City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, February 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), Annie Harris, Jamie Metsch, Richard Dionne, Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate) and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner.
Ms. Curran opens the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Metsch moves to approve the 1/18/12 minutes with edits, seconded by Ms. Belair and approved 5-0 (Ms. Curran abstaining).
Continuation of 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
- Photographs presented of Dearborn Street infill lots
- “Historic Restoration Proposal,” dated 2/11/12
Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. He reviews conditions previously agreed to, including the preservation of the existing Ropes house on the property, and preservation of four trees, both of which they are willing to accept as conditions. He says there were also concerns about the nature of the preservation of the house, and about the proposed houses on the other lots. He says they have come up with a set of preservation guidelines, or standards, which he worked on with Jessica Herbert, chair of the Historical Commission, as well as David Hart and John Carr. He passes out the document, saying there should also be a condition relating to galvanized copper gutters and downspouts. He says his client is willing to agree to all these conditions. He notes the last condition – the owner agrees
to have the Historical Commission oversee and ensure the conditions are adhered to.
Another concern was what kind of houses would be placed on the lots. He shows renderings, saying they are very conceptual ideas the owner has for what would go on the lots. The first is the house on the Larch St. lot; that lot is now subject to an agreement with a buyer, who has worked with Pitman & Wardley, who designed these renderings. The second rendering next to the existing house would be on the other lot. It shows Victorian elements.
Attorney Grover says what creates the hardship to support the variance is the preservation of the house. It’s a unique structure, and a property everyone agrees merits preservation; to provide the capital needed to preserve it, the owner is asking for a small variance from the frontage. He says this is not inconsistent with the neighborhood. All the lots exceed the 15,000 SF requirement for lot area. Most of the lots do not meet that requirement.
Ms. Curran: Is the owner doing renovation? Attorney Grover – that’s the plan right now. There have been proposals to sell the property, but that is indefinite.
Ms. Curran: runs through worst case scenario: the owner sells to someone bound to these conditions. During restoration, they find conditions are bad and they have to demolish the house. Once a third party owns it, the properties are no longer linked. Other than being in our decision, is it a deed restriction that’s needed? Atty Grover says the variance that makes this a buildable lot is conditioned upon preservation of the house. Without that, he does not have a buildable lot without coming back to the board. Ms. Harris doesn’t understand how that works; Attorney Grover says he could sell the two lots and then have the first lot subject to the preservation. Ms. Harris – then they’ll come to us and ask for relief. Ms. Curran – I think it’s great the house
is being restored, the slight variance is worth the tradeoff. I fear if it goes into separate ownership, if the new owner is more deteriorated than believed, I want to make sure this protects us, either rebuilding it back to that exact standard…
Attorney Grover - once variance is recorded, it’s as effective as a deed restriction; any buyer is subject to it.
Ms. Curran asks if the barn is being saved. Under present proposal it’s not, but there are some discussions ongoing with a potential purchaser that would preserve it. Ms. Harris says this sounds remote and wants to make sure a new owner would abide by the variance. Attorney Grover says this is like any other variance – a new owner would have to abide by it. She notes how expensive renovation will be. Atty Grover says the owner has done due diligence and believes it can be restored.
Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., shows his property on the plan. He says a potential buyer who would rehab the house is out of the country right now and could not be here. He says he has an agreement with the potential owner who is looking for the property. He would like to acquire a certain portion of the lot. He says if a new house would go on the adjacent lot as proposed, the setting is compromised. He says the prospective buyer would keep the tree on his property. Mr. Treadwell’s side yard would be expanded. This buyer would move the barn and use it in conjunction with the house. He would like the Board to continue the matter because the prospective buyer is not here. He would also like more time to think about plans for the new homes. He suggests a site visit. He
notes the Board is considering the frontage and says there is a reason for the 100 foot requirement. He shows images from Dearborn St. of examples of house lots that were sold off with smaller frontage; he says this shows the justification for the minimum frontage.
Mr. Treadwell says the hardship is not in accordance with the petition submitted, but is now associated with preservation of the house. He asks the Board to consider the amount of money the developer stands to gain from the development, arguing against the logic of the hardship. He again requests that the Board continue this.
Jessica Herbert, 70 Webb St., Historical Commission, says they’ve been very impressed with the owner’s ability and willingness to accommodate their requests – this is unusual and she wants this noted. One of the things the preservation community was initially looking for was to save the carriage house – that’s not part of this, but I spoke to Mr. Wattendorf today and he might be able to.
John Carr, 7 River St – supports what Mr. Treadwell has said. He says the buyer of the Ropes property is unavailable. He says the buyers are, together, offering the equivalent of what was paid for the property, and this plays into the hardship argument. He says the frontage of 185 feet would be protected if the prospective buyers are able to go through with their sale. The buyer wants to restore the house. He notes the developer stands to make a large profit with these sales. He says no one has had time to review the plans for the houses. He requests the Board continue the matter so the buyers can finalize their negotiations.
Lee Baines, 23 Felt St., supports what has already been said; he would like to see maintaining the continuity of the property, if it means delaying until the next meeting.
Brian Dawson, 30 Dearborn St., supports what Mr. Treadwell and Mr. Carr have said. He doesn’t want a decision made now when we are so close to a solution.
Ms. Belair asks what Attorney Grover has to say about a continuance. He says his client has asked him to seek a vote this evening; if they don’t have enough information to make a vote and need to continue, they will respect that decision. He doesn’t think it’s appropriate for the ZBA to get into negotiations between buyers and sellers - It’s true there is an offer, but it’s contingent upon the buyer selling his house. It might not be close. Approval of the three lots here does not preclude this deal from happening at all. He says his client isn’t interested in waiting for someone to sell their house in order to proceed. He says they have responded to the neighborhood concerns expressed at meetings; these are just pictures and there isn’t much more to digest
about them. Ms. Belair asks what the frontage on Treadwell property is; 88.23 feet. He says the photos shown are deceptive, not intentionally, but these are very small infill lots that have nowhere near the frontage these lots would have. Ms. Harris notes that it shows the closeness of the houses. Attorney Grover says the location of that house is to protect the tree.
Ms. Belair – in terms of the financial, that is not entering into how I’m thinking regarding hardship; not even considering that, I think there is a hardship besides that. What is not before the Board is the dealings going on. Preservation of the house and trees, extensive agreements in terms of keeping the house and repairing it are great. Come so far form last time, I’m really pleased by what’s been presented, including designs. I hear the neighbors, but a lot of concerns have been satisfied. Now it’s in negotiation phase, not something we should be caught up in. We are asked to look at variance from lot width and frontage; it’s a minimal request in terms of the dimensional amounts. Supports project as presented; hope everyone can work it out. Doesn’t have a strong leaning either way – vote or continue.
Ms. Harris says the developer has agreed to not take trees and house down but not to actively preserve, possibly because he wants freedom to sell. She is equally concerned about trees and house. It’s hard to try to show location of a new building – it will be very hard, once construction begins, to keep those trees. This owner isn’t taking responsibility for that. She still has problems, and says the designs are not guaranteed either.
Ms. Curran has a similar concern, but there is language they can add to alleviate this. Regarding the trees – she suggests giving a huge incentive to people to preserve; if the trees are not preserved, if damaged during construction, they must replace them with equal the caliper, meaning a huge planting and expense, so they really take the time to preserve that tree. She can come up with language for that. She is also concerned about a third party ownership; if the house isn’t able to be preserved in accordance with a Board decision, this is not a buildable lot. That may be redundant, but I want it clear. The preservation of the house is the reason for granting the variance, that’s what they’re giving back to the city. If someone purchases the whole lot, wonderful, but then we
don’t have the protection; just because someone has good intentions, it doesn’t mean they will preserve the house. Any future buyer should be bound by it. I just want more assurance that if it’s a third party, this preservation still would happen. Attorney Grover – that is certainly the intention.
Mr. Metsch – Preservation of the house is being written into these extremely generous guidelines, no different from any other future buyer purchasing a historic home. The variance requested is very minimal; my feeling is 15 feet using Dearborn as an example, those lots are very tiny compared to these properties. It’s well within the size needed for a three lot subdivision. With the addition of this language, if someone buys these lots, we’d still be preserving the Ropes house, which doesn’t even have to be done right now. He also supports the proposal as it is. We just need to figure out the right language.
Mr. Dionne has no problem continuing to let them work out the details – it’s an important piece of property.
Mr. Tsitsinos says he is not interested in who’s buying it – Scott came back with what we asked for. Not our concern who is buying, what it’s worth, etc.
Mr. Metsch – if these guidelines were accepted in a variance, any potential buyer would be bound. Ms. Belair – the variance runs with the land. Mr. Metsch – as to design of vacant lots – there are so many styles in that neighborhood, he has no issue with what’s shown.
Ms. Curran – the vote doesn’t necessarily preclude what they want to do.
Attorney Grover – what’s shown on the plan is not designed to be a precise building envelope, more to show setbacks. Not 100% committed but will comply with the zoning. If 3 lots don’t get approved, unless someone buys all of it, the only alternative is to take the house down; you don’t accomplish the objective of preserving house.
Ms. Belair – what will we find out in 30 days other than the neighbors coming to a financial agreement? This is over a financial negotiation.
Mr. Treadwell – the reasons to delay are not only the neighbors’ interest but so the board can see floor plans; Ms. Curran – we don’t consider interior if single and two-family houses. Mr. Treadwell – buyer would rehab for family.
Ms. Curran – how the board granting this would preclude him from buying the lot? Mr. Treadwell – it doesn’t. He just isn’t here to talk to the board. Retained single family home? Ms. Curran – it’s R1. Mr. Treadwell - The petition talks about a hardship that’s different from the argument made tonight. Quotes from hardship requirements; would be detrimental if variance were granted
John Carr – 7 River St. – the prospective buyer would also move and preserve the barn. Asks for continuance so this particular buyer can be considered. He says this would obviate him probably filing an appeal just to preserve – if anything, that makes the developer more…the control is better from the appeal…all we are asking for is another 30 days to appeal. It makes more sense if this is a done deal. Otherwise, if you file an appeal, people get offended…
Ms. Curran – if this board granted the variance how does this prevent the purchase by this person?
Mr. Carr – we’ve had 20 days to do all this, and what would have to happen is an appeal would have to be filed to preserve options. I’ve done it before.
Ms. Belair notes that now the Board is being threatened with an appeal if they don’t continue. Mr. St. Pierre says that was most definitely a threat. Ms. Belair says he has said repeatedly that he will appeal if the Board doesn’t continue this. Mr. Carr says it makes that obviated and no one wants to go there.
Mr. Metsch – if there is an agreement to take this whole project off the table, all these historic preservation guidelines are off the table.
Jon Ofilos, 2 Locust St., although some neighbors have a problem, I am an abutter and many others are in favor of this plan, the houses shown – I also represent the potential purchaser of lot 1. Negative effect of 30 day extension – there is no ps signed, all offers contingent on 3 lot approval variance. A continuance delays that whole process. Not all neighbors want continuance. Lot has been derelict for years.
George O’Brien, 5 Locust st., wants a 30 day continuance. He supports the preservation of the house.
Marie Meegan, 65 Dearborn st., tearing the house down is a possibility is also a threat made by the developer. Threatening an appeal is the same. Why does lot 1 have to be included in this? Ms. Curran explains that right now it’s all one lot.
Attorney Grover - some confusion – whether house will be restored; there’s no question about that condition, if the variance is granted.
David Sirois, 24 Felt St., if the variance is approved, what is the timeline for the preservation? When will it begin? TJS – variance is good for one year. Wants it continued also for another month.
Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Ms. Curran – if this is approved, I don’t see the difference between now or next month. The reason to extend is for someone to buy the house; our action doesn’t change that. Do you want a vote tonight, or do you want to continue?
Attorney Grover – if the board feels more time is needed, that’s fine. Ms. Curran – condition on landscaping, match the caliper in replacement trees. There should be a big financial incentive to preserve the trees. An arborist should be involved in preservation plan for tree during construction so damage isn’t caused. She thinks waiting leaves the house more vulnerable. Ms. Belair agrees. Would be ready to vote tonight. Continuance has to do with working out purchase. Either way we vote shouldn’t affect that. Like your idea about the trees.
Ms. Harris wants to continue. Mr. Dionne moves to continue. Mr. Metsch – says if we continue could allow current owner to proceed in a simple subdivision? Attorney Grover – all tied together in the economics of the project. What he sells off depends on what happens on the back lot. Preservation is contingent on a 3 lot subdivision. Ms. Curran notes that an ANR has no conditions. They could continue for language on trees, and if a third party were bound by this the house would be preserved. Attorney Grover – these conditions are agreeable.
Ms. Harris mentions conditioning the design. Ms. Curran – that is overreaching this board – we are just concerned with conformance with zoning. Mr. Metsch – to be in keeping with the neighborhood, the neighboring houses are nothing close to the style of the Ropes house. Ms. Curran says she is uncomfortable with designing.
Attorney Grover – that would be hard to enforce; subject to interpretation; consistency with neighborhood, but it’s a diverse neighborhood. Mr. St. Pierre suggests asking the city solicitor.
Motion to continue, Ms. Belair opposed, Ms. Harris in favor, Ms. Curran in favor, Mr. Metsch opposed, Mr. Dionne in favor. The motion fails.
Mr. Metsch makes a motion to rescind, Ms. Curran seconds; all are in favor.
Mr. Metsch move to continue to March 21, Mr. Dionne second, 4-1 in favor (Ms. Belair opposed ) to continue.
Mr. Metsch moves, Ms. Harris seconds, to extend final action to April 18, approved (all but Mr. Metsch)
Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. requesting Variances from minimum lot area, lot area per dwelling unit, frontage, lot width, front yard setback and rear yard setback, in order to subdivide the property located at 18 THORNDIKE STREET (R-2) into five (5) single-family house lots.
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped 9/22/11 and accompanying materials
- Letter submitted by Joe Bennett, 15 Hubon St., dated 10/19/11
- Preliminary Subdivision Layout Geometry for 5 Residential Lots for a site at Thorndike & Hubon Streets, Salem, Mass., dated 7/1/11, revised 1/31/12
- Aerial photo renderings
Patrick Deiulis presents his petition. He was here last in October. He says a revision has been submitted. He reviews the original plan. The property owners on Hubon St. had concerns about the proximity of 3, 4 and 5 to their properties. He reviews the relief needed. Following conversations with the neighbors, the homes and driveways on lots 4 and 5 have been moved away from the Hubon St. properties. He says they originally had 6 houses proposed. They discovered contamination on the property, they completed the cleanup to the standard needed for residential use, at significant expense.
Ms. Belair notes he’s asking for a lot of dimensional relief. She asks him to speak to the terms of hardship for asking for the variances. He refers to the statement in his application. He says it was historically used for commercial purposes and fill was brought in to raise the site up. When using as a contractor’s yard, a lot of debris was brought in, all of which had to be removed. The lack of frontage, large, oddly configured lot with access from two driveways. We could only build one house based on frontage, but there is 36,000 SF lot. The characteristics of this lot are different from rest of neighborhood. Most lots in neighborhood are much smaller.
Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment.
Joe Bennet, 15 Hubon st., opposes, doesn’t like lot 3. He thanks Mr. DeIulis for moving away this house from his property. Main concern is that Hubon is very narrow and there has been difficulty with fire truck access. If anyone parks on the street, where there is not currently a sidewalk, access will be worse. He’d like to see 4 houses instead. He says their lots are very small, and this shouldn’t allow him to use that as an argument for his hardship. Refers to his letter from a few months ago with other concerns.
Ms. Belair – if fire truck already can’t get down, what difference does it make if a car is already there? Can we have no on street parking? Ms. Curran – we can’t decide, but we could condition that they petition proper authority in city for that.
Mr. DeIulis says the reason they can’t move house 3 is the proximity to the sewer easement. No relief is requested from the side yard setback.
Ms. Belair – possible to move it any further back? Mr. DeIulis – already back very far – deck would be up against back property line.
Mr. Bennet – prefers garage under house. Mr. DeIulis – footprints flexible, just done to show what could be put there with the variance. Owned property for seven years – it’s lain dormant because we’ve been working these issues out with neighbors.
Ms. Belair – you benefit from cleanup of site.
Mr. Bennet wants four houses, with everything entering and exiting on Thorndike St.
Mr. DeIulis – lack of neighborhood opposition suggests people are comfortable with this.
Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Ms. Harris thinks the hardship is significant. The site had contamination, required cleanup, and is a large lot with very little frontage and a sewer easement. She likes the mitigation having some driveways on Hubon and some on Thorndike.
Mr. Metsch says he originally had mentioned an opportunity to be in more keeping with neighborhood and even asking for more relief, this didn’t change, but that’s not a sticking point with me, this was well thought out, certainly a benefit to neighborhood. Agrees with the hardship presented.
Ms. Belair – require them to petition council to limit parking on street. Mr. Metsch – single side parking? Letter to the Planning Board is suggested by Ms. Belair and Mr. St. Pierre.
Ms. Belair – he has tried to take into account neighbors’ request; there is a significant hardship, and the proposal is in keeping with neighborhood.
Mr. Metsch asks what the reasoning was for lots 4 and 5 being twisted? Mr. DeIulis says the intent was to provide greater relief so only one corner of the home closer to Thorndike St. was that close to the existing homes.
Mr. Metsch says he is in favor, but the twist is not really in keeping with the form of the neighborhood.
Mr. Dionne - in a congested area, can you get fire access there?
Mr. DeIulis – clarifies where the hydrant is. Mr. St. Pierre says the fire dept attended a One Stop meeting and thought it was safer to put the hydrant in where it wasn’t currently.
Ms. Harris –the hydrant protects the neighbors. Also the development provides access.
Ms. Harris moves to approve the petition including side yard setback, as shown on the plan revised 1/31/12 with 8 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Harris, Dionne, Curran, Belair and Metsch in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Continuation of 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). APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO MARCH 21, 2012.
Mr. Dionne moves to continue Lafayette St. to March 21, 2012 seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 5-0.
Public hearing: Petition of 127 CANAL STREET LLC requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use, and a Variance from off-street parking regulations, in order to convert a garage located on 127 CANAL ST, Salem, MA, to a residential unit (B4 Zoning District).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped 1/25/12 and accompanying materials and photographs
- “Plan of Land in Salem, Prepared for 127 Canal Street LLC,” dated 2/8/12
Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. He notes Anthony Gattinieri is the property owner. He presents photos of the property. He says the current automotive detailing business is there, and the residential building is a preexisting, nonconforming use. He would like to convert this building to a single family unit. He notes the plan shows five parking spaces, but after filing this, the plans were revised to show six spaces, which are possible because a chain link fence has been removed. He distributes the revised plan. The spaces don’t comply with dimensional requirements, so relief is still needed. It’s noted that the parking spaces encroach on the Crosby’s property. They are allowing this encroachment and have put in substantial landscaping here. They
aren’t seeking to formalize it with an easement. He says this is an extension of a nonconforming use – the residential use is the nonconforming use, not the automotive use.
Ms. Curran asks what it will look like; Attorney Grover says they are not that far in plans. They won’t keep the garage bank, so no parking will be provided in the building. He says the detail shop is very active with cars backing in and out all the time. No parking is allowed on Laurel St.
As to the hardship, Atty Grover says the current use is incompatible with residential use of the property, and creates problems among occupants of the property. The owner rents out the units. The mixed use is creating the hardship. Ms. Harris – is there noise? Attorney Grover – yes, there are vehicles in and out. The business has no parking. Ms. Harris – this seems like a more peaceful use. Ms. Curran – it’s clearly less detrimental. Ms. Belair – can we require the six parking spaces? Mr. St. Pierre says yes, you an make it a condition - make it for sole use of this property. Ms. Harris – is he moving the business? Probably. Ms. Curran – the new use must be within existing footprint of garage – there is no
expansion? Atty Grover - No.
Mr. Metsch is concerned about lot line and use of the pavement – what if these were under different ownership and a fence were built along the lot line? What if Crosby’s took their land back? Ms. Belair – he probably has a good claim for adverse possession. Attorney Grover – it could happen.
Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment; no one is here to speak. She closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Ms. Curran – the use of the garage is interfering with the residential use, owing to the existing use. The main use here is housing; they have to have parking for the residences. Ms. Belair – the way the residences are situated on the lot, there is no room for parking. Also, there is no parking on Canal St.
Ms. Harris –they are making every effort to accommodate the parking.
Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with nine (9) standard conditions, and one special condition – petitioner shall maintain 6 off street parking spaces for the exclusive use of this property, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Curran, Metsch, Belair, Harris and Dionne in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Public hearing: Petition of EDWARD A POTVIN requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use and alter a nonconforming structure, and a Variance from side and rear setbacks and lot coverage, for the property located at 12 HANSON ST (R2 Zoning District).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped 12/28/11 and accompanying materials
- “Exterior Elevations, Proposed Addition, Bass River, Inc., 12 Hanson St., Salem, MA”; “Exterior Elevation & Site Plan, Proposed Addition”; first and second floor plans, all dated 11/10/11
- Exhibit Plan of Land at 12 Hanson St., Salem MA, dated 12/15/11
Mr. Potvin presents his petition. He is the Executive Director of Bass River, which serves 65-70 people daily. He says as people age, their needs have changed – they have more people in wheelchairs and using walkers. They have installed a lift. They were required to develop an “area of refuge,” which encroached on the upstairs space, and therefore want to expand their space to the side and front. The parking issue was discussed with Jerry Ryan and a community representative.
Ms. Curran – you are putting in a second story, but not first? Mr. Potvin - yes, we didn’t want to encroach on parking. Ms. Curran asks about the square footage; Mr. Potvin says they have 10,000, and are adding 1500 SF.
Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment; no one is here to comment. She closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Mr. St. Pierre says he has worked with Bass River – Ryan and Jordan represent the neighborhood and Mr. Potvin has been very responsive to all issues.
Ms. Curran – you’re bounded by three streets and there is residential on the side you’re expanded.
Mr. Potvin – we passed around the proposal to neighbors. Ms. McKnight says she has received no comments.
Mr. Metsch says the site has internal restrictions, and they need to serve needs of clients, which requires a horizontal expansion instead of vertical – this is their hardship. Design is in keeping with the neighborhood.
Ms. Belair moves to approve with seven (7) standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Metsch, and approved 5-0 (Curran, Metsch, Belair, Harris and Dionne in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Public hearing: Petition of MELISSA MACHERNIS requesting a Special Permit to alter an existing nonconforming structure and Variance from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, in order to convert the existing single-family home at 103 FEDERAL ST, Salem, MA, into a two-family home. (R2 Zoning District).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped 1/25/12 and accompanying materials and photographs
- “Plot plan of land, 103 Federal St., Salem, Property of Melissa Machernis,” dated 10/27/11
- Letter from Betsy and Bill Burns, 22 Beckford St.
103 Federal St. Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. Melissa Machernis is also present. He explains it’s a single-family residence in the R-2 zone. The owner may continue to own one unit and sell the other. Attorney Grover says the house lends itself well to conversion to two units because of the locations of the entrances. There may have been a store located in the building in the 1940’s or 50’s. There is currently a garage that provides parking, as well as one outdoor space. The new plan accommodates the parking required. He submits a petition with signatures of neighbors in support of the project. Ms. McKnight notes a letter was received in support from Betsy and Bill Burns, 22 Beckford St.
No exterior changes are proposed. Atty Grover explains the special permit is to change a nonconforming structure, and a variance from lot area per dwelling unit. Current square footage does not comply. Hardship relates to size of building. This is unique. Given the small size of the lot and the large structure, there are unique features. Almost all uses around the property are multi family. Some are single-family houses.
Ms. Curran notes the hardship is owing to the size of the building on the lot. Ms. Harris has a hard time with this argument because there are lots of large houses on small lots. Mr. Metsch – it’s consistent with the hardship cases we’ve reviewed before in terms of affording the property. Ms. Harris hates to see these houses divided up.
Ms. Curran – there clearly is enough parking, it’s consistent with neighborhood, and an allowed use, and there is enough space.
Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment.
Susan Heyworth, 105 Federal St., owns a single family house. She supports this being a two family.
Ms. Curran closes the public comment portion of the hearing.
Ms. Belair – agrees with Ms. Harris, but it is in keeping with the area, and there is parking, so she supports this. Attorney Grover – at times there have been multiple other uses on the site – just not recently.
Mr. Dionne moves to approve the petition with 8 standard conditions and one special condition, that the applicant will supply four parking spaces on the property. The motion is seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 4-1 (Curran, Metsch, Dionne and Belair in favor, Harris opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated into these minutes.
Mr. Dionne moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Metsch; all in favor.
The meeting adjourns at 9:25.
Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
Approved by the Board of Appeals 3/21/12
| 
