Loading...
24 Fort Avenue ZBA Final Decision DOMINICK PANGALLO MAYOR CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 98 WASHINGTON STREET  SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978-619-5685 July 2, 2025 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals The petition of NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY at 24 FORT AVENUE (Map 41, Lot 0271) (Map 41, Lot 0339) (I Zoning District) for a Special Permit per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures, and a Variance per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant proposes to expand an existing electric substation with equipment and facilities located 9.8 feet from the side lot line and zero feet (0’) from the rear lot line. The request includes a 2,240-square-foot switchgear power center, a 118-square-foot bathroom, and additional electrical facilities located throughout the site. 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 May 12, 2025. The petitioner sought Zoning Board of Appeals approval for the expansion of an existing electric substation. 1. Salem Harbor Development, LLC, and Salem Wind Terminal, LLC, owned 24 Fort Avenue. 2. The New England Power Company was the petitioner. 3. Joshua Lee Smith was the representative for the New England Power Company. Joshua Lee Smith presented on behalf of the Salem Harbor Power Development LP and the Massachusetts Clean Energy Technology Center. Jeffery Goldberg presented as a Principal Engineer from VHB. 4. 24 Fort Avenue is in the Industrial (I) Zoning District and Coastal Resiliency Overlay District (CROD) (Map 41, Lot 0271) (Map 41, Lot 0339). 5. Board Member Christa McGaha recused herself from voting on the petition of the New England Power Company. 6. On June 18, 2025, Attorney Joshua Lee Smith introduced plans to expand an existing electric substation. Mr. Smith stated that the site is a classic example of a pre-existing nonconforming use, specifically an unmanned electric substation that has been in existence since the 1950s. He added that the substation is in the Industrial Zoning District, and a portion of the site is in the Coastal Resiliency Overlay District. Mr. Smith stated that the neighborhood is in an industrial area with industrial properties on all sides of the site. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 2, 2025 Page 2 of 10 Mr. Smith noted that the site is a unique facility, a unique property, and a unique project because it is not a two-family house or a commercial building. He stated that the Applicant seeks relief for the extension of nonconforming uses and nonconforming dimensions, seeking additional relief for dimensional setbacks on the property. 7. Mr. Smith showed an aerial image with the property line outlined in red. Mr. Smith stated that the property is occupied under a substation easement. He added that two different Salem Wind affiliates own the underlying land. Mr. Smtih stated that the property lines intersect with the easement, and that the New England Power Company has the right to occupy the space the easement covers. 8. Mr. Smith explained that much of the equipment has been replaced over time and added that much of the present equipment has gone beyond its useful service life, requiring replacement. Mr. Smith stated that they viewed the proposal as a glorified maintenance and repair project. He noted that the proposal would be required to maintain and improve electrical reliability for the City of Salem and the surrounding area. Mr. Smith added that the proposal is a part of an improvement project for workers entering the site for testing. 9. Mr. Smith stated that the construction and installation of the equipment and facilities would not create power outages or power disruptions. 10. Mr. Smith depicted an aerial photo of the property and stated that Salem Wind affiliates surrounded the site. Mr. Smith stated that most of the substation was located within the lot, while the easement went over a different property owner. Mr. Smith added that the easement encompasses all the substation and straddles multiple lots, creating the present nonconformities. 11. Mr. Smith showed a site plan depicting equipment removal on the property. He stated that the bus structure and supporting equipment were among the oldest pieces of equipment in the area. Mr. Smith noted that they planned to remove this equipment. 12. Mr. Smith showed a view of the fence expansion area towards Fort Avenue. He stated that the fence line would be expanded twenty-three feet (23’) towards Fort Avenue in an area indicated in yellow. He stated the fence would be secured by eight-foot (8’) tall National Grid security fencing with one foot (1’) of barbed wire. Mr. Smith added that the expansion area is currently paved and would be converted to crushed stone like the rest of the yard. 13. Mr. Smith stated that the only building proposed as a part of the project would be in the middle of the property. He stated that a new switchgear enclosure structure would be installed next to the existing control building. Chair Vyedin asked where the bathrooms would be located. Mr. Smith stated that the bathrooms would be located slightly North of the switchgear enclosure. He added that the bathroom would be small enough not to require a building permit. 14. Mr. Smith stated the transformers are on the eastern side, or rear lot line, of the property. He noted that these transformers are beyond their service life, and that three (3) H-frame structures would replace them. Mr. Smith stated that the bank of transformers would be removed, that a 23kV bus structure would be removed, and that the existing fence would be replaced with expanded fencing. Mr. Smith stated that the proposed fence and Fort City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 2, 2025 Page 3 of 10 Avenue would be 244 feet apart. He added that the existing fence is 300 feet away from properties across Fort Avenue. 15. Mr. Smith stated that the main equipment on the property would be the reactors (located where the bus structures were previously situated). He stated that there would be four lighting masts to protect the electrical equipment and added that there would be replacement lighting poles eighteen feet (18’) in height. Mr. Smith noted that the switch gear enclosure would be 2,200 square feet. 16. Mr. Smith stated that the current transformers would be replaced with three (3) transformers in the same area. Chair Vyedin asked if the height of the transformers would remain the same or around the same height as the existing structure. Mr. Smith stated the H-frame structures would be sixty-five feet (65’) in height, similar to the existing bus structures. Chair Vyedin asked if the Applicant would place anything that would be taller than what already exists. Mr. Smith stated that nothing would be taller than what already exists. 17. Jeff Goldberg, principal engineer from VHB, stated that the existing profile at the top of the submitted Profile Sheet shows the height of the existing structures. He stated the existing transformers are sixteen feet (16’) tall and added that the associated transformer structure spanning the bank is about thirty-eight feet (38’) tall. Mr. Goldberg added that twenty-foot (20’) transformers would replace the thirty-eight-foot (38’) transformer structure. Mr. Goldberg noted that there would be two (2) sixty-five-foot (65’) tall H- frames. He added that their footprint would be smaller than the lattice structure going around the three (3) transformer banks. 18. Chair Vyedin stated that the profiles clearly depicted what the Applicant proposed. Chair Vyedin asked if the structures would allow the Applicant to bring the power from the station onto the electric grid. Mr. Goldberg stated that the structures would take electricity brought into the generation plant and carry the electricity from a higher voltage to a lower voltage. Mr. Goldberg added that the structures would then distribute the lower voltage electricity to the City streets. Chair Vyedin asked if the substation would serve only the City of Salem. Mr. Goldberg stated that he would not be sure if it only served Salem and added that the substation would serve a sizable area. Mr. Smith stated the substation would primarily serve the City. 19. Mr. Smith explained that an affiliate of Salem Wind owned one side of the lot, and another affiliate of Salem Wind owned the other side of the lot. He added that these were not the same owner despite both being affiliates of Salem Wind. Mr. Smith said that some equipment is located past the property line, requiring relief for a zero-foot (0’) setback. Chair Vyedin asked if there would be water past the lot owned by the second Salem Wind affiliate. Mr. Smith stated that is correct. Ms. Osthoff asked if the zero-foot (0’) condition currently exists on the property. Mr. Smith stated that is correct. 20. Mr. Smith showed a graphic depicting the existing side yard profile, proposed side yard profile, and proposed front yard profile. He stated there would be four (4) lightning masts for all four corners surrounding the bank or set of reactors. Mr. Smith added that the lightning masts were forty feet (40’) tall and ten feet (10’) shorter if not including the top of the masts. Chair Vyedin asked if there was any guidance for how tall lightning masts City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 2, 2025 Page 4 of 10 need to be to be effective. Mr. Smith stated that there was guidance for how tall the lightning masts needed to be to be effective. 21. Ms. Osthoff asked if the Applicant was seeking relief for building height. Mr. Smith stated that new buildings comply with maximum height requirements and added that the other structures would not apply to the height requirements because they only apply to buildings. He added that the sixty-five-foot (65’) tall H-frame is a pre-existing nonconforming structure, so the extension of the H-frame would capture improvements on the rest of the structure. 22. Chair Vyedin stated that she is mostly concerned about the impact the substation expansion would have on abutters and added that she sees nothing proposed that worries her. Mr. Smith stated that the property is over 200 feet from the street and added that arborvitaes and shade trees block the view from residential properties. Mr. Smith stated that the 23kV bus structure would be removed to be replaced with reactors and lighting masts. 23. Chair Vyedin asked the applicant to explain the location of side setbacks and where the applicant is requesting relief from the Board. Mr. Smith stated that the closest structure would be 9.8 feet from the side property line. He added that the property line facing Fort Avenue is a side lot line because there is an intervening lot not owned under common ownership. 24. Mr. Smith explained that the front lot line is along Fort Avenue and added that the front lot line goes up to the access point of the driveway. Mr. Smith stated that the driveway extends to the substation lot, so the front lot line would be where the driveway is located. He added that the side lot line followed the fence where the lightning mast labeled as item G would be located. 25. Chair Vyedin asked if the equipment renewal would create any changes to traffic and noise at the site. Mr. Smith stated that the substation was unmanned. He noted that workers from National Grid and Ever Source perform service calls for routine maintenance at the field operation site, then leave. Chair Vyedin asked what the impact of trucks coming in for deliveries and construction would be. Mr. Smith stated that the impact of construction and delivery vehicles would be negligible. 26. Mr. Smith stated that the expansion would reduce the noise because the noise at the site primarily comes from transformers. He noted that the transformers, located on the harborside of the property, would be replaced and upgraded. Mr. Smith stated that the transformers have fifty-plus-year lifespans and added that as transformers are tweaked over time, they become louder than modern transformers. Mr. Smith stated that the replacement and upgrade of these transformers would decrease the noise. Chair Vyedin stated that the result would be an upgrade for the Applicant and the nearby residents. 27. Mr. Smith displayed the dimensions and characteristics of the equipment on the property. He stated the 65.8-foot H-frame could be considered as being fifty-five feet (55’) tall because the whip is ten feet (10’) tall. Mr. Smith added that the bus duct structure would be 28.4 feet tall. He noted that the transformer would be nineteen feet (19’) to the top. Mr. Smith stated that the switchgear enclosure could be considered as equipment rather City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 2, 2025 Page 5 of 10 than a structure because it houses sensitive equipment, with much of the equipment being housed from the outside. 28. Mr. Smith stated that the State Plumbing Code required that a bathroom be installed for unmanned structures. 29. Mr. Smith stated that a robust planting of mature trees and vegetation has existed along Fort Avenue for decades. He added that the other side of Fort Avenue is over 200 feet of property owned by Salem Wind. He noted that he believed the other side of the vegetative buffer would be a Salem Wind parking lot. 30. Mr. Smith showed a vantage point of the site at 35 Fort Avenue. He stated that individuals could partially see a 23kV structure that will be removed. Mr. Smith added that individuals might see some of the lightning masts, which would need to be a certain height to perform their function. He noted that individuals would not be able to see reactors from across the street. 31. Mr. Larrick asked if National Grid is involved in maintaining the arborvitae visual screen. Mr. Smith stated that the property is owned by a combination of two Salem Wind property owners. Mr. Larrick asked if a stipulation or community benefits agreement required the screen to be maintained. Mr. Smith stated that no agreements required the screen to be maintained. 32. Mr. Smith stated that the substation easement is not located within a floodplain and added that all equipment would be above the 100-year floodplain. He noted that any equipment would be well-anchored to the ground. Mr. Smith added that National Grid has policies and procedures related to coastal flooding. He stated that it would be in their best interest to make their property unsusceptible to any flooding event. 33. Mr. Smith stated that the transformers would be replaced with low-noise transformers. He added that task lighting would surround all four sides of the property. Mr. Smith noted that the task lighting would only be on when an individual entered the site at night. Mr. Smith stated that the new light poles located closest to Fort Avenue would be pointed downwards towards the equipment rather than as a floodlight pointing towards neighboring properties. 34. Ms. Osthoff asked if the improvements would help the substation be more energy efficient. Mr. Smith stated that the equipment would be more energy efficient because much of the equipment is vintage and beyond its service life. Ms. Osthoff stated that consideration makes the proposal more advantageous to her. 35. Mr. Larrick asked if there is a relationship between this proposal and Salem Wind. Mr. Smith stated that the proposal is a glorified maintenance and repair project to replace equipment beyond its service life that would occur without Salem Wind. He added that the project is standalone and has nothing to do with Salem Wind. He noted that there would be a conduit to connect the substation to Salem Wind’s infrastructure. 36. Mr. Larrick asked if National Grid was coordinating with Salem Wind and if the proposed plans would create externalities for Salem Wind. Mr. Smith stated that they happen to share the same property owners and are located next to each other. He added that they stand separate and apart despite Salem Wind being a customer. 37. Chair Vyedin opened up the hearing for public comments. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 2, 2025 Page 6 of 10 38. The City received one (1) public comment on the proposal before the hearing. The public comment was from David McIntire of 35 Fort Avenue. At the June 18, 2025 public hearing one (1) member of the public commented on the proposal. 39. David McIntire, 35 Fort Avenue, stated that the Applicant did not show the view from the yard by the speed limit sign. Mr. McIntire stated that the existing 23kV reactor is twenty- five feet (25’) tall, and that the new equipment would be seventeen feet (17’) tall but eighty feet (80’) closer, so it would appear the same height. He added that each reactor is five feet (5’) wide, while the new reactors will be nine feet (9’) wide. He noted that he would like to see additional deciduous trees in the vegetative buffer. Mr. McIntire stated that the Board would be voting to change a pre-approved site plan because the land is already designated for something else. He added that the parking lot for Salem Wind interferes with the property of National Grid. He stated that the Board would remove thirteen (13) parking spaces if they approved the project, and that the Board needs to follow procedures to change the site plan. 40. Mr. Smith stated that the proposal is going through the Planning Board process as well. He noted that they learned about the submitted abutter letter at the first Planning Board meeting and added that company representatives met with Mr. McIntire to discuss the project’s scope. Mr. Smith stated that parking, landscaping, and lighting are the more contested items in the projects they deal with. He noted that the tree line along Fort Avenue, with shade trees and non-deciduous evergreen trees, provided more than adequate screening for the property. Mr. Smith added that the screening is not perfect, but very good by any development standard. 41. Mr. Smith stated that the New England Power Company only has the right to the substation easement, cannot do anything about the vegetative buffer, and does not own any land. Ms. Osthoff stated that it would be unfair to require the Applicant to accept an uncontrollable condition for them to address the tree issue. Chair Vyedin stated it would be good to know who owns the surrounding properties. She added that she has no evidence that the petitioners could change the vegetative buffer. 42. Mr. Smith stated that the Salem Wind project went through a heavy vetting process. He added that the landscaping considerations would be much more significant for 24 Fort Avenue than they would be for their maintenance project. Mr. Smith noted that the equipment had to be located where they were proposing the equipment to go. He stated that National Grid has an active community liaison group and that dialogue with the community would continue. He added that National Grid could not control what the property owner could do. Mr. Smith stated they would work with the neighbor and property owner to see if they could complete mitigation efforts. 43. Chair Vyedin stated that the provision of electricity creates a net public benefit. She added that the Board needed to weigh that net public benefit against the immediate abutters to the property. Chair Vyedin stated that there is no entitlement to views in the Zoning Ordinance and added that the Ordinance only contains height restrictions. 44. Ms. Osthoff asked if the Board’s approval of the project would change the previously approved Salem Wind project. Mr. Smith stated that National Grid could not build immediately if the Board granted permission at this hearing. He stated that the company City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 2, 2025 Page 7 of 10 only has the right to develop, operate, and use the easement area. He noted there is no interplay between the two projects. 45. Mr. Larrick asked if the Applicant had any statement on the concerns raised by Mr. McIntire about the reduction in parking at Salem Wind. Mr. Smith stated that the issue with Salem Wind is a property rights issue and that the New England Power Company will halt that issue quickly. Mr. Smith stated that the property owners and their surveyors are at fault. 46. Mr. Larrick asked if all parties would need to be involved in changing the site plan if a change was proposed inside the easement. Mr. Smith stated that National Grid should not be held up because Salem Wind wanted to construct something inside an area where they were not allowed to build. Mr. Smith added that the concern was a private property rights issue and noted that there would be zero risk to the Zoning Board of Appeals in granting a Variance and Special Permit to the Applicant. 47. Mr. Smith stated that Salem Wind was a customer who had zero input from the New England Power Company in their project. He stated that National Grid did not know about the scope of Salem Wind’s project while creating this proposal and coordinating Salem Wind’s infrastructure. Mr. Smith stated that they had recent discussions with Salem Wind, that Salem Wind acknowledged the easement, and noted that Salem Wind may need to go back to the Planning Board if they did something in violation of National Grid’s property rights. 48. Mr. Larrick stated that he agreed with Mr. Smith’s assessment and stated that he wanted to know the context of what occurred to create the conflicting plans. Chair Vyedin stated that this explained why there were two conflicting plans. She stated that coordination between the New England Power Company and Salem Wind would create the right outcome. She stated she felt comfortable voting on relief and considering the application. She stated that the New England Power Company, the other property owner, and the City would need to coordinate what needs to be done to amend the existing plans. Ms. Osthoff stated that she agreed with Chair Vyedin. Mr. Larrick stated that the conflicting plans were outside the scope of the Board. 49. Ms. Osthoff stated that the upgrades were necessary and would be beneficial to the public. She stated that the upgrades do not appear more detrimental than what exists and added that they improve existing conditions in many cases. 50. Chair Vyedin asked the Applicant to cover the grounds for hardship because they are requesting a variance. Mr. Smith stated that the uniqueness of the facility, the uniqueness of property rights with the substation easement, the underlying land ownership structure, and the unusual lot lines add to the grounds for hardship. Mr. Smith stated that the National Electric Safety Code provides clearance requirements that limit where transformers can be placed on a property. He added that years of internal site review are required to accommodate future growth. Mr. Smith stated that capacity had to be baked into the substation site. He stated that they can only place transformers in a limited number of places, which creates noncompliance on the site. 51. Mr. Smith stated that the New England Power Company could not remove and reinstall the 23kV section at one time. He stated that the removal and installation had to occur City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 2, 2025 Page 8 of 10 elaborately, with State safety policies and guidelines. Mr. Smith noted that there are constraints on the developable area for where the substation equipment could go. He added that a Variance could cover safety considerations and stated that the substation equipment and facilities involve significant safety considerations. 52. Mr. Larrick stated that the statement of grounds was thorough. 53. Chair Vyedin stated that the Board normally requires that a dimensional table show the required, existing, and proposed dimensions for a proposal. She stated that the Board should require the Applicant to include an updated dimensional table as a special condition. Mr. Smith stated that he agreed to the special condition requiring a revised dimensional table. 54. Staff Planner Brennan Postich proposed wording for a special condition: 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. 55. Ms. Osthoff motioned to approve the petition, with the special condition proposed by Staff Planner Brennan Postich. 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 unique facility, operates a substation within unusual lot lines, and operates under a unique easement. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance involves substantial hardship to the applicant in attempting to put the property to productive use. The Applicant must place the equipment in its proposed locations due to overlapping State regulations and operational constraints. 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 proposes to increase the reliability of electricity supply to the public with the requested reliefs. These reliefs would substantially aid the public good by providing an avenue for electricity from the National Grid plant. The requested relief allows the Applicant to operate as an industrial use inside an Industrial Zoning District. Special Permit Findings: The Board finds that per Section 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, the change or extension of the use will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 2, 2025 Page 9 of 10 neighborhood. The Board finds that per Section 3.3.3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, 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 requesting to expand a substation with repairs necessary to continue providing electricity to the City. 2. The impact on traffic flow and safety is minimal because the construction would occur incrementally, and the substation is unmanned. 3. The proposal has a positive impact on the adequacy of utilities and other public services. The equipment on the property has reached the end of its useful service life. The replacement equipment will create fewer externalities and result in a net public benefit. 4. The proposal has minimal impacts on neighborhood character. All proposed structures would be over 200 feet away from the nearest abutting property. The substation is located in an existing industrial neighborhood. 5. The proposal has minimal impacts on the natural environment, including greenhouse gas emissions and the view. The proposal does not increase the height of the substation or significantly impact the view from Fort Avenue. A mix of deciduous and evergreen trees acts as an adequate vegetative buffer to the property. 6. The proposal has a positive potential economic and fiscal impact, including impacts on City services, tax base, and employment. Improvements to the property will ensure the City receives a reliable supply of electricity. The replacement of equipment on the property will ensure the property continues to be put to productive use. Based on the above statements of fact and findings, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor, (Nina Vyedin (Chair), Hannah Osthoff, Stephen Larrick, and Ellen Simpson) and zero (0) opposed, to grant the New England Power Company at 24 Fort Avenue (Map 41, Lot 0271) (Map 41, Lot 0339) (I Zoning District) a Special Permit per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures, and a Variance per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant proposes to expand an existing electric substation with equipment and facilities located 9.8 feet from the side lot line and zero feet (0’) from the rear lot line. The request includes a 2,240-square-foot switchgear power center, a 118-square-foot bathroom, and additional electrical facilities located throughout the site. 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 10 of 10 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. 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. Special Conditions: 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. __________________________ 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 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.