Loading...
6 Botts Court ZBA Stamped Decision v���oNn►T,��! CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS '4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 98 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 DOMINICK PANGAI.LO TEL:978-619-5685 _ MAYOR September 30, 2025 Decision , City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals The petition of BETH CROWLEY at 6 BOTTS COURT (Map 25, Lot 0418) (R2 Zoning District) for a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residences of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The Special Permit would allow the construction of a covered porch six feet (6') from the rear property line and the expansion of a third-story dormer located within the required thirty-foot (30') rear setback. On September 17, 2025, the following members of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals were present: Hannah Osthoff(Acting Chair), Peter Habib, Christa McGaha, Stephen Larrick, and Ellen Simpson. Nina Vyedin was absent. Statements of Fact: The petition was date-stamped on July 24, 2025. The petitioner sought Zoning Board of Appeals approval for the construction of a covered porch and the expansion of a third-story dormer. 1. Beth Anne Crowley owns 6 Botts Court. 2. Beth Crowley was the petitioner. 3. Attorney Chris Drucas was the representative for Beth Crowley.Attorney Chris Drucas and Peter Pitman, architect with Pitman and Wardley, presented on September 17, 2025. 4. The original filing on July 24, 2025, was amended with the Applicant's consent to remove a Variance request per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 5. 6 Botts Court is in the R2 Zoning District (Map 25, Lot 0418). 6. On September 17, 2025, Attorney Chris Drucas stated that the building was constructed in 1897 with an oddly shaped lot. Mr. Drucas added that, keeping with Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residences of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, the Board's main determination would be that the proposal would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. 7. Peter Pitman stated that Botts Court is a small street located inside the McIntire Historical District. He added that Botts Court is a narrow street, has no sidewalks, and has combined pedestrian and vehicle traffic. Mr. Pitman stated that the house sits on a right angle and has two fronts. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 30, 2025 Page 2 of 4 8. Mr. Pitman stated that expanding the dormer would allow a wider and more functional bathroom. He added that they would be creating a small covered landing about twenty inches (20") off the existing yard's grade. Mr. Pitman noted that the Historical Commission provided a certificate of appropriateness for the porch and dormer design. 9. Mr. Pitman stated that the porch could be viewed seasonally from Hamilton Street. He stated there would be no way to be compliant with setbacks because the southern lot line is only thirty-three feet (33') wide, and a carriage house exists on the property. 10. Mr. Pitman stated that the proposed landing expands five feet (5')from the house and is ten feet (10') wide, including the steps. He added that the treads on the porch will be squared off to create a second means of egress into the kitchen. Mr. Pitman stated that the current dormer is dysfunctional because there is no headroom for the outdated period bathroom. He added that the expanded dormer would allow a standard shower with headroom for a vanity sink. Mr. Pitman noted that they were working within the historical context of the home to make the changes as de minimis as practicable. 11. Acting Chair Osthoff stated that the Applicant provided information on the distance from the house's southwest corner to the rear lot line. The Applicant stated in a call to City Staff that the distance from the southwest corner of the house to the rear lot line would decrease from twelve feet (12') to six feet (6'). The Applicant consented to this information being shared with the Board. Acting Chair Osthoff noted that the petition feels appropriate and improves the means of egress from the building. 12. Mr. Habib stated that the proposal would be better than the existing building and noted that the proposal subtly moves the building without creating any unnecessary overhangs or dormers. Mr. Habib asked whether the fifty-one-foot (51') side-lot dimension shown on the dimensional table would be correct.Acting Chair Osthoff stated that the proposed dimensions on the dimensional table would be for the additions instead of the structure. She added that no setbacks would be changing due to the northwest portion of the house being along the rear setback. 13. Ms. Simpson stated that the expansion of the dormer was an elegant solution. Ms. McGaha stated that the historical details look good and added that she believes the project would not be more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure. 14. Acting Chair Osthoff opened the hearing for public comments. 15. The City received one (1) public comment on the proposal before the hearing. The public comment was from Pamela Jendrysik, 3 Hamilton Street. At the September 17, 2025 public hearing,two(2) members of the public commented on the proposal.The members who offered comments at the hearing were Pamela Jendrysik, 3 Hamilton Street; and Richard Jendrysik, 3 Hamilton Street. 16. Pamela Jendrysik asked whether the petitioners would be removing the two (2) trees sheltering their properties. Mr. Pitman stated that one tree would be removed. He added that the owners would be willing to work with them to position equipment where it would have the least effect on existing plantings. 17. Richard Jendrysik asked whether the condenser on the plans was drawn to scale. Mr. Pitman stated that the condenser manufacturers require clearance from fences for air City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 30, 2025 Page 3 of 4 circulation and maintenance. He added that they were trying to keep the condensers located as close to the house as allowed by the manufacturer's warranties. 18. Mr. Habib motioned to approve the petition. Ms. McGaha seconded the motion. 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. Community needs are served by the proposal. The proposed covered porch allows for a safe means of egress from the property than the current lean-to-shed entryway. 2. The impact on traffic flow and safety is negligible because the proposal does not change the number of parking spaces or dwelling units 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 structures minimally expand the existing dormer and reaIr exit and entryway to the property. 5. The proposal has minimal impacts on the natural environment, including greenhouse gas emissions and view. The proposal minimally impacts views from public streets around 6 Botts Court. 6. The proposal has a minimal potential economic and fiscal impact, including impacts on City services, tax base, and employment. Based on the above statements of fact and findings, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, (Hannah Osthoff(Acting Chair), Peter Habib, Christa McGaha, Stephen Larrick, and Ellen Simpson) and zero (0) opposed, to grant Beth Crowley at 6 Botts Court (Map 25, Lot 0418) (112 Zoning District) a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two- Family Residences of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The Special Permit will allow the construction of a covered porch six feet (6') from the rear property line and the expansion of a third-story dormer located within the required thirty-foot (30') rear setback. 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. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 30, 2025 Page 4 of 4 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 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. ,.Aannafi i�3L20 �16T Hannah Osthoff, Acting 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.