City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, June 20, 2012 in the third floor conference room of 120 Washington St., Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.
Those present were: Rebecca Curran, Mike Duffy, Annie Harris, Jamie Metsch, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Those absent were: Mike Duffy and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner.
Ms. Curran opens the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Metch moves to approve the minutes of May 16, 2012, seconded Ms. Harris and approved 5-0.
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).
Ms. Curran states that the petitioner has requested to continue this petition. There are only four members present this evening who are eligible to vote on the matter. Mr. Metsch moves to continue the hearing July 18, 2012, with no evidence taken, seconded by Ms. Harris, and approved 5-0 (Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed).
Public hearing: Petition of PAUL J. PINTO & JOHN F. CASEY III requesting a Special Permit for a bed & breakfast use on the property located at 314 ESSEX ST, Salem, MA (R-2 Zoning District).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped May 30, 2012 and accompanying materials
- Letter from CB&G Realty Trust, Owner, authorizing petitioner’s request, dated 5/25/12
- Plot Plan of Land, 314 Essex Street, Salem, Prepared for Paul Pinto, John Casey, dated May 30, 2012, by North Shore Survey Corporation
- Plot Plan of Land located in Salem, Prepared for Salem Chapter American Red Cross, dated Sept. 21, 1984, Essex Survey Service, Inc.
- Decision on the Petition of Walter A. Costello Jr. (Special Permit), date-stamped December 7, 1984.
Attorney Joseph Correnti presents the application on behalf of the petitioners, who are also present. He says this building has served as a law office since the mid-1980’s. His clients have the property under agreement. The petition is to allow a bed and breakfast special permit in the R2 district. He says this has been used as an office for decades; they are proposing bringing back a residential use. This will be their home. They also want to have 3 guest rooms for a bed and breakfast. Parking is available in rear – five spaces are shown on the submitted plan. There is no request for any parking relief. They need two spaces for their primary residence, and one per guest room according to the ordinance.
Mr. Correnti introduces the owners, Paul Pinto and John Casey III of 15 Puritan Rd., Somerville. Mr. Casey says they are both human resources professionals; they want this to be their home; and they chose Salem as the location for their plan of opening a bed and breakfast.
Ms. Curran asks about the current layout of house and whether they are renovating the interior.
Mr. Pinto says they want to keep to historic character, inside and out, and restore some lost details. They want to put in a kitchen, maximize the space, and update some of the bathrooms. Ms. Curran asks if the idea is to get a Special Permit for the use prior to going to the Historical Commission; he says yes. This is a condition of sale – they want to make sure they had the ability to do the B&B.
Mr. Duffy: Are you anticipating exterior changes? Mr. Pinto says no, the only thing is the back looks like there are some choppy elements that were added which are not true to the period; they would get an architect’s opinion to make it more in keeping with the Witch House and First Church next door. Hopefully just an enhancement. There is a metal door in back. Ms. Harris says this work was done in the 1980’s, and came through the Historical Commission for the 3rd floor addition.
Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment.
Bob Shea, 22 Hardy St., says he has owned a B&B for years, and has known Mr. Casey for years and speaks highly of his work ethic. He says Mr. Casey has wanted to do this for many years. Salem is a huge destination; tourists are flocking here. There is a demand for inns. His is frequently full, as are others. He says we want to keep tourists in Salem, which is screaming for more accommodations. He supports the request for a Special Permit.
Lorraine Van Tis, 311 Essex St., says this is not the easiest corner, and she is the only person there at night. She was delighted when she heard others would come in to make full time residence. She has a two-car parking area, and if they have staff and need temporary parking to let her know. Mr. Pinto says they have no staff, but thanks her.
Dorothy Hayes, 329 Essex St., supports the petition and says it’s terrific to get it back to residential. Some concerns – perhaps these could be conditions? Our zoning is silent on the following: no limit to guests – assuming two to a room, for a total of 6 guests at a time? Can we limit guests? There have been problems with boarding houses. The term of stay could be limited to avoid long-term residents. Parking seems OK. No cooking devices for guests should be allowed. The only meal served should be breakfast. She has Hingham’s bylaw if the ZBA is interested.
Mary Whitney, 356 Essex St., says the petition doesn’t address the criteria on the application regarding impact on the neighborhood. She is concerned this is zoned R2. The use was nonconforming for a long time. Was it grandfathered? Ms. Curran says no – it was a nonconforming law office allowed by Special Permit. Ms. Whitney says she is concerned about setting a precedent. She doesn’t want a more intensive commercial use. The law office was not an intense use. Must it be owner occupied? What if they decide to sell? Can it be limited to just these owners? She is concerned about preserving the residential character of neighborhood.
Mr. St. Pierre says the bed and breakfast definition is in the building code – it has to be run as a single family home. It can’t morph into 2 or 3 families, apartments, etc. This is why guests are limited to 3. It can’t be divided up into separate units with kitchens, etc. This is a different use.
Ms. Van Tis says across the street, people come and go all the time. She thinks this is a more discreet business.
David Williams, 342 Essex St., says he doesn’t like Special Permits. He thinks the board should make this conforming. He says it sounds like a lot of our concerns aren’t valid – it has to be a single family. Every building we have a problem with is operated under a special variance.
Ms. Hayes asks if a Special Permit runs with the person – when ownership changes, it expires? Ms. Curran – it can be either way.
Mr. St. Pierre reads the definition of B&B from the Zoning Ordinance. He says there are to be not more than 6 bedrooms in which the owner resides; it’s intended for guests, not long-term rental; all parking is off-street.
Ms. Curran thinks this nonconforming use by Special Permit is less intense than the existing. It will be residential – she has no problem requiring owners to live there or trying to define what long-term means. 2 weeks seems reasonable. They will not be running a boarding house by accident.
Mr. Correnti says he is not sure about the proposed conditions, since the definition concerning owner occupancy is clear. He feels this is a non-issue. He’s concerned about restricting this one B&B as to a random number of days – 14 may be plenty – but it may not be. We have several B&Bs in city; we don’t want this applicant put at a disadvantage to others with guests able to stay for 3 weeks. I don’t know if people stay that long, considering the rates. Rather than arbitrarily pick a number of days…the definition addresses the concern of it turning into something else; that it become a rooming house. It can’t be by definition.
Ms. Curran says she hears what he is saying, whereas the bylaw is silent and doesn’t define short-term – I would be inclined to try to define it for any B&B. 14 is arbitrary. I don’t know what the exact number should be. What’s to stop someone from living there for a year? The rates might – but then it is a rooming house. What is short-term to you?
Mr. Correnti says if the city chose to define it for all B&B’s in the city, that’s fair game, we wouldn’t have to guess. I Just don’t want them put at a disadvantage. Ms. Curran – the neighborhood has dealt with rooming house issues that have been unpleasant.
Ms. Harris asks Mr. St. Pierre we know other Special Permits for B&B’s don’t have restrictions on them? Mr. St. Pierre says you’d have to pull each decision to find that out.
Bob Shea says it’s very unusual for someone to stay more than 6 days – usually 1 or 2, occasionally 4. Beyond 6 or 7 it would be very rare. The price would drive people to a rooming house.
Ms. Hayes doesn’t think 14 or 21 days would be onerous. She wants to support this but is sensitized because of the neighborhood’s previous issues.
Mr. Correnti: Why would the Special Permit only run to these gentlemen if they want to sell it? Ms. Curran – I’m not considering that myself.
Mr. Correnti: Maybe now we have a fact basis from one B&B owner – a 21-day restriction seems more than adequate. We’d agree to that.
Ms. Whitney: We don’t have B&Bs in this district right now, right? That goes back to my concern about setting a precedent for making the neighborhood more commercial. Eventually the character will change from residential to commercial.
Ms. Curran explains this use is allowed by Special Permit, which are looked at case by case. Now it’s commercial and becoming residential. People could apply for another Special Permit for a more intense use. It’s where it is, how many rooms, parking, all those things.
Mr. Williams says he is concerned that another nonconforming use could take the place of a B&B if it’s considered similar enough (such as a rooming house), or if the property sells.
Ms. Curran explains that the current nonconforming use was allowed by special permit, and the owners could have asked to change it to another nonconforming use; this is already the case. However, the Bed & Breakfast use is allowed by Special Permit.
Mr. Williams is concerned this special use will be expanded. He doesn’t want to backslide into what was there 10-12 years ago.
Mr. Shea says he understands, he lives in a historic district; the word commercial is thrown around, but we’re talking about a small, intimate B&B drawing a respectful clientele staying in someone’s home.
Ms. Whitney says that when you get a permit for a nonconforming use, you can do anything nonconforming.
Ms. Curran says this is not the case.
Mr. St. Pierre says this permit is specific for B&B, and that is all it can be. Just 3 rooms. That is the only use allowed in this building without coming before the Board.
Ms. Harris says this is a less commercial use – they will live there, and it will be a house again. It hasn’t been for the entire time she’s lived in Salem.
Dorothy Hayes asks if issued a Special Permit could it be limited to their term of ownership.
Ms. Curran doesn’t think they should do this for a B&B. The owners should be able to sell it as a B&B to someone else. We are talking about the use, not the people. We could limit it, but I’m not sold on that.
Dan Richarelli, 397 Essex St., I thought once the nonconforming use was abandoned, it can never be that again.
Mr. Correnti says the neighborhood should be pleased because this is going from nonconforming office use to a R2 permitted use, that being a dwelling. That’s why there is no relief requested for the dwelling house. It’s going back to a residential dwelling use and will be conforming. Now they are going to be a conforming residential use, they ask for a special permit to allow the 3 guest room B&B. Getting a permit to change from one nonconforming use to another is not the case here.
Ms. Harris says this is a less detrimental use, and takes the property back to where it should be.
Mr. Duffy says based on what he’s heard in the room, it sounds like there is a community need for this type of use in Salem. He has no concern about traffic flow and safety. Parking is provided on site. The area is consistent with what the use is proposed for. There’s been no discussion about utility or public services; he doesn’t know if there are issues. This use is more consistent with a residential neighborhood than an office building. There are potential positive economic and fiscal impacts on the community. Based on this, if there are some adverse effects from the proposed change, they don’t outweigh the beneficial impacts from this proposal.
Mr. Metsch agrees with all those points. Parking – do we need a condition that all these spaces would be there? The use is in keeping more with the character of the neighborhood by going to residential. This is close to downtown and has been commercial; this is not a detrimental step. Fiscal impact is positive. Regarding the number of days, he doesn’t feel strongly, but if the applicant is will to accept 21 days, that seems ample. That’s less than the 30 day mark that would suggest a different use. He would be inclined to approve with that one condition. He prefers to have the special permit run with property.
Ms. Harris asks if the ordinance requires owner occupancy. Mr. St. Pierre says yes. He also says the applicant must submit a full set of plans to approve of the interior for this change in use.
Mr. Metsch suggests opening up the discussion outside this Board of the opportunity to look at the B&B bylaw.
Mr. Duffy moves to approve the petition with 9 standard conditions and one special condition: limitation of 21 consecutive days of stay, seconded by Mr. Metsch approved 5-0 (Mr. Duffy, Ms Harris, Mr. Tsitsinos, Ms. Curran and Mr. Metsch in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Public hearing: Petition of SCOTT CHARLTON requesting Variances from side and rear setback requirements for an accessory structure to allow an 8’x6’ shed on the property located at 11 ORLEANS AVE, Salem, MA (B-2 Zoning District).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped May 31, 2012 and accompanying materials including photographs
Scott Charlton presents his petition. He says about 20 years ago he constructed a shed – he thought zoning allowed it and was permitted correctly, but he has found out it does not comply. It is located only 2.5 feet from side and rear lot lines. He says it has been there 20 years. He thought to move the shed, but it would have to be disassembled because of the growth of a tree near the shed. He assumes responsibility for the permitting process when built, and is now requesting a variance.
Thomas Potorsky, 9 Orleans Ave., cites problems with applicant’s wife complaining about his boat storage. He is concerned the applicant asks for relief after the shed is built and says he did the same thing with his fence. He disagrees with the 2 ½ foot statement – it’s closer than that.
David Walsh, 12 Orleans Ave., says he can’t see the shed.
Mr. Potorsky submits a letter to the board about the boat storage issue, dated Dec. 12, from Michael Lutrzykowski, Assistant Building Inspector.
Mr. Charlton says he doesn’t want to get into this issue with his neighbor – he is just requesting the variance.
Ms. Curran asks for clarification – it’s 2 ½ feet off from the rear and side? Mr. Charlton says that’s the distance from the fence.
Mr. Potorsky says the fence variance is for the rear fence. The existing fence between their properties was another 8 foot fence. He says Mr. Charlton had that added to the other variance – he doesn’t know how. He says the other fence doesn’t comply either.
Mr. St. Pierre – that fence is allowed to be higher.
Ms. Curran – this can only be seen by your property? Mr. Charlton says yes, refers to the submitted pictures.
Ms. Curran doesn’t see a problem. It looks like it can’t be moved, just taken down. She asks how the shed is used. Mr. Charlton says it’s to store garden materials.
Ms. Harris says it doesn’t seem that big a deal.
Ms. Curran says she’d be inclined to approve. There are special conditions/circumstances – the structure is existing. It’s very small, not affecting other lands, buildings, or structures. Ms. Harris – he didn’t realize he needed permits for 17 years. We know this would be granted without detriment because it’s existed for 17 years peacefully.
Mr. Metsch doesn’t see an issue with granting, but is concerned about the applicant coming in after it’s built.
Ms. Harris moves to approve the petition. She says the hardship reasons are: the shed is small, minimally visible to street, existed for 17 years, there is no easy place to move given the trees, and it’s useful. She says it can approved without detriment. Mr. Tsitsinos seconds the motion and it passes 5-0 (Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Public hearing: Petition of JOSEPH W. NIGRO III requesting a Variance from minimum lot width and frontage to subdivide the property located at 51 VALLEY ST, Salem, MA (R-1 Zoning District).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped June 1, 2012 and accompanying materials
- Aerial photo, Google
- Plan to Accompany Petition to the Board of Appeals Located in Salem, Mass., prepared by Eastern Land Survey Associates, dated October 20, 2011
- Letter from Patricia and Scott Hanford, 41 Valley Street, dated June 20, 2012
Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. He shows an assessor map with the property highlighted. He says the applicant wants to subdivide the property to create a second building lot. The lot currently has 160 feet of frontage. They are proposing creating one lot complying with 100 feet of frontage with the existing house. The second lot would have 60 feet of frontage/lot width. In all other respects, these lots comply with the zoning. The property is significantly larger than other properties in the zoning district. He presents Google Earth maps and says a large portion of the land is not usable, though it is well maintained. He says that is the special condition that makes this property different from the rest of the zoning district. He says there is a loss of value
because of the extra land. He says creating a lot with 60 feet of frontage is not inconsistent with the neighborhood and not detrimental. He also says cars would not have to back out of the driveway.
Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment.
Ivy Ringhoff, 45 Valley St., says when they moved in, the drawback was their house was on a busy main street, but the benefit was there were almost no neighbors. She says the neighbors have large yards. Her property is a few feet below theirs, and there is a bowl effect. The new house would be close to her house, block their light, and would be right above them looking down at them. The new lot would not be very big. The house across the street from her has a large lot too. Why couldn’t everyone do this? The spacious neighborhood eventually could have lots of small lots. She wants to put in an addition one day and the house would be very close. She is concerned about property values going down. The house that could go on here would be even smaller than hers.
She opposes the petition.
Scott Gately, 65 Valley St., has several concerns – he also recognized it was a busy street when he moved there – so he looked for space when moving in. There are plenty of neighborhoods in Salem that would be more crowded. He asks what the criteria are for issuing a Variance. He is concerned about property values. Will another small house benefit Salem? He says their tax burden goes up with every new house. He says the sub terrain is rocky. Blasting needed to be done for neighbors’ construction. Just because there are smaller lots, does this justify making a new one?
Ms. Curran says that for a Variance, hardship must be shown. There must be some reason why this is their only option – something unusual about the site is making it hard to develop.
Ms. Harris says the site is large – the property is acre – and they are trying to make that the hardship.
Mr. Gately: Didn’t they know that when they purchased it?
Matt Ryan, 48 Valley St., says he has great view; there is a well maintained yard, and they preserve the neighborhood atmosphere. His driveway is across from the parcel the applicant wants to create. He has no concerns or objections to the petition; he supports subdividing the property.
Stefano Cornelio, 60 Valley St., speaks about the scale of home already there – a 3 story large structure. Not all the other houses in the neighborhood have such big houses. There is a swath of land between them and this other large structure. He doesn’t know if this qualifies as a hardship. He questions the hardship claim, since he believes they want to sell to a family member. He says the homes in the neighborhood relative to plot sizes are not that big. He refers to the conservation area behind them at Gallows Hill Park. This open look not just on one stretch – Salem Woods is also behind the neighborhood.
Mr. Gately says the height differential is very significant between the abutters’ property and the new home.
Attorney Grover addresses the proximity to Ms. Ringhoff’s house, saying the new house will comply with all setbacks of zoning. He shows the tree line in the aerial photo, which Ms. Ringhoff says is not accurate and was taken a long time ago – the tree is no longer there.
Mr. Grover says the lot is almost 17,000 SF, not a small lot. It’s unusual that it’s a big lot but lacks the necessary frontage. As to the impact on values – he refers to the new properties being built nearby at Strongwater Crossing, which are being sold in the mid high $400s, and this house would be $450 to $500K, significantly higher than most values in Witchcraft Heights. He thinks this would affect this neighborhood’s values positively. As to taxes, a new house would spread out the tax burden and improve the tax situation.
Ms. McKnight reads a letter in opposition from Patricia and Scott Hanford, 41 Valley St., who cite concerns about property values going down from allowing an undersized lot.
Ms. Ringhoff asks what size house could go there. Ms. Curran says this is the only thing that wouldn’t conform with zoning. If they didn’t, they would have to make a separate application to a board.
Mr. Cornelio says he doesn’t think the values estimated by Attorney Grover are accurate.
Ms. Curran notes it’s a very large lot, but she just doesn’t see the hardship.
Ms. Harris doesn’t see it either. A large lot is not a hardship. She won’t support it.
Mr. Duffy says he’s not sure the Board has heard a description of a condition that especially affects this parcel. The issue is a frontage problem. He doesn’t see how that is special to this property.
Mr. Grover says it’s the size of this lot relative to the frontage that makes it unusual in this district.
Ms. Curran agrees they have plenty of lot area, but doesn’t that’s a strong hardship argument.
Mr. Duffy says he is struggling with fact that the property owners came to this under the existing zoning. Ms. Harris observes that they would have wanted a large lot.
Mr. Grover says this was originally laid out as 3 separate lots and merged.
Mr. Grover takes a few minutes to speak to client, then request to withdraw petition.
Mr. Duffy moves to allow the applicant to withdrawn the petition without prejudice, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos and passed 5-0 (Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Metsch, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed). The petition is withdrawn without prejudice. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Old/New Business
Ms. McKnight passes out new copies of ZBA action forms to members who need a copy.
Adjournment
Mr. Tsitsinos moves to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Duffy, 5-0 in favor.
The meeting adjourns at 8:20 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
Approved by the Board of Appeals 7/18/12
| 
