17 LUSSIER STREET - BUILDING JACKET 17 LUSSIER STREET
on r r CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF:=APPEAL..
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
� ( a SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS O 1970
TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595
FAX: 978-740-9846
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 1009 SEP - I P I: 29 -
MAYOR
September 1, 2009
Decision
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Petition of ROY LAPHAM seeking Variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot
area per dwelling unit, and minimum rear and front yard setback requirements to
allow for construction of a two-family residence on the property located at 2
ATLANTIC STREET (AKA 17 LUSSIER STREET) in the Residential Two-Family
Zoning District.
Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §6-4, Table I:
Residential Density Regulations.
Statements of fact:
1. Paul Fermano, the project's architect,presented the petition.
2. In a petition dated July 29, 2009,the petitioner requested Variances from minimum
lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and minimum rear and front yard
setback requirements to allow for construction of a two-family residence.
3. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on August 19, 2009,
pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, % 11. The pubic hearing was closed on
August 19, 2009, with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present:
Robin Stein (Chair),Beth Debski, Becky Curran,Bonnie Belair(alternate),and
Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate).
4. At the hearing, Board members noted that the parking spaces shown on the plan
were smaller than required and that no buffer was shown. Theyexpressed their
preference that the parking area be altered to meet these requirements and noted that
relief from tandem parking would be necessary in order to allow for these changes.
5. No one voiced opposition to or support of the petition at the meeting, and no letters
regarding the project were received by the Board from residents.
6. At its meeting on August 19,2009,the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor and
none (0) opposed to grant Variances under§64, Table 1: Residential Density
Regulations.
J 2
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following
findings:
1. Desirable relief maybe granted without substantial detriment to the public good and
without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the
zoning ordinance.
2. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family District to
construct the proposed house, which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the
City of Salem Zoning Ordinance.
3. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate
conditions and safeguards as noted below.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing
including,but not limited to,the Plans, Documents and testimony,the Zoning Board of
Appeals concludes:
1. To allow for the construction of the two-family house as proposed,the requested
Variances from dimensional requirements for structures in the Residential Two-
Family zone are granted. Additionally, relief from parking requirements is granted to
allow for four(4) tandem parking spaces.
In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,five (5) in favor(Stein,
Curran,Belair,Debski and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's requests for
Variances subject to the following terms, conditions,and safeguards:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,ordinances,codes and
regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and
approved by the Building Commissioner.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall
be strictly adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
7. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office
and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street.
8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having
Jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
3
9. Petitioner is to provide a landscape plan with construction drawings prior to
issuance of a building permit.
Robur em, u=
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD
AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the
office of the City Clerk Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section
11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry
of Deeds.
or r t CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR
( SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
�r - TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595
FAX: 978-740-9846
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 1001 SEP - I P I: 29
MAYOR
I.
CIIY
September 1, 2009
Decision
Guy of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Petition of ROY LAPHAM seeking Variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot
area per dwelling unit, and minimum rear and front yard setback requirements to
allow for construction of a two-family residence on the property located at 2
ATLANTIC STREET (AKA 17 LUSSIER STREET) in the Residential Two-Family
Zoning District
Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §6-4, Table I:
Residential Density Regulations.
Statements of fact:
1. Paul Fermano,the project's architect,presented the petition.
2. In a petition dated July 29,2009,the petitioner requested Variances from minimum
lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit,and minimum rear and front yard
setback requirements to allow for construction of a two-family residence.
3. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on August 19,2009,
pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The pubic hearing was closed on
August 19,2009, with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present:
Robin Stein (Chair),Beth Debski,Becky Curran,Bonnie Belair(alternate), and
JinmyTsitsinos (alternate).
4. At the hearing,Board members noted that the parking spaces shown on the plan
were smaller than required and that no buffer was shown. They expressed their
preference that the parking area be altered to meet these requirements and noted that
relief from tandem parking would be necessary in order to allow for these changes.
5. No one voiced opposition to or support of the petition at the meeting,and no letters
regarding the project were received by the Board from residents.
6. At its meeting on August 19,2009,the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor and
none (0) opposed to grant Variances under§6.4, Table I: Residential Density
Regulations.
r�
2
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following
findings:
1. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and
without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the
zoning ordinance.
2. The applicant mayvarythe terns of the Residential Two-FamilyDistrict to
construct the proposed house, which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the
City of Salem Zoning Ordinance.
3. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate
conditions and safeguards as noted below.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing
including, but not limited to,the Plans,Documents and testimony,the Zoning Board of
Appeals concludes:
1. To allow for the construction of the two-family house as proposed,the requested
Variances from dimensional requirements for structures in the Residential Two-
Family zone are granted. Additionally, relief from parking requirements is granted to
allow for four(4) tandem parking spaces.
In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,five (5) in favor(Stein,
Curran,Belair,Debski and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's requests for
Variances subject to the following terms,conditions, and safeguards:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,ordinances,codes and
regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and
approved by the Building Commissioner.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall
be strictly adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
7. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office
and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street.
8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having
Jurisdiction including, but not limited to,the Planning Board.
3
9. Petitioner is to provide a landscape plan with construction drawings prior to
issuance of a building permit.
—�R�Stem, Chatr/fin
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD
AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the
office of the City Clerk Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section
11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry
of Deeds.
° Cty of ulem, � �ss�rliusPtts
3 � � 'Bourd of c'� e�l
31
DECIS_ION_ON THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF VARIANCES GRANTED TO
-+-17 LUSSIER_STREET (R-1) , OWNED BY ROY & ELEANOR LAPHAM
At a hearing held April 17, 1996, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously,
5-0, to allow a six (6) month extension for Variances granted originally
for the above property on March 15, 1995. Said extension shall be up to
and including October 3, 1996.
A copy of the original decision have been filed with the Planning Board and
with the City Clerk. l
Stephen C. Touchette, Chairman
Board of Appeal
0"I
Tity of iWem, ,Massadjusetto
�uttra of �, peal
AA C
UECISiui uN THE PET1T;CA: U EL-ANOR & ROY LAPHAM FOR A VARIANBP A ( 28 Fel
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT-17-LUSQIERSTREET (R-2) CITY 0( SALEM- MASS
l"K•c OFIICF
hearing on this petition was held March 15, 1995 with the fol fing BBoard
members present: Gary N. Barrett, Chairman(acting) ; Arthur Labreque, Joseph
Ywuc, Nina Cohen and Albert H411. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in
the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property located at 17 Lussier Street requests a
Variance from lot size and a Variance from lot width requirements to allow
construction of a two family dwelling.
The relief which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this
Board that:
1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting
other land, buildings, or structures in the same district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
3. Desirable refuel may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The petitioner, through Counsel introduced evidence as to the existing
dimensions of the abutting lots and the district in general and the
financial hardship which the petitioner would endure if not granted the
requested relief.
The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at
the hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The property in question is vacant land consisting of approximately
5,250 square feet.
2. That the property is a corner lot located at the intersection of
Lussier Street and Atlantic Street and the petitioner intends, per
the plans submitted, to take frontage on Atlantic Street.
3. The adjacent lot on Atlantic Street, which is owned by the petitioner,
houses a two family dwelling and is also 5,250 square feet.
That a petition was submitted containing seventeen (17) names of
persons who live in the immediate neighborhood of the property, all of
whom were in favor of the petitioner's request to construct a two
family dwelling on the vacant lot.
5. There was no opposition to the petition.
6 . That because this lot was not build upon previously, as were all of the
adjacent lots to the property, current zoning density requirements
apply to this property and not the adjacent properties in this area.
That literal enforcement of the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size and
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ELEANOR & ROY LAPHAM FOR A VARIANCE FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 LUSSIER STREET (R-2)
page two
the 100 foot lot width requirement would render this property virtually
useless causing substantial economic hardship to the owners
8. That the owners of the property and their families have resided for
several years, and do presently reside, in the neighborhood of the
property.
9. That the lot size of virtually every property on Atlantic Street is
between 4,500 and 5,500 square feet and 50 to 55 feet of frontage.
10. That there are several multi-family dwellings located in this R-2
district.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented
at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property
and not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substation hardship to the petitioner.
3. The request relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from
the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
requested relief, subject to the following conditions :
1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances,
codes and regulations .
2 . All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions
submitted.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4 . Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
5 . Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem
Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible
from the street.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
Variance Granted
March 15, 1995
Joseph J. YwLc s
Board of Appeal, Member K a
N D
r
of
'*7 D
N L J1
N i..J1
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY
CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20
days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City
Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the
Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a
copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20
days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has
been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South
Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record
or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
Board of Appeal
cz 3�
r a, cra
cT
r
ow
T� �Q