Loading...
3.5 Rear Buffum Street Certified Decision JUL 2 12025 1 here�jc4rtio,� hat'-2u days h,,CW TY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS expired',#tuff -die daf this instrument ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS was reee` d, at NO APPEAL has been f� IS office. 98 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 DON VIfANGALLO TEL:978-619-5685ATrueCop ATTEST:R&`CITY CLERK, Salem, Mass. July 2, 2025 f.T Decision ; City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 0 co The petition of ELTON CELA at 3 Y REAR BUFFUM STREET(Map 26, Lot 0339) (R2 Zoning District). The petitioner requests a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Single-and Two-Family Residences and a Variance per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change a non-conforming single-family residence into a non-conforming two-family residence. Proposed construction would decrease the lot area per dwelling unit from 5,606 square feet to 2,803 square feet per dwelling unit.The proposed Variance would allow a structure of three (3) stories where 2.5 stories are allowed. A public hearing on the above petition was opened on May 21, 2025, pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11, was continued to June 18, 2025, and was closed on June 18, 2025. On May 21, 2025, the following members of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals were present: Nina Vyedin, Hannah Osthoff, Peter Habib, Christa McGaha, and Stephen Larrick. Ellen Simpson was absent. On June 18, 2025, the following members of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals were present: Nina Vyedin, Hannah Osthoff, Christa McGaha, Stephen Larrick, and Ellen Simpson. Peter Habib was absent. Statements of Fact: The petition was date-stamped on April 22, 2025. The petitioner sought Zoning Board of Appeals approval for a two-family residence on a non-conforming lot. 1. The Cela Property LLC owned 3 1/2 Rear Buffum Street. 2. Elton Cela was the petitioner. 3. Attorney David Summer was the representative for Elton Cela and Erxhina Tafa. Elton Cela and Erxhina Tafa presented on May 21, 2025, and Attorney David Summer presented on June 18, 2025. 4. The original filing on April 22, 2025 was amended to include a Variance request per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 5. 3 1/2 Rear Buffum Street is in the R2 Zoning District (Map 26, Lot 0339). Y City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 2, 2025 Page 2 of 8 6. On May 21, 2025, Erxhina Tafa and Elton Cela presented plans to add an additional unit to a nonconforming single-family home. Ms. Tafa stated that the proposed construction would not change the existing house's footprint and add an additional floor to the 1.5- story house. She noted that herself and Mr. Cela would be adding a second unit to the house to provide additional housing for the City. Ms. Tafa added that the plans provide three (3) off-street parking spaces to assist traffic flow and avoid adding additional parking spaces on Buffum Street. 7. Chair Vyedin asked if there would be enough space for three (3) parking spaces on the property. The original plan package, dated April 19, 2025, and revised May 1, 2025, showed three parking spaces on the property. The Parking Spaces numbered One (#1) and Two(#2)would be located to the northwest of the house while Parking Space number Three (#3) would be located to the northeast of the house. Ms. Tafa stated that Parking Space#3 is currently small due to a tree, while Parking Spaces#1 and #2 do not exist. 8. Chair Vyedin asked if an architect determined whether all the parking spaces were independently accessible. The original plan package showed two fences where the three parking spaces would be located. Ms.Tafa stated that the existing fence will be removed, and each parking space will be independently accessible. She added that the existing easement accessing Buffum Street could never be independently blocked,so there would be no issue with vehicles backing into the easement. 9. Mr. Habib asked if individuals would be backing into Buffum Street to access the three parking spaces. Ms. Tafa stated that there would be enough space in the easement to maneuver in and out of the property and that individuals would not need to back into Buffum Street. 10. Mr. Habib asked which units on the property would have which parking spaces on the property. Ms. Tafa clarified that they designed three parking spaces because the Zoning Ordinance requires 1.5 spaces for each unit. She noted that one parking space would be for the additional floor, while two spaces would be for the unit on the lower floor. 11. Building Commissioner Stavroula Orfanos asked if Parking Spaces #1 and #2 could be accessed if Parking Space #3 was occupied. Ms. Tafa stated Parking Space #3 is located closer to the entrance of the property the Parking Spaces#1 and#2 because of an existing tree.She added the space could be moved further from Parking Spaces#1 and#2 without the tree. 12. Chair Vyedin stated the Board would need to see the implemented plan if the petitioners changed the parking plans. She added the Board has weighed the value of retaining a mature tree versus parking before, and the petitioner could apply for relief to avoid creating a third spot. Chair Vyedin noted that without a parking study, it would be hard to review whether relief for parking would be required or not required from the Board. 13. Ms. Tafa stated that they cannot currently place Parking Space #3 further into the property because of the existing tree. Chair Vyedin asked if the petitioner could move further past the existing sunroom next to Parking Space #3. Ms. Tafa stated that she would like to level off the property to ensure it would be easy to move in and out of any parking spaces. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 2, 2025 Page 3 of 8 14. Building Commissioner Orfanos stated the Engineering Department would be involved in reviewing the property if the petitioner were creating the parking spaces. Ms.Tafa stated the previous owners of the house used Parking Space#3 previously, and that the surface is paved up to the existing sunroom. 15. Ms. Tafa stated they talked with neighbors on Barr and Mason Street to discuss plans for the house. She added that the existing retaining wall along Mason Street needed extra support and that she would address those concerns because they would be adding more weight to the house. Ms.Tafa reviewed the submitted Statement of Grounds. 16. Mr. Larrick asked if current residents use on-street parking or off-street parking. Ms.Tafa responded that no individuals live at 3 1/2 Rear Buffum Street. 17. Chair Vyedin opened up the hearing for public comments. 18.The City received three (3) public comments on the proposal before the hearing. The public comments were from Holly Brauner of 5 1/2 Barr Street, Meredith Sterling & Sam Salamone of 2 Barr Street, and Michael Dixon & Brittany O'Donnell (address not provided). At the May 21, 2025 public hearing five (5) members of the public commented on the proposal. The members who offered comments at the hearing were: Malorie Landgreen of 20 Mason Street#1,Adrian Slusarczyk of 22 Mason Street#2, Brad Diamond of 22 Mason Street#1, and Meredith Sterling and Samuel Salamone of 2 Barr Street. 19. Ms. Landgreen stated that the Applicant removed all the trees on the property.She added that she was concerned about the retaining wall shifting when the tree roots decay. Ms. Landgreen noted that she had concerns about runoff and additional pavement being added to the property. 20. Chair Vyedin asked how many trees abutted the retaining wall surrounding the property. Mr. Salone responded that two (2) trees abutted the retaining wall- one on the western side facing Barr Street, with the other on the southern side facing Mason Street. 21. Mr. Habib asked the petitioner to explain the location of the retaining wall and the removal of the trees. Ms. Tafa explained that one side of the retaining wall faces Barr Street, and another side faces Mason Street. Ms. Tafa stated that one of the removed trees was next to the existing southeastern shed, while the other removed tree was next to the western deck. She stated they removed the trees because they were tall and had liability if they fell onto nearby houses. She noted that it would cause additional damage to the wall if she removed the roots. 22. Chair Vyedin stated that the Board would need a structural engineer to determine the integrity of the existing retaining wall. She noted that the Board is not necessarily concerned about the ownership of the wall, and the petitioner could have conversations about ownership outside the meeting. 23. Mr. Habib stated that the requested height would be suitable for the neighborhood and that he would not be against a reduction in lot area per dwelling unit. He added that the Board needs more information to understand what is being added to the property. Mr. Habib explained how he would be unsure if Parking Space #2 was accessible and would be unsure if the petitioner wanted to keep three (3) parking spaces on the property. He noted that he believed the parking spaces, as shown on the plan revised May 1, 2025, would not be able to exit without using another property owner's driveway. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 2, 2025 Page 4 of 8 24. Building Commissioner Orfanos stated that she suggested the petitioners' architect review the elevation and floor plans because the house may be considered a three (3) story home rather than a 2.5 story home. 25. Ms. McGaha stated that the submitted Statement of Grounds stated there would be only interior changes, yet the site plans showed multiple exterior changes as well. She asked for the proposed outline of any exterior changes in a revised site plan. 26. The Board requested the following additional information from the petitioner: 1. Determination of whether the petitioner would like to request two (2) parking spaces or three (3) parking spaces. 2. Verification of the location and materials for paved surfaces on the property. 3. Determination of whether the applicant is requesting a three-story or 2.5 story house. 4. Detailed site plan that shows landscaping and the location of the proposed deck. 5. Engineer's certification for the structural stability of the existing retaining walls. 27. At the May 21, 2025 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Board voted five (5) in favor (Nina Vyedin (Chair), Hannah Osthoff, Peter Habib, Christa McGaha, and Stephen Larrick) and zero (0) opposed to continue the hearing to the regular meeting scheduled for June 18, 2025. 28. On May 30, 2025,the Applicant discussed the project with the Building Commissioner and informed staff they would not be requesting relief for the number of parking spaces on the property. Additionally, the Applicant requested relief for three (3) stories where 2.5 stories are allowed in the R2 Zoning District. 29. On May 30, 2025, Board Member Ellen Simpson, who was absent at the May 21, 2025 hearing, signed an affidavit of service per M.G.L., Chapter 39, Section 23D certifying that she examined all evidence on 3 1/2 Rear Buffum Street including an audio recording of the missed session. 30. On June 11, 2025,the Applicant submitted a Statement of Hardship, an updated Plot Plan showing three (3) parking spaces, an Elevation Plan, a Landscape Plan, and an Engineer's Letter certifying the structural stability of the existing Retaining Walls. 31. On June 18, 2025, Attorney David Summer stated that they had submitted a request for a Variance with a Statement of Hardship because the Building Department determined the structure to be three (3) stories. 32. The City of Salem Zoning Ordinance defines a story as "As defined in the State Building Code." Chapter Five of the State Building Code defines a Story as: "[...] for the topmost story, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling,to the top of the roof rafters."The Building Commissioner determined the height of the roof lines would create a third story under the Building Code given that the height of the third story was significantly taller than the other stories in the house. Therefore, the third floor was also determined to be a third story per Section 10.0 Definitions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 33. Mr.Summer explained that the proposed home would be of a similar character to existing houses. He added that each car would have the turning radius necessary to exit the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 2, 2025 Page 5of8 property facing forward. Mr. Summer noted the updated plans showed additional landscaping and replaced some of the paved parking surface with a pervious gravel surface. He added an engineer reviewed the retaining wall, and stated there were no structural issues with the retaining wall on the applicant's property. 34.The Engineer's Letter dated May 28, 2025, stated "[the underlying stone] at the intersection of 20 and 22 mason street, and your property, [...] has deteriorated, which cracked the upper wall causing it to shift and lean outward, separating the end corner from the concrete 8" wall." 35. Mr. Summer stated the piece of the retaining wall noted as leaning outward was not on the applicant's property. Chair Vyedin asked if there was a survey to determine the location of the retaining wall. Mr. Summer stated there was a survey, and that he was not sure the applicant could repair something that was not on their property. 36. Mr. Summer stated the project is in an R2 Zoning District, and that the applicant wanted to turn a one-family house into a two-family house. He added the applicant would not be proposing to increase the footprint of the structure, and if they did build outward, that would have a greater impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Summer stated building upwards would be financially infeasible and a substantial hardship to the Applicant. He added that many houses in the neighborhood have three (3)floors as well. 37. Chair Vyedin asked where individuals would be able to turn around to exit the driveway in the proposed plot plan. Mr. Summer stated that individuals parked in two (2) spaces located on the eastern side of the property would need to turn around in the existing right of way for vehicle access. Mr. Summer added the parking space on the northern side of the property would be able to turn around in the proposed gravel drive or the existing right of way. He clarified the double driveway between 3 1/2 Rear Buffum Street and 5 Rear Buffum Street was a right of way. 38. Ms.Simpson asked if the retaining wall spanned across 20 Mason Street,22 Mason Street, and 3 1/2 Rear Buffum Street, and whether the portion of the wall to the west of 22 Mason Street needed to be repaired. Mr. Summer stated the portion of the wall next to 20 Mason Street is cracked. He stated he does not believe the structural stability of that portion of the wall is relevant to the Board. Ms. Osthoff stated the Engineer's Letter communicated any work on 3 1/2 Rear Buffum would not impact the stability of the wall. Chair Vyedin stated the Board could not force three different properties to fix the wall. 39. Chair Vyedin opened up the hearing for public comments. 40. The City received one (1) public comment on the proposal before the public hearing. The public comment was from Muoi Phu (address not provided). At the June 18, 2025 public hearing, zero (0) members of the public commented on the proposal. In total, four (4) comments were submitted to the Board. 41. Chair Vyedin asked the Board to consider the hardships presented because the Applicant requested a variance. She stated the original application had a design with two (2) units and a certain height. Chair Vyedin noted the change in the type of relief sought did not change the plans presented to the Board. She added she did not believe this was a significant change and was glad to see the submitted statement of hardship. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 2, 2025 Page 6 of 8 42. Mr. Larrick stated he believed 3 1/2 Rear Buffum Street was a unique lot and felt satisfied with the parking diagram shown. Chair Vyedin stated she appreciated the landscaping added to the submitted plans. She added the Applicant owned the property, that the property was in the R2 Zoning District, and that it would be reasonable to provide the Applicant relief to exercise their right to create a two-family property. 43. Mr. Larrick motioned to approve the petition. The Salem Zoning Board of Appeals, after carefully considering the evidence presented at the public hearings, and thoroughly reviewing the petition, application narrative, and plans, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: 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 Applicant owns a uniquely sized, shaped, and situated lot. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance involves substantial hardship to the applicant in attempting to put the property to productive use. Without the requested relief, the Applicant would be unable to put the property to productive use as a two- family dwelling. 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 purpose of the Ordinance. The Applicant is not proposing to increase the footprint of the existing residential structure. The Applicant's property is situated in an R2 District, and the Applicant has the right to create a two-family dwelling in an R2 District per the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Special Permit Findings: The Board finds that the reconstruction, extension, alteration, or change will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood. 1. Community needs are served by the proposal. The Applicant is creating an additional housing unit 0.4 miles away from the existing Commuter Rail Station. 2. The impact on traffic flow and safety is negligible because the Applicant provided three (3) required off-street parking spaces with adequate turning radii. 3. The proposal has minimal impacts on utilities and other public services.Adequate utilities and other public services already service the structure. 4. The proposal has minimal impacts on neighborhood character. The structure's footprint will not change, and the structure is in an existing R2 Zoning District. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 2, 2025 Page 7 of 8 5. The proposal has minimal impacts on the natural environment, including greenhouse gas emissions and view. The proposal does not increase the structure's footprint and adds landscaping to the property. 6. The proposal has a positive potential economic and fiscal impact, including impacts on City services, tax base, and employment. The proposal will increase the tax base of the property while providing a positive impact on City employment. 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, Christa McGaha, Stephen Larrick, and Ellen Simpson) and zero (0) opposed, to grant Elton Cela at 3 1/2 Rear Buffum Street (Map 26, Lot 0339) (112 Zoning District) a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Single- and Two-Family Residences and a Variance per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change a non-conforming single-family residence into a non-conforming two-family residence. Proposed construction would decrease the lot area per dwelling unit from 5,606 square feet to 2,803 square feet per dwelling unit.The proposed Variance would allow a structure of three (3) stories where 2.5 stories are allowed. 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 July 2, 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. ✓Yc/a. V i�,B o Nina Vyedin, air 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.