City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
DRAFT Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, November 20, 2013 in the third floor conference room of 120 Washington St., Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.
Chair Rebecca Curran opens the meeting at 6:31 p.m.
Ms. Curran notes that only four Board Members are present, so any petition would require an affirmative vote by all four members in order to be approved.
Ms. Curran reads a letter from the Petitioner for 152-156 Derby Street, requesting a continuance to the next meeting, which will be held on December 18, 2013 at 6:30pm.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy moves to continue 152-156 Derby Street to December 18, 2013 with no evidence taken, seconded by Mr. Watkins. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Ms. Curran) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Ms. Curran reads an email from the Petitioner for 13 Derby Street, requesting a continuance to the next meeting, which will be held on December 18, 2013 at 6:30pm.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy moves to continue 13 Cherry Hill Avenue to December 18, 2013 with no evidence taken, seconded by Mr. Watkins. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Ms. Curran) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Ms. Curran announces that the hearing for 96 Swampscott Road will be rescheduled for the meeting on December 18th, 2013, as the required legal ad for the hearing was not published.
Roll Call
Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Thomas Watkins, Mike Duffy, and James Tsitsinos (Alternate)
Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Dana Menon, Staff Planner.
Public Hearing: petition of FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ requesting a Variance from Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum depth of rear yard to allow for enclosure of an existing open, first-floor deck, for the property located at 152 LORING AVENUE (R1 Zoning District).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped 10/21/2013 and accompanying materials
- Plan and elevations of the proposed deck enclosure, brought to the meeting by the applicant
Rod Rivera, designer representing the applicant (Francisco Hernandez) presents the petition for 152 Loring Avenue. He states that Mr. Hernandez had an open porch on the house, and wanted to enclose the porch in order to put exercise equipment there, and to enjoy the porch. He hired a contractor to enclose the porch. The contractor charged Mr. Hernandez $5,000. The Building Inspector put a stop-work order on the porch. The hired contractor would not return Mr. Hernandez’s phone calls, or return his money. Mr. Rivera was asked to do an inspection of the previous contractor’s work and to come up with a design to correct the problems created by the first contractor. The Building Inspector advised Mr. Rivera of the need to apply to the board. Now it is cheaper to correct what's been
built than to tear it down and start over. Mr. Rivera shows construction plans and elevations.
Ms. Curran asks if the footprint of the structure shown in the plot plan is the existing deck.
Mr. Rivera replies that it is.
Mr. St. Pierre states that Michael Lutrzykowski, the Assistant Building Inspector, found several building code violations in the enclosure and roof that were completed by the first contractor.
Ms. Curran asks if they have they been fixed.
Mr. Rivera explains that’s what the proposed work is – to be allowed to continue and to correct the problems.
Chair Curran opens the hearing to public comment
No one speaks in favor or opposition
Ms. Curran asks if this requires a Variance or a Special Permit.
Mr. St. Pierre reads from Section 3.3.4 of the Salem zoning code:
“Except with regard to single- and two-family structures as provided in subsection 3.3.5, below, the reconstruction, extension or structural change of a nonconforming structure in such a manner as to increase an existing nonconformity, or create a new nonconformity, shall require the issuance of a variance; provided, however, that the extension of an exterior wall at or along the same nonconforming distance within a required yard shall require a special permit and not a variance from the Board of Appeals.”
Mr. St. Pierre states that in this instance a variance is required, as the deck to be enclosed extends closer (by a half-foot) to the rear lot line than the existing side of the house.
Ms. Curran states that she reads it as requiring a Variance. So the Board needs a statement of hardship, and that relief may be granted without detriment to the public good, and that the literal enforcement of the provision would provide a hardship. Ms. Curran states that she doesn't have any issue with it, and there has been no opposition expressed. Where the building lies on the lot is a unique condition, and the enclosure of the deck is a natural extension of the building.
Mr. Watkins doesn't see any issues with it.
Ms. Curran comments that the difference in proximity to the rear lot line (from 8 feet to 7.5 feet) would be imperceptible.
Mr. Duffy states that this relief could be allowed without any substantial detriment to the public good, and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. There is no opposition here to this petition. Perhaps a more careful application process could have been followed here, but the owner is trying to apply in good faith in a situation not entirely of his own making.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Ms. Curran) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Public Hearing: petition of DAVID KAPLAN and RYAN McSHAY requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to operate a general auto repair business on the property located at 164 BOSTON STREET (Industrial Zoning District).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped 10/23/2013 and accompanying materials
The Petitioners, David Kaplan (46 Dearborn Road, Epping, NH) and Ryan McShay (20 Anderson Street, Marblehead, MA), present the petition. They are proposing to operate a general auto repair business at location. The property is currently being used for light auto repair. They are currently operating their business in Peabody, now they’re looking to move it to Salem. All cars will fit inside the building. Traffic flow & exterior parking shouldn't be an issue.
Ms. Menon reads the definition for “Motor vehicle light service” from Section 10.0 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: “Premises for the supplying of fuel, oil, lubrication, washing, or minor repair services, but not to include body work, painting, or major repairs.” And the definition for “Motor Vehicle General Repairs” from Section 10.0 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: “Premises for the servicing and repair of autos, but not to include fuel sales.”
Mr. Kaplan clarifies that there will be no fuel sales and no body work. They will be doing mostly smaller repairs, but may occasionally do an engine swap, etc that would qualify as general auto repair.
Ms. Curran asks if they would do any painting.
Mr. Kaplan responds no.
Ms. Curran asks if there is a residential building next door.
Mr. Kaplan responds that there is an apartment building, but it is in the Industrial zone. He adds they they do high-end auto repair.
Ms. Curran asks if there will be any change to the building, or if they will be using it as-is.
Mr. McShay answers that they will be using it as-is.
Ms. Curran asks if there will be room for all of the cars inside the building.
Mr. Kaplan and Mr. McShay reply that everything, including parking, can fit inside the large building.
Ms. Curran notes that there is an outbuilding, and asks if the applicants will be using it.
Mr. McShay states that they are not using the outbuilding, and they don’t know who uses the outbuilding. It isn’t theirs.
Ms. Curran opens the hearing for public comment.
Mike Shultz, 1 Fairmount road, Peabody MA: These two young gentlemen worked for me at Stutz Volvo. I know them as fine young men who went out to start their own business. They started in Peabody in a tiny building with only 3 stalls. They are good people, they do good work, and they are smart and honest. He knew they would do well and outgrow the space in Peabody. They have now outgrown it. Peabody hates to lose them. Salem will find them as a welcome addition.
Tom Furey – 36 Dunlap St, Salem, MA - Councilor at Large. He had a Volvo for many years. This situation is a real gain for Salem, and Peabody's loss. It's going to be a premier spot for Salem.
Bob Brophy – Owns 165 Boston Street, Boston Street Auto Body. Will the applicants be using the entire building – the front and rear of the building?
Ms. Curran replies that they will not be using the outbuilding in the rear, but they will be using the entire front building.
Mr. Brophy asks about parking - that end of Boston Street gets very congested with the rental trucks, etc.
Mr. Kaplan replies that they are going to have customers drive right in to the building. They are going to be able to park almost 20 cars inside, so the parking will not be any different than it is now. The entrance door is on the side of the building, so deliveries will not be from the street, they will be from the parking lot side.
Mr. Kaplan states that they work closely with the towing company next door. They cooperate with neighbors to get along. Their previous location was very tight, and they never had an issue.
Ms. Curran asks if there will be no need for curb cuts, and if the parking will be inside.
Mr. McShay replies yes. Parking will be as much as we can inside the building.
Arsenio Villarosa, 166 Boston St. He just bought the building 4-5 months ago. The residence has a common driveway with the shop. It's been tight with the big trucks. But if these guys are going to be doing good business, it will get more congested. Mr. Villarosa's concern is that with more customers and the general auto repair, it will get more congested and noisier (compression guns, revving cars, engine swaps, etc).
Ms. Curran asks the applicants if they want to talk about the noise issue.
Mr. Kaplan states that there wouldn't be any greater noise than the current use. Light repair is just as noisy as general repair.
Mr. McShay states that the building is well insulated. The lumber business previously in the space had giant saws going, so this use won't be any noisier than before.
Mr. Kaplan asks Mr. Villarosa to let them know if they have any problems or concerns. He adds that it is an industrial area, so if they don't move in there, who knows what will wind up in there.
Mr. McShay & Mr. Kaplan state that the side of the property will still be U-Haul’s lot, so there won't be any change in use of that drive from what it is now. There's a driveway that goes right to the front of their building, and that's all they’ll use.
Mr. Mc. Shay states that if they don't have use the side drive, they won’t.
Mr. Kaplan explains that they’ll be doing 8-10 cars a day, and they can fit them all inside the building.
Mr. McShay clarifies that there are two outside parking spots, but they're along the driveway to the front of the building.
Mr. Brophy asks where the office is going to be - will it be the existing office that's there now? The wooden part?
Kaplan replies that they're going to use an office in the upstairs of the building. The wooden part is still used by U-Haul.
Mr. Duffy states that he believes that the proposed change would not be substantially more detrimental than the current use. There would be a positive economic result, and community needs would be served by this. There would likely be no impact on parking or loading in the area. The parking is housed inside the building, and the business will be using the front drive and door. There is no question that there will be adequate utilities or public services to the building. The applicant states in their application that they strive to operate a “green business” as much as they can. This Special Permit would only change the type of repair work being done as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. There would be no changes to the building or the setup. It sounds like it's going to be
a growing business, with a potentially positive fiscal impact on the city, the tax base, and the surrounding businesses. He is in favor of approving the petition.
Ms. Curran and Mr. Tsitsinos agree.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy moves to approve the petition with 4 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Watkins. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Ms. Curran) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Discussion: Mr. St. Pierre states that there may need to be some plumbing changes with the change to full auto repair. He will ask for a code review to be done by a building inspector.
Public Hearing: Petition of EMIL KRANER requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of an existing Rooming House to 5 residential units, at the property located at 2 EMERTON STREET (R2 Zoning District).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped 10/28/2013 and accompanying materials
The Petitioner, Mr. Emil Kraner , 404 Paradise Road, Swampscott, MA, presents the petition.
The house is currently used as a boarding/sober house. It is in a rundown condition inside and out. The house is for sale, and Mr. Kraner is proposing to buy it. In order to maintain the house up to current standards, the house has to be completely stripped down to the beams and rebuilt. He won't really change the structure, but will replace everything, including plumbing and electrical, and rebuild it as four 1-bedroom units, plus the one existing 2-bedroom unit, for a total of five residential units.
Ms. Curran asks Mr. Kraner to explain how the rooming house operates.
Mr. Kraner clarifies that the rooming house isn’t his. It has 7 rooms. There are three double-occupancy rooms, four single-occupancy rooms, and one 2-bedroom apartment.
Ms. Curran asks if there parking on the site.
Mr. Kraner replies that unfortunately, the way it is built, there is no way to put any parking on the site without really ripping down the house.
Ms. Curran responds that she can see that the building occupies the entire lot.
Mr. Kraner clarifies that the building was constructed in the 1880s.
Mr. Kraner states that he is building 1-bedroom apartments. There is a real shortage of small apartments in the city. He prefers building 1-bedroom apartments. The renters are typically better with 1-bedrooms, as typical renters are young professionals, and there are no parties, no noise.
Mr. St. Pierre asks Mr. Kraner if he has any other rental properties.
Mr. Kraner responds that he does. He has been doing it for 15 years. He’s primarily an engineer, but has other rental properties.
Chair opens the hearing for public comment.
Mike Sosnowski, 17 Collins Street, Salem - Ward 2 Councilor. He is opposed to the petition. It is not currently in use as a sober house. It is a rooming house. The rooming house was allowed to have that many units only because they would never require parking. With the proposed use, there would be a minimum of 5 cars, possibly 10. Emerton Street cannot support more parking. If you want to buy it, fine, but you should convert it to two condos and sell those. There are a lot of people here tonight who will speak to this.
Ed Beaupre – 11 Boardman Street, Salem. He is in opposition. He and his wife have lived there for 30 years. The parking in his neighborhood is horrendous. You should change the property back to the original R-2 zoning. The owner of the rooming house, back when they moved in, assured the neighborhood that there would only be 1 car resulting from the occupancy of the management apartment. This place has been a dump for a long time. You could tear it down, pave it over, and sell it as parking to the neighbors. Two years ago Mr. Sosnowski had to have the city come down and pull all the snow out of the area, because it was impacting the parking.
Carolyn Barres, 9 Boardman Street. Many of the houses are condos and 3-families. Each floor comes with a car or two. Parking is the big issue. The house is an eyesore. With 5 units, I can't see where the people would go [park]. During the winter it would be a nightmare. She is opposed to the 5 units.
Kathleen Cullen, 25 Forrester Street. There is no parking at all. Emerton Street has basically no parking itself, and the people on Emerton Street come park on Forrester St. The property has been a dump, and few people have been living in it. It's a 2-family zone, it's a big family neighborhood, and the apartment building would be a strange mix with the families. It's loud when it’s filled with tenants. There is a demand - if someone reverted it to a 1 or 2 family house, the neighborhood would be very happy. She is opposed to 5 units.
Ted Kobialka – 27 Forrester. Parking is tight on the corner where the building is.
Kristine Doll, 30 Forrester St. Would like to echo each of these objections. Last winter, a fire truck could not make it down and around the corner to Emerton Street because of the tight parking. The fire truck then couldn't back out. They had to have a tow truck come move the parked cars to get the fire truck out. To anticipate 5,10, 15 more cars coming in, it's unthinkable.
Ed Keenan, 21 Forrester St. Also owns a 2-family at 26 Forrester Street. Parking is horrendous. There is just no room to bring that amount of cars into the neighborhood.
Jan Costa, 17 Forrester Street. It has been a horrible place to have in the neighborhood. I can't stand the thought of it being a 5-unit house.
MaryAnne Curtin – 35 Forrester St, objects to the conversion to a 5-unit residence. She doesn’t think that particular part of Salem will generate that kind of rental. She doesn’t think it would be feasible. Parking is impossible. It would be great if that house was turned into something nice. 5 residences would be 5 cars minimum, and she can't see how that would work.
Christina Bash, 37 Forrester St. Is in direct opposition to having that many apartments in the building.
Ms. Curran asks the applicant how big the building is.
Mr. Kraner replies that it is 3,770 square feet. He states that the house was for sale for 6 months. The owner is not willing to sell for less than a normal house on the street. Anyone who would buy that house would have to pay full price, and then pay again to re-do everything in the house. As you can see, it is impossible to get anyone interested in buying the house as a 2-family house. He prefers to have small apartments. With large apartments it's more difficult to manage. Most of the people here object to the parking issue. Unfortunately he didn't create the situation. Maybe the City can help somehow with improving the parking. If someone converted it to a 2-family house, you'd have 3-4 cars on the street anyway. He is trying to bring the house to its best condition,
in this situation. He would like to have parking, but he cannot. There is no space. You can keep it in the current condition, and it would still be a dump on your street. He is trying.
Ms. Curran states that the house is in an R-2 zone, and asks Mr. St. Pierre if the building by-right could be a 2-family.
Mr. St. Pierre replies that you’d have to look at the lot area per dwelling unit. It's possible there’s a non-conformity. You could get to a 2-family through a special permit application process.
Ms. Curran and Mr. St. Pierre clarify that it’s definitely a 1-family by-right, and possibly a 2-family.
Ms. Curran - so presently it's a boarding house (8 units). Mr. Kraner’s proposal looks like less units, but typically in a boarding house, not every person has a car. So parking is an issue. If we were looking at this and there weren't any parking concerns, this would be a different situation. With four 1-bedroom units and one 2-bedroom unit, it could be up to 10 additional cars with no parking. So I think in that way it is more detrimental.
Mr. Duffy asks under the zoning, is there no requirement for parking for a rooming house?
Councilor Sosnowski responds. In looking at rooming houses throughout the city, we do not anticipate any parking at all except for the manager or owner. That's the only reason why a rooming house is issued the license.
Mr. St. Pierre responds with all due respect, it's a zoning question not a licensing question. He hasn’t had to look at any new rooming houses coming in, in the 15 years that he’s been here, so he hasn’t had to look at this situation before. The normal off-street parking requirement is 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
Mr. Duffy asks, wouldn't it also require a Variance for parking?
St. Pierre responds that it’s possible. We were also thinking that it could possibly fall under the change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use. The Special Permit can be pretty broad.
Mr. Tsitsinos states that he agrees with the neighborhood. The parking is really bad. I tried to get down there, and it's really hard. I don't think it's a good fit. It would be good to see it cleaned up, naturally, but 5 units …
Mr. Duffy agrees that's the difficulty. This proposal is to improve the building, but the parking sounds difficult. The piece of information that alarmed me the most was the issue with the fire truck. You’re putting lives at risk if you can’t get in with a fire truck.
Mr. Tsitsinos adds that the parking situation is horrendous. You can hardly fit a car down the street.
Mr. St. Pierre requests to reply to Mr. Duffy’s earlier question: that the Table of Required Parking Spaces in the Zoning Code [Section 5.1.8] states that for dwellings in RC, R1, R2 and R3 districts, rooming houses, tourist homes, and home occupations, 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit is required. So you'd have to get a Variance for parking.
Mr. Kraner responds that in that case, most likely the house will stay in its current condition.
Curran clarifies that the cost of the building can't be part of the Board’s criteria for making a change.
Curran adds that it can't be said that this use is less detrimental. It's probably more detrimental by making it market-rate apartments which are very likely to have cars associated with each, and making the parking situation worse.
Mr. Beaupre adds a comment: he'd rather have it look like a dump than have it add to the parking problem.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy moves to approve the petition, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The petition was denied with none (0) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Ms. Curran) and four (4) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Public Hearing: petition of MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow use of the property for auto repair, auto part sales, boat and engine service, and auto body work, at the property located at 62 JEFFERSON AVE (R1 Zoning District).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped 10/30/2013 and accompanying materials
- Photos submitted by the applicant at the hearing
- A letter in opposition to the application, with photos, submitted by Robert Dunham
The petitioner, Michael McLaughlin, 62 Jefferson Avenue , presents the petition. He distributes photos of the building at 62 Jefferson Avenue. He bought the building in early 2006. He appeared before the ZBA for a change of use permit at that time. It had previously operated as an auto repair for 40+ years. He used it for his plumbing business, and allowed the auto use to fall by the wayside. By 2008, he was crushed by the recession, and was forced out of the business. He tried to sell the building for several months this year, but has been unsuccessful. This is an R-1 zoning district. If you look at the general area, the property is next to two giant parking lots. Up and down Jefferson Ave, the majority of the businesses are either industrial , or auto repair, auto garage,
auto body types of business. This building was built out for auto repair after I tried to sell the building, to seek out the best potential tenant uses. His tenant Richard Burk operates a boat & marine repair business. He did not realize the business name included “auto repair.” Mr. McLaughlin would like to position himself for the best potential suitable use. He thought he had done that with boat tenant, which is only a 2-man operation. It does not maintain irregular business hours or late night operation. Mr. Bird does a lot of dock-side service. When Mr. McLaughlin had his business there, he had 10 employees there. Mr. McLaughlin wants to have permission for Mr. Bird to operate his business.
Ms. Curran states that it looks like the Petitioner has appeared before the Board on a couple of occasions. She asks Mr. St. Pierre if he thinks the Marine use is conforming?
Mr. St. Pierre replies that no, he doesn’t think the marine or the auto use conforms with the other special permits that have been issued for this property.
Mr. McLaughlin adds that no homes or residences have a close view of his building. There may be houses around the corner or up the hill, but no one with a close view. Mr. Watkins asks what the building next door is (to the right of the building, looking from the street side).
Mr. McLaughlin responds that it’s mixed-use. It’s owned by Bob Dunham, who owns the building across the street, a parking lot, and several parcels down the street. The letter the Board received is from Mr. Dunham. He allowed the auto use to be written out of the original decision at this neighbor’s request, as Mr. McLaughlin didn’t think it would come up.
Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that the building to the right is a large single-family home.
Mr. McLaughlin says that it isn’t quite a single-family home. It used to be a garage. Mr. Dunham knocked it down to build a two-story building to give to his daughter, a sculptor. He developed the first floor as a sculpture studio, with a small residential unit on the top floor. When he had the building designed, he didn’t put any windows on the side of the building facing Mr. McLaughlin’s property. It’s been difficult having this building in an R-1 district. Back when the zoning was being recodified, Mr. McLaughlin inquired about rezoning the property, and he was informed that the property couldn't be spot-rezoned.
Ms. Curran reads the letter from Robert Dunham into the record.
Ms. Curran opens the hearing to public comment
Richard Bird, the tenant with the boat service. He doesn't need the parking space – he has lots in other places for boat storage. He provides mobile marine service. Regarding the automotive repair, he’s a specialist in corvettes. He works on a couple specialty cars – his own and friends. That’s not what he doesfor a living, it's more of a hobby. He needed a base location for the marine business. He doesn’t do body work, or painting. He very rarely bring boats to the 62 Jefferson Avenue location – he has brought his own boats down there to winterize them. He’s looking for a base for the business on a main street, so that potential customers can see his business. He has 3 service vehicles, and 2 people who work for him.
Ms. Curran asks how big the building is.
Mr. McLaughlin responds that it is approximately 10,000 sf. The majority of the building mass is the original building.
Ms. Curran asks if there are 3 units in this building.
Mr. McLaughlin responds that there are 4.
Ms. Curran asks where the parking is.
Mr. McLaughlin answers that in back of the property is a rock cliff.
Ms. Curran clarifies that the use the applicant is asking for is auto repair, auto part sales, boat and engine service, and auto body work.
Mr. Watkins adds that in essence approving it would approve it for the whole building
Ms. Curran states that it looks like the applicant owns about 6 feet in the front of the building.
Mr. McLaughlin responds that there is no specific curb. There is just a general sidewalk/walk-by area.
Ms. Curran asks the applicant to describe the operation that he’d like to see here.
Mr. McLaughlin responds that in this case, he felt that his tenant Richard Bird was a suitable use. The 2009 application was for the renter at the time and his activities. He thought the Decision made back then would allow this use.
Ms. Curran asks if the applicant is proposing any exterior changes to the building.
Mr. McLaughlin clarifies that it is not required. The space is ideally configured for the requested use.
Mr. Tsitsinos asks how much parking would the marine repair tenant need?
Mr. McLaughlin states that he granted him 3 parking spaces in the lot, the remaining spaces are divided up between the other tenants. He can use those for parking or temporary boat parking
Mr. Tsitsinos asks if the spaces would be used for boat movement or storage.
Mr. McLaughlin states that they would be used for boat movement. Mr. Bird provides dock-side service, and when a boat does come up to the garage, it goes into the building.
Ms. Curran states that the building seems suited to automotive use. She notes that some of the photos submitted by Mr. Dunham are disturbing though – like the one of the boat being backed in.
Mr. Bird responds that it was his boat - it was brought down to winterize it and wrap it up. He brought it inside the building. The photo of the boat being backed in is from last night. That boat will be gone tomorrow.
Ms. Curran asks if he does that with lots of boats.
Mr. Bird – no, it's a special boat. He does a lot of stern-driving builds, and he ships and builds engines. But he needs a base to put engines together, put stern-drives together. He also has some specialty cars that he works on and that he’s keeping there now. The picture of the RV [submitted by Mr. Dunham] – it's an RV he has for Patriot's games. It was sitting there for a week, and now it's in his lot in Lynn.
Mr. McLaughlin states that the RV has no bearing on the site – it was parked on the street.
Michael Curley, works for Mr. Bird. If they bring a boat in, it's a 30-second thing. It doesn't hold up traffic for a long time. They’re not opposed to working with the City so that they can have the site. It's a great location for advertising. 90% of their work is mobile. They work in Revere, Winthrop, Danvers, … Mostly they get in the shop in the morning to get their materials for the day, then they’re gone.
Mr. Bird states that he travels to service people's boats. He prefers to work outside.
Ms. Curran asks if there is any problem with having more than one use in this building.
Mr. St. Pierre replies that the City zoning doesn't address that
Mr. Duffy states that this letter [from Mr. Dunham] makes reference to requests for enforcement, and asks Mr. St. Pierre if he knows of any requests.
Mr. St. Pierre responds that he does not.
Mr. Duffy references the history of the nonconforming repair use on the site. It changed to a plumbing use in 2005. The same abutter [Mr. Dunham] had issues with the auto repair business, but there doesn't appear to have been any request or any real debate at that time about continuing the auto repair use. The building seems to be suitable to it. The only additional concern is storing boats or other equipment outside of the actual building. There can be conditions set to not permit storage outside of the building except for cars. Can the issues be addressed if that kind of condition is included?
Ms. Curran notes that the special permit could include storage of cars and boats, but not other things. It sounds like the objections in the letter [from Mr. Dunham] are to some of the other things outside the building. It is a residential unit there. It is an R-1 district, but it is a very industrial/commercial area. Salem is a marine city, so it's good to have marine businesses. However, some conditions to restrict the stuff outside might be appropriate. Ms. Curran has no problem with the use or the storage of boats or cars, but the outside storage of other stuff is an issue.
Mr. McLaughlin states that the mason tenant put scaffolding out to store tools and equipment.
Mr. St. Pierre notes that the applicant is clearly in violation of outside storage conditions laid out in the previous decision.
Ms. Curran states that the applicant is in violation of that, and the Board would probably carry forward that condition or one like it.
Mr. St. Pierre cautions that the location of body shops anywhere near residential units usually results in problems.
Ms. Curran notes that the applicant is trying to think toward the future, so that he doesn’t have to keep coming back.
Mr. McLaughlin notes that this is his 3rd appearance before the board.
Ms. Curran agrees that auto body work really does create problems when mixed with residential.
Mr. McLaughlin states that he'd be willing to drop the auto body request.
Mr. Watkins states that he is open to boat and car repair, but would like to drop the auto body portion of the request.
Mr. St. Pierre notes that there is a question about whether the Board should be modifying an existing Special Permit or creating a new Special Permit.
Ms. Curran notes that it was advertised as a new Special Permit, and that seems to be the way the Special Permits have been done in the past for this property. The Board should carry forward the item about no outdoor storage except for cars and boats, and no more than 5 cars or boats may be store on the site at one time.
Mr. McLaughlin states that he believes there are 8 parking spaces. Are storing and parking spaces the same thing?
Ms. Curran clarifies that if someone drives to work, that's not storing, that's parking. If you're working on a car/boat and waiting for someone to come pick it up, that's storage.
The Board discusses the conditions to carry forward from the previous Special Permit decisions. They concur that all conditions set in the Board of Appeals 2009 Decision should be carried forward, but that the 3rd condition should be modified to include boats so that it would read “No outdoor storage, except storage of cars or boats, is permitted. No more than five (5) cars or boats may be stored on site at a time”, also that a condition should be added to prohibit the use of the property for auto body work, and also to carry forward all of the conditions set in the Board of Appeals 2005 Decision.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy moves to approve the petition with 2 standard conditions and 4 special conditions, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Ms. Curran) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Public Hearing: Petition of RICHARD TURNER requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the maximum allowed height of buildings in feet and the maximum allowed height of buildings in stories, and a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow an extension of an existing nonconforming structure, for the construction of a roof deck; and a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the reconstruction of two existing nonconforming garages, at the property located at 18 OCEAN TERRACE (R1 Zoning District).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped 10/30/2013 and accompanying materials and photographs
- Letter in opposition from John DeFelice, abutter
The Petitioner - Richard Turner, 30 Crescent Ave, Beverly – presents the petition. He is the owner and contractor working at 18 Ocean Terrace. He’d like to continue it's grandfathered usage as a 3-family building, and to reconstruct the garages. Because the property is so steep, it's hard to create outdoor space for the exclusive use of each owner. There may be enough flat area around the building to create two small patio areas, but not three. Because of the nature of the slope, the underpinnings of a ground-level deck would be unsightly. To create more outdoor space for the top floor unit, he’d like to construct a deck on the roof.
Ms. Curran points out that there is an existing deck on the 3rd floor.
Mr. Turner confirms that there is. Each unit has its own small space – about 9’x15’. The proposed roof deck is 16’+/- x 12', for the exclusive use of the third floor. From the front of building, the front of the building is about 29' tall. If he adds a “penthouse” structure, there would be an additional 8 feet. Dramatic slope exposes perhaps an additional 10 feet of basement, so it’s perhaps 48' tall from grade at the back. He’s been in communications with the building inspector about whether two forms of egress would be required from the deck. If only one is required, then he wouldn’t have to construct the “penthouse” structure over the stairs serving as a second form of egress, and the only additional height would be about
a foot (for the floor of the structure) and 48” handrails around the deck. It would appear as a roof balustrade. In that case the only egress would be a spiral staircase from the existing third floor porch.
Ms. Curran asks Mr. St. Pierre what triggers the roof deck coming before the Board.
Mr. St. Pierre replies that it is viewed as an additional story of living space, even though it's open. To answer the penthouse (egress) question – we have not gotten into that code question yet. We will in the next couple of days.
Ms. Curran state that it might be good information to have.
Ms. Curran reads into the record a letter from John DeFelice, in opposition to the proposal.
Ms. Curran opens the hearing to public comment.
Kathy Bruin, 8 Shore Avenue. She is not for or against the project, she just wants to find out more information about it. She is confused as to how the roof deck will work for the 3rd floor unit. Why add it when there's already 3 decks?
Mr. Turner responds that the existing porches are 9’x15’, which is limited space for an outdoor gathering.
Ms. Bruin asks if the other decks are the same size.
Mr. Turner responds that they are, but for the 1st and 2nd floors, there's the possibility to create patios for their use. There isn’t really room for 3 patio spaces.
Ms. Curran asks what the lot size is.
Ms. Bruin and Mr. Turner state that the lot is large, but it’s sloped.
Mr. Watkins reads from the plot plan that it is 10,413 square feet.
Ms. Curran asks about the garage rebuilding.
Mr. Turner explains that they will be rebuilt on the same footprint, but will be a little bit higher.
Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that the applicant also needs a Special Permit for construction of the garages within 5 feet of the lot line, just to cover everything legally.
Ms. Curran wishes that the Board had the information about whether or not you need the cover for the structure (penthouse) on the top, as a formal second means of egress on the deck. It's so towering now, it's hard to see adding to the structure. If it were just the railing, that might be OK.
Mr. Tsitsinos states that he’s all for the construction of the roof deck, personally.
Ms. Curran states that if it were just the roof deck, it wouldn't be a big impact, but with the “penthouse” it would be quite large, and towering over everything.
Mr. Turner states that he would be in favor of not having the penthouse as it detracts from the appearance of the building, but it might be required by code.
Mr. St. Pierre asks the applicant if he would entertain having a bulkhead-style entrance for the second egress, rather than the “penthouse” structure?
Mr. Turner states that he would agree to that.
Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that he would picture a hatch like in a commercial building. That would only be required if the building inspector found that a second egress was required.
Mr. Tsitsinos states that in general, he likes it.
Mr. Duffy states that the Board usually has their approvals subject to the plans submitted. Would we just make a note in the Decision that it would be for the plans with the alteration that there would be no penthouse, and a second egress provided as required by building code, not to be more than 42” above the roof?
Mr. Turner states that he would probably construct the hatch so that people could walk over it when it's closed, and no one would see it or use it unless there's an emergency.
Mr. Tsitsinos states that it’s an awesome concept – no one would see the hatch.
Karen Russell, 6 Shore Avenue, asks if with the roof deck – can you see into our back yard?
Mr. Turner responds no. Most people would be looking out toward Gloucester and beyond.
Ms. Bruin states that from the side decks, the view to our yard is wide open right now. Can I request as a good neighbor gesture that screening be put in along one side of the property? The area was cleared for the work that's been done. And truthfully, this is not the best yard to have wide open. New trees will take too long to grow in.
Mr. Turner explains that there will be landscape work done, including stairs to get from the garages to the house.
Ms. Bruin asks when the trees would be going in.
Mr. Turner states that he wanted to do it now, but it's too late in the season to get good plant stock. It would be done in the early spring.
Ms. Curran asks the applicant if he has a landscape plan.
Mr. Turner responds that he does not yet, but he is sensitive to the neighbor's privacy. It works on both sides of the fence.
Ms. Bruin adds that safety is important too – there’s a drop between the properties.
Ms. Curran summarizes that it is two issues with the screening – privacy and delineation.
Ms. Curran states that the easiest thing for the applicant would be to install a fence for the immediate need, and then work out the landscape plan.
Mr. Duffy asks, in terms of putting in a condition – are we talking about a fence?
Mr. St. Pierre notes that it has to be enforceable.
Ms. Curran states that the Board can continue the hearing, and the applicant can submit a landscape plan.
Mr. Turner states that he didn't realize the privacy/boundary was before the board today.
Ms. Curran replies that it's a matter of any detrimental effects on the neighborhood.
Ms. Curran suggests a split-rail fence for delineation, to be followed by landscaping.
The applicant and Mr. Tsitsinos agree that a split-rail fence would be a good solution.
Ms. Bruin expresses her wish to have more time to think about it and discuss it with Mr. Turner.
Mr. St. Pierre reads a draft condition - the developer shall develop and implement a landscape plan in consultation with the abutters to address the need for delineation and privacy screening.
Ms. Curran adds a condition that no part of the roof deck is to rise above the required 42” railing.
Mr. Duffy states the findings for the Variance. As it concerns the Variance, based on the evidence on the record tonight, the topography of the property makes a hardship where there isn't adequate space for outdoor gatherings for all of the units in the building. There are no conditions that would make this substantially detrimental to the community, or that would derogate from the zoning ordinance, as amended. The Special Permits requested can be granted without any detriment to the neighborhood as well. The reconstruction of the garages will better the neighborhood.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions and 2 special conditions, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Ms. Curran) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Approval of Minutes
October 16, 2013 Draft Meeting Minutes
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy moves to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Ms. Curran) and none (0) opposed.
Adjournment
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos and unanimously approved 4-0. The meeting adjourns at 8:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dana Menon, Staff Planner
| 
