City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, August 15, 2012 in the third floor conference room of 120 Washington St., Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.
Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Mike Duffy, Jamie Metsch, and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Those absent were: Annie Harris, Rick Dionne and Jimmy Tsitsinos. 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.
Ms. Belair moves to approve the minutes of July 18, 2012, seconded by Mr. Duffy and approved 4-0.
Ms. Curran explains the audience that only four Board members are here tonight, and so a unanimous vote is needed to pass petitions. She offers to allow any applicants to continue their hearings, or to go ahead tonight if they wish.
Petition of DUARTE MACHADO requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming two-family home in order to construct a 15’x25’ one-story addition on the property located at 14 ALBION ST (R-1 Zoning District).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped 6/21/12 and accompanying materials
- Mortgage plan dated 8/19/92 with proposed structure drawn in
- “Floor Plan and Elevations, Proposed Additions, Machado Residence, 14 Albion St., Salem, Mass,” by Deer Hill Architects, dated 8/8/12
Duarte Machado presents the petition. He says he would like to create a three season room, as other houses on the street have. It will be one floor, 14 x 24. It is the side yard setback that is the issue.
Ms. Curran asks if it is presently a 2-family; he says yes.
Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment; no one comments.
Ms. Curran asks about the siding materials; Mr. Machado says it will be vinyl to match the existing.
Ms. Belair notes that this will fit in with the neighborhood, and it’s not that big an addition.
Mr. Metsch agrees; other buildings on the street fit together; this will be out of view. It won’t have impacts to traffic, utilities, fire, etc.
Ms. Curran agrees. She has no problem with this.
Mr. Duffy agrees, saying he is not changing or altering what is already nonconforming – it’s the same issue, the side setback. Most of the building is nonconforming. This merely extends the house back further into the lot; he can’t see anything that would suggest it’s more detrimental.
Ms. Belair moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Metsch, approved 4-0 (Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran, Ms. Belair and Mr. Duffy in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Petition of DEBORAH PLANTE requesting a Variance from Sec. 5.1, Off-Street Parking, and a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2, to change from one nonconforming use to another, in order to operate an antiques shop on the property located at 1 PLEASANT ST/117 BRIDGE ST (R2 Zoning District).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped 8/1/12 and accompanying materials
- Photo of the property submitted at the meeting by Ms. Plante
Debbie Plante presents her petition for 1 Pleasant St. She says she wants to use the space for an antique shop. She says she is using the whole building. There is a music school located on 3 Pleasant St. She says the music school doesn’t use the parking during the day – mostly at night. She submits a photo of the property. Mr. St. Pierre – for the record, the address is 1 Pleasant St.
Ms. Plante says the building is 3 floors, but she is only using the first and second levels. It will be open typical retail hours, 10-5. Ms. Curran asks if she can estimate how may customers she will have. She says that at 45 Bridge St., she never had more than two cars in front of the shop.
Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment. No one comments.
Ms. Belair: It’s in keeping with the neighborhood and with other shops. Bridge St. has undergone a revitalization, and this is a nice addition. We like to support businesses in Salem. I would be in favor of this.
Mr. Metsch agrees: This is a nice addition, it’s nice you are expanding. I hope you will have more traffic flow from downtown. It would be nice to guarantee the music store would never give you a problem with the parking.
Ms. Belair: She’d be their tenant, so they would want to accommodate her.
Ms. Curran says that with regard to findings for the variance, it is a peculiar lot in that there are two separate buildings on one lot – owing to that…
Mr. Metsch – part of the Bridge St redesign has non permit parking heading toward downtown? Ms. Plante says there is not on Bridge St. there – there is parking on Webb St.
Mr. Duffy: how many extra spots does the music school have? She says 2 plus the driveway. Property owner Dru Zuretti, 281 Rowley Bridge Rd., Topsfield, says there are 3 plus spaces.
Mr. Metsch – I think with the parking on Bridge and the redesign it would lend itself to parking in that commercial district. Ms. Belair – I don’t think the nature of antique businesses generate a lot of customers at the same time. It’s not like Walmart; people drift in and out.
Ms. Plante – I’m hoping to get more tourist walking traffic from downtown.
Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions, seconded by Ms. Belair and approved 4-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Curran and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Petition of 8 PROCTOR ST LLP requesting Variances from lot width/frontage, side setbacks and front setbacks, and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure and a nonconforming use, in order to construct a 2nd story addition on the property located at 8 PROCTOR ST (R3 Zoning District).
- Application date-stamped 8/1/12 and accompanying materials
- “Land of 8 Proctor St., Salem LLP, #8 (Lot A) Proctor St., Salem, MA,” D.J. Lynch, engineers, no date
- “Proposed 2nd Floor Addition, May 10, 2012,” D.J. Lynch, engineers
- Elevations, “8 Proctor St. LLC, Existing Building, 8 Proctor St., Salem, MA, Monaco-Johnson Group,” D.J. Lynch, engineers, no date
- “Proposed Second Level Addition, 8 Proctor St., Salem, MA,” D.J. Lynch, engineers, no date
- “Roof Plan,” D.J. Lynch, engineers, no date
- Supplementary CAD elevations and foundation plan, no title or date, submitted at meeting
Chris Monaco, 3 Elm Place, Marblehead, presents the petition. He says they wish to increase their space for their businesses. The increase is about 540 SF in the second level. Since the plans were submitted, they have also created additional computer generated plans, which he passes out to the Board. The addition is 30 x 18, the second story over the existing first story. The corner by the garage is nonconforming. Ms. Curran notes the building is 2 feet off the property line, but that’s not changing. She asks about materials to be used. Mr. Monaco says it is wood frame and some brick, but mostly wood, with aluminum siding. Mr. Metsch asks if there will be any change to that. Mr. Monaco says he doesn’t know – they were thinking of re-siding based on the
financing. He says he is concerned about the aesthetics – they are required to make it match the existing, though he’s not inclined to put 8 inch aluminum on there. They might put on hardy plank instead – this is more likely. He suspects in the future they’ll be before the Board again asking for other additions; they want to redevelop the property further. The two businesses are Monaco Johnson Group and Dionne’s Cabinetry.
Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion of the hearing; there are no comments.
Ms. Curran asks if they are increasing the usage in terms of employees or parking? Mr. Monaco says no, there will be the same number of personnel, this is an increase in our shop space and John is moving upstairs. Our existence on that corner is a positive thing; the activity/surveillance, the fact that we’re there and developing the property is a plus for the area.
Mr. Metsch: This section of Proctor St. is a pocket of existing nonconforming industrial uses; that’s a non issue for me. The increase will have no impact on parking on that lot. Mr. Monaco: I did notice this week, a lot of people cut across our property – at some point they won’t be able to – our insurance company would prefer that didn’t happen. I may petition DPW in the future to provide a proper sidewalk. There can be congestion, but we do provide our own parking.
Mr. Metsch – the attention to your property helps the neighborhood get public improvements too. I would be in favor of this.
Ms. Belair – this is a minimal request, it won’t add much traffic. The lot is very oddly shaped. I would support this.
Mr. Duffy – It strikes me the proposal is within the existing footprint of the building; within the setbacks, there is no change. You’re not further extending a nonconforming use; just going up. I would have a hard time finding it to be more detrimental. Ms. Curran agrees; also, the tallest side is on the interior. She would support this.
Mr. Metsch – regarding the material use – I’d be open to saying use whatever you think will be attractive for the future. Ms. Curran – the exterior doesn’t necessarily have to be in harmony with the addition; you could just use hardy plank.
Mr. Metsch makes a motion to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Duffy, and approved 4-0 (Ms. Curran, Ms. Belair, Mr. Metsch, Mr. Duffy in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Petition of JEFFREY BARROWS requesting a Variance from maximum allowable height of an accessory structure to replace the existing a 1 ½ story garage with a new 2-story garage, on the property located at 4 PICKMAN ST (R1 Zoning District).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped 7/24/12 and accompanying materials
- “A Garage Replacement for: Mr. Jeffrey Barrows, 4 Pickman St., Salem, MA 01970,” Paul G. Fermano, AIA Consulting Architects, no date
- “Elevations & Building Section,” Paul G. Fermano, AIA Consulting Architects, dated 7/18/12
- “Plot Plan of Land, 4 Pickman St., Salem,” North Shore Survey Corporation, dated 7/18/12
Jeffery Barrows presents the petition. He would like to tear down a 22 square garage and replace it with a 24 square two story garage. He is asking for a height of 20 inches more than what is allowed.
Ms. Curran – the rear backs up to Pleasant St.? He says yes. Ms. Curran asks, On that side, there are no windows, just a door? He says no – there would be windows. Mr. St. Pierre notes the issue is the number of stories requested – the dormer is a second story. Mr. Barrows says that is for storage space, no finished rooms will be up there.
Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment.
Francoise McCoy, 23 Winter St., says she is concerned that if a second floor is requested, it may be used later as an apartment or house. Just across the street, she says the owner has another building rented as an apartment. She thinks in the past this was a little garage. From the shape it has, it’s been added to. She is suspicious this could happen again.
Mr. Barrows says the existing building is a 3 family, and this use was grandfathered. He is not looking to put in an apartment in the garage. If he did want to, he’s sure it would be denied. He’s not sure what Ms. McCoy is talking about with the other garage; he does not own another garage. He owns other legal apartment buildings, none of which have a garage. He says one of his units is a legally converted carriage house.
Mr. St. Pierre asks if he is using trusses. Mr. Barrows says no, he’s changing it to rafters. Ms. Curran – do you live there? He says no - it’s for use of tenants – one bay for them, the other for the lawnmower/snowblower. There will be space for storage of materials for the building. Ms. Curran asks about the condition of the current garage. Mr. Barows says it’s in bad shape, and has asphalt siding. It’s an eyesore. He wants his properties to look nice.
Ms. McCoy: The house is unattractive, so why does he suddenly want something that looks nice?
Ms. Belair: he’s here tonight about the garage. The proposed one looks much better than the existing one. This is half a story of relief – this looks much better and is an improvement to the neighborhood.
Ms. Curran agrees – it’s a better looking building, the only change increasing the height. Given the dimension, the extra height makes it a better looking building than the existing. She says it would not be detrimental to the neighborhood.
Mr. Duffy says he is only struggling with finding the hardship for the variance.
Mr. Barrows says aesthetics are important – he doesn’t want to diminish the property value by putting up something ugly. The pitched roof looks more attractive. Also, it would allow him storage area in the loft and has no area in the building because it’s occupied by three apartments.
Ms. Curran says there must be some reason for the hardship.
Mr. Metsch – if the footprint were smaller, would the roof pitch be less? Mr. St. Pierre – yes. Mr. Metsch – if you could lose a few square feet from the foundation and keep the same pitch – you could drop the attic space to eliminate the height variance. Mr. St. Pierre – you would still have a second story.
Ms. Belair – with the lot size at 7200 SF, the addition will allow room for vehicles that aren’t allowed now. Given the size, there’s not much else he could do about his parking and storage problems. Mr. St. Pierre – the position of the house could be a hardship. It’s unusual. Ms. Curran – how high is 1 ½ stories? Mr. St. Pierre clarifies how the zoning defines stories in accessory buildings.
Ms. Curran says she likes the look of this. She’s just struggling with whether the Board can allow it - is there a hardship? She likes it and wants to approve; they just need to figure that out. Ms. Belair – there are grounds – they make not be very strong, but there can be an argument for hardship due to the size of the lot, and location of the house on the lot. There is some degree of hardship; we haven’t required a higher degree in the past. Mr. Barrows – it would be a hardship to keep this garage – it’s an eyesore and would devalue my property.
Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion of hearing.
Ms. Belair moves to approve the petition with 6 standard conditions and one special condition, that no unit is to be added to the garage structure and the garage is not to be occupied. Mr. Metsch seconds the motion. The Board votes two in favor (Ms. Belair and Mr. Metsch) and two opposed (Ms. Curran and Mr. Duffy) to the petition. The motion fails and the petition is denied. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Petition of CHRISTINE BURKINSHAW requesting a Variance from side yard setback and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, in order to construct an addition to the second floor unit located on 118 DERBY ST (B1 Zoning District).
Ms. McKnight says the petitioner wants to continue to Sept. 19 because only four members of the Board are present. Mr. Metsch moves to continue the hearing, seconded by Mr. Duffy and approved 4-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Curran and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed).
Petition of GEORGE BALTOUMAS requesting a Variance from Sec. 5.1, Off-Street Parking, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to exceed the total maximum allowed driveway width of 20 feet on the property located at 18-20 MALL STREET (R-2 Zoning District).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped 7/24/12 and accompanying materials, including curb cut application and photograph
- Plan of driveway, no date or title
- Letter from Brenda Lau, 17 Mall St., Salem, no date
George Baltoumas presents the petition for 18 Mall St. His wife, Janice Baltoumas, is also present. He would like the requested curb cut in order to provide parking for everyone who lives on the premises. There are currently 6 cars and 5 parking spaces. He is proposing a curb cut on the non parking side of the street. Ms. Curran – this looks like a driveway, but there is no curb cut.
Ms. Curran – the hardship is owing to location of the house on the property. How wide is the new driveway? Mr. Baltoumas says 14.4 feet. Ms. Curran – the way the lot is laid out, it makes sense in terms of a variance.
Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment.
Janice Baltoumas, 18 Mall St., says her neighbors are in favor; they got a letter from one of them. Parking on the street is difficult.
Ms. Curran reads a letter into the record from Brenda Lau, 17 Mall St.
Mr. Duffy asks how many units are there. Mr. Baltoumas says it is a legal three-family. The previous third floor tenant had one car; the current couple renting that unit has two cars.
Mr. Duffy asks about the rendering – a picture of the yard. There is no opportunity for additional parking space there? Mr. Baltoumas says he would have to dig out the yard – and the tenants like the yard.
Mr. Metsch says the parking is a hardship – this is a three-family – we only require 1.5 spaces – but modern families often have more vehicles. Cutting into the yard would be a detriment to this property. The physical location of the building on the property is a problem. Ms. Curran – there is a hardship owing to the building on the lot and grandfathered nonconforming use. Mr. Duffy – also the street it’s on – on the non parking side of the street limits parking. The curb cut is no detriment to the on street parking.
Mr. Duffy moves to approve the petition with 3 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 4-0 (Mr. Duffy, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Petition of RYAN MCSHERA (PITMAN & WARDLEY ARCHITECTS) requesting a Variance from the maximum number of stories allowed in order to build a 2-story addition on the single-family home at 9 WINTER ISLAND RD (R-1 Zoning District).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped 8/1/12 and accompanying materials
- Letter from William J. Wharff, Manager, 11R Winter Island LLC, dated 8/15/12
- “Lillo Residence, 9 Winter Island Rd., Salem, MA,” Existing and Proposed Site Plan, elevations and floor plans, dated 7/31/12
9 Winter Island Rd. Attorney Bill Quinn presents the petition. He says this is the only remaining house on Winter Island Rd. that is still one story – it’s a ranch. He explains the design of the dormers – there are knee walls high enough to require relief because they make a third story. The house will be three feet under the height requirement in feet. He says it fits with all other houses surrounding it in every way.
Mr. Quinn says an RDA was requested from the Conservation Commission, and they were not required to have an order of conditions. The 100 foot buffer zone goes through the house, so developing to the rear would be much more difficult and could trigger serious environmental concerns. The plan just complies with setbacks. He says the only way this house can comply is to go up. Ms. Belair – will it remain a single family? Mr. Quinn says yes, there is no second kitchen or separation of floors.
Peter Pitman, Pitman & Wardley Architects, says the third floor space will be a study – no bathrooms or bedrooms. One dormer allows the stair. The other is storage and done for aesthetics. The other dormer, facing the bay window, allows access to a small balcony. The kitchen will be on the second floor plan only – the kitchen shown is what existed on the first floor. He says there will be no kitchen on first floor. There will be a family room in that space. Ms. Curran asks if the living space is on the second floor for views; he says yes. Ms. Curran what is the revision date on what’s presented tonight? Mr. Pitman says 8/15/12.
Ms. Curran – if not for those dormers, you’d be in compliance. Mr. Pitman says they could do them by right, but they’d be limited to 2 feet, and that would make an awkward approach for headroom. Also, the reduction would break the eave line. That line keeps the house feeling much lower. Lowering the dormer actually makes the house feel and look taller.
Ms. McKnight reads a letter from William J. Wharff, Manager, 11R Winter Island LLC, dated 8/15/12, in favor of the petition.
Ms. Curran: In terms of hardship, it’s owing to the location of the lot to the buffer zone. Mr. Quinn notes that the shape of the lot is unusual and gives them nowhere to go.
Ms. Curran says the relief sought is minimal – the size is big, but allowable by zoning. Because of the location, this is one of the only options for expanding.
Mr. Pitman says they did do an alternate design, but the owner was concerned about blocking views of a neighbor. Here, there is limited to no impact.
Mr. Duffy – it does appear from drawings and discussion that owing to features of the property – the buffer zone location it would create a hardship to enforce zoning literally. Relief is desirable; nothing would be detrimental to public good. The one letter we have from the community is in support. Care was taken to preserve views and not impact neighbors. Ms. Belair – the one neighbor potentially impacted has not communicated any opposition.
Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions. Mr. Duffy seconds, the motion and it passes 4-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Curran and Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Mr. Duffy moves to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Metsch; all in favor.
The meeting adjourns at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
Approved by the Board of Appeals 9/19/12
| 
