Loading...
7.5 Lyme Street ZBA Stamped Decision �OND1T,� 4�°' CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS a ' ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 98 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 DOMINICK PANGALLO TEL:978-619-5685 tv MAYOR + :.a July 28, 2025 " �._ co Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals o The petition of JACOB LEVINE at 7 1/2 LYME STREET(Map 34, Lot 0012) (R2 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 six-foot by eight-foot (6' x 8') mudroom on the first floor and build an addition on the second floor of a nonconforming single-family home. Proposed construction would have nonconforming rear and side setbacks. 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 18, 2025. The petitioner sought Zoning Board of Appeals approval for the construction of a mudroom and second-floor addition. 1. William G. Cahill Jr. owns 7 1/2 Lyme Street. 2. Jacob Levine was the petitioner and representative for William G. Cahill Jr. 3. The original filing on June 18, 2025, was amended to replace a Variance request per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance with a Special Permit request per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residences of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 4. 7 1/2 Lyme Street is in the R2 Zoning District (Map 34, Lot 0012). 5. On July 16, 2025, Staff Planner Brennan Postich verified that the Applicant consented to a four-member voting Board. 6. On July 16, 2025,Jacob Levine presented plans to construct a mudroom and second-floor addition to a nonconforming single-family home. Mr. Levine stated that he is updating the house to create a more modern living standard for its occupants. He added that he would be keeping the single-family house a single-family house. He explained that the house is nonconforming because it is located on an odd lot and has tight setbacks, aside from the front setback. 7. Mr. Levine stated that they would be raising the rear part of the house and placing a primary bedroom in the rear addition on the second floor. He added that they would not be extending the footprint of the second floor because they would be following the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 28, 2025 Page 2of7 existing footprint of the first floor. Mr. Levine noted that the bedrooms in the house do not work and stated that the changes would create a livable, safer house with proper egress windows. 8. Mr. Levine stated that they would be trying to keep curb appeal by using a flat slope pitch. He added that they would be keeping the existing roof peak and not raise the house's height. Mr. Levine stated that they are proposing a small six-foot by eight-foot (6' x 8') mudroom because the homeowners could not walk into the kitchen unless they took the main entryway. He noted that the owner would have a mudroom to enter through and exit from as a means of egress. 9. Mr. Levine stated that they are seeking relief for the hardship and the nonconforming tight lot. Mr. Levine noted that the mudroom would be located six inches (6") further away from the lot line than the existing building to provide additional space for the abutting property owner. Mr. Levine stated that the proposal would place the bedrooms in the roof of the house. He added that the proposal would provide space and egress windows while maintaining the front aesthetic of the house. He noted that the project would not be destructive to or change the context of the neighborhood because individuals would not see the house when turning onto Lyme Street. 10. Chair Vyedin stated that the changes to the property would be raising the one-story rear addition to a two-story rear addition. She added that the proposal would add a dormer and mudroom on the east side of the property. 11. Chair Vyedin asked whether the house would be two (2) stories or 2.5 stories after construction on the property. Mr. Levine stated that the proposed house would be two (2) stories tall. Chair Vyedin asked to view the windows at the rear of the property. Mr. Levine stated that the first floor of the house had two rear windows for the kitchen. He added that the second floor would have one (1) additional window facing into the bathroom. Mr. Levine noted that because the lot line was tight, they did not want to add additional windows facing the rear property. He added that they constructed the rear fa4ade to be respectful of the neighbors. 12. Mr. Habib asked for information about the slope and material of the roof. Mr. Levine stated that the roof would decrease by a quarter inch (1/4") per foot of slope. He noted that drainage would be handled by a gutter coming off the side of the roof. Mr. Habib asked whether the roof would be made of asphalt. Mr. Levine stated that he could not make a flat roof out of asphalt. 13. Chair Vyedin stated that the mudroom increased the nonconforming lot coverage on the dimensional table.She added that the proposal would otherwise keep the other elements conforming and retain the same nonconformities. Mr. Levine stated that he tried to push the mudroom away from the east property line because the east side of the property only had 0.5 feet of setback. Chair Vyedin stated that the Applicant was working with a tight lot. 14. Ms. McGaha asked whether the Applicant had contacted the neighbors abutting the rear property line.She stated that the proposal would have the biggest impact on the property directly abutting the proposed rear addition (30 Gardner Street). Mr. Levine stated that they submitted their letter through the Salem News and reached out to the abutters. He City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 28, 2025 Page 3 of 7 added that they did not hear direct feedback from the abutters. He noted that there was some vegetation in the area and stated that there would be some distance between their property and the rear property (30 Gardner Street). 1S. Chair Vyedin opened up the hearing for public comments. 16. The City received zero (0) public comments on the proposal before the hearing. At the July 16,2025 public hearing,three(3)members of the public commented on the proposal. The members who offered comments at the hearing were: Muriel Portugal of 7 Lyme Street, Mike Damico of 30 Gardner Street, and Daisy Wizda of 28 Gardner Street. 17. Ms. Portugal stated that she was surprised by the proposal because the property is on her land.She stated that half of the kitchen door belonged to her and added that the property owner had previously begun construction without a permit. Ms. Portugal stated that they had to stop construction because they placed a dumpster on her property. Chair Vyedin asked whether she was talking about the current or previous property owners. Ms. Portugal stated that the current owners did that. She added that the owner of the property would be building on her land. 18. Chair Vyedin asked whether the plot plan was surveyed or not. The plot plan, dated February 10, 2024, was stamped by Patrick J. McCormack. Mr. Habib stated that the plot plan showed the addition was inside the property of 7 Lyme Street. Ms. Portugal stated that the proposal would extend over the basement door of her property. Chair Vyedin stated that they could not determine where the location of the property line would be. She added that the petitioner and Ms. Portugal would need to figure out where the property line is located. Chair Vyedin stated that they would need to see a survey to determine where her property is located. Chair Vyedin added that the Applicant would need to request a continuance for Ms. Portugal to be able to submit additional documents. 19. Mr. Damico stated that the property owner began construction on the property before receiving a permit. He added that much of the siding has fallen off the property. He noted that the siding could have asbestos and lead paint. Mr. Damico asked what would be done to remediate health concerns if there were asbestos and lead paint on the property. 20. Building Commissioner Stavroula Orfanos stated that the Health Department would be responsible for reviewing asbestos and lead paint remediation plans submitted by the property owner. She stated that the Board was reviewing the petition rather than the materials located on the building. Chair Vyedin asked if the Building Department issued a permit. Mr. Levine stated that they applied for a demolition permit as part of the process for a building permit. He stated that a previous contractor worked on the site and added that Patrick Osgood and Sons took over as the contractor for this job. Chair Vyedin stated that the Board could not consider whether work was done before a petitioner came to the Board. 21. Mr. Damico asked how construction crews would access the backyard. Mr. Levine stated that there would be a construction management plan to show how construction workers would go through the site. Mr. Damico stated that if the Applicant built up the house, it would make the yard even smaller and take away their deck's privacy. Mr. Damico asked how the privacy concern would be addressed. Mr. Levine stated that they would be City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 28, 2025 Page 4 of 7 bringing the rear fagade under the existing ridge of the house. Mr. Levine noted that they would be adding six feet(6')of additional building to the house. He added that they would be only adding one window so that it would not be detrimental to abutting properties. 22. Chair Vyedin stated that the proposal would be a change and added that there should be a conversation between the homeowner and neighbors to address property ownership issues. 23. Mr. Habib stated that the online zoning parcel map shows full access to the rear addition. He noted that the submitted plot plan did not clearly identify the property line. Mr. Habib stated that he understood visibility concerns because it would be hard for the abutters to lose their views. Mr. Habib added that there are currently two windows that would be replaced with one window in the proposed plans. He stated that there would likely be some material to block people from looking into the bathroom. Mr. Habib stated that it would be a challenge to maintain existing views while building where they need to be. 24. Mr. Levine stated that the professionally stamped survey shows the proposed rear story addition remained within the existing property line. The Plot Plan dated February 10, 2024, stated "PROPOSED REAR STORY ADDITION : REMAINS WITHIN EXISTING BUILDING LINE." He added that the setbacks are laid out. He noted that the professional survey shows the demarcation of the land. Chair Vyedin stated that the Board would need to go off the survey in front of them if a neighbor has no stamped survey and no argument against an existing survey. 25. Mr. Habib stated that the Applicant submitted a stamped survey showing the property line. He added that he did not know how another person could show that the proposed construction would be outside the property line,given the submitted plot plan. Mr. Habib stated that the Board is reviewing a stamped survey and must review what is in front of them. Ms. McGaha stated that the Applicant submitted a complete application for the Board to review and noted that she believed the Board could give a ruling on the proposal. 26. Ms. Wizda stated that she was concerned about whether testing of the materials from the property had been completed. She added that she was concerned about potential contamination from the demolition of the roof. 27. Ms. Orfanos stated that the Applicant would submit a demolition permit. She added that the Applicant would need to submit paperwork showing what materials would be a part of the structure. 28. Mr. Levine stated that the houses around the property are very tight. He added that their property had good separation compared to other properties in the neighborhood. Mr. Levine stated that he tried to reduce the impact of the rear addition with a flat roof. He noted that the project would not work without an extra bathroom on the rear addition. 29. Mr. Habib asked whether the current foundation would need additional work to support construction on the second floor. Mr. Levine stated that they verified they would not need to demolish the existing foundation wall. He added that they would need to reinforce the existing load-bearing lally columns to minimize extra weight going onto the foundation wall. Mr. Levine stated that a new lally column would be placed under a new beam located along the boundary of the rear addition and the rest of the house. He stated that new City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 28, 2025 Page 5of7 lally columns would be located eight feet (8') apart. Mr. Levine added that the lally columns would increase the house's ability to hold the additions' extra weight. 30. Mr. Levine stated that the rear addition's framing is outdated and added that the framing would be replaced with new two-by-ten (2x10) floor joists. He noted that they would be fixing an unsafe part of the house while not touching the foundation wall. 31. Chair Vyedin stated that she would want to see a construction plan to understand how workers would access the rear of the building. Mr. Levine stated that the contractor, Patrick Osgood and Sons, would construct a formal construction management plan. He added that he could not speak to their plans. 32. Ms. McGaha stated that the neighborhood does not have a standard for large setbacks. Chair Vyedin stated that the proposal fits well with the neighborhood character. Ms. Simpson asked whether the problems posed by the application could be solved differently. 33. Mr. Habib stated that it would always be a challenge to take away views because people hold onto them. He stated that the rear property would have eighteen feet (18') of buffer between the rear of the building and 30 Gardner Street. He added that there is a buffer between 28 and 32 Gardner Street and massing between 7 Lyme Street and 9 Lyme Street. Mr. Habib noted that there would be space for open air around the buildings. 34 Mr. Habib added that the construction workers would not be likely to go through the neighbors' properties. He noted that there would likely be accessible ladders. Mr. Habib stated that if the property could handle a second-floor addition,then that would mitigate the neighbor's concerns with the fence being moved. He added that the proposal fits with the neighborhood. Ms. Simpson stated that the proposal would allow a house that is livable for one or two people to become a more normal-sized house. 35. 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 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 allows the Applicant to have a safer and more functional house. The proposal increases the number of egress points for entering and exiting the house. 2. The proposal has a negligible impact on traffic flow and safety. The proposal does not change the amount of parking on the property or the number of units in the house. 3. The proposal has minimal impacts on utilities and other public services.Adequate utilities and other public services already serve the structure. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 28, 2025 Page 6 of 7 4. The proposal has minimal impacts on the neighborhood's character. The proposed mudroom will minimally increase the structure's already nonconforming footprint. The proposal,while constructing a new addition on the second floor, provides adequate open- air space. The height of the proposed addition would be below the ridge height of the existing building. 5. The proposal has minimal impacts on the natural environment, including greenhouse gas emissions and views. While the proposal increases the house's size, the house's design minimizes potential impacts on views from abutting properties. 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 potential construction jobs. 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, Christa McGaha, and Ellen Simpson) and zero (0) opposed, to grant Jacob Levine at 7 1/2 Lyme Street (Map 34, Lot 0012) (112 Zoning District) a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residences of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a six-foot by eight-foot (6' x 8') mudroom on the first floor and build an addition on the second floor of a nonconforming single-family home. Proposed construction will have nonconforming rear and side 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. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any city board or commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. 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. 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 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals July 28, 2025 Page 7 of 7 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. 10. Petitioner shall schedule Assessing Department inspections of the property, at least annually, prior to project completion and a final inspection upon project completion. Xna Vak4ile)a Nina Vyedin, air 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 Southern Essex Registry of Deeds.