59 SUMMER STREET - ZBA 74520 40% P4
-s'
6 O
s
0
�� � � a
� � q s,
1
� �y
�)
Legal Notice
CITY OF SALEM
BOARD OF APPEAL
976-745-9595,ExL 381
will hold a public hearing for all per-
sons interested in the petition submit-
ted by SUSAN SILLAVSrequesting
Variances from side and rear setback
10 allow existing 10 x 16 deck for the
property located at 59 SUMMER
STREET R-2.Said hearing will be held
on'WEDNESDAY,.JUNE 21, 2006, AT
6:30 P.M., 120 WASHINGTON,
STREET,3RD FLOOR,ROOM 313.
Nina Cohen,Chairman
SN—6r/,6/14/06 ,
oNnirAb CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
� 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
j x§ SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595
V+po� FAX: 978-740-9846
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
,v n
August 8, 2006 c�—
r-�
c zCD
Decision
Petition of Susan Sillars requesting Variances from Side Yard and Rear 16rd o v
setbacks and Lot Coverage regulations to allow for an existing deck ate TIM
property located at 59 Summer Street, R-2 District w m3
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals D
A public hearing on the above petition was opened on June 21, 2006 pursuant to Mass
General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, the following Zoning Board members present: Nina
Cohen,Richard Dionne, Stephen Pinto,Bonnie Belair.
The petitioner Susan Sillars is requesting a variance pursuant to section 9-5 to allow for
an existing ten (10) foot by sixteen (16) foot deck attached to the rear portion of the
residence located at 59 Summer Street, Salem, in the Two Family Residential (R-2)
zoning district.
The petitioner is requesting a variance from the ten (10)foot side set back requirement of
the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance (Sec 64,Table I)to zero (0) feet, from the thirty
(30)foot rear setback and from the maximum lot coverage from fifty-one (5 1)percent to
sixty (60) percent to allow for the existing ten (10) foot by sixteen (16)foot deck in the
rear of the residence at 59 Summer Street.
The Board of Appeals, 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 of fact:
1. The property at 59 Summer Street is within the R-2 zoning district.
2. The petitioner, Susan Sillar, approached the Board to receive approval of a pre-
existing deck constructed approximately twenty(20) years ago that did not, and
does not conform to the current zoning ordinance
3. The petitioner's deck is a ten (10) foot by sixteen (16) wooden structure in the
rear of their residence.
4. The existing deck currently is located zero (0) feet from the side setbacks.
5. The existing deck was found to be outside of the rear setback, as is therefore not
required to receive a variance from the rear setback.
iry
6. The increase in the lot coverage will be approximately nine (9)
Percent withh the
addition.
7. The petitioner has provided surveyed plans of the lot and conceptual plans of the
existing deck. Photographs of the deck were also submitted.
8. The petitioner submitted to the Board two documents from the neighbors of 59
Summer Street in favor of the petitioner's requests for variance.
9. Council President Jean Pelletier spoke in favor of the request for variances
On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public
hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition and detailed plans, the Zoning Board of
Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The petitioner's request for variances to allow for the ten (10)foot by sixteen
(16)foot deck in the rear of the residence does not constitute a substantial
detriment to the public good.
2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent
or purpose of the zoning ordinance.
3. The petitioner's lot size and shape prohibit locating the deck in another
location.
4. The petitioner's lot size and coverage restrictions do not generally occur in the
district and are specific to their land. -
5. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial
hardship to the petitioner.
6. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate
conditions and safeguards as noted below.
In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor
(Cohen, Dionne, Pinto, Belair) and none (0)opposed, to grant the request for a variance,
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 is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having
jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
Richard Dionne
Salem Zoning 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 that
20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that,if such appeal has been filed,that it has been
dismissed or denied and 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.
To the City of Salem Historic Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals:
We, the undersigned, are abutters or neighbors of 59 Summer Street, Salem,
MA. We support the existence of the wood deck and pergola-style fence portion
constructed at the rear of the house at 59 Summer Street, Salem, MA. The deck
does not affect our property in any negative way. It does not pose a safety
hazard to our property,.invite.or attact traffic, require additional parking or cause
us any harm. It also does not impact in any negative way the historic character of
this neighborhood.
We urge the above named boards to allow the deck to remain as it is built on this
property.
Name Address Date
%Gy j � � ✓ GS J�Vi-�✓ � Z� '�j�
��lMlC'v! V''ID,rr/1� SS S�rl��l S s/Z0�06
S� - AA P
j
I
it
v �qq
3
-° MORTGAGE SURVEY '3
PLAN IN
SALEM, MASS_
REM LANG SURVEYORS Z 3
365 CHATHAM ST., L YNN, MASS.
tN�E YtiV\ �
RALPH G;,r
WILLIAM
REID
1 9F N0.29422
O /
!y C'2SSTTSOi. i
4-
a
o:
certify that the dwelling isWWI -i
located as shown and con-
formed to the Lonrng laws of �r /
the - c-' ">- of
rf,q
when constructed. X/ 7 916 t S F ry k G u�E e r eve�-
' � tian9
o.#
R:1CA;e 2 '/z Sfo.S I 3. #6
Y✓o 0d I
*--5'9 I
04 0-46
111.70
S9 SUMMZR sr,
•z HEREar, CEArrFY TO 7A-BEST OF MY KNONLm6E NOTE.' THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED FROM A
7HA7' 77E PREMISES SHOMN ON 7XrS PLAN ARE NO 7' TAPE SURVEY AND IS INTENDED FOR
LOCATED MITHIN A FL000 HAZAaD AREA AS LRINEArM MORTGAGE PURPOSES ONLY. OFFSETS SHOWN
ay 77,E MAP a� CaWiNvrTY fz500e a PPZDAAED BY 77E ON OR SCALED FROM THIS PLAN, ARE
FM9UL EaIERBENCY MANA&9eVr ABENCY a9 rr'S APPROXIMATE ONL Y AND SHOULD NOT BE
suc=u9s DA BMML PANEL / , zavE C • ' USED TO DETERMINE PROPERTY LINES.
r FLRTIER cERrrFY 7HAr 7Hrs rNsPEcrrav MAs PER-
FORMED IN ACCORDANCE Mr7H THE •rErYbl ML SrANo- SCALE 1' /o DATE Ma 22 /9 9 Z
ARDS Fag Ma9TSAsE LOAN rNSPECrram' S _ADWW BY `' ,
W NASSSAL ENBG ASSOCIATION OF LAND SA9VEYOAS BOOK 6
7'# PAGE N/G CERT.#
THrSCE?FENCES ORTL�lrENAYS AS 77EY Da NOTALWAYS rAVIC47SE CONTROL # R9.2 - 0G9,1' •L
PROPERTY LINES ACCLWATELY. A1%44,