Loading...
2 Cedar Street ZBA Stamped Decision CITY OF SALEM s ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY HALI.ANNEX 2tiD FLOOR,98 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM MA 01 DOMINICK PANGALLO C!'r- 7 MAYOR -q December 2, 2025 `-• - Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals The petition of CHRIS WOLFORTH at 2 CEDAR STREET (Map 34, Lot 0107) (B1 Zoning District) for Variances per Section 3.2.4 Accessory Buildings, 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements, Section 5.1.6 Setbacks, and Section 5.1.8 Required Parking and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residences of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a shed, two exit staircases for a new basement unit, and provide two parking spaces for the property. The Variances would allow: 1) a shed three-feet (3') from the eastern property line (3.2.4), 2) a decrease from 3,747 to 1,873 square feet per dwelling unit with an increase in lot coverage over 40%(4.1.1), 3) parking spaces less than two feet (2')from the property line(5.1.6), and 4) two (2) parking spaces where three (3) spaces are required (5.1.8). On November 19, 2025, the following members of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals were present: Nina Vyedin (Chair), Hannah Osthoff, Peter Habib, Christa McGaha, and Stephen Larrick. Ellen Simpson was absent. Statements of Fact: The petition was date-stamped on September 26, 2025.The petitioner sought Zoning Board of Appeals approval for two exit staircases accessing a new basement unit, two parking spaces where three are required, and dimensional relief for a new shed. 1. Chris Wolforth owns 2 Cedar Street. Chris Wolforth was the petitioner. 2. Ben Anderson was the representative for Chris Wolforth. Ben Anderson presented on November 19, 2025. 3. The original filing on September 26, 2025, was amended with the Applicant's consent to include a Variance request per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements and a Special Permit request per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residences of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 4. 2 Cedar Street is in the B1 Zoning District (Map 34, Lot 0107). 5. November 19, 2025, Ben Anderson presented plans for two exit staircases accessing a new basement unit and two parking spaces for 2 Cedar Street. Mr. Anderson stated that he was representing Chris and Rebecca Wolforth. He added that the proposal was initially conceived as an addition to a 1915 Colonial-Revival home. Mr. Anderson noted that after consultation, they elected to propose a basement dwelling. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals December 2, 2025 Page 2of8 6. Mr. Anderson stated that creating a basement dwelling unit would minimize the impact on the home and neighbors. He added that the basement floor would have to be lowered and noted that they would need to provide two (2) exit staircase s. 7. Mr. Anderson stated that the petitioners would lose storage space with a basement dwelling. He added that they propose a ten-foot-by-twelve-foot(10'x12')shed behind the parking area to allow the yard to have a garden. Mr. Anderson stated that a Variance for an eight-foot (8') setback from the house would be necessary to accommodate their storage needs. He added that they do not believe the design would be detrimental to the neighborhood because it has detailing like other Colonial-Revival homes. Mr. Anderson presented views of the proposed shed from the north,west and south elevations. 8. Mr. Anderson stated that the existing parcel is 3,747 square feet and noted that the square footage is 247 square feet above the 3,500-square-foot lot area per dwelling unit requirement. Mr. Anderson added that they would not meet the required lot area with an additional dwelling unit, requiring a Variance from Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. He noted that the basement dwelling would be primarily unseen. 9. Mr. Anderson presented views of the two (2) proposed means of egress alongside a historical photo of the house. He stated that there would be almost no view of the basement because it would be hidden by a fence on Cedar Street. He added that there would be a masonry retaining wall for the egress stair adjacent to the driveway. Mr. Anderson stated that the landing at the end of the front stair would be behind the existing stone pier and noted that the rear landing aligns with the existing building's north face. 10 Mr. Anderson stated that the proposal would require a Variance from Section 5.1.6 Setbacks because the existing parking surface is less than two feet (2') from the eastern property line. He added that there is not much room for moving or shifting parking spaces between the parking stalls and egress stalls. He noted that the proposal would not affect adjacent land because the existing parking surface would not change. 11. Mr. Anderson stated that the proposal required a Variance from Section 5.1.8 Required Parking Spaces because two (2) parking spaces are provided while three (3) are required. He noted that the property is small, with no other space to park being available. 12. Mr. Anderson stated that the Department of Inspectional Services determined that the additional housing unit would require the two(2)exit staircases,meaning a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Structures would be necessary. He added that the proposal minimally alters the building's exterior while not being more detrimental than the existing structure to the neighborhood. Mr. Anderson stated that the building's northwest corner would extend by approximately five feet (5') to the east while not changing the property's northern setback. He noted that the second egress stair would be between the house and the parking spaces. 13. Mr.Anderson showed an elevation plan depicting the addition for the north staircase. He stated that they are proposing to mimic the Colonial-Revival home's detailing and wrap around the corner to create a courtyard. He added that the proposal would create a simpler and more aesthetically pleasing design. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals December 2, 2025 Page 3of8 14. Chair Vyedin asked how individuals walking on Cedar Street would access the backyard if cars were parked on the driveway. Mr. Anderson stated that there would be a gate and noted that a car would be 6.5 feet to seven feet (7') wide rather than nine feet (9') wide by twenty-two feet (22') long. He added that the building's dimensions limit the amount of room on the site. 15. Chair Vyedin asked whether the proposal would remove a walkway along the building's east side. Mr. Anderson stated that the walkway is an unused grass and dirt area, with the parking being used for accessing and leaving the site. He noted that access to the back lawn is not comfortable because of the property's grade difference. 16. Mr. Habib stated that adding the staircase for a second unit might be considered a self- created hardship because it would make it difficult to move around parked vehicles. Mr. Anderson stated that they are limited in where they could add a second staircase. 17. Chair Vyedin asked whether floor plans were submitted as part of the proposal. Mr. Anderson stated that no floor plans were submitted for the proposal. He added that the Applicant could enter and exit from a kitchen area on the right-hand side of the building, when viewed from Cedar Street. Chair Vyedin stated that it would be hard to know how access looks without seeing conditions in the basement. Mr. Anderson stated that they need to keep both exit stairs as far as possible from each other and noted that the only other sensible location would be at the front of the house between the sidewalks. He added that that location would be more detrimental to the neighborhood's aesthetics. 18. Ms. Osthoff stated that she would be more concerned with having adequate means of egress rather than parking location.She added that she would not know where to put the egress stairs other than where they were placed on the plot plan. 19. Mr.Anderson stated that their client does not use the backyard as a main entrance to the house and noted that the current parking configuration works today. He added that the property owners walk into the house through the sidewalk, with access to the backyard being a convenience for a snowblower. 20. Mr. Habib stated that having a staircase would be more important and added that there would be a lot happening on the site. He noted that the lot coverage could be increasing to the point that too much would be happening on the tight site. 21. Chair Vyedin asked how the petitioner would access the shed. Mr. Anderson stated that they would access the shed from the front and the side. He noted that the shed's front door is an existing front door from the original home. Mr. Anderson added that they would mimic the Colonial-Revival detailing to beautify the front of the house. 22. Ms. Osthoff asked whether the petitioner considered a ten-by-ten-foot (10'x10') shed or a ten-by-twelve-foot(10'x12')shed in another direction. Mr.Anderson stated that having a ten-foot-by-ten-foot(10'x10') shed would be too small to act as a storage space holding fourteen-foot (14') mezzanine rafters. He added that rotating the shed to ten-feet-by- twelve feet(10'x12') would creep into their small yard area. 23. Chair Vyedin stated that it would make more sense for the petitioner to move the shed to the top right corner of the property and use the space differently. 24. Chair Vyedin asked whether the rear staircase only goes to the basement or also provides first-floor access. Mr. Anderson stated that there would be a step from the kitchen for City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals December 2, 2025 Page 4 of 8 access to the basement. He added that the staircase intends to provide a means of egress for the basement. Mr. Anderson noted that the exit door would only provide a convenience opening from the house's rear near the bathroom. 25. Building Commissioner Stavroula Orfanos asked what the proposed lot area per dwelling unit would be. Mr.Anderson stated that the dimensional table reflects the square footage for the site plan. Staff Planner Brennan Postich stated that the lot area per dwelling unit would decrease from 3,747 square feet to approximately 1,873 square feet. 26. Chair Vyedin stated that the second unit makes sense given the building's location. She added that the second means of egress addresses safety and noted that the parking relief made sense. Chair Vyedin stated that her one concern was the shed's location. 27. Mr. Habib stated that the shed would not qualify for a hardship because it would be self- induced. He noted that the current site and location would be too tight and added that it would be possible to provide ten feet (10') of distance from the house. 28. Mr. Anderson asked whether the Board would consider reducing the five-foot (5') distance from the eastern property line instead. Mr. Habib stated that the adjusted location would be better because of the vegetation and a high fence between the house and the neighboring building. He added that they would not want to force a ten-foot-by- ten-foot (10'x10')shed. 29. Mr.Anderson stated that the alleyway on 172 Lafayette Street has a transformer past the property line. Mr. Habib asked where the shed's doors would be located. Mr. Anderson stated that there would be a front door and a west door for the shed. Mr. Habib stated that he would be okay with a proposal shifting the shed if the Board were okay with it. 30. Chair Vyedin stated that shifting the shed's location would not change lot coverage. Mr. Anderson stated that they would be okay having the shed located along the house's rear porch, shifted a couple of feet back and a couple of feet east. 31. Staff Planner Brennan Postich asked the Board whether it would create a hardship to the Applicant if it did not grant dimensional relief for the shed. Chair Vyedin stated that adequate storage is needed to support the second unit. Mr. Larrick stated that the petitioner would be losing basement storage space and noted that the shed would not provide a lot of storage for both units. 32. Chair Vyedin asked whether the neighborhood has similar garages.Mr. Habib stated that there are garages in the neighborhood and added that they are all pushed back on the site. Mr.Anderson stated that the house is one of the neighborhood's oldest homes. 33. Mr. Habib stated that he would be concerned about the amount of sunlight for the basement unit. Mr. Anderson stated that they are increasing the window size as required by the building code. Building Commissioner Orfanos stated'that the window would have to be an emergency exit window if the basement had a bedroom. 34. Chair Vyedin opened the hearing for public comments. The City received zero (0) public comments on the proposal before the hearing. At the November 19, 2025 public hearing, one (1) member of the public commented on the proposal. The member who offered comments at the hearing was Ralph Roberto, owner of 172 Lafayette Street. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals December 2, 2025 Page 5 of 8 35. Mr. Roberto stated that he was supportive of the proposal. He added that the alleyway was a dirt area with a fence and not much vegetation. Mr. Roberto stated that he was concerned with drainage and noted that the roof could direct water towards his property. 36. Mr. Anderson stated that the shed's pitch would drain towards the driveway to the sidewalk,with the rear pitch draining to the grass. He noted that the owner could provide gravel so the water would not pool on the property. Mr.Anderson added that they would be proposing six inches (6") of gravel on each side of the fence. 37. Chair Vyedin asked what the materials for the parking spots would be. Mr. Anderson stated that the spots are currently bituminous pavement. He added that they do not intend to remove material from the property, but may resurface the extent of the existing driveway. 38. Chair Vyedin stated that the Board should condition the plans to mitigate drainage concerns without prescribing a solution to the Applicant. Staff Planner Brennan Postich asked what the nexus for the proposed special condition would be to the Variance request. Mr. Habib stated that the condition would make the shed's new location not detrimental to the neighboring property. 39. Mr. Anderson stated that shifting the shed along the house's backside would provide room to put gravel between the shed and the driveway. He noted that they could provide mitigation to capture rain and added that they would not be providing gutters or downspouts due to the shed's size. 40. Staff Planner Brennan Postich proposed wording for a special condition: The petitioner shall provide appropriate stormwater management for the shed to mitigate impacts on 172 Lafayette Street. The City Engineer, or their representative, shall determine that submitted plans mitigate the property's stormwater runoff before a building permit is issued. 41. Staff Planner Brennan Postich proposed wording for a special condition: The petitioner shall move the shed two feet(2') east and align the shed's north edge with the building's northeast corner on the Plan dated November 12, 2025, by Flannel Pocket Design LLC.. The Department of Inspectional Services must confirm the shed's new location before issuing a building permit. 42. Mr. Osthoff motioned to approve the petition with the special conditions proposed by Staff Planner Brennan Postich. 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 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. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals December 2, 2025 Page 6 of 8 The Applicant owns a uniquely small lot, necessitating relief for the shed location and the property's density, lot coverage, and parking. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance involves substantial hardship to the Applicant in attempting to put the property to productive use. Without the requested relief, the Applicant would be unable to put the property to productive use as a two- family dwelling.The Applicant would have insufficient storage space with a smaller shed, necessitating dimensional relief for a shed that fits the Zoning Ordinance's square footage requirements. The Applicant is unable to provide additional space for more parking. 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 proposing an allowed use in the B1 Zoning District as a two-family house. The proposal prevents overcon cent ration on the lot by all reasonable means and conserves the property's open space. 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 Special Permit allows the Applicant to provide two (2) means of egress for an additional housing unit inside the City. 2. The proposal has minimal impacts on traffic flow and safety.The Applicant is not changing the number of parking spaces on the property. The proposal allows the Applicant to provide two (2) means of egress for the basement, improving safety 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 change minimally while providing elements in line with the Colonial-Revival house. S. The proposal has minimal impacts on the natural environment, including greenhouse gas emissions and view.The proposal provides mitigation for runoff from the proposed shed, with the rear addition covering previously paved space. 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 creating a temporary positive 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, Christa McGaha, and Stephen Larrick) and zero (0) opposed, to grant CHRIS WOLFORTH at 2 CEDAR STREET (Map 34, Lot 0107) (B1 Zoning District) Variances per Section 3.2.4 Accessory Buildings, 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements, Section 5.1.6 Setbacks, and Section 5.1.8 Required Parking and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residences of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a shed, two exit staircases for a new basement unit, and provide two parking spaces for the property. The Variances will allow: 1) a shed three-feet (3') from the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals December 2, 2025 Page 7 of 8 eastern property line(3.2.4), 2)a decrease from 3,747 to 1,873 square feet per dwelling unit with an increase in lot coverage over 40% (4.1.1), 3) parking spaces less than two feet (2') from the property line (5.1.6), and 4)two (2) parking spaces where three (3)spaces are required (5.1.8). 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. 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. Special Conditions: 1. The petitioner shall provide appropriate stormwater management for the shed to mitigate impacts on 172 Lafayette Street.The City Engineer, or their representative, shall determine that submitted plans mitigate the property's stormwater runoff before a building permit is issued. 2. The petitioner shall move the shed two feet(2') east and align the shed's north edge with the building's northeast corner on the Plan dated November 12, 2025, by Flannel Pocket Design LLC. The Department of Inspectional Services must confirm the shed's new location before issuing a building permit. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals December 2, 2025 Page 8 of 8 Nina Vyedin, 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.