Loading...
38 CABOT STREET - ZBA (3) 3 Ca6o i, oe>orr f - CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSEi 2090ft �3 P Q. S KIMBERLEY DRiscoLL TELE:978-745-9595♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR RLE P CITY CLERK. SALEM,MASS. December 3, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconfomring Singk-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure,at the property located at 38 CABOT STREET (Map 33 Lot 173) (R2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 21, 2014 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, g 11. The hearing was continued at the request of the applicant on the following dates:June 18, 2014;July 16, 2014; August 28,2014; September 17,2014 and October 15, 2014. The public hearing was closed on November 19, 2014 with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Tsitsinos,and Mr. Watkins. The Petitioner seeks a Variance from the requirements of Section 4.1.1 Table ofDimemrional Requirements. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped April 22nd, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures to allow the construction of a kitchen addition. 2. The petitioner requested to continue the public hearing in association with this project on June 18, 2014;July 16, 2014; August 28, 2014 and September 17, 2014 due to the inability to file complete elevation drawings. 3. On September 10d, 2014 the applicant submitted completed elevation plans of the proposed project. On this date, the applicant requested a continuance to the October 150', 2014 meeting and submitted a formal letter of request on September 18th, 2014. 4. On October 15d,2014 the petitioner presented the application for 38 Cabot Street. It was brought to the attention of the Zoning Board by the Building Inspector, that the applicant did not include a request for a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements as needed to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage. 5. On October 15"2014 the petitioner requested to continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting to amend the application and re-advertise the proposal. 6. On October 24th, 2014 the petitioner submitted an amended application with a request for a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure. City of Salem Board of Appeals December 3,2014 Project:38 Cabot Street Page 2 of 3 7. On November 5, 2014 and November 12, 2014 the legal advertisement for the petition was corrected and re-advertised. S. The.requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage and construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure 9. At the public heating no members of the public spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the petition. The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public bearing, and after thorough review of the petition, 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 for the Variance— 1. Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building, or structure involved, generally not affecting other lands, buildings, and structures in the same district is that the building at this property is in disrepair. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the applicant as the Variance requested would allow the applicant to bring the building up to code. 3. The desired relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Findings for Special Permit 1. There is no impact on the social,economic or community needs served by the proposal. 2. There are no impacts on traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading. 3. The capacity of the utilities is not affected by the project. 4. There are no impacts on the natural environment,including drainage 5. The proposal improves neighborhood character as it improves the property in need of repair. 6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base is positive as the structure will be improved. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran,Mr.Watkins,Mr. Copelas,Mr,Dionne,and Mr.Tsitsinos) in favor and none (0) opposed, to grant a Variance from the provisions of Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two- Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. 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. Exterior finishes of new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. City of Salem Board of Appeals December 3,2014 Project:38 Cabot Street Page 3 of 3 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Rebecca Curran, Chair 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 pamant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of fift of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachruetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take ect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been fikd witb the Essex South Registry of Deeds. r F r 7 MAP 33 LOT 185 MAP 33 LOT 184 STEVEN KRUDOP WENDELLYN M. CURTIN 9-11 GENEVA STREET 5-7 GENEVA STREET Aa 'r,� ■ •Cr * 40' 1 0 2014 (0 DEPT.OF r •INNbNG& COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1'± PERMITTED., GARAGE (not built) PROPOSED it 3, DECK 12• m I 2'± 3 PP SED MAP 33 LOT 174 MAP 33 LOT 172 eROADDITI N MARIA RIVERA MICHAEL KILEYELINSON VITTINI 40 CABOT STREET 9 } 36 CABOT STREET dporcheck & Z'f to be remoo ved ZZ10 PROPOSED O 2ND FL. DECK LO MAP 33 LOT 173 —AREA- 4200± S.F. 9,± #38 5, {{ PORCH PSS H OF,tfgs 3'± 3't o2sE s9�5 CABOT STREET GAITH SMITH NO.35063 wr �sS,��GLSrEPEO�O "a LANO 5 ZONING DISTRICT — R2 REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED PLOT PLAN OF LAND LOT AREA 15,000 4200 4200 LOCATED AT LOT FRONTAL 100 40' 40' 38 CABOT STREET SALEM, MA FRONT 15 3'± 3'± PREPARED FOR SIDE 10 5'± 2'± RAY DOMINGUEZ REAR 30 45'± 31't SCALE 1" = 20' AUGUST 8, 2014 NORTH SHORE SURVEY CORPORATION LOT COVERAGE 35% 1 34% 1 50% 14 BROWN ST., SALEM, MA 978-744-4800 #2599 } Rl�y DDMIflIE . - - --- - REQ R or ov s C-- -- - 39 CABOT s- CIv..�n SEP J 0 20'!4 1)7PT OF PLANkwn P, ou"'umUN' )EVEL n - Q 521 h \ \ r � / 1. ' _._. - -- - - - - j �a r-QOM 2FI DECK �0 7vP b r- r?IA7>✓ ! � 7 a (il —F— jjjN y f /G f —! Ito SEC X I Io OND FI DECt ^ vi ��I���! � ' r I ( 1 II �� z - I5TFI +o 2FI iEvEL s v ; �J 9 REAR DELK Co 1 /Z, 5. 1 RI)M SRdUNDFD FI. LEVFL NEW PDuREb COn1LRCM FouNbMip/J I40R-lq 21DE EI EVA --IDN I SCALE 1 " 5 _ i _ LEFT SIDE L)F HDU 5F:_ RAI 00MIM 912 3 B CABOT Yr KJTGd£N Ak,1617100 DEPT.OF f't� �iYdG& OOMMWTY DEVELOPMENT i 1 { -- i I J 'w 3�s7p/I1 i Lfv"9 I r T--_--... l� i� GPA�IE . —_r hRIVr. �nit1Y � � WLST SIDE ELEVATION SCIA LC 1"� IDS y RAY WMINCA Q r DF 3 6 CABOT sr _R\ GHT SIDLr. VI�[ R �VE D SEP 10 2014 DEPT. OF PLAN,- 'U& . - COMMUNITY DE' 'PMENT i RAIL/ fiREE -Evt/Ay 'fok 206A DECK TPP OF bECX QL ti Ao �/a.y ! �f20t�O5E6S A'D'utTtOu -- I Q i LAST SIDE ELEVATTOIV ALC I 10 L/ �ONUIT,t CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL t20WAS II]Nc,IONS'ran:azt * SMJ. N[,MASSn(]iUS:'[Ts 0'L970n� z Kiausral.evDalsr_ol.t. TrTi::978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846 � NLwolt X_ - r June 11, 2014 Decision z w City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 3.2.4 Accessory Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the expansion of a previously-approved garage such that one wall lies on the southern property line, at the property located at 38 CABOT STREET (112 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 21, 2014 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40x1, � 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board, of Appeals members present: Ms. Harris (acting Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Copelas (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Variance from the requirements of Section 3.2.4 Accessog.Buildings and Sinictures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. Tn the petition date-stamped April 22, 2014, the Petitioner requested a Variance to allow the expansion of a previously-approved garage in order to move one wall to be on the southern property line. 2. Mr. Raynaldo Dominguez, petitioner, presented the application for 38 Cabot Street. 3. A Board of Appeals Decision dated June 1, 2011 granted Mr. Dominguez Variances to allow the construction of a 15 x 24-foot garage with a second floor, located within the required minimum side yard setback. 4. The petitioner completed construction of the garage foundation, in the location approved in the June 1, 2011 Board of Appeals decision, and found that the position of the garage in relation to the house made it difficult to back out of the garage. The petitioner proposes to alleviate this difficulty by widening the garage by 3 feet to the south. Widening the garage by 3 feet to the south would locate the garage wall on the south property line. 5. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to relocate one wall of the previously approved garage to the south property line. 6. The submitted application included a letter signed by Mr. Michael P. Kiley, owner of 40 Cabot Street, in favor of the applicant's petition to relocate the garage wall to the south property line. Mr. Kiley's property abuts the south property line. 7. Locating the wall of the garage on the property line would result in portions of the garage structure encroaching on the abutter's property. Keeping the garage wall one foot off of the property line would avoid this condition. 8. During the course of the public hearing it was established that the proposal to change the garage footprint actually required a modification of the June 1, 2011 Decision, rather than a new Variance. I ti City of Salem Board of Appeals June H,2014 Project: 38 Cabot Street Page 2 of 2 9. At the public hearing no members of the public spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the petition. The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petition, 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 —Modification to the June 1, 2011 Board of Appeals Decision 1. The desired relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the City of Salem "Zoning Ordinance. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Nit. Watkins,Ms. Harris, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas, and Mr. Duffy in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant a modification to the June 1, 2011 Board of Appeals decision, to allow the expansion of the garage to extend within 1 foot of the south side lot line, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. 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. Exterior finishes of new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. G. 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. Annie Harris,Acting Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FTLED WITH THEPLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this derision, if any, shall he made pursuant to Section 17 of the Ma.aa hasettr General Laws Chapter 4011, and shall he filed ndthin 20 days offilinS of Ibis decision in the offle of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General I1rws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granter!herein shall not take egJ a antil a copy of the decision hearing the certificate of the City Clerk has heen filed.mitb the Eyes South Registp,of Deeds. s 1 ytoemra CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS o, BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ;—A ,\4Q SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 P TELEPHONE. 978-745-9595 /.NIxE W° FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ZOIf UN - ! p ,: 01 MAYOR JI June 1,2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting a Variance from Sec. 3.2.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, Accessory Building Structures, including side yard setback, number of stories, and height, in order to demolish the existing garage on 38 CABOT STREET and construct a garage with second-story storage (R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 20, 2011511 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A. The hearing was continued to May 18,2011 and closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne,Annie Harris,Jamie Metsch,Bonnie Belair(alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 3.2.4 (Accessory Buildings and Structures) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact L The petitioner represented himself at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped March 30,2011,the petitioner requested Variances from Accessory Buildings and Structures requirements in order to tear down an existing garage and build a new 15 x 24 foot garage with additional second floor storage. 3. At the meeting on April 20,2011,Board members noted that plans were not clearly drawn and not scaled,and requested further detail. 4. The hearing was continued to May 18,2011,when the petitioner presented revised drawings. 5. No one spoke in support of or opposition to the petition. The Board of Appeal,after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted,makes the following findings: 1. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 2 2. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans,Documents and testimony,the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. Variances under Sec. 3.2.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to demolish the existing garage on 38 Cabot Street and construct a new garage with second-floor storage are granted. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,five (5) in favor(Curran, Dionne,Hams,Metsch and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's 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 constniction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any CityBoard or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to,the Planning Board. r Rebecca Curran, Chair Salem 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 3 decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. t June 5, 2008 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ seeking VARIANCES from minimum front yard depth to construct a new 24' x 6' porch and number of stories allowed (2 %) to construct a 15' x 7' third floor dormer at 38 CABOT STREET (R-2). RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting to WITHDRAW the request for a Variance from the distance an accessory structure is required to be from lot lines to allow for an 8' x 8' shed 2' from the side lot line and 1' from the rear lot line at 38 CABOT STREET (R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 21, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on May 21, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein(Chair), Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, Annie Harris and Bonnie Belair(Alternate). Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Table I: Residential Density Regulations. Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner, Raynoldo Dominguez, is the owner of 38 Cabot Street a property located in the Residential Two Family(R-2) Zoning District. The property contains and two residential units. 2. The petition is accompanied by a plan entitled, "Plot Plan of Land Located at 38 Cabot Street", prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation, dated April 21, 2008. Additionally, the petition is accompanied by four perspectives of a 3D computer model illustrating the proposed porch. 3. The petitioner is proposing to remove the existing porch(approx. 5' x 6') and construct a 24' x 6' farmer's porch on the front of the residence. The petitioner states the existing porch is in poor condition and in need of replacement. The minimum depth of front yard required is 15'; the petitioner is proposing a front yard depth of 3' and is therefore seeking a variance from the minimum depth of front yard. 2 4. The maximum height of buildings allowed in stories is 2 %2 stories. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 15' x 17' third floor dormer; therefore, the petitioner is seeking a variance from the maximum height of buildings (stories). The dormer would increase the living space for the second floor unit. 5. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow an accessory structure to be located closer than 5' from any lot line. The petitioner's application included a request for a variance from the distance an accessory structure is required to be from lot lines to allow an 8' x 8' shed 2' from the side lot line and 1' from the rear lot line. The petitioner requested to withdraw this portion of the application at the public hearing. 6. Wendy Curtin(5-7 Geneva Street) spoke in opposition of the petitioner's request for a variance to allow for a shed. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. Minimal relief is necessary to allow the construction of the dormer, which can provide for increased living space on this small lot. The existing front yard depth is similar to what is proposed and the style of the proposed porch will enhance the look of the property. These are special circumstances that especially affect the land and structure, not generally affecting other lots in the in the Zoning District. 2. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would result in substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner who is seeking to make improvements to his property. 3. The proposed porch and dormer would not be out of character with structures existing in the neighborhood. Therefore, desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. To allow for the 24' x 6' porch as show on the plot plan, the petitioner may vary the terns of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, specifically the minimum depth of front yard. 2. To allow for the 15' x 17' third floor dormer as show on the plot plan, the petitioner may vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, specifically the maximum height of buildings (stories). 3. The petitioner's request to withdraw the variance requested for the proposed shed is allowed by this decision without prejudice. 3 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 (Debski, Curran, Stein, Harris, and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statues, 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure, though slate is not required on the roof. 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. Robin Stein, Chair 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 has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds.