City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.
Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Richard Dionne, Tom Watkins, David Eppley (Alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate). Those absent were: Mike Duffy Also present were Robin Stein, Assistant City Solicitor, Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Daniel Sexton, Staff Planner.
Chairwomen, Ms. Curran, called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
Ms. Curran: Explained to the board members and public in attendance that the meeting is being recorded.
Ms. Curran: The first order of business, Ms. Curran entertained a motion to adjourn to enter Executive Session for the purpose of discussing ongoing litigation, specifically:
- 16 Saunders Street in McKinnon v. Byrne ESCV 2009-01545C
- Higgins v. City of Salem et. al. 12 Misc. 474478 (GHP)
These items are being heard in executive session because it has been determined that public discussion may have a detriment effect on the negotiating position of the City. Ms. Curran explained that votes may be taken during Executive Session and, if they are, they will be released at a time deem appropriate by Council. Once completed, the Salem ZBA will reconvene in open session.
Motion: Ms. Curran Requested a roll call vote of the motion, which was approved 6-0 (Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Eppley (Alternate) and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate) in favor, non opposed). The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes and the Salem ZBA left the room.
For minutes and votes held during Executive Session, please contact the City of Salem Solicitor to discuss their release.
The motion below was made in Executive Session to reopen the public hearing.
Motion: Mr. Dionne made a motion to close the Executive Session and reconvene the Salem ZBA open hearing, seconded by Mr. Eppley, and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 6-0 vote (Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Eppley (Alternate) and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate) in favor, none opposed). The motion to close the Executive Session was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of the Executive Session and these minutes.
The public hearing was reopened at 6:55 PM.
- APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
Curran: On the approval of the meeting minutes from January 16, 2013, I believe Ms. Harris and I were the only members present. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes?
Harris: I noticed a typo in the fifth paragraph on page 4. The word ‘care’ in the first sentence should be changed to ‘careful.’
Curran: So is there a motion with the minor change?
Motion: Mr. Dionne made a motion to approve the minutes as amended by Ms. Harris’ correction, seconded by Ms. Harris, and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 6-0 vote (Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Eppley (Alternate) and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate) in favor, none opposed). The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Ms. Curran introduced the first agenda item.
Petition of RICHARD JAGOLTA, requesting a modification of a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the first floor unit of a two-family building to be split into a residential and commercial unit at the property located at 18 BRIDGE ST (R2 Zoning District).
Curran: Who is speaking on behalf of the petition? Please state your name and address for the record.
Richard Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): 18 Bridge Street is located across the street form the 99 restaurant by the Salem/Beverly bridge. The area’s zoning is commercial on the side of the street where 99 and Dunkin Donuts is located, and then there is a two block stretch on the other side that is zoned R2 (Residential Two-Family). Largely, the area is a mixed use district besides the portion of R2. Three years ago, I came before the Salem ZBA requesting a Special Permit to allow the first floor tenant to operate a computer repair business in a portion of the first floor. The building was originally built as a two-family house, but in the 1980’s a permit was granted to allow a single-story addition on the left side of the building. That, addition, was a bait and tackle shop for a number of years. Since then, it has been
used as a message parlor and an antiques business. Currently, the space is being used for a computer repair business and an apartment. The second floor is, and always was, a residential unit.
While the first floor unit was initially occupied by a young couple, which operated the computer repair business. The success of the business has allowed the young couple to recently purchase a house. As a result, the couple has moved out of the residential portion of the first floor unit (approximately 1,800 sq. ft.), but continues to operate the computer repair business out of the commercial portion of the space. While they have left the residential space, they have asked to stay on as a renter of the commercial portion of the space, which I said okay too pending the approval of the Salem ZBA authorizing the renting of the residential portion of the space to someone else. As it stands, they currently are occupying 400 sq. ft. of the first floor unit and I afford not to rent the residential portion of the unit. What I am asking
for is the ability to rent out the residential space to different tenant than the commercial space. If I can’t get the permit, I will be forced to evict a successful business. This doesn’t seem to make sense, because the State just invest $10 million upgrading Bridge Street and the City is trying to develop a successful mix of residential and commercial use on that street.
Curran: So when you came to us in 2009, what was the building being used for?
Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): It was mixed use. The second floor was residential. The first floor had been vacant for some time. I had an antique shop that had been in there, but they moved out. I had the space up for rent. The current tenants had approached me with the proposition of operating a home-occupation business.
Curran: Had it been vacant for more than two years?
Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): No
Curran: So it was a residential and business mix, which you came before us seeking a Special Permit for that.
Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): Yes. When this situation arose, I always secure the necessary permits, I met with Thomas St. Pierre to discuss what I needed to do to continue the business use.
Curran: So, essentially, you are proposing to revert back to the original use configuration that it had been before.
Harris: So the antique business, the person lived there and operated the business?
Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): No. The second floor was a residence and the antique shop was using the entire first floor. This was before I became the owner in 2004, but I have been told, way back in the day, that the bait and tackle shop operators lived there as well. But, I can’t state that for a fact.
Curran: Do any of the Board member have any questions, before I open the discussion to the public? Is there anyone here to speak on this proposal?
Joe Bennett (15 Hubon Street): I spoke to my neighbors, but for whatever reason I’m the only person on this street that got a notice. So nobody else was available to attend today. The three people that I spoke with are the only other occupied properties on the street and they are against any change whatsoever that will increase traffic on our street. As it is, the driveway and parking for that house access the property from Hubon Street. Hubon Street is a dead-end street. It’s been before your board already. You allowed Patrick Buless to put five units in the vacant lot, two of which will be exiting onto Hubon Street. As it is, we have questions about the occupancy of that house. The property looks more like a rooming-house with all the cars parked there. It does not appear to me that one family lives in the structure.
I would like Census to look into how many households claim that as an address. I personally have called Mike Saznowski at least four times about the amount of rubbish that is left outside. One time, there was a pile of cat litter and excrement left on the side of the street. I see no reason to allow this man to have a detrimental effect on my neighborhood. If you allow another set of people to come there, the computer repair shop as many people coming there. We’ve had to have the City put ‘No Parking From Here to Corner’ signs on both sides of the street, because people would park on both sides of the street not allowing anyone to access the street. The neighbors I talked to are Billy Semons (19 Hubon Street), Patrick Murtaugh (17 Hubon Street), and Michael Swasey (10 Hubon Street), but if you need them here for comments I suggest you postpone any votes until they can be notified.
Curran: Could you [petitioner] speak to that? So presently, or until your family purchased the house, can you confirm that there was one family living in the top floor and operating the business?
Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): No. There is one elderly gentleman residing in the second floor unit. The couple rented the first floor unit and operated the computer repair business. I have no idea what he is referring to regarding the rooming-house.
Joe Bennett (15 Hubon Street): When I leave to work in the morning, there are 4-6 cars there. I don’t know who lives there.
Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): The one tenant residing on the second floor has two vehicles (pickup truck and car). Then the couple on the first floor each has a car. So it’s a four car driveway and there are four cars in it.
Ms. Curran asked that members of the public please have discussion through the Chair.
Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): There was a boat that belonged to the first floor tenant that is gone since they moved out. But that was parked at the back of the driveway on the property. I’ve never seen a customer of the computer repair business drive down or park on Hubon Street. There is ample parking (on-street) in front of the building. Additionally, there is a parking sign in front of the building that limits parking for 15-minute, because people are always in and out. The spaces in front of the building are almost always open. If is incorrect to say the City had to change the parking allowance on either side of the street (Bridge Street). Parking on the 99 side of the street is always open. On our side of the street I’ve always been able to park in front of the building when I go there. There is a sign near the
corner that prohibits parking at the corner. Many instances like this exist on a busy street.
Curran: How many spaces in total are there on the lot?
Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): 4-6 depending upon how big the vehicles are. Easily 5 parking spaces. The shed in the corner allows 2 vehicles to park on the right side and 3 on the left side, but there are actually more spaces.
Curran: So we require 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit. How many square feet is the commercial portion of the structure?
Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): About 400 sq. ft.
Curran: Those spaces can’t be tandem.
Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): There is actually one space next to Hubon Street that wouldn’t be tandem.
Eppley: What are the posted business hours for the computer shop?
Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): 10-6.
Eppley: One of the questions raised was whether there would be increased traffic on Bridge Street. And as I understand the proposal, the tenant of the business would not be living there from 6 PM to 10 AM. Is that correct?
Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): Yes.
Eppley: In essence, there would be the same amount of traffic occurring in the area between 10 AM and 6 PM Monday through Friday, but otherwise traffic would actually reduce because there wouldn’t be some one living in the unit.
Curran: I think their asking for a second residential unit.
Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): As I understand it, the issue isn’t traffic on Bridge Street, which is a very high traffic street being Route 1A. I believe his concerns are the traffic on Hubon Street. I understand his concerns because it is a small narrow street. But, I can’t see how this is going to increase traffic on Hubon Street at all, because there have always been people living in both units. The residents on Hubon Street have been battling change of any kind in the area for years. There have been several developers over the decades that have tried to redevelop this eyesore, a vacant lot, which sits behind my building with no success.
Curran: Let’s just keep it focused on the petition before the Salem ZBA
Harris: Just to be clear, this building contains two residential units and the residential unit on the first floor has a commercial business associated with it. So as I understand it, the request before us is a petition requesting two residential units, plus a commercial unit. The first floor would now be a residential and commercial unit.
Curran: I think it would be helpful if we had a site plan for the property and a building floor plan, with square footages) to get an idea of the size for each unit.
Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): The size for the first floor is about 1,800 sq. ft.
Curran: The commercial unit represents about 400 sq. ft. that would continue to be used for a computer business. So that leaves a 1,400 sq. ft. residential unit. How many bedrooms is that?
Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): The current tenants are using it as a two bedroom, but it could be a three bedroom unit.
Curran: Seeing a site plan for the property outlining the available parking spaces and their configuration would be helpful. Parking is always a big consideration. That fact that you’re not request a reduction of parking makes me believe that you’ve discussed this issue with Thomas St. Pierre. But the petition doesn’t say that anywhere, so I’d be hesitant to support the proposal without knowing there was adequate parking to support the increase intensity of use. Absent of that information, I think it makes it difficult to make a decision.
Harris: I agree, it’s a little more complicated then I had thought. I’m comfortable with the building information the petitioner has described, but I still don’t understand the parking.
Curran: Would it be possible for you to submit that information? It’s always helpful to bring photographs. Would you be willing to continue this to the next meeting?
Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): Tom had indicated that that wouldn’t be necessary because there were no modifications proposed to the exterior of the building.
Curran: It doesn’t, but the increased use does affect parking. It would be helpful in making a decision.
Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): What specifically would you like me to submit?
Curran: A plot plan showing the size and location of parking spaces (current and proposed configuration), building layout on the property, and a building layout with square footage allocations by unit (existing and proposed).
Harris: Is there a way to clarify any mistakes that may have been made concerning the abutters notices?
Curran: Dan, can you confirm the certified abutters list to make sure it is correct? The abutter notices are typically sent to abutters and abutters of abutters. Because of the 300 feet boundary, certain properties may not be included depending upon the density of an area.
Sexton: I will confirm the distribution of the abutter notices.
Curran: Our next meeting is March 20th. So we would continue it till then.
Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street): I’m actually traveling with my daughter, visiting colleges.
Curran: Is there someone that could be present on your behalf. Why don’t we continue it to March 20th and if you want to continue it further you can. You will need to sign a ‘Continuance Request’ form, please see staff. Is there a motion to continue this item?
Motion: Mr. Dionne made a motion to continue the petition of Richard Jagolta, concerning 18 Bridge Street, to the March 20th meeting, seconded by Mr. Watkins, and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 6-0 vote (Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Eppley (Alternate) and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate) in favor, none opposed). The motion was accepted. This is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Ms. Curran clarified to a member of the public that the public hearing on this matter has been continued so no further impute will be taken at this time. She then introduced the next item on the agenda.
Petition of ROBERT F. CUMMINGS, JR, requesting an appeal of a cease and desist order issued by the Assistant Building Inspector in a June 12, 2012 letter for the property located at 146 BRIDGE ST (R2 Zoning District).
Thomas St. Pierre entered the meeting.
Curran: The applicant is Robert Cummings, Jr. Is the applicant present to discuss the petition?
Robert Cummings, Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): I own the house at 146 Bright Street in Salem. I’m here to appeal the Building Inspectors ruling on Article 1 § 22-2 for my house here in Salem at 146 Bridge Street. Basically, I was a little confused because I was under the impression that I was allowed to have commercially rented property. When I got the violation, I went down to the Recorders Office to see what the City had on file for my property. At City Hall, I found that my property had been listed as a multi-use property coded 013 and a residence code of 015. I also attached a copy of the Assessors bill. Of the bills I submitted, I believe the trash bill is the first, which indicates the fees for the property as residential ($16 a month) and commercial ($24 a month). On the next page, is a copy of my tax bill. It
does change much, but if you look in the middle of the page under property descriptions, it shows I am being taxed one rate for the residential portion of the property and a little higher rate for the commercial garage I rent to a plumber at a little higher rate. Base upon this, I don’t understand what the whole snafu with the issue. After that I did attached a couple photography of the situation and what it looks like down there. In one of the pictures I’ve identified who’s renting a couple of the garages. A couple tenants in the apartment building are renting garages along with their apartments. And then the vacant ones I rent to a carpenter and a plumber. One of the pictures, in particular, shows the yellow house at 142 Bridge Street that has been filing the complaints. I’d like to draw the Salem ZBA’s attention, the last time I was here was a couple two-three years ago, I think. When the gentlemen building the house at 142 Bridge was in front of
the board because he was going to rebuild the house on a nonconforming lot. He changed the layout of the structure a bit, which located the structure a little closer to some of the abutters. So we were all here to see what his plans were. I didn’t really think there was going to be a problem, so I didn’t protest at that time because I thought everything was going to be fine. Since then he has gone condo and the tenant of one of the units he sold is having a problem with the cars coming and going from the garage. In addition to the photographs, I have provided copies of some of the police reports that were filed with the complaint. The first police report I have in my packet is dated April of 2012. Personally, after doing some research, this started the whole disgruntled neighbor thing. It seems there was a disagreement between one of the tenants at 142 Bridge Street and one of my tenants at 146 Bridge Street. Apparently, the police were called to the
property.
Curran: These were people that resided in the house?
Robert Cummings, Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): Yes.
Curran: Did they have anything to do with the garages?
Robert Cummings, Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): No. And I believe the person residing at 142, which is listed in this police report, is the person that has been making the complaints to Thomas St. Pierre that I’m in violation. So I think back in April, when these neighbors had their disagreement, is where everything started to fall apart. After that police report is a list of all the other police reports when 142 Bridge Street called on 146 for a zoning violation. It’s just a record of the police officer showing to do his investigation, write down his findings, and leaving because there wasn’t anything criminally that he could do about the situation. He recommended that we go in front of the Salem ZBA or meeting with the Building Inspector, something to that affect. Again, to emphasize my point that this is an
issue of disgruntle neighbors rather than a zoning issue. After reviewing the police reports I copied a couple of ‘Tweets’ from the resident of 142 Bridge Street Tweeter account. I was able to make some correlations between some of the Tweets she had made and the date of the police reports. I would appreciate you take a look at some of the comments that were made about my tenants. I don’t believe those types of comments are necessary. Those are on the last 3-4 pages. After that, I provided a list of all the tenants I’ve had. I owned the property for the last 20-years, during which I’ve rent apartments and commercial space in the garage. I’ve also provided a list of the current tenants. The list is a little lengthy, but I don’t want you to think I turnover a lot of people. At any given time, I’ve always rented to more then one tenant. Right now I’m renting to a carpenter and a plumber. At times, I’ve had three different
people renting garage space from me. So it’s not like I’m turning over people every six months or a year, I try to find people that live in among the residences and that don’t aggravate others. Then the last thing I included in my packet is a copy of a letter I received from the Mayor, which I believe she had sent out to all the residents of Ward 2, just stating her goals for trying to finish off Bridge Street and how she was hoping everything would shake out after the construction was done. I’d like to quote a statement of hers, “The Bridge Street Neighborhood should be an active mixed use neighborhood incorporating lively commercial and residential areas.” I believe we have been doing that for the last 20-years. Again, I think this is an issue of neighbors not able to get along. Some neighbors that abut the property are present, to discuss that not all the neighbors abutting us are having these issues with the noise car. Additionally, before
the first police report in April, everyone seemed to get along. But, when the issue between one of my tenants and the resident of 142 Bridge Street came to head in April with the complaint that’s when everything began to be unsatisfactory.
Curran: Tom, can you explain whether the issue is with the use of the garage or with the noise bylaw.
St. Pierre: The noise bylaw stands by itself. It’s a police enforcement action if in fact there is a noise issue. The use of the garage as an automobile repair shop was the question. This is one of those properties, not an unusual use here in Salem, which really has a cloudy or not clear use history. It certainly has had many commercial uses. But for instance, Chief’s place came in before to get a Special Permit to be there. I have the records somewhere. But since than many other businesses have been in there with no permission from the board. I would look at it as a nonconforming commercial garage.
Curran: So is it a pre-existing nonconforming use?
St. Pierre: It pre-existed to 1965. There was a meat packer, Swift Packing, way back in the 1960’s. But, technically, when you change uses it’s a pretty narrow definition of what you can stick with.
Curran: Right.
St. Pierre: Storage and warehousing, or whatever.
Robert Cummings, Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): May I add one more thing? Basically where the garage is located, the back portion of my property abuts the former Packer Brothers site. So, since all the new condos and townhouses have gone in it has been a little more restrictive than when Packer Brothers was in operation.
Curran: Is there a Special Permit for uses back there?
Robert Cummings, Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): Nope.
St. Pierre: There hasn’t been any history of any in 20-years.
Curran: So it is or isn’t a pre-existing nonconforming use?
St. Pierre: I’d have to say it is a pre-existing nonconforming use. It certainly had that commercial history, back before 1965. It’s never stopped being a commercial and/or rental use.
Harris: So do we know what the uses where?
St. Pierre: There has been cold cut distribution.
Watkins: So this type of commercial activity has been going on since adoption of the 1965 Zoning Code?
St. Pierre: Yes.
Watkins: So is the commercial use of the property grandfathered?
St. Pierre: The grandfathering of a commercial use, the problem with that is it doesn’t cast an umbrella that allows you to do any commercial use you want. It’s usually restricted to that type of use or something similar.
Curran: You stick to the same one and if you want to change uses you need to get a Special Permit.
St. Pierre: It’s a Special Permit to change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use.
Curran: But it’s a little cloudy as to what uses have been?
St. Pierre: This current use is not technically cloud because the use is storage. The problem arises when their out working on the cars. The storage itself I don’t think would be a violation.
Harris: Is the storage as in you can park a car or store boxes and equipment?
St. Pierre: Like with the carpenter, they could store ladders and other construction equipment. I think there is a carpenter using one of the garage bays now.
Curran: And working on cars on the property?
St. Pierre: At one time, Chief’s Motorcycles were in there. I remember them coming in to get a Special Permit, that’s the one exception.
Harris: So currently there is a car being repaired? Is the carpenter actually using the garage as a woodworking shop?
St. Pierre: That I don’t know.
Robert Cummings, Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): He’s here, tonight.
Steve Champaign (Proctor Street): I rent two bays of Mr. Cummings garage, which I have done for the past six years. He keeps a very nice place. I’m in and out of there 2-3 times a week to pick different materials that I need for work and different jobs. The place is quiet, well kept, and secure.
Curran: So you use the garage for storage? Not a workshop?
Steve Champaign (Proctor Street): That is correct, I use it as storage. Not a workshop.
Tory Hutchinson (150 Harbor Street): We share a common drive with the property and our property is about 10 feet from the garages and we’ve lived there for 15-years. During that time, there never once has been an issue with us about the noise.
Robert Cummings, Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): May I clarify something about the other garage use? The other tenant is Michael Saroy Plumbing & Heating and he uses the space primarily for storage. He’s a plumber, so I imagine he stores a couple toilets, a water heater, pip fittings and other supplies. He does also have a car, which he stores in the garage during the week while he drives his diesel truck. On the weekends, he often pulls the car out of storage to drive it. The car is a bit of a hotrod. I think it is a 1974ish Dodge Dart. I think the car is pulled out for use on Friday afternoons and is then returned on Sunday or Monday morning. I know the truck he drives is a diesel vehicle so it’s a little louder. The truck, which is a commercial vehicle, has a back-up beeper. In one of the photos, his truck is
shown in front of the garage.
Tory Hutchinson (150 Harbor Street): We’re the neighbors right there, it’s the bedroom side of our building, and it’s never been an issue for us.
Curran: So the other two garages are occupied by tenant of the build.
Robert Cummings, Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): On one of the photographs, I’ve indicated who is renting each bay of the garage (i.e. Apt. 1 and Apt. 2). As shown, two bays are rented by Mr. Champaign (carpenter) and the larger bay is used by Michael Saroy (plumber and car storage).
Harris: You’re saying the use of those garage bays is just storage?
Robert Cummings, Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): To be honest, I actually share the garage bay with Michael. The garage, to the best of my knowledge, is being used to store my boat, some snowmobiles, and Michaels car and plumbing supplies.
Curran: Are there other neighbors present to speak on the matter?
Allen Murphy (152 Bridge Street): The property is a clean space. I help maintain the driveway with him. Just look at the photos, he runs a tight ship. I’ve been at my house for 52-years, so I know the history of the area.
Curran: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on the item?
Jim Barkley (142 Bridge Street): This setup about disgruntled neighbors is not correct. There are a lot of issues that need to be disentangled. I, personally, don’t have anything against my neighbors. I just like to enjoy my neighborhood. But this doesn’t necessarily seem to be about the noise complaint. It’s more a question of whether this is the proper area for multiple uses. At 142 Bridge Street there are two condos. There are multiple people that live there. A number of new structures have been built in the area over the last few years that are adjacent or very close to the property. When I moved in, I looked at City Hall and this areas was zoned R2 residential. My concern is that I wasn’t aware that this area was going to be multi-use. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that, but its
interesting to me that there has been this blanket history of a grandfather clause. I subscribe to the philosophy that when a neighborhood starts to have more residents in it, do what you’ve done for other petitioners. Come be fore the Salem ZBA and examine each petition on a case by case basis that considers whether a particular business is appropriate in a certain area. Not a blanket acceptance of any business. I think it’s a risk. It’s an unfair risk to place on residents of the area. So that’s my question about the multi-tenancy. I’m willing to answer any questions the Salem ZBA may have for me as one of the two neighbors living at 142 Bridge Street.
Caroline Coshow (142 Bridge Street): So everything started with me in April when I was on maternity leave. I was hearing a lot of noise from two cars in the garage. I guess they must be the cars owned by Mr. Saroy. He makes noise for hours and races through the driveway and down Bridge Street. It’s a potential hazard for anyone walking in front of the drive. There are also a lot of fumes, which are white and heavy. I can’t even open the windows to my home. I went down to the garage one Saturday morning to speak with the gentleman working on the car and asked him if he could be a little quieter. He would not look or talk with me. After that, there was no respect so I called the police. But every time the police came it was just after the cars had left. I didn’t call 911 because I didn’t think this was an
emergency. As a result, the timing of police arrival varied. The next time I’m just going to call 911. One of the police reports actually mentions the complaint was noise. It’s not just one day a week that the noise occurs. I have no complaints against using the garages for storage, but I don’t think it should be a commercial use. When we bought this house it was identified as a residential zone. I should have to listen to the car. The plumbing business has nothing to do with a car repair business. This issue has been going on since the first day we moved into the house, even after we asked them to be quiet. From March to November, you cannot enjoy one quiet even in your yard. I’m not comfortable to spend any weekend outside in the yard because you never know when the cars are going to arrive. I will not take my baby outside and endanger her. I should be able to go outside. I also don’t understand how none of the other neighbors can hear the noise. I
can hear the cars across the street.
Jim Barkley (142 Bridge Street): If a may add to that. Part of what Caroline is saying, regarding the noise complaint, even though this not what this appeal is about. In a transitive way it is. I think if you look at the police reports, very few if any citations have been issued. So I think that may have been part of the reasoning for the City’s Building Inspector to issue the cease and desist order as an alternative method of addressing the problem.
Curran: Anyone else? If it’s new information.
Tory Hutchinson (150 Harbor Street): When she says that she called 911 saying that someone is going to get killed when they come out onto Bridge Street. She’s not on the driveway. No one is in the driveway
Luria Wood (142 Bridge Street #2): My question is, the answer that we would come out with from a situation like tonight doesn’t have so much to do with noise and sounds. I just need to understand the truncated discussion we’re having here. This is about the separate multi-use of the garages? The precipitating events, if I understand correctly, involve the calls and the investigations of the disaggregation of the tenants and what was going on there. The question is the fact that it has been residential the entire time and yet other things may have been happening. Whether or not that’s okay to keep this happening moving forward. Or, whether there’s something we should do different.
Curran: Yes, that is correct. That is what we are discussing tonight.
Robert Cummings, Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): May I add something?
Curran: Just a second, I have a question to ask the Building Inspector. We have a cease and desist order, but is there a zoning violation?
St. Pierre: We felt that the automobile use, if you want to call it that, we weren’t sure where to go with this one either. There was a neighborhood complaint, but we felt the automobile use crossed the line. The use of the garages as storage of vehicles or work supplies doesn’t seem to bother anyone, the revving and working on cars was where is crossed over into an automotive use.
Curran: So you understand that by renting to the carpenter and the plumber for storage and parking for the tenants that that is not a zoning violation according to the Building Commissioner. You are allowed to continue those activities. The thing that triggered this is the automotive repair. Just so you know, this is an R2 zoning district. There are things that predated zoning on this property. Those uses would be allowed to continue as long as they stay consistent. But, if someone wanted to change the active uses they would have to come in for a Special Permit from this board. But, if it stayed basically the same, which is storage and garaging, that’s fine. The Building Commission is saying what crosses the line is the working on cars. So that is not a permitted use and it should cease and desist if that’s happening.
But is sounds like you’re saying that isn’t happening.
Robert Cummings, Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): He’s working on his own car. You’re not going to go down there on a Saturday morning to get your oil changed. He might be doing things to his vehicle as a hobby. It’s not a repair shop.
Eppley: He’s not repairing his car at his home, correct?
Robert Cummings, Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): No, he’s repairing his car in the garage he’s leasing. The vehicles are registered to be on the road. I understand that they may be a little loud, but they pass inspection, have a sticker on the windshield, and are registered and insured. They just store the cars there during the week and drive them on the weekend. I don’t think they know anyone downtown. It probably is fact that once the police have been called, and they arrive, the cars have left for the weekend.
Luria Wood (142 Bridge Street #2): There’s a point of diminishing returns. Say for example, if it was one guy switching his car out for five minutes then it would be unlikely that any of us would have a problem with it. But, there are numerous people down there at all hours of the day and night. I find it hard to believe that is has anything to do with carpentry or plumbing. I’m not the mean neighbor that does want people to enjoy their car, but there becomes a point in which I can’t believe that’s what’s really happening. Unless they’re playing a recording of cars on a loop. I don’t want to have to call the police on my neighbors, who would want to do that.
Tory Hutchinson (150 Harbor Street): Can I say something?.
Curran: Is it new information that has not been stated?
Tory Hutchinson (150 Harbor Street): Yes. I’ve been laid off for the past year and have only seen Mike down there. I don’t understand what the problem is. I haven’t heard him work on his car in months.
Curran: Of the uses that are allowed, which are parking and storage, there is something going on there that goes beyond those allowed uses. That should stop. Even though they’re working on their own car it’s not on their property. What these garages should be used for is storage, such as vehicles and materials. If it goes beyond that, like changing oil and that sort of thing, it will be considered going beyond the allowable uses. If the car was had broke down there and they were trying to fix it that would be one thing. The present uses, specifically the car repair part, appear to be going beyond the allowed uses. But the car repair par: (1) is creating a neighborhood problem; and (2) it goes a little beyond storage. Which is what garages are typically, and since there is no clear history, it’s safe to assume
they have been used as garages and can continue to be used as such.
St. Pierre: This is a difficult issue that crosses over into health and noise complaints. I was hoping to get this to the Salem ZBA earlier, but it took some time to get here. This lag may have aggravated the neighbors concerns and the whole situation. We were hoping that something could have been worked out. Say for example, if a car was idling it would only be allowed to do so for 5 minutes.
Curran; Isn’t there a State law governing the idling of vehicles that prohibits the idling of vehicles for no more then 5 minutes?
St. Pierre: I believe there is, but I’m not sure it applies to cars. It does apply to commercial trucks.
Curran: I believe it includes cars as well.
St. Pierre: I’m not sure if there is a clear path on this beyond sticking to the fact that the garages are, and should be, used for storage and parking of vehicles.
Harris: How come this issue wasn’t brought before the Salem ZBA earlier?
St. Pierre: The owner took a while to appeal our order and get it here.
Harris: Do you agree that the issue involves two cars.
St. Pierre: I believe that is correct. I know the car that Mike Saroy owns, but I’m unsure of the other car. At one time, he did mention that he had a friend’s car there.
Robert Cummings, Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): Yes, there are two cars being stored there.
Curran: I’m okay with the garages being used for storage. What you described as the use, him coming and going, is fine. It’s just the working on vehicles that’s not okay.
Robert Cummings, Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): It’s not like a commercial activity (i.e. painting the car and engine work). They are there when it’s raining doing a brake job or oil change.
Curran: I think that goes beyond the use.
St. Pierre: I really think the best play here would be some sort of an agreement. I don’t think working on brakes or changing oil is the problem, from what I’m hearing from the neighbors. The problem is the revving of the engines. The complaints we got concerned starting and revving of the hotrods. They’re tuning and tweaking the engine for some lengthy period of time. Apparently, it takes a while to warm the cars up. That is the root of the complaint. I have a hotrod and it can take some time to warm it up. Normally, I start my car up and role it into the drive, and then I drive away. Each car is different and other may be stickier then others.
Tory Hutchinson (150 Harbor Street): May I ask a question?
Curran: You may.
Tory Hutchinson (150 Harbor Street): Chief’s Place was there for many years. They were always revving their engines in the same garage we are talking about.
St. Pierre: Chief’s Place was there years ago and had received a Special Permit. So it’s a little different story.
Tory Hutchinson (150 Harbor Street): I don’t hear the current tenant revving.
St. Pierre: To clarify, the house that was located at 142 Bridge Street before was derelict and a known crack house. Before the developer came in with is proposal to develop condos there I was ready to order its demolition. Like it or not, the neighbors have a vested interest and we are trying to work through the issues. A lot of things can be straight forward, but in this instance it’s not so straight forward. We have to consider the property rights of both properties and come to a solution that’s good for everyone.
Harris: How do we describe the way to limit the uses on the property? Should idling be allowed to no more than 5 minutes? Should that be inside or outside?
St. Pierre: If the owner would agree to limiting the idling of vehicles for no more then 5 minutes be agreeable?
Caroline Coshow (142 Bridge Street): No, because when I went down there the first time to ask him to stop he just ignored me. I’m a patient person. I close my windows and wait for the police. He just keeps idling and revving his vehicle. The more we call the police, the nosier he is. I wouldn’t have any issue if the man would just leave, much like the lady had explained about the motorcycles.
Curran: The public hearing will be closed if conversations continue back and forth between members of the public.
Harris: The question was directed towards the petitioner, correct?
Curran: Inside work of a quiet nature is not what needs to cease and desist.
St. Pierre: That’s my opinion and I don’t think that is the cause of the problems. I think the problem is the tinkering of the car.
Tsitsinos: It’s the tinkering of their hobby that is causing the noise. If you have a four barrel carburetor with a 350 engine, it takes a while for it to warm up. Sometimes you may have to adjust something. Then you go. I know the area and it’s always been quiet and clean. I‘ve never heard anything outrageous.
Harris: So you’ve been there?
Tsitsinos: No directly on this property, but I’ve been in the area and seen motorcycles and a hotrod. I’ve lived in the area for 15 years and I remember Chiefs.
Curran: Looking specifically at the cease and desist letter, what exactly were we asking them to cease and desist. It’s certainly not the builder. We have not determined there to be a zoning violation here when one considers the garages being used for storage. What is crossing the line, seems to be the repair aspect.
St. Pierre: I did hope the Salem ZBA would weigh in on that interpretation.
Curran: I think that is correct. Now the question is how to proceed with the cease and desist letter. The cease and desist letter seems to indicate that there is a zoning violation, but I don’t think there is.
Tsitsinos: It seems to be more of a noise violation.
Curran: I’m unclear as to how to proceed with the appeal.
Robert Cummings, Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): If you could refer to some of the police reports, I think you can see the timeframe that we are talking about. More specifically, it indicates when the call was made, when they showed up, and what was found. It doesn’t appear to be any more then 20 minutes on any given one of them. I’m pretty sure the latest they were called down there was at 8 PM on a Friday night. It’s not like this thing is going on at 2 or 5 AM in the morning.
Curran: I guess we don’t want your tenants to idle their cars for more then 5 minutes, which is the state law anyway.
Caroline Coshow (142 Bridge Street): May I say one last thing?
Curran: Yes, one last thing then I’m going to close the public hearing.
Caroline Coshow (142 Bridge Street): When we call the police, this man has been idling his car for 30-40 minutes. I‘m not waiting for this man to arrive, I have other things to do. The police also have other things to do. If I call the police, it’s because there is a problem. Even with the doors closed white smoke or fuses comes out of the garage. This is dangerous because it could be a fire. How am I to know? If he wants to repair his car he should go to his own property.
Curran: I’d like to close the public portion of the hearing and continue the board discussion. Does anyone have any comments?
Watkins: Tom, has there been any official letter from the City or your department indicating to the tenants that complaints or that they are in violation of the noise ordinance?
St. Pierre: Only with a verbal. I know Michael Saroy professionally and have spoken with him about the complaints, as was the owner. It was not unknown to them.
Curran: Are there other questions? The thing I would like to do is uphold the cease and desist order, but be very specific that there is not a zoning violation with the storage uses. It’s a pre-existing nonconforming grandfathered use to rent these out for storage and the parking of cars. Not for active use. I would like to uphold it in that there does seem to be a nuisance aspect concerning the idling of vehicles for more then 5 minutes. If the space is going to be rented for storage there may be some idling, but it shouldn’t be for more the 5-munites. Referring to the State law is a good gauge.
Harris: Is that enough to explain that there is no zoning violation. To clarify, the storage and parking of cars is allowed, but you’re saying there needs to be a limit for idling. And you’re saying there is already a State law. Are we just bringing this law to the attention of the owner or should it be attached as a condition?
Curran: I think upholding the Building Commissioners is important so if there is another police issue the decision can be pointed to as reference to what is and is not allowed, specifically in the instance of idling vehicles. In this case, the idling or repair of vehicles goes beyond storage and parking of vehicles.
St. Pierre: So the excessive idling and repair of vehicle would be seen as an active use that is beyond what is allowed.
Harris: You’re talking about the idling, but how do we speak to the repair aspect?
Curran: If the repair is happening inside the garage and involves work of a quiet nature on the vehicles. For example, if one of these tenants was doing repair that you would normally do inside your garage then that’s fine. If it involves loud noises or other vehicles then it goes beyond storage of vehicles.
St. Pierre: Keeping in mind that the hours and limitations of the noise ordinance are still in play.
Curran: Correct.
Harris: So are we passing anything other then passing something that acknowledges these law and ordinance already exists?
St. Pierre: I think that perhaps the working on cars would be a zoning violation, if it were to be outside tuning or something.
Harris: So we are just advising the owner that those things should happen and there isn’t presently violation.
Curran: We’re upholding the Building Commissioners order and denying the appeal.
Watkins: With a limited scope involving.
Curran: We’ve reviewed the uses and there not in violation until they become active. the use of the garage, as storage and vehicle parking, is allowed. The letter does say that the property is located in an R2 zoning district. The letter suggests, to me, that this is not consistent with zoning. But it is because it is a pre-existing nonconforming use so I want to make it clear that that is okay. What is not okay is anything beyond the use of the garage for storage or vehicle parking. Additionally, we want to say to the owner that the idling of vehicles beyond 5-minutes is not allowed by State law and will cross over into a zoning violation.
Harris: Is it easier to just say the active use as opposed to working on cars?
Curran: I believe so. As long as we reinforce that any active use, beyond what is allow, would be considered a zoning violation.
St. Pierre: Having the 5-minute standard is a very easy standard for the Police and Building Departments to enforce. We will make sure they get a copy of this.
Harris: What if the cars are in pieces in the garage of driveway?
St. Pierre: So we are talking about that too?
Curran: Yes, if there were pieces all over it should be considered as repair, which would be a violation. Is hard to define what constitutes an active use.
Watkins: What if we consider those activities if they are happening on an ongoing basis? Anyone should be able to work on their own car in their own garage their renting out.
Harris: But what if an individual is constantly disassembling and reassembling a car?
Sexton: If I may clarify. The repair you are talking about, the active use, is something that is happening outside the storage space/garage?
Harris: No, I think it could happen inside the space.
Curran: We haven’t defined that yet.
St. Pierre: I would recommend just sticking with the idling and noise. Those appear to be the crux of the complaint.
Curran: Is there someone willing to frame this as a motion?
Harris: We’ve reviewed the matter and find that the use of the garage for storage and vehicle parking is grandfathered as a pre-existing nonconforming use. But…
St. Pierre: But the excessive idling or revving of vehicle motors will constitute an automotive use which will be considered a zoning violation.
Curran: Are you incorporating Mr. St. Pierre’s verbiage in your proposed motion?
Harris: Yes.
Motion: Ms. Harris made a motion that stated: After reviewing the matter we find that the cease and desist order issued by the Building Commissioner is upheld, the use of the garage for storage and vehicle parking is a grandfathered pre-existing nonconforming use, and the excessive idling or revving of vehicle motors will constitute an automotive use which will be considered a zoning violation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Watkins and a roll call vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 6-0 vote (Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Eppley (Alternate) and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate) in favor, none opposed). The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Ms. Curran explained to the applicant and the public in attendance that the decision would be available within two weeks of the hearing and filed with the City Clerk.
Robert Cummings, Jr. (176 Pine Street, Danvers): Its okay that my tenants stay there, correct?
Curran: Yes, just make sure they aren’t excessively idling their vehicles.
Ms. Curran introduced the first agenda item.
Petition of JOHANNA KERR, requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the operation of a kennel at the property located at 63 JEFFERSON AVE (I and RC Zoning Districts).
Johanna Kerr (4 Chestnut Street): I’m here today to ask permission to open up a doggy daycare and an overnight boarding facility at 63 Jefferson Ave.
Curran: What is in the building now?
Johanna Kerr (4 Chestnut Street): Right now, currently, there is an auto body shop occupying one half of the building and the other side was occupied by the doggy daycare. We had a fire last February and nothing has been in there since. We are in the process of rebuilding and I was notified by St. Pierre that I needed to get a Special Permit form the Salem ZBA to operate a kennel and boarding facility.
Curran: Is that because they are expanding beyond their original size?
St. Pierre: No, just after the fire, it had come to our attention that the business had been operation in violation. The owners hadn’t sought the proper zoning relief to allow their use. The fire triggered removal of the occupancy approval. The applicant was notified that they would need to be granted a Special Permit to run the business. I don’t think the business is changing from what was there. This permit will just make it legal in the underlying zoning district. The business existed for about a year before the fire.
Curran: I thought there was a dog kennel somewhere on Jefferson.
St. Pierre: I believe this is the location you are thinking of. As a result of the fire, our attention was focus and we found out that the business didn’t have a Special Permit for the use.
Harris: Did they have overnight service at that point.
St. Pierre: Yes, according to the applicant.
Curran: So the use you are proposing was already happening.
Johanna Kerr (4 Chestnut Street): Yes.
Curran: How big is the building?
Johanna Kerr (4 Chestnut Street): It’s approximately 20,000 sq. ft.
Harris: 5,000 per floor?
Johanna Kerr (4 Chestnut Street): The front two floors include 5,000 sq. ft. and the garage (rear) occupies 10,000 sq. ft.
Harris: Is the whole building two floors?
St. Pierre: No, just the first half of the building has two floors. The rear half is a single story.
Harris: what was the use before?
Johanna Kerr (4 Chestnut Street): The use before the kennel was a leather distribution facility and the rear garage was use for different uses (i.e. warehouse and automotive repair).
St. Pierre: Originally, going way back, it was the Mishow Bus Company. We’ve had no complaints.
Curran: So a kennel requires a Special Permit in this zoning district?
St. Pierre: Correct.
Curran: It appears you have a significant amount of parking available according to your plan.
Johanna Kerr (4 Chestnut Street): The site plan shows the outside play areas in relation to the property lines and the two zoning district boundaries. These outside areas will be used as play areas for large and small dogs. Each area is fenced.
Curran: What are the dimensions to that area? Was the fenced area existing before the fire?
Johanna Kerr (4 Chestnut Street): The large are is 12 ft x 50 ft and the small area is about 12 ft. x 30 ft. There is a small walkway between the two areas.
Curran: Is the fencing chain link?
Johanna Kerr (4 Chestnut Street): No, its wood with lattice.
St. Pierre: The neighbor on that side is a florist or nursery.
Sexton: The reason we had the applicant submit the site plan was so they could clarify the location of the outside play areas in relation to the zoning district boundary line. According to the City’s Zoning Ordinance, a provision exists in the code allowing parcels that are split by two zoning district to extend the less restrictive standards or allowed uses of one district into the other more restrictive district by no more then 30 ft. So we were asking the applicant to speak to that.
St. Pierre: It’s a grandfathered industrial property so the applicant is allowed to operate most uses within the property. But if it were a new use they would have to comply with the existing standards of the zoning ordinance.
Harris: Are there any issues with the drainage easement?
St. Pierre: Technically, you are not supposed to construct anything on an easement. I’m not sure how much the use encroaches on to the easement or who owns it.
Johanna Kerr (4 Chestnut Street): I’m not sure who the easement belongs too.
St. Pierre: I think it’s important to know that at such time the holder of that easement may require you to remove your fencing at your expense.
Johanna Kerr (4 Chestnut Street): I know our property use to be part of a larger parcel that included the two properties on either side of our building. It was, at one point, split up into four lots.
Curran: Is there any members of the public that wish to speak on the matter?
Richard Zalinski (Salem Street): We’re a customer of hers. The place is clean and they take good care of the dogs. This permit should be granted.
David Barrow (43 Endicott Street): I have used this facility to care for my dog a number of times. I work from home so having the doggy daycare there to care for my young puppy with a lot of energy is great. Even after the fire she continued to work with him. She takes the safety of the animals as a high priority.
Phil Dana (25 New Derby Street): I agree with all the other comments that have been made. I’ve been a customer from the beginning and my dog really enjoys the facility. The place is clean.
Donne Foster (259 Jefferson Avenue): These people take great care of my dogs. This is a need for ourselves and the community.
Curran: I know this is a much need use in the City. It is always difficult to operate this type of use in or near a residential district, but in this case it seems appropriate in this industrial area.
Watkins: it’s a good use for the location.
Harris: Much of the surrounding area is industrial so it seems appropriate.
Curran: Do we have a motion?
Watkins: I make a motion to approve the Special Permit with all the stand condition applied except for the eighth condition. Mr. Watkins read each of the standard conditions into the record.
Johanna Kerr (4 Chestnut Street): Are we in compliance with those conditions as read with our Building Permit we’ve submitted? Could you clarify the last condition?
St. Pierre: Yes. The last condition is intended to prevent people from pulling a permit to renovate a building and then try to demolish it without prior authorization. The other conditions that were read off are standard conditions that are applied to petitions on a case by case basis.
Motion: Mr. Watkins made a motion to approve the Special Permit as conditioned, seconded by Ms. Harris, and a vote was take of five members. The five members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote (Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate) in favor, none opposed). The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Ms. Curran explained to the applicant and the public in attendance that the decision would be available within two weeks of the hearing and filed with the City Clerk. There is a twenty day appeal period. She then introduced the next item on the agenda.
Petition of ELEONORA F. KOSKI TRUST, MIKE RAMAZIO, TRUSTEE, requesting a variance from Sec. 4.1.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the existing buildings with less than the minimum required lot frontage, width and area on the property located at 19 & 25 BOSTON ST (B-2, R-3 Zoning Districts).
Curran: Is the applicant present to speak on the petition?
Michael Giaimo (Robinson & Cole Law Offices): The petitioner is a trust that was setup after Ms. Koski died. Her husband owned the property since the mid to early 1900’s. It always has had these two businesses on it. For a long time, the two lots were combined as one parcel. But in 1963 they did an Approval Not Require (ANR) plan. If you are formulary with the property it’s the Coin Opt Laundry and the Salem auto body in the back. The 1963 ANR plan, which is in the package, draw a line around the laundry building. As a functional matter, this action left little room for parking to be accommodated on site. In 2003, in anticipation of the trust wanting to sell the properties at some point, they got another ANR and a frontage waiver approved from the Salem Planning Board. At the time, they apparently didn’t
realize they needed Variances because the old and new lots were nonconforming. As such, the 2003 ANR changed the layout of the parcels. As justification for these Variance requests, if you’ve ever been out to the property, there is a large topography difference between the front and rear parcels. The laundry parcel is located at the street level on some land that has clearly been filled; whereas, the auto body parcel is higher in the rear. By granting these Variance requests, it supports the changes to the parcels that were grant in 2003. In doing so, the parcel area for the laundry was be, legally, adequately sized to allow for parking and provides adequate ingress and egress without have to cross onto the other parcel.
Curran: So they got approval from the Salem Planning Board for an ANR plan that didn’t change the frontages of the parcels? Not realizing they were creating nonconforming lots.
Michael Giaimo (Robinson & Cole Law Offices): It did change the frontage of the parcels. They widened the frontage for the parcel containing the Laundromat, but they never changed the buildings.
Curran: So they didn’t have the required frontage, but the Planning Board sign the plan?
St. Pierre: The 2003 ANR needed relief from the dimensional standards, but the petitioner did not seek relief from the Salem ZBA prior to the Planning Board’s approval of the ANR.
Michael Giaimo (Robinson & Cole Law Offices): There is a provision under the Salem Zoning Ordinance that states, if you have a parcel that predates the adoption of the zoning ordinance with two structures on it can be divide. It doesn’t matter whether the uses are residential or commercial.
Curran: That provision only applies to residential structures.
St. Pierre: I agree with the Chair, it’s only applicable to residential structures.
Curran: In any case, some how it got signed.
Michael Giaimo (Robinson & Cole Law Offices): Additionally, we weren’t necessarily sure why they were granted a waiver to frontage. In any case, we figured we need to come before this board to gain approval for the nonconformities that were created under the 2003 ANR plan.
St. Pierre: This in affect changed nothing on the property. It changes addresses the legalities of the former approval.
Michael Giaimo (Robinson & Cole Law Offices): We have a potential buyer for one of the properties. This will make it possible for that buyer to purchase this property without creating a zoning violation for the other property and cleaning the title.
St. Pierre: This would resolve any issues a lender may have regarding this parcels status.
Curran: I understand the situation now, but because these are Variance requests please run through your hardship justification.
Michael Giaimo (Robinson & Cole Law Offices): The hardship is really the topography of the two parcels and the locations of the existing structures on the lots. The location of the prior fill is a logic location for the division of the two parcels and is consistent with the 2003 ANR plan for the properties. This action would allow for parking to be accommodated on each lot, respectively, and would provide access for each parcel. This also creates a better lot configuration when considering the future use and redevelopment potential for each parcel.
Harris: Isn’t it also a hardship that there is no way to subdivide the two properties with their existing structures in a manner consistent with the Salem Zoning Ordinance?
Michael Giaimo (Robinson & Cole Law Offices): You couldn’t without putting in a road and significantly modifying the parcel layouts.
Curran: Furthermore, literal enforcement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance’s Dimensional Standards would be physically impossible.
Michael Giaimo (Robinson & Cole Law Offices): That’s true.
Curran: I have no problem with this.
Mr. St. Pierre pointed out that there were no members of the public present to speak on the request.
Curran: Do we have a motion?
Mr. Eppley made the motion. He then read each of the applicable standard conditions that would be applied to his approval.
Mr. St. Pierre asked whether the application of conditions should be waived since this is an after the fact action and there is not Building Permit associated with the petition?
Curran: I think we should apply the first and last condition from the standard condition list.
Motion: Mr. Eppley made a motion to grant the Variance request as conditioned, seconded by Ms. Harris, and a vote was take of five members. The five members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote (Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate) in favor, none opposed). The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
No business was discussed.
Ms. Harris motion for adjournment of the February 20th regular meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Motion: Ms. Harris made a motion to adjourn the February 20th regular meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Watkins, and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 6-0 vote (Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Eppley (Alternate) and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate) in favor, none opposed). The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Respectfully submitted,
Daniel Sexton, Staff Planner
| 
