70 Proctor St. Decision (STAMPED) �# = CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
{, ! FM 4
BOARD OF APPEALS Cal: ' : QO
�J 98 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 0tML"E-I +SS
TEL:978-619-5685
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
December 15, 2022
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
The petition of GEORGE LAMBOS at 70 PROCTOR STREET(Map 15, Lot 386) (R1 Zoning
District), for a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Non-conforming Single-and Two-Family
Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to convert a two (2) family
dwelling into a three (3) family dwelling by constructing the third (3rd) dwelling in the
basement.
A public hearing on the above petition was opened on June 15, 2022 and was
continued to July 27, 2022, August 17, 2022, September 14, 2022, October 19, 2022.
It was continued again to December 14, 2022.
On July 27, 2022, the following members of the Salem Board of Appeals were present:
Carly McClain, Mike Duffy(Chair), Paul Viccica, Peter Copelas and Steven Smalley.
Statements of Fact:
The petition is date stamped April 27, 2022. The petitioner seeks a Special Permit per
Section 3.3.5 Non-conforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the
Salem Zoning Ordinance to convert a two (2) family dwelling into a three (3) family
dwelling by constructing the third (3rd) dwelling in the basement.
1. 70 Proctor Street is owned by George Lambos
2. The petitioner was George Lambos
3. The petitioner was represented by Darguin Fortuna.
4. 70 Proctor Street is located in the R1 zoning district. (Map 15, Lot 386).
1
5. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to convert a two
(2) family dwelling into a three (3) family dwelling by constructing the third
(3rd) dwelling in the basement.
6. On June 15, 2022, Darguin Fortuna requested that the petition be continued
to the July 27, 2022 meeting due to only a four member board.
7. On July 27, 2022 Darguin Fortuna presented to the board.
8. 70 Proctor Street is a non-conforming two-family in the R1 Zoning District.
9. The proposal is to convert the basement into a habitable living space as a
third apartment. Mr. Fortuna showed the Zoning Map of Salem to
demonstrate that the property was currently located in a RI Zoning District,
however, behind the property was a R3 Zoning District, and across the street
from the property was the R2 Zoning District.
10.Mr. Fortuna also presented a letter in support from Salem's Councilor at
Large, Domingo Dominguez.
11.Tom St. Pierre, the Building Commissioner, was called away from the meeting
due to a structure fire in the City and was not able to attend the petition.
12.Chair Duffy opened up the meeting to comments from members of the board.
13.Peter Copelas stated that he was under the impression that regardless of how
close the R2 and R3 districts were to the property, it was still in a R1. And in
an R1, regardless of the non-conformity, a property could not be converted to
a three family even with a special permit.
14.Peter Copelas also discussed his concerns for the amount of parking for the
property. He stated that currently, as the plans show, there were only two
legal parking spaces at the property. He expressed that he felt there were a
lot of problems with the current parking configuration and he felt that the
parking is currently insufficient for the property.
15.Paul Viccica stated that the proper relief had not been requested and the
petitioner may decide to request a variance for parking. Furthermore, they
would not be able to make a motion for the petition at this current meeting
without input from the Building Commissioner.
16.Chair Duffy agreed that the parking issue for the petition would not allow
them to make a motion on the petition at that current time. The petitioner
was informed that they would need 1.5 parking spaces per unit. And the
current plans did not contain dimensions for one of the proposed parking
spaces. He recommended that the petition be continued to the next meeting.
17.Chair Duffy opened the meeting up to public comment.
18.Nina Vyden, 27 Daniels Street, inquired about the'floor plan and the exits.
She inquired if it was ok if both egresses could be on the same side of the
house and next to each other.
19.Mr. Fortuna stated that ideally, one would want them on opposite sides of the
structure, but since the apartment was going to be fit with a sprinkler system
they were proceeding with the current forms of egress.
20.Chair asked for a motion to continue this petition until the August 17, 2022
meeting.
2
21.Paul Viccica made a motion to continue the petition.
22.The petition resumed on September 14, 2022 to further the discussion on the
legality of the parking at the property.
23.The board discussed whether or not they needed to include existing non-
conforming parking spaces at the property or if they were"grandfathered" in
with the property and only needed to look at the current 1.5 parking spaces
required for the new living unit.
24.Building Commissioner, Tom St. Pierre, was called away and could not
provide answers to the board's questions. The petition was continued to
October 19, 2022.
25.On October 19th, 20221 Darquin Fortuna presented to the board. Mr. Fortuna
reviewed the information from the last several meetings. The issue has.been
whether the existing parking counts towards the parking requirements.
26.Mr. St. Pierre, Building Commissioner, discussed the letter he submitted for
the record regarding the parking at 70 Proctor Street. The letter stated that
existing residential properties are"Grandfathered" regarding the number of
spaces they have and that the parking requirement of 1.5 spaces applies only
to additional units. This means that Mr. Fortuna would need to provide 1.5
spaces for the proposed unit.
27.Based on the information, Mr. Forntuna and his client agreed to a
continuance to decide whether to move forward with this petition and
resubmit a relief request as a variance or return to the board seeking the
special permit relief.
28.John Gillooly, 72 Proctor Street, submitted documents that showed a different
set of property lines than the plot plan submitted for the petition at 70
Proctor Street. The documents submitted showed that there were six (6)
feet of property that was in dispute. 72 Proctor Street deeds show the six (6)
feet of property is 72 Proctor Street and not 70 Proctor Street. The applicant
and Mr. Gillooly planned to have conversations around the property lines
involved with their two parcels.
29.Due to the property lines and relief to be requested, the petition was
continued to December 14, 2022.
30.On December 14, 2022, Darguin Fortuna, representative, requested to
withdraw the petition without prejudice.
31.Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and related precautions and
Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 Order Suspending Certain Provisions of the
Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, §18, and the Governor's March 15, 2020
Order imposing strict limitations on the number of people that may gather in
one place, the June 15, 2022, July 27, 2022, September 14, 2022 October 19,
2022 and the December 14, 2022 meeting of the Board of Appeals was held
remotely, via the online platform Zoom.
3
On the basis of the above statements of fact and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals
voted four (5) in favor (Steven Smalley, Rosa Ordaz, Paul Viccica Nina Vyedin and Peter
Copelas) and none (0) opposed to allow GEORGE LAMBOS a withdrawal without
prejudice for the petition at 70 Proctor Street.
Receiving five (5) in favor votes,the withdrawal without prejudice is approved.
-C�
Peter Copelas/ Vice Chair
Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing
of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not
take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has
been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds.
4