Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 03/21/2012
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, March 21, 2012

A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, March 21, 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, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Robin Stein, Assistant City Solicitor.

Ms. Curran opens the meeting at 6:32 p.m.

Approval of Minutes
Ms. Curran opens meeting at 6:32 p.m.  

Ms. Harris notes that paragraph 3 on page 6 needs to be clarified.   Ms. Belair moves to approve the minutes with edits, seconded by Mr. Metsch and approved 5-0.  

Executive Session: Discussion of proposed agreement for judgment for petitions for 9-11 Franklin Street and 162 Federal Street

Ms. Curran says the Board will be going into Executive Session to discuss these matters because they have determined that discussion in public session would be detrimental to the litigation.  

Mr. Metsch moves to go into executive session, Mr. Tsitsinos seconds the motion, and it passes 6-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Tsitsinos, Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris, Ms. Belair and Mr. Dionne in favor, none opposed).

The Board members leave the room to hold the executive session at 6:40 p.m. and return at 7:20 p.m.

Ms. Harris moves to reopen the public session; Mr. Dionne seconds, and the motion passes 6-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Tsitsinos, Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris, Ms. Belair and Mr. Dionne in favor, none opposed).

Old/New Business:  Request of PAUL FERRAGAMO for a six-month extension of the right to exercise Variances issued for the property located at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE

Documents & Exhibitions:

  • Letter from Attorney George W. Atkins III requesting extension of Variances, dated 2/13/12
  • Decision letter from the Zoning Board of Appeals dated 3/24/11 granting Variances for the property at 405-427 Highland Avenue
Attorney George Atkins presents the request on behalf of Paul Ferragamo, saying they are still working with Mass Highway for their required permits.  He requests an extension of the Variances for six months until 9/23/12.  Ms. Harris moves to grant the request, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Belair and Ms. Curran in favor, none opposed).  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

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
  • “Historic Restoration Proposal,” dated 2/11/12
Ms. Curran notes that last month the Board continued this matter pending conditions on the preservation of the trees and the Ropes house.

Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition.  He says after listening to input from the community, the developer has agreed to retain and restore the Ropes house.  They have developed a set of standards for the preservation of the house and the very old trees on the property, which the developer has agreed to.  He notes the two lots other than the one with the Ropes house on it comply fully as building lots.  

Ms. Curran reads conditions relating to trees and the preservation of the house:

Condition relating to trees:
“Prior to any construction, a certified arborist selected by owner shall walk the property to determine the viability and safe retention of the four trees identified on the plan submitted with the application and shall develop and submit to the owner a plan including measures necessary for protection of the trees during construction.
Additionally, prior to any building permit being issued, the root systems shall:  a) be identified; b) be marked clearly in the field with stakes indicating where the root systems begin; and c) a temporary silt fence shall be placed around them so the measure of the radius of half their height is visibly marked and the trees protected from excavation, blasting, grade changes, and from compaction by heavy machinery or debris from excavation. In the event the certified arborist retained by the owner determines that a lesser radius is necessary for protection of any trees, his determination, and that of the Tree Warden, shall control.  Further, subject to the approval of the Tree Warden of the City of Salem, selective pruning of the four trees may be conducted but only under the direction and control of the Tree Warden. If during construction any of the four trees to remain are damaged to the extent that said tree cannot survive by the failure of the owner to comply with the arborist’s plan referred to above and the conditions set forth herein, then the Tree Warden shall make a determination for replacement of the damaged trees with the same or similar species and size as the damaged  trees or where the tree is too large and replacement is not practicable, then the caliper of the tree shall be replicated on an inch per inch basis as determined by the Tree Warden.”

Condition relating to preservation of the Ropes house:
“The variance for Lot 3 is conditioned upon the restoration of the structure pursuant to ‘Historic Restoration Proposal, the Ropes Mansion, 18 Felt Street, Salem, MA,’ dated February 11, 2012.  This lot is subject to the restoration of the house and is not valid unless the house is restored.  This condition shall not be construed to affect Lots 1 and 2 shown on the plan submitted herewith.”

Ms. Curran notes the legal department has reviewed these conditions.  She also notes she has been advised that putting the preservation of the house as a condition is more effective than requiring a deed restriction.  Attorney Grover notes the standards document is dated 2/11/12 and is the most recently revised.  Ms. Curran reads the conditions in the document:

HISTORIC RESTORATION PROPOSAL
The Ropes Mansion at 18 Felt Street, Salem, MA
February 11, 2012

Exterior

(1)  Original Exterior Wood Elements:  Retain all existing clapboard and decorative shingle siding, window trim, corner, soffit, skirt and fascia boards and all other detail elements, replacing with in-kind materials only where necessary.

(2)  Original Slate Roof:  Retain existing slate roof, repairing with in-kind materials only where necessary, particularly valley areas, and replacing any missing slate to match in color and shape.

(3)  Historic Windows:  Retain and refurbish all existing window sashes, maintaining period glass and replacing any broken panes with glass to match in thickness and color.  Particular care shall be taken to safeguard the two bow windows with original curved glass and the arched-top crystal glass window at the north side. Storm windows may be added.  

(4)  Wrap-Around Porch:  Restore front entry stairs and railings and entire porch balustrade and porch columns, where necessary, to replicate original as best possible ca.1900 photo.  Porch roof shall be re-shingled with 3-tab charcoal black asphalt.

(5)  Side Entry:  Side entry stairs shall be rebuilt to conform to front entry design (only if side entry stairs are not eliminated).

(6)  Structural Work:  Repair compromised structural supports at North elevation in accordance with approved engineering standards.

(7)  Chimney & Foundation:  Any necessary repairs shall be made with matching materials.  Re-pointing of brick shall be completed with mortar to match existing.

(8)  Painting:  All surfaces to be prepared via hand scraping, vs. the use of destructive high velocity water blasting or power sanding.  Paint in historically appropriate colors shall be used.  

(9)  Original Wood Shutters:  All existing shutters shall be retained.    At a minimum, it is hoped to reinstall shutters to the windows at the front and left side of the house.  

(10)  Venting:  Venting for upgraded bathrooms, kitchen, and HVAC shall be hidden from obvious detection everywhere possible or painted to match —Same for condensers, transformers & meters.

(11)  Skylights:  Any skylights must be located only on non-visible areas of the roof only.  This would be the same requirement for satellite dishes, solar heating panels, antennas, etc.

(12)  Future Additions:  Should any future additions to the building be considered, they must be compatible with, and appropriate to, the mansion’s Queen Anne Style, and be attached to the rear of the building only.


Oversight

This renovation project will be reviewed by the Salem Historical Commission to ensure compliance with the agreed standards, and to assist the owner in resolving any questions that may arise during the renovation process.  This duty may be assigned to one member of the Commission to be appointed by the Chair at the option of the owner.


Ms. Harris asks about the provision about skylights – is the intent to be not visible from the street?  Attorney Grover says he collaborated with John Carr and Jessica Herbert to develop this – his presumption is this means what is visible from the public way.  The condition will be changed.  Ms. Harris says these standards, while excellent, are being passed on to an unsuspecting owner who won’t understand them.  Mr. Metsch says they are very generous, but if this passes on to a different owner/developer – things like the roof and windows – it’s very extreme.  For this property, it’s too restrictive.  Ms. Harris says there should be escrows for these lots.  Ms. Curran says if an owner decides to renovate, he’s obligated to meet the conditions.  Any owner will see this variance and be bound by it.  Mr. St. Pierre notes that this board doesn’t have the authority to waive energy or building code requirements; it all has to be done under the Massachusetts regulations.  That caveat must be put into there.  He doesn’t have a problem with the conditions, this is not unusual, but you can only go so far – you can’t override the building code.

Ms. Harris – is it clear these all have to be met subject to the building code?  Mr. St. Pierre says it’s binding and enforceable, if unusual.  Mr. Metsch – if the lots are separated – if lot 2 began construction, and at a later date there was noncompliance, what then?  Mr. St. Pierre – if they don’t conform to this document, they don’t have a buildable lot.  They can’t tear it down and build another house.  Mr. Metsch – if no one can finance/restore the building, and others develop the other lots…Attorney Grover says lots 1 and 2 are both conforming, legal lots.  

Ms. Harris asks for clarification on the tree language.  Ms. Curran – this is so all measures are taken to protect the trees; if damaged, the owner is supposed to replace them with, inch for inch, the same size caliper.  

Mr. Metsch – can we condition clearly that fill thrown on trees is not allowed?  Ms. Curran – the idea is to make them very cautious of that because the ramification of damage is great.  Mr. St. Pierre we can work with developer to put a better barrier around the tree.  Ms. Curran suggests changing “silt fence” to a “temporary fence,” to determine it with the developer.  Attorney Grover suggests a snow fence.  It’s noted that this would be done in consultation with the Tree Warden.  

Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with 9 standard conditions and 3 special conditions, as follows:

  • The exterior is to follow 2/11/12 historic preservation standards document
  • Trees to be treated as per document submitted 3/21/12, with additional protections from the tree warden as noted
  • The Variance decision relates to main house only
The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran, Ms. Belair and Ms. Harris 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).  

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 of The Sign Center presents the petition, and says the Credit Union is asking to withdraw the proposal for the pole covers for the monument sign.  The posts are to remain visible.  Now they are just proposing adding lettering to rear building.  

Ms. Belair moves to approve the building sign only and not the monument sign with 5 standard conditions, seconded Mr. Metsch and approved 5-0 (Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Harris, Ms. Belair in favor, none opposed).  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

Public hearing: Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter and extend a nonconforming single-family house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS ST, Salem, MA (R2 Zoning District).

Documents & Exhibitions:

  • Application dated-stamped March 5, 2012 and accompanying materials
  • Aerial photos of 16 Saunders St.
  • Photos of 16 and 14 Saunders St.
  • Plot Plan of Land, 16 Saunders Street, dated 5/22/09, prepared by North Shore Survey Corp
  • Letter from Andy Goldman, 11 Pearl St., dated 3/13/12, in support, and amended letter of 3/21/12, also in support
  • Letter from Frank and Phyllis Brown, 16 Pearl St., in support
  • Letter from Pamela and Jeffrey Dungan, 15 Saunders St., dated 3/12/12, in support
  • Letter from Jeffrey Dungan, 15 Saunders St., dated 3/13/12, opposed
  • Letter from Michael Sosnowski, Ward 2 Councillor, 17 Collins St., dated 3/21/12, opposed
  • Letter from Rachel Little, 7 Cross St. Ct., dated 3/20/12, opposed
  • Letter from Joseph Devincentis, 12 Saunders St., dated 3/12/12, opposed
  • Letter from Valerie Calamese, 12 Saunders St., no date, opposed
  • Letter from Rosalind Slawson, 5 Saunders St. Unit 1, dated 3/20/12, opposed
  • Photos of neighborhood houses submitted at meeting: 8 Cross Street Court, 14 Burnside St., 3 Smith St., 10 Smith St., 23 Cross St., 21 Thorndike St., 14 Saunders St.
  • Plan to accompany petition to the Board of Appeals, dated 3/9/09 by Eastern Land Survey Associates prepared for Riverside Realty Trust for 24 Saunders St.
  • Statement submitted by Leslie Byrne at meeting
  • “McKinnon Residence, 14 Saunders Street, Salem, MA 01970, Solar Elevations,” prepared by Nilsson & Siden Associates
  • “McKinnon Residence, 14 Saunders Street, Salem, MA 01970, Solar Model,” prepared by Nilsson & Siden Associates  
James Cipoletta presents the petition.  He gives a brief history of the property, saying the Board granted relief in the past for an addition, and this first decision was appealed.  He says they are now proposing less extensive remodeling.  They are seeking a Special Permit to raise the home to 34.5 feet, and not extending to rear.  He submits photos to the Board of 16 Saunders St. and surrounding homes.  He says that even if approved, this would be one of the smaller homes.  He notes that the Salem Zoning Ordinance doesn’t address view; even so, with removal of the originally proposed back section, this is a benign request/result.  

Leslie speaks about her proposal, saying her home is 660 square feet, a single bedroom in the R2 zone.  She says she is working within the footprint of the existing building.  She says the assistant building inspector at the time she bought her house told her she could build up another 1 ½ stories by right.  She says the proposed expansion of her house would conform to the character of the neighborhood.  

Ms. Curran asks about the square footage being added; Ms. Byrne says it’s 660 additional square feet.  

Mr. Metsch notes she said the footprint is the same, but what about above the indents on the left?  He notes it’s a T shape, with a bumpout on the driveway side to extend the living room and one on the bedroom side.  Ms. Curran notes this is not within the required side yard.  Ms. Harris asks why it doesn’t require a variance; Mr. St. Pierre explains the exception in the zoning ordinance for one- and two-family houses.  

Ms. Curran notes that in front the setback is 9 feet, and what is required is 15.  Mr. St. Pierre says the exception allows it to follow building line.  3.3.4.  

Ms. Curran opens public comment portion of the hearing.  

John Carr, attorney representing the McKinnon household at 14 Saunders St., distributes letters of opposition (from Jeffrey Dungan, 15 Saunders St., dated 3/13/12;
Michael Sosnowski, Ward 2 Councillor, 17 Collins St., dated 3/21/12; Rachel Little, 7 Cross St. Ct., dated 3/20/12; Joseph Devincentis, 12 Saunders St., dated 3/12/12; Valerie Calamese, 12 Saunders St., no date; and Rosalind Slawson, 5 Saunders St. Unit 1, dated 3/20/12) and excerpts of the zoning ordinance regarding Special Permits for the Board to review.  

Attorney Carr opposes the petition because of fire safety, overcrowding, property values, and impacts to light and air.  He refers to the letter submitted from Ward 2 Councillor Michael Sosnowski to highlight these points.  He notes that in addition to the 1 ½ story structure, there is a carriage house garage close to the house.  He says the current proposal is close to what was proposed earlier.  He says the petition is to square off the “T” of the house – the prior proposal also called for a rear addition.  He discusses the objections of various neighbors who are opposed to the project.  

Attorney Carr presents drawings showing how views will be impacted from the McKinnon house (“McKinnon Residence, 14 Saunders Street, Salem, MA 01970, Solar Elevations,” and “McKinnon Residence, 14 Saunders Street, Salem, MA 01970, Solar Model,” both prepared by Nilsson & Siden Associates).  He says the house will be deprived of much of its light.  He says a certified appraiser has been consulted, and the McKinnon’s is property value will go down over 25%.  He says fire safety is also a problem, since changing from a bungalow, increasing the volume of the house, also increases the possibility of fire.  He notes the neighborhood is wood construction.  He says the McKinnons have been part of the neighborhood over 20 years longer than Ms. Byrne.  

Attorney Carr passes out a photo of the McKinnon house showing Ms. Byrne’s house casting a shadow on it.  He passes out additional photos of neighboring houses.  He notes granting the Special Permit would set a precedent in the area.

Attorney Carr discusses a plan the Board approved for 24 Saunders St., originally for two duplexes, which he says Ms. Byrne opposed. He says this development was changed to two single-family houses, and their location was also changed, to preserve Ms. Byrne’s view.  He says one of the new owners has submitted a letter of opposition to this petition.  

Attorney Carr says the applicant had previously agreed to come up with a new plan that didn’t impact the McKinnon house, but this was never shared with them.  

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

Roz Lawson, 5 Saunders St., echoes the concerns stated by Attorney Carr.  She says a 35 foot house, as tiny as the footprint is, will look ridiculous.  There are many small homes in the area, but as a neighbor she asks Board not to approve this.  

Elizabeth McKinnon, 14 Saunders St., opposes the petition.  She says the 6-foot extension to the rear wasn’t just what they had a problem with – it was the whole plan.  She says it’s not just the view; they will be prisoners in their own house.  They don’t have windows on the top floor, and there would be no air coming in that side.  She says the petitioner’s house is going to be 5 feet taller than hers is now, and hers is a single family.  She says the McKinnons would be looking at a wall.

Thomas McKinnon, Jr., 14 Saunders St., opposes.  He says it will destroy his house and cost him more in heat and electricity.  He says it will be like a billboard outside his window.  

Ms. Curran reads the above-noted letters in opposition to the project.  Ms. Belair clarifies, in response to some of the written comments that the applicant is not asking for a variance but a special permit.  Ms. McKnight reads three letters she has received in support of the petition (from Andy Goldman, 11 Pearl St., dated 3/13/12, and amended letter of 3/21/12; Frank and Phyllis Brown, 16 Pearl St.; and Pamela and Jeffrey Dungan, 15 Saunders St., dated 3/12/12, in support).  Attorney Carr says the letter from Pamela and Jeffrey Dungan in support is dated earlier than the letter he has in opposition from Mr. Dungan only, and clarifies that Mr. Dungan does not now support the project.

Melanie McKinnon, 14 Saunders St., opposes because of light, air, fire safety and property values.

Jim Armstrong, 32 Carriage Rd., Beverly, a local real estate broker and formerly a Saunders St. resident., says he is familiar with the houses shown in the photos – all are much larger and have second floors.  He says he isn’t a certified appraiser but does market analysis and water views do not add close to 25% value to a home.  He also notes that horizontal expansion is much more expensive than vertical.  

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

Ms. Harris asks if Attorney Carr has the appraisal he referred to in writing.  

Ms. Belair asks what the petitioner could do by right.  Mr. St. Pierre says the previously, she would have been able to put in a second story, but since the zoning was recodified, this language has been clarified, and a Special Permit would be needed.

Ms. Curran – do we have the remand?

Mr. St. Pierre – do you have an accurate elevation of the home?  Mr. Carr presented these drawings and they are absolutely not to scale, and is unfair of the Board to consider that.  Does the petitioner have a correct elevation?  

Ms. Curran – did you explore other options – dormers within the roof and not going up the full 35 feet?  

Ms. Byrne says she thought about going out, but because of the garage and the way the property is shaped, there isn’t room.  Raising the second floor up enough for living space would still block the McKinnon’s view.  

Ms. Byrne gives Mr. St. Pierre architect’s drawing.  Mr. St. Pierre notes that on the submittal from the architect, the existing home if 17 feet measured from grade.  

Ms. Curran – is there a way to accomplish what you want in square footage without going up so high?   Ms. Byrne says cost is prohibitive for dormers.  Ms. Curran – with a redesign you might be able to accomplish what you want and be less intrusive.  

Attorney Cipoletta – the Court stated to us that any vertical expansion of the home would be opposed by the McKinnons.  He notes that there are several ways to do to the appraisal.  As to concerns about fire safety, anything Ms. Byrne would do in the way of new construction would have to meet all codes enforceable by the building inspector.  He says the third floor was added to 14 Saunders St. without an inspection and without permits, so it is unknown what the exact materials were used or how the construction was done.  

Ms. Stein shows Ms. McKnight the remand order, which she reads out loud.

Attorney Carr clarifies that the third floor addition was done with a building permit, but without what should have been proper zoning relief.  

Ms. Belair says the appraisal should not be considered, since it was not offered as evidence.  Regarding conserving the value of land and buildings – an addition would improve the neighborhood, not lessen the home values.  She suggests the applicant look at reworking if she can.  She suggests continuing for a month to look at a solution through a different design.  She notes that Ms. Byrne’s house is 660 square feet, which she says is a hardship.  She would be inclined to approve an addition, but also in taking the neighbors’ concerns into consideration, any way to look at reworking the plans, to compromise.  She could build the second floor but change the design a bit; the neighbors may still oppose, but the Board would also feel Ms. Byrne did what she could.  Ms. Byrne says that whatever she does on the second floor will block their view.  Ms. Curran suggests just taking a more sensitive approach, and doing what she can; they would like to see her try.

Mr. Tsitsinos notes the house is 17 feet high now; he suggests working with the neighbors to come up with an addition that raises the height less and still provides interior space.

Ms. Harris suggests more of a shed roof, and looking at other solutions.  She doesn’t think the effect will be as bad as the neighbors say, but the design is aggressive for this site – it’s doubling the height.  

Mr. Metsch suggests bringing the roofline down; she would still gain second floor usable space.  As to the issue of light and air – the house is 9 feet away from its neighbor, and in this neighborhood that’s not unusual.  He says the appraisal is a non issue.  As to fire – again, this distance is not unusual.  He says this could be done with a different design.  

Mr. Dionne says that as proposed, they would be adding more congestion and fire potential, and he would have a hard time approving something like that.  He would rather see a more horizontal expansion, even though it is more expensive.  He says he couldn’t approve the height.  

Atty Cipoletta requests to continue the hearing to the April 18 meeting.  Mr. Dionne moves to continue the hearing to April 18, 2012; Mr. Metsch seconds, and the motion passes 5-0.

Public hearing: Petition of MARCELO CABRERA requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure, and Variances from lot area per dwelling unit and off-street parking regulations, in order to construct a third story dormer for use as a third unit on the existing two-family house on 24 WARD ST, Salem, MA (R3 Zoning District).

Documents & Exhibitions:

  • Application date-stamped 3/7/12 and accompanying materials
  • “Plan for a Shed Dormer, 24 Ward St., Salem, MA 01970”, no date
  • “Plan for a Shed Dormer,” detail, no date
  • Parking Plan for 22 Ward St. (angled spaces), and revised parking plan (parallel spaces)
  • 24 Ward St Rear View elevation drawing
Marcelo Cabrera presents the petition.  He says the proposed parking is located at 22 Ward St.  In response to Board questions about whether it is acceptable to have the parking located on the other parcel, Mr. St. Pierre says these lots will merge.  He also notes that there is room to make parking spaces 18 feet instead of the 12 feet shown, to comply with zoning.  Mr. Metsch notes that the parking area is not paved, just dirt now.  Mr. Cabrera says they will level it and bring in the landscape architect to figure out the drainage, etc.  

Mr. St. Pierre notes that pavement is required, and they will need a drainage permit from the City Engineer, and will need to drain to a storm drain.  

Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion of the hearing; no one is here to comment, so she closes the public comment portion.  

Ms. Curran reviews the Board’s findings, saying that literal enforcement of the zoning would create a hardship because it’s an allowed use, but expansion of the dormer is needed to meet code for access.  Ms. Belair notes it’s a very small lot.  She says this is not a lot of relief, it does have parking, which is a big issue, and they are using the other lot for parking instead of putting in another building.  Mr. Metsch says he is happy with the plans submitted.  Ms. Belair notes it would be nice to have some green space around the parking lot.  

Mr. St. Pierre says they must have a 2-foot buffer area from the lot line – the pavement must stop there, and this is a good place for landscaping.  

Ms. Curran says relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good; that this meets the intent/purpose of the zoning ordinance, since it is an allowed use, and the additional relief is minimal.  

Mr. Metsch notes that Ward St. is dense.  

Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition with 8 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 4-1 (Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran, Ms. Belair and Mr. Dionne in favor; Ms. Harris opposed).  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

Public hearing: Petition of ROGER P. DESCHENES and MARIELLE B. DESCHENES requesting a Variance from minimum front yard setback in order to construct a 24’ x 24’ addition with a two car garage underneath, on the property located at 19 PATTON ROAD (R1).

Documents & Exhibitions:

  • Application date-stamped 2/16/12 and accompanying materials and photographs
  • “Plot Plan in Salem, MA,” prepared for Roger & Marielle Deschenes, 19 Patton Rd., by LeBlanc Survey Associates, Inc., dated 2/13/12
  • Elevation drawings, no date
Roger Deschenes presents the petition.  He explains there is a steep drop-off behind his house, so he couldn’t build behind there; it wouldn’t allow adequate egress.  

Ms. Curran opens the public comment portion of the hearing; no one is here to comment, so she closes it.

Ms. Curran notes the petitioner is constructing in front only because of the topography of the property.  Ms. Belair – no additional unit?  No.  

Ms. Belair notes the applicant did a good job on his statement of hardship.  Ms. Curran says she has no problem with this.  The hardship is owing to the topography of the land, which does not generally affect the other parcels in this zone.  It’s too steep to build within the required setbacks.  The lot is big enough, so it won’t be detrimental to the public good in any way.  

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

Public hearing: Petition of BRUCE BORNSTEIN, TRUSTEE, KING’S COVE REALTY TRUST, requesting a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change a nonconforming to allow an additional use of a portion of the first floor as a micro brewery of beer to be sold wholesale (remaining first floor to continue use as an environmental testing lab) for the property located at 6 NICHOLS ST, Salem, MA (R2 Zoning District).

Documents & Exhibitions:

  • Application date-stamped 2/14/12 and accompanying materials
  • “Plot Plan of 6 Nichols St., Salem, Mass,” dated 11/1/11, by John G. Dick
  • “Nichols Street Second Floor Renovation,” by John G. Dick, dated 4/20/04
  • Photograph of brewing equipment, no date
  • Letter from Leo Jodoin, 8 Hanson St., no date, opposed
  • Letter from Joan B. Lovely, Councillor-at-Large, 14 Story St., dated 3/21/12, opposed
Attorney Atkins presents the petition.  Bruce Bornstein, property owner, is also present.  Attorney Atkins says this is a change of nonconforming use, with no changes to the building.  He gives the industrial history of property – it was a tannery, then a machine shop.  Relief was previously requested for an environmental lab, then for 3 residential uses above.  He says there will be only a wholesale use associated with the brewery, no retail, tasting, etc.  just labeling, bottling, etc.  He speaks about the cleanliness of the operation and shows a photo of a typical interior.  He says there will be no odors.  This will require licensing board and Board of Health.  He says the tanks are steam heated, with no separate boiler situation.  The entire building is sprinklered.  He says the existing parking, 14 spaces, is sufficient for the current and proposed use.  Deliveries of supplies come once a week, typically in a box truck, sometimes a trailer.  There are 1-2 deliveries currently per day for the lab.  There will be no substantial increase in traffic.  The Special Permit requires a standard of the change in use not being more detrimental than existing use.  He says there will be no detriment; the operation will be completely contained.  Some jobs will be created.  He asks Mr. Bornstein to address the Board.  Mr. Bornstein says he’s owned the building for a long time.  He has a distributer lined up, who will pick up the product about once a week.  He will get grain deliveries once a month.  

Mr. Metsch – what are the hours of operation?  Bruce – 8 to 6, people will be working.  He has no plans for night shifts.  The bottling is done there.  The name of the business is Witchcraft Brewing.  

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

Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols St. (Ward 4 Councillor), opposes the petition.  He refers to the 2004 Special Permit allowing apartments, saying one apartment would be above this.   He says the conditions of the Special Permit have not been adhered to.  Snow removal has not been done, grass is not cut, and maintenance not done.  He was fine with the residential use, since he prefers not to have a business next door.  He also says the brewing system is already set up.  

Arthur Sargent, Councillor At Large, 8 Maple Ave., says he gets calls about their snow removal – the snow is pushed from the lot to the sidewalk, and he has shoveled it himself in the past.  He says they deposit snow on the sidewalk, making passage difficult.  

Ms. McKnight reads letters from Joan Lovely, Councillor At Large, 14 Story St., opposed; and Leo Jodoin, 8 Hanson St., opposed.

Attorney Atkins says everything is kept in the interior.  He asks Mr. Bornstein to address the brewing system currently in the building.  He says this is a small 5 gallon setup that can be run out of a home, not for commercial use.  As to snow removal, he says Mr. Jodoin was asked not to park his vehicle in front of the property.  Mr. Bornstein says he was never fined for snow removal.  Whenever it snows, he says they have tried to move it to where Mr. Jodoin was happy, but he has never been happy.  Mr. Bornstein says he has tried to help with snow removal as much as possible.  He says he does maintain the building, shovels, etc.  He also says he is surprised at Councillor Ryan’s change in support of the petition.  

Ms. Curran asks if Mr. Bornstein lives there; he says no, but he has owned the property for 25-30 years.  

Attorney Atkins says nothing affects the neighborhood because everything is taking place inside the building.

Ms. Belair asks Mr. St. Pierre if there have been any violations.  He responds that he wrote a ticket this year for the snow.  It has been an ongoing problem, and the sidewalk.  Ms. Belair asks if the owner has noticed that the city has responded.  Mr. St. Pierre – that has not been my observation in most cases.  Mr. Brennan (contractor) has given us a lot of grief.

Ms. Belair – I generally strongly support business in Salem – but this area is primarily residential, and this one small parcel has three residences, a lab and now brewery…I can’t support because of the density.  

Attorney Atkins says the building has 21,000 SF of space.  He says the building is not being used close to capacity.  The second and third floor were approved for residential, and they did the third, but second floor was cost prohibitive.  He says the lab approval was not intended to bar other uses.

Ms. Curran notes there has been a pattern of noncompliance.  She has no problem with the use.  She doesn’t want to grant another Special Permit and have conditions ignored.  

Mr. Dionne says they may have to remove the snow.  Ms. Curran suggests asking for a snow removal plan.  

Ms. Belair has no problem with the use, just the density.  Ms. Harris has no problem with that, but notes there is a lot of ill will.  She is uncomfortable expanding with another special permit.  Ms. Curran says there is plenty of parking and the building is big enough, but she has concerns about compliance.

Mr. St. Pierre says that the plan submitted at the time has notes relating to snow removal.  Attorney Atkins says snow removal plan could certainly be done.  Bruce – contract with someone to do snow removal, if it can’t fit on property, moved offsite?  Front walkway which hasn’t been done much, would be in contract to be done.  That should address the main complaint.  Snow is difficult to fit on property.  Attorney Atkins notes that contracts change and expire – specific snow removal plan, working in conjunction with building inspector for where onsite storage should take place.

Mr. St. Pierre – what kind of investment is it to set up?  Conditional permit possible.  Can it be moved to another spot if problematic.  Bruce – 150-200K to put in floor that would support the fermenters, and equipment.  Moving would be extremely prohibitive.  Odors not going to be a problem.  Hard to invest in building, most is fallow.  Not using most of building.  Wants to take care of rear, put up siding, needs money to fix up property.  

Ms. Belair – public portion closed – Ms. Curran yes.

Ms. Curran – continue for a month?

Mr. Metsch – condition to prohibit tastings, etc.  

Attorney Atkins requests to continue, will come back with language for prohibiting retail use and tasting, and a snow removal plan they will work with Mr. St. Pierre and the councilor on.  

Mr. Metsch move to continue to April 18, 2012, seconded by Mr. Dionne 5-0 in favor Mr. Tsitsinos not voting.  

Motion to adjourn by Ms. Harris, seconded by Mr. Metsch.  Adjourns 10 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 4/18/12