Loading...
15 Crosby Street 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 29, 2025 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals The petition of MICHAEL BECKER at 15 CROSBY STREET (Map 08, Lot 0044) (R1 Zoning District) for a Variance per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements to subdivide an existing conforming lot and construct a new single-family structure on the subdivided lot. The subdivision will decrease the existing lot’s area to 13,283 square feet where 15,000 square feet is required and create a second 15,013 square foot lot. The second lot will have eleven (11) feet of frontage where one hundred (100) feet is required. On April 16, 2025, the following members of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals were present: Hannah Osthoff, Peter Habib, Christa McGaha, Stephen Larrick, and Ellen Simpson. Nina Vyedin was absent. Statements of Fact: The petition was date-stamped February 19, 2025. The petitioner sought approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals to subdivide an existing conforming lot, decreasing its size to 13,283 square feet and creating a second lot with eleven (11) feet of frontage. 1. Michael Becker owned 15 Crosby Street. 2. Michael Becker was the petitioner. 3. Attorney Scott Grover was the representative for Michael Becker. Sanir Lutfija presented from Seger Architects. 4. 15 Crosby Street is in the R1 Zoning District (Map 08, Lot 0044). 5. On April 16, 2025, Attorney Scott Grover introduced plans displaying the proposed house on 15 Crosby Street. He stated that Mr. Becker has gone to the Zoning Board multiple times, yet that this matter is slightly different because the approval would allow Mr. Becker to build a house for himself and his family. He noted that he asked Mr. Becker to present the plans because it would be his house. 6. Michael Becker stated he is seeking relief for a property he has owned for eight (8) years, which his family seeks to use for their future occupancy. He introduced his wife and three daughters. He stated his current house in Ward Four will not meet future accessibility needs and his family would like to stay in the immediate area. He noted this proposed house would meet his family’s future needs. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals April 29, 2025 Page 2 of 8 7. Mr. Becker stated he would like to split an approximately twenty-eight thousand (28,000) square foot lot in approximately half. He noted that both properties would be substantially larger than typical lots on Verdon Street, Crosby Street, and Orleans Avenue. He stated there are significant topographical challenges on the property, with a twenty (20) foot difference between the elevation at the front and back lot lines. He pointed out there are multiple ledge outcroppings on the property. He noted he has done significant grading on the property over his eight (8) years of ownership to make the lot maintenance more manageable. 8. Mr. Becker described that the property would conform to the Zoning Ordinance and be set back from the street to minimize privacy issues between the adjacent neighbors. The front of the house would be positioned to face Crosby Street. He stated they intend to keep the landscape screening between the new house and the abutting neighbor to the north, and that they plan on planting new arborvitaes. 9. Mr. Becker stated the proposed subdivision will correct numerous drainage issues. He stated the new lot is shaped the way it is so the plateau on the southern side of the property would be more usable yard space. The back lot area would be the same elevation as the walkout space on the new house. He noted that the grade along the back property line is one (1) story lower than the back of the existing house. 10. Mr. Becker outlined how he intends to address on-site stormwater runoff. He stated that current stormwater runs into existing city stormwater facilities, creating a large sheet of ice on the corner of Crosby and Verdon Street during cold months. He noted there would be a mutually shared driveway with a shared route for access, referencing plans submitted by Seger Architects. Mr. Becker stated he spoke with the City Councillor, John Harvey, who supports the project. Mr. Becker noted he has knocked on the doors of abutters, and submitted a petition signed by neighbors in support of the proposal. 11. Attorney Scott Grover stated the required reliefs would be limited. The property, located in the R1 Zoning District, required a minimum lot area of fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet per lot and one hundred (100) feet of frontage. He showed that the proposed subdivision would create a 15,002 square foot lot, labeled Lot B on the presented site plan. Mr. Grover additionally noted Lot B would contain the new zoning-compliant building. 12. Mr. Grover added that the second previously existing lot, labeled Lot A on the presented site plan, would be 13,283 square feet. He noted Lot A would require a variance from the fifteen thousand (15,000) square foot lot area requirement. 13. Mr. Grover described how a second variance would be required for the new lot, Lot B. He stated that there is one-hundred-and-eleven (111) feet of frontage along Crosby Street and that the existing Lot A would comply with one hundred (100) feet of frontage. He added the petition requires a more significant frontage variance of eleven (11) feet for Lot B. 14. Mr. Grover stated that three separate grounds must be met for the Board to grant relief for the two proposed variances. He explained the three grounds affecting the lot: City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals April 29, 2025 Page 3 of 8 1) The existing lot was larger than most other lots in the area. Mr. Grover showed an Assessor’s map, indicating that the lot is significantly larger than other lots in the neighborhood. Additionally, Mr. Grover displayed a chart showing that 15 Crosby Street was at least twice (2x) the size of most lots in the area, and in several cases, three times (3x) the size of most other lots. 2) The grade on this property varied significantly. Mr. Grover stated the elevation changes so significantly that it renders a large portion of the site unusable. Mr. Grover displayed a Google Earth map showing 15 Crosby Street’s boundaries extending into the gulley past the relatively flat area on the property. He stated the area is unusable under current conditions. 3) A sixty (60) foot property easement ran from the end of Verdon Street to the abutting property, meaning the property can be more easily accessed than without the easement. Mr. Grover stated the easement affects how the property can be developed. 15. Mr. Grover stated that if the zoning ordinance were literally enforced, literal enforcement would allow only one single-family house on a relatively large lot. He noted that the three conditions render so much of the lot unusable that it creates a hardship for the petitioner. He said allowing a new lot would provide an economic basis for physical improvements necessary to make this large lot functional. 16. Mr. Grover noted the variances would not negate the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and lot improvements would improve neighborhood quality, fulfilling the third condition. He stated the two new lots would be bigger than most lots in the neighborhood, and lot improvements would improve neighborhood quality. Thus, the proposed changes would not be detrimental to the public good. 17. Mr. Grover stated Mr. Becker will make improvements to drainage and icing conditions on the corner of Verdon Street and Crosby Street, creating a public benefit. He also noted that the building is intended to be totally compliant with the Zoning Ordinance, and that elevation plans were submitted as a courtesy to the Board. 18. Acting Chair Osthoff asked the petitioner to walk the Board through the building elevations. 19. Sanir Lutfija stated they removed the dormers shown on previous versions of the elevation plan so the house would be less dominant. He noted Mr. Becker and his family chose a Colonial-style house. He described the house as having six-over-six windows, composite siding, and a garage placed at the backside of the house due to property grade changes. 20. Acting Chair Osthoff asked how many stories are on the house. She inquired if the use of the third floor would constitute a third story. 21. Mr. Lutfija stated the house has a typical third floor with a roof. He noted the house would fully comply with zoning guidelines because the third floor would be a half-story under the Zoning Ordinance. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals April 29, 2025 Page 4 of 8 22. Acting Chair Osthoff asked the petitioner to show the way the building steps down with the property’s elevation. She stated that, from her understanding, the property slopes down near the back of the site. 23. Mr. Lutfija displayed an aerial view of Crosby Street, stating the front of the two-and-a- half (2.5) story building will have a consolidated face and a turnaround for the garage entrance on the other side. He described the basement as a typical walkout basement. He stated there will be grading due to the hardship of the site. However, grading will be minimal. 24. Acting Chair Osthoff asked why the petitioner chose a frontage of eleven (11) feet for Lot B and one hundred (100) feet for Lot A rather than requesting a variance for frontage on both lots. She described how the lot area of the two properties flips, where the previously conforming Lot A becomes nonconforming, and Lot B becomes conforming. She asked why the petitioner did not create two (2) lots with less than one hundred (100) feet of frontage that would better conform with the neighborhood. 25. Mr. Becker stated the face of the preexisting house is situated sideways to the Street, with the lot requiring access to where the cul-de-sac is located. He noted that the existing driveway, while a private drive, meets the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because the eleven (11) feet of frontage does not extend past the edge of the existing driveway. 26. Mr. Grover noted the petition requires Planning Board approval under a subdivision plan, which considers factors like adequate access. 27. Mr. Larrick stated the request seemed reasonable and that the hardship was well articulated. He asked the applicant to describe site setbacks to ensure the setbacks meet Zoning Ordinance requirements. 28. Mr. Grover stated the plot plan meets the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Grover described how the plans provided a setback of ten (10) feet and nine (9) inches along Lot B’s side property line where ten (10) feet is required. He noted Lot B’s rear setback would be fifty-two (52) feet and two (2) inches where thirty (30) feet is required. Mr. Grover said Lot B’s front setback would be significantly greater than the fifteen (15) feet required. He stated the existing house on Lot A is exactly thirty (30) feet from the back of the proposed property line, and the side setback would be exactly ten (10) feet where ten (10) feet is required. He noted the front setbacks of sixty-one (61) feet and side setbacks of thirty-four (34) feet, two (2) inches would be greater than required under the Zoning Ordinance. 29. Mr. Grover stated that if the Building Commissioner had a different interpretation of the setbacks, they would come back to the Zoning Board. 30. Mr. Larrick asked about efforts made to address abutting neighbors’ privacy concerns. 31. Mr. Lutfija stated they placed the house at the back of the property to minimize privacy intrusions. Mr. Lutfija noted Mike Becker plans on adding additional arborvitaes along 22 Verdon Street’s northeast lot line. Mr. Lutfija displayed a rendering of 15 Crosby Street, showing the new house will be one hundred (100) feet from the house at 22 Verdon Street. He stated the existing house is eighty-five (85) feet and six (6) inches from the house at 22 Verdon Street. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals April 29, 2025 Page 5 of 8 32. Ms. Simpson asked if the driveway was a private way because if the road were a driveway, another easement would be needed. 33. Mr. Grover clarified that the driveway is not a private way and that there would likely be a cross-easement for the new house. This cross-easement would allow residents on Lot A and Lot B to access the entire driveway. 34. Ms. Simpson stated she believes the house is nicely set back from the neighbor who sent the letter from 22 Verdon Street. She noted she liked that Mr. Becker intended to leave the existing trees and plant new trees. Mr. Simpson suggested creating a special condition to create the understanding that the trees will stay during construction. 35. Mr. Grover stated he believes it would be appropriate to include a special condition protecting the existing trees during construction. 36. Mr. Becker stated he met with the neighbor multiple times to discuss landscaping. He said the abutter asked him to keep the screening. He stated he would plant arborvitaes along the proposed hammerhead driveway and add additional arborvitaes along the northeast property line as allowed by topography. 37. Ms. McGaha asked about the existing easement’s function because the Statement of Hardship stated the sixty (60) foot easement was created to allow access to abutting land. She additionally asked whether the proposed house would block access to abutting land. 38. Mr. Grover stated he could not legally disrupt the access the easement (extending from the southeast to northwest of 15 Crosby Street up to the front of the property) provides. He said the proposed house would not disrupt the easement because the house is located fully beyond the easement’s boundaries. Mr. Grover noted the petitioner can still use the land the easement covers if they do not construct any improvements inhibiting access within the easement area. 39. Acting Chair Osthoff asked the petitioner to show where the existing easement is on the property. Mr. Lutfija showed the easement runs sixty (60) feet parallel to the property line along 22 Verdon Street. 40. Mr. Grover stated the grading improvements on the property will make the site more accessible than under current conditions. 41. Mr. Habib stated it makes more sense to run the lot line down the center of the driveway. He noted that while it would create a more difficult request due to both Lot A and Lot B requiring variances, having eleven (11) feet of frontage seems too small despite the shared space. Mr. Habib asked if the petitioner considered preserving the fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of lot area for Lot A to keep the lot conforming. He noted this could be achieved by giving the back area of Lot B to Lot A. 42. Mr. Becker stated the area dedicated to Lot B along the back part of 15 Crosby Street is eight (8) feet lower than the backside of the existing house. He said his family would access the relatively flat thirty (30) foot by one-hundred-twenty (120) foot lawn by walking out the backside of the house. 43. Mr. Habib asked if the petitioner would add a retaining wall along Lot A’s property line. 44. Mr. Becker stated current plans would add a fence and retaining wall that continues down the back of Lot A’s property line. He said the grade drops down as you walk back to the edge of 15 Crosby Street. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals April 29, 2025 Page 6 of 8 45. Mr. Grover stated one of the lots necessarily had to be ever-so-slightly non-compliant. He additionally noted the frontage for Lot A is one hundred (100) feet because it is better practice to request fewer variances. 46. Mr. Habib asked who currently lives in the existing house. 47. Mr. Becker stated that the current tenant has lived in the house for five or six years. He said that he cleaned up the property since purchasing it, and the neighbor to the north appreciated the property being cleaned up. 48. Mr. Larrick asked if the wetlands area overlaps with 15 Crosby Street and if the proposal would adversely impact the wetlands. 49. Mr. Becker stated that he delineated the wetlands on 296 Highland Avenue five or six years ago. He said there are no wetlands on the property, and the property is not within the one hundred (100) foot wetlands buffer zone. 50. Mr. Lutfija stated the building is well away from the one hundred (100) foot buffer area. 51. Ms. Simpson asked what fits the criteria for a two-and-a-half (2.5) or three (3) story house. 52. Mr. Grover stated that the Zoning Ordinance defines a half-story as “a story under a gable or gambrel roof, the wall plates of which on at least two opposite exterior walls are not more than two (2) feet above the floor of such story.” Mr. Grover said that the third floor is half (0.5) of a story if the knee walls are not greater than two (2) feet. Mr. Lutfija elaborated that dormers are included in that definition if their knee walls are greater than two (2) feet. 53. Acting Chair Osthoff said there are no shed dormers or points where the roof has a chance to create a wall greater than two-and-a-half (2.5) stories. Mr. Larrick agreed with Acting Chair Osthoff’s interpretation. 54. Mr. Habib stated he appreciates no dormers being placed on the third floor, so the house looks like a two (2) story building. 55. Acting Chair Osthoff opened the meeting for public comment. 56. Millie Becker, mother of Mike Becker, stated she uses a wheelchair due to a disability diagnosed in 1989. She said she hopes to live in an accessible house with her family rather than a nursing home. 57. Mr. Habib stated he is concerned that the houses are twenty-two (22) feet away from each other. He asked if the petitioner would be able to preserve the tree between the two houses as seen in the Aerial View Plan. 58. Mr. Becker stated he intends to preserve the ornamental tree between Lot A and Lot B. 59. Mr. Grover noted that he would have to resolve the easements between Lot A and Lot B as a legal matter. He said the Board would not need to create a special condition. 60. Acting Chair Osthoff asked if the petitioner would be willing to entertain a special condition to maintain the driveway easement. 61. Mr. Becker and Mr. Grover stated that they would not be opposed because they must maintain the easement. 62. Mr. Larrick stated he would be happy to condition a shared easement so there is effectively a wider frontage. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals April 29, 2025 Page 7 of 8 63. Staff Planner Brennan Postich proposed wording for a special condition: the existing trees along the northeast property line abutting 22 Verdon Street shall be protected during construction. 64. Staff Planner Brennan Postich proposed wording for a special condition: the petitioner shall establish a reciprocal easement on the proposed driveway to provide access to both proposed lots on the corner of Crosby and Verdon Street. 65. Mr. Larrick motioned to approve the petition, with the special conditions proposed by Staff Planner Brennan Postich. Based on the above statements of fact and findings, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, (Hannah Osthoff (Acting Chair), Peter Habib, Christa McGaha, Stephen Larrick, and Ellen Simpson) and zero (0) opposed, to grant Michael Becker at 15 Crosby Street a Variance per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements to subdivide an existing conforming lot and construct a new single-family structure on the subdivided lot. The subdivision will decrease the existing lot’s area to 13,283 square feet where 15,000 square feet is required and create a second 15,013 square foot lot. The second lot will have eleven (11) feet of frontage where one hundred (100) feet is 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. 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. 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. 11. 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 29, 2025 Page 8 of 8 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. 12. 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. The existing trees along the northeast property line abutting 22 Verdon Street shall be protected during construction. 2. The petitioner shall establish a reciprocal easement on the proposed driveway to provide access to both proposed lots on the corner of Crosby and Verdon Street. __________________________ Hannah Osthoff, Acting 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.