284 CANAL STREET - ZBA 6LIV U � '
UcLrk �
OONDITq. 0 CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
�Gi 1 f O SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595
FAX: 978-740-9846 7 p
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 1009 SEP 30 A -8: 08
MAYOR
FILE #
CITY CLER , SP�LEM, Cat°�
September 28,2009
Decision
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Petition of JOHN BERTINI, TRUSTEE,JAB TRUST, seeking a Variance from
minimum front yard setback, and a Special Permit for the extension of a non-
confomning structure, to allow for an addition onto the restaurant on the property at
284 CANAL STREET, Salem,MA, in the Business Highway Zoning District(B2).
Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §64, Table II: Business
and Industrial Density Regulations (recodified on September 10,2009 as 54.1.1: Table of
Dimensional Requirements). Petitioner also seeks a Special Permit pursuant to §5-30),
Extension of Nonconformity(recodified on September 10, 2009 as §3.3.3,Nonconforming
Structures).
Statements of fact
1. Attorney George Atkins represented the petitioner,John Bertini,who was also
present at the meeting.
2. In a petition dated August 27, 2009,the petitioner requested a Variance and a Special
Permit to construct an addition to the front of the existing nonconforming building.
3. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on September 16,
2009,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §11. The pubic hearing was closed on
September 16, 2009,with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present:
Rick Dionne (chairing the meeting),Annie Harris,Beth Debski,Bonnie Belair
(alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate).
4. At the hearing,two residents spoke in support of the petition,emphasizing the
importance of supporting the improvement of a longtime Salem business.
Supporters included At-Large Councillor Thomas Furey,77 Linden Street. No one
spoke in opposition to the petition.
5. Members of the Board of Appeals commented that the project,which would involve
eliminating parking from the front of the building,would increase safety for
pedestrians and patrons.
6. In a statement submitted with the application,the petitioner stated that due to the
existing floor plan of the restaurant facilities and the need to maintain sufficient
2
parking,enforcement of the front setback provision of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship.
At its meeting on September 16, 2009,the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor and none
(0) opposed to grant a Variance under§6-4, Table II:Business and Industrial Density
Regulations (recodified on September 10, 2009 as §4.1.1: Table of Dimensional
Requirements), and a Special Permit under$5-30),Extension of Nonconformity(recodified
on September 10,2009 as §3.3.3,Nonconforming Structures).
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. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building,which do
not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district;the petitioner made
the argument that the layout of the building was such that necessary expansion could
only be reasonably done by encroaching on the front setback, and the Board
concurred.
2. 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,as the proposed changes would benefit public safety and improve
a neighborhood restaurant.
3. The applicant mayvarythe terms of the Business Highway District to construct the
proposed addition,which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of
Salem Zoning Ordinance.
4. 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. To allow for an addition onto the restaurant on the properly at 284 Canal Street,the
requested Variance from dimensional requirements for the Business Highway zone is
granted, and the requested Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure is
granted.
In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Dionne,
Belair, Harris,Debski and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's requests for
a Variance and a Special Perot subject to the following terms,conditions, and
safeguards:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,ordinances, codes and
regulations.
3
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 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.
.t9,4. v,�... �B>tit
Richard Dionne
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.
P7 PNED
RONAN, SEGAL & HARRINGTON JUL 0 6 2010
ATTORNEYSATLAW CEPT. OF P: ANIN' .i l:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FIFTY-NINE FEDERAL STREET
JAMES T.RONAN(1922-1987) SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970-3470
JACOBS.SEGAL
MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON
GEORGE W.ATKINS, III
GREGORY R.RICHARD TEL(978)744-0350
FAX(978)744-7493 FILE NO.B-888-17
OF COUNSEL
JOHN H.RONAN
MICHAEL J.ESCHELBACHER
July 6, 2010
HAND DELIVERED
Zoning Board of Appeals
City of Salem
120 Washington Street, 3' Floor
Salem, MA 01970
ATTN: Thomas Devine
RE: Variance & Special Permit
284 Canal Street, Salem, MA
Dear Mr. Devine:
In accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A Section 10, John
Bertini, Trustee of JAB Trust hereby requests a six month extension of its right to
exercise the Variance/Special Permit Decision dated September 28, 2009. For your
convenience, a copy of the Decision is included herewith.
Please see to assignment of this matter to the Board's agenda for the meeting of
July 21, 2010
ery truly your ,
ge W. Atkins, III
GWA/dap
Enclosure
y o o1r CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
/ SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595
uo� FAX: 978-740-9846
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 700q SEP 30 A 8: 08
MAYOR
FILL• 0
C11'Y CLERK, SALEM,MASS.
September 28,2009 III I�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Decision 2009110200462 Bk;29039 PgA67
11/02/2009 12eSS VAR P9 1/3
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Petition of JOHN BERTINI,TRUSTEE,JAB TRUST,seeking a Variance from
minimum front yard setback,and a Special Permit for the extension of a non-
conforming structure,to allow for an addition onto the restaurant on the property at
284 CANAL STREET, Salem,MA,in the Business Highway Zoning District(B2).
Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §6-4,Table II:Business
and Industrial Density Regulations (recodified on September 10,2009 as §4.1.1:Table of
Dimensional Requirements). Petitioner also seeks a Special Permit pursuant to 55-30),
Extension of Nonconformity(recodified on September 10,2009 as 53.3.3,Nonconforming
Structures).
Statements of fact:
1. Attorney George Atkins represented the petitioner,John Bertin,who was also
present at the meeting.
2. In a petition dated August 27,2009,the petitioner requested a Variance and a Special
Peinit to construct an addition to the front of the existing nonconforming building.
3. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on September 16,
2009,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A,§11. The pubic hearing was closed on
September 16,2009,with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present:
Rick Dionne (chairing the meeting),Annie Harris,Beth Debski,Bonne Belair
(alternate),and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate).
4. At the hearing,two residents spoke in support of the petition,emphasizing the
importance of supporting the improvement of a longtime Salem business.
Supporters included At-Large Councillor Thomas Furey,77 Linden Street. No one
spoke in opposition to the petition.
5. Members of the Board of Appeals commented that the project,which would involve
eliminating parking from the front of the building,would increase safety for
pedestrians and patrons.
6. In a statement submitted with the application,the petitioner stated that due to the
existing floor plan of the restaurant facilities and the need to maintain sufficient
2
parking,enforcement of the front setback provision of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship.
At its meeting on September 16,2009,the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor and none
(0) opposed to grant a Variance under§6-4,Table II:Business and Industrial Density
Regulations recodified on September 10 2009 as 4.1.1: Table of Dimensional
8u ( P � §
Requirements),and a Special Permit under§5-30),Extension of Nonconformity(recodified
on September 10,2009 as §3.3.3,Nonconforming Structures).
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. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building,which do
not generallyaffect other land or buildings in the same district;the petitioner made
the argument that the layout of the building was such that necessary expansion could
only be reasonablydone by encroaching on the front setback,and the Board
concurred.
2. Desirable relief maybe granted without substantial detriment to the public good and
without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the
zoning ordinance,as the proposed changes would benefit public safety and improve
a neighborhood restaurant.
3. The applicant mayvarythe terms of the Business Highway District to construct the
proposed addition,which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Cary of
Salem Zoning Ordinance.
4. 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. To allow for an addition onto the restaurant on the property at 284 Canal Street,the
requested Variance from dimensional requirements for the Business Highway zone is
granted,and the requested Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure is
granted.
In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,five (5) in favor(Dionne,
Belair,Harris,Debski and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's requests for
a Variance and a Special Permit subject to the following terms,conditions,and
safeguards:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,ordinances,codes and
regulations.
3
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 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.
Richard Dionne
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD
AND THE QTY 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.
Date OCT 3 0 2003
1 hereby certify that 20 days have expired
from the date this instrument was received,
and that NO APPEAL has been filed in this
office. /1
A True Cop Q
ATTEST:_CITY LERK, Salem, Mass.
l
ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL
PETITION FORM
� .;Owl! CITY OF SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS �
ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STEET,3RD FLOOR
ti �' SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
.,.p917 v Amy Lash,Staff Planner Thomas St.Pierce,Building Inspector «:r , J
er1IN6{Y?,i t.978-619-5685/f.978-740-0404 t.978-619-5641/f.978-740-9846 ;*.,.. 3:11
t-n
TO THE BOARD OF APPEAL: ,
The Undersigned represent that he/she is/are the owners of a certain parcel of land located at: LJ
Address: 284 Canal Street Zoning District: B-2
An application is being submitted to the Board of Appeal for the following reason(s): This statement must
describe what you propose to build, the dimensions, the zone property is in,and the zoning requirements. Example
I am proposing to construct a 10'x 10'one story addition to my home located at 3 Salem Lane, in the R-2 Zoning
District. The Zoning Ordinance requires the minimum depth of the rear yard to be 30 feet. The current depth of my
rear yard is 32 feet;the proposed addition would reduce the depth ofthe rear yard to 22 feet.
Petitioner is requesting a Variance and a Special Permit to construct an
addition to the front of the existing non—conforming building. The
existing non—conforming front yard depth will be reduced to zero front
yard depth by the proposed addition.
For this reason I am requesting:
Tabiq II
(>)Variance(s)from provisions of Section 6-21 of the Zoning Ordinance,specifically from
minimum 'front yard (i.e. minimum depth of rearyard).
What is allowed is 30 feet (ft?sgft?stories? %?), and what I
am proposing is 0 feet (Jt?sqfl?stories? %?).
(-9 A Special Permit under Section 5-3(l bf the Zoning Ordinance in order to allow an
extension of a non—conforming structure
( )Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector(described below):
The Current Use of the Property Is: Are the lot dimensions included on the plan?
(example: Two Family Home) Restaurant
(X)Yes O No n/a because
The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeal to vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and allow
the project to be constructed as per the plans submitted,as the enforcement of said Zoning By-Laws 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.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL
PETITION FORM
The following written statement has been submitted with this application:
( For all Variance requests a written Statement of Hardship demonstrating the following must be attached:
a) 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;
b) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involved substantial hardship to the
applicant;and
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.
(X)For all Special Permit requests a Statement of Grounds must be attached. An application for a special permit for
a nonconforming use or structure shall include a statement demonstrating how the proposed change shall not be
substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood in accordance with Art.V,
§ 5-3. Such a statement should include reference to the following criteria:
a) Social,economic,or community needs served by the proposal;
b) Traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading;
c) Adequacy of utilities and other public services;
d) Impacts on the natural environment,including drainage;
e) Neighborhood character;and
0 Potential fiscal impact,including impact on City tax base and employment.
Previous applications to the Board of Appeals involving this property have been submitted with this petition
form. The Building Commissioner can provide documentation ofprevious applications to the petitioner or his
representative.
John A. Bertini, Trustee If different than petitioner:
Petitioner: JAB Trust Property Owner:
Address: 284 Canal Street Address:
Salem, MA 01970
Telephone: Telephone:
Signature Signature(Attached consent letter is also acceptable)
Date Date
If different than petitioner:
A TRUE Representative: George W. Atkins
ATTEST
Address: 59 Federal Street, Salem, MA 01970
T one: (978 ,4-0350
r
re
August 27, 2009
Date
DATE SUBMITTED TO
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CITY CLERK
This original application must be filed with the City Clerk
STATEMENT
A. Variance
The existing single story restaurant structure used for Bertini's Restaurant is sited
on an irregularly shaped parcel and does not conform to the front and side setback
dimensional requirements of Table II. In all other respects, the structure and the use
comply with the Zoning Ordinance. The addition being requested is for the location of
new customer bathroom facilities and no increase in seating or employees will result.
Current seating is for 170 customers, and the maximum number of employees on site at
any time is 20. The Zoning Ordinance requires a total of 53 parking spaces and the site
plan provides for a total of 56 spaces. The location of the addition is required due to the
existing floor plan of the restaurant facilities and the maintenance of sufficient parking,
so that enforcement of the Ordinance front setback provision would involve substantial
hardship. The proposed addition will eliminate parking in the front of the structure,
improving safety for the public, and thus relief may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good.
B. Special Permit
Bertini's Restaurant has been located on this site for 58 years and is a
community institution serving social, economic, and community needs. The proposed
addition will improve traffic safety since parking in the front of the building, and the
consequent backing of cars into Canal Street, will be eliminated, and there remain
sufficient parking spaces. The addition will also allow for removal of an existing free-
standing sign in front of the restaurant to be replaced by signage on the addition.
Utilities, the natural environment, and neighborhood character will be maintained, as
well as the taxes and employment generated by the restaurant. Thus, the proposed
addition will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming
structure.
j r9 -91 131 141 151 161 t7 I 18A I
I
I
p
`F
!r I
45 Londonberry Turnpike • Route 28 Bypass 45 Londonberry Turnpike • Route 28 Bypass
• P.O. Box 16328 • Hooksett, NH 03106-6328 • P.O. Box 16328 • Hooksett, NH 03106-6328
SIGNATURE PRESS & BLU,EPRINTING = (603) 624-4025 • Fax (603) 641-2995 SIGNATURE PRESS & BLUEPRINTING = (603) 624-4025 • Fax (603) 641-2995
P 1 /2 mile north off Route 101 exit 1 1/2 mile north off Route 101 exit 1
info@signaturenh.com www.signature nh.com info@signaturenh.com www.signaturenh.com
i
i
No. REvlslox
i
i
J*
i
1 Z SAO
0 4MTVF
< � � s
I 4f
- �
LOT 13-18F ' o
Jf
❑ ❑ ❑
.J o v
Lu T �
� Z ooC,4
�
awMoW 0 =
Lu
x
� � Ozn
O 6' 12' 20' nto
N
V r0 �
SGAL6 I" 20'-0" Lu L o
W Q m
❑ ❑ ❑
AREAS
LOT 15-18 81A58 SF ry �Q
LOT Iq-20 8,923 SF �-
TOTAL 40,961 Sr- zz
BUILDIN6 AREA 4,604 SF Q� ,<N {- t- m
COVERASE 115 % o
PARKING: AREA OF
HSPACES 55 G AGGE591HLE 9 SPACES TO REMAIN
PARKING �O \O lu
TOTAL 56
CD < <
z X-
TP . PARKING SPACE LOT Ia-2O , Z <
CII-00 X W-0
ea�3 51= w v fru
<
�k � i LQ O N tIl
EXISTING BUILDING a ��
EXISTING BUILDING
N BERTH RESTAURANT d
.r "PLAN OF LAND LOCATED IN SALEM
E MASS. ' - EASTERN LAND SURVEY
ASSOCIATES, INC. LOCATED
104 LOYVELL STREET
EXIST NG PARKING SPACES cfld EXISTING PARKING SPACES PEABODY, MASS OIg60
TO RECONFIGURED TO I TO HE RECONFIGURED TO SIGN BY.
MMODATE HG PARKING " U ACCOMMODATE HG PARKING CHRISTOPHER R. MELLO PLS 9191'1
{�--------- z DATE: 91, 200q
i= ?g REFERANCESNGES, BK 8'720 P6 485 Z
' 1 15TING PARKING �a
AGE TO REMAIN ve
L-9825- o SIDE WALK
W
ExI5T. UTILITY ~
POLE
4 �
ON qq.7 CANAL STREET ED AR
m P-,
m -
"C 45
O ON
A y��
'9U110 Mas
DATEe 24 AUG 2000
SITE FLAN
SCALE, I"= 20'-0"
NO. REVISION
NEW GONSTR Ex NEW ROOF RIDGE
TO LINE UP WITH
VE5TIBULE v EXISTING RIDGE
NEW ROOF 5HIN6LE5
TO MATCH EXISTING
ROOF RIDGE
2 12 MATCH EXIST
4 +/- 12 I
ROOF EAVE
MATCH EXI5T
j N V
NEW COVERED ENTRY + v
NEW VESTIBULE
AT LEFT SIDEm
ENTRANCE. 1 _.
RAMP-SEE PLAN-------
STEEL AND WOOD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EXIST. FLOOR ,k
ELEV. 0'-0"
RAILING
NEW RAMP AT MAIN O Q
ENTRANCE, SEE N -HK<,O
FRONT ELEVATION
f�2 SCALE, 3/Ib• - 1 1-0•
1
EXI5TING NEW GON5TR ~
RESTROOM5 '
NOTE
AREA OF SI&NA6E
5/8" MDO PLYWOOD MATCH EXISTING ROOF
MAX. 50 SOFT, WORD FINISH AND HE16HT
DE516N WITH OWNER
M
I2 PROVIDE LIGHT OVER 516N J o a
� a
12 4 +/- WIU o M N
EXIST. FLOOR ? Q LU .�
Owo
NEW ADDITION W 2
, WITH CLAPBOARD Q � IL x
COLOR A EXTERIOR FINISH � Q
® + LL
AREA OF SIGN NEW RAMP AND m U 2 2
STAIR AT L
EELEVATIONEFT � w 2 w o
_ Q ~ ° cam
COLOR •B• nnUII n Ir to
COLOR "G" - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EXL / Wm Q � m
■M.
Vi RAMP
- - - - - - - -E- - - - -I - - - I VERIFYEXAGTGRA
DEGLLAPOARDSIDIN6 IF
r RECESSED NTNEW RAMP AT MAINLEFT ELEVATION
ENTRANCE COORDINATE
IN FIELD, Se
�2 SCALE: 5/I6" a P-O" ]�
2 �
NEW GONSTR EXISTING 1-
RESTROOM5 j
NOTE
AREA OF SIGNAGE < lL X
5/8" MDO PLYWOOD `l
MAX 50 SOFT, cooRr
DESIGN WITH OWNER w M<
12 < <r
MATCH EXISTING ROOF 4 +/- ., z .L
FINISH AND HEIGHT
T.O. ROOF
z
D F- LLI W
� z d �
PROVIDE LIGHT OVER 516N
Lu K
NEW ADDITION + O N
WITH CLAPBOARD AREA OF 516N ® da
EXTERIOR FINISH
IX8 PVC HORIZONTAL
TRIM BOARD GRADE SLOPES
AWAY FROM E51.1I1-DIN6
EXIST. FLOOR FINISH FL.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - —
ELEV. 0--0-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ELEV. ------- Z
- - - - - - - - - - -
----- -�
VERIFY EXACT GRADE I
IN FIELD I I O ui
RAILING-SEE r J r J
z
DL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - } O
o RIGHT ELEVATION <
2 SCALE, 118' = P-O" ® L1 W
O w
EXISTING NEW GON5'm p/
VE5TIBUI.E i
--- - - - LIJ
ROOF RIDSEx ED
12 B to N
ROOF EAVE
MATCH EXIST p _
��AEDAR�y
❑ m allo. 9 �
E- NEA vEsneuLE BOSTON
o AT LEFT SIDE — y� Ma
ENTRANCE. ,y
Fp<1�IOfMPgS
LOCUS PLANN
- - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
/Z
— EXIST. FLOOR
ELEV. 0'-0" SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
DATE: 24 AUb 20
U
D REAR ELEVATION EXISTING GRADE TO O 2' b' 12' 20'
REMAIN AS IS
SCALE: I/8" = 1'-0"
v