City of Salem Board of Appeals
Draft Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, November 19th, 2014
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals (“Salem BOA”) was held on Wednesday, November 19th, 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 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas, Jimmy Tsitsinos, Tom Watkins and Richard Dionne. Also in attendance – Michael Lutrzykowski, Assistant Building Inspector, and Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
REGULAR AGENDA
Project: |
Continuation of the Public Hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 9.4.1 Special Permit Granting Authority and Sec. 3.0 Use Regulations of the Salem Ordinance, to allow a bed and breakfast use and a Variance per Sec. 5.0 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow 2-off street parking spaces instead of 4 off-street parking spaces required. NOTE: the petitioner has requested to withdraw the application. |
Applicant: |
MICHAEL SELBST and BRADLEY WILLIAMS |
Location: |
329 ESSEX STREET (R-2 Zoning District) |
Documents & Exhibitions
- Letter from the applicant dated November 6, 2014 requesting to withdraw the petition.
Attorney Correnti, on behalf of the applicants, requested to withdraw the petition.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Dionne makes a motion to approve the applicant’s request to withdraw the application. The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Tsitsinos and Mr. Watkins) and none (0) opposed.
Project: |
Continuation of the Public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow reconstruction and expansion of an existing storage building and an addition to a second existing storage building located at 23 Glendale Street. |
Applicant: |
FREDERICK J. ATKINS (FRED J. DION YACHT YARD) |
Location: |
23 GLENDALE (R1 Zoning District)
|
Documents & Exhibitions
- Letter from the applicant dated November 11, 2014 requesting to withdraw the petition without prejudice.
Attorney Atkins, on behalf of the applicant requested to withdraw the petition without prejudice.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Dionne makes a motion to approve the applicant’s request to withdraw the application without prejudice. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Tsitsinos and Mr. Watkins) and none (0) opposed.
Project: |
Continuation of the petition requesting a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure. |
Applicant: |
RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ |
Location: |
38 CABOT STREET (R2 Zoning District) |
Project: |
Continuation of the petition requesting a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure. |
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application dated April 22, 2014 and revised architectural drawings dated September 10, 2014
Ms. Curran presents a summary of the petition and states that the project application was missing a request for a Variance required from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage in addition to the previously requested Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two- Family Residential Structures to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure. As a result, the project legal notices needed to be amended and re-advertised.
Ms. Curran states that the Zoning Board of Appeals was prepared to vote at the meeting on October 15th, 2014 and realized that there was an error in the advertisement. There were no members of the public who spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposal.
Ms. Curran asks whether there are any members of the public who have comments.
There were no (0) members of the public who spoke in approval and no (0) members who spoke in opposition of the proposal.
Ms. Curran asks the applicant for any additional comments.
Mr. Dominguez states that there are no additional comments.
Ms. Curran entertains a motion to approve a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two- Family Residential Structures to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure with six (6) standard conditions.
Mr. Watkins asks the Chair for clarification of the hardship discussed for the request for a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage.
Ms. Curran states that the special conditions and circumstances that affect the land and building is that the stairs, porch, and roof are in need of repair and does not meet building code. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. No members of the public spoke for or against the proposal.
Mr. Watkins asks for clarification of the Variance condition regarding the special conditions and circumstances that affect the land and building.
Ms. Curran states that this is an existing building.
Mr. Copelas states that the Variance would allow the applicant improve the existing structure and bring it up to code.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Waktins makes a motion to approve the applicant’s for a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage and a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure with six (6) standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Tsitsinos and Mr. Watkins) and none (0) opposed.
Project: |
A public hearing for a petition requesting a Variance from the requirements of Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 5010 square feet located at 46 SCHOOL STREET (map 27, Lot 7) and to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 6837 square feet at 48 SCHOOL STREET to create an additional rear lot. |
Applicant: |
MICHAEL BECKER |
Location: |
46-48 School Street (R2 Zoning District) |
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application dated October 29, 2014 and accompanying materials
Attorney Correnti presents the petition for 46 and 48 School Street.
Attorney Correnti states that the applicant is requesting a Variance from the minimum lot size requirements for 46 School Street and 48 School Street jointly to create a buildable rear lot in the backyards of these two properties.
Attorney Correnti states that these lots are odd shaped lots. Attorney Correnti states that the uniqueness of the lots of 46 and 48 School Street are consistent with the lot next door. Lot 46 and 48 School Street are not totally unique as the lot next door also has a similar lot in shape and size. However, these lots located on School Street are atypical of lot size and shape in North Salem.
Attorney Correnti restates that the applicant is requesting to subdivide 46 and 48 School Street more non-conforming to create a buildable rear lot. The new lot that is proposed is conforming in every way to meet all the dimensional requirements of the R2 District. The relief sought for this project is to allow 46 and 48 School Street to be more non-conforming, to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 5010 square feet located at 46 SCHOOL STREET (map 27, Lot 7) and to allow a reduction in minimum lot size from the required 15,000 square feet to 6837 square feet at 48 SCHOOL STREET to create an additional rear lot.
Attorney Correnti states that the applicant, Mr. Becker, has talked to the neighbors and has a petition of support for the proposed project. Attorney Correnti states that the project can be done without detriment to the neighborhood.
Ms. Curran opens discussion for the Board.
Mr. Watkins asks for clarification regarding whether the applicant Mr. Becker has received permission to purchase a part of 46 School Street.
Attorney Correnti states that the application for 46 School Street is co-signed by the property owner of 46 School Street and that there is also a letter signed by the property owner delegating authority to be represented by Michael Becker.
Ms. Curran opens comment to the public
Cherly Halstead, 1 School Street Court- Stated that her son signed the petition and would like to withdraw his name. Ms. Halstead is concerned about emergency access as School Street Court is narrow and can be blocked by on-street parking and is oppose to the proposal.
Bert Eisen, 9 Chandler Street- in opposition to the proposal and stated that a similar project was before the Board in the early 1990’s and was denied because of concerns about fire access.
11 Simons Street- speaks in support of the project.
Richard Champigny, 10 Chandler Street- in opposition to the proposal and expresses concern about fire access and possible damage related to any possible blasting related to construction proposed.
Marc Tiriaso, 39 Buffham Street- in support of the proposal
Dave Potter, 67 Tremont Street- in support of the proposal
Ms. Curran asks the applicant whether the proposed project to be constructed on the back lot will be a duplex or single family home.
Attorney Correnti states that the applicant proposed a duplex
Kevin McCafferty- 6 ½ Folge Ave. - In support of the project
Mr. Becker states that the lot next door is less steep and has lawn. The duplex that is proposed is conforming to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. In relation to the ledge, Mr. Becker states that the foundation will be pinned to the ledge. Mr. Becker states that there is no intention to blast the rock ledge to create a foundation. The property owner of 46 School Street is unable to maintain her property therefore, Mr. Becker states, that his proposal would be a tremendous improvement to an unmaintained cliff ledge, bowling alley lot.
Ms. Curran states that there is one lot that is currently conforming to the minimum lot size requirements that is over the square footage requirement by approximately 300 square feet.
The second lot is an existing non-conforming lot that does not meet the minimum lot size requirements. Ms. Curran states that there is no hardship in accordance with M.G.L Chapter 40A that applies to this project. Ms. Curran states that the unique topography argument does not apply in this case. In this proposal, the applicant is asking to create non-conforming lots that are much more non-conforming. There is no hardship for this proposal that is consistent with M.G.L Chapter 40A requirements.
Attorney Correnti states that the lots are unique in size, shape and topography. The average lot in the neighborhood is under the 15,000 square foot requirement. There are very few lots that are shaped and sized like the lots in consideration. The issues of fire access and accessibility on School Street Court are important to the applicant as it is important to have clear access. The process is that if relief is granted by the Board of Appeals then the applicant will apply to the Planning Board for a subdivision.
Ms. Curran asks Attorney Correnti if the applicant will apply to the Planning Board for a division of land through an Approval Not Required process.
Attorney Correnti states that the applicant will apply to the Planning Board to subdivide the lots through an Approval Not Required process.
Ms. Curran states that the Approval Not Required process has no input.
Attorney Correnti states that in the City of Salem, in the last 24 years, there has not been an Approval Not Required that did not have some input and conditions as part of the approval process. The applicant expects that there will be comments from the Fire Department and that the applicant will accept any conditions in relation to emergency access. Part of the development would be to make sure that the lot will be cleared and cleaned up. The applicant will ensure that School Street Court is at its full width and accept conditions from the Zoning Board of Appeals or Planning Board. There are over a dozen neighbors who are in support of the project as shown by the submitted petition.
Ms. Curran states that there is no hardship and
Mr. Watkins states that in general it’s a great project and good for the neighborhood. However, Mr. Watkins agrees that there is no hardship. There are many unique properties and the Board cannot grant a Variance without all conditions being met. Is there a written statement of hardship?
Ms. Curran states the applicant’s statement of hardship does not meet the conditions of a Variance. Mr. Becker’s application states that the current lot is unusable and difficult to maintain.
Mr. Watkins states that the applicant must submit a statement of hardship in relation to the conditions of a Variance.
Ms. Curran states that being difficult to use and maintain a property is not grounds for a hardship under M. G.L. Chapter 40A
Ms. Curran states that the uniqueness of lot, size, shape and topography needs to directly related to the hardship of the project. The unique topography in this case, does not pose a direct hardship to the related project proposal.
Attorney Correnti states that the applicant is not asking for relief for the rear lot. Instead the applicant is asking for relief from the minimum lot requirements for the two front lots located at 46 School Street and 48 School Street. These two lots are unique in size, shape and topography. This is a financial hardship that these owners could reap some benefit from using this land. To allow 46-48 to receive the Variances to subdivide and allow a conforming lot and use in the neighborhood fits the spirit of M. G.L. Chapter 40A.
Ms. Curran states that she understands the argument, but does not agree.
Mr. Copelas states that the proposal is clearly an attempt to better utilize the property and better profit. This in and of itself does not meet the hardship requirement to change the non-conforming the nature of the front two units as drastically as it will simply to utilize the space. Mr. Copelas states that if the Board were to accept this argument as a premise, a lot of extra space can be broken up in the City and does not meet the requirements of the law.
Attorney Correnti states that no one can take advantage of this decision. Applicants must come before the Board for each project. What is wrong with being proposed? 46 and 48 School Street both fit the standards of hardship for Variances.
Ms. Curran states that this project is not unique to Salem. It may be unique to the neighborhood. The zoning was specifically changed to make this area less dense. To take a fully conforming lot and reduce the lot size to a third of the required lot size it does not meet the requirements of M.G.L Chapter 40A.
Mr. Becker states that it is a hardship to maintain the lot. Mr. Becker states that he pays taxes on a lot that is partially not useable.
Ms. Curran opens comments to the Board.
Mr. Dionne comments in favor of the proposal.
Mr. Titsinos comments in favor of the proposal.
Attorney Correnti asks Ms. Curran whether some of the concerns can be addressed.
Ms. Curran comments in opposition to the proposal.
Mr. Watkins asks the Board to consider a continuance of the petition to allow the applicant to resubmit a complete statement of hardship.
Ms. Curran states her opposition to the possibility of continuing the Variance request to the next regularly scheduled meeting on December 17th, 2014.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting on December 17th, 2014. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. The vote was with Three (3) in favor (Mr. Dionne, Mr. Titsinos, and Mr. Watkins) and two (2) opposed (Ms. Curran and Mr. Copelas). Ms. Curran states that a simple majority is need for a continuance. Attorney Correnti accepts the continuation.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
October 15th, 2014 Draft Meeting Minutes were approved as printed.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas moves to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Mr. Dionne. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Dionne and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed.
OLD/NEW BUSINESS
Received New England Power Company decision for the Final Decision of the Energy Facilities Siting Board is online and on file with the Department of Planning and Community Development
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Dionne motioned for adjournment of the November 19th, 2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 8:30 pm.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Dionne made a motion to adjourn the November 19th, 2014 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Watkins, and the vote is unanimous with five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Copelas, Mr.) and none (0) opposed.
Respectfully submitted,
Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
| 
