1 FLORENCE STREET - BUILDING JACKET - I FT.ORENCE�STREET {
oNDIp
44
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
t-()kX1\SIIIM;ION SI III I,'[
Tl:I,F:978-745-9,j95
N IA Olt 978-740-9846 M
C)
June 10, 2014 >
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals ow
Petition of G. RACHEL HILL requesting a special permit per Sec 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and
Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the operation of a dog
daycare business and the fencing of the outside space, at the property located at I FLORENCE
STREET (R3 Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 21, 2014 PUBLIant to M.G.L Ch. 40i\,
hearing was closed on that data with the fol § 11, 'file
lowing Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. 1-farris
(acting Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. COPelas (Alternate).
The Petitioner seeks a Special permit per Sec 3.3.2 Noil,nqblwzq Uw and a Special Permit Per Sec. 3.3.3
NoruarfnryuirrgStnictarz•rof the Salem Zoning Ordinance
Statements of fact:
1. In tile Petition date-stamped April 30, 2014, the Petitioner requested special Permits per Sec 3.3.2
Nont,wifi),711jila tjJesarld Sec. 3.3.3 of the Salem
operation of,I dog claycare business and the fencing of the outside spa Zoning Ordinance, to allow the
2. space.
Ms. Rachel Fill and Mr. Greg Salamida present the petition for the property at I Florence Street.
3. The petition proposes to operate a (10!gic daycare bLISmeSS Out Of I Florence Street, and to erect a
fence for an Outdoor (109 run in an area at the 'rear Of the property.
4. At the public hearing, it was determined that the Ipplicartoll did not actually require a
under Section 3.3.3 Nonco�ilwwjljg 3,11-11,-111jrs of the Special Perrilat
Permit Linder Section 3.3.2 Non,oqi)j7;jjtjg Uses.
Salem Zoning Ordinance— it only requires a Special
5. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to Operate a doggie daycare IJUSHICSS at the
Property, including :I fenced Outdoor clog run.
6. At the public hearing, the owner of I Florence Street expressed his support for the Pennon. No Other
members Of the public spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the Petition.
ffie Salem Board Of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the Public hearing, and
after thorough review of the
Petitions, including the application narrative and plans and the petitioner's
presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the
Provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance:
Findings —
1. The Proposal scn�es a Community need by caring for pets in the area.
2. I'llerc are no apparent additional impacts on traffic flow or safety.
3The utilities and Public sctvices to the building will be adequate.
4. t'hercare no apparent negative impacts on the natural environment, including %-ie\V.
r, .
�Cityrof Salem Board of Appeals
June 10, 2014
Project:47 Summer Street
Page 2 of 2
5. The proposed business is in keeping with the neighborhood character.
6. The proposal will have a positive economic and fiscal impact.
On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor
(Mr. Watkins, bls. Harris, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas, and Mr. Duffy in favor) and none (0), to grant the
requested Special Permit to allow the operation of a clog daycare business at the property, subject to the
following terms, conditions, and safeguards:
I. The 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. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
6. A Certificate of Inspection 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. 'The business shall only operate during typical retail hours — 6:30am to 1 1:00pm.
Annie Harris,r\cling Chair
Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION FIAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CI`IT CLERK
Appeallrorn Ibis decision, f 1q, shall be grade pursuant to Section 17 of 1he rYluewrboseltr Genera!L_cam Chapter JOA, crux/ilia//he filed mi/Gin 20
r1uy,of filing o/thu deciaCity
ion in lbe oaiee of lbe Clerk. Pncruont to IGe dhoominuells General Lows Clrrrpler JOA, .Se,lion /Ge l'arrcurce or
Special Permilgrnnted herein r1,,111 mol lecke 0,/nmlil a copy of the deasion bean q lbe Benilicu/e a�//oe Cite Clerk has been Ji/ed u,itG the L'tie� Snrr/b
Regi oy of Dee(Is.
4.
Az V.f, 34 Lo! 72 D', ak, M-49 pg 455
77
�-t" 24272 44� 7-77
49A
st
OR
Ft,ISTRY USE" ONLY
APPROVAL UNDER SUBDIVISION
Ff..k 24622 PC
� 4� ONTROL LAW NOT REQUIRED
--,
—A4AI PLAN'NING BOARD
to d 8 6"0 R.y. 234
11d Sk, 4671 '52
3,S74iCT - R�
34 "r 27�
i8 Pori, si.
e- 7.07 Jg 490
ikh 11 4enn1 J. L,it,d
,o.,
8, 14
2;7 eq 1
OF 1 I n. Az 071 REOL)NN"
APPRGVASNOER !HSdBj)!V.SON CQ.K-4,. OL L4W
CofrORMAtr- :r7AR N!4'2 09'
K C.", TER .STREET
7. 4
Cv
POR
W4'24'01rW
57 10,
—Ze
PLAN OF LAND 8,00'
iN
!!A., 3- t', 1021
SALEM, MASSACHUSMS f �4<1 52'
Prepared For Vap 14 Lest n)1
Benny: J. Fisheries Limited
5 Florence Street 5 A
and St.,
15 Porter St.
Anthony J. Picaneilo 4 nese +243: P, 326
1 Florence Street
Prepared By at t, Rm,;,Oes cr ^ettda.
Leblanc Survey Associates, In(:,
161 Holten Street
Danvcrs, MA 01903
(978) 779-6012 L�,t 490
August 21, 2009 Scale: 1"=20` B�11.1 J
. vrsrm.ies Revised November 30, 2009 7 St.
oee,; Ej, 2462", F, 534
�R, S'A�I, IN
20 --oz�- Z•'S0119 11
—
c, mrd
Fig Ij 6 � iC� g ofttlem, � �zssrzrl�u��tf b t9 a13 '89
` F Paurb of C u} eaj F `4
r
it 3Y. .,'A. ...
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANTHONY J. PICARIELLO FOR AN
ADMINISTRATIVE RULING REGARDING PROPERTY AT j FLORENCE ST. ,
a/k/a 51R CANAL ST. , a/k/a 22 PORTER ST. (R-3/R-2/5-4)
A hearing on this petition was held February 15, 1989 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Strout, Luzinski
and Nutting. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance
with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting an Administrative Ruling that
the proposed use as a machine shop, a food provision warehouse and an engraving
business were included in the Board's intent at the time this Board granted a
variance to the same petitioner for the same property on November 19, 1986. In
the alternative the petitioner requests the Board to grant a variance for the
uses set forth in the Zoning Ordinance in B-1 , B-2, B-3, B-4 and I District with
certain restrictions set forth in his petition.
The petitioner submitted a summary of the inherent power of this Board to take
such action as set forth in the case of Board of Selectmen of Stockbridge v.
Monument Inn, Inc. , 8 Mass App. Ct. 158, 391 NE 2nd 1265 ( 1979) by the Massa-
chusetts Appeals Court.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and
after reviewing the alternatives and discussing its prior action, makes the
following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition;
2. One abutter, as well as the petitioner, spoke in favor of the ruling;
3. It was the intention of the Board at its earlier hearing to allow the
uses set forth in the petitioner's request for an Administrative Ruling;
4. All findings set forth in the original variance still apply.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed use as a machine shop, a food provision warehouse and an
engraving business are in keeping with the intent of the original
variance granted November 19, 1986.
2. The granting of the Administrative Ruling will not be substantially
detrimental to the public good and will not nullify or substantially
derogate from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
3. The Board determined that the relief the petitioner could be granted
was on the Administrative Ruling and not on the Variance requested in
the alternative.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANTHONY J. PICARELLO FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE
RULING FOR 1 FLORENCE ST. , a/k/a 51R CANAL St. , a/k/a 22 PORTER ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore,the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Administrative Ruling allowing the petitioner to use the premises for a
machine shop, a food provision warehouse and an engraving business as requested,
subject to the same conditions granted in its original variance granted
November 19, 1986.
ADMINISTRATIVE RULING GRANTED
James Fleming, Esq. , Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
,�rPEAL FROM. THIS 0: ;SIvN, '- ;,NY SHALL BE '!;ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 .:F
C SN ERAL LAl'i S. CHAPi ^ g-S A;IO SHALL SE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DAFE
GF THIS DECISION 1?1 THE OMCE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PJRSAiv'i TO :.;ASS. 0E'16T!d. L;,l7S. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR
RANI EO HEREIN. SHALL NO' 7�KE EFFECT U'MI. A COPY OF
FILATION OF THF CITY CLER:. T2AT 20 f„12 HAVE' ELAPSED AND No APPEAL HAS _—J F,:
Cd THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL H,'3 BSI
E:I F ;LE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS;0ISSED OR CE:lIEOS
RECJRDED IN THE SOOTH ESSEX RECISIRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE ri A.'dE CF THE
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD 01 APPEAL