Loading...
22 Prescott Street Certified ZBA Decision CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUS S ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS P G �y11VS 98 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970t` f>, , DOMINICK PANGALLO TEL:978-619-5685 v S6 MAYOR September 2, 2025 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals jr The petition of ADIMIR TOSKA at 22 PRESCOTT STREET(Map 25, Lot 0526) (112 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. The Variance would allow the construction of a dormer across the east and west sides of the house's third floor, creating a three-story building. The Special Permit would allow the construction of a two- story staircase, decreasing the nonconforming house's rear setback from 19 feet 3 inches to 13 feet 9 inches. 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 25, 2025. The petitioner sought Zoning Board of Appeals approval for the construction of a dormer and two-story staircase at the rear of the property. 1. Arsenio Delarosa owns 22 Prescott Street. 2. Adimir Toska was the petitioner. 3. Adimir Toska presented on August 20, 2025. 4. The original filing on June 25, 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. 5. 22 Prescott Street is in the R2 Zoning District (Map 25, Lot 0526). 6. On August 20, 2025,Adimir Toska presented plans to construct a dormer on both sides of the house's third floor and to construct a two-story staircase at the rear of the property. Mr.Toska stated that they had requested full dormers on the east and west of the building at the Historical Commission meeting. He noted that the Historical Commission requested they reduce the size of the dormers by one foot six inches (1' 6") on the east and west sides of the house,and the size of the dormers by three feet six inches(3' 6")on the north and south sides of the house. Mr. Toska stated that the Historical Commission reduced the size of the attic from 1,100 square feet to 800 square feet. ��� 3113- q0& City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 2, 2025 Page 2of5 7. Chair Vyedin asked if the Historical Commission had approved the revised plans. Mr. Toska stated that the Historical Commission approved the plans. Chair Vyedin stated that the new designs have a nicer balance. 8. Mr. Toska stated that they are requesting relief for the stairs in the back because the existing stairs are barely two feet (2') wide. He added that the proposed staircase would decrease the rear setback from nineteen feet (19')to thirteen feet nine inches (13' 9"). 9. Chair Vyedin asked whether the house would remain a two-family structure. Mr. Toska stated that the house would remain a two-family structure and noted that they would neither be extending the house's footprint nor adding units to the building. 10. Chair Vyedin asked to view the dimensional table. The dimensional table showed a decrease in the rear setback from nineteen feet three inches (19' 3")to thirteen feet nine inches (13' 9") and an increase from 2.5 stories to three (3) stories. Ms. Osthoff stated that she had no issue with improving the building's means of egress. She asked whether the Applicant explored running the staircase along the side of the building rather than projecting it outwards to create a smaller requested change in setbacks. 11. Mr. Toska stated that parking on either side of the staircase prevents them from expanding the staircase. He added that he did not want to decrease the amount of parking or create a request for fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning Ordinance. 12. Mr. Larrick asked whether the request would increase from 2.5 stories to three(3)stories. Mr. Toska stated that the dormer would cover three-fourths of the attic space. Chair Vyedin stated that the dormer creates a third story. 13. Ms. Osthoff asked the Applicant to summarize the submitted statement of hardship. Mr. Toska stated that the project would not be detrimental to the neighborhood because the houses at 55 Winthrop Street and 58-60 Winthrop Street are similarly built.He added that the proposal would not extend the building's footprint. Mr. Toska stated that the extensions would add approximately 800 square feet of usable space to the attic. He noted that the addition would increase the City's tax base. Mr.Toska stated the proposed design would not affect drainage on the property because the roof, gutters, and soffit would remain the same. 14.The grounds for hardship on the statement of hardship state: "the structure is over 100 years old, and it's height, measured in feet, complies with the zoning Ordinance. However, it has an unusually large amount of vacant attic space, which generates no income to the owner for ongoing maintenance of the structure. [...] The limitation of building height to 2.5 stories constitutes a hardship, financial and otherwise, to the applicant where no actual change in height in feet is occurring. The income from an additional 2 bedrooms and about 1,117 sf to the 2nd unit, will greatly assist the owner in funding improvements and in preserving the character of the structure in the future." 15. Mr. Habib stated the building is on a tight lot with not enough frontage and less than the required side setbacks. He added that the building is at its maximum lot coverage, with nowhere else to build on the property. Mr. Habib stated that the proposed front elevation reads like a 2.5 story building. 16. Ms. Osthoff stated that not being able to occupy the third floor seems like a hardship.She added that the change would not be significantly detrimental to the neighborhood and City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 2, 2025 Page 3of5 would allow for adequate use of the property. Mr. Larrick stated that the neighborhood and owner would have a safer means of egress. 17. Ms.Simpson asked the Applicant to explain how parking on the property works. Mr.Toska stated that there is only side parking on the property,with one unit's parking on the east side of the building and the other unit's parking on the west side of the building. He added that the proposed staircase would exit into the backyard. 18. Mr. Toska stated the design of the staircase hides the accessway to the driveway and shed. Mr. Habib stated that moving the staircase to the east may not be a better solution because the first-floor tenant's porch would be next to the means of access. He added that the staircase layout would encroach on the rear setback regardless. 19. Chair Vyedin opened up the hearing for public comments. 20.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. 21. Mr. Larrick 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 lot's width and frontage of fifty-one feet (51') are both less than the required lot widths and frontages of one hundred feet (100'). The nonconforming building is inside the required ten-foot (10') setback on the east and west sides of the house. 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 building has a large amount of vacant attic space that generates no income for the structure's maintenance. The income from two additional bedrooms and approximately 800 square feet would allow continued improvements to and preservation of the structure. 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 downsizing of the proposed dormers decreases the area impacted by the proposal by approximately 300 square feet. Additionally, the slope of the dormers makes the proposed changes more similar to a 2.5-story home. The proposal does not substantially derogate from the intent of the R2 Zoning District because it does not increase the number of habitable units. Special Permit Findings: City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 2, 2025 Page 4 of 5 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 a safer means of egress for daily use and in case of an emergency. 2. The impact on traffic flow and safety is negligible because the proposed changes do not impact parking on the property. 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 aside from the location of the staircase. The structure remains a two- family home in an R2 Zoning District. 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. The staircase shields the view of the sheds and driveway from the eastern side of the property. 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 Adimir Toska at 22 Prescott Street (Map 25, Lot 0526) (112 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. The Variance will allow the construction of a dormer across the east and west sides of the house's third floor, creating a three-story building. The Special Permit will allow the construction of a two-story staircase, decreasing the nonconforming house's rear setback from 19 feet 3 inches to 13 feet 9 inches. 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. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 2, 2025 Page 5 of 5 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. Xn- a Nina Vyedin, hair 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. DateP I hereby certify that 20 days have expired from the date this instrument was received, and that NO APPEAL has been filed 'n this office. A True Copy ATTEST ITY CLERK, Salem, Mass.