CAROL WAY & WEATHERLY DRIVE - ZBA CAROL WAY S WEATHERLY DRIVE
i
v �
4
k Legal Notice
CITY OF SALEM
BOARD OF APPEAL
745-9595 EXT.391
Will hold a public hearing for all
persons interested in the petition
submitted by VINNIN-SQUARE,LLC
requesting a Variance from maxi-
mum height of buildings(feet),maxi-
mum height of buildings(stories),two
principal buildings on a lot,maximum
height of fence/boundary walls,mini-
mum lot area per dwelling unit,mini-
mum lot area per dwelling unit,mini-
mum dimensions of parking stall
width(square feet),maximum width of
entrance and exit drives, setback to
parking areas and Special Permits for
parking on adjacent lot(w/i 400 it)and
new condominiums for the property
located at CAROL WAY &WEATH-
ERLY DRIVE. (R-3). Said hearing to
.be held WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER
117, 1997 AT 6:30 P.M.,ONE SALEM
GREEN,2nd floor.
Gary Barrett,Chairman
(12/3,12/10/97)
PEARL, MCNIFF, CREAN, COOK & SHEEHAN ��, l'� i's-
ATTORNEYS
sATTORNEYS AT LAW
30 MAIN STREET
SAMUEL PEARL PEABODY, MASSACHUSETTS 01960-5597 AUDREY S. GORDON'
11907-19951 SUSAN NEEL MORRISON'
JOHN M. CREAN PEABODY (508) 531-1710
OLIVER T. COOK BOSTON (617) 289-3456 OF COUNSEL
WILLIAM M. SHEEHAN I11, PC FAX (508) 531-4895
JOHN A. MCNIFF
ARTHUR J. FRAWLEY,JR.
THOMAS G REGAN, PC
MICHAEL T. SMERCZYNSKI. PC eLso ADMITTED TO aogloA enn
January 15 , 1998
Salem City Clerk
Citi ria 11
93 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
De : Timothy J. Davern, et al vs . Gary M. Barrett, et al
"ivil Action No. 40
J%
Dear Sir or Madam:
Pursuant to G.L. c . 40A, §17, notice is hereby given of tiio Ja
abovesaid action. A copy of the complaint is attached to this
Very truly youxs,
wlhvar6 H n III
c l:nc�hy J. Davern, Esquire
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Essex, ss . Superior Court Department
Civil Action No. 0 ) n
TIMOTHY J. DAVERN, PATRICIA V. )
DAVERN, GARDNER L. GOULD, )
SHIRLEY H. GOULD, LYNNE F. SALTZ, )
EDWARD R. BUTLER, JR. , CYNTHIA )
BUTLER, MARGARET T. REILEY, CARL )
L. HOOKER, SALLY ANN HOOKER, )
HERBERT ZIMMERMAN, ROBERT KIRBY, )
LEON McDOWELL AND CATHERINE M. )
McDOWELL, STEPHEN W. BLOOM, )
ROBERT T. JOHNSON, SHIRLEY W. )
JOHNSON, WILLIAM F. COLLINS, JR. , )
JOAN COLLINS, BERTRA SHANE, )
WAYNE C. JONES, CORAL C. JONES, )
JAMES TIGHE AND GAIL TIGHE, )
PLAINTIFFS )
VS . )
GARY M. BARRETT, NINA V. COHEN, )
RICHARD E. DIONNE, ALBERT C. )
HILL, ARTHUR LABRECQUE, PAUL )
VALASKATGIS, AND JOSEPH J. YWUC, )
• AS THEY ARE ALL MEMBERS AND )
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS OF THE SALEM )
BOARD OF APPEAL, AND VINNIN )
SQUARE, LLC, )
DEFENDANTS )
PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
The plaintiffs are the owners of, and reside at , the
addresses as follows : Timothy J. Davern and Patricia V. Davern,
29 Weatherly Drive , Salem, MA; Gardner L . Gould and Shirley H .
Gould, 13 Weatherly Drive, Salem, MA; Lynne F . Saltz , 16
Weatherly Drive, Salem, MA; Edward R. Butler, Jr. and Cynthia
Butler, 50 Weatherly Drive, Salem, MA; Margaret T . Reiley, 3
Weatherly Drive , Salem, NIA; Carl . L . Hooker and Sally Ann Hooker,
34-5 America Way, Salem, MA; Herbert Zimmerman, 56 Weatherly
Drive , Salem, MA; Robert Kirby, 58 Weatherly Drive, Salem, MA;
Leon McDowell and Catherine M. McDowell, 52 Weatherly Drive,
Salem, MA; Stephen W. Bloom, 24 America Way, Salem, MA; Robert T.
Johnson and Shirley W. Johnson, 38 Weatherly Drive, Salem, MA;
William F . Collins, Jr. and Joan Collins, 20-2 America Way,
Salem, MA; Bertra Shane, 5 Weatherly Drive, Salem, MA; Wayne C.
Jones and Coral C. Jones, 15 Weatherly Drive, Salem, MA; and
James Tighe and Gail Tighe, 1 Weatherly Drive, Salem, MA.
2 . The defendants, members and associate members of the
Salem Board of Appeal, reside as follows : Gary M. Barrett, 7
Patton Road, Salem,, MA; Nina V. Cohen, 22 Chestnut Street, Salem,
MA; Richard E . Dionne, 23 Gardner Street, Salem, MA; Albert C.
Hill , 4 Larkin Lane, Salem, MA; Arthur Labrecque, 11 Hazel
Street , Salem, MA; Paul Valaskatgis, 24 Gables Court, Salem, MA;
ar:d ,7oseph J . Ywuc, 86 Ord Street , Salem, MA.
The defendant Vinnin Square , LLC has a usual place of
i:s at Zero Weatherly Drive, Salem, Massachusetts .
The defendant Vinnin Square LLC is the owner of real
Carol Way and Weatherly Drive , Salem, Massachusetts .
i _ nc to said defendant in its petition for variance and
permit , said real estate "represent (s) the remaining land
.ocment in the residential complex known as the Village
Square . " The Village at Vinnin Square will be
c- referred to as "the Village . " The real estate
-,=d above will be hereafter referred to as the "subject
The subject parcel constitutes what will be Phase IV of
the Village, a residential condominium development .
5 . The plaintiffs, homes are within Phase III of the
Village, which phase abuts the subject parcel . Phase III and the
subject parcel are within zoning district R3 , Residential Multi-
Family. The plaintiffs are parties aggrieved within the meaning
of G.L. c . 40A.
6 . This action is an appeal from a decision dated December
17 , 1997, of the Salem Board of Appeal (1) granting defendant
Vinnin Square, LLC variances from: the maximum height
requirement in feet and stories; the requirement of one principal
building on one lot; the maximum height of fences and/or boundary
walls; the minimum lot area per dwelling unit; the minimum widths
of parking stalls in underground garages; the maximum widths of
entrance and exist drives; and the front setback requirements for
parking areas; and (2) granting special permits to allow parking
on adjacent lot for two lots in the subject parcel and to allow
new condominiums . That decision will allow the defendant Vinnin
Square, LLC to construct 178 units on the subject parcel located
in three towers , two of which will be five stories high and one
of which will be six stories high. jA certified copy of that
decision of the Salem Board of Appeal is attached hereto and
marked "A. "
7 . A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would not
involve a substantial hardship to the defendant Vinnin Square,
LLC .
8 . There are no circumstances relating to the soil
conditions , shape or topography of the subject parcel and
especially affecting said parcel but not affecting generally the
zoning district in which the subject parcel is located which
warrant the grant of variances to permit construction of 178
units in three towers .
9 . The defendant Vinnin Square, LLC is able to develop
Phase IV of the Village without any variance from the zoning
ordinance , albeit resulting in fewer units .
10 . Any hardship allegedly suffered by the defendant Vinnin
Square , LLC is of its own making and cannot support lawfully the
grant of the variances by the Salem Board of Appeal .
11 . The relief granted by the variances issued by the Salem
Board of Appeal may not be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good and without nullifying or substantially
derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance .
12 . The defendant Vinnin Square, LLC presented to the Salem
-,d of Appeal insufficient evidence to warrant the issuance of
;noes for the subject parcel .
13 . The Salem Board of Appeal failed to make the necessary
it findings to support the issuance of variances for the
-CL parcel .
16 . The decision of the Salem Board of Appeal granting the
ar:ce exceeds the authority of said Board and is contrary to
- 7 . The .decision of the Salem Board of Appeal granting
, , permits exceeds said Board' s authority in that the
-„sed development by defendant Vinnin Square, LLC is not in
;pony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance , is
not in harmony with the neighborhood and the other phases of the
Village, and is in direct contradiction to the other phases of
integrity and compatibility,
the Village as to architectural g
design concept, the ambiance and character of the Village, and
the beauty and charm of the Village.
18 . The decision of the Salem Board of Appeal granting the
special permits exceeds the said Board' s authority in that the
proposed development by the defendant Vinnin Square, LLC will not
promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the
city' s inhabitants; rather, the proposed development will result
in excess traffic congestion on roadways not designed and built
to handle the increased traffic flow and increased hazards to the
safety of motor vehicle operators and pedestrians as a result of
said increased traffic .
19 . The defendant Vinnin Square, LLC presented to the Salem
Board of Appeal insufficient evidence to warrant the issuance of
special permits for the subject parcel .
20 . The Salem Board of Appeal failed to make the necessary
factual findings to support the issuance of special permits for
the subject parcel .
21 . The decision of the Salem Board of Appeal is a mere
recitation of the statutory and ordinance standards and is
deficient as a matter of law.
Wherefore the plaintiffs pray as follows :
1 . That the decision of the Salem Board of Appeal granting
variances for the subject parcel be annulled;
2 . That the decision of the Salem Board of Appeal granting
special permits for the subject parcel
be -annul l ed:
3 . For legal fees and costs incurred by the plaintiffs ; and
4 . For such other relief as this Honorable Court deems meet
and just .
Respectfully submitted,
Timothy J. Davern, et als,
plaintiffs
By their Attorney,
Willi She h n I I
BBO # 457060 Cook &
Pearl, McNiff, Crean,
Sheehan
30 Main Street
Peabody, MA 01960
Telephone : (978) 531-1710
Da-,ed : January 15 , 1998
ux: ,
of DEC 31 2 54 'Sf
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF VINNIN SQUARE LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCES AND
SPECIAL PERMITS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT CAROL WAY & WEATHERLY DRIVE R-3
A hearing on this petition was held December 17,1997 with the following
Board Members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill,
sent to
Richard Dionne and Paul Valaskagis. Notice of the hearing wasublished in
shutters and Evening
Newsdin accordanctices of e withaMassachusewere ttsperly General Laws
the Salem Evening
Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, is requesting Variances from maximum height of building, two
principal buildings on a lot, maximum height of fence/boundary
walls,minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot area per dwelling
unit, minimum dimensions of parking stall width, maximum width of entrance
and exit drives, setback to parking area & Special Permits located for
Carol parking
on&
adjacent lot and new condominiums for the property
Weatherly Drive.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which
his aplicable atofthis
request for a Special Permit is section 5-3(j ) , provides
Not anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the
Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set
forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and
reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement,
extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion
shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming
use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit
ranted
requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be g
upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will
c health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City' s
promote the publi
inhabitants .
"he Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of
the Board that:
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. ,
IN
LC
G A
CE
DECISION�OFTHEVTT FORTTHE PROPERTYNLOCA�EDRATLCAROL�WAY T&NWEATHERLYNDRIVE
page two
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 tfrom ethe
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating
the purpose of the Ordinance.
intent of the district or
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence present
ed
and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Petitioner was represented by Attorney Joseph Correnti of Serifini,
Serifini & Darling, 63 Federal Street, Salem.variances
anspecial Permits
2. The requested relif(consists
of severaconstructionofTheaVillage at Vinnin
for the final phase
Square, a residential development.
3 . The Village project commenced in the 1980' s and the developers, the
Zieff family, has been involved with the project since 1983.
: . e entire Village project, including Phase IV, consists of over
The
and will leave 516 residential units when completed. The
original plans for the entire project at its inception, called for
approximately 550 units.
i . Phase IV of the Village project will
consisting ten of 178 residential units
and parking over three (3) and
lots 6 . The three lots of ae andIV aconsisre tseafnlarge areassize and hofeledgetandlrock
has peculiar topography
outcropping and large areas of wetlands. and and has
7 . The property on which the Village sits also has a large p
large differences in land variations.
8. The developers concerned public discussions
ro ectthn March 1997 at an
construction of Phase IV of the Village p J lan review
Open House, and the official Planning Board process of site p
began in April 1997 .
9 . hasse delellPeandaIII of the sVillage met over several tes of the Condominium Amonths ttondiscuss
the plans for Phase IV, and an agreement was reached between the
developer and the Trustees of Phase I, II, and III of the Village
with respect to the plan and petition submitted to the Board.
IC The„ontygr f�negotiationsLil Ithe plansnandhpetitionpas submittedd te devloer as the etolthef
Board incorporated amendments suggested by the ic ow,Truimprovements
provees mentseof
residents of the Village relating to traffotherothings.
recreational facilities and parking among of
ii . .Attorney George W. Atkins of Salrepresenting
in favor oftthe
petitionsand plans
1 , 11 , and II of the Village spoke
as submitted as it incorporated matters Which were the subject of
negotiations .
The Trustees of Phase I and II of the Village unanimously endorsed the
petition and plans, and four of five trustees of Phase IV of the
":nage approved of the plan and petition.
AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR =mUE nvnoRRTY LOCATED AT CAROL WAY AND WEATHERLY
' .... .
DRIVE
pGE',e
13. Several homeowners at the Village spoke in favor of the petition.
14. August Miller, 70 Weatherly Drive, Chairman of the Trustees'
negotiating team, spoke in favor of the plan citing signiic flow,ficant changes
made to the plans to address concernsPmboutTests fperformed tby the
he ber of
buildings proposed anentrant r- pressure and sewage war
developer to address concerns about water p =
also mentioned. ,
15. The original plans for Phase IV of the Village called
for four (4
buildings which was reduced to three the pla s su space
16. The proposed plan has allowed for approximately
calculations over the effected three lots. spoke in
17. Several homeowners and a Trustee if Phase
IV
Vcof the Village for traffic
opposition to the plans and p
flow, property value, architectural design, sidewalk accessibility
and other matters. project must still undergo site
18. The proposed Phase IV of the Village pro j
plan review before the Planning Board, and Beth Debski, Assistant
ad
Citv Planner, stated that traffic flow concerns, utility pr
and appoval by
architectural design issues were subject to review
the Planning Board. plans will consist of a landscaped parking
19 . Lot D2 as reflected on the
lot with 25 spaces being exclusively dedicated to a nursing
nhoforon
abutting property and 38 spaces will be attributed to p
arkibuilding sited on Lot A of the plans.erty, outcropping,topography of
20. Due to the existing ledge on the prop
the land, existing pond and large wetlands, combined with the large
differences in land elevations between the lots and odd shapes, the
siting of buildings for Phase IV of nsel for thehdeveloper ghat theye Village rOct iswouldraccept
counsel 21 . It was represented by requested relief that developer will use access
as a condition of the
to Loring Tower Road for a means of exit from the two buildings locate
on Lot B of the plans.
Phase I-III of the Village are
22. The height of the 6-plex existing in
above ground, and the height of the existing mid-
approximately 40 feet
rise in Phases I-III are approximately 66 feet above 56 feet above
23 . The proposed building on Lot B will be approximately
ground.
24 . The proposed construction of Phase IV of the Village will complete
construction of the project.
25 . Because of the topography of the land, ara in ofdthe tland, somewalls
developer to work with the natural topog p Y
on the property may exceed six feet.
26 . The petitioner requested he following relief from the Zoning
Ordinance;
imum height of building in feet with respect to
A. Variance from max
lots A and B. ect
B, Variance from maximum height of building in stories with resp
to lot B.
r. Variance for two principal building on one lot with respect to
lot B.
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF VINNIN SQUARE, LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE
t cPRrTd•r DEPuTT FnP THE DPnDEPTv LOC',,, m ,, P WEATHERLY DRIVE
•- L Aa GAriUL Wna Ot
page four
D. Variance from maximum height of fences and/or boundary walls for lots
A and B.
E. Variance from minimum lot area per dwelling units for lots A & B.
F. Variance from minimum widths of parking stalls in underground garages
for lots A & B.
G. Variance from maximum widths of entrance and exit drives for lot A & B.
H. Variance from 2 front setback requirement for parking areas.
I . Special Permit to allow parking on adjacent lot with respect to lots
A and D2.
J. Special Permit to allow new condominiums.
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 exist which especially affect the subject
property and not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship on the petitioner.
3. The relief requested 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.
4. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the
neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety,,, convenience
and welfare of the city's inhabitants.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal unanimously, 5-0 to grant the relief
requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, codes
ordinances and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions
submitted and approved by the Zoning Officer.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
5 . A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained.
6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the
existing structure.
7 . Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem
Assessors office and shall display said number so as to be visible from
the street.
A !�� COP; TEST
CITY CLER
SALEM. MASS.
DE6I6IUN Ui 111E PtliliUN Uk VINNIN SQUARE, LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE &
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT CAROL WAY & WEATHERLY DRIVE.
page five
8. Petition is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission have
jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board for Site
Plan Review and the Conservation Commission.
Variance & Special Permit Granted
December 17, 1997
A�' Csc
Gary Barrett, Chairman
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
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 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
e
A TRUE COPY ATTEST
SALEM, MASS.
SERAFINI. SERAFINI AND DI2I&N4 I� H� 198
ATTORNEYS AT LAW CIIY Q(' f'� N�SSS
63 FEDERAL STREET CI I:RK Lri I'(]F.FIC¢
SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970
JOHN R SERAFINI. SR. TELEPHONE
JOHN R. SERAFINI. JR. 978-744-0212
JOHN E. DARLING 781•$81-2743
JOSEPH C. CORRENTI TELECOPIER
February 9 , 1998 978.741-4683
VIA TELECOPIER
Gary M. Barrett, Chairman
Board of Appeal
City of Salem
One Salem Green, 2nd Floor
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
RE: Decision of the Petition of Vinnin Square, LLC.
Dear Mr. Barrett:
As you recall, the Zoning Board of Appeal at its December
17 , 1997 meeting granted variances and special permits to the
Petitioner, Vinnin Square, LLC. , for the property located at
Carol Way and Weatherly Drive.
The Board unanimously voted to grant the relief requested by
the Petitioner. I have enclosed a copy of the Petition which was
filed with the City and a copy of the Decision for your
convenience.
The Decision contains a few typographical errors which are
material in nature. In Paragraph 26 of the Decision there is an
error in subparagraph B. The variance for maximum height of the
building in stories should include the buildings on both Lots A
and B as requested in the Petition on Page 1 of Schedule A, the
last full paragraph. Also, in Paragraphs 12 and 17 of the
Decision, the relief should be to Phase III and not Phase IV.
I would request that an Amended Decision be filed reflecting
these transcriptional errors.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
os C. Correnti
Attorney for Vinnin Square, LLC.
JCC: jaf
Enclosures
altg of ialem, 'ffittssadjusetts
Poura of Appeal f9 yw
e�
'Cl7P0r';+t
AMENDED DECISION
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF VINNIN SQUARE LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT CAROL WAY & WEATHERY DRIVE R-3
A hearing on this petition was held December 17, 1997 with the following
Board Members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill,
Richard Dionne and Paul Valaskagis. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in
the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, is requesting a Variance from maximum height of building, two
principal buildings on a lot, maximum height of fence/boundary walls,
minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot area per dwelling
unit,minimum dimensions of parking stall width, maximum width or entrance
and exit drives, setback to parking area & Special Permits for parking on
adjacent lot and new condominiums for the property located at Carol Way &
Weatherly Drive.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, which is applicable to this
request for a Special Permit is section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the
Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set
forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and
reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement,
extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion
shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming
use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit
requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted
upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will
promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's
inhabitants.
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 or structures in the same district.
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF VINKIii SQUARE LLC REQUESTIING A VARIA.
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY 'LOCATED AT CAROL „ny S *cnTHER
LY
page two
B. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinanc
involve substantial hardship, financial
petitioner. OC otherwise, i0 the
C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detrimen
public good and without nullifying Or substantially deroeacil
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board Of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence
and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings Of fact
I . Petitioner was represented by Attorney Joseph Correnti Of Seri
Serifini 5 Darling, 63 Federal Street , Salea.
2. The requested relief consists of several variances and Special
for the final phase (Phase IV) of construction of The Village
Square, a residential development. '
3 . The Village project commenced in the 19S0's and the develooers
Zieff family, has been involved with the project since 1953.
4 . The entire Village project, including Phase IV, consists of ov.
4S acres and will leave 516 residential units when completed.
original plans for the entire project at its inCeDCion, called
approximately 550 units.
i. Phase IV of the Village project will consist Of I'S residentia.
and parking Over three (3) lots covering ten ( 10) acres.
6. The three lots of PhaSe iV are unique in size and shape and Che
has peculiar topography and consists Of large areas Jf ledge ar
outcropping and large areas of wetlands .
1. The property on which the Village sits also has a large pend ar
large differences in land variations.
S . The developers concerned public discussions Of the pians for
Construction Of Phase IV Of tilt Village project in Narch 199± c
-
Open House , and lilt official Planning Board process pf Site Ola
began in April 1991.
�• The developers and the trustees Of the Gond'Jminiu�l Associations
Phase 1 ,- 11 end Ill of iha village Let Ovcr several months to d
the plans for Phase IV, and an agreement was reached between th
I
eveloper and the Trustees of Phase I , Ii , and III of the Villa
with respect to the plan and petition submitted to the Board.
IC. The agreeLenc between the Trustees and the developer was the r:
months of negotiations and the plans and petition as submitted
Board incorporated amendments suggested `dy the Trustees and oti
residents of the Village relating to traffic flow, improvesienc:
recreational facilities and parking among other things.
11 . Attornev George W. Atkins of Salem, representing the Trustees c
I , II , and 11 of the Village spoke in favor of Che petition ar
as submitted as it incorporated matters whic;i were the subject
negotiations .
12. The Trustees of Phase I and 1101 the Village unaninously en.or
petition and plans , and four Of, five trustees Jf Phase IIL3 'th
Village approved of the Dian and petition.
CECISivir Or THE PETiTiv7: v[ v N IN SvuARE LLC REQUESTING A VARIAN
AND SPECIAL PERM FOR THE r
DRIVE "^nvPEc",T4LCCa.TE"v AT CAROL WA1' AND WEAT
page three
13. Several homeowners at the Village spoke in favor of the petit.
14 . August Killcr, 70 Weatherly Drive, Chairman or the Trustees'
negotiating team, spoke in favor of the plan citing significal
made t0 the pians t0 address concerns about traffic flow, the
buildings proposed and entrance problems. Tests performed by
developer to address concerns about water pressure and sewage
also mentioned.
15. The original plans for Phase IV of the Village called for four
buildings which was reduced to three (3) in the plans submittE
16. The proposed plan has allowed for approximately 70, open space
calculations over the effected three lots.
17: Several homeowners and a Trustee of PhaseIII of the Village sp
Opposition to the plans and petition citing concerns for traff
Llow, property value, architectural design, sidewalk accessibi
and Othertatters.
1S. The proposed Phase IV of the Village project must still undera
plan review before the Planning Board, and Beth Debski , Assist
City Planner , stated that traffic flow concerns, utility and
architectural design issues were subject to review and aoprova
the Planning Board.
19. Lot D2 as reflected on the plans will consist or a landscaped
lot with 25 spaces being exclusively dedicated to a nursing ho
abutting propert'r and 36 spaces will be attributed to parking
building sited on Lot A of the pians.
20. Due to the existing ledge on the property, outcropping, t000gra
the lams', existingpond and large VEtl-ands, combined with the
differences in land elevations between the lots and odd shapes
siting Of buildings for Phase iV Or the Village project is res'
2l . It was represented b'v counsel for the d2:elooer Chat they voui�
as a condition rr the requested relief that developer will use
to Loring Tower Road for a means or e:<it from the two building!
on Lot S of the pians.
22. The height Or the 6-olex existing in Phase I-III or the Villa.i
aooroximatel`i 40 feet above ground, and Che height of the exisr
rise in Phases I-III are approximately 66 feet above ground.
23. The proposed building on Lot B will be approximately 56 feet at
around.
24 . The proposed construction of Phase IV of the Village will compll
construction of the project.
25. Because of the topography of the land, and in order to allow th
U to wor'; with the natural topograohy of the land, some
on the property ma,y exceed six feet.
26 . The petitioner requested he following relief from the Zoning
Ordinance : _
A. Variance from maximum height of building in feet with respect t
lots A and B.
B. :variance from maxim-um height of building in stories with resoec
to lot G and A.
C. Variance ror two principal building on one lot with respect to
lot B.
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF VINNI\ SQUARE, LLC REQUESTIL;G A V1i3IAN(
6 SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT CAROL VAY S I:EATHERLT
page four
D. Variance from maximum height Of fences and/Or boundary Falls foz
A and B.
E. Variance from mini.:um lot area Der dwelling units for lots - 6 E '
F. Variance from minimum widths of' oarking stalls in underground ga
for lots A 5 B.
G. Variance from maximum widths of entrance and exit drives for lot
H. Variance from 2 front setback requiremd'nt for parking areas.
I . Special Permit to allow parking on adjacent lot with respect to
A and D2.
J. Special Permit to alto:: new condominiums.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence pre
at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions do exist ::hick especially affect the subject
property and not the district in general .
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship QAP. the petitioner.
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detrimer
the public good and without nullifying or substantially dac
erov ;
the intent Of the district or the Durpose Of the ordinance. ,y`
The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the
neighborhood and vill oromoce the Public health, safeCv, conveni
and welfare of the citv's inhabitants .
Therefore, the Zoning Board of .Appeal unanimously, 5-0 co grant the
requested, subject t0 the f0110wing conditions:
I . Petitioner shall comDly with all city and state statutes, codes
ordinances and regulations.
2. all construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions
submitted and approved by the Zoning Officer.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Deoarcmenc relative to smoke t
fire safety shall be sc•:ictly adhered to.
Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
S. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained.
6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony wit
existing structure.
2 • Petici,o�"...�b'a11 obtain DCODei' StC20C numbering from the GiCV of
S!ffl'a5'�0, 5s O1LLLLd and shall display said number so as to be visibl:
street.
,
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF VINNIN SQUARE, LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE &
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT CAROL WAY & WEATHERLY DRIVE
page five
S . Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission
having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board
for Site Plan Review and the Conservation Commission.
Variance & Special Permit Granted
December 17, 1997 (�
Csc
Gary Barrett, Chairman
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
MGL Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing
of this decision in the office of the Citv 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 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
vl ��5
(91ty of �ttlpm, �atssai ilrQPtts
Q PntcrD of �eztl P
REQUEST TO MODIFY THE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF VINNIN SQUARE LLC
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT=CAROL WAY AND WEATHERL'Y-DR1VE\(date-
stamped Dec. 30, 1997)
A hearing on this petition was held on May 19, 1999 with the following Board Members
present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko and
Ronald Harrison. 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.
The petitioners Vinnin Square LLC, represented by Attorney Joseph Correnti requests
to modify the decision of the petition date stamped December 30, 1997 for the property
located at Carol Way &Weathery Drive.
The provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which are applicable to the request
modification to the Special Permits and Variances and Section 5-3 Q) and Section 9-5,
which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of
Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section 8-6
and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming
structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots,
land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension,
enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by
the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that
the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and
welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
that:
A. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are not generally affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands,
buildings, or structures in the same district.
REQUEST TO MODIFY THE DECISION OF VINNIN SQUARE LLC,, Q�TtJE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT CAROL WAY AND WEATHERLY DRI�iE (deted-
stamped Dec. 30, 1997)
page two
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 of fact:
1. This request comes to the Board following an agreement reached in a civil action in
Essex Superior Court, C.A. No. 98-0083B, brought by neighbors in the appeal of a
decision of the Board granting certain variances and special permits to the owners of
land known as Phase 4 in the Village of Vinnin Square.
2. The Board's decision was challenged by condominium owners based on objections
to the traffic conditions and increased density likely to result from the planned
improvements in Phase 4 at the Village at Vinnin Square.
3. Following extended discussions, the parties agree on their desire to modify the
Board's decision by making the following specific changes;
a. The maximum height of the buildings shall be as follows: Building A will be F.F.E.73,
is 4 and '/z stories without an attic and will be 56' high. Building D will be F.F.E. 91 or
lower, is 4 and '% stories without an attic and will be 56' high.
b. The principal buildings on Lot 1 shall be 16 townhouses, two 6-unit residential
building, and one midrise building (Building D).
c. The maximum height of fences and/or boundary walls shall not exceed 10 feet.
d. The total number of units in Phase 4 shall not exceed 148 and shall be distributed as
follows (1) on Lot 1, one midrise building with 60 units (Building D), 16 townhouses
and two 6-unit residential buildings; (ii) on Lot 2, one midrise building with 60 units
(Building A).
e. The maximum width of entrance and exit drives shall not exceed 36 feet.
f. The front setback for parking areas shall not be less than 2 feet from all lot lines and
m m 5 feet from street line&(excluding parking along Weatherly Drive/America Way).
4. In addition to Mark Blair, the Ward Councillor, the following residents spoke in favor
of the adoption of the proposed agreement in its entirety: Timothy Davem, Esq.,
Gardner Gould, Leon McDowell and Hal Rosenthal.
1(y, trJ S -2
REQUEST TO MODIFY THE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF VINNIN SQUARE, LLC
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT CAROL WAY AND WEATHERLY DRIVE (date
stamped Dec. 30, 1997)
page three
5. By written letter, the abutting owners of the Grosvenor Nursing Home objected to the
proposed agreement via their attorney, Jeffrey Shribman, Edq.
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 exist which especially affect the subject property and not the
district in general.
- 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve sustantial
hardship on the petitioner.
3. The relief requested 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 this ordinance.
4. The modification requested can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and
will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the city's
inhabitants.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal unanimously voted 5-0 to grant the request to
modify the decision of Vinnin Square LLC, for the property located at Carol Way and
Weatherly Drive date stamped Dec. 30, 1997,
Nina Cohen, Chairman
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 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 II, the Variance or Special
Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of this decision, hearing the
certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or
that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied 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
i
23 ' '
U ZLZZO sllasnu�t�sspy� `umo app say nrOs jr,luauzuoainug •�u� �uZ��sn✓�� ua QunH assvuvA
I . 987Z �7Z6 L19 XVJ 1S16 XOR *Od IuaiudojanaQ PUL-1
E OLLT �776 LT9 I JamjjS Inuip2A TOT uoprijodsurij �
r 1
Ir �
N/F
CROYAAWIELD AWNsIGEMENT
I r
1J
Vanasse Hangen Brusthn, Inc.
Transportation
Lan1 ' 1 d Development
Services
nt
3 _z z 101 walnut Street,P.O. Box 9151
I #17' \ / 75 f J J Watertown,Massachusetts 02272
CMWNSH/ELD AWNAGMDffba r U I U 617 9241770•PAX 617 924 2286
N 3
4• ?.
ro
= 23 53'55"
R = 469.11"
= 195.6T
65 ORES A = 5548'19"
90 GARAGE SPACES R = 30.00'
(01V 2 LEVELS) L = 29.22'
14 700 SFFOOTPfmUT
�• JN71�9 al D = 21'28'31"
j 4415 R = 156.77'
N \ L = 58.76'
Il
0 = 21'2 A \�
..,'R = 230.00' 1
rn gat.
f S70'00"21"E S�a.01,51"W \ `
5 00 \\
, rs "
- 287,475--k S F.
.� S70'00'21"E
7° 5.00' �0'AD
�rn o
I . .
v
NOF
LOR/NG r0HERS ASS"W
I
W
BULDAIG I No. Revision Date Appvd.
0 68 UMM16 STORIES
90 GAAAGE SPACES Designed by Drawn by Checked by
�J (ON 2 LEVELS)
"��ry^ 141-W SF F007PRJM � CAD checked by '. Approved by -
.. Scale 1• O' Dat1"==40' 11/21/97
O) - Project Title
M
LO
Z
Carol Way Residential
3 I Development
"s
_ v
--_ 30
e•w\ Salem, Massachusetts
• Issued for
l N,2 Local Review
169 q 1\
z7
I Drawing Title
S�02,
_, .. 5238 o•w` ,...� _ _
U U Variance
Petition
N622G Q Q
mwN OFcorr �.? w Plan
.6, J 4).
Drawing Number
y
_ 40 0 40 80
Sheet of
SCALE IN FEET 1 2
F W .
, Project Number
R� 05243 ,
5243DMIT
,
j
N
s68b33 , M47CMAWD &LAWN,, INC
2f
Vanasse Hangen`Brustlin;Inc.
_ . . . . �$•r),� SAB
Transportation
Land Development
Environmental Services
101 Walnut Street,P.O.Box 9151
Watertown,Massachusetts 02272
617 9241770•FAX 617 924 2286
if
W W
J J r'
QCC CQC 09OW�INS)VIELD GEMENT
G G \ 9°S
d � y
f.
\ / N�
Ns>y sem '. G N G HOOSYMOR ME E
N33'41'24`E F
7.21' U/
rn
I '46'e o
= 55'48'19"
R = 30.00" { MA = 4415'11`
.�� L,,= 29.22' R = 32.00'
707 h7 E A = 21'28'31" J
R = 156.77, ti5646,93, ff. �� L = 24.72' �.
L = 58.76; e2s%y / �560454R. R = 32.0000" R= 41.00'006 36 oAq•
� - S31'28'10"W j { �L = 50.27 L = 64.40,
25.00
J
A = 21 2 ""- \ �S7j y 0 = 98' 7.17' ° F
' P, = 230.00' R = 58. 0' LOT 02 d�
s�r3225e ° 125,85Qf S.F. °o
k � \_ ••-.. -'15.00' � \ ,
l 3 25 m„_ 3858
1
il
.40
56g 0
i _ _ 1" I _ `•`"+.. y Y\... Yom\ !' f�
�fry --• ._ --,•.- ,,.� --_ �\\ � ,,`
VC _
�````�• __ 9 0 E 222.23' A = 80 '3'22" \ D = 4T5 '31` oo
Tp��
R = 58.0016 / R =_ 32 7 R = 320.0 ' CO
267
p - .
L 20 �
S89'05' 7'E 248.20' '
= 5 2 A = 80'43'5 ��/�
' / \ LOT IQ R = 73.00' ` _ 25.0 ' R 263.00' w N12�=RS N'O NEF ��T
w \ / L = 69.91' 1
Yll49,55,�f S.F.
~� \ O - No. Revision Date ppvd ,
-
` ,._
JO O Designed by Drawn by Checked by
t O W k -
"� pO CAD checked by Approved by
\ o
\ rn
55'11'55' ..[
Scale 1rr�, Date 11121/97
R = 210:00' t ` Project Title
L = 202.31' �9 n
55STORES ,` , Carol Way Residential
56 a4IRAGE SPACES
4 X3,700 SF FOOTPRINT A = 8542'49" ;, 878 58012
�t �} L = 44,88' A 90'45'39. Development
t R
_ X0.00'
/�/� L = 4' .52'
LOR/NG TOWERS ASSOaAW E ,
it Salem, Massachusetts
1` i µ''' t t '\` _ Issued for.
i 04.0°
` e = aa•so'ss" ? ..�� � Local Review
R = 25.00' W
l L - 37.02' 576.34'44
' N78'48'32'E
—,�
3.22'
Drawing Title
i
- variance
_. • - Petition
Plan
W w GA
VE
_
Drawing Number
2 2 •
i
m
r
^ _ 21 :
<
40 0 40 80 Sheet of
2 2
SCALE IN FEET
.. Az ..
19
n z - ,. '. . ` � .Project Number
z 05243