Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes September 18, 2024 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, September 18, 2024 at 6:30 pm via remote participation in accordance with Chapter 2 of the Act of 2023 and a Special Act extending remote participation meetings. Chair Nina Vyedin calls the meeting to order at 6:31 pm. Chair Vyedin explains how individuals can participate in the meeting remotely via Zoom, and that instructions to participate remotely can also be found on the Salem website. Ms. Vyedin also explains the rules regarding public comment. ROLL CALL Those present were: Nina Vyedin, Carly McClain, Paul Viccica, Hannah Osthoff, Ellen Simpson, and Stephen Larrick. Also in attendance were Daniel Laroe – Staff Planner, Voula Orfanos — Acting Zoning Officer, Robin Stein – Legal Counsel, and Jonathan Pinto – Recording Clerk. Those absent were: None. CONTINUANCES Location: 11 March Street (Map 36, Lot 176) (R2 Zoning District) Applicant: Johane Jean-Baptiste Project: A continuation of a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of JOHANE JEAN-BAPTISTE at 11 MARCH STREET (Map 36, Lot 176) (R2 Zoning District) for a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Singleand Two-family Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand an existing nonconforming structure with a 192 square foot, one story addition. The addition proposes a 1.8’ front yard setback where a 15’ front yard setback is required. A 3.4’ side yard setback and a 25’ rear yard setback. In the R2 District, 10 feet is required for a side yard setback and 30 feet is required for the rear yard setback. Documents and Exhibitions  Application date-stamped May 17, 2024 and supporting documentation Chair Vyedin introduces the petition. Attorney Ryan Carlucci introduces himself on behalf of the petitioner and states he submitted a response to attorney Stein’s letter outlining why he thought there was a way to find relief under section 2.2.4. Chair Vyedin asks Mr. Carlucci to present his case on this alternative approach for relief. Mr. Carlucci indicates that in her letter, Ms. Stein states that with respect to section 3.3.5, the Board could in its discussion grant a special permit, but there are no use variances in Salem or zoning relief in a B4 district (portion of the lot). He states that section 2.2.4 pertains to lots split by zoning City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 18, 2024 Meeting Minutes districts, and reads, “regulations for the less restrictive portion of a lot shall not extend more than 30 feet into the more restrictive portion, provided the lot has frontage on a street in the less restrictive area”. In essence, a structure could be expanded from the less restrictive portion of the lot to the more restrictive, based on his reading. He states there is a question of whether the lot has frontage, as it is somewhat land-locked, according to Mr. Carlucci, but suggests the nine (9) foot right-of-way, which is the only access point for the property, could for these purposes be considered a street for frontage. Chair Vyedin asks for input from Attorney Stein and whether this property has frontage in an R2 district. Attorney Stein states that the ordinance provides for frontage where a lot abuts a street. She reads the description to the Board, and explains that here there is an existing nonconforming lot that does not front on a street, and the question is whether the right of way counts as frontage. Based on the ordinance language, Ms. Stein states there is no clear definition of a “private way”, just a “way”. She states she is unsure if the City has historically treated the two terms synonymously, and such treatment would inform her recommendations. The question is ultimately whether an easement would count for frontage as a public or private way, and something for the Board to decide. Mr. Larrick states the definition of “way” is a street or alley or other through-fair or easement, but that he has not seen documentation of the easement in the petition. Ms. Stein clarifies that the issue is not whether the word “easement” appears, but whether “way” controls what is a public or private way. Mr. Larrick asks Mr. Carlucci to discuss the easement documentation, and whether it is permanent. He also asks to see the site plan to see if the additional structure is within the 30 foot range. Mr. Carlucci states a title search was conducted and it was found to be a permanent easement and has been maintained through several owners. The structure extends between 16 and 19 feet into the B4 district. Mr. Viccica suggests the lot that extends the easement to this lot is the one that benefits from the frontage. The lot in question has no frontage, according to Mr. Viccica, just an easement through someone else’s property. He suggests that two properties cannot have the same frontage, and that the addition could have been proposed on the portion of the lot that is least restrictive. Mr. Viccica states he does not find the argument very convincing, and that a way to get to your lot does not constitute frontage. Chair Vyedin states her understanding is that the Board has the jurisdiction to determine whether an easement counts as frontage or not. She suggests the entirety of the project should be considered, whether or not permits were pulled, if the addition is in harmony with existing structures, beneficial to the neighborhood, etc. regardless of whether the question of frontage was before the Board. Ms. Stein suggests the Board is being asked to interpret the bylaw, which is a legal question, not to apply the bylaw, which has a legal distinction. What the Board determines here to be frontage, she expects would apply going forward because it is a legal question. Ms. Stein suggests determining an answer to that before getting into further details, as it clarifies whether or not relief can be sought. Chair Vyedin suggests that Salem is unique in that there are a number of properties, particularly downtown, without frontage, and homes tucked behind other homes. She states that if these lots 2 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 18, 2024 Meeting Minutes cannot benefit from having frontage on a nearby street through an easement, there may be things in the future that the Board may want to approve but cannot based on how they define frontage here. She suggests the definition of frontage can be accepted and the petition could still be denied if the Board is not convinced relief is warranted. Mr. Viccica disagrees and states that the petitioner built an extension somewhere inconsistent with zoning and without pulling proper permits. He argues that the opposite hypotheticals also apply, where if the Board determines this constitutes frontage, in the future they could see applications for an industrial park somewhere that does not have actual frontage. Mr. Viccica suggests two lots cannot share frontage, and that the value of said frontage can only benefit one of the two lots for purposes of zoning. The lot with frontage has a right to grant an easement to another property that does not have frontage, but he suggests the easement itself is not frontage. Mr. Viccica also notes that the easement extends into the R2 district, not the B4 portion of the property. The site plan is presented and Mr. Carlucci discusses the history of properties and rights of way. Ms. McClain states she agrees with Mr. Viccica that an easement should not be considered frontage and that two properties should not get to benefit from one frontage. Ms. Simpson suggests there are so many rear houses with easements, and that if the Board determines what frontage is with respect to easements, it will have implications for many City properties. Mr. Viccica states he is uncomfortable with hypothetical issues, and that the Board should focus on what is before them in this petition. He states the use of the lot is unencumbered, there is no restriction on enjoyment or use. They walk up an easement for access, and Mr. Viccica states that the Board’s decision to not allow an easement to constitute frontage would not make this property unlivable or unusable. He states the petitioner is using an argument to try to justify the fact that they built an addition without a permit and without relief in a zoning district that does not allow it. Chair Vyedin suggests there are other reasons she would feel uncomfortable approving the petition before the Board, particularly because of the issue of construction commencing without proper relief or permits being obtained. At the same time, she states she is not sure she is comfortable rejecting the petition on the definition of frontage as she envisions there may be petitions in the future for which allowing an easement as frontage could allow for a project that would benefit the City. Mr. Carlucci notes the petitioner is also open to withdrawing the petition without prejudice. Chair Vyedin opens the floor to public comment but there is none. Motion and Vote: Mr. Larrick motions to withdraw without prejudice the petition of JOHANE JEAN- BAPTISTE at 11 MARCH STREET (Map 36, Lot 176) (R2 Zoning District) for a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Singleand Two-family Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand an existing nonconforming structure with a 192 square foot, one story addition with a 1.8’ front yard setback where a 15’ front yard setback is required, a 3.4’ side yard setback, and a 25’ rear yard setback.. Ms. Osthoff seconds the motion. The vote is five (5) in favor (Nina Vyedin, Stephen Larrick, Carly McClain, Hannah Osthoff, and Paul Viccica.) and none (0) opposed. The motion passes. 3 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 18, 2024 Meeting Minutes Location: 56 Highland Avenue (Map 25, Lot 0015) (R2/EOCD Zoning Districts) Applicant: Nicole Roblero Project: A continuation of a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of NICOLE ROBLERO at 56 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 25, Lot 0015) (R2/ECOD Zoning Districts) for Variances from Section 8.2.4 Fences and Section 6.8 Visibility at Intersections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an already constructed 4-foot fence to remain on top of a constructed 4-foot retaining wall bringing the total height to 8 feet. In the ECOD, 4 feet is the maximum height allowed and at intersections no more than a height of 3 feet is allowed from street grade. Documents and Exhibitions  Application date-stamped Jun 18, 2024 and supporting documentation Chair Vyedin introduces the petition. She notes that additional photographs and measurements were provided by the City. Ms. Roblero presents information from a surveyor showing the intersection visibility issue and states perhaps the petition does not need to change or seek additional relief, as they are not within the 25 foot measurement that was questioned at the last meeting. She notes the surveyed plan also shows the fence heights, ranging from 4.2 feet to 4.8 feet at various portions. Chair Vyedin asks if the current owners were the ones who installed the retaining walls on the property, and Ms. Roblero confirms they did about four years ago. Chair Vyedin asks what was there prior to the retaining wall, and Ms. Roblero indicates there was an old rock retaining wall. Ms. Roblero presents photos of the property during the construction of the retaining wall and the fence as well. The Board also shares photos of the property prior to purchase. Mr. Larrick discusses the triangle created by the intersecting street measurements, and asks for clarification as his understanding differs from what he sees on the survey. Ms. Stein reads section 6.8 of the city zoning ordinance. Ms. Stein does not see a definition of street lines, and suggests to look at the historic way it has been applied. Mr. Larrick states that in city planning, a street line generally means where the lot line meets the right of way, and he suggests the intersection point should be at the sidewalk. Mr. Larrick asks for clarification or input, and Mr. Viccica states he is inclined to agree with Mr. Larrick’s interpretation, and that the restrictions make sense based on visibility obstructions and safety needs. Mr. Viccica suggests that to protect the sightline for pedestrians and cars, the applicants interpretation of the measurements and dimension do not make sense. Mr. Viccica states that means the fence would need to be moved. Mr. Larrick states his understand is that any obstruction in that section created by the triangle would need to be lower than three feet, and Ms. Osthoff agrees. Ms. Vyedin also suggests that in building the retaining wall, some of the allowed height where four feet of fencing is permissible was used. Mr. Roblero states the fence was initially built because of issues with a neighbor who was frequently throwing trash in their yard. Mr. and Ms. Roblero state this neighbor is a constable and therefore 4 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 18, 2024 Meeting Minutes they feel intimidated. Chair Vyedin states this is not within the Board’s purview. Ms. Roblero also states that another neighbor has a four foot fence and nothing is being done in that instance. Ms. Roblero shares additional photos and suggests the sight line is not impeded by the fence. Ms. Stein clarifies that first the Board should determine whether there is a violation and then whether relief and variance can be granted. Chair Vyedin states the current fence is in violation, and the relief being sought remains the same. Ms. Roblero shares a photo and contends that you can see the stop line and that the fence does not obstruct visibility as it currently exists. She suggests the telephone pole and parked cars obstruct the view more than the fence does. Ms. Roblero also maintains that they sought guidance from the city at the time and were not told they could not construct the fence. She states they are not trying to hurt anyone or endanger anyone and that they are flexible, but that they tried to do things properly and spent a lot of money on the fence. Ms. Osthoff asks how high the fence is at the corner, and Ms. Roblero confirms it is 4.2 from the yard, and 4.7 feet from the street. Mr. Viccica clarifies that the maximum height for the corner should be three feet. He also agrees with the applicant that he thinks parked cars obstruct visibility and that the no parking section should be extended farther, but that is before the Board. Mr. Viccica states the City is trying to invest in making this corridor and these intersections safer, and that the petitioners have done the opposite by not abiding by the ordinance. He states that driving down Proctor Street you must go past the stop sign to see beyond both the fence and the cars to make a safe turn onto Highland Avenue. Mr. Viccica suggests the fence does not need to be taken down entirely, simply modified to abide by the three foot height restriction at the intersection, and four feet elsewhere from the street line. Chair Vyedin states that such modifications would be needed if the Board does not grant the requested variances. Mr. Larrick states he has been to the site a lot lately and while he appreciates Mr. Viccica’s input, he has not felt this intersection to be particularly visually obstructed. Ms. Simpson agrees with Mr. Viccica and states she has been in the area frequently recently as well. She states that while she sympathizes with the applicants having spent money and efforts on the fence to date, she thinks with the proximity of the nearby hospital and schools, it is important to do everything we can to make these dangerous intersections safer. Ms. Simpsons suggests the ordinance restrictions exist for a reason, and that in this instance she believes the fence and retaining wall should adhere to the ordinance limitations. Chair Vyedin opens the floor to public comment. George Hoxha of 52 Highland Avenue introduces himself as a long time Salem resident of close to 30 years. Mr. Hoxha states he has concerns as an abutter, including the integrity of the retaining wall built by the petitioners, as he alleges the top is sloping toward pedestrians. Mr. Hoxha states the fence on top of the wall is simply lagged to the top of the cinder blocks and will eventually topple over. He also states there is no form of retention where the property meets his to keep the earth from falling over and there is spillage. He also notes drainage issues on his property as a result of the applicants retaining wall construction. Mr. Hoxha also agrees with the issue of sight obstruction and states he has seen many accidents at this intersection. Mr. Hoxha states that he likes what the applicants have done renovating their home, but that the applicant is a contractor and should have 5 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 18, 2024 Meeting Minutes known that the height of the fence was an issue. Mr. Hoxha presents photographs and suggests he has public safety concerns. Ward 3 City Councilor Patty Morsillo introduces herself and speaks to the safety issues at this intersection and the investments the City has made to improve safety. She agrees that Proctor has become a cut through street, which is why speed bumps and additional street lines were introduced. Councilor Morsillo states that driving in a car if you stop at the stop line where you are supposed to, the fence obstructs your visibility. Patrick McCormack introduces himself as the surveyor of record on the plan provided by the applicant. Mr. McCormack states he drove down a few times and suggests the biggest obstruction to the line of site is the first car parked on the street near the intersection. He also states that both streets are sloping and that taking an average grade is therefore difficult, and suggests the three and four foot limitations should be viewed from the street at discrete points. Ms. Roblero states the neighbor is crazy and that they have documentation of issues the neighbor had with prior neighbors and that they have been in legal battles with Mr. Hoxha. Chair Vyedin states the applicant is in violation and that the applicant has petitioned for relief, which if granted, would allow the fence to remain as is. If relief is not granted, the fence would need to be modified to comply with ordinance dimension limits. Mr. Larrick suggests there are two considerations for relief, one being the variance for the portion within the triangle and one outside, and that the Board could grant the relief for one and not both. Mr. Viccica asks about the hardships for the variance requests, noting there are no special conditions affecting the land, and that the applicants affected the conditions by building the initial retaining wall. He states that nothing prevents them from abiding by the ordinance, they just need to modify an existing built fence but they wish not to. Mr. Viccica states there is no clear hardship in this instance, and therefore no grounds for relief. Mr. Larrick states he has no issue with the height of the fence outside of the triangle. Motion and Vote: Mr. Viccica motions to approve the petition of NICOLE ROBLERO at 56 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 25, Lot 0015) (R2/ECOD Zoning Districts) for Variances from Section 8.2.4 Fences and Section 6.8 Visibility at Intersections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an already constructed 4-foot fence to remain on top of a constructed 4-foot retaining wall bringing the total height to 8 feet subject to the following 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. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 5. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 7. All construction shall be done per the plans and dimension 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. 6 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 18, 2024 Meeting Minutes Ms. Osthoff seconds the motion. The vote is one (1) in favor (Carly McClain) and four (4) opposed (Nina Vyedin, Paul Viccica, Hannah Osthoff, and Ellen Simpson). The motion does not pass. Location: 23 Naples Road (Map 32, Lot 0402) (R1 Zoning District) Applicant: Gabe Roses Project: A continuation of a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of GABE ROSES at 23 NAPLES ROAD (Map 32, Lot 0402) (R1 Zoning District) for a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Single- and Two Family Nonconforming Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to demolish an existing deck and to construct a new 13’ X 18’6” two-story deck and new stairwell for the upper level that is 4’ wide. 23 Naples Road is nonconforming in the rear and side yard setbacks. Documents and Exhibitions  Application date-stamped July 19, 2024 and supporting documentation Chair Vyedin introduces the petition and notes the Board had requested more visuals of the proposal. Mr. Laroe clarifies that the relief before the Board is just for the new stairwell, as it has been determined that the second story deck is within the setback requirements and does not need relief. Gabe Roses introduces himself and explains the second floor deck will no longer have a pergola and that the stairs will go from the ground level to the first floor deck, not to the second floor deck. Mr. Roses presents elevations of the proposal demonstrating the deck extension and proposed stairs. The petitioners also present an image demonstrating how the proposal impacts views for abutters, as well as a tree that will be trimmed back. Chair Vyedin opens the floor to public comment but there is none. Motion and Vote: Ms. Osthoff motions to approve the petition of GABE ROSES at 23 NAPLES ROAD (Map 32, Lot 0402) (R1 Zoning District) for a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Single- and TwoFamily Nonconforming Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to demolish an existing deck and to construct a new 13’ X 18’6” two-story deck and new stairwell for the lower deck that is 4’ wide, subject to the following 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 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 18, 2024 Meeting Minutes 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 9. All construction shall be done per the plans and dimension 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. 10. Petitioner shall schedule Assessing Department inspections of the property, at least annually, to project completion and a final inspection upon project completion. Mr. Larrick seconds the motion. The vote is five (5) in favor (Nina Vyedin, Hannah Osthoff, Paul Viccica, Carly McClain, and Stephen Larrick) and none (0) opposed. The motion passes. Location: 11 Foster Street (Map 26, Lot 0396) (R2 Zoning District) Applicant: Shelbyb LLC Project: A continuation of a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of WILLIAM F. QUINN f/b/o SHELBYB LLC at 11 FOSTER STREET (Map 26, Lot 0396) (R2 Zoning District) for an Appeal of a Decision of the Building Inspector that denied the application to develop a 2- dwelling unit into a 5-dwelling unit. In addition, the Applicant is seeking a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend, alter and substantially change to a substantially different purpose of converting a 2-family dwelling to a 5-family dwelling. The Applicant is seeking Variances from Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements for lot area per dwelling unit of 3,000 square feet where 7,500 square feet is required, and lot coverage of 53.8% where 35% is the maximum allowed. A Variance from Section 5.1 Off-street Parking to have 7 parking spaces, where 8 is required and Section 5.1.5 Design to have a driveway width of 11 feet, where 12 feet is required. Documents and Exhibitions  Application date-stamped July 24, 2024 and supporting documentation Chair Vyedin introduces the petition. Attorney Bill Quinn introduces himself on behalf of the petitioner, and explains that at the last minute there was a discussion of the expansion of non-conforming uses on properties and limitations. After presentation and discussion with the Board, they recommended seeking legal guidance on the matter. A memo was presented to the Board from Ms. Renard and Ms. Stein, and that while Mr. Quinn states he is disappointed with the answer he accepts it as a matter of law. 8 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 18, 2024 Meeting Minutes Therefore Mr. Quinn states he would like to withdraw without prejudice the petition to overrule the building inspectors initial decision, as well as the second request for a hearing on a special permit and variance. Motion and Vote: Mr. Viccica motions to withdraw without prejudice the entire petition of WILLIAM F. QUINN f/b/o SHELBYB LLC at 11 FOSTER STREET (Map 26, Lot 0396) (R2 Zoning District) for an Appeal of a Decision of the Building Inspector that denied the application to develop a 2- dwelling unit into a 5-dwelling unit, as well as relief for a Special Permit per Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to extend, alter and substantially change to a substantially different purpose of converting a 2-family dwelling to a 5-family dwelling, Variances from Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements for lot area per dwelling unit of 3,000 square feet where 7,500 square feet is required, and lot coverage of 53.8% where 35% is the maximum allowed, and Variances from Section 5.1 Off-street Parking to have 7 parking spaces, where 8 is required and Section 5.1.5 Design to have a driveway width of 11 feet, where 12 feet is required to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on October 16, 2024. Ms. Osthoff seconds the motion. The vote is five (5) in favor (Nina Vyedin, Ellen Simpson, Paul Viccica, Carly McClain, and Hannah Osthoff) and none (0) opposed. The motion passes. REGULAR AGENDA Carly McClain excuses herself from the meeting for a medical issue. Location: 186 Federal Street (Map 25, Lot 0063) (R2 Zoning District) Applicant: Denise Carria Project: A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of f DENISE CARRIA at 186 FEDERAL STREET, UNIT 1. (Map 25, Lot 0063) (R2 Zoning District) for a Special Permit Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to enclose an existing porch in order to use as a three-season sunroom. The proposed enclosed porch has a nonconforming side setback of 4.7 feet. In the R2, the required side setback is 10 feet. Documents and Exhibitions  Application date-stamped July 22, 2024 and supporting documentation Chair Vyedin introduces the petition. Jim and Denise Carria introduce themselves and explain they went to the Historic Commission first and got approval, followed by a building permit. Subsequently, Mr. Carria explains they wanted to enclose the porch, which the Historic Commission allowed when they went back, but the building inspector indicated they made a mistake and that the petition should have gone before the Board before being built in the first place. At that point, Mr. Carria indicates, it had already been inspected and they were under the impression they had complied with all requirements to date. Chair Vyedin clarifies the porch is built, and they are seeking to enclose it. The petitioners present elevations of the proposal and the plot plan. Mr. Viccica confirms that they are not increasing the 9 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 18, 2024 Meeting Minutes nonconformity created by the garage, they are simply extending it farther into the lot along the side. He also confirms that 4.7 feet is the narrowest part. The Board discusses and concludes that it is not substantially more detrimental than existing conditions. Chair Vyedin opens the floor to public comment but there is none. Motion and Vote: Mr. Viccica motions to approve the petition of f DENISE CARRIA at 186 FEDERAL STREET, UNIT 1. (Map 25, Lot 0063) (R2 Zoning District) for a Special Permit Section 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to enclose an existing porch in order to use as a three-season sunroom. The proposed enclosed porch has a nonconforming side setback of 4.7 feet. In the R2, the required side setback is 10 feet, subject to the following 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. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 9. All construction shall be done per the plans and dimension 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. 10. Petitioner shall schedule Assessing Department inspections of the property, at least annually, to project completion and a final inspection upon project completion. Ms. Osthoff seconds the motion. The vote is five (5) in favor (Nina Vyedin, Paul Viccica, Hannah Osthoff, Ellen Simpson, and Stephen Larrick) and none (0) opposed. The motion passes. Location: 53-59 Mason Street (Map 26, Lot 0090) (NRCC Zoning District) Applicant: 53-59 Mason Street, LLC 10 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 18, 2024 Meeting Minutes Project: A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of WILLIAM F. QUINN f/b/o 53-59 MASON STREET, LLC at 53-59 MASON STREET. (Map 26, Lot 0090) (NRCC Zoning District) for a Special Permit per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to change a nonconforming use of boat and car storage to a warehouse, storage, packaging and distribution use and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to allow all areas of the building to be used for warehouse, storage and distribution. In the NORTH RIVER CANAL CORRIDOR (NRCC), storage, warehousing and wholesale distribution is not permitted. Documents and Exhibitions  Application date-stamped July 30, 2024 and supporting documentation Chair Vyedin introduces the petition. Attorney Bill Quinn introduces himself and explains the property is a warehouse built as is in 1930. It is a two story rectangular brick building along Mason Street, the history of which has been assorted. The property has always been used for business purposes and wholesale/storage purposes. Mr. Quinn explains that when the NRCC district was enacted it included this property, which then rendered all the existing uses illegal or nonconforming with uses allowed in the NRCC district. Mr. Quinn states his clients have since then have had to come to the Board anytime they change from one tenant to another unless the tenants operate the exact same business. Mr. Quinn states they applied for permits several years ago for residential redevelopment which was not approved, and in 2022 they applied for a special permit to use 20,000 square feet of the building for the storage of antique cars and boats, which was approved. That tenant has not left, leaving about 24,000 square feet of empty space. Mr. Quinn presents a drawing of the floor plan for the first floor and explains the proposal. A large portion of the building is two stories of open space, and the entire first floor is 40,000 square feet with two adjacent suites, 101A and 101R, 10,000 square feet each, and then another smaller suite labeled 106 (4,585 square feet). When originally filed, Mr. Quinn explains that his original understanding was that a potential tenant ,Extreme Packaging Solutions, was going to occupy the whole space. Mr. Quinn states he misunderstood and that he filed an amendment to the petition verifying that the relief being sought is for a special permit for Extreme Packaging Solutions to move into the 4,585 square feet space, Suite 106, to conduct packaging in addition to warehousing, which is different. The rest of the building will continue to be used for warehousing storage and distribution use, as generally defined in the ordinance for warehouses. A second special permit request would allow suite 101A, which is currently vacant, to be used for the warehouse use but does not include packaging. The third request would be the special permit for the space above, which would allow an approved use to lease out to warehouse and storage distribution tenant. Mr. Quinn submitted a summary of the crating and packing operations of Extreme Packaging. The equipment is delivered to loading docks and packaged specially with cardboard and wood. There are materials storages and six or so employees working indoors to create the packaging materials and solutions for customers. Mr. Quinn indicates this is a change from one nonconforming use, boat and car storage, to another nonconforming use, in this case warehousing, packaging, storage, and distribution use. Some large trucks will be visiting to deliver the special equipment being packaged. Mr. Quinn contends this meets local business needs and is consistent with allowed prior uses of the 11 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 18, 2024 Meeting Minutes building and space. He also states a new parking plan was conducted and presents it, explaining that the requirement would be 71 spaces and there are 107. Mr. Quinn also notes adequate space for loading docks in addition to the parking. He discusses the special permit grounds, noting community needs, no or limited impact on parking and traffic, and states they would be amenable to similar special conditions previously required restricting delivery and cargo vehicles from entering on Mason Street (must enter from Commercial Street instead). Mr. Quinn also states the utilities will not be impacted by the proposed use, and that the neighborhood character, while complicated and mixed, will not change with the change in use, and that there will be no impact on the environment. Mr. Quinn again explains that the first request is for use of suite 106 by the new tenants, and that the second request is for suites 101A and the space above to have use approval for any potential future client for warehouse storage and distribution so they can find a tenant without needing to come back before the Board. Chair Vyedin clarifies that the petitioner is seeking relief specifically suites 106, 101A, and 101R. Mr. Viccica clarifies that there is only one tenant for one of the suites, and that the other two are yet to be determined businesses. Mr. Quinn confirms, but states they will be the same type of business most likely. Mr. Viccica states not knowing who the tenants will be, the Board his unable to make a finding that the use would be no more detrimental. He states he would be more comfortable only discussing suite 106 because he has questions about hours of operation and other logistics that would be specific to each tenant and business. He asks for clarification on business hours and deliveries for suite 106. Mr. Quinn states they would be accepting delivers between 7AM and 11PM, which are within the noise ordinance constraints. Chair Vyedin notes that there was a special condition in prior approved uses indicating the hours of operation would be limited to 8AM to 6PM. Mr. Quinn indicates this will be interstate delivery and trucks, and that that type of activity is not limited to 9AM to 5PM. Mr. Viccica states they must determine if the hours and use are more detrimental than the current nonconforming use. He asks for information about frequency and scheduling for deliveries, and Mr. Quinn states on average they should see two large tractor trailer type trucks a day, but the times are uncertain, and several daily visits from panel trucks. Chair Vyedin notes that the information the Board has regarding operations only pertains to the operations for suite 106. Jeffrey Tobin introduces himself as the tenant for suite 106, and explains that trucks not owned by the business come in from 8AM to 4PM, and that normal business days start at 7AM prepping their own trucks. Mr. Tobin states some of their own trucks will run until about 6PM. Mr. Tobin explains the business operations in more detail, and the Board asks about the two entrances. Mr. Tobin states he would be amenable to special condition that only Commercial Street be used for deliveries. Chair Vyedin opens the floor to public comment. Tanya Trevisan introduces herself on behalf of DSF Salem Flint, LLC which is the owner of the residential apartment building adjacent to the property, the Halstead Apartments. Ms. Trevisan explains this is a grouping of 130 apartment units and they object to the proposed change in nonconforming use. She maintains the use would be more detrimental than the current use of indoor boat and vehicle storage and that it would allow for delivery truck traffic on a daily basis. Ms. Trevisan notes truck traffic, noise and disturbance, and truck exhaust are the main concerns for 12 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 18, 2024 Meeting Minutes the residences. She also contends that prior to the 2022 special permit, the building was unlawfully used for outdoor storage of busses, trucks, and other large vehicles, which was what led to the permits for current use. Regardless of prior uses, Ms. Trevisan states the proposed use is inconsistent with the goals of the NRCC district. She provides an aerial view of the property to demonstrate how close the property is to the Halstead building and other residences. Mr. Larrick asks to what extent there was truck travel and movement in prior use, and if the petitioner could explain any considerations they had for the NRCC master plan. Mr. Quinn indicates the prior use had deliver to the site and storage of boats, as well as antique cars. Deliveries occurred, but he is unsure of the frequency. Regarding the master plan considerations, Mr. Quinn states this building has existed for 100 years before Halstead Apartments were constructed or the NRCC idea was approved. He suggests there must be a balance where there is a building that has served the community for many years that is seeking to continue to do so. Chair Vyedin and other Board members concur that they are only comfortable approving relief specifically for Suite 106 where there is a known tenant. Mr. Viccica notes it is already a local business and that as long as they are fine with the special conditions, he would be in favor of granting relief. Ms. Stein clarifies that the petitioner may want to withdraw without prejudice the remaining request if the Board is only approving relief for Suite 106. Motion and Vote: Mr. Viccica motions to withdraw without prejudice the petition of WILLIAM F. QUINN f/b/o 53-59 MASON STREET, LLC at 53-59 MASON STREET. (Map 26, Lot 0090) (NRCC Zoning District) for a Special Permit per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to change a nonconforming use of boat and car storage to a warehouse, storage, packaging and distribution use and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to allow all areas (except suite 106) of the building to be used for warehouse, storage, packaging, and distribution. Ms. Osthoff seconds the motion. The vote is five (5) in favor (Nina Vyedin, Hannah Osthoff, Ellen Simpson, Stephen Larrick, and Paul Viccica) and none (0) opposed. The motion passes. Motion and Vote: Mr. Viccica motions to approve the petition of WILLIAM F. QUINN f/b/o 53-59 MASON STREET, LLC at 53-59 MASON STREET. (Map 26, Lot 0090) (NRCC Zoning District) for a Special Permit per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to change a nonconforming use of boat and car storage to a warehouse, storage, packaging and distribution use and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to allow only Suite 106 of the building and its associated parking to be used for warehouse, storage, packaging, and distribution, subject to the following 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. 13 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 18, 2024 Meeting Minutes 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 7. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 8. All construction shall be done per the plans and dimension 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. 9. Petitioner shall schedule Assessing Department inspections of the property, at least annually, to project completion and a final inspection upon project completion. And the following special conditions: 1. Hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday 7AM to 6PM for staff with delivery vehicles allowed from 8AM to 6PM, with none on weekends. 2. All large vehicles for distribution shall enter/exit via Commercial Street only, and not Mason Street. Mr. Larrick seconds the motion. The vote is five (5) in favor (Nina Vyedin, Hannah Osthoff, Ellen Simpson, Stephen Larrick, and Paul Viccica) and none (0) opposed. The motion passes. Location: 45 Jefferson Avenue (Map 25, Lot 0653) (I/ECOD Zoning Districts) Applicant: ZXE, LLC Project: A public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of ZXE, LLC at 45 JEFFERSON AVENUE. (Map 25, Lot 0653) (I/ECOD Zoning Districts) for a Variance from Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements to construct a five-story self- storage facility. The proposed self-storage facility will require variances for height where 59 feet is proposed and 45 feet is allowed. A Variance for side setbacks where 19.5 feet is proposed and 30 feet is required and a Variance for lot coverage where 49.9% is proposed and 45% is permitted. Documents and Exhibitions  Application date-stamped July 31, 2024 and supporting documentation Chair Vyedin introduces the petition. 14 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 18, 2024 Meeting Minutes Attorney Scott Grover introduces himself on behalf of the petitioner and property owner. Todd Waller is a principal and will speak to the mini storage industry, and Dan Ricciarelli is the project architect. Mr. Grover presents aerial site photos and discusses the property, located in a portion of Jefferson Avenue that he describes as a “wasteland”. He discusses the zoning districts, including the newly created Coastal Resiliency Overlay District. The property has unattractive and underutilized industrial buildings according to Mr. Grover, and although the parcel is over an acre in size it is very narrow compared to other lots in the industrial district. He states the shape of the parcel is mainly what drives the need for zoning relief. Mr. Grover describes the proposal as a first class self-storage facility with approximately 108,000 square feet of gross floor area and a total of 12 parking spaces for customers and two employees. He notes the proposed use of a storage facility is an allowed use in the industrial zoning district, and that the building will comply with some, but not all of the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance, as well as the off street parking requirements and the ECOD provisions. He discusses the dimensional relief sought related to heightened, setbacks, and lot coverage. He also notes that none of the existing buildings on the property meet any of the dimensional requirements, so the proposed building will actually reduce some of the nonconformities. Mr. Grover discusses the hardships created by the long narrow lot shape, which dictate what can be built by right, and that no industrial building could be build by right at this lot in this industrial zone. He also notes that this would be the first step in a series of approvals from other City boards, and that the review will be thorough. Todd Waller introduces himself as the property owner and describes himself as a city resident and business owner. He references other projects and businesses including the Merchant Hotel. He discusses the limitations of the site pertaining to its shape and size, and the restrictions of the ECOD and other districts. Mr. Waller also discusses his history in the self storage business, which he states is a quiet business that would not cause disturbances, but is essential and used by one in three households. He provides additional statistics regarding the business, noting its low impact use, particularly compared to what could exist by right and what currently exists. Mr. Waller presents 3D renderings of the proposed building. He notes that the proposed height and size of the building are based on financial viability, as well as not being able to build down being in a flood zone, but again emphasizes the potential alternative industrial uses that could be more detrimental to the area. Mr. Waller also notes that the flood zone makes the first floor use less efficient, and suggests that the height relative to a neighboring 100 foot high tension structure and neighboring building at 52 feet, is minimal. Mr. Waller notes the suggestion per the ITE engineering manual is 1.38 parking spaces per 100 storage units provided. There will be roughly 800 units, which would require 11 spaces. They plan to lease about two storage units a day during the initial leasing period with heavy discounts to fill up the space, but once it is stabilized they only expect two to three rentals per week, which does not make for a busy office. Regarding traffic, Mr. Waller states the average tenant visits their unit two times within a six to eight month period, once to move in and once to move out. Compared to other uses, this is estimated to be 300 percent quieter than the next quiet industrial zoned use according to Mr. Waller. He reiterates that one in three households in the U.S. utilizes self storage, suggesting that Salem is massively underserved with respect to storage, and that City growth will only make this worse. Mr. Waller also suggests that this project will make this area and intersection much safer, as it will change the existing layout so that you are not pulling out right at an intersection with heavy industrial equipment, and spreading out the entrances. He goes on to describe the facility as a class A interior climate controlled storage facility, which he states is 15 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 18, 2024 Meeting Minutes different form a drive up facility. All related activities will take place inside the building, shielding it from public view, unlike buildings with publicly visible drive up units. Mr. Waller states access hours would be seven days a week 6AM to 10PM. He states they will not be open 24 hours like some neighbors, and that the office hours will be Monday through Friday 9:30AM to 6PM, Saturday 9:30AM to 5PM, and access to storage areas will be granted only to existing tenants. Each tenant will access the facility through an access control system and issued a personalized code that tracks their entrance and exit, according to Mr. Waller. For security, the interior and exterior will be monitored by CCTV and doors and access points will have alarms attached. Regarding trash, Mr. Waller states there will be no dumpster on site because the only trash at the facility will be gentle office trash generated by the one or two employees that are there. Trash will be handled by a residential style rolling trash can which will be stored in the managers maintenance unit. If a sale or auction occurs or unit is abandoned, this will be handled on a case by case basis and a private trash hauler would come in to remove trash from the site. When tenants move out, they would take everything with them. He also discusses property management and that it will be treated as an institutional grade asset. Katie Olhya of Stonefield Engineering and Design introduces herself and presents a layout of the proposal showing an aerial map, zoning map, floor plan, and table of land use zoning requirements. Ms. Olhya explains that the geometry of the site introduces several challenges, and that the design of the proposal was meant to maximize on those challenges and utilize the site as best as possible. Some of the goals were safe cite circulation and efficient design, as well as introducing some landscaping where possible as the whole site and much of the corridor is currently impervious material. The proposal shows two full movement driveways on Jefferson Avenue in order to access and safely circulate the project site along with the installation of landscape and streetscape features between the driveways. The proposal is meant to optimize the available space accounting for the narrowness, which resulted in the taller building with small loading/parking area and office in front, with a rear loading area meant to accommodate larger vehicles and additional landscaping. Ms. Olhya discusses the parking and layout in more detail and stresses a focus on safe circulation. Mr. Ricciarelli of Segar Architects introduces himself and presents photos of the site and lot location, noting the mix of building types and context. Mr. Ricciarellie presents a rendering and streetscape and discusses the proposed project materials and layout, noting attempts to break up the massing and the use of masonry material and corrugated metal detailing. He also shares a streetscape chart showing the relative heights of neighboring structures. Chair Vyedin asks how much of the proposed height is linked to this specific lot and the flood mitigation concerns. Mr. Grover discusses the narrowness of the lot, noting the setbacks and wanting to provide space for emergency vehicles, which pushed the building up vertically. Conforming to the required setbacks, according to Mr. Grover would make the building even narrower and therefore need to be even taller. Mr. Viccica asks why the building cannot be narrower, and if the criteria is meeting some number of storage units, or profit, noting that there are other storage facilities on the street that are both narrower and shorter in height. Mr. Waller states that some of the flood mitigation measures include floodgates on the exterior walls, which disrupts the number of storage units possible for the first floor. Mr. Waller states there is also an economic driver, arguing that it is only viable if meets certain financial targets. He further maintains the proposal is an improvement to the current setbacks and existing structures on the lot. 16 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 18, 2024 Meeting Minutes Mr. Viccica states that regardless of the dimensional improvements, and regardless of whether the neighboring property is a dump or a mansion, they are still proposing large nonconformities for the site. Mr. Viccica suggests any financial hardships are self imposed by attempting to overdevelop a site and hit a certain number. Mr. Viccica also notes that there do not seem to be any actual flood mitigation measures and that the first floor just has fewer storage units. Mr. Waller notes there is not flood management on the site currently, and Mr. Viccica states that as someone with a proposal to develop the site they are responsible for explaining how they plan to mitigate it. Mr. Waller suggests the creation of setbacks and some permeable surfaces are an improvement. Mr. Grover adds that there will certainly be requirements related to the coastal overlay district related to drainage. Mr. Viccica suggests this is a massively high building and that he has not heard a reason to grant a height variance thus far, as he does not consider a project not making as much money as you would like it to as a real hardship. He states the proposal is inappropriate for the area. Project manager Dan Whitney introduces himself and states he specifically builds self storage, and has built over 20 to date. With respect to the height, he states that self storage is a game of square footage and that there is certainly a financial component. Mr. Whitney notes the narrowness of the lot and suggests that a narrower building would need to be higher to not lose rental square footage. He further asserts that with 30 foot setbacks, there are not many uses that would actually work at this property, as he suggests it could not be used for retail, rentals, or meet parking requirements for other industrial uses. Mr. Whitney suggests the only viable options are a parking lot or a self storage business. Mr. Whitney notes that currently the site is not managing any storm water, whereas this site would now be required to do so. There would be underground storm water management introduced if the project were to go through according to Mr. Whitney. Mr. Viccica notes that this is not unique to this property or business, and that anyone in this district would need to do comply with that. He emphasizes that not making financial sense is not a valid hardship to grant a variance. Mr. Whitney contends that normally with a height issue, there is the ability to build down but that is not possible here because of the flood plain, and he states that is a hardship. Mr. Viccica states these are very profitable businesses with few staff, and that he does not find the petitioners arguments compelling. Ms. Osthoff states her main concern with the petition is the height, and wonders if it was even considered at a lower height. She states it would be one thing if the variance were for a few feet because the building needed to be raised for flood concerns, but that is not the case here. Mr. Larrick agrees with Ms. Osthoff and Mr. Viccica’s assessment, and also suggests there are other viable industrial uses in the table of uses. Additionally, Mr. Larrick notes that the property was purchased two years ago and that certainly the site restrictions were known at the time. He asks if any other uses were considered. Mr. Grover again asserts that the narrowness and and 30 foot setback requirements limit the potential options for the site. Mr. Whitney also notes that the other uses have larger parking requirements. Mr. Viccica states that perhaps the Board should focus on the project presented, rather than hypotheticals and other potential uses. Chair Vyedin states that considering what exists on the site, she feels the setback requests are somewhat reasonable, but has a hard time with the height request. 17 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 18, 2024 Meeting Minutes Mr. Grover asks if the petitioners may have time to obtain more information regarding the coastal resiliency overlay district and the related requirements. Chair Vyedin suggests it could be helpful and asks if they would like to continue. Mr. Grover confirms. Motion and Vote: Ms. Osthoff motions to continue the petition of ZXE, LLC at 45 JEFFERSON AVENUE. (Map 25, Lot 0653) (I/ECOD Zoning Districts) for a Variance from Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements to construct a five-story self-storage facility. The proposed self-storage facility will require variances for height where 59 feet is proposed and 45 feet is allowed. A Variance for side setbacks where 19.5 feet is proposed and 30 feet is required and a Variance for lot coverage where 49.9% is proposed and 45% is permitted, to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the ZBA on October 16, 2024. Mr. Viccica seconds the motion. The vote is five (5) in favor (Nina Vyedin, Ellen Simpson, Paul Viccica, Hannah Osthoff, and Stephen Larrick) and none (0) opposed. The motion passes. MEETING MINUTES August 21, 2024 Mr. Laroe notes one edit regarding Ms. Osthoff being mentioned, and Ms. Simpson notes some typos. Motion and Vote: Ms. Simpson motions to approve the minutes from the August 21, 2024 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, as amended. Mr. Viccica seconds the motion. The vote is five (5) in favor and none (0) opposed. The motion passes. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Variance Extension Request for 11 1/2 Hardy Street Chair Vyedin introduces the petition. Motion and Vote: Ms. McClain motions to approve the Variance extension request for 11 1/2 Hardy Street for 6 months to February 14, 2025. Mr. Larrick seconds the motion. The vote is four (4) in favor and none (0) opposed. The motion passes. Next Meeting September 18, 2024 ADJOURNMENT Motion and Vote: Mr. Viccica motions to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Larrick seconds the motion. The vote is all in favor. The motion passes. 18 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals September 18, 2024 Meeting Minutes The meeting ends at 10:49 PM on September 18, 2024. For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the Decisions have been posted separately by address or project at: https://www.salem.com/zoning-board-appeals/pages/zoning-board-appeals-decisions-2024 Respectfully submitted, Brennan Postich, City Staff Planner 19