Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 02/19/2014
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, February 19, 2014

A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals (“Salem BOA”) was held on Wednesday, February 19, 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 6:31 p.m.

  • ROLL CALL
Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris (Vice Chair), Richard Dionne, Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy, Peter A. Copelas (Alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner, and Dana Menon, Staff Planner.

  • APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
January 15, 2014 Draft Meeting Minutes
Ms. Menon noted corrections regarding the vote totals, as alternate board members aren’t eligible to vote on petitions for which the full board is available and eligible to vote.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Dionne moves to approve the minutes with the noted changes, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos.  The vote was unanimous with six (6) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed.

  • REGULAR AGENDA
Petition of MICHAEL MEYER requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the extension of an existing nonconforming structure in order to construct an addition to the second floor of the house at the property located at 15 BEACON STREET (R2 Zoning District).   

Documents & Exhibitions:

  • Application date-stamped January 23, 2014 and accompanying materials
  • Letter in support of the petition from Daniel & Stephenie O’Connell, 17 Beacon Street, received February 12, 2014.
Mr. Michael Meyer speaks on his own behalf.  When he purchased the property it was condemned and completely nonfunctional.  He's seeking to add two bedrooms to the second floor.  The houses on either side have each made similar additions.  The footprint isn't expanding, there's no difference in the green space.  The existing house just doesn't function in today's real estate market.

Ms. Curran: How many square feet are you adding?
Mr. Meyer: Approximately 250 square feet.

Ms. Curran: Will the 1st floor porch remain open under the proposed 2nd floor expansion?
Mr. Meyer: it will remain open.  I’m not pushing out any further than the existing foundation.
Ms. Curran: and you're two feet from the side property line at that back corner?
Mr. Meyer: yes
Ms. Curran asks Mr. St. Pierre if there's a building restriction with having the windows so close to the lot line.
Mr. St. Pierre states that there can be restrictions at three feet and under, but as it's not on the lot line, it's not really a concern.
Mr. Meyer states that he's spoken with abutting neighbors and there’s no opposition.

Mr. Watkins asks if the first floor is staying the same.
Mr. Meyer: yes, the first floor is staying the same.  I’m not adding anything more to the foundation, just expanding the second floor.

Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment.

Mr. Richard Barbeau, 19 Beacon Street: I just want to make sure this won't turn into a multifamily dwelling.
Mr. Meyer: I have gotten this question from another neighbor.  No, it’s remaining a single family.  You can't fit more than one family in there.
Ms. Curran: What is the square footage of the house?
Mr. Meyer: It’s a little under 1,200 square feet with the addition.
Mr. Barbeau: if he wanted to try to make it a multifamily, would he have to come back before the board to do so?
Mr. St. Pierre: yes, he’d have to come back before this board for relief from requirements for lot area per dwelling unit and number of parking spaces.
Mr. Barbeau: I've lived in this neighborhood for years, we're on top of each other.  The windows are not of concern to me, and I have no problem with this proposal.

Ms. Curran reads a letter from Daniel & Stephenie O'Connell, 17 Beacon St, into the record, stating their support for the project.

Mr. Watkins: What's the off-street parking situation there?
Mr. Meyer: There was really no off-street parking, I've been able to push the front porch back far enough that you can maybe fit 2 small cars on the site now, but probably just 1 car.
Mr. Watkins: Is there on-street parking there?
Mr. St. Pierre: Yes.

Ms. Harris: Are you renovating to rent, sell, or live there?
Mr. Meyer: To sell.
Ms. Harris: There's no restriction on the height?
Mr. St. Pierre: It's not exceeding the existing height of the building.

Ms. Curran: It's a special permit, so we need to go through those criteria.  Social, economic or community needs served by the proposal: It's an existing single family home, and it’s staying that way.  Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading: again, it’s staying as a single family home.  Adequacy of utilities and other public services and impacts on the natural environment - will stay the same.  It will be an improvement to the neighborhood character, and regarding the economic and fiscal impact, it will increase the value of the home.

Ms. Harris: It seems that it will be an improvement.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to grant the requested Special Permit with eight 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.  


Petition of ROBERT AND CHRISTINE KING requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the renovation and expansion of an existing nonconforming structure, and a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements, specifically from the 2.5 story maximum allowed height of buildings, to allow the building to be 3 stories in height, at the property located at 84-86 BAY VIEW AVENUE (R1 Zoning District).   

Documents & Exhibitions:

  • Application date-stamped  January 28, 2014 and accompanying materials
  • A set of four additional floor plans submitted February 19, 2014
Letter of support from Deborah Adair, 87 Bay View Avenue, submitted at the hearing
  • Letter of support from Roland Morency, 88 Bay View Avenue, submitted 2/19/2014
Mr. Robert King presents the petition.  We bought the house, and it's in pretty dire need of renovation.  Years ago, somebody thought it would be a good idea to dig a hole under the house and put the furnace down there.  It's rusted beyond use, so there's no heating in the house.  The electrical system is old – fuses, knob & tube.  The lower-level ceiling height is low – about six feet.  We're basically looking to rebuild this house.  It’s in the Juniper Cove area, and the houses are pretty tight there.  We're looking for a variance to put gables on the 3rd floor, to allow walk-up access to the third floor (to avoid having to use a pull-down stair).  Right now there's no access to the lower level from inside the house, you have to go outside to get to the stairs to the lower level.  We're proposing to move the stairs inside the house, and to remove a large exterior bulkhead to the lower level as well.  We do want to add a deck off the back and a staircase off the side.  The original submission drawings show the staircase off the deck to be even with the end of the deck.  We'll actually be pulling the stairs away from the end of the deck, as shown on the plans submitted today.  In conversation with the abutters on the right side, they stated that if we reduced the depth of the deck to six feet (from eight feet), the abutter will have no problem with the deck.
Ms. Curran & Ms. Harris ask for clarification on which dimension of the deck will be reduced to six feet.  Mr. King points it out on the submitted plans.  
Ms. Curran: what is the existing and proposed area of the house?
Mr. King: it’s currently about 2,500 square feet, and we’re proposing to increase it by 500 square feet.

Ms. Harris: is it now a 2 family, or will it be a 2 family?
Mr. King: it is now a 2 family, and we're keeping it a 2 family.  The lower level is a 2-bedroom apartment; the upper floors will be their residence.

Ms. Curran: The two Variances are for the gables (adding a 3rd floor), and the deck.
Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that the 2nd Variance is for the proposed staircase off of the deck, which is closer to the side lot line than the required minimum distance.
Ms. Curran: is the stair minimum egress width?
Mr. King: The proposed stair is three feet wide, the existing stair is four feet wide.
Ms. Curran: So you’re actually increasing your side yard by removing some of the things that are there now.
Ms. Curran: Are you in the flood zone?
Mr. King:  No.
Ms. Curran: what is the existing and proposed building height?
Mr. King: the existing is about 27 feet, the proposed house is going to 32 feet high, the allowed height is 35 feet.

Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment.

Bob Chadwick, 80 Bay View: My issue is – as you raise the back of the house, it's going to encroach on the view of my neighbor (the petitioner’s direct abutter).  If you do that, it's going to block my view a lot.  Right now the deck is one story.  You're coming up another story above that.  You'll in principle block my neighbor's view, which would doubly block my view.  Raising the height of the deck and the length of the deck will block my view.  
Mr. King: I don't have an aerial with me, but I believe your house is further back.  His house is 2 houses over (80 Bay View).
Mr. Chadwick: what I’m saying is, right now I can look out my window and see the water.  If Mr. King makes an addition, his immediate neighbor will want to add an addition to keep his view, which would impact my view.
Ms. King: 84-86 Bay View, we're not moving any closer to the water.
Ms. Curran: If 82 Bay View were to expand, they'd also have to come through this board as well.  Mr. Chadwick, you're concerned with the porch.
Mr. Chadwick: I'm concerned with the rear of the house going up higher than it is now.
Mr. King provides a photo of the rear of the house.  He explains that the proposed improvements are basically adding one level.
Mr. Chadwick states that it's one level plus the peaked roof.
Ms. Harris states that currently there's a peaked roof at the front of the house.  The proposed peak of the addition will be at the same height?
Mr. King: No.  The existing roof is 26-27 feet high.  The proposed roof is 32 feet high.  The proposed gables are 31 feet high, lower than the proposed roof line.  It's a new roof line.
Ms. Curran explains that the proposed roof line is six feet higher than it is now.
Mr. King: we're below the height allowed by the variance.
Ms. Harris: but on the back you’re adding one and a half stories.
Ms. Curran: yes, on the back they're adding a floor plus a gable.

Dan Lang, 82 Bay View Ave:   I spoke with the Chadwicks about this matter.  What I understand of the property, Mr. King is taking 84 square feet of the existing foundation and replacing it with 126 square feet of decking.  So it's only adding on 2 feet over what's there now.  So yes, I have concerns, but in the grand scheme of things, the back yard is what I'm mostly concerned about keeping.  I won't oppose the variance if he’s not going to exceed that additional 2 feet.  Going up is a concern, but not enough to fight the Variance.  When I spoke with him two weeks ago, no one had dimensions of that deck.  We've discussed it, and we've agreed that he'll pull the deck back to six feet, to impact the neighborhood minimally.  Yes, he's creating a high rise, and he'll be creating a precedent in the neighborhood.  I don't have a problem with it, as long as the deck is no longer than six feet long.

Anthony Serino, 510 Revere Beach Boulevard, Revere, MA, father in-law of Bob King:   Speaking in favor of the petition.  Mr. King’s character is irreproachable.  His wife and he intend to move into the apartment that Bob will be providing.  We intend to move into the apartment for the rest of their days.

Ms. Curran reads the letter from Roland (Moe) Morency and Pat Morency, in favor of the proposed project.  Mr. St. Pierre adds that the Morency’s live next door to the applicant, at 88 Bay View Ave.

Ms. Curran states that the front looks great, and is in scale.  The back looks big, but the deck actually helps the massing a bit.  The proposed structure is 3 stories and a gable, which is quite a difference from the existing.  I assume there is a grade change that creates the appearance of 2 stories on the front and 3 stories on the back.  Ms. Curran asks the petitioner to speak to the hardships for granting the two variances.

Mr. King: The size and shape of the lot restrict additions to the house.  The roofline of the gables would be one foot lower than the roofline of the house, and would allow them to have a walk-up stairway to the third floor rather than a pull-down stair.  A dormered roofline is in keeping with the character of the nearby homes, and would not be substantially derogating from the character of the neighborhood.  
Ms. Curran: And for the stairway?
Mr. King: The only place that makes sense to put the staircase is here on the side.  Right now there's a cement/cinder block structure already there with a stairway that goes down to the lower level.  That current staircase is four feet wide.  The proposed staircase is three feet wide.  I realize it's very close to the property line, but it's narrower than the existing stairs.

Ms. Harris: I'm having trouble with the hardship.  This is all being done to get a staircase instead of a pull-down to the attic.  I'm finding it hard to make a compelling enough case for a Variance.  It's really massive on the back, and sets a precedent for the neighborhood.
Mr. King: The house, I believe, 5 houses up the street (a yellow house), is at least three stories.  There are a lot of houses that have been redone in the neighborhood, as well as cottages.
Ms. Harris: I'm having trouble with the hardship for a variance for the staircase to the attic.
Mr. King: I honestly believe the gables help with the look of the house.  I don't know how to determine a hardship.  Mr. King shows some google earth images of other neighbors with gables.
Mr. Tsitsinos: I don't see any problem with it.
Ms. Harris: I'm just having trouble seeing the Variance.
Ms. Curran: yes, if it were a special permit, it wouldn't be an issue, but it’s a different threshold to grant a variance.
Mr. King: I have gotten approval from both direct abutters, including a letter from the woman directly across the street.  Their view would be the most impacted.

Ms. Curran reads the letter submitted by Debby Adair, in support of the project.

Mr. King: Ms. Adair lives directly across the street.  She'll see our house and the roofline.
Ms. Curran: from the front it looks fine.  The gables add to the look of the roofline, but is there a hardship?  Are the bedroom configurations the same?
Mr. King: We're adding a third bedroom to the second floor.
Mr. Dionne: I don't have a problem with it, other than setting a precedent.  It is an improvement over the old house, it would be an improvement to the neighborhood.
Mr. St. Pierre: The legal standing for a hardship is something to do with the land, the house on the land, etc.
Ms. Curran: I have no issue with the staircase to the deck, as the staircase is the legal minimum width, and it's a narrow lot, so there's no other place to put it.  You can't do the staircase in the middle, it doesn't work?
Mr. King: The house is so narrow, there's no other place to put it.  
Ms. Curran: And there will be no change to the parking?
Mr. King: No, no changes.
Ms. Harris: And the bump-out on the side of the second floor is covered by the special permit?  Mr. King: It's for a fireplace, and overhangs a lower level door.
Mr. St. Pierre: the special permit should cover the expansion of the existing non-conforming structure.  It's minimal.  The existing bump-outs on the structure that the applicants are removing are larger than the proposed bump-out.  The full-height dormers on either side trigger the variance from the height in floors.  If there's a full-height wall perpendicular to the ridge of the roof, it becomes a third story.
Ms. Curran calls for a motion if there's no other discussion.
Mr. Watkins: Can the hardship be that there's simply no other way?
Ms. Harris: No, because you could have a pull-down stair.  The dormers are pretty, but there’s enormous pressure, particularly in this neighborhood, to expand.  So we need consistency.
Mr. St. Pierre: In the design, the dormers are shifted toward the front of the building, so the back isn't as impacted.
Mr. King: That's why I stated that the only person who would be impacted by the dormers would be Debby Adair.  The width of the house restricts the stairway configuration, and the width of the house is restricted by the width of the lot.
Mr. Duffy.  The applicant does have a narrow lot.  They can't get a staircase up to the attic space without dormers, which triggers the technical third story. But in terms of the total height, it's not even up to the total height limit that's allowed by the ordinance.  It's really just the fact that it becomes a third story that triggers the variance need.  There is just no way that he can create a staircase to allow access to this attic space without having this dormer come in.  Is it a condition that especially affects this land, this building, or this structure?  It may be - based on how it currently sits on this lot, based on the current footprint, and the interplay of those factors with trying to get a stairway up to the attic space.  I think it does bear some consideration that the dormers are toward the front of the house, that they’re not full-length dormers, that you’re not seeing them on the back of the house where they would have an impact on the view of the neighbors out to the water.  They would be allowed to just expand the house up to 35 feet with a straight-peak roof without a third floor.  I think you could make a case that it’s based on the land, building, and structure, and the way those are situated.
Ms. Curran: You could add to that, that fact that the basement will continue to be used for living space, storage.  You would be less likely to see sheds or other outbuildings, which could be done.
The other board members concur that Ms. Curran’s point isn’t an argument for the variance.
Mr. St. Pierre: It's a very minimal third story, I think that's the point.  
Ms. Curran agrees.
Mr. Duffy: Should we discuss the special permit as well?
Ms. Curran: The criteria for the special permit: the social, economic, and community needs served by the proposal?  It’s not really a change, as it will remain a two-family use.  Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading - will stay the same.  The adequacy of the utilities and other public services is not really impacted, as the use remains the same.  The impact on the natural environment and drainage – they are using the same building footprint.  Neighborhood character – it’s certainly an improvement to the look of it.  The potential fiscal impact - the value of the house would increase, which would increase the tax base.  From my standpoint, all those things for the expansion are fine.  For the Variance, the special conditions are:
  • For the stairway: the stair is narrow - they're doing the minimal egress.  The special conditions and circumstances that affect the land, building, or structure involved, that generally don’t affect other land or buildings: anywhere they put that stairway, it would be in a side yard, owing to the narrowness of the lot.  Literal enforcement of the provisions would result in substantial hardship to the applicant: There's really no other place to put the stairway.  The desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good: The proposed stairway is smaller than the one that's existing, so it doesn't have any detrimental effect on anyone, including the next door neighbor.
  • For the dormer: Mike, do you want to state that?
Mr. Duffy: Well, I think we have that in the record.  Owing to the narrowness of the lot, and the size of the house, and the configuration of the lot and the house, there's a hardship in the sense that they can't add this attic space and have a stairway access it without triggering a minimal third story, which even though it's technically a third story, it's within the maximum 35 foot height allowable.  I don't think granting that relief would bring any substantial detriment to the public good, or nullify the intent or purpose of the ordinance.  It has the support of the neighbor across the street.  The dormers are toward the front of the house, so they won't impact the views of the next door neighbors.
Ms. Curran asks if there’s a motion.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to grant the two requested Variances and Special Permits with 7 standard conditions and one special condition that while the submitted plans show an 8-foot deep deck, the approved deck shall only be 6 feet deep.  The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne.  A roll call vote is taken, and four (4) are in favor (Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, and Mr. Duffy) - and one (1) opposed (Ms. Harris).  The motion is accepted.  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Discussion:  Ms. Harris expresses her reservations about the hardship.  Ms. Curran reviews the hardship that's been discussed and states that she doesn't have any problem with it.  Mr. Watkins concurs – given the size and layout of the land and the building itself, the case for the hardship is made.


Petition of ROBERT WILLWERTH requesting a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements, specifically from the maximum allowed height of buildings, and a Special Permit under Section 3.3 Nonconforming Uses and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one non-conforming use to another, and to change a non-conforming structure, to allow the conversion of the property to residential use, at the property located at 107 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R1 Zoning District).   

Documents & Exhibitions:

  • Application date-stamped January 28, 2014 and accompanying materials
  • Petition of support for the proposed project signed by six abutters, submitted February 19, 2014.
Attorney Scott Grover, 27 Congress Street, represents Mr. Willwerth.  Mr. Willwerth has a P&S agreement to purchase this property, with Dr. John Von Weiss, pending the outcome of this hearing.  Atty. Grover shows photos of the existing building.  It was a very active medical practice with 5 doctors.  Dr. Von Weiss is retired, and is in the process of winding up the practice.  The property is neglected.  Atty. Grover refers to the existing conditions plan (sheet 2 of the submitted Eastern Land Survey Plan).  The site is almost entirely covered in pavement – right up to the perimeter of the property and to the edges of the building.  The property is in poor condition.  The bushes in the front are overgrown.  Mr. Willwerth is proposing to convert the use of the property back to residential use, the underlying use in the zoning district.  He's proposing a multi-family use - 8 one-bedroom condominiums in the existing structure; the units will be between 600 and 700 square feet.  The only changes to the exterior of the structure will be to the rear.  The 3 sides visible from the street will remain mostly the same.  The windows will be replaced with windows more in keeping with its historic character, and it will be painted.  The changes at the rear (sheet A1 of the architectural renderings).  On the back of the existing structure there's an existing bump-out.  Mr. Willwerth is proposing to construct 2 floors of decks on top of the existing bump out, and a dormer for the 3rd floor.  The more dramatic changes will be to the grounds (see the landscape plan).  The plan would be to cut the pavement back significantly from the edge of the property, and install planting beds.  There are some substantial trees there that provide a buffer to the residential neighbors.  These will for the most part remain.  Also the pavement will be cut back around the edge of the building, and plantings installed there.  The most dramatic change to this property will be to the grounds.  The plans propose 14 parking spaces, which is more than the required number (12), and is substantially less than the 27 spaces currently there.  The site is  about 17,000 square feet.  Currently, over 15,000 square feet of the lot is impervious.  The proposed plan would have less than 6,000 square feet of impervious area.  The Special Permit is to change the existing nonconforming structure and to change the existing nonconforming use (medical office) to another nonconforming use (multifamily).  Firstly, going back to a residential use that's consistent with the underlying zoning is important.  Traffic to the site and parking on the site will be reduced.  The changes to the environment are positive with more landscaping, and less impervious area.  Adding 8 condominiums will have a significant impact on the tax revenues for the City.  Secondly, the Variance for the height of the building – the overall height complies with the 35 foot height required in the R1 district, but the dormer causes it to exceed the 2.5 story height restriction in the district.  The special conditions relate to the building itself.  The building has been cut up into a maze of medical offices inside.  Most of the rest of the buildings in the neighborhood are traditional residential buildings.  This building is different.  What it's going to take to renovate – to really gut the whole building – and create the units, to provide the economic engine to restore the building, they need to create usable space on the third floor.  The dormer really provides the economic ability to undertake the improvements to the building.  Without useable space on the third floor, it's not financially feasible to do the project.  Mr. Willwerth arranged to meet with the neighbors to listen to their concerns.  There were some concerns about privacy at the rear, and he's agreed to add some additional shade trees there.  He's also agreed to continue an existing fence along the entire back of the property to provide privacy, and to keep snow from being pushed onto adjoining properties.  For the most part, the neighbors at that meeting were in favor of the proposal, and thought that the conversion to residential use would be a positive thing for the neighborhood.  There's a dumpster that's going to be enclosed per City ordinance.  

Ms. Curran: We need to establish that the proposed nonconforming use will be less detrimental than the existing nonconforming use.  What will be the difference in the traffic?
Atty. Grover: The medical practice had 5 doctors, 22 full and part-time employees, and an average of 60 patient visits a day.  The number of parking spaces that exists now show how busy it was.  With the proposed single-family condos, they will be occupied by one person, or at most a couple.  With the size of the units, there should be more than enough parking on-site for the proposed use.  Also, with the proposed use (residential), there will be far less trips to and from the site than there were with the medical office – they'd mostly make one trip out in the morning and one trip back in the evening.

Mr. Watkins: There's a potential for 16 residents there (2 people per unit), and there's only 14 spaces.  
Atty. Grover: I don't think there's likely to be 16 cars there, but there are side streets that residents could park on.  There is more room on the site for parking, but it would be sacrificing some of the landscaping that we think is more important to the residential neighborhood.
Ms. Curran: It certainly seems less intensive.  Although the number of units – and you say that number is the number that works – we need to review the financial analysis behind that.  Eight units seem like a lot of units.  I have no problem with it going to residential, but it is a tough street to get in and out of.  It’s less intensive than the previous use, but it’s still an issue.
Mr. Watkins: That's where I was going with the parking, too.  People have guests over, too.  There's definitely the potential to have more than 14 cars there.  I have no problem with it going from commercial to residential, but 8 units is a lot.  How many extra units does the dormer allow?
Atty. Grover: the dormer allows for 2 units.  Part of it is the market they're targeting with the smaller units.  Being right on Highland Ave, they likely won't be able to achieve a higher price point.  Probably they will be purchased by first-time homebuyers, and the units will probably sell for less than $200,000 per unit.  You have to make up for that price point.  If it's parking you're concerned about, there is room for more parking on the site.  We could pick up a couple of spaces around the perimeter.  It's conjecture, but from my own experience, you're going to have many single people buying the units, given the size of the units and the area.

Ms. Harris: How will the units break down, how many units are on each floor?
Mr. Willwerth: There's actually 4 floors, with 2 units on each floor.
Atty. Grover: The topography of the site drops down, so you pick up 2 units on the lower level.

Mr. Dionne: There’s no storage area other than in the units?
Mr. Willwerth: There's a sub-basement that will have a small storage area for each unit.
Atty. Grover: As this project is 6 or more units, this would require site review by the Planning Board.  They'd look in much more detail at site layout, planting, drainage, etc.  The Planning Board will dig into those issues, there will be further scrutiny.

Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment.

John Lunt, 6 Greenway Road, a direct abutter.  At the neighborhood meeting we were told the fence would come all the way around the north side of the property.
Atty. Grover: Yes, that's correct.
Mr. Lunt: I've lived here many years.  I've looked at the dumpster, the guardrail, the back of the building.  The proposed cleanup will make my property much more favorable.  I didn't realize the dumpster was going to stay there.  That dumpster has been an issue for 2 years.  Seagulls go in there and pull it all out.  It's uncovered.  As far as parking, Greenway Road, Cottage Street, Wilson Street, we don't want anyone parking there.  We're already dealing with hospital employees parking there for the day.  Some of the privacy issues discussed with the rear decks – that'll be something we talk about.  I'm not opposed to the project.  For me it's about condos – people will own them, they'll maintain them.  I wouldn't be so crazy about apartments.  There are also drainage easements – sewer and catch basins.  We'll have to speak about those issues more.  I don't see any other use for the property.  No commercial developer is going to come in and have much success with the neighbors.  If you force it to stay R1, what do you do with it?  Look for a family of 20?  The building is in very rough shape, it's an eye sore.  Dr. Von Weiss's maintenance was pretty good, but since he's left, it's not good. It would be an improvement to our neighborhood.  It's going to be a little bit of a wait-and-see, who knows who will buy these.  It's been day use, and it would be different with the residential use.


Atty. Grover submits a petition from residential abutters behind the site who support the petition.  Ms. Curran reads out their names.

Ms. Curran: Going to a residential use is good, but 8 units seems like a lot.  I would ask that you submit the pro-forma analysis of the finances so that the board can see that.  Since you're stating that's the reason for the variance, I'd request that for the Board's review.
Ms. Harris: So you're saying we'd put it off for a month?
Ms. Curran: Yes.
Mr. Watkins concurs.
Ms. Harris: That would be the main thing.  It's a very unusual building, it's changing the use to be more compatible with the neighborhood.  The only other logical option would be to tear down the whole thing and build a new commercial use.  I think there's a lot of case here for hardship.
Ms. Curran asks Atty. Grover if the applicant would be amenable to a continuation.
Atty. Grover: Yes, if the board would need to.  Also, if there are any other questions/comments from the board that we can address, let us know.
Mr. Dionne: It looks well done, the landscaping is well done.

Ms. Harris: There aren't many windows in the basement.
Mr. Willwerth: There are existing windows in the basement.  Just so you're aware of it – there are 32 parking spots there now.  If there was a requirement that we needed 2 parking spots per unit, we could absolutely do that.  We'd just have to take away from the landscaping.  We're trying to get rid of some of the impervious ground, spruce up the property, and make it look not so commercial.  When you walk in from Highland Ave, you're on the first floor.  It's a walk-out basement on the back.  There are windows on the sides and back of the building for the basement units.  They have their own separate entrances, plus a common entrance from the parking lot.
Ms. Harris: And the people parking can walk in and go up?
Mr. Willwerth – Yes.  There are actually 5 stories to this building, it's deceiving from the outside.

Mr. Watkins – How many parking spaces are required by the zoning ordinance?
Mr. St. Pierre: 1.5 per unit.  So they're already in excess of that requirement.
Mr Tsistinos: What is the square footage of the units?
Atty Grover: 600 or 700 square feet.
Mr. Watkins motions to continue the hearing for the petition to March 19th.  

Motion and Vote: Ms. Watkins makes a motion to continue the hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Appeals on March 19, 2014, in Room 313, Third Floor 120 Washington Street.  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.


Petition of JEFFREY PERAS requesting a Variance pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.3.4 Nonconforming Uses and Structures – Variance Required, to grant relief from the requirements of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements, to allow remodeling of a kitchen and construction of a deck at the property located at 379 LAFAYETTE STREET (R1 & ECOD Zoning District).   

Documents & Exhibitions:

  • Application date-stamped January 29, 2014 and accompanying materials
  • Letters of support from abutters
Mr. Peras presents the petition.  In May 2008 I purchased the home, across from Salem State University.  This house was built in 1910; it has had nothing done to it.  I love it, but it is the second ugliest house in the neighborhood.  Mr. Peras refers to partial first-floor plan, and the A2 Plan.  I did not submit an A1 plan, which was a build-out option that encroached more on the side yard.  The A2 Plan is the plan I submitted for approval.  In this plan the kitchen expansion is only four feet wide, and leaves about 5 feet-4.5 inches to the side property line.  I'm also asking you to look at the deck at the back of the house.  On the plot plan, the front of the house has a cement patio, which is just zero use to me and my family – it’s on Lafayette Street, with the noise pollution and the college across the street, it's just not safe for us to use.  I spoke with many of my adjacent/immediate abutters, and asked that they submit letters to the Board if they were in favor of the project.  The proposed expansions of the deck and the kitchen would put the building at 31% lot coverage.  The reason it's designed this way – we're going to have a door from the entrance, a door from the kitchen, but between the new kitchen seat and the bulkhead, the first two-to-three feet of deck is wasted space, so the space we'd actually use is beyond the proposed kitchen window and the existing bulkhead.
.
Ms. Curran: The bulkhead will remain?
Mr. Peras: Yes, with decking on top.
Ms. Curran, Ms. Menon, Mr. Peras, and Ms. Harris clarify the relative proximity to the side lot line of the existing mudroom and the proposed kitchen expansion & entrance.  

Mr. Copelas asks if they have a curb cut on Lafayette Street.
Mr. Peras: The front of Lafayette Street is a tow zone, 24-7.  Naples Road has a tow zone at some hours of some days of the week.  There is no parking off Lafayette St.  There's a single parking space in the driveway off of Naples St.
Ms. Curran: Is this proposal changing your parking configuration at all?
Mr. Peras: No.  There's a stone wall between the lawn and the driveway, with a four-to-five foot drop off.  The deck, especially with younger children, we want to use as a safe haven.
Ms. Curran: So it's a two-story addition?
Mr. Peras : The kitchen?  No.  We're expanding the kitchen and a window seat in the kitchen, and there's a roof over the kitchen window seat.  There was a deck off of the master bedroom, we will be replacing that deck in the future.

Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment.

No members of the public speak in support of or in opposition to the petition.  Ms. Curran reads several letters in support of the project.  These letters were submitted by : Julie Carter, 2 Naples Road; Jack Hoar, 11 Naples Road; Kimberley Marquis, 5 Fairview Road; Donna D'Allessandro – 2 Naples road; Sean Pray, 275 Lafayette St. Unit #2.

Ms. Curran closes the public comment on the issue.

Mr. Peras presents an additional letter from Tiffany Gaddis, 381 Lafayette St, expressing her support of the petition.
Mr. Dionne: It’s a nice project, I have no problem with it.
Ms. Harris: The changes to the interior 2nd floor don't change the exterior walls?
Mr. Peras: correct.
Ms. Curran: the hardship is owing to the angled lot – it's at a right-angle to Naples, and angled from Lafayette Street.  He's impacting the side yard in one respect and improving it in another.
Ms. Harris: he's improving it, because he's pushing the wall back.
Ms. Curran: regarding the 31% lot coverage.  It's only 1% over.  Can you do without that 1%?
Mr. Peras: We lose a lot along the front wall of the house, filling in between the “bump outs” and the bulkhead.  We would get the sun right at the outer curve in the deck.
Ms. Harris: could you have just shifted the stairs in a bit, to get to the 30%?
Mr. Peras: it’s a great home, just definitely needs a lot of work, a lot of equity.  Not a lot of work has been done to the house.  
Mr. Watkins: so the hardship is the layout of the land?
Ms. Curran: Yes.  I thought he articulated it well in the written statement.
Ms. Harris: there are two issues – the side yard, which I think he’s improving; and the 31% versus the 30% lot coverage.  I think there's probably the opportunity to pick up that 1% if he looked at other configurations of the deck.  
Ms. Curran: the lot is 8,100 square feet?
Mr. Peras: 8,103.
Ms. Curran: so for 1% we're talking about 100 square feet-ish of difference.
Mr. St. Pierre: The angle of the lot line trims the lot area.  If the lot line were squared off, there would be more room on the lot.

Motion and Vote: Ms. Watkins makes a motion to grant the two requested Variances with 7 standard conditions.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Dionne.  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.


Petition of ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES GROUP INC requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.0 Use Regulations and Section 9.4 Special Permits, to allow use of a portion of the building as a Medical Clinic for a Registered Marijuana Dispensary, at the property located at 50 GROVE STREET (BPD & ECOD Zoning District).   

Documents & Exhibitions:

  • Application date-stamped January 28, 2014 and accompanying materials
  • Supplement to the application containing a copy of the Department of Health regulations for implementation of humanitarian medical use of marijuana, received February 10, 2014.
  • A 500-foot buffer map around the proposed facility, provided to the Board by the Planning Department
Attorney George Atkins, 59 Federal Street, represents the petitioner.  Chris Edwards, the executive director of Alternative Therapies Group (ATG), is also here, with some other members of his team.  Voters of Massachusetts passed an act in favor of “an act for the humanitarian medical use of marijuana.”  I want to emphasize “humanitarian medical.”  In connection with the law, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) spent a year-plus crafting regulations.  Atty. Atkins provided the Board with those regulations.  They have been applauded for the effort they made in trying to apply all of the best practices from around the country.  This is going to be an extremely rigorous regulation of a business.  It's probably going to be much more regulated than your typical pharmacy.  The applicant has made a real effort to meet with and gain the support of elected officials, appointed officials, neighborhood organizations, tenants of buildings where they want to locate, etc.  There's a meeting set in early March with another neighborhood group, and a meeting set for next week or maybe the week after for tenants in the building at 50 Grove Street.  They also recently met with Salem Police Chief Paul Tucker, and have invited him to be part of the security for this premises.  Chief Tucker has agreed to be part of the review of their plans and procedures, and provide any additional recommendations on his part.  It's been an open and truthful process.  Regarding the zoning ordinance - in 2010 the zoning ordinance was amended to deal with the location of a methadone clinic near a residential district.  As a result of this, the Salem City Council passed an amendment to the zoning ordinance which redefine “medical clinic” to include the word “dispensary”, and to ban “medical clinics” from residential districts, and to only allow them in commercial/business districts, and only by a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals.  The proposed medical marijuana facility falls right within that definition of a “medical clinic.”

Regarding the criteria for a special permit:
  • The community needs: 60%-plus of the people in our community voted for the medical marijuana act.  Additionally, at a meeting of the City Council there was support expressed by citizens of Salem with serious illnesses of the sort that can benefit from this service.  The Massachusetts regulations on page 3 lists the “debilitating illnesses” that qualify a patient for access to medical marijuana, and defines the severity of the condition (Atty. Atkins proceeds to read the definition of “debilitating” set out by the Massachusetts regulations).  I think all of us who have been touched by these terrible medical conditions recognize that it would be nice to get some help that's an alternative to the usual prescriptive medicines.  
  • Parking:  I have asked our landlords, the Goldberg Brothers, to be here tonight.  They have 86 parking spaces, plus 5 handicap spaces, on this site.  We expect to eventually see an estimated 10-15 patients an hour at this facility.  Initially when a patient arrives, their visits are longer as they learn the process.  Later on, their visits are quicker, as they've already received the initial education, and their prescription can simply be refilled.  Regarding the parking needs of the site.  The needs of the dispensary are dependent upon the number of employees.  We estimate that there will be 8-10 employees.  The zoning ordinance requires 1 space plus 2 additional spaces for every professional; and 1 space for every 2 employees.  1-2 professionals requires 3-6 spaces, 6-8 employees requires 3-4 spaces, for a total of 6-10 spaces.  Atty. Atkins hands out a sheet showing the estimated parking demand for ATG, plus the spaces required by the other uses in the units at 50 Grove St.  Most of the other units in the building (50 Grove Street) are business offices with employees, which are required to have 1 space for each employee.  There are some small units that are currently vacant, but the remaining units require a total of 28 parking spaces.  There is also the Moose Lodge on-site - their activity is primarily at night and on the weekends.  There are provisions in the Goldbergs' lease with the Moose Lodge that provides them with 10 spaces during the business day.  They generally don't interfere with the business uses that are at 50 Grove St.  The Storage facility has a provision for 6 spaces for overnight spaces.  During the day the business uses take up pretty much 1/3rd of the total parking spaces that are there.  We anticipate that we would not use anywhere near the remaining spaces.  Also, the 5 handicap spaces are right outside where our facility would be located.  Obviously, with our patients, they will need to have those parking spaces available to them.
  • Utilities – the building already has utilities of all types that are necessary.  The cultivation of the product will not occur here in Salem – it will be elsewhere and transported to Salem.
  • Character of the neighborhood – the area was industrial, and it is now undergoing rapid and great change.  The customers coming to this facility are people with the “debilitating illnesses” allowed by the law, and some of their care providers.  The crowd will not be … the “pipe smoking” crowd.  By state law, the name of the business and the logo cannot contain anything pertaining to marijuana or a marijuana plant.  The sign is more in keeping with a medical office sign.
  • Security – There will be need for cameras in the entrance, exit, inside, outside, in the delivery trucks.  The product is videotaped as it's weighed at both the loading and unloading sites.  ATG will also provide a security company to transport the product.  There will be lighting and alarms, and there will be an extraordinary level of security at the facility.  There will be a higher level of security not only for the building, but for the neighborhood.  There are also strict regulations on how any product is disposed – it's incinerated off-site.  For the most part, this is an inhaled product, not a smoked product.  
  • Economic Impact – ATG has entered into a community benefit agreement with the city, for mitigation of any impacts on the community this may have, and for education on the product's use, misuse, and driving under the influence.  The funds could also be used for the planned improvements to the Grove St corridor.  There will also be some employment benefit.
When you go through the criteria for a Special Permit, the conclusion is that this will not impact the neighborhood in a negative way.  

Atty. Atkins refers to the regulations again, to address any concerns about physicians prescribing the product as a medication.  The physician has to have a relationship with the patient, not just be writing the prescription.  They can't have anyone else in the office write the prescription.  The physician has to be registered with the DPH.  The patient also has to be registered, and the dispensary requires a patient to present their registration card with their prescription.  The State can revoke the registration at any time (of patients, doctors, and medical dispensaries), and once it's revoked, it can't be re-granted.  There is a limited number of Registered Marijuana Dispensaries (RMDs) in the state, so DPH can easily keep on top of the reviews of the facilities.  This is far more oversight that local pharmacies, which carry far more potent drugs.  There is a provision for personal caregivers.  These would represent someone who might be bedridden, or would be working for a hospice.  But a caregiver can only represent one party, they can't represent multiple people, and they also have to be registered.  All the people within the organization (ATG) have to be vetted by the DPH.  There is a provision for “hardship cultivation rights” – people who are allowed to cultivate their own product in their home.  The Salem police thought it would be better to have one main facility to monitor, rather than multiple small hardship cultivators. When you have a dispensary, there’s going to be far fewer – if any – hardship cultivation locations.  In the state regulations, see page 22 – Operational Requirements and Security Requirements; page 34 covers Prohibitions that the applicant has to adhere to.  See also the pages concerning Revocation of a Registration Card, Revocation of a Certifying Physician's License, Cease & Desist Orders, Quarantine Order, Suspension Order, etc.  All very strong regulations & enforcement mechanisms.  In addition to the State's monitoring, I'm sure City Councilors, neighbors, the Police Department, will all be keeping an eye on things.  Even though I have great faith in DPH being able to regulate this process, the local level will also provide a level of security in the community.  My client has operated in Maine, is experienced in Maine, they have business people running this business.

Chris Edwards, Executive Director of Alternative Therapies Group (ATC), we are a nonprofit organization.  The license granted to us is a provisional license – we can't open our doors until final inspection by DPH.  Mr. Edwards continues to list members of the Board of Directors and their experience and background.  Mr. Edwards goes on to describe the ATG management team and their experience and background, as well as a consultant that worked with Maine Organic Therapies in Ellsworth ME.  The regulations here in Massachusetts are modeled largely on the program in Maine.  Retired senator Fred Berry heads up the Community Advisory Board.  Medical marijuana isn't for everyone, but patients should have this choice, and we intend to make it available in a safe and professional way.  It will be organically cultivated, it's tested and labeled – the patient knows the potency of what they're consuming.  This isn't the case on the black market.  Only licensed patients will be allowed inside the facility.  Each patient is required to prove their identity and patient status to security personnel.  There is no opportunity to falsify a patient ID card.  Once verified, a first-time patient goes through an orientation process.  Mostly will be vaporizers – they’re much healthier, and are not hot enough to create carcinogens.  RMDs are required to provide vaporizers to patients at-cost, and instruct them how to use it.  No diversion, no loitering, no inside consumption is allowed.  The patients will have to sign an agreement that they have been made aware of the regulations.  The penalty of possession of black-market marijuana up to 1oz is a fine.  The penalty for diversion of medical marijuana is 5 years in jail.  We will staff the facility with 8-10 full-time staff members, including 2 elite security professionals in the building, and a third security person patrolling the parking lot and area.  Chief Tucker is very familiar with our security plan.  We will have state of the art video surveillance with redundancy, fire, alarm, and security.  

Ms. Curran: do you have a number of exclusive parking spaces, of the 86?
Atty. Atkins: no, the Goldbergs (landlords) wanted to remain flexible in that regards, so that they can work out any parking issues between the different tenants.
Ms. Curran: how many square feet is the facility?
Mr. Edwards: 4,000 square feet.
Ms. Curran: So you have 8-10 employees parking (inclusive of the security guards).  How long does a transaction take?
Mr. Edwards: 5-10 minutes.
Ms. Curran: Is there a sufficient number of handicap parking spaces, or do you need to increase that?
Mr. Edwards: that's something we're speaking about with the owner of the property.  We may seek to increase it, but we feel it's adequate right now, based on projections, with the existing 5 spaces.
Ms. Curran: you expect 10-15 patients an hour.  That's all day?
Mr. Edwards: yes, on average, on a full-run day (not on day 1).
Ms. Curran: so between employees and customers it sounds like you're using about 20-25 spaces.  No one has any occasion to stay there other than the initial counseling.
Mr. Edwards: yes, and the initial orientation would be 10-15 minutes.

Ms. Curran: If there’s a community that has a dispensary facility, does that have anything to do with the number of hardship cultivations allowed?
Mr. Edwards: The hardship is really based on someone’s ability to get to a dispensary within “a reasonable distance” (as defined by DPH).   So it’s expected that if someone applied for a hardship cultivation permit in Salem, it would fall flat because there is a dispensary right up the road

Mr. Duffy asks about the 500-foot radius map included in the informational packet on this application, and asks what 110 Boston Street is [a property highlighted on the map].
Ms. Menon clarifies that the Planning Department provided that map as part of the Planner’s Memo to the Board, it was not submitted by the applicant.  She does not know why 110 Boston Street is highlighted on the map – it was intended to just demonstrate the 500-foot buffer area, and was generated in response to a question about the location of a proposed children’s medical facility at the former Flynntan site, on Boston Street.
Ms. Curran clarifies that the map shows 500 feet from each building, and that it hits Mack Park, but doesn’t appear to include any areas where people would congregate.  She asks if that’s the way the regulations read.
Atty. Atkins responds that is a correct definition – any place where children congregate.  He states that he doesn’t believe that a medical facility would fit that definition either, but it’s beyond the 500-foot area anyway.
Board members concur that 110 Boston Street is a children’s counseling facility – Children’s Friend and Family Services.
Ms. Curran: has a study been done that there's no home daycare in properties within the 500 foot buffer?
Atty. Atkins: I wouldn't say there's been a study, but there's none that we know of.
Mr. Edwards: We have conducted neighbor’s and abutter’s meetings.  We've done extensive outreach, so if there were a daycare use in the area, it should have come forward by now.
Mr. Watkins: so you haven't heard either way from the Children’s Friend and Family Services?
Mr. Copelas: Atty. Atkins mentioned the fiscal impact criteria, and you made reference to the Host Community Agreement.  Has that been finalized, and is it the number that we’ve been hearing about in the newspaper?
Atty. Atkins: at the moment, that is the number, and that is what has been agreed to tentatively, but there are ongoing discussions in that regard.
Mr. Dionne: one of the diseases you treat is Hepatitis C?    
Mr. Edwards: yes.
Mr. Dionne: Now that is usually associated with dirty needles from heroin use, whatever?
Atty. Atkins: I’m not sure that’s the only cause.
Mr. Dionne: It may not be the only cause, but it’s certainly one of the major causes.  And, you would agree that marijuana is a gateway drug?
Mr. Edwards: Not necessarily.  I would say alcohol is a gateway drug much more so than marijuana, personally.
Ms. Curran: we should stick to the use and the zoning.
Mr. Dionne: The reason I’m bringing this up is that this is all new for everybody here.  I have heard that some other areas of the country have had some problems with areas around the facilities.  I thought somebody would be here – she’s not – that has had experience with this.  If I were to approve this, I would definitely want to revisit this in a year, after the opening, to see how it has effected the neighborhood and the city and lift the special permit if there are problems.
Atty. Atkins – I would have some legal problems with granting a special permit and then lifting it in a year.  If the Board wanted to revisit its conditions, or make new conditions, that would make sense to me.  There is also contrary evidence – California has had a medical marijuana law for 10 years.  They had some initial problems, but they have continued to ratchet up the regulations.  There was a front-page article in the New York Times saying that all of the horrible things – gateway drugs, for instance – have not occurred in their experience.  So I’m not sure the conclusion about a gateway drug is a good one.  Plus, this is a medical use.  There are certain strains that are better for certain diseases than others, this isn’t recreational marijuana.
Mr. Edwards: Strains have been developed to have lower levels of THC, and to have higher levels of the medicinal compounds, to specifically benefit the  medical marijuana users, and which would have less attraction to recreational users.  
Atty. Atkins: Each seed has a barcode, and it's tracked until it's gone out the door in a prescription bag.  

Ms. Curran opens the issue up for public comment.

Josh Turiel, Ward 5 Councilor, speaks in support of the application: As the City got its applicants, 2 came in.  One applicant we've been reading about in the paper regarding errors around their application.  The experience with this company – they reached out very early in the process, have spoken to a large number of the City Councilors, answered all questions, been very proactive in working with the neighborhood groups, and in getting real neighborhood support.  I'm very glad these are the guys that got the Salem dispensary license.  We're going off into somewhat uncharted territory for Massachusetts, but there are states that have had experience with this, such as Maine.  We've learned a lot from these other states' experiences.  I Support this petition.

Rose Mary O'Connor, 111 Mason Street, speaks in support of the petition: I can see the facility from my back deck.  She's done a complete turn-around.  They've been more than willing to meet with us neighbors, and they'll be at the Mack Park neighborhood meeting on March 11th, which will be taped or televised.

David Eppley, Ward 4 Councilor, 69 Boston Street, speaks in support of the petition:  ATG appeared before the Gallow’s Hill neighborhood group a few weeks ago, and passed with flying colors.  These gentlemen have worked very hard.  They've done a great job educating city officials and neighbors.  This venture shows a lot of compassion and promise.  Councilor Eppley also submits his statements in support of the petition in a letter of support to the Board.  

Beth Gerard, Ward 6 Councilor speaks in support of the petition:  I met with them at the beginning of January, and was very impressed by them.  I have worked in healthcare for 14 years -  ran a doctor's office.  This will be a run-of-the mill doctor's office.  I also talked to the deputy code enforcer in Ellsworth, Maine.  There have never been any complaints, after 3½ years in Ellsworth.  They don’t have residences within 500 feet of the facility, but they believe if they did, it wouldn't be an issue.  The Ellsworth Chief of Police stated that you would never know the facility is there, and the RMD is the highest security facility in Ellsworth.  Councilor Gerard also submits letter from the Salem City Solicitor regarding the 500 foot set-back definition, and the definition of a facility where children commonly congregate.  Councilor Gerard also submitted to the Board’s clerk an email in support of the petition.

Ms. Curran reads submitted letters into the record:

  • Mary Margaret Moore, Independent Living Center of the North Shore and Cape Ann, Inc. – in support of the petition.
  • Frederick Berry, Retired Massachusetts State Senator – in support of the petition.
  • Nicole Snow Dawson and Thomas Dawson, 190 Bridge St – in support of the petition.
  • Atty Atkins – adds that Ms. Dawson was here earlier and had to leave, and also spoke to the City Council on this matter.
  • Anonymous – in support of the petition.
  • State Rep. John Keenan – in support of the petition.
Mr. Watkins: states that he is impressed by the level of professionalism and security.  Too bad we haven't heard from Children's Family and Friend's Services at 110 Boston St.  But my concern is somewhat eased by the definition of the buffer zone provided by Councilor Gerard.  It looks like there's just parking in the back of 110 Boston Street.  Has the Moose commented on this?  They have kids parties in there.
Mr. Goldberg: Chris and I met with the Moose Lodge early, they had lots of questions, but seem to be fine with it now.  
Atty. Atkins: I don't think some of these facilities meet the standard of a facility where children tend to congregate, either.  A counseling facility isn't where children congregate/hang around.

Ms. Curran: this is my first special permit of this type.  There are two ways we could do this – so it's not the kind of special permit where the normal conditions apply.  I'm concerned about putting conditions on that are inconsistent with the State's regulations, and some of the State's regulations I want to echo so that we can also enforce them locally.  So there's some input I want to get from the planning department and the city solicitor in crafting a decision and conditions.  We can either grant a special permit with a broad idea of the type of things we want to condition, OR we could continue to the next meeting and establish the conditions between now and then.  I want to run the language by counsel first.

Atty. Atkins: We’re running up against a real tight timeline.  If you can grant the special permit, I'd be willing to work with the City Solicitor, the Planning Department, or yourselves, before you issue the written conditions.  
Ms. Curran states some of her general areas she'd like to look at conditions for are: security, landscaping (mainly because there’s language in the DPH regulations about landscaping and we need to be consistent with that), traffic and parking, and no growing/cultivation (if the laws change state-wide I’d want to make sure you’d come back here before undertaking cultivation), security, signage. And Mr. Dionne's point that we should run by Council.  
Ms. Harris: It couldn’t be revoked in a year – you couldn’t have your investment at risk.
Ms. Curran: How does the Board feel about getting input from the City Solicitor?  Just because it’s so very different from what we typically do.
Ms. Harris: I think I’m comfortable with going ahead and voting with the understanding that we’ll work out the fine points of the conditions.
Ms. Curran: time-wise, we have 90 days legally to do it, we always do it in two weeks – is that a local thing, or is that just courtesy?
Ms. Menon: I think it has to do with our sunshine ordinance, but I’ll have to check.  Procedurally, how would the Board settle on conditions as a Board without having the opportunity to meet to discuss them?
Ms. Curran: Right.  We would discuss the ideas, and the exact wording to be settled by the City Solicitor.  I think that’s the only way to do it other than continuing.
Atty. Atkins: that’s not too different from how it’s usually done anyway.
Ms. Curran: well, we’re usually pretty specific.

Mr. Duffy: Are there hours of operation?
Atty. Atkins: Yes, I made an error in the application.  I wrote 10am to 7pm, but it’s really 9am to 7pm, Monday through Saturday, to allow for spreading out of patients' arrivals & departures.
Mr. Watkins: Are there scheduled times for deliveries?
Mr. Edwards : No.  The delivery service will depart from our cultivation site in another community.  We don't expect to be delivering much, if at all, of the product to patients.  
Ms. Harris: The delivery won't be in the middle of the night, will it?
Mr. Edwards: No, it would be when the security staff is there.
Mr. Watkins: You have security 24-hours there?
Mr. Edwards: Yes.

Ms. Curran lists areas for the proposed conditions, with exact wording to be worked out by the Planning Department and the City Solicitor:
  • Signage – it be in character with the neighborhood.
  • Security – the Chief of Police should review and approve any security
  • Landscaping – make sure that what the facility has is not inconsistent with what the state requires
  • No cultivation on-site
  • The traffic and parking – if other building uses change and the parking requirements change, we could condition that at least 20 spots be open for this use at all times.
  • Hours – no more than 9am-7pm Monday through Saturday
Ms. Menon states that the Planning Department does have reservations about granting this at the first hearing, in order to give the Board time to consider some examples set by other communities, and having the opportunity to really mull over the conditions.  This is the chance to set the conditions, and how enforceable will the conditions be if there’s a gray area.
Ms. Curran: so timing-wise we’re talking about the difference of a month, if we came back with the exact conditions next month.
Atty. Atkins: I don’t think it would be different than it would be in the past for you to vote and then craft the decisions.  You won’t find any similar conditions or decisions from other communities.  To my knowledge, there have been no zoning actions on dispensaries in Massachusetts yet – you’re the first.  So I don’t think you’re going to find anything that’s going to help you.  But the topics you’ve raised as conditions are all reasonable, and can be crafted reasonably, and we have no objection to them or others similar to them.  Keeping in mind those 50 pages [the state regulations] that we’re already subject to.
Ms. Harris asks if anyone other than ATG wants to open an RMD in this location, they'd have to come before the board?
Ms. Curran and Mr. St. Pierre add that the Board could condition that specifically.

Mr. Jim Treadwell, from the Mack park neighborhood association points out that Grove Street is an entrance corridor, so there are specific sign regulations that would apply.  

Ms. Harris and Mr. Dionne agree that they are comfortable with proceeding.
Mr. Watkins: just to be clear, if we vote on this tonight, the Planning Department and the City Solicitor work out the specific language, and we don’t have to vote on it, right?
Ms. Curran: yes, but we wouldn’t have any opportunity to add to it or change it.
Ms. Menon: yes, the shortfall would be if there was anything that you missed tonight.
Ms. Curran: the timing winds up being about the same if we do condition it.
Atty. Atkins: there are some other moving parts here.  The development of the cultivation site has to go forward with leasing and material ordering, that they have to act on promptly.  We aren’t fearful of your conditions now – we think they’d be reasonable and manageable, and they probably won’t exceed the restrictions of the DPH.
Ms. Menon: so the question is how comfortable the Board is with having the conditions “TBD.”
Atty. Atkins: It’s not unusual to have the specific conditions worked out by staff later.  And keep in mind that you have a backstop of the DPH regulations.
Mr. Copelas: I am sympathetic to their time constraints.
Mr. Watkins: I think I’m comfortable with moving ahead and letting the Planning Department and the City Solicitor work out the language.  We’ve set out the general points, and the DPH regulations are there.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to grant the requested Special Permit with conditions - to be finalized by the Planning Department and the City Solicitor – to generally address: signage (small in size, to conform to entrance corridor regulations); security (reviewed and approved by the Salem Chief of Police prior to occupancy); landscaping (similar to what the state is requiring); traffic & parking (adequate parking set aside for employees and patients during opening hours; and number of handicap spaces to be reviewed time-to-time by ATG or the property owners; no cultivation; hours of operation limited to 9am to 7pm, Monday through Saturday; and specific to this company in this location (Alternative Therapies Group, Inc. at the 50 Grove Street location), plus 8 standard conditions..  The motion was seconded by Ms. Harris.  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:  Atty. Atkins adds – he hopes the Board wouldn’t have any objections to him working with the City Solicitor and the Planning Department in drafting the conditions?
Ms. Curran: no.

  • ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Dionne motioned for adjournment of the February 19, 2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 10:18 PM.
Motion: Mr. Dionne made a motion to adjourn the February 19, 2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Watkins and a unanimous vote was taken with all in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Harris, Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Copelas, and Mr. Duffy) - and none (0) opposed.  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at: http://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_ZoningAppealsMin/ 

Respectfully submitted,
Dana Menon, Staff Planner

Approved by the Board of Appeals 3/19/2014