Loading...
13 Raymond Road ZBA Stamped Decision et CITY OF SALEM '�� • t � ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �4'IINE D CITY HALL ANNEX 2ND FLOOR,98 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM MA 01;n0 DOMINICK PANGALLO ,_� MAYOR ` 7 :i7 C� December 2, 2025 i v Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals �" •• w The petition of EAST WIND INVESTMENTS LLC at 13 RAYMOND ROAD (Map 32, Lot 0143) (R1 Zoning District) for a Variance per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements and Special Permits per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming two-family house's roof and staircase, creating a nonconforming three-story three-family house. The Variance would allow three(3)stories where 2.5 stories exist and a decrease in lot area per dwelling unit from 3,104 square feet to 2,070 square feet per dwelling unit. The Special Permits would allow conversion of a two-family house into a three-family house (3.3.2) and extension of the roof and staircase within the property's rear, side, and front setbacks (3.3.3). 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. 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 9, 2025. The petitioner sought Zoning Board of Appeals approval to extend a two-family house's roof, creating a nonconforming three-story, three-family house. 1. East Wind Investments LLC owns 13 Raymond Road. East Wind Investments LLC was the petitioner. 2. Benjamin Pyburn presented on behalf of East Wind Investments LLC on October 15, 2025, and November 19, 2025. 3. The original filing on September 9, 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. The filing was amended again on September 23, 2025, with the Applicant's consent to include Special Permit requests per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals December 2, 2025 Page 2of8 4. 13 Raymond Road is in the R1 Zoning District(Map 32, Lot 0143). 5. On October 15, 2025, Benjamin Pyburn presented plans to create a nonconforming three- story house. Chair Vyedin asked to view the submitted dimensional table and the plot plan. The dimensional table showed that the structure's lot area dwelling unit would decrease from 3,104 square feet to 2,070 square feet per dwelling unit, with no change in other property dimensions, including building height. 6. Chair Vyedin asked whether the structure's footprint would change. Mr. Pyburn stated that the building's dimensions would remain the same. He added that the porch would extend upwards, but the footprint would stay in its current location. Chair Vyedin asked whether the -structure's dimensions would remain the same aside from a change in the number of stories. Mr. Pyburn stated that it would be correct. 7. Chair Vyedin asked to view the elevation plan and the floor plan. The existing elevation plan showed a 2.5-story hip-style roof with a two-story rear staircase. The proposed elevation showed a three-story roof with a three-story rear staircase. Chair Vyedin stated that the existing house looks like the rest of the street. 8. Mr. Pyburn stated that both the existing and proposed houses look like the neighboring houses. He added that the street has many hip-style roofs with dormers on the house. Mr. Pyburn stated that they want to match their neighbor's designs. He noted that the existing house has a lot of wasted attic space. He added that they want to renovate the space, bring it to code, and add a third unit. 9. Chair Vyedin asked the Applicant to explain the roof line changes. Mr. Pyburn stated that the submitted plans may not accurately reflect the peoperty's elevations. He added that the intent would be to maintain the existing ridge height. He noted that the roof would need to be removed due to the extent of the work. Mr. Pyburn stated that the height of the building is listed as thirty-four feet, eight inches (34'8"), however, the actual height would be slightly over twenty-six feet (26'). He noted that they do not plan on increasing the house's height by eight feet (8'). Mr. Pyburn stated that the house would be about thirty-two feet (32')tall. 10. Chair Vyedin stated that the Board may want to require the Applicant to submit updated plans showing the proposed height. She added that she would want the submitted illustrations to show the building's height. Mr. Pyburn stated that they intend to fix issues throughout the existing building by reframing the second-floor unit's ceiling, sprinkling the building, and lifting the exterior wall to create a similar-sized unit to the other units. 11. Mr. Pyburn stated that the changes would allow them to have two (2) points of egress and mimic the existing structure. He added that the changes would not require changes to the building's existing footprint. Mr. Pyburn stated that the existing porch needs to be structurally repaired and noted that the porch would have a third level. Mr. Pyburn stated that the existing ridge would increase by three-to-four feet (34) to keep the roof's aesthetic. 12. Mr. Pyburn stated that the changes would create a nice-looking building. He added that repairs need to be done to the property. Mr. Pyburn stated that renderings increase the house's curb appeal and noted that the changes would accommodate a third rental unit. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals December 2, 2025 Page 3 of 8 He added that the property has plenty of parking with three (3) existing parking spaces, meaning the proposal would minimally impact the existing lot. 13. Chair Vyedin asked whether there would be a dormer on both sides of the house. Mr. Pyburn stated that there are large shed dormers: one (1) dormer at the front along Ramond Road and two (2) dormers at both sides of the house. Mr. Pyburn stated that most of the additional living space would be inside these two (2) dormers, with the front dormer providing aesthetic details. 14. Staff Planner Brennan Postich stated that,while this would be covered under Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, the initial proposal did not describe a decrease in lot area per dwelling unit. He added that the Board should state this relief if they vote on the proposal. Mr. Larrick stated that the dimensional table shows the building's height would remain the same, while the proposal increases the building's height. Chair Vyedin stated that the Board would need to know the building's final height. 15. Mr. Habib stated that the attic's ceiling height would have sufficient space and noted that the project moves the building up by three feet (3'). He added that the current drawings look like they are thirty feet (30') with the new building being three feet (3') taller. Mr. Habib stated that no buildings on the street look like the proposed building. He noted that there are buildings with three-story pieces, but the roof eaves are between two(2)stories and three (3) stories. Mr. Habib stated that the proposal increases the height beyond this range. 16. Mr. Habib stated that the street contains many one-story houses. He added that he believed that the proposal's size and the roof eaves' location would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Habib noted that he would have no issue with a third unit in the attic space. Mr. Habib stated that he would be looking for the petitioner to maintain the roof eaves' location and building's height, while using dormers to capture the third floor's space. He added that the height would be too high for the location and noted that he does not see the hardship for that height. 17. Chair Vyedin stated that having a flat roof and a taller building would be supported in a different zoning district. She added that the building's height would not bother her and noted that the balance of the hipped roof would be tricky with the proposal. 18. Mr. Pyburn stated that the project would intend to reframe the roof because of the extended work. He added that he would be open to tweaking the plans because he wanted more of a pitch and less of a flat roof. Mr. Pyburn stated that the ridge would need to increase to accommodate the structure. Mr. Habib stated that he was less concerned about the ridge's height and more concerned about the roof eave's location. 19. Mr. Habib showed a view of Raymond Road from Google Earth. He stated that the existing house is consistent with the two abutting units that have smaller third-floor dormers. He noted that the proposal would be higher than the neighboring structures and create problems with density along the street. Mr. Habib added that adding a third unit would be perfectly fine and noted that he would want to adapt the proposal for next month. 20. Mr. Pyburn showed a rendering that his architect created illustrating the proposed house's design. He noted that he would want to create a house that fits the neighborhood's design and would want to avoid a flat, three-story building. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals December 2, 2025 Page 4 of 8 21. The streetscape rendering showed a three-story building with a symmetrical front dormer. Mr. Pyburn stated that the doorway would not be fully centered on the property and added that the renderings show an idea of what they are proposing for the property. He noted that the renderings did not show the building's side dormers. Mr. Pyburn stated that they could pull the ridge up to create a hip angle roof. 22. Chair Vyedin stated that the Board would want a near-final exterior design stating the building's final height. She added that she would want the Board to review a finalized design. 23. Staff Planner Brennan Postich asked the Applicant whether the Historical Commission approved the request for a waiver from the Demolition Delay Ordinance. Mr. Pyburn stated that they had applied because the proposal would demolish over fifty percent (50%) of the roof and noted that the Historical Commission approved the waiver. 24. Mr. Larrick stated that 3 Raymond Road had a similar roof to the proposed structure. He added that aesthetic improvements would help the proposal and noted that he would not need the improvements to find the proposal not detrimental to the neighborhood. 25. Chair Vyedin stated that she would want a finished design because the Board would not know what the building's height would be. Building Commissioner Stavroula Orfanos stated that the Inspectional Services Department would want final plans to know exactly how the construction would be executed. 26. Ms. McGaha stated that the plans presented to the Board show a building that would be taller than other roofs in the neighborhood. She noted that she would not be comfortable voting on an application where the Board did not know the proposed building's height. 27. Chair Vyedin opened the hearing for public comments. The City received zero (0) public comments on the proposal before the hearing. At the October 15, 2025 public hearing, zero (0) members of the public commented on the proposal. 28. The Board requested the following information from the petitioner: 1. Update the dimensional table to reflect an increase in the house's height. 2. Redesign the house's roof to decrease negative impacts on the neighborhood. 3. Finalize and provide more detail for the submitted elevation plans. 29. Mr. Habib motioned to continue the petition. Ms. Simpson seconded the motion. 30. At the October 15, 2025 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals,the Board voted five (5) in favor (Nina Vyedin (Chair), Peter Habib, Christa McGaha, Stephen Larrick, and Ellen Simpson) and zero (0)opposed to continue the hearing to the regular meeting scheduled on November 19, 2025. 31. On November 7, 2025,the Applicant submitted an updated Elevation Plan and Floor Plan. The updated elevation plan showed two (2) dormers on each side of the house with no front or rear dormers present. 32. On November 12, 2025,the Applicant submitted an updated Dimensional Table. 33. On November 14, 2025, Board Member Hannah Osthoff, who was absent at the October 15, 2025 hearing, signed an affidavit of service per M.G.L., Chapter 39, Section 23D City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals December 2, 2025 Page 5of8 certifying that she examined all evidence on 13 Raymond Road including an audio recording of the missed session. 34. On November 19, 2025, Mr. Pyburn stated that they abandoned the existing roof design and moved to a gabled design with dormers on the side of the house. He added that the new design looks better in the neighborhood and makes the house look less out of place. 35. Chair Vyedin stated that the dimensional table's building height was measured to the tip of the gabled roof, while the Zoning Ordinance and elevation table's building height is measured to the roof midpoint where the dormer's ridge is located. 36. Mr. Pyburn stated that the thirty-seven-foot-five-inch (37'5") height on the dimensional table reflects the ridge height. Ms. Osthoff stated that a special condition would make sense because the ridge height would be out of compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Pyburn stated that the dimensional table's thirty-seven-foot-five-inch building height was a mistake and added that he consented to a special condition. 37. Chair Vyedin stated that the new design looked better. Mr. Habib stated that the proposal makes the neighborhood look better and creates a great project. 38. 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, zero (0) members of the public commented on the proposal. 39. Staff Planner Brennan Postich proposed wording for a special condition: The Applicant shall submit a revised building height of thirty-feet-six-inches (30'6") in the Plot Plan dated August 13, 2025, by North Shore Survey Corporation to the Department of Planning and Community Development before receiving a building permit from the Department of Inspectional Services. 40. Ms. Osthoff motioned to approve the petition, with the special condition 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. The Applicant owns a 2.5-story building with an attic too short for reasonable use. Constructing an addition accommodating these needs would necessarily require a lot coverage Variance as the property has a lot coverage of 29.4% where 30% is required. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance involves substantial hardship to the Applicant in attempting to put the property to productive use. Denial of the Variance request would force the Applicant to maintain an unoccupied and underutilized attic.This would create significant hardship in inhabiting the house as intended under the Zoning Ordinance. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals December 2, 2025 Page 6 of 8 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 existing residential structure's footprint. The proposed structure fits with the neighborhood's existing character and provides two means of egress for the new unit.The proposal adds a housing unit to the City. 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 Applicant is creating an additional housing unit with two (2) safe means of egress. 2. The impact on traffic flow and safety is negligible because the Applicant provided adequate space for parking on the submitted plans. 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 building height stays under thirty-five feet (35'). The building is designed similarly to other homes in the neighborhood. 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 and creates an aesthetically pleasing design. 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 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, Stephen Larrick)and zero(0)opposed,to grant East Wind Investments LLC at 13 Raymond Road (Map 32, Lot 0143) (R1 Zoning District) a Variance per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements and Special Permits per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming two-family house's roof and staircase, creating a nonconforming three-story three-family house. The Variance will allow three (3) stories where 2.5 stories exist and a decrease in lot area per dwelling unit from 3,104 square feet to 2,070 square feet per dwelling unit. The Special Permits will allow conversion of a two-family house into a three-family house (3.3.2) and extension of the roof and staircase within the property's rear, side, and front setbacks (3.3.3). Standard Conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals December 2, 2025 Page 7of8 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 Applicant shall submit a revised building height of thirty-feet-six-inches (30'6") in the Plot Plan dated August 13, 2025, by North Shore Survey Corporation to the Department of Planning and Community Development before receiving a building permit from the Department of Inspectional Services. 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 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals December 2, 2025 Page 8 of 8 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.