have looked at the title, Henry Lucas did the title, and Bob Welch, both did a search and came to same conclusion. The ROW was done over 100 years ago, and has nothing to do with the City. It was once proposed to get the street accepted, but it was not done. He says it has also been title insured. He says there is no issue whatsoever with it being a public way. He says the fee is owned by him.
Mr. Fallon also says that if anything, this relieves the parking burden. They conveyance to Francis will make his lot over 5,000 SF. Mr. Fallon says when he purchased the land, there was a condemned unit and the encroachments. To go through conventional financing, he would have to notify those encroaching to get off the property – that would force Mr. L’Heureaux’s parking onto the street. A bank would not finance this unless corrected. That’s one of the reasons we are trying to clear up perimeter issues. This is the reason for the hardship.
Mr. L’Heureaux notes he uses that area for two parking spaces currently.
Attorney Grover says there is a serious grade difference from the property to Mr. L’Heureux’s property, and it makes more sense that the land is associated with this property.
Armond Blanchette, 6 Summit St., says he had to complain to city to enforce people parking on sidewalk. Previously, there had been many cars parked here. He does not support the petition – he does not think there is a hardship.
Ms. Curran – did you consider a more traditional driveway, pushing the house farther and not using the land in back? Mr. Fallon – that could be done, but if so, you would have people backing out onto Summit. You could have people go around the house from the back. There is ample parking. There is a net gain because Francis doesn’t end up with two cars back on the street. The ledge begins 20 feet beyond where house is. Could be blasted, but neighbors might not like that. Ms. Curran – did you consider making a one family instead of two? Mr. Fallon – you’d have to see the building inside – it’s a very awkward conversion to a single. Ms. Curran – was it built as a two family? Mr. Fallon doesn’t know. Probably a
farm house.
Mr. Butler says Summit Ct. is a right of way. There is no hardship.
Mr. Polnicki says that house was a single family in 1965. There is a lot of traffic on Summit St. because of the high school. He says when cars are parked on both sides, fire trucks can’t get through.
Councillor Jerry Ryan, Ward 4, says this is the first he has heard of the water issue. He is around the corner, and his is fine. He will have to check on that. Several years ago, he says they researched the issue, and the street was never accepted. It was shown on plans at the Registry, but in 1963, it disappeared. He is not for or against this, but this street is pretty bad – he has spoken with Lt. Preczewski – it’s a two way street, but smaller than most. It’s a main artery to Witchcraft Heights. They have discussed making it one way. He would prefer to see a single family.
Mr. Fallon – units are 1400 SF each – it’s very awkward to convert. He has no issue with a condition that this is a private way. If it were recognized as a way, he says he would already have a second lot and he wouldn’t need to be there.
Councillor Ryan – I agree it’s not an accepted street, but the records did change after 1963.
Ms. Harris doesn’t see why it makes a difference.
Councillor Ryan – If this is built, we’ll need to restrict parking on the street, or it can’t be a two-way anymore.
Ms. Curran asks about the parking arrangement for each lot. Parking on street is not easy. She likes that the house is in front – this is more in keeping with the neighborhood. As to the Variance – this is a peculiar lot, so she has no problem with that, but she would not like to see a gain of a unit. She’d prefer they renovate the two family into one so there is still the same number of units. Ms. Harris – you don’t want to add to the density? Ms. Curran – yes.
Mr. Blanchette is concerned about setting a precedent. Ms. Curran explains variances are done case by case.
Mr. Metsch – I agree the lot is unusual; there is a hardship with series of hodgepodge encroachments, and the relative size of this lot to rest of neighborhood is larger. This plan reduces the number of curb cuts. With the amount of space available to park off street, this should relieve some of the parking issues even with the increase of 1 unit of density. I have no problem with the new construction.
Ms. Harris – This clears up a lot of the parking issues. There is already parking provided, none is being taken away, perhaps more is encouraged. My only concern is it increases the density. I’m thinking about it.
Mr. Dionne – This is cleaning up the lot, conveying pieces to the abutters is good. The parking in rear – it’s there, so we hope people would use it. I have no problem with it.
Mr. Tsitsinos – I’m very impressed with it – the whole lot is cleaned up, the neighbors get a small piece of land – you can’t force someone to park in their driveway. There is plenty of parking. No cars will be backing into Summit St. This is a great opportunity.
Ms. Curran – can we condition that the house is rehabbed prior to construction of the new house? It’s a blight. Mr. Fallon says there are squatters in there right now who have agreed to leave early June. He Describes the rehab that needs to be done. He has no problem with that condition.
Mr. Butler asks if the city will assess the lots. Ms. Curran says yes.
Attorney Grover presents a petition of four neighbors in support. Ms. Curran it reads it into the record.
Mr. Metsch makes a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos and approved 5-0 Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed).
Ms. Curran reviews the findings for hardship – it is owing to the peculiar shape of the lot and its size. There are substantial easement and encroachment issues.
Mr. Metsch notes that the building is large and has been used as a 2 family. He sees little impact in adding one unit. The bigger issue is parking and traffic – and this plan as a whole improves the parking. Ms. Curran says adding another unit doesn’t help the traffic situation, and it could add a substantial number of cars. There are some traffic issues aside from parking.
Ms. Harris says the owner is being generous to help solve several problems and is reducing the size of the property he has. The house needs a lot of work. At some point you start to get to financial hardship; I’m inclined to go along with giving another unit. Ms. Curran says the majority agrees with that, so she will go along with it.
Mr. Metsch could we condition that we confirm and have on record documentation about the ROW? Ms. Curran – we could ask the city solicitor to review it. Attorney Grover – we will supply the documentation.
Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with 9 standard conditions and two special conditions: approval is conditional on the city solicitor confirming the applicant’s findings on summit St Court being a private way; and renovation on the existing structure is to commence prior to the new construction, barring any legal barriers with current occupants. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed).
Mr. Fallon says the building was condemned, so someone from city will have to inspect it.
Mr. Metsch moves to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0.
Ms. Curran adjourns the meeting at 8:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
Approved by the Board of Appeals 6/20/12
| 
