26 FEDERAL STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION 25 PEDERAL .STREET r
i
MARCH 11, 1981
:4 Ct of gtttem, efassfuluselts
-81 MAR 16' P2 :30
r T. ' �-- -c n{{--ME
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STERN TISE SALEM GROUP, INC. Ahl*,rTIRGt'�.+.tfARIEuvCE FOR
A PARCEL OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT WASHINGTON STREET, FEDERAL STITEET AND NORTH WALKWAY.
A hearing on this Petition was held on March 11, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Mr. Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. LaBrecque, Feeherry, Hacker
and Piemonte. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and a notice
of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on February 25, and March 4,
1981, in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at the above location
as shown on a plan submitted to the Board to allow construction of no more than 10
residential units up to within 26+ feet of the rear property line and to allow the
two entrances for those units to encroach within 20+ feet of the rear property line.
A variance is required because the building is in a B-5 district where the minimum
rear yard requirement is 30 feet.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the-property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The Board adopts all of the findings of fact previously made by this Board
in a March 19, 1980 decision relating to this same parcel.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique for the reasons stated in this Board's
March 19, 1980 decision. .
2. The conditions described above especially affect the land in question but .
do not generally affect the zoning district in which the land is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not
the zoning district generally cause the following special hardships: without the
requested variance, the petitioner will not be able to site their building iri a
manner which is best suited to the surrounding area. This will result in financial
hardship to the petitioner.
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good because the proposed use of the property will improve the appearance
of the entire neighborhood.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief, the Board grants a variance to the petitioners on the following
terms and conditions:
I �
fit of 5ajem, . �fliaosar4usiettz,
.r'1!. ..r '. .
'81 HAR 16 P2 :30
j
DECISION - STERN TISE - PAGE 710 (March 11, 1981)
CITY Cl- Ri:'S vi EICE
Sk'�c;< . .'S
The Board hereby modifies the variance previously granted by the Board of Appeal
on March 19, 1980, to allow the Petitioner to construct 12 residential units and
a commercial office building on the property in question. The variance previously
granted contained the following language "A variance is granted from the 30 foot
minimum rear yard requirement for no more than 2 of the residential units which
may encroach into the rear yard area to within 16 feet of the rear property line".
That language is stricken and the following language is substituted in its place,
"The variance is granted from the 30 foot minimum rear yard requirement for no more
than ten (10) residential units which may encroach into the rear yard area to within
20+ feet of the rear property line, provided however, that the two entrances for
those ten residential units may encroach to within 20+ feet of the rear property
line (i.e. , the northerly property line) ."
Anthony M. Feeherry, Secretary
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUA"IT TO SECT!O`i IT CF THE i'AASS.
GEI_7aL-LA,:S. CEA.PTER 801 FND HALL BE t. CJ DAYS A:IER THE DATE OF F1LIN6
OF THIS 0'L S:-0`: I i Th OF-!Or - TiE C -t C'c 1y.. n.?
PURSA:1 TO S .F .A 's'. r Z,,! �HZ CERT•
iyy i' _
Gtivi7E, ti c�
SHALL I ;, x=? oL Hai CE41 FILED. .`
FlCATfUH o HF .,; ���,� j `4. .•�« ,-CP _'!:E^ IS
OR THAT IF S''�•� Ah PP',,. 4' ' ;o.,? .�. P+ArSIE OF THE OVINER'
RIOCUE I:i THE SO3cH ESSEX c eT t '•"J ' ' .
Of REC.3t^- G P.2 IS RECORDED AND NNED ON HE U1ii1ER'S CER7{FI:,ATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
x
r'+ecumtva''r �IIT�TTTt$ �PiI2IC#I:TP1T#
Robert E. Gauthier
One Salem Green
745-11213 December 5, 1980
TO: W. Gregory Senko, City Planner,
Salem Planning Department
Dear Greg:
As you can see by the attached letter from Captain
David J. Goggin, being a business oriented department head in
granting permits to expedite the development of the City of
Salem seems to backfire. I bent over backwards to help the
Stern Tise Corporation, but it seems that their lack of
cooperation has cast a shadow of negligence on me.
In order to prevent future situations such as
this from occurring, I am enclosing a copy of Section 113.1
of the Massachusetts State Building Code which will have to
be adhered to by all developers and builders working with
the Planning Department.
Would you kindly have copies made and distributed
to your staff.
RR be�authier
Building Inspector
REG:c
enc. 2
Aeo�d Ax
� N Iw �
i;'1 Ll G ! EFT'
C tv of �$atem, Aassachusetts
_C 26 I'FS 9l;tl Fire Uepartment Pe4quarters
dames . '�3rs R :C E JVI 0 48 T1M#%ft *rret
" I'IYOP' sf1C< ,mss.
ChiefJ�ttlem, cmtt_ II1971D
Dec. 4, 1980
Building Inspector Robert Gauthier Re : New Salem Condo. II
One Salem Green 26-30 Federal St.
Salem, Nass. 01970 Salem, Dila.
Job # 7914
Sire
One set of plans, with application and fee, were submitted on
December 1, 1980 to this office for review. Plan date Aug. 27, 1980.
Upon review and under provisions of Article 113. 5 of the Mass. State
Building Code, I am hereby disapproving of said plans. The reasons
are as follows:
1. As a result of failure of the Architect and Electrical Engineer
to contact this office, I have found deficiencies in Plans #E-7
and E-8, regarding fire alarm installation in the office area.
2. The symbols for smoke detectors, heat detectors, manual fire
alarm stations,&audible horns for use in office area, do not
appear in the symbol list. I therefore must assume the symbols
used are for the devices, but until they are listed, I can not
approve the plans.
3. An exterior horn and light device shall be added for the office
area. This is required for commer6=ial or business occupancies.
4. The heat detector shown on the 2ndflo6roffice plan, does not
show on the Fire Alarm riser diagram on Plan E-8.
5. The symbol shown on the symbol listing for smoke detectors in
the apartments, does not specify "multiple station" unit. Each
structure separated by a fire partition is to be protected with
multiple station units.
6. It appears that inadequate coverage is provided for each separate
sleeping area, as required by the code.
7. Until architects and engineers realize that the fire department
has approval of these items and before plans are submitted for
approval, they should hold a conference with the fire prevention
officer, we will continue to have problems. Also, these plans
were not received by this office until after a building permit
was issued and subsequently construction has begun and is not
the procedure which should be gollowed according to code.
Therefore, The Salem Fire Prevention Bureau disapproves the project
and requests the permit be revoked. until adequate plans are submitted
for approval. spec ullly,(s b tte ;
ccs Electrical Dept. t t. J� ,
1Stgphen Tise & Asso. Ca t. avid Gog , Salem Fire Marshal
�; �e ,
� �r ;.
STEPHEN TIE
& ASSOCIAT SS NC. [LIEU4EQ OF VIUMMOD44QL
1330 Beacon Street
BROOKLINE, MA 02146
DATE JOB N
(617) 731-1110- ATTEN
llJJ1l J1�1/117 1/ 1� .� }- RE:
TO S Ill I( I �� L)S LR '
ZZ
GENTLEMEN:
WE ARE SENDING YOU ttached ❑ Under separate c ver via the following items:
❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints tans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED s checked below:
❑ For provaI ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval
or your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submitcopies for distribution
❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints
❑ For review and comment ❑
❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
COPY TO
SIGNED:
FORM 2403 A.miaoiovom nr asO.moa M...m4so If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify uj at once.
xf"
A STEPHEN TISE ARCHITECT
1330 MMM STREET•BROOKUNE,MASWHUSETTS 02146•PHONE:617-731-MO
1 May 1980
Salem Building Department
Department of Public Property
1 Salem Green 3rd floor
Salem, Mass. 09170
ATTN: Mr. Robert Gauthier
RE: NEW SALEM CONDOMINIUMS PHASE II
Dear Mr. Gauthier:
Thank you for your time and assistance with the above referenced project
on 30 April , 1980. This is to confirm our understanding of the code. As
we view it, the project is to be considered attached two family dwellings
with common stairs and entrances. shared by four dwelling units. Also, that
the units be protected with a two hour fire separation wall .
I look forward to meeting with you at your earliest convenience so that
the project may proceed in an expiditious manner.
Very truely yours,
STEPHEN TISE AND ASSOCIATES, INC .
Ficha�rd—A. Wilcox
Project Manager
az
ca
File # 7914 u n CO —
copies to/Mark Wilhelm o m
Dan Mansur r
Chris Olney N
Jeff Stern
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
y�,�.con2t,�c
W.GREGORY SENHO
3 ONE SALEM GREEN
CITY PLANNER
A 01970
(617)744-4580
_ gtcdm4.ob''
MEMO TO: Gregory Senko &Willa Small
FROM: Andy Innes
RE: Senior Center Workshop
DATE: May 1, 1980
1
We, and the Building Department have examined the feasibility of a workshop
in the basement of the Senior Center. The following is the projected scope of work
and preliminary cost estimate.
I. HANDICAP REQUIREMENTS
1. Interior ramp improvements 1,200
2. Enlarging egress door 1,000
3. Bathroom access/thresholds/doors 1,000
4. Bathroom stalls/sinks/toilets 2,000 5,200
II. BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS
1. Move steam pipes, etc. 1,000
2. Ventilation/kilns 1,500
3. Ventilation/workshop 1,000
4. Smoke detectors 200 3,700
III. A & E COSTS
1. Electrical Engineer 500
2. Ventilation Engineer 500
3. Program Coordinator 1,000 2,000
IV SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
1. Cleaning & Demolition 750
2. Partition 500
3. Painting 750
4. Lighting 1,000
5. Electrical Service 2,000
6. Benches 2,500 7,500
1�
MEMO TO: G. Senko & W. Small -2- May 1, 1980
V. EQUIPMENT
Cost of equipment is variable depending on type and quantity - a cost
between 5 and 10,000 dollars would be reasonable. $10,000
VI. TOTAL COSTS
I. HANDICAP $5,200
II. CODE 3,700
III. A & E 2,000
IV. IMPROVEMENTS 7,500
V. EQUIPMENT 10,000
$28,400
CONTINGENCY @ 15% 4,260
$32,660
Cost can be reduced by restricting this scope of work especially in the bath rooms
and equipment purchase::
a
STEPHEN TISE [LIMEN OF TRUBE�4UQ�
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
1330 Beacon Street
BROOKLINE, MA 02146
DATE J I JOB N /
(61.7) 731'11.10 ATTENTIOtjS
V�ej
RE:
TO r
9a*- V O/170
t' 9 p
GENTLEMEN:
WE ARE SENDING YOUAttached ❑ Under separate over via the folltivud� itemS?�
❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints lans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications�4f
S
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ '
COPIES DikTE NO, DESCRIPTION
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑ For roval El Approved as submitted ElResubmit copies for approval
or your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submitcopies for distribution
❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints
❑ For review and comment ❑
❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
COPY TO '
SIGNED:
FORM2403 Avallaolelram es omnia,x.::.suso If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us/at once.
(Dig of 5; �M, gazzachaulto MAR L i L 5u t'f{ W
Psarb v Appeal CITY
SALEM, HASS,
MARCH 19, 1980
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (OWNERS) AND
STERN-TISE SALEM GROUP, INC. (PETITIONERS) REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR CERTAIN
PROPERTY AT THE INTERSECTION OF FEDERAL STREET AND WASHINGTON STREET
On February 20, 1980, a hearing was held before the Board of Appeals at
which time the Board denied Petitioners' request for variance relating to
this property. The Petitioners have however; in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A Section 17 made specific and material changes in
their petition, thus allowing the Board to hear this matter.
A hearing on this revised Petition was held on March 19, 1980 with
the following Board Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr. , Chairman, Messrs.
Hopper, LaBrecque,__Feeherry and Hacker. Notices of the hearing were sent
to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the
Salem Evening News on March 5, 1980 and March 12, 1980 in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested variances from rear yard and side yard
setback requirements for property at Washington and Federal Streets to
construct residential units and a commercial office building. The property
in question is in a B-5 Zoning district.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented
at the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following
findings of fact:
1. The Petitioners propose to construct 12, residential units and a
commercial office building at the property in question. The proposed
construction represents the continuation (or Phase II) of the re-
development of this general area of Salem.
2. The Petitioners' proposed development involves construction on a
parcel of land which, because of its location in the center of Salem,
is of particular importance to the continued redevelopment of Salem.
3. The Plans submitted to the Board by the Petitioners shows an attractive
development of the highest quality, the design of which demonstrates
a careful effort to integrate the proposed project into the area in
question.
4. The proposed development will include 20 off-street parking spaces.
5. The proposed development will not adversely affect traffic patterns or
parking in the area.
6. The proposed development is strongly supported by the Salem Redevelop-
ment.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented .
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
-iO y
s
CITY c•_�_,.r 'A SS.
Plard Appeal EPt
SAL + NABS.
PAGE TWO - DECISION - SALEM REDEVELOPMENT RUTH. & STERN-TISE
(1) The specific location of the land in question is unique because
of its shape and location at two different intersections. In
addition to the uniqueness of the land in question the property
is also unique because of limitations on the development of this
parcel arising from the impact of the Salem Urban Renewal Plan.
(2) The conditions described above especially affect the land in
question but do not generally affect the zoning district in which
the land is located.
(3) The conditions described above which affect the land in question,
but not the zoning district generally cause the following special
hardship: unless the requested variances are granted, the land
will not be developed in accordance with its most appropriate use
as determined by the Salem Urban Renewal Plan.
(4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good because the development will not adversely affect
traffic patterns or parking and will significantly enhance the appear-
ance of the area.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of
granting the requested relief. The Board grants variances as requested by the
petitioners on the following terms and conditions.
1. A variance is granted from the 30 foot side yard restriction for the
westerly side of the residential units at the specific location of
the party wall between the residential units and the commercial office
building. No side yard set back whatsoever will be required at that
location.
2. A variance is granted from the 30 foot minimum rear yard requirement
for no more than two of the residential units may encroach into the
rear yard area to within 16 feet of the rear property line.
3. Subject to further action by the Salem Redevelopment Authority and
the Salem Design Review Board the petitioners are directed to utilize
dense plantings at a minimum height of eight feet to shield the parking
area from view along Washington Street and including the Bridge Street
intersection.
4. The petitioners are, with respect to barriers proposed for the Federal
Street-Washington Street intersection, directed to comply with all
applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance relating to visability at
intersections, Section VII-G.
5. The petitioners are directed to maintain twenty parking spaces at the
location and to maintain a single 20 foot access to the parking area
from Rust Street.
Anthony M Feeherry
Acting Secretary
it- ' 17 ' - 'EIT
L F C )40.❑ °r y r: (' >i G u t
- Ct � :-AT 90 r;f' r I
i . . i.:iv +
-
- wS=t 1 t7 Ll ! .- o t:i4 I
C' '-• Id OKDF,O P.`ID LLfcU Gni 1 c G>IlER'3 CI RTIF;CA[- OF limb.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH TI PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
19 of of gal m, asBaC s�##2
fi
x MAR I i 59 ['�� F
23=b of A"fal
SAL Mr HAM FEBRUARY 20, 1980
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STERN-TISE SALEM GROUP, INC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO
PROPERTY OWNED BY THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AT THE CORNER OF FEDERAL STREET
AND WASHINGTON STREET.
A hearing on this petition was held on February 20, 1980 with the following Board
Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr., Chairman; Douglas Hopper; James Hacker; Edward
Luzinski and Joseph Piemonte. Notice of the hearing was .sent to abutters and others and
a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on February 6 and 13,
1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The petitioners are requesting variances from the required side yard and rear
yard requirements for the construction of a three level structure for multi-family
residential use. The proposed plans call for the construction of 16 condominium units
and parking for 19 cars.
Mr. Christopher Olney, Project Administrator of the Salem Redevelopment Authority
represented the petitioners before the Board. He presented a letter from W. Gregory .
Senko, City Planner in favor of the petition. He stated that 18 months ago the Phase I
of this Redevelopment area was started and the 18 units have been all sold. He stated
they are before the Board due to technical problems with the Zoning Ordinance. They
have a decrease in the parking ratio in order to have greater density. He stated the
burden of parking in the residential units is at night when there is plenty of parking
in the down town area. Mr. Steven Tise of the Stern-Tise Salem Group, Inc. , stated
that this is a unique type of housing which they find is very successful in cities. The
project will be of the highest quality, but these will be smaller units than Phase I.
Mr. Olney informed the Board that the Redevelopment Authority has accepted the
introduction of small office space at the corner of Washington Street. Mrs. Morse, .
Trustee of the Universalist Church appeared in favor. Mr. Charles Phipps former
Trustee of the church appeared in favor.
Jan Robins, 7 Ase Street appeared, and stated she was not in opposition to the
petition, she had to disagree with the statements that the parking was not a problem.
She stated that Ash Street is a very narrow street with no parking on either side, and
she has had to have cars moved to get out of the street because of the overflow of
parkers from the constructed condominiums. There was no opposition.
In rebuttal the petitioner stated that not all the units of the existing .con-
dominiums are occupied, and that the spaces are being occupied by shoppers and workers.
The parking will be controled by the residents association shortly. In Phase II the
reduced bedroom count should make the parking adequate. Mrs. Robins stated that she
works in Boston during the day, and her complaints are about early evening and night-
time parking.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and other evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes the following:
1. The parking is not in compliance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance and to
vary this requirement will further aggrivate the existing parking problem
and would be a detriment to the public good.
MAR ► i 1 s� ?ii 'cli# of Salem, fflaszar4usefts
Aaara of 4If .
DECISION - PAGE TWO
FEBRUARY 20, 1980
STERN-TISE SALEM GROUP
SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2. The o feet setback at Washington Street side of the property should be
15 feet so as to comply with Salem's Zoning Ordinance and create more
open spaces in a residential development.
The Board voted to deny the variance requested. Chairman Boulger and Messrs.
Luzinski, and Piemonte voted to deny and Messrs. Hopper and Hacker voted not to
deny.
VARIANCES DENIED
Douglas 'Hopper
Acting Secretary
",PPF ?y1S CECiIC� ' , ld!Y S9ML, BE :MADE FC?SUA?T i0 SECTION 17 OF THE 1!J3SS. -
2i>iP?M1I -
ri';. --; ?O DAYS A•'TE.? THE NATE Cr iWtdG
)F TH C.T' UE.:?
v6RSA t IN, CF E4,,L L -e C4A7Ti o
1 . - ;.. 7rl.ST -
,.
G87nn?. 3F SSC:: -
- x � LF� _ - Lr Tric" Si.X7i5R
`s'�$��LT `r 3D.�"+?%,3R•+�3^r,.^.'ik1s G.i -4.,�.Y v�,�'rr.'.1".AAE-'J,� :`;+fir .
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.