275 Lafayette Street Decision (CLERK CERTIFIED) CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
a BOARD OF APPEALS
98 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TEL 978-619-5685
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
w
March 3, 2023 `
Decision
K`=m
City of Salem Board of Appeals
7
The petition of MD PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT at 275 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 33, Lot
438) (R1,R3 Zoning Districts) for Special Permits per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses
to change from one nonconforming use- educational use to a multi-family residential
use. A Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance to allow for alteration of the existing nonconforming structure. In addition,
petitioner seeks Variances from Section 4.1 Dimensional Requirements for lot coverage
where 30% is permitted and 32.5% is being sought/ lot area per dwelling unit where
3,500 SF is required in the R3 Zoning District and 15,000 SF in the RI where 1,500 SF
is proposed/ Side setback where 20 feet is required and 10 feet is sought. And per
Section 5.1.5 Curb Cuts for 30 feet of curb cut where 20 feet is allowed. A total of 15
residential units in the existing building and a new building to be constructed at 275
LAFAYETTE STREET.
A public hearing on the above petition was opened on December 14, 2022 and was
continued to January 18, 2023 and was continued to February 15, 2023 and was closed
on February 15, 2023.
On February 15, 2023, the following members of the Salem Board of Appeals were
present: Rosa Ordaz, Peter Copelas (Chair), Paul Viccica, Carly, McClain, Nina Vyedin
and Steven Smalley.
Statements of Fact:
The petition is date stamped November 17, 2022. The petitioner seeks a change of use
at the property from an educational use to a multi-family use to develop fifteen (15)
units at 275 LAFAYETTE STREET.
1. 275 Lafayette Street is owned by MD Property Development, Corp.
2. The petitioner was MD Property Development, Corp.
1
3. MD Property Development, Corp. was represented by Attorney Scott Grover
and Architect Daniel Ricciarelli.
4. 275 Lafayette Street is located in the R1 and R3 zoning districts. (Map 33,
Lot 438).
5. On December 14, 2022, Attorney Scott Grover presented to the board.
Attorney Grover discussed the history of the property and its site conditions.
6. The lot is long and narrow and it spans a full city block from Lafayette Street
to Summit Avenue. There is frontage on both Lafayette Street and Summit
Avenue on this property. There is a single large building at the Summit
Avenue end of the property that was built and occupied originally as a Chapel
for Saint Joseph's Church. In the 1990s when St. Joseph's closed its doors,
the property was sold to United Cerebral Palsy, which operated an
educational facility. It was a training facility for disabled adults.
The property is located in both the R1 and the R3 zoning districts, with
approximately 1/3 of the land up at the Lafayette Street side in the R3
District and the remaining land and building in the R1 district. In addition, the
property is also located in an entrance corridor overlay district. This means
that the Design Review Board will have jurisdiction over the site plan review.
7. 275 Lafayette Street is located in the Lafayette Street Historical District,
which will require The Historical Commission review of the project. The
project will also require site plan review from the Planning Board. This
project will be carefully scrutinized by City authorities.
8. The project proposes to have ten (10) units in the existing structure located
towards the Summit Avenue side of the lot and to construct an additional five
(5) units in a new structure closer to the Lafayette Street side of the
property. The parking for both structures would be in between both
structures on the site.
9. The petitioner is proposing of a total of twenty-three (23) parking spaces in a
parking area that will be shielded from view from both streets. The spaces
will comply with the 1.5 parking space requirement of the zoning ordinance.
10.Attorney Grover discussed the relief requested. A special permit is needed
under Section 3 of the zoning ordinance to allow the change from the non-
conforming religious educational use to a non-conforming multifamily
residential use on the RI portion of the site.
11.Attorney Grover stated that they had an opinion from the city solicitor that
the former exempt use did qualify as a non-conforming use under state law.
The second special permit is to allow a change in an existing non-conforming
structure to allow to some limited exterior changes to be made.
12.Attorney Grover communicated that community need will be served by
eliminating the existing commercial use in a predominantly residential
neighborhood and that they will be providing much needed new housing units
in the city. The traffic and parking impacts associated with the educational
use will be replaced by a less intense residential use.
2
13.Attorney Grover stated that there are existing utilities on both Summit
Avenue and Lafayette Street that will serve the new units. The planning
Board will require any upgrades to those utility systems that are necessary as
part of their site plan review.
14.Attorney Grover stated that there will also be a substantial increase in the tax
revenue for the city with the proposed new residential units.
15.Attorney Grover discussed the requested variances for the petition. They are
requesting 1,500 square feet per unit where 3,500 square feet is required in
the R3 Zoning District and 15,000 is required in the RI Zoning District. The
requirement for lot coverage in the R1 Zoning District is thirty percent (30%)
and in the R3 Zoning District it is thirty five percent (35%). Attorney Grover
also stated they were taking the conservative approach and asked for a
variance from the side yard setback requirement of twenty feet (20) to allow
for the ten (10) foot set back. They are also proposing two curb cuts on the
Summit Avenue side to serve existing parking spaces there.
16.Attorney Grover stated that the board may grant the requested variances
with special conditions affecting the land of buildings that would cause a
hardship if the dimensional requirements were strictly enforced. First, the
properties are located in split zoning districts. Second, the lots are
considerably larger than most of the others in the neighborhood, with a major
portion being a substantially underutilized parking lot. Lastly, the building was
designed and built first as a religious facility. It was then converted to an
educational use.
17.Attorney Grover stated that to adapt the building to any reasonable use will
require a significant investment, which is only feasible if a certain level of
density is allowed.
18.Attorney Grover also stated that the Petitioner had done quite a bit of
groundwork within the community. They have had a neighborhood meeting
with abutters to share the proposed plans. They have also had several
meetings with their Ward Councilor, Jeff Cohen, to help facilitate
communication with their neighbors. There was also a one-stop meeting with
the City to receive feedback.
19.Dan Ricciarelli, Architect, went through the proposed plans for the site at 275
Lafayette Street. Mr. Ricciarelli stated that the lot is very unique in the
neighborhood as it goes one complete city block from Lafayette Street all the
way to Summit Avenue. The entire lot is in the Historic District and it is also
in the Entry Corridor District along Lafayette Street. Mr. Ricciarelli stated that
about ninety (90) feet plus or minus back from Lafayette Street is the R3
District and there is a thirty (30) foot zone where we penetrate into RI
district.
20.Mr. Ricciarelli stated that according to the State register, Saint Theresa's
Chapel was built in 1946. He stated that this is an unusual building for this
neighborhood. They are proposing to keep the massing as it exists today for
the proposed 10 units for this development. There's a very large basement
3
which probably served as a function hall. At one time or another it was
overflow for the Chapel. They feel that there is adequate headroom. They
will be using that space for garden units and some connecting as townhomes.
The first floor will be all units and they will be creating some units up in the
loft area, which is the attic space. In order to facilitate that, they will need to
punch a few dormers into the roof.
21.Mr. Ricciarelli stated that they met with the Historic Commission and the
Historic Commission was very supportive of what they are trying to achieve at
the site. Mr. Ricciarelli stated that this is great project for Salem because they
are reusing a vacant property and will be adding to the affordable housing
stock for the City.
22.Bob Griffin, MD Development, stated that the proposed parking lot
improvements don't require any substantial grading changes. They have a
level lot that goes from Lafayette Street back to Summit Avenue. There are
some grading changes around the proposed new building, and we will be
adding a fair amount of green to the site plan. The landscaping beds will be
getting rid of a lot of pavement and that will reduce the amount of
stormwater runoff.
23.Mr. Griffin stated that the smaller size of the parking areas will lead to
improvements in stormwater runoff quality. He stated that they will be
putting some of the stormwater infiltration structures beneath the pavement
to improve the drainage characteristics of this site.
24.Peter Copelas asked for questions from the board.
25.Paul Viccica stated that he understands the issue with density that has been
raised by neighbors and in abutter comments. Mr. Viccica also stated that
most of the requested variances are triggered from the proposed new
building on Lafayette Street. He suggested that if the proposed new building
had three (3) units instead of five (5) units they would be able to meet the
parking requirements and be able to comply with the setbacks and not need
the variance for that relief.
26.Mr. Viccica also stated he believes that the Planning Board will have an issue
with the current proposal of the buildings not being aligned on Lafayette
Street. The proposed new building has been pushed forward quite a bit on
Lafayette Street and not in line with the other structures on Lafayette Street.
27.Drew Murphy, MD Development, stated that they are still trying to evolve the
plans for the best project they can make. He reiterated that they had met
with the community to get all of their input surrounding the development. He
stated that they have looked at documents on Zillow.com and the Registry of
Deeds and verified that abutting properties all had four (4) to six (6) units in
them. He stated that those were in line with their proposal.
28.Paul Viccica opined that the petitioner's desire for higher density is causing
their issue in front of the Zoning Board and could cause trouble for the
petition in front of other boards.
4
29.Rosa Ordaz asked if there will be external construction on the existing
building on Summit Avenue.
30.Mr. Ricciarelli stated that it would be an internal gut job and they plan to add
dormers to the roof to improve the roof form.
31.Rosa Ordaz inquired if the neighbors received a full picture of what was
planned for the property.
32.Dan Ricciarelli stated that the didn't show plans for the proposed building
because they felt they just weren't there with the plans for that structure so
they didn't show it. They were trying to introduce the project to the
neighbors. Mr. Ricciarelli stated that he was happy to show plans with
neighbors once they have a plan they are happy with and are ready to show
them.
33.Peter Copelas opened the meeting up to comments from the public.
34.Anthony Porcello, 271 Lafayette Street spoke to the board about his concerns
on the project. Mr. Porcello stated that when one reviews the requirements
for Section 3.3.2 non-conforming uses you have to do a comparison. He
stated that this section allows the conversion if it determines that such
change or extension shall not be substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood. He stated that the old use wasn't detrimental at all because
of the educational use. He felt that a change to a large multifamily unit
would be drastically detrimental to the neighborhood.
35.Mr. Porcello stated that the proposed density is extreme, and its primarily
because the land is being used up by the parking spaces. As a result, all the
density gets pushed in and the impact will be to us directly. He stated that
the new building is going to be ten (10) feet from the property line and that
creates several problems for us, not the least of which is the fact that it's
going to be in the in the way of his light. The new building will cast great
shadows on the property at 271 Lafayette Street.
36.Mr. Porcello also stressed the challenge of getting out of their driveway with
traffic on Lafayette Street would be increased based on the current set of
plans.
37.Mr. Porcello also raised concerns surrounding snow and trash removal.
38.Liz Vago, 29 Summit Avenue, stated that has concerns around the proposed
development, in particular curb cuts, the density of the proposed building in
the historic district and the amount of parking with the lack of green space.
39.Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street, expressed her concern over the density of the
project. In particular, she expressed concern for the development of garden
apartments in the basement. She stated that they are not compatible with or
similar to the large type of living units, including rental units that are in this
part of South Salem. She stated that the windows on the former Chapel on
the basement level are very small. There are going to be cars parked
adjacent to that building in the winter. I think there'll be snow piled up in that
building. She stated that she felt the proposed units are not consistent with
the kind of quality living spaces that are currently in the neighborhood.
5
40.Jeff Cohen, 12 Hancock Street, stated the communication from the developer
has been really good. They had the first community meeting. They've
committed to another one. He stated the development team has reached out
to some individuals who have expressed concerns. Mr. Cohen believes that
process will be inclusive of people, businesses and residents of the
neighborhood.
41.Mr. Cohen also expressed that with his knowledge the amount of residents at
this location, it would require a private company to remove trash and
recyclables. It would not be the City's responsibility for removal.
42.Mr. Copelas offered time to Attorney Grover to respond to the comments that
were provided during the public comment.
43.Attorney Grover asked Dan Ricciarelli to provide some feedback regarding the
basement/garden apartments.
44.Mr. Ricciarelli stated that they were not amendable to the current amount of
windows. The developers are working with the Historical Commission to have
compromise surrounding the development. Mr. Ricciarelli stated that they
have several ideas to improve on. However, they are not there yet with the
development plans.
45.Peter Copleas inquired with Attorney Grover around a continuance.
46.Attorney Grover felt a continuance to January 18, 2023 would be
advantageous to the petition and revision of plans.
47.Paul Viccica made a motion to approve the continuation.
48.The petition was continued to January 18, 2023.
49.On January 18, 2023 a request for a continuance to the February 15, 2023
meeting. The petition was continued to February 15, 2023.
50.On February 15, 2023, Attorney, Scott Grover, presented to the board the
new plans for the petition.
51.The first change to the petition is the total amount of units which went from
fifteen (15) to ten (10).
52.The decrease in the number of units meant that the petitioner was able to
decrease the amount of parking spaces to fifteen (15).
53.Dan Ricciarelli, Seger Architects, went through the plan changes to the site.
54.Peter Copelas requested that attorney Grover state again what relief the
petitioner is seeking based on the plan revisions.
55.Attorney Grover reviewed the relief required. The petitioners are seeking a
variance from lot area per dwelling unit for two thousand two hundred and
fifty square feet. (2,250 sq.ft) where fifteen thousand (15,000) sq. ft is
required. Also, a variance from lot coverage of thirty percent (30%) required
to thirty-three and six tenths percent (33.6%). In addition, a variance of ten
feet (10 ft) for the side setback where twenty feet (20 ft) is required. And a
variance for two curb cuts for forty-four feet (44 ft) where twenty feet (20 ft)
is required.
56.Chair Copelas opened up the meeting to comments from the board.
6
57.It was expressed by the members of the board, that they were happy with
the process of taking feedback from the neighborhood residents and the
board to modify plans for a much improved project.
58.Peter Copelas opened the meeting up to public comment.
59.John Porcello, abutter, read a letter stating their approval for the changes
made to the plans and gave his support for the project.
60.Paul Viccica made a motion to approve the special permit and the variances.
61.The February 15, 2023 meeting of the Board of Appeals was held remotely,
via the online platform Zoom in accordance with Chapter 107 of the Acts of
2022.
On the basis of the above statements of fact and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals
voted five (5) in favor (Steven Smalley, Peter Copeals(Chair), Rosa Ordaz, Carly McClain
and Paul Viccica and none (0) opposed to grant MD PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT at 275
LAFAYEfTE STREET Special Permits per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to change
from one nonconforming use-educational use to a multi-family residential use. A Special
Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to
allow for alteration of the existing nonconforming structure. In addition, Variances from
Section 4.1 Dimensional Requirements for Lot area per dwelling unit, curb cuts, lot
coverage, and side setbacks.
Receiving five (5) in favor votes, the petition for a Special Permit and Variances are
GRANTED.
Standard Conditions:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes
and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted
to and approved by the Building Commissioner.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the
existing structure.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
8. Petitioner shall obtain numbering from the City of Salem's Assessor's
Office and shall display said number to be visible from the street.
9. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having
jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
10.All construction shall be done per the plans and dimensions submitted to
and approved by this Board. Any modification to the plans and dimensions
must be approved by the Board of Appeals unless such changes are
deemed a minor field change by the Building Commissioner in consultation
with the Chair of the Board of Appeals.
11.Petitioner shall schedule Assessing Department inspections of the
property, at least annually, prior to project completion and a final
inspection upon project completion.
Variance Findings:
1. Special conditions and circumstances especially affect the land, building,
or structure involved, generally not affecting other lands, buildings, and
structures in the same district:
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the applicant in attempting to put the property to
productive use.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good, and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the ordinance.
Date MAR 2 7 2023
1 hereby certify that 20 days have
expired from the date this instrument
was received, and that NO APPEAL �L
has been filed i this. office. F
Peter Copelas/Chair
A True Coot- Board of Appeals
ATTEST: CLERK, Salem, Mass.
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
8
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.
9