26 BRIGGS STREET - ZBA r
t
s- Leg,-1 Notice
ig
` CITY OF SALEM
I BOARD OF APPEAL'
Le Will hold a public hearing for all
persons interested in the petition sub-
mitted by LINDA TULL seeking Vari-
>t anoes from rear yard setback and lot
3- coverage to construct an addition for
the property located at 26 BRIGGS
d STREET R-2 Said hearing will be held
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2007 at I r
0 6:30 p.m.,3rd floor,120 Washington
Street,Room 313.
p Nina Cohen
Chairman
yi SN—3/7,3114/07
A-«_ f
unw] CITY OF SALEM� MASSACHUSEft CI ALEtl. hIA
BOARD OF APPEAL
CLthn S OFFICE
w' 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3Ro FLOOR
a ( SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970
TELEPHONE 978-745-9595
oa' FAX: 978-740-9846 LLO� I�IrO, 29 p 21
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
March 28, 2007
Decision
Petition of Linda Tull requesting Variances
for the property at 26 Briggs Street
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
A public hearing on the above petition was opened on March 21, 2007 pursuant to
Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members
were present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Elizabeth Debski and Robin
Stein.
The petitioner,Linda Tull sought Variances from rear yard setback from the required
thirty (30) foot setback to approximately sixteen (16) feet and from lot coverage from the
required thirty-five percent (35%) to approximately forty-three percent (43%) from the
existing forty percent (40%) to construct a kitchen addition for the property located at 26
Briggs Street, Salem, in the Two-Family Residential (R-2) zoning district.
The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following
findings of fact:
1. Petitioner's property is in the Two-Family Residential (R-2) district and is a
pre-existing, non-conforming structure in a residential neighborhood.
2. The petitioner was requesting variances from rear yard setback from the
required thirty (30) foot setback to approximately sixteen (16) feet and from
lot coverage from the required thirty-five percent (35%) to approximately
forty-three percent (43%) from the existing forty percent (40%) to construct a
kitchen addition.
3. The required setback was increased to fourteen (14) feet to accommodate a
bay window appearing in the plans
4. The petitioner stated that her neighbors were supportive of the requested
variances.
5. No members of the public spoke on the petition.
l
located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its
floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of
destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than
fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%)of its
floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in
conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. /
Eliza eth Debski
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY
CLERK
Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit
granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City clerk that
20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that,if such appeal has been filed,that it has been
dismissed or denied and 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.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public
hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes
as follows:
1. The petitioner's request to for a Variance does not constitute substantial
detriment to the public good as residential uses are permitted in the R-2
district and additions are common to these pre-existing non-conforming lots
and structures.
2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent
or purpose of the zoning ordinance as residential dwellings are a permitted use
in the R-2 district.
3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial
hardship to the petitioner of a financial means.
4. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate
conditions and safeguards as noted below.
In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor
(Cohen,Dionne, Hams, Debski, Stein) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for
Variances, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards:
1. 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. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing
structure.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having
jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
9. Unless this decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does
not empower or authorize Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structures(s)