1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET - ZBA �' �J �S't' CO��I VAS c5'�'P_£�'
Zonin Board Pro'ect Status Sheet
Address & Applicant:
Date Submitted to BOA:
Clerk Stamp:
Variances Only - Constructive Approval Date: (100 days from filiog
Abutters List Requested:
Abutters Notice Sent:
EV Notice to Abutting Cities & Towns, Councillors:
W Legal Notice
/ posted at City Hall: (14 days before meeting)
e' Legal Notice Emailed & Confirmed:
Legal Notice Posted on Web:
Agenda to Applicant:
Applicant's email address or fax number to send agenda:
Opened at Meeting: o f, y G
Continued Meetings:
Extension Form(s) Signed & Clerk Stamped?
Closed at Meeting: , z� � ^
4
Decision: G r o,-v-� F 1 . a 3�� e�`l e ��Z� �z� �"T
l
Decision Filed: 1 Appeal Period Over:
after decision filed) (21"(lay°
r� Decision Sent to Applicant:
Notice of Decision Sent to abutters,-'cities towns,
councillors:
ZBA ACTION FORM
B„OAR!D�ME `I�fBER�.�����uIOTIONXxS);COND,€�UO,TE
Date: Rebecca Curran (Chair
Mike Duffy
Petitioner: Tom Watkins
Peter Co elas
Address: 1 _3 Ea Sf c ok Ck�5 S k- Jimmy Tsitsinos
Jim Hacker(Alt.)
Paul Viccica(Alt.)
Conditions: Total:
Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,ordinances, codes and regulations.
EfAll construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building
ommissioner.
All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
AV-etitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
xterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
IJ A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said
number so as to be visible from the street.
Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not
limited to,the Planning Board.
❑Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise,any zoning relief granted does not empower or
authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s)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.
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHU 03a1�'4 P 2. 13
KIMBERLEYDRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595♦ FAX:978-740-9845"' '
MAYOR FILE it
CITY CLERK. SALEI4, MASS,
January 4, 2017
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
A petition of MICHAEL MEYER, TRUSTEE, requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2
Nonconforming Uses and Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements for the following
minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, minimum distance between buildings,
and maximum number of stories to construct eight (8) residential units at 1-3 EAST COLLINS
STREET (Map 36 Lot 277) (R-1 Zoning District)
At the October 19,2016 meeting,a public hearing was open pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, g 11.Testimony
was heard on that date and the public hearing was continued on October 19,2016, November 16, 2016 and
December 21, 2016. The hearing was closed on December 21, 2016 with the following Salem Board of
Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chau),Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,and Jimmy
Tsitsinos.
The Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Variances per Sec. 4.1.1
Dimensional Requirements for the following minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage,
minimum distance between buildings, and maximum number of stories to construct eight (8) residential units.
Statements of fact:
1. Attorney Grover presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner. Dan Ricciarelli of Seger
Architects, of Salem, MA and Scott Cameron, CE of Morin-Cameron Group, of Danvers, MA also
presented testimony.
2. In March of 2015,the petitioner withdrew an application without prejudice for a development at this
location for a residential use and submitted a significantly different application on September 27,2016
for review.
3. In the petition date-stamped September 27, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sec.
per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change and existing
nonconforming use of a social club to another nonconforming use of multi-family residential units.
The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for
minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, minimum distance between buildings, and
number of stories.
4. The property is located at the Planters Street and East Collins Street in an R-1 Zoning District. The
previous use of the property was the Ward 2 Social Club.
5. At the October 19, 2016 public hearing testimony was heard and there was a question about whether
the property had lost its grandfathered non-conforming status. The Board requested a legal opinion
from the City Solicitor to clarify whether property had lost its non-conforming status. The non-
conforming status of the property determines whether the Board has the ability to allow a change in
the property use from one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use by special permit.
6. On November 16, 2016, the petitioner requested a continuation of the public hearing to the next
regularly scheduled meeting on December 21, 2016. No testimony was heard at this meeting.
7. At the December 21, 2016 meeting, the Board reviewed and discussed the legal opinion from the City
Solicitor dated December 4,2016.
8. The following are conclusions from the legal opinion relevant to the issues discussed at the October
19,2016 public hearing:
• The use of the property is entitled to protected status as a legally non-conforming use under
M.G.L. Ch. 40A Section 6.
• The club did not abandon its use of the property in January 2014,when it closed the building
to the public.
• The sale of the property to the petitioner does not constitute a termination of the use of the
property.
• It is within the authority of the City of Salem Board of Appeals to issue a special permit to
allow a non-conforming use of the Property to continue, provided that the Board issues a
finding that the proposed new use of the Property, is less detrimental than the existing
nonconforming use.
9. Delinquent property taxes were paid by the petitioner before the December 21, 2016 public hearing.
10. On November 30, 1948, various residents of the City of Salem formed the Club as a Massachusetts
not-for-profit corporation organized under M.G.L. Cb. 180 for the purpose of promoting
brotherhood and charity in the Ward II District of Salem.
11. On November 1, 1956, the Club acquired title to the Property for the purpose of constructing a
building to serve as the location for the charitable activities of its membership including a place to
hold meetings and place where the public would be able to hold events.At this time, the property was
located in a Single Residence District- B and the 1955 Ordinance was in effect. Pursuant to Sec.4.B.5
the Use of the Property was a permitted use in the Single Residence District, but is no longer a
permitted use by right in the RI Zoning District. The Social Club is an existing non-conforming use.
(See Opinion 1-3 E. Collins St. Dated Dec. 4, 2016 for further discussion).
12. On May 21,2015, the Club sold the property to the petitioner. The land area of the property consists
of 41,834 square feet and has a one-story concrete block structure. The existing structure does not
meet the current floodplain construction standards.
13. The petitioner is proposing to change the use of the property from the non-conforming use of a
social club to multi-family residential dwelling units.
14. The petitioner testifies that the proposed residential use of the property is more consistent with the
surrounding neighborhood use than the existing social club and bar room.
15. The existing building cannot be reconstructed for another purpose under the Chapter 91 requirements
due to current flood plait construction standards.As such, the petitioner is proposing to demolish the
Ward 2 Social Club structure to construct eight (8) residential dwelling units in single and two family
dwelling arrangements.
16. The proposed eight (8) units will be divided into three (3) duplexes and two (2) single-family homes.
The petitioner testifies that the proposed residential use is consistent with the use of the surrounding
neighborhood and the dwelling unit arrangement of single and two- family units is consistent with the
arrangement of dwelling units within the surrounding neighborhood.
17. The petitioner is requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to change the
existing non-conforming use of the property from the existing Ward 2 Social Club to multi-family
residential dwelling units in single and two (2) family arrangements.
18. The petitioner expects to provide future public access to the waterfront through the property,in a
location determined by the Planning Board and Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) through the Chapter 91 permitting process.
19. The proposed plan is providing fourteen (14) parking spaces where the requirement is twelve (12)
parking spaces. The Salem Zoning Ordinance requires one and a half(1.5) parking spaces per dwelling
unit.
20. Currently, there is one long curbcut with approximately thirty (30) parking spaces on the property.
The petitioner is proposing to reduce the number of parking spaces and formalize a curbcut that
meets the dimensional requirement of a maximum of 20' feet for a residential use.
21. Mr. Cameron,CE of Morin-Cameron Group, of Danvers,MA testified that the existing public
utilities and other public services are adequate to support the proposed eight (8)residential units.
22. Mr. Cameron,CE of Morin-Cameron Group, of Danvers,MA testified that the impacts on the
natural environment,including drainage would be positive. The petitioner is proposing to reduce the
existing impervious surface from 30%to 15%. The property will comply with all stormwater
management requirements.
23. The existing Ward 2 Social Club structure is 5,200 square feet at 12.5%lot coverage. In comparison,
the five (5) proposed residential structures are a total of 6,400 square feet at 13.3%lot coverage. Mr.
Cameron testifies that the proposed structures will have similar lot coverage and footprint areas as the
existing structure.
24. Mr. Cameron testifies that existing average lot area per dwelling unit in the neighborhood one (1)
dwelling unit per 2,600 square feet. The petitioner is proposing a lot area per dwelling unit of 5,229
square feet,making the proposed development approximately 30%less dense than neighboring
dwelling units.
25. Mr. Cameron testifies that the spacing between buildings in the existing neighborhood is
approximately ten (10) to twenty (20) feet.The proposed distance between the buildings at 1-3 East
Collins Street is twenty-five (25') feet at the narrowest point.
26. The footprints of the proposed buildings are comparable to the existing footprints of the buildings in
the surrounding neighborhood.
27. Mr. Ricciarelli, of Seger Architects testified that the proposed building footprints, massing and
architectural design are consistent with the architectural details,massing, and form of the surrounding
neighborhood. For example, the proposed buildings incorporate simple cladding, bay windows, and
"A" shaped rooflines. The building facades are slender with the remaining mass of the structure in the
rear.All of these details fit with the existing character of the dwelling units in the neighborhood.
28. The arrangement of the buildings is in response to the public request to retain view corridors of the
waterfront.
29. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base is positive.
30. The petitioner is also requesting four (4) variances including minimum lot area per dwelling unit,
minimum lot frontage,minimum distance between buildings,and maximum number of stories.
31. The petitioner, proposed the following deviations from the dimensional requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance: a) a lot area per dwelling unit of 5,300 square feet where the requirement per the Zoning
Ordinance is 15,000 square feet; b) 94.5 feet of frontage where the requirement per the Zoning
Ordinance is 100 square feet of linear frontage;c) a minimum of 25 feet of distance between buildings
where the minimum required distance is 40 feet d) Three (3) stories where the maximum requirement
is 2.5 stories.
32. The petitioner testifies that the 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 a significant portion of the property is salt march and coastal dune and the entire site
lies within the floodplain. Further, the site is traversed by an easement for the natural gas line,which
will be constructed in the near future. In addition,most of the land is within the jurisdiction of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts under Chapter 91. The land is also located in the most restrict
zoning district,but surrounding by districts that are less restrictive. These unique conditions of this
property make the development of the site expensive and challenging.
33. The petitioner testifies that the social club is no longer viable as evidenced by its recent closure due to
declining membership. Further the existing building cannot be reconstructed'for another purpose
under the Chapter 91 requirements due to current flood plain standards. The literal enforcement of
the zoning ordinance would allow the property owner to construct a single-family home. Due to
unique conditions of the land,the cost of the required specialized construction would exceed the
market value of the home for the area.
34. The petitioner proposes a density of 5,300 square feet where the requirement is 15,000 square feet per
dwelling unit and testifies that the proposed density of eight (8) residential dwelling units is needed.A
single-family use,which is an allowable use by right on this property,is not an economically feasible
use and creates an economic hardship for the petitioner due to the cost of construction needed for
this property.
35. The petitioner is proposing 94.5 feet of frontage where the requirement per the Zoning Ordinance is
100 square feet of linear frontage. The frontage is a pre-existing non-conforming dimension with no
alternative to provide additional linear frontage.
36. The petitioner is proposing 25'-30' feet of distance between buildings where the minimum required
distance is 40 feet.
37. The petitioner is proposing to construct dwelling units that are three (3) stories rather than the
maximum requirement of 2.5 stories. The proposed living areas are raised with parking proposed
underneath the building by necessity because the entire property is located within the flood zone.
Coastal construction requires that the first floor be elevated above the ten (10) foot flood elevation.
38. The dwelling unit mean rafter height does not exceed the 35'foot maximum requirement.
39. At the public hearings, ten (10) residents spoke in opposition to the proposal and one (1) member
spoke in support of 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 for Variance:
1. The special conditions and circumstances that especially affecting land,building or structure involved
generally not affecting other lands,buildings,and structures in the same district is that a significant
portion of the property is salt march and coastal dune and the entire site lies within the flood plain.
Further, the site is traversed by an easement for the natural gas line,which will be constructed in the
near future. In addition,most of the land is within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts under Chapter 91. The land is also located in the most restrict zoning district,but
surrounding by districts that are less restrictive. These unique conditions of this property make the
development of the site expensive and challenging.
2. The literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship as the
cost of building a single-family home on the property would far exceed the market value of the area.
3. 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.
Findings for Special Permit
1. The proposed change use of a non-conforming social club to another non-conforming use of multi-
family residential uses in a single and two (2) family arrangement is not substantially more detrimental
than the existing non-conforming use to the 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 as there are fourteen
(14) on-site parking spaces that exceed the minimum parking requirements of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance.
3. The capacity of the utilities and public services are not significantly affected by the project.
4. There are net positive impacts on the natural environment, including drainage as the existing property
has approximately 12,000 square feet of existing pavement surface. The petitioner is proposing to
reduce the impervious surface on the property to approximately 5,500 square feet.
5. The proposal improves neighborhood character as it improves the property and the residential use is
consistent with the use of the surrounding neighborhood. The dwelling unit arrangement of single
and two- family units is consistent with the arrangement of dwelling units within the surrounding
neighborhood. Further, proposed building footprints, massing, density and architectural design are
consistent with the architectural details,massing, density and form of the surrounding neighborhood.
6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base is positive.
r
On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (Rebecca
Curran (Chau),Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy,and Tom Watkins)in favor and none (0)
opposed, to grant a Special Permit per See. 3.3.2 Nonconforming User and Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Dimensional
Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for minimum lot area per dwelling unit,minimum lot frontage,
minimum distance between buildings, and maximum number of stories,to construct eight (8) residential units
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.
6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained.
7. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained.
8. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display
said number so as to be visible from the street.
9. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but
not limited to, the Planning Board.
Special Condition:
1. The applicant shall provide public access to the waterfront per DEP Chapter 91 license requirements.
4k4a (11A.")
Rebecca Curran, Chau
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 Maaachusenr General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed witbin 20
days of fift of this deanon in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or
Special Permitgranted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk bas been fikd with the Essex South
Registry ofDeedr.
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS
'colanl�t :, PETITION FORM
CITY OF SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS
s BOARD OF APPEALS 101h SEP 21 P It 49
M
Aix ear: 120 WASHINGTON STREET,3RD FLOOR
SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 FILE"#
Reay >" 1� TY CLERK. SALEM. HASS�.
Thomas St Pierre,Director of Inspectional ServicE�
Phone:978-6195641 /Fax:978-740-9846
KimBERLEY DRISCOLL Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner RECEIVED
I
MAYOR Phone:978-6195685 / Fax:978-740-0404
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: SEP 27 2016
The Undersigned represent that he/she is/are the owners of a certain parcel of land located at:
DEPT, OF PLANNING &
Address: 1-3 East Collins Street Zoning District: R-1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT;
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 of the rear yard to 22 feet.)
See Statements of Grounds attached.
For this reason I am requesting:
(iI)Variance(s)from provisions of Section 4.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance,specifically from min.
lot area per dwelling unit, min.distance between buildings min.frontage (i.e. minimum depth of rear yard).
What is allowed is 15,000 s.f. ,40ft, 100 ft (ft?sq ft?stories? %?), and what I
am proposing is See Statement of Grounds (fl?sq ft?stories?%?).
(-'�A Special Permit under Section. 3.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to Change one non
conforming use to another less detrimental non conforming use.
( )Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector(described below):
O Comprehensive Permit for construction of low or moderate income housing(describe below):
Current Property Use:Social Club Are Lot Dimensions Included?(]�Yes O No Why?
(Example.:Two Family Home)
The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals 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 Undersignedand relief may be granted without substantially
derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS
PETITION FORM
The following written statement has been submitted with this application:
(30 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.
(t 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
Section 9.4 Special Permits. 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
f) Potential fiscal impact,including impact on City tax base and employment.
O For all Comprehensive Permits for construction of low or moderate income applicants should refer to M.G.L.
Ch.40B § 20-23.
Previous applications to the Board of Appeals involving this property have been submitted with this petition
form. The Building Commissioner can provide dommentalion ofprevious applications to the petitioner or his
representative.
If different from petitioner:
Petitioner:Michael Meyer, Trustee Property Owner:Same as petitioner
Address: 11 Bay Street, Beverly, MA 019: Address:
Telephone: Telephone:
Email:mmey r@nedevelopment.com Email:
Signature: .14 Signature:
I (Attached consent letter is also acceptable)
Date: ptember 27, 2016 � / L._ Date:
i
If different from petitioner:
Representative:Scott M. Grover, Esq.
A TRUE Address:27 Congress St,#414, Salem, MA 0197(
ATTEST Telephone:976U-60/65
Signature
Date:Septe ber 7, 2016
CITY CLERK DATE DPCD DATE
This original application must be filed with the City Clerk
STATEMENT OF GROUNDS
The petitioner is the current owner of the property at 1-3 East Collins Street(the"Property")
which is the site of the now closed Ward 2 Social Club. The land area consists of 41,834 s.f. and
is presently occupied by a one story concrete block structure. The property is located in the
Residential One (R-1) zoning district.
It is the petitioner's intention to demolish the existing structure and to construct eight residential
dwelling units in single and two family dwellings. The proposed redevelopment of the property
will provide parking which conforms with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
To construct multiple structures on a single property is not allowed in the R-1 district, however,
the current use as a social club is legally non-conforming. Therefore, the change to the less
detrimental non-conforming multiple dwelling residential use is allowed by Special Permits
under Section 3.3.2 of the Ordinance.
The project also requires variances from certain dimensional requirements of the Ordinance.
Most notably, the lot area per dwelling unit required is 15,000 s.f. per unit and the proposed
development provides 5,300 s.f. per unit. In addition, the existing lot, which predates the Zoning
Ordinance, has 94.5 feet of footage along East Collins Street where 100 feet is required. The
proposal also requires a variance from the requirement that buildings on a lot be a minimum of
40 feet apart. In this instance the minimum distance proposed is 25 feet. Finally, although the
height of the building is less than the allowed 35 feet, each building does exceed the height
limitation of two and one half stories, requiring a variance from that provision.
There is a little question that the land at 1-3 East Collins Street is affected by special conditions
that do not affect other lots in the surrounding neighborhood. A significant portion of the
Property is salt marsh and coastal dune and the entire site lies with the flood plain. In addition,
most of the land is within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under Chapter
91. Further, the site is traversed by an easement for the natural gas line which will be
constructed in the near feature. Finally, the land is located in the most restrictive zoning district,
but surrounded by districts that are less restrictive. These conditions make the development of
the site expensive and challenging.
The current use of the building as a social club is no longer viable as evidenced by its recent
closure due to declining membership. The existing building cannot be reconstructed for another
purpose under current flood plain standards. In order to redevelop the property for a residential
use consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, current coastal construction standards and the
other regulatory and environmental constraints set forth above require a certain level of density.
Without the required relief to allow that level of density, the petitioner will be unable to convert
the Property to any economically productive use, creating a hardship for him. The proposed
density of the project is significantly less than the average density of the surrounding
neighborhood, so the relief requested could be granted without detriment to the public good and
would not depart significantly from the intent of the Ordinance or the district.
The redevelopment of the Property will have the benefit of eliminating a commercial use in the
middle of a residential neighborhood. The project will provide adequate parking for the
residents and the traffic impact will not be significant compared to the prior use as a social club.
As part of the development,the beach and coastal dune will be cleaned up. The majority of the
lot that is currently paved will be converted to open green space,thereby improving the natural
environment and drainage. Finally,the project will provide much needed housing in the City
and will add significant tax revenue.
For the foregoing reasons, it is appropriate and desirable for the Board to grant the relief
requested.
DATE OF PERMIT PERMIT No. OWNER LOCATION 36/277
6/26/ 1958 160 Ward 2 Social Club, Inc. I I-3 E. Collins Street R-1
_ I
STRUCTURE MATERIAL DIMENSIONS No,OF STORIES INo.. FFAAMILIES I WARD COST
CLUB 50'X60' 2 I $15,000.00
BUILDER Owners
"2/ 11/88 COPIED ALL INFO FROM 'ORIGINAL CARD"
4/27/ 1966 # 107 Erect 30'X50' masonry addition $20,000-
9/ 10/80 BOARD OF APPEAL - Variance DENIEDWard 11 Social Club Inc. to erect eight foot
fence.
8/18/95 11447-95 Install hood & kitchen exhaust duct w/ exhaust fan. L.T. est. 1300. fee 20.
RECEIVED
To: Rebeca Curran ZBA chair. REQUEST TO READ INTO RECORD OCT 19 2016
DEPT' OF PLANNING
CO g
MUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Recently I received a letter from you regarding the property 1-3 East Collins street.
This letter indicated yet another attempt to bypass the underlying Ri zoning via a
special permit. Please be advised at this time the property meets the definition of
our zoning section 3.3.6 Abandonment or Non-Use. The previous non-
conforming use (social club) has been discontinued for more than 24 months.
There is no longer a "protected" non- conforming use at this location.
The Zoning ordinance is very clear on definition of a discontinued use and the
situation at 1-3 E Collins street meets this definition.
I respectfully request that this board deny the applicant and inform them that the
property has reverted to the underlying zone of R-1.
��e7feL t* it
Regards aR P1610+em5 Sf.
Sc tt Truhart #4 E Collins St.
GYI�
Lc���
Co,
CO aS S7i
�ilr9k2tc� 1GIv( vNT c� tc. S � C-'! I Sfirc.�
,10/1 i Unoficial Properly Record Card
Unofficial Property Record Card - Salem, MA
General Property Data
Parcel ID 36-02780 Account Number
Prior Parcel ID 21 —
Property Owner KNIGHT CHARLES E Properly Location 5 EAST COLLI S C E I VE
KNIGHT MARY E Property Use Two Family V
Mailing Address 5 EAST COLLINS ST Most Recent Sale Date 813111 9 9 9 OCT ?016
Legal Reference 15909.85 {•1
City SALEM Grantor LYONS DEBRA&Ep T. OF PLANNING
Sale Price
0,000
PaeoelZoni gR11 Zip 01970 Land Area 0170 acres OMMUNITYDEVE'LOpI ENr
Current Property Assessment
Card 1 Value Building Value 218,900 Xtra Features 7,600 Land Value 90,300 Total Value 316,800
Value
Building Description
Building Style�MultiGarden Foundation Type Brick/Stone Flooring Type Hardwood
#of Living Unlls 3'J Frame Type Wood Basement Floor Concrete
Year Built-1905 Roof Structure Gable Heating Type Forced HIW
Building Grade Average Roof Cover Asphalt Shgl Heating Fuel Gas
Building Condition Average Siding Aluminum Air Conditioning 0
Finished Area(SF)2554.5 Interior Walls Plaster #of Band Garages 0
Number Rooms 12 #of Bedrooms 6 #of Full Baths 3
#of 3/4 Baths 0 #of 112 Baths 0 - #of Other Fixtures 0
Legal Description
Narrative Description of Property
This property contains 0.170 acres of land mainly classified as Two Family with a(n)Multi-Garden style building,built about 1905,having
Aluminum exterior and Asphalt ShgI roof cover,with 3 unitis),12 room(s),8 bedroom(s),3 bath(s),0 half bath(sl.
Property Images
Disclaimer.This information is believed to be correct but is subject to change and is not warranteed.
http://salem.pab,io¢xopedes.com/RecordCard.asp 1/1
Erin Schaeffer I \
To: kat erine-schra r@hotmail.com I a E®
Subject: RE-[ ityof Salem A] -3 East collins st salem Nov 1
ots
DEPT. OF PLANNING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
-----Original Message-----
From: vtsdmailer@vt-s.net [mailto:vtsdmailer@vt-s.net] On Behalf Of katherine-schrader@hotmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 11:38 AM
To: Erin Schaeffer
Subject: [City of Salem MA] 1-3 East collins st salem
Hello eschaeffer,
Katherine Schrader(katherine-schrader@hotmail.com) has sent you a message via your contact form
(http://www.salem.com/user/326/contact) at City of Salem MA.
If you don't want to receive such e-mails,you can change your settings at http://www.salem.com/user/326/edit.
Message:
Once again I am writing about 1-3 East Collins I still feel this is way too big and do not support the project This project is
not positive for the value of my house or the neighborhood The neighborhood is dense already and the argument is it is
dense so let's add more people and buildings
Parking will be drastically influenced, as it is, people block my driveway.
We have several vacant two bedroom house without parking. Hopefully we can
leave some parking for them,these are old building built before cars as
the neighbor was. This project as it stands will add more cars to the
neighborhood and it will take away spots on the street Even if there is
parking for two cars each,the owners of the houses may have people visit taking up space on the street
L
The housing is not in line with what is already there, They are large huge
modern building which will block light and views
I would like zoning board to do what is best for whole neighborhood Sincerely Katherine Schrader
10 East Collins street
4�
I
k
t
RECEIVED
Charles and Mary Knight
5 East Collins Street DEC 21 2016
Salem Massachusetts 01970 DEPT. OF PLANNING &
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
December 19, 2016
Ms. Rebecca Curran
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Dear Ms. Curran:
We are writing you once again to voice our opposition to the project proposed at 1-3 East Collins Street.
The opinion given by the City Solicitor regarding the "Abandonment Issue" is weak, as it appears to be
based solely on the Affidavit of Lorraine Cody. This"Affidavit' is filled with false statements and can be
quickly discredited.
This project is far too large for this parcel of property. Yes,the project was first proposed with 18 units,
and now has been reduced to 8. However,the footprint of this proposed project for the most part
remains the same as it did from the start. The buildings may be in a different configuration, and contain
less units, however, the units are larger but the footprint remains the same. This project is far too large
for this parcel and does not fit with the character of the neighborhood.
The property is appropriate for a single family home, and will fit in with the character of this
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Mary Knight
Charles Kni t
Dobbs V.Board of Appeals of Northampton,339 Mass.684(1959)
162 N.E.2d 32
339 Mass.684
12 Cases that cite this bade
'
DECV�>�
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,Hampshire. 2
[3] Zoning and Planni F 1 20 6
Harold K 11OBB8 et al. Discontitnf k/k bagonment
lrY N l
°• Evidence would not sUR&kAEY of
BOARD OF APPEALS OF NORTHAMPTON et al. discontinuance of nonconforming useMENr
Argued Sept.24,1959• 2 Cases that cite this headnote
Decided Nov.5,1959•
[4] Zoning and Planning
Zoning case.The Superior Court,O'Brien, J.,annulled a 0%, Grounds for grant or denial in general
decision of the board granting application for permit to Under ordinance requiring new use not
use premises for beauty shop, and an appeal was taken. to be substantially different in character
The Supreme Judicial Court, Whittemore, J., held that or more detrimental or objectionable to
beauty parlor use was`substantially different in character' neighborhood, permit could not issue for
from merchandise sale use, for purposes of ordinance new use which was"substantially different in
barring permit for new use which was `substantially character",even if such new use were not more
different in character.' detrimental or objectionable.
Affirmed. I Cases that cite this headnote
[5] Zoning and Planning
West Headnotes(6) er- Scope and Extent of Review
Absence of finding of difference of character
[1] Zoning and Planning of use would not prevent reviewing court's
sustaining of decree annulling zoning board
0- Discontinuance or Abandonment decision granting application for permit for
For finding of discontinuance of use of premises as beauty shop on ground that
nonconforming use, there must be evidence such new use was "substantially different in
of "abandonment," that is, of intent to character",where ordinance barred permit for
abandon and of voluntary conduct carrying new use which was"s bstantially different in
that implication. character"and other ntrolling evidence was
before reviewing court.M.G.L.A.c.214§24;
14 Cases that cite this headnote Rules for the Regual ion of Practice before
Full Court,rule 2(B,Q.
[2] Zoning and Planning
e"- Discontinuance or Abandonment 1 Cases that cite this h adnote
Ordinance did not intend loss
of nonconforming use merely from [61 Zoning and Planning
nonoccupancy; but since owner can by c— Other particular ses
his diligent efforts have some control over Beauty parlor use was `substantially different
period of vacancy, if he allows an extended in character" from merchandise sale use, for
time to elapse with only desultory and purposes of ordinance barring permit for
equivocal action in meantime he runs risk of new use which was "substantially different in
sustainable finding of such abandonment and character."
discontinuance as will result in loss of right to
nonconforming use.
WESTLAW to 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to,original U.S. Government Works. 1
I
Dobbs v.Board of Appeals of Northampton,339 Mass.684.(1959)
162 N.E.2d 32
Cases that cite this headnote The relevant evidence,including the ordinances,has been
designated.G.L.c.214,§24. Rule 2(B),(C),of the Rules
*686 for the Regulation of Practice before the Full Court
(1952) 328 Mass. 693-694. There appears no dispute as
Attorneys and Law Firms to the facts:The zoning ordinance was adopted February
17, 1949. The premises had been used as a grocery store
*685 **32 William H. Welch, Northampton, for the from 1922 to 1949 or 1950.One Newhall held the premises
defendants,Evelyn Elinsky and another. under a written lease, and paid rent therefor, from May
Salvatore A.Polito,Northampton,for for plaintiffs.
12, 1950, to May 15, 1955. He used the premises to store
and sell farm equipment until May, 1954,when he moved
Before *684 WILKINS, C. J., and to a new location. He continued to use the building for
RONAN, SPALDING, WILLIAMS, COUNIHAN, storage until May, 1955, and went to the building once
WHITTEMORE,and CUTTER,JJ. in every two or three months.When the building became
vacant the owners listed it with a real estate agent who
Opinion suggested that the owners advertise it, spoke to several
prospects;and secured his last interested prospect one and
WHITTEMORE,Justice. a half or two years prior to the court hearing in June,
This is an appeal from a decree of the Superior Court 1958.Since then he had done nothing to rent the premises
which annulled a decision of the zoning ordinance board of except that one one occasion 'he spoke to somebody in
appeals of **33 Northampton.See G.L.c.40A,§21.The regard to putting a sales office there.'The owners put two
decision of the board of appeals in March, 1958, granted for rent' signs in the window of the building two days
the application of Evelyn and Caroline F. Elinsky, the
after Newhall vacated it.One sign remained in place from
appellants,owners of property at 95 Massasoit Street,in May, 1955, to June 29, 1958. The other remained in the
a residence B district,for a permit to use the premises for window until a year prior to the date of hearing.One of the
a beauty shop. The ground of the decision was that the owners placed an advertisement in the local paper on May
proposed use was 'a less objectionable non-conforming 19 and 21, 1955,and `also inserted two or three small ads
use within the provisions of§ 16 of the ordinance which in the newspaper after the big ads which appeared in May,
provides in clause (c): 'Any nonconforming use may 1955,'but was uncertain whether these appeared after the
be changed to another nonconforming use or any non- end of 1955. The prospective tenant, in order to adapt
conforming building may be rebuilt or repaired on permit the premises for beauty parlor use,intended to install two
from the board of appeals,such new use or reconstructed booths.She would work alone and there would be no odor
building not to be substantially different in character or or noise.
more detrimental or objectionable to the neighborhood.' Ill 121 131 1.In the opinion of a majority of the court,
The appellees, the plaintiffs, are the owners of adjoining the decree cannot be sustained on the ground stated by the
premises. judge.
The judge, in a 'Report of material facts and order for
decree,'found that a non-conforming use of the premises We have indicated that for a finding of discontinuance
had been made until March 15, 1954, 'when the non- must be evidence of abandonment, that is, of
conforming use was discontinued';that that use'had been o intent to abando and oluntary conduct carrying that
voluntarily discontinued by the owners of the real estate implication. Pioneer Insulation & Modernizing Corp. v.
for a continuous period of four years prior to the board's City of L'yn'n, 331 Mass. 560, 564565, 120 N.E.Zd 913. p
decision';and that the ordinance,in effect for at least four We think that the evidence of abandonment is insufficient.
years prior to 1958, provided (§ 16 [e], 'When anynon- We_assume that evidence gs done or`ne
conforming use has been discontinued for a period of two which carries the imrolication of *687�abandon_ mend 11
(2)years it shall not be re-established,and future use shall support a finding of intent whatever the avowed state
be in conformity with this ordinance.' of mind of the owner, so that the second of the two
factors mentioned in the Pioneer case may,in a ro ria
ci cumstances, 34 a controlling evidentially. But so
WES7h,gW tc3 2016 Thomson Reuters, No claim to original U.S. Government Warks, 2
Dobbs V.Board of Appeals of Northampton,339 Mass.684(1959)
far as an intent is shown in the owners'conduct in allowing ordinance, with the other controlling evidence is before
the premises to be without a tenant for two years and u_s,_a_n'cT we rule that a finding that these uses are not
nine months, making some effort to rent for business substantially different in character' would be erroneous
use, making no effort to convert to residential use, it is : n law.Everpure Ice Mfg. Co. Inc.v.Board of Appeals of 3
an intent to continue the business use. The negotiations Lawrence, 324 Mass. 433, 437, 86 N.E.2d 906,and cases
for the beauty shop use o rental speak of a conttnuin intent. cited. See Mioduszewski v. Saugus, 337 Mass. 140, 145, i'
allure to make any premises for an extended time 148 N.E.2d 655. The difference in character intended by
might, we assume evidence an intent to abandon anv the ordinance is a difference which has significance for
rofitable use so that the nonconforming privilege would zoning purposes. See Town of Marblehead v. Rosenthal, �5,
be los but a do not think the lapse o time here j5 316 Mass. 124, 128, 55 N.E.2d 13; Town of Seekonk v.
such as rmit that conclusion. We see no basis for Anthony,Mass., 157 N.E.2d 651.
concluding that such rental efforts as were made were in
bad faith. The lapse of time was not so great that those
The business of a beauty parior i �onal service d
efforts,and the absence of an attempt for residential use, ,_,_--. „-r
lose all significance. We see no basis for concluding that not th a e of merchandise�WhBe both types o usiness
intent to abandon existed for two years or more. The are often conducted to the same business areas, they
ordinance does not intend a loss of a nonconforming use are, nevertheless, sufficiently differentiated to support
merely from nonoccupancy. in the Pioneer case we said different zoning classifications. One and not the other
(331 Mass. at page 565, 120 N.E.2d at page 916), 'Thus may be excluded from certain residence areas; a permit
from the board of appeal§ may be required for one and
nonoceupancy o the premises and suspension or cessation
not the other. We assume that in a particular case, and,
of business due to causes over which the owner has no
control do not of themselves constitute a discontinuance; indeed, in this case, it could be found that the effect
and lapse of time is not the controlling factor althou h upon the neighborhood, applying all zoning purpose
it is evidential,especially in connection will facts — �' -r
tests, would be similar. See Town of Marblehead v. .9
=showing Rosenthal, 316 Mass. 124, 128, 55 N.E.2d 13. But he
an intent to discontinue the use,, However,an owner can .._.L_
by his di l Rent efforts have some control over a period of requirement the ordinancegoes beyondlhat i exch,dre
vacancy,and if he allows an extended time to elapse with substantially different uses regardless of the effect even
only desultory and equivocal action in the meantime he moose uses which to the circumstances could be found
runs the risk of a sustainable finding of abandonment and to be more to accord with the zoning purpose indicated
discontinuance. Sor the community For cases where the limitation in the
141 f51 161 2. The decree is su orted by the provision enlarging ordinance or by-law was only in respect of more
rT N of the ordinance which bars a perm for new use which is detrimental use see LaMontagne v. Kenney, 288 Mass.
;��t( E substantial) different incharacte hat the new use may 363, 366-368, 193 N.E. 9; Donovan Drug Corp.v.$oard
of be more detrime a r objectionable is i_— m— of Appeals of Hingham,336 Mass. 1,4-5,142 N.E.2d 354.
tT'
for the wor
g is such that both requiremen must Decree affirmed.
I<~T I be met. '6 kblic Bidgs. Com'r of New 5 v. Star
,a Market Co.,324 Mass.75,79,84 N.E.2d 529, damsky v. All Citations
Mendes,326 Mass. 603,605,96 N.E.2d 236.The absence
of a finding of difference of character of use does not 339 Mass. 684, 162 N.E.2d 32
prevent our sustaining the decree on s ground. The
End of Document ®2018 Thomson Reuters.No claim to original U.S.Govemmerd Works.
WESUAW tc,2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to anginal U.S. GDvemment Wcrks.
3
MAP 36 LOT 2OWER 34 CO.
_ NEW ENGiANO P
S40 6 3- W
215.89
5.89
/qY/
PROPOSED Two
/ a^
W �,k•
K \
FAMILY DWEWNGµ \ / �(`� \ _ D
GARAGE SPACES) Cd \/
DEC 212016 7 Q
}d .. /Ow/ DEPT. OFPLANNINgJp�1 Q
\PP\ 10 v j MA�®�U[OfiY;��+ZEIO ^�
33 C4- !-=
N
�V0
IL
w O
/ PROPOSED SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING N 46'51'23'
N
� (2 GARAGE SPACES) PROPOSED SINGLE 28.02'
0FAMILY DWELLING(2 GARAGE SPACES)
PROP. iam
o \ GRAVEL
/ \ DRIVE
GARAGE
P
\�I uor f
---- n.0
E PAfldf
FAMILY
PROPOSED
ASPHALT µ MAP 36 LOT 278
(3 GARAGE SPACES) PAVEMENT ,oy CHARLES & MARY KNIGHT
w�,•o' _ 5 EAST COWNS ST.
OD
o
\
DWELLING
au' \
V• \
7.9'
. gag
m a o
�
94.50'
N 46'51'23' E
\ \
�`°J► EAST COLLINS STREET
=T
0.25 -
41
OPOSEO /50` / v m
LINE OF BLDG. / j
ABo i
OVE y°
MAAK09 77V E®,
DEC 21 2016
DEPT. OF PLANNINeg11lling-lhed
e r moved
f r0 00_ g COMMUNITY DEVELOPME rT -
p 1J N /
N 46'51'23' E
-0 L11 rn� / 28.02'
�oi�? PROPOS'ED
PARKING
Q / MW= 41' t 10.9'
LINE OF BLD - -
/ ABOVE G.=_
- ,
/ / gBUtLi)INCa xis m 9 o a remo _
� • MAP=36 LOT 27
CHARLES'& MAI g °w°d 5 EAST COLLINS
" 1da
DWELLING
— 3.0'
V - � o ba removed +T'
1
7.9'
4e
, ^ 0.25 = 10.3'
94.50'
V• 32-8'
%
S.
N 46'51'23' E
EAST COLLINS STREET
NG DISTRICT - R7
REWIRED EXISTING PROPOSED
AREA 15.000 41.834 t 41.834 t
A EAu�I� 15 000 _ ZONING BOAR® OF APPEAL;
2.324 t 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREE
RONTAGE 100 94.50' 94.50' SALEM
� SH OF MA
IT 15 21.6' 1.8' �� °�
PROPERTY OF
10 30' 0.25 GAIL L. m 1-3 EAST COWNS SIRE
sMlrrl I � A
NO.35043 ^y/ REALTY
TRtj1T
To: Salem ZBA Members
From: Scott and Tricia Truhart 4 East Collins street.
Hello- For the record my name is Scott Truhart, and I oppose this project.
I am here in person as a direct abutter to discuss why the current proposal is
more detrimental and significantly alters this well-established "high density" with
a "low-density" feel neighborhood. The petitioner has suggested this is a dense
area, this is fact. Based upon this assessment it is easy to see that the current
proposal further hurts the immediate neighborhood by adding to the density
problems. We have been blessed to live in a Salem neighborhood with a" low
density feel" and urge you to preserve this by only allowing a sensible low impact
project, something we have yet to see.
When non-conformities exist, part of responsible and sound planning in any city
or township is to reduce said non-conformities and encourage projects that
conform. Unfortunately, most developers are only concerned with how big a
project they can slip in an area regardless of its impact.
I would like to point out that the neighborhood has recently become denser with
the new Planters street homes. Generally, these units have been a nice fit to the
neighborhood. This is entirely due to how the developer build to a compatible
scale along the street. We have seen however negative consequences from the
street width reduction that was granted to allow for sidewalks. This poorly
planned decision has led to Fire trucks that have not been able to get down
Planters street on at least one occasion due to a car being legally parked on
Planters street. It is likely that Planters street will eventually become a "no
Parking" area when the fire department request that the Planters street parking
be eliminated for emergency and safety reasons. I witnessed this first hand as it
was my car that was parked legally and the fire truck could not get though. I bring
this up to emphasize that negative consequences do arise even among best
efforts of planning, engineering and other municipal departments. When these
consequences exist it's the neighbors that are fouled not the petitioners as they
have moved on to the next project.
f
These plans call for 3 fewer "units" however you can easily see that the actual
impact to the property has only been minimally reduced. The plans still show
virtually all the space (lot and building) once used by the abandon social club to
be built upon. The sketches you have been shown of the buildings only shade
certain narrow faces, giving the illusion of a small foot print or structure. In fact,
this style building is indeed very large with its multi-tier roof systems. It is
prudent to request a set of drawings with all surfaces clearly visible and equally
shaded. You will be able to than make out just how large the buildings are. The
current proposal is seeking elevated units and stories exceedance, this is more
detrimental relative to the total heights and how it will affect natural light,
horizon perception and airflow that has been afforded to this neighborhood since
the 1890; s when some of these houses were built here.
The petitioners engineer has referred to the "hammer head" paved area that is
commonly found in "subdivisions" and mentions it is for fire protection measures.
It appears that a street will be put in place, undoubtedly private that will require
at least a 20-foot curb cut. There is no plan to allow the public to be able to park
in that "hammer head" street arrangement. Yet we can be sure friends, family or
the unit owners themselves will be able to park freely on East Collins street where
we have a serious shortage of parking already. This aside, I cannot find a single
instance where a subdivision style of housing and parking areas like this exists any
place in the surrounding area. I believe that this is because it is not allowed in
R1/R2 zones. "planned unit developments or other master planned communities
like the proposal are more commonly found along major thoroughfares
It is easy to overlook that about half of the property is in the wetland/beach area
and not planned to be developed. If you consider the actual size of the proposed
building area the actual density is much higher than being reported to the board.
Whenever growth occurs in a community many aspects are effected, schools,
police, fireman, all must be increased at a cost to the city. Quality of life on things
like traffic are also degraded. Our water and sewer infrastructure are pushed to
limits and often must be upgraded. It is unlikely that the city will see any
significant gains though tax generated when you factor in the increased demands
from the 32 or more residents that would live at the proposed project.
Just prior to the petitioner withdrawing the last proposal of 11 units it was clear
that virtually the entire board could not support the project as it was just too
large. I ask you to consider taking a closer look at this current proposal in its
entirety not just number reduction. I am confident you will find that it's not that
much different or less impactful than the last proposal that this board could not
see supporting. We urge this board to have the courage and expertise to see that
something better can be sustained on this property.
This neighborhood has come together and would like to see a few homes built on
this property. There is a way that this can be accomplished that will be a win for
the petitioner, the city and more importantly the home owners that reside here.
We see no compelling reason this board is obliged to approve essentially a
subdivision or planned unit development of this magnitude in a R1 area.
Thank you and Happy Holidays
Scott Truhart/Tricia Truhart.
i
To: Salem ZBA Members
From: Scott and Tricia Truhart 4 East Collins street.
Hello- For the record my name is Scott Truhart, and I oppose this project.
I am here in person as a direct abutter to discuss why the current proposal is
more detrimental and significantly alters this well-established "high density" with
a "low-density" feel neighborhood. The petitioner has suggested this is a dense
area, this is fact. Based upon this assessment it is easy to see that the current
proposal further hurts the immediate neighborhood by adding to the density
problems. We have been blessed to live in a Salem neighborhood with a" low
density feel" and urge you to preserve this by only allowing a sensible low impact
project, something we have yet to see.
When non-conformities exist, part of responsible and sound planning in any city
or township is to reduce said non-conformities and encourage projects that
conform. Unfortunately, most developers are only concerned with how big a
project they can slip in an area regardless of its impact.
I would like to point out that the neighborhood has recently become denser with
the new Planters street homes. Generally, these units have been a nice fit to the
neighborhood. This is entirely due to how the developer build to a compatible
scale along the street. We have seen however negative consequences from the
street width reduction that was granted to allow for sidewalks. This poorly
planned decision has led to Fire trucks that have not been able to get down
Planters street on at least one occasion due to a car being legally parked on
Planters street. It is likely that Planters street will eventually become a "no
Parking" area when the fire department request that the Planters street parking
be eliminated for emergency and safety reasons. I witnessed this first hand as it
was my car that was parked legally and the fire truck could not get though. I bring
this up to emphasize that negative consequences do arise even among best
efforts of planning, engineering and other municipal departments. When these
consequences exist it's the neighbors that are fouled not the petitioners as they
have moved on to the next project.
These plans call for 3 fewer "units" however you can easily see that the actual
impact to the property has only been minimally reduced. The plans still show
virtually all the space (lot and building) once used by the abandon social club to
be built upon. The sketches you have been shown of the buildings only shade
certain narrow faces, giving the illusion of a small foot print or structure. In fact,
this style building is indeed very large with its multi-tier roof systems. It is
prudent to request a set of drawings with all surfaces clearly visible and equally
shaded. You will be able to than make out just how large the buildings are. The
current proposal is seeking elevated units and stories exceedance, this is more
detrimental relative to the total heights and how it will affect natural light,
horizon perception and airflow that has been afforded to this neighborhood since
the 1890; s when some of these houses were built here.
The petitioners engineer has referred to the "hammer head" paved area that is
commonly found in "subdivisions" and mentions it is for fire protection measures.
It appears that a street will be put in place, undoubtedly private that will require
at least a 20-foot curb cut. There is no plan to allow the public to be able to park
in that "hammer head" street arrangement. Yet we can be sure friends, family or
the unit owners themselves will be able to park freely on East Collins street where
we have a serious shortage of parking already. This aside, I cannot find a single
instance where a subdivision style of housing and parking areas like this exists any
place in the surrounding area. I believe that this is because it is not allowed in
R1/R2 zones. "planned unit developments or other master planned communities
like the proposal are more commonly found along major thoroughfares
It is easy to overlook that about half of the property is in the wetland/beach area
and not planned to be developed. If you consider the actual size of the proposed
building area the actual density is much higher than being reported to the board.
Whenever growth occurs in a community many aspects are effected, schools,
police, fireman, all must be increased at a cost to the city. Quality of life on things
like traffic are also degraded. Our water and sewer infrastructure are pushed to
limits and often must be upgraded. It is unlikely that the city will see any
significant gains though tax generated when you factor in the increased demands
from the 32 or more residents that would live at the proposed project.
Just prior to the petitioner withdrawing the last proposal of 11 units it was clear
that virtually the entire board could not support the project as it was just too
large. I ask you to consider taking a closer look at this current proposal in its
entirety not just number reduction. I am confident you will find that it's not that
much different or less impactful than the last proposal that this board could not
see supporting. We urge this board to have the courage and expertise to see that
something better can be sustained on this property.
This neighborhood has come together and would like to see a few homes built on
this property. There is a way that this can be accomplished that will be a win for
the petitioner, the city and more importantly the home owners that reside here.
We see no compelling reason this board is obliged to approve essentially a
subdivision or planned unit development of this magnitude in a R1 area.
Thank you and Happy Holidays
Scott Truhart/Tricia Truhart.
CUNNINGHAM, MACHANIC CETLINJOHNSON HARVEY& TENNEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Daniel M.Cnnniugham(19a7-2013)
Soon L.Marhenic Lakewood Office Park orcounw:
EdwardDana A.Cedm t 220 North Main Street,Ste.301 wdb'am M 7zaU (1911-2003)
David C.Johnson(i%e.2m) Natick,Massachusetts 01760.1100 Richard R.Schafa
Peter P.Ra0ey Richard A Zucker
Robmt_ E. (508)651.7524 (781)237-7030 Richard
D.L�
Rolrwt B.
ndgrs FAX:(508)653-0119 para)esds.
Anne a.Rosenberg
email:cndaw@cralaw.net Jemy Hall Maltais
Anne C.Rosenberg
Megan H.Suaivan wWW.calltlin$hSmmBchalli0.c0tn Joame Kremer ZalI
Steven G.Mandan t Pwla J'weVNVM
Ari Y.Aurgnma
John D.Hadden Qt Also Admitted in New Hampddm Katherine Y.Goff
n Also Admitted in Vermont Erin A.Goss
Edward J.Doherty IV
January 26, 2017
BY CERTIFIED MAIL
Rebecca Curran, Chair Peter Copelas, Member Thomas Watkins,:Member
City of Salem, City of Salem, City of Salem,
Board of Appeals Board of Appeals Board of Appeals
14 Clifton Ave 40 Warren Street 24 Surrey Road
Salem,MA 01970 Sale MA 01970 Salem,MA 01970
Mike Duffy,Member James Tsitsinos, Member James Hacker,Alternate
City of Salem, City of Salem, City of Salem,
Board of Appeals Board of Appeals Board of Appeals
1 Warren Court 55 Lawrence Street, Unit#2 4 Mayflower Lane
Salem,MA 01970 Sale MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970
Paul Vicciea,Alternate MiohatI Meyer, Trustee
City of Salem, 11 Bay Street
Board of Appeals Beverly,MA 01915
35 Broad Street
Salem,MA 01970
Re: Notice of Appeal of Decision of the City of Salem Board of Appeals; by
Scott Truhatt et al
Petition Dt: September 27, 2016 ,.{
:'.
Petitioner: Michael Meyer, Trustee
. cs
Owner: Michael Meyer, Trustee A�
Premises: 1-3 East Collins Street
Decision Dt: January 4, 2017 _
Dear Messrs./Mme.:
Pursuant to MGL chapter 40A, §17, you are hereby given notice that Scott Trubart, et al,
by and through their undersigned attorney, has appealed the above-referenced Decision of
l
CUNNINGHAM,MACHANIC,CETLIN,JOHNSON,HARNEY& TENNEY,LLP
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Notice to Defendants
January 26, 2017
Page 2 of 2
the City of Salem Board of Appeals, which was filed with the Salem City Clerk on January
4, 2017. I have enclosed a copy of the First Amended Complaint, which is being served
upon you with this Notice.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
CUNNINGHAM, MACHANIC,
CETLIN, JO N &HARNEY,LLP
William M. Zall
cc. City Clerk,City of Salem(Correspondence only)
Clients
WMZ/50368
7193-0001
x
CITY OF SALEM
,g
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
9F:YM_INE�:
93 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEDI,MASSACHUSE175 01970
TET--97S-745-9595 FAX:978-744-1279
KI\mHItLEY DRISCOLI. ELIZABETH RENNARD,ESQ. VICTORIA CALO%wmi,ESQ.
MAYOR CITY SOLICITOR Assr:CIIY So17CIroR
bmnnud(a)sale_c= vm1d\ve➢@sa1=.wm
To: Rebecca Curran, Chair
From: Elizabeth Rennard,Es
Re: Opinion— 1-3 E. Collins St.
Date: December 14,2016
Attached please find a legal opinion from the City's land use attorney, Jill Mann,relative to the
petition for a Special Permit at 1-3 East Collins Street.
I have reviewed the facts of this case and the Opinion of Attorney Mann with the City's Zoning
Enforcement Officer,Thomas St.Pierre, and we are in concurrence with the Opinion.
Please feel free to contact me with any further questions.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Beth Rennard, Esq.
FROM: Jill Elmstrom Mann, MANN & MANN, P.C.
DATE: December 13, 2016
RE: 1—3 East Collins Street (the "Property")
ISSUES:
1. Is the use of the Property (the "Use") by the Ward II Social Club Salem, Inc.
(formerly known as the Ward Two Social Club, Inc.) (the "Club") entitled to protected status as
a legally existing nonconforming use under M.G.L. ch. 40A, §6 and under §6 of the Ordinance?
2. Did the Club abandon its Use of the Property in January 2014 when it closed the
Building to the Public?
3. Did the sale of the Property to the Michael Meyer, Trustee of 1-3 East Collins
Street Realty (Book 34073/Page 359) (the "Owner") constitute a termination of the Use?
4. Is it within the authority of the Board of Appeals for the City of Salem (the
"Board") to issue a special permit to the Owner allowing a change in the use of the Property
from one nonconforming use to another "less" nonconforming use?
RELEVANT LAW
1. M.G.L., Chapter 40A, §6
2. Salem Zoning Ordinance adopted on August 1, 1955 (the "1955 Ordinance")'
3. Salem Zoning Ordinance adopted on September 10, 2009, as amended through the date
hereof(the "Ordinance").
CONCLUSION:
1. Yes, the Use of the Property by the Club is a legally existing nonconforming use
and therefore is entitled to the protected status provided by M.G.L. ch. 40A, §6 and under §6 of
the Ordinance.
2. No,the Club did not abandon its Use of the Property and therefore the Use
continues to be entitled to the protections of M.G.L. ch. 40A, §6 and under §6 of the Ordinance.
3. Assuming arguendo that the transfer to the Owner did constitute a termination
of the Use, under M.G.L. ch. 40A, §6 and under §6 of the Ordinance, the Owner has a period of
2 years to either recommence the Use or to secure a special permit under §3.3.2(2) of the
Ordinance.
4. Yes, under §3.3.2(2) of the Ordinance, the Board has the authority to grant a
special permit to allow a nonconforming use of the Property to continue, provided the Board
'The 1955 Ordinance was the version of the zoning regulations in effect at the time the Property was improved
and used as the social club.
Memorandum
1—3 East Collins Street
RE:Opinion to BOA
Page 2 ,
issues a finding that the proposed new use of the Property, is less detrimental than the existing
nonconforming use.
FACTS:
On November 30, 1948, various residents of the City of Salem formed the Club as a
Massachusetts not-for-profit corporation organized under M.G.L. ch. 180 for the purpose of
promoting brotherhood and charity in the Ward II District of Salem, specifically to establish and
grant educational scholarships for Salem's youth,to support recreation and sports activities in
Salem, and to provide assistance to the Salem Council on Aging.
On November 1, 1956,the Club acquired title to the Property for the purpose of constructing a
building (the "Building')to serve as the location for the charitable activities of its membership,
including but not limited to a place to hold meetings and other events for its membership, and
a location where the public would be able to hold events.
In 1956 through 1958,the Property was located in the Single Residence District—B. In June of
1958, the Club applied for and received a building permit to construct the Building. At the time,
the 1955 Ordinance was in effect and pursuant to §4.B.5. thereof the Use of the Property was a
permitted use in the Single Residence District.z
From the time the occupancy permit was issued until May 2015,the Club continued to operate
out of the Property, which continues to be classified as a single family residentially zoned
property. See §2.1 of the Ordinance (Residential One-Family) Zoning District.
Based upon information presented in an Affidavit from Lorraine Cody, a copy of which is
attached hereto attached hereto as Exhibit A(the "Affidavit"),the members of the Club
continued to use the Property until May 2015. According to the Affidavit, in or around 2013, the
Club began to experience financial difficulties as a result of declining membership and in
January 2014 the membership voted to stop close the Building for public events.
Notwithstanding, from February 2014 through May 2015 (the "Interim Period"), the members
of the Club maintained the Property, including the building and parking areas, while they
investigated various selling opportunities. In addition during the Interim Period,the Club held
various member events and board meetings. Until the Property was sold in May 2015,3 the
'Under§4.13.5 of the 1955 Ordinance,any use of a property within the Single Family District by a "Public,semi-
public,or private institution or organization of a philanthropic,charitable...character"was a permitted use.
This use is no longer permitted by right in the R1 District
3 On May 21,2015,the Club conveyed the Property to the Owner,the deed for which was recorded with the Essex
South District Registry of Deeds in Book 34073, Page 359.
Memorandum
1—3 East Collins Street
f RE:Opinion to BOA
t Page 3
Club renewed its liquor license and filed its annual reports with the Secretary of State for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts°
On September 27, 2016,the Owner filed a petition under Section 3.3.2 of the Ordinance
requesting, in addition to other zoning relief, a special permit from the Board allowing a change
from the existing non-conforming use to another less detrimental non-conforming use
(multifamily housing). The hearing on the petition has been continued to provide the Board
with the opportunity to evaluate the above-listed issues.
DISCUSSION:
1. Status as Legally Existing. The first step in evaluating requests to change
nonconforming uses is to determine if the use of the Property was in fact lawful at the time (A)
of the original use and (B) at the time the use regulations were amended to prohibit the subject
use.
(A) In 1958, when the Club constructed and first occupied the Building, §4.B.5. of the
1955 Ordinance permitted the development and use of properties within the
Single Family Residential District by "Public, semi-public, or private institution[s]
or organization[s] of a philanthropic, charitable ... character ..." The Club was
organized as a charitable entity under M.G.L. ch. 180, §4 and continued to
maintain its status as a Massachusetts corporation through the end of 2014.
(B) Sometime after 1958,the zoning regulations were changed to remove
philanthropic enterprises as uses permitted by right in the Single Family District.
Notwithstanding, prior to and at the time the use regulations were amended,
the Club's use of the Property was lawfully begun under the 1955 Ordinance. .
Therefore the Club's use of the Property constituted a use "lawfully in existence [and] lawfully
begun..." under M.G.L. ch. 40A, §6 and under §6 of the Ordinance and therefore entitled to
protection thereunder as a legally existing nonconforming use.
2. Has the Use been Abandoned. The next step in evaluating requests to
change nonconforming uses is to determine if the facts of the situation demonstrate that the
legally existing nonconforming use had been abandoned or discontinued for a period greater
than two (2) years prior to the request to change the use of the Property to a lesser
nonconforming use. Following the line of reasoning employed by the Supreme Judicial Court
of Massachusetts, it is clear that the closing of the Building in January 2014 did not constitute
an abandonment of the Club's Use of the Property and that the Use of the Property continues
to be subject to M.G.L. ch. 40A, §6 and under§6 of the Ordinance.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has held that mere nonuse of a property alone
does not constitute abandonment and that the facts of each case must be evaluated in order to
determine if there was a clear intention to abandon the protected use. Only in instances where
additional facts are presented that support claims of the intent to abandon or demonstrate that
4 The Club filed its last annual report on for the 2014 calendar year.
Memorandum
1—3 East Collins Street
RE:Opinion to BOA#
Page 4 7
the use of a property has been substantially altered from its prior preexisting lawful use or
when the owner has failed to maintain the property or has demolished the structures located
thereon has the Court found that a protected use has been abandoned under M.G.L. ch. 40A,
§6. Derby Refining Co. v. Chelsea, 407 Mass. 703, 709 (1990), see also, Cape Resort Hotels, Inc.
v.Alcohol Licensing Bd. of Falmouth, 385 Mass. 205, 220-221 (1982); Pioneer Insulation &
Modernizing Corp. v. Lynn, 331 Mass. 560, 565 (1954); Wayland v. Lee, 325 Mass. 637, 642 n.2
(1950); Paul v. Selectmen of Scituate, 301 Mass. 365, 370(1938).
Based on the facts provided in the Affidavit, it is clear that the Club intended to preserve the
Property, Building and its other associated assets in order to best position the Property for sale
to another charitable organization. At all times during its ownership, the Club continued to use
the Building and Property for member meetings and other social events, maintained the
Property, Building and the associated parking lot; and maintained and renewed its corporate
filings and liquor license. Accordingly at no time during its ownership did the Club abandon the
Use.
3. Even if the Board makes the assumption that the Owner has not continued the
Use of the Property as originally begun by the Club, the protection afforded to legally
nonconforming uses extends for a period of two (2) years after the effective date of
termination. Accordingly, under M.G.L. ch. 40A, §6 and under §6 of the Ordinance, the Owner
has a period of 2 years to either recommence the Use or to secure a special permit under
§3.3.2(2) of the Ordinance, which would extend through and including May 2017.
4. Authority to Grant a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2(2) of the Ordinance .
Given that the Use of the Property by the Club was never abandoned and that the period of
nonuse at best would be said to be expiring at the earliest on May 21, 2017,the Board
possesses the authority to consider the Owner's petition for a special permit under§33.2(2) of
the Ordinance allowing him to develop and use the Property as a less nonconforming use.
r
AFFIDAVIT OF LORRAINE CODY
1. I, Lorraine Cody of 8 Barton Street,Salem,MA served as the manager of Ward 2 Social Club,.13
East Collins Street,Salem, MA(hereinafter"Club")during the period of September, 2011 to
May,2015.
2. Since September, 2011, my name has appeared as manager on the liquor license for the Club
issued by the City of Salem.The license is current,with my name fisted as manager.
3. The Club membership held a meeting in December of 2013 and voted affirmatively to close the
Club building on December 31,2013 but to honor scheduled events in January,2014..
4. Members Were allowed to use the Club building at 1-3 East Collins Street during 2014 and 2015
for dart and pool league practice.This use ended upon the sale of the building in May,2015.
5. Meetings of board members were held at the Club during 2014 and 2015 to discuss the sale of
the Club property and building to other social clubs such as the VFW, Moose club and non-club
entities. A full membership meeting was held on July 29,2014. After that meeting,although
the bar was closed for sales,the club president and acting manager,continued to open the club
as needed to permit members to use the facility for practice and community meetings.
6. Prior to the sale of the property in May,2015,the Club maintained the building and plowed the
parking lot.
Signed under the pain's and penalties of perjury this 7th day of December,2016.
Lor ine Cody
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHuSETTS
Essex,ss. December 7,2016
On this ! day of 11 201&before me,the undersigned notary public, personally appeared
LGrrn,n-e 0 QL 1. proved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification,which werdLtlIS�_ to be the person whose name is signed on the
eding or attached doc ent.in my presence.
tifti r official signature and seal of notary)
JOANNE M. ROOMEY, ,
11 Nolary Pu61iC
w►tWONNentnl of u 1ss4qu
MY Commieslon Expires
September 24, 2021
s
C '
CITY OF SALEM
ASSESSOR'S CERTIFICATION OF ABUTTERS AND
"PARTIES IN INTEREST"
BOARD/COMMISSION: Board of Appeals
PROJECT SITE 1-3 East Collins Street {36-0277-0} .
DATE: 9/28/2016 -
DESCRIPTION OF REQUIREMENT: Parties in Interest:
The applicant
Abutters
Owners of land opposite any street or way
Abutters and abutters to abutters within
300 feet
Planning boards of abutting cities and
towns
This is to certify that the time of the last assessment for taxation made by the City of
Salem, the names and addresses of those listed on the attached sheets are "parties in
interest" (as defined by Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A, Section 11) to the
parcel(s)of land listed above as the project site.
Assessor's Signature:
Date: 30 Number of initialed pages attached:
Once Certified, Return to: Erin Schaeffer ,
Department of Planning and Community Development
i
0 0 boa
IA
I R,chSTRF � —
I F PLgJNrE R,SSTR.EET
RFFr RFFT �
0o hROP n N
�qNT 3 � STR'EET) E7 O
jRFFT to U o
STR JET �� 1
EP
W
iq .J P�� a p
Oy �FS v yp� tGa\�' o
CV
0 500 lawn PnMen0009 MDI6W10:40AM
v
i
/Parcel ID: 36-0277-0 /arcel ID:36-0234-0 Parcel ID: 36-0238-0
1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET NEW ENGLAND POWER CO SKOMURSKI DEVELOPMENT
MEYER MICHAEL TR ATT PROPERTY TAX DEPT 107 BRADSTREET AVENUE
11 BAY STREET 40 SYLVAN ROAD DANVERS, MA 01923
BEVERLY, MA 01915 WALTHAM, MA 02451
Parcel ID:36-0239-0 Parcel ID: 36-0240-0 Parcel ID: 36-0241-0
GREVELIS HARRIS G DONOVAN IRREVOCABLE LIFE PERREAULT DAVID J
GREVELIS BRETTE R MENTO PATRICIA L TR 21 PLANTERS ST
13 PLANTERS STREET 20 CROSS STREET SALEM, MA 01970
SALEM, MA 01970 SALEM, MA 01970
/rceI ID: 36-0242-0 Parcel ID: 36-0243-0 Parcel ID:36-0244-0
PARADY JOHN R STIBOLT EUGENE D JR SURLES KIM B
PARADY PATRICIA A C/O STIBOLT EUGENE D 27 PLANTERS ST
23 PLANTERS STREET P.O.BOX 6716 SALEM, MA 01970
SALEM, MA 01970 CCLEARWATER,FL 33758
✓Parcel ID: 36-0245-0 /PT;RUHART
rcel ID: 36-0246-0 Parcel ID: 36-0247-0
CRAIG ADAM J VVV SCOTT AMES JUDITH A
CRAIG KRISTI-LYNN 4 EAST COLLINS ST AMES CARRIE J
29 PLANTERS ST SALEM, MA 01970 20 PLANTERS ST
SALEM, MA 01970 SALEM, MA 01970
/Parcel ID:36-0248-0 Parcel ID:36-0249-0 Parcel ID:36-0250-0
CALL PAULINE D CONNELL FAMILY PERREAULT WILLIAM G _
18 PLANTERS ST BAKER BARBARA A TR JOANNE B
SALEM, MA 01970 19 RAYMOND STREET 14 PLANTERS ST
BEVERLY, MA 01915 SALEM, MA 01970
arcel ID:36-0251-0 ✓Parcel ID:36-0252-0 Parcel ID: 36-0261-0
DONOVAN IRREVOCABLE LIFE KING FLORENCE M STYCZKO ROBERTA
MENTO PATRICIA L TR 10 PLANTERS STREET 17 OSGOOD ST
20 CROSS STREET SALEM, MA 01970 SALEM, MA 01970
SALEM, MA 01970
V/Parcel ID: 36-0262-0 /Parcel ID:36-0263-0 Parcel ID: 36-0264-0
BENOIT RICHARD A MCCARTHY JOHN J SHEPPARD MICHAEL
19 OSGOOD ST MCCARTHY RITA E 25 OSGOOD STREET#3
SALEM, MA 01970 19 1/2 OSGOOD ST SALEM, MA 01970
SALEM, MA 01970
/arcel ID:36-0265-0 Parcel ID:36-0266-0 /Parcel ID:36-0267-0
AYERS WILLIAM F LAURANZANO LAURA J CHAN MON D
33 OSGOOD STREET 35 OSGOOD ST 12 EAST COLLINS STREET
SALEM, MA 01970 SALEM, MA 01970 SALEM, MA 01970
�ParceIID: 36-0268-0 ALPAI
fceIID:36-0269-0 �arceIID: 36-0270-0
SHANABROOK ERIC J E JOSEPH L HAGEN MARY T
SCHRADER KATHERINE E SHANNON N LANE 39 OSGOOD ST
10 EAST COLLINS ST 49 OSGOOD STREET SALEM, MA 01970
SALEM, MA 01970 SALEM, MA 01970
�arcelID: 36-0271-0 /Parcel ID:36-0272-0 Parcel ID: 36-0273-0
4143 OSGOOD STREET RLTY DAWKINS DEBORA R MAYNARD GLEN A
HARLOW-POWELL DONALD A 47 OSGOOD ST MAYNARD CAROL A
12 ALMEDA STREET SALEM, MA 01970 51 OSGOOD ST
SALEM, MA 01970 SALEM, MA 01970
Parcel ID: 36-0274-0 V Parcel ID: 36-0275-0 Parcel ID: 36-0276'o
YATES SUSAN B MCKAY FAYE B PALMER JESSICA
53 OSGOOD ST 57 OSGOOD ST KELLY MATTHEW
SALEM, MA 01970 SALEM, MA 01970 31 OSGOOD ST
SALEM, MA 01970
/Parcel ID: 36-0278-0 vPar IID:36-0279-0 Parcel ID:36-0280-0
KNIGHT CHARLES E MCILVENE PAUL E DESMOND JEAN A
KNIGHT MARY E LINDA M 9 EAST COLLINS STREET
5 EAST COLLINS ST 7 EAST COLLINS ST SALEM, MA 01970
SALEM, MA 01970 SALEM, MA 01970
fParcel ID: 36-0281-0 /Parcel ID: 36-0282-0 /parcel ID:36-0283-0
LEONE GEORGE GAUTHIER LUDGER JEAN BROPHY THOMAS M
LEONE BARBARA 36 OSGOOD ST 32 OSGOOD ST
15 OPAL AVE SALEM, MA 01970 SALEM, MA 01970
BEVERLY, MA 01915
/Parcel ID: 36-0284-0 /Parcel ID: 36-0285-0 P rcel ID:36-0306-0
HARRISON JOHN A CALL HELEN E SNOW JOHN B
30 OSGOOD STREET 26 OSGOOD STREET 54 OSGOOD ST
SALEM, MA 01970 SALEM, MA 01970 ��SALEM, MA 01970
V Parcel ID: 36-0307-0 �rcel ID: 36-0308-0 /Parcel ID: 36-0309-0
KOULOURIS CHARLES S MEEN CHRISTOPHER T NOVACK KENNETH P
KOULOURIS LESLIE A FORRESTAL BETH NOVACK MARYANNE
52 OSGOOD ST 50 OSGOOD ST 42 OSGOOD STREET
SALEM, MA 01970 SALEM, MA 01970 SALEM, MA 01970
/Parcel ID: 36-0310-0 Parcel ID: 36-0473-0 Parcel ID: 36-0474-0
BEOTE STELLA T SALEM CITY OF SALEM CITY OF
15 EAST COLLINS ST COLLINS COVE PLAYGROUND COLLINS COVE
SALEM, MA 01970 MA MA
/Parcel ID: 36-0491-0
CONNELL TIMOTHY M
6 EAST COLLINS ST
SALEM, MA 01970
� I
NMICITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
2014 SEP 29 P I. 2b
120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:97g, Pao
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL l�ltVftRt( SALEM.MASS.
MAYOR
r
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MICHAEL MEYER,TRUSTEE,
requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming User and Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Dimensional
Requirements for the following minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, minimum distance
between buildings, and maximum number of stories to construct eight (8) residential units at 1-3 EAST
COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277) (R-1 Zoning District)
The public hearing will be held on Wednesday; October 19, 2016 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3' at 120
Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the
application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of
Planning& Community Development, City Hall Annex,3'd, 120 Washington St,Salem, MA.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: October 5, 2016 and October 12, 2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City liall, Salem, Mass. on jal k. y,� --ala-vlv,
at i'-A re in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
a
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
181b SEP N P
AN
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS
8.7qp'0ppq� Ali ° .
I ERLEY �IF:97s-vii-s6ss. FAx:971119 ERK� SALEM.MASS.
KIMBERLHv DRlscou.
MAYOR
a
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MICHAEL MEYER,TRUSTEE,
requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Dimensional
Requirements for the following minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, minimum distance
between buildings, and maximum number of stories to construct eight (8) residential units at 1-3 EAST
COLLINS STREET(Map 36 Lot 277) (R-1 Zoning District)
The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3`d at 120
Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the
application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of
Planning& Community Development, City Hall Annex, Yd, 120 Washington St, Salem,MA.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: October 5,2016 and October 12,2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Miall, Salem, Mass. on -A,l.k. tm� -XA)?-0lto
at 1',Y4 PH in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
CUNNINGHAM, MACHANIC, CETLIN, JOHNSON, HARNEY& TENNEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Daniel M.Cuningham(19al-mu) Lakewood0fficePark �cf10SCl
Scott L.Machanic Edward C.Uehlein(1911-2003)
Dana A-rerun 3 220 North Main Street,Ste.301 William M,zap
David C.Johnson(I%a 2") Natick,Massachusetts 01760,1100 Richard B.9chara
Peter P.Harney Richard A.Zucker
Robert TB®ev (508)651-7524 (781)237-7030 J=mc D,�Levv
Robert 1.Rican FAX:(508)653-0119 Paralegals:
Holly B.Anderson email:cmlaw@cmlaw.net jenny Hap Maltais
Anne C.Rosenberg Intense Kramar Zall
Megan H.Sullivan www.cunninghammachanic.com Paula J.Weaver
Steven G.Manchini f Ari Y.Anconina
John D.Hadden Q t Also Admitted in New Hampshire Katherine Y.Goff -
n Also Admitted in Vermont Erin A.Goss
Edward J.Doheny IV
January 26, 2017 RECEIVE®
BY CERTIFIED MAIL JAN 31 2017
DEPT. OF PLANNING &
Rebecca Currim, Chair Peter Copelas, Member Thomas Wa 'ns, eMgerMENT
City of Salem, City of Salem, City of Salem,
Board of Appeals Board of Appeals Board of Appeals
14 Clifton Ave 40 Warren Street 24 Surrey Road
Salem,MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970
Mike Duffy, Member James Tsitsinos, Member James Hacker, Alternate
City of Salem, City of Salem, City of Salem,
Board of Appeals Board of Appeals Board of Appeals
1 Warren Court 55 Lawrence Street,Unit#2 4 Mayflower Lane
Salem, MA 01970 Salem MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970
Paul Viccica,Alternate Michael Meyer, Trustee
City of Salem, I 1 Bay Street
Board of Appeals Beverly, MA 01915
35 Broad Street
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Notice of Appeal of Decision of the City of Salem Board of Appeals,by `
Scott Truhart, et al j '
1*0
Petition Dt: September 27, 2016 �G
Petitioner: Michael Meyer, Trustee
Owner: Michael Meyer, Trustee 3r*+
Premises: 1-3 East Collins Street
Decision Dt: January 4, 2017
Dear Messrs./Mme.:
Pursuant to MGL chapter 40A, §17, you are hereby given notice that Scott Truhart, et al,
by and through their undersigned attorney, has appealed the above-referenced Decision of
CUNNINGHAM,MACHANIC,CETLIN,JOHNSON,HARNEY& TENNEY,LLP
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Notice to Defendants
January 26, 2017
Page 2 of 2
the City of Salem Board of Appeals, which was filed with the Salem City Clerk on January
4, 2017. I have enclosed a copy of the First Amended Complaint, which is being served
upon you with this Notice.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
CUNNINGHAM, MACHANIC,
CETLIN,JO N &HARNEY, LLP
4
Will"Zall.
cc. City Clerk, City of Salem(Correspondence only)
Clients
WMZ150368
7193-0001
CUNNINGHAM, MACHANIC. CETLIN. JOHNSON.HARNEY & TENNEY Lff
ATTORNEYS AT LAW -
Daniel M.Cunninypam(1%7.2013) - OfCounselN
l SeouL.Machanic . Lakewood Oftice Park r 4Eawa E c uehleu (1911-2003> z '
Dana A.Cedin t 220TNorth Main Street>.Ste.301 wdnam m.Zell,
pe d P.
l a neon(tvaaz000) Natick,Massachusetts 01760=1100 Richard k Schafer
- Petert .fnn - Richard A:Zucker
Robert F:rennev (508)651-7524 (78])237-7030 joaoneD.Levv •
Robert J.Riecio - FAX;(508)653--0119- Paralegals
Holly s.Anderson email:cmlaw@cmlew:nef JehuYHall Malars-
Anne C.Rosenberg - Joabae knuner.Zall
Me Hr Sullivan www. mmilg118lflmachanic.com .
Maim . .. ... - NwaJ.Weaver
Steven G.Manchinr t Ari Y.Aacomna
John D.Hadden fl t Also Adanided in New Hampshire Katherine Y.Goff -
0 A w Adrwdedin Vermont - Erin k Goss - * -
- Edward J.Doherty IV
. January 20, 2017
Cheryl A. LaPointe, City Clerk d
City of Salem MA lg � Lj
Salem City Hall
93 Washington Street JAN 23 2017
Salem, MA 01970'
.DEPT.-OF PLANNING & -
COMMUNITY DEVELCYMENT
Re: Notice of Appeal of Decision of the City of Salem Board of Appeals, by
Scott Truhart, et al
Dom{
Petition Dt: September 27, 2016
Petitioner: Michael Meyer, Trustee .
Owner: MichaeLMeyer, Trustee
Premises: 1-3 East Collins Street r
Decision Dt; January 4,2017
To the City Clerk
Pursuant to MGL chapter 40A, §17, you are hereby given notice that Scott Truhart, et al,
by and through their undersigned attorney, have appealed the above-referenced Decision of
the City of Salem Board of Appeals, which Decision was both dated and filed with your
office on January 4, 2017. 1 have enclosed herewith a copy of the Complaint which has
filed in the Land Court,having been assigned Docket No. 17MISC00002R -beenr`;
mow:
Kindly date-stamp the copy of this letter for return to the undersigned. Thank you.
Very truly yours; :<
CUNNINGHAM, MACHANIC, CETLIN,
JOHN ON,HARNEY&TENNEY LLP
Williamaall
cc. Clients
WMZ/49674
7193-0001
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Land Court
17 MISC 000029 Department of the.Trial Court
Civil Cover Sheet CweNo. LA FI FOURT
First Plaintiff Scott Truhart First Defendant C2011JAN20 Ptd12. 44
ity of Salem Board of Appeals
T
Locus Address/Description 1-3 East Collins Street City/Town Salem
Instructions
Part I-To Be Completed by Plaintiff(s),Counsel:
FOR ALL MISCELLANEOUS CASES(EXCEPT cases Sled pursuant to Servicemembers CM Relief1w):
Dn �`
1. Using the list below,please number,with the Number 1;the main cause of action on w11 -3rou b�
your complaint. _ C)
and m S
2. Place an"X"next to each other cause of action in your complaint.
and CX; a ,
3. Is this complaint verified 7 ❑ ❑Yes X No
and is
4. Are there any related cases filed in the Land Court Department 7❑Yes 0 No
If yes,please provide the Case No.(s): -
I ZAC Appeal from Zonipg/Planning BoardVG .024
etermine Fiduciary Authority
G.L.c.40A,§ 1�7- :L.c.240,§27
ZAD Appeal from Planning Board rtition \
G.L.a 41,§81BB L.o.241
ZJAValidity demption
G.L.cc.240,§14A,185,§1(j'/) L.c.60,§76
ZEN Enforcement of Zoning ecific Performance of Contracts
G.L.c.40A,§7 L.c.185,§1(k)
COT Remove Cloud on Title ermine Municipal Boundaries
G.L.c.240,§6-10 .c.42,§12
DOM Discharge of Old Mortgage ermineBowdariesofFlats
G.L.c.240,§15 .c.240,§19
LVT Affirm Tax Foreclosure-Land of %AH1
orari-G.L.c.249,§4 - -
Low Value-G.L.c.60,§SOB
MTB Try Title damus .L.0 249,§5
G.L.c.240,§ 1-5 ass to Real Estate Involving-G.L.c.185,§1(0)
MWA Recover Frcehold Estate(Writ of _Eby)-G.L.c.237 able Action Involving Any
,Titlel or interest in LendMRC Determine Validity of Encumbrances c.185.§1(k)
G.L.c.240,§11-14dable Housing Appeal
CER Enforce Restric ions c.40B,§21
G.L.o.240,§10A-10C
OTA Other
092013 _
Part II-Uniform Counsel Certificate-to be filled out by Plaintiff(s)'Counsel,at the time of initial filing. Ail
other counsel shall file within thirty(30)days of initial entry into the case,whether by answer,motion,appearance
or other pleading,
FOR ALL MISCELLANEOUS CASES(EXCEPT Mortgage Foreclosures ander the Servicemembers Civil
Relief Act)
I am attorney-of-record for: Scott Tmhart,and all Plaintiffs
[X Plaintiff QDefendant in the above-entitled matter.
If Defendant(s)Attorney,please provide Case No.
A. In accordance with Rule•5 of the Supreme Judicial Uniform Rules on Dispute Resolution(SJC Rule 1:19)
which states in part:"...Attorneys shall: provide their clients with this information about court-connected
dispute resolution;discuss with their clients.the advantages and disadvantages of the various methods of
dispute resolution;and certify their compliance with this requirement on the civil cover sheet or its
equivalent.. ." .
B. In accordance with Land Court Standing Order 1-12,I certify that I am aware of the requirement to,
"...serve a copy of the"Limited Assistance Representation (LAR)Information Sheet"upon all defendants
at the same time as service of the summons, complaint, and civil cover sheet is made", and I will comply
with this requirement.
I hereby certify my compliance with these requireme
BBO# 554135
rgnatum o ttomey-o - eco
Date: 1/20/2017 William K Za11:Esq:
Please Print Name
Exempt Cases: Tag Foreclosures,Mortgage Foreclosures under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and all
eases related to original and subsequent registration under G.L.a 1119,§I.
092013 - -2-
DOCKETNUMBER
APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL Commonwealth of Massachusettsq0
Land Court Department pjs,�,q
CASE NAME
Scott Truhart, at al
VS.
City of Salem Board of Appeals and Michael Meyer, Trustee of 1-3 East Collins Street Realty Trust
To The Recorder:
Please enter my appearance as attorney for the Plaintiffs, Scott Truhart, Tricia Truhart,
Mary E. Knight, Charles E. Knight Kim B. Surles Timothy M Connell and Adam Craig
in the above numbered court action.
ATTORNEY NAME B.B.O.NO.(Required)
William M.Zall 554135
ATTORNEY FIRM OR AGENCY TELEPHONE NO. _
Cunningham, Machanic, Cetlin, Johnson, Hamey& Tenney, LP (508)651-7524
STREET ADDRESS
CELL PHONE NO.
220 North Main Street, Suite, 301 (sos)789-5550
CITYrrOVVN STATE ZIP CODE E-MAILADDRESS
Natick MA 01760 bzall@cmlaw.net
January20,2017
DATE SI TORE OF ATTORNEY
LO-001 (082016) - www.mass.gov/courtsAandeourt Page 1 of 1
LAND COURT
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS FILED
LAND COURT ZUI1 JAN 20 pN 12 44
DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT
Essex, ss p
Scott Truhart, Tricia Truhart, t ! )-
Mary E. Knight, Charles E. Knight, � . JAN 2 3 2017
Kim B. Surles, Timothy M. Connell,
and Adam Craig, DEPT. OF P1
Plaintiffs I COMMUNITY �,Erc L:i Nr
V.
+ciiT
Zoning Board of Appeals for the
City of Salem,
and
Rebecca Curran, Peter Copelas,
Thomas Watkins, Mike Duffy,
James Tsitsinos,James Hacker and
Paul Viccica, as they constitute the
City of Salem Board Appeals,
and
Michael Meyer, Trustee of 1-3 East Collins
Street Realty Trust - -
Defendants
Complaint Pursuant to MGLA C.40A, §17
Appealing a Zoning Board Decision
1. The Plaintiffs, Scott and Tricia Truhart,are natural personAresiding at 4 East Collins
Street, Salem,Massachusetts.
2. The Plaintiffs,Mary E.Knight and Charles E. Knight, are natural persons residing at 5
East Collins Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
3. The Plaintiffs,Kim B. Surles, is a natural person`residing at 27 Planters Street, Salem,
Massachusetts.
4. The Plaintiff, Timothy M. Connell, is a natural person residing at 6 East Collins Street,
Salem,Massachusetts.
47807/Collins St ZBA Complaint 1
5. The Plaintiff,Adam Craig, is a natural person residing at 29 Planters Street, Salem,
Massachusetts.
6. The Defendant, City of Salem Board of Appeals (hereinafter, the "Salem ZBA'), is a
permit granting authority in the City of Salem, Massachusetts, and has a usual place of
business at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
7. The Defendants,Rebecca Curran, Peter Copelas, Thomas Watkins,Mike Duffy and
James Tsitsinos, James Hacker and Paul Viccica, are herein named in their capacity as
members or alternates of the Salem ZBA.
8. The Defendant, Michael Meyer, Trustee of 1-3 East Collins Street Realty Trust
("Petitioner"), is the purported owner of real property located at 1-3 East Collins Street,
Salem,Massachusetts('Premises').
9. Michael Meyer has a last known residential address of 11 Bay Street,Beverly,
Massachusetts.
10. The Petitioner purportedly acquired title to the Premises by deed, dated May 21, 2015,
and recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Book, 34073, Page 359.
A true and correct copy of the aforementioned deed is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
11. Pursuant to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance("Ordinance'), the Premises are located
in an R Zoning District.
J2. Pursuant to the Ordinance,the only residential use within an RI Zoning District which is
allowed as of right is that of a single family dwelling.
/. Pursuant to §3.3.1 of the Ordinance, where a nonconforming use lawfully existed prior to
adoption of the Ordinance, such nonconforming use may continue,provided that no
modification of the use is accomplished unless authorized under the Ordinance.
V 14. Prior to adoption of the Ordinance,a social club lawfully existed at the Premises.
i
%/15. The social club continued to operate at the Premises subsequent to-adoption of the ---- --- -- --
Ordinance under the protected status granted pursuant to the aforesaid §3.3.1.
16. Pursuant to §3.3.2 of the Ordinance,the Salem ZBA m
ay-allow-a ehange�rom-oae--- ----
nonconforming use to another nonconforming usq*der certain conditions cited therein.
,,/7. In order to allow a change under§3.3.2 of the Ordinance, the protected status afforded to
the pre-existing nonconforming use of the Premises must not have been extinguished and,
thus, the use must have been lawfully in existence at the time of the Petition.
47807/Collins St.ZBA Complaint 2
1
18.,Pursuant to § 3.3.6 of the Ordinance, a nonconforming use which has been abandoned, or
not used for a period of two years, shall lose its protected status and be subject to all of
the provisions of the Ordinance.
19. On or about September 27, 2016,the Petitioner filed a petition with the Salem ZBA,
seeking a Special Permit to change the use of the Premises from one nonconforming use
to another nonconforming use (said petition hereinafter referred to as the"Petition"). A
true and correct copy of the Petition is attached hereto as�xhibit B
CFt cam
20. In addition to the aforementioned Special Permit, the Petition also sought VVariance(s)
from certain dimensional requirements under the Ordinance.
21. Pursuant to public notice issued pursuant to applicable provisions of MGLA C.40A, a
public hearing on the Petition was commenced on October 19, 2016, and continued-frem-kc,t-ou�ts.
-time-te-tim"ntil-December 21; 2016.
� irwli �( 22. Upon
In and belief,the pre-existing nonconforming use of the Premises had
CVl been abandoned by the owner thereof. -1 to L, w1n o 7
K 23. Upon information and belief, the pre-existing nonconforming use of the Premises was not
used for a period of at least two years prior to the filing of the Petition.-
24. The protected status afforded the nonconforming use of the Premises-was-extinguished-by- -"- --
' a abandonment.
iC 25. The protected status afforded the nonconforming use of the Premises was extinguished by
9" non-use for a period of two years prior to the filing of the Petition.
A 26. By virtue of the loss of protected status of the nonconforming use of the Premises, the
Petitioner was not eligible for consideration of change to another nonconforming use
under§3.3.2 of the Ordinance. -- - ----- __--
27. By virtue of the loss of protected status of the nonconforming use of the Premises, use of
the Premises must conform with the requirements of the R1 Zoning District asallowed by
the Ordinance. ____- --- --- -.
28. On January 4,2017, the Salem ZBA filed its decision with the Salem City Clerk,
allowing the relief requested in the Petition(the"Decision) A certified vopy-of-ttie-- - - - -- -
Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
29. Notwithstanding the lack of supporting evidence, the"Statements of fact'contained in
the Decision erroneously-concl-uded from a"legal opinion"that the pre-existing
nonconforming use of the Premises had not been abandoned.
47807/Collins St.ZBA Complaint 3
' '' 22.cocc5 5l�¢WS i-tiw-E--thy Qoc�.r� C-Qvlcvr- e.d VJ
L30. The Decision granting the Special Permit made no finding addressing whether or not the right to continue the pre-existing nonconforming use at the Premises had been
extinguished due to non-use for a period of two years.
31. Notwithstanding the lack of supporting_evidence, the Decision granting the Special
Permit erroneously found that the requested nonconforming use was not substantially
more detrimental to the neighborhood than the purportedly existing non-conforming use.
32. Notwithstanding the lack of supporting evidence, the Decision granting the Variance(r) .
from dimensional requirements of the Ordinance, the ZBA erroneously found that "literal
enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship as the
cost of building a single-family home on the property would far exceed the market value
of the area."
33. Upon information and belief, construction of a single family residence in conformance
with the Ordinance would require significantly fewer variances than those which the
Salem ZBA allowed in granting construction of the multi-unit structures.
'V' Ne Iouik4. ? evrrer, aly a i5'�s• ����\cx0�nt 5+ra4¢v+,�r.'rbe�O�S
x L34. The Decision granting the Variance from dimensional requirements for reconstruction
after voluntary demolition, which variance must be sought by special permit.
35. The Plaintiffs are aggrieved by the Decision.
36. The Decision was not supported by substantial evidence.
X 37. The Decision exceeded the authority of the Salem ZBA;was based upon legally
untenable grounds.and was otherwise arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.
COUNT
TO ANNUL DECISION GRANTING NONCONFORMING USE AS
PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO CONTINUED NONCONFORMING USE
WAS EXTINGUISHED BY ABANDONMENT
(Ordinance 3.3.6;M.G.L C.40A, §6). .
38. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in
the above paragraphs.
39. Pursuant to §3.3.6, a nonconforming use which has been abandoned or not used
for a period of two years, shall lose its protected status and be subject to all of the
provisions of the Ordinance.
40. The nonconforming use of the Premises was abandoned.
47807/Collins St.ZBA Complaint 4
COUNT H
TO ANNUL DECISION GRANTING NONCONFORMING USE AS
PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO CONTINUE NONCONFORMING USE
WAS EXTINGUISHED BY NON-USE FOR PERIOD OF TWO YEARS
(Ordinance 3.3.6; M.G.L CAOA, §6)
41. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in
the above paragraphs.
42. Pursuant to §3.3.6, a nonconforming use which has been abandoned or not used
for a period of two years, shall lose its protected status and be subject to all of the
provisions of the Ordinance.
43. The Premises had not been used for the nonconforming use for a period of at least
two years prior to the filing of the Petition.
COUNT III
TO ANNUL DECISION GRANTING NONCONFORMING USE AS
PROPOSED USE IS NOT LESS DETRIMENTAL THAN PURPORTEDLY
EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE
(Ordinance 3.3.2; M.G.L C.40A, §6)
44. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in
the above paragraphs.
45. To the extent,if any,that the Petitioner's right to continue the purportedly existing
nonconforming use is found to have not been extinguished, then Section 3.3.2 of the
Ordinance requires that any change to another nonconforming use be "less detrimental".
46. The nonconforming use granted by the Decision is not less detrimental-than the
purportedly existing nonconforming use.
COUNT IV
TO ANNUL DECISION GRANTING VARIANCES FROM - —
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS
REQUISITE HARDSHIP IS NOT PRESENT
47. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in
the above paragraphs.
48. The Petitioner has not shown the existence of requisite hardships to support granted
variances,where far fewer,if any, variances would be required to construct a structure
within the requirements of the Ordinance.
47807/Collins St.ZBA Complaint 5
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment as follows:
a. That any pre-existing non-conforming use of the Premises be declared lost due
to non-use; ,
b. That any pre-existing non-conforming use of the Premises be declared lost due
to abandonment;
C. That the Decision of the City of Salem Board of Appeals allowing the
Petitioner to change from one non-conforming use to another non-conforming
use be annulled;
d. That the Premises be used only in accordance with the City of Salem Zoning
Ordinance; and
C. That this Court grant such further relief as it deems necessary and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
The PI ' tiffs,
By their ttome
William .Zall,BBO 135
Email: bzall@cmlaw.net
CUNNINGHAM,MACHANIC, .:.
CETLIN,JOHNSON, &HARNEY LLP
220 North Main Street, Suite 301
Natick,MA 01760
TEL: (508) 6514524 -
Dated: FAX: (508)653-0119
e
47807/Collins St.ZBA Complaint 6
EXHIBIT
A
Return to:
III�IIIUI��I��III�IIII�I INW
SO:ESSEf( #366 BE34673 1g;359
05/21/2015 02:15 DEED Pp i/a
{Space Above This Line Reserved For Registry of Deeds Use}
QUITCLAIM DEED
+
WARD H SOCIAL CLUB OF SALEM,INC., a Massachusetts Corporation,with a principal
place of business at 1-3 East Collins Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,
ti
for nominal consideration,
s grants to MICHAEL MEYER,TRUSTEE OF 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET REALTY
m' TRUST,under Declaration of Trust dated May 1, 2015, as evidenced by a Trustee Certificate
Qrecorded herewith,
with QUITCLAIM COVENANTS
d
a certain parcel of land situated in Salem, Essex County,Massachusetts,shown on a Plan
entitled: "NEW ENGLAND POWER SERVICE COMPANY PART OF NEW ENGLAND
ELECTRIC SYSTEM BOSTON,MASS.,NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY PLAN OF
q LAND IN SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS TO BE CONVEYED TO WARD II SOCIAL CLUB
o OF SALEM,INC., SCALE 1"=40' DATE AUG 6, 19561-5840",a copy of which is attached to
U a Deed dated November 1, 1956 and recorded with Essex South District Registry of Deeds at
Book 4334, Page 560, and bounded and described as follows:
�? Beginning at the Northwesterly comer of said parcel at other land of the Grantor at a point on the
Easterly side of East Collins Street; said point being 21.6 feet distant Southwesterly from an iron
pipe at the Southerly intersection of said East Collins Street and Planters Street;
thence running Southeasterly 271.80 feet to a point;
thence turning and running Southwesterly 215.6 feet to a point at land now or formerly of
Scher—said last two courses and distances being by other land now or formerly of New
England Power Company;
10
i
thence tummg and running Northwesterly by said lend of Scher, 128 feet to a point at
land now or formerly of Campbell;
#hence turning and running Northeasterly 27 feet to a point;
thence tuning
and running Northwesterly 150 feet to said East Collins Sheet--said lest
two.cour�`ead distances being by said land of Campbell;
thence turning and running Northeasterly by said Fest Collins Street 94.5 feet to the
point of beginning.
Caing;41,640 square fern of land according to 6901m .
Being the same premises conveyed by Deed dated November 1. 1956,recorded with the Essex
South District Registry of Deeds in Book4334,Page,560':
This conveyance is subject to all outstanding mortgages and liens of record.
This conveyance is also.made subject to awmentsilexceptions,and reservatiofls cfseaordi if any,
insofar as the same are in force and applicable.
{REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK} _ r
Executed is a sealed instrument this day of V-0 2015
WARD II SOCIAL CLUB OF SALEM, INC.
BY:
Nick Gordon, President
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Essex,ss.
before me the undersigned notary public, personally appeared, Nick Gordon, President of the
WARD II SOCIAL CLUB OF SALEM, INC., WHO PROVED TOME THROUGH
SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF IDENTIFICATION, WHICH WAS A Mfg I) L .TO
BE THE PERSON WHOSE NAME IS SIGNED ON THE PRECEDING-INSTRUMENT,AND
WHO ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE SIGNED IT VOLUNTARILY FOR ITS STATED
PURPOSE.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission expires:
I �
fR C_.AROL F THOM-S-
Way _.
j Pdit Co wwwa Rof Vmud ft
NY CMM"d i Eq*a NMWft 14.2919
EXHIBIT
B
CrrY OF SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS
�`- PETITION FORM
/ CITY OF SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS
s BOARD OF APPEALS 1016 SEP 21 P P 50
120 WASUNGTON STREET,3'o FLOOR
SALE(,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 FILE #.
aaa1CITY CLER SALEM.MAS$,
Thomas SL Pmrcj Dwunor of laspecvonel Semcw
Phone 97&619-5641 /Fns 978.740.9846
E C E I V E Dy
Kn.eaal N DRrSMI I Eva Schaeffer,Staff Planner
MAYOR Phone 978-619-5685/Fax:978-740-0904 �
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: SEP 27 20
The Undersigned represent that helshe istare the owners of certain pares]of lend located at: DEPT. of PLANNING a
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Addre�;1-3 East Collins Street Zoning District: R-1
An application is being submitted to the Board of Appeal for the fonowhtg reason(s):This statement must
describe what you propose to build,the dimensions,the zone property is in,and the zoning requirements.(Erample..
I am proposing to construct a IO'x IO'one story addition to my home located at 3 Salem lane,in the R-2 Zoning
District.The Zoning Ordinance requires the mi nnum depth of the rear)wd to be 30feet.The current depth afmy
rear yard ur 31 feel;the proposed addition would reduce the depth ofrhe rear yard to 11 feet)
See Statements of Grounds attached.
For this reason I am requesting:
(J Vsrianco(s)from provisions of Section 4.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance,specifically from min.
lot area per dwelling unit,min.distance between buildings min.frontage (te.minimum depth ofrear),ard).
What is allowed is 15,000 s.f.,4011, 100 ft (ft?sq ft?starter? %?),and what I
am proposing is See Statement of Grounds 02?sq ft?stories?%7).
(g)A Special Permit under Section 3.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to Change one non
wnfonninguse to another lass detrimental non conforming use.
( )Appeat.of the Decision of the Building Inspector(described below):
( )Comprehensive Permit for construction of low or moderate income housing(describe below):
Current Property Use:Social Club Are Lot Dimensions Included?(t Yes ( )No Wby7
(&sash:No Fan*Hia m)
The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals 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 difficuhy or unnecessary hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially
derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. .
MY OF SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF AMA7 C
PETITION FORM
The following written statement has been submitted with this application:
(10 For all Variance requests a written Statement of Hardship demonstrating the following must be attached;
a) SPecial conditions and circumstances that especially at3bot the land,building,or structure involved,
gMoMYy tot affsefing 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
0 Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good,and without nullifying or
substantially derogating Som the intent ofthe district or the purpose of the andimance.
(I For all Special Permit requests a Statamem of Grounds must be attached:An application for a special permii.for
a aonwnformiug use or structure aball include a statement demonstrating bow the proposed change shall not be
substau6allY more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood is accordance with
Section 9.4 Specird Permits.Such a statement should include reference to the following criteria
a) Social,economfo,or commtmity needs served by the proposal;
b) Traffic flow and safety,including parting and loading;
C) Adequacy of utilities and other public services;
d) IMP=on the natural environment,including drainage;
e) Neighborhood cherisder,and
t) Potential fiscal impact,including impact on City tax base and employment.
( ) For a6 Comprebensiw Permits for eom muction of low or moderate income applicants should refer to bl.G.L
Ch.40B§20-23.
Previous applications to the Board of Appeals involving this property have been submitted with this petition
forum. 7k Buf(dirrg Connnixsioner can provide documentation ojprewm appheadortr m thepeddaner orhfs
represenradve.
If mU~fiom peddener;
petitions;Michael Meyer,Trustee property Owns;Same a a pegdoner
Addrces;_11 Ba y Street Beverly,MA 019: Adm:
Telephone:
Finaii:tame edevelo mentcom Email:
Sigoetrue: Signatrme: .
(.teethed mnrmr least tr aao saa�bla)
Date: mbar 27,2016 / Dom:
lfdrd'erentfrompetrforrer. . ...
Representative:Seotl M.Grover,Esq.
A TRUE Adder;27 Congress St,9414,Salem,MA 0197(
ATTEST Telephone:978--74"M 17
Signnnae
Date:S r ,2016
CITY CLERK DATE DPCD DATE
This original applimaon must befrled with the City Clerk
STATEMENT OF GROUNDS
The petitioner is the current owner of the property at 1-3 East Collins Street(thee"Property")
which is the site of the now closed Ward 2 Social Club. The land area consists of 41,834 st and
is presently occupied by a one story concrete block structure. The property is located in the
Residential One(R-1)zoning district.
It the petitioner's intention to demolish the existing structure and to construct eight residential
dwelling units in single and two family dwellings. The proposed redevelopment of the property
will provide parking which conforms with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
To construct multiple structures on a single property is not allowed in the R-1 district,however,
the current use as a social club is legally non-conforming. Therefore,the change to the less
detrimental non-conforming multiple dwelling residential use is allowed by Special Permits
under Section 3.3.2 of the Ordinance.
The project also requires variances from certain dimensional requirements of the Ordinance.
Most notably,the lot area per dwelling unit required is 15,000 st per unit and the proposed
development provides 5,300 s.£per unit. In addition,the existing lot,which predates the Zoning
Ordinance,has 94.5 feet of footage along East Collins Street where 100 fat is required.The
proposal also requires a variance from the requirement that.buildings on a.lot.be-&minimimm of _
40 feet apart.In this instance the minimum distance
proposed is 25 feet. Finally,although the
height of the building is less than the allowed 35 feet,each building does exceed the height
limitation of two and one half stories,requiring a variance from that provision.
There is a little question that the land at 1-3 East Collins Street is affected by special conditions
that do not affect other lots m the surrounding neighborhood A significant portion of the
Property is salt marsh and coastal dune and the entire site lies with the floodplain. In addition,
most,of the land is within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under Chapter
91. Further,the site is traversed by an easement for the natural gas line which will be
constructed in the near feature.Finally,the land is located in the most restrictive zoning district,
but surrounded by districts that are less restrictive.These conditions make the development of
the site expensive and challenging.
The current use of the building as a social club is no longer viable as evidenced by its recent
closure due to declining membership.The existing building cannot be rewnst acted for another
purpose under current flood plain standards.In order to redevelop the property for a residential
use consistent with the surrounding neighborhood,current coastal construction standards and the
Other regulatory and environmental constraints set forth above require a certain level of density.
Without the required relief to allow that level of density,the petitioner will be unable to convert
the Property to any economically productive use,creating a hardship for him.The proposed
density of the project is significantly less than the average density of the surrounding
neighborhood,so the relief requested could be granted without detriment to the public good and
would not depart significantly from the intent of the Ordinance or the district
15.`e'w..u*tw..•..•ngr» .,x.o^Fe..:m .nem-....+.rc. :v ,.. ry-,..aw
The redevelopment of the Property will have the benefit of eliminating a commercial use in the
middle of a residential neighborhood. The project will provide adequate parking for the
residents and the traffic impact will not be significant compared to the prior use as a social club.
As part of the development,the beach and coastal dune will be cleaned up. The majority of the
lot that is currently paved will be converted to open green space,thereby improving the natural
environment and drainage. Finally,the project will provide much needed housing in the City
and will add significant tax revenue.
For the foregoing reasons,it is appropriate and desirable for the Board to grant the relief
requested
EXHIBIT
C
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WA,sHNGToN STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHU o3a� U P 2: 13
KMOMMEYDRISCOLL T�a.E:978-745-9595♦FAx:978 740 9
A TAVE COPY TTEST F"�
�`��� t'1TY,ELER}<;SALEM. MASS:
`-+ K��, �.( c,��; January 4, 2017
C YC n Decision
&AU' M AMASS. City of Salem Board of Appeals
A petition of MICHAEL MEYER, TRUSTEE, requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2
Nonconfomring Uses and Variances per,Sec. 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements for the following
minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, minimum distance between buildings,
and maximum number of stories to construct eight (8) residential units at 1-3 EAST COLLINS
STREET(Map 36 Lot 277) (R-1 Zoning District)
At the October 19,2016 meeting,a public heating was open pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A;§ 11. Testimony
was heard on that date and the public heating was continued on October 19,2016,November 16,2016 and
December 21, 2016.The hearing was closed on December 21,2016 with the following Salem Board of
Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Peter A. Copelas,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,and Jimmy
Tsitsinos.
The Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Noscosfonvisg Uses and Variances per Sec. 4.1.1
Dimensional Requirements for the following minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage,
minimum distance between buildings, and maximum number of stories to construct eight (8)residential units.
Statements of fact:
1. Attorney Grover presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner. Dan Ricciarelli of Seger
Architects, of Salem, MA and Scott Cameron, CE of Morin-Cameron Group, of Danvers, MA also
presented testimony.
2. In March of 2015,the petitioner withdrew an application without prejudice for a development at this
location for a residential use and submitted a significantly different application on September 27,2016
for review.
3. In the petition date-stamped September 27, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per See.
per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change and existing
nonconforming use of a social club to another nonconforming use of multi-family residential units.
The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief from Sec 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for
minimum lot area per dwelling unit,minimum lot frontage,minimum distance between buildings, and
number of stories.
4. The property is located at the Planters Street and East Collins Street in an R-1 Zoning District. The
previous use of the property was the Ward 2 Social Club.
A TRUE COPY ATTESJ
5. At the October 19, 2016 public heating testimony was heard and ther
� ap�e {rt�H"fh`ie
the property had lost its grandfathered non-confotming status. The etgaal opinion
from the City Solicitor to clarify whether property had lost its n The non-
conforming status of the property determines whether the Board has theta changein
the property use from one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use by special permit
6. On November 16, 2016, the petitioner requested a continuation of the public hearing to the next
regularly scheduled meeting on December 21,2016. No testimony was heard at this meeting.
7. At the December 21, 2016 meeting, the Board reviewed and discussed the legal opinion from the City
Solicitor dated December 4,2016.
8. The following are conclusions from the legal opinion relevant to the issues discussed at the October
19, 2016 public hearing:
• The use of the property is entitled to protected status as a legally non-conforming use under
M.G.L. Ch.40A Section 6.
• The club did not abandon its use of the property in January 2014,when it closed the building
to the public.
• The sale of the property to the petitioner does not constitute a termination of the use of the
Property
• It is within the authority of the City of Salem Board of Appeals to issue a special permit to
allow a non-confomming use of the Property to continue, provided that the Board issues a
finding that the proposed new use of the Property, is less detrimental than the existing
nonconforming use. .
9. Delinquent property taxes were paid by the petitioner before the December 21,2016 public hearing.
10. On November 30, 1948, various residents of the City of Salem formed the Club as a Massachusetts
not-for-profit corporation organized under M.G.L. Ch. 180 for-the purpose.- of promoting . ..
brotherhood and charity in the Ward II District of Salem.
11. On November 1, 1956, the Club acquired title to the Property for the purpose of constructing a
building to serve as the location for the charitable activities of its membership including a place to
hold meetings and place where the public would be able to hold events.At this time,the property was -
located in a Single Residence District- B and the 1955 Ordinance was in effect Pursuant to SecAB.5
the Use of the Property was a permitted use in the Single Residence District, but is no longer a
permitted use by right in the Rl Zoning District The Social Club is an existing non-confonning use.
(See Opinion 1-3 E. Collins St Dated Dec. 4,2016 for further discussion).
12. On May 21,2015, the Club sold the property to the petitioner. The land area of the property consists
of 41,834 square feet and has a one-story concrete block structure.The existing structure does not
meet the current floodplain construction standards.
13. The petitioner is proposing to change the use of the property from the non-conforming use of a
social club to multi-family residential dwelling units.
14. The petitioner testifies that the proposed residential use of the property is more consistent with the
surrounding neighborhood use than the existing social club and bar room.
15. The existing building cannot be reconstructed for another purpose under the Chapter 91 requirements
due to current flood plain construction standards.As such,the petitioner is proposing to demolish the
A TRUE OKI r
Ward 2 Social Club structure to construct eight(8)residential dwelling um m' 6 �
dwelling arrangements. CI CLj&j
16. The proposed eight(8) units will be divided into three (3) duplexes and twomes.
The petitioner testifies that the proposed residential use is consistent with the use of the surrounding
neighborhood and the dwelling unit arrangement of single and two-family units is consistent with the
arrangement of dwelling units within the surrounding neighborhood
17. The petitioner is requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses to change the
existing non-conforming use of the property from the existing Ward 2 Social Club to multi-family
residential dwelling units in single and two (2) family arrangements.
18. The petitioner expects to provide future public access to the waterfront through the property,in a
location determined by the Planning Board and Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) through the Chapter 91 permitting process.
19. The proposed plan is providing fourteen (14)parking spaces where the requirement is twelve (12)
parking spaces. The Salem Zoning Ordinance requires one and a half(1.5)parking spaces per dwelling
unit
20. Currently,there is one long cmbcut with approximately thirty (30)parking spaces on-the property. "
The petitioner is proposing to reduce the number of parking spaces and formalize a curbcut that
meets the dimensional requitement of a maximum of 20' feet for a residential use.
21. Mr. Cameron, CE of Morin-Cameron Group,of Danvers,MA testified that the existing public
utilities and other public services are adequate to support the proposed eight(8) residential units.
22. Mr.Cameron,CE of Morin-Cameron Group, of Danvers,MA testified that the impacts on-the
natural environment,including drainage would be positive.The petitioner is proposing to reduce the
existing impervious surface from 30%to 15%.The property will comply with all stormwater. ----
management requirements.
23. The existing Ward 2 Social Club structure is 5,200 square feet at 12.5%lot coverage. In comparison,
the five (5)proposed residential structures are a total of 6,400 square feet at 13.3%lot coverage.Mr.
Cameron testifies that the proposed structures will have similar lot coverage and footprint areas as the
existing structure.
24. Mr. Cameron testifies that existing average lot area per dwelling unit in the neighborhood one (1)
dwelling unit per 2,600 square feet The petitioner is proposing a lot area per dwelling unit of 5,229
square feet,making the proposed development approximately 301/6 less dense than neighboring
dwelling units.
25. Mr. Cameron testifies that the spacing between buildings in the existing neighborhood is
approximately ten (10) to twenty(20) feet The proposed distance between the buildings at 1-3 East
Collins Street is twenty-five (25� feet at the narrowest point
26. The footprints of the proposed buildings are comparable to the existing footprints of the buildings in
the surrounding neighborhood.
27. Ivir. Ricciarelk of Seger Architects testified that the proposed building footprints, massing and
architectural design are consistent with the architectural details, massing, and form of the surrounding
� A R A
neighborhood. For example, the proposed buildings incorporate s' �1 %5VPI'win
•'��/�
"A"shaped rooflines.The budding facades are slender with the remaining tricek. r
rear.All of these details fit with the existing character of the dwelling units sad
28. The arrangement of the buildingsl.! Lei
arrangem is in response to the public request t�uchaia.�gs of the
waterfront M
29. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base is positive.
30. The petitioner is also requesting four (4) variances including minimum lot area per dwelling unit,
minimum lot frontage,minimum distance between buildings, and maximum number of stories.
31. The petitioner, proposed the following deviations from the dimensional requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance: a) a lot area per dwelling unit of 5,300 square feet where the requirement per the Zoning
Ordinance is 15,000 square feet; b) 94.5 feet of frontage where the requirement per the Zoning
Ordinance is 100 square feet of linear frontage;c) a minimum of 25 feet of distance between buildings
where the minimum required distance is 40 feet d)Three (3) stories where the maximum requirement
is 2.5 stories.
32. The petitioner testifies that the 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 a significant portion of the property is salt march and coastal dune and the entire site
lies within the floodplain. Further,the site is traversed by an easement for the natural gas line,which___.______
will be constructed in the near future. In addition,most of the7and is within the jurisdiction of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts under Chapter 91. The land is also located in the most restrict
zoning district, but surrounding by districts that are less restrictive. These unique conditions of this
property make the development of the site expensive and challenging.
33. The petitioner testifies that the social club is no longer viable as evidenced by its recent closure due to
declining membership.Further the existing building cannot be reconstructed for-another purpose _ _
under the Chapter 91 requirements due to current flood plain standards. The literal enforcement of
the zoning ordinance would allow the property owner to construct a single-family home. Due to
unique conditions of the land, the cost of the required specialized construction would exceed the
market value of the home for the area.
34. The petitioner proposes a density of 5,300 square feet where the requirement is 15,000 square feet per
dwelling unit and testifies that the proposed density of eight(8) residential,dwelling units is needed.A
single-family use,which is an allowable use by right on this property,is not an economically feasible _
use and creates an economic hardship for the petitioner due to the cost of construction needed for
this property.
35. The petitioner is proposing 94.5 feet of frontage where the requirement per the Zoning Ordinance is
100 square feet of linear frontage.The frontage is a pre-existing non-conforming dimension with no
alternative to provide additional linear frontage.
36. The petitioner is proposing 25'-30'feet of distance between buildings where the minimum required
distance is 40 feet.
37. The petitioner is proposing to construct dwelling units that are three (3) stories rather than the
maximum requirement of 2.5 stories. The proposed living areas are raised with parking proposed
underneath the building by necessity because the entire property is located within the flood zone.
Coastal construction requires that the first floor be elevated above the ten (10) foot flood elevation.
A TRUE COPY ATTEST
38. The dwelling unit mean rafter height does not exceed the 35'foot maximum I�eY1d6LERK
39. At the public hearings, ten (10) residents spoke in opposition to the propSA19 ftAM&Siber
spoke in support of 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 Petitioners
presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the
provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance:
Findings for Variance:
1. The special conditions and circumstances that especially affecting land,building or structure involved
generally not affecting other lands,buildings, and structures in the same district is that a significant
portion of the property is salt march and coastal dune and the entire site lies within the flood plain.
Further, the site is traversed by an easement for the natural gas line,which will be constructed in the
near future.In addition,most of the land is within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts under Chapter.91.The land is also located in the most restrict zoning district,but
surrounding by districts that are less restrictive. These unique conditions of this property make the
development of the site expensive and challenging. -
2. The literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve.substantial hardship as the --
cost of building a single-family home on the property would far exceed the market value of the area.
3. 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.
Findings for Special Permit - -
1. The proposed change use of a non-conforming social club to-another non-confomung use of multi-.
family residential uses in a single and two (2) family arrangement is not substantially more detrimental
than the existing non-conforming use to the 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 as there are fourteen
(14) on-site parking spaces that exceed the rninitnum parking requirements of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance.
3. The capacity of the utilities and public services are not significantly affected by the project
4. There are net positive impacts on the natural environment,including drainage as the existing property
has approximately 12,000 square feet of existing pavement surface. The petitioner is proposing to
reduce the impervious surface on the property to approximately 5,500 square feet
5. The proposal improves neighborhood character as it improves the property and the residential use is
consistent with the use of the surrounding neighborhood. The dwelling unit arrangement of single
and two- family units is consistent with the arrangement of dwelling units within the surrounding
neighborhood. Further, proposed building footprints, massing, density and architectural design are
consistent with the architectural details,massing,density and form of the surrounding neighborhood.
6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base is positive.
On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings,the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (Rebecca
Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas,Jimmy Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy,and Tom Watkins)in favor and none(0)
Opposed, to grant a Special Permit per,Pec. 3.3.2 NonmV5trning User and Variances per Sec. 4. .1 Dimendonal
Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for minimum lot area per dwelling unit,minimum lot
minimum distance between buildings,and maximum number of stories,to construct frontage,eight(8)residential units
subject to the following terns,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 andimensions
Building Commissioner d disubmitted to and approved by the
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke
adhered to. and fire safety shall be strictly
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.
6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained.
7. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained.
8. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display
said number so as to be visible from the street
---------- ------- ----------------
9. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but
not limited to,the Planning Board.
Special Condition:
1. The applicant shall provide public access to the waterfront per DEP Chapter 91 license requirements,
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
A COFY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILM WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITi'-Cr Rxx
Appeal f om Air deasiaa,+f mty,"be made purnrant to Section 17 of the Maaarbwettr Generallaws Chafiter 40,4,and shall be�& s1W 20
fie offckng of thin dehff 'a the office of the City Clerk Purruant to the ALuxarhueettr General Lams Cbafiter 40A Seaan 11, the Vmiarue ff
Spento fDee&. benan shall not take ert until a ropy of the deacon bearing the rerYiftrah of the City Clerk hac been filed arth the Ewx South
Regirtry afDeedr.
A TRUE COPY ATTEST
CI Y CL RK
SALEM MASS.
C 7�NN�lYGHAM MACHANIC CETLIN JOHNSON HARVEY Bi TE
.� \/E
as x
O KEYS ATL W
`� A JAN 24 2017
s oder madamb 403) Lakewood Office Park o[c�d:
D=L MBah®o Gdarmd G,. 2aao
DmaACmhot 220 Norih'Main SfrBpl,Ste.301 w,Yiem�M;Ys➢- '-'r b'�A�IJNING Z£
DaWdG,hb6 (Ia94M Natick,Massachusetts 01760-1100 RktWa.SabduiTY DEVELOPMENTPOW ,
Robed 508)651-7524 (781)237-7030 Riahma A.Z"a
Rohmei Mcdo' FAX:(508)653-0119 =111M
Holly H.Anda AMC C.Rmnbffgemail:cm4w@ctn1aw.net. jaw HaRMdteie •,
mom H.&"M WWW'VWM_n0MWn8ohn4ip•0gta P=k J.Wm
swa Q.hf=d< Ari Y.Aommn
Jod D.Heddmn t Alec AdmMWin HawHmppdra Re*m Y.ow
OAbo A&Adin Vammt ESA C,on -
Edw LDohmq,N
January24,2017 e n
`.
Commonwealth Of Massachusetts
r� . z
Lend Court Department 3 i
Three Pemberton Square, 5a'Floor
Boston,MA 02108 a=
N •_
:x
Re: Scott Truhart.g;,al v Salem Board of Anneals C Bev i -
Case No. 17 MISC 000029 GHP Sac -f t -
To the Recorder:
Enclosed please find the following documents for filing in the above�referenced matter:
1. Notice of Amendment of Complaint as of Course
2. First Amended Complaint Pursuant to MGLA C.40A, §17
Kindly file in your usual manner. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
CUNNINGHAM,MACHANIC,CETLIN,
JOHKSON'BARNFY&TENNEY LLP
i
William M.
cc. Salem City Clerk(by hand)
WMV50165
9173-0001
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
LAND COURT
DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT
Essex, ss Case No. 17 MISC 000029 GHP
Scott Truhart,Tricia Trubart,
Mary E. Knight,Charles E.Knight,
Kim B. Surles, Timothy M.Connell,
and Adam Craig,
Plaintiffs
V.
I
Zoning Board of Appeals for the
City of Salem,
I
and
I
Rebecca Curran,Peter Copelas,
Thomas Watlans,Mike Duffy,
James Tsitsinos,James Hacker and
Paul Viccica,as they constitute the
City of Salem Board Appeals,
I
and
I
Michael Meyer,Trustee of 1-3 East Collins
Street Realty Trust
Defendants
NOTICE OF AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT
AS OF COURSE
The Plaintiffs amend their Complaint as of course by substituting said complaint with the
attached First Amended Complaint for the purpose of eorrecting the Caption. This amendment is
made as a matter of course pursuant to the terns of Mass.R.Civ.P.Rule 15(a), insofar as service
has not been made on,nor have any responsive pleadings been served by any Defendant and no
order of dismissal been entered.
1
50115 1°Amended Collins St./ZBA Complaint
Respectfully submitted,
The Plaintiffs,
i ByIattom
7�
William M.ZaIMHBO#554135
Email: bzall@cmlaw.net
CUNNINGHAM,MACHANIC,
CETLIN,JOHNSON,&HARNEY LLP
220 North Main Street,Suite 301
Natick,MA 01760
TEL: (508)651-7524
Dated: A . FAX: (508)653-0119
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Notice of Amendment of Complaint as of Course and
of the Amended Complaint were served upon the Defendant, City of Salem, Massachusetts Board
of Appeals,by hand on Tuesday,January 24,2017,to:
City Clerk
City of Salem MA
Salem City Hall
93 Washington Street
Salem,MA 01970
William M.Zall
2
50115 1° Amended Collins St.J ZBA Complaint
• I
COMMONWEALTH OF,MASSACHUSETTS
LAND COURT
DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT
Essex, ss Case No. 17 MMSC 000029 GBP
Scott Truhart,Tricia Truhart,
Mary E.Knight,Charles E. Knight,
Kim B. Surles,Timothy M. Connell, J
and Adam Craig, J
Plaintiffs J
V. J
I
City of Salem Massachusetts, Board
Of Appeals, J
I
and
J
Rebecca Curran,Peter Copelas, J
Thomas Watkins,Mike Duffy, J
James Tsitsinos,James Hacker and J
Paul Viccica,as they constitute the J
City of Salem Massachusetts,Board i
of Appeals,
I
and
I
Michael Meyer,Trustee of 1-3 East Collins J
Street Realty Trust
I
Defendants
FIRST AMENDED Complaint Pursuant to MGLA C.40A, §17
Appealing a Zoning Board Decision
1. The Plaintiffs, Scott and Tricia Truhart, are natural.person residing at 4 East Collins
Street, Salem,Massachusetts.
2. The Plaintiffs,Mary E. Knight and Charles E.Knight,are natural persons residing at 5
East Collins Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
3. The Plaintiffs,Kim B. Surles,is a natural person residing at 27 Planters Street, Salem,
Massachusetts.
4. The Plaintiff Timothy M.Connell,is a natural person residing at 6 East Collins Street,
Salem, Massachusetts.
1
50115 1"Amended Collins St./ZBA Complaint
5. The Plainti$Adam Craig, is a natural person residing at 29 Planter Street, Salem,
Massachusetts.
6. The Defendant, City of Salem Massachusetts,Board of Appeals(hereinafter,the"Salem
ZBX),is a permit granting authority in the City of Salem,Massachusetts,and has a
usual place of business at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
7. The Defendants,Rebecca Curran,Peter Copelas, Thomas Watkins,Mike Duffy and
James Tsitsinos,James Hacker and Paul Viccica,are herein named in their capacity as
members or alternates of the Salem ZBA.
8. The Defendant,Michael Meyer,Trustee of 1-3 East Collins Street Realty Trust
("Petitioner'),is the purported owner of real property located at 1-3 East Collins Street,
Salem,Massachusetts ("Premises").
9. Michael Meyer has a last known residential address of 11 Bay Street,Beverly,
Massachusetts.
10. The Petitioner purportedly acquired title to the Premises by deed, dated May 21,2015,
and recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Book,34073,Page 359.
A true and correct copy of the aforementioned deed is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
11.Pursuant to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance("Ordinance"),the Premises are located
in an R1 Zoning District.
12. Pursuant to the Ordinance,the only residential use within an R 1 Zoning District which is
allowed as of right is that of a single family dwelling.
13.Pursuant to §3.3.1 of the Ordinance, where a nonconforming use lawfully existed prior to
adoption of the Ordinance, such nonconforming use may continue,provided that no
modification of the use is accomplished unless authorized under the Ordinance.
14. Prior to adoption of the Ordinance, a social club lawfully existed at the Premises.
15. The social club continued to operate at the Premises subsequent to adoption of the
Ordinance under the protected status granted pursuant to the aforesaid§3.3.1.
16.Pursuant to §3.3.2 of the Ordinance,the Salem ZBA may allow a change from one
nonconforming use to another nonconforming use under certain conditions cited therein.
17. In order to allow a change under§3.3.2 of the Ordinance,the protected status afforded to
the pre-existing nonconforming use of the Premises must not have been extinguished and,
thus,the use must have been lawfully in existence at the time of the Petition.
2
50115 1° Amended Collins St./ZBA Complaint
U.S.POSTAGE>>PITNEY 130WES
CITY OF SALEM, IVIRSSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
41�' �
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ZIP 0 1970
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 02 IVV $ 000.465
0001392928OCT 05 2016
fParoel ID:36-6267-0
CHAN MON D
12 EAST COLLINS STREET
SALEM, MA 01970
DE
E
RETURN TO SENDER
NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED
UNABLE TO F OR WARD
9 31136 8,20*82 2 R 1,112 Ra UTF aC' 01970352303 * 1.221- 05848-05 -47
\ ���
y � /
.�_
.._
_..
�. ��,'�
�� .�..
� ^
j
��
// /
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
,111 BOARD OF APPEAL
1B!b SEp M P 1 2b
. t) 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSAC14USETI' ptiq
CnIDERLEYDwscou TELE:978-619-5685 6 FAx:97ERK. SAL
EM,MASS.
MAYOR
City of Salem
_.- Zoning Board of Appeals _
Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition of MICHAEL MEYER,TRUSTEE,
requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconjoming User and Variances per Sec. 4.1.1 Dimennonal
Requirements for the following minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, minimum distance
between buildings, and maximum number of stories to construct eight (8) residential units at 1-3 EAST
COLLINS STREET (Map 36 Lot 277) (R-1 Zoning District)
The public hearing will be held on Wednesday; October 19, 2016 at 6:30 PM, in Room 313, 3rd at 120
Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the
application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of
Planning&Community Development,City Hall Annex, 3d, 120 Washington St,Salem,MA.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
Salem News: October 5,2016 and October 12, 2016
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
$ ' City all, Salem, Mass. on t?vlto „
` at. i Y4' PH in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
r
Sections 18-25.
F '
R
Cammp-nA-
18. Pursuant to § 3.3.6 of the Ordinance, a nonconforming use which has been abandoned,or
not used for a period of two years, shall lose its protected status and be subject to all of
the provisions of the Ordinance.
19. On or about September 27,2016, the Petitioner filed a petition with the Salem ZBA,
seeking a Special Permit to change the use of the Premises from one noaconforming use
to another nonconforming use(said petition hereinafter referred to as the"Petition"). A
true and correct copy of the Petition is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
20. In addition to the aforementioned Special Permit,the Petition also sought a Variance
from certain dimensional requirements under the Ordinance.
21. Pursuant to public notice issued pursuant to applicable provisions of MGLA C.40A, a
public hearing on the Petition was commenced on October 19,2016,and continued from
time to time until December 21,2016.
22. Upon information and belief,the pre-existing nonconforming use of the Premises had
been abandoned by the owner thereof.
23. Upon information and belief,the pre-existing nonconforming use of the Premises was not
used for a period of at least two years prior to the filing of the Petition.
24. The protected status afforded the nonconforming use of the Premises was extinguished by
abandonment.
25. The protected status afforded the nonconforming use of the Premises was extinguished by
non-use for a period of two years prior to the filing of the Petition.
26.By virtue of the loss of protected status of the nonconforming use of the Premises,the
Petitioner was not eligible for consideration of change to another nonconforming use
under§3.3.2 of the Ordinance.
27. By virtue of the loss of protected status of the nonconforming use of the Premises,use of
the Premises must conform with the requirements of the RI Zoning District as allowed by
the Ordinance.
28. On January 4,2017, the Salem ZBA filed its decision with the Salem City Clerk,
allowing the relief requested in the Petition(the"Decision'). A certified copy of the
Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
29.Notwithstanding the lack of supporting evidence,the"Statements of fact"contained in
the Decision erroneously concluded from a`legal opinion"that the pre-existing
nonconforming use of the Premises had not been abandoned.
J
3
50115 1"Amended Collins St./ZBA Complaint
30. The Decision granting the Special Permit made no finding addressing whether or not the
right to continue the pre-existing nonconforming use at the Premises had been
extinguished due to non-use for a period of two year.
31. Notwithstanding the lack of supporting evidence,the Decision granting the Special
Permit erroneously found that the requested nonconforming use was not substantially
more detrimental to the neighborhood than the purportedly existing non-conforming use.
32. Notwithstanding the lack of supporting evidence,the Decision granting the Variance
from dimensional requirements of the Ordinance, the ZBA erroneously found that"literal
enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship as the
cost of building a single-family home on the property would far exceed the market value
of the area."
33.Upon information and belief, construction of a single family residence in conformance
with the Ordinance would require significantly fewer variances than those which the
Salem ZBA allowed in granting construction of the multi-unit structures.
34. The Decision granting the Variance from dimensional requirements for reconstruction-,
after voluntary demolition, which variance must be sought by special permit.
35. The Plaintiffs are aggrieved by the Decision.
36. The Decision was not supported by substantial evidence.
37.The Decision exceeded the authority of the Salem ZBA,was based upon legally
untenable grounds and was otherwise arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.
COUNTI
TO ANNUL DECISION GRANTING NONCONFORMING USE AS
PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO CONTINUED NONCONFORMING USE
WAS EXTINGUISHED BY ABANDONMENT
(Ordinance 3.3.6; M.G.L CAOA,§6) .
38.The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in
the above paragraphs.
39. Pursuant to §3.3.6,a nonconforming use which has been abandoned or not used
for a period of two years, shall lose its protected status and be subject to all of the
provision of the Ordinance.
40. The nonconforming use of the Premises was abandoned.
4
50115 1"Amended Collins St./ZBA Complaint
I
COUNT H
TO ANNUL DECISION GRANTING NONCONFORMING USE AS
PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO CONTINUE NONCONFORMING USE
WAS EXTINGUISHED BY NON-USE FOR PERIOD OF TWO YEARS
(Ordinance 33.6;M.G.L C.40A,§6)
41. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in
the above paragraphs.
42.Pursuant to §3.3.6,a nonconforming use which has been abandoned or not used
for a period of two years, shall lose its protected status and be subject to all of the
provision of the Ordinance.
43. The Premises had not been used for the nonconforming use for a period of at least
two years prior to the filing of the Petition.
COUNT HI
TO ANNUL DECISION GRANTING NONCONFORMING USE AS
PROPOSED USE IS NOT LESS DETRIMENTAL THAN PURPORTEDLY
EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE
(Ordinance 33.2; M.G.L C.40A,§6)
44. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in
the above paragraphs.
45.To the extent,if any,that the Petitioner's right to continue the purportedly existing
nonconforming use is found to have not been extinguished,then Section 3.3.2 of the
Ordinance requires that any change to another nonconforming use be"less detrimental.
46. The nonconforming use granted by the Decision is not less detrimental than the
purportedly existing nonconforming use.
COUNT IV
TO ANNUL DECISION GRANTING VARIANCES FROM
DI TENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS
REQUISITE HARDSHIP IS NOT PRESENT
47. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in
the above paragraphs.
48. The Petitioner has not shown the existence of requisite hardships to support granted
variances,where far fewer,if any,variances would be required to construct a structure
within the requirements of the Ordinance.
5
50115 1° Amended Collins St/ZBA Complaint
i
WHEREFORE,the plaintiff demands judgment as follows:
a. That any pre-existing non-conforming use of the Premises be declared lost due
to non-use;
b. That any pre-existing non-conforming use of the Premises be declared lost due
to abandonment;
C. That the Decision of the City of Salem Massachusetts, Board 'of Appeals
allowing the Petitioner to change from one non-conforming use to another non-
conforming use be annulled;
d. That the Premises be used only in accordance with the City of Salem Zoning
Ordinance;and
e. That this Court grant such further relief as it deems necessary and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
The Plaintiffs,
By their attom
William M.Zall, 04554135
Email.- bzall@cmlaw.net
CUNNINGHAM,MACHANIC,
CETLIN,JOHNSON,&HARNEY LLP
220 North Main Street,Suite 301
Natick,MA 01760
TEL: (508)651-7524
Dated: FAX: (508)653-0119
6
501151Amended Collins St./ZBA Complaint
EXHIBIT
A
is
Return to:
dlllllllllll �
SAW #0 Bk:m No
W121/21% 02:16 DM py 1/8
{Spay Above This Line Reserved For Registry of Deeds Use}
QUITCLAIM DEED
WARD H SOCIAL CLUB OF SALEM,INC.,a Massachusetts Corporation,with a principal
place of business at 1-3 East Collins Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970,
for nominal consideration,
grants to MICHAEL MEYF.R,TRUSTEE OF 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET REALTY
TRUST,under Declaration of Trost dated May 1,2015,as evidenced by a TYvstee Certificate
recorded herewith,
d with QUrfCLAIM COVENANTS
\ a certain parcel of land situated in Salem,Essex County,Massachusetts,shown on a Plan
entitled:."NEW ENGLAND POWER SERVICE COMPANY PART OF NEW ENGLAND
ELECTRIC SYSTEM BOSTON,MASS.,NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY PLAN OF
eo LAND IN SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS TO BE CONVEYED TO WARD II SOCIAL CLUB
OF SALEM,INC.,SCALE 1--401 DATE AUG 6, 19561-5840",a copy of which is attached to
j a Deed dated November 1, 1956 and recorded with Essex South District Registry of Deeds at
Book 4334,Page 560,and bounded and described as follows:
r? Beginning at the Northwesterly coma of said parcel at other land of the Grantor at a point on the
'-' Easterly side of East Collins Street;said point being 21.6 feet distant Southwesterly from an iron
pipe at the Southerly intersection of said East Collins Street and Planters Street;
thence running Southeasterly 271.80 feet to a point;
thence taming and running Southwesterly 215.6 feet to a point at land now or formerly of
Scher--said last two courses and distances being by other land now or formerly of New
England Power Company;
thence uuning and running Northwesterly by add land of Scher, 128 feat to a point at
land now or fom erly of Campbell;
: ..Urease turning and running Northeasterly r fent to s poi4
thocatutlfiuOnd running Northwesterly,150 fent to avid East Collins Strad avid lest
tale.counsels and distances being by said land of Campbell:
thence turning and running Northeasterly by said Beat Collins Street 94.5 fleet to the
point of beginning.
Comaitriag.41,640 squen.f*of land according to said.Plan.
Bang the same premises cowiged by Dead dated Novembor 1, 1956,recorded with the Briar
South District Registry of Deeds in Book 4334,Page 560:.
This cmmysnoe is subject to all outstanding mortgages and Baas of record.
Tbi.a conveyance is also made subject#o m==j36 wmeptlon"nd reservations efsecordi VOW,
insofar ee the saw are in farce and applicable.
{REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LWr BLANK}
Executed is a sealed hrebument thle a�day of 15
WARD 11 SOCIAL CLUB OF SALEM, INC.
BY:
Nick Gordon, President
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Essex,ss.
before me the unde*rwd notary public,personally appeared, Nick Gordon, PresideM of the
WARD 11 SOCIAL CLUB OF SALEM, INC.,WHO PROVED TO ME THRO GH
SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF IDENTIFICATION,WHICH WAS 1rlR n L TO
BE THE PERSON WHOSE NAME IS SIGNED ON THE PRECEDING INSTRUMENT,AND
WHO ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE SIGNED R VOLUNTARILY FOR ITS STATED
PURPOSE.
NOTARY PUBLIC ( f
My Corrrnlealon expires: It + I LI 1 r
CAROLFTHOMAS
WR PAC Cnmwmo
Narp,
EXHIBIT
B
CITY OF SALHK MASl4(ML M BOARD OF APPALS
PLPPITION FORM
MY OF MIXAecAMS'EM
BOAn�D OPAPPSAIS M6 SEP Pl P I= SO
12DWASH NiGTONSIR]s .3m 14.00E
SALt1KKASSACHEW 1 01910 FI(. N
' Y xLamee S L Pl m;Il.*m f bgma" SSQY CLfR1G SALEM.MASS,
> S1,�1/ M7w RECEIVED,
>rn..e.s'Dareoau. ErinSehcet6e,SuffPLooc
MArae' PhD=-VUl9L-W/Fm=97&MOM
TO M BOA=OF App AM: SEP 27 20
MW UWM*W eI9 hsUe MW ft owmm Oft Milo puod of Ind bcMdat DEPT.OF PLANNING&
Adman 1.3 EM OAA SbMDlttritit R,1 GOMMUNiTY DEVELOPMEZmigNT
Anapplmdmkbr nhaftdtotheBealldAppmiBrfttfowfasraom*)tI%tammmteaat
dWadbe wlWtyoo pWpem m hood,the�iom,tbeaoaepmpmty b br,.od dW aardoStegabemeaMp
I opm awtWwof a Ip'r Idose rbryadddaw m agAmers iametd at 3 S'afaa laa,b fLe R�Zmytg
tNWirt 11k7matg Aet�Pmr n�tm the m&r6moi�r8p11i�dk rrtrrmdm 6e3DfeK 1Aeavrrsat depaq yup
n�7imd/e 91,J&�deprapoead admatar rvoa6datdtabe dro�rd•de rearlarmd m 11,jis�
Baa SWbrnWdo of Grcdnda atbmtwd.
Far fbirmWm 1 m ngoeemro8 .
(oa'Yem*e)hmpravW mofgodm 4.1.1 oft*Z'w o dmatroe,apedfl Imm min.
M Wee per daab*WA rift dhtarme bMwam hMnp mh f vnh�pa (Aa ndrMm 4ocfmffpwv.
Who bdbWda_1B4O00U.,40%11 ft QtyagJtTarafo? W),adwloI
ampmpuiogfaSee StaftnWtofGmLuxls 017•4)ttsmrfWt9f7J
(4AkwWFWmitaodW3eeim3J.2 oftbez=bscni =inmdartDChwwdnvnm
oar bwft free to a m*w Iem doMmeMd non uonfomrbg us&
()AMmd.of LW lkddoa ofdr BWhftlmpaxar(dww7Wd below}
( )Cootemdw PWmft for a an dm oflowor modeate i000me bom ft(dmoft b*V:
cArmFmpmtyUee:8addGub AmLofAlmtadomJadodedlfflYea ()NoYW
TbeUadfadpW hmehypeddme the Baud ofAWmla to very tla ternaefthe Salem Zoe Offtmoe=d am
dW pmjeotfo be obwAmetad u per me plum subminad,m dW mtoWemmt of mid ZmioS By-Tawe would imoM
p ou"difllmlly or=woowy>mdft to dW dada ipW mid WFdmay be panted wrdam mbmmoddly
demSa ft fmm ft iermt and pmpoee oftbe ZanbpOnHomm
CITY OF SAI.Ed,MM
SACMJJWM BOARD OF APPEAIA
F'F3TFTiON FORM
71mfdb*bg weueee ski mmt ho bem mbmlffed wldb tMr app8m8en:
(10 For s0VadImisgoe 18wrimmSmummtofHmd*pdmmorrhaftacNowhoRMbeaw=ed:
a) 4WW omdmtaar ad Oe an wpmwlyiffmx ft bad,baB ft or armptrc involved,
6) �kbmmm of bods.bAdkMmd wes achmm m ae saw da1�
Pmv;AmofaeOhmwaddmvowd lbaditbae
vomatud
P-) Dib=WmiybePaMdvviaoawba mM&trhaearbdopdAcV 1. adwia vapAnor
MASMOdOltV dmoyarogDamaetabsoraed+wbrordoymporeofavard&m e,
(F FGre2 S0wW pmmk I es-a$buff"ofOrMS&mmtbe spied;An rWomw fora spedW pmap.for
•a000acfbrmisgm*r*vc'm WM uWbb A MOMM dm=WBtbghow*ePepomdcbwpeho Mbe
s tll9mmedetdmmmtassaembfmSnoaomfo=*gaftbaensgbbodwWisemmdaamwia
Secdoa 9A�edof l°baoder.Surf a tmemeo<sbasdd bdode mfbnmoe b ae ditbwingaltmim
bTaft SOCK W�m awbsmvedbyftpmpod
c) AdegaroyofvMfw doaxpuWc mv(.
Q kwum m die nee=d aaviomme ;bmiadkg dndesge;
e) NdghbmbsodabmaoI and
0 POW"flud impmet,ioohoding lmpmt on aty In bw and m pgmeec
( )Pard]Cbmprd nlbo mi. Ba om mxti m of low or modefe bsm>c grHo mo dhow lift to M.O.L.
OL M f 20-29.
PrsvhnEPP&Wm b fb Hoard ofAppub towd dds propub bm bw wbslud wm fhb pagdn
�ardafo�ra+amrprov�adapaem�oboralPm�a+ePpl�footrtodepm�srr
Peddonm:becDeel Meyer,TYudae pr�,p�saerw 66 pe(f9aner
Addi=s 11 Eley Sbeet eeverb.MA 0195
Tdadame: tbtmhmw
ihw0 edeveb men it n _ per:
9' Sigmdme
Drax 27,2018 / Ds4: Fnsmr+mswves+.a.aosa�rorsy
A MEM Addm=27—CM-OMEA SI,9414.BA M MA 01 9A
ATrW Tsbpbon 978- 088
9igmdme
Dae ,2018
MY CLERK DATE DPCD DATE
7Alr algbml a�pllmtioa east bejllad v�drk rM Cly Qenk
STATEMENT OF GROUNDS
7be pcwmw is the current oamar of thepropatt�v at 1-3 Best Collins Street(the"properly")
d IN the of the rqw closed Wad 2 Social Club. The lead arca consists of41,834 Lf and
ispa>am*ooaupiad by a onedwy Banc efe block ahvotme. Tho poperty is Ionated in t6o
llal One(R-1)zoning district
It is the petidom's ikon to demolish the existing structure and to construct eight residential
dwalfiog units in single and two Emily dwellings, The proposed redevelopment of the property
Will pavvide psddog which eon with the requirements oftbe Zoning Oaname.
To construct muldlple smwtmn on a Bogie properly is not allowed in the&1 cdstticd,howum,
the crasent nee as eaodd dub is kgdIIy ion-o � Tyne,the change to tbelaes
dpri w*mwccnfmmiag maldpk dwelling residential nee is allowed by Special Para is
Vader Section 33.2 oftbe Ordmeace.
7bcpvftd dw requires variances fiom certain diman and mgmmmmgs of the Orrice.
Moat nutsbly,.fhe lot area per dwdlmg aait repaired is 1500 Lf per unit and the proposed
development provides 5,300 s£per anis In addition,the adstigs lot,which pnWa w*e Zaxt g
Ord ummoc,has 94.5 feet of footage slog Fast Collins Strect where 100 Sect is myv;red,The
pppwW abo requires a variance km the requ bmum 6at bundingo on a lot be it mid of
40 fiat apart.In this instance Is miumoum distamx proposed ie 25 feet. Finally,aithovA&a
hdgtt ofthe building In lase than the allowed 35 flet;each buff ft does eamed the hci&
limbation of two and one halfs6oues,requiring a variance Am that p vWoa
Them is a lhtie quwdem that the land at 1-3 Fast Collins Sheet is affected by speoid eonditions
dlat do rot affect od w fins in the mmvmWWg nd0bmimod. A dVfftxatpmdm dit
Pmparty is salt marsh and coastal dune and ft entire site ties vAIh to flood plain, In addition,
ofthoInd is withintiseimisdiarom oftheCmmonwoMofd under ChIpter
91. Platter,the site is traversed by an eaeammt for the nabtrel gas line which will be
camp in Ste near hatune..Finally,the land is located in the most resbMwe zoning district
but marounded by districts that aro has reatrictiva 71cm conditions male the developoat of
tlmaim expmsive and abaIleoglng.
The ca>rent use oftbe building a a social dab is no longer viable as avidasoed by its raxnt
doeme du c to declmmg memobemhip.The erdstmg batt cmwt be ra ma meted for another
pmpse ander omr®t flood plain semda[da.In order to melev ft the property for a reaidmtial
aaaandSront orifi the eanoumding nr4tbgdw4 wtrent troaslal ctnsnuetioa BMXWds and the
odw MPIdmy and earvirn MMM ocm**b set fotfi above require a oarmin level of density.
Wdmout tea required relief to allow that level of density,the petifiam will be unable to comm
uta Property to ani'economically productm use,ming a hatdddp for him.The proposed
dont ofthe project is signifiaeady leas flan the average dmdty offt song
neighbe�ood,so rho reBef requested could be panted without detriment to the Pathe good and
would not depart alpfficmtly from the intent of the Ordinance or the dishict.
The redevelopmat ofdw Property will have the bane&of chmioadng a comm=W age in the
middle of a ilsideaW noAgWmhood. The project will provide adalaete paddng.for the
rcddwb and*0 traffic Impact wiH not be sigmffcant compared in the poor uss as a social club.
As part of twdev->p�the beach and coastal dime wlll be cleaned up. The mejoriWofdw
lotthet is cunanlY paved wfll be canverted to open groan spam bumby b Vzovingtbe m►Anal
anvironaest ad dnr;eage. FinallY,the project wW provide ranch needed housing in the chy
and will add AmiSomA tax revenue.
F r hmgft caseous,it is appropriate and desirable for the Board to great the rdW
e
EIHMTT
C
now CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
12oW.ffM4GW SnUMT.SAT5Km 'n o�A1P_u P 2. 13
I{IDa BYDRiSC U - TEM 979-745-95951 FAX:97&740
A TOC OPY REST CITY AJIAEK US&
C WI
January a,2m'
RK
"W"MASS- City of sales, Board of Appeals
A Pod" of MICHAEL MYER, TRUSTEE, te4yeBm8 a Spm Permit per Sea 112
Nanaamb=hW Uses NO Vanances per Sec. ILM Dfinendomal Requi emeate for the
minimum lot area per dwediug unit,minimum lot frontage, mb"murn distance betweenWidinge8
and morion n number of stories to cow- r- eight (l) residential units at 1$ EAST COLLIM,
STREET(Map 36 Lot 277) (R-1 Zoning Dietdct)
At the October 19,2016 a blit h op p�rman
meeting, public eating cues en t to M.G.L Ch.40A,§ 11.Testimony
was heard on that date and the public baiting was continued on October 19,2016,November 16,2016 and
December 21,2016.The besting was closed on December 21,2016 with the following Salem Board of
APPS members present: Rebecca Curran(Chair),Peter A.Copelss,Mike Du@y,Toon Watkins,and jim
Tsitsinosmy
The Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit per Sea 3.3.2 Nmx*nwg Uses and Vinancea per Sea 4. .1
Disve"sal P,0q&*Awa* for the following minimum lot ares per dwelling umit, minhaum lot frontage,
minimum distance between buildings,and romar,m number of stories to construct eight(8)residential units.
Statements of fact:
1. Attorney Graver presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner. Dan Riccawlli of Seger
Arcbirecta, of Salem, MA and Scott Cameron, CE of Maria-Cameron Group, of Dsavers,MA also
presented teatimamy.
2. In March of 2015,the petitioner withdrew an application without prejudice for a development at this
location for a residential use and submitted a sigaificantly different application on September 27,2016
for review.
3. In the petition date-atamped September 27, 2016, the Petitioner requested a Special Permit per Sea
per Sea 3.3.2 Ne#"f wis8 Unv of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change and eriating
nonconforming use of a social chub to another nonconforming use of multi-!holy residential units.
The petitioner is also requesting Variances for relief firm Saa 4.1.1 Tab&
minimum lot aces per dwelling unit,minimum lot frontage,minimum distance between�far
number of staties. b� ,and
4. The property is located at the Planters Street and Feat Collins Street in an R-1 Zoning District. The
previous use of the property was the Ward 2 Social Club.
A TRUE C'OPYATTESJ `
5. At the October 19,2016 public heating testimony was heard and
the property had lost its grandfathered non-conforming status. 'Ile
opinion
from the City Solicitor to clarify whether property had lost itsnon-
�
conforming status of the property determines whether the Board has thea t�,The change in
the property use from one nan{onforming use to anodes cion-conforming use by special permit
6. On November 16, 2016, the petitioner requested a continuation of the public hearing to the neat
regdariy scheduled meeting on December 21,2016.No testimony was heard at this meeting
7. At the December 21,2016 meeting,the Board re and discussed the legal opit ion from the City
Solicimz dated December 4,2016.
S. The follawmg are conclusions from the legal opinion relevant to the issues discussed at the October
19,2016 public hearing.
• The use of the property is entitled to protected status as a legally non-confomting use under
M.G.T.Ch.40A Section 6.
• The club did not abandon its use of the property in January 2014,when it closed the building
to the public.
• The sale of the property to the petitioner does not constitute a termination of the use of the
Prop
• It is within the authority of the City of Salem Board of Appeals to issue a special permit to
allow a non-confomting use of the Property to continue, provided that the Board issues a
finding that the proposed new use of the Property, is less detrimental than the existing
nonoonfonming vac.
9. Delinquent property nixes were paid by the petitioner before the December 21,2016 public hearing,
10. On November 30, 1948, various residents of the City of Sahyn formed the tib as a Massachusetts
not-forpmft corporation organized under M.G.L. Ch. 180 for the purpose of promoting
brotherhood and charity in the Ward II District of Salem.
11. On November 1, 1956, the Club acquired title to the Property for the purpose, of constructing it
building to serve as the location for the charitable activities of its membership including a place to
hold meetings and place where the public would be able to hold events.At this time,the property was
. located in a Single Residence District B and the 1955 Ordinance was in effect pursuant to SM4M.5
the Use of the Property was a permitted use in the Single Residence Dietdct, but is no longer a
Permits use by right in the RI'Zoning District The Social Club is an eaating non-conforming use.
(See Opinion 1-3 E.Collins St Dated Dec, 4,2016 for further disaresma).
12. On May 21,2015,the Club sold the property to the petitioner.The lead area of the property consists
of 41,834 square feet and has a one-sorry concrete block structure.The e=tng structure does not
meet the current floodplain construction standards.
13. The peduoner is proposing to Chen the use of the property from the non-coafom>wog use of a
social club to mule-family residential dwelling units.
14. The petitioner testSes that the proposed residential use of the property is more consistent with the
surrounding neighborhood use than the existing social club and bar room
15. The existing building cannot be reconstructed for another purpose under the Chapter 91 resparements
due to cuttent flood plain construction standards.As such,the petitioner is proposing to demohah the
AT UE COPi "
Wand 2 Social Club strocams to camsttuct eight M residential dwelling
� �� C CLEI
16- The proposed eight(8)units will be divided into three(3)duplexes and two 11MW 91 *66*0-1�28
The petitioner testifies that the proposed residential use is consistent with the use of the
neighborhood and the dwelling unit anangement of single and two-family units is eonsiatent with the
atrsagement of dwelling.units d
nits within the surrounding neighborhood.
17. The petitioner is requesting a special permit per See.33.2 N
oaoonfomtiag Uses to change the
misting non-conforming use of the property from the existing Ward 2 Social Club to muhi-family
residential dwelling units in single and two(2)family amingemmts.
18. The petitioner expects to provide futtue public access to the watetfront thtongh the property,in a
'locadost determined by the phoning Board and Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection(DEP)through the Chapter 91 permitting process,
19. The proposed plan is providing fourteen(14)pig spaces where the requitement is twelve(12)
Puking spaces.The Salem Zoning Ordinance requites one and a half(1unit. .5)panting��P�dweft
20. Currently,there is one long curbcut with approximately thirty(30)paddog."ces on the
at
The petitioner is proposing to reduce the number of Parking spaces and fomuttize a cntbcproperty.
meets the dimensional requirement of a maximum of 20'feet for a residential use.
21. Mr.Cameron,CE of Moria-Camet6a Croup,of Danvers,MA testified that the existing public
utilities and other public services are adequate to support the proposed eight(8)residential uom.
22 Mr.Cameron,CE of Morin-Cameron Group,of Danvers,MA testified that the impacts on the
natural environment,mehniing drainage would be positive.The petitioner is proposiug to reduce the
extstmg rmpervicos ffinfO from 30%to 13%.The property will comply with all stnsmwater
Management:requirements.
23. The existing Ward 2 Social Club structure is 5,200 square feet at 12.5%lot cDverage.In comparison,
the five(5)psoposed residential smtctures are a total of 6,400 square feet at 133%lot
Cameron testifies that the proposed structures will have similar lot coverage and footprint areas as the
existing structure,
24. Mr.Cameron testifies that existing average lot area pet dwelling unit in the neighborhood one(1)
dwdhng unft per 2,600 square feet The petitioner is proposing a lot area per dwelling unit of 5,229
square feed making the proposed development approximately 309/6 less dense than neighboring
dwelling units.
25. 1&Cameron testifies that the spacing between buildings in the existing neWhbothood is
approximately ten(til)to twenty(20)feet The proposed distance between the buildings at 1-3 Fast
Collins Street is twenty-five(25)feet at the narrowest point
26. The footprints of the proposed buildings are comparable to the existing footprints of the buildings in
the surrounding neighborhood
27. Mr. Rioduck of Seger Architects testified that the proposed building footprints, massing and
architectural design are consistent with the a+•hhectuta de ils,massing,and form of the surrounding
neighborhood. For example, the proposed buildioge incorporate ��/ 1
"A"shaped rooflines. The building facades are slender with the remaining j,;
reat All of these details fit with the existing character of the dwelling unitpa,�y��,,,�
A The t of the
waterfronent. bmld;ngs in to the public request t� �0 of the
29. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base is positive
30. The petitioner is also requesting foot (4) vasmnces including minimum lot amp
erclvvejhog
minimum lot fiontage,minimum distance between buildings,and maximum number of stones.
,
31. The petitioner,proposed the deviations from the
Ordmamee a)a lot arra following dents of the Zoning
per dwelling mit of 5,300 s ter
Ordnance is 15,000 square feet; b) 94.5 feet of frontage where the tp Zoning
per the Zoning
Ordinanceis 100 square feet of linear frontage;c)a mimmnm of 25 feet of distance b
is°" minimum requited distance is 40 feet d)Three (3) stories where the macourom 2.5 stori
� t
32. The petitioner testifies that the special conditions and circumstances that caped affect the land,
bolding Or structure imvohved,generally not affiuting other]sada,b and
district is that a t des in the same
lies within the portion
of the property is salt match and maaml dans and the entire site
odplem urd"4 the site is traversed by an easement for the nst ural gas line,which
will be constructed in the neat future.In addition,most of the land is within the
jurisdiction of the
Commomveahh of Massachusetts under Chapter 91.The land is also located in the most restrict
zoning district;but surrounding by districts that are less restrictive.These
Property make the development of the site expensive and challenging: 'fie conditions of this
33. The petitioner testifies that the social club le no longer viable as evidenced by its recent closure due to
under
membership.Further the existing buttda'ng cannot be seconsittucted for another purpose
requirements due to current flood phun standards.The literal
nt
the zonmg Ordinance would a -fad me, Do,mllow the property owner to construct a hoto of
unique conditions of the land,
land, the coat of the required specialized construction would exceed the
market value of the home for the arra•
34. The petitioner proposes a density of 5,300 square feet where the requirement is 15,000 equate feet
dwelling unit and testifies that the proposed density of eight M residential .A
emgle-fim*use,which is an allowable use t on this IMM
is needed.A
use amd creates an economic property,cis not an economically fesfor
hardship for the petitioner due to the cost of construction needed for
this property.
35. The petitioner is proposing 94.5 feet of frontage where the requitement per the Zoning
100 square feet of linear frontage.The frontage is a pre-existing non re h
altemative to provide additional linear fionage. 81°n with no
36. 7he petuionm is proposing 25'-30,feet of distance between buddindistance is 40 fi*tga where the minimum requirrd
37. The petitioner is proposing to comatruct dwelling units that are three(3)stories lather than the
maximum requirement of 2.5 stories.The proposed living areas are raised with patkmg propose
underneath the budthng by necessity because the entire property is located within the flood zone.
Coastal construction requirra that the first floor be elevated above the ten(10)foot flood elevation.
A RUE COPY ATTEST
3g. The dwelling mit mean rafter height does not exceed the 35,foot maximum Er RK
39. At the Public hearings, ten (10) residenta spoke in opposition to the propSAWMAWAber
spoke in support of 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 Petitionees
presentation and Public testnnony, makes the following SadnW that the proposed project meets the
provisions of the City of Sate=Zoning Ordinance.
Findings for Variance:
I. The speeial'conditions and circumstances that especially affecting land,building or structure involved
generally not affectog other lands,buildings,and structures in the came district is that a sigoifieant
Portion of the property is sak match and coastal dune and the entire site lies within the flood plain.
Further,the site is traversed by an easement for the natural gas line,which win be constructed in the
near fihmre.In addition,most of the land is within the jurisdiction of the Common of
Massachusetts under Chapter 91.The land is also located in the most restrict zoning district,but
surrounding by districts that are less restrictive.These unique conditions of this property make the
development of the site expensive and challenging.
2. The literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship s,,
cost of building a single-family home on the property would far exceed the market value of the ares.
3. 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 pmposa of the ordmsnce.
Fmdop for Special permit
1. The proposed change use of a non-conforming social club to another non-eonfonning use of muhi-
fsmrly residential uses in a single and two(2)fw*arrangement is not substantially more demmentd
tun the existing nonconforming use to the impact on the social, economic cc commrmjty, needs
served by the proposal.
2. There are no impacts on traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading as there are fourteen
(14) on-site parking spaces that exceed the minimum pairing requirements of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance.
3. The capacity of the utilities and public services are not significandy affected by the project
4. There are net positive impacts on the natural environnim%including dthrinage as the existing property
has approximately 12,000 square feet of existing pavement surface. The petitioner is proposing m
reduce the impervious surface on the property to approximately 5,500 square feet
5. 1126 proposal itoprovea neighborhood character as it improves the property and the residential use is
consistent with the use of the surrounding neighborhood The dwelling unit arrangement of single
and two- family units is consistent with the arrangement of dwelling units within the surrounding
neighborhood Further, proposed buiidmg footprints, musnig, density and amhiteccural design are
consistent with the architectural details,massing,density and fora of the eaerounding neighborhood.
6. The potential fiscal impact,including impact on the City tax base is positive.
• I
On the basis of the above statements of facis and findings,the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (Rebecca
Curran(Chair),Peter A.Copelas,)mimy Tsitsiooe,Mike Duffy,and Tom Watkins in
opposed,to gent a Special Petadt per Sc 3.3.2N�Urer and Variances ) and name b
Rrgto ere*of the Salem Pg Sea 4.1.f
miaim�distance beureen Z° g Ordinance,,far minimum lot area per dwelling unit,m um lot frontage,
b.con&, and safie m number of stories,to construct eight(8)residential unit
subject to the following terms,conditions and safeguards:
1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,civ dinancM codes and regulations.
2. All constriction 866 be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the
Buming Commissioner
3. Allmpdtemems of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be sticdy
adh to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any constriction.
5. Exterior finishes of new construction shall be in harmony with the existing stuctue
6. A Cerate of lnapecd=shall be obtained.
7. A Cettificate of Occupancy shall be obtained.
& Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display
acid number so as to be visible figot the street
9. Petitioner is to obtain approval fi+om any City Board or Commission having prisdictica Including,but
not limited to,the Planning Board,
Special Condition
1. The applicant shall provide public access tb the water fiont per DEP Chapter 91 license requirement..
Rebecca Curmn,Chau
Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FII.F.D WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE City Q RK
SfiwdA w tgyrgd&rear A%# �&r & a t Aanrort m&r a Gawm/Larr CLyaa►40a Seatia,ll, res varraas or
Icy t "eklapofdoda=a ffiewr*%*ejtarGhGinterrloinfiWarlb,beEwxSaW
A TRUE COPY ATTEST
CA RK
SALEM MASS.
MAP 36 LOT 234CO
NEW ENGLAND POWER .
_ S 40'06723'
\ 215.89' /¢ /
pA1
PROPOSED TWO
FAMILY DWELLING
(2 GARAGE SPACES) \
w$
s
VQ N N r
v
Q
aS MAP 36 LOT 277 orn
M
N O~
40 < 0
/ G
ts;N� -rzvvw
Z $a o� / O Z O
tz-U %p o `dot v'- rQ¢¢/
LLI
O yap \\/ / PROPOSED SINGLE
y � FAMILY DWELLING N 46'51'23" E ed
O Ns \/ (2 GARAGE SPACES) PROPOSED SINGLE 28.02'
FAMILY DWELLING
O ", / / ' ;Y (2 GARAGE SPACES) ,..
/ \
PROP. lo.o
9 \ GRAVEL ',, r
o / N \ °= a DRIVE !
9
GARAGE
12.W
Q PJF-
PAVIN NT 11.0'
/
PROPOSED TWO PROP.
MAP 36 LOT 278
/ FAMILY DWELLING ASPHALT CHARLES & MARY KNIGHT
/ (3 GARAGE SPACES) PAVEMENT ,o.o
- -- _ - Lu-iv ...„_.5_.EAST- COLLINS-ST. - —
` " o$'
�momlio a1
/ < �v9 w 1
cn m o .i
\ �F
D
Zmo' mcZi��
� DWELLING
3.0'
t (� 1P�ex5a ,uilEin to removed
10p
\ 10.0•
^ b O O
Ln 1 94.50'
N 46'51'23" E \ _ _
��A EAST COLLINS STREET ,
MAP 36 LOT 246
SCOTT TRUH,
RTDWELLING
ZONING DISTRICT - Rt 4 EAST COLLINS ST.
DWELLING MAP 36 LOT 491
REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TIMOTHY L. CONNELL
LOT AREA 6 EAST COLLINS ST.
15,000 41,834 t 41,834 t
LOT AREA
Per dwelling unit 15,000 5229 ZONING BOARD OF` APPEALS PLAN
LOT FRONTAGE 100 94.50' 94.50''
FRONT 1s 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET
z1.6' 15.0• SALEM
SIDE 10 3.0' 10.0'
OF MqS PROPERTY OF
REAR 30 180'± 32'±
0�� s9cy 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET
F LOT N COVERAGE 30% 12.5% 13.3% GAIL L.o i REALTY TRUST
MIN. DISTANCE U MITH
BETWEEN E rocs. 40 25'7 95ats0 MICHAEL MEYER, TRUSTEE
PARKING 12 31 14R OFS,R G/STEREc/
BLDG. HEIGHT 35 35' OR LESS 35' OR LESS , S/°q uNo s% SCALE 1" = 30' SEPTEMBER 26, 2016
MAX. STORIES 2.5 1 1 3 /.J 1 NORTH SHORE SURVEY CORPORATION
'INCLUDES PARKING SPACES PROVIDED WITHIN THE BUILDINGS. 14 BROWN STREET — SALEM, MA
978-744-4800 #2933
" d
Al
-F[f
16
x 'YM
Ox
•y �rx 'kms :R �' x .� °a#.. T.em ak sF..m t °Y'. I ,
. v
17
a.
41
� n
ML
k IS
n y e
I{ c _,�`.}.. yl t 41 �r n '_`•:r `� �i a ,i i
,+
x
o- "r
54
_...43�-ffi'4nW'y. }n w..nix+ -• +do- aS �. n .1��� l �, ar i
144,
ta
y q *+4
f� � 'a n i� e e �x?xv w. ex �-41w�' � �
�� ' . 'i�' RW � V, a�
F',p
�ry E,- 5 gory 'Ik; "' �g'3.' ""' ♦ '4 ^?b "}Y;`b �,��� y��
�s
° m
Au,
m m m N
n
m
y A O
8 � vNi Z O N A
nig C N C
C
7 0 0 0
n
1
; ' Ilyll!ih'lli�l! I�I '
I iI.
-
n III � Ill � ilil�l j
lili III!IC ;� II �III� II�
�i ,Il;ily
Ilk ,
I
24'-6D
L ,I ! il ,i, l i
Im m m n
r r N r n
~ N Z
O r., m
I m I p I m
C C
M
O o
26' MAX
N
Do
D
CD
CDN
Q
n
N
C
Z P
0 3
.. rn
O 0
� O_
n
0 N
7
N r
0 N
O
0 �
l cu., Sak a5 Nb D
2 EAST COLLINS COVE CONDOMINIUM Deb D.m:rtm,D,3bs SEGER ARCHITECTS, INC.
eep�tl 2 EAST COLLINS COVE xb un M ms 10 Derby Square,Suite 3R
Salem,MA DRSalem,Massachusetts 01970
Dn«nq D—b' DR tel:979-744-0208 fax:978-744-0145
Ch... us w Dm johnaseger@segerarchiteats.com
�d ,NS REVIEW SET
c�
ro
I,I;II
H P m� I-d pi;Pll�l r
�I7!;'Illtl
P PW
p u
H
n
o ng i
m
y
a
�V H
' V
P P P
tl
LJ
21'-e•
i Y I
IIf
Do P�P PA
m
N
C s'ux
a
N
C I
Z Q
O 3
O N
� O
n
O N
7
41 y
G N
0 p
n 01
SEG
$ 2EAST COLLINS COVE CONDOMINIUM oam o.�,m,MISER ARCHITECTS,INC.
P1p 2 EAST COLLINS COVE ' W. p15 01e 10 Derby Square,Suite 3R
Salem,MA eflSalem,Massachusetts 01970
omnre rimer oa tel:978-744-02O8 fax:978-744-0145
Ch.ev .ws m o.u,
n,a,o..aw aos n 1v Serjohnaseger@segeramhitects.com
r
' v
n N t Baa
h ear
n
�, '+'� �. ,y.a a �� ,'k' � k• �+�s r°�„- ., s, a +�e-�A�"a rv. 8 a{� —t '�;e y.
;% < PlantersSt�eetr1- A .
-x
#`
Lip
#%e
ff;i
;E �,�' � fir. - a. � '� '� •� .#' _
� ' 1 r a
kV
tie
At
IN
� rsw� - k @ '� • tt nn� �� ,� � � � " sad mA � �.ui' k .gg '' ��g
"L q y° a ,� � E.ni� k^e>a: Kai.� � � iP` k� .� t °d•" qt
p } F
r n
� � a $
� < �Y � � d- •eta. 'd 'ai a �= Y' .P s.. . �'-
'� W�Y �la�cy�w
.�f' "LY s,.SN ''
#z. .i1 ` #
!E �
r• u
Y :ra .• { a (#� ^�-
View.� Q1 g16
L:ocation 'DiagramV!! inc
4
u.
AM IBM, In
04"'I�'
'5'-fw,
AN g"I I
ISM re
m, E, W
?M [ARA;
"A
of
p
IF
4L
-A
Yl 144
IN
'Iv� W 11*1 ?,"
SRI
A" f
WN
XF
4FF,
6z�
its Li
411
0
3U
All,
rs
W ky
11 slaw
A Seger
Aerial View Looking South architects