Loading...
boa_27_boardman_street_-_stamped_decision 9.18.2020 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS 98 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970'i sue? KiMBERLEY DRISCOLL TEL:978-6]9-5685 Vq}_;_' �- ...� MAYOR co September 18, 2020 ';, • Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals c n Petition of GREG& KATHRYN BURNS for a special permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from minimum width of side yard to expand a nonconforming single-family home by adding a 23'by 14' sunroom to the rear of the existing home at 27 BOARDMAN STREET (Map 35, Lot 492) (R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 15, 2020 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, � 11; continued to August 19, 2020, and closed on August 19, 2020. On July 15, 2020, Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy (Chair), Rosa Ordaz, Paul Viccica, Carly McClain (Alternate), and Steven Smalley (Alternate) were present;Jimmy Tsitsinos was absent. On August 19, 2020, Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy (Chair), Rosa Ordaz, and Paul Viccica were present; Carly McClain (Alternate), Steven Smalley (Alternate),and Jimmy Tsitsinos were absent. The petitioner seeks a special permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from minimum width of side yard to expand a nonconforming single-family home by adding a 23' by 14' sunroom to the rear of the existing home at 27 Boardman Street. Statements of Fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped June 24,2020, the petitioner requested a special permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a 23'by 14' sunroom at the rear of the house. 2. 27 Boardman Street is owned by petitioners Greg and Kathryn Burns. 3. 27 Boardman Street is a single-family home in the Residential Two-Family (R2) zoning district. This is an allowed use in the district. 4. 27 Boardman Street is currently nonconforming to minimum lot area,lot area per dwelling unit, lot frontage,lot width, depth of front yard,and width of side yard. 5. The proposal is to construct a 23'by 14'sunroom addition to the rear of the property.This construction would occur within the required side yard setback. The petitioner is appropriately seeking a special permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures. 6. The requested relief, if granted,would allow the petitioner to add a 23'by 14' sunroom to the rear of the home at 27 Boardman Street within the required side yard setback. 7. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and related precautions and Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 Order Suspending Certain Provisions of the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, 518, and the Governor's March 15, 2020 Order imposing strict limitations on the number of people that may Page 1 of 4 City of Salem Board of Appeals September 18,2020 Project:27 Boardman Street Page 2 of 4 gather in one place, the July 15,2020 meeting of the Board of Appeals was held remotely,via the online platform Zoom. 8. At the July 15, 2020 public hearing, Greg and Kathryn Burns noted that they were being represented by Todd Halsted. Mr. Halsted presented the proposal,including elevations and photographs of the existing conditions. Mr. Halsted explained the proposal to extend from a pre-existing mudroom an additional ten feet. He noted that the existing wall where the addition is proposed is very close to the property line. Staff Planner Brennan Corriston noted that the Board had not received a formal plot plan for the petition and that the applicant had difficulty finding one. Mr. Halsted noted that an outdated plot plan from 1911 showed ample setback between the building and the garage. Board member Paul Viccica asked whether a site survey was completed;Mr. Halsted responded in the negative. Mr. Corriston noted that the Board may need a formal plot plan or survey to make their decision,given concerns around setbacks. Chair Duffy confirmed that the proposal is to extend off an existing rear bump-out, consistent with the existing side yard setback which is effectively a zero setback;Mr. Halsted responded in the affirmative. Chair Duffy asked if there is sufficient rear yard setback;Mr.Halsted confirmed. Mr. Viccica asked if there would be overhang at the property line. Although Mr. Halsted responded in the negative,Mr.Viccica noted that without a site survey with dimensions, there was not enough to continue to discuss (in this meeting). Chair Duffy agreed that a site survey is instrumental when it comes to setback determinations. He encouraged the applicant to obtain such a survey. Mr. Halsted said he could get that in a manner of days. Mr. Burns noted the support of the immediate abutter to this lot line and the neighbors across the street. Building Commissioner Tom St. Pierre added that the reason for the survey is that the existing addition could be over onto the neighbor's property. He noted that the survey must be done by a licensed land surveyor in Massachusetts. He stated that the Board does not want to grant relief for something that might be on another property. 9. At the July 15,2020 public hearing,no (0) members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the proposal. Chair Duffy read from two written comments in support of the proposal: one from Richard Stafford and Perla Peguero of 30 Boardman Street, and one from David R. Selden and Andrea Zeren at 29 Boardman Street. 10. At the August 19,2020 public hearing, the Board and the applicants discussed the survey and continuance. The Board voted five (5) in favor (Rosa Ordaz, Peter A. Copelas, Steven Smalley,Mike Duffy (Chair), and Paul Viccica) and none (0) opposed to continue the hearing on 27 Boardman Street to the next regularly scheduled meeting on August 19, 2020. 11. On August 9,2020,Todd Halsted submitted to the Board a certified plot plan prepared by LeBlanc Survey Associates. This plot plan showed that the proposed addition would be 0.2 feet and 0.3 feet from the side lot line at different points. The plot plan also showed that the addition would meet the required rear yard setback and the required setbacks from the two existing garages on the site. 12. For the same reasons as noted in statement#7 above,the August 19, 2020 meeting of the Board of Appeals was also held remotely, via the online platform Zoom. 13. At the August 19,2020 public hearing, Chair Duffy noted that the Board had asked last meeting for an official plot plan,which has since been provided. Mr. Halsted presented the plot plan,identifying the property line. He noted that the proposal is to extend the existing nonconformity by extending the property to create a sunroom. Mr. Halsted noted that the proposal had not changed since last meeting. Ms. Burns noted that they had written letters from abutters and neighbors across the street that all support the project. Mr. Viccica,Mr. Halsted, and Ms. Burns discussed the situation of the building next to the property line and Mr.Viccica expressed concerns related to building up to the City of Salem Board of Appeals September 18,2020 Project:27 Boardman Street Page 3 of 4 property line,including extended eaves, drainage issues, and, depending on the type of footings, having construction disturb the neighbor's property. Mr. Viccica suggested moving the new construction a half-foot inward (away from the lot line in question) to comply with the overhang and minimize potential disturbances. Mr. Copelas seconded Mr. Viccica's concerns and suggested that this is a good opportunity to pull in the addition by six inches or a foot and eliminate possible problems with zero-lot-line construction. Mr. Halsted explained the reason for their initial plan was that they were trying to salvage the stoop on the other side,but that they could make that change and demolish the stairs. Mr. Copelas noted that making the addition slightly narrower could solve a bunch of problems. Mr. Viccica reiterated the practical benefit of this change as well as the possibility that the existing structure's overhang is not in compliance. Mr.Viccica asked what the addition would be for; Ms. Burns responded that it would be a sunroom. She confirmed that they could afford to lose six inches in the room. Mr. Viccica noted that the condition would be that the dimensions would be modified by reducing the dimensions by six inches. 14. At the August 19,2020 public hearing,no (0) members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Corriston noted that the Board received two letters in support. Chair Duffy noted they paraphrased the letters last meeting. 15. At the August 19,2020 public hearing,Chair Duffy discussed the special permit criteria,as noted below. 16. At the August 19, 2020 public hearing,Mr.Viccica suggested that the addition be 13 feet 4 inches wide (instead of the originally proposed 14 feet). This would mean the addition would be a foot from the property line, so the eave and gutter would not infringe on the property line. He checked if this would be OK with the applicants and they expressed their approval. In making the motion, Mr. Copelas referred to this change. The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearings, and after thorough review of the petition, including the application narrative and plans, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: Special Permit Findings: The Board finds that the proposed modifications will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood: 1. Social, economic, or community needs are served by this proposal. 2. Traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading: No negative impact is anticipated. Existing off- street parking will not be affected. 3. Adequate utilities and other public services already service the structure. 4. Impacts on the natural environment, including drainage: No negative impact is anticipated. Concerns about drainage onto the neighboring property will be addressed by slightly reducing the size of the addition, as included in the special condition. 5. Neighborhood character: The property is in keeping with the neighborhood character. This is a minor addition to an existing house. 6. Potential fiscal impact,including impact on City tax base and employment: There is a potential positive fiscal impact,including enhancing the City's tax base, as a result of the improvements to the structure. On the basis of the above statements of fact and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor (Paul Viccica, Rosa Ordaz, Mike Duffy (Chair), and Peter A. Copelas) and none (0) opposed to grant to Greg & Kathryn Burns a special permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Fancily Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance from minimum width of side yard to expand a nonconforming single-family home I I City of Salem Board of Appeals September 18,2020 Project:27 Boardman Street Page 4 of 4 by adding a 23' by 13'4" sunroom to the rear of the existing home at 27 Boardman Street, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: Standard Conditions: 1. 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 the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to, the Planning Board. 9. 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. Special Condition: 1. The footprint of the addition shall be modified to 23 feet by 13 feet 4 inches, thus increasing the distance from the right-side lot line as compared to the originally proposed footprint. Overhangs from the new addition shall not impinge on the side property line. Mike Duffy, 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 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 with the Essex South Registry of Deeds.