6 Botts Court Salem News Form ITH
ESALEM EIS
REQUEST FOR LEGAL NOTICE
Payment is required at the time of the legal notice being received by the city and before it is published in
the newspaper.An email will be sent to you with the cost. Payment by credit card is preferred
Prepaid cost required to run the ad:$540. $270 per day x two(2)days=$540
***Im ortant:Average legal notice costs are estimated;customers paying by check will be refunded if the
legal ad is less than the deposit amount.
If paying by check, please make checks payable to THE SALEM NEWS and mail to:
City of Salem
Dept. Of Planning and Community Development
Co:ZBA
98 Washington St
2na Floor
Salem,MA 01970
Please choose and check one of the boxes for payment option:
BCheck# $540 (attach check)
El Credit Card—Must call Salem News legal notice clerk at 978-675-2710
If payment is not received,the legal notice may be cancelled.
I understand that by signing this form,I am agreeing to the cost of the legal notice to be published in the
newspaper.
Signed Applicant/Authorized Agent
Print Name: Beth Crowley
Address: 6 Botts Court
Salem, MA 01970
Email: beth.crowley@gmail.com
Phone: 781 608-6986
Date: July 10, 2025
Vd `4 1 ftj/-7qoo T
-R�
53-7055/2113 2300
CHRIS DRUCAS ATTORNEY AT LAW
CLIENT'S FUND ACCOUNT DATI:
PAYTOTME
ORMROF!-�bv- NLJ^ r-5se ;K
-w-
DOLLARS
r
SalemPive!
mrmo it" L——4 B-x 114 4617
1: 2 L L 3 ?0 S Sai:
0899D0590411@ 2300
7Y60 53-7055/2113 2301 4
CHRIS DRUCAS ATTORNEY AT LAW
CLIENT'S FUND ACCOUNT
PAY TO I
ORDER Cr T
LLD
DOILARS
SalemFive®
.I \11,700 I
Ar
1: 2 L L 3 70 S SBi:
0139900590lil10 230L
53-7055/2113 2302
CHRIS DRUCAS ATTORNEY AT LAW
CLIENT'S FUND ACCOUNT
Z PAY iF
ORDER OF Alew3
yo, 0
rt Ve, 4tAtItJOIJ gj'(
DOLLARSmta
SalemPi-ve
1: 2 L L 3 ?0 S S 8 1: 0899005904111 230 2
---- ------ - -- --------- --- -
3 7�I,
53-7055/2113
2299
CHRIS DRUCAS ATTORNEY AT LAW
CLIENT'S FUND ACCOUNT
DATE
PAYTO-THI-
If ORDER or-
1) LLAIZS LJ
SalemPiVel
1: 2 L L 1 ?0 S SE11:
0899005904112 2299
MEMO FOR CROWLEY RESIDENCE TO ZONING BOARD
AUGUST MEETING
6 BOTTS COURT, SALEM
To the Board of Appeals,
WHEN REVIEWING AN EXTENTION OR STRUCTURAL CHANGE TO A SINGLE OR
TWO FAMILY STRUCTURE ONE HAS TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF THE PROTECTIONS
AFFORDED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER UNDER CHAPTER 40A SECTION SIX AS SET OUT IN
THE FIRST SO CALLED "EXCEPT CLAUSE" CARVED OUT BY THE STATUTE IN DEALING WITH
PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING STUCTURES AND LOTS.
ONCE YOU HAVE DETERMINED THE PROPERTY, STRUCTURE AND USE IS
AFFORDED THE PROTECTION OF BEING PRE-EXISTING, HAVING BEEN BUILT IN KEEPING
WITH PRIOR REGULATIONS, IF ANY, AND USED AS A SINGLE OR TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE APPLICATION OF THE SO CALLED "SECOND EXCEPT CLAUSE
OF 40A SECTION 6"AND THE LONG LINE OF CASES FROM FITZSIMMONDS TO GALE,
THROUGH THE BRANSFORD, BJORKLAND, DEADRICK AND BELLALTA CASES.
THE STANDARD IS AS SET OUT IN FITZSIMONDS: "WHERE ALTERATION, RECONSTRUTION,
EXTENSION OR STRUCTURAL CHANGE TO A SINGLE OR TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE DOES NOT INCREASE THE NONCONFORMING NATURE OFTHE SAID
STRUCTURE, PRE-EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES OR USES MAY BE
EXTENDED OR ALTERED, PROVIDED, THAT NO SUCH EXTENTION OR ALTERATION
SHALL BE PERMITTED UNLESS THERE IS A FINDING BY THE PERMIT GRANTING
AUTHORITY OR BY THE SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTING AUTHORITY DESIGNATED BY
ORDINANCE OR BY-LAW THAT SUCH CHANGE, EXTENTION OR ALTERATION SHALL
NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE DETRIMENTAL THAN THE EXISTING NONCONFORMING
USE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD."
THE GALE CASE THROUGH BRANSFORD AND BJORKLUND ESTABLISHED THE TWO-PART
TEST OF THE SECOND EXCEPT CLAUSE. THE COURT RULED: "AS CONCERNS SINGLE AND
TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES THE PERMIT GRANTING AUTHORITY MUST
ID ENT]FYTHEPARTICULAR RESPECT OR RESPECTS IN WHICH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE
DOES NONCON FORM TO THE PRESENT BY-LAW AND THEN DETERMINE WHETHER THE
PROPOSED RESULT IN ADDITIONAL ONES.....IF THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS IN
THE AFFIRMATIVE A FINDING OF NO SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT UNDER THE SECOND
SENTENCE IS REQUIRED."
HOWEVER, IF THE ANSWER IS IN THE NEGATIVE THAN THE PERMIT GRANTING
AUTHORITY CAN ISSUE A PERMIT ON THE FINDING OF THE"ALTERATION OR EXTENSION
SHALL NOT BE SUBSTAINTIALLY MORE DETRIMENTAL THAN THE EXISTING
NONCONFORMING USE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD."
IN 2019 THE BELLALTA CASE CONFIRMED THE RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO ALTERED OR
EXTENDED A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE USING THE SO CALLED "SECOND
EXCEPT CLAUSE; " EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE APPLICABLE
BY-LAW THAT WOULD PERMIT THE ALTERATION OF THE EXISTING NONCONFORMITY
THE SAME TWO-PART TEST FOR THE PERMIT GRANTING AUTHORITY IS APPLIED."
WHEN YOU COMBINE THE CASE LAW WITH SECTION 3.3.5. OF THE SALEM ZONING
ORDINANCE WHICH GIVES THE BUILDING COMMISIONER THE RIGHT TO MAKE THAT
DETERMINATION IF HE OR SHE FINDS IT APPROPRIATE AND IF NOT THE PETITIONER MAY
ASKS THE ZONING BOARD TO DO SO BY RELYING ON THE BELLALTA DECISION AND THE
OTHER SITED CAE LAW IN COMBINATION WITH SECTION 3.3.5. AS YOU ARE NOT
LIMMITED TO THE THREE FACTORS LISTED IN MAKING YOUR DETERMINATION.
WE BELIEVE THE ZONING BOARD MAY FIND THE ALTERATIONS PROPOSED WILL NOT
INTENSIFY THE EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES OR RESULT IN NEW ONES, HOWEVER, IF
THE BOARD CANNOT JUSTIFY FINDING THAT THE "ALTERATIONS WOULD NOT INTENSIFY
THE EXIXTING NONCON FORM ITIES OR RESULT IN ADDITIONAL ONES"WE ASK THE
BOARD TO ADDRESS AND ANSWER THE SECEND QUESTION THAT THE ALTERATIONS ARE
"NOT SUBSTANTIALLY MORE DETRIMENTAL TO THEN I EGHBORHOOD".
THE PETITIONER HAS REACHED OUT TO HER NIEGHBORS AND HAS RECEIVED THEIR
SUPPORT AS EVIDENCED BY A LETTER FROM THE ABUTTER THAT WOULD BE MOST
AFFECTED WE HAVE FILED AND THAT WE HAVE APPEARED BEFORE THE HISTORIC
COMMISSION AND HAVE THEIR APPROVAL FORTH IS PROJECT.
WE ASK THE BOARD GRANT THE REQUESTED RELIEF BY FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED
ALTERATIONS OR EXTENTIONS WILL NOT BE "SUBSTANTIALLY MORE DETRIMENTAL TO
THE NEIGHBORHOOD"AND IF THE BOARD DEEMS NECESSARY GRANT ASPECIAL
PERMIT.
RESPE FULLY SUBMITTED,
(�f
CHRIS D S, ATTORNEY FOR
BETH CROWLEY