Loading...
ZBA Decision for 21 Webb St w ` CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 98 W ASHiNc,'ro 2 STREET + SALEM,a1ASSACHUSLT TS 01970 FaoMnNlcl~PA c,Ai,T,a TEL:978-619-5685 r ^ MAYOR 3 CIO July ZB, 2025 Decision > City of Salem Zoning Beard of Appeals The petition of 21 WEBB STREET LLC at 21 WEBB STREET (Map 41, Lot 0170) (R2 Zoning District and Coastal Resiljency Oue,rlay, District) for a Variance per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements and a Special Permit per Section 3.1.2 Special Permit of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct and operate a 2.5-story bed and breakfast establishment. Proposed construction would create two five-foot (5') side setbacks where ten feet (10') are required and a 3.3-foot rear setback where thirty feet (30') are required. On July 16, 2025, the following members of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals were present: Nina Vyedin, Peter Habib, Christa McGaha, and Ellen Simpson. Hannah Osthoff and Stephen Larrick were absent. Statements of Fact: The petition was date-stamped on June 17, 2025. The petitioner sought Zoning Board of Appeals approval for the construction of a 2.5-story bed and breakfast establishment. 1. 21 Webb Street LLC owns 21 Webb Street. 2. 2.1 Webb Street LLC was the petitioner. 3. Attorney William Quinn represented 21 Webb Street LLC. Attorney William Quinn presented on behalf of 21 Webb Street LLC. Robert Griffin presented on behalf of the Griffin Engineering Group, 4. 21 Webb Street is in the R2 Zoning District and Coastal Resiliency Overlay District (Map 41, Lot 0170). 5. This filing amended the original filing made on June 17, 2025, by replacing the incorrect wording of "create a five-foot (5') rear setback where ten feet (10') are required" with "create two five-foot (5') side setbacks where ten feet (10') are required." 6. On July 16, 2025, Staff Planner Brennan Postich verified that the Applicant consented to a four-member voting Board. 7. On July 16, 2025, Attorney William Quinn stated that the history of the lot has created a garage with six parking spaces that could only be used by the owner. He added that the large lot could not be used during Halloween for parking. Mr. Quinn stated that a single- or two-family house could be developed due to the property being in the R2 Zoning District. He explained that in 1955, an owner named John Matula received permission to City nfSalem Zoning Board of Appeals ' July 28, 2O25 Page Zof9 construct a four-car garage with his house. Mr. Quinn stated that on May 34, 1965, 3tan)cyK4atu|a received permission to demolish the hOuse. He added that the property has had no other use since 1965. He stated that 21 Webb Street is bigger than other lots in the neighborhood. Mr. Quinn added that the lot was not generating productive use for the benefit of the City. 8. Mr. Quinn stated that the Building Department has struggled to determine what could or could not be a(|ovv2d on the property over the years. He noted that his client has found a useful and allowable use for the property as a bed and breakfast if the Board grants a Special Pert-nit. Mr. Quinn added that under Section 280 Definitions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, bed and breakfasts are defined as "accommodations with not more than six (6) bedrooms occupied by bed and breakfast guests in which the owner of the establishment resides. Bed and breakfasts are intended for guest on intermittent visits, and shall not be used as long-term rental units or apartments. All parking for residents and guests shall beoff-street." 8. Mr. Quinn stated that they have submitted a package with detailed architectural renderings that would be attractive and appropriate for a bed and breakfast in the location. Mr. Quinn noted that one side of the property has a row of three-decker homes and added that there are more three-decker homes on English Street. IO. Mr. Quinn Stated that the building hugs the rear of the property because it builds over the existing footprint of the garages. He added that the first third (l/3) of the lot )swithin a resiliency area. Mr. Quinn stated that the building requires resiliency review from the Planning Board to make sure historic flooding levels do not interfere with the property's utilities. M/. Quinn stated that the engineer has submitted plans explaining why the location of the building at the rear of the property would be optimal. He added that there would be sixty feet (60') of open space between the building and the neighbors on English Street. 1I. k4r. Quinn stated that the City needs guest accommodations as the tourism industry grows. He added that e variety of guest accommodations other than expensive hotels or guest houses would be in the public interest ofa working-class community like Salem. Mr. Quinn stated that this would be an attractive, effective use with plenty of on-site parking. He stated that the proposal would be an appropriate use and an enhancement tothe neighborhood and the City. lZ. Chair Vyedin asked how many guest bedrooms the bed and breakfast would have. Mr. Quinn stated that there would be six /6\ bedrooms, with each ofthe bedrooms being a two-unit suite. He noted that there would be no kitchens in the suites and added that none of the suites could be used as an apartment. Mr. Quinn stated that the owner's suite would be on the third floor. Chair Vyedin asked if someone would live in the owner's suite. Mr. Quinn stated that someone would live there to make breakfast for the guests, 13. Mr. Habib stated that the submitted Plot Plan shows seven (7) parking spaces are required and that nine /9\ parking spaces are assumed. He asked what the intent of the extra spaces would be and whether the extra spaces would be used for the resident, Mr. Quinn stated that seven (7) spaces vvoV|d be required for the owner-occupant and the six (6) units. He added that they would like toaccommodate guests if they arrived with two cars. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 2Q, 2025 Page 3of9 14. Mr. Griffin stated that he showed six /G\ parking spaces for the six /G\ units, with one (l) parking Space for the staff and two /J\ parking spaces for the owner-occupied unit. W1r, Habib stated he wanted to ensure the spaces that are being shown would be needed. Mr. Griffin stated that they had nine (9) parking spaces, and that nine (9) parking spaces were required. IS. Ms. McGaha asked if there would be two staff members in addition to the owner. Mr. Giffin stated that there would be at most two /Z\ staff members and added that these would be the individuals cleaning the rooms. lG. Mr. Quinn stated that they are asking for two variances in addition to the Special Permit to a||ovv the bed and breakfast use. He stated that one Variance would a||ovv less than a ten-foot (ID') setback on each side of the structure. Mr. Quinn added that the second Variance would allow them to provide about three feet (Y) of space from the rear of the property, which would be a half-foot (2/2') greater than the existing garage. He noted that there is nothing behind the property for sixty feet (60'). 17. [hair Vvedin asked if there was an easement on the property located behind the proposed bed and breakfast (7 Rear English Street). Mr. Quinn stated that there is an easement among owners off English Street adjacent to the lot. He added that the easement does not continue through their property. 18. Ms. K4cGaha asked if the Applicant would be removing any trees because the imagery showed mature trees around the property. Mr. Quinn stated that the Board could impose a condition that no trees would be removed without consulting with the City Tree Warden. Mr. Habib asked whether the trees looking frorn the property's fa�ade would be on the property. Mr. Griffin stated that the large tree appeared to be further than three feet (3')from the building on Google Earth, so the tree would be beyond 21 Webb Street. 19. Mr. Habib asked if the additional trees located near the east of the property would be on the neighbor's site. Mr. Griffin stated that the trees appeared to be past the property's fence line. Mr. Habib stated that it is hard to tell and noted that the trees would likely remain in place. Mr. Quinn stated that the situation creates more reasons for the Tree Warden to provide input and requirements. Ms. K4cGaha stated that it would be important to protect the neighbors behind the building because the proposed structure would be tall. 20. Ms. Simpson asked for a description of the flood area on the property and an explanation of flood precautions for the building. Mc Giffin showed a site plan of the property and stated that they would be going to the Conservation Commission, He stated that the elevation of Webb Street is about nine feet /9'\ above sea level. He added that the line labeled 'AE', showing the FEK4A's 100-Year Flood Elevation, is about ten feet /10'\ above sea level. Mr. Griffin stated that anything below ten feet /10'\ would be within the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission. He noted that the elevation at the back of the property would be 12.S feet above sea level, or three feet (3') higher than the street's elevation. JI. Mr. Griffin stated that Salem has Coastal Resiliency Overlay District ([ROO) Ordinance that uses predictions for the 2070 100-Year Flood Elevation. He added that this elevation would be fourteen feet (14') high, or four feet (4') higher than the existing 100-Year Flood City of Salem Zoning Board ofAppeals ` ' July l8, 2025 Page 4of0 Elevation. Mr. Griffin stated that Salem requires all new non-residential construction to be elevated above the 2070 100'Year Flood Elevation. He noted that the Building Code requires buildings to be two feet (2') above the 100'Year Flood Elevation, so the [ROD criteria would be more conservative. 22. Mr. Griffin stated that all mechanical and electrical equipment would be above the fourteen-foot (14') 2070 Flood Elevation, He added that the building footprint has items labeled as 'FV', standing for flood vents. Mr. Griffin noted that the flood vents allowed floodwater to enter and exit from the crawl space without human intervention. He stated that elevating the building vvVu{d protect the contents of the building and would keep people safe ina flood event. 23. K4r. Habib stated that he knew the flooding concerns closely and appreciated the resiliency elements involved in the application. [hair Vyedin asked whether flooding would affect the parking and asked whether cars would need to be moved elsewhere. Mr. Griffin stated that cars would need to leave the property because afuurteen-foo1 (14') flood would be higher than the stree1'selevation, 24. Chair Vyedin asked whetherthe Applicant had considered the amount of pervious surface area absorbing floodwater near the building. Mr. Griffin stated that, aside from the paved area for parking and the building's footprint, there would be a relatively pervious garden space and firepit area. He added that they would illustrate drainage in more detail for the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board. 25. [hairVyedin stated that the design on the architectural drawings looked nice and added that she liked the ramp for increased accessibility. She added that the Applicant would require a Variance for the building dimensions and noted that the Applicant could not place the structure in an area not requiring dimensional relief. [ha|rVvedin noted that the requested building would be within the setbacks of the existing building. Mr. Quinn stated that the setback would allow adequate parking for the site. 36. k8s. MrGaha stated that the parking made sense due to on-site flood constraints. She stated that the request for a Variance to place the building further from the flood zone was reasonable. 27. Chair Vyedin opened up the hearing for public comments. 28. The City received zero (O} public comments on the proposal before the hearing. At the July 16, 2025 public hearing one (l) member ofthe public commented on the proposal. The nnennberm/hu offered comments at the hearing was Ward One Councillor Cynthia Jerzy|o (address not providcd). 29. [ounci||or ]erzy|o asked whether the Applicant had reached out to homeowners on English Street, She stated that the owner uflEnglish Street had a built-in pool and added that the owner was concerned with the height of the existing structure increasing from one /1\ story to 2.5 stories. K4s. ]erZy|u stated that the proposal would be a great plan for the lot. She added that she would like to hear from abutters behind the property before any plans move forward. 30. Chair Vyedin asked whether the Applicant spoke with anyone bordering the property. Mr. Quinn stated he did riot reach out to the abutters and added that the owners had owned the property for years. He added that he would not be surprised if the owners reached , City of Salem Zoning Board ofAppeals July 28, 2U25 Page 5ofq out to the abutting property owners, Chair Vvedin noted that the proposed building would not be located closer than the existing building. She added that she was unsure where else the building could be sited on the property.Chair Vvedin stated that this would bea reasonable Variance request. 31. K4r. Habib stated that a lodging site would be much better than an Airbnb because it would be controlled. He noted that the rear setback would be his only concern, as the side setbacks would be consistent with how the building is situated in the neighborhood. Mr. Habib stated that the proposal would create difficult views and different experiences from the windows of neighboring properties. He stated that the location of the building within the property's backyard made sense. Mr. Habib added that the Applicant could remove a parking space and create a ten-foot (1O') setback. He stated that he would not recommend that because it would be difficult to park in that area of Webb Street. He noted that removing spaces would create situations where cleaning staff would park in an on-street location, taking spots away fronn the neighborhood. 32. Mr. Habib stated that he was not concerned about the /nground pool at 1 English Street because of mature tree located in the yard behind the building. Mr. Habib noted that the architectural plans show a notch at the corner of the building, moving the building away from the abutting properties. He stated he appreciated the level of detail added to the proposal, 33. Ms. Simpson stated that the location nfthe lot made sense. She added that she would be fine with the proposal. Cha}rVyedin asked the Applicant to summarize the Statement of Grounds and Statement ofHardship. 34. K4r. Quinn stated that the topography of the lot creates a lower area in the front of the lot within the 100-Year Flood Zone. He stated that the property must be in the rear of the property to create the parking and amenities shown on the site plan. Mr. Quinn stated that the proposed use is needed and would be desirable for Salem's tourism industry, He noted that the proposal could be approved without being detrimental to the nature and intent of the Ordinance or the public good, 35. K4r. Quinn stated that the property value is |oVv and that the proposed work would increase the property's value. He added that the project would Create construction jobs and employment for residents maintaining the bed and breakfast. He stated that utility connections would be available for the project. Mr. Quinn noted that without the requested relief, the property could not be put to reasonable and beneficial use, 36. Chair Vyedin stated that it would be hard to argue against the uniqueness of the lot. 37. Councillor Jerzylo stated that the lot had not been vacant since 1964 and added that the lot has been run as Matu|a Oil Company for many years. Mr. Quinn stated that the commercial use was nonconforming, abandoned for many years, and could not be re- established on the lot. Cound(|or ]erZy|o stated that someone should get in touch with the abutting property owners before the project moves forward. Mr. Quinn stated that the legal notices and advertisements in the Salem News were submitted with no negative comments from neighbors. Mr. Habib stated that it would be a courtenus effort for the _ Applicant to contact the two side property owners and the rear property owner. ^ City of Salem Zoning Board ofAppeals ' 3uk/ 28, I025 Page 6of9 38. Ms. k4cGahu asked how tall the property's fence, indicated as a vinyl fence on the plot plan,would be. Mr. Quinn stated that the Planning Board would give their input and make decisions on aspects like the vinyl fence during o Site Plan Review. [hairVyedin asked if the Applicant was requesting a variance for the height of the fence. Mr. Quinn stated that they would not be requesting a variance for fence height. 39. Mr. Habib stated that the Canopy of the DlatUv2 tree located on 7 Rear English Street vvVu|d be well over the existing garage. He added that he was concerned that the tree's foundation would be hindered by the 3.3'footsetback. Chair Vved}n stated that it would be reasonable to have the City Tree Warden review the tree as a special condition. Mr. Quinn stated that the Tree Warden would supervise the removal of any portion of a tree. He added that the Tree Warden would not allow work that endangered the life of the tree. Mr. Quinn stated that the tree might be trimmed to make room for the top of the proposed building. Mr. Quinn noted that the Applicant could not knock down trees. 40. Ms. Simpson asked the Applicant whether they would agree to a special condition for the Tree Warden to come to the site and review whether any part of the tree would be impacted by the construction. Mr. Habib stated that he would be concerned with the impact of excavation for the building's foundation on the tree's roots. Mr. Quinn stated that he would agree to a condition that the Applicant would consult with and follow the instructions of the Tree Warden regarding trees affected by their project. 41. Staff Planner Brennan Posdch proposed wording for a special condition: The City Tree Warden shall review whether the proposed construction would impact the health of the mature tree located at the rear of Rear English Street before the Building Department issues a foundation or building permit. If the Tree Warden determines that the health of the tree will be negatively impacted, the petitioner shall follow the recommendations of the Tree Warden. 42. Mr. Habib 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 inthe same district. The location of the front third /1/3\ of the property within the 100-Year Flood Zone requires the Applicant to build in the rear of the lot. 2. Literal enforcement nfthe provisions of the Ordinance involves substantial hardship to the applicant in attempting to put the property to productive use. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would negate the Applicant's ability to provide adequate parking, lodging, and other amenities for productive use asa bed and breakfast, City of Salem Zoning Board ofAppeals ' July 28, 2825 Page 7of9 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 proposed use would positively impact the [ity'stourism industry by introducing additional regulated short-term lodging. The requested relief enables the Applicant to more closely follow the intent of the Ordinance's parking requirements. Special Permit Findings: The Board finds that the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the City or the neighborhood, in view of the particular characteristics of the site, and of the proposal in relation to that site. 1. The proposal services community needs by providing adequate lodging for visitors and additional job opportunities for the City. 2. The proposal addresses traffic flow and safety needs, including parking and loading. The proposal reduces the need for on-street parking by providing nine /9\ parking Spaces vvhcrc nine (9) are required by the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposal will have adequate ud|ibgJ and other public services. The proposed construction would not significantly impact utilities and other public services. 4. The proposal has minimal negative impacts on neighborhood character, The requested side setbacks are in line with the side setbacks for other properties in the neighborhood. The proposed rear of the building would be sixty feet (60')from the structure on 7 English Street. The existing tree canopy around 21 Webb Street would provide screening for abutters. 5 The proposal minimizes impacts on the natural environment by providing a raised foundation, flood Vents, and minimizing the amount of impervious surface on the property. The proposal minimizes impacts on view with a design that fits with the overall character of the neighborhood. G. The proposal will positively impact the City'stax base, economy, and employment by increasing property values, providing short-term construction and long-term clerical jobs, and providing lodging for visitors toSalem. Based on the above statements of fact and findings, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor, (Nina Vyedin (Chair), Peter Habib Chri5ta McGaha, and Ellen Simpson) and zero (0) opposed, to grant 21 Webb Street LLC at 21 Webb Street (Map 41, Lot 0170) (R2 Zoning District and Coastal Resiliency Overlay District) a Variance per Section 4.12 Dimensional Requirements and a Special Permit per Section 3.2.2 Special Permit of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct and operate a 2.5-story bed and breakfast establishment. Proposed construction will create two five-foot (5') side setbacks where ten feet (1O') are required and a 9.3'foot rear setback where thirty feet (30') are required. Standard Conditions: City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ^ July 28 2025 Page 8of9 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. S. A Certificate o{Occupancy istubeobtained. 6. A [ertificate of Inspection iStobe obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any city board or commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number soas1u be visible from the street. 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 /50Y6\ 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 /50Y6\ 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 ofAppeals. lI. Petitioner shall schedule Assessing Department inspections of the property, at least annually, prior to project completion and a final inspection upon project cnrnp|etion. Special Conditions: 1. The City Tree Warden shall review whether the proposed construction would impact the health of the mature tree located at the rear of Rear English Street before the Building Department issues a foundation or building permit. If the Tree Warden determines that the health of the tree will be negatively impacted, the petitioner shall follow the recommendations of the Tree Warden. Vyl,f�e-,4;6,t L/ Zoning Board ofAppeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. ' City of Salem Zoning Board ofAppeals ^ July 28, 202S Page gofQ Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section I7ofthe Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 404, and shall be filed within ZO days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section Il, 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 Southern Essex Registry of Deeds.