Loading...
7 MEAD COURT - BUILDING INSPECTION .' 7 MEAD COURT _ l HY rn� � No. 153L-2 HASTINGS. MN LOS ANGELES-CHICAGO-LOGAN.GH MCGREGOR.TX-LOCUST GROVE.GA U.S.A. �o CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR C'I i IJP SALE11. MA9. SALEM, MA 01970 CLERK'S OFFICE TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR 2002 A°R -2 P {: I u DECISION OF THE PETITION OF IRENE MURRAY REQUESTING A - VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 MEAD COURT R-2 A hearing on this petition was held March 20,2002 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Halides, Bonnie Belair and Stephen Harris. 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 petitioner is requesting a Variance from rear yard setback to install roof over existing deck for the property located at property located at 7 Mead Court R-2 The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Petitioner appeared before the board to request a variance from the rear yard setback. 2. Petitioner would like to install a roof over existing deck 3. A letter was submitted in favor form Mr. & Mrs. Benadet 4. There was no opposition to the proposed petition. r DECISION OF THE PETITION OF IRENE MURRAY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 MEAD COURT R-2 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted 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. VARIANCE GRANTED MARCH 20, 2002 ` Bonnie Belair Lgn Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILET?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 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 is 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. cv� 0 ��7 Plans must be filed and approved by the Inspector prior to a permit being granted CITY OF SALEM p No. qy _gY �coen�T�� Ward �1 HISTORIC DISTRICT? Y N Date 2 c IF FOR SIDING, HAS ELECTRIC Home Phone J6&�5, 7y9-3V/ PERMIT BEEN OBTAINED? Y N �yBus. Phone APPLICATION FOR PERMIT To &?�a c8 W hdnw S TO THE INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS: The undersigned hereby applies for a permit to build according to the following specifications: Owner's name and address 5 Architect's name V TT Builder's name Location of building, No. What is the purpose of building? UoyJ�— If dwelling, # of units? Material of bldng? _ ) A100 Will building conform to law? Asbestos? / Estimated CostCity Lic. � 111 n State Lic.# �U00U 00 �l/ �T Home II ovement License # Signature of Applicant SIGNED UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY DESCRIPTION OF WORK ITO BE DONE �6/ /9Gt ��ZnC/� %�Lbl✓-C C, n2)n2) Mail Permit to: E No. Ward APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO ROOF REROOF OR INSTALL SIDING Location PERMIT GRANTED AP 199 Appro ed A)cu f 6 1 ! Inspect r CITY OF SALEM BUILDING DEPARTMENT HOMEOWNER LICENSE EXEMPTION Please Print DATE '/ JOB LOCATION Number Street address Section of Town "HOMEOWNER 9o9er /4O/✓/i cs 5� 7//-33// �/7 63/ 3/oc) Name Home phone Work phone PRESENT MAILING ADDRESS <_ City/Town State Zip Code The current exemption of "homeowners" was extended to include owner-occupied dwellings of six units or less and to allow such homeowners to engage an in- dividual for hire who does not possess a license, provided that the owner acts as supervisor. (State Building Code Section 109.1 .1 DEFINITION OF HOMEOWNER: Person(s) who owns a parcel of land on which he/she resides or intends to re- side, on which there is, or is intended to be, a one to six family dwelling, attached or detached structures accessory to such use and/or farm structures. A person who constructs more than one home in a two-year period shall not be considered a homeowner. Such "homeowner" shall submit to the Building Official , on a form acceptable to the Building Official , that he/she shall be responsible for all such work performed under the building permit. Section 109.1 .1 The undersigned "homeowner" assumes responsibility for compliance with the State Building code and other applicable codes, by-laws, rules and regulations. The undersigned "homeowner" certifies that he/she understands the City of Salem Building Department minimum inspection procedures and requirements and that he/she will comply with said procedur nd requirements. HOMEOWNER'S SIGNATURE UCf_,A=_�� APPROVAL OF BUILDING OFFICIAL NOTE: Three family dwellings 35,000 cubic feet, or larger, will be required to comply with State Building Code Section 127.0, Construction Control . V HOME OWNER'S EXEMPTION The Code states that: "Any Home Owner performing work for which a building permit is required shall be exempt from the provisions of this section (Section 109.1 .1 - Licensing of Construction Supervisors) ; provided that is a Home Owner engages a person(s) for hire to do such work, that such Home Owner shall act as supervisor. " Many Home Owners who use this exemption are unaware that they are assuming the responsibilities of a supervisor (see Appendix Q, Rules and Regulations for Licensing Construction Supervisors, Section 2.15) . This lack of aware- ness often results in serious problems, particularly when the Home Owner hires unlicensed persons. In this case your Board cannot proceed against the unlicensed person as it would with licensed Supervisor. The Home Owner acting as supervisor is ultimately responsible. To ensure that the Home Owner is fully aware of his/her responsibilities, many communities require, as part of the permit application, that the Home Owner certify that he/she understands the responsibilities of a supervisor. On the last page of this issue is a form currently used by several towns. You may care to amend and adopt such a form/certification for use in your community. �" (1Iitu of �ttlem, flttssucIlusefts s 'Bnttra of � peal OCT 4 2 51 '93 G<< DECISION_ON,THE PETITION OF GLEN & JANE BEAUDET FOR VARIANCES AT Na MEAD COURTAND 9 MEAD COURT (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held September 15, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish, Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen O'Grady and Associate Member Arthur Labrecque. 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. Petitioners, owners of the property at 9 Mead Court, are requesting variances to allow property at 7 Mead Court (shown on plan as lot A) & 9 Mead Court (shown on plan as Lot C) to be redivided resulting in the transfer of 460 square feet (shown on the plans as Lot B) from Lot A to Lot C. 7 Mead Court is owned by P. Blais, D. Hanussak & F.Fraser. Property is located in an R-2 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the proposed request. 2. The additional land will provide relief to the petitioner for off street parking. 3. The owner of 8 Mead Court spoke in favor of the petition. 4. The added 460 sq.ft. will increase petitioners land to 1571 sq. ft. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GLEN & JANE BEAUDET FOR A VARIANCE AT 7 MEAD CT. & 9 MEAD CT. , SALEM page two 5 The granting of the variance will allow petitioner a fuller use of the property. 6. The proposed division will not have a negative affect from this proposed division. 7. Additional space for snow plowing for the city will be permitted because of the removal of on street parking by the petitioner. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Division shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. Petitioner shall present plans to the Planning Board for their approval. n C= 4. Petitioners shall not park their vehicles on the street. VARIANCE GRANTED ti N September 15, 1993 == ►� ^y � mn George A. Ahmed, Secretary Board of Appeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GLEN & JANE BEAUDET FOR VARIANCE AT 7 MEAD COURT & 9 MEAD COURT, SALEM page three OCT 2 53 CIT', .. - .. "SS 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