Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 01/18/2012
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, January 18, 2012

A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 in the third floor conference room of 120 Washington St., Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.

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

Ms. Harris opens the meeting at 6:30 p.m.

Approval of Minutes
The Board reviews the minutes; no changes are suggested.  Mr. Dionne moves to approve them, seconded by Mr. Metsch and passed 4-0 (Ms. Belair abstaining).

Request for withdrawal without prejudice: 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).

Mr. Dionne moves to allow withdrawal of this application without prejudice, seconded by Mr. Metsch, and unanimously approved.  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

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.

Petitioner has submitted a written request to continue the petition to February 16, 2012; Mr. Metsch moves to continue the petition to that date, seconded by Mr. Dionne and unanimously approved.  Mr. Metsch moves to extend final action to March 15, 2012, seconded by Mr. Dionne and unanimously approved.

Continuation of 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).

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Application dated October 26, 2011 and accompanying materials
  • Letter from Janet Weedon, 1A Daniels St. Ct., dated Nov. 16, 2011
  • Letter from Dolores T. Jordan, 97 Derby St., dated Nov. 16, 2011
  • Letter from Dolores T. Jordan, 97 Derby St., dated Jan. 18, 2012
  • Letter from John Zbyszynski, 55 Turner St., dated 1/17/12
  • Site plan last revised 1/18/12, by Derek Bloom Architects
  • Elevation drawings dated 10/24/12
  • Aerial view of site dated 1/18/12
  • View Corridor Study dated 1/18/12
  • Shadow Study dated 1/18/12
  • Building height study dated 1/18/12
Attorney George Atkins, 59 Federal St., presents the petition.  Noel Flaherty and Derek Bloom of the Brewer are also present.   Atty Atkins says they had met with neighbors before, and also after, this meeting.  He notes that no presentation was made at the November meeting.  He presents updated plans.  He says neighbors have asked if they had consulted with the fire department; since then they have done so.  He says they are pleased they can access the building from front, side and the neighboring property, but wanted easier access from White St.  They have changed access to the building and lost a few parking spaces, reducing them from 122 to 115.  The plans are otherwise the same.  He says the property to the east is owned by the City and provides access to the ferry.  The R-2 portion of the lot is located off Turner St.; the rest of the lot is zoned Industrial.  There is also a portion running up Derby and White that is zoned B1.  The proposed building is in the Industrial zone (I).  

Atty Atkins reviews the dimensional relief needed, noting that 45 is the maximum height allowed in I.  After first meeting with the neighbors, they lowered the building to 39.9 feet.  The original variance for the property issued in 1975 dealt with its use as a marina; there were no requirements in zoning for what parking should apply to a marina, and there still are not.  He says they have used the provision for service industries and recreational usage.  He says the requirements are less than what they are proposing.  One problem with the project is the location of the building on the lot.  He says they could have designed this in such a way that they wouldn’t need dimensional variances.  Two factors driving the decision making were the ability to use the site as a marina, and having the least impact possible on neighbors.  He says there are many residential neighbors in the vicinity.  He says their placement affects the fewest number of people in this location.  Operationally and in terms of impact, they feel the building is best located here.  Zoning doesn’t have view requirements, but they have tried to use various houses in the neighborhood to determine what the view corridors would be.  He says that in all cases, there are still substantial views from the southeast and southwest view corridors.  He shows renderings of the shadows expected to be cast by the building.  

Atty Atkins says they are not asking to accommodate more boats; they want to upgrade the quality of the work that can be done there and quality of customer.  He says a certain quality of work must be done inside.  He speaks about controls on the inside of building – dust collectors, controls for fumes, etc., and says nothing will escape to atmosphere to affect neighbors.  He says there is a long history with this site’s industrial use.  It once was used as a fuel depot, and so there were underground storage tanks on the site, and these have since been removed.  

He says the operator of the site is very experienced.  He introduces Noah Flaherty, general manager of Hawthorne Cove Marina.  He speaks about Brewer’s other yards and good reputation.  He says it is a family run business.  He says when they took over the yard in October 2010, they wanted to do as much a they could in the short term while developing these plans.  He says they want to attract and retain good customers; part of this is having a good facility.  He says they have worked hard to put together a proposal that has as minimal an impact as possible.  

Mr. Dionne says this is a well done proposal and impact to the neighborhood seems minimal.  

Ms. Harris asks about the right of way off Turner St. – Atty Atkins explains it’s an emergency exit and not used actively.  

Ms. Harris opens the issue up for public comment.

Dolores Jordan, 97 Derby St. and White St., says she is not against growth and prosperity, but the neighborhood existed before the marina was purchased, and waterfront should be given as much consideration as historic districts.  She expresses concerns about the size and placement of buildings and their impact on views; she also has concerns about fires after the previous marina building burned down.  She says highly flammable materials will be used; the neighbors are very concerned.  She says large, heavy vehicles drive over the sidewalks and make illegal turns, and this is damaging to the homes’ foundations.  She says the expansion of the marina will cause much more traffic on White St.  She says Turner St. should not be used because of the House of Seven Gables.  She says many neighbors on White and Blaney Streets are not being considered in the plans.  

Douglas Haley, 43 Turner St., is in favor of the plans; he is familiar with the property.  He says the Brewer owners have built a wall behind his property and they did a fabulous job.  He also says one of his pine trees was leaning into the property and Mr. Flaherty and he agreed to have it taken down.  

Cynthia Carr, 97 Derby St., has concerns about fiberglass work, including chemicals and noxious odors.  She says in their neighborhood, they have taken the brunt of this type of use, considering the power plant.  She has concerns about parking capacity, fire, illegal turns down Carlton St., and the height of the building.   

Mark Perez, 3 White St., supports what Ms. Carr says regarding the parking lot and entrance and trucks driving on the sidewalks.  He says the current construction is shaking his house.  He says the building should be much smaller, and the he can’t even park.

George Smith, 6 White St. #5, says since Brewer has taken over, the professionalism has increased.  He says they have done a great job with improvements and renovations, and have had two open houses to discuss the project.  He says most of the neighbors have been talking to Brewer.  He supports the project.  

Steven Hultgren, 6 White St., concurs with Mr. Smith, saying they are good neighbors and the building siting is appropriate.  He supports it.

Denise McCauley, 6 White St. unit 1, supports the placement of the building.  She says they have addressed questions of view, shadow and safety.  She also supports Brewer’s because of their past behavior; they have been very responsive.  She says they are a welcome addition to the neighborhood.

Sandy Martin, 6 White St. unit 4, supports the project.  She says Mr. Flaherty has been great to work with and has addressed all their issues, including with lighting.  

Carol Naranjo, 6 White St., is an immediate abutter and boat owner.  She says the main issue they have all grappled with is the view – while her view would be impacted, she supports the project.  She compliments Brewer and says they could not have been more fastidious and considerate about evaluating who would be affected by this.   She also has had health concerns and says the neighborhood has already been exposed to the fiberglass, dust, etc. and the previous owner did not address anything.  She is much more confident in the current owner.  She says the site plan is better for allowing in sunlight and keeping out shade, mold, etc. She has been waiting for something to be built here for years, and she thinks the current plan is thoughtful.  

Mike Furlong, Blaney St., represents the 4 Blaney St. condo association.  He acknowledges Brewer’s right to build, but said for those of the neighbors on Blaney and White Streets, it impacts them where it didn’t previously.  He says the denial of the variance wouldn’t keep them from running their business.  He says they see no hardships.

Sam Northrop, 49 Turner St., says the present operation is something they all want to see go.  She says work occurs in the small plastic temporary building – she is happy this will be further from her property line and contained within an actual building.  Currently, the noise is day in and day out, summer and winter, and no relief from noise, fumes, etc.  She is happy to have the building further from her.  

Cythia Carr, says if they currently do their work in a small building, why did they need a 40-foot building?

Ms. McKnight reads submitted letters into the record.

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

Atty Atkins says his client has not intentionally tried to divide the neighborhood.  He says there is a reason for the size of the building: the type of equipment used to accommodate boats – a travel lift is needed.  He says Ms. Jordan’s comments are appreciated and knows they are intended to improve the neighborhood.

Ms. Belair asks where they could you put this by right.  Atty Atkins indicates the middle of the plans.  Ms. Harris asks why they wouldn’t put it there.  Atty Atkins says where proposed is operationally the best location of the facility, and in their overall judgment, this had the least impact on the neighborhood.  Ms. Belair asks if there is any room to lower the height somewhat; Atty Atkins says they reconsidered and met with the neighborhood, but to get the proper professional function, they need the height.  He says they have been doing the work in the temporary building, but it’s very difficult and doesn’t provide proper access.  Ms. Harris asks if Brewer’s simply does not do work on the site they can’t accommodate in the small space, or if they do it elsewhere; Atty Atkins says in some cases they are not doing that work.  Sometimes the boat owner goes elsewhere.  

Ms. Harris asks how this fits with the harbor plan.  Atty Atkins says they do have to go to the Planning Board if the ZBA acts favorably.  Ms. Harris says a priority of the harbor plan was to get a walkway along the water – did they look at this?  Atty Atkins says no, but this would be a consideration of the Planning Board.  Ms. Harris asks for the total floor area; Atty Atkins says it’s 11,300 SF.

Mr. Metsch says in terms of height, they are within the zoning requirement by 6 feet, so he’s not concerned about that.   He says with this placement they have done quite a bit of due diligence to site it to have the least impact while gaining use they need and containing the activities.  Are there going to be any increased activities not on the site now?  Anything else they hope to increase/additional services?  Atty Atkins says this is not really an expansion of services in the sense of more boats, but an expansion of the services they can do within the building.  

Ms. Harris asks him to talk about containment of odors, etc.  Atty Atkins says there are Federal rules from OSHA they must comply with.  The building must be designed with an exhaust system that has filtering to control odors and other materials.  Workers must use certain equipment, face masks, suits, etc. for painting.  They have to contain and keep the facility clean – these processes require a very clean atmosphere.  Lead paint is no longer used.  Sanding machines now all have dust collectors physically attached.

Ms. Belair is conflicted – on the one hand, she is pro business for Salem; it’s vital to the viability of the city.  On the other hand, the neighbors have concerns; some are losing their views, and she thinks this is a big deal.  She is leaning against voting in favor of it.

Mr. Metsch says if the applicant were to avoid variances altogether, you can see where you would put this – 30 feet off property line – you could put a bigger building and disrupt 6 White St. even more.  There is a substantial tree on the site and the view is not as big an issue as it would be if they were not seeking a variance.  Ms. Belair says view is big deal and this is very close to the property line; how do they do maintenance?  Mr. Metsch says again that looking at the view corridor study – without a variance, they could build it in a place more detrimental to the views than what they are asking for.  He thinks this is the most appropriate placement.  He does think the rear elevation plan is monolithic.  Otherwise, he feels they have addressed shadow, sight, containment of noise, fumes, fiberglass.  He says it sounds like they are a professional group that has been responsive.  He is concerned, however, about the turn out on White to Derby – is there something that can be done?  This doesn’t really impact that issue, however.  

Ms. Harris says her biggest concern is the desire for a walkway along the waterfront for access, and wishes that had been considered in this – she would rather see even a 0 lot line if that meant they would do the walkway.  Connection to the ferry and House of Seven Gables is important.  

Atty Atkins says a cantilevered walkway is being discussed with the city; also, the Planning Board will want them to address this.  They have also thought about trying to get through the parking lot.  Ms. Harris says this would make a huge difference to the city.  

Mr. Tsitsinos says if they moved the building to middle, what choice will neighbors have?  He notes their attention to safety and cleanliness.  He says they are going above and beyond.  He says this will clean up the whole site.  

Ms. Harris says the nature of these buildings is that they are a similar size – all are around this height these days – in order to perform the services they do.  

Mr. Tsitsinos asks if this would keep the boats on the property, and mean less traffic going out.  Mr. Flaherty says possibly.  Mr. Tsitsinos notes it would be beneficial to have most of the work done on site instead of having more boat traffic leaving and returning.

Mr. Metsch asks if there is any opportunity in that 5 feet at the rear parking lot to have screening trees, break it up?  Atty Atkins says they will have to do a landscaping plan for the Planning Board’s site plan review.  They did add windows on that side because of that criticism.  Mr. Metsch says it feels a little like an industrial park.  He also addresses the neighbors’ comments; do they feel the issues have been appropriately discussed?  

Ms. Harris says certain things can’t be resolved – some like the view and others don’t.  the issues of traffic, access, parking, illegal turns – she’s not sure how to address that.  Mr. Dionne says they have a responsible marina owner who has gone out of his way to talk to the neighbors, and the placement is appropriate.  We have a harbor and we need a marina.  They need a facility to work on boats.  Mr. Metsch says that with the opportunity of seeking a variance – rather than cantilever the whole potential walkway – is there an opportunity here to have an agreement to cooperate with on site pathways and connection to harbor plan?  Atty Atkins says they will continue to pursue this with the Planning Board.  Ms. Harris says she is concerned that if they approve this location, the Planning Board will have no room to have them landscape.  Atty Atkins says that in cooperation with the city, they will work this out.  

Mr. Metsch wants to ensure cooperation with the Planning Board; Mr. St. Pierre suggests forwarding comments to the Planning Board from the ZBA.  

Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions and 1 special condition – that the Quonset hut be removed promptly at completion of this project.  Mr. Tsitsinos seconds the motion; the Board votes 4-1 in favor (Metsch, Harris, Tsitsinos and Dionne in favor, Belair opposed).  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

Ms. Harris encourages the Planning Board to consider the public access to the waterfront and the walkway specified in harbor plan; they understand the owner is amenable to trying to bring public access through city owned land to the House of Seven Gables.  She encourages the Planning Board to work with the owner to look at have them provide landscaping on the Brewer owned property and doing some screening on the north side of building.  They should consider a No Left Turn sign to try to prevent illegal left turns to Derby St.  


Ms. McKnight notes that the next ZBA meeting is February 15, not 16, and the Board takes their vote again to continue the request of Pasquanna Developers for 18 Thorndike St. to February 15 (moved by Mr. Metsch, seconded by Mr. Dionne, unanimously approved).

Continuation of 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 10/26/11, and accompanying materials
  • Letter from Jyll Hudson, 33 Franklin St., in support
  • Photographs submitted at the hearing on 1/18/12
Atty Scott Grover is representing the petitioner.  He understands there are only 4 members eligible to vote tonight; he has discussed this with his client, and they want to proceed.  He says some members went to the property today on a site visit.  He shows photos of the one-story house.  He says the proposal is to add one story.  He says the addition is modest and is well below the height allowed by zoning, and the square footage is small.  He says they are asking Board to consider allowing a Sec. 3.3.5 special permit – the finding is that it’s not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood.  He says the neighborhood as a whole should be considered, not just individuals.  She says the property most impacted is the immediate abutter.  He says Ms. Kawczynski’s house is set back far from the road; what that means is that when the addition is constructed, it won’t impair the views the abutter has to the water.  He shows views looking down the street and says if the second story goes up, there will be no impact on the abutter’s view.  What will be affected is the view over the petitioner’s house into other houses that front on Franklin St.  He says the views of the park and water – the beneficial views, are not impacted.  He also asks the Board to consider how this is consistent with other properties in the neighborhood.  He demonstrates with photos how close together many of the houses are.  He says the courts have been clear that obstruction of view wasn’t sufficient to confer standing.  

Ms. Harris opens the issue up for public comment.

Laura Callahan, representing Mr. Pelosi, who owns the abutting house, says her client already has standing.  She says the previous owner subdivided his property – this house was once on its neighbor’s property.  She says the house encroaches on the property line.  She says the views that will be impacted are from bedrooms; those not impacted are closed in porches.  

She says most of the surrounding houses are multi-family homes.  She says the addition will affect two other houses, and it will cast shadows them, blocking light and air flow.  

David Sirois, 24 Foster St., says the owner has done well with the property, renovating it nicely.  He supports the petition.  He says the views are not that much obstructed.  He says the addition will increase revenues to the city.

Ms. Callahan she says a fence was needed on the property because of the petitioner’s dogs.  She also says there is case law to prevent “mansionization.”  She says she is adding another 500 SF to a house that’s about that size.  She says the lot is 1400 SF and there is no other room to build.  She has concern about snow and ice coming on to her property.  She appreciates that she put siding on the house.  

Ms. Harris asks about the snow and repair issues.  Atty Grover says that based on the pitch of the existing roof, the snow will fall where it will – all homes in Salem are built in close proximity – but it won’t change the impact on abutting property.  He also says there is a statute that allows a property owner to follow a certain process for repairs.  The new construction will have to be done from the petitioner’s own property.  

Ms. Callahan discusses the nonconformities of the current house.  She says this used to be a workshop.  She says the open space between the buildings will be closed off.  Atty Grover notes that none of the other nonconformities she discussed are being increased.

Atty Grover reads a letter from Jyll Hudson, 33 Franklin Street, in support of the project.

Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street, says people can’t see the exhibits.  

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

Ms. Harris says she and Mr. Metsch went to the site and walked the street, which was helpful in understanding the views.  She says the photos are accurate representing the view.  Views to the water and park are not obstructed by the house and don’t look like they would be obstructed by the addition.  The view over the other houses would be obstructed.

Mr. Metsch agreed, and as for the idea of mansionization – if it were changing the size to more than what was consistent with the neighborhood, that may apply, but this is much smaller than what’s typical for the neighborhood.  He says that today being able to see the views of the water in a direct line were not obstructed – you couldn’t see the house at all.  The back of the houses from Franklin would be obstructed.   Mr. Dionne says this project makes the house a lot more livable; it’s a small house and needs more space.  Mr. Tsitsinos says he also went to see the property, and he is in favor of the project.  

Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with 8 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Dionne, and approved 4-0 (Mestch, Harris, Dionne and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed, Belair abstaining).  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

Public hearing: Petition of JAMES & KATHERINE KLEIN requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming single-family home on the property located at 43 BAYVIEW AVE (R-1 Zoning District).

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Application date-stamped 11/28/12 and accompanying materials
  • Site plans and elevation drawings titled “Klein Residence, Salem, MA,” by Living Spaces, Inc., dated 1/16/12
  • Letter from Kathie Gauthier, 52 Bay View Ave., dated 1/18/12
Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition.  Ms. Harris notes these plans are slightly different from what the Board has seen.  Atty Grover presents the site plan, showing the existing structure and proposed addition.  He says the only change from submitted plans is the deck is being extended.  He says the only thing they need relief for relates to the garage.  There is an existing garage 3 and 1/3 feet off property line – that doesn’t conform.  They aren’t expanding that, but changing its use from the garage to living structure is enough of a change requiring a special permit to expand an existing nonconforming structure.  He says the standard is that it’s not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood.  He says the house is in significant disrepair.  

Ms. Harris opens up the issue for public comment.

John McKay, 96 Columbus Ave., is the abutter to the garage.  He says the Kleins spoke with him, and he thinks this looks great and will provide him with more privacy in his yard.  He supports the project.

Josephine Carrow, 14 Juniper Ave., supports the project.  

Peter Carrow, 301 Mt. Vernon St. Lawrence, also supports the petition.  

Marian Hosman, 51 Bay View Ave., is directly across the street.  She has no problem with the garage location.  She supports the petition.  

William Cass, 92 Columbus Ave., support the improvements.

Dick Roderick, 7 Sutton Ave., supports the project.

Robert Cook, 42 Bayview Ave, supports the petition.

Councillor Robert McCarthy, 153 Bayview Ave., says it’s nice to see how everyone in the vicinity is in favor.  Is the existing driveway going or staying?  It will be removed.   Councillor McCarthy supports the project.

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

Ms. Belair says the project is straightforward; it’s a nice addition; she supports it.

Mr. Metsch notes that the neighbors have all joined in support and feel it’s improvement.  Ms. Belair notes it will improve property values.

Ms. Belair moves to approve the petition with 8 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 5-0 (Metsch, Belair, Tsitsinos, Dionne and Harris in favor, none opposed).  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

Public hearing: Petition of WING POWER ENERGY, INC. requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.0 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a research and development facility in the Industrial Zoning District, and a Variance from minimum rear yard depth, for the property located at 142 CANAL ST. (I Zoning District).

Documents & Exhibitions:

  • Application date-stamped 11/28/11 and accompanying materials
  • Site plans titled “Wing Power Energy Site Plan Layout,” dated 10/18/11
  • Letter from Paul Marquis, Energy and Sustainability Manager, City of Salem, dated 1/18/12
  • Photographs
Atty Scott Grover presents the petition.  Harry Ruda, CEO of the company, is also present.  Atty Grover says the property runs from the Olive Oil building to the Dollar Store; all owned by Anthony Gattineiri.  He says they are there to correct a zoning violation.  The business is Research & Development, testing prototypes for wind energy facilities.  There are 1500 SF of R&D space, and a monopole at back of building.  It looks like a small flagpole.  He passes out photos of the property.  He says they moved in understanding it was as of right, but the building inspector noted that R&D is allowed by Special Permit in the I zone.  Also, the monopole is constructed within 18 feet of rear lot line and the setback in I is 30 feet from rear lot line.  He says the reason for the location of the monopole is that if moved forward to comply with setback, it would be in the middle of the parking area – and parking is a significant issue on the site.  He says it would interfere with the use of a number of the parking spaces.  

Ms. Harris opens up the public comment portion of the hearing.

Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar St., member of South Salem Neighborhood Association, is concerned about the height of the pole.  There is a plan for the bike path at the rear of the property, and she wants to make sure parking isn’t impacted.  She is concerned about the fall line for the monopole.

Harry Ruda, 6 Cardinal Lane, Andover, CEO of Wing Power Energy, says this is a startup company.  He builds micro wind turbines 30 feet high intended for urban installations.  This is to be their headquarters.  They have one engineer.  They aren’t putting in a turbine to generate electricity.  They test out the components and other aspects of their products on the site.  He says his product produces electricity with a low amount of wind.  This is just for testing, not connected to a grid.  He says they look to Salem to be an HQ and showcase for these products.  The pole is 28 feet high.  The train passes right behind it.  If we were to move it to a 30 foot setback, it would be in the middle of the parking lot and affect the use.  

Ms. Belair asks if they will be adding other test equipment to the pole. Mr. Ruda says there are multiple components, but the tower itself not likely to change.  It will be a vertical turbine.  Blades are sometimes attached, and new designs are added.  There will be no ground equipment.

Ms. McKnight reads a letter from Paul Marquis, Energy and Sustainability Manager for the City of Salem in support of the project, into the record.

Ms. Wilbert asks how far from the bike path and parking this will be; if there were a failure, what’s the distance that would be impacted?  Ms. Harris says the bike path goes along the right of way, and is not on this property.  Mr. St. Pierre says this is correct.  He says the owner could better explain, but he’s received o complaints – these are more like paddles circulating a pole – it’s been up 6 months.  The proposed bike path is about 50 feet from this, by the lumber yard.  

Ms. Harris asks if something falls off, how far does it go?  Mr. Ruda says these are built so nothing falls off - other installations they have are in the middle of urban retail and industrial districts.  They are putting these at Home Depots, etc., with traffic and many consumers; their engineers certify the stability and operation of products.  He says even with different prototypes, stability is not an issue.  

Andrew Fett, 0 Felt St. Way, asks about the radius; Mr. Ruda says 10 feet diameter.  He asks what the is max RPM is.  Mr. Ruda says there is a breaking mechanism on it, so if wind gets above a certain level, such as hurricane winds, etc., it wouldn’t exceed a certain wind speed.  

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

Ms. Belair says she work in the tower business – while not an engineer, she is familiar with towers of this type, and they usually do not fail.  There is usually a break point; they generally don’t break at the base, but somewhere in the mid range.  Especially the newer models do that.  She suggests conditioning the height so it can’t be taller than it is now without further relief.  She asks for the exact height; Mr. Ruda says from base to top of blade it is 34-35 feet.  Ms. Belair asks Mr. Ruda to confirm it isn’t higher than 35 feet; he does.  

Mr. Metsch says he is encouraged by the activity, and it’s great they’ve chosen Salem.  He agrees with Mr. St. Pierre that the path will be closer to the train than the back of property.  Also these types of towers are in parks and urban areas, and he doesn’t think the impact is abnormal.  

Mr. Dionne moves to approve with 6 standard conditions and special condition that the height is not to exceed 35 with all appurtenances.

Ms. Belair notes that the hardship is there would be an elimination of parking spaces if no relief was requested, and this would affect the shops there.  This is the best location, with minimal impact to neighbors and businesses in terms of where it’s located.
 
Mr. Metsch seconds the motion, which passes 5-0 (Metsch, Belair, Tsitsinos, Harris and Dionne in favor, none opposed).  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

Public hearing: Petition of MICHAEL MUNROE requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming single-family home on the property located at 8 BEACHMONT RD (R-1 Zoning District).

Document & Exhibitions:

  • Application date-stamped 12/20/11 and accompanying materials
  • Petition form signed by neighbors, submitted at meeting, in support of petition
  • Elevation drawings dated 1/9/12
  • Plot Plan of Land, 8 Beachmont Rd., dated 11/23/11
Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition on behalf of Michael Monroe, who is also present.  He submits elevations with dimensions.  He also notes that the plot plan didn’t have the surveyor’s signature, so he submits this too.  He shows a photograph of the house, and says the owner is proposing to put in a second story and a deck.  It’s an existing nonconforming structure.  He says the footprint isn’t changing.  The deck will change the lot coverage, however.  The front has a small covered landing which is being expanded into something more finished on the second floor.  

Ms. Harris asks if this can all be done by special permit; Atty Grover says – yes, because there are existing nonconformities; this request is under Sec. 3.3.5.  Ms. Harris notes the size of the deck.  Atty Grover says this is off the back of the property.  He says it won’t get any closer to the left side setback.  

Ms. Harris opens up the issue for public comment.

Melissa Barnes, 51 Dearborn St., says they have done a wonderful job with the property.  She says it’s a tiny house.  How deep is porch going?  12 feet.  She says there’s lots of land between them and neighbors.  

Lee Baines, 23 Felt St., concurs.  He supports the petition.

Emily Barnes, 51 Dearborn St., supports the petition.

Atty Grover submits a petition into the record with abutters’ signatures in support of the project.  

Kevin Cornacchio, 6 Beachmont Rd., supports the petition and says the owner has done an outstanding job cleaning up the property.  

Ms. Harris closes the public portion of the hearing.  

Ms. Harris says she looked at the property, and feels it would be a nice improvement.  She says it’s consistent with what is in the neighborhood, and not a detriment.

Ms. Belair moves to approve with 8 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 5-0 (Metsch, Belair, Tsitsinos, Dionne and Harris in favor, none opposed).  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

Public hearing: Petition of THE SIGN CENTER (on behalf of SALEM SEAPORT CREDIT UNION) requesting a Variance in order to add signage that exceeds the square footage allowed by Sec. 4-50 of the City of Salem Code of Ordinances and Sec. 8.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance on the property located at 336 LAFAYETTE ST (R-2).

Documents & Exhibitions:

  • Application date-stamped 1/24/12 and accompanying materials
  • Plot plan dated 2/28/86
  • Photo and renderings prepared by the Sign Center, dated 3/24/11, for Salem Seaport Credit Union
Jay Kahn, 40 Orchard St., Haverhill, from The Sign Center, presents the petition.  He says the current signage is nonconforming; they want are expanding it and adding a building sign.  The property is in the R2 zone, nonconforming, and is now the Salem Seaport Credit Union.  Earlier this year, they improved their branding.  The request is to add pole covers to bottom of structure – wrapping bottom piece of sign.  Because of square footage of the property, they need a variance.  He says they are only allowed 2 SF on a building.  The proposed sign is 13 SF.  This is in an entrance corridor.   The property has over 300 linear feet of frontage; building is 90 feet.  They would be allowed 2 signs and 90 square feet if not in R2.  They are adding 10 feet by 2 feet to the bottom with a reveal.  He says the signs are not perpendicular to the road and won’t block views.  

He addresses the hardship, which is that a commercial business has been there over 50 years as bank – it’s not contrary to the spirit of ordinance; they are just asking to architecturally change the pole cover, and add sign at rear.  

Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar St. says the sign is sleek and elegant as it is today.  Adding the base makes it heavier and more intrusive.  She notes this is a residential neighborhood.  She is not so concerned with this bank, but she has a problem with businesses across the street who are changing their signage.  She says it’s nice to have a sign appropriate to residential neighborhood.  She says it’s not appropriate for the corner and it would encourage others to increase their signs.

John Boris, 5 Bedford St., is in favor of the petition.  He says the renovations to the bank have been significant.  

Patricia Warren, 121 Water St., Beverly, President and CEO of the credit union, supports it, saying she is very proud of the renovations and signage – all part of branding – they chose to brand as Salem Seaport Credit Union, not just Seaport Credit Union.  

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

Ms. Belair asks Mr. St. Pierre if the businesses across street are also R2; he doesn’t know, but says if they are, they would be subject to the same regulations.  

Mr. Dionne says this is not detrimental; the sign is very attractive.

Mr. Metsch says this seems like too much compared to what is there today.  

Mr. Kahn says it’s in accordance with the delivery of the brand – and it’s architecturally more attractive to do monument versus post.  

Mr. Metsch says he has no problem with the sign in back.

Ms. Belair thought it was attractive before.  She doesn’t have a huge problem with the blue, but thinks it looks better without it.  

Mr. Metsch asks if there is a way to not have such a billboard-esque impact.  Ms. Harris says she thinks it’s a little large, too.  
The applicant confirms they are asking to add 26 x 120 (the blue portion).  

Ms. Harris asks about the reason for the change; Mr. Kahn says it’s part of the branding.  

Mr. Metsch asks if they are amenable to reducing the blue area.  Ms. Harris says it bothers her – it’s a large sign.

Mr. Kahn thinks that would look silly – you would still see the poles.  Mr. Dionne and Ms. Harris say the poles don’t bother them.  

Ms. Belair is concerned about setting a precedent for businesses across the street.  

Mr. Metsch appreciates idea of branding with adding the blue.  

Mr. Kahn – says if it weren’t entry corridor it would be allowed by right.

Mr. Metsch points out that it is where it is, which is why we are here.  He asks if there can be any movement on the design; Ms. Warren says no.

Mr. Tsitsinos moves to approve the petition with 5 standard conditions, and no more lettering than what is shown, seconded by Mr. Dionne.  Board members then clarify with the applicant that if they are denied, they will not be able to return to the Board with the same project for two years.  The applicant says they would prefer to continue to the next meeting.  Mr. Metsch moves to continue the hearing to February 15, 2012, seconded by Ms. Belair and approved 5-0.

Public hearing: Petition of ICECAT, LLC requesting Variances from minimum frontage/lot width in order to allow the subdivision of the property located at 18 FELT ST (R-1) into three lots, one of which would lack the requisite frontage/lot width.   

Documents & Exhibitions:

  • Application date-stamped 12/27/11 and accompanying materials
  • Site Plan dated 12/15/11
  • Letter from David J. Collins, 75 Orchard Street, dated 1/16/12
  • Letter from Jean Harrison, 1 Orne Square, dated 1/17/12
Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition.  He says the property is between Larch and Felt St., is over 1 acre, and is now dilapidated.  He says a neighborhood meeting was organized to present the plans for redevelopment.  The plans submitted were for a 3 lot subdivision of the property and demolition of house.  He says all lots conform to the lot size requirement of the zoning.  The only relief was from frontage and lot width requirement – one of the new lots would have only 85 feet.  After filing this, there was a very strong expression of support for keeping the house.  The owner has come up with a plan that calls for the house to be retained and preserved.  He says it is very similar to the plan that was submitted.  The lot line has been moved to accommodate the house and provide the required setback.  

He addresses the hardship, saying that granting the variance allows in the creation of 3 lots is the preservation of the house, financially.  Without that variance, a 2 lot subdivision done by right, would result in the inevitable demolition of the property.  

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

George O’Brien, 5 Locust St. in Salem, likes this but wants a condition.  He says the Ropes mansion is big and he wants to make sure it’s kept as a single-family house.  Otherwise he supports the project.

Mr. Grover notes that this is in the R1 zoning district, so there is no possibility of it being used otherwise.  No use variances are possible in Salem, but no he has no problem with that condition.

Anne Sterling, 29 Orchard St., says the trees should be retained – the beech and magnolia.  

Atty Grover says they have no problem with that condition.  The reason they showed the trees on the plan was to show the new structures could be located without disturbing the trees.  They would just like to reserve the ability to trim the trees appropriately.

Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St, is in favor of the two conditions that were proposed.  He says the copper beech should be given attention.

Pam Lombardini, 3 Larch Ave. and Richard Boyksberg, 4 Larch Ave., are also in favor of the plan shown.  Ms. Lombardini says she is happy that this land will get the attention it needs.  It’s beautiful, but hasn’t had electricity or heat; the deterioration is very sad.

John Carr, 7 River St., says it was very beautiful once but has deteriorated.  He says it would be nice if the barn could be saved, but if not, he would like to state his enthusiastic support with the two conditions.

Marie Meegan, 65 Dearborn St., says the abutting neighbors met this week and agree they are very happy and appreciative that the property has been bought and the house saved.  They want a continuance, however, so they can see what else will be happening on the property.  She requests sketches of the other houses.  She says the immediate abutters object to the variance.  

Ms. Belair asks what type of info they want.

Ms. Meegan asks what kinds of houses are to be built, saying they don’t want bad houses put next to antique houses.  

Atty Grover says the developer doesn’t know this yet – he doesn’t think they will be able to get that information 30 days from now.  He will be selling the lots or building houses – it could be either way.  

Ms. Meegan says she needs to know how they will be sold – as lots, as houses, etc.  

Jack Kinney, 36 Felt St., says the owner could sell those lots and they wouldn’t be under any restriction.  They want to know what will happen with those pieces.  

Melissa Barnes, 51 Dearborn St., asks if the developer is planning to restore the house himself?  What does he mean by “save” the house?

Atty Grover says their preference would be a buyer who has a passion for preservation, and they would sell it.  The condition they’re proposing is that the house be preserved.  If they didn’t find a buyer who would do it, the developer would have to undertake the restoration himself.  

Ms. Barnes asks if there would be time restraints; Atty Grover is not aware of the timeframe.  She asks what would happen if it were allowed to fall into disrepair.

Mr. St. Pierre says we have a responsible owner subject to building code – it can be ordered by the city to be kept secure.  Letting it deteriorate to point of destruction isn’t on the table.  Previously the owner could not be worked with and resisted help.  

Andrew Fett, 0 Felt St. Way says there is approximately 200 feet of frontage – he has a direct view of the property.  He also supports continuing the hearing to get more info about the other structures.  He is pleased that the house should be restored.  However, there are a lot of unknowns about the other structures.  

Vicky Sirianni, 6 Botts Ct., representing Historic Salem, Inc., speaks in support the the project.

Jon Ofilos, 2 Locust Street, supports the petition.  

Jessica Herbert, 7 Webb St., Chair of the Salem Historical Commission, says this application would have been up for a waiver of demo delay.  She says they have come a long way and the developer has listened to their concerns.  The carriage house is also historic; we have developed plans so it could be moved into the lot with the house, which may also come before you.  We would like to see that.  She says they are very much in favor of what the developer is proposing.  She says the house was also nominated as a WGBH This Old House project for 2012.  

Ms. Harris asks if the carriage house is also subject to demolition delay; Ms. Herbert says yes, as is the garage, but they are not as concerned about those buildings.

Atty Grover says the owner has no problem with carriage house staying as an accessory.

Brian Balfum, 30 Dearborn St., says from where this started, which was tearing down, this as come very far.  The concern of the abutters is next step – what will go there.  He says this is a positive move.  

Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., says the historians deserve a lot of credit for working with this.  Could we condition that the conditions – retention of home and trees - will be done quickly?  He wants to know if the rehab could be done in accordance with the standards of the U.S. Dept. of the Interior standards for rehab.  

Ms. Harris asks if they can meet the standards; Atty Grover says he is not familiar with the standards and can’t agree to them without knowing what they are.  Ms. Harris reviews that they are interested in conditioning preserving the house, preserving the trees, and keeping it as a single family.

John Carr suggests continuing, since it is essential to have more info on the standards of rehab and the other design issues raised.

George O’Brien notes they are talking about putting in 2500 SF houses – these would look good, and the lots won’t be cheap.  They wouldn’t put up a house not fitting with neighborhood.  

Atty Grover says the houses that will go there depend on the market, etc.  Ms. Harris says they could have covenants on the property for placement, design, height, etc.

Andrew Fett, 0 Felt St., says that once people have the land, they can do what they want with it, so there should be covenants.

Lee Baines, 23 Felt St., thinks the house should be preserved but only one other house built.

Emily Barnes, 51 Dearborn St., agrees, saying this is what should be done for consistency.

Ms. Harris notes they could do an ANR plan as of right for 2 lots.  Atty Grover says that’s the likely choice without the variances.  

Ms. Harris closes the public comment portion of hearing.

Mr. Metsch asks about the footprint for lot 2 – can that be conditioned because it’s been drawn to avoid the dripline?  Atty Grover says that’s why it was drawn, to show you could still save the trees.  Mr. Metsch asks if the developer is stuck with that footprint; Atty Grover says they could create conditions for the building envelopes.  Design review he is less comfortable with.  

Ms. Harris notes the Board could require covenants, and she thinks they should continue the item.  

Mr. Metsch says the Board needs more information about the Ropes house preservation.  In terms of the other two lots, he’s not asking for other design requirements.  Ms. Belair says the Board needs more information about the houses to be built.  Atty Grover says he does not want to mislead anyone that design information can be forthcoming.  The owner is not at a point in his business plan where he can do it.  

Ms. Harris says he could also sell the land with covenants on it.  She is not enthusiastic about 3 lots even if this means taking the Ropes house down.  An ANR with 2 lots might make sense.  The way the lots are, you still may diminish the house.

Ms. Belair says she is really in favor, the 3 lots are probably necessary; the builder has gone out of his way to accommodate concerns to maintain the house and trees, he’s made big concessions, and the Board needs to work with him.  She says most people are happy with the proposal.  

Mr. Metsch says he would be in favor of 3 lots.

Ms. Belair suggests not requiring covenants, but at least some limits.  

Atty Grover says the footprint size is feasible, but he is reluctant to say anyone will see what the houses look like.

Mr. Tsitsinos moves to continue the hearing to February 15, 2012, seconded by Mr. Metsch and unanimously approved.

Public hearing: Petition of TERI KALGREN requesting a Home Occupation Special Permit (Sec. 3.2.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance) and a Variance from off-street parking regulations (Sec. 5.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance) to allow an herb shop in the first floor of the building at 3 HAWTHORNE BLVD (R-2).   

Documents & Exhibitions:

  • Application date-stamped 12/28/12 and accompanying materials
  • Mortgage Plan, no date
  • Plan of interior and wheelchair ramp, no date
  • Europa Antiques Façade Improvement plan, dated January 31, 2008
  • Letter from Kathie Driscoll-Gauthier, 52 Bayview Ave., dated 1/18/12
  • Donald Fyfe MacFadyen, 1 Hawthorne Blvd., dated 1/18/12
Attorney James Burke presents petition.  He says Ms. Kalgren is looking to purchase the property.  They are looking to get a Special Permit to upgrade her home and business and a Variance from off street parking.  They have two spaces; they had one more, but on the left hand side, they need to reinstall a handicapped ramp that was taken down.  This means losing the third space.  Previously, the Board granted a 5 year Special Permit for a home occupation in 2005.  The property did not continue as home occupation use.  Currently, Ms. Kalgren’s store, Artemisian Botanicals, is on Wharf St.  He describes the new property’s surroundings.  He says the area doesn’t get as much use as the main road and so does not need as much parking.  He does not feel request would be a detriment to the public good.  The property was already in use as a retail use, with some variation.  Other businesses are very nearby.  He introduces Ms. Kalgren, who says she is looking to move her business.  She says the building has been a commercial property for over 100 years and except for 2 years in the 1960’s, it has always had a business there.  She says she is a longtime Salem resident and wants the business to continue after she is gone.  She says the wheelchair access is important.  

Mr. Metsch asks for clarification, referring to the antique shop 2008 plan submittal – will it be changed?  Atty Burke says they are just installing the ramp; it would be as shown, as required by the Board.

Michael Stricker, 107 Essex St., owns Essex Cleaners, and supports the petition.  He says the building has almost always had a business.  There are other businesses around and a short term parking zone, which will help.  

Ms. McKnight reads a letter into the record from Donald Fyfe MacFadyen, 1 Hawthorne Blvd., in support of the petition, and one from Kathie Driscoll-Gauthier, 52 Bay View Ave., also in support.

Marie Cardillo, 105 Essex St., supports the petition, saying it’s a nice addition to the retail environment.

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

Ms. Belair asks if the units will be condos.  Ms. Kalgren says right now tenants have a lease until August; we didn’t know about the home occupation requirement until we started pursuing the building.  She says she will sell her house if it’s required for the home occupation SP.  She says there is one unit above shop.  Renting this would help her pay for the building.  If they’re not allowed to do that, she’ll put an apartment in the first floor for daughter.  

Ms. Harris asks about the parking; Atty Burke says there will be two spaces.  With the ramp, the two other spaces are not available.  Ms. Harris asks if it’s a legal use to have housing upstairs; Mr. St. Pierre says the building has historically had this.  

Mr. Metsch asks if there is a kitchen in the current retail space; Ms. Kalgren says no, it’s an apartment.  

Mr. Metsch asks if they need to grant anything for the use; Mr. St. Pierre says only the home occupation SP.  Technically it doesn’t fit the criteria, but this is how the building was used until 5 years ago, and it’s the only means to keep a retail use there.  The precedent was set by the previous owner, who got a home occupation SP from a previous board action, which he should not have let expire.  The building had long history, but not enough to grandfather it.

Sean Brady, who currently owns the property, says it’s zoned “mixed use.”  Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that it’s assessed as mixed use, not zoned.  The assessor must assess what is there – 2 residential and 1 commercial unit - but his job is to determine what is legally allowed by zoning.

Mr. Mestch says he is in favor if this is what the applicant is asking, of a single business on the first floor, a single residence second floor with the variance on parking.  He notes that someone has to maintain residence there after the lease is up.  As to the design submitted – they are considering the one showing the wheelchair ramp.  

Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions, approving the A-5 and A-4 construction plans submitted, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Metsch, Tsitsinos, Harris, Dionne and Belair in favor, none opposed).  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

Mr. Metsch moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Dionne and unanimously approved.  

The meeting adjourns at 11:09 pm.

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 Board of Appeals 1/18/12