Loading...
78 Memorial Drive ZBA Final Decision DOMINICK PANGALLO MAYOR CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 98 WASHINGTON STREET  SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978-619-5685 April 9, 2025 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals The petition of MICHELLE “WATKINSON” DALTON at 78 MEMORIAL DRIVE (Map 42, Lot 0023) (R1 Zoning District) for a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures. The petition proposes to modify an existing non-conforming structure by constructing a first-story addition, second-story addition, covered front porch, and a vertical platform lift. The existing structure is six-and-three-tenths (6.3) feet from the northern property line and seven-and-one-tenths (7.1) feet from the southern property line where ten (10) feet are required. The proposed covered front porch and vertical platform lift on the front side will expand an existing setback of thirteen (13) from the front lot line where fifteen (15) are required. On March 26, 2025, the following members of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals were present: Nina Vyedin, Hannah Osthoff, Peter Habib, Christa McGaha, Stephen Larrick, and Ellen Simpson. Statements of Fact: The petition was date-stamped January 15, 2025. The petitioner sought Zoning Board of Appeals approval to construct a first-story addition, second-story addition, covered front porch, and a vertical platform lift. 1. Michelle “Watkinson” Dalton owned 78 Memorial Drive. 2. Michelle “Watkinson” Dalton was the petitioner. 3. The representative was Abbie Ellis. 4. 78 Memorial Drive is located in the R1 Zoning District (Map 42, Lot 0023). 5. This filing amended the original filing made on January 15, 2025, removing the variance request. 6. On March 26, 2025, Michelle Dalton introduced plans to construct a first-story addition, second-story addition, covered front porch, and a vertical platform lift onto her existing house. Ms. Dalton stated she purchased the property with the intention of renovating it, and with her uncle now having Parkinson’s, he cannot enter the house safely. She noted the architect decided the only way for her uncle to safely enter and exit the property would be with an accessible vertical porch lift. Ms. Dalton explained she would like her uncle to live with the family for the foreseeable months, as seeing him is restricted to the weekends and by a three-hour round trip. 7. Chair Vyedin asked what was changing about the property itself. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals April 9, 2025 Page 2 of 4 8. Ms. Dalton stated there is no present way to bring her husband above the first level of the property. She explained she wants to make the property accessible for herself, her husband, and her son to be on the second floor, with her uncle on the first floor. 9. Chair Vyedin asked if her uncle could enter from the house’s driveway. Ms. Dalton confirmed he would be able to navigate from the driveway to the front of the house. 10. Abbie Ellis from Savoie Nolan Architects presented the existing conditions of the home. She stated the existing home is considered a non -conforming structure because the side setback is encroaching into the side lot, and the front porch entryway is encroaching into the front setback. She proposed adding a one-hundred-twenty-five (125) square foot addition in the front left corner of the property, and a farmer’s porch in the front of the property. 11. Ms. Ellis stated the existing driveway will have an exterior lift that will be flush with the first-floor door and entryway. She explained that having private offices in the house would work with the owner’s business plan. Ms. Ellis noted they would have shrubbery to conceal the foundation of the home from the street, and that the house would fit with the cape-style design of the neighborhood. She noted there are small additions in the back that are not within the Board’s purview, and that the vertical addition on the second floor and front porch fall under Section 3.3.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. 12. Abbie Ellis stated she received a waiver for demolition delay to remove the roof and expand the structure because it was not considered historically significant. She noted the lot coverage will increase from nineteen (19) percent to twenty -three (23) percent where thirty (30) percent is required. 13. Chair Vyedin asked why the applicant did not apply using Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 14. Ms. Ellis explained that she had initially applied for Section 4.1.1 with the Building Department. However, the Building Commissioner stated the existing front porch was nonconforming after she submitted the application. Thus, she only needed to request relief from Section 3.3.5 Non-Conforming Single- and Two-Family Structures. 15. Chair Vyedin noted removing the variance request was reasonable based on the Building Commissioner’s recommendation. 16. Ms. Osthoff stated she did not believe the changes would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. 17. Mr. Habib stated the layout made sense because the applicant would need to bump out the porch to make the site work accessibly. Mr. Habib asked for clarification on how the staircase is laid out towards the main street and asked if any work would be done on the existing retaining wall. 18. Ms. Ellis stated there are two sets of stairs in front of the building, and their intention is to maintain the staircase leading directly to the driveway. 19. Ms. Simpson noted she believed this would be a great project because the applicant’s uncle can stay in the house, and the applicant can remain in the house for a long time (creating a benefit for the community). 20. Mr. Larrick asked if the street tree by the retaining wall would remain on the property. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals April 9, 2025 Page 3 of 4 21. Ms. Dalton stated the tree would remain because the only two things she liked about the property were the street tree and the newly repainted wall. 22. Chair Vyedin opened up for public comment. 23. Ward One Councillor Cynthia Jerzylo stated she is in favor of the project at 78 Memorial Drive. 24. Chair Vyedin stated she believes the permit can be granted without substantially degrading the public good and is comfortable approving the variance without conditions. 25. Ms. Simpson motioned to approve the petition. On the basis of the above statements of fact and findings, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, (Nina Vyedin (Chair), Hannah Osthoff, Peter Habib, Christa McGaha, and Ellen Simpson) and zero (0) opposed, to grant MICHELLE “WATKINSON” DALTON at 78 MEMORIAL DRIVE a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures. The petition proposes to modify an existing non-conforming structure by constructing a first-story addition, second-story addition, covered front porch, and a vertical platform lift. The existing structure is six-and-three-tenths (6.3) feet from the northern property line and seven-and-one-tenths (7.1) feet from the southern property line where ten (10) feet are required. The proposed covered front porch and vertical platform lift on the front side will expand an existing setback of thirteen (13) from the front lot line where fifteen (15) are required. 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. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any city board or commiss ion having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. 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. 9. 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 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals April 9, 2025 Page 4 of 4 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. 10. Petitioner shall schedule Assessing Department inspections of the property, at least annually, prior to project completion and a final inspection upon project completion. __________________________ Nina Vyedin, Chair Zoning 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 Chapte r 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.