Loading...
22 Vista 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 September 2, 2025 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals The petition of MICHAEL KOSTOPOULOS at 22 VISA AVENUE (Map 09, Lot 0059) (R1 Zoning District) for a Variance per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements and a Special Permit per Section 3.2.4(1) Accessory Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a free-standing 1.5-story, four-car garage. The proposed garage would create a rear setback of two feet (2’) where five feet (5’) 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, to July 16, 2025, during which no testimony was heard, and to August 20, 2025, and then closed on August 20, 2025. On June 18, 2025, the following members of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals were present: Nina Vyedin (Chair), Hannah Osthoff, Christa McGaha, Stephen Larrick, and Ellen Simpson. Peter Habib was absent. On June 25, 2025, the following members of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals were present: Hannah Osthoff (Acting Chair), 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. On July 16, 2025, the following members of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals were present: Nina Vyedin (Chair), Peter Habib, Christa McGaha, and Ellen Simpson. Hannah Osthoff and Stephen Larrick were absent. On August 20, 2025, the following members of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals were present: Nina Vyedin (Chair), Hannah Osthoff, Peter Habib, Stephen Larrick, and Ellen Simpson. Christa McGaha was absent. Statements of Fact: The petition was date-stamped on May 19, 2025. The petitioner sought Zoning Board of Appeals approval for a free-standing 1.5-story, four-car garage. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 2, 2025 Page 2 of 9 1. Michael Kostopoulos owns 22 Vista Avenue. 2. Michael Kostopoulos was the petitioner. 3. Attorney William Quinn was the representative for Michael Kostopoulos. Attorney William Quinn presented on June 18, 2025, June 25, 2025, July 16, 2025, and August 20, 2025. Michael Kostopoulos presented on June 25, 2025, and August 20, 2025. 4. 22 Vista Avenue is in the R1 Zoning District (Map 09, Lot 0059). 5. The original filing on May 19, 2025, was amended to revise the Variance request per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements to request a rear setback of two feet (2’) instead of a front setback of nine feet (9’). 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, Attorney William Quinn presented plans depicting a 1.5-story, four-car garage. Mr. Quinn stated that Vista Avenue was developed from the 1970s to the 1990s to create good sized homes on decent lots. He added that his client and his client’s wife purchased the property in 2001. Mr. Quinn noted that the project received no objections from neighbors, including neighbors adjacent to the garage. 12. Mr. Quinn stated that the lot is irregularly shaped because the property is wider where the Applicant’s house is located and narrower where the lawn and driveway are located. He stated that the Applicant previously had the energy to move four cars from the driveway onto the street, yet now that the Applicant and his wife had gotten older, they wanted a garage for their four cars. Mr. Quinn noted that the current house has a small attic with no storage space, forcing the Applicant to pile items into rooms or to rent a storage container. Mr. Quinn added that the storage container costs the Applicant 3,000$ a month. He noted that the garage would fulfill the need for additional storage space. 13. Mr. Quinn stated that the garage required fifteen feet (15’) of setback from Vista Avenue, while only six feet (6’) of setback were provided. He stated that Section 3.2.4 Accessory Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance says no accessory structure will be built in a front yard, so the Zoning Ordinance has no front setback requirement. Mr. Quinn noted that the default setback required for a normal structure is fifteen feet (15’). He added that the size and placement of structures on the lot make the south side of the lot the only place for a garage. Mr. Quinn stated that the garage would be a storage space instead of a dwelling unit. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 2, 2025 Page 3 of 9 14. Mr. Quinn stated that the shape of the lot, combined with enforcing front setback requirements, would eliminate the Applicant’s ability to have a garage for their needs. Mr. Quinn stated that the neighborhood had no objections to the plans. 15. Mr. Quinn presented the submitted plot plan to the Board. He stated that the garage was thirty-five feet (35’) from the neighboring shed. He noted that the architect designed an attractive garage with a capacity for four cars. 16. Mr. Quinn stated that the garage may be good for the neighborhood because four cars would not need to be located in front of the house. He added that the garage would move the cars from off the street, eliminating physical problems and conditions. Mr. Quinn stated that the project would add to the community’s tax base and tax revenue. Mr. Quinn added that the proposal would not increase traffic volume or congestion because it would create no new living units. 17. Acting Chair Osthoff asked to see the submitted architectural plans. The architectural plans dated January 16, 2025, showed a mostly rectangular, 1.5-story garage with an approximately sixty-degree (60°) angle in the middle of the garage. Mr. Habib stated that the kink in the corner would create a larger area while a straight garage would not require a variance request. Mr. Habib noted that the Board usually heard projects where the Applicant would need to build within a required setback. He noted that the Applicant could possibly build this garage without requiring setback relief. 18. Mr. Quinn stated that a registered architect designed the architectural plans after consulting with the client’s needs for space. Mr. Habib stated that a fifty-foot (50’) bar could fit inside the property without requiring a variance. 19. Michael Kostopoulos stated that he would lose twenty to twenty-five feet (20’–25’) of yard space with a straightened garage because the garage would move further into the property. Mr. Kostopoulos added that this was the best result after careful research with the architect. He noted that the bend creates more space for a snowblower and other items. 20. Ms. McGaha stated that plans for the proposed structure listed no square footage. She added that the structure seems to almost have the same footprint as the existing house. Ms. McGaha asked if the garage could be sited in a different location or be slightly smaller. 21. Mr. Quinn stated that the shape of the garage could change, but that the owner of the property did not want to change the shape. Mr. Quinn noted that the Applicant had grounds for a variance due to the shape of the lot. 22. Mr. Habib stated that the proposal would be atypical for most properties along Vista Avenue because most buildings comply with the required fifteen-foot (15’) front setback. He noted that the garage could fit without needing dimensional relief. Mr. Habib added that he understood the request was not solely for a four-car garage, but also for additional storage needs. 23. Mr. Larrick asked the Applicant to explain why the garage would be an accessory structure rather than an addition to the existing structure. Mr. Quinn stated that bringing the garage closer to the house would eliminate usable yard space. Mr. Kostopoulos stated that he reviewed the plans with his architect repeatedly and added that this would be the best use of the space he has. Mr. Quinn noted that the proposed plans would not require City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 2, 2025 Page 4 of 9 a change in the curb cut or traffic patterns inside and outside of the house. Mr. Quinn stated that the proposal removes other potential dimensional requests. 24. Ms. Simpson stated that this proposal would be a case where hardship is in the eye of the beholder because individuals typically request a two or two-and-a-half car garage. She stated that a two-and-a-half car garage would be more palatable when putting a property to productive use. 25. Mr. Quinn stated that the proposal would not be detrimental to the neighborhood and added that the garage had an attractive design. He stated that regardless of whether the property was a three-story walk-up building on Essex Street or a single-family house, small compromises could be made without being detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Quinn added that the proposal would be a big request because it would be a variance and noted that it would be a relatively small dimensional request. He stated that removing nine feet (9’) from the garage would not meet his client’s needs. 26. Mr. Larrick stated that he was compelled by the idea that this lot was unique. He added that preserving the lot, creating storage space, creating a design fitting with neighborhood character, and preserving the existing curb cut fits the criteria of a hardship. 27. Acting Chair Osthoff opened up the hearing for public comments. 28. The City received one (1) public comment on the proposal before the hearing. The public comment was from Councillor John Harvey (address not provided). At the June 25, 2025 public hearing two (2) members of the public commented on the proposal. The members who offered comments at the hearing were: Charles Garey of 33 Outlook Avenue and Claudia Paraschiv of 20 Fowler Street. 29. Mr. Garey stated that much of what the Board stated was accurate and added that Vista Avenue had houses with setbacks, nice front lawns, and woods in the back of the property, making the lots seem bigger than they are. He added that the driveway has enough space for six to eight cars and noted that the Applicant could rotate the garage to provide a fifteen-foot (15’) setback. 30. Ms. Paraschiv stated that she believed the garage was curved to create a house-like feel from Vista Avenue. She stated that she was concerned about an increase in impermeable surface on the property. Ms. Paraschiv noted that some of the asphalt driveway could be turned into a permeable surface to mitigate the structure’s drainage impacts. She stated that an addition is usually more expensive because it would remove existing siding. 31. Mr. Quinn stated that he would like to recommend his client continue the petition to the next hearing given the Board’s concerns, the neighbor’s concerns, and the presence of a four-member Board. Mr. Kostopoulos stated that he would like to continue the petition so everyone would be positive about changes to the property. 32. Mr. Larrick stated that it would be helpful for the Applicant to consider the character of the street. He added that, when viewed from Google Earth, some of the neighbors had setbacks between ten and twelve feet (10’-12’). 33. Mr. Habib stated that alternate plans could be possible without the need for dimensional relief. He noted that the top right corner of the plot plan could have a small doghouse to create storage and compensate for the wedge-shaped lot. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 2, 2025 Page 5 of 9 34. Acting Chair Osthoff stated that the Board is asking the petitioner to continue the petition to the next hearing to meet with the architect and potentially reposition the garage so they would not require relief from the Board. She stated that the Board would want to see revised drawings if the Applicant returned to the Board. 35. At the June 25, 2025 special meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Board voted four (4) in favor (Hannah Osthoff (Acting Chair), Christa McGaha, Stephen Larrick, and Ellen Simpson) and zero (0) opposed to continue the hearing to the regular meeting scheduled for July 16, 2025. 36. On July 7, 2025, Attorney William Quinn stated in an email to Staff Planner Brennan Postich that “[We request] this application to be continued from the July 16 meeting until the following meeting on August 20, 2025.” 37. On July 14, 2025, Board Chair Nina Vyedin, who was absent at the June 25, 2025 hearing, signed an affidavit of service per M.G.L., Chapter 39, Section 23D certifying that she examined all evidence on 22 Vista Avenue including an audio recording of the missed session. 38. On July 15, 2025, Board Member Peter Habib, who was absent at the June 25, 2025 hearing, signed an affidavit of service per M.G.L., Chapter 39, Section 23D certifying that he examined all evidence on 22 Vista Avenue including an audio recording of the missed session. 39. On July 16, 2025, the Board heard no testimony on the petition. 40. Chair Vyedin opened up the hearing for public comments. 41. The City received zero (0) public comments on the proposal before the hearing. At the July 16, 2025 public hearing zero (0) members of the public commented on the proposal. 42. At the July 16, 2025 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Board voted four (4) in favor (Nina Vyedin (Chair), Peter Habib, Christa McGaha, and Ellen Simpson) and zero (0) opposed to continue the hearing to the regular meeting scheduled for August 20, 2025. 43. On August 13, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans that repositioned the garage two feet (2’) away from the rear property line. The second floor was redesigned to create a walkable area above the garage. 44. On August 19, 2025, Board Member Stephen Larrick, who was absent at the July 16, 2025 hearing, signed an affidavit of service per M.G.L., Chapter 39, Section 23D certifying that he examined all evidence on 3 Lemon Street including an audio recording of the missed session. 45. On August 19, 2025, Board Member Hannah Osthoff, who was absent at the July 16, 2025 hearing, signed an affidavit of service per M.G.L., Chapter 39, Section 23D certifying that she examined all evidence on 3 Lemon Street including an audio recording of the missed session. 46. On August 20, 2025, Mr. Quinn stated that his client owned a home off Marlborough Road, has a predilection towards collecting cars, was in the limousine business, and has no garage. He added that his client would like to add a spacious four-car garage to one side of his property. Mr. Quinn noted that they turned the garage to create more room for the front. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 2, 2025 Page 6 of 9 47. Mr. Quinn stated that the adjustments created a rear setback of two feet (2’). He noted that the rear of the garage faced a wooded area around McGrath Park and added that no individuals would see the garage. Mr. Quinn stated that the proposal complied with all other required setbacks. 48. Mr. Quinn added that his client has no garage and noted that it is harder for his client to move cars during the winter as he gets older. He stated that the garage would improve living conditions rather than being used for recreational purposes. 49. Chair Vyedin stated that the proposed plans added a balcony area on the second floor. Mr. Quinn noted that the proposal was the same shape as the previous design. He added that they designed a porch on the second floor. 50. Chair Vyedin opened up the hearing for public comments. 51. The City received zero (0) new public comments on the proposal before the public hearing. At the August 20, 2025 public hearing, zero (0) members of the public commented on the proposal. In total, one (1) comment was submitted to the Board. 52. Mr. Habib stated that the terrace shown on the architectural renderings has been added to the previous project. He noted that the terrace was on the garage’s front-facing elevation. Mr. Habib added that he was happy the proposal was revisited to work on the property. He noted that the balcony terrace made the garage look like a house but added that he would be okay leaving the terrace in place. 53. Mr. Habib stated that the terrace regularized the non-symmetrical building as it wraps around the second floor. He noted that the Board could ask the Applicant to reverse the location of the terrace. He added that the setback was the largest issue in front of the Board. 54. Chair Vyedin stated that nothing in the application mentioned an accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Quinn stated that the building was not designed for a dwelling unit, but rather for family space, storage, and a small office. Chair Vyedin stated that the Applicant should be able to request an accessory dwelling if they would like to have one. 55. Mr. Larrick stated that the Board’s main concern was the front setback and added that the Applicant addressed the front setback. He noted that the changes were a tradeoff. Chair Vyedin added that the rear of the property bordered McGrath Park. Mr. Larrick stated that a soccer field bordered the rear of the property. 56. Chair Vyedin stated that the accessory structure was large and had four cars. She added that, given the petitioner has addressed the main concerns with the previous proposal, the garage was workable within the large lot. 57. Mr. Larrick asked the Applicant to restate the hardship. Mr. Quinn stated that the shape of the lot was unusual because it was originally developed with the main house on a rectangular portion of the property. He added that the garage was on the tail end of the property. Mr. Quinn stated the property was eight feet (8’) above the park and noted that a retaining wall held the property in place. He added that because the client demonstrated a need for shelter from snow on the vehicles. 58. Staff Planner Brennan Postich asked about the height of the proposed structure. Mr. Quinn stated the height did not change from the original plans, and because they did not City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 2, 2025 Page 7 of 9 request a height variance, the height could not be more than eighteen feet (18’) tall. Mr. Habib stated the older plans reference eighteen feet (18’) in height. 59. Mr. Habib 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: 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 uniquely shaped lot with a house located on one side of the property. The lot narrows in the direction of the proposed garage. A retaining wall holds up one area of the property located eight feet (8’) above the playground at McGrath Park. 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 would be unable to provide shelter for vehicles on the property, nor create space for storing items without the requested relief. 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 revised the original plans to replace a six-foot (6’) front setback with a two-foot (2’) rear setback. The revised design fits with the neighborhood character while preserving the existing curb cut. 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 has minimal impacts on community needs. 2. The proposal has positive impacts on traffic flow and safety by relocating up to four (4) cars from on-street parking into an off-street garage. The proposal does not increase traffic volumes or congestion. 3. The proposal has minimal impacts on utilities and other public services. Adequate utilities and other public services already service the structure. 4. The proposal has minimal impacts on neighborhood character. The structure is consistent with the setbacks for properties in the neighborhood. 5. The proposal has minimal impacts on the natural environment, including greenhouse gas emissions and view. The impacts of the four-car garage are mitigated by the garage’s location at the rear of the property. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 2, 2025 Page 8 of 9 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 short-term impact on City employment. Based on the above statements of fact and findings, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, (Nina Vyedin (Chair), Hannah Osthoff, Peter Habib, Stephen Larrick, and Ellen Simpson) and zero (0) opposed, to grant Michael Kostopoulos at 22 Vista Avenue (Map 09, Lot 0059) (R1 Zoning District) a Variance per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements and a Special Permit per Section 3.2.4(1) Accessory Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a free-standing 1.5-story, four-car garage. The proposed garage will create a rear setback of two feet (2’) where five feet (5’) 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 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. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 2, 2025 Page 9 of 9 __________________________ 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 Southern Essex Registry of Deeds.