148 MARLBOROUGH ROAD - ZBA i � m� �h �
_ I �
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL SEP
•j 9 P
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 2-' 21
KIMBERLEY
MAYOR scoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 (Jr y CtEttF A(.EM, MA3:-
September 9th, 2014
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of ANTHONY JERMYN& RICHARD JERMYN requesting Variances from the provisions
of Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow less than the required
100-foot minimum lot frontage and less than the required 100-foot minimum lot width for two
proposed lots. The proposed lots will take their frontage from a shared driveway off of Marlborough
Road, at the property located at 148 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (Rl Zoning District)
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 16, 2014 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, 5 11 and
continued to August 27, 2014. The hearing was closed on August 27,2014 with the following Salem Board of
Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Copelas (Alternate), and Mr.
Tsitsinos (Alternate).
The Petitioner seeks Variances from the provisions of Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance.
Statements of fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped May 28, 2014, the Petitioner requested: Variances from the provisions of
Section 4.0 Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow less than the required
100-foot minimum lot frontage and less than the required 100-foot minimum lot width for two
proposed lots.
2. Attorney Correnti presented the petition for the property at 148 Marlborough Road.
3. The existing lot is a so called"porkchop lot" that was last modified in 1961.
4. Mr. Bill Ross,Engineer, illustrated that the southern third of the parcel is not buildable land due to an
existing wetland resource area and ledges on the site. These environmental and topographic
constraints, combined with setbacks required by the Salem Zoning Ordinance, established the
proposed lot layout and building footprint locations.
5. The two proposed lots would each exceed the required minimum lot size (15,000 SF) to create two
lots with a shared driveway and access easement over 146 Marlborough Street (Lot 250B). The
proposed lots sizes are 26,199 square feet and 24,422 square feet.
6. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to create two lots with a shared driveway
and access easement over 146 Marlborough Road.
7. Mr. Bill Ross addressed the drainage concern expressed by the abutters, explaining that a new pipe
had been installed between Lot250B and Lot250C, replacing an old drainage pipe that had failed and
was causing flooding on the property in question.
8. On July 16, 2014, the Board of Appeals requested that alternative lot configurations for lot 250B and
the two proposed lots be considered, including three conforming lots for a possible "by-tight"
configuration.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
September 9,2014
Project: 148 Marlborough Road
Page 2 of 3
9. On August 27, 2014 the applicant presented plans illustrating that alternative lot configurations had
been explored,including the creation of three "by-right"lots. These alternatives were not feasible due
to high costs and the existing natural features on the land limiting the areas where house construction
is feasible.
10. At the public hearing, one abutter expressed their opposition to the petition and submitted a letter
and photographs to the Board. Concerns included inadequate frontage and minimum lot width,
traffic, emergency access, floodwater drainage, embankment erosion, and proximity of proposed new
homes to the abutter's property.
11. Two letters of support were submitted by the applicant with 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
1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance requiring a 100-foot minimum lot frontage
and a 100-foot minimum lot width for each of the two proposed lots would be a substantial hardship,
as the existing lot is uniquely shaped and has unique natural features limiting the buildable area of the
lots.
2. The proposed two new lots would not be a substantial detriment to the public good,provided that the
proposed common driveway be approved by the Fire Department.
3. 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 five (5) in favor
(Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy) and none (0) opposed to grant the
requested Variances to allow less than the required 100-foot minimum lot frontage and less than the required
100-foot minimum lot width for two proposed lots 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 including the approval of the width, length and surface materials for the common
driveway.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
7. 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.
8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but
not limited to, the conservation commission and the Planning Board.
9. Petitioner shall obtain approval from the City of Salem Fire Department that the proposed driveway
width,length, and surface material are adequate for fire safety
City of Salem Board of Appeals
September 9,2014
Project: 148 Marlborough Road
Page 3 of 3
10. Petitioner shall obtain any necessary approvals from the Salem Conservation Cornmission.
p
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decinon, if any,.shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Lams Chapter 40A, and,shall be fikd vnthin 20
dcrys of filing of this deacon in the offer of the City Clerk Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or
Special Permit granted herein shall not take ea until a copy of the deacon bearing the certificate of the Cny Clerk bas been filed with the Essex South
ReSuPy of Deedr.
�`co�"amu `•
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
lAlb SEP —q P
24 BOARD OF APPEAL
€!Ty Ct ErtF S
ALEM,Mq W0 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595♦ FAx:978-740-9846
MAYOR
Notice of Decision
At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,August 27,2014 at 6:30 p.m. at 120
Washington St.,Salem,MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item:
Petition of ANTHONY JERMYN&RICHARD JERMYN,requesting variances from the provisions of Section 4.0
Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow less than the required 100-foot minimum lot frontage
and less than the required 100-foot minimum lot width for two proposed lots. The proposed lots will take their
frontage from a shared driveway off of Marlborough Road,at the property located at 148 MARLBOROUGH ROAD
(Rl Zoning District)
Decision: Granted
Filed with the City Clerk on September 9t",2014
This notice is being sent in compliance Huth the Massachusetts Generallltws, Cbapter 40A,Sections 9&15 and does not require action
by the recipient.Appeal if any,shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A,Section 17, and sball be filed witbin 20 days from the date which
the decision mar filed with the City Clerk
t
--Z
HOUSE
MOUSE \"�,.. �•� 'I
ACCESS AND
UTILITY EASEMENT
(
I
f
18
r_W
'EXISTING 15 > M
SCALE: 1 = 40
\ DRAINAGE EASEMENT i
Feet
NOTE: ROPERTY LINE SURVEY COMPLETEDBY:NOROEfASf SURVEY ON AUGUST?B, 33 0 20 40 80
ark
ANTHONY AND wa IERMYN New England Civil
C-1 L48 MARLBOROUGH ROAD,SALLM
EM MASSAUSETTS "'"' Engineering Corp. C-1
PAVEMENT AND SETBACKS M' -w °a0i �`� SAL M,MASSACHUSETTS
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
g BOARD OF APPEAL
--- 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 019-a
KIMBERLEY DRIscoLL TETE:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846 o
MAYOR n ^
r C.
m C
r
x-F -D
Anthony Jermyn and Richard Jermyn r� v
c/o Attorney Correnti,Esquire 3
63 Federal Street N
Salem,MA 01970 —
Re: 148 Marlborough Road Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a request for a six(6)
month extension for exercise of the rights granted by the September 9,2014 Board Decision that
approved Variances from the required 100-foot minimum lot frontage and 100-foot minimum lot width
for two proposed lots. The proposed lots will take their frontage from a shared driveway off of
Marlborough Road at the property located at 148 Marlborough Road.
The Salem Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday,July 15,2015 to discuss your request for the
approval of a six (6)month extension to exercise rights granted by the September 9,2014 Board Decision that
approved Variances from the required 100- foot minimum lot frontage and 100-foot minimum lot width for
two proposed lots. The proposed lots will take their frontage from a shared driveway off of Marlborough
Road at the property located at 148 Marlborough Road.
A letter submitted by Attorney Correnti,dated June 17,2015, on behalf of Anthony and Richard Jermyn
requests a six (6)month extension to exercise the rights granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals Decision on
September 9,2014.
The requested six (6)-month extension would commence on September 9,2015,which is the expiration date
of the current Decision. The requested extension would expire on March 9,2016.
The Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously with(5)in favor (Peter A. Copelas (Vice-Chair),Jimmy
Tsitsinos,Mike Duffy,Tom Watkins,James Hacker) and none (0) opposed, to grant the approval of the six
(6)-month extension request to exercise the rights granted by the September 9,2014 Board Decision.This
determination shall become part of the record for this project.
If you require further information,please contact Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner,in the Department of
Planning& Community Development at(978) 619-5685
Than you,
Reb cca Curran
ZBA Chair CC: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk
ZBA ACTION FORM
BOARD MEMBERS MOTION SECOND VOTE
Date: Rebecca Curran (Chair)
Mike Duffy
Petitioner: J Pr y M y n Tom Watkins
Peter Copelas
Address: /LO— nAJ4J-Poayti /+j/,� Jimmy Tsitsinos
Jim Hacker(Alt.)
Paul Viccica(Alt.)
Total: o
Conditions:
❑Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations.
❑All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building
Commissioner.
❑All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
❑Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
❑Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
❑A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
❑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 APPEALS
j�, - PETITION FORINT
CITY OF SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEALS n
120 WASHINGTON STREET,31tn FLOOR -tet e
SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
Thomas St.Piece,Director of Inspectional Services _
Phone:978-619-5641 /Fax:978-740-9846 00N
KIMeERLEY DRIscoLL Dana Menon,Staff Planner m
DEFT.OF pi_+ 11`+=1" MAYOR Phone:978-619-5685/Fax:978-740-0404 m M _0
c0wt3,ay OCVELO'rin-14 S
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: 3
3 w
The Undersigned represent that he/she is/are the owners of a certain parcel of land located at: v co
Address: 148 Marlborough Road Zoning District: RI
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 21 feet.)
See attached Statement of Hardship
For this reason I am requesting:
(x)Variance(s)from provisions of Section 4.0 of the Zoning Ordinance,specifically from,
a) mimimum lot frontage
(i.e. minimum depth of rear yard).
b) ininimum !at width
What is allowed is a. 100 feet (ft?sq ft?stories? %?), and what I
15i1 0 feet width
am proposing is (jt?sq ft?stories?a) iO feet: frunrugu-
%?).
b) 14 feet width
( )A Special Permit under Section of the Zoning Ordinance in order to
( )Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector(described below):
( )Comprehensive Permit for construction of low or moderate income housing(describe below):
Current Property Use: varant land Are Lot Dimensions Included? )Yes ( )No Why?
(Example:Two Family Nome)
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 Undersigned and 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:
O 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.
( ) 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 documentation ofprevious applications to the petitioner or his
representative.
Anthony Jermyn If different from petitioner:
Petitioner:Richard Jermyn, Owners under property Owner:
c/o Joseph C. Correnti, Esquiragreemen
Address:4erafini Dating & CarrPnti, ]W*ess:
63 Federal St. ,. Salem, MA 0197{)
Telephone: Telephone:
744 0212
Email: rrenti@se aft 'law.com Email:
y� t e'r tt ,
Signa e: Signature:
p or en 1 (Attached consent letter is also acceptable)
Date: to 28 2014 Date:
If different from petitioner:
Representative:
Address:
A TRUE
ATTEST Telephone:
Signature:
Date:.
CITY CLERK DATE DPCD DATE
This original application must be fried with the City Clerk.
�_
�.
�"
r
`j'
STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP
The Petitioner(s), Anthony Jermyn and Richard Jermyn, are the owners of the
vacant property located at 148 Marlborough Road (Lot 250A), containing 50,760
square feet. The property is located in the R-1 zone.
This lot has been in the Jermyn family for over 75 years, as has the single family
lot shown on the plan submitted herewith as Lot 250B at 146 Marlborough Road.
The lot in question is uniquely shaped in that it has only 10 feet of frontage on
Marlborough Road, while ballooning out to over 50,000 square feet in the rear.
As currently configured, this 50,000+ square foot parcel of R1 zoned land is
unbuildable without zoning relief. The size and shape of this lot is unique to the
neighborhood of single-family homes that generally have from 5,000 to 15,000
square feet in lot area.
Thus, Variances to minimum lot frontage and minimum lot width under Section
4.0, Dimensional Requirements, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, are requested
to allow for the creation of the two proposed lots.
The Petitioner plans to construct two single-family residential dwellings as shown
on the plan, one on each newly created lot, each sharing a common driveway.
Appropriate permanent easements will be granted so that Lot 250A2 has full
access over the driveway to Marlborough Road. Each lot will have the required
minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet, with Lot Al having 26,199 square feet
and Lot A2 having 24,422 square feet. The lots meet all the other required
dimension setbacks.
Literal enforcement of the Ordinance renders this lot unusable, while granting the
Variances creates two new single-family homes on lots of approximately 25,000
square feet each.
The Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board grant the necessary relief to
allow the Petitioner's plan, as submitted.
S
STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP
The Petitioner(s), Anthony Jermyn and Richard Jermyn, are the owners under
agreement of the vacant property located at 148 Marlborough Road (Lot 250A),
containing 50,760 square feet. The property is located in the R-1 zone.
This lot has been in the Jermyn family for over 75 years, as has the single family
lot shown on the plan submitted herewith as Lot 250B at 146 Marlborough Road.
The lot in question is uniquely shaped in that it has only 10 feet of frontage on
Marlborough Road, while ballooning out to over 50,000 square feet in the rear.
As currently configured, this 50,000+ square foot parcel of R1 zoned land is
unbuildable without zoning relief. The size and shape of this lot is unique to the
neighborhood of single-family homes that generally have from 5,000 to 15,000
square feet in lot area.
Thus, Variances to minimum lot frontage and minimum lot width under Section
4.0, Dimensional Requirements, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, are requested
to allow for the creation of the two proposed lots.
The Petitioner plans to construct two single-family residential dwellings as shown
on the plan, one on each newly created lot, each sharing a common driveway.
Appropriate permanent easements will be granted so that each lot has full
access over the driveway to Marlborough Road. Each lot will have the required
minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet, with Lot Al having 26,199 square feet
and Lot A2 having 24,422 square feet. The lots meet all the other required
dimension setbacks. Real access ranging from 12' — 20' in width is provided on
the ground.
Literal enforcement of the Ordinance renders this lot unusable, while granting the
Variances creates two new single-family homes on lots of approximately 25,000
square feet each.
The Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board grant the necessary relief to
allow the Petitioner's plan, as submitted.
6.6'x2.4' ACCESS AND
UTILITY EASEMENT
307.0'
5.0' 201.5'
5.0'
100.0'
O
O
� LOT 250A2
Q AREA: 25,389.6 SF
(6 LOT 2508 LOT 250Al
AREA: 9,000 SF AREA: 25,197.9 SF
N N
LJ�
Q5 0) LP
cncn
W
LOT 250C
AREA: 8,247 SF
135.6' 117.4'
SCALE: 1" = 40'
Feet
D 20 40 80
NOTE:PRO N LINE SURVEY COMPLETED BY:NORDE-EAST SURVEY ON AUGUST 28,7013
ANTHONY AND RIO(]ERMYN � New England Civil .r
uxomuonea
148 MARLBOROUGH ROAD,SALEM MASSAO1USEffS "- Engineering Corp. C-1A
ti
LOT SMEs ^`■- P* ` sMIK NAssAcHusem
I I I CONCRETE PAVERS WITH
I — _ CONCRETE CURBING ALONG
NORTH EDGE (50 FEET)
/scie
.-
yyy\tr�_ �� II
ih
IJ
ND
I
G `V� HOUSE50�30
Vate.. \� HOUSE :� \
ACCESS AND ao. \.
UTILITY EASEMENT
i
v
n
EXISTING 15' h SCALE: 1 " = 40'
\_ DRAINAGE EASEMENT
Feet
iNOTE;PROPERTY LINE SURVEY COMPLETED BY:NORDE-EAST SURVEY ON AUGUST 28,2013 0 20 40 80
aim l $Cde - 9;x1
maD
ANTHONY AND RICK JERMYN oeu . �. New England Civil
w.Mee Tee U. �.aw.a.r
148 MARLBOROUGH ROAD,SALEM MASSACHUSETTS Dliped by Engineering Corp. C-1
amm b. D
PAVEMENT AND SETBACKS Qxeb.a by xsn xe. D.wbeb. wt. . SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS
wC by xEb9Q.5
I �
6.6'x2.4' ACCESS AND
UTILITY EASEMENT
i
i I
307.0'
5 0� ,� 201.5'
1
5.0,
700.0'
I
MODIFIED LOT 2506 LOT 250A2
AREA: 15,000 SF
IIJN
jI 0) ul
QoI
i
j� rn
�� cN
i
LOT 250C LOT 250A1
AREA: 8,247 SF
II
1 .
it
135.6' 117.4'
il~ i i
I
SCALE: 1 " = 40'
Feet
it ! 0 20 40 80
NOTE:PROPERTY LINE SURVEY COMPLETED BY:NORDE-EAST SURVEY ON AUGUST 28,2013
awn scan r'-n sn..i
ANTHONY AND RICK JERMYN oo,. amrsc.+ New England Civil
148 MARLBOROUGH ROAD,SALEM MASSACHUSETTS oa§.ea n Engineering Corp. C-1A
aO by DiYI
MODIFIED LOT 7508 ALTERNATIVES ova"by rm xo. emb.b. OXY SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS
wWa by mn xsasIms
�R
1 V I ii
I� 1 DRIVE r
\
pf
30
HOUSE ���•
MO I LO�T�?SOB NEW LOC
so'.ao' D
AREA: 5 000 HOUSE I\
0
IT 4�"
�_ / i
�'I'�3IIY
i
\
I
� �P •' � ^_-� ` \ate / —���`�_//� �� _
SCALE: 1 " = 40'
Feet
i, 0 20 40 80
I I�
owl SCW 1'=w STwt
ANTHONY AND RICK JERMYN um. W7M14 New England Civil
V,e%tl JDD v.N RYHWBrt
148 MARLBOROUGH ROAD,SALEM MASSACHUSETTS (b D(w-Dl Engineering Corp. C-2
wx
SCHEMATIC LOT LINES(MODIFIED LOT 250B) °i""°DI NMR "' °iOp10AAW , SALEM,MASSACXUSETfs
MYDNC D vxn xEN510
I j CONCRETE PAVERS WITH
T' I CONCRETE CURBING ALONG
NORTH EDGE (50 FEET)
10
.00
50�30
HOUSE i
1 /
a — b
ACCESS AND ��
UTILITY EASEMENT Z I SE�ACK
��
�
i
/
}
�'\
SEre ee I • 1� i�//Q�/
i. — —.---- 4<
EXISTING
--mere c
\ EXISTING 15' SCALE: t " = 40' y
' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
Feet
0 20 40 80 i
NOTE:PROPERTY LINE SURVEY COMPLETED BY:NORDE-EAST SURVEY ON AUGUST 28,2013
oma} sea. r=w sb..}
ANTHONY AND RICK JERMYN Dote 897m4 New England Civil
148 MARLBOROUGH ROAD,SALEM MASSACHUSETTS x^,s b, Engineering Corp. C-1
mb by b+++
PAVEMENT AND SETBACKS M«w by x+n xe. Mwb.bn ai• . SALEM,MASSACHUSEf15
b e.N b vna xEx90x5
i
6.6'x2.4' ACCESS AND
UTILITY EASEMENT
307.0'
5.0 201.5'
I
5.0,
�i 100.0'
O
i
MODIFIED LOT 2506 LOT 250A2
AREA: 15,000 SF N
p No
0
IQ '
Ij
!j
;
i
LOT 250C LOT 250A1
I!
AREA: 8,247 SF
35.6' 117,4'
SCALE: 1 " = 40'
o zo 40 ao
NOTE:PROPERTY LINE SURVEY COMPLETED BY:NORDE-EAST SURVEY ON AUGUST 28,2013
aa� xw sn..i
ANTHONY AND RICK JERMYN New England Civil
Ropct 'b4 IANDD&9RlBrt
148 MARLBOROUGH ROAD,SALEM MASSACHUSETTS o••bn.a by
o....by Engineering Corp. G 1A
or,
MODIFIED LOT 2508 ALTERNATIVES M.by rn x. M.ob+b' o.i• . SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS
/ay. b xLwsws
FIs —'i' ",€
JDRI VE Y \ I
F, 15
I
\ I
/�}'1� p p ( HOUSE � 1
1� � MO I ✓—vy SOB �—'� �L� �(NEW LDD.J �� 60x30'
" AREA': 5 000 SF--
7
F �NEw0��_�
11 T
ix �\
I
i % �-
11pi
�.
SCALE: 1 " = 40'
I' ✓ d
Feet
0 20 40 80
Iy
ax.n uaa r=+v sx«t
ANTHONY AND RICK JERMYN Date emam+ New England Civil
Nona '°° wm°e,aws'r
148 MARLBOROUGH ROAD,SALEM MASSACHUSETTS 0,4.+a a+a a Engineering Corp. C-2
aa.,by w
SCHEMATIC LOT LINES(MODIFIED LOT 2508) Me W xe w+x xa. a 'Ot as Dote
Mwo.va a wra aEN9ax5 SALEM,MASSACXUSfl75
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
City of Salem provision NLG.L., Chapter 39, Section 23D.
(A City Councilor, boar!, or commission member, to sign upon listening to the audio of a
mussed meeting and cramining all evidence.)
Per the City of Salem provision M.G.L., Chapter 39 Section 231),
I,�I��c _ hereby certify under the pains and penalties of perjury that I
have examined all evidence pertaining to which was
distributed at the single.missed session on which
evidence included an audio recording of the missed session. This certification shall
become part of the record of the hearing.
Name Date_["Z7 —��
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO: Members of the Board of Appeal
We, the undersigned, hereby support the Petition of Anthony and Richard Jermyn,
who are seeking Variances to subdivide their property at 148 Marlborough Road.
The neighborhood is predominantly single-family homes and the addition of two new
homes on oversized lots would be a welcome addition to the neighborhood and, therefore,
urge the Board of Appeal to grant the Variances requested.
Name Address
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO: Members of the Board of Appeal
We, the undersigned, hereby support the Petition of Anthony and Richard Jermyn,
who are seeking Variances to subdivide their property at 148 Marlborough Road.
The neighborhood is predominantly single-family homes and the addition of two new
homes on oversized lots would be a welcome addition to the neighborhood and,therefore,
urge the Board of Appeal to grant the Variances requested.
Name Address
August 26, 2014
To Whom It May Concern:
We, Jeffrey Bacon and Margaret Leonard, property owners at 1 Outlook Avenue West in Salem,
Massachusetts, respectfully object to the petition for variance at 148 Marlborough Road. As
abutters to the property requesting the variances, we object for the following reasons:
1. The minimum lot frontage has not been met and is illegal for one house, let alone two.
2. The minimum lot width has not been met and is illegal.
3. We are concerned that there will be insufficient access for emergency vehicles to enter
and leave the proposed homes, creating additional concern for the security of our
property in the event of a fire. This is especially concerning in winter, when snow banks
will accumulate at the frontage, further narrowing access and reducing visibility at
Marlborough Road.
4. The introduction of two new homes will create additional traffic and noise in an already
congested road heavily used as a bypass into and out of Peabody Center.
Our house is itself placed on a small, narrow lot, and is surrounded by developed properties. In
particular the adjacent house at 6 Scenic Terrace looms above the back of our property without
the usual setback(see attached Photo #1). This high-density placement of our house is mitigated
by the lack of housing on the lots in question, which bring an interface with trees and wildlife to
our property (see attached Photo 42). Development would likely result in the loss or
diminishment of this green buffer zone, which is provided by precious few trees; the distance
between our property line and the open area on the proposed lot where the trees end is only about
24 feet as the crow flies (estimated using Google Earth). This in turn would decrease privacy,
increase noise (from mowing, family activities, etc.), and make our property less appealing. In
the months when there are few or no leaves on the trees (November through April), there will
be virtually no buffer at all (see attached Photo #3).
Because our house is placed on a small lot, we are disproportionately affected by the presence of
adjacent houses and their landscaping choices. Our lot does not contain its own buffer zone from
adjacent housing.
The Board previously acknowledged that there are drainage and wetland issues in this area and
we would like to add our concerns of erosion of the embankment between our properties.
Landscaping or tree removal activities could create erosion problems in this storm drainage area.
We have additional concerns for the neighborhood which include:
1. The proposed gravel drive will contribute gravel and dust to Marlborough Road,
particularly during winter when plows will inevitably disturb and move the material.
Further, a gravel drive is not consistent with the paved driveways in the neighborhood,
changing the area's otherwise tidy appearance.
2. The Salem Conservation Commission has issued an Order of Conditions dated June 18,
2013 (Mass. DEP File 964-550), relating to the construction and maintenance of
improved underground storm drainage from the area in 2013. Landscaping, the
construction of structures such as sheds or pools and other uses of this part of the
properties as outdoor living space have the potential to interfere with storm water
drainage in the area. This drainage must be well maintained, as evidenced by flooding
events in 2012 and 2013 (see attached Photo #4), which clearly demonstrate that large
volumes of water often move through the area in short periods of time. While the
flooding problem has hopefully been mitigated by the drainage modification, it is
nonetheless a continuing concern, particularly for erosion of the embankment between
our property and the proposed lots below it.
3. We believe that the access of the proposed gravel drive has visibility issues which will
create an increased risk of accidents for vehicles entering and exiting Marlborough Road.
The elevated grade at 150 Marlborough Road blocks vision to the North from the
proposed gravel drive (see attached Photo 45). The addition of two mailboxes at this
access point as well as trash and recycling from two houses once a week will only worsen
the visibility problems.
We believe that the denial of this variance does not constitute a hardship to the appellants, as this
property has remained in their family's possession undeveloped for over 100 years, according to
the appellants' letter to abutting neighbors dated April 191", 2014 (attached). Development is by
no means the only `reasonable use' of the property. Other reasonable uses can be imagined
which do not create two zoning violations.
With due respect to the opinions of the Board members, the development and subdivision of
extreme "pork chop" lots such as this one would seem to be exactly what the minimum frontage
rule is intended to prevent. Should the rule really be waived in order to fill every square inch of
green space and stack houses three deep? In our opinion there needs to be a far more compelling
reason than personal profit to justify these variances.
We would also like to bring to the attention of the board that one of the letters of support
previously provided (from Jean Geary of 138 Marlborough Road) was submitted by a first cousin
of the appellants. While this non-abutting resident certainly has every right to express her
support, we believe that the family relationship should be noted when this letter of support is
considered by the Board.
We apologize for not presenting these objections at an earlier meeting. Unfortunately we did not
receive notice for the earlier meetings; after discussing this with Dana Menon, we must conclude
that our notice was lost in the mail. Our ongoing, frequent problems with US Postal delivery are
well documented with the Salem Postmaster.
Respectfully,
ve�
Ao�__IQ2"
Jeffrey W. Bacon Margaret L. Leonard
Y
�X ui
y
€ 3
.. 1
�! V
a �
all
Photo #1. View of 1 Outlook Avenue (at right) showing the proximity of 6 Scenic Terrace (at
left) and the generally high density of the neighborhood.
f
i moi' C�
r
�.� _ ,4 • '� 'A KAT �. '
w
s �� =fy'?"�°�� "r ' �,aC' � '�w'x �. ���4';•b. r,.., "tee
Photo of ••k Avenue lot interface with 148 Marlborough R•.• lot showing the
y
l
Photo #3. A similar view in winter showing the greatly increased visibility from lot to lot when
the trees are without leaves. Note that the evergreen tree seen at right is more than 93 feet from
the property line (estimated via Google Earth) and would likely be removed in the event of house
construction.
a�
_t
x
r +t y t
1 �D
n ` q
„ .
et 9v �
t �'' 'ki��{$"��+}�.' ♦ f was. ,_ '^ .�'.
x-
2eq.
11 9�4/ ry 1 i
�i ytn:-4A" r a.Bw 4
!�•. �i..- ,xR j 1�` t�§C a�{J�.f. �.i��,>@a y� � 5
x.- a < �e. .� 19>i .i •yZ� � s. 9.
N�i�,y, ♦ y w t+ .,�i T J .
embankment
�r
w {t(
t
i
3� -rte
�.r
try ' �c »d'�lvF .�, �ti i ✓.'�p� Es.. �+'+E'A ......� WS" �'. S a r. � ..
v"as�w�n'"".U^`�� a .5�"�,��}}d.. �, R �� d Y"! Syr.. � � �.. �nY ya 7.�w '^� 3 •: }
' 14 A
'e a '� A,k 1'. 1: +� ..� Y e'q '� <( <•p+�5 _.. � �v} ZyCt.,r.�'.�.'�
�r r AG iS O �' YTdt ♦ S Y ♦ ty,�j ]d S <.
a + �JN
,k Iib 81\ t a fS« s ..
AN
i ;p _�� 13f.�.0 - .. ,. .\.:' by^�? 4 . �, � .\. Ef� �•
t t"
r--• ,}' IW" �ti Rf'�Sym � . < f I � t��+
\
• A' ;
b
IN
'�, *rte.R x of •,ro "'4e
�+� `'� fMm I, rti fie,.� ;� yq�,, � "•-a
,S �::��w.*�- i[ >,.�^_.. �" s:15t+� .�:�3•...s+aF x'.56�. -..1-pct. .�".:�ffi :•����s.mS..::.i`��.'a�Ji ,',.wA ..
sal Bfi� y} i.'d AAL y, .G ki i �'KJ. �t � . ." -^ i£�I< .fi,.� "i .aha - � *mpp ,. •,
.� ,5, d���: �,p� �y�',p1.1 a,Ha,?. r� a1ry�'��flG I.c a►'�S.r� �p �.(,�t -'+� xi ' - A"' as ' 'Y**
Ic s- � r YR{h.iw�./` .. .♦ ttr � .fx t �.,F
. < '#�l�astili„�t ;V3" tiir 5y- . jt a F� w.• "� - M. -aI S?���r "� I" _ .
Mep 7 4
..t e`l.
WIN
y!: } l
I. .
�.
a
t ,
'M C� :Jk�i M1'rc� / i; � f' n. ♦1 .t �� \� FY� P' a
gyp+ 4 t. ,� �fl' {�' �x f Y ,,k, :,♦t4 J.\ ; � t`
t
IVt
! 4, y
x I
ON
-♦'� ''4 14f'+ ♦ in i �•wy ..lx!+.. -r +• s;S +.C,'. �` �� w.�S' ,�,<a i "�+E ;���'.
y* %: 9 • "•tit % L. of +,% !. '• i A. `!'♦ `4 �Al
• '.Ra....- ' T r� .y.Mob��•�; x pA '♦'� �4b,.� �+, a .ma^�F � -s` -C w a'i �".'s
^.::+.'- r, ".'_4r"r. v ��s4f ♦ �t !•iq:"tl+fa`.'4.� -w} S.*,-sfyz" _ .. "�*16, r: itKu11!,w^k":`.r.2 ..�.. �e'^'R+,r»� :t+.r. w..;
•. 1" • • 1 � i 11 • � 1.1
> �i < tar �•+tt '�,.''�`�.�+.'.V�;+. �w..S� •ft{'t4� ,.i faa I t°.
�•"° �.w rJ.td�a,i��'I�asy:, ,�.�'+'t� I'7},t✓��a �° 2 "' 'y
C:'', ti�+ 'T '�•�` t - si,Y y,. 4 ` 4�'� �`7` ,4 �# X7.4 T• �,` �.
b '��r 'Sa ..��, i "�`, ..'. r � �t tt �r F•�'` yK�•p1�.�n''•t`�, vx ��S 4.�.` k '�. �` � x :r�'
R
Y - � r .k I 4 • �A� ". �Y 3 1 �Kd�„ � *�`n, +Y't �wr. j
x' 't$�;" �'�'`�`�" it y,� L1M °_t5 4L•" � av° ���t^ A" .�,yyi'3•Cti < tf'h�. ) fir'� �it✓i
' r r n•>'S '!AA
+ �i1. "bt � '3 t 4 + �.x;.L may �"-d`t '+�..' ♦f rF'r4. �y xk•`a,,,'�^.ea�SFi° x#� •f°�t �.t 4 f , c f"S�q t'v:.
ars�,x\ :. r ,� i. na 4��� �fkyp� ,RQayy, .%s�� h e�'i,-.j� ♦ 7 :�.�x� .�.1 :n t`g{ h �.i
4 I ♦ � r , •T"v i f.r.,dw �t$ �1.-k+ s � �� ..p Z`'�r�"'" R,� ^ a7d�Y
a:• " Yt�t� .� ♦ Tr s ir�a+�.Z�> i Yy4 `�,,wy4a�x\f.� +,t •,�
:..., {_.J7, ry.f4�� t �•a 7�� u4�.S A 4 �. "' [„,<'� ter`, e z�..;a a _r �S '� Y
,rF .�: 9�x ^°FT K' aic� ttr;�y, � *i " � I��lf»..:��- 't` •. `4
�'f
t f _
iL
Ilk-
• � ::. .• vt'rn� dr ..-O t :.. „moi:.
r
.m
• • • • ••• -• • • • • • •• '• 6 • ••
6.6'x2.4' ACCESS AND
UTILITY EASEMENT
L IJ
C♦) „ "-,a}` s uc+'-,rti: t ES.•,+�`�"`. •� gc�9y, +a. a�i+KWv'-x.e�d'.yy'is
-^u�' ...,Rn,'�v'y'�'Jc�,' "°*-'""'�d;.�,»£�w-^ "' .- .`v, '� .. �-K1w �•♦ �..c � a� ��-�:W.:"`�r �Fsart t-o-..d
. r
5 •, ,.a n . _ .�. 2 01 .5 - - ." 2, �, ;'" ;",.���.�'� y� �..,,�
5.0".. e�w xp ^+i�:i+xs•'!a..T«,+..'. ;. ... . - .ti„ _ ,` d'"'�"' ", ,-''^ ,,y,.. �"`^c"9' � *""%+fi,i!' �»ls.
IOV. +e .,rF.fa... �..✓ rr'y -)... �-� ��-M. - { `r: ,�`r Y+� ,y�� ,$p� 3'4 ,F{¢.
Q 4a �.
. LOT250A2" ' r ;
I .
AREA �,2;5,�389 6SF
l� _ .. r :.. . 'nc.� d�„r'el,t•�'�`-��"`. �wS��r'°54 F ..nom s � ,�.,eyaM2'✓
Qz
IWA
J LOT 250B LOT 250A1 .• � 4. ;
O AREA: 9,000 SF - REA: 25,1.97.9 -SFQl-
' , i`�. - d.•+� b ' 'AH'FS♦tl'k��iN..^.Y Je +r M mow" 4`'�n'- 't.�6q.8x.ra ' .e CO
.rc
- ` 'h. � 3C,�£yY eXe�f\P .w^'ta.4 VRA �if`Y' naq '^•tYy>"�
LOT 250C
AREA: 8,247 SF
» o - * •' xr-+... Q,
tx '
. .r+ px. _• .. �e max T'����K W*+. n e.
f _.,�`+�.+MY�..^Y S, ��1.6, F�Y✓�biy»y�a..�� .. k._ 'r d`� �'e. ^Mi ._Y�i��t� �0 .4 4`i+"ie�P (# yA
SCALE: 1 " = 40'
a Feet
i 0 20 40 80
NOTE: PRO ERTY LINE SURVEY COMPLETED BY: NORDE-EAST SURVEY ON AUGUST 28, 2013
tlbnl Soda t'Hd $twt
ANTHONY AND RICK JERMYN pate 6M(AL4 New England Civil-
� ,t Jab l 1OEYEIODMDR
148 MARLBOROUGH ROAD,SALEM MASSACHUSETTS O WW d by Engineering Corp. C'1p1
pram by om
LOT SIZES tltadod by mR Nq oes rptkn Date a y J SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS
Appramd by RENSIC NS