Loading...
51-53 WASHINGTON SQ NO - ZBA 51-53 Washington Sq . no. ? r Arvinder S . Bahal 1 `I o J r I . ". 1:� sit 4� T✓.N... 1 R / 4 Dwelling unit variance annulled SALEM — The Zoning Board of Appeals ex- two-family dwelling to a three-family dwelling. ceeded its authority in granting a variance in 1988 The complaint filed in behalf of Pelletier by At- for property located on Washington Square North, torney Robert F. Peck Jr. of Salem challenged the according to a agreement for judgment entered in . Board of Appeals'decision,arguing that it exceeded Superior Civil Court. its authority in granting the variance. David W. Pelletier of 31 Pleasant St.,individually A complaint was filed Sept. 14, 1988, seeking to and as a member of the Salem Common Neighbor- overturn the decision. hood Association, filed a complaint in Superior Court contesting the allowance by the Salem board In a recent agreement entered in court documents for Arvinder S.Bahal of Salem to convert a building a judgment in favor of Pelletier was entered annul- located at 51-53 Washington Square North from a ling the decision to grant the variance. 1'++� CO,�440t � IUC Z6 35 AN 089 (9itV Of ttlPm, ttSSttt usP#tslLEl¢ 4 �OArD DE ��7Ett1 CITY Cl{RR• SALEM. MASS. •� vs DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARVINDER S. BAHAL FOR A VARIANCE AT 51 - 53 WASHINGTON SQUARE, NORTH (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on July 20, 1988 and continued to August 10, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James M. Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. Bencal, Luzinski, Nutting and Strout. Notice of the original hearing was sent to abutters and others, and notices of the original hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner, represented by Attorney Phillip Strome, is seeking a Variance to convert a two (2) family dwelling into a three (3) family dwelling. The property is located in an R-2 Zone. 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 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 evidence presented, and after viewing the plans makes the following findings of fact: 1. The existing building was originally two (2) separate buildings that were merged into one building. 2. The existing building, having approximately 6000 square feet of living space, is too large to continue to be utilized as a two (2) family. 3. In order for the building to be restored historically to what it was meant to be, it must be utilized as a three (3) family in order to re-coup the necessary expenditures of money. 4. The petitioner can provide adequate off-street parking. 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 this property and not the district generally. 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARVINDER S. BAHAL FOR A VARIANCE AT 51 - 53 WASHINGTON SQUARE, NORTH, SALES? PAGE TWO hardship to the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating frau the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 (Mr. Nutting opposed) to grant the relief requested in the petition, subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioner provide six (6) off street parking spaces which conform to the requirements of the Salam Zoning Ordinance, as per the amended parking plan submitted to the Board of Appeal. 2. The property is to remain owner occupied at all times. If the property is not owner-occupied, the Variance is null and void. 3. All renovztion of the property is to be done under the terms of a building permit to be issued by the Building Inspector and be in conformity with all city and state building codes. 4. Egress from the parking area on the property be onto Pleasant Street Avenue only. 5. Appropriate landscaping be placed on all sides of the locus. 6. All exterior doorways be in harmony with the historical nature of the existing neighborhood. 7. No exterior additions be added to the property without Board of Appeal approval. 8. All the requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to Fire Safety, be adhered to. 9. All unnecessary pavement on the locus be removed and that area be landscaped appropriately. 10. All present unsightly arears, including the area over the back door, be rehabilitated. 11. The petitioner agrees not to seek any increase in density at the locus. VARIANCE GRANTED 4� L-Ls Mg, Esq.rChirman, Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRO'.' THIS DE2ISION, IE ANY. SHALL BE MADE PU^nSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MAY. CENTRAL LA.'l,S. C"""" ESZ A'1D SHALL BE PLFD Cf!THIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF I'MNS CF T!iIS. DCf iSID•': I'! THE CCTIL= OF THE CITY CLEFH. in 9 -,p '111 29 1� -0 Y Cr WY 7Zuard of Appeals ity of Galem -.alpm, Ma5sachuststts Gentlemen : f Although a Previous c � rom alt ' �--,naing .ommj tillpnt prpvents me meeting on July 20 , 19,0`8 , 1 wish to be recorded in Qppositlic-1 0 Petition of Arvinder Babal for a variance to convert 51-53 WashJng' -,n :;quace into a three Unit dwelling in an R zone . First of all , to speak to the specifics of this petition , the esLr%jcturp in question rias been a two-family since at "east 196,9 when I and my wife 1001K-ec! a' the PrOF-el- tY with an eye towards buying it . The original single family home had been converted to a duplex many years before 1969 by building an addition onto the left, side of the i ch - .5 ' house which contained the additional front entrance now numbered I Washington Square N . Although the resulting two front entrances are numbered seperately, the building was and remains a single sti-t-Ic"'Ire containing two dwelling units . This is in keeping with the P-2 zoning of the property and the surrounding neighborhood . ate dwelling ing U niwith the An attempts-r(tpts t�D add a third dwe, 7' t are at odds intent of tile ZOIlIng ordinance . Furthermore , in my opinion , Mi . Babal can not show the legal definition of hardship needed for a var lance . Once again , a petitioner come=_ before the Board of Appeals armed only with a desire to maximize itis profit . Instead , I asP'. the Board to uphold "he principle of rational planning that lies behind L'he zoning ordnance by once more hPiPlng Prss`rve the R-2 character of our neighborhood . I ask the Board to hold 'the line against increasing density in the area by denying this petition for a variance . Sincerely yours , vazuAxel� Michael E . Pelletier +,°o""*• (fitu of 211C11t, r` 2i55c�t�llSEtt5 + Officc of the CHU ((louncil _ - / y (Qitg L all j 6 LEONARD F.O'LEARY WARD COUNCILLORS _ - - COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT I, ; 1 S. GEORGE A.NOWAK 198] JOSEPHINE R.FUSCO KEVIN R.HARVEY ROBERT E.GAUTHIER CITU CLERK VINCENT J.FURFARO FRANCES J.GRACE LEONARD F.O'LEARY NEIL J.HARRINGTON RICHARD E.SWINIUCH July 20,. 1988 JEAN-GUY J.MARTINEAU GEORGE ' GEORGGE P.McCABE JOHN R.NUTTING Mr. James Fleming, Chairman Board of Appeals City of Salem Salem, Ma 01970 Dear Chairman Fleming: I am writing to you regarding the petition of ,Mr. Babal for a variance at 51-53 Washington Square North. As you are aware the Common area of my district suffers greatly from two very severe problems; one being the lack of off-street parking, and the other being the ownership of property by absentee landlords. If the Board' s decision is that the petitioner is .suffering from a hardship, I would like to go on record as requiring that ad- equate parking and owner-occupancy be conditions on the granting of such a variance. Your consideration on this matter will be appreciated. Sin��y, KEVIN R. HARVEY, WARD WARD 2 COUNCILLOR H/f r TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN WE, THE UNDERSIGNED , ARE ABUTTERS OF OR RESIDENTS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 51- 53 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH . WE UNDERSTAND THE PRO- PERTY HAS BEEN UTILIZED AS A THREE FAMILY FOR AT LEAST THE PAST FIVE YEARS AND DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING AND THE AVAILABILITY OF 10 PARKING SPACES , WE SEE NO REASON THAT THE PROPERTY CAN- NOT BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM ZONING REQUIREMENTS AND BE DEEMED A LEGAL THREE FAMILY . FREDERICK 'RICHARD 35 PL ASANT ST EET 'F a 17 �-� - - James Fleming, Chrmn Auguso6R9F8�PPECLS Salem Board of Appeals City Hall An 5 9 09 kA 'fig .' Salem, MA 01970 ^ECE!'/ED Re.: Variance for 51 Washington Sq. CITY DE SAL'"ci9.Wd5 s. . Dear Mr. Fleming, I would like to be put on record as opposing the petition for a variance for 51 Washington Sq. Before the new amendment to the zoning ordinance for R2 Districts was passed, this petition should properly have received your close attention and consideration, and you may. have looked upon the petition favorably. With the adoption of the new amendment, the situation has materially changed. While there may have been a basis for the granting of a special permit on this property, due to the hardship criteria necessary for the granting of a variance, there is no basis for the granting of a variance on this property. The people of Salem through their elected representatives on the City Council have made a clear statement as to how they feel about increasing the density in R2 districts. The Board of Appeals should abide by the wishes of the citizens of this City and refuse this petition. Ospect u rs,sell Slam 9 Forrester St. Salem 970 1 Plastilam 14 PROCTOR STREET P.0 BOX 2057 SALEM, MA 01970 (617) 745-5563 July 20, 1988 To the Salem Beard of Appeals. As a property owner and resident in the immediate vicinity of 51-53 Washington Square, I am firmly !apposed to any increase in the number of legal residential units at that address. The area is already much too densely populated and the granting of a variance would just add the parking and traffic congestion. I am. Jeffrey Barrows 2 pickman St. Salem. MA 01970 741-0595 Salem Common Neighborhood Association awr,,rt P.O. Box 8608 Salem, Massachusetts 01971-8608 m Coco°��o August 3 , 1988 COPY Mr . Phillip Strome Attorney—at—Law 73 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Mr . . Strome : Thank you for taking the time and meeting with some of the members of the Salem Common Neighborhood Association concerning the property located at 51-53 Washington Square . As you are now fully aware , the association is opposed to the petition to convert the property from its current two—family designation to a three—family . This objection is not related to the proposed purchaser of the property in any sense ; but rather to the interpretation of the existing zoning laws used for the petition. We are willing to allow the petition to meet its fate with the Board of Appeals , with our stated opposition . Should the petition , however , be approved by the Board of Appeals , we believe that the Board ' s decision would not have any legal foundation on which to rest. As a result , we would certainly review, and strongly consider , any and all legal options available to us. Please be assured that our expostulation is not meant to be personal in nature . Clearly , there are many positions to be taken in this argument , and we are merely taking ours . Once again , thank you for taking the time and meeting with us on this matter of mutual interest and importance . Sincerely, Joan Nester PRESIDENT Cc RON&V FterIlIM - 4 cgRllNrL.P s> PETITION A new amendment to the zoning ordinance for P2, -Districts requires that .any, petition to the Appeais Board for an increase river the allowable units, be treated as a request for a variance. A variance carries sirict legal standards which require a petitioner to prove a hardship in order to obtain it. We the undersigned believe that the Appeals Board should apply this new amendment as the City Council meant it to be applied, and not allow anv further increases in the allowable units in this district unless the above criteria is met. In the first instance this should be applied to the request for a variance to increase a two family dwelling to a three at 51 Washington Sq. ;4 MI e House # & Street P.enter/Owner a4 d L ESQ CClstLL'i-iVit. SQA Ou-I� _ "7 /Ll Ste.-, a Aj 0 , i fSIA j1 oU ,� � S PETITION A new arnendmcnir to the zoning ordinance for R2 Districts requires that any petition to the Appeals Board for an increase over the 2 allowable units, be treated as a request for a variance. A variance carries strict legal standards which require a petitioner to prove a hardship in order to obtain it. We the undersigned believe that the Appeals Board should apply this new amendment as the City Council meant it to be applied, and not allow any further increases in the allowable units in this district unless the above criteria is met. In the first instance this should be applied to the request for a variance to increase a two family dwelling to a three at 51 Washington Sq. N. Mame House # S Street Renter/Owner S7`. U zuuo� '� � .. PETITION A new amendment to the zoning ordinance. for B2 Districts requires that any petition to the Appeals Board for an increase over the 2 allowable units, be treated as a request for a %7ariance. A variance carries strict legal standards which require .a petitioner to prove a hardship in order to obtain it. We the undersigned believe that the Appeals Board should apply this new amendment as the City Council meant it to be applied, and not allow any further increases in the allowable units in this district unless the above criteria is met, in the first instance this should be applied to the request for a variance to increase a two family dwelling to a three at 51 Washington Sq. N. Name House # & Street renter/Owner IZ7eekr2Ft55e �r a� ate, S o Ak s -t- PETITION A new amendment to the coning ordinance for R2 Districts requires " IT, any petition to tine Appeals Board for an increase over the 2 allowable units, be treated as a request for a variance. A variance carries strict legal standards which require a petitioner to prove a hardsni� in order to obtain it. We Ine undersigned believe that the Appeals Board should apply .his new amendment as the City Council meant it to be applied, and not allow any further increases in the allowable units in this district unless the above criteria is met. In the first instance ,this mould be applied to the request for a variance to increase a two family dwelling to a three at 51 Washington Sq. N. Name House # & Street, Renter/Owner (9V r i � ate- - PETITION A new amendment to the zoning ordinance for R2 Districts requires that any petition to the Appeals Board for an increase over the 2 allowable units, be treated as a request for a variance. A variance carries. strict legal standards which require a petitioner to prove a hardship in order to obtain it. We the undersigned believe that the Appeals Board should apply this new amendment as the City Council meant it to be applied, and not allow any further increases in the allowable units in this district unless the above criteria is met. In the first instance this should be applied to the request for a variance to increase a two family dwelling to a three at 51 Washington Sq. N. Name House # & Street Renter/Owner 21 0.32;CCt Lr,• P�ENUE TREE a 1"�� EP SPNT os _0---- � � 6 P 7 as z i/ oD Wt II F -------- ------ > 2E—A'NjNG t� 1 10 � � I F,cs G i GogoQO a U a 0.63 zsr o � o. N ' 96 vi N X53 ; VF S GG A ^ 5z,e s� MINUTES q/20/88 CONTINUED PAGE FIVE think you do, we .have to stop, you want to say anything else. Mr. McDonough: I think if we had known that there were a lot of other requirements , we would of come more prepared. Mr . Luzinski : I would sa} this , it is a congested area, to impact eight more units plus the water problems , I dont think it would be a very good project in that area. A single or two family house it would be a different story. In the future I would like to see the plans , at this point I would have to vote no on this particular plan. Mr . Nutting: As far as I 'm concerned Mr. Chairman, I feel its to dense in that area, thinking of children, the elderly, Mothers and fathers , increasing the density is certainly going to affect the quality of life. Some are not bringing the proper information to the Board and hope they might get a go ahead. Also, Mr. Chairman, they claim in their petition they could build 2 family houses , you seem to think it might not be necessarily so as it stands today. Mr. Fleming: I would disagree with their interpretation that lot is now one, under current zoning ordinance it would be one family home. Mr. Bencal: Made the motion to Grant the petition as filed without conditions . Mr. Luzinski seconded. Vote 0-5 , Mr. Gonyea your petition fails for lack of four ( 4 ) affirmative votes . DENIED 51-53 WASHINGTON SQ. NO. Mr. Nutting read the application of Arvinder S. Bahal requesting a Variance to convert a two family into a three family at 51-53 Washington Sq. No. Also a letter from the Fire Marshall who had no objection. Letters of opposition from Michael Pelletier, Councillor Harvey, and Jan Stirgwolt. Representing the petitioner, Philip Strome, 73 Washington St. , Salem, owner Arvinder S. Bahal, has signed an agreement to sell the property to a Mr. Ronald Fleming, no relation to the Board Member . The question raised by Councillor Harvey on parking, it is adequate from the plans submitted for about ten cars . That cant conceivably be a problem. So far as an absentee landlord is concerned, I agree with the councillor, there should be someone living in that house who owns it. Mr. R. Fleming has entered into an agreement with Mr. Bahal and he intends to live in the house. He has made arrangement with the Herita Corp. Bank to finance the purchase of the house and the repairs that are required to bring this house back to a livable condition. Its in deplorable condition now. The people who are involved with the present owner created an intollerable situation. Theres trash and all sort of garbage in an around the. premises and there going to be removed by Mr. R. Fleming, Mr. R. Fleming will tell you how he intends to convert t inside of the dwelling into a 3 family. For those of you who are familiar with the neighborhood were not talking essentially about average R-2 situation, all of us know I 've lived in Salem over 60 yrs , this area is essentially a multi family, there are very few one or two family structures in and around this particular dwelling. I can also tell you of my own information, and with a document I have here. The premises have been used as a three family structure since February 1983 . I know that to be a fact. Its been occupied as a three family for the past six years , I really believe. We dont come to you for the first time and do some repairs and stick another MINUTES 7/20/88 CONTINUED PAGE SIX another family in, that isn' t the situation there . Its been occupied by three families and the present owner and his predessor, a man named Small , who has become somewhat of a legend has created a situation which derogates from the entire appearance of the neighborhood. What we intend to do, Mr . Fleming (R) has taken an old structure where he now lives , and completely remodeled, and its a credit to the area. He has that dwelling for sale and as soon as tie gets legal permission he will move in to a 3 family structure. To buy the property and do the work it would be financially impossible unless he has the income from two other tenants . He has some indication as to how much income he can get from them and live there. What he intends to do doesn' t defect, in my opinion the zoning district especially due to the fact of theother multi family in the area. Were asking you a really moderate clarification of a non-conforming use, asking you . to confirm something thats been in existance for at least six years . If someone would come to and say there buying a multi family dwelling, I would say to them is it a 2 or 3 or 4 , and I would go to the Assessors and I would look. If you did that you would find that it is a 3 family dwelling. When you buy a house now you have to have smoke detectors , you go to the fire dept. , and they did it. They have the certificate indicating the Fire Dept. thought it was a 3 family . So what else is the buyer suppose to do, the buyer did what he was suppo_ to do. He looked at the premises and he found a 3 family, the assessorE found it was a 3 family. He went to the Fire Dept. , he did what any normal , reasonable person would do. Mr. Fleming: He could of also come to the building inspectors office. Mr. Strome: I agree with you, so acting reasonably, we have a right to rely on public records . Again parking will be no problem, there is a hardship, for those of you who are familiar with it. I 've known the area, that this house was originally 2 structures and they were joined together many years ago, either that was one structure and somebody tacked on to it. Two entrances , it was designed to be a multi family, somebody certainly before "83" made a three family out of it. Were not changing anything in what were doing. An effort to try to get around the hardship provision because this is a unique type of dwelling. If you have a unique type of dwelling that your trying to maintain, I think this Historical area around the common is as much historical as Chestnut St. , and were preserving it for that area. Despite what you hear to the contrary were not changing the structure at all, were preserving for that area this dwelling in the manner that it was originally intended to be. Financial hardship also exist here in this unique structure Were trying to improve that aspect of the neighborhood, which today is in deplorable conditions . The relief we ask you can be given, in my opinion, without a substantial detriment to the neighborhood. I think it will be to the public good. The R-2 situation as it exist here, it doesn ' t really exist in this particular area. I have a petition here signed by 10 abutters who are in favor of this, immediately adjacent. Mr. Fleming: Let the record reflect that Mr. Strome has submitted a petition signed by 10 people who are in favor, and also a map showing where they live in relationship to the locus . Mr. Luzinski: How is the house now divided, how many rooms in the whole house? Mr. R. Fleming: 6000 sq. ft. , 16 rooms . Mr. Fleming: > Would you please indicate for the record that you and I have never met or are related. , Mr. R. Fleming: We have never met and are not related. My name is Ronald Fleming I presently live at 4 Carpenter St. , Salem. When' I first. thought of changing residence I had the MINUTES 7/20/88 CONTINUED PAGE SEVEN idea that I wanted something with rental income.Found this house and found it very appealing. I loved the challenge of complete restoration and bring it back to what it should be. In the present state the back area needs to be restored. The gardens need to be restored, plenty of parking space. Structually the building seems to be very sound. The apartments are very commodious which calls for very good rent which will enable me to complete the restoration. And also be able to live there in one of the apartments . Ted Richard, 35 Pleasant St. , spoke in favor. The following spoke in opposition: Russell Slam, 9 Forrester St. ; Annie Harris , 28 Chestnut St. , Historic Salem, Inc . ; Joan Nestor, Salem Common Asso. and also an abutter ; David Pelletier, 31 Pleasant St. ; Debra Lubas , 1 Brooks Court; Jeffery Barrows , 2 Pickmen St . a letter in opposition. Rebuttal: M. Strome: I suggest to you that the people of Historic Salem are really interested in preserving the character of the City of Salem should support this petition, because the building in its present condition is a detriment and an eyesore to the community. Parking is no problem, theres more than enough. There can not possibly be any more traffic then there is now. There are three family there now and it cannot be increased in any manner. And as a matter of fact in the present situation, God knows who will become tenants , you might end up with 6 or 7 or even 8 cars . This is a fellow, and he comes to you and he says , I 'M going to buy this property and occupy it. Mr . Strout: Any changes made to the exterior as far as egress . Mr . R. Fleming: No, only changes replacing the gardens . Mr. Strout: Whats the situation with the egress , was that completed? Mr. R. Fleming: you must mean the back door, that was put on the second level . Thats all completed with a flight of stairs going out in the yard. Mr. Strout: In the event that the petition is granted, would you comply with all the building regulations as far as egresses are concerned. Mr. R. Fleming: The reason I 'm here tonight is I want a legal three, If I do buy it of course I will conform with all Fire laws and any other regulations . Mr. Strout: If you have to change the structure to comply, that could change the whole Petition around. Mr. R. Fleming: What I would do before the deal goes through is I would have it inspected to be sure that it did comply with the code. Mr. Nutting: Also concerned about egress , is unsightly, could that be contained inside the structure . Mr. R. Fleming: I don ' t see how it could be done. Mr. Luzinski : Does it conform with the Historic Commission? Mr. Fleming: I don' t think it does, I don' t think they got a Certificate of Appropriatness . Mr. Nutting: They are putting this Board in quite a bind here, wether the opposition is , do present and prior landlord have done to that property, gutting and building that staircase outside and uncovered. I almost wonder what we hear is coming from that. If there was any leeway for negotiations on changing that from Special Permit to Variance. There is a fine line there that the additional unit on that piece of property, with the inclusion of the parking might make for a finer peice of property. Maintain that facade and the grounds , I wonder if that staircase might be annoying the neighbors.It was a no vote for me. I went to look at the property, seeing it and trying to understand whats best for the community, its MINUTES .7/20/88 CONTINUED PAGE EIGHT a close vote, right now. And also, I 'm wondering, a Variance can certainly be tried in Court and our opinion here tonight, wether the hardship he has shown and its almost like were going to tax our legal dept. if they want this done properly. I don ' t think theres enough time tonight to put conditions and ask our City Solicitor to defend the Petition. I think both parties are asking the Board to take more time to handle this . Another question, is this transaction about the resale value as far as Mr. Bahal is concerned, has the price literally jumped up? Mr . Fleming: They have asked for a condition that if Mr. R. Fleming was to purchase this property as a three family, yes , the price goes up. Mr. Nutting: Also we don' t know if there is an agreement, we have not seen an agreement. Mr. Fleming: I take Mr. Strom' s word that there is a P&S agreement. Mr. Nutting: If the Petitioners are not granted for a third, would the property stay in that stage of dis-repair for a length of time where all aspect of the law and their rights are accounted for. Mr. Fleming: Its called a delima and we face that many many times . Mr. Luzinski : I 'm curious , is all the parking in affect now? Mr. Strome: Its all there. Mr. Luzinski : Who uses all the parking? I think what bothers me is the entrance or the exit on to Pleasant St. Was any consideratior given to egressing onto Pleasant St. Ave. ? Mr. Strome: We will if you think its important, if required we would be glad to do it. The space is there. Mr. Luzinski: If we are to grant this , I would like to see the parking changed, where they would not exit onto Pleasant St. They would have an opportunity to dress up that side with schrubery and might be more appealing to abutters and neighbors . Mr. Bencal: The parking i"m very concerned, the pulling out onto Pleasant St. , particularly in the winter its a very narrow street . Utilizing Pleasant St. Ave. would be taking traffic off of there . I would prefer to see six parking spaces . I would be opposed if the Parking would go out onto Pleasant St. Mr. Fleming: I heard the sense of your comment and ask the petitioner if he would like to continue this for a period of time , and to talk to the Common Neighborhood Asso.and the Historic Salem, and maybe some of these differences can be resolved. Mr. Strome: I have no problem with that. Mr. Fleming: I guarantee you a spot on August 10th, would you be agreeable to that? Mr. Strome: I accept. I request to continue this till August 10th and waiver the time rights . Mr. Bencal moved the request, Seconded by Mr. Luzinski . Unanimously voted to continue this Petition till August 10th, 1988 . CONTINUED - AUGUST 10 , 1988 Mr. Fleming called a ten minute recess . 29 BARNES ROAD - ROBERT OCCHIPINTI Mr. Nutting read the application on the Petition of Robert Occhipinti for a Variance and or Special Permit from setback requirements to allow construction of an above ground pool at 29 Barnes Rd. in this R-1 district. Mr. Occhipinti: Bassically when I came in March, it was worded wrong as to how it went in the paper and to how it was advertised. That night I was told that we would not be able to straightened out that night. And I was told to come back and straighten that part out, and �4,�:COYOA�� f t (I to of MIPm, IIsstltl�ufiPf#S � 3 1 PAurb o{ cAvvr 1 A���NIM6 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL AUGUST 10 , 1988 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday August 10 , 1988 at 7 : 00 P.M. , second floor, One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on July 27 , August 3 , 1988 . Abutters and otherinterested persons were notified by mail . Members Present: James M. Fleming, Chairman; Messrs . , Bencal, Luzinski; Nutting, and Strout. The meeting was called to order by Chairman, James Fleming. Motion to pospone the minutes of the June 15 1988 , because of a question on the Petition of 4 Allen St. Seconded by Mr. Strout. Motion carried. For the record Lorraine Devoe has done a fantastic and outstanding job in filling in for our regular clerk. I want the record to reflect that and I hope the citizens of Salem know the capabilities of our City Employees and the faithfulness and the respect for duty that is given by several employees , especially by Mrs . Devoe. I 'm tremendously impressed at this point in time the way she ' s filled the job. Mr. Nutting: I wonder if the Board of Appeal should send a letter stating those facts to her immediate superior for her records and also a copy to the mayor. I make the motion, Mr. Chairman. Seconded by Mr. Luzinski . Unanimously voted. Mr. Fleming: I will personally draft that letter. 51-53 WASHINGTON SQ. NO. - ARVINDER S. BAHAL Petitioner requests a Variance to convert a two family into a three family in this R-2 zone. This is a continued petition, application having already been read Mr. Nutting read additional correspondence from Mr. Russell Slam of 9 Forrester St. , in opposition. Mr. Strome: Presented new plans . At the conclusion of the last meeting, the members of the board suggested that it might be a good idea if I conferred with the members of the Historic Society and the members of the Common Association. I did, I made a date with a member of the Historic district, unfortunately it got loused up on a Saturday morning and she could not get into the office, it was aparently closed. But I did have a long talk with her on the phone, Nina Cohen. We had a long discussion and unfortunately her suggestion to me was that her group under any circumstances would do anything. They said that this is the law and there are no exceptions and there cannot be any change from a 2 to a 3 . I explained to her that these people were interested in taking an eyesore that exist down there, and making it into what Mr. R. Fleming is going to do with it. And I MINUTES 8/10/88 CONTINUED PAGE TWO would think that what they would be looking for. I then had a meeting with a group of people from Salem Common Asso. The short answer is what do you want us to do. That will help you have a house in there now, and after all the discussions , They said nothing doing Phil it cant be changed. Therefore I suggest to you I made a reasonable effort. Their position is that under no circumstances is this to be changed from a 2 to a 3 . Despite the fact that we know its used as a 3 , for 7 or 8 years . After the meeting with one of the people who spoke in opposition he made some sugestions about changes in parking. Putting 6 spaces . So what we have done is point out to you, we have four typical parking spaces near the building and we will put two or one or three on the other side, where it says proposed parking. We will do anything within reason to set the parking up that will please everybody. Theres room for 8 or 10 cars , but we will limit it to six. What we will do, the existing pavement will be removed, graded and planted. Soyou will have a lovely looking corner lot, instead of the eyesore that exist. Mr. Pelletier sugested to me that there are some unsightly parts of the building, the building, and asked if Mr. R. Fleming would change them. Right over the back door theres a little wooden piece, an unsightly looking thing and we will correct those. Mr. Pelletier seemed content with that sugestion and we will abide. What were going to do is enhance, not in anyway deteriorate the general area. If its left like it is, what you will have is a 2 family house thats been a three family for close to 10 years . You have a 2 family house that cant support, that can' t service the debt, because the income will not be there. Mr. R. Fleming will be a tenant, you can make it a condition that he or subsequent tenant in one of the apartments . The apartments are substantial in size. I request if there is ever an exception to the rule exist, this is the case. And I respectfully ask that their Petition be Granted. Mr. Fleming asked that comments be limited, because of what was heard at the last meeting, due to the heat of the night and the length of the agenda. Carole Gauthier, 16 Spring St. , spoke in favor. In opposition: Jan Stirgwolt, 17 Andrews St. , Salem, Also, Attorney Attaya, Danvers, representing David Pelletier, Mr. Pelletier looked at the parking plans , Mr. Fleming pointed out that the sugestions of Mr. Nutting were included in the plans , as per photograph. Mr. Pelletier would not oppose if everyone is in agreement and conditions adhered to. Continued in opposition: Joan Nestor 2 Forrester St. , Salem Common Asso. read a letter and presented 5 pages of signatures on a petition, 51 names all but one are owners . httorney Robert LeDuc, Councel for Historic Salem Inc. neither in favor or opposed, and would like opportunity to sit down with Mr. Fleming and discuss the proposal, so we can arrive at a l settlement. Rebuttal: Mr. Strome: Conditions that effect a hardship effecting the locus . are diverse. No one fact determines the question of what is a practical difficulty or unneccessary hardship. But all relevant MINUTES 8/10/88 CONTINUED PAGE THREE factors when taken together as in this case, indicate that the plight of these premises is unique and they can not be put to a reasonably conforming use. That why were here and according to the Supreme Court constitute a hardship. Mr. Fleming: Do you think first of all analyzing your clients needs that it will be beneficial for you to meet with Historic Salem Inc. as was sugested by Attorney LeDuc. Mr. Strome: I don' t think it would serve any purpose. I had a long conversation with Nina Cohen. Mr. Fleming: I like openess . You might gain an allie, would it be detrimental time wise with the Purchase and Sale Agreement to your client. Mr. Strome: The bank wants an answer time is runing out. Mr. Nutting: Is that property now enclosed or part of the Historic District. Mr. LeDuc: Jack, this is Historic Salem Inc. and not the Historic Commission. The property is not in the historic district. Mr. Nutting: The people Mr. LeDuc is representing is asking for another 2 weeks delay for discussion. They are not in favor or opposed but would like some input. Because of the time Mr. Leduc could of stated some of the considerations that they had, so that maybe at this meeting it could of been made part of the motion. Mr. Fleming: I take it as honest representation that they need that time and I don' t think we can make a judgement out of it. Mr. Leduc: Mr. Nutting and I are most intimately involved with the zoning amendment, as much as he was a city councillor and I was a member of the planning board, when this was passed. Mr. Fleming: Both parties have passed on it. Mr. LeDuc: The position of Historic Salem Inc. , was to oppose the petition. We have met and spoken on the phone a number of times and basically the position now is maybe we should sit down and discuss it. Mr. Luzinski: We are down to 6 parking spaces and exit on Pleasant St. Ave. side and your talking about greenary on the Pleasant St. side. Mr. Strome: 6 spaces and landscaping. Mr. Strout: I still have a problem with the hardship and maybe, Mr. Strome you can explain to me once again. Mr. Strome: It includes financial hardship too. This building as it exist now, perfect hardship case, cannot support itself . The Court supports what a hardship is,and we would not ask for anything unreasonable that would be detrimental to the district. The new use would not increase what its presently used for. Its presently used for a 3 family. Mr. Fleming: One of the terms that I 've thought of as one of hardship is , you have an existing building you take the buildings and land as it is . Financial is one of them but its not the only reason. This building contains 6000 sq. ft. of living space. Now to me 2 units having aproximately 3000 sq. ft. apiece. Are living units beyond the capabilities of market of anybody today to either buy or maintain. Todays living does not go to 3000 sq. ft. of living space, very big units. Mr. Luzinski: This is in a Historic District, " This shall be known as Washington Sq. District, all the land around Salem Common, Monument Sq. , North to Winter St. , and all the land and buildings" . Mr. Strome: They were given the choice of being included, they are not, they are excluded, there is no record. Mr. Fleming: Its not included in the absolute listing from the Building Inspectors, only exclusion 45 Washington Sq. No. - 46 Washington Sq. South. That list was developed by the Historic Commission? Mr. Santry: Thats the list the Building Department goes by. Mr. Fleming: The generic MINUTES 8/10/88 CONTINUED PAGE FOUR discription of Mr. Luzinski seems to include it, the current listing of the building inspectors office indicate that its not in the Historic District. The issue is relative to our discussion but not decisive of it. Mr. Bencal Made the motion to Grant the Petition with the following conditions: that the petitioner provide six off street parking spaces which conform to the requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, as per the amended parking plan submitted to the Board of Appeal. That the property is to remain owner occupied at all times . If the property is not owner occupied the Variance is null and void. That all renovations of the property is to be done under the terms of a building permit to be issued by the Building Inspector and be in conformity with all city and state building codes . That egress from the parking area on the property be onto Pleasant Street Avenue only. That appropriate landscaping be placed on all sides of the locus. That all exterior doorways be in harmony with the historical nature of the existing neighborhood. That no exterior additions be added to the property without Board of Appeal approval. That all the requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to Fire Safety, be adhered to. That all unnecessary pavement on the locus be removed and that area be landscaped appropriately. That all present unsightly areas , including the area over the back door, be rehabilitated. And that the petitioner agrees not to seek any increase in density at the locus . Seconded by Mr. Luzinski . Mr. Fleming: Before we vote, do you or your client feel coerced on that last condition? Mr. Strome: My client feels he has been treated faily and does agree not to increase density. Voted 4-1, Mr. Nutting voting in the negative. Motion passed, Variance Granted. GRANTED 130 NORTH STREET - NINA BUBA Petitioner is 'requesting a Variance from rear set back requirements to allow construction of an addition in this B-1 zone. Mr. Nutting read the application, and also a letter from the Fire 'Marshall who had no objection. Letter from Councillor Sarah M. Hayes of Ward 6, in favor. Petitioner, owner Mrs. Buba, representing herself wants to make an addition to her hallway in the back to put her washer and dryer upstairs. It is presently down the cellar and she can't climb the stairs because of bersites. Relocate the back door only on first story. Her son showed where it would be located out back, a 6x7 extention. Mr. Fleming: I did rent some property from Mrs . Buba in 1981, and if thats a problem I will excuse myself on this petition. No problem was voiced and Mr. Fleming will vote on this petition. Tracy Baker, 13 Upham St. , spoke in favor, and no one spoke in opposition. Mr. Luzinski: Whats the footing foundation? Mrs. Buba: A contractor is taking care of that. Mr. Bencal made the motion to grant the petition, with the following conditions : That all construction be as , 25 Andrew St'j* Salem, MA 01970 r July 13 , 1988 REU"I„-`' �„>,rC CITY OF sAi. Board of Appeals City of Salem Salem, Massachusetts Gentlemen : Although a previous committment prevents me from attending your meeting on July 20 , 1988 , I wish to be recorded in opposition to the petition of Arvinder Babal for a variance to convert 51-53 Washington Square into a three unit dwelling in an R-2 zone . First of all , to speak to the specifics of this petition , the structure in question has been a two-family since a't least 1969 when I and my wife looked at the property with an eye towards buying it . The original single family home had been converted to a duplex many years before 1969 by building an addition onto the left side of the house which contained the additional front entrance now numbered 51 Washington Square N. Although the resulting two front entrances are numbered seperately, the building was and remains a single structure containing two dwelling units . This is in keeping with the R-2 zoning of the property and the surrounding neighborhood . Any attempts to add a third dwelling unit are at odds with the intent of the zoning ordinance . Furthermore , in my opinion , Mr . Sabal can not show the legal definition of hardship needed for a variance . Once again , a petitioner comes before the Board of Appeals armed only with a desire to maximize his profit . Instead , I ask the Board to uphold the principle of rational planning that lies behind the zoning ordinance by once more helping preserve the R-2 character of our neighborhood . I ask the Board to hold the line against increasing density in the area by denying this petition for a variance . Sincerely yours , Michael E. Pelletier 11 Aar,l� I R; ;P':A S James Fleming, Chrmn August 6, X988 r' Salem Board of Appeals City Hall t� G r 9 0911 ;ill Salem, MA 01970 RcC�I„€ f7 Re.: Variance for 51 Washington Sq. CITY 0 SAI.b:MIHAI„ s. Dear Mr. Fleming, I would like to be put onrecord as opposing the petition for a variance for 51 Washington Sq. Before the new amendment to the zoning ordinance for R2 Districts was passed, this petition should properly have received your close attention and consideration, and you may have looked upon the petition favorably. With the adoption of the new amendment the situation has P , materially changed. While there may have been a basis for the granting of a special permit on this property, due to the hardship criteria necessary for the granting of a variance, there is no basis for the granting of a variance on this property. The people of Salem through their elected representatives on the City Council have made a clear statement as to how they feel about increasing the density in R2 districts. The Board of Appeals should abide by the wishes of the citizens of this City and refuse this petition. Ospect Slamrs,sell 9 Forrester St. Salem f 7 a/ 97o A'mjL D I . .'i.4'`i ao /9�F ��Laa 3 F RE CITY OF SALER�,P,C,SS. L Cox of �$F1jelll, r` tI55IC iI5Ct 5' Offirr of the (9itg ((iounril CHU fall 41A H J 6='U t 11 o 3�Mo,y�q QA*� ' WARD COU NCILLORS LEONARD F.O'LEARY '�'�-�I�'�' COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT C I 1 Y Q1 i` �IAE L.C�'Tia HA J• GEORGE A.A.NOWAK 198] JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R.HARVEY ROBERT E.GAUTHIER CITU CLERK VINCENT J.FURFARO FRANCES J.GRACE LEONARD F.O'LEARV NEIL J.HARRINGTON RICHARD E.SWINIUCH July 20, 1988 JEAN-GUY J.MARTINEAU GEORGE P.McCABE JOHN R.NUTTING Mr. James Fleming, Chairman Board of Appeals City of Salem Salem, Ma 01970 Dear Chairman Fleming: I am writing to you regarding the petition of Mr. Babal for a. variance at 51-53 Washington. Square North. As you are aware the Common area of my district suffers greatly from two very severe problems; one being the lack of off-street parking, and the other being the ownership of .property by absentee landlords. If the Board' s decision is that the petitioner is .suffering from a hardship, I would like to go on record as. requiring that ad- equate parking and owner-occupancy be conditions on .the' granting of such a. variance. Your consideration on this matter will be appreciated. Sincerely KEVIN R. HARVEY, WARD 2 COUNCILLOR H/f Plastilam 14 PROCTOR STREET P.O BOX 2057 SALEM, MA 01970 (617) 745-5563 July 20, 1988 To the Salem Board of Appeals. As a property owner and resident in the immediate vicinity of 51-53 Washington Square, I am firmly opposed to any increase in the number of legal residential units at that address. The area is already much too densely populated and the granting of a variance would just add the parking and traffic congestion. Jeffrey Barrows 2 Pickman St. Salem, MA 01970 741-0595 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN WE , THE UNDERSIGNED , ARE ABUTTERS OF OR RESIDENTS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 51- 53 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH . WE UNDERSTAND THE PRO— PERTY HAS BEEN UTILIZED AS A THREE FAMILY FOR AT LEAST THE PAST FIVE YEARS AND DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING AND THE AVAILABILITY OF 10 PARKING SPACES, WE SEE NO REASON THAT THE PROPERTY CAN— NOT BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FROM ZONING REQUIREMENTS AND BEDEEMED/SAA LEGAL THREE FAMILY . FREDERICK RICHARD 35 PLEASANT ST EE T-61 e G i� Al r" �cI OlT. O O / / o aq lb D cti r C N, / o C jO 10 N 3s� 0 C, t C1Lp r. th ol o 0 O a ♦,.♦ e , ✓� ,,, S Q e� v ♦� {j . . �� .b Salem Common Neighborhood Association P.O. Box 8608 Salem, Massachusetts 01971-8608 sd�em Com°goo August 3 , 1988 COPY Mr . Phillip Strome Attorney—at—Law 73 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Mr . Strome : Thank you for taking the time and meeting with some of the members of the Salem Common Neighborhood Association concerning the property located at 51-53 Washington Square . As you are now fully aware , the association is opposed to the petition to convert the property from its current two—family designation to a three—family . This objection is not related to the proposed purchaser of the property in any sense ; but rather to the interpretation of the existing zoning laws used for the petition. We are willing to allow the petition to meet its fate with the Board of Appeals , with our stated opposition . Should the petition , however , be approved by the Board of Appeals , we believe that the Board ' s decision would not have any legal foundation on which to rest. As a result , we would certainly review, and strongly consider , any and all legal options available to us . Please be assured that our expostulation is not meant to be personal in nature . Clearly , there are many positions to be taken in this argument , and we are merely taking ours . Once again, thank you for taking the time and meeting with us on this matter of mutual interest and importance . Sincerely, Joan Nestor PRESIDENT Cr— )toNgl v FCLe-Al IAI 4 cgRFeNrcJr s> 51 �5 PETITION A new amendment to the ,zoning ordinance for R2 Districts requires that any petition to the Appeals Board for an increase over the 2 allowable units, be treated as a request for a.variance. A variance carries strict legal standards which require a petitioner to prove a hardship in order to obtain it. We the undersigned believe that the Appeals Board should apply this new amendment as the City Council meant it to be applied, and not allow any further increases in the allowable units in this district unless the above criteria is met. In the first instance this should be applied to the request for a variance to increase a two family dwelling to a three at 51 Washington Sq. N. �Name House # & Street Renter/Owner 17J17a J/ 3 . TO UX� 41 I F-f C O(FYIQ/� S I _ S a'/jOf-'A PETITION A new amendment to the zoning ordinance for R2 Districts requires that any petition to the Appeals Board for an increase over the 2 allowable units, be treated as a request for a variance, A variance carries strict legal standards which require a petitioner to prove a hardship in order to obtain it. We the undersigned believe that the Appeals Board should apply this new amendment as the City Council meant it to be applied, and not allow any further increases in the allowable units in this district unless the above criteria is met. In the first instance this should be applied to the request for a variance to increase a two family dwelling to a three at 51 Washington Sq. N. Name House # & Street Renter/Owner �7 Q 7 wcUiL— Awl `1�Ls 5 r C, LO IS - r �� PETITION A new amendment to the zoning ordinance for R2 Districts requires that any petition to the Appeals Board for an increase over the 2 allowable units, be treated as a request for a variance. A variance carries strict legal standards which require a petitioner to prove a hardship in order to obtain it. We the undersigned believe that the Appeals Board should apply this new amendment as the City Council meant it to be applied, and not allow any further increases in the allowable units in this district unless the above criteria is met. In the first instance this should be applied to the request for a variance to increase a two family dwelling to a three at 51 Washington Sq. N. Name House # & Street Renter/Owner 6951k Emu 5t. ^ u t• I � II i PETITION A new amendment to the zoning ordinance for R2 Districts requires that any petition to the Appeals Board for an increase over the 2 allowable units, be treated as a request for a variance. A variance carries strict legal standards which require a petitioner to prove a hardship in order to obtain it. We the undersigned believe that the Appeals Board should apply this new amendment as the City Council meant it to be applied, and not allow any further increases in the allowable units in this district unless the above criteria is met. In the first instance this should be applied to the request for a variance to increase a two family dwelling to a three at 51 Washington Sq. N. Name House * & Street Renter/Owner G T l PETITION A new amendment to the zoning ordinance for R2 Districts requires that any petition to the Appeals Board for an increase over the 2 allowable units, be treated as a request for a variance. A variance carries strict legal standards which require a petitioner to prove a hardship in order to obtain it. We the undersigned believe that the Appeals Board should apply this new amendment as the City Council meant it to be applied, and not allow any further increases in the allowable units in this district unless the above criteria is met. In the first instance this should be applied to the request for a variance to increase a two family dwelling to a three at 51 Washington Sq. N. Name House # & Street Renter/Owner , n ci970 C Vr`C��L(tie .�/ n ��✓ ���--U"ucc-tee, ���e " / /{L �/J ayr��""ta (fity of Safent, r` assaC4u' seft5 + Offirr of thr (9itg (Council 0;V all l: WARD COUNCILLORS LEONARD F.O'LEARY V iii 987 COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT ""-""" ""` GEO RGEA NOWAK 1987 JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R.HARVEY ROBERT E.GAUTHIER CITY CLERK VINCENT J.FURFARO ' FRANCES J.GRACE LEONARD F.O'LEARY NEIL J.HARRINGTON - RICHARDE.SWINIUCH July 20,. 1988 JEAN-GUY GEORGE J.MARTEAU GEORGE P.MtCABE JOHN R.NUTTING Mr. James Fleming, Chairman Board of Appeals City of Salem Salem, Ma 01970 Dear Chairman Fleming: I am writing to you regarding the petition of Mr. Babal for a variance at 51-53 Washington Square North. As you are aware the Common area of my district suffers greatly from two very severe problems; one being the lack of off-street parking, and the other being the ownership of property by absentee landlords. If the Board' s decision is that the petitioner is .suffering from a hardship, I would like to go on record as requiring that ad- equate parking and owner-occupancy be conditions on the granting of such a variance. Your consideration on this matter will be appreciated. Sincerely, KEVIIN R. HAVY, WARD 2 COUNCILLOR H/f ��.co�niitb i Lfity of `;aleill' "41L155NrtIIIsett5 '%c��„q' ire ,depart mz of �'�r:c�qus rtrrs 18 �uz£nuette s,trect -ia1PIn, Aia. 01970 Joseph F. Sullivan - Chicl City of Salem Re: 51-53 Washington Square Board of Appeal Arvinder S. Bahal One Salem Green Hearing date: ,July 20, 1988 The property located at a51-53 Washington Square has current compliance with the provisions of Chapter 148, Section 26E, Massachusetts General Laws relative to the installation of automatic smoke detectors. The Salem Fire Department has no objection to the granting of a Variance to convert a two family to a three family at this location subject to the following conditions: 1. Plans for the proposed construction are presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for .approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. The proposed construction shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Massachusetts State Building Code, 527 Code of Massachusetts Regulations, the Salem Fire Prevention Code, the Salem City Ordinances, and Massachusetts General Laws relative to fire safety. 3. The applicant shall arrange for an inspection by the Fire Prevention Bureau upon completion of the work. Signed, Robert W. Turner, Fire Marshal Plastilam 14 PROCTOR STREET P.0 BOX 2057 SALEM, MA 01970 (617) 745-5563 July 20, 1988 T.. the Salem Board of Appeals. As a property owner and resident in the immediate vicinity of 51-53 Washington Square, 1 am firmly opposed to any increase in the number of legal residential units at that address. The area is already much too densely populated and the granting of a variance would .lust add the parking and traffic congestion. I am, Jeffrey Barrows 2 Rickman St. Salem, MA 01970 741-0595 • NUE ASE EET 5-fp SEA ��•°8 ti LONG• � � � v ANGF — p IRLONE NOTE: PROPOSED PARKING TO 5E I I ��G I PARKING PAVED WITH SUITABI E MAT ERIAL. � ?�AUr4 , AREAS OUTSIDE PROPOSED PARKING I TO HAVE EXISTING PAVEMENT P,EMOVED AND $EGRADED ARD M-ANTED I I I r,cs I /\ 4) I -��Co e APV I 1q.q %�'\\\ CO v J /-- I I �? _ o 0.63' C J p. a 6 A& J o. cq� �Q s 17 1� P. � s� sI 'Z. 0 s� z3 Nop ��q PRE -SON 5U I CERTIFY THAT THE PROPERTY LINES PLAN AND DEED ATLANTIC ENGINEERING 11 SURVEY SHOWN ARE THE LINES DIVIDING EXISTING REFERENCES RECORDED . et' , CONSULTANTS INC. OWNERSHIPS, AND THE LINES OF STREETS S. E.ssEX REGISTRY. / In AND WAYS SHOWN ARE THOSE OF PUBLIC / 1 E. MAIN ST GEORGETOWN, MASS. PLAN OF LAND AND PRIVATE STREETS ALREADY ESTAB• PL 187 of 1959 LISHED, AND THAT NO NEW LINES FOR IN - DIVISION OF EXISTING OWNERSHIPS OR I CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE R FOR NEW WAYS ARE SHOWN . RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REGISTERS OF DEEDS. SA L Eli , (MASS. H Of F 0 R °F� DATE -u�V6 96 ► \y 51-53 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH CONDOMINIUM J No. d 725 REGISTERED LA-ND-"SURVEYOR.- . 31723 SUR 4, C 'PES 9yQ S>U94 1O I o zoSCALE : I" = 1 OL DATE : TUN � 2 19 88 scale feet REV 8/10/60