5 SKERRY STREET COURT - ZBA (2) 5 SKERRY STREET COURT (R-2)
— _ MARK PETIT - -
-tel
v�n
t
t�
(Mita of 'j�ulem, flussucitusetts
Bnara of Au
Veal
HIR V I i iii ',b
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT FOR A VA$JQNgE .ATT5'SK-Ef g
STREET COURT (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held March 20, 1996 with the following
Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett,
Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywuc and Albert Hill. 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 Variance from all
density requirements to allow construction of a single family
dwelling for the property located at 5 Skerry Street Court.
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 involved and which are not
generally affecting other lands, buildings or 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 at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the
following findings of fact:
1 . The single family dwelling proposed by the petitioner will
encroach to within six (6) feet of Skerry Street Court.
2. The petitioner failed to demonstrate or meet the burden of proof
relative to legal hardship.
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 do not exist which especially affect the
subject property and not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner.
DECIS:ON ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 SKERRY STREET COURT R-21 ]
page two
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), in opposition to the motion to grant the variance. Having failed
to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is
defeated and the petition is denied.
VARIANCE DENIED
March 20, 1996
Albert C. Hill, Jr.
Member, Board of Appeal
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 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 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 PASSED 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
DATE OF HEARING (
PFTITIONERA//,_j (?,�,v
LOCATION
MOTION: TO GRANT SECOND AMENDMENT SECOND
TO DENY SECOND
TO RE-HEAR SECOND
WITHDRAW SECOND
CONTINUE SECOND
I
ROLL CALL PRESENT GRANT l DENY AMEND WITHDRAW RE-HEAR CONTINUE
GARY M. BARRETT V/
ALBERT C. HIL
STEPHEN TOUCHETTE
NINA V. COHEN
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
ARTHUR LEBRECQUE
JOSEPH J.YWUC
CONDITIONS:
rcQq
(- '
01)
C1
23\zbaform\
'r'y (lIitu ofttlrm, ttsstttltusPtts
:Bnttra of AuPral19
JUL i rpt 9i
city SS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT FOR VARIANCES
AT SKERRY STREET COURT (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held Jr une 26,199�.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 TEE 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.
c-� o0
Z� Lit'eral enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to
a— the-petitioner.
m
ti
y The..relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
m the]district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
'£fir@gore, 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 519 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.
B. 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.
t
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
Mary Ja irgwoit, MeT91r, 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.
Pursuant 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 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 or the owner of record or
Is recorded and noted lin the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
n
�Y
^J.
�' V
kr
of ,.'ttlem, '-ussadjusetts
snttra of �,upeal
Q �.
I '
s�
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT FOR VARIANCE AT
0 SKERRY STREET COURT (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was heldDecember 1, 1993 with the following
Board Members present: Francis X. '�Grealfsh,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.,
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 by
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
40,w-,f
Stephen 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
D
Tv
:1
m
APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
fag �j}� of i�� ...''1t`cCQ�J�CiLI;IADQIl�
13anra of _�u}zeal
TO THE BOARD OF APPEAL:
The Undersigned represent that he/she is/are the owners of a certain parcel of land
5 sK . ` ` .. .. ,
located at:... .-. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. .. ...Street; Zoning District........ . .
of the Massachusetts
and said parcel is affected by Section(s).. .. .. .. ... . . . .. ..... .
State Building Code.
Plans describing the work proposed have been submitted to the Inspector of Buildings
in accordance with Section I% A.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
CJ
W
N
gn N
>�
C7 cc
W a —o
Uj
W
C3 o C7,)
c�
The Application for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following
reasou(s):
vary
of
The Undersigned hereby petitions the BoaCoda and ordeof altto inspector termsBuildihe Salem
Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building
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 unnecessaryderogating
hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially
from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for the follow-
ing reasons:
Street COurt, as shown on plan submitted
Petitioner owns the lot on Skerry
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 variance from all of the
requirements listed on Table 1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance 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 357, 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. -,I<v-a.+-L Iej
Owner...................................
Address..2..Q-- n!:"-�a..............
7kti- Sv (0)
Telephone.. ............
�•�•�
Petitioner..............................
Address...7..2.n. • �•• ...........
Telephone.. ..................
Date.. .. ........
By......................................
Three copies-of the application mist-:be.,filed.with the Secretary of the. Board ' - Appal
in.the•smosnt-of ; - ..• , four weeks prior' toy�the
with a'check` for adverteiag.< News'.. ;
meeting of'the goad of Appeal* Check payable to the SaieaSvenin85
-'--- ---. . .---..--z._ ,..__� .......cam- -h--z--: --""-,=•�- .w.....__ .a'°'""'.,�.�,:.:.u+�, _ z rx?4s'k'S.�j.i.�m ',..n °k 1
0
N
a i
T 0C
� G
0 = s
® Q 0 o
axa
WY
aLLu
c Y
N
W r
H
T
� d
F
co
GABIt�T O O OO DW ———�
MT II �WBEDROOM #2– o I II V� co
0 1
KITCHEN I J n
III ® � W ;
LP7 – – LLI Z
- - - - - O
Oas
OSET j j Dour sTr� J
c c 1)
TO Arnc I a
L__7
— _J
vmIrr
u
BEDROOM #1
LIVING
DN
N II IGLOSET
U;�SFGQNE11 FLOOR FLAN
11411 - 11-011
-- — unurr _
O
CABINET O ML --
-� It1
KITCHENL- 11pI � — CLOSET - I I z ' Ip �
_ �1I\pD Q/l/) STORAGE LMXR Q Lu U
U ° 11 STAIR PLATFORM 11 _ Q
vnuTr
-
- -- BEDROOM #i Lu kn
LIVING I I CLOSET I 11111 ~
UPza
N
II ii �)
- - - IL t2
1 FIRST FLOOR FLAN
• I/4 - I O
24 MAY NSM
1/4" 11-0°
OBR PI_A
_o
N
b
4
C
®ui
pia
maw
a
e W x
M LL O
ATMMw n
t
N 9
W r
i.. C
od
wt
/ son
W
-- / 0
-- -- —
L ta
N o d
na
J rn
c
AWAI
C '
- - O a s
U OWm
�T F
AS, N
d
EE
P
4
H
® 3
LO
® U
U
III
REAR ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION
0
1�
LU
O
Ln
LU
LLI
rE
- --
a .
illy • II
Illi
29 MAY 199?
1/411 O 1'-01
RONT ELEVATION -� LEFT ELEVATION
I 1/4" = I'-O" 1/4 - 1 -O
il A 2
• ine "
M b
■n,■ M c
• _ V N y
QN h s
® O ;-o o
mn �
a
wit
S < ERRY STREET COURT MEN a � L
13 N `
Lu
Of N
10 ol d
wjy
°
od
20'0" MAXIK M CURS cur F m L
luuj
U,
T
y o i
h °
3Z ;
o -L
O "
JL
0 Lu
"
b
f]
• ® b
°
e `
U
I
4 EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 945 SQUARE FEET
o- ACTUAL LOT COVERAGE BY ALL BUILDINGS: 2495
o PROPOSED BUILDING USE: TWO DWELLING UNITS
OFF STREET PARKING PROVIDED: 5 SPACES
PARKING 01 PARKING "2 PARKING $3
48.&4'
— — THIS FAGS OF BUILDING IS ON PRPOERTY LINE. — O
k
4,009 SQUARE FEET±
Lu
� W
/,EXISTING GARRIAOE HOUSE TO BE//// N O
' � GONVE�D TO TWO FAMILY DWELLING $ O � w
I NEr'i / z
EX1EMOR / --yy n/ w k
STAIR X
Q V �
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE BUFFER v u �
, _
1IJ1-_ ' N
LLJ
OL V
OI 4
10 100.16' -
ol
ADJACENT PARCEL THIS SIDE IS 64 BRIDGE STREET
PROPERTY LINES AND BUILDING LOCATION BASED ON RECORDED PLAN 21 MAY 1997 -
PLAN BOOK 289; PLAN ?8; MAY 10, 1994 I/4" = I'-O"
BUILDING LOCATION WAS NOT DETERMINED BY ON-SITE MEASUREMENTS
BY CROWELL DESIGN, BUT RATHER FROM INTRPRETATION OF SAID
RECORDED PLAN
A 5