8 PROCTOR STREET - ZBA (3) P�ac�c S �
- . .
. rr
mondw-joh
Design
Chris Monaco 9
Principal
Monaco Johnson Group
I
Monaco Johnson Group
3 Elm Place
Marblehead,MA 01945
w.978.745.0606
f. 978.745.0662
c. 617.719.0990
chris@monaco-johnson.com
www.monaco-johnson.com
Engineers
Land Surveyors
Y
Daniel J. Lynch pe, pis
29 Commercial St. ��`��1 — 6 Z�.. •
Marblehead,MA 01945 - - 781.631.6148
�m1 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
5e �. BOARD OF APPEAL
i
120 WAti[I Eisl:978-619'5685 Si I [5 01970
Ax:978-740 0404
KimiRERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
n
August 28, 2012 < a '
rn
r a
Decision :0
Nr . Co
,rn
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals m" D
3
3 �Q
Petition of 8 PROCTOR ST LLP requesting Variances from lot width/frontage, sidessetbacks
and front setbacks, and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure and a
nonconforming use, in order to construct a 2nd story addition on the property located at 8
PROCTOR STREET(113 Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 15, 2012 pursuant to Mass
General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on August 15, 2012 with the following
Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Michael Duffy,Jamie
Metsch, and Bonnie Belair.
Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 4.0 and Special Permits under Sections 3.3.2 and
3.3.3 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances.
Statements of fad:
1. In a petition date-stamped August 1, 2012, petitioner requested a Variance and Special
Permits to construct a 30'x18'x12', 2nd story addition on the existing commercial
building located at 8 Proctor Street.
2. Petitioner Christopher Monaco (8 Proctor Street LLP) represented himself at the
hearing.
3. At the hearing, petitioner stated that there would be no increase in employees or
parking needs associated with the project.
4. At the hearing, no one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the project.
1
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. Desirable relief maybe granted without detriment to the public good and without
nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance,
since the extension of the currently nonconforming use is in keeping with the
neighborhood, which contains numerous other pre-existing, nonconforming industrial uses;
the proposal would not increase traffic or parking needs on the site; the project would
improve the property; the expansion would be only upwards within the existing footprint;
and the tallest portion of the building would be on the interior of the site.
2. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not
generally affect other land or buildings in the same district; owing to the odd shape of the
lot, areas for expansion are limited. Therefore, literal enforcement of the provisions of this
ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant.
3. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions
and safeguards as noted below.
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 four (4) in favor (Curran, Metsch, Belair, and Duffy) and none (0) opposed, to grant the
requested Variance and Special Permits. A Variance under Section 4.0 and Special Permits
under Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 are granted to allow for the proposed addition as shown on the
submitted plans and elevation drawings.
The Board of Appeals voted to grant petitioner's request for a Special Permit subject to the
following terms, conditions, and safeguards:
1. 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.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
2
6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having
jurisdiction including, but not limited to,the Planning Board.
7. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted doe
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 of 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.
Michael Duffy, Member
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 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