Loading...
18 Sutton Avenue Certified Decision Date JUL 2 3 2025 hereby c t 0 days h va ATY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS expirer� �. o dam this instrument ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS was ree e bd�,,atNO APPEAL has been'fli od rr,;his office. 98 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 N DOMIN GAI Lo TEL:978-619-5685 A True C^pI Q�-L�.r�� L 49 c ATTESVITY CLERK, Salem, Mass. July 2, 2025 Decision i:Ss City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals CD The petition of ANDREW FALKENSTEIN at 18 SUTTON AVENUE (Map 45, Lot 0022) (R1 and B2 Zoning District) for a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residences of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to replace an existing detached garage with an attached garage and construct a second-floor addition to the home.The proposed garage would be nine (9) feet from the side setback where ten (10) feet is required and twenty-one (21) feet from the rear setback where thirty (30)feet is required. 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 May 8, 2025. The petitioner sought Zoning Board of Appeals approval for an attached garage with the construction of a second-floor addition. 1. Jonathan Magnuson owned 18 Sutton Avenue. 2. Andrew Falkenstein was the petitioner. 3. Andrew Falkenstein presented from Concise Design Group. 4. 18 Sutton Avenue is in the R1 Zoning District and B2 Zoning District (Map 45, Lot 0022). 5. This filing amended the original filing made on May 8, 2025, by adding a request to construct a second-floor addition per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two- Family Residences of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for a nonconforming side lot setback. 6. On June 18, 2025,Andrew Falkenstein presented plans to replace a detached garage with an attached garage and construct a second-floor addition. Mr. Falkenstein stated the project would construct a two-car attached garage where there used to be a single detached garage. He added that they would be adding a portion of a story over the other portion of the house. 7. Mr. Falkenstein stated that they were not requesting relief from height and that instead the Applicant would be seeking the extension of a nonconforming space. Mr. Falkenstein added that the existing house had a 3.8-foot eastern side yard setback where ten feet (10') would be required by the Ordinance. He noted that Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A, Section 6, allowed the Board to grant a Special Permit for any extension of City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 2, 2025 Page 2 of 5 an existing non-conforming use. He stated the Applicant is mostly going to the Board to request relief for the proposed garage on the eastern side of the property. Chair Vyedin asked if the Applicant was only requesting relief for previously nonconforming dimensional requirements. Mr. Falkenstein stated they were seeking relief from nonconforming side yard setbacks, a nonconforming rear yard setback, and a nonconforming minimum lot size. Chair Vyedin stated that it would make sense for the Board to vote on both the garage and the rise of another floor under Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Structures. 8. Mr. Falkenstein stated that they have received approval from the Historical Commission and will seek relief from the Conservation Commission. 9. Mr. Falkenstein stated that they would demolish a single detached garage and replace it with an attached two-car garage. Mr. Falkenstein noted they are in violation of the Zoning Ordinance by having a nine-foot (9') setback where ten feet (10') are required. He added that they are improving the existing side setback of 4.4 feet and improving the rear setback. Mr. Falkenstein stated the abutter at 22 Sutton Avenue supported the proposal. Mr. Falkenstein stated that they are only nonconforming with the side setback for the second-floor addition. He added that they would only be increasing the existing side nonconformity. 10. Mr. Falkenstein stated that the house was a one-story ranch from the 1960's and added the Historical Commission determined it was not a historically significant building. He stated that the Applicant would be adding a master suite onto the property to accommodate a growing family with a baby. Mr. Falkenstein stated that they were attaching the garage to the mudroom and creating a rear workshop space. He added that he tried to make the space as small as possible by using a double, sixteen-foot(16')wide garage door. He stated that the extra one foot (1') of space would allow the owners to park side-by-side. 11. Mr. Falkenstein stated that the second floor would raise the ceiling to create a master bath and add additional closet spaceto the house. He stated the dormer's top plate height would balance the house out as 1.5 stories. Mr. Falkenstein noted that the design would keep the house low while respecting the hierarchical massing of the house. He added that they stepped the garage down so the house would slope down as the street sloped down. Mr. Falkenstein stated the proposal would not block light, not be taller than neighbors' homes. 12. Ms. Osthoff asked the applicant to note the requirements of building within the Flood Hazard boundary. Mr. Falkenstein stated they were just within the base flood elevation and added that most governing bodies would be flexible with the Flood Hazard requirements because the building had a resilient design. He stated that electrical switches would be raised six feet (6') above the floor and noted that the floor would have a pitch so water would flow out of the house. He added that the structure would be okay during a flooding event. He stated they would not create an entertainment space or residence in the flood area but that a garage would be okay. 13. Building Commissioner Stavroula Orfanos stated that the Applicant would need to submit plans to address the Flood Hazard Overlay District regardless of whether the Board City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 2, 2025 Page 3 of 5 approved or denied the petition. Chair Vyedin stated that the Applicant may need to return to the Board if the plans were adjusted due to the Flood Hazard Overlay District. She noted that the approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be conditional on the decision of all other Boards and Commissions. 14. Ms. Simpson asked if the Board would be voting on the second story. She stated she did not believe the second story was advertised. Chair Vyedin stated the second floor was not advertised, however the relief they were seeking would cover the second story. She added that the Board should read out all the nonconformities and grant the Special Permit to cover the second story. 15. Ms. Simpson asked whether the Board should consider the fact the lot was divided into two different zones (the B2 Zoning District and the R2 Zoning District). Commissioner Orfanos stated that per Section 2.4 Lot Split by District Boundary Line of the Zoning Ordinance, the less restricted zoning district could extend up to thirty feet (30') into the more restricted zoning district, provided that the lot has frontage on a street in the less restricted zoning district. She stated that the petition would comply with Section 2.4 if approved because R1 Zoning District would extend into the B2 Zoning District. Chair Vyedin stated that she agreed with Commissioner Orfanos's interpretation. 16. Chair Vyedin opened the hearing for public comments. 17.The City received one (1) public comment on the proposal before the hearing.The public comment was from Councillor Cynthia Jerzylo (address not provided). At the June 18, 2025 public hearing zero (0) members of the public commented on the proposal. 18. Ms. McGaha asked if the building's height would be within the allowed height of the R1 Zoning District. Mr. Falkenstein stated the height would be lower than the allowed height of thirty-five feet (35'). Ms. Osthoff stated the building height would be twenty-two feet (22')• 19. Chair Vyedin asked if the petition would be creating a nonconformity at the front setback. Mr. Falkenstein stated that the front setback would not change and that the lot coverage would not become nonconforming with the change. Chair Vyedin asked if the Board found the petition to be more detrimental than the existing structure. Mr. Falkenstein stated that the proposal created no hazard, would have a minimal effect on the neighborhood, and added that the request would be amenable to a Special Permit from the Board. 20. Chair Vyedin stated that the Board should consider proposing a special condition to ensure the dimensional table would accurately reflect existing and proposed property setbacks. 21. Ms. Simpson proposed a special condition with wording from Staff Planner Brennan Postich: the petitioner shall submit a revised Dimensional Table stating the existing and proposed property setbacks to the Planning Department before receiving a building permit from the Building Department. 22. Ms. Simpson 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 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 2, 2025 Page 4 of 5 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 reconstruction, extension, alteration, or change will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood. 1. The proposal has a minimal positive or negative impact on community needs. 2. The proposal positively impacts traffic flow and safety because the Applicant provided two (2) off-street parking spaces inside the attached garage. 3. The proposal has minimal impacts on utilities and other public services. 4. The proposal has minimal impacts on neighborhood character. The structure's footprint will not change, and the applicant proposed a structure similar in character to other homes in the Willows neighborhood. 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 creates a garage with a design resilient in a flooding event. The proposal's design reduces the impact on view by keeping the height of the dormers below the height of the roof. 6. The proposal has a minimal potential economic and fiscal impact, including impacts on City services, tax base, and 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 ANDREW FALKENSTEIN at 18 SUTTON AVENUE (Map 45, Lot 0022) (R1 and B2 Zoning District) a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residences of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to replace an existing detached garage with an attached garage and construct a second-floor addition to the home.The proposed garage would be nine (9) feet from the side setback where ten (10) feet is required and twenty- one (21)feet from the rear setback where thirty(30) feet is required. The relief per Section 3.3.5 of the Zoning Ordinance applies to the property's nonconforming lot area, eastern and western side setbacks, and rear property setbacks. 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. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 2, 2025 Page 5 of 5 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. Special Condition: 1. The petitioner shall submit a revised Dimensional Table stating the existing and proposed property setbacks to the Planning Department before receiving a building permit from the Building Department. ,.� v ;11,81° Nina Vyedin,-: hair 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.