City of Salem Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals (“Salem BOA”) was held on Wednesday, December 18, 2013 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.
Ms. Curran calls the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m.
Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris (Vice Chair), Richard Dionne, Tom Watkins, and David Eppley (Alternate). Those absent were: Mike Duffy and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services and Dana Menon, Staff Planner.
Petition of GENIA PATESTIDES requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use for the property at 107 FEDERAL STREET (R2 Zoning District)
(APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE)
Chair Curran states that the applicant has submitted a letter requesting to withdraw without prejudice. Chair Curran asks if anyone would like to make a motion.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Dionne made a motion to allow the petitioner to withdraw the appeal without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Mr. Eppley. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Eppley) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Ms. Curran explains that the next item will be taken out of order, in case anyone is in attendance for the hearing of:
Petition of ANDREW PERKINS requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, and minimum lot width requirements for the property located at 15 CHERRY HILL AVENUE (R1 Zoning District).
The applicant submitted a request to withdraw without prejudice. Ms. Curran asks if any Board Member would like to make a motion.
Motion and Vote: Ms. Harris made a motion to allow the petitioner to withdraw the appeal without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dionne. A roll call vote was taken, and was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, and Ms. Harris) and none (0) opposed. Mr. Eppley abstained. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Petition of PETER HANTZOPOULOS requesting Variances under Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the creation of two lots, each smaller than the required minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet, and with less than the required minimum lot frontage of 100 feet and the required minimum lot width of 100 feet, for the property located at 13 CHERRY HILL AVENUE (R1 Zoning District).
John Keilty, Attorney, presents on behalf of Peter Hantzopoulos, trustee of Hantzopoulos Family Irrevocable Trust. The Hantzopoulos’ prepared the application to the Board themselves. The applicant acquired the property in 1962, and it was shown as 3 lots in a 1925 subdivision plan “Homesites Plan” done for Frederick Griswold. In 2011 they put the land into the trust it’s in today. The assessor’s map (map 14 lot 225) shows it as one parcel, as the Hantzopoulos’ owned the three lots as one single entity, the three lots were merged for the purposes of zoning.
Attorney Keilty describes the area, frontage, and width of the two proposed lots. He states that each of these two proposed lots would be some of the largest lots in the neighborhood, as most of the lots have been built out similar to the way the lots were laid out in the 1925 plan. The proposed lots would not derogate from the intent or purpose of the ordinance, as the lots would be larger than the other lots in the subdivision. The applicant isn’t looking for any variances for any future houses – the applicant can comply with the dimensional requirements for the size and location of a house on the lot.
Chair Curran opens to public comment. No members of the public speak in opposition or in favor. Chair Curran closes the public comment.
Ms. Curran asks Attorney Keilty to clarify – if the lots had been held in separate ownership, they would be three separate lots now? Attorney Keilty responds yes. If they had been under separate ownership, they wouldn’t have been merged. In hindsight, they should have put each of the lots under a different daughter’s name.
Ms. Curran states that the size of the lots doesn’t seem like it’s inconsistent with the neighborhood, but she does not see a hardship under MGL Chapter 40A. Attorney Keilty responds that he is suggesting that the hardship is the imposition of a zoning zoning requirement after the creation of the lots in 1925 such that the lots were caused to be merged. There is nothing particularly unique to the size of these lots, other than that they’re actually larger than the existing neighborhood lots. Ms. Curran responds that if this were a Special Permit there wouldn’t be a problem, but it’s a Variance, and she doesn’t see a hardship.
Mr. Eppley states that he has concerns about the petition. He asks if the petitioners have thought about constructing a 2-family home and asking for a Variance to do that. Attorney Keilty states that he believes that in an R-1 zone they wouldn’t be allowed to do that – it would have to be a use variance, which isn’t allowed in the Salem zoning code.
Attorney Keilty states that if the board were to grant the variance, it would then go to the planning board for as an Approval Not Required plan.
Ms. Curran states that the Board has not granted variances for this kind of situation before, where there’s no particular hardship. She asks if the Board has any further questions.
Attorney Keilty responds that he understands that financial hardship alone is not sufficient. Hardship relating to the land is very hard to do when you are taking three lots and turning them into two. There are three separate lots (abutters) behind this lot, showing that people in the neighborhood have developed the lots at the size they were laid out as in 1925.
Ms. Curran states that there’s not a question that it’s consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Dionne adds that he doesn’t see any problem with it – the land has been in the family for so long, and there are four daughters. It’s been a long time since those lots were created.
The Board discusses and clarifies that there were three lots originally laid out, which were merged into one lot. Now, the discussion is about creating 2 lots from that one lot.
Mr. Eppley states that he would like to allow it, but the problem is establishing a precedent for a lack of hardship. Ms. Curran and Ms. Harris agree.
Attorney Keilty offers that he doesn’t believe that the Board sets precedents. If there was another situation where there was strong neighborhood opposition, it would be a different situation. If the Board wanted to grant the variance, they could certainly do so. If the decision of the Board were challenged in court, then the issue of hardship would certainly be an issue for the court to determine.
Ms. Curran responds that typically this board has not granted a Variance without a hardship. It’s true that if it’s appealed, it pretty much loses. Typically we need to see an articulated hardship under Chapter 40A.
Ms. Harris states that she doesn’t think that the applicant has the votes tonight, and asks Attorney Keilty if he wants to continue it to the next meeting, to have more time to consider the hardship argument. Atty Keilty thanks the Board and requests permission to continue to the January 15th Board of Appeals meeting.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Eppley made a motion to approve the request to continue the public hearing to the January 15th Board of Appeals meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Harris. A roll call vote was taken, and was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Eppley) - and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Petition of SPIRO KOUNSALIEH requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3 Nonconforming Uses and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from an existing nonconforming use to another non-conforming use; a Variance under Section 5.1.2 Location of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow required parking to be located on a separate lot; Variances under Section 4 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow encroachment on the minimum allowed width of side yard and minimum allowed depth of rear yard, and relief from the maximum allowed lot coverage by buildings, at the property located at 156 DERBY STREET (B1 Zoning District).
Attorney William Quinn, of Tinti, Quinn, Grover & Frey P.C., Salem MA, represents the applicant, Spiro Kounsalieh. Mr. Kounsalieh owns the Witches Brew at 156 Derby Street, which is a reputable and long-standing eating establishment. Attorney Quinn describes that a 1970 plan shows the addition of the third floor for sitting rooms. In 2006 the applicant received a Special Permit from the Board to expand the restaurant on the first floor. To Attorney Quinn’s knowledge, there have been no problems with the restaurant or the apartment upstairs. Mr. St. Pierre became aware that the 3rd floor had been converted to a separate apartment without the appropriate permits. He issued some orders because of some safety issues as well as the use nonconformity. The applicant has taken
that to heart, and has undertaken the safety improvements required by Mr. St. Pierre, and informed Mr. St. Pierre that he would appear before the Board regarding the use. This property has been the same type of establishment (a restaurant with an apartment over it) since at least 1965 – so it is an existing nonconforming use. So we are requesting to go from one apartment with a restaurant below it, which was allowed again in 2006, and now adding another apartment, which would be a different nonconforming use. The apartments are relatively spacious, and will fill a need in the city for affordable dwelling units. The building would be enhanced from a taxation and assessment point of view. The second issue is parking. The property only has a couple of spaces, which are used for handicap accessible parking for the restaurant. Otherwise the property is full of building. There’s no room for parking for either of the apartments. The area is congested, and many people have to make
arrangements to park their cars elsewhere. The applicant has arranged a lease with Captain Dusty’s across the street for five parking spaces, for five years. It’s in the public interest, and not in derogation of any intent of the zoning by-law.
Attorney Quinn goes over the submitted plan and the proposed improvements to the stairway at the back of the building. The stairway encroaches on the neighboring property, which is the National Park Service building. The stairway required repairs to satisfy code, so the applicant has worked with an architect to rebuild the stairway, including moving the stairway off of the neighboring property, entirely onto 156 Derby Street. The new stairway would also have to be slightly larger than the existing stairs. There would be no increase in the nonconformities of the stairway, as the existing stairway is over the property line, and the proposed stair would be at the property line. The lot and the placement of the building on the lot create a hardship for meeting the parking requirement and for the stairway. The change to the stairway is deminimus. The building is fit so tightly on the site that it creates a hardship, which would allow you to grant a variance for this request.
Mr. Dionne asks Attorney Quinn to clarify that the property been like this for quite a while.
Attorney Quinn responds that the 2006 Board of Appeals decision recites the fact that there were two apartments above the restaurant, and none of us really registered that it was a nonconformity at the time. Once the Building Inspector issued his citations, Mr. Kounsalieh has cooperated fully.
Ms. Curran asks the Building Inspector if there a building issue with having the staircase right up against the other building. Mr. St. Pierre responds that there is not. There would be if there were “openings” (like a window) on the lot line, but there isn’t in this case.
Ms. Curran asks how the parking linked to the building. What happens after 5 years, or if someone else buys the Captain Dusty’s property? Attorney Quinn responds that the applicant has the option to extend the lease for 5 years, if he wants. He suggests that the Board add a condition saying that Mr. Kounsalieh has to provide evidence of an additional lease at the end of the current lease.
Ms. Curran clarifies that Attorney Quinn is arguing that providing two units is not more detrimental, as you’re providing the required number of parking spaces.
Mr. Watkins asks if the 3 parking spots being leased are just for Captain Dusty’s use. They’re not public spaces? Attorney Quinn responds that no, they’re owned by Captain Dusty’s, and he’s leasing them to the petitioner specifically for use by the residents of the apartments.
Ms. Harris directs a question to St. Pierre about the nature of the letter he issued to the petitioner regarding the nonconformities, and if the applicant cooperated. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that the necessary building permits have now been issued, and currently the applicant is on hold, waiting for the Board’s decision. The letter is a standard violation letter, which is worded strongly in order to encourage action. We haven’t actually required removal of everything, as the applicant did work with us to get the building permits and agreed to come before the Board.
Ms. Curran opens the hearing up for public comment.
Tina Hall, 155 Derby Street, states that she has been renting a parking space from Captain Dusty’s for a number of years, and from the previous owners of that building before Captain Dusty’s. That parking area lends itself well to that arrangement – it’s a seasonal business, and closed in the winter. She’s leased a parking space there for at least 12 years
Bonnie Belair, 92 Wharf Street, speaks in favor of the petition. The Witches Brew has been there a long time, it’s very popular. Spiro is a generous and good neighbor. The buildings and how old they are (200-300 years old) create a hardship. They didn’t worry about parking back then. She urges the board to vote in favor of the application.
Senator Joan Lovely, 14 Story Street, speaks in favor of the petition. Spiro is a professional and runs a great establishment. When he bought the establishment, no one knew that this second apartment wasn’t a legal 3rd floor apartment. The situation reminds the Senator of when we were building condos here and there was limited parking, and we were letting people get parking passes in the garage to meet the parking requirement.
Bob McCarthy, 153 Bayview Avenue, Ward 1 Councilor. Agrees with everything that’s been said about Spiro and his business. Councior McCarthy believes that parking is a big issue for the neighbors and constituents. It’s important that you make the parking part of the decision. The parking situation is no fault of Mr. Kounsalieh’s, and he’s done the right thing with the parking lease agreement. The Councilor’s concern is if the tenants of those units are looking for residential parking along the street, which is already congested. Can we exempt them from getting a residential permit?
William Legault, Councilor At Large. Spiro, and his restaurant, is part of the fabric of that neighborhood. I support granting him the special permits.
Mr. Eppley adds that in the 2004 application, line 4 of the findings of fact: “the 2nd floor of the building is currently used as two apartment units that will remain.” He adds that he doesn’t think the Board of Appeals has jurisdiction to look at who does and does not get residential parking approval.
Ms. Curran states that the use of this property for two apartments is not more detrimental to the neighborhood, because they are securing parking. The variance for the stairs, is owing to the location of the building on the lot, and the location of the neighboring building on the lot. Also, it’s an egress, not an addition, so she doesn’t have a problem with it. There should be a condition that in 5 years the parking somehow needs to be checked. There should be some language in the Decision that requires the owner to keep the parking lease current, and make the Board aware of any other changes to the parking. Other than that, it’s good. It’s about residents, and about smart growth.
Attorney Quinn suggests that the applicant be required to file proof that he’s extended the lease, and if he does not, he will have to appear before the Board of Appeals. And the same at the end of 10 years – the applicant would have to supply written proof that off-street parking is supplied, and if he doesn’t, he can be called back in before the Board.
Mr. St. Pierre states that he believes that would be fine - as long as it’s in the Decision, he can enforce it.
Ms. Curran states that the Board can’t limit residents from getting parking stickers. Ms. Harris concurs.
Mr. St. Pierre comments that in that neighborhood, if someone had an off-street parking space, that’s what they’d use.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Eppley makes a motion to approve the petition with seven standard conditions, plus one special condition regarding the parking. The motion was seconded by Mr. Watkins. A roll call vote was taken, and was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Eppley) - and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Discussion: Ms. Harris clarifies that the hardship for the parking Variance would be the size and location of the building on the lot – there is no room on the site for parking. There is no detriment to the neighborhood as they are providing off-street parking in close proximity to the living unit.
Petition of JACQUELINE’S GOURMET COOKIES, requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to increase the height of a previously approved tank by 5 feet, for a proposed total height of 43 feet and 9 inches. The construction of the tank to a height of 38 feet and 9 inches was previously approved in a Decision dated May 29, 2013, at the property located at 96 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD (BPD Zoning District).
Mark Hazel, Jacqueline’s Gourmet Cookies presents the petition. Mr. Hazel states that the taller nitrogen tank would be in the same previously-approved tank footprint. Having 5 more feet of height would provide more flexibility in the nitrogen delivery schedule. The tank was originally going to be a 13,000 gallon nitrogen tank, now it would be a 15,000 gallon nitrogen tank.
Mr. Watkins asks Mr. Hazel to clarify the “flexibility” in the delivery. Mr. Hazel responds that it would provide flexibility in the delivery window times. The delivery company maximizes every load, so they can’t bring more, but it gives them the flexibility in the timing of the delivery. They can fit the deliveries into the time periods set by the ordinance.
Ms. Curran asks if it would it reduce the number of deliveries. Mr. Hazel replies that it would not. If they had a 13,000 gallon tank, the truck would deliver one fully tank, and then have to deliver a partial tank load later. With the 15,000 gallon tank, they can deliver two full truck loads. Mr. Watkins clarifies that it then could reduce the number of truck trips, as they could deliver full loads instead of partial loads on each trip. Mr. Hazel concurs.
Ms. Harris asks how much the truck holds. Mr. Hazel responds that it holds about 7,500 gallons. Ms. Harris clarifies that it would take two full truck loads to fill the tank.
Ms. Curran states that the Board gave the applicant a variance before, for the tanks the applicant has now. The proposed tank is 5’-9” higher than what they have now. Ms. Curran asks how that relates to the height of the building. Mr. Hazel responds that the building is 32’ high; the tank is 43’ high. He clarifies that the proposed tank is the same width as the originally approved tank, and it would be placed on the same pad. He states that the company did talk with all of the condo association members, and Todd Segel, and they had no issues with the proposed tank.
Ms. Curran clarifies that everything is staying the same - the applicant is just expanding the tank capacity.
Mr. Watkins reminds the applicant that previously there were some noise issues, and asks if the noise issues were related to this tank. Mr. Hazel responds that the noise issues were fixed – they put baffling systems on the exhaust motors. The noise issues were not related to the tank.
Ms. Curran opens the hearing to public comment. No one speaks in favor or in opposition.
Ms. Curran asks if anyone wants to make a motion. Ms. Harris makes a motion to grant the request for a Variance. There is discussion about extending the conditions of the original Decision to this new Decision. Ms. Curran states that the hardship would be the location of the existing structure.
Mr. St. Pierre asks if it wouldn’t actually be a modification to an existing Variance. Ms. Harris concurs with Mr. St. Pierre. Ms. Curran agrees that it would seem to be the case, but that wasn’t what was applied for. However, the original Variance does still seem relevant, as no other aspects of the original application are being changed. Ms. Harris agrees, and states that the hardship for the modification would be the size of the delivery trucks, and that a larger tank would allow a broader window for delivery of a full truck of nitrogen, while still having enough nitrogen in the tank between deliveries to allow production of the cookies to continue. Mr. St. Pierre points out that no members of the public came to speak at this hearing. At the public hearing for the applicant’s previous petition (when the Variance for the construction of the original tank was approved), there were many abutters present, so it seems that this change isn’t troubling the abutters.
Ms. Harris asks to change her motion to grant the modification of the existing Variance, with all previous Conditions standing.
Motion and Vote: Ms. Harris makes a motion to grant a modification to the existing Variance, carrying over all conditions from the previous Decision. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dionne. A roll call vote was taken, and was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Eppley) - and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Petition of LINDA GAGNON, requesting a Variance under Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the minimum depth of rear yard and minimum width of side yard requirements at the property located at 54 CHARLES STREET (R2 Zoning District).
George Atkins, Attorney, presents the petition. He apologizes to the Board that they are here post-construction of the changes to the structure. Mr. St. Pierre came to the site and informed the applicant of the need for zoning conformance. Mr. Atkins states that it is difficult to determine those requirements, due to the strange shape of the lot. Attorney Atkins included a survey plan in the application instead of the standard plot plan because of the odd “jog” in the lot. When the applicants purchased the lot, the plot plan provided at that time didn’t adequately define where the existing porch, side-porch and entryway were relative to the lot lines. The lot is a nonconforming lot, and the structure is a nonconforming structure. The “Jog” in the property boundary makes
the house 5.9’ from the “rear jog” not from the actual rear of the property. It is also 17.2’ from the side line. Attorney Atkins states that he cannot provide the dimensions of the house prior to the porch, side porch and entryway. The previous porch was suffering from a number of repair requirements, and it was also the main entrance into the house. There was no step into the house, so that water and snow would come into the house. As the door opened directly into the house, it created a difficulty with cold and heat. The applicant decided to reconstruct that, and add a mud room to prevent these things from happening. At the same time, it’s a family of five, and they had one bathroom. They decided to add a second bathroom on the second floor of this mudroom/entrance. Attorney Atkins states that the standards for hardship for granting Variances relating to de minimus dimensional changes such as
this, are not as demanding as they normally are. These are de minimus changes, particularly in regard to the shape of the property, with the “jog.” We are not presenting this as a hardship relating to the fact that it’s already constructed.
Mr. St. Pierre adds that the homeowner has been very cooperative, and stopped work immediately. It has been sitting there “shelved” with no work done inside the structure.
Ms. Curran opens the hearing to public comment.
Priscilla & Richard Dalton, 1 Pacific Street, state that they have no problem with the addition. Their property is right behind the “jog” in the applicant’s property.
Ralph Turgeon, 53 Charles, states that the owners have taken a house that was in total disrepair, and have fixed it up, landscaped it, and beautified it. It’s changed that whole part of Charles St. He doesn’t want anything to impede the work they’re doing.
Kenneth Okeny, 111 Broadway, agrees that the building was previously in need of repair. He really supports what the applicant is doing - making the house beautiful and increasing its value.
Attorney Atkins thanks those who have spoken in favor of the application.
Ms. Curran asks for clarification on the dimensions of the old entrance/stairway, and if it’s the same dimensions as the new mudroom/entrance. Attorney Atkins responds that they’re not the same dimension, but you can’t quite tell from the plot plan what the dimensions were. It looks like the original structure was somewhat smaller. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that it requires a variance because it’s a covered structure, which is treated differently than an open deck. A structure requires a 10’ side yard setback and a 30’ rear yard setback. An open deck is only required to have a five foot setback.
Attorney Atkins states that it’s the principal entrance to the house, as it’s next to the parking for the building.
Mr. Eppley notes to the Chair that it looks like the neighbors that abut on Pacific have a fence that goes along the jog. Attorney Atkins confirms that there is a fence, but according to the surveyor it’s not on the lot line, so it changes your estimation of where the lot line really is. That’s another issue, which requires private resolution. Even if you used the fence as the lot line, the distance to the structure would be below the required setback.
Mr. Dionne states that he doesn’t see any problem with it.
Ms. Curran notes that she wishes they’d come in before it was constructed. Attorney Atkins concurs, and adds that they applicants also with they had done so.
Ms. Curran states that the “jog” in the property line and where the house is situated on the lot makes the situation different. You could only expand the house into the back yard without encroaching on the required setbacks, but that wouldn’t achieve what the applicants were trying to do.
Attorney Atkins notes that the statement of hardship is attached to the application. The stated hardships relate to the “financial and otherwise” hardships, and the shape of the lot.
Ms. Curran agrees that the shape of the lot makes sense. The other statements aren’t zoning hardships. As evidenced by the support here tonight, it’s not detrimental to the neighborhood or the city at large in any way, and it’s not intensifying the use of the building in any way. At this point literal enforcement would involve hardship.
Ms. Harris adds that really it’s the placement of the house on the lot, and the shape of the lot, that is creating a hardship.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the petition with seven (7) standard conditions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Eppley. A roll call vote was taken, and was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Eppley) - and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
- APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
Ms. Curran recommends discussing and approving the November 20th, 2013 meeting minutes at the next regularly scheduled Board of Appeals meeting, as there are only two Board Members in attendance tonight who were in attendance at the November 20th, 2013 meeting (Mr. Watkins and Ms. Curran). Ms. Harris adds that the meeting attendees should be listed at the top of the minutes.
Review and vote: 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Schedule
Ms. Curran notes that two of the meetings are scheduled during school vacations, but suggests that those can be addressed on a case-by-case basis as they come up.
Motion: Mr. Watkins made a motion to approve the 2014 Board of Appeals meeting calendar, seconded by Mr. Dionne, and a unanimous vote was taken with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Eppley) - and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Mr. Watkins motioned for adjournment of the December 18th, 2013 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 7:45 PM.
Motion: Mr. Watkins made a motion to adjourn the December 18th regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Dionne, and a unanimous vote was taken with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Eppley) - and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Respectfully submitted,
Dana Menon, Staff Planner
Approved by the Board of Appeals 1/15/2014
| 
