Loading...
8 Woodbury Court Certified Decision �►c0 � �� \ CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS AM 10. 42 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �L+•.RK 98 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 DOMINICK PANGAct-Al . TEL:978-619-5685 MAYOR July 8, 2025 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals The petition of MANDEE SPITTLE at 8 WOODBURY COURT(Map 36, Lot 0005) (112 Zoning District) for a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residences of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a single-story addition and deck to a nonconforming single- family dwelling.The proposed construction would increase the property's lot coverage from 52% to 57% where 35% is allowed. The single-story addition would be zero (0) feet from the rear property line where a setback of thirty (30) feet is required. 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 21, 2025.The petitioner sought Zoning Board of Appeals approval for the construction of a single-story addition and a deck. 1. Manda (Mandee) Spittle and Jeremy Spittle are the owners of 8 Woodbury Court. 2. Mandee Spittle was the petitioner. 3. Claudia Paraschiv from Studioful Design presented on behalf of Mandee and Jeremy Spittle on June 18, 2025, and June 25, 2025. 4. 8 Woodbury Court is in the R2 Zoning District (Map 36, Lot 0005). 5. On June 18, 2025,the Board heard no testimony on the petition. 6. Chair Vyedin opened up the hearing for public comments. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 8, 2025 Page 2 of 5 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. On June 25, 2025, Claudia Paraschiv presented plans to construct a single-story addition and a deck onto a nonconforming single-family dwelling. She stated that the project is on a small-forty-six-foot (46') wide and thirty-nine-foot (39') deep nonconforming lot. Ms. Paraschiv noted that a thirty-foot (30') setback would make building on the lot nearly impossible. She added that they previously received approval for a 5.5-foot by 7.5-foot addition indicated in grey on the plans submitted to the Board. Ms. Paraschiv added that they requested a nine-foot(9') by 15.5-foot deck indicated in grey.She stated that various circumstances prevented the applicants from beginning construction since initial approval in April 2024. 11. Ms. Paraschiv stated that one of the Applicant's children has special needs with a fragile medical situation requiring at-home nurses and medical workers. She stated that the applicant needed a mudroom where they would be able to clean off objects entering the house and provide storage for medical supplies. She added that they would be removing a stairway exiting onto Gonyea Park. 12. Ms. Paraschiv stated that they are requesting an additional area, indicated in black, because they realized it would be beneficial for the Applicant to have a full bath on the first floor. She stated there is a half-bath in the kitchen they would get rid of. Ms. Paraschiv added that the full bath next to the mudroom would allow people to wash their hands and put on a mask, allowing them to enter the house with an additional safety barrier. 13. Ms. Paraschiv stated that they would like to create a roof over the deck for use as a three- season space. She read a statement from Mandee and Jeremey Spittle stating that the proposed scope of work would increase the nonconformity of the rear setback to meet the Applicant's daughter's medical needs. The statement noted that the existing easement, established in 2001, extended from Gonyea Park to their property. Ms. Paraschiv added that the Board should approve the petition because of the size of the property,the existing easement, and the needs of the Applicant's daughter. 14. Ms. Paraschiv stated that she discussed the applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)with the City Solicitor, Beth Rennard, and the Building Commissioner,Stavroula Orfanos. She added that she appeared in front of the Board because the City has no streamlined process for those types of applications. 15. Acting Chair Osthoff stated that the petition came to the Board in April 2024 and added that enforcing a thirty-foot (30') setback would be an unreasonable hardship because the lot is thirty-eight feet(38') deep. She added that having Gonyea Park behind the property City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 8, 2025 Page 3 of 5 means there would not be an immediate abutter to the proposed addition. She noted that she believed the requested setback would not be more detrimental than the existing structure. 16. Mr. Larrick stated that the small size of the property justifies a hardship. Mr. Larrick asked the petitioner to explain what is different between the previous proposal and the current proposal. Ms. Paraschiv stated that the new petition requests an additional two feet (2'), eight inches (8") of building to create a mudroom and full bathroom on the first floor. 17. Mr. Habib stated that the lot size is difficult. He added that it makes sense to include the addition in the plans. Mr. Habib asked if the Elevation Plan showed a window located on the second floor next to the staircase. Ms. Paraschiv stated that there was a window instead of a doorway because the second-floor deck was added later in the plan's creation. 18. Mr. Larrick stated that a special condition saying the window should be constructed as a door would be reasonable. 19. Ms. McGaha stated that she believed providing relief would not be a detriment to the community. She asked what the space between the fence on Gonyea Park and the property was used for. Ms. Paraschiv stated that the easement consisted of a vegetative slope that acts as an extension of the private properties. Ms. McGaha stated that the buffer the easement provides would add to the argument that there would be no abutting properties. 20. Ms.Simpson stated that the request was reasonable given the setbacks and added that it was a good use of the small lot. ' 21. Acting Chair Osthoff opened up the hearing for public comments. 22. 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. 23. Staff Planner Brennan Postich proposed wording for a special condition: the window shown on the second floor of the Elevation Plan dated May 21, 2025, shall be constructed as a door to act as a means of egress. 24. Ms. McGaha 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: 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 requesting an addition that will provide increased access for persons with disabilities and visitors alike. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 8, 2025 Page 4 of 5 2. The proposal has minimal impacts on traffic flow and safety. The proposed plans do not impact traffic flow or the number of off-street parking spaces. 3. The proposal has minimal impacts on utilities and other public services.The structure has adequate utilities and other public services that will not be negatively affected by the proposed addition. 4. The proposal has minimal impacts on neighborhood character. The proposed addition does not exceed the existing rear setbacks of the house and removes a staircase extending into the easement on Gonyea Park. 5. The proposal has minimal impacts on the natural environment, including greenhouse gas emissions and views. The proposal's impacts on the natural environment and views are minimized by the easement along Gonyea Park and the nonconforming characteristics of the single-family home. 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 through jobs created by construction. 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 Mandee Spittle at 8 Woodbury Court (Map 36, Lot 0005) (I12 Zoning District) a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two- Family Residences of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a single-story addition and deck to a nonconforming single-family dwelling. The proposed construction will increase the property's lot coverage from 52%to 57%where 35% is allowed.The single-story addition will be zero (0) feet from the rear property line where a setback of thirty (30) 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. 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 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 8, 2025 Page 5 of 5 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 Conditions: 1. The window shown on the second floor of the Elevation Plan dated May 21, 2025 shall be constructed as a door to act as a means of egress. "Aait"A AJ�/to�f�16r 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. Date M 2 9 2021 1 hereby certify that 20 days have expired from the date this instrument was received, and that NO APPEAL has been filed in this office. A True Copy Tyl ATTEST;'CITY CLERK, Salem, Mass.