Loading...
11 Felt Street ZBA Stamped Decision �y�� \ CITY OF SALEM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY HALL ANNEX 2KKD FLOOR,98 WASHINGTON STREET,SALE�I 019 , DOMINICK PANGALLO -. MAYOR f7 I`J December 2, 2025 Decision `''"`" City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals The petition of MEREDITH E. FLANAGAN at 11 FELT STREET(Map 27, Lot 0545)(R1 Zoning District; Coastal Resiliency Overlay District) for a Variance per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements and a Finding per Section 3.2.8 Accessory Dwelling Units of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a two-story Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) inside a 1.5-story garage. The Variance would allow: 1) a lot area per dwelling unit of 2,798 square feet, 2) an ADU approximately four (4)feet from the rear and side property lines, and 3) an ADU 7.6 feet from the nearest structure. The Finding would allow an ADU on a nonconforming lot. 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 October 3, 2025. The petitioner sought Zoning Board of Appeals approval to construct a two-story Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) inside a 1.5-story garage. 1. Meredith E. Flanagan owns 11 Felt Street. Meredith E. Flanagan was the petitioner. 2. Attorney William F. Quinn was the representative for Meredith E Flanagan.William Quinn presented on November 19, 2025. 3. 11 Felt Street is in the R1 Zoning District and the Coastal Resiliency Overlay District (C- ROD) (Map 27, Lot 0545). 4. On November 19, 2025, Chair Nina Vyedin disclosed that she lives near the property and has no financial interest in the decision in front of the Board. 5. Mr. Quinn introduced the petition to construct a two-story ADU inside a 1.5-story garage. He noted that they were seeking a Finding and several Variances to install an ADU at 11 Felt Street. Mr. Quinn stated that the new Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance requires a Finding for ADUs located with a nonconforming primary dwelling or a nonconforming lot. 6. Mr. Quinn stated that the owner of 11 Felt Street has an approximately 5,000 square-foot lot with a single-family dwelling and adequate parking. He added that the proposed ADU's structure has been an old outbuilding for years and noted that it was replaced by an assembled garage ten (10)years ago. Mr. Quinn stated that the garage required relief for City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals December 2, 2025 Page 2of7 being approximately four feet(4')from the side and rear property lines. Mr. Quinn stated that adding a dwelling unit reduces the property's lot area per dwelling unit to 2,798 square feet. He added that the distance between the ADU and any adjoining detached structure would be 7.6 feet where ten feet (10') are required. 7. Mr. Quinn stated that the ADU would be on the same foundation as the existing garage. He added that new foundation work would create problems because it would interfere with trees, vegetation, and their roots. Mr. Quinn stated that one (1) single unit would mean that one (1) family or two (2) unrelated people could reside in a new location. Mr. Quinn stated that the ADU would have a driveway with two parking spaces,despite none being required. He added that the ADU would have two levels,with the lower level having a living space and kitchen, and the upper level having a bedroom and bathroom. 8. Mr. Quinn stated that the proposal meets the grounds for a Variance because the house sits in the far'front of the property, while the existing garage and proposed ADU would be in the far rear of the property. He added that enforcing the Zoning Ordinance would require the petitioner to remove the existing foundation and build another foundation inches away. Mr. Quinn stated that literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would eliminate consideration of the ADU and remove a dwelling unit in Salem. 9. Mr. Quinn stated that, for a finding, the proposal would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing conditions. Mr. Quinn stated that the proposal conforms with community needs to add new and less expensive housing in accordance with building codes. He added that there would be no increase in the roof's area, no excessive new drainage, and no topographical change. 10. Mr. Quinn stated that the property was in character with the residential neighborhood. He noted that the proposed 580-square-foot (580ft2) ADU meets the required square footage of 350-to-900 square feet (350ft2-900ft2). He added that the work will enhance the property's assessed tax base and provide some employment in the trades. Mr. Quinn stated that one (1) or two (2) people coming off Dearborn Street would be unlikely to create a traffic issue for the neighborhood. 11. Mr. Habib asked whether parking would be required for the ADU. Mr. Quinn stated that no parking is required for an ADU. Mr. Larrick stated that State law exempts ADUs within 1.5 miles of a Commuter Rail Station from parking requirements and noted that the Salem Zoning Ordinance does not require any ADUs to have parking. Chair Vyedin stated that the neighborhood has significant amounts of street parking. 12. Chair Vyedin opened the hearing for public comments. The City received one (1) public comment on the proposal before the hearing. The public comment was from Michelle Macadams. At the November 19, 2025 public hearing, five (5) members of the public commented on the proposal. The members who offered comments at the hearing were: Geoff Irvine of 63 Dearborn Street, Peter OBrien of 66 Dearborn Street,Joanne Melanson of 2 Beachmont Road,Andrea Madore of 61 Dearborn Street, and Michael Blier of 18 Felt Street. 13. Mr. Irvine stated that the existing house has a fully developed basement with an apartment that has been rented several times. He added that the driveway is one (1) car wide with only a couple of cars fitting,one car behind the other. Mr. Irvine stated that the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals December 2, 2025 Page 3 of 7 density is not in character with the rest of Felt Street, particularly in an R1 Zoning District. He added that the two-family density would include the Applicant and whoever rented the basement. He noted that the Applicant has not proved that the nonconformity creates unique circumstances for a Variance. 14. Mr. Irvine stated that there is a lot of vegetation with trees over twenty feet (20') tall running over the property line, creating a fire risk. Mr. Irvine stated that there is a significant fire hazard, with an engineering or fire risk assessment required to evaluate the burn time for construction materials. He noted that a property setback further than 7.6 feet on Felt Street was seriously damaged by a nearby fire. 15. Mr. OBrien stated that Felt Street is narrow and added that cars have trepidations passing each other in either direction. He added that he could not see how three dwelling units on one property would not add to street parking. Mr. OBrien added that the proposal is out of character with the neighborhood. He noted that a fire truck could not comfortably pass on Felt Street and added that there is no hardship presented. 16. Mr. Habib asked whether short-term rentals were allowed in an ADU. Building Commissioner Stavroula Orfanos stated that short-term rentals are not allowed in the primary dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit once an ADU is permitted. 17. Staff Planner Brennan Postich stated that the City's Assessor database and building permit documents state that the house is a single-family structure. Building Commissioner Orfanos stated that she would need to do research because nothing about a short-term rental or additional dwelling unit came up with the property. Mr. Quinn stated that he has talked to the client about who uses the primary residence. He added that, according to his client, the house is a single-family home, with no kitchen or bedroom facilities separated by a non-opening door. Mr. Quinn stated that his client lives in the primary residence and noted that she would be on-site to address the neighbor's concerns. He noted that there would be no short-term rentals and added that his client expressed no interest in using the property for short-term rentals. 18. Mr. Quinn stated that there would be space for two (2) nine-foot-by-twenty-foot (9'x20') parking spaces as shown on the plot plan. He added that parking spaces are not legally required for the ADU. He noted that there would be a thirteen-foot (13') driveway where twelve feet (12') is required. 19. Mr. Quinn stated that he has no information about the fire in the neighborhood and noted that setbacks are determined by the City in the Salem Zoning Ordinance. He added that the City set a five-foot (5') requirement and noted that it would not be his client's responsibility to meet requirements further than required by the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Quinn stated that the closest building is a shed approximately seven feet (7') away. 20. Mr. Quinn stated that the width of Felt Street is not up to the Board and noted that people have to be careful of two-way traffic in many Salem streets. He added that councillors could do something about resident parking or two-way traffic on the street. 21. Chair Vyedin stated that the Applicant's ability to construct this ADU would be subject to Salem Fire Department restrictions per the Board's standard conditions. 22. Ms. Melanson stated that the property is used as a short-term rental.She added that Felt Street is narrow and noted that individuals could not park at the end of the street. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals December 2, 2025 Page 4 of 7 23. Ms. Madore stated that the ADU's density could affect residential character and encourage encroachment. She added that an eighteen-foot (18') tall ADU creates a privacy issue. She noted that a garage does not have the same fire hazards as a home because a home would have cooking and someone could light a candle or smoke. 24. Mr. Blier stated that Felt Street is fifteen feet (15') wide and fire trucks barely make it through the street. He added that the street widens at the bottom because fire trucks need to make their way around. He noted that many visitors and out-of-state plates are coming from 11 Felt Street. 25. Mr. Habib stated that Felt Street is twenty feet(20') wide when measured. He added that fire access is important and noted that fire concerns need to be taken to the right people. 26. Mr. Larrick stated that State law targets single-family zoning districts with the spirit of allowing ADUs by right. He noted that State laws allow ADUs to be subject to local dimensional requirements. Mr. Larrick stated that it could be considered a hardship if there was no way for the proposal to conform to local dimensional requirements. 27. Mr. Quinn stated that adjacent to Felt Street is the primary residence. He added that the ADU is south of the parking spaces. He noted that an existing one-car garage would be demolished, with its foundation being used to construct a two-level ADU. Mr. Quinn stated that the ADU could only be occupied by anyone in a single-family home, which would be two (2) unrelated individuals or a single family. 28. Mr. Larrick asked where the nonconformity is and why the Applicant must site the ADU where it is located. Mr. Quinn stated that there are 3.96 feet to the rear property line, which is a nonconformity because five feet(5')are required. He noted that they would be constructing on top of this foundation rather than uprooting the existing foundation and constructing a new one. Mr. Quinn stated that there are 4.26 feet to the side property line, creating another nonconformity. He added that there are 7.6 feet to the nearest adjacent structure. He noted that the structure is a shed rather than a house. 29. Mr. Larrick asked whether there would be the ability to consider other places on the lot, given the dimensional requirements and the lot's existing structures. Mr. Quinn stated that moving the foundation would cost significantly more money when there is an existing nonconforming building that could serve a new structure. 30. Mr. Larrick asked whether the Applicant would be preserving lot coverage by building on the existing structure. Mr. Quinn stated that the proposal would not add lot coverage to the property. Mr. Larrick stated that there would be no location that would not cause at least one dimensional nonconformity. 31. Mr. Larrick asked whether the Applicant considered stormwater mitigation for the proposal. Mr. Quinn stated that the building would be on the same footprint and have the same roof. He noted that water would be going where it is now and going to the same place later. Chair Vyedin stated that the Applicant would only be adding height rather than an additional building footprint. Mr. Habib stated that ADU rental prices are going to be less than a typical rental, and costs would increase depending on the Board's conditions. 32. Staff Planner Brennan Postich stated that the State law allows for reasonable regulations and noted that the ADU Ordinance was reviewed by City legal counsel throughout its City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals December 2, 2025 Page 5 of 7 creation. He added that the ADU Ordinance provisions qualify as reasonable regulations under the State law. 33. Mr. Habib stated that the hardship exists for the project and noted that the request is reasonable for what the Applicant would like to do. He added that he would not be concerned about parking because it is not required by the Zoning Ordinance. 34. Chair Vyedin stated that concerns about enforcement for a potential unpermitted dwelling unit or short-term rental would be separate from the Board's decision. 35. Mr. McGaha motioned to approve the petition. Mr. Larrick 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 unusually small lot with a house located close to the front and side property lines.The garage building is located slightly inside the required five-foot(5') rear and side accessory structure setback. 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 site the ADU anywhere else on the property without dimensional relief. Even if the ADU were sited differently, uprooting the existing garage's foundation and placing a new foundation would cause substantial hardship to the Applicant in attempting to put the property to productive use. 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 proposes a use allowed by right in an R1 Zoning District.The Applicant is not proposing to increase the accessory structure's footprint. The proposal complements the purposes expressed in Section 1.1 Purpose of the Salem Zoning Ordinance by: a) Preserving open space by not expanding the structure's footprint, b) Providing adequate provision of transportation with parking spaces and Ordinance- compliant entry and exit drives, while c) Ensuring housing for all income levels. The proposal adequately balances the purposes defined in Section 3.2.8 (1) Purpose of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Finding: The Board finds that the reconstruction, extension, alteration, or change will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood for the following reasons: City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals December 2, 2025 Page 6 of 7 • The proposal fills a community need by adding an additional dwelling unit to the City. • The proposal minimally impacts neighborhood character. The proposed ADU is eleven feet(11') away from the closest dwelling unit and will be located on an existing structure. • The proposal minimally impacts traffic flow and safety. Adequate parking and access to the proposed ADU exists and will be maintained as part of the proposal. • The proposal has minimal drainage impacts because the lot's coverage will not change. • The proposal has a positive impact on the property's tax base. 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 Meredith E. Flanagan at 11 Felt Street (Map 27, Lot 0545) (111 Zoning District; Coastal Resiliency Overlay District) a Variance per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements and a Finding per Section 3.2.8 Accessory Dwelling Units of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a two-story Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) inside a 1.5-story garage. The Variance will allow: 1) a lot area per dwelling unit of 2,798 square feet, 2) an ADU approximately four (4) feet from the rear and side property lines, and 3) an ADU 7.6 feet from the nearest structure. The Finding would allow an ADU on a nonconforming lot. 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 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals December 2, 2025 Page 7 of 7 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. v/vl/� M v4'e-Z&1161vo 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.