5 SCHOOL STREET - ZBA CITY OF SALEM _„SCHOOL ST• A-2
o�
r
T
z
MINUTES OF MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1987
The Board discussed the matter of one of the conditions, namely condition #10
in. the decision relative to 5 School Street, Salem (Cogswell School) in which the City
of Salem as the petitioner was granted a variance to utilize the property for eight
condominium units, the zone being R-2. The property was a former school building
which had been the subject of requests for proposals by the City for its development.
The City Solicitor and the City Planner were present as well as the designated purchaser
and the attorney for the purchaser.
The questions involved the specific wording of condition #10 which, as the
City Solicitor pointed out, , was not one of substance but nevertheless created an
ambiguity because of the fact that the City of Salem had never granted a right of way
and in fact had only approved a license agreement between the City of Salem and the
owner/occupant of 143-1431 North Street. This had been approved by the City Council
and the license was subject to certain specific conditions and limitations which provide
that among other things that at such time as the property ownership passes to the
private sector from the City, the particular agreement would be rendered null and void
and would not be a condition of any transfer to private ownership. It was not the
Board's intention to go beyond the City Council action which stated the intention of
the City with respect to the property in 1982, that the Board should not now impose
an additional requirement or condition on the City, as that could only be done by vote
of the City Council and that it was not the Board's intention to deviate from the
a
a
existing agreement that the City had with the owner of property at 143-143$ North
Street. The Board's intention was to refer only to the existing agreement and not to
expand or propose any other conditions or try to create any permanent easements or
restriction. The Board discussed the matter thoroughly and agreed that its intent should
be clear and that therefore condition J#10 should be deleted. The Board then on motion
v I ��
made and yseconded,,6oted unanimously to delete condition #10 in its entirety from its
decision regarding the City of Salem petition for variance dated January 14, 1987 and
filed with the City Clerk on January 26, 1987.
4
f itg of
C'�assac4uutts
'Y = attrd of eal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE CITY OF SALEM FOR VARIANCES171 ALEH + ' ur.,ICE
SALEM, MA55.
FOR 5 SCHOOL ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this .petition was held January 14 , 1987 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. ,
Fleming, Luzinski and Strout. 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.
Petitioner is requesting a Variance from use and density to allow the creation
of eight8 residential units in this R-2 zone.
( )
i
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involve and which are not generally ; I
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner;
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.
ii
- The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The existing building, the former Cogswell School is fast becoming
in disrepair and if left vacant much longer would pose a health and
safety problem;
2. The proposed residential units will add to the value of the City and
in particular the neighborhood near the property;
Support of the plan was voiced by neighbors, abutters and others;
4 . The City has met on numerous occasions with neighbors, abutters and
others in an attempt to find the proper use for this building. j
On the Iasis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearin_, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which affect the subject property but do not
affect the district in general;
I
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would work
a substantial hardship on the petitioner;
3. The relief request can 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.
DECISON ON TH_ F=:I-_'_:: OF THE CITY OF SALE!,j FOR VARIANCES
FOR 5 SCHOOL S=._..
page two•
Therefore, the 2oninZ Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to-grant the Variances
request, subject to the following conditions:
v
1 . A solid wood fence be constructed on the full length of the southerly
side of the property;
2. Sixteen ( 16) parking spaces be maintained on site;
3. The corner of the property on Buffum and School Streets must 'be
maintained as a green, or open space as shown on the plans submitted;
i 4. A Certificate of Occupancy' for each unit must be obtained;
5. All Salem Fire Department regulations relative to fire safety must be
adhered to; —
n ,
6. All construction and renovations must be done in accordance with all
City and State codes;
7. The developer of the project must bear the cost of the filing fees to
the Board of Appeal prior to the issuance of a Building Permit;
8. The conditions of the Salem City Council in an order dated
August. 7, 1985 .as- presented and/or amended must be adhered to;
9. The developer must continue the neighborhood review process currently
established, to include a meeting prior to commencement, a second
meeting approximately on completion of fifty percent (50%) of the - -
construction and a third meeting no later than one year after the start
of construction. Said meetings are to be coordinated by the City Planner;
10. The existing right of way be maintained in perpetuity;
11 . Correct street number be obtained from the City Assessor.
VARIANCES GRANTE7
Richard A. Bencal, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
s
r
.bu 8 2 ik ?A '87
ofttlem, 3Httssttcu�e##s
s XdDMra 0{ 1PkII MY CLERK,SALEM.MASS.
AMENDMENT TO A DECISION GRANTED JANUARY 14, 1987 TO THE CITY
OF SALEM FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 SCHOOL ST. (R-2)
'The Board of Appeal held a meeting on June 24, 1987 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski
and Strout.
The petitioner, the City of Salem, and the designated purchaser of the property,
represented by Attorney John Serafini, Sr. , requested the Board to delete condition ,
number ten (10) of the previously granted Variance. Said condition states as
follows:
10. The existing right of way be maintained in perpetuity.
The Board of Appeal, after hearing testimony from all interested parties, makes.
the following findings of fact:
1 . The City Solicitor stated that condition number 10 was not one
of substance and therefore a public hearing was not necessary;
2. The City Solicitor pointed out that while this was not a condition
of substance it did however, create an ambiguity because of the fact
that the City of Salem had never granted a right of way and in fact
had only approved a license agreement between the City and the owner/
occupant of 143-143'' North Street.
Said license was approved by the City Council subject to certain
conditions and limitations one of which is; that at such time as
the property ownership passes to the private sector, said license
would be rendered null and void.
On the basis of the above findings of fact the Board of Appeal voted
unani--ously, 5-0, to delete condition #10 from the Variance granted by the
Board on January 14, 1987 . All other conditions of the January 14, 1987 decision
to re-ain in force .
aures B. Hacker, Chairman
A COP` OF THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
I
I.
- . l r'��lr-. •,C� ,f', 'ny
i
5 yy
_ _7T -- _ --
Llv1N4 aA,, t h Jit �v RoQM
n
Uiv� 1 i l 1 f y .
it
r
i gFltti\ �' �`"� ''i i 1 6h1N
Y� C
gin aoonn
' i
'a 1 ,t_ r
�j I r f ME tri 7 �, - 'dl .r•tEcY
G,Tr�I� ME 2
;� oars
,
r y ° T-.F
�I >� '1 pG1.) i A e
--- ,
-- f
1 �
__— 1
oo lz DTZ L--T -TL00C<
I
1 �
•
r] 1
uN r 5 u ►� �� u� ►r 7 u� iT �. ;, ;, ,t61
o
c G
G±vSsT � 4jSME A4 UNt74 r/ 4 (o -~-
`. . t �i ;>,1 tVZ
Ir
`t �Z
if A A f,L t3RT N
� r
Sforz 1 4 -1 - rc,
. ,, Rio claoa,_ n5� 0 rtoOM,
� Y A b 4(c W A`(
a� L o LOO rz ,� 1, �. � , 7, ,� r�oT SLA N
VU AR '-�
CHit
,l� O
tf Mo. 139i
Y..EY
\ tJ*
EA � N\
C 0G 5 w ~� L �. MQ � S � C " U S TTS