STF REVISED Memo_BOA_02-17-2021
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: February 17, 2021 at 11am
RE: Meeting Agenda for February 17, 2021
Board Members,
Please find the following in your digital packets:
• Staff Memorandum
• Agenda
• Petitions (new order with continuance and withdrawal requests first)
1. 5 Harbor Street
2. 1 Florence Street (new petition)
3. 157 Boston Street
4. 10 Barton Street
5. 140 Highland Avenue
6. 50 Bridge Street (new petition)
• Meeting Minutes: January 20, 2021
Meeting materials are available via SharePoint here:
https://cityofsalem1.sharepoint.com/:f:/s/ZoningBoardAppeals/EhuyAdZWS5xJmQhl6EAiOicBL0
7Fr0bquNcT4QJMGZRRAA?e=Uaff0w
1. 5 Harbor Street
A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of LEONCIO VIZCAINO for a
special permit per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to
construct a five-story extension to an existing one-story structure, and a variance from
Section 5.1.9 Central Development (B5) District to provide the required off-street
parking by use of parking facilities more than 1,000 feet away from the property at 5
HARBOR STREET (Map 34, Lot 411) (B5 Zoning District).
Updates:
New Materials:
• Plan (revised)
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum – February 17, 2021 Meeting
Page 2 of 14
2
On Tuesday, February 16th, Atty. Bill Quinn submitted a request to withdraw without prejudice.
In the emailed request, Mr. Quinn wrote, “The petitioner is re-evaluating his plans in light of
neighborhood concerns, and will file again with the ZBA if necessary”. I expect Mr. Quinn will
attend tonight’s public hearing to make the request.
In the January 20 meeting, the petitioner, Leoncio Vizcaino, was represented by attorney Bill
Quinn. Mr. Quinn briefly described the proposal, and stated that the applicant would like to
change the proposal to decrease the height to four stories and address parking issues. Mr. Quinn
requested a continuance to the February 17 meeting to afford the applicant time to submit revised
plans.
The applicant may no longer need zoning relief, and I will send an update once Tom St. Pierre
reviews the revised plans and decides.
The petitioner submitter revised plans on 2/9/21. Changes shown in the plan include lowering
the total height by one story, bringing the total height to five stories, and eight dwelling units. The
plans show two on-site parking spaces, a decrease from the four non-conforming spaces
proposed previously. Mr. Quinn has contacted Tom St. Pierre and I asking if the petitioner can
avoid needing zoning relief if they provide the six required off-site parking spaces in parking
facilities within 1,000ft of the proposed project. As noted above, I will update you all as soon as
Tom makes a decision.
Materials:
• Application (containing Statement of Grounds and Statement of Hardship)
• Plan
• Public Comment in support (x1), and in opposition (x4)
5 Harbor Street is a single-story commercial structure in the Central Business (B5) zoning district.
The proposal is to extend the existing structure by adding five stories containing ten residential
units atop the existing single-story structure, resulting in a six-story structure.
The petitioner seeks relief from parking requirements, so they can provide the required amount
of parking spaces at an off-site municipal parking facility that is more than 1,000 feet from the
primary structure.
Section 5.1.9 Central Development (B5) District of the Salem Zoning Ordinance mandates that new
residential dwelling units in the B5 District must make provisions for “not less than one (1)
parking space per dwelling unit for existing buildings”, and that the parking requirements for
“rehabilitated” buildings may be accommodated by “parking at municipal or other parking facilities
[emphasis added] in the vicinity of the proposed use”. This Section goes on to require that, “All
municipal or other parking facilities which are used to satisfy the parking requirement must meet
the following criteria: The parking facility must be less than one thousand (1,000) feet from the
proposed development”.
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum – February 17, 2021 Meeting
Page 3 of 14
3
Before submitting the application, the representative, Atty Quinn, met with Tom St. Pierre. Based
on that conversation, the petitioner qualified this construction as rehabilitation on an “existing
building”, even though I am not certain how much of the existing structure is being maintained.
Per the application, the petitioner states that “according to the City of Salem Parking Authority,
the only municipal parking facility that has room to contract with the owner of a new residential
development is the Museum Place Parking Garage, which is located about 1,400 feet away from
the property”.
I have confirmed that Atty Quinn spoke to Associate Parking Director Alan Sullaway about finding
available spaces in municipal parking facilities.
The applicant is seeking a special permit and a variance. Per the application, the petitioner states
that, “the existing parking on site is not compliant with the parking dimensions of access required
by the Ordinance”. The special permit is to change from the existing non-conforming accessory
use to a less detrimental, but still non-conforming accessory use. It is not clear to me whether
this would provide relief for the nonconforming parking they propose on-site, or for the
nonconforming parking they propose off-site, or both. The plans provided with the application
do not show where the existing nonconforming parking is.
Some questions and notes I have for the Board to consider:
• It is unclear to me if Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses applies to off-street parking, which
is an Accessory Use. Perhaps Tom St. Pierre or members of the Board can recall past
precedent?
• They are proposing to make the building nonconforming by increasing the Floor Area
Ratio to 6.2:1 (per submitted plans), which is above the 6:1 maximum for B5. They do not
address this in the application.
• The applicant seeks relief for construction on an existing building, not new construction.
If this were new construction, they would be required to provide 1.5 parking spaces per
dwelling unit for new construction.
• The application does not show how many parking spaces are proposed off-site.
• As noted above, Section 5.1.9 states that parking requirements for “rehabilitated”
buildings may be accommodated by “parking at municipal or other parking facilities
[emphasis added] in the vicinity of the proposed use”. The application describes that
municipal parking lots within the 1,000ft required distance are unavailable, but does not
discuss “other parking facilities”.
At the time of this writing (2:23pm on January 20, 2021) we have received a total of five (5) public
comments. The letter of support is from Councilor Dominguez, who commends the petitioner
and expresses support for more, “modern and safe housing units that are badly needed in the
neighborhood”. The letters of opposition express concerns about the impact of this development
on parking and loading.
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum – February 17, 2021 Meeting
Page 4 of 14
4
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.
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 Hardship speaks to the variance criteria.
2. 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)
Materials:
• Application
• Public comments
o 35 opposed, including Ward 5 Councilor Turiel and Ward 3 Councilor Morsillo
o 1 in support
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.
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum – February 17, 2021 Meeting
Page 5 of 14
5
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
off hours (nights and weekends). The property has ample parking and its own loading
boy/garage door”.
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum – February 17, 2021 Meeting
Page 6 of 14
6
3. 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
• 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 – February 17, 2021 Meeting
Page 7 of 14
7
• 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 – February 17, 2021 Meeting
Page 8 of 14
8
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 paces” 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”.
4. 10 Barton Street
A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of BETH TOBIN 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) to expand a
nonconforming two-family home by adding a dormer at 10 BARTON STREET (Map 36,
Lot 409) (R2 Zoning District).
Updates:
New Materials:
• Elevations (to scale)
The petitioner, Beth Tobin, will be represented by her brother Neil Tobin, at tonight’s ZBA
meeting.
In the January 20 meeting, petitioner Beth Tobin discussed the proposal. Mr. Viccica noted that
the application was incomplete as it did not include elevations or drawings sufficient to make a
decision. Ms. Tobin requested to continue to the February 17 meeting, and stated her intent to
obtain an elevation drawing. Since the January 20 meeting, Ms. Barton met with Tom St. Pierre
to review the requirements for an elevation and has submitted a set of certified elevations.
From January 20 memo:
Materials:
• Application
• Plan (not to scale)
• Revised Plan (not to scale, but with dimensions)
10 Barton Street is a nonconforming two-family home in the Residential Two-Family (R2) zoning
district. The property is at least nonconforming to dimensional requirements including at least
minimum lot area. In the original petition, the applicant writes they are, “proposing to build a
shed dormer in the attic”. Drawings (not to scale) accompanying the application show that the
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum – February 17, 2021 Meeting
Page 9 of 14
9
proposed dormer would not extend beyond the footprint of the existing building or above the
peak of the existing roof.
The proposal is to add a dormer to the building, which is currently 2.5 stories. The dormer’s
exterior walls exceed two feet, therefore making the attic into a full story. This would result in
a 3-story structure in the R2 district, where the maximum height (stories) is 2.5.
The reason for the proposed construction, per the application, is to “only increase size of existing
bedrooms”.
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.
5. 140 Highland Avenue
A continuation of 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).
Updates:
New Materials:
• A series of renderings and images showing two ideas for how to alter the corner of the
wall closest to the abutting neighbor’s driveway
On February 11th, Atty. Phelan emailed to update the Board on Mr. Polanco’s attempts to discuss
the proposal with his neighbor at 144 Highland Ave. Mr. Phelan says Councilor Flynn, “attempted
to broker a meeting between the neighbors, to discuss a mutually agreeable settlement, and this
request was respectfully declined”. Mr. Phelan also reports that Mr. Polanco, “sent a settlement
proposal to the neighbor, hand delivered, via regular mail, and certified mail. We have yet to
receive a response”.
On February 16th, Mr. Polanco submitted via email a series of images depicting alterations to the
corner of the wall adjacent to the driveway for 144 Highland Ave. The images appear to show
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum – February 17, 2021 Meeting
Page 10 of 14
10
two options: 1) lowering a portion of the wall at the corner and replacing it with vertical bars, or
2) insetting the corner to make a beveled corner.
On February 17th, Barbara Peckham of 144 Highland Avenue emailed a video that Ms. Peckham
says was recorded by Councilor Flynn, and shows the point-of-view of a driver pulling out of Ms.
Peckham’s driveway at 144 Highland Avenue. I have uploaded the video to the p roject’s public
file, and will have it available to show at tonight’s meeting upon request.
In the January 20 meeting, petitioner Johnny Polanco was represented by attorney Vincent Phelan.
Mr. Polanco and Mr. Phelan re-stated that the wall was built to protect the petitioner’s family
from debris that he reports flies onto his property from Highland Ave. The Board reviewed and
discussed the public comment submitted ahead of the meeting (described below). Mr. Viccica
asked if Mr. Polanco has ever walked in the abutting property’s driveway to see how much view
of the sidewalk and street is obstructed. Mr. Polanco responded that he would not have built the
wall if he thought it was unsafe. Mr. Polanco explained that he received a building permit for the
wall, and only realized the wall was out of compliance when the abutting neighbor expressed
concern. Mr. Phelan stated there was no intention to make the wall higher than allowed, but that
it stemmed from the construction team insisting on maintaining an even level across the top of
the wall.
During the public comment period, one (1) member of the public, the abutting neighbor, Barbara
Peckham, spoke in opposition to the proposal. At least six members of the public commented on
the wall. Some spoke positively of the benefits of the lighting along the top of the wall, and
understanding the petitioner’s concern for their family’s safety. Some members of the public
expressed concern that the wall is creating an unsafe condition for the abutter, Ms. Peckham.
Ward 4 City Councilor Timothy Flynn stated he has visited the site with Councilors Dibble and
Dominguez but has been unable to have a conversation with the abutter, Ms. Peckham. Councilor
Flynn expressed willingness to help negotiate an agreement between the petitioner and Ms.
Peckham.
Ms. Ordaz stated concern that continuing will not lead to a resolution. She noted that at the
November and December meetings the board recommended that the petitioner talk to his
neighbor to discuss an agreement, but there has been little sign that a successful discussion is a
possibility.
Ms. McClain noted that at the December meeting she expressed not wanting to continue the
petition past the January meeting because of the safety issue. She acknowledges the
communication difficulties due to the pandemic, but still has reservations about continuing. Ms.
McClain expressed a willingness to continue so the applicant can have a little more time to
negotiate with Councilor Flynn helping mediate.
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum – February 17, 2021 Meeting
Page 11 of 14
11
At the time of this writing (2/10/21) the petitioner has not responded to an email requesting an
update; and has not submitted any additional materials or provided updates on discussions with
the abutting neighbor.
From January 20 meeting:
Materials:
• Additional Photos
• Petition supporting the proposal with 27 signatures
• Letter of support from Councilor Dominguez
In the December 20 meeting the petitioner, Johnny Polanco, introduced his attorney, Vincent
Phelan. Mr. Phelan stated that he was only recently informed of the case and was unable to
adequately review the materials. Mr. Phelan requested to continue the application. Ms. McClain
noted that there were safety concerns regarding this application and suggested that the matter
not be continued beyond January. Mr. Phelan agreed. Chair Duffy suggested that Mr. Phelan
contact the neighbor regarding the safety issue.
From December 16 meeting:
Materials:
• Additional photos
In the November 16 meeting the petitioner, Johnny Polanco, presented a plot plan and
photographs, and discussed his application. Mr. Polanco explained his intention was to construct
a four-foot wall based on a building permit he had received. The property is uneven, and Mr.
Polanco built a fence that exceeds the permitted four feet in order to maintain what he believes
is a good visual. Mr. Polanco explained that the wall was built for safety as he was noticing debris
flying into his yard and house, some of which have damaged windows and nearly hit his children.
The Board requested that the applicant provide drawings of the fence with dimensions. At the
time of this writing, the applicant has not provided any additional materials.
During the public comment period Barbara Peckham of 144 Highland Avenue introduced herself
as an abutting property owner. Ms. Peckham contends that the wall runs along her driveway and
creates visibility issues for her exiting her driveway onto Highland Avenue.
There was some discussion as to whether this application should be for a special permit or for a
variance. In the November 16 meeting Brennan Corriston noted that Tom St. Pierre suggested
it could be a special permit because it is a nonconforming single-family property. Members of the
Board questioned whether this should be a request for variance as the nonconforming structure
is new.
I have checked with Tom St. Pierre, who reaffirms the designation of this petition as a special
permit. He expects to attend the December 16 meeting, so will be open to discussion then.
From November 16 meeting:
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum – February 17, 2021 Meeting
Page 12 of 14
12
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.”
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum – February 17, 2021 Meeting
Page 13 of 14
13
6. 50 Bridge Street
A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of RANDY GREENSPON &
FRANCESCA SPARACIO for a special permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-
and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to remove an
existing accessory structure, and extend an existing non-conforming single-family
residential structure by adding an attached three-bedroom dwelling unit atop a garage
which would create a new nonconformity in minimum lot area per dwelling unit at 50
BRIDGE STREET. (Map 36, Lot 176) (R2 and ECOD Zoning Districts)
Materials:
• Application
• Plot Plan
• Plans and Elevations (Revised 2.11.21)
50 Bridge Street is a single-family home in the Residential Two-Family (R2) zoning district with
an existing nonconforming accessory structure. The accessory structure was previously a
nonconforming commercial use, and is now “in very poor condition and needs to be raised”. 50
Bridge Street is a corner lot at the intersection of Bridge St and March St. Per the application
materials, the existing single-family home is nonconforming to at least minimum depth of front
yard and total lot area. The plot plan submitted with the application shows that at its closest
point, the existing home is 4.9ft from the Bridge St lot line, and 6.1ft from the March St lot line.
The minimum depth of front yard in the R2 zoning district is 15ft. The total lot area is 8,034ft2.
The minimum lot area requirement is 15,000ft2.
In the initial application date-stamped January 25, 2021, the petitioners sought a special permit
per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Structures, and a variance from Section
4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements for relief from minimum lot area per dwelling unit. I spoke to
Tom St. Pierre, and we determined that they do not need the variance, since the proposed new
nonconformity would be included in the special permit per Section 3.3.5. We conferred with
the petitioner, and the legal notice reflects this change.
The petitioners, Randy Greenspon and Francesca Sparacio, are seeking a special permit per
Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to
remove the existing accessory structure, and extend the existing non-conforming single-family
residential structure by adding an attached three-bedroom dwelling unit atop a 2+ car garage.
The proposed extension would be within the minimum front yard setback, but no closer than
the existing nonconforming structure, and further from the lot line than the accessory structure
they are proposing to remove.
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:
City of Salem: Zoning Board of Appeals
Staff Memorandum – February 17, 2021 Meeting
Page 14 of 14
14
• 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 Ground speaks to the special permit criteria (applicant’s words summarized
here):
• The addition will provide much needed housing;
• 2 cars will fit in the driveway and the garage will hold 2+ cars, exceeding requirements.;
• Utilities are not affected;
• Roof runoff will be collected in gutters and discharged into the ground;
• The addition will bring the house to a more cohesive size with its neighbors; and
• The proposal will increase the tax base and provide housing.
III. Approval of Minutes
Draft minutes are posted in SharePoint.
1. January 20, 2021
IV. Old/New Business
V. Adjournment