Loading...
7 MALL STREET - ZBA (4) i M M ---\ of �zlem, � ussttrlruseits i6 S 4 Boarb of Aupettl � N - T ' - N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT SOLOMON\WENDI GOLDSMITH FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT ? MALL STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held April 19, 1995 with the followi'ngL Board Members were present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman, Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill and Associate Member Arthur Labrecque. 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. At the request of the petitioners Robert Solomon\Wendi Goldsmith, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a special permit to extend a non-conforming use for the property. Granted leave to withdraw without prejudice. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE April 19, 1995 Stephen C. Touchette, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. P 1 PHILIP WALES 16 Williams Street Salem, MA 01970 April 19, 1995 Zoning Board of Appeals City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Re: Petition of Wendi Goldsmith for Special Permit at 7 Mall Street, Salem, MA Dear Chairman and Members of the Board: I am an abutter to the referenced property. My home is located immediately adjacent to the rear of the subject property and, more importantly, to the area of the proposed second floor expansion. I am opposed to the proposed second floor expansion for several reasons, the first of which is that it will adversely impact the use and enjoyment of my property by myself and my tenant. I have lived at and owned 16 Williams Street since 1983, and I have made some renovations to the house which have increased my enjoyment of the house and increased its value in the neighborhood. The relevant changes have included the removal of a concrete backyard, and its replacement with a garden, restoring the windows in the back of my house, facing the yard, which is also southeast. The expansion at 7 Mall Street would be detrimental to these improvements, and I strongly oppose such an addition. It would block out an important and significant amount of space, light and view, almost all I have left. From my second floor living room it would block my view, over the current one floor part of 7 Mall Street to the rear of the John Bertram House. My remaining view would be like looking into a box. The existing structure on the subject property is already on my East lot line, mostly two stories, and 14 Williams Street is entirely on my South lot line and continues on the 7 Mall Street lot line. I have enclosed a plot plan i' s to show where all the buildings are. From the first floor of my house, the proposed second floor expansion at 7 Mall Street would block the morning sun from the kitchen facing the yard. It would make us feel like being on the bottom of a box. The addition would be a 20 foot tall wall only 6 feet away from my home. My tenant, Gail, who has been on the first floor for 6 years, is strongly opposed to the addition, as well. Furthermore, the windows on the proposed addition would create an intolerable invasion of my privacy. Windows may or may not be planned, but since they would otherwise be appropriate, they would inevitably be added sometime. A window would look right into my tenant's first floor kitchen and breakfast room, and into my second floor living room. These are the largest windows in my house. My tenant would have to keep the shades drawn on her only South facing windows. And a light in the window would light up what is now a nicely dark yard at night. There are also lot-line considerations that I would like to address. The plot plan of 7 Mall Street submitted by the petitioners is inaccurate. It shows the back yard of their house, and therefore the addition and proposed second floor expansion, being several feet from the lot. The petitioner's structures are, in fact, on the lot line. I oppose not only the proposed second floor exansion being on the lot line, for the previously mentioned reasons, but furthermore I oppose having a construction crew in my yard to build it, and in the future to maintain it. Whereas people are always welcome in my yard to maintain what currently exists at 7 Mall Street and 14 Williams Street, a construction crew is not welcome to set up in my yard and garden to build more. I should not be forced to accept this, and I do not believe the zoning laws of this community and of the permit the proposed expansion. I emplore you to deny the requested special permit. Very truly yours, Philip Wales r, LOCATION , NOTES of • This is a Mortgage inspection survey and not SCALE I = ZU FT. DATE � S 29 /c�G `'""'. _ "' ' an instrument survey,therefore this plot plan is for REFERENCE ... k''?OY1 _.P�7 ............. E mortgage inspection purposes only. • This survey is based on survey marks of others. ______________ • Bushes,shrubs, fences and tree lines do I hereby certify that I have examined the premises and that the not necessarily indicate property lines. building(s) shown on this plan are located on the ground as • The building(s) are not located in the special shown/and tat they conformed to the zoning setbacks of the flood hazard zone, as defined by H.U.D. _Se� x. Oj��t��EH when constructed. 0 3.2 60, �.__. ARch• 336o56t L-OT I Z 3 2 Y2 Srr \dD # I� � 1 60' � Iq IAMS STREET J ME _ J BAY STATE SURVEYING SERVICE INC_ _ -- 234 CABOT ST., BEVERLY, MA, f LOCATION = SAL,/-) /n 55- NOTES: - A.... . • .This is a Mortgage Inspectiorrsurvey and not an SCALE + ) =ZQFT DATE `f �O . 9Q insUvmentsurveyv:thereforatpis,plotplan isdor REFERENCE - G� P " _ mortgage P ,Q1!R. ;3x--. . ..•....._&:yY�......._.. mort a eins I ........... •This survey is based on survey marks of others. . Bushes,shrubs;.fences and tree Gnespo not f�>F2?�9�� ---------- , Inmyprofessional opinion the building(s)are not I hereby certify that I have examined the premises and that the located in the-special flood hazard zone,as defined building(s)shown on this plan are located on the ground as by H.U.D. shown and that they conformed to the zoning setbacks of the • Whenever an offset is I1±or less, an instrument CiTr_. OF ��gf✓t _________ when constructed. survey is recommended to determine prop.lines. Of a JAMES " SOTIROS '^ \y No. 26090 ac y :ISitYcCJxi OVW IZ N. T 410 - LOT 132 N N 72.5 r1 M A L L ST, .