5 Howard Street 2016_Attic_Dormer_Special_Permit_Tue_Feb_27_2024_20-10-33 /c(�n�otrr.�
!w_: CITY OI' SALEM NLA SSA('.H US ETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL ,
6 d►�r, �� q 11=10 35
121)WASIIIN(7TONST11 I?'I'♦ S\JJ.\I,MASSACIIL1 IA-1�U19,
I\I II+I GLI.1 DI:IS( o1j. '1'1'I.I :9%S-''a5-9595 ♦ 1'\\'978 740"OffY CI FILE #
.�iNt , rj�LC(1.MHSJ
August 31, 2016
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
--- o. ii
Petition of?IRiv i iil' ATHLLI✓N WALSH sceiciflg a Special Permitr Sec. —
Nonconfornting Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a shed dormer at the
property of 5 HOWARD STREET (Map 35 Lot 187)(113 Zoning District).
\ public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 17, 2016 pursuant to 21.G.L Ch. 40_\, 11.
the hearing ,vas closed on this date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Peter A. i
Copelas (Tice-Chair),Tom \Watkins, jinni-I'sitsinos, Paul Viccica(alrernate).
The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit per See. 3.3.3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to
construct a shed dormer.
Statements of fact:
1. ]n the pcddon date-stamped July 25, 2016, the Petitioner requested Special Pennits per Section 3.3.3
\Qatar,/oi�tiiug Slira tires to construct a shed dormer.
2. The petitioner,7'iniodw Walsh, and Brendan O'Donoghue,contractor,presented the peddon.
3. The existing house is a nonconforming single family residential structure as to front t-ard and side },ard
setback.
4. The petitioner is proposing; to construct a shed dormer on the south elevation. '
5. The proposed shed dormer is approxunately six (6') feet from the side yard setback where ten (10)
feet is required. !
i
6. Although the dormer will increase the height and the number of stories, the request is within height
and number of stop-dimensional requirements of the R3 Zottuig District.
7. The requested relief,if granted,would allow the Petitioner to construct a shed dormer.
S. At the public hearings no members of the public spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposal.
'17u: Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and
after thorough review of the petition, including; the application narratiPe and plans, and the Petitioner's }
presentation and public tesrimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the
provisions of the C Hy of Salem "Zoning Ordinance:
f
I
l
Cits of Salem Board of Appeals
August 31.2016
Proiccl:5 Ho"-ard Street
Page 2 of 2
Findings for Special Permit:
The Board finds that the proposed modification will not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming,;structure.
1. The Board finds that the proposed changes will improve the structure.
2. "There is no impact on traffic flow or safety.
3. ']'here is no impact on utilities or other public ser6ces.
4. There is no impact on the narural environment.
5. The proposal conforms to the existing neighborhood character.
6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base is positive.
On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in
favor (Peter A. Copelas (Vice- Chair), Tom Watkins,Jimmy Tsitsinos, Paul Vieeica (alternate)) and none (0)
opposed, to grant a Special Permit, ro construct a shed dormer subject to the following terms, conditions,
and safeguards:
Standard Conditions:
1. 1-he 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 Conunissioner
a. All requirements of the Salem lire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly
adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning an),construction.
S. Emerior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained, f
7. _1 Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained.
B. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Comnvssion having jurisdiction including,but
not lmutcd to, the Planning Board.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
i
I
1 CoPY OF TI lIS DECISION MS BEEN I=11.1 U)WTI-11 TI Ili PLANNIM; liOAR1)A D THE CITY CLL'Rl:
.. rl,al lrrna/Gr.r derijm..,i f aq). iball be made rnrrnaa!/o Sectirut 17 of/he Alau Kbiefe/Li General Uir.;Chap/er 40,4, and shall fie fi/r d wi!hin 20 l
rlq, o/Jilu{! of Ihrr dea,ion in/he o/jire of IGe Ciq Clerk. Pinfruurl/a the Alasra.-Imrelu Genera/l aua Oupler40•I.SeeIron 11, the I ariaa.v or
ll at.d Permit Slatted hinin,has/no/lake efleN nulil a.op nl Me de.inon hearing Me errlifirale of the L/) Clerk bar been l d hill,Me H»e.v.South