REVISED Staff Memo_BOA_03-17-2021
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS
98 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TEL: 978-619-5685
STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Appeals Members
FROM: Lev McCarthy, Staff Planner
DATE: March 10, 2021
RE: Meeting Agenda for March 17, 2021
Board Members,
Please find the following in your digital packets:
• Staff Memorandum
• Agenda
• Petitions
• Continuances
1. 73 Lafayette Street (Request to Continue)
2. 157 Boston Street
3. 1 Florence Street
• New Petitions
3. 9 Franklin Street
4. 73 Lafayette Street
• Meeting Minutes: February 17, 2021
Meeting materials are available via SharePoint here:
https://cityofsalem1.sharepoint.com/:f:/s/ZoningBoardAppeals/EmGENBdcRehHpZIKxLiKl34BCq
Qg3xUO_YmbXlBUPozH6w?e=GhvO4H
1. 73 Lafayette Street
A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of NOTH SHORE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COALITION, INC. for a special permit per Section 3.1.2
Special Permit: Zoning Board of Appeals of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to operate a Medical
Clinic at 73 LAFAYETTE STREET.
Materials:
• Plans and Elevations (to scale)
• Statement of Grounds
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum – March 17, 2021 Meeting
Page 2 of 9
2
• Public Comments, ten (10) total
o Three (3) opposed, including a petition signed by forty-two (42) condo owners at
the Derby Lofts at 51 Lafayette Street
73 Lafayette Street commercial structure in the Central Development (B5) zoning district. This
application to the ZBA is one part of a Planned Unit Development permitting. In the Statement
of Grounds submitted with the application, the applicant notes that the permitting process, “in
addition to the Zoning Board of Appeals, will involve approvals from the Salem Redevelopment
Authority, the Design Review Board, the Planning Board, the Historical Commission, the
Conservation Commission, as well as the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection”. The project is on the SRA agenda for Wednesday, March 10.
The overall project will be a redevelopment of three buildings at 73-77 Lafayette Street, 83-87
Lafayette Street, and 9 Peabody Street. The proposal states that 73 Lafayette Street will be
primarily occupied by North Shore Community Health Center. Medical Clinic use requires a
Special Permit in the B5 zoning district, so the applicant is seeking a special permit to allow this
use.
At the time of this writing (3/10/21 at 2pm), the Board has received six (6) public comments.
All the comments express concerns related to parking. On 3/16/21 at 3pm, the Board has
received four more public comments including a petition signed by 42 condo owners at 51
Lafayette Street. All the new comments express concerns related to parking.
On March 16, 2021 the applicant’s representative, Attorney Scott Grover, submitted a written
request that the public hearing for 73 Lafayette Street be continued to the next regularly
scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on April 21, 2021. I expect Mr. Grover to
attend the meeting on March 17th to request the continuation.
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 addresses each of the criteria above.
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum – March 17, 2021 Meeting
Page 3 of 9
3
2. 157 Boston Street
A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JOSH CHMARA for a special
permit per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change
from one non-conforming use (single-family dwelling) to another (two-family dwelling),
and a variance from Section 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces to construct two
parking spaces instead of the required three spaces at 157 BOSTON STREET (Map 16,
Lot 66) (B2 and ECOD Zoning Districts).
Updates
New Materials
• Plans (revised, submitted 2/25/21, showing two units, two dormers, and rear staircase)
• Certified Parking Plan (revised, submitted 2/25/21, showing two possible layouts for two
spaces)
In the February 17 meeting, petitioner Josh Chmara briefly requested to continue to the next
regularly scheduled public hearing. Mr. Chmara explained that he needed to gather a few more
materials to make his application whole.
On February 25 Mr. Chmara submitted to planning staff a set of updated plans, and a P.E.-certified
parking plan. The parking plan shows two possible parking layouts. I reviewed the plans with Tom,
who advised that neither of the proposed parking plans conform to the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance. Per Section 5.1.6 Off Street Parking: Setbacks “In all districts parking stalls in
parking lots shall be set back from the street lot line to whatever extent may be necessary in the
specific situation, as determined by the Building Commissioner, to avoid the probability of cars
backing or otherwise maneuvering on the sidewalk upon entering or leaving the stalls. In no case
shall parking lots be designed to require or encourage cars to back into a public or private way
in order to leave the lot”. Tom has determined that the perpendicular parking spaces are not
permissible, it is my understanding that the applicant will not pursue the perpendicular option
and instead is seeking a variance for the tandem parking option shown.
The application did not mention the alterations to the exterior of the structure that are included
in the latest drawings (dated 2/25/21). Tom St. Pierre and I reviewed the revised drawing. Tom
found that the proposed alterations to the structure does not require relief from the Board. Per
Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures; “Alteration to a structure
which encroaches upon one of more required yard setback areas, where the alteration will
comply with all current setback, yard, building coverage and building height requirements” is a
circumstance that “shall not be deemed to increase the nonconforming nature of said structure”
and therefore does not need approval from the Board.
The special permit request is reliant on the approval of the variance request, since the addition
of an additional unit as allowed by the special permit requires the parking relief provided by the
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum – March 17, 2021 Meeting
Page 4 of 9
4
variance. At the time of this writing (9am on 3/10/21), the applicant has said they will provide an
updated Statement of Hardship, though it has not been submitted yet.
On March 10, 2021, the applicant submitted to the Board a revised Statement of Grounds and
Statement of Hardship that addresses the Special Permit and Variance criteria. Mr. Chmara argues
there are several aspects of the property that contribute to a “topographical hardship” including
a significant elevation difference across the property, an existing retaining wall, and a gas line that
runs across the front of the house.
From February 17 memo:
New Materials
• Plan (Revised, showing two units)
• Certified Plot Plan (does not show proposed parking)
In consultation with Tom St. Pierre, I have come to believe that the proposed project exceeds
the requested relief. The applicant’s elevations and plans show a dormer added to the roof, and
a staircase to provide egress off the back of the building. In the application, the petitioner did not
include these changes. I expect the applicant will re-advertise the project ahead of next month’s
public hearing, adding relief per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential
Structures to expand the existing single-family home. The applicant still has not provided a certified
parking plan, but knows that the plan has been requested by the Board.
The petitioner, Josh Chmara, has submitted a request to continue to the next regularly scheduled
meeting of the ZBA on March 17th. Mr. Chmara is expected to attend tonight’s meeting to present
the request.
In the January 20 meeting, the petitioner Josh Chmara discussed the proposal. Mr. Chamara
explained that he purchased the property in December 2020, and it requires substantial rehab.
With this petition, Mr. Chamara seeks to create a second unit to defray some of the cost of
rehabilitation. Although the application requests a variance from the parking requirement to only
include two spaces, Tom St. Pierre clarified that the parking requirement only applies to the
additional unit, meaning the applicant will not need the variance if they can show two legal parking
spaces. Mr. Viccica noted that the application does not include a certified plot plan, and since,
among other reasons, it appears that a retaining wall might be required, Mr. Viccica suggests a
plot plan be necessary to consider the application. Ms. McClain, Ms. Ordaz, and Chair Duffy
agreed that a certified plot plan including the parking should be necessary.
On February 9, the petitioner submitted a certified plot plan that does not include the proposed
parking. I reached out to the petitioner re-stating the importance of having the plan that shows
the parking spaces. At the time of this writing (2/10) I have not received a response from the
petitioner, or an updated parking plan.
From January 20 memo:
Materials:
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum – March 17, 2021 Meeting
Page 5 of 9
5
• Application
• Plan
• Parking plan (no scale)
• Site photos
157 Boston Street is a single-family residential structure in the Business Highway (B2) and
Entrance Corridor Overlay (ECOD) zoning districts. The proposal is to convert the existing
structure into a two-family residence. In the application, the petitioner writes, “the footprint of
the existing structure will remain the same”.
The existing use and proposed use are Not Allowed in the Business Highway (B2) zoning district.
The property is a Nonconforming Single-Family Residential Structure, and the applicant us
correctly applying for a special permit to alter a nonconforming use.
The existing property has no (0) off-street parking spaces. Off-street parking requirements are
described in Section 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Per
this section, two-family dwellings are required to have, “One and one-half (1½) spaces per
dwelling unit”. The applicant is seeking a variance from this requirement. In their proposal, the
applicant proposes constructing two (2) parking spaces, that would be fewer than the required
three (3) spaces.
I noticed that plans submitted with the application show he project resulting in three (3) units,
while the application is only requesting two (2) units. The applicant confirmed that they are only
seeking a total of two (2) units, and that they will submit revised plans today, January 20, 2021
the day of the public hearing.
I also requested a certified parking plan. The applicant reported that they expect to submit a
certified plot plan in two weeks, which would be the week of February 1, 2021.
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.
Variance
For the Variance request, the Board must weigh the following criteria:
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum – March 17, 2021 Meeting
Page 6 of 9
6
a) 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;
b) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial
hardship to the applicant; and
c) 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 notes that the petitioner is “only able to fit two spaces” on the
property. The statement continues that, “relief…would be beneficial to the public good because
it would add two new off-street spaces for a property”.
3. 1 Florence Street
A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of ANTHONY J. PICARIELLO,
JR. for a special permit per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance to allow the operation of a firearms retail business at 1 FLORENCE STREET.
(Map 34, Lot 273) (R3 Zoning District)
Updates:
New Materials:
• Public comments (totals)
o 52 opposed, including Ward 5 Councilor Turiel, Ward 3 Councilor Morsillo, and
Ward 2 Councilor Madore
o 2 in support
• Site photos
• A Letter to the Editor published in Salem News on February 25, 2021 written by the
property owner
In the February 17 meeting, the applicant’s representative, Atty. Moran requested a continuance
to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Mr. Moran stated that the applicant was caught off
guard by opposition to the proposal and requested to continue to have an opportunity to meet
with concerned residents to discuss their concerns.
From February 17 memo:
Materials:
• Application
• Public comments
o 35 opposed, including Ward 5 Councilor Turiel and Ward 3 Councilor Morsillo
o 1 in support
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum – March 17, 2021 Meeting
Page 7 of 9
7
The applicant is represented by attorney Philip D. Moran. On Tuesday, February 16th Mr.
Moran submitted a request to continue to the next regularly scheduled hearing of the Zoning
Board of Appeals on March 17th. Mr. Moran did not provide a reason for the request.
At the time of this writing (2/17 at 10:15am) we have received 35 public comments opposing
the proposal, and one (1) public comment in support. The arguments in opposition reiterate
the concerns about community benefit, safety, and location listed below.
1 Florence street is a two-story non-residential structure in the Residential Two-Family (R2)
zoning district. The building at 1 Florence Street contains at least three non-residential units.
The proposal is to allow the operation of a firearms retail business at 1 Florence Street. The
proposed firearm retail business would replace Pic’s Screw Machine Inc. Both the existing and
proposed uses are nonconforming to the Section 3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance. The petitioner seeks a special permit per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the
Salem Zoning Ordinance. Section 3.3.2 reads, in part: “The Board of Appeals may award a
special permit to change a nonconforming use in accordance with this section only if it
determines that such change or extension shall not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood”.
At the time of this writing (2/10/21), we have received six (7) public comments in opposition to
the proposal, including one from Ward 5 City Councilor Josh Turiel. The comments in
opposition include: arguments that the proposed firearms retail business would not benefit the
neighborhood or community; concern that this business is located in an area that has been
recently impacted by gun violence; concerns for community safety more generally; and an
argument that the Statement of Grounds is incorrect in proposing that the applicant could
provide discounted firearms to the city’s law enforcement (see summary of the Statement of
Grounds below).
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, noting generally minimal
impact. In the Statement the applicant states that the business will, “be able to supply the city’s
law enforcement with discounted firearms, ammunition and accessories”. The applicant also
notes that “traffic flow will not be affected as we will be operating by appointment only during
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum – March 17, 2021 Meeting
Page 8 of 9
8
off hours (nights and weekends). The property has ample parking and its own loading
boy/garage door”.
4. 9 Franklin Street
A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of David Cutler for a special
permit per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change
from one nonconforming use (industrial) to another (multifamily dwelling), and a
variance per Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements from minimum lot frontage
and width, minimum depth of rear yard, minimum distance between buildings on a lot,
minimum width of side yard, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit at 9 FRANKLIN
STREET. (Map 26, Lot 375) (B1 and R2 Zoning District).
Materials:
• Plans and Elevations (to scale)
• Statement of Grounds and Hardship
Per plans submitted with the application, 9-11 Franklin Street is a 70,000 (+/-) sq ft lot that is
currently occupied by a “large industrial warehouse type building at the front of the property”.
The petitioner is proposing to subdivide the lot to create two parcels. One of the resulting
parcels, 9 Franklin street is proposed to be a 36,450 sq ft flag lot with a 31(+/-) ft frontage on
Franklin Street. Per the Statement of Grounds/Hardship submitted with the application, the
proposal is to construct 12 townhouse style units located in three buildings”. The proposed 9
Franklin Street is located in the B-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. Two of the proposed residential
buildings will be in the R-2 district, and one will be in the B-2 district.
The petitioner is seeking a special permit to change from one nonconforming use (industrial) to
another (multifamily dwelling). The petitioner is also seeking several variances from the
dimensional requirements including at least minimum lot frontage, minimum width of side yard,
minimum depth of rear yard, minimum distance between buildings on a lot, and minimum lot area
per dwelling unit.
It is my understanding that the project as proposed would require several approvals from other
boards including the Conservation Commission and Planning Board. The petitioner has not
confirmed this.
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;
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum – March 17, 2021 Meeting
Page 9 of 9
9
• Neighborhood character; and
• Potential fiscal impact, including impact on City tax base and employment.
The Statement of Grounds/Hardship notes that the proposed change is to a residential use, which
is “more consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the underlying zoning district
than the existing commercial use”. The Statement also addresses each of the criteria above,
noting positive impacts.
Variance
For the Variance request, the Board must weigh the following criteria:
a) 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;
b) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial
hardship to the applicant; and
c) 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 Grounds/Hardship speaks to the Variance criteria. The Statement notes that
the parcel is uniquely split between residential and business zoning districts, and “it is
surrounded on three sides by residentially used parcels”. The petitioner states that the
underlying residential zoning, and surrounding residential use are relevant to all three variance
criteria.
III. Approval of Minutes
Draft minutes are posted in SharePoint.
1. February 17, 2021
IV. Old/New Business
• Standard Conditions language revision
o “All construction shall be done per the plans and dimensions, submitted to and
approved by this Board., as amended. No change, extension, material
corrections, additions, substitutions, alterations, and/or modification to an
approval by this Board shall be permitted without the approval of this
Board, unless such change has been deemed a minor field change by the Building
Commissioner in consultation with the Chair of the Board of Appeals. Any
modification to the approved plans and dimensions must be approved by the
Board of Appeals unless such changes are deemed insignificant by the Building
Commissioner.”
V. Adjournment