Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Salem ZBA of Appeals Approved Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 18, 2018 A meeting of the Salem ZBA of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, July 18, 2018 in the third floor conference room at 98 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Peter Copelas (Vice-Chair) calls the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. ROLL CALL Those present were: Peter A. Copelas (Vice- Chair), Mike Duffy, Jimmy Tsitsinos, Paul Viccica, Chris Drucas. Also in attendance - Erin Schaeffer - Staff Planner, Building Commissioner- Tom St. Pierre, and Lorelee Stewart- Recording Clerk. REGULAR AGENDA Project A continuation of a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Non-conforming Single and Two-Family Structures, to allow the petitioner to construct a full third floor on the existing non- conforming structure. Applicant FRANKLIN and ANGELA QUINTIN Location 4 RICE STREET (Map 36 Lot 208)(R-2 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions  Application dated May 10, 2018 and supporting documentation Franklin and Angela Quintin present the petition. The petitioner is proposing to build a third floor on existing residence. The petitioners need more space for their family. Mr. Copelas: At the last meeting, the Board requested the following additional information that the petitioner has provided: Drawings of all four sides of house, photographs of street to compare to other homes, and a statement that addressed the specific requirements of special permit . Mr. Copelas- Entertains Board discussion and questions. Mr. Viccica: Requests that the petitioner present the additional materials provided and read the submitted statement of grounds for the record. Ms. Quintin: Reads the submitted statement of grounds into the record. There are community needs served by the proposal as adding a floor will increase value of house and overall value of neighborhood. Other houses in neighborhood are building third floors. The addition will not impact traffic flow and safety or parking because we have a large driveway. The utilities and public services will not be impacted. The proposed addition will not impact the environment including drainage. The zoning has multifamily homes in the neighborhood. The proposal will increase tax revenue for the City of Salem. Mr.Copelas: Opens the public hearing. No members of the public spoke in support or in opposition to the petition. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve a special permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Non- conforming Single and Two-Family Structures, to allow the petitioner to construct a full third floor on the existing non-conforming structure. The motion is seconded by Mr. Drucas.The vote was unanimous with five (5)Mr. Copelas, Mr. Drucas, Mr.Duffy Mr.Tsitsinos, Mr. Hacker, in favor and none (0) opposed to the petition. Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Non-conforming Structures, to allow the petitioner to restore and expand an existing barn. Applicant CHRISTOPHER NORKUN Location 53 SUMMER STREET (Map 25, Lot 605)(R-2 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions  Application dated June 25, 2018 and supporting documentation Christopher and Stacey Norkun, petitioners, present the petition. The property has an existing historic barn built between 1912-1922, which is currently dilapidated. Tom St. Pierre, the Salem Building Inspector, inspected the building. The property is located in the McIntire Local Historic District and the design proposal was reviewed and approved by the Salem Historical Commission.. The proposal is to is to take the barn apart by hand and salvage and reuse as much of the timber that is there andincrease the square footage of the structure from 16 1/2 by 20 (332 square feet) to 17 by 2 5 (425 square feet). The petitioner is also proposing to add a shed dormer and will increase the height from almost 17 feet to 18 feet.Ms. Norkun: In the back of the property, the land slopes down quite a bit. The plan is to build a retaining wall that would also be inclusive of any drainage solutions to improve runoff. and to have on-call animal control to remediate any pest or animal issues when the structure is disassembled. Mr. Copelas: Clarifies that the petitioners intend to completely disassemble the barn. Mr. Norkun: Yes, the plan is to disassemble the barn and install a concrete foundation. Currently, the structure does not have a foundation. Contractors have inspected the building as well and saw that the building footings are rotted and the building is too weak to support the proposed work. Mr. Copelas: Do you have a reasonable expectatation that you will be able to reuse very much? Mr. Norkun: I expect that we will reuse about 1/3 of the material maybe ½, but it is hard to say. Most of the roof on the southern side has collapsed and the whole corner is pretty rotted. There are a lot of reusable timbers along the roofline and two sides have been protected from weather. Ms. Norkun: We will not know the extent of what is salvageable until we start to take it apart to see what we can use and what we cannot. Mr. Copelas: Will this structure be used for habitation? Mr. Norkun: No. The plan is to use it a garden/barn for tools and lawnmower, and have some part be an artist space. Mr. Copelas: No bath, no kitchen? Mr. Norkun: We would like water and electricity. Mr. Viccica: What is reason to increase length of the building? Mr Norkun: Just for a little more space for a lawnmower and a tablesaw for carpentry. Ms. Norkun: An artist space the more space the better.. Mr.Drucas: What is use for the second floor, the dormer? Mr. Norkun: Right now, the second floor is a loft. There is nothing on the second floor now, but we would like to be able toextend the studio up there, with a couch. We also want to put in spiral staircase up there and to allow for more headroom to get up to the loft. Ms. Norkun: Right now,to get up to the 2nd floor you need a ladder and a ladder is not conducive. Mr.Drucas: What are you doing with space up there? Ms. Norkun: It’s not really going to used very much. Hanging out there with a couple of chairs up there. Mr. Drucas: It’s not for storage? Ms. Norkun: No. Mr.Copelas: Obviously, the dormer will give windows on another side you do not currently have. From what I can tell, you have two (2) windows, one (1) on each end and because of the pitch of the roof you currently do not have any windows on the sides. Mr Norkun: Currently there are windows on ground level on that side of the barn. There is actually a door on that side too that cannot really be used because it is so close to the fence. The idea is flipping the design to bring the door onto the other side and use the windows that are currently there for the dormer windows. Mr.Drucas: Will those windows be opposite or facing neighbors? Mr. Norkun: Yes, and our neighbors are here and they can speak to that if they object or support the proposal. The windows will be looking into their backyard. Ms. Norkun: Just the backyard and the dormer and windows will just allow us to have headspace to get up to the loft. Mr.Copelas: Tom, since the petitioner is dismantling this property down to the ground, could they reposition the barn or would that require additional zoning relief? It seems that the barn is poorly positioned on the lot given the setbacks. Would that have required something more? St Pierre: The special permit covers the reconstruction of it. Mr. Copelas: So they could have reconstructed it in a slightly modified location? Mr. Drucas: That’s not reconstruction. Right? Mr. St Pierre: We talked about where they wanted site this when I was there and you were pretty well set on keeping it in that corner. Mr.Norkun: Yes. Copelas: Confirms that It just that the rear and side setback is so close St Pierre: The rear, if I remember the rear overlooks a driveway or parking lot… it does not abut anyone’s house. Mr. Viccica: Can you just clarify what is happening to the retaining wall? Mr. Norkun: The eastern back lot slopes down into the driveway so we would put a retaining wall there. Mr. Viccica: So this is what faces the parking lot. Are you intending to put the retaining wall just there as a foundation or across entire back? Mr. Norkun: Across entire back property. Mr. Viccica: So you will be creating a retaining wall in the setback? You will be putting a wall in the setback Mr. Norkun: The ideal thing would be to put the retaining wall on the property line so that would give us a little space to get behind barn. Mr. Viccica: You will be building a retaining wall with in setback on North side of the property? Is that right? Where one doesn’t exist now? M.r Norkun: Yes and on the eastern part. This part slopes to the driveway so we will hopefully build a retaining wall along that property line. Ms. Norkun: And actually that retaining wall would be an extension of a retaining wall that exists along the same side that backs into a few other abutters of ours. So when we build that retaining wall, it would actually be extending. Mr. Viccia: Confirms that there is an existing retaining wall that the neighbor has here. Mr. Norkun: Joe Gagnon’s house is right here, and then there are properties that run this way. Drucas: Can you show us? Mr. Norkun: Yes. Mr. Norkun presented the concept and outlines it on the plans. Mr. Viccica: The reason I ask is there is no plan that shows the retaining wall. I am just looking at a Google Map here. Your residence is here, your neighbor’s house is here. Your neighbor is on zero lot line? So your, retaining wall will hit right here? Mr. Norkun: There is a footpath that is approximately 24 inches wide that slopes down from here.Mr. Viccica: Is it on his property? Mr. Norkun: Yes and it touches his property but he is here and can comment. Mr. Copelas: Tom, the petitioner mentions the retaining wall in the petition. Is it part of this petition? Mr. St Pierre: No he can do it by right. He might need a drainage alteration plan from the City engineer. Mr. Viccica: So he can build a retaining wall within the setback ? Mr. St. Pierre: Yes. Mr. Copelas: Any questions? St Pierre: I just want to comment it looks like it was built in 1921 and I think that was the last maintenance that was done on it. It’s lived a tough life. Mr. Copelas: Any public comment? Joe Gagnon-23 High Street: Joseph Gagnon: direct Abutter 23 High St. I have a picture to shows how close my house is to the barn. I have triple decker next door. Let me go to my notes. My property abuts the rear and left of barn approximately 5 feet from my property line in the rear, 11 feet on the left and 14 ft from building. The barn is in total disrepair will eventually collapse onto my property, being dramatic but it is possible. The rear entry into my building is at left rear corner of barn, very close to stairway. Water runoff is important to me and will cause seepage into my basement. My property would be most affected by the board granting this request. I am 100% in favor of them doing this. These are nice people are very caring and respectful to historic environment and have done a great job with the property. I have gone over plans and will work with them. If approved I ask for 3 conditions: 1. There are Creepy crawlers living in the barn I would like rodent control prior to and during construction. 2. Install retaining wall on left and rear of their building. I have agreed to assist with financing of the wall. Third, ensure no water runoff onto my property. There is no water runoff now and would like to ensure this by proper retaining wall and by proper grading of soil and fill to left, side, and rear of their property. Any runoff shall be contained on their property. I am 100 percent in favor of this. Thank you Tim Jenkins 18 Broad St. speaking for Historic Salem Inc.: This property is in a historic district. They have done a great job and it is appreciated. This is a really neat neighborhood. The Gedney House is basically right on the other side. There are some other marvelous small buildings. It sounds like what you are going to do will compliment the area and give it a better feel. It is sort of tragic that it is in now. I have seen one of the resident rodents on more than one occasion. I think the petitioner will enhance it and the idea of recycling that material, I wish it happened more often because of a lot of stuff just disappears and goes out to the dump. I think you are wise to reuse materials and often materials last a lot longer despite nobody looking after the new materials. Great job we want to support you. Kelly Shutoff -55 Summer St. –Right next door. I am here to be supportive. They have done a fantastic job so far and this will be a big improvement and enhance the neighborhood. I have no objections to anything that they have proposed. James Vey 25 High St- an abutter. I am in support of this myself. I looked at plans and as long as there is very little impact on our property, I am fine with that. We are in discussions now where we are starting to look at =doing some rehab work on my house too and I am sure that we will be in touch with them when things start happening. I am in support of this. Mr. Copelas: Asks the petitioner to read the submitted statement of grounds into the record. Mr. Norkun: We are seeking Sec. 3.3.3 special permit reconstruct and extend a non conforming structure as follows: A. Improve current non conforming structure addresses unsightly sightlines and will improve aesthetics on Summer and High B. Proposed work will not impact traffic flow on Summer St and High St. proposed work will not impact parking for Mr. Gagnon on High St. The proposed work will improve safety for Joseph Gagnon as existing structure may collapse. C. Proposed work includes an electrical box in the non conforming structure which ties into main structure meter and will be a minimal draw water supply and sewerage will tie into existing lines D. Proposed work will include a retaining wall on north and eastern property lines to contain water runoff and we will work collaboratively with Mr. Gagnon the abutter to solve drainage E. The proposed work improves neighborhood character Acknowledges Rossetti Square and the McIntire district. Original Bakery demolished and current non conforming structure built between 1912-1922. The proposed work acknowledges that history. F. Proposed work will improve the city’s tax base and employment. 53 Summer Street is zoned R2 with 35% max building coverage for the lot, the existing building coverage is 31% The existing non-conforming structure is 338Sq Ft After the work it will be 32.9% and the non conforming structure will be 425 Sq Ft. Maximum height 18ft. Mr. Drucas: Can I ask a question regarding drainage and wall? What is the building permit process? Mr.St Pierre: Well, just for the Board’s knowledge, first of all, before demolition process the Health Department requires to bait before dmo happens and then the retaining wall, if you alter terrain by more than 2 feet you are subject to city engineer review, which requires the applicant to submit a drainage alteration plan. This just means getting a civil engineer to help you out with figuring out the drainage. Mr.Copelas: Co we need to condition that or is that a function of their work anyway Mr.St Pierre: Doesn’t hurt to put it in. Copelas: If we condition it and they do not have plans for the wall, that’s okay? Mr.St Pierre: Yes, that’s okay. And a retaining wall that is over four feet from the base of the footing to the top of the wall requires a building permit all on its own. It needs its own separate permit. Mr. Copelas: In addition to standard conditions it sounds like there are three special conditions you already agreed to including rodent control, runoff stays on your property, construction of a retaining wall so are you in agreement? Mr. Drucas: There is not a basic condition that the petitioner comply with all of the… this might be overkill, but it does not hurt. St Pierre: It doesn’t hurt. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve a special permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Non- conforming Structures, to allow the petitioner to restore and expand an existing barn subject to standard conditions and the petitioner will provide pest control prior to demolition and during construction, the petitioner shall construct a retaining wall along the rear yard east and north elevation as per the drainage plan approved by the City Engineer, and the construction shall contain runoff from the property, The motion is seconded by Mr. Drucas . The vote was unanimous with five (5) Copelas, Drucas, Duffy, Tsitsinos, Viccica in favor and none (0) opposed to the petition. Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Non-conforming Use and Sec. 3.3.3 Non-conforming Structure to allow the petitioner to expand the existing retail bake shop and construct a second floor addition for storage and employee space. Applicant ROBERT LIANI, JR. TRUSTEE of 96 BRIDGE STREET REALTY TRUST Location 96 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36, Lot 117) (R-2 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions Application dated June 26, 2018 and supporting documentation Attorney William Quinn- Tinti, Quinn, Grover and Frey and architect John Seger present the petition. Coffee Time Bake Shop has been at this location for over 30 years and is the proprietorship of my client, Robert Liani and by all accounts and customers praise, operate an excellent bakeshop coffee shop, social gathering place and employs local young people and women and provide good employment. Mr. Liani has an active business especially during holidays, catering and making cakes and pies, and does not really have adequate room in the vestibule area for customers to gather and wait to order, therefore he is asking to enlarge vestibule for customers. Employees also have no place to go and eat lunch and this addition will give them a break room and lounge. and create employee space and dry goods storage. Proposing addition built on top of his existing building, which the architect will present. Basically, the second floor will be for employee space, with a locker room, lounge area and storage. The addition will not increase production or the number of employees\. They have thirteen spaces in the lot and thirteen spaces is exactly what is needed based on the number of employees and the number of seats in a restaurant. We will not add extra seating. There is no expansion of footprint of the building. This is all built within or over existing sides of the building and the, whole height will be within twenty-three feet so it is well within limit of thirty-five feet. This is a mixed neighborhood with some commercial use like this, an adjacent gas station, muffler place and nice renovations to multifamily homes, which is making it a nicer neighborhood to live. I will have Mr. Seger explain project to you. Basically, we are asking to enlarge the use because we are proposing to expand the use and to alter and enlarge a non-conforming structure because we are adding to the vestibule at the front door of the structure. However, there isno additional encroachment on any sides with no increase in any lateral non-conformities from any lot line. John Seger, of Seger Architects: Mr. Seger presents existing pictures to show the current building conditions in relation to the existing adjacent buildings. Architectural renderings and plans are also presented. We kept the footprint of the addition minimal so we did not have to impact the neighbors or the street as much. As far as the height, we are adding a second story with an eight foot ceiling. That brings us up to approximately twenty-three feet. Mr.St Pierre: I have two questions will the access doors to roof vestibule will be for equipment access only, not for staff? The doors will remain locked. Mr. Seger: Yes. Right now Rob has to use a ladder to get up to the roof, so this is perfect for him. Mr.St Pierre: Okay, as long as those remain locked. And the vestibule will stay accessible? Mr. Seger: yes. Mr. St. Pierre- You still have room for the bump out and the ramp? Mr. Seger: yes. Mr. Drucas: The front drawing on Pearl Street, you do not show screening of the air conditioning units. Mr. Seger: We just located the screening in the back. Mr. Drucas: Asks if the HVAC units would be seen from Pearl Street without screening. Mr. Seger: The soffit will be 2 ½ ft higher than the current roof and you cannot see the HVAC units now. I do not expect that you will be able to see HVAC units in the future. Mr. Drucas: What are you screening with? Mr. Seger: Just a PVC type fence. Mr. Copelas: Are there mechanicals on front and back roof sections? The plans only show- screening on back. Mr. Seger: Right. There is an existing rooftop unit on the front of the building, which is not visible and not changing. The unit on the back of the building will be replaced. For the front HVAC unit, the soffit is so big that it hides the HVAC unit, but for the back unit, there is no soffit. Mr. Viccica: You have a single means of egress from the second story proposed. Will you be required at a later point to put a second egress in from the second story? I know the Building Department will review this, but I want to make sure that you do not have to come back. Mr. Seger: The maximum is 29 for one means of egress with a 75 ft of length of travel.We are under ten people and have 1,000 square feet. 29 people is the maximum if Tom can concur. Mr. St Pierre: We make them do a code review before they submit for a building permit No members of the public wish to speak in approval or in opposition to the petition. Mr. Copelas requests that the petitioner review the criteria for a special permit and read the submitted statement of grounds into the record. Mr. Quinn: We have met the criteria. The use is same as it has been for 30 years and benefit to neighborhood. Structure is changing minimally with vestibule and 2 nd floor will not have significant impact on neighborhood 30 years in community social economic benefits to community. Traffic flow will not change parking will not change utilizes will not change no change in drainage volume, will not affect environment. The neighborhood is a mixed use neighborhood and the bakery is used often by neighbors. It is alittle more colorful than a home but will be a positive to neighborhood. There are no negative effects on the character of the neighborhood. This will be positive on the City’s tax base and employment. Mr.Viccica I just have one question about drainage, so current drainage is flat roof with through internal drain leaders? Mr. Seger: There are gutters on the back. Viccica: So they all come off of the back? Mr. Seger: Yes, to keep the soffit horizontal we have to slope roof to back again and the gutters will be located in the back and drop down to the existing gutters on either side. Viccica: There is a gutter on addition? That leads to… Copelas: no I think he said to gutters on the side. Mr. Seger: yes on the back and it goes o existing gutters on side Viccica: There is a gutter on addition? Mr Viccica: Requests that the changes to existing storm drainage not make it worse or affect the neighbors. Mr. Liani: ¾ out back to parking lot which is sloped and ¼ to front nothing to abutter we may be able to improve itr. Mr Viccica: So none goes to the back abutters? And that will remain? Mr. Seger: No but we will take a look at the back gutter to improve it and do a drywell. We are not increasing any of the runoff. We are just transferring it, but I think we can improve it. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Non-conforming Use and Sec. 3.3.3 Non-conforming Structure to allow the petitioner to expand the existing retail bake shop and construct an addition to the first floor vestibule and second floor addition for storage and employee space. The motion is seconded by Mr. Drucas. The vote was unanimous with five (5) Copelas, Drucas, Duffy, Tsitsinos, Viccica in favor and none (0) opposed to the petition. Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition requesting a special permit per Sec 3.3.3 Non-Conforming Structures to allow the petitioner to expand the existing two-family home by constructing a second floor and farmers porch. Applicant ERIC EASLEY Location 63 LAWRENCE STREET (Map 23 Lot 119)(R-2 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions  Application dated June 12, 2018 and supporting documentation Eric Easley, petitioner, presents the petition. The petitioner is requesting a special permit to allow the construction of a second floor and farmer’s porch. Bought building in January, I am an investor in the City. The building has been vacant and vandalized and listed on Salem’s problem property list. It’s been empty since approximately 2010- 2012. The City boarded up the property. It is a two family single level house that is approximately 31 feet by 46 feet in an R2 Zone. The petitioner is requesting that it remain a two-family home and the petitioner is proposing to add a second floor to the same dimensions of 31 x 46 ft on the existing structure and farmer’s porch to be the width of the house (31 ft) and extend from the house 7 feet, leaving approximately 4.5ft to the property line . The first floor will be brought up to code. The adjacent properties have porches and structures similar to what we are requesting. The petitioner continues to read the submitted statement of grounds into the record. The petitioner has already made repairs to the foundation. Mr. Copelas: Can you address the farmers porch in relation to the property lines? Mr.Easley: The farmers porch will be the width of the house. There is a very wide sidewalk in front of the house and trying to align the front porch with width of the width of the neighbor’s front porch. Mr. Easley: Presents photos of the front of the property and sidewalk. Easley Mr. Copelas: Can you describe what is happening in the back? Are you showing a deck? Mr. Easley: There was a rotted deck with pavement underneath, but we had to pull the deck out due to the rot.We had to jack the rear of house the house and level it off and we fixed the entire rear foundation. Mr.Viccica: confirms that the proposed rear second story deck on the rear of the property will be within the existing footprint of the structure and the free-standing rear deck area will not be rebuilt. Mr.Easley: Correct, it solves are problem with being to close. The only extension of footprint is farmers porch in the front of the property. Mr. Copelas: And Tom decreasing the front setback falls within special permit? Mr. St. Pierre: Yes. On one and two family houses. Mr. Copelas: Opens public hearing portion of meeting. Mr. St Pierre: I have had a lot of experience with this house going back ten (10) years. It was a really bad drug house for a number of years and then it was empty for a number of years. On the deck out back, we actually rescued a big bunny that was left out there to die and relocated to a farm in Maine. We were there with the City’s Harvard fellowship staff during drug raid with squatters. Neighbors have had put up with a lot here, and will be happy to see the improvements. This is a good problem property to get off of our list. Mr. Copelas: Can you talk about finishes? Mr.Easley: I will use two separate finishes cedar clapboard and vinyl siding. Mr.Copelas: Can you retain existing finishes on the first floor Easley: Yes, we can salvage that. We have replaced some of it around the windows, but we should be able to retain it. we should be able to. It breaks it up a little having two different types of siding. Mr. Drucas: Is this siding looks like shingles. Is this shingles Mr. Easley: Yes. The first floor will be shingles and that is what is there now. Mr. St Pierre: Will you keep this property? Mr. Easley: Yes. We have twenty (20) in the City and we have never sold one. Mr.St Pierre: Eric is one of our best landlords we never have a problem. If we have an issue it is taken care of immediately. Mre Copelas: Any public comment? Mary Yetts 69 Lawrence Street- Speaks in opposition to the proposal. We are glad something is happening lived there for 24 years. Its quiet now, but we are concerned I think is there 7 feet from your property to mine? Not including stairway. Easley: I have 7 feet on my map Copelas: please address concerns to board Yetts: I am concerned that I am going to have 5 additional windows looking into my property change light and shadows will first floor be a unit or will each floor have a bottom and top. Porch in back will be an additional room and could overlook our back and could be a problem with noise especially when rented. People can enjoy music but I am concerned. Copelas: you submitted a written statement do you want it read? Yetts: Yes you can read it Copelas: I am forwarding original email that I sent March 1 st. I just re-measured distance between our properties and its only 10 feet from Mr. Easley’s property to beginning of my fence on the other side they only have 11 inches. This does include stairs which is essential to get into 63 Lawrence. I agree with Mr. Easley that all the homes on Lawrence St. have second floors but many are cape designs which significantly reduce height from building. I am convinced that the second floor will take light from our home and cause shadows on our house. The additional windows will look directly into our bedroom which has a skylight and our privacy is at stake The back porch is cause for a huge concern. I feel it would change the neighborhood character. Such a porch would be an additional outside room and cause noise levels and privacy would be an issue for 69 Lawrence St and other residents of Lawrence St. When it was used a 2 family, one bed per unit, we had a total of 4 cars from residence of 63. Parking was definitely an issue. Mr. Byers the former owner parked on the sidewalk with expansion of building it is likely to assume further conflicts with traffic flow. Further goes on I would like to object to the second floor because of 3 reasons: very close together 13 feet 2 inches between homes, block light, property 63 Lawrence St has an unusual shape used to be a Store early 1900’s and is longer than any on the street and our dormer bedroom Larger 2 family home will further congest our street with parking issues63 Lawrence St. operating as a 2 one bedroom units and a 2 bed with studio. I am confident the new owner will make this financially feasible without the second floor Gone from a violent drug house to abandoned and condemned building It has been difficult bring up 3 children. We are delighted it will no longer be an eyesore we would like it to be done without the additional stories I understand the owner can change the property if it conforms to City Codes. I respect this right and wish him luck. I wish him success. Sincerely Mary Yetts 69 Lawrence St. Drucas: She is south of you I don’t see how light will be an issue Copelas: Her question is that both units will have access to that porch Easley: I hadn’t heard that concern from her before and am not opposed to making this all building regarding parking we will remove porch which will create parking Copelas: It seems like nice space for house as long as it doesn’t intrude Easley: The back yard has a high fence. No objection. Could I put a window there? Should I say one? Copelas: Underneath it you have one window Jeff Cohen: 12 Hancock St I have many positive interactions with Mt Easley regarding recycling Carlos Gomes: 70 Lawrence I am concerned he has added bedroom and parking How many parking does he need for those bedrooms I don’t think cars can pass for parking I have to move my cars to get out. Do you have that much parking? I am concerned about who he rents too. He has given me his phone number in case I need anything. Copelas: Adding bedroom does not change parking requirement St Pierre: A two family house is required to have 1.5 spaces He is grandfathered in and needs no parking Copelas: Anyone else from public like to speak? Yetts: Curious about height of roof St Pierre: He is entitled to 35 feet. Copelas: Yours is likely higher than his if it is 2 stories. St Pierre: if they are on the same plane. I am confident it doesn’t exceed. Copelas: 30 ft to the peak. Further discussion of the porch, should there be modifications? I was referring to rear deck. Tsitsinos: I think just put a wall. Gomes: Are those slides between bedrooms Copelas: You would be amenable to closing sides and putting in a window? Easley: Yes Copelas: Any further comments? I will entertain a motion. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve a special permit per Sec 3.3.3 Non- Conforming Structures to allow the petitioner to expand the existing two-family home by constructing a second floor and farmers porch. The motion is seconded by Drucas The vote was unanimous with five (5) Copelas, Drucas, Duffy Tsitsinos, Hacker, in favor and none (0) opposed to the petition. Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Non-Conforming Uses and Sec. 3.3.3 Non-Conforming Structures, to allow the petitioner to convert an existing mixed use structure of four (4) existing residential units and first floor offices to six (6) residential units by converting the first floor office to two (2) residential units. Applicant RYAN MACIONE, MANAGER, for BACIGALUP LLC Location 27 NORTH STREET (Map 26 Lot 496)(R-2 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions  Application dated June 21, 2018 and supporting documentation Attorney William Quinn of Tinti, Quinn, Grover and Frey, presents the petition. Quinn: representing Ryan Macione he purchased 27 North St adjacent to Murphy funeral home. Granted a variance to allow first floor residence into offices occupied by attorneys Ryan wants to reestablish residences on first floor Mr. Jacob will explain floor plans. right now there is wrought iron and want to put this back into what it was in 1950 we will go to historic commission changes on first floor are minimal to bring it back Quinn: no increase in foot print, instead actually a decrease. Copelas could you show us Jacobs: sure All four are one bedroom one side has more sq footage than the other Copelas: Any board comments before we open to public. Anyone like to speak? Phil O’Donnell 25 Woodside St. Salem. I am a realtor and have worked with Ryan Macione since 2011 when he bought 84- 86 Derby St. He took pains to rehab that building. This will enhance the entrance corridor. Ryan makes investments in Salem in it for long haul Tim Jenkins: 18 Broad St. Interested in entrance corridors for years. Looks like a big improvement in an entrance corridor. Jess Herbert from the Historic Commission 70 Webb St. they came before us but didn’t have to we are in favor. Quinn: going from office to residential Will create safe code compliant housing traffic should not be affected 4 lawyers and 2 secretaries would be 5 cars this is improvement. We have all utilities so no negative effect. Improvements will enhance historic value of building and 2 new apartments will mean more taxes. Copulas: I will entertain a motion Duffy moved Seconded by Drucas Vote: Copelas, Drucas, Duffy, Tsitinos, Hacker Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion approve a special permit per Sec. 6.10.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to operate a licensed retail marijuana establishment. The motion is seconded by XXXX. The vote was unanimous with five (5)( Rebecca Curran, Peter A. Copelas, Jimmy Tsitsinos, Chris Drucas, and Mike Duffy) in favor and none (0) opposed to the petition. Project A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition requesting to amend the variance for required on- site parking and the variance for minimum lot area per dwelling unit, per Sec. 8.4.9 and Sec. 4.1.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance of the November 2, 2016 Decisions of the Board of Appeals, which permitted the construction of 50 residential units and small commercial space at 70-92 ½ BOSTON STREET (former Flynntan site). This requested amendment is to allow the petitioner to incorporate the adjacent parcel into the project for the construction of one building consisting of five (5) additional townhouse style units. Applicant 139 GROVE STREET REALTY TRUST and 910 SARATOGA STREET REALTY TRUST Location 11 GOODHUE STREET(Map 15, Lot 298)(NRCC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District) Documents and Exhibitions  Application dated June 21, 2018 and supporting documentation Attorney Joseph Correnti of Serafini, Darling and Correnti- presents the petition. Thank you. Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal St. representing the applicant. This is a project that is well underway. This is Flynn tan site which was a tremendous eyesore and there has been tremendous change. This went through process of all of the boards. Flynn tan site is a compilation of sites very complicated purchase and closing but it was accomplished. What you see is the River rock. This will be ready for market in the spring. 50 units of townhouses on Boston St and main building with 45 units There was another building Junior’s Auto Body and Witch City Cycles right next to our project. It was separately owned. We were encouraged to purchase that but sometimes this takes time. We have acquired this building 3500sq ft This lot is much like the Flynn tan site built right into hillside with difficult topography looks We are proposing to put in one building with 5 new townhouses. We will take project from 50 units to 55. Townhomes will have garage under parking from Goodhue and it blends well with the rest of the project. When we came before the board before we asked for four variances and are asking to amend 2 from 2016. The two we need you to look at are parking which just changed. Parking requirement to 1.5 per unit 1.82 spaces per units we are 1.74 above the now 1.5 but we have we have 96 spaces for project and are asking you to make it 101 spaces. Second variance we wish to amend is the density variance or minimum lot per unit no one has been able to meet that requirement. Relief was needed because this is so unique with topography and drops of ft any challenge you could face was at this site 1455 sq ft per dwelling unit goes1395 sq ft change only 60 sq ft but it is a change. We have architecture and planning board those will be addressed. We are asking for an amendment to 2 variances. We think this is a great opportunity for 5 more units of housing for the market Copelas: if this is a separate lot and not attached, why is it amendment and not a separate variance? Correnti: you don’t know how many lots you voted on when you vote on in Flynn tan, you voted on 6 or more different lots but presented as one project that is intent here it will be treated as one. Copelas: what you meant before is no vehicular access on Boston Side. Drucas: Where would visitors park? Correnti: Every unit will have a space with drive under parking with extra outside visitor parking over here and up here. We meet the parking requirement. Copelas: 55 units will have 55 reserved spots designated and remainder unassigned and will be for visitors Correnti: Some will want 2 spaces and some won’t want any, will walk to the train. St Pierre: who is here for architect my concern about spaces someone overshooting a drive Tanya ?of Coulser design St Pierre: I am concerned about someone sliding into building Tanya: 3 ft and 5ft St Pierre: I will make a comment to Planning board I think a little more substantial Rich Williams: There is a curb there intended to stop vehicle. Copelas: Board Comments? Streetscape and architecture pairs of doors and Correnti: We are interested in working with a city consultant working on Goodhue. Our developer is interested in the whole block sidewalks etc. Copelas: Did you do calculations about density related to four units instead of five? Correnti: Incrementally different we thought we were close with 60 sq ft. We looked at five and four units. Right here is green space, a residential dog park with a landscaping plan when you look at whole space we are only 60 ft off for each unit Copelas: Yes an amendment to this but you could avoid a variance Correnti: Technically if you compare it to the other project separate lot is only 3700 sq ft. Copelas: I am not comparing to a standalone request. Any public comment? Michael Cusick in favor of this would love to see more plans at this point with bike path. We are all in favor of getting cars off of the road. Will there be bike store? Correnti yes and each unit can do what they want in garage Cusick: Why is there no sidewalk on Goodhue St. Correnti: If we built a public sidewalk on our land which I am not sure we would do Would townhouses be exactly same were 200sq ft more in keeping with Goodhue. Neighborhood is in favor Jess Herbert: they came before us good to see it will be used in a good way. Will this be like Water St? Correnti: Not familiar with Water St Jess Hebert: will there be walk in doors as well Tanya: each will have garage door and a man door with an awning. Jess Hebert: entry door is on street which seems dangerous Copulas: That might not be in our purview. Jess Herbert: Not a lot of landscaping Copelas: Prefer we don’t go into that. Anyone else? Hardship explanation, what is the hardship, If we went to 4 units instead of 5 wouldn’t need a variance We are asking to amend a variance based on a hardship Correnti: Topography of land we have a 15 foot retaining wall which creates a unique hardship for this lot. 3500 sq ft per unit Copelas: If no more comments? Correnti: Drucas could push building back and build a sidewalk. Correnti: we don’t build sidewalks on public property these are 1300 sq ft these are smaller units I am not arguing against density issue it is still 60sq ft per unit. Option of fewer units and increases safety im not saying yes or no but am confused about hardship. They have just bought another parcel they have already dealt with soil and topography Correnti: If this was part of this then would it be an issue Probably not We will go through other boards Copelas: No one will address number of units but us. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion approve the request to amend the previously issued decision dated November 2, 2016, to specifically amend the approved variances for required on-site parking and the variance for minimum lot area per dwelling unit per Sec. 8.4.9 and Sec. 4.1.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The amendment is to allow the petitioner to incorporate the adjacent parcel at 11 Goodhue Street into the existing project for the construction of one (1) building consisting of five (5) additional townhouse style units. The motion is seconded by Tsistinos. The vote was unanimous with five (5) Copelas Drucas Duffy Tsistinos Hacker in favor and none (0) opposed to the petition. Project A continuation of a public hearing for all persons interested a petition seeking a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses, to allow an extension of a non-conforming use in order to discontinue the first floor commercial unit and allow two additional dwelling units. The petitioner is also seeking Variances from the provisions of Sec. 5.1.5 and Sec. 5.1.6 Off-Street Parking to allow six (6) nonconforming 8’ x 16’ parking spaces, and for those six (6) nonconforming parking spaces to be within two (2) feet from the lot line. Applicant 71 BRIDGE STREET LLC Location 67-71 BRIDGE STREET(Map 36 Lots 339, 340)(B-4 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions  Application dated April 24, 2018 and supporting documentation Attorney Lovely presents the petition. Lovely: 10 Federal St. I wish to clarify that we are no longer seeking variance for parking submitted a plan to the building inspector we have 9 code compliant spaces. We are only seeking the special permit for non conforming use. Copelas: Before you get into explanation, Please clarify variances and permits. Are you saying there are no variances you require? You are only seeking a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses, to allow an extension of a non-conforming use in order to discontinue the first floor commercial unit and allow two additional dwelling units. Lovely: Correct Lovely: We will be discontinuing the business on 67-69 that will be one unit it and third floor unit on 71 was formally illegal unit we are asking for a unit. When we were here before we had 6 undersize parking spaces. We went back to building inspector and now have 9 spaces but to get to them we need to removal of a carriage house. In past there was reluctance to grant this removal. We want to have 6 units and one option was to remove the carriage house or make it a unit to make it work financially. To remove or develop we had to demolition delay waiver. We met with Historic Commission came up with a different plan which has been submitted. We worked with architects on the board. I did give specifics of height which are required Richard Durbin of Derby Sq Architects 2012 study by city with metropolitan Area Planning Council to change outdated zoning which showed that there is a lot of B4 on Bridge Street which doesn’t work for housing. But housing precedes zoning. I will ask Richard to come up and explain what we want to do. Copelas: Before we get to this we need to clarify if we are good on the Variance Lovely: Yes Richard This project has seen many iterations. first wanted to make a joint entrance between 2 buildings but height differences made this unworkable. Next was to Separate building and this worked but Jess Herbert saw an opportunity to good to pass up originally a 5 on 5 colonial and she suggested to just add another floor like the federalists did. With the Colonial There is a center entrance for first floor and a side entrance for upper floors a back entrance for all. With the Victorian we decided to place roof to get a steep pitch and place a dormer on south side for light. We extended bay on the Victorian to another floor and we could get good square footage for each unit. Lovely: This is B4 zone which allows all these improvements. Chair of Historic Commission is here. We put a lot of work to get to this point. We thinks this works well for Bridge St and Historic Commission agrees and they have some control over demolition delay permit but we think this works well for Bridge St. They want to continue to develop another property on Bridge St. Copelas: How did you eliminate variance for parking with easements? Lovely: We expanded easements. We went to neighbor who gave a variance, she has a cement wall Viccica: She gave a variance here. Lovely: We longer need the variance Copelas: And those are code compliant spaces width and length? Drucas: What lot is that again? Viccica: It is my understanding that the Lathrop St lot gave them an extra five feet or so giving them depth. Lovely: Both abutters are granting easements and they are thrilled that we are fixing up this area. Copelas: And these easements will be recorded? Lovely: Yes. Drucas: How much heights are you adding Richard? Richard: Not a whole lot. Viccica: Height limitation is 45? Richard: We are probably at 35 ft Viccica: Maybe? You are probably under but we would have like to see it in your plans Drucas: How many sq ft of floor space are you adding? Durbin: Only on third floor with dormer we are doubling sq ft on fl 3 for 69 for 71 we are adding 1/3 sq ft Copelas: Anyone from public? Jessica Hebert: Chair of Historic Commission. this project came before us to for waiver of carriage house carriage house came before us and was in horrible condition. There was little historic fabric left, the trade off is number 71 and add back some of original historic fabric One of our concerns is that this is a very important street We are not seeing what was originally there historically. Most of historic fabric has been obscured. It is wonderful if we can see a wave of retaining the historic fabric that remains. We are very happy to see this project. Tim Jenkins: 18 Broad St. We had an opportunity to see the proposal and this brings back the vision of Bridge St. with federal concept of that building. This is innovative and thankful to developers for considering the alternative. It looks like they meet the requirements. I hope you agree. St Pierre: Richard you seen to have the height here do you want to give it a try? Durbin: I would say 34 feet to peak and this peak is 2 ½ feet higher so 36 ½ feet Schaeffer: do you know the materials you will use for fencing? Are you proposing fencing? Durbin: I think wood fencing on face of building Copelas: I think she meant in the back Durban: we will use scored fence. Copelas: Please review criteria. Lovely: petitioner of 71 Bridge St. requests a special permit to allow the property located in B4 ditrict at 67- 71 Bridge St pursuant to allow an extension of a non-conforming use in order to discontinue the first floor commercial unit and allow two additional dwelling units. Currently property has no off street parking Constructed property is consistent with other properties. The reconstruction will contain 6 units No adverse affects of proposed building that outweighs positive effects. Salem needs affordable housing. Traffic flow and safety will be improved. The utilities are more than adequate. Neighborhood environment will be improved with economic development boost with increased taxes and little to no impact on city services. Drucas: Are these lots merged? Lovely: Owned by the same owner so yes. Copelas: Any comments for the Board? I will entertain a motion. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses, to allow an extension of a non-conforming use in order to discontinue the first floor commercial unit and allow two additional dwelling units. The petitioner is also seeking a Variance from the provisions of Sec. 5.1.5 and Sec. 5.1.6 Off-Street Parking to allow six (6) nonconforming 8’ x 16’ parking spaces, and for those six (6) nonconforming parking spaces to be within two (2) feet from the lot line. The motion is seconded by Drucas . The vote was unanimous with five (5) Copelas, Drucas, Duffy Tsitsinos, Viccica in favor and none (0) opposed to the petition. Easements recorded prior to Cert of Occupancy Project A continuation of a public hearing for all persons interested in a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec.3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to allow a change from a non- conforming service station to a twelve (12) unit multi-family dwelling above a first floor retail use. The petitioner is requesting the following dimensional variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table Of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: to exceed lot area per dwelling unit, maximum lot coverage, front yard, side yard, and rear yard setbacks, building height and building number of stories. The petitioner is also requesting dimensional variances from the provisions of Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design, to vary the design and size of parking spaces, a variance to vary the size and location of the new curb cut proposed, and a variance per Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces. Applicant GREGORY INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC Location 84 CONGRESS STREET (Map 34 Lot 218)(R-3 Zoning District) Documents and Exhibitions  Application dated April 25, 2018 and supporting documentation Attorney Quinn spoke on behalf of Mr. Gregory and Gregory investment group LLC. Attorney Quinn wishes to remove the request for variance for the size and location curb cut and design and size of the parking spaces. This is the former gas station on 84 Congress St. There is still a service station located here. The location is surrounded by larger buildings in area including including several 4 story buildings once adjacent and one across the street. My client wants to develop 12 condominium, new construction of a 4 story building. 2 unit will be affordable per city standards for 99 years. We want to bring more housing to the area. We are asking for a bunch of dimensional variances including height, to build 4 stories and parking, not enough to meet 1.5 spaces per unit . We will have 15 parking spaces under building which is one space per unit but there is no additional room for more spaces and not parking space for office and retail on the first floor. Putting a 3 unit building on this site is economically unfeasible we submitted a pro forma showing there is no economic feasibility because this is what is allowed. We have a little over 9000 square feet which is not 3500 square feet needed per unit. Vice Chair Copelas asked are there substantive changes to the design? Quinn, no changes to the design we are just relocating the proposed dumpster. Architect: After talking to the neighbor they use this drive for parking in the back we originally proposed putting the dumpster on Congress St but now we will put it on Dow St. and we will use different sized dumpsters which will not affect parking. Vice Chair Copelas stated we don’t need to review any more on this particular change. But I have a question which is not unique to your project. If the legal use of your project is 2 units but that is the opinion of petitioners if that is unfeasible anything goes. If it is not economically feasible you can get a variance for things like soil condition but it is at the discretion of the zoning board. We wanted originally wanted 18 units a year ago but did not bring that to you. Our proposal is smaller and fits with the neighborhood and added 2 affordable units which the city strongly urged us to do. My developer will be making 16 or 17 percent if all goes right when 25% is considered viable and we are below this Duffy: Most of the neighborhood is 4 story buildings the architecture and street fabric match. Existing service station is lost in that area and this would make a nice anchor to the neighborhood as an entrance to the Point Neighborhood. Drucas: that is irrelevant, you can continue to maintain on the site and use what is there now. The problem I have is the case you are citing is the Wolfram case talked about soil and shape of lot to establish hardship You don’t have shape problems here. The soil conditions you have here are caused by the owners. In the Wolfram case the condition of soil was not created by owners, it was caused by nature. Case law states that if the owners of the property create the problem then they does not mean that they have a hardship. Quinn: I appreciate that but Wolfram doesn’t state that you need two conditions for a variance. The cost of testing of soil is a combo of accumulation of petroleum by prior owners and historic fill from the 1700 or 1800’s We did not create the need for our own variance it was the creation of the City. Copelas: You provided additional documentation related to hardship, do you want to present that? Quinn: unless you want me too. I think you understand what I said but I understand the City attorney weighed in on the issue, you haven’t seen that? Schaeffer: I saw a general statement on variances but not specific to your project. Quinn: Not on my issue. It answers what can support a variance Drucas: I do not think that what she wrote applies to you asking for seven variances. Quinn: The question is not how many variances but what is an economically feasible project for the city that has both special permit grounds and variance grounds, if that has to mean a bunch of variances then that is what is economically feasible Drucas: I think there are other uses for this property I have a problem that I cannot get passed. Salem has chosen to make dimensional relief variance where other cities make them special permits. I do not think that with this lot the existing soil conditions warrant a variance I cannot support the granting of a variance, never mind seven variances. Quinn: I did not mean engage in a personal discussion Drucas: I am not being personal Quinn: well I mean addressing the concerns to the body and not to me directly. Again the solicitor’s opinion states the fact that the site can be used for something else is not enough to deny a variance. Copelas: if we are going to rely on that document we will have to continue this because we just got the document. I am not in a position to rely on that it was handed to me 3 minutes before meeting Quinn: if I can say more generally and based on my own knowledge, the fact that a site can be used theoretically for some other use is not grounds to deny a variance. If there are special conditions that support it the owner has a right to make some sort of economically viable use not just some theoretical use cases in Newburyport support this, these are basic zoning cases that underlying existing zoning law. If another person buys this to make a service station is possible but the building has been there since the 50’s at reduced service. Whether it is more viable to put another service station there I will leave to your judgment not my own. ? : I don’t disagree you provided proforma based on a hypothetical with 2 condominiums at a loss of profit. What you did not provide is one with 12 units on this site with 7 variances and what the pro forma is for this project to be able to weigh that for what you are saying is a hardship of the siol. Quinn: I did submit a pro forma Schaeffer: I understand that the soil and LSP information, is the price for cleanup is in the proforma? Quinn: yes Drucas: It was $100,000 roughly Drucas 100k on 12 units is not significant Duffy: It would be on 2 Copelas: that is a false comparison that these are the only choices 2 family house or this one I agree they are yards apart ?: There is another option, a friendly 40b why not I did considered again after the last meeting and spoke with an established Cambridge consulting firm who told me the project too small for 40b. The consulting time would be six months and we have been getting extension on purchase and sale. The cost of the consultants would be $100k. The project is too small time, the time frame is too long and the expense too great to make a site of this size a 40b We don’t have site control, we don’t own it. We have signed agreements to buy. We have submitted proformas because site cost is fixed and soil cost is fixed and profits will go down if unit number reduced. Schaeffer: As an FYI there is a different between the cost of environmental cleanup of single and 2 families site. One and 2 families have higher thresholds and costs. Multi-family has a lower cleanup threshold. Quinn: yes, even with a new building with smaller units people will want gardens and open space. There are higher standard for lower units. Copelas: That was included in your letter. Did we close public hearing? We did not. Is there anyone from public that would like to comment? Lucy Corchado, 1 Chase St. I am president of the Point Neighborhood Association. I also submitted a letter that you should have. Copelas: that was read into the record at the last meeting. If you have new information we will hear it Lucy Corchado I just want to say that Mr. Gregory met with the neighborhood association allowed us to ask questions and express concerns. The consensus was that the neighbors were pleased, especially with the affordable units which we have not seen lately. Jeff Cohen, 12 Hancock St. Too often developments only meet the minimum of 10 % of affordable housing. This ratio is more than that and will be a good example for city in a neighborhood that can use a positive. Copelas: Anyone else? What is the board’s thinking? I’m going to say that I am torn by the technical aspects of the argument and am uncertain of my opinion Drucas I would like to say yes but I can’t. Duffy: the question I struggle with is an applicant comes before the board and makes presentation about a given project and does require variances. Quinn touches on statutory requirements, the minimal findings that need to be present to grant a variance does that mean that we need to consider other hypothetical developments that can be built on a parcel that may or may not need a variance. Copelas: Seems to be outside our scope. Drucas: It is in our scope if there are other uses reasonable for the site then that makes the decision harder to give a variance. Tsitsinos, What else would you build here? ?: There is another avenue that you chose not to take which is an avenue that doesn’t require any of this. If we set a precedent where everyone can come in here and decide on the basis of your argument what’s difficult is that we see the value of the low cost housing you are choosing not to go done that route and requesting vatoances that may or not be granted because of the way the board interprets the application Drucas: Friendly 40b Quinn I don’t understand I have given you reasons involving timeframe and cost. Well known people in the business say this is not viable ? We had a similar project that went through here That was 80 units this is 12 units CDC project was 80 units Drucas could you make it 18 unit as a 40b ? Schaeffer: the petitioner has applied in the manner that they have so regardless of applied whether 40b or not we need to look at the merits of what is before us. Copelas we have considered what other applicants could or couldn’t have done to be entitled to the relief we have to act on this petition but is not out of the reralm to consider other reasonable options Duffy: On the statutory requirements do we have evidence of soil conditions? Yes. Drucas: Yes but those were caused by owner. Quinn: the city fill conditions.are the most expensive an no individual cause that Drucas: Nothing special for the foundation I didn’t see that here. In the wolfram case Quinn: We have to remove tons of fill Historical highwater reference Quinn the majority is historic fill Duffy evidence of soil and hardship Drucas substantial/Duffy filling station in a r3 Copelas a decision has to be made will not take a straw poll. It is your choice to go forward. Quinn wants to go forward feels he has met the grounds to get the go ahead, weigh the benefits to city and neighborhood it is great. Make the decision and it could be appealed. Special permits are discretionary variances are not. Substantial Drucas other issues with the 7 variances being sought if it was special permit yes or Planning department and neighborhood support this. Variance is a high bar. Duffy.Does Proforma meet hardship. James big picture what else can be put there the rest of the point is 4-5 stories. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve a petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec.3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to allow a change from a non-conforming service station to a twelve (12) unit multi-family dwelling above a first floor retail use. The petitioner is requesting the following dimensional variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Table Of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: to exceed lot area per dwelling unit, maximum lot coverage, front yard, side yard, and rear yard setbacks, building height and building number of stories. The petitioner is also requesting dimensional variances from the provisions of Sec. 5.1.5 Parking Design, to vary the design and size of parking spaces, a variance to vary the size and location of the new curb cut proposed, and a variance per Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces. The motion is seconded by Tsitsinos, The vote was passed with four, Duffy, Tsitsinos, Copelas, Viccica, in favor and 1 (Drucas) opposed to the petition. Project A continuation of a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 6.10.4 and Sec. 6.10.9 Requirements Specific to Cultivation Facilities of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to operate a licensed retail marijuana establishment and marijuana cultivation facility. Applicant WITCH CITY GARDENS Location 38 JEFFERSON AVENUE (Map 25 Lot 388)(B-4 and ECOD Zoning Districts) Documents and Exhibitions  Application dated April 25, 2018 and supporting documentation Restrict comments to new comments we will need to keep them brief. We like to thank board for opportunity to submit supplemental info regarding HVAC systems in you packets. We have a more efficient smaller HVAC unit removed from site line closest home is 150 feet. We want to mitigate noise we have been working with a new system. T he noise level and sound pressure will meet MDEP and we can do mechanical screen if required. We can do screens but we are hoping they will be fine and are willing to do more Discussion of Square Feet Sally port plans have been provided to Chief of police by security and got an email saying it is fine. Copelas: Could we review the parking? I counted differently. Where are the 36 spots? WCG: there are 2 in front Copelas: That’s right didn’t see WCG: I believe those were the conditions you requested Copelas: Could you clarify the LOI to lease with respect to parties WCG: Contract parties will be Witch City Gardens and single asset LLC Copelas: Previously was Andresen but now it is signed by one of the petitioners, has property changed hands? So you are signing as tenant and owner 36-38 Jefferson LLC Drucas: walk through how product will be transported from where you grow to where you sell. WCG: Transported same way as everyone else in MA but last foot or so will be in Sally port Shaeffer: on the Sally port will be car to Sally port or in dock WCG: Receiving will go right into retail store will be separate from wholesale product. Drucas: Will you accept conditions for noise WCG: yes Copelas: What are other special conditions? Shaeffer: I have some letters that I received this afternoon. Copelas: this is from the Salem BOH – I have some concerns I’d like to raise as you review 38 Jefferson--there is a significant odor that can be generated as part of marijuana growing and processing including waste handling and storage. Facility requires temperature and other for growth. This requires units which can be a noise and nuisance if not properly managed and controlled I urge the ZBA to consider neighborhood and business are not negatively impacted by nuisance that facility comply with MA DEP regulation 3.10 700. Thank you Larry Ramdin City Health Agent Witch City Gardens: All of those odor control and noise are pre conditions required by cannabis Control Commission inspectors, Couldn’t begin without inspection they use a Multi part inspection includes carbon filters and carbon scrubbers. There is no chance for odor Copelas: Are you referencing MA DEP 3.10 700? WCG: Yes, we have to be in compliance with all other laws of the Commonwealth Copelas: Anyone with new info Mike Palatero 24 Calbrese St We have stipulations about churches there are churches that fall in the area. There is one at 63 Jefferson Ave Witch City Gardens: We are 630 feet away. Ignited church Palatero: I actually measured and it is within 500 feet Copelas: What method did you use to measure? Calabrero: measuring wheel Schaeffer: Have they been notified? Witch City Gardens: They are outside 500 feet. No condition to notify them. Copelas: anyone else? Mark Higley: 21 Calabrese I also have a Church, Knights Templar 92 Jackson St. Copelas: Where did you get this? Downloaded Higley: From their website St Pierre: they are not at location legally Higley: They are an abutter a non profit religious St Pierre: They do not have a legal occupancy permit. Copelas: needs to be looked into because it pops up in any google search. WCG: if they aren’t there legally how would we know? Drucas: not in our purview WCG: we notified all abutters Higley: Multiple businesses in there Copelas: Where is 92 Jackson In this building where old gym was.WCG: this could be overturned Cope city council did this and whether it can be appealed is not in our purview Portrero: Surveyor in area? Why was there a surveyor there? This will change there property lines St Pierre: I am not a surveyor but we don’t know what they were doing and they can legally trespass. WCG: going by GIS the church on Jefferson is outside of 500 feet 459 Jefferson is a full block before the church Viccica: 2 parcels beyong CopelasAnyone else? Wendy Mercado 24 Calabrese my concern is compost where it is next to our homes Has the board decided this is needed and do they need a permit How will abutters being peotected should if it infringes on our properties Would like to share documents about complaints if it is a split lot does it change 30 feet parking. A portion being zoned for business. We want it zone for residence. If this happened at Witchcraft heights or the willows would this go through? Higley: I want clarification about what king of establishment First is for retail second is for cultivation Mari cultivation cannot sell directly to public. I was told they may not even get both We chose at last mtg to hear that at same time but they will meet requirements separately It is conceivable we may approve one and not the othere? But they are at 2 separate addresses They are properly before the Board Shredder noise any powder or dust can we get model number property changed hands Copulas: It was made public Front of building is Andresen moving and trucks are still there. Copulas: they have adequate spaces vans being there is not relevant Higley the way the building sits is in view of our yards in certain season and sound want stipulation that system check be done after business hours. Copelas: Jeff Cohen: 12 Hancock St I also work with HVAC and technology has improved so much. This is commercial property and we put Hvac on top because Salem is below Sea level. WCG: the shredder sounds like a pencil sharpener, self contained unit that will shed to talcum powder size. Not actually marijuana. Each part has to be tag and then mixed with ¾ dirt will have no odor. We have service that will take it away. It is not compost but compostable material. 90 gallon covered toter. Volumes are low. 200 grams from a 9000 foot grow room These are parts that have no value. Anything with THC will be stored in a vault. Regarding odor the efficiency has grown exponentially working with international space station. Actually destroy odor with light. We have regular inspections monthly for retail and cultivation. Complaints can go to CCC Copelas: cultivation facility here is not selling here. P Question about google earth accuracy I used property lines and want to know how line goes. Copelas: Line of site St Pierre: We need something better. If it is incorrect you have grounds for challenge Marchado: withpout a doubt will cause odor which is why it doesn’t go in R1 zone. Asking to have the 2 permit loo feet could seasonally see the units so tried to attenuate the noise 55 level sound pressure will meet MDEP can do mechanical screen if required ked at separately. It is our financial burden to fight We have heard your concerns I believe you have sat through them. They are misinforming and being and misleading, employees space, generators. Each time had to be told to correct. Lack of respect for board with something always in back pocket. Copelas: This is not unusual with this board. They are misleading you WCG: we are investing money into equipment, generator 6000 watt if a power outage we would have to rent a bigger one. Copulas: Any further comments? WCG: There have been 24 cultivation locations and not one has been shut down because of complaints of noise or odor. Copulas: I defer to Toms opinion about 92 Jackson St Church St. Pierre I will consult legal. Copulas: we are within our rights to act Close hearing 5 in favor Schaeffer: recommend we separate cultivation finding and retail findings Criteria for retail: special permit standard spec permit findings we demonstrate all permitting requirements and adequate security for all employees. Criteria: additional findings cultivation all marijuana should use high efficiency lights and equipment limit water usage. Use LEDs except for flowering rooms. No more than half of plants shall be mature flowering plants no pesticides or insecticides or chemicals and follow all regulations by CCC Retail 5-0 cultivation vote Drucas special acoustic engineer for rooftops units installation of tress in perpetuity no onsite consumpotion 5-0 Motion needs to be separated here! And clarified Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve a petition of seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 6.10.4 and Sec. 6.10.9 Requirements Specific to Cultivation Facilities of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to operate a licensed retail marijuana establishment and marijuana cultivation facility subject to the standard conditions and following special conditions: 1) The applicant shall not operate until the issuance and submission of a copy of the issued state license by the Commonwealth and all other state and local requirements are met. 2) A community host agreement shall be executed with the City within six (6) months of issuance of this special permit. A six (6) month extension can be granted by the Board of Appeals if good cause is shown. 3) The applicant shall be issued a state license within six (6) months of the issuance of this special permit. A six (6) month extension can be granted by the Board of Appeals if good cause is shown. The motion is seconded by Tsistinos. The vote was unanimous with five (5)(BOARD MEMBERS NAMES) in favor and none (0) opposed to the petition. Project A continuation of a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 6.10.4, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to operate a licensed retail marijuana establishment Applicant TERPENE JOURNEY, LLC Location 376 HIGHLAND AVE (Map 3 Lot 63)(B-2 and ECOD) Documents and Exhibitions Application dated April 25, 2018 and supporting documentation Copelas Address supplemental Terpene; 7 separate to address one is parking I show you here 35 spots with 32 for terpene Journeys 3 for Puleos nine spaces being added Copelas: was this provided? Terpene: Yes but clarified Terpene: Lanscaping was another issue. I am showing additional trees with boxwood and locust. This shows what it looks like from Ravenna and Pyburn. There was a security enclosure question about mini-mesh instead of brick. We submitted 2 options to Chief Butler who wanted mini-mesh and we can put boxwoods to obstruct view for neighbors Next issue was Puleo storage traffic. Terpene: what does this site generate? We went out in June. There were 3 trips for Puleo Dairy and 2 for storage. Added trips and there are no difference to traffic analysis. Using Savonna as exit will break Ravena and Barcelona loop. Savonna is a private way. Permitted by right to put curb cut in rear to assist traffic flow. We have discussed all traffic options which is why we proposed Savonna as a rear entrance with no right turn. One other was vehicles to storage/queing on Ravena. There is space for 9 cars on Ravenna adding one car each. I timed it and there was 16 seconds of green time at the Ravenna light. Loop detectors in pavement will call for green. Copulas: can you explain? Terpene: Currently there are loop detectors with new project system will change to cameras and will be more effective for timing of light. This will be done as part of state upgrades this year. Addressing neighborhood impact B2 zone with R1 at rear. Multi use are. Other avaiable By right uses are a convenience store, Dunkin Donuts, a fast food chain all could go in by right. We are not by right but special permit. Those have more traffic and with no right turn sign which no one else will have to do. Less impact with more security. Improvements to property Signage etc above what is required. Impact is not the standard but detrimental impact is. There will be better security and landscaping we are proposing. We are fully within Neighborhood Character. We will not be detrimental even though neighbors may disagree. Public Comment Deb Dyer 4 Boxwoods if they get tall this will impact traffic and cause accident I am also concerned about traffic flow one car in one car out. impact seems wrong Sandra MacMahon ave brought a petition with over 100 signatures that this is impacting our neighborhood, Impacts our value. I don’t know how you can say it doesn’t. We can’t back out of driveway. We go out every day. If light is green and you go before cars stop you will get hit by a Semi coming down Highland. No more than three cars can get out. When they come down Savonna people already run that stop sign. It is not owned by Puleos Copelas: but it is owned by Puleos MacMahon: Did you get a copy of petition Hands it to Shaeffer.   36 years single family How is my neighborhood is different Will you put a no trespass for kids. Will you treat my neighborhoods differently. Salem is only 8.1 sq miles. How do you accept zoning…  Copelas: That is beyond our purview. City council set limits creating this. You should take that up with the City Council Shaeffer: clarified that a letter from Flynn came in and against petition. Please consider the other proposal Copelas: the fact that others have been approved by doesn’t mean it will happen anyone else/ there seems to be a disconnect between traffic numbers. Terpene—Yes trip generation for dispensary is from IT trip generator added to other numbers from 2025 conditions. It gives us average que for peak hours. Average maximum que 2 vehicles in future condition per cycles. Future build que is Blue and red. Copelas does it take into consideration number of customers they are expecting? Terpene: Yes but not exact because it is based on accounts from other facilities 253 cars in 253 out. Some days lower and some higher. Includes 6 other project approved but not built. Copelas: Please address the issue of boxwoods Terpene: Boxwoods 15ft drop will not affect traffic or site line. Tsitsinos: James Georges restaurant in past had more cars. Maybe nix the no right turn sign. Terpene: we are neutral. It is logically a no right turn. Copelas: please step through Criteria and with special attention to character of neighborhood. Terpene: Addressing criteria. With 54% voting for this so we are meeting a Community need.We have addressed Traffic flow and safety using Savonna. We provided multiple traffic studies. We will have 3 entrances and exits will add cross walks etc Safety has been met according to Chief Butler and approved. Utilities good are available and no impact to drainage nothing different, will be no odor. Neighborhood character this is a B2, anything can go in there but any business will create traffic similar or worse with a 7 eleven. So impact yes, detrimental no. We believe we meet neighborhood character. Tax revenue and host agreement will benefit Salem. There will be no odor, waste we will meet all requirements.  Copelas: We will reference that Drucas comment: not thrilled that so many on Highland, criteria has been met. May not love to do but we have to do and our approval does not guarantee it will happen we are up to 7 but we can only have 5. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve a petition of seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 6.10.4 Marijuana Establishments of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to operate a licensed retail marijuana subject to the standard conditions and following special conditions: 1) The applicant shall not operate until the issuance and submission of a copy of the issued state license by the Commonwealth and all other state and local requirements are met. 2) A community host agreement shall be executed with the City within six (6) months of issuance of this special permit. A six (6) month extension can be granted by the Board of Appeals if good cause is shown. 3) The applicant shall be issued a state license within six (6) months of the issuance of this special permit. A six (6) month extension can be granted by the Board of Appeals if good cause is shown. The motion is seconded by . The vote was unanimous with five (5) Copelas, Drucas,Duffy, Tsisino Viccica See special comment before vote located above) in favor and none (0) opposed to the petition. Project A continuation of a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 6.10.4, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to operate a licensed retail marijuana establishment Applicant MEDERI, INC. Location 250 HIGHLAND AVE (Map 8 Lot 118)(B-2 and ECOD) Documents and Exhibitions  Application dated April 25, 2018 and supporting documentation Counsel for Mederi Inc. will focus on 3 issues Landscaping 1 tree for each 3 parking we have added arborvitae and have always had Juniper. More detail of security. Sliding chain link fence. Very simple very safe. There is Chain link outside and and wood fence inside to improve appearance In terms of Parking we added 5 additional spaces for employees and addition to 19 for customers. We will add a wood fence around employee space and gives us another barrier. Reason is it is hard to control customers parking in employess space also gives added barrier. We have 2 more spaces off site Copelas: how many retail spaces did you need? 16 and we have 19 taking all of the sq footage even though we wont be using it. Mederi: Whoever the tenant is ay 260 will determine use of 260. Where does residential begin? Mederi: 39 feet. Drucas: Is this entirely in entrance corridor Dan Dandrio plan is totally different from what was at community meeting. Parking is off with some property missing. This is not what neighbors got. What will happen to this property it is landlocked property. Copelas: we are aware and there is access through this property? This will be addressed. Shaeffer: they have more than enough parking. 250 Highland is before the board and 260 is not. Will they need a special permit? Neighborhood should know this Copelas: will be addressed In all of your findings it appears that you presented a different scenario to public. Mederi: 260 was never part of our plan 260 was a possibility but we never said we would use 260 was discussed but 250 was always the plan. Phil Moran represents both property owners at 250 and 260 To say they did not present 260 is simply not true. Sdrucast Pierre: Is there an agreement to acees to 250 from 260 Mederi: yes Copelas: Please address the findings Mederi: We addressed all requirements specifically all sections of 610.8 with adequate securities with a letter from chief of police then under Community needs benefitted by proposal, Salem voted for this. We exceed parking and adequate utilities neighborhood character will be improved because we will clean up the [parcel. Taxes and host agreement will benefit community make every attempt to hire locally. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve a petition of seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 6.10.4 Marijuana Establishments of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to operate a licensed retail marijuana subject to the standard conditions and following special conditions: 1) The applicant shall not operate until the issuance and submission of a copy of the issued state license by the Commonwealth and all other state and local requirements are met. 2) A community host agreement shall be executed with the City within six (6) months of issuance of this special permit. A six (6) month extension can be granted by the Board of Appeals if good cause is shown. 3) The applicant shall be issued a state license within six (6) months of the issuance of this special permit. A six (6) month extension can be granted by the Board of Appeals if good cause is shown. The motion is seconded by Drucas The vote was unanimous with five (5) Copelas Drucas Duffy Tsitinos Viccica in favor and none (0) opposed to the petition. MEETING MINUTES Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the May 9, 2018 meeting minutes. Seconded by Mr. drucas. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor and none (0) opposed. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the May 16, 2018 meeting minutes. Seconded by Mr. Drucas. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor and none (0) opposed. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to approve the June 20, 2018 meeting minutes. Seconded by Mr. Drucas. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor and none (0) opposed. Drucas correction Curran absent and I was there Draft meeting minutes from March 28, 2018 and June 6, 2018 special meeting are held. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Zoning Board of Appeal Application- Review and approval of revised application forms and petitioner requirements: Need for a new chair, we all received resignation letter from Rebecca. I would like to nominate Mike Duffy Viccica nominates No other nominations Copelas, Drucas, Tsitinos Hacker, Viccica Drucas are you staying vice chair Copelas: yes Drucas: Beyond tired Why can’t we set limit to number of petitions. Copelas: I am in agreement but putting a max number is dangerous. Planning can assess the time needed. Partly our fault for continuing items and we have to give continuance time on next agenda. We can express strong desire that agenda be monitored. Drucas; with no number the planning department may feel they have to say yes. Shaeffer: I hear you but we do need a strategy. St Pierre: old business first Copelas counter intuitive to put continuances at end of line. Drucas: Continued matters first. St Pierre: make it 8 items not hard to tell if you look at petitions and attorneys Discussion about marijuana permits Meeting adjourned. Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to adjourn. The motion is seconded by XXXX. The vote was unanimous with five (5)( Rebecca Curran, Peter A. Copelas, Jimmy Tsitsinos, Chris Drucas, and Mike Duffy) in favor and none (0) opposed. Appointment of Board chairperson [INSERT DISCUSSION HERE] Motion and Vote: Mr. XXX makes a motion to appoint Mr. XXXX to serve as the new Board chair. The motion is seconded by XXXX. The vote was unanimous with five (5)( XXX) in favor and none (0) opposed. ADJOURNMENT Motion and Vote: Mr. Duffy makes a motion to adjourn. The motion is seconded by XXXX. The vote was unanimous with five (5)( Rebecca Curran, Peter A. Copelas, Jimmy Tsitsinos, Chris Drucas, and Mike Duffy) in favor and none (0) opposed. The meeting ends at XXXXXXX 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://www.salem.com/zoning-board-appeals Respectfully submitted, Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner