City of Salem Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals (“Salem BOA”) was held on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.
Due to the limited number of Board of Appeals members present for the meeting, four (4) members were present prior to starting the meeting, City staff explained the options available to the petitioners for having their petition heard or continued.
Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris, Richard Dionne, and Tom Watkins. Those absent were: Mike Duffy, David Eppley (Alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Daniel Sexton, Staff Planner.
Chairwomen, Ms. Curran, called the meeting to order at 6:46 p.m.
Ms. Curran: Explained to the board members and public in attendance that the meeting is being recorded.
- APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
Curran: Seeing that the meeting started late, Ms. Curran asked if there were objections to moving approval of the meeting minutes to the end of the meeting.
There were no objections to the proposed agenda change.
Ms. Curran introduced the first agenda item.
Petition of JOEL GREEN, requesting a modification of a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow the elimination of a condition applied to a Special Permit issued in 1979 for the property located at 310 Lafayette Street (R3 Zoning District).
Curran: For the record, the applicant has agreed to move forward with the public hearing with only four (4) members of the Salem BOA present. If the applicant can please state their name and address for the record we can begin discussing the petition.
Joel Green (310 Lafayette Street): The property in questions has housed my office for 35 years. Due to arthritis that has developed in my hands, I would like to sell my practice and the property to an associate that has worked for the past 3-4 years for me. Everything is going to stay the same. According to the previously granted Special Permit, the property is supposed to be used as a chiropractic office and that’s what it’s built to be. Presently, the first floor of the structure is used for the chiropractic office and the second floor is an apartment. It would be really hard and costly to convert the office portion of the structure back to a residential use. Some of the conversion that would make it difficult to change the space back to a residence include: the installation of leaded walls in one room, the removal
of a stairway, the receiving counter, electrical conversions, a glassed in porch that is used as a waiting room, and many other changes. I treat a lot of Salem State athletes and residents of Salem. Since the office was opened, the neighborhood has changed significantly. Many of the neighborhood’s single family homes have been converted into professional offices or multifamily. There’s even a halfway house for abused women nearby. I really want to keep it the same. In the 35 years that my offices have been located on this property, I’ve never been located here. The associate looking to purchase the practice has been working with me for the past 4 years. Based upon my experience, it can be difficult for patients switch doctors or locations for medical service.
Harris: The only change you are requesting is Condition #3.
Joel Green (310 Lafayette Street): That’s the only thing.
Curran: Are there any other questions? Are there members of the public that wish to speak on the petition? I don’t have any problems with the requested change because the approved use of the property isn’t changing. One of the things we look at when considering Special Permits, is whether use could be a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. As proposed, the use of the property as a doctor’s office is the same. In terms of the Special Permit, it doesn’t really matter whether it’s Dr. Green or another doctor’s practice. So the question now is whether we should change language of the condition (striking the reference to Dr. Green) or eliminate the condition altogether?
Harris: If we eliminate Condition #3 the approved use of the property is still limited to a doctor’s office. But, if the property is sold to another individual that wishes to develop the property with something other than a medical practice they would still be required to come before the Salem BOA for a new Special Permit.
Curran: That is correct, depending upon what the future use may be.
Harris: Based on that discuss, the elimination of Condition #3 seems to fine. The doctor’s office, as an existing use, doesn’t seem to be a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood.
Curran: I agree, it seems appropriate to eliminate Condition #3 of the Special Permit that was granted by the Salem BOA in September 1979. There was also a written comment submitted by Josh Turiel, Ward 5 Councilor, speaking in support of the petition request. Is there a motion?
Motion: Ms. Harris made a motion to approve the requested modification of the Special Permit, granted by the Salem BOA in September 1979, to eliminate Condition #3 and retain the remaining Special Permit conditions, seconded by Mr. Dionne, and a vote was taken of four members. The four members voted in favor, with a 4-0 vote (Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne and Mr. Watkins) in favor and none opposed. Board of Appeals members Mike Duffy, David Eppley (Alternate) and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate) were absent from the hearing. The motion was accepted. This 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 PAUL BARRETT, requesting Variances of Section 4 Dimensional Requirement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow reduction of the front, side and rear yard setbacks and to increase the maximum allowable lot coverage by all buildings for construction of a two-story addition to the home on the property located at 35 Juniper Avenue (R1 Zoning District).
Paul Barrett (36 Juniper Avenue): Before I present my petition requests, I want to clarify when I can request a continuance. Is it just before the Salem BOA votes that I should request a continuation if I so choose?
Curran: Yes, but you could ask for a continuance at any point during the public hearing.
St. Pierre: For instance, you could ask for a continuance right now since there are only four (4) members of the Salem BOA present.
Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): Okay, I would like to present my case. I just ask that I be given an opportunity before you vote to request a continuance. I bought the property approximately five (5 years ago. At that time I was single, but now am married and have two children. In the last couple of years, it has become apparent that the house is too small to accommodate a family of four. As such, we are here before the Salem BOA to request relief from the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of the addition presented in the petition. After talking with all the abutting neighbors about the proposed addition and the requested variance, no one had any objection to it. We really love the neighborhood. The proximity to the ocean and neighborhood amenities really makes the area a special place to live. Our children love
the park behind our home. By granting the requested relief, we will be able to continue living in the neighborhood and raise our children there. The location for the addition, as proposed, is really the only option for adding to the structure on this property. We examined the possibility of purchasing our neighbor’s garage (as depicted on the photos included in the petition).
Curran: Did you consider building up?
Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): We thought we’d cause more problems going up with an addition. Firstly, a third story addition would have a higher likelihood of blocking the views of nearby properties. Secondly, a contractor indicated to us that the costs associated with developing upward are really expensive. So to get the square footage that we can get by adding outward instead of up it’s just not affordable for us. I’m a mechanical engineer, so I understand the limitation of the existing structure. A three story house would just be too obtrusive for the neighborhood.
Curran: What is your parking situation?
Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): We have a single car garage and on-street parking.
Curran: For the proposed addition, I see you are request a zero foot setback for the front and rear yard setbacks For the side yard with the with a minimum 20 foot setback, you are requesting relief to reduce the side yard setback down to 5 feet. Based upon those setback reductions, the lot building coverage will change to 91.60 percent. Basically, you will no longer have a yard.
Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): That is correct.
Curran: Please state you name and address for the record.
Kelly Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): Behind the house, the City owns and maintains a fence for the park. If you look on the plot plan, the land between the “Deed Property Line” and the fence is owned by the City. While visually it looks as though there is 12 feet behind the house, we really don’t own the land in between our house and the fence.
Watkins: So there’s a City owned park behind your home?
Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): Yes, here is a park right there.
Curran: What does the Salem Building Code say about having structures with windows so close to property lines? Can they even have a window if the separation distance is less than three (3) feet?
St. Pierre: That may be an issue that we will have to talk about. Typically, a zero lot line structure cannot have a window or opening within three (3) feet of the zero lot line. When a building is developed within five (5) feet of a property line the requirements for openings become more restrictive.
Curran: If the requirements are as Mr. St. Pierre stated, I’m wondering if the requested zero foot front and rear yard setbacks are even possible.
Kelly Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): Can you please clarify what you mean by windows are not allowed in zero foot setback situations?
St. Pierre: I can answer that. In cases of zero lot lines, windows and other opening are not allowed within three (3) feet of the property line, unless the window is fire rated or other fire proofing structures such as a sprinkler are installed. I can’t vary the Salem Building Code, but I can send you folks into a hearing at the BBRS to pursue a Variance of the Building Code. Normally, they would grant such a request. But, since a City Park is located behind the structure they probably would grant it.
Curran: On the back, but not on the front.
St. Pierre: The front of the structure is located next to a “public way” so it doesn’t matter. The opening restrictions go away on a public way.
Curran: But for the rear, a Variance would need to be granted from BBRS. It’s likely that would be granted because of the park?
St. Pierre: Yes, it is highly likely a Variance would be granted because there isn’t an abutter there. Basically, the Salem Building Code is trying to prevent incidences of an abutter near another abutter with an opening that can easily allow fire to travel between the two properties.
Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): Okay.
St. Pierre: Because the park is located on the other side of the property line, it is possible that a Variance to that Building Code requirement may be granted.
Curran: You should be aware, if the addition were to be built further from the property line then the fire requirements wouldn’t be an issue.
Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): What is the process to request a Variance from the BBRS?
St. Pierre: After you submit your Building Permit application, I would render a decision for the proposed addition based upon the Salem Building Code. Then we would send you to Boston to appeal my decision. It’s similar to this hearing process, in that you would present your arguments to a board. Both the Fire Chief and I would be there to render an opinion. Normally, they would even consider it. But the presence of the park presents a unique circumstance, because the land is protected by local legislation.
Curran: If wanted too, this petition could be continued until a decision of the BBRS is rendered. Is that something you are interested in doing? If it was denied, then you’d have to comeback before the Salem BOA requesting different relief.
Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): I think we will move forward. If we didn’t receive the Variance to the fire requirement, we probably wouldn’t move forward with the addition. Based upon my understanding of the BBRS Variance process, I’m confident that the request would be granted.
Curran: Are there any questions?
Ms. Harris asked Mr. Sexton if any written public comments were submitted in regards to this petition.
Sexton: No.
Curran: How is the property adjacent to the proposed addition developed?
Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): The neighbor has a similar setback to the undeveloped portion of our property. It’s about the same size side yard that we have.
Watkins: Based upon that, your addition wouldn’t be built directly adjacent to an existing structure.
Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): That is correct.
Watkins: So there would still be some yard separating the two structures.
Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): Yes. I would say they have at least 20-25 feet of yard setback. After talking with the neighbors, they had no concerns on the location of the proposed addition.
Harris: They new about the proposed location of the addition?
Kelly Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): Yes, we talked with all the neighbors and no concerns were raised. I didn’t think to have them write letter in support of the petition.
Curran: So the Variances were previously granted by the Salem BOA to allow the construction of a third floor deck and a bay window on the rear of the structure?
Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): Yes. As I understand it, a prior owner requested the Variances.
Mr. Eppley arrived.
St. Pierre: Do you want to bring Mr. Eppley up to speed on the petition? That would give you the five members.
Ms. Curran briefed Mr. Eppley on the discussions surrounding this petition request.
Curran: Are there any members of the public present that wish to speak on the petition? Seeing none, Ms Curran asked the Salem BOA members if they had further questions for the applicant. After reading the hardship letter, Ms. Curran clarified that the hardship for these Variances should really revolve more on the unique size of the property and location of the existing structure. Please elaborate on why you feel the construction of an addition outward would be less of a detriment to the neighborhood then building up.
Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): What we don’t want to do is inhibit anyone’s views of the water. Our property is one house off the water, so if we built upward there would be a higher likelihood that someone’s views would be obscured. Additionally, we figured that addition proposal would be met with more objections then what we are proposing. Such an addition would also not fit in with the character of our immediate neighbors and the overall character of the neighborhood.
Harris: Would the elevations of the existing structure be maintained?
Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): Yes. The only views that would be limited, slightly, are those of our direct neighbors to the right, when looking at our property from Juniper Avenue. They didn’t have any objections.
Curran: I don’t think the proposed addition will have much impact on the neighborhood. I do have some general concerns about allowing the lot coverage to go from 66% to 91.60%. But it is next to a protected park that has very little likelihood of ever being developed. While Variances don’t create precedence for granting relief to other property owners, we just need to make sure the proposed relief doesn’t impact or further limit other properties nearby. I like the fact that the proposed addition isn’t taking up the required parking spaces and isn’t adding additional curb cuts to the street. As such, I don’t really have a problem the request relief. I would say, however, the hardship is owed more to the unique size and layout of the lot. Furthermore, I agree, developing a third story would have a
greater detrimental impact on the neighborhood. Who do other feel?
Curran: Are you using the same exterior finish that the rest of the house has?
Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): Yes.
Curran: It’s too bad you could purchase the garage from your adjacent property owner.
Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): Yes, the purchasing of the garage would have great. But our neighbor uses the garage every weekend. He’s always working on something.
Harris: I don’t think the proposed addition would detrimentally impact the neighborhood.
Curran: In my mind, the unique circumstance of the lot size represents a significant hardship. As such, literal enforcement of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance’s dimensional requirements would be physically impossible to apply due to the unique size the parcel in question. Since the property abuts the park, it seems to lessen the impact of the requested relief. Is there a motion?
Watkins: I’ll make a motion to grant the requested Variances as proposed and subject to the Standard Conditions 1-7, 9 and 10. The language of the conditions was read into the verbal record.
Paul Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): Will a copy of those conditions be mailed to me?
Sexton: If the Salem BOA grants the requested relief, the conditions just mentioned will be incorporated into the official decision. A copy of that decision will be mailed to you and will also be posted on the Salem BOA webpage.
Motion: Mr. Watkins made a motion to grant the requested Variances as conditioned, seconded by Mr. Eppley, and a vote was taken 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. Eppley (Alternate) in favor and none opposed. Board of Appeals members Mike Duffy and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate) were absent from the hearing. 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.
Kelly Barrett (35 Juniper Avenue): When does the twenty (20) day appeals period begin?
Curran: Once the decision has been filed with the City Clerk, the appeal period begins. Additionally, you should meet with Mr. St. Pierre to discuss the potential window issue. She then introduced the next item on the agenda.
Ms. Curran introduced the continued petition of:
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).
Harris: Was staff able to confirm the list of abutters that received abutter notices? A member of the public at the last meeting indicated that certain neighbors of his were not able to attend the meeting because they hadn’t been given proper notice.
Sexton: We requested another Certified Abutters list from the City’s Assessor’s Department and found that two properties were not identified on the original Certified Abutters list.
Harris: Where those properties notified of the continuance?
Sexton: Yes, we sent notices to all the properties on the new Certified Abutters list identifying that the petition for 18 Bridge Street had been continued to this meeting. Since the applicant was not able to a site plan developed and he was going to be out of the state on the hearing date, he has requested another extension.
Curran: So our next meeting is scheduled for April 17th. I’d entertain a motion to continue the petition for 18 Bridge Street, at the applicant’s request, until the April 17th meeting.
Motion: Ms. Harris made the motion to grant the continuance of the public hearing for the petition request of 18 Bridge Street, at the request of the applicant, until the April 17th meeting, seconded by Mr. Watkins, and a unanimous vote was taken. The five members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote (Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Eppley (Alternate) in favor and none opposed. Board of Appeals members Mike Duffy and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate) were absent from the hearing. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
- APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
Curran: Asked whether members had any changes or edits for the draft meeting minutes? Seeing no changes, Ms. Curran asked for a motion to approve the Meeting Minutes as written.
Motion: Mr. Eppley made a motion to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Ms. Harris, and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote (Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Eppley (Alternate) in favor and none opposed. Board of Appeals members Mike Duffy and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate) were absent from the hearing. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Ms. Curran asked if there was a motion to adjourn.
Ms. Harris motion for adjournment of the March 20th regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals
Motion: Mr. Eppley made a motion to adjourn the March 20th regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Ms. Harris, and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote (Ms. Curran (Chair), Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Eppley (Alternate) in favor and none opposed. Board of Appeals members Mike Duffy and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate) were absent from the hearing. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Respectfully submitted,
Daniel Sexton, Staff Planner
| 
