Loading...
11 Jackson Street ZBA Final Stamped Decision CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS tto ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 98 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 DOMNICK PANGALLO TEL:978-619-5685 K1 OR April 9, 2025 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals The petition of JESSE DEBENEDICTIS at 11 JACKSON STREET (Map 25, Lot 0142) (112 Zoning District) for a Variance per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Structures to construct an addition ten (10) feet from the rear property line where thirty (30) is required. This proposed addition will extend nine (9)feet from the eastern lot line while the existing non-conforming structure is five (5) feet from the eastern property line.The addition will extend seven (7)feet from the western lot line. 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 23, 2025.The petitioner sought Zoning Board of Appeals approval to construct a rear addition on an existing non-conforming structure. 1. Sabina Guzman owned 11 Jackson Street. 2. The petitioner was Jesse Debenedictis. 3. The representative was Jesse Debenedictis. Jesse Debenedictis and Lisa Speziale presented on behalf of Works by JD. 4. 11 Jackson Street is in the R2 Zoning District (Map 25, Lot 0142). 5. This filing amended the original filing made on January 23, 2025, changing the requested section for special permit relief to Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Structures and adding a variance request for constructing a rear addition to the structure. 6. On March 26,2025, Lisa Speziale presented a plot plan displaying the addition on the back of the property. Ms.Speziale stated they are not expanding the setback of five (5)feet on the western side,and that the right side is being built within the dimensions of the existing deck. 7. Chair Vyedin asked if the proposed addition and dashed line showing the existing porch mean the addition and porch are the same dimensions. 8. Ms. Speziale stated the dimensions for the existing and proposed deck are the same on the right side.She explained the addition decreases the rear setback from fifteen (15)feet to ten (10)feet. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals April 9, 2025 Page 2 of 4 9. Mr. Habib asked if the height of the rear addition was ten (10) feet tall, and Jesse Debenedictis confirmed the addition was ten (10)feet. 10. Mr. Speziale read the submitted statement of hardship, explaining the addition will use similar vinyl siding materials and fit the conditions of the neighborhood. She stated a closed-off addition would limit the petitioner's impact on adjacent properties. 11. Chair Vyedin asked for a copy of the dimensional table to verify if the property met setback requirements. 12. Ms. McGaha noted the applicant is requesting a variance because the lot coverage is creating a new conformity, going from thirty (30) percent coverage to forty-two (42) percent lot coverage where thirty-five (35) percent is allowed. 13. Chair Vyedin stated the Board has historically approved some similar requests. However, this petition would be unique because of neighbor feedback regarding how close the rear addition is to their property. She noted the rear addition is large compared to the property size. 14. Mr. Larrick asked why the petitioner proposed an addition of this size. 15. Mr. Debenedictis stated the addition cannot be made smaller because if it were smaller, the space would be unusable. He noted the space must be one (1) story for accessibility reasons. Lisa Speziale added the lot is tight, and building anything may feel intrusive to neighbors. 16. Mr. Debenedictis explained that building up would misrepresent the neighborhood and that the owner did not want a higher rear addition. A two (2) floor addition would act similar to a loft. 17. Ms. Simpson stated that neighbors are concerned about privacy. She noted that the way the addition is designed,there would be less interaction with neighbors because the new addition will not be an open-air deck. 18. Ms. Simpson asked if the rear kitchen would be an auxiliary kitchen. 19. Ms. Speziale stated that Works by JD had reduced the original plan, deciding upon a small kitchenette. She noted they have further reduced the scope of the architectural plans. 20. Ms. McGaha noted concerns about the lack of open space on the site. Mr. Larrick agreed that the lack of open space on the site is an issue. Mr. Larrick further noted that many rear buildings in the neighborhood do not have a thirty (30) foot setback. He stated it would be unfair to require the applicant to adhere to the ordinance. 21. Ms.Osthoff stated there is a hardship due to the small size and shape of the lot.She asked if there is a version of these plans where the applicant stayed within setback limits. 22. Mr. Debenedictis stated the basement stairs are like a ladder and not up to code. He explained the staircase was sixteen (16) inches wide, and it would be easier for the family to have a wider staircase.They could not create the run for a staircase within the existing house because the bedroom and bathroom are currently there. Ms. Speziale added the bathroom tub is directly above the staircase. 23. Chair Vyedin noted that if the applicant were to remove any of the access,it would require bringing the entire house up-to-code,then requiring a full remodel. She further noted she is starting to see the unique conditions of the lot. 24. Chair Vyedin opened up for public comment. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals April 9, 2025 Page 3 of 4 25. One (1) written comment spoke against the petition. 26. Chair Vyedin asked if there were enough grounds to grant a variance, stating it would be helpful to go through the statement of grounds and statement of hardship. 27. Ms. McGaha stated she is not convinced the relief cannot be granted without minimizing the impacts of construction by decreasing the size of the addition. 28. Chair Vyedin asked to look at lot coverage of properties around 11 Jackson Street. 29. Mr. Habib stated the applicant is proposing forty-two (42) percent lot coverage where thirty-five (35) percent is required. He noted if the applicant were to take back seven (7) percent, it would remove half of the addition. He stated that he could not see how it would be a usable space without granting a variance. 30. Chair Vyedin stated lot coverage is high around Warren Court and Jackson Terrace from a satellite view. She asked if there was a shed on the property. 31. Mr. Debenedictis stated that he would remove the shed. 32. Ms. Simpson noted that this fits the definition of hardship. She stated this addition is being created because it would be too expensive for the applicant to live separately or build a second story-addition.This all occurred within a small lot size. 33. Chair Vyedin stated that the small lot size fits the definition of a hardship, and noted the unique situation of the petitioner is a less definitional hardship. 34. Mr. Habib noted that he appreciated the bedroom windows facing into the open air and that no windows face neighboring buildings. 35. Chair Vyedin asked for the dimensions of the shed. 36. Mr. Debenedictis responded the shed was approximately five (5) feet by five (5) feet. He stated the shed would be removed. 37. Mr. Habib motioned to approve the petition. Based on 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 JESSE DEBENEDICTIS at 11 JACKSON STREET a Variance per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Structures to construct an addition ten (10)feet from the rear property line where thirty (30) is required. This proposed addition will extend nine (9) feet from the eastern lot line while the existing non-conforming structure is five (5) feet from the eastern property line.The addition will extend seven (7)feet from the western lot line. 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. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals April 9, 2025 Page 4 of 4 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. Nina Vyedi , 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 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.