City of Salem Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals (“Salem BOA”) was held on Wednesday, March 18, 2015 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, Mike Duffy, Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Also in attendance –Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner, and Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
Ms. Curran states that the
REGULAR AGENDA
Project |
A continuation of a public hearing for a petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area, minimum lot frontage, maximum lot coverage, minimum side setbacks, minimum rear setbacks and maximum number of stories to allow the division of property into six (6) lots for the construction of five (5) single family homes and one (1) three-story duplex. The petitioner is also seeking a Variance requesting relief from Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow tandem parking at each of the proposed single family homes. The proposal is for the property located at 43 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36 Lot 238) (R2 Zoning District). |
Applicant |
JOSEPH SKOMURSKI |
Location |
43 BRIDGE STREET (R2 Zoning District) |
Documents and Exhibitions
- Application dated January 29, 2015 and supporting documentation
Ms. Curran states that the petition was continued at the Zoning Board of Appeal meeting on February 18, 2015. It is stated that with only four (4) Board members present, a unanimous vote is needed for petition approval and asks if the applicant would like to present the petition.
Attorney Lovely states that the applicant would like to be heard.
Ms. Curran states at the February 18, 2015 meeting, the Board asked the applicant to consider alternatives to the proposed plan. As a result, the applicant provided a revised plan dated March 10, 2015.
Attorney Lovely, presents the application on behalf of the applicant. On the revised plan dated March 10, 2015, the applicant removed one (1) single-family lot and reconfigured the proposed parking for each of the single-family lots to include two (2) parking spaces per single-family lot rather that the previously proposed tandem parking. The alignment of the single-family house lots were re-aligned to allow for an easement on “Lot 2” to be granted to the City of Salem for access to an existing sewer pipe. The hardship is that the lot is narrow and an odd shaped lot. At a joint public hearing with City Council and the Planning Board on October 20, 2014, the Planning Board recommended having a building with frontage on Bridge Street. The petitioner has proposed a duplex for the corner of Bridge Street and Planters
Street with frontage on Bridge Street.
Ms. Curran states that the applicant has eliminated the need for relief from side-yard setback requirements and parking. The applicant needs relief from rear and front setback requirements, as the width of the lot, would only allow a six (6) foot wide house if the literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance were imposed. The lot frontage as proposed with five (5) single-family lots was 57 feet and the requirement is 50 feet. The amended plan with four (4) single-family lots has frontage that is now 70 feet +/-. The lot coverage as proposed is closer to the requirement, but in some cases the maximum lot coverage requirement is exceeded. The parking is not tandem and is now proposed to be side-by-side.
Ms. Curran opens discussion to the public.
Ms. Curran asks the applicant to clarify that the house plans have not changed.
The proposed houses are 1,600 square feet and will have 3 (three) bedrooms.
Mr. Copelas states that the amended plan is a much better plan.
No members of the public spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposal.
Ms. Curran states that the amended plan is dated March 10, 2015.
Mr. Copelas states that the petition itself was not modified. What are the variances that the Board is considering?
Ms. Curran states that the applicant is asking for variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot frontage, maximum lot coverage, minimum rear setbacks, and maximum number of stories for the one (1) three-story duplex.
Ms. Curran states that the existing lot is narrow and the proposal is eliminating a blighted building. The proposed duplex is oriented toward Bridge Street at the request of the Planning Board to fit in with the streetscape.
Attorney Lovely states that proposed duplex would be placed in a way that would fit with the character of the streetscape. The sidewalk on Bridge Street is approximately twelve (12) feet wide.
Ms. Curran asks the applicant if will be new sidewalks and granite curbing installed on Planters Street.
Attorney Lovely states that it is the intent of the applicant to install sidewalks and granite curbing, although the existing sidewalks are narrow. The applicant will go before the Planning Board to receive more information regarding what is needed. The street is very narrow, with an estimated 24-25 foot right of way. Whatever the Planning Board recommends, the applicant is amenable.
Tom St. Pierre- states a technical point that the duplex frontage is on Bridge Street, the applicant will also need relief from the side yard setback requirements for only “Lot 5”.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the petition seeking Variances requesting relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot area, minimum lot frontage, maximum lot coverage, minimum rear setbacks and maximum number of stories to allow the division of property into five (5) lots for the construction of four (4) single family homes and one (1) three-story duplex and also to provide a variance for side setbacks as to “Lot 5” shown on the plan dated March 10, 2015, at the property located at 43 BRIDGE STREET, subject to eight (8) standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. The vote was with unanimous with four (4) (Rebecca Curran, Peter A. Copelas, Mike Duffy and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0) opposed.
Project: |
A public hearing for a petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow a brewery, distillery or winery and a tasting room located at 209 ESSEX STREET (Map 35 Lot 241) (B-5 Zoning District). |
Applicant: |
FAR FROM THE TREE CIDER |
Location: |
209 ESSEX STREET (B-5 Zoning District) |
Documentation & Exhibition
- Application date stamped February 24, 2015 and supporting documentation
Denise and Al Snape, Far From the Tree Cider, present the petition. The primary purpose is to ferment, age and bottle cider. The business would also have a tasting room for the public to taste product and purchase bottles for off premise consumption.
Ms. Curran asks the applicant to explain the operation that would occur in the proposed location.
Al Snape states that there is an existing facility located at 102 Jackson Street. The proposed new location at 209 Essex Street would be similar to the operation of the existing facility at 102 Jackson Street, but smaller. The business is expanding and interested in having a second location. At 209 Essex Street, the proposal is to have fermentation in barrels, hand bottling and tasting.
Ms. Curran asks what goes on in a tasting room. Are there certain hours?
Ms. Snape states that in the last application for 102 Jackson Street, the business did not have enough flexibility in hours of operation. The petition states that the hours of operation would be from 12pm to 12am. It is not the intention to have these hours seven (7) days a week. With Essex Street being such a great location, there is a request for flexibility to see what works best. It is anticipated that the tasting room would be open more Thursday through Sunday, close Monday. The days and hours of operation are unknown.
Ms. Curran asks whether the company will continue to operate at 102 Jackson.
Mr. Snape states that the business would operate at both locations.
Tom St. Pierre can you explain to the public what other approvals are needed at the state level to operate a brewery, winery or distillery for a farmer winery license
Ms. Snape the first step of approvals is on the federal level with the Alcohol, Tax and Trade Bureau. Then there is state approval to allow the business to act as a farmer winery. The proposed winery of Far From the Tree is fermenting apples like wineries ferment grapes. The next step is to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Special Permit. Far from the Tree Cider worked with the City of Salem, City Council and Mayor’s Office to propose an ordinance to add a brewery, winery or distillery as an allowable use in the Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations.
Ms. Curran asks whether the proposed retail would be open all the time.
Ms. Snape states that retail would be open during regular hours of operation.
Mr. Copelas, what are the different processes and stages of production that will take place at this location? What is happening at Jackson Street versus what is proposed for Essex Street?
Mr. Snape all production is currently located at Jackson Street. Currently, apples are grown in Massachusetts and pressed in Stow, MA. Apple juice is brought to Salem and is fermented in barrels at 102 Jackson Street. Product is also bottled at 102 Jackson Street and distributed from this location.
At the new proposed space on Essex Street, product will be fermented, bottled and distributed in smaller batches. At 209 Essex, the barrels can be kept at a constant temperature for barrel aging, while fermentation at 102 Jackson Street may occur in larger scale tanks.
Ms. Curran opens discussion for public comment.
Gale Allen 20 Central Street- concerned about the hours of operation of the proposed tasting room and concerned that the back door of the building may be used as an exit.
Ms. Curran states that the hours of operation at 102 Jackson were limited and asks the applicant to clarify the proposed hours of operation at 209 Essex Street. The proposed hours of operation are from 12pm to 12am to allow the applicant maximum flexibility.
Ms. Snape states that the proposed hours of operation are to allow for maximum flexibility.
Mr. Snape states that the back entrance will not be used by Far From the Tree Cider.
Gale Allen 20 Central Street- asks whether the side entrance will be used.
Mr. Snape states that the side entrance may be used to load equipment for initial setup, however it is also possible for the front entrance to be used. The side entrance will not be used by the public and serves as an emergency exit only.
Gale Allen 20 Central Street- asks whether there will be entertainment and asks for a definition of a tasting room.
Ms. Curran asks the applicant to describe the amount of alcohol allowed in a tasting room.
Ms. Snape states that in accordance with the Massachusetts Farmers License, the winery would be allowed to serve up to five (5) one ounce (1 oz) samples per person. Far From the Tree Cider does have plans to apply to the City for a pouring license to sell a full glass of cider.
Ms. Curran states that a pouring license is not part of the Zoning Board of Appeals application.
The applicants recognized that a pouring license is not part of the Special Permit application.
Ms. Curran states that it could operate like a bar.
Mr. Snape states that the intention is to not open a bar. The proposed hours of operation are to allow the business be open for tourist during the October season.
Ms. Snape states that most wineries are not open late, but most breweries are open until midnight.
Jane Wall 20 Central Street- asks about how a tasting room operates and whether there is a fee.
Mr. Snape states that a tasting room allows potential customers to taste up to five (5) one ounce (1 oz) samples and purchase bottles for off premise consumption.
Ms. Snape states that there is no fee for the samples.
Brian Best 20 Central Street- concerned about the hours of operation and concerned about any by-product that may be associated with manufacturing, and location of deliveries.
Ms. Curran asks whether there is a by-product and how deliveries would be made.
Mr. Snape states that the amount of cider produced at 209 Essex Street is not the same amount produced at 102 Jackson Street. There will be juice deliveries about three (3) times per year and deliveries could be made through the side or front door. All large deliveries would be made at 102 Jackson Street during normal hours of operation. The by-product of cider is carbon dioxide. Production is proposed to be small at 209 Essex Street and would produce negligible carbon dioxide levels. In current production there are 102 barrels located at Jackson Street and there is no smell. A store selling incense is going to smell significantly more than the proposed winery operation.
Mr. Best- where is the by-product stored and disposed?
Mr. Snape states that carbon dioxide is not stored it naturally enters into the air, just like when we exhale. There is no waste that would be produced. Apples are squeezed offsite in Stow, and the apple juice is delivered to Far from the Tree Cider.
Chris Loring 19 Carlton Street- professional brewer from Notch that will be before the Zoning Board of Appeals in two (2) months. Salem Beer Works is a great scale to understand the scale of the proposal from Far From the Tree Cider. A type of business like this is really good for Salem. This is happening in great degrees in Vermont and Maine to drive tourism and local economies. This is the future of local small manufacturing is handcrafted high quality product. States support for the petition.
Victoria Morrison 20 Central Street- concerned about the hours of operation.
Mr. Pabich Winter Island Road- welcomes Far From the Tree Cider to the downtown. This business is the best kind of amenity that can be offered to tourists and will improve the local economy. This proposal is a win-win for the City.
Garet Wohl 20 Central Street- asks whether the business will be selling any other types of beverages.
Ms. Snape- according to the farmer license the business can only sell what is produced by the business.
Ms. Wohl- concerned about the location of the business, hours of operation and existing poor conditions of the alleyway adjacent to the business including lighting.
Mr. Best- Essex Street has too many for lease signs in the windows and welcome the idea of new businesses that are not fortune teller or magic shop businesses. Expresses support for the petition with the idea that the business would make the area better and not worse.
Nick Helides 20 Central Street- will the cider produced on premise at Essex Street be enough to sell to other locations or only through retail on the same site. Expresses concern that the proposed business is an industrial use among retail and residential area. How many gallons will be produced at this location? How will deliveries be made?
Mr. Snape that the business would like to be involved with the community and have people see how the product is made. It is anticipated that there will be fifty (50) barrels with fifty (50) gallons of product each located at Essex Street, which is very small for a winery.
Ms. Curran asks whether the barrels will be on display so people can see the fermenting process.
Mr. Snape states that the barrels will be on display. As far as the public concerns about increasing or encouraging alcoholics or vandalism in the area, bottles of product are expensive at $9.00 per bottle. If someone would like to get a cheap beverage, it is unlikely that someone would come to Far From the Tree Cider and drink in the alley way.
Ms. Curran asks the applicant for the percentage of alcohol content.
Ms. Snape states that the alcohol content is 6.9%.
Ms. Curran acknowledges neighborhood concerns and states that Essex Street is a good spot for the proposed business, but would like to minimize conflict with the residential use. The hours of operation seem excessive and understand that October is a high time for tourism. Maybe the Board can think about hours of operation other than October. There are some allowed uses by our zoning ordinance that may also have greater impacts on nearby residents that are allowed by right. What trash will be generated and how will it be handled? How will deliveries be made and how frequently?
Mr. Snape- Cider produced on site, will be sold through the retail component on-site rather than shipped off site. Jackson Street is a larger, bigger operation.
Tom St. Pierre- listening to the comments from the public it was suggested to limit the hours of operation to start out with the possibility of having the applicants return to adjust their hours of operation if needed.
Mr. Tsitsinos in agreement with the suggestion to limit the hours of operation and have the applicants return should the hours need to be adjusted.
Mr. Copelas asks the applicants whether Sunday to Thursday to 6-7pm for eleven (11) months of the year may be reasonable to operate a tasting room to stay away from the idea of operating a bar.
Ms. Snape states that the assumption is that most business will occur Thursday through Sunday. Hours on Thursday could be from 4pm -9pm, Friday- Saturday 4pm – 10pm, Sunday 12pm-10pm and Monday –Wednesday would be more limited from 4pm-8pm. The first year would be the test to understand what hours make sense.
Ms. Curran states Thursday 4pm-9pm, Friday 4pm-10pm, and Saturday-Sunday 12-10pm.
Mr. Tom St. Pierre- if this was approved would the applicant entertain the idea of talking to the landlord to improve lighting in the alleyway?
Ms. Curran asks whether the petitioner is amenable to restricting retail traffic to the front entrance only.
The applicants agree to provide lighting in the alleyway and restrict retail traffic to the front entrance only.
Gale Tregor 20 Central Street- Is there an age restriction for customers to sample product?
Mr. Snape states that every person entering the premise must be 21 years or older.
Kaylie Sullivan 265 Main Street- Salem Main Streets speaks in support of the petition.
Mr. Pabich- restates support for the petition
Mr. Best- expresses concern about how the business will track customers that have received samples coming back for additional samples. How would this be controlled?
Ms. Curran asks the applicant how customers will be regulated.
Mr. Snape states that it is not a good business model to have non-stop customers consuming samples.
Ms. Snape we cannot afford to give away free samples.
Ms. Curran asks the applicant if there are a maximum number of people at one time.
Mr. Snape states that the capacity will be determined by the building occupancy limit and the capacity of staff to attend to customers.
Ms. Curran the hours of operation and limiting side door access are the big issues that can be limited by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Antonio Fresco- 20 Central Street- speaks in support of the petition.
Tom St. Pierre- asks the Chair to speak about hours of operation during October.
Mr. Snape- there are many ways to control crowds including closing during the October season, or being open at having bouncers and/or wristbands.
Ms. Curran suggests that hours may be extended during the month of October by coming back to the Zoning Board of Appeals. There may be a possibility that the business could increase daytime hours and keep night hours from 12pm -9pm on weekdays and 12pm-10pm on weekends. To expand these hours the business would need to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals for consideration.
Concern expressed from the public that the side door be illuminated.
Mr. St. Pierre- the side door is required to be illuminated and will be addressed as part of the building occupancy permit.
Ms. Curran closes the public hearing.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the petition requesting a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations, to allow a brewery, distillery or winery and a tasting room located at 209 ESSEX STREET, subject to eight (8) standard conditions and four (4) special conditions including the following: 1) A limitation on the hours of operation excluding the month of October such that the hours would be Monday-Wednesday 4pm-8pm, Thursday 4pm-9pm, Friday 4pm-10pm Saturday- Sunday 12pm-10pm. During October the hours operation will
be Monday – Thursday 12pm -9pm and Friday-Sunday 12pm-10pm; 2) Front entrance is the entrance and egress to the building and the side door will be an egress for emergencies only; 3) Special Permit is limited to the current applicant, Far From the Tree Cider. The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. The vote was with unanimous with four (4) (Rebecca Curran, Peter A. Copelas, Mike Duffy and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0) opposed.
Project: |
Request for a six (6) month extension for exercise of rights granted by the September 28, 2009 Board Decision that approved Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to eight (8) residential units (Map 26 Lot 96). |
Applicant: |
RENEWAL VENTURES, LLC |
Location |
162 FEDERAL STREET (R2 Zoning District)
|
Documentation & Exhibition
- Letter of request for a six month (6) extension date stamped February 20, 2015 and supporting documentation
Attorney Atkins presents the petition. The reason for the request for a six month (6) extension is that there was an environmental oil spill that has since been treated and mitigated, but there is still some question about what will be accepted by DEP because part of the spill occurred under a building owned by the Archdiocese of Boston and not to the owners of 162 Federal Street. DEP is treating the oil spill as one issue. The applicant is trying to work with the Archdiocese of Boston to accept the determinations of owners LSP’s. This is a cast of thousands and need more time. The Pabich family is luckily sticking with the project.
A member from the public asked to speak.
Ms. Curran stated that the discussion on the extension request was not a public hearing as the matter had already been approved through a public hearing process. The Board needs to determine that there is good cause shown for the extension request.
Attorney Atkins states that there was a discussion with the attorney from the appealing rule to appeal the original decision and there were no objections.
Meg Twohey- asked the applicant whether the property that was being transferred by the church for parking was still part of the project.
Ms. Curran states that it is still part of the project and the applicant is before the Board to ask for an extension of time on rights previously granted by the September 28, 2009 Zoning Board of Appeal decision.
Ms. Curran states that dealing with DEP is time consuming.
Attorney Atkins states that working with the Archdiocese of Boston is even longer.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the request seeking a petition for a six (6) month extension for exercise of rights granted by the September 28, 2009 Board Decision that approved Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to eight (8) residential units (Map 26 Lot 96). The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was with unanimous with four (4) (Rebecca Curran, Peter A. Copelas, Mike Duffy, and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0) opposed.
Project |
Request for a six (6) month extension for exercise of rights granted by the June 2, 2010 Board Decision, as previously extended by request of the applicant as well as the Permit Extension Acts of 2010 and 2012, that approved Variances from building height (feet), buffer zone width, and number of parking spaces to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional office building with retail and municipal space on the property (Map 15 Lot 305). |
Applicant |
HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC |
Location |
44 BOSTON STREET and 401 BRIDGE STREET (NRCC) |
Documentation & Exhibition
- Letter of request for a six (6) month extension date stamped February 25, 2015 and supporting documentation
Attorney Correnti 63 Federal Street- presents the petition. There has been constant and ongoing discussion with the Mayor and expect that the applicant will not be before the Zoning Board of Appeals again as there will be some positive movement to construct the Senior Center. The applicant would not like to take the chance that the permits may lapse. The applicant would like to keep all the permits in place so there is a permitted project. Then any changes to the project can go through the normal course.
Ms. Curran asks the applicant for a reason why the extension is needed.
Attorney Correnti states that there were DEP 21E issues that have been resolved, there were engineering issues, and then there are economic issues surrounding the originally permitted plan that was approved from 2009. The project that was approved was determined to be financially unfeasible. There will be some positive news on this site soon… in a matter of weeks. The permit is coming up for expiration in May.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the request for a six (6) month extension for exercise of rights granted by the June 2, 2010 Board Decision, as previously extended by request of the applicant as well as the Permit Extension Acts of 2010 and 2012, that approved Variances from building height (feet), buffer zone width, and number of parking spaces to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional office building with retail and municipal space on the property (Map 15 Lot 305). The motion is seconded by Mr. Copelas. The vote was with unanimous with four (4) (Rebecca Curran, Peter A. Copelas, Mike Duffy, and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0) opposed.
Project: |
A public hearing for a petition seeking a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to allow an extension of a non-conforming use and a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the extension of a non-conforming front setback dimension for the property located at 220 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 8 Lot 124) (B2 Zoning District). |
Applicant: |
TROPICAL PRODUCTS INC |
Location: |
220 HIGHLAND AVENUE (B2 Zoning District) |
Documentation & Exhibition
- Application date stamped February 24, 2015 and supporting documentation
Attorney Atkins presents the petition on behalf of the applicant. Also present are Ed Berman, President of Tropical Products Inc., Renee Dionne, VP of Operations and Finance and Bill Medinger, Project Architect. The applicant is requesting an extension of a non-conforming front setback for a 14 foot long addition in the front of the building and an extension of a non-conforming use. The current operations of the plant require additional storage space. Much of the building is used for storage and warehousing. As the applicant was planning to come to the Zoning Board of Appeals, a part of the roof collapsed and provided the applicant urgency in moving forward with the proposal.
The applicant is requesting to take down the white silos on the left side and construct a 574 square foot expansion. The construction does not violate or increase any of the non-conformities for the building. The construction will improve the façade of the building and remove the ugly silos. There is sufficient parking on the premise with a total of 45 parking spaces of the required 39 spaces. Parking is not an issue and is conformance with zoning requirements. Light manufacturing as a use is technically not allowed in this zoning district.
Ms. Curran asks the applicant whether the light manufacturing use was grandfathered in as a non-conforming use.
Attorney Atkins states that the property was grandfathered in as a non-conforming use and was at one time a fruit stand. Then it was occupied by Sunburst. There are not many light manufacturing facilities in the City anymore.
Ms. Curran states that it is helpful that the applicant showed the existing and proposed elevations side-by-side.
Mr. Berman states that Tropical Products Inc. is a private label manufacture bottler of personal care products and pet shampoos for other companies. No one knows that we make product for Walmart, Target, CVS, RiteAid and also make national brands. Customers are other manufacturers who outsource production in addition to retail chains and the business needs room to grow. The City has been a good business environment and location for access to major highways and receive large trucks on Highland Ave.
Mr. Tsitsinos asks about the silos.
Mr. Medinger, Project Architect-states the silos will be removed and recycled at the Jefferson Ave. scrap yard. There is also an 8 foot chain link fence that will be removed.
Mr. St. Pierre- states from a technical perspective the addition is proposed in the location of where the roof collapse has a wood roof where everything else is made of a non-combustible construction. A major advantage of this new construction is that the whole building would bring the entire plant up to modern construction standards of non- combustible materials.
Renee Dionne, VP of Operations and Finance- the silos have never been used by Tropical Products, Inc. they were originally used by Sunburst to hold plastic pellets that were used to make bottles. All bottles at Tropical Products, Inc. are shipped to the plant rather than made on sight.
Mr. St. Pierre- states that with the roof collapse the inspector found that the high pressure gas line shut off was not in the correct location. This will also be remedied through the new construction.
Ms. Curran opens discussion to the Board.
Attorney Atkins states that one of the requirements of a special permit is that change or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. The addition is a general improvement to the building.
Ms. Curran opens and closes public comment for the meeting. No one member of the public spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposal.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the petition requesting a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to allow an extension of a non-conforming use and a Special Permit from the provisions of Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to allow the extension of a non-conforming front setback dimension for the property located at 220 HIGHLAND AVENUE, subject to seven (7) standard conditions. The motion is seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was with four (4) (Rebecca Curran, Peter A. Copelas, Mike Duffy, and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0) opposed.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
*Ms. Curran leaves the meeting early.
February 18, 2015 meeting minutes were approved as printed.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was with three (3) (Peter A. Copelas, Mike Duffy and Jimmy Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0) opposed.
OLD/NEW BUSINESS
None
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Copelas motioned for adjournment of the March 18, 2015 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 8:00pm.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas made a motion to adjourn the March 18, 2015 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos, and the vote is unanimous with three (3) in favor (Peter A. Copelas, Mike Duffy, and Jimmy Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed.
Respectfully submitted,
Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
| 