71 ORCHARD STREET - ZBA 1 I Orc,�c�r��'"��—
j L_ l
o�� � �
L/ p
YI�
V
v
� ' '
1T
yclr��a CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
1 20 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR
j�Q SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970
�6'� i
.--- F� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595
FAX: 978-740-9846 h
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL o
MAYOR n m
f
rn �,
September 4, 2008 ?�F
r
Decision I„
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
cn
Petition of Daniel LeBlanc requesting a variance from the distance an
accessory structure is required to be from the side and rear lot lines to
retain an existing 11' x 29' pergola enclosure, and a variance from
height in stories to retain an existing 3rd floor deck at 71 ORCHARD
STREET (R-2).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 27, 2008 pursuant to Mass
General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on August 27, 2008 with
the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran,
Elizabeth Debski, and Rick Dionne.
Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to the following sections of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance: Table I: Residential Density Regulations and Sec. 7-8: Accessory buildings
and structures.
Statements of fact:
1. The petitioner, Daniel LeBlanc, is the owner of 71 Orchard Street a property
located in the Residential Two Family(R-2) Zoning District.
2. The property is a two family home.
3. A pergola enclosure, as well as a third floor deck, existed when the petitioner
purchased the property. The petitioner is seeking two variances from the Board of
Appeals to allow these modifications which were done without permits to remain.
4. The pergola enclosure surrounds an outdoor hot tub and is two (2) feet from the
rear yard lot line, and one (1) foot from the side yard lot line. Sec. 7-8 specifies
no accessory structure shall be neared than five (5) feet to any side lot line... or
five (5) feet from the rear lot line".
5. The third floor deck is at the rear of the residence. Table I specifies that 2 %z
stories is the maximum height allow in the R-2 district.
6. A plot plan and photographs accompanied the petition.
2
7. Janet Green (72 Orchard Street) and Paul Prevey (Ward 6 Councilor) spoke in
support of the petition.
8. There was no opposition to the request at the public hearing.
The Board of Appeal, 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. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance
would result in substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner who
purchased the property in good faith and has made since made improvements.
2. The structures in question have existed for several years, they are not out of
character with the neighborhood and there is public support for the requested
relief. Desirable relief may be therefore granted without substantial detriment to
the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent
or purpose of the ordinance.
3. There are unique conditions affecting the locus and structures, not generally
affecting other lots in the in the Zoning District including the length of time in
which the structures have existed and the layout of the lot.
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 concludes:
1. To allow for the 11' x 29' pergola enclosure to remain a variance from the
distance and accessory structure is required to be from side and rear lot lines is
granted.
2. To allow for the third floor deck to remain a variance from maximum height
in stories is granted.
In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor
(Debski, Curran, Stein, and Dionne) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request
for variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statues, ordinances, codes, and
regulations.
2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety
shall be strictly adhered to.
Robin Stein, Chair
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
3
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 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.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL
PETITION FORM
c;.i r2 CII-} OF SALEM, iMASSACH.U-SETTS
ZONING 130ARD OF APPEAL r
120 WASHINGTON S-MET, 3z FLOOR
't <.^ S_1I:P\l,hI.LSS 1C1]LST.11S 01970 c-j m
•'d =�. u. Arne Lash,Staff Platmer "Ihemas St..Pierre,Building Inspectn� C
x 978-619-5685/£975-740-0404 r.978-619-5641/f.978-740-9546 ;N_ �
>M la/
r�
TO THE BOARD OF APPEAL: ��. �O
-file Undersigned represent that he/she Ware the owners of a certain parcel of land located at: z: N
Address: '71 nPr Lkfl e n 5-r- Zoning District:
An application is being submitted to the Board of Appeal for the following reason(s): 17tis stnternennnusa
describe rrhat you propose to built, the dirnenriouc, the zone properly is in,and the_oning require,neuts. Example:
1 urn proposing to construct a I U'x 1 U'one story addition to nip hwne located at 3 Salem Lane. in the R-2 Zoning
District. The Zoning Ordinance requires the rnirtimum depth gfthe rear pard to be 30Jeet. The current depth gfmy
rear yard is 32 feet; the proposed addition mould reduce the depth of the rear ymrl to 22 feet.
For this reason I am requesting: �T�
(�Variunce(s)room provisions of Section of lite Zoning(hAinance,. speciticall) from. 1 A61
2 e eS__-F,e o,oa—,2eur 1 -F ,r mt s-i , minimtmr depth 0/rear yard/.
What isallow ulis �r,,�y, ? • , ').
LQf�xeL 9a �e? !bf(/i. ft. stories? / t. and what,
am proposing is��tA/t2/7[.� 7pyY ,fi.'�sy ft'stories.''/l).£'JGCSTi•+e 75 SC/,Fr
`Exte/7oit ) DEtk • AWraX 20 % 2. ,ceect5e -ors -r4ted/ fiJ4tjo
r�A Special Permit under Section$ " S of the Zoning Ordinance in order to_,Q;{/"�
r
( )Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector(described below):
The Current Use of the Property Is: Are the lot dimensions included on the phut]
(example:Tit Family Home)__ _2,,,` ( es O No n/a because _
The undersigned hereb) petitions the Board of Appeal to vat, the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and allow
the project to be constructed as per the plans submitted;as lite enforcement of said Zoning fry-Laws would involve
practical difficulty or wmcccssaq hardship to the Undersigned and relief mai-be granted without substamialty
"� derogating hom the intent and purpose of the Zoning(hdiwtnce.
y
I
/ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PETITION FORM
The following written statement has been submitted with this application:
1 For all Variance requests a written Statement of Hardship demonstrating the following must be attached:
it) Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building, or structure invohed,
generally not at'tecting 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
it 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 Art. V,
z S-3. 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
t) Potential fiscal impact, including impact on City tax base and employment.
Previous applications to the Board of Appeals involving this property have been submitted with this petition
form. The Building Commissioner can provide documentation of previous applications to the petitioner or his
representative.
pp If different than petitioner:
Petitioner: �N/E I F Lt C�I cn C Property Owner: ,-iv i z ( LR 9 1Sn
Address: 7f n teC iWaK(J 5 T Address: 7 / es Q C ".4311 $ t
1'elephone: !?79 Telephone: 71f- 7V - Z 39 Z
Signature Signature(Attached consent letter is also acceptable)
Uate _ — Date
If(h1ferent than petitioner:
A TRUE Representative:
ATTEST
Address:
Telephone:
Signature
Date
\ DATE SUBMITTED TO
Jl BOARD OF APPEALS:
CCCY CLERK
This original application must he filed with the City Clerk.
This Non-Conforming Property located at 71-73 Orchard Street has received several
upgraded modifications and repairs that were not approved by standard procedure work
permits.
The purpose of this submission is to properly amend these modifications that were
performed prior to the current ownership's purchase in May 2007.
The specific issues to be addressed are as follows:
1. The asphalt roof shingles were replaced on the primary dwelling structure.
2. The safety railing was replaced on the second floor front porch and first floor
back porch.
3. Four skylight windows were installed in the roof at time of redoing roof shingles.
4. The third floor back porch repair work was performed to the deck. The railings
were replaced at the 42 inches in height and the door unit onto this deck was
replaced. This "exterior" space measures 5 feet x 15 feet —requested relief from
6-1 Table 1.
5. A roofless Pergola enclosure measuring I 1 feet by 29 feet was constructed 9 years
ago in the south corner of the lot where a dog pen had previously existed. This
location currently contains a hot tub. The structure is of a very durable
construction and provides improved appearance and privacy for the hot tub usage.
The walls of this structure are approximately one foot from the southeast property
line and two feet from the southwest property line and are a continuation of the
back of the unattached garage along this southwest property line. Both abutting
neighbors have expressed their satisfaction with the current position of this
structure (signatures on a separate page) -requested relief from 6-1 Table 1 left
side and rear.
We appreciate your consideration of these issues and hope that we can favorably resolve
these existing non-conformances.
We believe that the accompanying photos will demonstrate the quality of the
modifications that have been performed.
69.20
Nat
1'
'foe CONC. G
BLOCK
GARAGE a
291;' 20.0 W'
PORCHES 6 law
M
M
1 n 1 87.2 Y,
1
v u
-
O a 0 e
O 1 i u
O e O
2 STORY
ALUM SEM a a�
I I No. 71.73
Z
PART PART
17 17 1 16
, ' I
PORCHES
+ ' I
� 1
I � 1
:9 20 S.F.
I I lot
I I I 1
' VI
1 1 169.20 i i
MORTGAGE SURVEY PLAN
ORCHARD STREET Location ...........SALEM......
Scale I in.= 20 ft. Date.....ocr 27,..1992_.._.
Plan reference: 8EM6.1 OT. 16 AND„PART 17,,,;_......
....... . .. .. ..
SEE DEED BOOK 8048).,. PARE 419
SEE PLAN BY THOMAS A;APPLETON,C E •JUNE 1924
ERNEST �c ..... ..
N. n IN-19.0-0.K-2.60.3, PACsE 78
EAGERSTROM — ............ . ......._................
�l
No.11229 `” RECORDED..w(ESSEX.,SO,.RE813TRY,OF.DEEDS..,._ .
L L osv � ERNEST H. FAGERSTROK R.L.S.
138 Norwell Avenue, Norwell
FILE No. 921069 1 hereby certify that the building shown on this
'M TO INDEPENDENCE ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION plan is located on the ground as shown thereon f
NOTE. I CERTIFY TI4AT THE ABOVE PROPERTY DOES NOT that it conforms to the zoning and building/
LIE WITHIN THE FLOOD HAZARD ZONE AS DELINIATED ON
COMMUNITY MAP NO. 2601028
laws o the.0of -50..lem._. ._ _..._ ... ._ ._ ....i
THIS PLOT PIAN WAS NOT MADE FROM AN INSTRUMENT SURVEY Whe nstructed and to restrictions on record.',,
AND IS DRAWN FOR THE USE OF MORTGAGEE ONLY.
f
June 23, 2008
To whom it may concern:
This letter involves the structure surrounding the hot tub on 71-73 Orchard Street, Salem,
MA. This structure, built 9 years ago, touching adjoining property lines on 69 Orchard
Street & 5 Manning Street is in dispute.
At the time the structure was built, we did not own the house. We want to make sure
everyone is ok with the property lines and love the beauty and privacy it provides to the
neighborhood. Before the structure was built it was a fenced in area for dogs.
This letter has the signatures of Jim Adams at 5-7 Manning Street & the old owner Bruce
Nadeau and new owner Michele Conway at 69 Orchard Street saying they do not mind
that the structure is there.
J' Ad• ms
M l onway
Bruce Nadeau
Thank you,
Cindy & Dan LeBlanc
i
READ THIS LIMIT OF LIABILITY AND REMEDY:Submitting any film,print,slide,negative or digital image to our company for
processing,printing,storage transmission or other hand IIng constitutes an AGREEMENT by you that any damage or loss
by our company,subsidiaries or agents,even if caused by negligence or other fault will only entitle you to replacement with
a like amount of unexposed film and processing.Except for the exclusive remedy or replacement.the handling of film,print.
slide,negative or digital image is without warranty of liability and recovery for any inc[dental or consequential damages is
excluded.NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR FILM,PRINTS OR DIGITAL MEDIA LEFT OVER 30 DAYS.
i\
Print, Store & Share Photos
at
www.cvsphotocenter.com
349479
-aa;uno� o;oyd ay; o:t
adolanua siy4 '8 ;djaooa.• anoA 2upq
=IspuoaaS ul SWI-4d IWIPIQ
o°o
U-0
o°o
000
o°o
o°oFMCOUT)OO 0 OOO 0� � H
100% Money Back Guarantee!
000
, 000
000
000
000
000
` 000
000
000
000
000
000
0 , - - _ _
y
'�� �I�IIIIIINI;�I�
1 c I
iL .c
.n,
d
y�
t
d
y
i
J
et
F'
r
f
•�
J
d
t �A�
a
„+
r
F
.�
G
y
y
i
J
�,
r
1
�qS�. . `LI� ♦ ,... 406 PI^'"'7:.�jfJ _ .4: !-'
1 �
1
1 IIIAll
A``
SSJJ 'W' 1'•a
L h
,�
y
.y
v�
{
J
:L , �
f �� �
r
.y
!.
v�
r�
j
r
t� rt
Y "�
t��
Y
�y
i
et.
r
t
l
w.�
a
y (�} r�`�i'G�n-Ir''',M,"a"'��'3P4`"• �16+ rte.
� r
� J
J
�.
C�•
l
� '�
_j
r
c1 �'
5
d
�+
�.
f
C'
� :f
'�1
' �
chi j_
Y
Y
v+
w
i
Q
C; ��.
� �
��i
.�
.�
d
L
d
v+
i
r
Y
r
KEE
0 i"•gyp'
_ �� 11
J
V
r
W �r
Y
i
f
t �
r
' y r
e
o�
y
F
v
r
o.
w
o.
y
i