0 SKERRY STREET COURT - ZBA (2) 0 Skerry Street"Court R-2
- -- - — - Mark Petit ;; - - -
e \
i
J
CITY OF SALEM
BOARD OF APPEAL
745-9595 Ext. 381
Will hold a public hearing for all persons inter-
ested in the petition submitted by MARK PETIT
for Variances from all density requirements to
allow construction of a single family dwelling at
0 SKERRY STREET COURT(R-2).Said hearing
to be held WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1993
AT 6:00 P.M.,ONE SALEM GREEN,second floor.
FRANCIS X. GREALISH, JR., Chairman
November 17, 24, 1993
........................... .............................
............ ..........
Iro.in. .......................
CITY OF SALEM
BOARD OF APPEAL
745-9595 Ext. 381
Will hold a public hearing for all persons inter-
ested in the petition submitted by MARK PETIT
for Variances from all density requirements to
allow construction of a single family dwelling at
0 SKERRY STREET COURT(R-2). Said hearing
to be held WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1993
AT 6:00 P.M.,ONE SALEM GREEN,second floor.
FRANCIS X. GREALISH, JR., Chairman
November 17, 24, 1993 SN36339
J.
D
v
m'-
ti
Vin,
* * * * * * * R *-* * * t * R.■ �i I
.. ._... . r',.
Z
J.
0
Q.
p
rt �
�F
* * * * * * * * * A*�* * * * ■ •
i�s
Z
' f.
.�
O
V
Ir.
rye;
* * * * * * * * * * i * R * * * *
�:f�
CITY OF SALEM
BOARD OF APPEAL
745-9595 Ext. 381
Will hold a public hearing for all persons inter-
ested in the petition submitted by MARK PETIT
for Variances from all density requirements to
allow construction of a single family dwelling at
0 SKERRY STREET COURT(R-2). Said hearing
to be held WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1993
AT 6:00 P.M.,ONE SALEM GREEN,second floor.
FRANCIS X. GREALISH, JR., Chairman
November 17, 24, 1993 SN36339
s
O
r
c
zi
2i
.�i
Y Y Y M Y Y,Y M M Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
A..
O
'R.
G
2
1 ,t
%J tl
-W
r,
CITY OF SALEM
BOARD OF APPEAL
745-9595 Ext. 381
Will hold a public hearing for all persons inter-
ested in the petition submitted by MARK PETIT
for Variances from all density requirements to
allow construction of a single family dwelling at
0 SKERRY STREET COURT(R-2). Said hearing
to be held WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1993
AT 6:00 P.M.,ONE SALEM GREEN,second floor.
FRANCIS X. GREALISH, JR., Chairman
November 17, 24, 1993 SN36339
§ 4
. % f
) )
. - - - - - *- f
moo , \
oV) (Aw - }
\ }
j \
$x � ui N
« 6U) � � k
93 m « `
Tits 'of' ,�$ttlem, 'ffittssttcljusetts
Paura of Ai"eal
January 7, 1994
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT AS OF DECEMBER 27, 1993 THE DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK TO
GRANT THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT FOR VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONSTUCTION OF
A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 0 SKERRY STREET COURT.
BOARD OF APPEAL
BRENDA M. SUMRALL
CLERK OF THE BOARD
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 MGL Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the
date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A. , Section 11, the Variance/Special Permit
granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision
bearing the certification 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 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
t ' '!ATE OF i:EARItiG
PETITIONER
.00ATION a '
OTION: TO GRANT 22 SECOND
TO DENY / !
SECOND
TO RE-HEAR SECOND
LEAVE TO WITHDRAW SECOND
'"0 CONTINUE SECOND
DI
POLL CALL PRESENT GRANT DENY WITHDRAW RE-HEAR CONTINUE
STEPHEN O'GRADY
GEORGE A. AHMED
FRANCIS GREALISH
STEPHEN T^UCHETTE
4SSOCI:,TE 'IEMBERS
�;
CONDITIONS:
0
r
l
Skerry St. Court
Salem, Mass-
for
Uark Petit
We the undersigned would like to express our support for LIE, Petit's
proposed Construction of a samgle famzRy house on Skerry St- Court. He has
come to us .and shown us what he intends to do and asked how our
concerns could be met. We have rev=iewed his plans and find that he has
made a reasonable attempt to satisfy the neighborhood's concerns. We, his
neighbor's and ab,uttors feel that the hoard should grant the required
variances in order for him to be able to Construct this dwelling.
-- --------- _
-- --- - ------ --- --- - � -P1_-sem
K- --------
dated= rc b �ru F QS
Skerry St. court
Salem, Mass.
for
Mark Petit
We the undersigned would like to express our support for lm4r. Petit's
proposed construction of a single family house on Skerry St. Court. He has
corse to us and shown ns what he intends to do and asked how our
concerns could be met_ We have reviewed his plans and find that he has
made a reasonable attempt to satisfy the neighborhood's concerns. We, his
neighbor's and abutters feel that the board should grant the required
variances in order for him to be able to construct this dwelling.
----- ---------- ---- -- ----�.—�-r -- Aye_
-- -- -� 4U ---2------------- - ---�
- --- - `- - '=------
------------------------------ ------------------------------
dated_ .51A /A dura F�2g
of -Salem, C�Rassndjuscite
', s ultra of �uPad
cry
a
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT FOR VARIANCE AT
0 SKERRY STREET COURT (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held December 1, 1993 with the following
Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish, Chairman; George Ahmed,
Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'Grady. 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, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from lot size,
frontage, side and rear setbacks, front yard depth and lot coverage to
allow construction of a single family dwelling. The property is located in
a Residential Two Family District.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this
Board that:
1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting
other lands, buildings and structures involved.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
3. 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.
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 Board of Appeal granted a Variance for this same proposal on June
26, 1991, but unforeseen circumstances made it impossible for the
petitioner to act on that Variance.
2. The petitioner demolished the hazardous building that was on the
property in accordance with the previous decision.
3. There were two (2) petitions submitted to the Board of Appeal, one
petition was in favor and one in opposition. There were some names that
were listed on both petitions.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT FOR A VARIANCE AT
0 SKERRY STREET COURT, SALEM
page two
4. Jose & Rose Martin, 5 Burnside Street, spoke in opposition, citing the
loss of their privacy as their main concern.
5. Condition number 8 of the previous decision required the acquisition of
an additional 310 sq.ft. of land from the abutting property, the petitioner
was unable to comply with this condition until recently, this is was led to
the prior decision having gone over the time requirement, thus forcing the
petitioner to apply for a new variance.
6. The petitioners proposal will improve the neighborhood.
7. The proposed single family dwelling will be compatible with the other
residential uses in the neighborhood.
8. The proposed single family dwelling is not detrimental to the R-2
zoning while the pre-existing commercial use was.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented
at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property
but not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief 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.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the
variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
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.
3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire
Department relative to smoke and fire safety.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit from the City of Salem
Building Inspector prior to beginning any construction .
5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained for the new dwelling, ' p
6. Windows are to be installed and limited to those shown on the plans �?
submitted.
w
7. The petitioner acquire 310 sq. ft. of land from lot 153, owned byCIO
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT
FOR VARIANCE AT 0 SKERRY STREET COURT , SALEM
page three
Peter Copolas, Heritage Co-op Bank, Salem.
8. Proper street numbering be obtained by the Salem Assessor.
9. A six (6) ft. fence be maintained along the Martin and Sowelski
property lines prior to commencement of construction.
Variance Granted
December 1, 1993
Steph✓✓en O'Grady, 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 Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20
days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City
Clerk. Pursuant to 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 certification 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 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
O
>v
,CUD
-z-
4,
r�
(gitu of -'ittlem, � ttssrztljusetts
304 ultra of �upeal a
�a
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT FOR VARIANCE AT
0 SKERRY STREET COURT (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held December 1, 1993 with the following
Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish, Chairman; George Ahmed,
Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'Grady. 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, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from lot size,
frontage, side and rear setbacks, front yard depth and lot coverage to
allow construction of a single family dwelling. The property is located in
a Residential Two Family District.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this
Board that:
1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting
other lands, buildings and structures involved.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
3. 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.
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 Board of Appeal granted a Variance for this same proposal on June
26, 1991, but unforeseen circumstances made it impossible for the
petitioner to act on that 'Variance.
2. The petitioner demolished the hazardous building that was on the
property in accordance with the previous decision.
3. There were two (2) petitions submitted to the Board of Appeal, one
petition was in favor and one in opposition. There were some names that
were listed on both petitions.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT FOR A VARIANCE AT
0 SKERRY STREET COURT, SALEM
page two
4. Jose & Rose Martin, 5 Burnside Street, spoke in opposition, citing the
loss of their privacy as their main concern.
5. Condition number 8 of the previous decision required the acquisition of
an additional 310 sq.ft. of land from the abutting property, the petitioner
was unable to comply with this condition until recently, this is was led to
the prior decision having gone over the time requirement, thus forcing the
petitioner to apply for a new variance.
6. The petitioners proposal will improve the neighborhood.
7. The proposed single family dwelling will be compatible with the other
residential uses in the neighborhood.
8. The proposed single family dwelling is not detrimental to the R-2
zoning while the pre-existing commercial use was.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented
at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property
but not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief 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.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the
variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
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.
3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire
Department relative to smoke and fire safety.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit from the City of Salem
Building Inspector prior to beginning any construction .
5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained for the new dwelling.., O
6. Windows are to be installed and limited to those shown on the plans �?
submitted.
CU
7. The petitioner acquire 310 sq.ft. of land from lot 153, owned by- w
J
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT
FOR VARIANCE AT 0 SKERRY STREET COURT , SALEM
page three
Peter Copolas, Heritage Co-op Bank, Salem.
8. Proper street numbering be obtained by the Salem Assessor.
9. A six (6) ft. fence be maintained along the Martin and Sowelski
property lines prior to commencement of construction.
Variance Granted
December 1, 1993
tephen hO'Grady, Mer
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 Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20
days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City
Clerk. Pursuant to 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 certification 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 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
a
n
BOARD OF ASSESSORS• PAGE.
CITY HALL
A6E44,,-NA-04-9-7,0- "n
0,
2
6,9 �N
g
t 00
3
w"
li 4 SUBJECT PROPERTY. MAP.- -16 LOT: 0149 SUFF:
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 0000 SKERRY STREET COURT'
7
%
1, 10
XX,
A"A
w
'FF AROPE-RT-- ,ADDR--- ......
aa
aax
9 will
m
P�LL-GT-LSU 112,
10
0 11
— 36 0149 0000 SKERRY STREET COURT PETIT MARK 7 REAR MARCH ST COURT
16
7
"ov,
12
13 4"
8TREGTV� F,,,e,
CARL IW�-SCHCIC)LW,si, 11
di.4s
a,a 4
4X&
A
Dv,.
40.
F-zSL
16 RODERICK MADELINE E SALEM MA 01970
017
— 36 0247 0001 SKERRY STREET COURT CAHILL KENNETH B I SKERRY ST CT
M .0
A W-IT41- WIL EjV,k,11 A 0-
.............. L-44-A
4!; 7=1
ll�l 11 VA 'e-," m-,4
SKERRY,�,S-T
9 ,I , , *�lwlll�,$"I--,t"� c
�.J 9 0 00 S K)---R R Y S JAW
0
EM/w,
w W, �SAL, w
4"
'M 4"S W, X&
0+513-0006-SKE-R
2 HODGE MARION L SALEM MA 01970
3 36 0-151 0004 SKERRY STREET RST REALTY TRUST 4 SKERRY STREET
4 —TAL-.2-C).T-RA.YJ,,)('.+N.D,l�TAL-e-Cl-
=T-RS AL.EM T
T
01370, BRI-DGE-STREE
�,44,�i%�,� z
�,�"Ni�Ci-jL,,E,��REAL�T�Y*.aTRU$,'
1111
b• "a 41
M 1 LTA N Cr W I CZ'i,Rj,A
76a 4 v
U !A tLD-
P, S,
AV,I,",
0 Q 6 4-E?RI-L J 6 Is 64-R F� :Dal'� 4;aa-,30 lu
LUANA 8 SALEM MA 01970
9 36 0154 0062 BRIDGE STREET TACHE GEORGE R 62 BRIDGE ST
VIC.TQR,IAl-M n1C.?7n
S R�
-617
4-5 5, Z, 00 0' 8 R I'D GE EE,
...... djg dh
qlK `6
2
A�A,9m wo .......
w x"",C",:
X,
30 -19- N. I.-
4 0,L s-51L e R s. ROSE S � '-PEA BCJDY NA 0-19613
5 36 0157 0007 BURNSIDE STREET SAWULSKI CHESTER 7 BURNSIDE ST
6 —JAULWA SALE:„ 0O
7
�',HILIUvWILl
R R y a4
wv -- �M� '" -1-1111�11,14w
g ,�,�"
GONZAlEZ WAMPSCOT .1,
9 R, 'I,
$v4, V
�11 �— A"'.7,7 ���;, m,;�, �,,�, -�11�1-,,�,�,�,w
LOW "BU
R, '-RNS-1,DEa-ZXR 48,CHER� F �X
m�, Z1,Z, t
PAULINE R SALEM MA 0-1970
C 7 •0
36 0160 0015 BURNSIDE STREET AUGUL.EWI SABINA N 15 BURNSIDE ST
2 SALEM ........
3
44 4
v x
4$ Am ,x %
�W,A
W", $A:@i, xi
46
0 �7
9 e,,v
4
t g,
T, 4A
t W 03"0, A e X,0
Zm,s
0
v
Mg,",
V -*AA,
x,
z
4
X
LE ZE-
5
6
7
a
9
2
3
-3
4
7 77
5 77 7
,�o $
aaU4 asaa;:aa 73A
Z�,, ,�!,. X,
•w
�U M
ax w
Z W 2. R,
)
rjl
i
MAR T
9gO�
e M'
2 O 33
r
p \ 10 as a° J a ?p e°'s R +o
1 tiNlb s
\ o NryN� N�'?0'rP Nati Ja-s •z +o • _ k Zola
\ 0• n/ly '� Nyo a toy zo `�4yY '�,• Cl 0p�B°
2e 4?
+ Nry` yh zz fi z2 r; e9 y
928 • e /" s /90
,e a0 1"
22 /:
,
x 86. ,3�E S r a
h� c/jY � �c
F
?21 9�o rG'?Ou
39 2<Ay ,,5
ln9
y g ti
p0 2, ry �lb 4 p/,>O
,3 flf 2"j0
B 9a
-P.
/s
� pli
? tf
Zo
ti • ti y
M
cAR<
sro h s
cho
O(
k� 1B4 B a
e
6,00 y
tib 33Bs a°
O ey m
30/
'TR 17 P h r
e
4i h �to a� 'n;` 0 O s, az �c r 0
oas
'��
e s
e
/
* z: a•a 3904 �srp >/ 6
/ 36 390
+
as es o 1e N 0 ��
1V, 4 ' 3440 /30
403 �9d 1p eey N:T •�� �: g• ` e??p v . A ro 90
4poo /09 J/0e . ye o h ' .s •se ss Ire ys /33 z0 i
49A Op O 9
? 0 0 ST + 9?
RKING �' p�j^ry tioo cryo fie° RFFT ' /32 S3 Q f c
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
' (1Lttu of ;aigm. r fIssarimori t s
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS:
-he Una sigDed represent that- he is are the owners of a certain parcel of land located
D. . ��Pr3w / . . �.. . ..:_'4+ 4r-.'a . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .Street; Zoning District. R.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I. . . . . . . . . . . . . ; ono said Parcei ' s a=fected by Sectionisl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
;r -ne :'assacnusetts State Building Code.
lans .escribing the work proposed, have been submitteo to the inspector of Buildings in
iccoroance with Section IX A. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
m
O
— - -o
-he Application for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following
reasons :
The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem
Zoning Ordinancc and/or the Building Code and order the Inspector of Buildings to
approve the application fee permit to build as filed, as the enforcement of said
Zoning By-Laws and Building Code would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially dero-
gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for
the following reasons:
Petitioner owns the lot on Skerry Street Court , as shown on plan sub-
mitted herewith which has a lot size of 2 , 400 sq. ft. and on which the
current use is commercial . Petitioner wishes to purchase from an abutter
an additional 310 sq. ft . , tear down the existing commercial building and
erect a single family house in the R-2 district. In order to accomplish
this , Petitioner needs variances from all of the requirements listed on
Table 1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinances Density Regulations as Petitioner
will have only 2 , 710 sq. ft . , only 21 . 65 ft . of frontage on a public way,
the proposed dwelling will occupy considerably more than 35% , the depth
of the front yard will be only approximately 6 ft. , the side yard approxi-
mately 8 ft. , and the rear yard only 7 ft.
Owner. n'�'. ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Address. .. ° ... . .. .`. . a` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,
Teleonone. . .'.:`. . s" `.' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . {
��ua-tG P: < -
Petitioner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,.
sr. C . ze
Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
=ate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teieonone. . .... - . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
By. . � . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Three copies of the application must be filed with the Secretary of the Board of
Appeais with a check, for advertising in the amount of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
'our :seeks Drior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The
Evening News.
�..
Chi of 'ulcm. 3L55adlusettR
jF:E' . . ` _
+si Boara of Aral
'91 APR -3 P 3 :00
DECISION ON THE PETITICN OF MARK HETI= FOR VARIANCES AT
SKERRY TREE= COURT ( R-2) CITY C: RP.'. OFFICE
A hearing on this petition was held Marcn 20, 1991 with the A'. lowing Board Members
present: Richard Bencai, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Secretary; Richard Febonio,
Mary Jane Stirgwoit and Associate Member Arthur LaBrecaue. >Iotice 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, owner of the property, is requesting Variances from all the requirements
listed on Table i of the Salem Zoning Ordinance Density Regulations. The property
is located in an R-2 district.
The Variances which have 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 involved and which are not generally 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.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after
viewing the plans, makes the following findings cf fact:
1 . That presently there is a storage garage located at the sight which the petitioner
proposes to raze in order to construct a new one family dwelling
2. That the lot is 2400 sa.ft. and would require variances for front, rear and
side yard setbacks, density and frontage, as well as minimum lot size.
3. That the current owner has owned the lot for less than a year.
4. That the proposed dwelling house would be either stick built or pre-fabricated
but the dimensions in either case would remain the same.
That there was no opposition to the petition during the public portion
of the hearing.
5. That Edward Martins, a direct abutter, spoke in favor with the condition that
there be a seven foot rear setback, that a six foot high wooden fence be
erected along the back property line, and that any windows in the rear of the
house be as per pian submitted .
7. That one other abutter spoke in favor of the petition.
DECICIC.'I ON THE PETITION OF :'IARK P_._. FOR VARIANCES FOR
-KERRY STREET COURT, ZALEM
Page nwo
On the basis of the above f`ndings of fact, and on the evidence
_ presented, the
Board c' Appeal concludes as follows:
'91 APR -3 P 3.:f�P
Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the sup act property
and not the district in general.
CITY 6C�LcER�=:'� OFFICE
_. Literal enforcement of 'he provisions of the Zonin�`V1401nance would not involve
substantial haraship on the petitioner.
3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent
of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted three ( 3) in favor, two (2) opposed
(Ms. Stirgwolt & Mr. Correnti) to the motion to grant the requested variances.
Having failed to garner the necessary four affirmative votes to grant the variance,
the petition is hereby denied.
VARIANCES DENIED
Marcn 20, 1991
Josgph C. Correnti, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, it any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
the Mass. General Laws. Chapter 80a, and shall be filed within 20 days
after the date of filing of this decision In the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Cll,:lter 808. Section 11, the variance
or apeotat Permit grantod t•ei e:a sbe.a r.at takeeffect until a copy N the
decision, beanng the ceruficcton of the Uy Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no appeal has ncen filed, or that, it such appeal has been
filed, that It has been dismu-see or I:ealed Is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Dacds ano in--axed under the name or the owner of record or
is recorded and noted on trio owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL'
CjtU of _,'�ttlem, � ttss cljiisetts
Boura of APPeal .JUL a 2 19 Pi1 '91
C1!Y r >5
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT FOR VARIANCES
AT SKERRY STREET COURT (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held June 26, 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane
Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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, owner of the property, is requesting Variances from lot size, . frontage,
side and rear setback, front yard depth and lot coverage to allow construction of
a single family dwelling in this R-2 district.
Before hearing the merits of this petition, the Board of Appeal had to consider
if there is substantial and material change from an application for a single
family dwelling that was denied by this Board on March 20, 1991 . The Board of
Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented, and after receiving Consent from
the Salem Planning Board, voted unanimously, 5-0, that there was a substantial
change, said change being the acquisition by the petitioner of an additional.310
square feet of land from the abutter which would increase the size of this under-
sized lot and allow petitioner to meet the parking requirements as set forth in
the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, they would hear the petition.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of this
Board that:
1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings or structures in the same district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
3. 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.
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 of this site is dilapidated and is a hazard to
public safety.
2. The petitioner has reached an agreement to acquire an additional 310 square
feet of land from an abutter.
3. The petitioner acquired this property in hopes of utilizing the existing
structure but found it in such a state of deterioration that this was not
feasible.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT FOR VARIANCES
AT SKERRY STREET COURT, SALEM
page two
4. Several City Councillors spoke in favor of this petition, citing the hazards
of the existing building and the improvement to the area that the proposed
structure will be.
5. The placement building will be a small prefabricated single family dwelling
that will be compatible with the other residential uses in the neighborhood.
6. A single family dwelling is not detrimental to the R-2 zoning district while
the pre-existing commercial use was.
7. Many neighbors and abutters spoke in favor of this petition while none
spoke in opposition.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but
not the district in general.
m m
2} Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to
EZ the-petitioner.
m
ti
The-relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
m tbC district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
J Z3
'ffi�rgfore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variances requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All construction be done in compliance with city and state building codes.
2. All construction be as per the plans and dimensions submitted.
3. A building permit be obtained.
4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
5. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety
be strictly adhered to.
6. A 51Y foot fence be constructed along the Martin& Sowalski property lines prior
to commencement of construction.
7. Windows on the side of the building abutting Martin & Sowalski be limited to
those shown on the plans submitted.
8. The petitioner acquire 310sq.ft. of land from Lot 153, owned by William Little.
9. Proper street numbering be obtained from the Salem Assessor.
10. Demolition material is be be removed promptly and not left over night.
� r
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT FOR VARIANCES AT
SKERRY STREET COURT, SALEM
page three
11 . Extermination/relocation of wildlife on this property will be completed
before the existing structure is demolished.
Variances Granted
June 26, 1991 )
vCJAA i
Mary Ja irgwolt, Me r, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, K 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.
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance
or fpecial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision, bearing the certification 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 is recorded in the South Essag
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record gr
is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
c
_ us
<;w
RQJ
CYy _C
�- —1
�� J
APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a.�
(9itV of "ittlem, Anssar4usetts
�• 16attr,3 of 4%pplu l
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS:
The Undered rep`ressent�hat he is are the owners of a certain parcel of land located
at .. .-.x%�e. . �` ' '"J 'and said parcel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i . . . . . . . .1. . . Zoning. Districts affected by Section(S). . . . .. . .
of the Massachusetts State Building Code.
Plans describing the work proposed, have been submitted to the Inspector of Buildings in
accordance with Section IX A. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
m ui
cry
E? o
LW
Ww
N ww rn^ b
u:
§ m n =
00
Go
The Application for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following
reasons:
�- The ,U,ndersigned- hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem
Zonirg Ordinance and/or. the Build-irg Code' and or_d.er-the -Inspector of Buildings"to �.
approve.,.the application fee permit to build as filed, as the enforcement of said
Zoning By-Laws and Building Code would involve `practical 'dtfficulty or unnecessary
hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially dero-
gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for
the following reasons:
Petitioner owns the lot on Skerry Street Court, as shown on plan sub-
mitted herewith which has a lot size of 2 , 400 sq. ft. and on which the
current use is commercial . Petitioner wishes to purchase from an abutter
an additional 310 sq. ft. , tear down the existing commercial building and
erect a single family house in this R-2 district. In order to accomplish
this , Petitioner needs variances from all of the requirements listed on
Table 1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinances Density Regulations as Petitioner
will have only 2 , 710 sq. ft . , only 21 . 65 feet of frontage on a public way,
the; prppp6e0; dia�ll i,g; sai;11 ;0004py ;considerably emore ,than 35`; , the depth of
the front yard will be only approximately 6 ft. , the side yard approximately
8 ft. , and the rear yard only 7 ft.
',
Owner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Address. .-2. . ;'n a c H cs- {2eaQ.
Z•d.-t - 5�-e(n-1
Telephone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pe titioner. . .�^ 'a " Po ' ' _
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
_ry c, ,;•�� _,c:L1,t rttt t_ t rrrrerrrrrrrrrrrr�2e=_c
Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Date. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Telephone. . . :
By Win. .. A . .
Three copies of the application must be filed with the Secretary of the Board of
Appeals with a check, for advertising in the amount of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
four reeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The
Evening News.
tyyu'u o 1
e
NO. .. ..... ..... .....
ITTIIION 10BOARD OF APPEALS
LOCATION
............ .................
PIA I I IONER.-..................... ................
ADDRESS.............................. . . .....
........................................
CON611 IONS
.......................... .........-........
........................ .......................................
.................... ......................... ................
................. ......I......... ........................
............:............... ..... . ... ...........
.......................... ......................................
❑
PETITION APPROVED....................
DENIED.........................
.................................................... .........
4ti
I '
Board of Appeals--conceming petition of Mark Petit for variances at
0 Skerry Street Court R 2
The undersigned, abutters and neighbors to the petition before the Board, hasten to express
their deep concerns and belief that the petition should be summarily denied.
Ourmajorconcern is the variance of density and setback of the permit. The petitioner
appears to be appealing with less than 2400 square feet of space available (requirements ask for
15000 square feet), which is only 1/6 of the land needed. Skerry Street Court is already suffering
with snow and rubbish removal problems, and this kind of construction will just make the situation
worse.
The neighborhood already deals with traffic congestion from the Carlton School(another
abutter), and has serious concerns about the safety of the children that live here, as well as the ones
attending the school.
We fail to see any difficulty or hardship from the petitioner. We also understand that the
petitioner has no intention of taking up residence in this neighborhood. But we, the families that
live on Skerry Street Court and the surrounding neighbors, live here "full-time" and we honestly
believe that this proposed construction will benefit the petitioner and not the neighborhood.
:r
We the neighbors have read and agree to the petition.
NAME ADDRESS
s l y
m It2 Zlug
0