75_north_st_decision1
DOMINICK PANGALLO
MAYOR
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
98 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TEL: 978-619-5685
1
December 11, 2023
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
The petition of 75 NORTH STREET, LLC at 75 NORTH STREET (Map 26, Lot 58) (BPD,
NRCC Zoning Districts), 3 SOUTH MASON STREET (Map 26, Lot 54) (NRCC Zoning
District), 2 COMMERCIAL STREET (Map 26, Lot 57) (NRCC Zoning District) to re-
develop a new four-story transit oriented mixed-use development that will consist of 60
units and a small commercial office space on North Street. The applicant is seeking
variances per section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements from lot area per dwelling unit
where 3,500 sq.ft is required and 742 sq.ft is proposed. A variance from Section 8.4.9
Parking Requirements where one space is proposed and 1.5 spaces are required. And a
variance from Section 8.4.9.c Each unit has a separate exterior entrance if located
within 100 feet of a residentially used parcel in an abutting zoning district. This parcel is
within 100 feet of a residentially used parcel. And a variance from section 8.4.13(4) to
allow construction of a park area and parking spaces in a buffer area.
A public hearing on the above petition was opened on September 20th, 2023 and was
continued to October 18, 2023 and was closed on November 15, 2023.
On September 20, 2023, the following members of the Salem Board of Appeals were
present: Rosa Ordaz, Carly McClain, Peter A. Copelas (Chair), Paul Viccica, Hannah
Osthoff and Nina Vyedin.
On October 18, 2023, the following members of the Salem Board of Appeals were
present: Carly McClain, Peter A. Copelas (Chair), Hannah Osthoff and Nina Vyedin.
On November 15, 2023, the following members of the Salem Board of Appeals were
present: Carly McClain, Peter A. Copelas (Chair), Paul Viccica, Hannah Osthoff and Nina
Vyedin.
2
Statements of Fact:
The petition is date stamped August 29th, 2023. The petitioner requests to re-develop a
new four-story transit oriented mixed-use development that will consist of 60 units and
a small commercial office space on North Street.
1. 75 North Street, 3 South Mason and 2 Commercial Street is owned by 75
North Street, LLC.
2. The petitioner was 75 North Street, LLC.
3. The representative was Attorney Scott Grover.
4. 75 North Street is located in the NRCC zoning district. (Map 26, Lot 58). 3
South Mason Street is located in the NRCC zoning district. (Map 26, Lot 54)
and 2 Commercial Street is located in the NRCC zoning District. (Map 26, Lot
57)
5. On September 20th, 2023, Scott Grover presented the plans to the board.
6. Attorney Grover explained that the petition consists of three parcels that are
located in the North River Canal Corridor (NRCC) zoning district.
7. 75 North Street is a small office building and shop space facing the extension
of North Street. 2 Commercial Street is occupied by Bill’s Towing Company.
And 3 South Mason Street is the largest of the three parcels.
8. Attorney Grover states that applicant is seeking to combine all three parcels
to develop a four-story, transit oriented, mixed-use development that will
have sixty (60) residential units and a small commercial space on the North
Street corridor.
9. The plans for development include park space and public access to the to the
site from the MBTA train station located nearby.
10. Attorney Grover stated that the petition is seeking to have one parking space
per residential unit and nine new spaces will be along Commercial Street.
11. Attorney Grover states that the applicant has worked with Councilor Megan
Stott and with her help coordinated well attended neighborhood meetings. A
number of changes were made to the plans before being submitted to the
Board of Appeals based on neighborhood feedback.
12. Attorney Grover discussed the requested relief for the petition. Due to the
City’s Planning Board being the permit granting authority for Special Permits
to allow for multi-family residential use in the NRCC, the applicant is seeking
the four variances. Without the variances the project will not be able to
move forward to the Planning Board.
13. Chair Copelas notes that the posted agenda only shows a request for three
variances, rather than four. Attorney Grover states that all four were
included in the public notice but not the agenda.
14. The board discussed whether they could proceed or not on all of the
variances even if not all were posted on the agenda.
15. City staff reached out to the City Solicitor to find out if the board can proceed
on the petition.
3
16. City staff informed the board that the board can review the three variances
that were on the agenda and would need to wait to review the fourth
variance in a future hearing.
17. Attorney Grover discusses the grounds for relief. There are requirements
imposed by the state Chapter 91 licensing requirements. There are
challenges created by existing flood conditions. In addition, environmental
remediation is needed based on past industrial uses.
18. Attorney Grover contends literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance is
causing the hardship. Mr. Grover states the relief can be granted without
detriment to the public good or derogating from the intent of the zoning
ordinance because there are many public benefits such as the creation of
housing including affordable units, revitalizing several blighted properties,
creating a park space, and overall economic stimulation.
19. Chris Koeplin, developer, describes the project as an underutilized/urban infill
redevelopment that will help reduce commercial traffic while addressing
critical housing needs. The project will be one hundred (100%) percent
electric and solar and have flood resistance and resiliency.
20. Mr. Koeplin presents maps of the area and discusses the NRCC Vision
Statement from 2003, which focuses on expanding the urban character of the
city, reconnecting diverse neighborhoods, utilizing vacant parcels, and
providing a range of housing types and affordability.
21. Mr. Koeplin states the proposal is consistent with goals of the NRCC. Mr.
Koeplin presents a proposed site layout and discusses the traffic impacts in
the area.
22. Bob Griffin, Engineer, presents a map of the site showing the Chapter 91
jurisdiction and public accommodation zone requirements.
23. Mr. Griffin discussed the flood zone requirements and showed the building’s
elevations. The building will store water underneath during floods.
24. Dan Skolski, architect, presented an aerial rendering of the site. He also
showed renderings of the site from before neighborhood feedback and
renderings after the neighborhood feedback to show that the developer is
taking the neighborhood input seriously.
25. Chair Copelas asked Mr. Grover if he could review the traffic data for the site.
26. Paul Viccica stated that the issues of traffic and parking should be discussed
with the Board of Appeals since they impact the variance requests. Mr.
Viccica requests information on any recently approved buildings that have
had only one parking space per residence. Mr. Viccica wants to see the
results and any ramifications from that development.
27. Scott Thorton, traffic engineer, explained that initial traffic analysis was
conducted to provide some data to go along with standard industry guidelines
and methods. Mr. Thornton indicated traffic counts and parking utilization
information that was studied for nearby sites. Sites such as Halstead Station
apartments and South Mason condominiums are known to generate between
17% and 37% less traffic than what would be expected under ITE guidelines
4
and standards. This is most likely because of proximity to the train station
and downtown.
28. Mr. Thornton also states that parking demand ratios ranged from 0.9 to 1.3
spaces per unit. He suggests the proposal here is most similarly to those
with ratios closer to 0.9 spaces per unit, and that therefore the proposed
parking is appropriate. Mr. Thornton emphasizes the proposals proximity to
the train station and bike infrastructure. He reiterates that there will be a
comprehensive traffic review.
29. Chair Copelas inquired about traffic flow at the site.
30. Chris Koeplin shared slides that showed traffic flow and movements that are
expected to occur based on data.
31. Nina Vyedin inquired if studies on North Street will be done with a good look
at the intersections of North Street and Commercial Street.
32. Mr. Thornton stated that there will be additional traffic studies for the site.
33. Paul Viccica stated that for the next meeting, he would like to see more
information on the traffic proposal.
34. Chair Copelas opened the meeting to public comment.
35. Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street, stated that the discussions on urban needs and
what should go on North Street has been shortsighted. Ms. Wilbert suggests
there is a benefit to the towing company being located at this site. She
expressed concern that the entrance to the building will be in the flood plain.
36. Jack Priest, 6 Water Street, stated he was in favor of this project.
37. Barbara Warren, 5 Hardy Street, Director of Salem Coast Watch, states that
rain gardens were planted with plants that can tolerate brackish water. However,
they all died within the first summer and it is now salt marsh plants. This is a tidal
area and the river wants to reclaim where it was, which is why the area is Chapter
91.
38. Ms. Warren stated that by 2050 the projection by the State shows 1.4 to 3.1 feet of
sea level rise. Ms. Warren suggested thinking twice about placing people in harms
way. Ms. Warren also notes that North Street is at elevation 8 feet, and that
parking will be at 12 feet, so if there is nearby flooding cars will not be able to get
out and emergency vehicles could not get in.
39. James Tegeder, Historic Salem, stated that he hopes the project will be compatible
with all of the provisions of the North River Canal Corridor plan.
40. Peggy Bukowski, 12 Holly Street, stated that the area suffers from increasing
congestion and traffic, particularly with the new residential properties added
recently. Ms. Bukowski expressed concern that businesses will be pushed out of
the area by the proposal.
41. Rosalie Hezekiah, 20 Commercial Street, expressed her support for the project.
42. Chair Copelas stated that there will be more opportunities for public comment in the
coming meetings.
43. Nina Vyedin made a motion to continue the petition to the October 18, 2023
Board of Appeals meeting.
5
44. On October 18, 2023, Attorney Grover reviewed the presentation given at the
September 20, 2023 meeting. Mr. Grover summarized the information from
the prior meeting, and noted that the areas that have been focused on are
traffic and parking, Chapter 91 requirements, resiliency and flood mitigation,
and the financial feasibility of the project as it relates to the standard of
hardship.
45. Attorney Grover stated that due to not having a full board it might be
appropriate to continue at the end so that a full board could participate of
this large of a decision.
46. Scott Thornton, Traffic Engineer, presented a map of the area to review
traffic and parking for the area. Mr. Thornton stated that the team
conducted traffic counts and signal warrant analysis. They also reached out to
the Salem Traffic and Parking Department to inquire about any suggestions
for the intersection. Mr. Thornton presented a map with suggestions for new
striping to direct and channel traffic flow. Mr. Thornton noted that there may
be a need for modifications to have a balance between uses and safety.
47. Chair Copelas inquired about the status of Route 114 and how it being a state
road impacts the changes in terms of the required approvals.
48. Mr. Thornton clarified that while the road is state numbered, the road is not
state maintained. The city is responsible for the maintenance of Route 114.
49. Bob Griffin, civil engineer, reviewed the Chapter 91 process for the board.
He discussed the details on flood mitigation and the resiliency measures
proposed.
50. Mr. Griffin explained that Chapter 91 is targeted toward ensuring public
access to the shoreline and the public benefit to uses on any shoreline.
51. Mr. Griffin explained that 100 feet from the shoreline is the public
accommodation zone, the first-floor use must be for public facilities such as a
restaurant or gym. Here, the public accommodation zone is proposed
landscaped public area and the nine (9) public parking spaces are proposed.
52. Mr. Griffin also noted the proposed walkway connection South Mason Street
with Commercial Street as a way to add shoreline access.
53. Chair Copelas inquired if the nine public parking spaces are on private land.
54. Mr. Griffin confirmed they will be on private land, but they will be available
for public use based on Chapter 91 regulations.
55. Chair Copelas inquired about the heights and elevations of the exits.
56. Mr. Griffin explained that the South Mason Street exit is mostly at elevation
ten. The North Street entrance is elevation eight mostly, and Commercial
Street is at elevation six.
57. Chair Copelas asked if the exit at the rear will still be a legitimate way out, if
Commercial and North Street are flooding at the 100-year flood line. Mr.
Griffin stated it would be.
58. Nina Vyedin inquired about flood storage at the site.
59. Mr. Griffin reviewed the FEMA 100-year flood line, the king tide, mean water
height, and other data points and discussed the frequency of king tides. He
6
showed the existing and proposed grades. This proposal does not involve
work or any changes in the roadway in front of the river.
60. Mr. Griffin described the flood vents and latticed screens that will be under
the proposed building that will allow for storage of flood waters during flood
events. Mr. Griffin indicated under the flood storage area will be crushed
stone so that water will go into the soil, but most will come in and go out
laterally at the site.
61. Rosa Ordaz inquired about the six parking spaces impacted by floods based
on the proposed maps.
62. Mr. Griffin explained that between the North Street side entrance and the full
elevation parking area there are eight parking spaces in a section that ramps
up, with approximately four to six spaces at elevation ten or slightly below.
During a flood event, those spaces would need to be notified or marked to
make sure the cars get moved.
63. Chris Koeplin discussed their feasibility study. He stated that current lending
rates are at 8.5%. Mr. Koeplin stated that land costs and fixed construction
costs do not decrease in proportion to total units. A 60-unit project and a 40-
unit project will have the same fixed costs. Mr. Koeplin stated that any
increase in per unit costs must be absorbed by increases in market rents.
The market rents are currently around $2,700 per month per unit based on
data.
64. Mr. Koeplin maintained that the proposed 60 units were reduced to 50, rents
would need to increase by $567 per unit to achieve the same feasibility,
bringing the average market rent to $3,348 per month. Mr. Koeplin noted
extensive environmental remediation costs and the costs associated with
flood storage and stated that 60 units was the appropriate number to achieve
market feasibility.
65. Chair Copelas opened the meeting to public comment.
66. Penelope Caritas (no address provided) expressed concerns regarding the
flooding in the area, and suggested the City is continuing to ignore the issue
of flooding instead of working with the state to get anything resolved.
67. Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street, expressed concern regarding any plans to make
adjustments on North Street, whether it is state maintained or not. Ms.
Wilbert stated that the proposed changes in the striping on North Street
would remove six parking spaces that are important for food businesses.
68. Emmet Costen, 190 Bridge Street, stated he is in support of the project.
69. Christine Madore, 20 Federal Street, stated that she is in support of the
project.
70. Chair Copleas inquired if Attorney Grover wanted to respond to any of the
comments.
71. Attorney Grover stated he will take the comments and questions from the
public and the board and draft some responses for the coming meeting.
72. Nina Vyedin made motion to continue the petition.
7
73. On November 15, 2023, Scott Grover reviewed the materials that had been
presented to the board at the October meeting.
74. Attorney Grover stressed that the variances being requested at the Zoning
Board of Appeals are the first step of a very multi-step permitting process.
There will need to be multiple boards that the applicant will be in front of.
Especially, the Planning Board with their Site Plan Review process.
75. Paul Viccica inquired if the applicant would accept a condition that no parking
spaces shall be assigned to any residents so that the resident in a two-
bedroom apartment doesn't get two parking spaces assigned to them like a
condo would, even though it's a rental unit rather than a condo.
76. Chris Koeplin stated that they would accept the condition.
77. Peter Copelas reviewed the submitted pubic comments for the public record.
78. The meeting was opened to public comment from the audience.
79. Penelope Chouski stated that she feels that there have been problems that
have not been addressed by the applicant, specifically the parking.
80. Justin Whittier, 10 River Street, stated he was upset that the submitted
letters were not read out loud. He read his public comment statement for the
record. He stated that the ZBA lacks the authority to grant variances. That
the requested variances requested were ludicrous.
81. Attorney Grover responded and stated that they ZBA does have the
jurisdiction to rule on these variances which would be required to move
forward with permitting for the site.
82. Killian O’Connell, 190 Bridge Street. She read her prepared statement for the
board supporting the project.
83. Attorney Grover stated that there have been other projects where the
separate entrance requirement relief has been granted. Halstead Station in
2007 was one of the projects that was granted this same relief.
84. Attorney Grover reviewed the three requirements for a variance for the
board. He stated that if the zoning ordinance was literally enforced you
would have only twelve units by right. If that were the case, based on the
presented feasibility study the development of the parcels would not be
economically feasible.
85. Paul Viccica made a motion to approve the petition.
On the basis of the above statements of fact and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals
voted five (5) in favor (Peter A. Copelas(Chair), Nina Vyedin, Carly McClain, Hannah
Osthoff and Paul Viccica and none (0) opposed to grant 75 NORTH STREET, LLC at 75
NORTH STREET to re- develop a new four-story transit oriented mixed-use
development that will consist of 60 units and a small commercial office space on North
Street.
8
Receiving five (5) in favor votes, the petition for Variances is 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 is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having
jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
9. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief
granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or
reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent
of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty
percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the
structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty
percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of
its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed
except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance.
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.
Special Conditions:
1. No parking spaces shall be assigned to individual units or residents.
9
___________________
Peter A. Copelas/ 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.
10