2017-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ��COM1IDIT
�' .. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
• z
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET* SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 1011 JAN _4 P 2. I4
KIMBERLEY DRIScoLL TeLE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 FILE #
MAYOR CITY GLERKrSALEM, MASS;
January 4. 2017
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of TRYAD COUNSELING AND HEALING CENTER LLC, requesting a Special Permit
per Sec. 3.2.2 Home Occupation to allow a professional office to be located in an existing dwelling at
22 HANCOCK STREET (Map 33 Lot 192)(R-2 Zoning District)
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on December 21,2016, pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11.
The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca
Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy, and Jimmy Tsitsinos.
The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit Special Permit per Sec. 3.2.2 Home Occupation to allow a professional
office to be located in an existing dwelling unit.
Statements of fact:
• 1. In the petition date-stamped November 18, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sec.
per Sec. 3.2.2 Home Occupation to allow a professional office to be located in an existing dwelling.
2. Sandrine Aegerter, owner and practitioner of Tryad Counseling and Healing Center LLC, presented
the petition.
3. The property is located in an R-2 Zoning District and is a two-family home.
4. The petitioner is the proposing to have a psychotherapy/altemative healing professional office in a
private home. The office will provide mental health counseling services provided by a Licensed
Mental Health Clinician and energy healing services.
5. The petitioner is proposing to offer services for no more than 32 hours a week from 7am to 9:30pm
Monday through Sunday.
6. The business will be operated entirely within the dwelling unit,with no display visible from the street.
7. The home occupation will be operated only the residents of the dwelling unit including Ms. Aegerter
and her partner.
8. The home occupation will not utilize more than twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the
dwelling unit.
9. The petitioner will install a small professional sign on the front door that does not exceed one-half
(1.5) square feet.
10. There are two (2) off-street parking spaces at the property associated with the dwelling unit. The
petitioner has one (1) personal vehicle and is providing one (1) parking space for her patients. The
• number of parking spaces provided meets the parking requirement of one (1) space for each home
occupation.
11. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner Special Permit per Sec. 3.2.2 Home
Occupation to allow a professional office to be located within a dwelling unit.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
January 4,2017
Project:22 Hancock Street
Page 2 of 3
12. At the public hearing one (1) member of the public spoke in opposition to the proposal due to
parking concerns and none (0) spoke in favor, the petition.
The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and
after thorough review of the petition, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's
presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the
provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance:
Findings for Special Permit
1. The proposed home occupation meets the ctiteria for a home occupation special permit.
2. There are no impacts on traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading as there are three (3)
on-site parking spaces that conform to the parking requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
3. The capacity of the utilities is not affected by the project.
4. There are no impacts on the natural environment,including drainage.
5. The proposal improves neighborhood character as it improves the property.
6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base is positive.
On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (Rebecca
Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas, Jimmy Tsitsinos, Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy) in favor and none (0) •
opposed, to grant a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Beridential Stractures to
reconstruction, extension, alteration or change a nonconforming single or two-family structure subject to the
following terms,conditions and safeguards:
Standard Conditions:
1. The 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained.
7. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained.
8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but
not limited to,the Planning Board.
Special Condition: •
1. The sole proprietor and partner shall be the only individuals to provide psychotherapy/alternative
healing services at this location.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
January 4,2017
Project: 22 Hancock Street
• Page 3 of 3
'Rebecca Curran, Chair
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 fzk'ng of this deasion in the ofice of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or
Special Perrmt granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been ftkd with the Essex South
Regutry of Deeds.
•
i CONUIT�\
- 1 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
' BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 019;Qt1 JAN :0 P 2: f U
KIMBERLEY DRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846
MAYOR FILE CITY CLEPM. SALEM: MASS;,
January 4, 2017
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of CAROL and SCOTT PERRY requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Non-Conforming
Structures and a Variance per Sec. 4.L1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum size yard
setbacks construct a new dormer and exterior decks on the rear of the building at 7 ORANGE
STREET (Map 35 Lot 366) (R-2 Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on December 21, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 4 11
closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair),
Peter A. Copelas,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy, and Jimmy Tsitsinos.
The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Non-Conforming Structures and a Variance per Sec.
4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum size yard setbacks construct a new dormer and exterior
decks on the rear of the building.
• Statements of-fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped November 28, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Sec. 3.3.3 Non-
Confonming Structures and a Variance per See. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum size
yard setbacks construct a new dormer and exterior decks on the rear of the building.
2. Attorney Grover presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner.
3. The property is located in an R2 (Residential Two-Family) district.
4. The property is a grandfathered existing nonconforming four (4) dwelling unit building.
5. The petitioner is proposing to construct a new dormer and rear decks on an existing non-conforming
structure. The petitioner is requesting a special permit per section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures, to
expand the roofline to create a rear dormer.
6. The proposed rear dormer will raise a portion of the rear roofline by eight (8) feet. The petitioner also
proposed to raise the height of the chimney no higher than three (3) feet.
7. The petitioner is also requesting dimensional variances to exceed the minimum side yard setbacks.
The Zoning Ordinance requires the minimum side yard width to be ten (10) feet from the property
lines. The current existing width of the side yards are approximately two (2) feet at the north property
line and eight (8) feet from the south property line.
8. The proposed dormer and decks would be five (5) feet from the north property line and eight (8) feet
from the south property line.
• 9. The petitioner testified that the new dormer would increase the amount of useable space on the
existing third story. The petitioner is planning to create two (2) townhouse style units on the second
and third floor of the property.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
January 4,2017
Project:7 Orange Street
Page 2 of 3 •
10. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Non-
Conforming Structures and a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for minimum size
yard setbacks construct a new dormer and exterior decks on the rear of the building.
11. At the public hearing one (1) member of the public spoke in favor of and none (0) spoke in
opposition to,the petition.
The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and
after thorough review of the petition, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's
presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the
provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance:
Findings for Special Permit
1. The proposed expansion of a non-conforming structure would not be more substantially detrimental
than the existing non-conforming structure to the impact on the social, economic or community
needs served by the proposal.
2. There are no impacts on traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading.
3. The capacity of the utilities is not affected by the project.
4. There are no impacts on the natural environment,including drainage.
5. The proposal improves neighborhood character as it improves the property. •
6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base is positive.
Findings for Variance:
1. Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, budding, or structure involved,
generally not affecting other lands,buildings,and structures in the same district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial 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 the purpose of the ordinance.
On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (Peter A.
Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos,Tom Watkins,Mike Duffy) in favor and one (1) (Rebecca Curran (Chair)) opposed,
to grant a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Non-Conformng Structures and a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of
Dimensional Requirements for minimum size yard setbacks construct a new dormer and exterior decks on the
rear of the building subject to the following terms, conditions and safeguards:
1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations.
P Y tY g�
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.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
January 4,2017
Project: 7 Orange Street
• Page 3 of 3
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
5. Exterior finishes of new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained.
7. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained.
8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but
not limited to, the Planning Board.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CI
TY TY 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 udtbin 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 w1b the Essex South
Registry of Deeds.
•
•
�4t� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSE 797p
KIMBERLEY DRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595♦ FAX:978-740-984G0-T . -4 P 2� 1 U
MAYOR
FILE k
January 4, 2017 CITY CLERK, SALEM. MASSr
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of ARSEN SHERAJ seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family
Residential Structures to expand the nonconforming structure and a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional
Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot area per dwelling unit at 2 BRADFORD
STREET (Map 17,Lot 50)(R-2 Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 19, 2016 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11.
The hearing was continued to November 16, 2016 and December 21, 2016 and closed on that date with the
following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas, Tom
Watkins,Mike Duffy, and Jimmy Tsitsinos.
The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures
to expand the nonconforming structure and a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the
• Salem Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot area pet dwelling unit.
Statements of fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped September 27, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sec.
3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures to expand the nonconforming structure
and a Variance per Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for
minimum lot area per dwelling unit.
2. Nicole Magno,wife of Arsen Sheraj, and Attorney Quinn presented the petition.
3. The petitioner proposes removing an existing garage to construct a 2.5 story addition connected to
the existing non-conforming structure and to convert the single-family structure into a two (2) family
structure.
4. The property is located in an R2 (Residential Two-Family) district.
5. The proposed construction is an alteration, extension and change which will increase the non-
conforming nature of the existing structure will be within six (6) feet of the side-yard setback where
the requirement is ten (10) feet. The structure will also be within 13.5' feet of the rear setback where
thirty (30') feet is required. The subject lot contains 7,558 square feet where 7,500 square feet per
dwelling unit is required.
6. The petitioner is also proposing to convert the existing single family home into a duplex. A two (2)
family use is allowed by right.
• 7. The petitioner is proposing three (3) parking spaces and complies with the requirements of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
January 4,2017
Project:2 Bradford Street
Page 2 of 3 .
8. On October 19, 2016, the Board requested that the site plans show the parking layout and suggested
to the petitioner to remove as many non-conformities as possible.
9. On November 9, 2016, Attorney Quinn submitted supplemental information on behalf of the
applicant. Attorney Quinn, provided a counter opinion of the Zoning Ordinance that the applicant
needed to request a Variance for minimum lot size per dwelling unit. The Zoning Ordinance in Sec.
3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures provides that "In the event that
the Building Commissioner determines that the nonconforming nature of such structure would be
increased by the proposed reconstruction, extension, alteration or change, the Board of Appeals may,
by Special Permit, allow such reconstruction, extension, alteration, or change where it determines that
the proposed modification will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming
structure to the neighborhood."
10. At the public hearing on November 16, 2016, Attorney Quinn restated this opinion and the Board
requested that a legal opinion on the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance be sought. The
petitioner requested a continuation to the next regularly scheduled meeting on December 21, 2016.
11. In a memo dated December 2, 2016, the City Solicitor provided an opinion on the interpretation of
the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to the expansion of existing single and two-family non-
conformvng structures and found that the petitioner did not require a Variance, but rather a special
permit is the appropriate relief.
12. At the public hearing on December 21, 2016 the Board discussed the legal opinion and considered the
criteria of the request for a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures and Sec. 3.3.5
Nonconforming Single and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the •
petitioner to reconstruct,extend, alter or change the nonconforming structure.
13. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Non-
Conforming Structures and Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structurzs to expand the
nonconforming structure.
14. At the public hearing one (1) member of the public spoke in favor of and none (0) spoke in
opposition to, the petition.
The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and
after thorough review of the petition, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's
presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the
provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance:
Findings for Special Permit
1. The proposed expansion of a non-conforming structure would not be more substantially detrimental
than the existing non-conforming structure to the impact on the social, economic or community
needs served by the proposal.
2. There are no impacts on traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading as there are three (3)
on-site parking spaces that conform to the parking requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
3. The capacity of the utilities is not affected by the project.
4. There are no impacts on the natural environment,including drainage. •
5. The proposal improves neighborhood character as it improves the property.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
January 4,2017
Project: 2 Bradford Street
• Page 3 of 3
6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base is positive.
On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (Rebecca
Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas, Jimmy Tsitsinos, Tom Watkins, Mike Duffy) in favor and none (0)
opposed, to grant a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures and 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-
Family Residential Structures to reconstruction, extension, alteration or change a nonconforming single or two-
family structure subject to the following terms, conditions and safeguards:
1. The 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained.
7. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained.
. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but
not limited to,the Planning Board.
��nv ,ems (A aw,,��
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERIC
Appeal fmm this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of The Massachusetts General Lams Chapter 40A, and shall be filed nntbin 20
days of fih'ng of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Cbapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or
Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a ropy of the decision beating the certificate of the City Clerk bar been filed with the Essex South
Registry of Deeds.
•
conw►r
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
- BOARD OF APPEAL
E 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACHU$�}({�03 _4 P 2- 13
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 1 FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR FILE 4
CITY CLEBM, SP LEM, MASS
January 4, 2017
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
A petition of MICHAEL MEYER, TRUSTEE, requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2
Nonconforming Uses and Variances per Sec. 4.L1 Dimensional Requirements for the following
minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, minimum distance between buildings,
and maximum number of stories to construct eight (8) residential units at 1-3 EAST COLLINS
STREET (Map 36 Lot 277) (R-1 Zoning District)
At the October 19,2016 meeting,a public hearing was open pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 4 11.Testimony
was heard on that date and the public hearing was continued on October 19, 2016,November 16, 2016 and
December 21, 2016. The hearing was closed on December 21,2016 with the following Salem Board of
• Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,and Jimmy
Tsitsinos.
The Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Variances per Sec. 4.1.1
Dimenaonal Requirements for the following minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage,
minimum distance between buildings,and maximum number of stories to construct eight (8) residential units.
Statements of fact:
1. Attorney Grover presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner. Dan Ricciarelli of Seger
Architects, of Salem, MA and Scott Cameron, CE of Morin-Cameron Group, of Danvers, MA also
presented testimony.
2. In March of 2015, the petitioner withdrew an application without prejudice for a development at this
location for a residential use and submitted a significantly different application on September 27, 2016
for review.
3. In the petition date-stamped September 27, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sec.
per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change and existing
nonconforming use of a social club to another nonconforming use of multi-family residential units.
The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for
minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, minimum distance between buildings, and
number of stories.
• 4. The property is located at the Planters Street and East Collins Street in an R-1 Zoning District. The
previous use of the property was the Ward 2 Social Club.
5. At the October 19, 2016 public hearing testimony was heard and there was a question about whether .
the property had lost its grandfathered non-conforming status. The Board requested a legal opinion
from the City Solicitor to clarify whether property had lost its non-conforming storms. The non-
conforming status of the property determines whether the Board has the ability to allow a change in
the property use from one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use by special permit.
6. On November 16, 2016, the petitioner requested a continuation of the public hearing to the next
regularly scheduled meeting on December 21,2016. No testimony was heard at this meeting.
7. At the December 21, 2016 meeting, the Board reviewed and discussed the legal opinion from the City
Solicitor dated December 4, 2016.
8. The following are conclusions from the legal opinion relevant to the issues discussed at the October
19,2016 public hearing:
• The use of the property is entitled to protected status as a legally non-conforming use under
M.G.L. Ch. 40A Section 6.
• The club did not abandon its use of the property in January 2014,when it closed the building
to the public.
• The sale of the property to the petitioner does not constitute a termination of the use of the
property.
• It is within the authority of the City of Salem Board of Appeals to issue a special permit to
allow a non-conforming use of the Property to continue, provided that the Board issues a
finding that the proposed new use of the Property, is less detrimental than the existing •
nonconforming use.
9. Delinquent property taxes were paid by the petitioner before the December 21, 2016 public hearing.
10. On November 30, 1948, various residents of the City of Salem formed the Club as a Massachusetts
not-fox-profit corporation organized under M.G.L. Ch. 180 for the purpose of promoting
brotherhood and charity in the Ward II District of Salem.
11. On November 1, 1956, the Club acquired title to the Property for the purpose of constructing a
building to serve as the location for the charitable activities of its membership including a place to
hold meetings and place where the public would be able to hold events.At this time, the property was
located in a Single Residence District- B and the 1955 Ordinance was in effect. Pursuant to Sec.4.13.5
the Use of the Property was a permitted use in the Single Residence District, but is no longer a
permitted use by right in the R1 Zoning District. The Social Club is an existing non-conforming use.
(See Opinion 1-3 E. Collins St. Dated Dec. 4,2016 for further discussion).
12. On May 21,2015, the Club sold the property to the petitioner. The land area of the property consists
of 41,834 square feet and has a one-story concrete block structure.The existing structure does not
meet the current floodplain construction standards.
13. The petitioner is proposing to change the use of the property from the non-conforming use of a
social club to multi-family residential dwelling units.
14. The petitioner testifies that the proposed residential use of the property is more consistent with the •
surrounding neighborhood use than the existing social club and bar room.
15. The existing building cannot be reconstructed for another purpose under the Chapter 91 requirements
due to current flood plain construction standards. As such, the petitioner is proposing to demolish the
• Ward 2 Social Club structure to construct eight (8) residential dwelling units in single and two family
dwelling arrangements.
16. The proposed eight (8) units will be divided into three (3) duplexes and two (2) single-family homes.
The petitioner testifies that the proposed residential use is consistent with the use of the surrounding
neighborhood and the dwelling unit arrangement of single and two- family units is consistent with the
arrangement of dwelling units within the surrounding neighborhood.
17. The petitioner is requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to change the
existing non-conforming use of the property from the existing Ward 2 Social Club to multi-family
residential dwelling units in single and two (2) family arrangements.
18. The petitioner expects to provide future public access to the waterfront through the property,in a
location determined by the Planning Board and Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) through the Chapter 91 permitting process.
19. The proposed plan is providing fourteen (14) parking spaces where the requirement is twelve (12)
parking spaces. The Salem Zoning Ordinance requires one and a half(1.5) parking spaces per dwelling
unit.
20. Currently, there is one long curbcut with approximately thirty (30) parking spaces on the property.
The petitioner is proposing to reduce the number of parking spaces and formalize a curbcut that
meets the dimensional requirement of a maximum of 20' feet for a residential use.
• 21. Mr. Cameron, CE of Morin-Cameron Group, of Danvers,MA testified that the existing public
utilities and other public services are adequate to support the proposed eight (8) residential units.
22. Mr. Cameron,CE of Morin-Cameron Group,of Danvers, MA testified that the impacts on the
natural environment,including drainage would be positive. The petitioner is proposing to reduce the
existing impervious surface from 30% to 15%.The property will comply with all storrnwater
management requirements.
23. The existing Ward 2 Social Club structure is 5,200 square feet at 12.5%lot coverage. In comparison,
the five (5) proposed residential structures are a total of 6,400 square feet at 13.3%lot coverage. Mr.
Cameron testifies that the proposed structures will have similar lot coverage and footprint areas as the
existing structure.
24. Mr. Cameron testifies that existing average lot area per dwelling unit in the neighborhood one (1)
dwelling unit per 2,600 square feet. The petitioner is proposing a lot area per dwelling unit of 5,229
square feet,making the proposed development approximately 30% less dense than neighboring
dwelling units.
25. Mr. Cameron testifies that the spacing between buildings in the existing neighborhood is
approximately ten (10) to twenty (20) feet.The proposed distance between the buildings at 1-3 East
Collins Street is twenty-five (25') feet at the narrowest point.
• 26. The footprints of the proposed buildings are comparable to the existing footprints of the buildings in
the surrounding neighborhood.
27. Mr. Ricciarelli, of Seger Architects testified that the proposed building footprints, massing and
architectural design are consistent with the architectural details, massing, and form of the surrounding
neighborhood. For example, the proposed buildings incorporate simple cladding, bay windows, and •
"A" shaped rooflines. The building facades are slender with the remaining,mass of the structure in the
rear.All of these details fit with the existing character of the dwelling units in the neighborhood.
28. The arrangement of the buildings is in response to the public request to retain view corridors of the
waterfront.
29. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base is positive.
30. The petitioner is also requesting four (4) variances including minimum lot area per dwelling unit,
minimum lot frontage,minimum distance between buildings, and maximum number of stories.
31. The petitioner, proposed the following deviations from the dimensional requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance: a) a lot area per dwelling unit of 5,300 square feet where the requirement per the Zoning
Ordinance is 15,000 square feet; b) 94.5 feet of frontage where the requirement per the Zoning
Ordinance is 100 square feet of linear frontage;c) a minimutn of 25 feet of distance between buildings
where the minimum required distance is 40 feet d) Three (3) stories where the maximum requirement
is 2.5 stories.
32. The petitioner testifies that the special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land,
building or structure involved,generally not affecting other lands,buildings and structures in the same
district is that a significant portion of the property is salt march and coastal dune and the entire site
lies within the floodplain. Further,the site is traversed by an easement for the natural gas line,which
will be constructed in the near future. In addition,most of the land is within the jurisdiction of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts under Chapter 91.The land is also located in the most restrict
zoning district,but surrounding by districts that are less restrictive.These unique conditions of this Is
make the development of the site expensive and challenging.
33. The petitioner testifies that the social club is no longer viable as evidenced by its recent closure due to
declining membership. Further the existing building cannot be reconstructed for another purpose
under the Chapter 91 requirements due to current flood plain standards. The literal enforcement of
the zoning ordinance would allow the property owner to construct a single-family home. Due to
unique conditions of the land, the cost of the required specialized construction would exceed the
market value of the home for the area.
34. The petitioner proposes a density of 5,300 square feet where the requirement is 15,000 square feet per
dwelling unit and testifies that the proposed density of eight (8) residential dwelling units is needed.A
single-family use,which is an allowable use by right on this property,is not an economically feasible
use and creates an economic hardship for the petitioner due to the cost of construction needed for
this property.
35. The petitioner is proposing 94.5 feet of frontage where the requirement per the Zoning Ordinance is
100 square feet of linear frontage.The frontage is a pre-existing non-conforming dimension with no
alternative to provide additional linear frontage.
36. The petitioner is proposing 25'-30' feet of distance between buildings where the minimum required
distance is 40 feet.
37. The petitioner is proposing to construct dwelling units that are three (3) stories rather than the •
maximum requirement of 2.5 stories. The proposed living areas are raised with parking proposed
underneath the building by necessity because the entire property is located within the flood zone.
Coastal construction requires that the first floor be elevated above the ten (10) foot flood elevation.
• 38. The dwelling unit mean rafter height does not exceed the 35' foot maximum requirement.
39. At the public hearings, ten (10) residents spoke in opposition to the proposal and one (1) member
spoke in support of the petition.
i
The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and
after thorough review of the petition, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's
presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the
provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance:
Findings for Variance:
1. The special conditions and circumstances that especially affecting land,building or structure involved
generally not affecting other lands,buildings, and structures in the same district is that a significant
portion of the property is salt match and coastal dune and the entire site lies within the flood plain.
Further, the site is traversed by an easement for the natural gas line,which will be constructed in the
near future. In addition,most of the land is within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts under Chapter 91. The land is also located in the most restrict zoning district,but
surrounding by districts that are less restrictive. These unique conditions of this property make the
development of the site expensive and challenging.
2. The literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship as the
cost of building a single-family home on the property would fat exceed the market value of the area.
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 the purpose of the ordinance.
Findings for Special Permit
1. The proposed change use of a non-conforming social club to another non-conforming use of multi-
family residential uses in a single and two (2) family arrangement is not substantially more detrimental
than the existing non-conforming use to the impact on the social, economic or community needs
served by the proposal.
2. There are no impacts on traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading as there are fourteen
(14) on-site parking spaces that exceed the minimum parking requirements of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance.
3. The capacity of the utilities and public services are not significantly affected by the project.
4. There are net positive impacts on the natural environment, including drainage as the existing property
has approximately 12,000 square feet of existing pavement surface. The petitioner is proposing to
reduce the impervious surface on the property to approximately 5,500 square feet.
5. The proposal improves neighborhood character as it improves the property and the residential use is
consistent with the use of the surrounding neighborhood. The dwelling unit arrangement of single
and two- family units is consistent with the arrangement of dwelling units within the surrounding
• neighborhood. Further, proposed building footprints, massing, density and architectural design are
consistent with the architectural details,massing,density and form of the surrounding neighborhood.
6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base is positive.
On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (Rebecca
Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos, Mike Duffy, and Tom Watkins) in favor and none (0) •
opposed, to grant a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Dimensional
Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for minimum lot area per dwelling unit,minimum lot frontage,
minimum distance between buildings,and maximum number of stories, to construct eight (8) residential units
subject to the following terms,conditions and safeguards:
1. The 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 buildingpermit prior to be an
P P grmm�g Y construction.
5. Exterior finishes of new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained.
7. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained.
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. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but
not limited to,the Planning Board.
Special Condition:
1. The applicant shall provide public access to the waterfront per DEP Chapter 91 license requirements.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
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 Laver Chapter 40A, and shall be f:kd within 20
days of fih'ng of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or
Special Pemit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South
Registry of Deeds.
•