12 OBER STREET - ZBA (2) 12 OBER STREET R-2
SCOTT KING S SHERYL DILISIO
J
r.
i
I
1
Legal Notice
CITY OF SALEM
BOARD OF APPEAL
will hold a public hearing for all
persons interested in the petition sub- I
mitted by SCOTT RING&SHERYL
DD.ISIO requesting Variances Lot A, i
relief from frontage,lot area and mini-
mum lot-area per dwelling,relief from
prohibited use(dwelling to be duplex)
Lot B,relief from frontage,parking,
lot area minimum lot area per
dwelling and side yard of garage for
the property located at 12 OBER
STREET R-1. Said hearing to be held
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15,
2000 at 6:30 P.M., ONE SALEM
GREEN,second floor.
Nina Cohen,Chairman
CCitp of balem, 41a!6e;a0ue;ett5
CIT`�:OF SALEM. MA
35oarb of ZIppeai CLERKS OFFICE
an Nov 20 A II= 39
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SCOTT KING & SHERYL DILISIO REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 OBER STREET R-1
A hearing on this petition was held November 15, 2000 with the following Board
Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Stephen Buczko, Richard Dionne,
Stephen Harris and James Hacker. 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 petitioner, Scott King & Sheryl Dilisio the Salem Board of Appeal
voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for Variances Lot A,
relief from frontage, lot area & minimum lot area per dwelling, relief from prohibited use
(dwelling to be duplex), Lot B, relief from frontage, parking, lot area, minimum lot area
per dwelling & side yard of garage for the property located at 12 Ober Street located in
an R-1 zone.
• GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE
NOVEMBER 15, 2000 Q-
Nina Cohen, Chairman
Board of Appeal
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
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, the 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 has
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 DATE OF HEARING
PETITIONER
LOCATION
NOTION: TO GRANT SECOND AMENDMENT SECOND
-TO DENY SECOND.
TO RE-HEAR SECOND
WITHDRAW SECOND
CONTINUE SECOND
ROLL CALL PRESENT GRANT DENY AMEND WITHDRAW RE-HEAR CONTINU
NINA V. COHEN
Stephen Harria
,Jim Hacker v
STEPHEN BUCZKO
RICHARD DIONNE d
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
PAUL VALASKATGIS _
CONDITIONS:
pv) w
y _
Signatures needed by abutters for approval of duplex
To be built at 12 Ober St., Salem Ma 01970
Petitioned by Donald W. and Nancy L. King
Address Name Si nature
1.) CGIY\M A F. G
;%32.) G�G�Q— T�� �1 a!Q 51 L3 1-v&I S-17-
3.)
.) .S- L,/ALL,
5.)S- .Sou741 J'r �/11,A1.7 Bele/fF—
64,S'-,-ar// ST M/iRIC l3yvK-e
7.), J]/1 C Sl�La
8.)'7 s
9.) 9 td S i ,
10.)C?Uckl L. S Sar X-a s WOOL.\L
11.) J ICO 6
12.)
13.)14.
1!
15 — % –.) a, 0 j
16.) U
17.)
h
ss Y
1
19.)
20.) a 2� —
21.
22.)
23.)
24.)
25.)
26.)
27.)
28.)
29.)
30.)
31.)
32.)
33.)
34.)
35.)
Andrew Coady
26 Summit Street, Salem, MA 01970-1325
Phone: 978-741-1828 Fax: 978-741-1891
Wireless: 978-590-7784 E-Mail: AJCoady@msn.com
November 15, 2000
Salem Board of Appeals
Ladies and Gentlemen,
My name is Andrew Coady and I own the property at 26 Summit Street in Salem, MA. I
am unable to attend your hearing this evening because I am out of town on business.
However, I do wish to voice my concerns regarding the variances that Scott King and
Cheryl Delisio are seeking for the property located immediately behind my house at 12
Ober Street.
The area in question is zoned R1, residential, single family homes. In our neighborhood
there are a number of two and three family homes that were built before the current
zoning requirements were enacted. The property in question currently is less than 10,000
sq ft and has a three family house located on it. By today's zoning standards this is a non-
conforming use.
The application is seeking to split this lot into two even smaller non-conforming lots and
build a duplex on one of the new lots. This action should not be allowed for the following
reasons:
Parking. Parking around our neighborhood is a very big issue. Many homes, mine
included, do not have the required two off street parking spaces per dwelling unit. Very
few of the multi family dwellings have adequate off street parking and those that do still
have cars parking on the streets as a matter of convenience. In the winter, after a good
snowstorm or two builds snowbanks on both sides of the road, the movement of vehicles
through our narrow streets and around tight corners is difficult. One can only wonder
how emergency vehicles would fare when standard vehicles find passage challenging at
times. The application is seeking a variance from required parking for the parcel which
would have the existing structure on it. Currently there is parking for four cars, though
with the exception of snowstorms, the driveway is now normally empty with the gate shut.
The proposed duplex lot would have parking for four cars as required but realistically will
add a minimum of two vehicles to already congested on street parking.
Density. We have a lot of people living in a relatively small area here in our
neighborhood. By today's zoning standards fully two thirds of the buildings would not be
allowed. Many multi-families exist on very small lots with little or no set backs, yards, or
off street parking. The proposed duplex on the new lot to be created meets set back
r
requirements, but just barely. Set backs were designed to create buffers, not define entire
yards. The existing lot, while not meeting current density requirements, does provide a
good size yard complete with a beautiful flower garden and plenty of green grass. To
allow the subdivision of the existing lot would leave virtually no open space for either of
the succeeding lots.
Quality of Life Our neighborhood is home to a mix of people from young singles and
couples to retirees with everything in between as well. It is jam packed with single,two
and three family homes. Despite its shortcomings this general area(bounded by Summit,
Butler, the beginning of Witchcraft Heights and Henry streets) is moving forward. It's
good to see young families, children on bikes and skateboards and babies being shuttled
around in carriages. We all talk about families being the backbone of a neighborhood and
strong neighborhoods being the backbone of a city. With all this positive direction in our
neighborhood the last thing this area needs is another two family dwelling on a too small
lot. This type of housing does not attract families but rather, and I fear, attracts non
resident investors who want to own multi family housing units for profit with little or no
regard for the surrounding neighbors or neighborhood.
It is my understanding that zoning regulations are enacted and enforced to protect the
investment that we all make in our properties. How can you possibly take one non-
conforming property, subdivide it into two smaller even more non-conforming properties,
increase the number of housing units by 2/3rds and not negatively affect the quality of life
or property values for abutters and neighbors? The King's have not owned this property
for very long. I do not know what their motivation is for this request for variance. They
have lived in this house for years and certainly were aware, or should have been aware, of
the limitations on development that the City of Salem has in place to protect all
homeowners. I consider this request for multiple and severe variances to be a flagrant
attempt to undermine the current zoning requirements with little or no regard for the long
term consequences on fellow abutters and our neighborhood in general.
I strongly urge the Board of Appeals to deny the variances being sought here this evening.
Thank you for your consideration
Andrew Coady
q/ � i,52000
�� a. �u�'
�� � � .
�.��- �-
� �-
� �� � �� .
� --��--
� � � ��
� � � � �
CIT S OFFMbE A
INS 1000 OCT 2S p 3-'
t.
4
y `
S ZONING DISTRICT
RESIDENCE R1
ITEM REQUIRED LOT A LOT 8
LOT AREA 15,000 SF. 5472± SF. # 4870± SF. #
o ; LOT COVERAGE 30 % 23± % 27± %
iaaNs.a L)� N LOT WIDTH 100 FT. 74± FT. # 67± FT. #
5 BERUBE ST. FRONT YARD 15 FT. 15.5 FT. 0.2± FT.
�
SIDE YARD 10 FT. 11 FT. 2± FT. #� ^�sN;ll REAR YARD 30 FT. 30.5 FT. 5± FT.
X
+��rk ,
� a
Jd°a E , PK FD.
�� # DENOTES VARIANCE REQUESTED
LOCUS PLAN
LOTS A & B ARE A SUED/VIS/ON OF LOTS
45, 47 & 49 SHOWN ON PLAN RECORDED
IN BOOK 532 PAGE 300.
NOTES:
E'"I ASSESSORS MAP 15 PARCEL 143
THOMAS E. & KERRY M. & ROBERT E. & RECORD OWNER.DONALD & NANCY KING
APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION W LOUISE JOANNE M. FAY B. DEED REFERENCE. BOOK 15157 PAGE 66
CONTROL LAW NOT REQUIRED W BURKE GREEN REE PLAN REFERENCE. BOOK 522 PAGE 300
SALEM PLANNING BOARD
L IR FD, N 44039'26" E 145.40 IR FD.
V 1 77.76' = 5±' 67.64'
v ` 2
LOT B
30.5' GARAGE 49870± SF.
4 3
3 3 y w
:� o M �Y? I 3 JOHN J.
p � o o $ HUGHES
C4 N
r PROPOSED DWELLING to 0 LO
Z a �. EXISTING N
DATE Z DWELLING
48' 1 2 4
16' No. 12
LOT A t
5,472± SF. 15.5'
74.24' 67.64' IP FD.
S 44039'26' W 141.68
PROPOSED PARKING SUBDIVISION PLAN OF LAND
OBER STREET SPACES (TYPICAL)
LOCATED IN
SALEM , MASS .
PREPARED BY
EASTERN LAND SURVEY ASSOCIATES, INC.
THIS PLAN IS BASED ON THE REFERENCED PLANS, DEEDS CHRISTOPHER R. MELLO PLS
AND THE RESULTS OF A FIELD SURVEY AS OF THIS DATE.
NO CERTIFICATION IS INTENDED AS TO PROPERTY TITLE
OR AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF UNWRITTEN OR UNRECORDED ;3, �; 104 LOWELL ST. PEABODY, MA. 01960
EASEMENTS. \^�TT (978) 531 -8121
I HEREBY CERTIFY THIS PLAN CONFORMS SCALE: 1 " = 20' AUGUST 1 , 2000
TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE f .;`� PREPARED FOR REV. OCT. 23, 2000
REGISTERS OF DEEDS OF THE COMMON—
WEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. DONALD & NANCY KING--
I �
C� /lil/
A:94
0 10 20 40 60 80
FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY F 11880