9-11 OCEAN TERRACE - ZBA (2) - __ J \
��
_._. �.
w.�
{
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
Reconsideration
Decision
April 1,2013
-G o
n W
Michael NlcArdle, Esquire m a
60 island Street, Suite S08Ei xT =07
Lawrence, .MA 01840
rn D
2
Re: Reconsideration Request for 9-11 Ocean Terrace
c� o-
Dear. Mr. blulydle
On March 21, 2013, at the regularly scheduled Salem planning Board meeting, the Board under the
provisions of M.G.L. Chapter 40A S 16 consented by a rote of 7-0 (RIr. puled (Chair), Mr. Ready, Mr.
McCabe, Mr. George, Nis. Sides, Nfr. Rieder, and Mr. Anderson) in favor and none opposed to the
granting of the Reconsideration request. The Board's consent to the Reconsideration request allows the
applicant to reapply to the Salem Board of Appeals (BOA) before the period of two nears has expired
from the date of the Board of Appeals' denial.
The planning Board, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after
thorough review of the petition submitted and testimony, makes- the following findings for their decision:
1. The petitioner has proposed Specific and \laterial Changes to the previously denied Special permit
modification request.
2. The revised petition retains the "owner-occupied" language in Conditions #1 and #2 of the
Special permit granted by the BOA on June 16, 2010, which was initially requested to be removed.
3. l`he Petitioner's revised petition requests the BOA to amend or clarifv the apphcabilin, bf
Conditions #1 and #2 to a mortgage lender in the instance of a foreclosure.
An 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 of filing of this decision in the office of the Cir}- Clerk.
If you have any questions or further information, please contact Daniel Sexton in the Cin' of Salcm
Department of planning & Community Development by phone at (978) 619-5685 ex. 5691 or email at
ds �ron(cUsalcm cola
Sincerely,
(-'buck Puleo, Chairman
Salem planning Board
120 lG_��I :(fR iV' .5'Ib� FI- S.-?LNtI MASAv !I[Si--! IS 0 9iU • 1�!iC1.CIj )7l'619.?68i f t 975.'rd0.04U4 !' n „J.if`,i..'Uy;
s
I
IiC ONI)f�q�
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
"N1NEp0' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KjmBF,RI.n DRISCOLL
MAYOR
120WASHINGTONSTREET ♦ SALEM,MASS.ACHUSETS 01970
JXi N Guom.V DUNCAN,AICD TELE: 978-619-568,5 • FAX:978-740-0404
Dua ,.croR
.lanuary 22, 2013
I
Attorney Michael M. McArdle
204 Lafa vette Street
Solon A y 01970
Dear Attorney McArdle:
The City of Salcm Board of Appeals has received your Reques{for Reconsideraiinn ofrhe Bocint's Denial ollhe
SPeciol Permit ofMutthew Banko Regarcling rhe Three(3) Family Snucrmre. Unfortunately,the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts land use statute prohibits the Board of Appeals from hearing your request at this time.
Per MGL c.40A § 16,the Board cannot act favorably on a petition within two years of denying it unless the
Board of Appeals determines that the petition has been substantially modified and the Planning Board concurs.
Because your request is for reconsideration of the same petition for which a denial was tiled with the City Clerk
on lanuary 2. 2013. div Board cannot reconsider the same petition until .lanuary 2, 2015.
Furthermore,MGL,c. 40A § 17 states that an appeal of a variance or special permit may lie filed in land cows,
superior Court,or district court.
If you have any questions, please contact tile.
Sincerely.
TI, 'n Goonin Duncan. AICP
Director
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
` BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON$"1'REF_''f SALEM,MASSACHUSE,1700�7*N -2 ^ 10: 20
'TELE:978-619-5685 PAx:978-740-0404
I{IMBERLEYDRISCOLL FILEt
MAYOR CITY CLERK, SALEM,MASS,
A
December 26, 2012
Decision
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Petition of MATTHEW BANKO requesting to amend a previous decision of the Zoning
Board of Appeals to eliminate the owner occupancy requirement from a Special Permit for
the property located at 9-11 OCEAN TERRACE (R-1). Applicant also requests a Variance
and Special Permit to add a third-floor dormer to the structure.
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on December 19, 2012 pursuant to Mass
General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on December 19, 2012 with the following
Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chau),Annie Harris, Michael Duffy,
Richard Dionne, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate).
Petitioner seeks to amend a Special Permit granted on June 16, 2010 for the property located at 9-11
Ocean Terrace, Salem. Petitioner also seeks relief pursuant to Sections 4.0 and 3.3.4 of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance.
Statements of fact:
1. Three previous Special Permit decisions, date-stamped September 10, 1980, March 12, 1986,
and July 1, 2010, had been issued for this property, allowing its use as a three-family house,
with the condition that the premises remain owner-occupied, or it was to revert to a two-
family house.
2. In a petition date-stamped October 24, 2012,petitioner requested elimination of the owner-
occupancy requirement so that he could convert the apartments to condominiums. The
petition also requested dimensional relief to construct a thud-story dormer.
3. Attorney Michael McCardle represented the petitioner at the hearing.
4. At the hearing, no member of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the petition.
The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of.the evidence presented at the public hearing,
and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted,makes the following findings:
1
With regard to the requested Variance and Special Permit for a shed dormer:
1. Desirable relief could not be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance.
2. Special conditions and circumstances do not exist affecting the parcel or building,which do
not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district.
3. Evidence was not presented establishing that a literal enforcement of the provisions of this
ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant.
With regard to the requested elimination of the owner-occupancy requirement for the property:
1. Desirable relief could not be granted either without detriment to the public good or without
nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. All
previous Board decisions regarding this issue had contemplated reversion of the three-family
house to a two-family house if it were ever not occupied by the owner. Existence of a three-
family house in the,Residential One-Family Zoning District warrants this condition.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including,
but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted five (5)
opposed (Curran, Dionne,Tsitsinos, Duffy and Dionne) and none (0) in favor, to grant the
requested amendment to the previously issued Special Permit to eliminate the owner occupancy
requirement for a three-family house. The Board voted one (1) in favor (Dionne) and four (4)
opposed (Curran,Tsitsinos,Duffy and Dionne) to grant the requested Variance and Special Permit
to construct a third-story addition. Both petitions are denied.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Salem Board of Appeals
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 of filing of this decision in the office of the City
Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special
2
Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the
City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds.
3