152 LORING AVENUE - ZBA ISZ Lonna
t
i
I r '
��ONDITgq
CITY OF SALEM, IVIASSACHUSETTS
r r�.
;+ BOARD OF APPEAL
9'��G'IpV6D� 120 WASH ING VON SIRF1I%I' * S\Lr:nl,MASSACIIIJsc:rrs01970-m cmi
KIAIBER1.EY DRiscoi I. Ti:u?978-745-9595 ♦ F.\x:978-740-9846 m y I
MAYOR D
3
December 5, 2013 a
Decision vi N
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ requesting a Variance from Section 4.1.1 Table of
Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum depth of rear
yard to allow for enclosure of an existing open, first-floor deck, for the property located at 152
LORING AVENUE (RI Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 20, 2013 pursuant to N[.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11.
The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms.
Curran (Chair), Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate).
The Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Sec. 4.0 Dimensional Requirement'of the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
Statements of fact:
1. In the petition, date-stamped October 21, 2013, the Petitioner requests a Variance to reduce the
minimum depth of the rear yard to 7.5 feet to allow for the enclosure of an existing open first-floor
deck.
2. Mr. Rod Rivera, designer, presented the petition for the property at 152 Loring avenue (R1
Residential One-Family Zoning District).
3. Mr. Rivera stated that his client, Mr. Hernandez, had hired a contractor to enclose the deck. This
contractor did not inform Mr. Hernandez of any requirements to seek relief from the Board of
Appeals, and had completed the work in a substandard fashion. The Building Department issued a
stop-work order, and the contractor had not returned Mr. Hernandez's calls, or any part of the money
Mr. Hernandez had paid for the work. Mr. Rivera is now working with Mr. Hernandez to correct the
problems created by the first contractor, and to seek the appropriate relief from the Board of Appeals.
4. Mr. St. Pierre, Building Inspector, stated that Assistant Building Inspector Michael Lutrzykowski
ordered the work on the deck to be stopped, as there were several building code violations in the
enclosure and roof structure.
5. The Salem Zoning Code, Section 3.3.4 Vanante Requited(under Noneorforrmnq Uses ant!Stnn/rors) states
that"... the t'eeo oYru lion, e.,,Yelwor, or sinictural change o�a non(oglbizoing simai re in such a manner as to enrrecse
as exirtung nonioa%mitt', or neate a neu nonror%onnily, shrill regain /he hwian<e of rr )atiant ..." "f e enclosure
of the deck in this instance results in a new nonconformity, as the corner of the deck falls 7.5 feet
from the rear lot line, which is closer to the rear lot line than the corner of the existing house, which
Calls 8.0 feet from the rear lot line.
6. "Elie requested Variance relief, if granted, would allow the enclosure of an existing first-floor deck
within 7.5 feet of the rear property, boundary, which would fall short of the mitumutn required rear
yard depth of 30 feet.
7. At the public hearing for this petition no members of the public spoke in favor or in opposinnn to the
petition.
1 .
City of Salem Board of Appeals
December 5, 2013
Project: 152 Loring Avenue
Page 2 of 2
The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and
after thorough review of the petitions, 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:
1. The location of the house and attached first-floor deck on the lot is a unique condition. The north-
west corner of the existing house lies within 8.0 feet of the rear lot line. The western side of the
house is aligned at an angle to the rear lot line, such that the existing first-floor deck, which was
constructed in a continuous line with the western side of the house, terminates at a point on 7.5 feet
from the rear lot line.
2. The enclosure of the existing deck is a natural extension of the existing house.
3. The applicant is applying to the Board in good faith, in a situation that is not entirely of his own
making.
4. The desired relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good.
5. The desired relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or
purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance.
On the basis of the above statements of facts and Findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in
favor (Ms. Curran — Chair, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos in favor) and none (0) opposed, to
approve the Variance from the required minimum depth of rear }'aid, 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 anp constriction.
5. Exterior finishes of the new constriction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but
not litnited to, the Planning Board.
'ftj2CGct
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
A COPS OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED \g'1'1 H THE PLANNING BOARD AND'I[-lE CM-CLERK
Appeal fhvn dots deajion, #any, shall be omde pursuant to Section 17 of Me:11ascachwells General I1uu.r Chapter 40A, end shall be/iled within 20
da)e of lilag of Ihis deusiot in the ol)i�e of the Crty Clerk. Plo ueanl to doe ddassachuretls General[runs Chap/er 40A, .Se lion //, the I�dtibnce or
.S'pe,m/Pernn/,giauted berms shall not lake ey/ea enrol a rope ol the deasion beanng the,ed/lia le of the Cdy Clerk h s been filed with the Ease.% .S'oulb
Rcgwg of Deeds.