23 Glendale St. Decision ClerkCert. 20day S� CITY OF SALEM, IVMASSACT S
BOARD OF APPEALS <
98 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01976" %*f,• CJ
DOMINICK PANGALLO TEL:978-619-5685
MAYOR
April 30, 2024
DecisiQn
City of Salem Board of Appeals
The petition of FRED J. DION YACHT YARD, INC. at 23 GLENDALE STREET (Map 33, Lot
646) (RI Zoning District) for a Special Permit per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of
the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend and change the nonconforming boatyard use by
demolishing several connected sheds and constructing a new and larger shed in the same
portion of the property. In addition, a Variance from section 4.1.1 Dimensional
Requirements to allow the existing nonconforming lot coverage ratio of 40.8% to be
increased to 48.8%. In the R1, 30% lot coverage is the maximum. A Variance from
Section 4.1.1 DimensionalRequirementsto allow the building to extend an additional 16
feet along the existing rear set-back line of 5 feet, where the required rear setback is 30
feet.
A public hearing on the above petition was opened on April 17th, 2024, and was closed
on April 17th, 2024.
On April 17th, 2024, the following members of the Salem Board of Appeals were present:
Nina Vyedin (Chair), Carly McClain, Paul Viccica, Hannah Osthoff, Stephen Larrick and
Ellen Simpson.
Statements of Fact:
The petition is date stamped March 21, 2024. The Petitioner seeks the Board of Appeals
approval to extend and change the nonconforming boatyard use by demolishing several
connected sheds and constructing a new and larger shed in the same portion of the
property. In addition, to allow the existing nonconforming lot coverage ratio of 40.8% to
be increased to 8.8% and to allow the building to extend an additional sixteen (16) feet
along the existing rear set-back line of five (5) feet, where the required rear setback is
thirty (30) feet.
1. 23 Glendale Street is owned by Atkins Salem Realty, LLC.
2. The Petitioner was Fred J. Dion Yacht Yard, LLC.
3. The representative was Attorney Bill Quinn.
4. 23 Glendale Street is located in the R1 Zoning District (Map 33, Lot 646).
City of Salem Board of Appeals
4/30/2024
Page 2 of 7
5. On April 17th, 2024, Attorney Bill Quinn presented the requested relief to the
board.
6. Attorney Quinn stated FJ Dion Yacht Yard, Inc. is a business established over one
hundred (100) years ago. It has been operating in the RI zoning district at the
end of Glendale Street, next to the ocean from the yacht yard's opening. It is a
legal nonconforming industrial use in the R1 zoning district.
7. Attorney Quinn stated the yacht yard exists due to a series of permits that have
been issued over the years.
8. Attorney Quinn said the request in front of the board is that several of the boat
sheds are inadequate to effectively store and service the boats during the winter.
The location where the yacht yard used to store the boats for the winter is no
longer available due to the storage site being sold for a housing development.
9. The proposal is to demolish two (2) sheds and to construct a larger, but not taller
shed with a steel skeleton and metal surface.This will allow storage and boat work
to be done over the winter.
10.Attorney Quinn stated that the project has gone to the Conservation Commission
and received an order of conditions for the site. The Petitioner is also scheduled
to go in front of the Planning Board for site plan review and a Flood Hazard Overlay
District Special Permit. Attorney Quinn stated they have also been communicating
with the city's Engineering Department to collaborate over a new sewer easement
for a new installation of a city sewer facility that runs under the site.
11.Attorney Quinn stated that through conversations with the city regarding the sewer
easement, his client has agreed to change the plans to accommodate the new
sewer line so it can be accessible on the yacht yard's property.
12.Sydney Atkins, manager of Fred Dion Yacht Yard, stated the business has been in
the family since 1914. Ms. Atkins stated that the business started as a travel lift
and has grown over the last century. She stated the yacht yard business needs to
evolve as boating and boats in general have evolved.
13.Ms. Atkins stated that their business revolves around hauling boats out of the
water and servicing them. The business no longer has a storage site. Therefore,
they need to have an indoor space for servicing and storing the boats.
14.Ms. Atkins stated, historically, the yacht yard was the only commercial waterfront
access in Salem. Ms. Atkins reiterated this proposal is in front of the board due to
the loss of their rented storage space, which they had been using for twenty (20+)
plus years. She stated the business suffered because of the loss of storage space
and her business needs the capacity to work on boats again.
15.Ms. Atkins stated, currently, their boat shed can only store twelve (12) boats. She
continued by saying if there was an additional thirty (30) feet, they could store
between thirty (30) and forty (40) boats at the site.
16.Ms. Atkins stated the business will not be able to continue to operate without an
increase in storage capacity and service space at the site.
17.Attorney Quinn reviewed the submitted site plan for the board and the request for
relief. The request was for a variance to increase the nonconformity of the lot
City of Salem Board of Appeals
4/30/2024
Page 3 of 7
coverage by 8%. This would bring the lot coverage to 48.8%. In the RI district,
30% is the maximum.
18.In addition, a variance from the side yard setback requirement is sought. The
petitioner wants to extend the nonconformity an additional sixteen (16) feet to the
east at the current five (5) foot side yard setback. Also, a special permit for
nonconforming uses.
19.Attorney Quinn stated city staff from the Historical Commission came to the yacht
yard to provide feedback on the proper materials for the proposed structure
because the sheds are over fifty (50) years old.
20.Chair Vyedin asked Attorney Quinn to review the property lines of the site.Attorney
Quinn stated the property of the yacht yard extends out several hundred feet out
into the flats. However, you cannot use that property due to tide fluctuations.
21.Ms. Atkins stated the proposed building will extend ninety (90) feet from the
current setback location and extend one hundred ninety (190) feet out to the east.
22.Ms. Atkins reiterated they have worked very closely with the city to allow access
to the city sewer line that runs through their property. Ms. Atkins stated the
different storage sheds on the site all have different heights. The proposed shed
will be the same height in its entirety with side walls at a height of twenty-eight
(28) feet and a roof peak of thirty-one (31) feet.
23.Mr. Viccica asked if there would be any changes in the services offered with the
proposed structure. Ms. Atkins responded there will not be any changes to the
services provided.
24.Mr. Viccica asked if services include working with toxic materials. Ms. Atkins
responded they are very regulated given their location by the ocean. The yacht
yard must submit water samples quarterly.There is a catch basin under their travel
lift, all materials are collected. Ms. Atkins stated they are not pouring cement at
the site; it will be crushed stone flooring. There will be a long list of procedures
and regulations they need to follow in their day-to-day operations.
25.Ms. Atkins stated that when they had their off-site storage lot, they could store
upwards of thirty-five (35) boats. Ms. Atkins stated that with the loss of the storage
yard, their revenue has diminished greatly.
26.There was one letter submitted to the board from Steve Kapantais, no address
given, inquiring about the number of trucks coming and going from the site.
27.Ms. Atkins responded that with the increase of storage at the site, the number of
trucks coming and going from the site will decrease because boats will not have
to be moved off-site for storage.
28.The meeting was opened to public comment.
29.3eff Cohen, 12 Hancock Street, Ward 5 City Councilor, stated he fully supported
the project. Mr. Cohen reiterated the willingness of the petitioner to work with the
city regarding the city sewer easement on the petitioner's property.
30.Kerry Heath, 16 Ocean Avenue, stated she was concerned about the height of the
proposed building. Ms. Heath said she constructed a new deck at her home and
the increase in storage shed height would block their view of the water.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
4/30/2024
Page 4 of 7
31.Chair Vyedin stated that the proposed structure will be conforming in height and
there was no request for relief for the building's height. Ms. Vyedin encouraged
the petitioner to have a conversation with the neighborhood about the proposed
structure.
32.Ms. Atkins stated she has sent letters to neighbors and canvassed around the
neighborhood to discuss this petition. Ms. Atkins stated conversations were
positive regarding the proposed shed and she wants to be a good neighbor. Ms.
Atkins stated she would be happy to have more conversations with Ms. Heath
regarding her concerns.
33.Ms. Atkins said the structure's height is due to the need of the boats they are
servicing and storing. Ms. Atkins stated the structure could be thirty-five (35) feet
tall by right. She stated she cares about people's views and the importance of their
views. The yacht yard was using only what they needed to properly service and
store the boats.
34.Paul Viccica stated the Petitioner was not seeking relief for the height of the
structure. He stated unfortunately, nobody is entitled to a view of the water and
for those who live by the water there is no guarantee that your view would be
permanent. The only way to guarantee a water view would be to live directly on
the water.
35.Paul Viccica stated the Petitioner is not seeking a variance for height and there is
no need for a variance for the height.
36.Steve Kapantais was given permission to speak and stated the Petitioner addressed
his concerns when the board addressed his letter.
37.Attorney Quinn reviewed the Statement of Grounds and the Statement of Hardship
to the board.
The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearings, and after thorough review of the petition, including the application
narrative and plans, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the
provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance:
Special Permit Findings:
The board finds that the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its
beneficial impacts to the city or the neighborhood, in view of the particular characteristics
of the site, and of the proposal in relation to that site. In addition to any specific factors
that may be set forth in this ordinance, the determination includes consideration of each
of the following:
1. Social, economic, or community needs are served by this proposal: there will be
no change in use and operations at the boat yard.
2. Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading: on-site parking is adequate
for the site. There will be no impact on the parking for the neighborhood.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
4/30/2024
Page 5 of 7
3. Adequate utilities and other public services already service the structure: there will
be no changes to the city's utilities.
4. Impacts on the natural environment, including drainage: there will be no impact
on the natural environment.
5. Neighborhood character: as a one hundred (100) year old business, the project
will be within keeping the neighborhood character.
6. Potential fiscal impact, including impact on city tax base and employment: the new
construction will result in increased real estate tax for the city. New jobs during
construction will be created.
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: the land has been engineered for over one hundred (100) years
to serve the purpose of a boat yard. The site has large equipment, cranes, and
rails to help remove and place boats in the water.
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. The
enforcement of dimensional requirements of the RI zoning district would
constitute a substantial hardship for the owner as they are nonconforming.
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. The yacht yard has received many permits and
approvals from the city to operate the yacht yard over the years. The yacht yard
has operated a substantial business that is consistent with the ocean-faring history
of Salem for over a hundred years.
On the basis of the above statements of fact and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals
voted five (5) in favor(Nina Vyedin (Chair), Carly McClain, Ellen Simpson, Paul
Viccica and Hannah Osthoff))and none(0)opposed to grant FRED J. DION YACHT
YARD, INC. a Special Permit per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance to extend and change the nonconforming boatyard use by demolishing several
connected sheds and constructing a new and larger shed in the same portion of the
property. In addition, a Variance from section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements to allow
the existing nonconforming lot coverage ratio of 40.8% to be increased to 48.8%. A
City of Salem Board of Appeals
4/30/2024
Page 6 of 7
Variance from Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements to allow the building to extend an
additional 16 feet along the existing rear set-back line of five (5) feet, where the required
rear setback is thirty (30) feet., subject to the following terms, conditions, and
safeguards:
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. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office
and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street.
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.
Date MAY 2 4 2024
1 hc- / certify that 20 days have
exr from the date this instrument
w - ce,ved, and that NO APPEAL
h� yen filed this office. -
A True Copy 0,,S Nina Vyedin, air
ATTEST: CLERK, Salem, Mass. Board of Appeals