City of Salem Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals (“Salem BOA”) was held on Wednesday, January 15, 2014 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, Mike Duffy and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner, and Dana Menon, Staff Planner.
A Continuation of the 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).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped September 25, 2013 and accompanying materials
- Memorandum dated January 14, 2014
- Conveyance of Land, dated August 1962
- Quitclaim Deed, dated April 2013
- “Variance Plan” dated 9/23/2013, prepared by C.L.G. Associates
- October 1925 plot plan entitled “Home Sites”, drawn by Thomas A. Appleton, C.E.
John Keilty, Attorney, presents on behalf of Peter Hantzopoulos, trustee of the Hantzopoulos Family Irrevocable Trust.
Attorney Keilty reads from the submitted memorandum, reviewing the history of the lots, starting with the recording of the original three lots as laid out on the 1925 “Home Sites” plot plan, the purchase of the lots in 1962 by the Petitioner, and the Petitioner’s conveyance of the lots to himself and his wife as Trustees of Hantzopoulos Family the Irrevocable Trust in 2013. Atty. Keilty states that should one large home be constructed on the one large (merged) lot, the resulting home (a “McMansion”) would be out of context with the surrounding neighborhood of smaller homes on smaller lots. Attorney Keilty states that the merging of the three lots into one lot is an economic hardship, that the hardships faced by the applicants are not self-created, and that the proposed 2 lots will still be
larger than the other lots in the neighborhood. He further states that the variances required to allow the two proposed lots are “modest deviations” from the requirements of the R1 district. The applicant did not purchase the lots knowing that they’d be nonconforming. The 2013 conveyance still refers to the 3 lots laid out in the original (1925) plot plan.
Ms. Curran states that she has no issue with the division of the lot, but she doesn’t see a hardship.
Ms. Harris adds that it does seem that some of the other lots in the neighborhood were combined.
Ms. Curran states that the applicant purchased 3 conforming lots, three years later the lots merged and they didn’t know about it, as they weren’t in real estate.
Atty. Keilty adds: the economic hardship plus the other factors, and how we can distinguish this from other situations (this lot can be easily divided, it has plenty of frontage, the proposed lots are regularly shaped). The sum of the issues argues for a Variance.
Ms. Harris, Ms. Curran, and Mr. Watkins agree that dividing the lot into two lots would not be detrimental to the neighborhood.
Ms. Curran states it’s a good point that a larger house would be out of scale with the neighborhood.
Atty. Keilty states that homogeneity of the neighborhood is often an argument. He adds that the lots were merged along one frontage.
Mr. Dionne states that he has no problem with the proposal, and it would fit better into the neighborhood.
Ms. Harris and Ms. Curran discuss the need for all three hardship conditions.
Atty. Keilty responds that a hardship can be looked at with the question “am I left with something.” In this instance, the applicant would be left with one lot, but the two lots resulting from the proposal would be better for the neighborhood character.
Ms. Curran asks Atty. Keilty about the topography of the site. Atty. Keilty responds that the site is flat, the lot is square. There have not been any takings associated with the lot.
Mr. Duffy states that here the discussion is about 3 lots that became one lot. The unusual circumstance with this situation is that the lots were all side-by-side, under one owner, and were not built on before the zoning change.
Motion and Vote: Ms. Harris makes a motion to grant the requested Variances with three standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Duffy) - and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Discussion: Ms. Harris states that the hardship in this case is that literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would be a substantial hardship to the applicant. The applicant owned the property for a very long time, and it was legal when they acquired it. It became out of conformance through no fault of their own, and they were unaware of it. The relief being granted doesn’t have any substantial detriment to the public good, and it wouldn’t take away from the neighborhood.
Mr. Duffy adds that the hardship is that the lots are located side-by-side, lined up, and are regularly-shaped lots, which might be distinct from another situation in which lots under single ownership were merged. Additionally, the existing lot was formed from the merging of three lots, and the applicant is seeking only to divide the existing lot into two lots. Ms. Harris clarifies that the Board is considering that the size and location of the lots – compact, lined up together, of a regular shape – to be the unique conditions that create a hardship. Ms. Curran adds that the development of the land as two lots would be better in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, so it doesn’t derogate from the intent of the zoning ordinance.
Petition of LAWRENCE AND DEBORAH CALLAHAN requesting a Variance under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the required minimum depth of front yard, and Special Permits under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the reconstruction of an existing nonconforming structure in continued non-conformity with the required minimum depth of front yard, minimum depth of rear yard, minimum width of side yard, and maximum lot coverage by all buildings, for the property located at 129 COLUMBUS AVENUE (R1 Zoning District).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped December 23, 2013 and accompanying materials
Richard Griffin, Architect, represents the petitioners.
Mr. Griffin states that the existing house was constructed in 1895, and is now in bad shape. It was a typical Willows house construction, with light joists, and the thrust of the roof members are bowing out the house. The floors are springy and insect-infested. It would cost more to do a gut rehab than to tear it down and rebuild it completely. In designing the reconstruction, they found it desirable to add a couple of additional overhangs on the house, which add about 80 square feet for programming. Mr. Griffin states that they are proposing to extend the front porch by six feet [toward the south-west property boundary], so that the porch can wrap around the building to create a more graceful look. The hardship is that the lot size was determined in 1931, and the house was built in 1895. The
lot size is awkward and pinched, with a fairly minimal three-bedroom house on the site. The proposed rebuild is still three-bedroom.
Ms. Curran asks what the existing square footage of the house is. Mr. Griffin responds that there is about an 80 square-foot difference between the proposed and existing house. The additional covered area of the front porch adds about 35 square feet, the covered entryway at the back door is an additional 20 square feet, and the additional overhang is about 32 square feet. Ms. Curran clarifies the areas of the expansion, and asks why they are proposing an overhang [on the south west side of the house] of just an additional 1’-8”? Mr. Griffin refers to the submitted floor plans, and describes that the 1’-8” provides additional room in the interior for the desired programming of the space, and allows for the wrap-around of the front porch, which is an aesthetic improvement.
Ms. Harris asks if the proposed 2nd floor will remain the same size as the existing 2nd floor. Mr. Griffin responds that the proposed is slightly bigger than the existing.
Mr. Watkins asks if the new front porch would extend further toward the street. Mr. Griffin explains that it will come out no farther than it is now.
Mr. St. Pierre comments that, as the Building Inspector, it’s good to see a house rebuilt in the character of the neighborhood, but with improved energy efficiency and construction quality.
Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment.
Larry Spang, 125 Columbus Avenue, a direct abutter. Mr. Spang and his family have lived there for about 15 years, and knows that the Callahans have been struggling with what to do with the property. Having a vacant house is not good for the neighborhood. Mr. Spang agrees with Mr. St. Pierre’s comment. Mr. Spang and his wife are both in support of the petition.
Kathy Picone, 25 Beach Avenue, supports the petition, and believes that it is very sensitive to the architecture of the neighborhood. The Callahans are good neighbors.
John Doyle, 121 Columbus Avenue. The existing house is in disrepair. Anything to improve the property would be a plus for the neighborhood.
Andreé and Bill Walch, 23 Beach Avenue, support the petition, and agree with the other comments made.
Keith Chalmers, 12 Beach Avenue, states that the existing house is an eyesore. He is glad that the applicants are taking this on and are building something good for the neighborhood.
Ms. Curran closes the public comment on the issue.
Ms. Curran states that relief from the required front yard setback is by Variance. She believes that the extension of the front porch is aesthetically beneficial.
Mr. Griffin clarifies that the foundation of the proposed house will be in the same location that it is currently.
Mr. St. Pierre states that he believes that the hardship is the extremely small size of the lot, and the current configuration of the house. Ms. Harris states that in addition to those factors, the existing house is a wreck.
Mr. Watkins states that the proposed house is in character with the neighborhood, and he doesn’t see a problem here.
Ms. Harris asks if the siding will be wood. Mr. Griffin replies that it will either be wood or HardiPlank.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to grant the requested Variance and Special Permits with 7 standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Duffy) - and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Discussion: Ms. Curran states that for the Variance – the lot is very small, and it conformed to zoning at the time. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that the existing house predated zoning. Ms. Curran amends her statement, clarifying that the existing house predated zoning. Ms. Curran continues, stating that the applicant is using an existing footprint and making very minor additions to that footprint. She adds that the desired relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good – it will actually be more in keeping with the Willows neighborhood and the architecture of the neighborhood. Without that feature it would look out of place. In terms of the Special Permit – the social, economic and community needs served by the proposal, it fits in with the architecture
of the neighborhood, they are adding another parking space and utilizing the same driveway. It’s an existing single family house, so the impacts of the proposed building on utilities and on the environment will be the same as the existing single-family house. It’s in keeping with the Willows neighborhood character. It will be an improved property, and will increase the tax base. Ms. Harris adds that as evidenced by the neighbors who spoke in favor of the petition, the house is currently a wreck, and the proposal is a definite improvement to the neighborhood.
Petition of DE SIEU LAM and TUYEN NGOC LAM 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 at the property located at 97 BOSTON ST (R2 Zoning District).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped December 24, 2013 and accompanying materials
- Photos of the property and the neighboring buildings
- A written statement addressing the necessary findings for granting a Special Permit
Attorney Scott Houseman represents the petitioners in their request for a Special Permit to allow a change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, for the operation of a nail salon on the second floor of 97 Boston Street.
Ms. Curran asks what is currently in the space. Atty. Houseman replies that the first floor is a first aid training/EMT training facility. The second floor is currently vacant. Mr. Lam bought it in November 2013. In speaking with real estate brokers and the tenants downstairs, it seems to have been used most recently as offices of some type (lawyers, financial services, etc.).
Atty. Houseman adds that the property was purchased by an owner for use as an aluminum store and window sales shop in 1971. After that use started, the property was rezoned from business to R-2. The 1971 Zoning Board of Appeals decision states that “recent changes in the zoning ordinance rezoned the Boston Street premises from a business to a two-family zone while adjacent properties remained zoned for business. The petitioner has conducted his business in the Boston Street area for some time and is established there, and would prefer to continue operating at this locale…” They also found that there were many other businesses being operated in the immediate vicinity, and that the boundary between the Business zone and the R-2 zone starts at the abutting property. Atty. Houseman
states that remains the case – the zoning boundary is a half-block away, at Nichols Street. The Building Inspector indicated that he thought that there might be another Decision of the Board of Appeals on record. Atty. Houseman looked at the Registry of Deeds records, and its registered land, which may be why it didn’t show up when the Building Inspector was looking for the second Decision. As far as Atty. Houseman can tell, there was never a second Decision of the Zoning Board recorded regarding the second floor.
Mr. St. Pierre adds that he can definitely testify to the office use on the second floor. He had occasion to be in the property in the last 10 years, and it was definitely in office use. Ms. Curran interjects to clarify that they never came into the Board for that office use. Mr. St. Pierre confirms this. Mr. St. Pierre continues that the current first floor business applied to the Board for approval of their use of the property for a first aid training facility. He knows this because he read it in the file, but has been unable to re-locate the file in time for this hearing. The second Decision that he was looking for was for the first floor unit, not the second floor unit. The second floor was the aluminum business, and then became professional offices.
Ms. Curran asks if the parking meets the requirements of the by-law. Atty. Houseman responds that the proposed use of the second floor would require 5-6 lots, and the downstairs use requires 4. There are 10 parking spaces total in the lot behind the building. The downstairs business primarily operates in the evening. Mr. St. Pierre adds that the driveway is to the left of the building. Mr. Watkins asks if the driveway is two-way, and if there are designated spots for the two businesses in the parking lot. Atty. Houseman replies that there aren’t any spots reserved for the upstairs business specifically. Mr. St. Pierre adds that the driveway is too narrow to be two-lane, but is a generous single-lane.
Atty. Houseman states that even if all four (nail station) chairs were filled, there wouldn’t be much impact on the community. Ms. Curran asks if that means there will be 3-4 employees there at a time? Atty. Houseman replies yes. He adds that there is unlimited on-street parking across the street, and around the corner on Hanson Street, as well as a nearby bus stop. As shown in the submitted photos and statement, the buildings across the street have commercial uses, and behind the property is industrial use.
Ms. Harris asks if the buildings on either side of the property are residential. Atty. Houseman responds that they are.
Ms. Curran asks if they applicants will be using the entire second floor? Atty. Houseman replies that there will be no other use on the second floor, but some of the area will be used for storage related to the business.
Ms. Harris asks what the maximum number of chairs (nail stations) will be. Mr. Lam responds that they will start slow, and hopefully grow to a maximum of 8 chairs, depending on what building code will allow.
Mr. Tsitsinos asks what’s on the third floor of the building. Mr. St. Pierre responds that there is no third floor – the second floor has cathedral windows.
Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment.
Travis Lemiesz, 95 Boston Street, states that the residents have had no problem with commercial use, or with a nail salon. He does note that parking on Hanson Street is by residential sticker only. Plus, new condos are being constructed across the street, so parking on that street will be more congested. Mr. Lemiesz states that he just came to the meeting to make sure it wasn’t going to be a methadone clinic or something like that. He has no problem with it being a nail salon. The CPR place only works at night, and there aren’t a lot of people coming through. He adds that the driveway to the parking lot is definitely only wide enough for one car at a time.
Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that the condos that are going in across the street is just the conversion of an existing 2 or 3 family residential unit to 2 or 3 condos, so there won’t be any increase in the number of units. Mr. Lemiesz responds that the house being converted to condos has been vacant for at least two years, so if new folks are moving in, parking will be tight there.
Mr. Watkins asks if there are any proposed operating hours. Mr. Lam replies that they are waiting to see the building permits. Mr. Watkins clarifies that he is just concerned about the amount of traffic if the nail salon is operating at the same time as the training school downstairs. It could get congested in the parking lot. Mr. Lam states that the CPR/first aid business is open maybe 6:00pm to 10:00pm, and the nail salon would be open maybe 9:30am to 7:00pm. Ms. Harris reiterates the concern about the number of chairs and the length of opening hours, and asks the Board if they want to set any limits on either of those things. Atty. Houseman states that the Lams will start small and see how things go. It’s hard to establish a set number of what’s realistic right now. If the
Board wants to set an upper limit of something like 8 stations/chairs, that would be fine. Mr. St. Pierre adds that the applicants could always come back if they wind up wanting to change that.
Ms. Harris adds that nail salons are busy. Mr. Watkins states that it would generate a lot of traffic throughout the day – more traffic flow than the previous office use would have created. He suggests putting a limit on the number of chairs/stations. Ms. Harris notes that the number of employees will equal the number of customers. Atty. Houseman notes that there is a signalized cross-walk to the other side of the street, so if people parked there, it would be a safe way to cross the street. Mr. St. Pierre adds that one parking space is required for each 150 square feet of commercial use, so the proposed nail salon would require 6-7 spaces. Mr. St. Pierre advises the Board that if they have concerns, they should set limits now. Atty. Houseman states that a set closing time of 7pm and a
maximum of 8 chairs is good.
Motion and Vote: Ms. Watkins makes a motion to grant the requested Special Permit with 7 standard conditions, and two special conditions: there shall be a maximum of 8 stations, and the operating hours shall be between the hours of 9:00am and 7:00pm, Monday through Sunday. The motion was seconded by Mr. Duffy. A roll call vote was taken, and was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Duffy) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Discussion: Mr. Duffy adds that the proposed use would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, it would provide a service to the neighborhood, and that impacts on traffic will be mitigated by the set limits on the number of chairs and the hours of operation. There are other businesses in the area, so it is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. It will have a positive financial impact on the city.
- APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
November 20, 2013 Draft Meeting Minutes
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins moves to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Mr. Duffy. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Duffy, and Mr. Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed, and Ms. Harris and Mr. Dionne abstaining.
December 18, 2013 Draft Meeting Minutes
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins moves to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Ms. Harris. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, and Ms. Harris) and none (0) opposed, and Mr. Duffy and Mr. Tsitsinos abstaining.
Ms. Curran states that the Board seems to have been getting more applications where the applicant hasn’t clearly laid out a hardship in the application materials. Ms. Curran adds that it would be helpful to format the application to really emphasize that you MUST show a hardship, and if you don’t show a hardship, you can’t get a Variance. They always have the right to apply for it, but the Salem News is so expensive, so they’re spending a lot of money to get here. Mr. St. Pierre notes that the Salem Board of Appeals has typically taken a more lenient view on granting Variances than some other municipalities. Ultimately it’s the Board of Appeals’ decision to grant or to not grant a Variance. Ms. Menon offers to reformat the application package with the aim of clarifying
the requirements for applicants. Mr. St. Pierre adds that the Board has to set the tone themselves, but we can look at revising the application.
Mr. Watkins asks Ms. Menon if the Mayor has made an appointment to replace Mr. Eppley on the Board. Ms. Menon updates the Board on the progress with appointing a new member.
Mr. Watkins motioned for adjournment of the January 15th, 2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 8:10 PM.
Motion: Mr. Watkins made a motion to adjourn the January 15th, 2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Duffy, and a unanimous vote was taken with six (6) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Mr. Duffy) - 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 2/19/2014
| 
