STF_Memo_BOA_11-16-2020STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Appeals Members
FROM: Brennan Corriston, Staff Planner
DATE: November 17, 2020
RE: Meeting Agenda for November 18, 2020
Board Members,
Please find the following in your digital packets:
Staff Memorandum
Agenda
78 Bay View Avenue
23 Andrew Street
2 Dundee Street
53 Canal Street
1 Amanda Way
14 Cambridge Street
140 Highland Avenue
Meeting Minutes: September 29, 2020; October 21, 2020
Old/New Business: Extension Requests (34 Peabody Street; 0 Story Street)
Meeting materials are available via SharePoint here:
1. 78 Bay View Avenue
A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of STEPHAN O’SULLIVAN AND PATRICK O’SULLIVAN and property owner PHILIP KELLY for a special permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming
Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from maximum height of buildings (stories) and minimum width of side yard to alter and expand a nonconforming
single-family home by extending the first floor and porch; renovating the rear facade and adding second and third story balconies; and adding a third-story rear dormer at 78 BAY VIEW
AVENUE (Map 44, Lot 136) (R1 Zoning District).
New Materials:
Revised plans dated 11-10-2020
Letter from Historical Commission
Letter from Elizabeth Wolfe expressing concerns
In the September 29 meeting, the applicant and Board discussed the proposal. The Board expre ssed concerns regarding constructability given the proximity to nearby structures. The Board
also discussed the concerns raised by Historical Commission, Historic Salem, and others regarding the elimination of the front porch. Attorney Quinn noted that the project would appear
before the Historical Commission Given significant stakeholder concerns and the possibility of changes from the Historical Commission review process, the Board expressed that it was
prudent to continue the hearing.
Since September 29, the applicant has met with the Historical Commission and has provided revised plans (dated 11-10-2020). One significant change is that the front porch, which was
proposed to be removed completely, will now be maintained.
As noted in the letter from the Historical Commission, another significant change is a major reduction in the amount of demolition. The proposal was initially to demolish all but the
foundation, but the proposal has been revised to “retain three of the building’s existing walls.”
We have received one new public comment since last meeting, a letter from Elizabeth Wolfe expressing concerns about the proposal and construction.
From September 29 memo:
New Materials:
Revised plans and plot plan
More written comments, including a petition signed by 118 individuals
Via email today, architect Julia Mooradian noted the following regarding the revisions:
“This plot plan aligns with the plans submitted. The changes include:
The rectangular foundation bump out in the rear, instead of the previous angled bump out.
The combined second floor deck bump out, instead of the 2 separate decks.
The first floor porch stepping in to match the existing on the right side, instead of aligning with the foundation."
The shorter run of stairs off the rear as the first floor is to be lowered.”
All written comments, including new and previously received:
David Fellows of 72 Bay View Avenue
Jan Fellows of 72 Bay View Avenue
Robert and Beverly Chadwick of 80 Bay View Avenue
Ann Shaw of 81 Bay View Avenue
Ethan Bresnahan of 2 Cheval Avenue
Ed Wolf of 95 Bay View Avenue
Linda St. Pierre of 83 Bay View Avenue
Daniel and Nicole Lang of 82 Bay View Avenue
Susan St. Pierre and Richie Thibodeau (no address) (plus supplemental letter) [i.e., two separate documents]
Judith White of 3 Cheval Avenue
Historic Salem Inc.
Diego Fellows of 72 Bay View Avenue
The Board has also received a petition with 118 signatures.
The below is from the September 16 meeting memo.
Materials:
Application and revised plans
Rendering
Original plans
Letter from applicant
Staff memo from Preservation Planner Patricia Kelleher
Public comments
The petitioner had requested two continuances since filing the application—this will be the first time the Board hears testimony on the application. 78 Bay View Avenue is a single-family
house in the R1 zoning district. The property is located within the Willows neighborhood. As shown on the certified plot plan, the property is currently nonconforming to minimum lot
area, minimum frontage, and setbacks (front and both sides). (The plot plan does not indicate such, but the property is also nonconforming to minimum lot area per dwelling unit.)
The proposal is to substantially alter the existing building by extending the first floor and porch; renovating the rear facade and adding second and third story balconies; and adding
a third-story rear dormer. The rear of the property faces onto Juniper Cove. Although the application (and advertisement) only refer to a rear third-story dormer, the plans appear to
indicate the addition of a dormer to the front facade as well. I will confirm this with the applicant and architect. Because the advertisement makes reference to relief from maximum
height of building (stories), I believe the advertisement should not be insufficient, but I will also confirm this with the City Solicitor.
The initially submitted plans were for a significantly larger home with a gambrel roof on the front and rear of the house. The revised plans remove the gambrel roof and reduce the visual
massing of the structure to some degree but still involve some fairly significant changes, including increasing the ridge height and adding dormers and balconies.
Although relief from height in stories is required and has been properly requested, relief from height in feet is not required, as the proposal is still short of the 35-foot maximum
in the R1 district.
We have received several comments from abutters, listed below. These are included in the SharePoint file in the Public Comment folder.
David Fellows, 72 Bay View Avenue - expressing concerns
Jan Fellows, 72 Bay View Avenue - expressing concerns
Robert and Beverly Chadwick, 80 Bay View Avenue - expressing concerns
Ann Shaw, 81 Bay View Avenue - expressing concerns
Ethan Bresnahan, 2 Cheval Avenue - expressing concerns
We have also received a letter from Preservation Planner and Historical Commission staffer Patricia Kelleher which states in part, “I encourage the Zoning Board of Appeals to recommend
the applicant work with the Historical Commission on additional design revisions to ensure that this project is more respectful of the building’s original architecture and the surrounding
streetscape.”
I agree with Patti’s recommendation, although it is your decision: it seems appropriate in this case, and given the concerns expressed by abutters, for the Board to recommend that the
applicant work with the Historical Commission on the design for the project.
Special Permit
For the Special Permit request, the Board must weigh the following criteria and make the finding that the proposed modifications will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
nonconforming structure to the neighborhood:
Social, economic, or community needs served by the proposal;
Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading;
Adequacy of utilities and other public services;
Impacts on the natural environment, including drainage;
Neighborhood character; and
Potential fiscal impact, including impact on City tax base and employment.
The Statement of Grounds speaks to the special permit criteria.
2. 23 Andrew Street
A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of BARBARA FLAHERTY for a variance per Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from
maximum height of buildings (stories) and a special permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to expand a nonconforming three-family home by adding a three-level deck with roof
and exterior staircase at 23 ANDREW STREET (Map 35, Lot 558) (R2 Zoning District).
New Materials:
Slides for November meeting
Updates
In the September 29 meeting, petitioner Barbara Flaherty explained her request, noting that the proposed deck would allow for proper egress for all three residential units at the property.
The Board expressed concern regarding the hardship presented by the applicant, noting that the case presented thus far might not be sufficient hardship, particularly given the high
standard for variances. The Board suggested examining alternatives that might not require variances, and if no other option is available to create appropriate egresses, perhaps that
could be a hardship. The Board noted that this would require visuals such as floor plans.
The applicant has provided new slides, which include a Statement of Hardship with some details not previously presented, as well as some photographs and plans. It is not clear to me
that the revised Statement makes a substantially stronger case for there being hardship in this situation, but I recommend that you review it and discuss with the applicant.
From September 29 memo:
No updates since September 16. Original memo text is below.
Materials:
Application and plans
Separate Statement of Hardship
23 Andrew Street is a three-family home in the R2 zoning district. This is an existing nonconforming use in the district. The property is nonconforming to dimensional requirements including
minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, maximum height of buildings (stories), minimum depth of front yard, and minimum width of side yard. Under this proposal, the existing
structure would be expanded by adding a deck to each of the three levels, which would constitute a means of egress for each of the three units.
The plans submitted show that the three-level deck would include a roof as well as a staircase. Although the roof will not extend beyond the existing building height, because this addition
will be taller in height than the district maximum of 2.5 stories, a variance from height in stories is required. The applicant was not aware of this upon initially filing the application,
but was informed of the required relief and has since submitted a Statement of Hardship. The legal notice for the application references both the variance and special permit requests
(as written above).
Variance
For the Variance request, the Board must weigh the following criteria:
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;
Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant; and
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.
The Statement of Hardship briefly discusses the criteria, including referencing the situation of the structure relative to the size of the lot and presenting a financial and safety hardship.
It is difficult to assess whether the first and second requirements of the variance standard are met: I recommend discussing this with the applicant. It does seem that the third requirement
could be met based on the information provided thus far.
Special Permit
For the Special Permit request, the Board must weigh the following criteria and make the finding that the proposed modifications will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
nonconforming structure to the neighborhood:
Social, economic, or community needs served by the proposal;
Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading;
Adequacy of utilities and other public services;
Impacts on the natural environment, including drainage;
Neighborhood character; and
Potential fiscal impact, including impact on City tax base and employment.
The Statement of Grounds submitted with the application discusses the special permit criteria.
3. 2 Dundee Street
A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of FRANK LANZILLO for a variance per Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from minimum
lot area and minimum lot area per dwelling unit to construct a 2.5-story, single-family home on the vacant lot at 2 DUNDEE STREET (Map 10, Lot 50) (R1 Zoning District).
Updates
In the October 21 meeting, Attorney Sam Vitali presented the petition, representing petitioner Frank Lanzillo. Attorney Vitali presented plans from 1970 showing the plot. There was disagreement
between Attorney Vitali and Tom St. Pierre regarding whether the lot in question at 2 Dundee Street is a standalone, buildable lot. We have not received new information since last meeting.
Attorney Vitali indicated last meeting that he would provide the Solicitor with all information required for her opinion. I have not heard from the Solicitor or Attorney Vitali regarding
the petition at the time of writing. I will reach out to the City Solicitor to find out if she has any updates and will inform the Board as soon as I have more information.
From October 21 memo:
New Materials:
Statement of Hardship
Supplemental Information
Two new comments
This application was continued without testimony from September 16 to October 21. Since September 16, we have received a written Statement of Hardship as well as supplemental information
which includes an aerial view of 3 Sutton Terrace and a plan that is labeled 1907. I have not received any information about this aerial view and plan, but all new materials are in
the SharePoint file.
We have also received two new written comments, one from Maryanne L’Abbe of 5 Sutton Terrace which is largely similar to her previous written comment; and another from Attorney Michael
Tucker, representing Mick and Kathy Ward of 3 Sutton Terrace. This letter includes three exhibits in addition to the written statement.
All public comments:
Mick and Kathy Ward, 3 Sutton Terrace, via email on 9/8/20
Jenna Keegan, 4 Dundee Street, via email on 9/10/20
Maryanne L’Abbe, 5 Sutton Terrace, via email on 9/16/20
Atty. Michael Tucker on behalf of Mick and Kathy Ward, via email on 10/15/20
Maryanne L’Abbe 5 Sutton Terrace, via email on 10/21/20
From previous memo:
Materials:
Application and plans
Aerial view
Public comments
2 Dundee Street is a vacant lot in the R1 zoning district. According to the plot plan submitted with the application, Lots 116 & 117 total 4980 square feet. The minimum required lot
area in the R1 zoning district is 15,000 square feet. The proposal is to construct a 2.5-story, single-family home on this lot. The applicant states that the house will “meet or exceed
all other requirements” (beyond lot area). The applicant has not supplied much information beyond that. There is a single, front elevation of a house with a 30-foot ridge height. The
application does not include a Statement of Hardship. The applicant has also supplied an overhead view of the property. Tom St. Pierre noted that he has concerns about the buildability
of the lot.
Given that so little information has been supplied by the applicant and given Tom’s concern, I suggest that the Board can ask the applicant to provide some more details in the September
meeting and suggest a continuance to October to provide a Statement of Hardship and any other additional details the Board would like to see to make an informed decision.
The Board has received two comments from members of the public regarding this petition. Both comments express concerns and are posted in SharePoint.
Mick and Katy Ward, 3 Sutton Terrace
Jenna Keegan, 4 Dundee Street
Variance
For the Variance request, the Board must weigh the following criteria:
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;
Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant; and
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.
4. 53 Canal Street
A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of KRESHNIK RAMI for a variance per Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from minimum
depth of rear yard to build a 20’ by 40’ storage garage within the required rear yard setback at 53 CANAL STREET (Map 34, Lot 87) (B4 and ECOD Zoning Districts).
Updates:
In the October 21 meeting, petitioner Kreshnik Rami discussed the proposal. The Board asked if there would be a way to pull the structure forward and eliminate the need for any relief.
Mr. Rami noted that this would require losing some parking and expressed concern about trash accumulating in that space. We also discussed that a portion of the property is located
in the R2 district - I will be
discussing this with Tom St. Pierre and will provide an udpate in the meeting if this impacts the proposal. We have not received any new information from the applicant at this time.
From October 21 memo:
53 Canal Street is a property located primarily in the Business Wholesale and Automotive (B4) and Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts, with a portion in the Residential Two-Family (R2)
zoning district.
My understanding is that the district in which the property has frontage is the zoning district that applies to the property. However, we can check with Tom St. Pierre on this matter.
The proposal is to construct a 20’ by 40’ storage garage. As shown on the included plot plan, the garage would be located 5 feet from the rear lot line. The required depth of rear yard
in the B4 district is 25 feet; it is 30 feet in the R2 district.
Because of its size, the structure is not considered an accessory structure (which would be subject to a 5-foot setback).
The request is appropriately for a variance from the minimum depth of rear yard requirement.
Variance
For the Variance request, the Board must weigh the following criteria:
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;
Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant; and
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.
There is a brief Statement of Hardship which references the size and shape of the lot and suggests that a conforming garage would create space in which junk and hazardous materials would
collect. I recommend that the Board inquire more about the potential hardship and potential impact of the variance.
5. 1 Amanda Way
A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of DANNY CERQUEIRA and property owner ELIZABETH SULLIVAN for a special permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and
Two-Family Residential Structures from maximum height of buildings (stories) to expand a nonconforming single-family home by adding a third-floor dormer at 1 AMANDA WAY (Map 9, Lot
308) (R1 Zoning District).
Materials:
Application and plans
1 Amanda Way is a single-family home located in the R1 zoning district. The home is nonconforming to dimensional requirements including at least minimum lot area (15,000 sq ft required
in R1 district; 11,896 sq ft provided). No plot plan has been provided, but the below images show the lot from the City’s GIS and from a Google Maps satellite view.
The proposal is to add a dormer to the building, which is currently 2.5 stories. The dormer will be located on the rear of the building if looking at the building from Amanda Way. Adding
the dormer would take the height of the structure from 2.5 stories to 3 stories.
A half story is defined in Section 10 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
“Story, half: A story under a gable or gambrel roof, the wall plates of which on at least two opposite exterior walls are not more than two (2) feet above the floor of such story.”
As the dormer’s exterior walls exceed two feet, the dormer brings the height from 2.5 stories to 3, thus exceeding the 2.5-story height limit in the R1 district.
The reason for the request, per the Statement of Grounds, is “to finish the attic space for additional room” and “to add a full bath” for the owner’s growing children. The plans and
Statement of Grounds indicate that the peak of the dormer will not exceed the peak of the existing roof.
As this is a nonconforming single-family home, relief is appropriately being sought per Section 3.3.5.
Special Permit
For the Special Permit request, the Board must weigh the following criteria and make the finding that the proposed modifications will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
nonconforming structure to the neighborhood:
Social, economic, or community needs served by the proposal;
Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading;
Adequacy of utilities and other public services;
Impacts on the natural environment, including drainage;
Neighborhood character; and
Potential fiscal impact, including impact on City tax base and employment.
The Statement of Grounds notes that no impact is anticipated on any of the criteria.
6. 14 Cambridge Street
A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of ALAN NOVEMBER for a special permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures to alter
and enlarge an existing two-family home by adding a second-story shed dormer to the rear of the existing carriage house and constructing a one-story breezeway connecting the carriage
house and main dwelling at 14 CAMBRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 439) (R2 Zoning District).
Materials:
Application and plans
14 Cambridge Street is a two-family home in the R2 zoning district. As the plans indicate, the home is nonconforming to dimensional requirements including minimum lot area, minimum lot
frontage, and front, side (left side only), and rear yard setbacks.
The proposal is fundamentally to expand the existing carriage house and connect it to the main dwelling. The carriage house would be expanded by way of a second-story shed dormer on
the rear of the carriage house and a one-story breezeway connecting the carriage house to the main dwelling.. The breezeway would also be located within the required rear-yard setback
of 30 feet, but it would not be located closer to the rear lot line than the carriage house is currently. As the petition attests, the home will remain a two-family home; the proposal
is to move some living space to the carriage house. As a result, it is Attorney Quinn’s position that a special permit to use a carriage house as a dwelling unit is not required. This
position makes sense to me as no dwelling units are being added to the property, only rearranged. As such, the petitioner is properly seeking relief per Section 3.3.5. Although lot
coverage would increase per this proposal, the proposed lot coverage would be 21.9%, well below the 35% maximum.
Special Permit
For the Special Permit request, the Board must weigh the following criteria and make the finding that the proposed modifications will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
nonconforming structure to the neighborhood:
Social, economic, or community needs served by the proposal;
Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading;
Adequacy of utilities and other public services;
Impacts on the natural environment, including drainage;
Neighborhood character; and
Potential fiscal impact, including impact on City tax base and employment.
The Statement of Grounds discusses the criteria, noting generally minimal impact, including fairly minimal new roof area and a design complementing the design of the existing structure.
7. 140 Highland Avenue
A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JOHNNY POLANCO for a special permit per Section 8.2.4 Entrance Corridor Overlay District: Fences to allow a six-foot tall
decorative concrete wall at the single-family house at 140 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 14, Lot 264) (R1 and ECOD Zoning Districts).
Materials:
Application
Photos and plan
Additional photos submitted by applicant
Comment - Anthony Whitton
140 Highland Avenue is a single-family home in the R1 zoning district and the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. As the documentation included with the application explains, after the
house was damaged by items that fell off a contractor’s truck and the petitioner’s daughter was almost injured, the applicant built a six-foot high concrete wall on the property. My
understanding is that this was built without a building permit and since then, the Building Department was called, which brought the application to the Board. The applicant is seeking
retroactive approval for the fence.
Section 8.2.4 of the zoning ordinance discusses Fences within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. It is reproduced here:
“8.2.4 Fences. In order to maintain and maximize aesthetic views and sight lines, all fences along the front and side lot lines shall comply with the following standards:
1. No fence along front or side lot line shall be more than four (4) feet in height, as measured from the curb level of the street, or average grade elevation of the land where the fence
is to be located, whichever is deemed appropriate.
2. Chain link and wire fences are prohibited along front and side lot lines.
3. Any fence constructed within an ECOD shall require a fence permit issued by the City building department.”
The fence is over four feet in height - it is described in the application has being six feet tall. Photos and a plot plan have been provided but no elevations showing the height of
the fence have been provided. The applicant is seeking a special permit to allow this concrete wall.
Special Permit
For the Special Permit request, the Board must weigh the following criteria and make the finding that the proposed modifications will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
nonconforming structure to the neighborhood:
Social, economic, or community needs served by the proposal;
Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading;
Adequacy of utilities and other public services;
Impacts on the natural environment, including drainage;
Neighborhood character; and
Potential fiscal impact, including impact on City tax base and employment.
The Statement of Grounds discusses the criteria, noting generally minimal impact. The Statement notes that the “wall has been built for the protection of our family, property and home”
and that the materials “were chosen in consideration the historic aspect of the city matching the characteristics of the neighborhood.”
III. Approval of Minutes
Draft minutes will be posted in SharePoint.
September 29, 2020
October 21, 2020
IV. Old/New Business
Location: 34 Peabody Street, 47 Leavitt Street, and 38 Palmer Street (Map 34, Lots
384, 136, & 155) (R3 Zoning District)
Applicant: North Shore Community Development Corp.
Description: Request for an eighteen (18) month extension of the November 29, 2017 Comprehensive Permit issued by the Board of Appeals to North Shore Community Development Corp. to construct
multifamily housing at 34 Peabody Street, 47 Leavitt Street, and 38 Palmer Street (Map 34, Lots 384, 136, & 155) (R3 Zoning District). The Comprehensive Permit will lapse if construction
is not commenced within three (3) years after it comes final.
The Board has received an 18-month extension request for the comprehensive permit issued to the North Shore CDC for 34 Peabody Street, 47 Leavitt Street, and 38 Palmer Street. The letter
requesting the extension notes that “a Comprehensive Permit will lapse if construction is not commenced within three (3) years after it comes final.” The letter further explains that
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, which are part of the financing of the project, are in high demand and that the project has not yet received his funding, but that “The Lighthouses project
is now at the top of the list to be funded and we are confident that we will break ground in either May of 2021 or January of 2022.”
The decision granting the comprehensive permit is included with the request.
Location: 0 Story Street (Map 23, Lot 2) (RC Zoning District)
Applicant: Castle Hill Partners, LLC
Description: Request for a twelve (12) month extension of the October 30, 2019 decision of the Board of Appeals granting variances from minimum lot width for each of three proposed lots
on a 5.8-acre parcel of land at 0 Story Street.
The applicant has requested a one year extension to exercise rights granted by the variance in its two decisions regarding 0 Story Street, filed with the City Clerk on October 30, 2019
and December 31, 2019, respectively. There were two decisions because there were two applications for relief - one seeking relief from minimum lot width, the other from minimum lot
frontage (which was not
included in the original petition but determined to be necessary relief as well). As the petitioner explains, “The extensions are necessary to resolve issues currently in front of other
city boards and city departments.” These items are listed separately on the agenda because there were two separate decisions; as such, I believe two separate motions should be taken
up.
Location: 0 Story Street (Map 23, Lot 2) (RC Zoning District)
Applicant: Castle Hill Partners, LLC
Description: Request for a twelve (12) month extension of the December 31, 2019 decision of the Board of Appeals granting variances from minimum lot frontage for each of three proposed
lots on a 5.8-acre parcel of land at 0 Story Street.
V. Adjournment