Loading...
3 Lemon Street 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 JULIANA SILVA at 3 LEMON STREET (Map 36, Lot 0033) (R2 Zoning District) for a Variance per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residences of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reconstruct the third floor and construct a dormer on the rear of the house, creating a third story. 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 June 16, 2025. The petitioner sought Zoning Board of Appeals approval for the construction of a dormer on the rear of the house’s third floor . 1. Brayden Varr owns 3 Lemon Street. 2. Juliana Silva was the petitioner. 3. Brayden Varr presented as the owner of 3 Lemon Street on July 16, 2025, and August 20, 2025. Juliana Silva presented from MS Masonry and Stone Services on July 16, 2025. 4. The original filing on June 16, 2025, was amended to include a Special Permit request per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residences of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. This filing was amended again to reflect revisions to the elevation plan, removing the request to construct a dormer on the front of the house. 5. 3 Lemon Street is in the R2 Zoning District (Map 36, Lot 0033). 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, Ms. Silva and Mr. Varr presented plans to create a three-story house where 2.5 stories currently exist. Ms. Silva stated that they would like to create more space on the third floor by extending the attic. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 2, 2025 Page 2 of 7 8. Chair Vyedin asked the Applicant to share the submitted Statement of Hardship. The statement of hardship stated the following: A. The existing structure at 3 Lemon Street has a steeply pitched roof and limited ceiling height in the attic, rendering it largely unusable for practical living purposes. The depth and configuration of the lot, combined with the roof’s existing slope, prevent any meaningful use of the attic without modest exterior expansion. This physical constraint is not universally shared by nearby homes, some of which already benefit from dormers or other structural modifications. As such, these circumstances create a unique limitation on my property that warrants relief. B. Without the requested variance, I will be unable to complete the attic renovation, which is essential for accommodating the growing needs of my household. In the current housing market, expanding within the existing footprint is both financially and logistically necessary. The inability to finish the attic would significantly limit the utility of the home and impose an undue hardship on my family, who otherwise must navigate costly alternatives such as relocation or major structural overhauls. C. The proposed dormer will be located at the rear of the house, preserving the character of the front elevation and minimizing visual impact to neighbors and the public way. The design will be in harmony with the style of the existing home and the surrounding neighborhood. The project does not seek to increase the building footprint or change the use of the structure. It is a modest and thoughtful improvement that allows for a safer, more functional use of existing space. Granting this variance supports the continued residential use of the home without undermining the purpose of the ordinance or adversely affecting public welfare. 9. Chair Vyedin stated that this application would be tough because the Applicant would not be changing the dimensions of the house, however, they would be creating a third story. Chair Vyedin asked what about the land or the lot required the Applicant to request a Variance. Ms. Silva stated that while there is space on the property, they would need to build up. 10. Mr. Habib asked the Applicant to explain the hardship involved with the proposal. Mr. Varr stated that he loved where he lived, the historic value of his house, and added that he wanted more space for what a modern house is. Mr. Varr added that adjusting the pitch of the roof would allow him to get more use out of the house. Mr. Habib asked whether the house is a single- or multi-family structure. Mr. Varr stated that the structure is a single-family house. 11. Ms. Silva stated that the house would look the same when viewed from the front. Ms. Simpson stated that the change made sense and added that the changes would provide the Applicant more space without extending the house’s footprint. Mr. Varr stated that the height of the house would remain the same while the pitch of the roof would increase. 12. Mr. Habib stated that while the height of the roof would not change, the structure would increase from 2.5 to three (3) stories. He added that the structure had substantial side setbacks from the property line. Mr. Habib noted that he believed the property was not City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 2, 2025 Page 3 of 7 unique enough to allow a height variance because slight property constraints would not allow a three-story structure. 13. Mr. Varr stated that the structure would not be an outlier in the intermediate neighborhood because three- and four-story houses are common. Ms. Simpson stated that the only other option for the Applicant, if they needed additional room, would be to expand the house further into the lot. She noted that this proposal would be better for the neighborhood because it takes up less of the lot area than building outwards. 14. Ms. McGaha stated that changing the space within the footprint feels in line with the character of the neighborhood. She stated that the proposal would have minimal impacts and make the space more usable for the Applicant. 15. 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, two (2) members of the public commented on the proposal. The members who offered comments at the hearing were: Zachary Humphrey of 2 Bridge Street Apt 2, and Desire (no last name provided) of 5 Lemon Street. 17. Mr. Humphrey stated that it would be more costly for the Applicant to build outwards and potentially lead to the addition not fitting with the rest of the house. 18. Desire stated that she did not see how the Applicant could build outwards because the building would go into the driveway. Chair Vyedin stated that the Applicant may require a curb cut for a change occurring inside the driveway. 19. Staff Planner Brennan Postich stated that the Applicant submitted a records page from the Massachusetts Historical Commission as a part of their application. Chair Vyedin asked whether the application would need to go to the Historical Commission. Ms. Silva stated that they would be requesting a waiver from the demolition delay ordinance on August 2, 2025. 20. Mr. Habib stated that the project does not fit the definitions of a hardship for a Variance. He added that it was not the Board’s duty to come up with a solution to a hardship. Mr. Habib stated that he did not believe the project should be allowed to have three stories because the project would not be better than what is there right now. 21. Chair Vyedin stated that the Board could prevent reasonable projects if they followed the Zoning Ordinance too closely. Ms. Simpson stated that no other solutions would be better if the Board rejected this proposal. Chair Vyedin added that there would be no way to build out the addition without making it three stories under the Zoning Ordinance. 22. Mr. Habib stated that the addition would be problematic because the project would become less architecturally significant than the surrounding neighborhood. He noted that he would want the ridgeline of the front dormer to match the existing house. Mr. Habib stated that if there were a compromise to an addition, he would want the addition to be away from the public street to keep the house’s historic value. 23. Chair Vyedin stated that the Historical Commission may have thoughts on the petition, especially with changes viewable from the street. She stated that the Applicant could benefit from coming to the Historical Commission and then returning to the Board with an approved plan. Mr. Varr stated that the house was not historic and added that they City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 2, 2025 Page 4 of 7 would be coming to the Historical Commission because they would be removing more than 50% of the roof. 24. Mr. Varr showed a side-by-side comparison of the existing house versus the proposed house when viewed from the street. Mr. Habib stated that the existing short walls create a truncated space, thus making a 2.5-story rather than three (3) story house. He stated that the changes to the back of the house would be normal. Me. Habib added that sacrificing the front ridge would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Habib asked what use would be inside the front dormer. Mr. Varr stated that the front dormer would hold a primary suite. 25. Staff Planner Brennan Postich stated that the Board would need to satisfy all three criteria for a Variance to approve a Variance request. Staff Planner Postich added that changing the sight line from the street could be considered detrimental to the public good. He noted that the Historical Commission’s decision follows different criteria and guidelines than the Zoning Board because they do not consider the hardship of the Applicant. 26. Mr. Varr stated that they picked historically accurate architectural details for the inside of the project. He noted that they would not need to go to the Historical Commission if they did not change the front of the property. Mr. Varr added that one challenge with the architecture of the house would be that the dormer is not flat with the floor of the house. 27. Chair Vyedin asked whether the Applicant would be comfortable requesting a continuance to August 20 for the Applicant to decide whether they would like to go to the Historical Commission based upon adjusted plans. Mr. Varr stated that he agreed with that action. 28. 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. 29. On August 7, 2025, the Applicant submitted an updated elevation plan, removing the request for a dormer on the front of the house. The new proposed elevation plan only requested the addition of a dormer on the rear of the house. 30. 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. 31. 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. 32. On August 20, 2025, Mr. Varr stated that the revised plans follow the Board’s request to retain the existing front of the house. Chair Vyedin asked whether the only change to the house would be the addition of the rear dormer. Mr. Varr stated that the only changes would be to the back of the house. Chair Vyedin stated that the change addressed the Board’s primary concerns. 33. Chair Vyedin opened up the hearing for public comments. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 2, 2025 Page 5 of 7 34. The City received zero (0) 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. 35. Mr. Habib stated that he appreciated the Applicant making the changes to the elevation plan. Chair Vyedin stated that the changes reduce the amount of space for the Applicant but look nicer. Mr. Larrick stated that the Board generally wants to lean out from aesthetic and architectural decisions. He added that the Board discussed what proposals fit with the character of the neighborhood and noted that the Board’s concerns were well raised. 36. 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: 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 building is designated by the Massachusetts Historical Commission as a historically significant building. The conditions affecting the structure and land are unique because an addition on the side of the structure would decrease the house’s historic value. 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 requires additional space to use the house as a productive single-family residence. An addition to the side of the structure would be potentially more costly by requiring additional accommodation for a curb cut. 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 proposal is not substantially detrimental to the public good because it retains the building’s front façade, preserves the house’s historic value, and remains in line with the character of the neighborhood. The proposal does not substantially derogate from the intent of the district because proposed changes provide the minimum relief required—the proposed house appears to be a 2.5-story building from the street, despite being a three-story building. 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 will receive additional space to use the house as a single-family residence. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 2, 2025 Page 6 of 7 2. The impact on traffic flow and safety is negligible because the proposal does not change the number of units in the building. 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’s footprint will not change, and the structure will continue to be a single-family house in the R2 Zoning District. The proposed changes do not significantly impact sight lines when viewed from the street. 5. The proposal has minimal impacts on the natural environment, including greenhouse gas emissions and view. The proposal does not increase the structure’s footprint and minimally impacts views from the street. 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 and provide short-term construction 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 Juliana Silva at 3 Lemon Street (Map 36, Lot 0033) (R2 Zoning District) a Variance per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residences of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reconstruct the third floor and construct a dormer on the rear of the house, creating a third story. 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 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 2, 2025 Page 7 of 7 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. __________________________ 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.