Loading...
4 SALTONSTALL PARKWAY - ZBA 4 Saltonstall Parkway R_2 Byron & Marguerite Alpers o t # of 'Sttlem, f ttssuchusetts 4 AUG 16 9 0� Atf 'L 9 F1 L". - P` ou•�1 of ApprA 4��IMtCL� - 6iTY CLERK.SALEM.MASS. - DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BYRON AND MARGUERITE ALPERS FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINDING FOR 4 SALTONSTALL PARKWAY (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 5, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski and Associated Members Dore and LaBrecque. 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. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting and administrative finding from the Board of Appeal that said property 'is a pre-existing three family dwelling which is located in an R-2 district. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . According to testimony of abutters the premises is currently used as a three family; 2. The three separate apartments were constructed 50-60 years ago; 3. Testimony cited documents that inconsistently described the dwelling as both a three family and a two family; 4. There are three electric meters; 5. A deed clause restricting the use of the dwelling to no more than two families is no longer in effect; 6. Neighborhood opposition concerned the lack of adequate off street parking. It was determined by this Board that this third apartment was a pre-existing apartment and the property is a pre-existing three family. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four to one, 4-1 , Mr. LaBrecque voted present, in favor of the Administrative Ruling request. Peter Dore, Member, 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 MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION. BEARING THE CERT- FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAP'ED ANO NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS'd ISSED 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 _ August 3, 1987 Chairman James B. Hacker Board of Appeal One Salem Green, 2nd Floor Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr Hacker: We the undersigned are the owners of record of two-family dwellings at 9-11 and 13-15 Saltonstall Parkway, George E. Filion and Katherine Dziembowski, respectively We wish to be recorded with your Board as opposed to the granting of an Administrative Finding or in the alternative a Special Permit allowing for a three-family dwelling at 4 Saltonstall Parkway (Byron and Marguerite Alpers,owners). We oppose the petition because it would establish a precedent for changing the terms under which the developers of Saltonstall Parkway (Charles, Maurice, and Joseph Wineapple) originally sold land and buildings thereon in 1927, which terms were intended to provide a moderate-density resden- tial,occupancy . on the street. `Rooms in attic areas of four dwellings (#",s 2, -49-8, and 12) were finished to accomodate the growing families of the original owners who occupied the second floors of these dwellings (Robert Heller, Max Harpel, Louis Smith, and Hyman Lipsih) and should not be construed as additional family units. The deed conveying the property in question to Annie Harpel, dated Septem- ber 15, 1927, Registry of Deeds Book #2738 page 82, contains the clause: "Said premises are, conveyed subject to the following restrictions: That no building shall be erected on said premises which shall be designed for, used by, or occupied by, more than two families." We feel that now, in the maturity of the automotive age sixty years after the development of Saltonstall Parkway, an additional concern to popula- tion density makes the wisdom of the street's R-2 dwelling unit restriction even more imperative. With the two-car- ; family now the rule rather than the exception the twenty- six"i. (26) dwelling units on Saltonstall Parkway will soon generate a total of fifty-two ;,cars vying for parking spaces. Since Parkway parking is restricted to one side of the street only and there is space for no more than two cars at the curb of each of the six residences on this parking-allowed side, a total of-no more than twelve street spaces is available over and above the twenty-nine (29) garage units provided on the fourteen residential lots, a deficiency of up to=;e_leven:^. parking spaces for residents alone. This results in frequent and often' conflicting parking "rights" problems. The parking shortage creates difficulties for various non-resident visitors to the street: relatives, friends, business and trades people, who are often at a loss to find space without double-parking or blocking a drive- way. Adjacent Lafayette Street has its own parking problems, causing its residents frequently to use any available space on Saltonstall Parkway. During the school year, after residents leave for work, employees from neighboring !Mddle School East take over their relinquished spaces. Winter snow removal is greatly impeded by cars parked at the curb overnight. 2. We regret being unable to attend the Wednesday evening hearing. Previous commitments prevent our attending. We hope, however, this written presentation enables you and your Board members to understand our con-" y cerned opposition to the petition relative to a zoning exception at 4 Saltonstall Pkwy. Thank you for your kind consideration of this plea to retain R-2 zoning without exception on Saltonstall Parkway. Y� very tru ,� George Filion, Owner, 9-11 Saltonstall Pkwy. Katherine B. Dziembow' is�c, Owner, 13-15 Saltonstall Pkwy. C.C. James Fleming Edward Luzinski Arthur Labrecque Peter Strout LAFAYETTE PLACE a N Ft a r z \I P H /#14 C /� Ct z W #2 m ow4Wmy H 6 N h0 w NO PARKING THIS SIDE.: NO PARKING THIS SIDE NO PARKING THIS SIDE z #21-23 #17-19 #13-15 /r9-11 #5-7 #1- #25 / Fj 1/3 a H H Summary: z MIDDLE SCHOOL EAST YARD 12 two-family dwellings 24 occupancy units F2 one-fanily it of to w Total units 2� a 26 units x 2 cars/unit 52 required parking spaces 13 2-car garages 26 parking spaces 1 3-car garage 3 it of 12 curbside spaces 12 Total +available spaces Current deficiency of parking 11 spaces August 3, 1987 Chairman James B. Hacker Board of Appeal One Salem Green, 2nd Floor Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr Hacker: We the undersigned are the owners of record of two-family dwellings at 9-11 and 13-15 Saltonstall Parkway, George E. Filion and Katherine Dziembowski, respectively We wish to be recorded with your Board as opposed to the granting of an Administrative Finding or in the alternative a Special Permit allowing for a three-family dwelling at 4 Saltonstall Parkway (Byron and Marguerite Alpers,owners) . We oppose the petition because it would establish a precedent for changing the terms under which the developers of Saltonstall Parkway (Charles, Maurice, and Joseph Wineapple) originally sold land and buildings thereon in 1927, which terms were intended to provide a moderate-density residen- tial occupancy on the street. Rooms in attic areas of four dwellings (#Is 2, 4, 8, and 12) were finished to accomodate the growing families of the original owners who occupied the second floors of these dwellings (Robert Heller, Max Harpel, Louis Smith, and Hyman Lipsih) and should not be construed as additional family units. The deed conveying the property in question to Annie Harpel, dated Septem- ber 15, 19279 Registry of Deeds Book #2738 page 82, contains the clause: "Said premises are conveyed subject to the following restrictions: That no building shall be erected on said premises which shall be designed for, used by, or occupied by, more than two families." We feel that now, in the maturity of the automotive age sixty years after the development of Saltonstall Parkway, an additional concern to popula- tion density makes the wisdom of the street's R-2 dwelling unit restriction even more imperative. With the two-car family now the rule rather than the exception the twenty- six (26) dwelling units on Saltonstall Parkway will soon generate a total of fifty-two .cars vying for parking spaces. Since Parkway parking is restricted to one side of the street only and there is space for no more than two cars at the curb of each of the six residences on this parking-allowed side, a total of no more than twelve street spaces is available over and above the twenty-nine (29) garage units provided on the fourteen residential lots, a deficiency of up to eleven parking spaces for residents alone. This results in frequent and often conflicting parking "rights" problems. The parking shortage creates difficulties for various non-resident visitors to the street: relatives, friends, business and trades people, who are often at a loss to find space without double-parking or blocking a drive- way. Adjacent Lafayette Street has its own parking problems, causing its residents frequently to use any available space on Saltonstall Parkway. During the school year, after residents leave for work, employees from neighboring Middle School East take over their relinquished spaces. Winter snow removal is greatly impeded by cars parked at the curb overnight. 2. We regret being unable to attend the Wednesday evening hearing. Previous commitments prevent our attending. We hope, however, this written presentation enables you and your Board members to understand our con- cerned opposition to the petition relative to a zoning exception at 4 Saltonstall Pkwy. Thank you for your kind consideration of this plea to retain R-2 zoning without exception on Saltonstall Parkway. Yo s very tru George Filion, 0" erI 9-11 Saltonstall Pkwy. Katherine B. Dziembow' is�c, Owner, 13-15 Saltonstall Pkwy. C.C. James Fleming Edward Luzinski Arthur Labrecque Peter Strout PALMER'S COVE, SALEM STREET EXTENSION RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL TY car FLKI garage rut \ E0 N 0 a \ D d ' z H x (n lz�-1 O /� 9 lO I-q F3 r F y Hn m b z n Ie c z n �"s cn I\ O a �\ � r cD NW m N N a ~ �` M w z W A W N C O cr 'Y 0 z 1 1 :3 0 Li �3 I H O O m K --1 m O M M 0 c23 P,aq 04 mr r• P N m / Ell ro 0) Nc �e e � \ b -1 oq n p SD m m m m m u , Ir w m zIL 1 r �Y W µ cr ma \ ' z L—! m o �1yy IIrj a r F•�INW m NOyN tNEll 'b < �N (D 00 z 0 N• _ K r n c� N r N Y• ='0C 1 H m N 0 K m x cr 09 (G '„} cnr F' a 0 m mSD ID r 0 Is m m x = r S a��a —biz S a3�a+�3EI lit 0 m f+• (T i (C O m CD ma m f The Building Inspector and Board of Appeals Salem, MA 01970 6 Saltonstall Parkway Salem, MA 01970 March 16 , 1987 To the Building Inspector and Board of Appeals: I am writing in regard to Byron and Marguerite Alpers, my next-door neighbors at 4 Saltonstall Parkway in Salem. Yesterday, the Alpers told me they would like to have their home officially recognized as a three-unit residence. Please consider this letter in support of their request. Having lived at this address, since 1968, I am aware that the third-floor apartment at 4 Saltonstall has been rented to many different people over the years. In my opinion, this has not caused a parking problem or any other inconvenience in the neighborhood. Thank you. Sincerely yours, .,Alice Audet The Building Inspector and Board of Appeals 2 Saltonstall Parkway Salem, MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970 March 16 , 1987 To the Building Inspector and Board of Appeals: I understand that Byron and Marguerite Alpers, of 4 Saltonstall Parkway in Salem, wish to change the status of their home from a two-family to a three- family. I have no objection to their doing so, and see every justification for their request. I have lived directly next door to that house since 1926, and have seen or met everyone who has owned or rented there. During the past several decades, the third floor apartment at 4 Saltonstall - which was part of the original construction by the Harpels - has been more or less continuously rented. Because the apartment is small, it has been rented by only one, or at the most two people at a time. This has not caused a parking problem on the street. Thank you. Yours truly, Eileen Heller✓ E,;0AIII D 07 c:Prc,';LS v` ' U _: : ;x '31 "7r ': 5 Saltonstall Parkway CITY 0 ::iLi� , MASS. Salem, MA 01979 July 28, 1987 Nr. James E. Hacker City of Salem Board of Apeeal ' One Salem Green Salem, KA 01970 Dear Mr. Hacker= To confirm .our teleehone conversation of July 27 in re- gard to the s-ecial permit asked for by Byron and Mlar- , -�- guerite Alpers of 4 Saltonstall Farkaay to convert a 2- family dwelling to a`�3-family we 4 Saltonstall Parkway, I wish to state that I strongly o_,_<ose that the rermit be issued . A roximately five years ago a­s1milar reouest was asked - - for and was denied . I would not like to see a .=recedent set at this time. Saltonstall Parkway has aiwave -been zoned for no more than 2-family dwellings. Parking on the ctreet now is already a major vroblem and having additional cars harked on the street over niaht would a.ggrevate the situation. This is es .^ecially true during the wir_ter season when snow removal is necessary and ?Mows are hindered by the -irked cars . Because I -am confined to the house due to my health, l am not able to wp,-ear at this hearing in rerson. Sincerely, -t__rold Sraviro S 1 I f Jk s'i}F.� �'; 4 Ss�t4',�`'1{'aY° • • +, -'r t e ��:�.� s - }. '4 R } OAR BOARD �(:!{4 r. ♦ `-• r B D 'Or¢.�,E rCA�LJ s .r.i i " M 1•+ 4" ..rte rLA�� 7 y � � '. 6 'i•E f -;# �f •:ea, �` {� ^/� (jfq�'��� 1'bJ'g;.{p� 3•' . `;;' :+i �# -' �f'r r �a4- r eSa . M ` •�UI .]� �V ' 1 ftl l iR7 R..iF .. L� d �, >y ) 4 :. i1 > > � f '�� ., �•.t ,S -�' SS,yi � `' , � t-Yi {xurt n 4 V :: r `•, ' ' «^ REC f ED '5,Saltonstalll:Parkway.• CITY a tAEfi�,TAAS� Salem, M6.. 01979 1 July 28, 1987 s ' F•xaF. • eZ V .. :. ,r 1 eR. F . 3 F.. X +•.�, � �'. pp �`'_< 'y4� t x _� �f F` , rig t�• 1y.. r--e� a -k t v '( a .'�. �. -w if Mr. James�Bi Hacker ° a �., a a„ a :.=.Y r -. . ;�,^ D , •`.a . Oity of ;Salem+^ t 1i 4 { Sz aY Board of Ap}meal "e ' .�' -.One Salem.;:Gree n:+a �'� ti _ �. $-• of� :' y .ace r; u�.-J., gd.r .*,h ....& nom' ,:ms s -o, Salem, MA . 01,970 ' x r '+L .1 r• ;:.�' ,s_- } rFe s*(.� , ' t t- i "v� a .ty -T r Mt, % y. • .. . 'llear Mr. 'Hacker L�'c } F x s . + •S gw-2°s � � 'ia# �' < wt. ° t '� '� 4 i e >�,� .` '. `of �.. �.s s i .._ s ^• a ,r.. qtr, �r.. 4 � 1. tr � ': 3i To confirm our telephone conversation of'kJuly 27 �n reg " ,� ; gard.,to,the ,secil .permit asked =for'by*:Eyron,and Mar-;'* guerite 'Al�er's,aof"4 Salton tall zParkway ,tobconvert a�,2 fami ly•'dwelling .to a;3,-fa�iily dwelling at '4' Salt"onatall$tWX Parkway, ;I wish;_to 'st"ate that` I,s:tronpzly 4opoose ' thdt icermit ,be tissued• ," p; '. f��: fr z a 4 wri .ta ,,':; } r. S •4 'oN 4 +a,�. v. � ° Y ;{4$P i' "> 'b'TT.Yv+... ., - > a•a '. w + E . A roximately- five years ag'd _a „similar :request was asked r* for and, was denied °I` would not 'like tojsee °avrecedent a. set R at this'„time.' Baltonstah Parkway ,has' always been zoned for no more than 2 family dwellings-, �� 4. • Y.4' d :T' l t F RLO y.'tiy 6 a R.,.''h n€3. YS . - 3 " • r L 4 ParkingFon the> street"now is ;already a major problem' afid ,. Thiaving, a, d . onal ars ' k6d; on=Yt ze tatreet over night: would `r aggrevate the'"`sftuation i his-is fes�veci.ail true;dur?ng { t ` `'' the ,winter season_ when; snow 'removal isvnecessary. and'-p�lowa _ - ' ' are- hindered by- the harked oars ' f"• BecauGe I' am corifined':to the:-huu�e due-!7'to-my health,' I`'am" s '•k . :n.'• riot able , t0 ap;eear'at •tnls+'hearing'"-in tierson t{• ,x"}ca' "" •x: , ,s i' },� a•;x , s :fir i � �,' t ,j. �" � - c ° • � ' ". � Sincerely; , . • i t ^. T• 1 crag. ' }d. 6 , t" t r •. -i.'"F r,r ,.` . ,4_ .L Y;y..- �, a rE, a!i Y. „ Y }s'',t, / '� YS- • ?;�'� S `�"• `A. - 1Harold ' 8hapiro,: r, •af x' t :> ,k .,r'(,. } a 2 1 t'� S �j,r.'r -. r 1 � +"i , p•,�-.. ice' ' '+} .. $` x > �r1 r 4' � � r Pt. b� ii i - ry �r a 4' A Y''•,` rr , - r . iI}' A ti-: -• a a :..¢ ,^ ,y}i >.. s. aY ! � v _.Y-.. . ra f _ �.- � i r i eat 'r _� • Tz d x.. {\Fs r' _ -r .. r [ • + % i, �rt z c.. t 'd:. {• r''. r ' .dL. yr y,'a 3 f - The Building Inspector and Board of Appeals 2 Saltonstall Parkway Salem, MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970 March 16, 1987 To the Building Inspector and Board of Appeals: I understand that Byron and Marguerite Alpers, of 4 Saltonstall Parkway in Salem, wish to change the status of their home from a two-family to a three- family. I have no objection to their doing so, and see every justification for their request. I have lived directly next door to that house since 1926 , and have seen or met everyone who has owned or rented there. During the past several decades, the third floor apartment at 4 Saltonstall - which was part of the original construction by the Harpels - has been more or less continuously rented. Because the apartment is small, it has been rented by only one, or at the most two people at a time. This has not caused a parking problem on the street. Thank you. Yours truly, a�tM Eileen Heller I The Building Inspector and Board of Appeals Salem, MA 01970 6 Saltonstall Parkway Salem', MA 01970 March 16, 1987 To the Building Inspector and Board of Appeals: I am writing in regard to Byron and Marguerite Alpers, my next-door neighbors at 4 Saltonstall Parkway in Salem. Yesterday , the Alpers told me they would like to have their home officially recognized as a three-unit residence. t Please consider this letter in support of their request. Having lived at this address since 1968, I am aware that the third-floor apartment at 4 Saltonstall has been rented to many different people over the years. In my opinion, this has not caused a parking problem or any other inconvenience in the neighborhood. Thank you. Sincerely yours, �.�----- Alice Audet N AG TpvST,gG G / ol. ,W / pow ,r R/la� 20' SS'f �x OF To - Q//OM /T MAY CONCE PN °yam ERR I certify that the structure(s) 'are located as shown, did conform s SEND, JR. to the Zoning l>QD% �lofozEM at the time of construction and ,� 5 and As not in a designated Flood Hazard Zone (Comm. No. 29 Izm,* ) o Ref: Deed Bk. 7c>-6o Page 285 Pian Xog. 4 .PGA,v 30 C. ���qL LAW)g NOTE-TAM pko M for MORTGAGE wW ZONM poop"wA do"NOT,REPRE W a SURVEy. File No. 875 - PLOT PLAN OF LAND IN Engineering ./MA55• 1/ Associates,Inc. , FOR 9,1- ROW XLA"5 83 Pine Street Peabo.dyAUft-O a 660 ,/ DATEFB__98U:SCALE I 20' (017)535-7328