City of Salem Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals (“Salem BOA”) was held on Wednesday, April 16, 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.
ROLL CALL
Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Richard Dionne, Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy and Peter A. Copelas (Alternate). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner, and Dana Menon, Staff Planner.
REGULAR AGENDA
Project: |
Continuation of the Petition requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, and minimum lot width requirements. |
Applicant: |
ANDREW PERKINS |
Location: |
15 CHERRY HILL AVENUE and 21 VALLEY STREET (R1 Zoning District) |
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped February 25, 2014 and accompanying materials
- Plot Plan dated February 28, 2014 prepared by Landmark Engineering & Surveying, Inc.
- Letter from Atty. Scott M. Grover to Rebecca Curran, Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals, dated April 14, 2014, requesting a modification to the petition of Andrew Perkins. *Note that the letter erroneously refers to the abutters (Richard and Nancy Pelletier) as residing at 13 Cherry Hill Avenue. The Pelletiers reside at 17 Cherry Hill Avenue.
Attorney Scott Grover presents on behalf of the applicant. Atty. Grover provides a review of the application presented at the previous meeting. The applicant has now submitted a request to modify the application to the Board, per the letter submitted [dated April 14, 2014]. At the previous meeting, the abutters at 17 Cherry Hill Avenue expressed concern over the density and the proximity of the proposed house to their property. The applicant has now reached an agreement with the owners of 17 Cherry Hill Avenue to convey the property (15 Cherry Hill Ave) to the owners of 17 Cherry Hill Avenue. Now, the only relief needed is for 21 Valley Street, as conveying the 15 Cherry Hill Avenue lot to the abutters will reduce the size of the lot at 21 Valley Street. The abutters’ lot to which 15 Cherry
Hill Ave will be conveyed to, will make that lot (17 Cherry Hill Ave) more conforming.
Ms. Curran states that she previously had difficulty finding a hardship, and the applicant is still seeking a Variance.
Atty. Grover reiterates his argument that it’s an irregularly shaped lot. For the modified application, we could include a condition in the Decision that the lot at 15 Cherry Hill Ave would be conveyed to the owners of 13 Cherry Hill Ave, and combined with that lot, such that the nonconformity of that piece of land would be reduced.
Nancy Pelletier and Richard Pelletier of 17 Cherry Hill Avenue state that they’d appreciate the Board’s consideration to allow this petition, so that they can purchase the lot [15 Cherry Hill Avenue].
Andrew Perkins, 21 Valley Street, applicant, states that he’s selling the lot at the assessed value – he’s not trying to make a profit, he’s just trying to offset the costs of renovating the existing house.
David Eppley, Ward 4 Councilor expresses his support of the modified petition.
Ms. Curran –so you’d be increasing the lot size of 15/17 Cherry Hill Avenue, making that lot almost conforming.
Mr. Dionne states that he thinks it works, it helps the neighbor, and it’s not detrimental to the neighborhood
Ms. Curran inquires about the hardship. Mr. Watkins replies that the hardship is the irregularity of the parcel. The Board has granted a Variance on that hardship before. He agrees with Mr. Dionne that it’s not detrimental to the public good or the neighbors/neighborhood, and it doesn’t derogate from the intent of the ordinance.
Ms. Curran agrees that there’s not substantial detriment if it’s combined in a non-buildable lot.
Atty. Grover states that a condition could be added specifying that 15 Cherry Hill Ave would be combined in a non-buildable lot.
Mr. Watkins asks if the plan is to keep the lot [15 Cherry Hill Avenue] in open land. Ms. Pelletier responds that it is.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the application for a Variance for the property located at 21 Valley Street, with 3 standard conditions and an additional condition that the lot at 15 Cherry Hill Ave shall be combined with 17 Cherry Hill Avenue to be a non-buildable lot. The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy) – and none (0) opposed. ~The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Project: |
Continuation of the Petition requesting Variances under Section 3.3.4 Variance Required of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an extension & structural change to an existing non-conforming structure for the addition of a second floor and front and rear exterior stairways that increase the existing encroachment on the required minimum depths of the front and rear yards, to the existing single-story building. |
Applicant: |
DAVID FRANK |
Location: |
77 BEAVER ST (R2 Zoning District) |
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped February 25, 2014 and accompanying materials, including: plan set “S&W Realty Trust Addition Project” dated 03/18/2014, prepared by R. Rumpf & Associates, Inc; plan “Zoning Board of Appeals Plan, 77 Beaver Street Salem, property of David Frank” dated January 27, 2014, prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation.
Attorney Scott Grover presents on behalf of David Frank, the applicant. Atty. Grover reviews the petition as presented at the previous Board of Appeals meeting. At the previous hearing, abutters expressed their concerns about privacy issues. To address these concerns, Mr. Frank has agreed to eliminate the left-hand window on the Safford Street side (west side, at bedroom 3) of the building, to provide more privacy to the abutter directly across Safford Street. Mr. Frank would expand the window on the Beaver Street side slightly to let more light in, but eliminate the left-hand window on the west elevation of the submitted drawings. The other discussion was whether 2 forms of egress were required. The Building Inspector believes that two forms of egress are required. If two stairs are required,
the area currently shown on the parking lot side would be the second egress.
Mr. Watkins asks if the first floor would remain a garage. Atty. Grover affirms that it will be garage and storage space.
Mr. Watkins mentions the Froncki’s concerns about the exterior lighting, as expressed at the previous meeting.
Atty. Grover replies that it won’t really be a concern. It would be blocked by other buildings.
Sara Lobao, 148 Boston Street – her property is a four-family home that abuts this property. She still has concerns about privacy, specifically regarding the stairs on the side of the home, which is in view of her tenants. She’d prefer to see the stairs put in a different location.
Jane Froncki, 5 Safford Street states that with the change to the window, she has no problem with the petition.
Ms. Curran clarifies that the applicant is proposing to flip the whole layout of the stairs and the interior building plans. Atty. Grover concurs.
Mr. St. Pierre asks if there is a second set of stairs. Atty. Grover affirms that there will be a second set of stairs as indicated on the new plans, toward the parking area. If they put the second set of stairs on Beaver Street it would be closer to the lot line, making more of a nonconformity.
David Frank, owner of 77 Beaver Street, adds that he has just spoken with the abutter on Safford St regarding the location of the stairs. Mr. Frank proposes to enclose those stairs, with proper lighting and ventilation, so Ms. Lobao’s tenants wouldn’t see people on those stairs. Or you could move the stairs around back (on Beaver St).
Ms. Curran states that if the stairs are on the front, the stairs would just be the minimal width, but the main entrance would then be on the front of the house, which is more typical. Ms. Curran asks if the area near the proposed stairs is currently paved or green space. Mr. Frank responds that it’s all paved. The Board discusses including a requirement to reduce the paved area on the lot, and increasing the green space to make it more in keeping with a residential use.
Ms. Curran states that she thinks the closed-in stairs would look too bulky. Mr. St. Pierre adds that it would be difficult to build and have it look good.
Ms. Curran and Mr. St. Pierre discuss the minimum size of a stairway. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that 4 feet is the typical minimum stairway size, and that there would be no issues with having the stairs one foot off of the property line adjacent to a public street, should the stairs be moved to the Beaver Street side.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the application for Variances, with 7 standard conditions and the following three (3) special conditions: the entry stair location will be moved from the south elevation to the north elevation, on Beaver Street, that the window on the west elevation associated with bedroom 3 will be removed, and that in keeping with a residential use of the house, the green space would be extended along the south elevation of the house to the property line. 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, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy) – and none (0) opposed. ~The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Discussion: Ms. Froncki expresses concern about the location of the stairway on the Beaver Street side, relative to her house. She is reassured that the stairs will not be directly across from her bedroom. Ms. Froncki shows photos of the site, and reiterates that the proposed stairs would be across from her bedroom. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that stairs are also proposed at the garage end of the house. Those stairs would be the ones primarily used, not the ones on Beaver Street.
Ms. Curran describes the area to be made into green space – the green space will be expanded to extend along the south side of the building.
Mr. Duffy states that this is an unusual building for this neighborhood, being a garage/commercial space. There hasn’t been much demand for use of that building, which is a financial hardship to the applicant. There are some attributes unique to that building, which don’t pertain to the other buildings in the neighborhood. Going from a commercial use to a residential use is more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Going to a more conforming use of the neighborhood, this can be granted without derogating from the intent of the ordinance.
Project: |
Petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a change to an existing non-conforming residential structure, in order to construct a 3-season room on a portion of an existing deck. |
Applicant: |
FOTINI MANOLAKOS |
Location: |
1 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R1 Zoning District) |
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped March 25, 2014 and accompanying materials
Ms. Fotini Manolakos, owner of the property, presents the petition. They are proposing to build a 3-season room. This room is to be built on a section of an existing front deck that was added in 2012. The purpose of this enclosure is so that they can enjoy more time with their grandchildren during the winters. There is already parking on the site, and the traffic would not be affected – there are already many vehicles that travel on the road on the way to the park. The existing utilities are adequate, and no additional drainage is needed. The style of the proposed addition would be in keeping with the existing structure and the neighborhood. These proposed changes would increase the tax base for the City of Salem.
Ms. Curran clarifies that the applicant is proposing to build the room on an existing portion of the deck, so it won’t be coming out any further than the existing deck. Ms. Manolakos confirms this. Ms. Curran further clarifies that the proposal will not make the structure any more non-conforming.
Mr. Copelas, Mr. St. Pierre and Ms. Manolakos discuss the discrepancy in the proposed room dimensions as noted on the application and the plan (12’x14’) versus the dimensions as noted on the elevations and framing sketches (12’x20’) It is clarified that the contractor erroneously noted a width of 20 feet. That is incorrect, the proposed room is 12’x14’.
Mr. Copelas notes that there is an existing rooftop deck on the upper part of the deck, and asks the applicant to clarify the relationship of the addition to the upper rooftop deck. Ms. Manolakos responds that the addition will go no higher than the existing floor of the rooftop (top) deck. The railings of the top deck will be visible above the proposed addition.
Mr. Watkins and Ms. Manolakos discuss the siding materials. Mr. Watkins notes that the elevation sketches indicate that the addition will be sided with shingles. Ms. Manolakos states that the sketch is incorrect; the siding will be in keeping with the rest of the house.
Ms. Curran opens the public comment period, and there is no comment. Ms. Curran closes the public comment period.
Ms. Curran & Ms. Manolakos discuss the height of the roof of the proposed addition. Mr. Copelas confirms with Ms. Manolakos that she won’t extend the top deck onto the roof of the addition. Mr. St. Pierre states that any expansion to the deck would require another petition to the Board.
Mr. Watkins states that he believes that it is a good proposal, there is nothing wrong with it. Traffic flow and safety are fine, the utilities are there, it’s in keeping with the neighborhood there, and it’s a positive impact on the City for additional tax revenue. It’s overall a good proposal, and he sees no reason not to grant it.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the application for a Special Permit, with 8 standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy) – and none (0) opposed. ~The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Project: |
Petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an expansion of an existing non-conforming structure, in order to expand an existing 1 ½ story dwelling to a full two-story dwelling, over the existing footprint. |
Applicant: |
DANIEL R. HALL |
Location: |
12 OAKVIEW AVENUE (R1 Zoning District) |
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped March 24, 2014 and accompanying materials, including plans entitled “Residence for Daniel & Jessica Hall, 12 Oakview Ave Salem, MA 01970” dated 03/21/14, prepared by Richard W. Griffin, Registered Architect.
Mr. Watkins makes a statement that he has submitted a conflict of interest form to the City, as he knows the applicant through the applicant’s abutter, but he is still able to vote on this in an unbiased manner.
Mr. Richard Griffin, architect, presents the petition on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Daniel Hall. Mr. Griffin describes the property and the neighborhood: it’s located in a residential neighborhood, the home was built in the 1950s by Mr. Hall’s grandfather. Dan and his wife Jessica have a daughter and will soon have another child in September, so they need to expand their living space. They currently have 2 bedrooms on the second half-floor, and the expansion to a full second floor would allow them to have 3 bedrooms. The proposed addition would be in traditional materials. They’re not expanding the footprint. They are required to get a Special Permit because the setback on one side is only five feet - that side abuts a neighbor’s driveway. They are proposing to
increase the height of the house by 9 feet. There would be 3 bedrooms and 2 baths upstairs.
Ms. Curran and Mr. Griffin discuss that the proposal is to turn a cape into a colonial.
Ms. Curran asks if the only change is the height. Mr. Griffin clarifies that there is no change to the footprint of the house. There is an existing rear porch on the first floor that the second floor would extend over, and the height would increase by 9 feet. The house is currently shingle, and would be changed to clapboard.
Mr. Copelas states that it seems that this would make the home have greater bulk than the homes on either side of it, and shows a Google “street view” of the neighborhood on his iPad. Mr. Griffin concedes that there would be a little bit more bulk, as there is a bit more height there. Mr. Hall (the applicant) adds that there are colonial-style homes on the opposite side of the street.
In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Griffin adds that the current structure is 1.5 stories high, approximately 32’x25’ and about 1,050 square feet now. The proposal would bring it up to about 1,400 square feet total.
Ms. Curran opens the public comment period, no comment is heard. Ms. Curran closes the public comment period.
Ms. Curran inquires if all the lots in the neighborhood about the same size. Mr. Hall replies that many are, but the one diagonally in back of their property is quite a bit bigger.
Mr. Griffin states that Mr. Hall has met with the neighbors. Mr. Hall adds that they’re all happy we’re going to stay there and raise our family there.
Mr. Duffy states that there doesn’t appear to be any adverse effects that would outweigh the beneficial impacts of this project as proposed. Community needs are being met, with a family seeking to stay here. There is no negative impact on traffic flow or safety, utilities are there. Having taken a quick view of the street and abutting properties, it does seem to be a somewhat larger building, but it’s still a single family building, and not much of a difference. No natural environment or view problems – there are no abutters here to speak against the application. The financial impacts seem to be positive.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the application for a Special Permit, with 8 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, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy) – and none (0) opposed. ~The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Project: |
Petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change from one non-conforming use to another to allow the operation of a nail salon on the lower level of the existing single-family residence, and a Variance from the requirements of Section 5.1.5 Off-Street Parking – Design of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the required minimum width of a two-way drive, to allow the drive to be narrower than the required minimum width of twenty (20) feet. |
Applicant: |
THANG TRAN |
Location: |
284 HIGHLAND AVENUE (B2 Zoning District) |
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped March 20, 2014 and accompanying materials
- “Statement of Hardship” and attached plan: “284 Highland Ave – Parking Plan” depicting 4 parking spaces plus a handicap aisle, located at the rear of the building.
Ms. Thao Nguyen presents the petition on behalf of her husband, Mr. Thang Tran. She explains that they now live on the top level of the existing home. The lower level is currently vacant. They’d like to open a 600-square foot nail salon, with parking out back. The driveway is only 13 feet wide, so it requires a variance from the minimum width of the driveway for two-way use.
Ms. Curran inquires as to the previous use of the downstairs. Ms. Nguyen responds that it was a family room. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that it’s a walk-out basement. The building is a single-level ranch on the Highland Ave side, and the land slopes down away from Highland Ave.
Ms. Curran asks if the parking spaces in the back of the building currently exist. Ms. Nguyen clarifies that the area is currently grass.
Mr. St. Pierre adds that 4 parking spaces are required for the proposed business use.
Mr. Copelas asks Ms. Curran to clarify the relationship between the Special Permit [to change from one non-conforming use to another] and the Variance [from the minimum required width of the two-way driveway]? Mr. Copelas states that the width of the driveway seems barely adequate for one car to pass. The Variance has a higher threshold for granting, as opposed to the Special Permit. Ms. Curran replies that one becomes useless without the other, so it’s really all or nothing. A Variance usually pertains to an existing condition. There is no ability to widen the driveway – it’s constrained between the building and the property line. Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that right now no driveway to the back exists – the applicants use the front garage for their parking – and that
the required driveway width for two-way use is 20 feet.
Ms. Curran asks how many seats the applicant is proposing for the salon. Ms. Nguyen responds they are proposing three to four stations.
Mr. Copelas states that he’s wondering if it’s a derogation of the ordinance to allow a 13 foot width for the driveway in this space. I’m open to being convinced, but that’s my concern. It’s clearly a commercial area, so he sympathizes with the desire to have a business there. Ms. Curran states that there is no way to remedy that, it’s just whether it’s safe.
Ms. Nguyen adds that there is about a 20-foot setback in front of our yard, so a car could be waiting there in the front for a car in the rear to come out. There is no turn-in currently there, but there is a space of about 20’x70’.
Mr. Duffy asks if the issue with parking in the front is that with the commercial space in the downstairs is accessed from the back, and there’s no provision for an elevator or ramp down to that lower level from the front?
Mr. St. Pierre affirms that it is, and further explains that he isn’t supposed to encourage a condition in which cars are backing out onto a busy street.
Mr. Watkins asks if the petitioner could you remove some of the bushes and trees on the side of the property and make more space, to which Ms. Nguyen replies that there is a slope there. Ms. Curran notes that the narrowest point of the driveway is 13 feet, but it widens out afterwards. Mr. Copelas asks Tom St. Pierre his opinion on the adequacy of the proposed driveway. Mr. St. Pierre replies that with the anticipated volume, he doesn’t believe it would be much of a problem. Occasionally you’d have someone trying to enter and exit at the same time, and someone would have to back up.
Mr. Duffy and Mr. St. Pierre discuss the option of having a sign at the driveway to inform patrons of the driveway condition.
Mr. Copelas adds that they proposal shows one of the resident’s parking spaces in front of the garage, which makes the driveway narrow all the way out to Highland Avenue.
Ms. Curran asks if the front parking space could run parallel to the house. Ms. Curran adds that she believes that the proposed use is fine for that area, but the Board is struggling with the width of the driveway.
Ms. Curran adds that the building is only 28 feet wide, so it’s not like it’s a long tunnel, but there is some topography to it – it’s not flat.
Mr. Copelas states that the proposed use is one of three that are similar, as there is a used car shop and curtain shop nearby. There are some single family homes left over.
Ms. Curran clarifies that Highland Avenue is effectively one-way there, and there are 2 lanes.
In response to discussion by the Board regarding the layout of the parking area, Mr. St. Pierre adds that he believes any parking area for 4 or more vehicles triggers review by the city engineer.
Ms. Menon adds that during the application process, the applicants indicated that they were open to paving the front yard to allow for more parking, so perhaps they’d be willing to pave some of the front yard to create more room for an entering car to pull onto the property, out of the way of an exiting car. The second owner parking space could be parallel to the house (rather than in front of the garage door), to open up the drive area at the street edge.
Ms. Curran sketches that proposal in, and shows it to the applicants. The applicants indicate they would be fine with that scenario.
Ms. Curran proposes limiting the size of the business to 4 stations, so that it doesn’t get too big, as she could see it being problematic if the business got too big. The applicant shows 4 on their plan.
Mr. St. Pierre asks where the workers would park. Ms. Nguyen clarifies that it would be a home business, and right now the plan is only for Ms. and Mr. Train to be working there. The process for the service provided (nail salon) is that one person can wait while someone else is being served.
Mr. Copelas asks if the Board can condition safety signs. Ms. Curran responds that they can. She goes on to state that they are looking at additional paving in the front – a paved area running 18 feet along the front of the house and then down to the road at the front - to allow for maneuvering and owner parking, and the petitioner seeking the advice of the planning department or engineering department regarding on-site traffic signage, and removing the shrubs along the property line adjacent to the proposed entrance drive, where the entrance drive runs from the house to Highland Avenue.
Ms. Curran opens the public comment period, no comment is heard, Ms. Curran closes the public comment period.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the application for a Variance and a Special Permit, with 7 standard conditions and the following 4 special conditions: a paved area at the front of the building, running 18 feet along the front of the house and then approximately 20 feet down to the road, shall be added to allow for maneuvering and owner parking; the petitioner shall seek the advice of the planning department or engineering department regarding on-site traffic signage; the petitioner shall remove the shrubs along the property line adjacent to the proposed entrance drive, where the entrance drive runs from the house to Highland Avenue; and the business shall be limited to four stations. 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, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy) – and none (0) opposed. ~The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Discussion: Mr. Duffy describes the findings for the Variance – given the driveway space that is available on this property, and the unavailability of any space to increase it to a conforming width, and given that the only handicap accessible means of accessing the basement portion of the property is through the back of the property, the literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would impose a substantial hardship on the applicant that isn’t typical to the neighborhood. Relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and limiting the size of the business to 4 spaces will add to that. Desirable relief may be granted without nullifying or derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance. Regarding the special permit – this proposal adds a commercial
use to a clearly commercial area. The traffic flow and safety issues have been somewhat mitigated by the conditions placed on the approval, the utilities are adequate, it’s clearly in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, no negative impact on the natural environment, and it would be a positive financial impact on the city.
Project: |
Petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 9.4 Special Permits and Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the addition of a solarium onto the rear of the existing non-conforming single family residence. |
Applicant: |
JENNIFER FIRTH |
Location: |
3 CARPENTER STREET (R2 Zoning District) |
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped March 25, 2014 and accompanying materials, including plans “Solarium Addition to Existing Victorian Residence, 3 Carpenter St, Salem, Massachusetts” revised 9/23/13, prepared by SDA.
Jennifer and John Firth present their petition. They propose to construct a 1-story solarium onto the rear of the single family residence. The solarium would be built largely within the existing footprint of existing stairs and patio. The proposed solarium would reduce the rear setback to 9 feet. They have already appeared before the Historical Commission, who approved the project.
Ms. Curran asks if you could see the proposed solarium from the street. Ms. Firth replies that you could not. In the winter when the leaves are off the trees, you could sort of see a corner of it. The rear parcel is a property of the Peabody Essex Museum, currently there is no public access back there and it is blocked by a seven foot hedge. One side-abutter is a mentally handicapped group home, and the other abutter is behind the bulkhead.
Ms. Curran opens the public comment period, no comment is heard, Ms. Curran closes the public comment period.
Ms. Curran states that it seems very straight-forward. It’s attractive and small, and she has no problem with the proposal at all.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the application for a Special Permit, with 8 standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Duffy. A roll call vote is taken, and is unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy) – and none (0) opposed. ~The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Discussion: Mr. Duffy adds the findings for the record, as they came up somewhat informally in the Board’s discussion. The adverse impacts of the proposal will not outweigh the beneficial impacts. It’s an extension of an existing single family home, there will be no impact on traffic or parking, the utilities are adequate, there will be a positive impact on the neighborhood character, there are no negative environmental impacts, and it will have a positive economic & fiscal impact.
Project: |
Petition requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the addition of a second-story master bedroom, shed dormer, cellar entry extension, and storage shed to an existing non-conforming single-family residence. |
Applicant: |
LINDLEY HANSON |
Location: |
21 CARLTON STREET (R2 Zoning District) |
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped March 26, 2014 and accompanying materials
Attorney Charles A. Martins presents on behalf of the petitioner, Ms. Lindley Hanson. Ms. Hanson has contracted Michael Burgess of MDB construction to draw up some plans and complete the construction. It will have no impact on traffic flow or utilities, it will increase the value of the property and consequently the income to the City of Salem. She’s reached out to abutters, and has signed assents from 4 of the abutters. In 2006 the previous owners came before this board and sought a Variance that was allowed. That Variance was slightly different from what Ms. Hanson is seeking. Now we’re not seeking a Variance, as the setbacks are already nonconforming – the proposed addition would increase the setback encroachment by a few inches. The percentage of the lot covered by the
building is already nonconforming, and that nonconformity would be increased.
Ms. Curran asks if the majority of the addition is on the second floor, the first floor is mostly the entry way? Ms. Hanson responds that the existing stairs are very tight, so we want to bump them out a bit. Also, the existing ceilings are very low, so by putting in a dormer, we’re getting a more conforming height for the ceiling. We’re changing the pitch of the roof, but the height of the peak of the roof will be exactly the same as the existing. The roof will be an imitation slate. It is the smallest house in that section. The houses on either side are two stories. It won’t be overshadowing any of the other houses.
Mr. St. Pierre notes that the previous application for this property, by the prior owner, was very similar to this, and clarifies that the proposed improvements permitted in the Variance that was granted to the prior owner were never constructed.
Ms. Curran states that it seems like a modest addition.
Mr. St. Pierre adds that it will improve the property. It’s not a terribly attractive property right now. Atty. Martins adds that it will improve the quality of life for the owner.
In response to a question by Mr. Watkins, Ms. Hanson and Atty. Martins clarify that the property is currently used as a single family residence, and it will remain a single family residence – Ms. Hanson will occupy the house with her daughter.
Ms. Curran opens the public comment period, no comment is heard, Ms. Curran closes the public comment period.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the application for a Special Permit, with 8 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, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy) – and none (0) opposed. ~The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Discussion: Ms. Curran – the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts on the City or neighborhood. Community needs are served by the proposal. Traffic and utilities are the same. It is in keeping with the neighborhood character, plus the addition is in the back and the roofline is the same as existing. There will be no impact on view, the natural environment, or drainage. It will have a positive fiscal impact.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
March 19, 2014 Draft Meeting Minutes
Motion and Vote: Mr. Dionne moves to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Mr. Duffy. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Dionne, and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed.
OLD/NEW BUSINESS
None
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Watkins motioned for adjournment of the April 16, 2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 8:32 PM.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy made a motion to adjourn the April 16, 2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Watkins, and a unanimous vote was taken with five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas, and Mr. Duffy) - and none (0) opposed.
Respectfully submitted,
Dana Menon, Staff Planner
Approved by the Board of Appeals 5/21/2014
| 
