Loading...
266 Canal Street Certified Decision �QND►T CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2025 jUl,. -8 AM I(l: 4 2 a w tI �—CK 98 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 DOMINICK PANGALLO `' I ?'L R TEI.:978-619-5685 MAYOR July 8, 2025 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals The petition of THE RESIDENCES ON CANAL STREET, LLP, at 266 CANAL STREET (Map 32, Lots 0036, 0037, 0038, 0102, 0144) (RC, B2, I, and Entry Corridor Overlay Districts) for a Variance per Section 4-51(a)(2) of the Salem Code of Ordinances. The proposed Variance would allow the placement of two (2) banners reading "NOW LEASING" & "Live lore.com" for two (2) years. The primary banner would face East along Canal Street,while the secondary bannerwould face South along Kimball Road.The bottom of the banners would be thirty-six feet(36'),four inches (4")and twelve feet (12% six inches (6") above the first-floor elevation. A public hearing on the above petition was opened on June 18, 2025, pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11, during which no testimony was heard. The petition was continued to June 25, 2025, and was closed on June 25, 2025. On June 18, 2025, the following members of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals were present: Nina Vyedin, Hannah Osthoff, Peter Habib, Christa McGaha, and Stephen Larrick. Peter Habib was absent. On June 25, 2025, the following members of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals were present: Hannah Osthoff, Christa McGaha, Stephen Larrick, and Ellen Simpson. Peter Habib arrived after the Board voted for attendance and participated as a non-voting member. Nina Vyedin was absent. Statements of Fact: The petition was date-stamped on May 14, 2025.The petitioner sought Zoning Board of Appeals approval for two banners located above the top of the sills of the first level of windows above the first story. 1. The Residences on Canal Street, LLP, is the owner of 266 Canal Street. 2. The Residences on Canal Street, LLP, was the petitioner. 3. Chris Kopelin and Kristen Poulin presented on behalf of The Residences on Canal Street, LLP, on June 18, 2025, and June 25, 2025. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July,8, 2025 Page 2 of 5 4. The original filing on May 14, 2025, was amended to remove a Variance request per Section 4-51(a)(6) of the Salem Code of Ordinances. The Board determined the relief inapplicable because the signs would not be temporary. 5. 266 Canal Street is in the R2 Zoning District, B2 Zoning District, Industrial Zoning District, and Entry Corridor Overlay District (Map 32, Lots 0036, 0037, 0038, 0102, 0144). 6. On June 18, 2025, the Board heard no testimony on the petition. 7. Chair Vyedin opened up the hearing for public comments. 8. The City received zero (0) public comments on the proposal before the hearing. At the June 18, 2025 public hearing,zero(0) members of the public commented on the proposal. 9. At the June 18, 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 special meeting scheduled for June 25, 2025. 10. At the June 25, 2025 public hearing, Board Member Peter Habib arrived after the Board voted for attendance and participated as a non-voting member. Acting Chair Hannah Osthoff verified that the Applicant consented to a four-member voting Board. 11. On June 25, 2025, Chair Osthoff stated that Section 4-51(a)(6) of the Salem Code of Ordinances would not be required because the sign would not be considered as temporary. She added that the Board would still be considering relief per Section 4- 51(o)(2) of the Salem Code of Ordinances. 12. On June 25, 2025, Chris Kopelin stated that the Residences on Canal Street, LLP, required banners to inform the public that they are leasing. Mr. Kopelin added that these banners would need to comply with Section 4-51(f)of the Salem Code of Ordinances because they would be considered as permanent signs. Mr. Kopelin stated that this Section required compliance with the sign frontage. Mr. Kopelin added that sign frontage was calculated on each street relative to the length of the building on the street, multiplied by two (2). Mr. Kopelin stated that this requirement would require a small revision to the South banner to comply with the Ordinance. 13. Mr. Kopelin stated that they requested relief for the banners being over the first-floor windowsill. He stated that a building the size of the Residences on Canal Street requires larger letters. Mr. Kopelin added that one of the banners would be thirty-six feet (36'), four inches (4") above the first-floor elevation, while another banner would be twelve feet (12'), six inches (6") above the first-floor elevation. He stated that none of the banners projected outwards from the building. 14. Mr. Kopelin stated that the hardship consisted of the distance between the motoring public and the building. Mr. Kopelin stated that eighteen-inch (18") tall letters would be readable ninety feet (90') away from the motoring public. He stated that the location of the sign would create a visible message that the Residences on Canal Street were leasing. Mr. Kopelin added that the apartment development has 250 apartments in total and noted that fifty (50) of those units would be deed-restricted affordable. Mr. Kopelin stated this messaging would be important because people would drive by, notice the sign, and lease the apartments. He added that individuals would then tell their friends that the place they have been seeing and driving by is open. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 8, 2025 Page 3 of 5 15. Mr. Kopelin stated that they have 236 feet of building frontage along Canal Street. He showed plans stating that the building frontage was 236 feet along Canal Street and sixty- three feet (63') along Kimball Road. Mr. Kopelin stated that the building frontage along Canal Street, multiplied by two (2), would create a maximum square footage of 472 square feet. He noted that the banner along Canal Street would be just over ninety square feet (90 sq. ft.), allowing a significant amount of square footage for other signs. 16. Mr. Kopelin stated that the other sign, at 135 square feet, was more challenging. He added that the building frontage along Kimball Road, multiplied by two, would support 126 square feet of square footage. Mr. Kopelin stated that the sign on the original plan showed 135 square feet, which would be slightly too large. Mr. Kopelin presented a revised sign that was 61.5 inches tall and 258.66 inches long, creating a total square footage of 110 square feet. He added that the additional square footage would provide space for the retailer's sign. Mr. Kopelin noted that both signs would comply with the square footage requirements and added that they required relief for the locations of the signs on the building. 17. Acting Chair Osthoff stated that it helped to see that the signs complied with the requirements of Section 4-51(f) of the Salem Code of Ordinances. Acting Chair Osthoff stated that the Board would still consider relief for the height of the signs. 18. Ms. McGaha asked if the temporary banner would be allowed to be treated as a permanent sign under the Salem Zoning Code due to permanent sign material standards. Acting Chair Osthoff stated that the Salem Code of Ordinances includes banners in the definitions for a sign. She added that the Code of Ordinances had no material standards and noted that the only standards for signs related to the distance from the street. 19. Mr. Kopelin stated that the average distance of the sign was measured from the centerline of the abutting street. He added that they multiplied the signage by two (2) because they were within zero to ninety-nine feet (0' — 99') of the centerline of the abutting street. Mr. Kopelin showed the text of Section 4-51(f), stating: The total area* in square feet of all permanent signs on a sign frontage, except for signs on windows above the first floor, freestanding signs, and directional signs, shall not exceed the following: Average Distance of Sign From Centerline Sign Frontage* Multiplied by of Abutting Street 0-99 2 100—399 2.5 400 and over 3 20. Ms. Simpson stated that the petition seemed standard for buildings for lease. She stated that she had no issue with the petition if the Applicant was only requesting relief for the height and location of the signage. Ms. Simpson noted that it made sense for the signs to be tall because it would be easier for people to see while driving by. She stated that the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July,8, 2025 Page 4 of 5 signs were not visually offensive, innocuous, and added that she was fine with the petition. 21. Acting Chair Osthoff opened up the hearing for public comments. 22.The City received zero (0) public comments on the proposal before the public hearing. At the June 25, 2025 public hearing, zero (0) members of the public commented on the proposal. 23. Staff Planner Brennan Postich asked the Board to restate the hardship for the petition. 24. Acting Chair Osthoff stated that the project was large and that having the signs be visible from a great distance was a reasonable request. 25. Mr. Larrick stated that the criteria for a sign ordinance request would be different from a dimensional variance request. He noted that the criteria for a sign ordinance required the Board to find that Article 11 did not contemplate this scenario. Mr. Larrick added that the Board could vary the sections of Article 11 by finding that the specific case has not been contemplated by Article ll. He stated that the last two criteria for a variance under the sign ordinance would be consistent with the last two criteria for a dimensional variance. Mr. Larrick stated that the finding for the first criterion would be that nothing in Article II specifically talked about advertising and leasing for a building in a large project like the Residences on Canal Street. 26. Staff Planner Brennan Postich noted that the relief required for the Salem Code of Ordinances would be different from those under the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Simpson asked if the criteria for the Salem Code of Ordinances would take the place of the findings for the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Postich stated that her interpretation would be correct. 27. 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 the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Code of Ordinances: Variance Findings: 1. The specific case appears not to have been contemplated by Article II of the Salem Code of Ordinances. Article 11 of the Salem Code of Ordinances does not describe a scenario where a large project like the Residences on Canal Street would need to advertise residential listings. 2. Enforcement of Article II would involve practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship.The signage must be located above the first-floor elevation of the building because of the site and location of the building. The eighteen-inch (18")tall letters would be readable ninety feet(90') away from the motoring public and a direct line of sight. Denying the Applicant relief per Section 4-51(a)(2) would create a significant financial burden to the Applicant because they would be unable to productively advertise their residential listings. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July,8, 2025 Page 5 of 5 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of Article II. The Applicant's requested signage complies with Section 4-51(f) of the Code of Ordinances while having minimal adverse visual impacts. Based on the above statements of fact and findings, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor, (Hannah Osthoff (Acting Chair), Christa McGaha, Stephen Larrick, and Ellen Simpson) and zero(0)opposed,to grant The Residences on Canal Street, LLP at 266 Canal Street (Map 32, Lots 0036, 0037, 0038, 0102, 0144) (RC, B2, I, and Entry Corridor Overlay Districts) a Variance per Section 4-51(a)(2) of the Salem Code of Ordinances. The proposed Variance will allow the placement of two (2) banners reading "NOW LEASING" & "Livelore.com" for two (2) years.The primary banner will face East along Canal Street,while the secondary banner will face South along Kimball Road.The bottom of the banners will be thirty-six feet(36%four inches (4"), and twelve feet (12'), six inches (6") above the first-floor elevation. Standard Conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any city board or commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to,the Planning Board. 3. 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. 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.uL 2 9 202 Date 1 hereby certify that 20 days have expired from the date +1ils instrument was received, and 'k►la, NO APPEAL has been filed in this office. A True Copy ATTEST: HEITY CLERK, Salem, Mrs.