Loading...
311-313 Bridge 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 30, 2025 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals The petition of SKENDER KANANI D/B/A PEGASUS AUTO REPAIR at 311-313 BRIDGE STREET (Map 26, Lots 0618 & 0619) (R2 Zoning District) for Special Permits per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The Special Permits would allow the expansion of a nonconforming automobile repair use from a portion of the property and one structure to all the property and one additional existing structure. The proposed use and structure would replace a space formerly used for selling automobiles. 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 August 11, 2025. The petitioner sought Zoning Board of Appeals approval to allow the expansion of a nonconforming automobile repair use. 1. Ram Construction, LLC owns 311-313 Bridge Street. 2. Skender Kanani d/b/a Pegasus Auto Repair was the petitioner. 3. Attorney William F. Quinn was the representative for Skender Kanani d/b/a Pegasus Auto Repair. Attorney William F. Quinn presented on September 17, 2025. 4. 311-313 Bridge Street is in the R2 Zoning District (Map 26, Lots 0618 & 0619). 5. On June 25, 2025, Building Commissioner Stavroula Orfanos sent an enforcement letter to Ram Construction LLC, owners of 311-313 Bridge Street, regarding the property. The letter stated the following: “The above-reference property is in an Residential-2 zone, but has had two grandfathered uses on the site in the past, an automotive repair shop in the rear of the property and a used car lot with an office on the rest of the lot, that are not allowed in R-2. The used car lot is no longer in business and has lost is grandfathered status and the repair shop continues to operate due to the grandfathered status and may continue to operate. Please refer to the enclosed plan that shows the portion of the lot (4330 sf) upon which the repair shop’s grandfathered use is allowed. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 30, 2025 Page 2 of 9 I have confirmed that the auto repair shop has expanded the use throughout the lot without proper approval. To expand the repair shop into the former auto dealership space, a Special Permit from the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals would be required. You are directed to cease the storage of vehicles and other storage containers on the portion of the lot that has not had any approvals within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Your right to appeal against this order or application for a Special Permit, is to the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals.” 6. On September 17, 2025, Attorney William F. Quinn presented plans to allow the expansion of a nonconforming automobile repair use. Mr. Quinn stated that Mr. Kanani is a fifty-year-old auto repair mechanic running a business for his family. He stated that his client insists that he does his best to comply when the City tells him to do something. He added that complaints to the Building Inspector, Fire Department, and Health Department created a difficult situation for the Applicant. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 30, 2025 Page 3 of 9 7. Mr. Quinn stated that the property was rezoned to the R2 Zoning District, previously populated with business and commercial uses. He added that the Salem Intermodal Terminal is 200 yards across the street and noted that the B&M Railroad across Bridge Street goes back and forth on a regular schedule. Mr. Quinn stated that the area is highly industrial and commercial despite being rezoned to the R2 Zoning District. 8. Mr. Quinn stated that in 2016, the former Building Inspector Thomas St. Pierre took the position that there were two nonconforming uses with two concrete buildings and a parking area. Mr. Quinn added that one building at the back of the property was used for automobile repair and noted that the other building closer to the street was an office and showroom for a small car dealership. Mr. Quinn stated that the semi-trucks, tractor- trailers, and buses going along Bridge Street are not a factor in using the property as an automobile repair shop. He added that these factors would impact trying to use the property for residential purposes. 9. Mr. Quinn stated that, after speaking with Mr. Kanani and reading complaints of neighbors, the Applicant proposes a list of conditions. Mr. Quinn added that the special conditions would make continued use of the property not only not more detrimental, but also improve the situation for everyone involved: - Mr. Quinn stated that the business would open from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. six (6) days a week. He added that all repair work would be done from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. inside the buildings. - Mr. Quinn stated that the parking lot in the area for the former use would only be used to store and park cars waiting for repair and pickup. He added that no work would be going on with the cars outside and noted that no cars would be running at any time for any purpose. - Mr. Quinn stated that the business would only repair cars and would not repair trucks weighing over 15,000 pounds. He added that no semi-trucks would park or be maintained on the site. - Mr. Quinn stated that the business would add landscaping on all three (3) sides of the property that do not face Bridge Street. He added that there would be large coniferous fir trees that would screen the property from neighbors up the hill. - Mr. Quinn stated that the waste oil heater in the rear building has been removed. He added that the waste oil heater would be replaced by electric or natural gas heating. - Mr. Quinn stated that all trash storage would be inside the buildings. He added that parts and storage would be retained in one container on the lot. - Mr. Quinn stated that Mr. Kanani would have guidelines in writing that he would have to comply with all orders of the Building Inspector, Fire Department, or any other municipal department. He added that substantial delay or failure to comply would be grounds for the Board of Appeals to revoke a Special Permit. 10. Mr. Quinn stated that abutters have asked the Applicant to repair the fence and to remove trash from both sides of the fence, including their property. He added that the Applicant has done that. Mr. Quinn stated that the Applicant has worked with one of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 30, 2025 Page 4 of 9 four abutters to share the trimming of a large tree going over his property. Mr. Quinn stated that his client complied when the Building Commissioner sent a letter saying to clear everything off part of the property. He added that the Building Commissioner sent the enforcement letter because the used car business was abandoned for more than two (2) years. 11. Acting Chair Osthoff asked to view the submitted plot plan to better understand the condition of the property. Staff Planner Brennan Postich showed the submitted plot plan prepared by David P. Terenzoni, P.L.S., dated August 5, 2025. 12. Mr. Habib asked whether everything inside the area indicated as ‘4300 S.F.’ on the plan with the Building Commissioner’s enforcement letter would be an existing nonconforming use. Mr. Quinn stated that the rear building marked as ‘No.313’ and the parking to the left adjacent to the building would be a part of the existing nonconforming use. He added that the building marked as ‘No.311’ is vacant with no cars parked on the right-hand side adjacent to the F.W. Webb parking lot. 13. Mr. Habib asked whether the permitted existing nonconforming area would apply to Parking Spaces 33 to 42. Mr. Quinn stated that Spaces 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38 are not in dispute. He added that the Building Inspector has had no problem with their use because they have directly served the automobile repair use for years. Mr. Quinn stated that the rest of the parking and the empty building in the front, which used to be the automobile dealer, have been in dispute. 14. Ms. Simpson asked whether the Applicant would still be able to use the rear building and Parking Spaces 33 to 38 if the Board did not issue a Special Permit. Mr. Quinn stated that the area is an existing nonconforming use as an automobile repair shop. He added it is permanent until the Applicant abandons or changes what he does there. Building Commissioner Orfanos stated that the rear building and parking spaces are existing nonconforming uses. 15. Mr. Habib asked whether Parking Spaces 31 and 32, alongside Parcels 1-3, would not be part of the existing nonconforming use as an automobile repair shop. Mr. Quinn stated that the lot is now legally merged because one owner owned the property in 2017 and recorded a plot plan. Mr. Habib stated that the nonconforming area would not contain Parking Spaces 31 and 32 because the previous lot was only thirty-five feet (35’) wide. 16. Ms. McGaha asked what the Applicant would be doing in the building marked as ‘No.311’ if the Board issued a Special Permit. She stated that the zoning map indicates this building is located in a floodway and added that she would want to know how items are being stored. Mr. Quinn stated that the use is labeled as general auto repair under the Zoning Ordinance and added that painting would not be allowed. He added that the use would be car repair, like putting cars on a lift, changing oil, and doing things to keep a car operating. He stated that there are 15,000 to 20,000 cars in Salem and added that customers tend to be neighborhood oriented. 17. Mr. Quinn stated that the building is currently vacant. He added that the Applicant intends to reinstall three (3) car lifts and take cars outside when they are ready. Mr. Quinn stated that the Applicant would maintain files in an office space. Ms. McGaha asked whether there would be consideration of storage for hazardous materials because the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 30, 2025 Page 5 of 9 property is located in a floodway. She asked whether the storage container would remain in its existing location. Mr. Quinn stated that he believed the current location would work fine and added that the Applicant intends to keep the container there. Mr. Quinn stated that this would be where they put the car parts and noted that the other two storage containers would be removed. 18. Mr. Habib asked whether the Applicant would be operating with forty-two (42) spaces in use. Mr. Quinn stated that his client is expecting to expand due to there being three (3) additional car bays in the building marked as ‘No. 311’. Mr. Quinn stated that his client is anticipating using some space for the business’s expansion and car storage. 19. Mr. Habib stated that the proposal hinders the opportunity for potential growth of the North River Canal Corridor (NRCC). He added that there are many water issues along Bridge Street and noted that there is a lot of potential for the area to be a corridor connection to Salem. Mr. Habib stated that the Board approving the expansion of the parcel could hinder the corridor from being effective. 20. Mr. Habib stated that the landscape buffer would be impossible on the submitted plan because there is a two-foot (2’) buffer from the parking spaces. Mr. Quinn stated that the Applicant would need to submit a landscaping plan subject to plan approval. Mr. Quinn stated that the Chair and Building Inspector would decide whether the landscaping would be adequate or not. 21. Mr. Quinn stated that the North River Canal District does not encompass the property. Staff Planner Postich stated the NRCC Neighborhood Mixed Use District goes along the edge of 311-313 Bridge Street. He added that the property is inside the R2 Zoning District. Mr. Habib stated that property is within the future idea of what the NRCC is. 22. Ms. Simpson asked whether there would be a way to ensure the special conditions would be followed. Mr. Quinn stated that there would be instructions in writing that would tell the Applicant what they could or could not do. 23. Acting Chair Osthoff stated that the Board would maintain the former operation of the property if it did not move forward with the Special Permit. She stated that, based on the number of public comments, the way the business has been operating has been a nuisance. Chair Osthoff added that she assumed that the former operations worked for Mr. Kanani up until he expanded the business. 24. Ms. McGaha stated that the Board would be weighing whether the expansion of the use to the building marked as ‘No. 311’ and the rest of the lot increases the risk to public health and the environment. She stated that this use would not be allowed if someone wanted to start the use. Ms. McGaha added that there would be certain building standards for the use. She noted that there would be considerations the Board should consider if the use is in a flood zone. Ms. McGaha stated that there could be more damage if the Board voted to expand the use, and there was a flood because the building was not built to today’s standards. 25. Mr. Quinn stated that he understood the concerns. He added that the Applicant would need to comply with all the State and local property requirements. Mr. Quinn stated that the Planning Board, the Conservation Commission, and the Board of Appeals would be watching over the property for issues. He added that there would be a Coastal Resiliency City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 30, 2025 Page 6 of 9 Overlay District (CROD) review for whether utilities are properly protected for a 100-year flood. Mr. Quinn stated that the NRCC is background and added that there would be nothing adverse to the interests of the City with the proposal. 26. Ms. Simpson asked what the process would be if the Applicant did not follow the conditions set forward by the Board. She also asked whether there are standards for car repair businesses and whether there are property inspections. Building Commissioner Orfanos stated that the Building Department would inspect the site to see if a violation is occurring. She added that the Building Department could then issue a verbal warning, write a letter, or issue a violation ticket. Building Commissioner Orfanos stated that the enforcement would depend on the conditions the Board set. She added that the changes would have to meet sanitation codes, building codes, and fire codes. Commissioner Orfanos stated that the installation of a car lift would require a grease interceptor, which requires approval from a plumbing inspector. 27. Acting Chair Osthoff opened the hearing for public comments. 28. The City received eighteen (18) public comments on the proposal before the hearing and one (1) petition with sixty-one (61) electronic signatures. The public comments were from Ann Whittier, 10 River Street; Cindy Johnson, 13 River Street; Dan Hecht, 2 River Street; Elaine Whitman and Danielle Hanrahan, 28 Beckford Street; Frederick Biebesheimer and Lisa Spence, 17 1/2 River Street; James Daly, 101 Federal Street Unit 2; Jane C. Arlander, 93 Federal Street; Jerimiah and Deborah Jennings, 18 River Street; John Carr, 7 River Street; Justin Whittier, 10 River Street; Larissa Lucas, 15 River Street; Lyndsey and Brendan Wakeham, 4 River Street; Mary Nugent, 12 River Street; Meg Twohey, 122 Federal Street, Rich and Rosy Denton, 6 River Street; Robinson and Somer Douglas (no address provided); Stephanie Trainor, 14 River Street and 315 Bridge Street; and Stephen Zippilli, 114 Federal Street. At the September 17, 2025 public hearing, thirteen (13) members of the public commented on the proposal. The members who offered comments at the hearing were: Justin Whittier (no address provided); Jane Arlander (no address provided); Lindsey Wakeham, 4 River Street; John Carr, 7 River Street; Carol Carr, 7 River Street; Dan Hecht, 2 River Street; Fred Biebesheimer, 17 1/2 River Street; Rich Denton, 6 River Street; Rosy Denton, 6 River Street; Charles Von Burns (address not provided); Councillor Cynthia Jerzylo (address not provided); Barbara Brandt, 17 River Street; and Ann Whittier (address not provided). 29. Acting Chair Osthoff stated that the existing nonconforming use has been able to operate in the footprint it is currently inside. She added that expanding it would go against what the City is trying to do to improve the corridor. She noted that expanding the operation would create environmental impacts. 30. Mr. Habib stated that the only expansion he would be comfortable with would be to expand the use to Spaces 31 and 32 and to allow one (1) storage container within Parcels 1-3. He stated that this allowance would help the car repair business to function as-is while providing two (2) or three (3) additional parking spaces. Mr. Habib noted that it would be almost impossible to police the two spaces because the parking lot is one open area. He added that the Board should not allow use inside the building marked as ‘No. 311’ because it would be impossible to guarantee the use would be just for storage. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 30, 2025 Page 7 of 9 31. Mr. Larrick stated that the Board would need to consider the plans for the neighborhood because the Board would be tasked with determining what is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. He added that the 2003 North River Canal Corridor Plan, the 2012 North River Canal Corridor Transportation Study, and the Route 107 Study gave opportunities for the community to think about what is beneficial or detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Larrick stated that the study area of the 2003 North River Canal Corridor Plan included 311-313 Bridge Street. He noted that land use decisions stay with the parcel rather than businesses and owners. Mr. Larrick added that the evidence shown to the Board leads to the finding that the Board could not allow a substantial expansion of the business without being substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Larrick stated that Mr. Habib’s thinking would be a generous and empathetic opportunity for something minimal that makes sense for the site. 32. Ms. Simpson stated that she leaned towards keeping the business within the part of the site the Applicant currently operates within. She added that the Applicant has been making a living using just that portion of the site. Ms. Simpson stated that she believed including the two spaces along the building would be a great idea. 33. Mr. Larrick stated that the Board did not have the proposal that Mr. Habib stated in front of them. He added that he would not know how the Board would enforce that solution with conditions. 34. Acting Chair Osthoff stated that she would not know how the Board could enforce or approve a petition with the outlined site plan. She added that it was hard to note how the different operations are delineated from one another using the existing plans. 35. Mr. Quinn stated that the only thing he could think of is to talk with the Applicant more about filing an amended petition for lesser relief, parking, and a container. Mr. Quinn requested the Board to continue the petition until the petitioner has the chance to file an amended petition. 36. Mr. Larrick stated that, given the findings the Board has made, he would be in favor of a finding against the granting of a Special Permit. He added that if there were a different proposal for a Special Permit, the Board could consider the relief at that point. 37. Acting Chair Osthoff stated that the relief the Board is discussing is irrelevant to the requested relief in front of the Board. She added that the requested relief in front of the Board is whether the Applicant can expand the automobile repair use. Acting Chair Osthoff stated that the Board’s decision would not preclude the Applicant from seeking alternate relief for parking or dividing a lot. 38. Acting Chair Osthoff stated that she believed expanding the automobile repair shop use would be substantially more detrimental to the public. She stated that, relating to community needs, the proposal would preclude the property from transitioning into a use allowed in the R2 Zoning District. Acting Chair Osthoff stated that, relating to neighborhood character, the site is an eyesore in contrast to goals of the North River Canal Corridor. She stated that, relating to the natural environment, an automobile repair use is not good for the environment, especially near a water corridor. Acting Chair Osthoff stated that, relating to traffic flow and safety, many cars would be moving in and out of the property. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 30, 2025 Page 8 of 9 39. Staff Planner Postich referenced Massachusetts General Law (M.G.L.) Chapter 40A, Section 16, stating: “No appeal, application, or petition which has been unfavorably and finally acted upon by the special permit granting or permit granting authority shall acted favorably upon within two years after the date of final unfavorable action unless said special permit granting authority or permit granting authority finds (…) specific and material changes in the conditions upon which the previous unfavorable action was based.” Staff Planner Postich stated that a special permit granting authority would be able to act unfavorably upon this petition, then act favorably upon a substantially different petition as described in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A Section 16. 40. Ms. Simpson motioned to approve the petition. Mr. Habib 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 does not meet the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: Special Permit Findings: The Board finds that per Section 3.3.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, the change or extension of the use would be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. The Board finds that per Section 3.3.3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, the reconstruction, extension, alteration, or change would be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood. 1. The proposal would harm community needs. Expanding the car repair use would negatively impact the health of the surrounding neighborhood due to an increase in noise pollution, air pollutants, and other negative externalities. Allowing the expansion of the nonconforming use on the lot would preclude the ability of the lot to become an allowed use in the R2 Zoning District. 2. The proposal would negatively impact traffic flow and safety. The proposal would create additional safety concerns by increasing traffic flow along and through a corridor that routinely floods. 3. The proposal would have a minimal impact on the adequacy of utilities and other public services. Adequate utilities and other public services already service the structure. The proposed expansion would minimally impact these utilities and other public services. 4. The proposal would significantly impact neighborhood character. The proposed use conflicts with the intent of traffic studies and visioning plans for the North River Canal Corridor. The proposal would not be in line with neighboring residential uses and Leslie’s Retreat Park. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 30, 2025 Page 9 of 9 5. The proposal would negatively impact the natural environment, including greenhouse gas emissions and view. The proposal would increase the chance of contaminants entering the North River by expanding the car repair use inside a 100-year Flood Zone. The proposal would increase vehicle emissions in the area. 6. The proposal would have a slight positive potential economic and fiscal impact, including impacts on City services, tax base, and employment. The proposal would allow the Applicant to repair more vehicles on the property, potentially generating additional employment and tax revenue. Based on the above statements of fact and findings, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals voted zero (0) in favor, (Hannah Osthoff (Acting Chair), Peter Habib, Christa McGaha, Stephen Larrick, and Ellen Simpson) and five (5) opposed, to grant Skender Kanani d/b/a Pegasus Auto Repair at 311-313 Bridge Street (Map 26, Lots 0618 & 0619) (R2 Zoning District) Special Permits per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The Special Permits would allow the expansion of a nonconforming automobile repair use from a portion of the property and one structure to all the property and one additional existing structure. The proposed use and structure would replace a space formerly used for selling automobiles. __________________________ Hannah Osthoff, Acting 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.