7 FRANKLIN STREET - ZBA 7 Fr*jw+Wlr\
(Gity of jttlem; rfussttrljusetts
Vanrd of peal
- Ju23
C' ; Ian
DECISION ON THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF VARIANCES
GRANTED TO 7 FRANKLIN STREET
At a hearing held June 18, 1997, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously,
5-0, to allow a six (6) month extension for Variances granted from density
regulations, lot coverage, sideyard setback, parking regulations and to
allow mixed use of industrial and commercial for the property located at 7
Franklin Street. Subject variances were originally granted at a hearing
held on July 17, 1996. Said extension shall be up to and including January
17, 1998.
A copy of the original decision have been filed with the Planning Board and
with the City Clerk.
Gary Barrett, Chairman
Board of Appeal
SERAFINI, SERAFINI AND DARLING
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
63 FEDERAL STREET
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS01970
JOHN R. 5ERAFIN I, SR. TELEPHONE
JOHN R. SERAFI NI.JR. 508-744-0212
JOHN E. DARLING 617-581-2743
ELLEN M.WINKLER TELECOPIER
JOSEPH C. CORRENTI
508-7414683
May 28, 1997
Gary M. Barrett, Chairman
Board of Appeal
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
RE: Variance Extension for Property at 7 Franklin Street, Salem
Dear Mr. Barrett:
On behalf of the owners of the property located at 7
Franklin Street, I hereby request an extension to the Variance
which was granted by the Board at a hearing held on August 21,
1996, for a period of six (6) months from the effective date of
that grant.
While it is the owner' s desire to go forward with the
construction of the building, as permitted by the Board in this
matter, unusual and unexpected conditions affecting the site have
arisen. Until these conditions are resolved the owners are
unable to go forward with the project. The owners, however, wish
to keep the Variance from lapsing, so as to be able to commence
construction as soon as possible.
We would, therefore, respectfully request that the Board
grant an extension as provided in General Laws Ch. 40A, Section
10, for an additional six (6) month period from the effeive
date of the Variance granted for the property at 7 Frank l n �, C
Street, Salem. M
m `= C
Respectfully Submitted, T m —
rnm LID
r A
rn
-v
)Js C. Correntirney for
ontract Engineering, Inc.
JCC: jaf
r=
4•TJ
S Zo C.}
1, N
i
(Gitn of _�ttlem, � ussrzclTusPtts
36 9 �Rvarb of C'-1u{rezcl
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CONTRACT ENGI , . Rd-G,`INC. REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 FRANKLIN STREET (BL1)
A hearing on this petition was held July 17, 1996 with the following Boar,
members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen, Richard
Dionne and Joseph Ywuc. This petition was continued to August 21„1996
with four members present. All were present with the exception of Nina
Cohen. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, requests a Variance from density regulations, lot coverage,
sideyard setbacks,parking regulations and to allow mixed use of industria-
and commercial for the property located at 7 Franklin Street.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of th-
Board that:
1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect th(
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affectin:
other land, buildings, or structures in the same district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented
the hearing, ,makes the following findings of fact:
1. Joseph Correnti, of Serafini, Serafini S Darling represented the
petitioner.
2. Petitioner had previously been granted variances similar to those
requester presently in 1994, but those variances lapsed, and the
construction plans have been revised.
3. Petitioner submitted plans at the July 17, 1996 hearing which showed
the proposed new building running along the property lines of abutting
properties located on North Street behind the Merit Gas Station,
McCarthy Insurance, and 94 North Street. The proposed setbacks
reflected on the June 24, 1996 drawings were minimal (2-4 feet)
4. Tony Lenares, owner of the property at 94 North Street, spoke in
opposition to the plans submitted at the June hearing because of the
proximity of the proposed building to his property.
5. Sally Haves, Ward 6 Councillor, spoke in opposition to the petition
at the June meeting.
6. Leonard O'Leary, Ward 4 Councillor, spoke in opposition to the petitio
at the June hearing.
7. Staley McDermet, 30 Dearborn Street, expressed concerns about the
proposed building design including the location of the building
on the property line, the height of the building, the materials to be
used in construction and the treatment of the rear wall facade to be
facing North Street. Mr. McDermet expressed his opinion that the
building would be better situated on the opposite lot line of the
property.
8. Petitioner submitted revised drawings at the continued hearing after
meeting with and discussing the abutting property owners .
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CONTRACTING ENGINEERING, INC. REQUESTING
A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 FRANKLIN STREET (B-1)
page two
9 . The revised drawings dated August 8, 1996 showed the proposed buildin:
situated along the lot line of the property known and numbered as Lot
375 at 9 Franklin Street.
10 . The setback from the property owned by Mr. Lenares was shown as
being 6 feet as well as from property housing the McCarthy Insurance
agency and property owned by Claire Clalifour.
11 . The revised plans showed 16 on site parking spaces for the property,
five fewer than would be required by the Ordinance.
12. Petitioner represented that it intended to address concerns about
the surface water drainage problems existing on the property by
installing catch basins which would connect to stormdrains on Frankli,
Street.
13 . Petitioner also agreed to construct a six (6 ) feet stockade fence alor
the property line of the Merit Station, McCarthy Insurance, and the
Lenares property.
14 . Mr. Lenares appeared at the continued hearing and spoke in favor of tt
petition indicating that the revised plans addressed his concerns.
15. Sally Hayes, Ward 6 Councillor, appeared and expressed concerns
relative to the drainage on the property.
16 . Gerald McCarthv. 92 North Street, spoke in favor of the petition
provided that petitioner addressed the surface water drainage
problems.
17 . Staley McDermet, while stating that the revised drawings contained
dramatic improvements from the previous plans, expressed concerns
relative to the design of the backwall facade treatments, and expresse
hopes that existing trees on the property line be maintained where
possible.
18. Clair Chalifour, 96 North Street, appeared in opposition to the
petition because of the six ( 6) foot setbacks from her property
and because of concerns about drainage problems.
19. The petitioner estimates the creation of eight jobs at the proposed
light manufacturing facility once constructed.
20. Petitioner agreed to continue concrete sidewalks and granite
curbing along its property on Franklin Street.
21 . Paul Bourbeau, 2aquith & Semasko. appeared on behalf of the petitioner
to describe the changes on the revised drawings .
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented
at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property
and not the district in general .
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substation hardship to the petitioner.
3 . Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to
public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from
the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CONTRACTING 7:-GINEERI?;G, IivC. REQUESTING
A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 FRANKLIN STREET
page three
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented
at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant
the variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances,
codes and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions which are t
be certified, submitted to and approved by the Building Inspector, and
the proposed building is to be located as reflected on the revised
drawing dated August 8, 1996.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
n 5. A Certificate of Occupancv is to be obtained.
1 :_.6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission
V having jurisdiction including but not limited to, the Planning Board.
8. Petitioner shall construct a drainage system to address the surface
water drainage problems on the property by installing catch basins
`—' and drains which will connect to storm drains on Franklin Street.
9. Petitioner shall construct a six (6) foot stockade fence along the
property lines as reflected on the revised drawings dated August 8,
1996 submitted at the hearing.
10. Petitioner shall continue to create sidewalks and granite curbing alon:
its property on Franklin Street.
11 . Petitioner shall preserve to the extent possitle existing trees on the
property.
Variance Granted
August 21, 1996
Gary 3arrett. Chairman
Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH TEE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CIT
CLERK
Appeai from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 11 of
the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20
days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City
Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, th
Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a
copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20
days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal ha
been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South
Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record
or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
Board of Appeal
i
N _
t�