BOA_31_CALUMET_STREET_DECISION(STAMPED) CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
r BOARD OF APPEALS
`-- 98 WASHINGTON STREET* SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TEL:978-619-5685 N
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR d
f ' C)
December 16, 2021 ,
Decision �.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
The petition of ROBERTA REDDY,for variances from provisions of Section
4.1.1. Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot area,
minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and minimum lot frontage to create four lots at 31
CALUMET STREET (Map 10,Lot 57) (R1 Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on September 22, 2021,it was continued to
October 20,2021. It was continued again to November 17,2021. The meeting was closed on
November 17,2021.
On November 17,2021,Those of the Salem Board of Appeals present were Peter Copelas (Vice
Chair), Paul Viccica, Carly McClain,Rosa Ordaz and Steven Smalley
The petitioner seeks variances from provisions of Section 4.1.1. Dimensional Requirements of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and minimum lot
frontage to create four lots at 31 Calumet Street.
Statements of Fact:
The petition is date stamped July 28, 2021. The petitioner has requested variances per Section 4.1.1
Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot area,minimum lot area per
dwelling unit,and minimum lot frontage to create four lots at 31 Calumet Street.
1. 31 Calumet Street is owned by Roberta Reddy.
2. The petitioner is Roberta Reddy.
3. The representative is Scott Grover.
4. 31 Calumet Street is in the R1 residential one-family zone.
5. The requested variance for relief,if granted,would allow the petitioner to create four (4)
lots on their property at 31 Calumet Street.
6. On September 22,2021,attorney Scott Grover presented the petition for 31 Calumet
Street.
7. 31 Calumet Street consists of over 35,000 square feet. Located on the Salem/Peabody
line. A portion of the property is in Peabody.
8. The Petitioners want to subdivide their lot into four separate lots and develop on three
of them. Their original property would stay 10,000 square feet. The subsequent three
1
lots would be 8,330 square feet. The frontage on the existing being would be 100 feet.
Each of the other lots would have frontage of 83.32 feet. Due to the dimensional
requirements for the plots in a R1 district, this is the reason a variance is needed.
9. Attorney Grover discussed the amount of cost related to developing this land and
submitted supporting documentation with a site plan estimate. The estimate came to
$510,000. By dividing the lots, the economic development by creating those lots will
support the expense of ledge removal,installation of utilities and construction costs.As
well as bringing the road through to all the proposed properties.
10. Attorney Grover mentioned in the statement of hardship that you could develop two
lots on this property and not need a variance,however,the construction costs would
make it not economically feasible.
11. Peter Copelas discussed with attorney Grover how the creation of the four lots would
then make the original lot non-conforming as well. Peter Copelas stated that if there
were two lots than they would both be conforming per the ordinance. It would also cut
down on all the construction costs for the petitioners. Peter Copelas also suggested that
they are creating their own hardship by creating the four lots. In order to create these
lots,the conforming lot would then need a variance because it would then become non-
conforming.
12. Phil Reddy,one of the petitioners, spoke to the board about how the current single-
family dwelling on the property already has issues with utilities coming from way down
the street. Therefore,no matter what they do the utility/site costs will still be very high.
13. Attorney Grover discussed talking to the petitioners about keeping the conforming lot
and only develop two lots that would require the variance and not all the lots.
14. Public comments were given. Jane Levesque spoke in favor of the development.
15. Kirsten Austin, 4 Aberdeen St, also gave a public comment in opposition to
development.
16. Kerry and Chris Hark, abutters to the property,expressed concern about the drainage
issues this project will cause.
17. Tim Flynn, City councilor, spoke to encouraging the petitioners to speak to the
neighbors and abutters to the property about their concerns around the project to keep
the neighborhood relations is good standing.
18. Phil Reddy stated he has spoken to twenty four (24) of his neighbors about the issues,
states that many of the people he spoke to support the project.
19. The petitioners agreed to move to have a continuance to reassess/reevaluate their plans
for this project to October 20,2021.
20. On October 20, 2021, due to a four-member board the petitioners continued to
November 17,2021.
21. On November 17,2021,attorney Scott Grover presented a new plot plan with three lots.
The original lot and the addition of two (2) more lots instead of the original proposed
four lots (4).
22. Peter Copelas and Paul Vicicca inquired about the statement of hardship with the
number of lots. They inquired about the cost of have one additional lot and the cost
that would be and the impact of that on the hardship for the variance. Attorney Grover
expressed that the water line from the street to any of the new lots would be over two
hundred (200) feet which is part of the cost affecting the hardship. The water line would
still have to be over two hundred (200) feet to get to a single lot which would not be
economically viable for the investment for the petitioner.
2
23. Paul Vicicca inquired that if attorney Grover had reached out the neighbors who had
expressed concern about the project since the last meeting.Attorney Grover stated the
petitioner,Mr. Reddy, had been in contact with the neighbors.And his impression was
that they neighbors were satisfied with the efforts and change of plot plan.
24. Public comment was opened and letters from Kirsten Austin,4 Aberdeen Street and
Elizabeth Thompson, 2 Aberdeen Street,were read for the record concerning the
drainage impact of this project and expressed opposition to the development.
25. A letter from Judith and Richard Flaherty of 24 Calumet Street expressed approval for
the project.
26. Attorney Grover responded that the letters submitted were written before the change in
plot plan was decided and that they were no longer seeking to extend the extension of
Calumet Street than any further then the additional two lots to decrease the impact of
the project.
27. Attorney Grover stated that with the removal of ledge to create these lots and the
creation of new drainage systems should decrease the impact of the proposed
construction.
28. Building Commissioner,Thom St. Pierre,mentioned he had chatted with the City
Engineer,Dave Knowlton, and stated that the city has no intention of expanding the
Calumet Street with the proposed construction. However,the drainage is a very
important issue and will require extensive plans to be submitted to the engineering
department going forward if the project is approved. Thom St. Pierre also mentioned
that Salem has adopted the Commonwealth of Massachusetts standard for new
development drainage and will require that the construction does not add to run off and
will require the construction to take manage of its own runoff.
29. 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, §18, and the Governor's March 15,2020 Order imposing strict limitations on the
number of people that may gather in one place, the November 17,2021 meeting of the
Board of Appeals was held remotely,via the online platform Zoom.
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 shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall
display said number so as to be visible from the street.
9. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction
including,but not limited to, the Planning Board.
3
10. All construction shall be done per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by this
Board.Any modification to the plans and dimensions must be approved by the Board of
Appeals unless such changes are deemed a minor field change by the Building Commissioner in
consultation with the Chair of the Board of Appeals.
On the basis of the above statements of fact and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5)
in favor(Paul Viccica,Steven Smalley,Peter Copelas(Vice Chair),Carly McClain,Rosa Ordaz). None
(0) opposed to grant ROBERTA REDDY variances from provisions of Section 4.1.1. Dimensional
Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling
unit, and minimum lot frontage to create four lots at 31 Calumet Street.
Receiving five (5) in favor votes,the petition the variances is approved.
i
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.
4