Loading...
PIERCE ROAD - ZBA (3) LOTS #B, C, D, E, PIERCE RD. - CLAYTON V. SMITH, Petitioner � J 1 , oafttlem, RF stD , <' ' �attrD �f �lppettl e '81 JAN —2 A 9 :20 080 DEC 33 A9 :18 : � 18 DECEMBER 17, 1980 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY CLE-Rin`> OFFICE E.., DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CLAYTON V. SMITH REQUESTING A VARIANCE`FOR LOTS B, C, D AND E, PIERCE ROAD. A hearing on this Petition was held on December 17, 1980 with the following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, LaBrecque, Feeherry and Hacker. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on Dec- ember 3, and December 10, 1980, in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Petitioner has requested a variance from the Salem Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Restrictions for the property identified as Lots B, C, D and E, Pierce Road to combine these lots and construct a single family residence at the location. A variance is required because/tfie Wetlands and Flood Hazard District the proposed use is prohibited without a variance. The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing the .property makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question is in an R-1 district where .construction of a single-family house is permitted; however, because the property is in a Wetland and Flood Hazard District use of the property for this purpose can be allowed only through the grant of a variance. 2. The proposed. use of this.property has been reviewed by the Conservation f Commission which approved the proposed use with conditions. 3. Without a variance, this property will be essentially valueless. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows: I 1. Theert ro question is unique because of its size p p y in q q (i.e. in excess of 20,000 square feet) and because of its location. 2. The failure to grant a variance will render the property in question valueless. 3. The granting of the requested variance will not result in increased flood hazard, additional threats to public safety or public expense. 4. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not the zoning district generally cause a special and extraordinary hardship to the petitioner; The proposed use of the property is compatible with the surround- ing neighborhood; however, if a variance is not granted the petitioner's land j will have no financial value.. i i i I i C21ttg of 5'aIem, assar4uuffs Puurb of rkypal DECEMBER 17,. 1980 DECISION - PAGE Tido - CLAYTON V. SMITH- PIERCE ROAD Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals with Messrs. Hopper, Hacker, LaBrecque, and Feeherry voting in favor of granting the requested relief, and Mr. Piemonte voting against, grants a variance to the petitioners on theL 1 following terms and conditions: 1. Lots B, C, D and E shall be combined into a single lot for the construction of one single-family home, 2. All construction at the site shall be in accordance with the Order of Conditions issued by the Conservation Commission, 3. All construction shall be in accordance with the terms of the City Engineer's letter to the Board which letter will be maintained in the Board's files. 4. The single family home to be constructed at this site will be surrounded with an appropriate perimeter drain. 5. No construction shall be allowed unless, the petitioner applies for and is granted a variance from frontage requirements. GRANTED - WITH CONDITIONS Anthony M. Fe erry Secretary APPEAL FRC7J THIS RE"1". ,>d IF VY..SI!ALL GE .,,. E P..,.,WNI TO SE I 117 OF THE R:ASS. GEiLRAL LA VS. :'.r,r:�'. ., ,. A:.L SHA; ....._ ..,T .:.i 120 D:1'i_- AFTER THE DATE OF FILI;iG OF TWS 1.1 0, Pw._:.. ... .i . ._ _.,. 03 P C .I L '.� riT ; - Fi.:.`e CiI :FT _ .IY. r� _ _ _ 7 .� L . : i_?! P � ��`FO .. C3 !Hili IF S �..P_... a C@. r,FD - r ,' i C' .. _.. 0 -1 " ..cD IS - - RECCRvE0 ° q .. 2 ,"...D SHE IVAL:E OF THE O'fiOER - OF RECORD OR IS REWRDzO MMD NOIED Di! THE Gii I: FCS CkR!T FICXiE OF TITLE. - - BOARD OF APPEAL' A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY GLERK t T Ctu1 of �.SiI�e111� �. �ttSSMC 118Et S (®nr fpalrnt (barn MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeal FROM: Planning Board DATE: November 19, 1980 RE: Petition of Clayton V. Smith for a variance pursuant to Section VII Paragraph 7-P-Wetlands and Flood Hazard Districts, for Lots B, C, D & E. Pierce Road The Planning Board would like at this time to list the reasons for the denial of the Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit application submitted by Clayton Smith. 1. The Pierce Road sewer trunk line which services this area is in deplorable condition. This trunk line exfiltrates into the Forest River recreation area. The gradient of this trunk is .00032 and consequently surcharges frequently. The Planning Board believes that any further con- nections to the trunk will create a liability to the City. 2. Section VIII Supplementary Regulations, Section P. Wetlands and Flood Hazard Districts, subsection l.d. of the Salem Zoning Ordinance states that one of the purposes to be served under the ordinance is "To insure the control and containment of sewage, and the safety of gas, electric, fuel, and other utilities from breaking, leaking, shortcircuiting, igniting or any other damage due to flooding.". With the present condition of the Pierce Road trunk line, the Planning Board feels that this condition for approval cannot be met. 3. The proposed driveway will-be below the .100 year flood hazard level which, at times of flooding, would create a public safety hazard not only to the occupant, but to any public vehicles that may have to use the driveway. In addition, the definition of Lot in the .Salem Zoning Ordinance is as follows: "Lot - a parcel of land occupied or designed to be occupied by a principal building and the accessory buildings or uses customarily incident to the principal building, including such yards and other open spaces as are arranged and designed to be used with such buildings. Such lot shall have frontage on an improved public street, and may consist of a single lot of record, a portion of a lot of record, or a combination of such lots or portions of lots of record, provided To the Board of Appeal November 19, 1980 2 _ that such lot is used for only one principal use.". The lot in question does not have frontage on an improved public street. For these reasons the Planning Board urges that this petition be denied. #� � � "' t fir• , 0 of 5''lent, Aassac4usE##s (Put Ottlem preen MEMO: BOARD OF APPEAL FROM: Planning Board DATE: January 21, 1981 RE: Request for a variance at Lots B, C, D and E Pierce Road (R41 -District) by Clayton W. Smith to be heard at the Board of Appeal Meeting on January 21, 1981 The Planning Board has carefully reviewed this request for a variance and would urge the Appeal Board to consider the following points in making its decision. The definition of "lot" in the Salem Zoning Ordinance is as follows: "Lot - a parcel of land occupied or designed to be occupied by a principal building and the accessory buildings or uses customarily incident to the principal building, including such yards and other open spaces as are arranged and designed to be used with such buildings. Such lot shall have frontage on an improved public street, and may consist of a single lot of record, a portion of a lot of record, or a combination of such lots or portions of lots of record, provided that such lot is used for only one principal use." Since this lot fronts on a dirt road, it has no frontage at all unless the Board of Appeals varies any frontage requirement. The Planning Board would like to point out at this time that there are two other undeveloped lots on Pierce Road (see enclosed Plan) , one of which has 285 foot frontage and could conceivably be developed with at least two additional house lots. In granting this variance, the Board of Appeal could be setting a precedence which would serve to undermine our present Subdivision Regulations. If a driveway can be substituted for an "improved public street" in this case, then the same rationale could be used for the two remaining lots. This kind of spot development could potentially hamper our Fire and Public Works Depart- ments when it comes to fire, trash pickup, snow removal, etc. As a consequence of the above we urge that the reque or a variance be denied. / Q� Walter Power III WP/pw Chairman Enclosure J a V. Conservation Commission v, x Salem, Massachusetts 019711 Telephone 16171 745-54156 +flss'11 May 28, 1980 Clayton Smith ¢7 Beach Avenue Swampscott, Mass. Dear Mr. Smith: I am enclosing the "Amended Order of Conditions" per our meeting on May 22 , 1980. You will note that this "Order of Conditions" supersedes any previously issued "Order of Conditions. " I would also like to inform you that there is a. 10 day appeal period to these orders. If ,you have any questions, please feel free to call. very truly ,yours, Sheila Morin. Clerk. SM Enclosures i .. . �. , v • �.WV,Ji 1'i VNS Y FORM 4 THIS ORDER OF CONDITIONS CONDITIONS OF SUPERSEDES ANY PREVIOUS ORDER WETLANDS PROTECT ION ACT OF CONDITIONS G.L. C. 131, s. 40 ----------------------------------------- CITY/TOWN SALEM FILE NUMBER 64-60 TO: NAME Clayton W. Smith ADDRESS47 Beach Avenge,_.Sw,uV,,ott CERTIFIED MAIL NUMBER PROJECT LOCATION: Address Pierce Road Salem Mac - h +ts Recorded at Registry of Essex Rn Book 5653 Page 743 Certificate (if registered) REGARDING: I _ Notice of. Intent dated _ March 3. 1980 and plans titled and dated"Site Plan prepared for Clayfon dated 2/14/80 revised 2/29/80 Smith, Salem, Mass." THIS ORDER IS ISSUED ON (date) May 2--------------------------------------------- 2. t gp ---------------------- Pursuant to the authority of G.I.. c. 131, s. 40, the Salem Conservation Commission has reviewed your Notice of Intent and plans identified above, and has determined that the area on which the proposed work is to be done is significant to one or more of the interests listed in C.L. c. 131, s. 40. The hereby orders that the following conditions are necessary to protect said interests and all work shall be performed in strict accordance with them and with the Notice of Intent and plans identified above except where such plans are modified by said conditions. ----------------------------------- CONDITIONS ± 1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other regulatory measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this order. l -1- r � } ♦ v 9 . _,t FORM 4 ORDER OF CONDITIONS CONTINUED FILE NU"ER 64-60 2. This order does not grant any property rights or any exclu- sive 'privileges; it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. 3. This order does not relieve the permittee or any other per- son of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state or local statutes; ordinances, by-laws and/ or regulations. 4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within one (1) year from the date of this order unless it is for a maintenance dredging project subject to Section 5(9). The order may be extended by theissui.ng authority for one..or more additional one-year periods upon application to the said issuing authority at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date of the order or its extension. 5. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill, containing no trash, refuse, rubbish or debris, includ- ing, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, lumber, bricks, plaster, wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe, tires, ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles or parts of any of the foregoing. 6. No work may be commenced untill all appeal periods have elapsed from the order of the Conservation Commission or from a final order by the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. 7. No work shall be undertaken until the final order; with respect to the proposed project, has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds for the district in which the land is located within the chaln of title of the affected property. The Document number indicating such recording shall be sub- mitted on the form at the end of this order to the issuer of this order prior to commencement of work. 8. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less than two square feet or more than three square feet bearing the words, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, Number 64-60 " 9. Where the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering is requested to make a determination and to issue a super- seding order, the Conservation Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before the Depart- ment. ORDER OF CONDITIONS CONTINUED FILE NO. 64-60 ( 10. Upon completion of the work described herein, the applicant shall forthwith request, in writing, that a Certificate of Compliance be issued stating that the work has been satis- factorily completed. . 11. The work shall conform to the following described plans and additional conditions. The Conservation Commission has determined that the proposed work - is significant to storm damage prevention and therefore issued this order: 1. The structure shall be placed on site as shown on submitted drawings "Site Plan prepared for Clayton S. Smith, Salem, Mass.", prepared by Carter & Towers Engineering Corp. , Swampscott, Mass. , dated 2/14/80 revised 2/29/80. 2. The structure shall have no basement and the first floor elevation shall be at least 16 feet, mean low water. 3. There shall be no filling or removal of soil from the site. 4. This order allows for filling or excavation for the construction of a driveway only in so far as it complies with a letter from Joseph Carter of Carter & Towers Engineering Corporation to the petitioner Clayton W. Smith, dated April 23, 1980 and an attached drawing dated May 1, 1980 attached hereto and made a part hereof. -3- t ORDERS OF CONDITIONS -continued The applicant, any person aggrieved by this order, any owner of land abutting the ].and upon whl.ch the proposed work is to be done, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to appeal this order to the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering provided the request is made in writing and by certified mail to the Department within ten (10) days from the issuance of this order. ISSUED BY Cofto IQn C0MMTSSrnN r 1 : On this 22nd day of May 80, etore me personally appearedthe_3hpye__' rcnnc to me known to be the person described in, and who executed, the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed. ---'�� � My Commission expires h X DETACH ON DOTTED LINE AND SUBMIT TO THE ISSUER OF THIS ORDER PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. TO (Issuing Authority) PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE ORDER OF CONDITIONS FOR THE PROJECT AT FILE NUMBER , HAS BEEN RECORDED AT THE REGISTRY OF _ ON (DATE) If recorded land, the instrument number which identifies this trans- action is If registered land, the document number which identifies this trans- action is Signed Applicant -4- CARTER & TOWERS ENGINEERING CORP. CP �7cuvaa, �orcnaeLcuzd L'`�"" Joseph D Carter `,;,gwonn.9:Fnpmeer '6 FAIRVIEW AVENUE ae?:s!ered Land Surveyor _ SWAMPSCOTT. MASS. 01907 Tel 592.8386 April 23 , 1980 Mr. Clayton t Smith 47 Beach Avenue Re : Pierce Rd. , Swampscott, Mass. 01907 Salem, idass . Dear Clayton: I have reviewe :the above-captioned site and with particular attention to the proposed driveway, I see no problem associated with the construction slopes or grading o1 a bituminous drive. I think that everyone is under the impression that' the drive- _ way will be out on the uncut grass area. The driveway will be entirely within the landscaped area that is being used by your neighbor. My suggestion for construction would be to excavate the organic material to the width of the driveway and replace it with compacted bank run gravel or Lynn Pac as a base, then pave the drive with 32" bituminous concrete. The driveway elevation should run with the contour of the land so that you .vi.11 not interfere with the existing overland runoff from your neighbor' s property. Very trulyr yours, /TJSEPH D. CARTER JDC :amp ART,ER & TOWERS ENGINEERING CORP. )sepn 0 Caner roressronar Engineer �--1_P �� 6 FAIRVIEW AVENUE =gayer n Land Surveyor •------ -- SWAMPSCOTT, MASS. 01907 �- --�— Tel. 592.8386 w c j e _ 3 o p d S�,oPF " ..:. ? S z1• T rnrnl t 2A, w 1 5 rw o'a 4 C:L�y T �, 0 -LA11 Gip rr d - G PwSEO T"w$• - .u.nT�iJ cF 6-A TES BE�nW 46� CQOW�L) c. J.1oFF 'TO (ZivErL 5 VAN 3 ' y2' - -� VJoT TM �'>GC.I.� -IVIL ENGINEERING PERCOLATION TESTS SEWAGE DISPOSAL DESIGNS SURVEYING t=— 13 CctaZ ` LitL llf1es11, C- i n ��'' �Ilttuu tt i uari TO SEP -9 P1 :46 CITY C! L J( 5 OFFICE SALIN � . September 1980 SPECIAL PERIvilT VVETI,'�NDS AND FLOOD HAZARD DISTRICT MR. CLAYTON SMITH 47 BEACH AVENUE SWAMPSCOTT , MA. On Thursday, April 13, 1980, the Planning Board of the City of Salem held a public hearing regarding the application of Mr. Clayton Smith, for a Special Permit under Section P, Wetlands and Flood Hazard Districts, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, with respect to building a one family house on Pierce Road, Salem, Massachusetts. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board on September 4, 1980, the Board voted, by a vote of five in favor, 'two opposed, to deny the applicatiq, for the following reasons: -- i. Attachment to the sewer system may further deteriorate the present system. 2. The driveway will be below the 100 year flood hazard level in places. This may create safety hazards to the occupant. I hereby certify that a copy of this decision has been filed with the City Clerk, and a copy is on file with the Planning Board. i 2 WALTER B. POWER III Chairman S WBP:jar BOARD OF APPEALS' Ct2 of ' aleIn, Issuclnlset#s BEC 17 8 u4 ., pN'BO RECEIVED +_lepartment of Pub"r Porta CITY OF SALER BASS: 0110 1�3ulrm (3)rrrn ANTHONY V. FLETCHER, R.P.E. RICHARD P. SWENSON, C,E, DIRECTOR of PUBLIC SERVICES Assistant Civil Engineer CITY ENGINEER - - December, 15; 1980 Salem Planning Board City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, MA. 01970 Attn: Mr. Walter Power, Chairman RE: Smith Ladies and Gentlemen: In order to re-affirm my verbal comments regarding this construction, please be advised that the department has no particular objection if the following conditions are satisfied: A. Water line must be placed outside the sewer easement determination. B. Release of liability on behalf of the City for maintenance and replacement of paving within the easement. C. Applicant installs approved back flow preventor on the sewer lateral . Very truly yours , A. V. Fletcher, P.E. City Engineer Director of Public Services AVF/cc cc: Susan Madison d/A 2 : Lu Ila & 6 22 3=W,mw! 6yaa .