Loading...
284 Washington Street ZBA Stamped Decision - °' CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS �" #`a ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �ecrME 98 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MAssnct IIISETTs 01970 DOMINICK PANGAI.LO TEL:978-619-5685, MAYOR N October 24, 2025 Decision ri r a City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals The petition of KATHLEEN SIROIS at 284 WASHINGTON STREET (Map 34, Lot 0260VR3 ZCRing District) for Variances per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements and a Special Permier Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to convert a nonconforming two-family building with first-floor office space into a nonconforming three-family building with first-floor office space. The proposed Variance would allow a decrease from 2,287 square feet per dwelling unit to 1,524 square feet per dwelling unit. On October 15,2025,the following members of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals were present: Nina Vyedin (Chair), Peter Habib, Christa McGaha, Stephen Larrick, and Ellen Simpson. Hannah Osthoff was absent. Statements of Fact: The petition was date-stamped on September 8, 2025. The petitioner sought Zoning Board of Appeals approval to convert a two-family building with first-floor office space into a three-family building with first-floor office space. 1. Kathleen Sirois owns 284 Washington Street. 2. Kathleen Sirois was the petitioner. 3. Attorney Ryan Carlucci was the representative for Kathleen Sirois.Attorney Ryan Carlucci and Kathleen Sirois presented on October 15, 2025. 4. The original filing on September 8, 2025, was amended with the Applicant's consent to include a Variance request per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 5. 284 Washington Street is in the R3 Zoning District (Map 34, Lot 0260). 6. On September 29, 2025, Mayor Dominick Pangallo signed an amendment to the Salem Zoning Ordinance eliminating parking requirements for multifamily uses.The amendment stated the following: Section I. Amend Section 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking.Spaces.by c. Adding a second row to the table as follows: "Dwellings, multifamily" None j City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals October 24, 2025 Page 2 of 7 7. On October 15, 2025, Chair Vyedin stated that a parking variance is not needed because of the new Zoning Ordinance amendment and because this is a proposed multifamily use. Staff Planner Brennan Postich stated that that would be correct and added that the Building Commissioner would be the individual who provides official interpretation. Chair Vyedin asked whether the parking requirements for the commercial spaces would still hold. Building Commissioner Stavroula Orfanos stated that the commercial parking requirements would remain while there would be no residential parking requirements. S. Attorney Ryan Carlucci stated that the Applicant is requesting a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to use the rear unit for residential purposes. He stated that the proposal would split the nonconforming office unit on the first floor into an office unit with a rear residential unit. Mr. Carlucci added that they are requesting a Variance for the property's lot area per dwelling unit. 9. Mr. Carlucci stated that the Applicant purchased the entire property in 2003. He added that she sought approval to rent out the unit from the Building Inspector in 2015. He noted that the Building Inspector said the rear apartment was up to code. Mr. Carlucci stated that the Building Inspector said to keep a lock between the two (2) units and receive approval from the Board of Health for a certificate of fitness. 10. Mr. Carlucci stated that the Applicant received a building inspection in March 2024. He added that the Applicant was told to disassemble the unit in May 2024. Mr. Carlucci stated that the tenant was gone and added that the Applicant has not rented the unit since. 11. Mr. Carlucci stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires 3,500 square feet per dwelling unit, while the lot is approximately 5,000 square feet. He noted that the proposal would result in approximately 1,655 square feet per dwelling unit. Mr. Carlucci stated that requiring the property to comply with the Zoning Ordinance would be a hardship because the structure was built before 1915 on a small, narrow lot. 12. Chair Vyedin asked whether the property was originally a three-family structure. Mr. Carlucci stated the building was originally a single-family structure. He added that the Applicant subdivided the upstairs units in 2006. Chair Vyedin asked whether the property became a two-family structure with commercial use in 2006. Mr. Carlucci stated that Chair Vyedin was correct. 13. Chair Vyedin stated that there was a building permit in 2005 to remodel the first floor into a commercial unit. She asked whether the Applicant had conversations with the Inspectional Services Department to add an apartment to the first-floor commercial space. Mr. Carlucci stated that they had conversations with the Inspectional Services Department in 2015. Chair Vyedin stated that a certificate of fitness was issued in 2021. 14. Chair Vyedin asked whether the property has maintained its nonconforming status throughout its timeline. Staff Planner Brennan Postich confirmed that the property has retained its nonconforming status. Building Commissioner Stavroula Orfanos stated that she could not find a certificate of occupancy for the third unit on the first floor.She added that a building inspector issued a cease-and-desist letter when it came to the Inspectional Services Department's attention that there was an additional unit on the property. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals October 24, 2025 Page 3of7 Building Commissioner Orfanos noted that there was a building permit in 2005 for the commercial space. She added that the Board of Health has not provided a certificate of fitness after the Inspectional Services Department issued the cease-and-desist letter. 15. Chair Vyedin asked whether the property had come before the Zoning Board of Appeals to create a two-family building with commercial space on the first floor. Building Commissioner Orfanos stated she could not find a record of that. Staff Planner Brennan Postich stated that there is no record of a previous Zoning Board of Appeals application. 16. Ms. McGaha stated that there was a wall separating the two (2) units. She asked whether the wall would remain the same or if there would be further interior work to separate the two (2) units. Mr. Carlucci stated that there would be no interior construction plans. 17. Ms. Osthoff asked whether the petitioner owns the entire first floor. Mr. Carlucci stated that the petitioner owns the first floor and one (1) upstairs unit. 18. Chair Vyedin asked to view the plot plan and the dimensional table. Mr. Carlucci stated that the number of parking spaces would decrease from five (5) to four (4) to create spaces compliant with the Zoning Ordinance. Chair Vyedin asked what the first-floor commercial use is. Mr. Carlucci stated that the first floor is used as a counseling business. He added that the business has mostly online clients. 19. Ms. Sirois stated that the building was originally a three-family structure with a rear business. She added that she kept the residential unit and used the rooms as offices. Ms. Sirois stated that she was in her office 15-20 hours a week to store confidential records. 20. Chair Vyedin asked what the current commercial use would be under the Zoning Ordinance. Building Commissioner Orfanos stated that the space would be considered an office use. She added that a 2005 building permit showed the area as office space. Building Commissioner Orfanos stated that the property owner's name was listed on the building permit titled 'B-671-05'. She added that the floor plan shows the rear area was a kitchenette for an office rather than a kitchen for a dwelling unit. 21. Ms. Sirois stated that they rented out the additional office space to another business. Chair Vyedin asked when the rear unit was converted back to housing. Ms. Sirois stated that she rented out the rear unit for six (6) years. She added that the Fire Department reviewed the property and noted that there were inspections of the property. Mr. Sirois stated that she did not originally go to the Board for relief. 22. Chair Vyedin asked how big the first-floor unit was. Ms. Sirois stated that the first-floor unit was 1,300 square feet. She added that the first-floor office space was 500 square feet and that the rear unit was 800 square feet. 23. Mr. Habib stated that the submitted plans create a three-family building with the residential units labeled as 'Unit 1B', Unit 2A', and 'Unit 2B'. Mr. Habib noted that the commercial unit labeled 'Unit 1A' could be confused as a residential dwelling. Chair Vyedin stated that the Board could add a special condition to clarify that the front unit would be a commercial space. Mr. Carlucci stated that the commercial unit labeled 'Unit 1A' is addressed as 284 Washington Street. 24. Chair Vyedin asked how many parking spaces the proposal would require. Ms. Sirois stated that the proposal would require two (2) parking spaces. 25. Chair Vyedin opened the hearing for public comments. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals October 24, 2025 Page 4 of 7 26.The City received one (1) public comment on the proposal before the hearing. The public comment was from De Lam (no address provided). At the October 15, 2025 public hearing, one (1) member of the public commented on the proposal. The member who offered comments at the hearing was De Lam of 284 Washington Street Unit 2B. 27 De Lam stated that Ms. Sirois had an illegal apartment for more than 10 years and never paid the water bill. He added that Ms. Sirois wanted to add an apartment for herself. Mr. Lam stated that he must park his car tandem in the rear of the property. He noted that the property could not fit one (1) more family. 28. Chair Vyedin stated that she was not sure how much the Board could discuss parking because a Variance would not be required. Building Commissioner Orfanos stated that the apartment would require building code review if the Board approved the request for an additional dwelling unit. 29. Chair Vyedin stated that the Board's focus would be on whether they approve an additional dwelling unit. She added that the Board would need to consider whether the request for lot area per dwelling units meets the criteria for a hardship or counts as a self- inflicted hardship. Chair Vyedin asked to review the statement of grounds and statement of hardship. 30. Mr. Carlucci stated that the proposal fills a need for additional housing and noted that one (1) parking space would be deeded to each unit. He added that there would be no changes to the building footprint or drainage. Mr. Carlucci stated that the proposal would create a positive fiscal impact through taxes generated by the additional residence. 31. Mr. Carlucci stated that the lot is 4,966 square feet. He added that the existing two (2) dwelling units create a lot area per dwelling unit of 2,483 square feet. He noted that the soil conditions, topography, and small lot size create a substantial hardship to the Applicant if the Zoning Ordinance were literally enforced. Mr. Carlucci stated that the addition of a safe and code-compliant unit would be consistent with the City's needs. 32. Chair Vyedin asked whether there were neighboring multifamily structures with downstairs commercial space. Mr. Carlucci stated that the abutting unit has a similar structure with a carveout inside the B1 Zoning District. 33. Mr. Habib stated that he understood the hardship because the property has a significant amount of unoccupied space. He asked how the Board would consider proposals without considering parking needs. Chair Vyedin stated that the proposal is not far from the train station, close to downtown, and close to bus routes running along Lafayette Street. 34. Mr. Larrick stated that adding housing without adding parking would be beneficial for the community and more in line with the multifamily district's intent. He stated that multifamily parking demand was close to or significantly lower than one (1) parking unit in almost all properties within a recent parking survey. Mr. Larrick stated that the proposed parking spaces seem in line with parking demand, even with an additional unit. 35. Staff Planner Brennan Postich asked the petitioner to state the parking requirements for the commercial space because the application stated the use was for a business office. Mr. Carlucci stated that Section 5.1.8 Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance requires one (1) parking space per employee. He added that the Applicant is a manager and does not have an employee. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals October 24, 2025 Page 5of7 36. Chair Vyedin asked whether the Board considers the hardship related to the lot or the land. Ms. Simpson stated that the lot would not allow the petitioner to reasonably use their property and would count as a hardship. Chair Vyedin stated that, regardless of the building's history, the petitioner is requesting a three-family structure in an R3 Zoning District. 37 Mr. Larrick stated that the proposal is in line with the neighborhood's character. He added that the hardship relating to the lot's size and existing building is compelling. Ms. McGaha stated that the lot is small compared to the minimum lot size required in the R3 Zoning District. She added that the minimum lot area per dwelling unit is nearly as large as the lot's size. Ms. McGaha stated that there are frequent buses along Lafayette Street, reducing parking demand. She noted that the use would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood. 38. Chair Vyedin asked whether the wall shown in the submitted plot plan and floor plan would remain the same. Mr. Carlucci stated that the wall would remain the same. Building Commissioner Orfanos stated that the Inspectional Services Department would need new drawings to create an apartment up to electrical, plumbing, and health codes. 34. Staff Planner Brennan Postich proposed wording for a special condition: The Applicant shall submit a revision to the plot plan dated September 22, 2025, by Bay State Survey Association Inc., prior to the issuance of a building permit. The revision shall address the commercial unit labeled 'Unit 1A' as 284 Washington Street instead of 284 Washington Street Unit 1A. 40. Mr. Larrick motioned to approve the petition, with the special condition proposed by Staff Planner Brennan Postich. 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: 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 small, thinly lot with limited room to accommodate a unit allowed by-right. 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 be unable to put the property to productive use as a three-family dwelling without the requested relief. 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 Applicant is not proposing to increase the footprint of the existing structure. The Applicant is proposing to retain the same amenities on the property. The City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals October 24, 2025 Page 6of7 Applicant's property is situated in the R3 Zoning District, and the Applicant has the right to create a three-family dwelling in the R3 Zoning District. 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 proposal creates an additional housing unit in the City while retaining the existing counseling service amenity. 2. The proposal has a minor impact on traffic flow and safety.The proposal provides one (1) parking space per dwelling unit while allocating a parking space for the proposed business office use. The property is adequately served by the Lafayette Street bus route and the Salem Commuter Rail Station. 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 because of the proposal. 5. The proposal has minimal impacts on the natural environment, including greenhouse gas emissions and view. The proposal does not change the structure's footprint or drainage. The fully interior construction would have limited, if any, community impacts. 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 capacity for an additional resident in the City. Based on the above statements of fact and findings, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, (Nina Vyedin (Chair), Peter Habib, Christa McGaha, Stephen Larrick, and Ellen Simpson) and zero (0) opposed, to grant Kathleen Sirois at 284 Washington Street (Map 34, Lot 0260) (R3 Zoning District) a Variance per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to convert a nonconforming two-family building with first-floor office space into a nonconforming three- family building with first-floor office space. The proposed Variance will allow a decrease from 2,287 square feet per dwelling unit to 1,524 square feet per dwelling unit. 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. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals October 24, 2025 Page 7of7 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. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Petitioner shall schedule Assessing Department inspections of the property, at least annually, prior to project completion and a final inspection upon project completion. Special Condition: 1. The Applicant shall submit a revision to the plot plan dated September 22, 2025, by Bay State Survey Association Inc., prior to the issuance of a building permit. The revision shall address the commercial unit labeled 'Unit 1A' as 284 Washington Street instead of 284 Washington Street Unit 1A. ✓{ z,La V ;1/161V° Nina Vyedin, aair 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.