Loading...
55 Butler Street U2 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 JESSICA CAAMANO & ERIC SCHLICHTE at 55 BUTLER STREET U2 (Map 16, Lot 0096) (R1 Zoning District) for Variances per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements and Section 5.1.8 Off-Street Parking, and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change a nonconforming two-family structure into a nonconforming three- family structure. The Variances would allow one (1) parking space per unit (3 spaces total), where 1.5 spaces per unit (5 spaces total) are required, and a decrease from 2,119 square feet per dwelling unit to 1,412 square feet per dwelling unit, where 15,000 square feet are required. The Special Permit would allow the use as a three-family structure. 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 19, 2025. The petitioner sought Zoning Board of Appeals approval to change a nonconforming two-family structure into a nonconforming three- family structure. 1. Jessica Marie Caamano and Eric Peter Schlichte own 55 Butler Street U2. 2. Jessica Caamano & Eric Schlichte were the petitioners. 3. Attorney William F. Quinn was the representative for Jessica Caamano & Eric Schlichte. William F. Quinn, Jessica Caamano, and Eric Schlichte presented on September 17, 2025. Dan Ricciarelli, architect with Seger Architects, presented on September 17, 2025. 4. 55 Butler Street U2 is in the R1 Zoning District (Map 16, Lot 0096). 5. On September 17, 2025, Attorney William F. Quinn presented plans to change a nonconforming two-family structure into a nonconforming three-family structure. Mr. Quinn stated that 55 Butler Street is a 2.5-story, large frame house on the corner of Rawlins and Butler Street. Mr. Quinn stated that the property is technically a condo and added that his clients own all the units on the property. He noted that there is a first-floor unit and a combined second and third-floor unit. Mr. Quinn stated that his clients would want to use a large amount of space on the third floor to create a third unit. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 30, 2025 Page 2 of 6 6. Mr. Quinn stated that the building has five (5) bedrooms and noted that the new units will have five (5) bedrooms in total. Mr. Quinn stated that the City is on its way to reducing parking requirements to boost housing production. He added that only sixty percent (60%) of the existing parking is used on a day-to-day basis. Mr. Quinn stated that allowing three (3) parking spaces instead of the five (5) required spaces would be consistent with the City’s move towards reducing parking for multi-family projects. He added that the proposal does not change the structure’s footprint. 7. Dan Ricciarelli stated that they wanted to create three (3) flat units on the property. Mr. Ricciarelli stated that they would be adding small skylights to bring more natural light into the third floor. He noted that there are adequate windows on either end of the house for egress and added that there are two (2) means of egress on the property. Mr. Ricciarelli stated that the proposal would create a one-bedroom apartment on the third floor. 8. Mr. Ricciarelli stated that there would be two (2) skylights on the west elevation and one (1) skylight on the east elevation. He added that the on-site parking spaces were carved out from the ledge on the property. He noted that the ledge would be a hardship because it would be expensive to remove and replace the existing large retaining wall. 9. Mr. Ricciarelli stated that they would be looking for three (3) parking spaces at a one-to- one (1:1) ratio with the house. He noted that the spaces would be undersized in width at eight feet (8’) but would be easy to access from the street. 10. Mr. Quinn stated that the elevated ledge on two (2) sides of the property and parking area adjacent to the retaining wall would create a hardship for the owner to expand the existing parking area. He added that changing the parking would require a four-foot (4’) retaining wall to be replaced and ledge to be blasted. He noted that topographical and soil conditions create a hardship. 11. Mr. Quinn stated that the conditions are unique to this building and atypical for the neighborhood. He added that the required lot area per dwelling unit for the building is 15,000 square feet and noted that the property has sat on the lot for over one hundred years and cannot be expanded to accommodate one additional housing unit. Mr. Quinn stated that the City’s need for several thousand housing units can be met by a combination of larger projects and by expanding reasonable uses in residential neighborhoods. 12. Mr. Quinn stated that there would be no change in the character of the neighborhood, environment, or drainage because there would be no external property changes. He added that the house is four (4) buildings down the corner of Rawlins Street, a side street. He noted that it would be unlikely for one additional car pulling in and out from the property to have any material negative impact on the neighborhood. 13. Mr. Larrick asked whether the third-floor unit would be under 900 square feet. Mr. Ricciarelli stated that the unit was 716 square feet. Mr. Larrick asked whether the Applicant considered creating an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) due to them being allowed by-right. Mr. Quinn stated that the Applicant has a nonconforming lot and a house in a nonconforming condition that requires going to the Board of Appeals for a finding to install one or more ADUs. He added that they decided to go to the Board for relief instead. He noted that there are still requirements for ADUs, like common City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 30, 2025 Page 3 of 6 ownership for the primary building. Mr. Quinn stated that with two condominium units, the property owner would either need to remove the condominiums or delegate one of the two units as a primary residence to qualify for an ADU. Mr. Larrick stated that the proposed parking reforms would not apply to an R1 Zoning District and added that the explanation helped bring the proposal into the context of the City. 14. Mr. Habib asked whether there is street parking around the site. Mr. Quinn stated that there are no resident parking limitations in the neighborhood. He added that there is curbed parking along Butler and Rawlins Street. 15. Ms. Simpson stated that providing three (3) spaces for three (3) units was reasonable and added that it would be great to provide three (3) housing units where there were two (2) housing units. Mr. Habib stated that the proposal would avoid adding unnecessary curb cuts and added that the retaining wall would make any changes very costly. 16. Acting Chair Osthoff opened the hearing for public comments. 17. The City received three (3) public comments on the proposal before the hearing. The public comments were from Annamaria Veneziano (no address provided); Brody Bellamy (no address provided); and Jamie Palensee, 61 Butler Street. At the September 17, 2025 public hearing, five (5) members of the public commented on the proposal. The members who offered comments at the hearing were: Annamaria Veneziano, 63 Butler Street; Jamie Palensee, 61 Butler Street; and Billy Kapper, 61 Butler Street. 18. Ms. Veneziano stated that people use Butler Street to avoid Highland Avenue and Boston Street. She added that there are always cars on both sides of the street. She noted that there is no resident parking. Ms. Veneziano stated that there are times when she must park at the stop sign and walk along Butler Street to get home. 19. Ms. Palensee stated that the houses in the neighborhood were owner-occupied, with some multifamily buildings. She added that the multifamily buildings have split and split again. She noted that this has created significant quality-of-life issues for the neighborhood. Ms. Palensee stated that just because there is one (1) car per unit does not guarantee that there will be one (1) car per unit. She added that she understands housing is important but noted that changes have a significant impact on residents when a neighborhood does not have the infrastructure to support multifamily units. 20. Mr. Quinn stated that relief for people without a driveway is appropriate. He added that the neighbors should seek resident-only parking on their side of the street. Mr. Quinn stated that the City government and the City Councillor who represents the neighborhood can provide resident parking. He added that they would not be putting parking on the street unless there were guests, like any other house in the neighborhood. 21. Ms. McGaha asked whether all three (3) units would have access to the front and back doors. Mr. Ricciarelli stated that all three (3) units would have access to both doors. Ms. McGaha stated that the parking area is on Rawlins Street, while most parking complaints were on Butler Street. She noted that people may park on Rawlins Street rather than on Butler Street because the Rawlins Street entrance is at-grade. Jessica Caamano stated that the back door along Rawlins Street operates as the front door. 22. Mr. Habib stated that Butler Street has five (5) buildings with no driveways. He added that given the size of the proposed units, one space per unit is substantial enough. He noted City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 30, 2025 Page 4 of 6 that neighbors should work together to create a resident-only condition if there are other concerns outside the site. 23. Mr. Kapper stated that people do not park in front of Butler Street because of the hedges. He added that people cut through the street because they do not want to wait on Boston Street. Ms. Caamano stated that there was turnover in the bottom unit, and there was miscommunication about who was maintaining the landscaping. She added that the shrubs would be promptly trimmed back and brought to the standard it should be. 24. Mr. Larrick asked whether a condition requiring the Applicant to maintain the hedges would be amenable. Building Commissioner Stavroula Orfanos stated that there is an Ordinance regulating hedges and added that the Building Department would enforce calls if they are received. 25. Mr. Habib motioned to approve the petition. Ms. Simpson 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: 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 an over-hundred-year-old lot with significant amounts of ledge. The specific circumstances of the land and building mean the lot cannot accommodate a building with an expanded footprint. 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 need to blast and excavate ledge to accommodate additional parking. Literally enforcing the provisions of the Ordinance would create significant financial hardship to the Applicant. 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 does not change the footprint of the nonconforming structure and retains a 2.5-story house. The proposal provides the minimum relief required to provide adequate parking without affecting the safety of the neighborhood by adding an excessive number of vehicles to the street. 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. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 30, 2025 Page 5 of 6 1. Community needs are served by the proposal. The Applicant is creating an additional housing unit in the City. 2. The impact on traffic flow and safety is minimal. The Applicant is providing one (1) parking space per dwelling unit. The parking spaces will have adequate access to and from Rawlins Street, minimally impacting traffic flow. 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 external changes to the property are limited to minor cosmetic differences. 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 or change the property’s layout to accommodate additional parking spaces. 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 property’s tax base while providing a dwelling unit for a new resident. 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 Jessica Caamano & Eric Schlichte at 55 Butler Street (Map 16, Lot 0096) (R1 Zoning District) for Variances per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements and Section 5.1.8 Off-Street Parking, and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change a nonconforming two-family structure into a nonconforming three-family structure. The Variances will allow one (1) parking space per unit (3 spaces total), where 1.5 spaces per unit (5 spaces total) are required, and a decrease from 2,119 square feet per dwelling unit to 1,412 square feet per dwelling unit, where 15,000 square feet are required. The Special Permit will allow the use as a three-family structure. 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. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any city board or commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor’s Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 30, 2025 Page 6 of 6 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. __________________________ 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.