Loading...
5 FRIEND STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION�T 5 FRIEND STREET CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING DEPARTMENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET,31iD FLOOR TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX(978) 740-9846 KINMERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR TY-IOMAS STYIERRE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROPERTY/BUILDING COMMISSIONER May 14, 2015 Marcelus Nguanji Florence Atcheah 5 Friend Street Salem, Ma. 01970 RE: Required Inspection Dear Owners, This Department has previously contacted you to make sure that you understood the zoning status of your property. The property, 5 Friend Street is a single family home. Recently, we have received complaints that you occupied the home as a two family and even more concerning, moved in a number of folding beds. Per the authority of Mass State Building Code 780 CMR, Section R106, a"required inspection"has been scheduled for Wednesday, May 201h at 10:00 a.m. All areas of the home must be available for inspection. If you feel you are aggrieved by this directive, your appeal is to the Board of Buildings, Regulations and Standards in Boston. If you have any further questions, please contact me directly. Sincerely, Thomas St. Pierre Zoning Enforcement Officer Director of Inspectional Services ;• J SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY ■ Complete items.1,,?,and 3.Also complete `'� A. Signature item 4 if Restrited�Delivey is desired. X ■ Print your name an&addr ss on the reverse (� Addressee so that we Can return'the card to you. B. Received by(Panted Name) C. Date of Delivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Address D. Is delivery address different from item 17 E3 yes d to: rn Q�"n t ( CKJ �/— r If YES,enter delivery address below: 13 No 3. S ice Type 0 Certified Mail® ❑Priority Mail Express^ ❑Registered ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑Insured Mail ❑Collect on Delivery 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number �n (Transfer from service tabeg Zee) V CJ odd , p�q� �7� PS Form 3811,July 2013. /// Domestic Return Receipt L E P"".fy UNITED STATEF�P&W&RVICE —FiirstZi-ass�;il\ MA vl'upovtae e&'Fe66'.Paid Ce -11AN 'Permit No.G�10�'o� ' ' • Sender: Please print your name, address and ZIPS+ 4®in this box* City Of Salem Building Department 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 / CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ltIr y#: BUILDING DEPARTMENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET,3AD FLOOR TEL. (978)745-9595 FAX(978) 740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR THomAs STTIERRE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROPERTY/BUILDING COMNIISSIONER August 28, 2014 Marcelus Nguanji and Florence Atcheah 5 Friend Street Salem Ma. 01970 re :zoning violation Dear Owners, This Department has previously determined that 5 Friend Street is a single family home. We have received information that you are renting or attempting to rent a second unit in this building. You are required to contact this office to set up a required inspection of this building within 7 days of receipt of this notice.Failure to arrange for this inspection will result in Municipal Code fines and further enforcement actions.If you feel you are aggrieved by my zoning interpretation, your Appeal is to the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals. If you have any questions,please contact me directly' Sincerely, Thomas St.AAierre _ Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTIONI ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete , A. ignature \ item 4 if Restdcted Delivery is desired. X11Agent ■ Print your name and address on the reverse VAVvO.N\ Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Receiv d b Nam C. Date of Delivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from Rem 1? ❑Yes If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑ No V>ti 10–e—–e �� ^ 3. Service ed Mail ❑Express Mall ❑Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery](Extra Fee) ❑yes 2. Article Number �( (Transfer from service label) / � 5 PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 tJy'o"nsrr r c- im 'UNITED STATE$:�Q�S' .§ERVICE„_ FI g SPS y Pe t No.G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this boxQ,? m City Of Salem V Building Department 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 I!+111,1ji'milill1i i Jill 1111111ijililiuiinlillu1llliiliiil CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS v6�CA BOARD OF APPEAL CITY Of �ALM IMA CLERW820FIdtE ri 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR afY ?q SALEM, MA 01970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846p��* 99 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. "�! vK-3I ')A-9i.14b MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL CAISSE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 FRIEND STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held December 18, 2002 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Hams, Nicholas Helides and Bonnie Belair. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening New in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from side setback, rear setback, and lot coverage to construct a 24' x 24' addition for the property located at 5 Friend Street located in an R-2 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, upon a finding Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,building Or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands,buildings, and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners.. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of this district of the purpose of the Ordinance The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner and his architect David Jaquith of Beverly appeared and presented his petition. 2. Plans were shown showing the proposed 24 x 24 addition to his property. The addition will require a variance from the side setback, rear setback and lot coverage. 3. Councillor Michael Bencal spoke in favor of the addition. 4. There was no opposition. CITY 9F SAL M SPA CLERX'S VIA DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL CAISSE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 FRIEND STREET R-2 I DEC 31 A q; 11b page two On the basis of the above finding of fact, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petition. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore,the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction 4. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimension submitted and approved approved by the Building Commissioner. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance Granted December 18, 2002 Nina Cohen Board of Appeal ' RONAN, SEGAL & HARRINGTON GICLERK 5~OFFICEiA ATTORNEYS AT LAW FIFTY-NINE FEDERAL STREET JAMES T.RONAN(1922-1987) SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970-3470 JACOB S.SEGAL MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON 2005 MAR 2 i A U)' Ob GEORGE W.ATIONS, III PAIGE K HINTLIAN TEL(978)744-0350 FAX(978)744-7493 FILE NO. OF COUNSEL JOHN H.RONAN MICHAEL J.ESCHELBACHER March 21, 2005 City Clerk's Office City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: 5 Friend Street, Salem, MA 01970 Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed for filing please find a Notice of Appeal of a Decision of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal on the above-referenced property and a copy of a Complaint filed in the Land Court Department, being Civil Action No. So b Thank you. ply yours, Paig K. Hintlian Enclosures Receipt Acknowledged Dated: Cl i 1' LIL SP,LEt'i, MA •NOTICE OF APPEAL CLERK'S- OFFICE OF A DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL FOR THE CITY OF SALEM BY WAY FOR A COMPLAINT FILED IN THE LAND CWRAR 21 A 10: 06- The Plaintiff named in the attached Complaint hereby gives notice of his Appeal of the Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeal of the City of Salem entitled"Decision OnThe Petition of Rene Aubertin Requesting a Special PermitNariance For The Property Located At 5 Friend Street R-2" dated February 16, 2005 and filed with the Salem City Clerk March 2, 2005, and the Amended Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeal of the City of Salem entitled"Amended Decision" dated February 16, 2005 and filed with the Salem City Clerk March 3, 2005. Rene Aubertin, ---...B�his attorneys Georg,' W. Atkins, III BBO 023350 Dated: March 21, 2005 Paige K. Hintlian BBO# 643712 Ronan, Segal & Harrington 59 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 978-744-0350 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. DEPARTMENT OF THE LAND COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. Rene Aubertin, Plaintiff rn C) V. x. Nina Cohen, Bonnic Belair, Edward Moriarty, Richard op, Dionne, and Nicholas Helides, D —' as they are members of the rn 3 Zoning Board of Appcal of o cy- the City of Salem COMPLAINT 1. This is an appeal from a decision by the Zoning Board of Appeal of the City of Salem, Massachusetts, (hereinafter the "Board") wherein the Board exceeded its authority by requiring Plaintiff to petition the Board for approval to convert a single family dwelling to a two family dwelling. The Board further exceeded its authority by denying Plaintiff's petition for a special permit to convert a single family dwelling (hereinafter the "Premises") to a two family dwelling, as the Premises is in an R-2 residential zone, has the required number of parking spaces per dwelling unit, and is.not a substantial detriment to the neighborhood. In the event the Court finds a variance was required, the Board exceeded its authority in failing to find that the Plaintiff met the requirements of M.G.L. 40A, §10 and denying use of the Premises as a two family residence. PARTIES 2. The Plaintiff, Rene Aubertin, is a natural person residing in Salem, MA, and as applicant and owner of the Premises, is a person aggrieved. 3. The Defendant, Nina Cohen, is a member of the Board and resides at 22 Chestnut Street, Salem, MA. 4. The Defendant, Bonnie Belair, is a member of the Board and resides at 113A Federal Street, Salem, MA. 5. The Defendant, Edward Moriarty, is a member of the Board and resides at 29 Winter Island Road, Salem, MA. 6. The Defendant, Richard Dionne,is a member of the Board and resides at 23 Gardner Street, Salem, MA. 7. The Defendant, Nicholas Helides, is a member of the Board and resides at 20 Central Street, Unit 211, Salem, MA. JURISDICTION 8. This Court hasjurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A, Section 17. PACTS 9. The Premises is a residential structure located at 5 Friend Street, Salem, MA 01970. 10. The existing use of the Premises is currently a single family residence, located in a two family (R-2) residential zoning district. 11. As a result of the City of Salem Building Inspector's refusal to issue a permit for occupancy of the Premises by two families, Plaintiff was required to petition the, Board ol'Appeal for the City of Salem for relief. 12. On or about November 10, 2004, an application to the Board of Appeal for the City of Salem was filed by the Plaintiff. In said application, Plaintiff sought a Special Permit in accordance with Section 5-3(j), to expand use of the nonconforming structure to two family use which is a permitted use under the Zoning Ordinance (attached as Exhibit 1). 13. The Board advertised the petition as seeking a special permit and a variance (attached as Exhibit 2). COUNT 14. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 13 above. 15. The Plaintiff does not require a special permit to be issued by the Board as a two family residence is lawful under the statute and/or the variance granted on December 18, 2002 (attached at Exhibit 3). 16. A variance was issued by the Board on December 18, 2002 authorizing the prior Premises owner to add a 24 foot by 24 toot addition. 17. The December 18, 2002 variance did not require as a condition the 24 foot by 24 foot addition be utilized solely for the purposes of a single family residence. 18. The December 18, 2002 variance did not require Board approval for two family use. 19. The Board exceeded its authority by requiring the Plaintiff to seek a Special Permit to convert the Premises to a two family residence. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff herein prays that the decision of the Board be annulled, and the Court find the Board's approval is not required for two family use of the Premises. COUNT II 20. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 19 above. 21. The Premises is located in a two family residential (R-2) zone. 22. A special permit for a two family residence may be granted without substantial detriment to the neighborhood as there are numerous two family residences in the immediate area and the applicable zoning permits such structures in the zoning district. 23. The proposed use of the Premises by Plaintiff would create a second unit, with the required three car parking spaces on the Premises. 24. A special permit for a two family residence may be granted without substantial detriment to the neighborhood as the required number ol'parking spaces per dwelling unit is available on the Premises. 25. After a public hearing, the Board denied the application for a special permit by written decision dated February 16, 2005, and tiled with the Salem City Clerk on March 2, 2005 (attached as Exhibit 4), and amended decision dated February 16, 2005 and tiled with the Salem City Clerk on March 3, 2005 (attached as Exhibit 5). A certified copy of each decision is attached herewith. 26. The Board exceeded its authority by denying the Plaintiffs petition for a Special Permit to convert the Premises to a two family residence. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff herein prays that the decision of the Board be annulled, and the Special Permit be granted. COUNT III 27. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 26 above. 28. The Board advertised the public hearing as on a petition for a special permit and a variance (attached as Exhibit 2). 29. In the event the Court finds that a variance was required, the Board exceeded its authority in failing to issue a variance as the Plaintiff met the requirements of M.G.L. 40A, §10, providing for a variance by demonstrating at the public hearing that: (a) owning to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape, or topography of such land or structures and especially such land or structures, but not affecting generally the Zoning district in which it is located; (b) a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or by-law would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner appellant; and (c) that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of such ordinance or by-law. 30. The Premises is located in a two family (R-2) residential zone. 31. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the Plaintiff. 32. A two family residence may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose ol'such ordinance as there are numerous two family residences in the immediate area and the zoning permits such structures in the zoning district. 33. As plaintiff has mel the requirements of M.G.L. 40A, §10, a variance is permitted in accordance with the terms of said statute and the Salem Zoning Ordinance. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff herein prays that if this Honorable Court finds a variance is required for the Premises, the decision of the Board be annulled and the variance be granted. Respectfully submitted Plaintiff Relic lies n By hi orneys, rge W. ns, 111 BB09 50 e K. Hintlian BBO1643712 Ronan, Segal 6: Harrington 59 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 978-744-0350 EXHIBIT 1 C ' CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ONDITf��i BOARD OF APPEAL ZOOS JAN -b j P 2: 48 _ 1 TO THE BOARD OF APPEAL: The Undersigned represent that they are the owners) of a certain parcel of land located at: 5 FRIEND Street; Zoning District R-2 and said parcel is affected by Section(s)6-Table I;7-3:(e) (4)b of the Iekmteceds• Salem Zoning Ordinance Plans describing the work proposed have been submitted to the Inspector of Buildings in accordance with Section IX A.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Not Applicable -'. Direct Appeal The Application for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following reason(s): No Applicable - Direct Appeal The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeal to vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code and order the Inspector of Buildings to approve the application fee permit to build as filed, as the enforcement of said Zoning By-Laws and Building Code would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for the following reasons: Petitioner requests a Special Permit inaccordancewith Section 5-3(j) , to expand — use of the nonconforming structure to two family use which is a permitted use under the _ Zoning Ordinance but the lot does not conform with the Table I.requirement for Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit. (PI,EASE PRINT) Rene Aubertin Petitioner: Rene Aubertin C o onan, ega arrington .jr'oss; 71 Saltinstall Pkwy, Salem Address: 59 Federal Street Salem UA 01970 N0. C1 7 7qc� 330 1 Tel. No. 998) 744-0350 B gna orney George W. Atkins Da e. ovember 2004 'his original application must be filed with the City.Clerk. A certified copy of this petition will be returned to 'atitioner at the time of filing with the City Clerk, to then be filed with the Secretary of the Board of Appeal , four :ra:cks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeal, along with a check for advertising in the amount of made payable to the"Salem Evening News". A TRUE COPY ATTEST: CITY CLERK EXHIBIT 2 B6 Wednesday,January12,2005 TI-IE SALEM NEWS LOCAL Manchester-by-the--Se( Brush-burnmLy en itson sale p COLIN STEE1J7 "ICs.only supposed to be brush- the hire Department receives SPAIT wRl'ITIt type material,"he said. Slate laip allows file cones from people who left their Permitted residents must call brush pile unattended,he added. The state's brush-burning sea- the Fire Department for permis• dePaf7777ents to fine State law allows local fire depart: son begins Friday, and permits Sion the day they plan to burn ments to fine residents or bill are now for sale at the Manches- brush,and all fires need to be out tagdenis for the costs of then for the costs of responding ter and Essex fire stations. by 4 p.m, oudin Wiles caused to fires caused by non-permit.tcd The permits cost$5 in Manches- Burning should take place at f brush burning. ter and$10 in Essex,and they cov- least 75 feet away from any by U011 permitted brush Essex accepts checks only for er the entire burning season, structure, and people should the permits, while Manchester which runs from Jan.15 through have a hose and a rake on hand bundig residents may pay by cash or May 1. to control the flames. check. , Residents should not be burn Fires should never be left For more information call I.hc ing lumber or plywood,Manches- alone, but if the fire becomes a "We'd be glad to come out and Essex Fire Department at (97R) ter fire Chief Andrew Paskalis problem,cal)the fire department help,"he said. 768-6363 or the Manchester Fire said. immediately,Paskalis said. The majority of brush fire calls Department at(978)526-4040. ■ MANCHESTER CALENDAR Ha.s your chil WEDNESDAY,JAN.12 transportation,call(978)526.7500. Manchester-Essex Rotary Club THURSDAY,JAN.13 lost interest meets,TIS a.m.,Manchester Legion Hall. Guests are invited. Manchester Mothers Club play- Aerobics class for senior citizens, group,9:30 to II a.m.,Manchester Com- in • 9:30 to 10:30 a.m.,Plains meeting room, munity Center.(978)526.7675 or(978) Yoarebildmaynudbela with poor reading, off Old Essex Road.SI per class. For 526-4664. math or study skills. He or she may be unmo vated or lack confidencc,despite a - good I.Q. Our unified teachers helpp children Legal Notice Legal Notice overcome frustration and failure. A fcw hours a week an help students gain the Educational Edge.° CITY OF SALEM CITY OF SALEM • WEAK BASIC SKIDS BOARD OF APPEAL BOARD OF APPEAL • FRUSTRATION V/MI SCHOOL 745-9595 Ext.381 745-9595 Ext.381 • LACK OF CONFIDENCE Will hold a public hearing for all Will hold a public hearing for all • NO MOTIVATION a persons interested in the petition sub persons interested in the petition sub milled by LEWIS LEGON requesting a mitted by RENE AUBERTIN requesting rnmm�utc xnn amarum rnafaerneSarrrnr ' Special Permit per Section"and 9- a Special Permit &Variance from lot cavus lwrnNG.ne,PRonrct srzwnu;vxnrxNn.unxrrraer: 4(b)to allow the brick building to the area per dwelling unit to allow a sec- rear to be converted to two redden- end unit for the property located at 5 Huntington tial units for the property located at Friend STREET R-2.Said hearing will LEARNING CENTER' 131 DERBY STREET B-17R•2. Said be held on WEDNESDAY,JANUARY hearing will be held on WEDNESDAY, 19,2005, 6:30 P.M., 120 WASHING- Your child car learn. 1°e. a°a, JANUARY 19, 2005,6:30 P.M., 120 TON STREET, 3RD FLOOR, ROOM WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD 313. CHELMSFORD DANVEIIS METHUEN FLOOR,ROOM 313. 978-256-3600 978-777-1533 978-689-8400 Nina Cohen Nina CohenChairman Chairman (M. 12) - Legal Notice (1/5, 12) THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS tf:F 1.wo I MASSHIGHWAY NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING A Design Public Hearing will be held by MassHighway to discuss the pro- Become posed Howley Street bridge replacement project over the North River in the city of Peabody,Massachusetts. WHERE:Peabody City Hall,Wiggin Auditorium,24 Lowell Street,Peabody,MA Foster 01960. WHEN:Wednesday,January 19,2005 at 6:00 p.m. Right now,one of the realest thins you can do for our community PURPOSE: To provide the public with the opportunity to become fully 9 9 9 Y Y ty is to �......,1„r...r..•:... ,�_ _.,,_____, :__:__ _.... ,. ... become a foster naronrvnn.°nlr rc__,.°.r.aa.-.,;_..,,... ..,m.. . EXHIBIT 3 �oxoi� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS c- - K> BOARD OF APPEAL CITYOF Scc'ALC„1'F 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOQI-Eft,J urr, SALEM, MA 01970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 96�MN81 FAX (978) 740.9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. 10O Lot. j j MAYOR DECISION OF TI-m- PETITION OF PAUL CAISSE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 FRIEND STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held December 18, 2002 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris, Nicholas 1-1clides and Bonnie Belair. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening New in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from side setback, rear setback, and lot coverage to construct a 24' x 24' addition for the property located at 5 Friend Street located in an R-2 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, upon a finding Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building Or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings, and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners.. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of this district of the purpose of the Ordinance The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner and his architect David Jaquith of Beverly appeared and presented his petition. 2. Plans were shown showing the proposed 24 x 24 addition to his property. The addition will require a variance from the side setback, rear setback and lot coverage. 3. Councillor Michael Bencal spoke in favor of the addition. 4. There was no opposition. CITY W SALE .,, CLERK'S:0 � e " DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL CAISSE REQUESTING*1 fttlAVCX x.46 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 FRIEND STREET R-2 page two On the basis of the above finding of fact, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the"Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petition. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction 4. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimension submitted and approved approved by the Building Commissioner. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance Granted December 13, 2002 /J/Me`� Nii/na Cohen �: y Board of Appcal i;Cd '" ai•,wt.t4t, rtl.�i•:r e:. EXHIBIT 4 yr .#E+Ltm, rnAbb^%.r wbr- I + to CIj i F SALEM. MA BOARD of APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR Uj SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 [ STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ZOOS MAR _2 P 2: A, MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RENE AUBERTIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMITNARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 FRIEND STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on February 16, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty, Bonnie Belair and Nicholas Helides. 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 is requesting a Special Permit and Variance from lot are per dwelling to allow a second unit for the property located at 5 Friend Street located in an R-2 zone. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land structures, and used, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more.detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting the lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RENE AUBERTIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT/VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 FRIEND STREET R-2 page two . The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and atter reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Attorney George Atkins of 59 Federal Street in Salem represented the petitioner. 2. Attorney Atkins believes he does not need to go before the Board because the property is located in an R-2 zone, which allows 2 family dwellings and has the parking spaces. 3. A letter was submitted from Counciillor To Furey who opposed this petition with concerns relating to the congestion of the neighborhood and the increase In parking. 4. Councillor Michael Bencal appeared and opposed this petition noting the density of the neighborhood. 5. A petition was submitted with 13 names from the neighboring abutters opposed to this pettion. 6. Ann Bouchard of 1 Friend Street also appeared and opposed this petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board Of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The Special Permit requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 4. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in harmony with the neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 2 in favor and 3 in opposition to the motion to grant the relief requested. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit and Variance is denied. Variance & Special Permit Denied February 16, 2005 Edward Moriar-ty S Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 0 Appeal from this decision, is any shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal have been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. EXHIBIT 5 �"' a t! yr DNLCM� MASSACHUSETTS CIl , oc <ALL°t. 1'6H VA, BOARD OF APPEAL CLESKS OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 - �OQC u1,t1 �3 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 AMENDED DECISION DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RENE AUBERTIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMITNARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 FRIEND STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on February 16, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty, Bonnie Belair and Nicholas Helides. 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 is requesting a Special Permit and Variance from lot are per dwelling to allow a second unit for the property located at 5 Friend Street located in an R-2 zone. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land structures, and used, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting the lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. PETITION OF RENE AUBERTIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 5-3Q) TO EXPAND USE OF THE NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE TO TWO-FAMILY USE WHICH IS A PERMITTED USE UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE BUT THE LOT DOES NOT CONFORM WITH TABLE I REQUIREMENT FOR MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Petitioner, Rene Aubertin, seeks a Special Permit from the Salem Board of Appeals, in accordance with Section 5-30), to expand use of the existing non- conforming structure on said premises to a two-family use, which is a permitted use under the Zoning Ordinance except that said lot does not conform with Table I requirements for Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling-Unit. 2. Petitioner was represented by Attorney George W. Atkins, 59 Federal Street, Salem, MA 01970. 3. According to Attorney Atkins, the requested relief was otherwise in harmony and consistent with all provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for use of the premises as constructed, as a two-family premises, with three designated parking spaces. 4. Attorney Atkins suggested that any other zoning violations associated with said two-family premises were otherwise in compliance with the Board of Appeals Decision issued for said premises to the prior owner of said premises, Paul Caisse, on or about December 18, 2002, which Decision expressly authorized a Variance from side setback, rear setback and lot coverage to construct a 24' x 24' addition for the property located at 5 Friend Street, located in an R-2 Zoning District. 5. Attorney Atkins noted that the original Variance for said premises did not,require that said 24' x 24' addition be utilized solely for purposes of a single-family residence, as expanded and permitted use of said premises as a two-family home. 6. Attorney Atkins also noted that adequate parking for a two-family home by the three proposed parking spaces, noted on the plans filed with the Petition, met the Salem Zoning Ordinance for Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit. 7. Petitioner further contended that a Special Permit would not be required if the Board were to agree that use of the Premises as a two-family home was lawful under the statute and/or the Variance previously granted without reference to the Table I requirement for Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit in an R-2 Zoning District. 8. The Petitioner's request for relief by Special Permit was opposed by two city councillors and many abutting neighbors. 9. City Councillor Tom Furey, in his correspondence to the Board of January 18, 2005, noted that the Special Permit would allow a two-family home in a otherwise very congested neighborhood, which includes Friend, Flint and Oak Streets. Councillor Furey noted that the limited parking on Friend Street, as well as the narrow width of the street, made parking even more daunting and that the width was even narrower,during snow emergencies like that experienced by this neighborhood this winter. 10. Councillor Furey also noted that the addition of a two-family home to this otherwise close-knit neighborhood of predominant 14 single-family structures would impermissibly and imprudently alter the signature statement of this close- knit neighborhood. 11.. Ward 6 Councillor Mike Bencal appeared and expressed inalterable opposition to the Petition to create a two-family home by Special Permit at 5 Friend Street. 12. Councillor Bencal noted the extreme congestion in this neighborhood, significant problems of parking, on-street and off-street, and the very narrow width of Friend Street. 13. Councillor Bencal was also of the opinion that a Special Permit to authorize a two-family premises in this neighborhood, especially at this street and this locus, would not be in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance to zone for adequate light, air, space and parking. 14. Also in opposition were several neighbors, who chose not to speak but not only attended the public hearing, but also signed a Petition in opposition to the request for a Special Permit, citing issues of adverse impact on the quality of life in this densely populated, closely-knit neighborhood and the extant, extraordinary, existing parking problems which would only be compounded by a new two- family home. 15. In particular, the neighborhood Petition noted that addition of additional motor vehicles in the neighborhood, whether on-street or off-street, would cause immediate hardship to this neighborhood, where parking is already extremely limited and, by City Ordinance, is already restricted to resident-only parking. 16. Members of the Board, including Edward M. Moriarty, Jr., questioned the practicality of daily use and, in particular, winter use of the three spaces proposed on the plans for the proposed two-family premises. The distance between Friend Street and the three designated parking areas in the rear of the structure, side by side, make said parking spaces impractical to use. 2 � i A CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Based on the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, the Petition, plans attached hereto, testimony of the Petitioner and abutters, and exhibits contained within the Board file, including a Neighborhood Petition in Opposition, signed by 13 residents of Friend Street, the Board determines that Petitioner's request for a Special Permit is hereby denied pursuant to Sections 5-30), 8-6 and 9-4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Board concludes that the relief requested may not be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of this Ordinance, based on considerations of congestion, parking and overcrowding, all as noted heretofore. WHEREFORE On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board Of Appeal concludes as follows. 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would.not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The Special Permit requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 4. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in harmony with the neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety,convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 2 in favor and 3 in opposition to the motion to grant the relief requested. Having failed to gamer the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit and Variance is denied. Variance 8 Special Permit Denied February 16, 2005 Edward Moriarty S ��\ Board of Appeal I,u.Hr 3 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, is any shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal have been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. r, CITY OF SALEMp MASSACHUSETTS CI Y �r SALEM. MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERKS OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 q -3u MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 .,, MAR �3 AMENDED DECISION DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RENE AUBERTIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMITNARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 FRIEND STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on February 16, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty, Bonnie Belair and Nicholas Halides. 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 is requesting a Special Permit and Variance from lot are per dwelling to allow a second unit for the property located at 5 Friend Street located in an R-2 zone. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures;and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land structures, and used, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the-neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting the lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. y PETITION OF RENE AUBERTIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 5-3Q) TO EXPAND USE OF THE NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE TO TWO-FAMILY USE WHICH IS A PERMITTED USE UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE BUT THE LOT DOES NOT CONFORM WITH TABLE I REQUIREMENT FOR MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Petitioner, Rene Aubertin, seeks a Special Permit from the Salem Board of Appeals, in accordance with Section 5-30), to expand use of the existing non- conforming structure on said premises to a two-family use, which is a permitted use under the Zoning Ordinance except that said lot does not conform with Table I requirements for Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit. 2. Petitioner was represented by Attorney George W. Atkins, 59 Federal Street, Salem, MA 01970. 3. According to Attorney Atkins, the requested relief was otherwise in harmony and consistent with all provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for use of the premises as constructed, as a two-family premises, with three designated parking spaces. 4. Attorney Atkins suggested that any other zoning violations associated with said two-family premises were otherwise in compliance with the Board of Appeals Decision issued for said premises to the prior owner of said premises, Paul Caisse, on or about December 18, 2002, which Decision expressly authorized a Variance from side setback, rear setback and lot coverage to construct a 24' x 24' addition for the property located at 5 Friend Street, located in an R-2 Zoning District. 5. Attorney Atkins noted that the original Variance for said premises did not require that said 24' x 24' addition be utilized solely for purposes of a single-family residence, as expanded and permitted use of said premises as a two-family home. 6. Attorney Atkins also noted that adequate parking for a two-family home by the three proposed parking spaces, noted on the plans filed with the Petition, met the Salem Zoning Ordinance for Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit. 7. Petitioner further contended that a Special Permit would not be required if the Board were to agree that use of the Premises as a two-family home was lawful under the statute and/or the Variance previously granted without reference to the Table I requirement for Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit in an R-2 Zoning District. 8. The Petitioner's request for relief by Special Permit was opposed by two city councillors and many abutting neighbors. 9. City Councillor Tom Furey, in his correspondence to the Board of January 18, 2005, noted that the Special Permit would allow a two-family home in a otherwise very congested neighborhood, which includes Friend,Flint and Oak Streets. Councillor Furey noted that the limited parking on Friend Street, as well as the narrow width of the street, made parking even more daunting and that the width was even narrower during snow emergencies like that experienced by this neighborhood this winter. 10. Councillor Furey also noted that the addition of a two-family home to this otherwise close-knit neighborhood of predominant L4 single-family structures would impermissibly and imprudently alter the signature statement of this close- knit neighborhood. 11. Ward 6 Councillor Mike Bencal appeared and expressed inalterable opposition to the Petition to create a two-family home by Special Permit at 5 Friend Street. 12. Councillor Bencal noted the extreme congestion in this neighborhood, significant problems of parking, on-street and off-street, and the very narrow width of Friend Street. 13. Councillor Bencal was also of the opinion that a Special Permit to authorize a two-family premises in this neighborhood, especially at this street and this locus, would not be in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance to zone for adequate light, air, space and parking. 14. Also in opposition were several neighbors, who chose not to speak but not only attended the public hearing, but also signed a Petition in opposition to the request for a Special Permit, citing issues of adverse impact on the quality of life in this densely populated, closely-knit neighborhood and the extant, extraordinary, existing parking problems which would only be compounded by a new two- family home. 15. In particular, the neighborhood Petition noted that addition of additional motor vehicles in the neighborhood, whether on-street or off-street, would cause immediate hardship to this neighborhood, where parking is already extremely limited and, by City Ordinance, is already restricted to resident-only parking. 16. Members of the Board, including Edward M. Moriarty, Jr., questioned the practicality of daily use and, in particular, winter use of the three spaces proposed on the plans for the proposed two-family premises. The distance between Friend Street and the three designated parking areas in the rear of the structure, side by side, make said parking spaces impractical to use. 2 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Based on the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, the Petition, plans attached hereto, testimony of the Petitioner and abutters, and exhibits contained within the Board file, including a Neighborhood Petition in Opposition, signed by 13 residents of Friend Street, the Board determines that Petitioner's request for a Special Permit is hereby denied pursuant to Sections 5-30), 8-6 and 9-4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Board concludes that the relief requested may not be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of this Ordinance, based on considerations of congestion,parking and overcrowding, all as noted heretofore. WHEREFORE On the basis of the above fktd ngs of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board Of Appeal concludes as follows; 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The Special Permit requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 4. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in harmony with the neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the Cl y's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 2 in favor and 3 in opposition to the motion to grant the relief requested. Having failed to gamer the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit and Variance is denied. Variance 8 Special Permit Denied February 16, 2005 Edward Moriarty r�\ Board of Appeal 3 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, is any shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal have been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. J CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS CIl Y �c SALEM. MA s BOARD OF APPEAL CLERKS OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 976-745-9595 p, �•3u MAYOR FAX: 976-740-9646 `j�11� MAR '3 AMENDED DECISION DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RENE AUBERTIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMITNARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 FRIEND STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on February 16, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty, Bonnie Belair and Nicholas Helides. 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 is requesting a Special Permit and Variance from lot are per dwelling to allow a second unit for the property located at 5 Friend Street located in an R-2 zone. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land structures, and used, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting the lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. PETITION OF RENE AUBERTIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 5-30) TO EXPAND USE OF THE NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE TO TWO-FAMILY USE WHICH IS A PERMITTED USE UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE BUT THE LOT DOES NOT CONFORM WITH TABLE I REQUIREMENT FOR MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT FINDINGS OF FACT I. Petitioner, Rene Aubertin, seeks a Special Permit from the Salem Board of Appeals, in accordance with Section 5-30), to expand use of the existing non- conforming structure on said premises to a two-family use, which is a permitted use under the Zoning Ordinance except that said lot does not conform with Table I requirements for Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit. 2. Petitioner was represented by Attorney George W. Atkins, 59 Federal Street, Salem, MA 01970. 3. According to Attorney Atkins, the requested relief was otherwise in harmony and consistent with all provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for use of the premises as constructed, as a two-family premises, with three designated parking spaces. 4. Attorney Atkins suggested that any other zoning violations associated with said two-family premises were otherwise in compliance with the Board of Appeals Decision issued for said premises to the prior owner of said premises, Paul Caisse, on or about December 18, 2002, which Decision expressly authorized a Variance from side setback, rear setback and lot coverage to construct a 24' x 24' addition for the property located at 5 Friend Street, located in an R-2 Zoning District. 5. Attorney Atkins noted that the original Variance for said premises did not require that said 24' x 24' addition be utilized solely for purposes of a single-family residence, as expanded and permitted use of said premises as a two-family home. 6. Attorney Atkins also noted that adequate parking for a two-family home by the three proposed parking spaces, noted on the plans filed with the Petition, met the Salem Zoning Ordinance for Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit. 7. Petitioner further contended that a Special Permit would not be required if the Board were to agree that use of the Premises as a two-family home was lawful under the statute and/or the Variance previously granted without reference to the Table I requirement for Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit in an R-2 Zoning District. r 8. The Petitioner's request for relief by Special Permit was opposed by two city councillors and many abutting neighbors. 9. City Councillor Tom Furey, in his correspondence to the Board of January 18, 2005, noted that the Special Permit would allow a two-family home in a otherwise very congested neighborhood, which includes Friend,Flint and Oak Streets. Councillor Furey noted that the limited parking on Friend Street, as well as the narrow width of the street, made parking even more daunting and that the width was even narrower during snow emergencies like that experienced by this neighborhood this winter. 10. Councillor Furey also noted that the addition of a two-family home to this otherwise close-knit neighborhood of predominant 14 single-family structures would impermissibly and imprudently alter the signature statement of this close- knit neighborhood. 11. Ward 6 Councillor Mike Bencal appeared and expressed inalterable opposition to the Petition to create a two-family home by Special Permit at 5 Friend Street. 12. Councillor Bencal noted the extreme congestion in this neighborhood, significant problems of parking, on-street and off-street, and the very narrow width of Friend Street. 13. Councillor Bencal was also of the opinion that a Special Permit to authorize a two-family premises in this neighborhood, especially at this street and this locus, would not be in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance to zone for adequate light, air, space and parking. 14. Also in opposition were several neighbors, who chose not to speak but not only attended the public hearing, but also signed a Petition in opposition to the request for a Special Permit, citing issues of adverse impact on the quality of life in this densely populated, closely-knit neighborhood and the extant, extraordinary, existing parking problems which would only be compounded by a new two- family home. 15. In particular, the neighborhood Petition noted that addition of additional motor vehicles in the neighborhood, whether on-street or off-street, would cause immediate hardship to this neighborhood, where parking is already extremely limited and, by City Ordinance, is already restricted to resident-only parking. 16. Members of the Board, including Edward M. Moriarty, Jr., questioned the practicality of daily use and, in particular, winter use of the three spaces proposed on the plans for the proposed two-family premises. The distance between Friend Street and the three designated parking areas in the rear of the structure, side by side, make said parking spaces impractical to use. 2 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Based on the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, the Petition, plans attached hereto, testimony of the Petitioner and abutters, and exhibits contained within the Board file, including a Neighborhood Petition in Opposition, signed by 13 residents of Friend Street, the Board determines that Petitioner's request for a Special Permit is hereby denied pursuant to Sections 5-30), 8-6 and 9-4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Board concludes that the relief requested may not be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of this Ordinance,based on considerations of congestion,parking and overcrowding, all as noted heretofore. WHEREFORE On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board Of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The Special Permit requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 4. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in harmony with the neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 2 in favor and 3 in opposition to the motion to grant the relief requested. Having failed to gamer the four affirmative votes required denied. to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit and Variance is Variance 8 Special Permit Denied A44 February 18, 2005 Edward Moriarty Board of Appeal 3 r A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, is any shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal have been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the Owner's Certificate of Title. I APPLICANT COPY �g THIS PERMIT NOT VALID UNLESS ?' C CITY OF SALEM BUILDING is PROPERLY RECEIPTED BY CASHIER s SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 PERMIT r O vAuDenow a4DDITNI DATE June 1 19 88 PERMIT NO. 302-88 APDL CANT G. Cushing ADDRESS 5 Friend St. ttTI�N0.1 (STREET) ICONT.a'S LICENSEI NUMBER OF Install siding _) STORY y!/FIF�.T 11.I���T DWELLING UNITS PERMIT 7U (PROPOSED VSE( IT", D. IMPROVEME NTI ND. GG ZONING R—2.U 5 Friend St. Ward DISTRICT IT (LOCATION( (NC.( ISTREETI AND BETWEEN ICR 0tl ST R E E'1 ICRO55 STREET) LOT SUBDIVISION LOT BLOCK SIZE BUILDING 15 TO BE PT. W',DE H+ Fl. LONG BY FT. IN HEIGHT AND SHALL CONFORM IN CONSTRUCTION TO TYPE USE GROUP BASEMENT WALLS( P OUNOATION (I REMARKS: Install vinyl aAd n AREA OR ESTIMATED COST 5 13,000.00 EEEMIT S 20.00 VOLUME qC,,,, 50UARE FEET' G. Cushing OWNER rrxena St. , 5nlen,iih. uIYlO �� " L •�+al��O ' � ADDRESS Inspector of Buildings J.$. t f YOUR SPECIAL ATTENTION is �,dlud to [ho (ullowinc: This permit is granted on the express condition that the said construction shall, in all respects,conform to the Ordinances of this jurisdiction including the Zoning Ordinance,regul�ting the construction anduse of buildings, and may be revoked at any time upon violation of any provisions of said ordinances. t\c:al,egxoof pliu and give al lee time permit i. issued must be displayed on premises. The department must tu, notified and inspooti on inrvle of prior roostru,tion weak u.' requested on weather card. All new buildings and rulditiuns and alterations to existing buildings requiv a minimum of three eWl inspections, namely, (1) Footings, drain the s%stoms, foundwinn and hasement walls, when walls are at least two feet high, but befcxe back filling the wall and before proceeding with the sul,"trurtures. (2) Framing prior to lathing and plastering, duct work, fire .<topping and other equipment before it is ronrerd"l. (8) Final inspection when building or structure is cont pleted. On jobs involving reinforced concrete work, inspection must be made after steel is in place and before concrete is poured. The Department reserves the right to reject nny work which has been concealed or completed withoutfirst having been inspcoled ;rod ;Lpproved by the Department in ;urord;mr,, with the requirements of the various codes. Any deviation from th,• ;approved plans must he nuthorizt•d by the approval of revised,plans subject to the same .procedure estnblished for the examination of the originrd plans. An additional permit fee is also charged predicated on the extent of the virtntion from the original plants Permits we not vrdid if construction work is not started within six months from date permit is issued. Request for Final Insf,ection should be at by postcard or phone call to Ibis department when the construction work is completed and heating apparatus has been installed. Painting or decorating is not required before the Final Building Inspection. Final Inspection and certificate of occupancy must be obtained before cocupying building.