Loading...
8 RAVENNA AVENUE - BUILDING INSPECTION 8 , RAVENNA AVENUE f (3 of obttlem, ttssttt�jusetts � �503ra of '4pu m, l JUN 30 8 so AN #87. DECISION ON THE PETITION-OF RICHARD & CHERYL KRISKO FOR FILE# 8 R A VARIANCE AT AVENNA_AV—(R-1 ) CITY CLERK.SALEM,MASS. A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski and Associate Member 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, are requesting a variance from any and all applicable density & setbacks to allow the existing dwelling to remain as is. Property is located in an R-1 district. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by 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; and 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. t The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: ,4 1 . The house is existing and has existed many years in its present location.; 2. Applicant purchased the house in its current condition; 3. There have been several requests in the immediate neighborhood concerning similar surveying problems. On the basis on the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Bosrd of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship; 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment i to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & CHERYL KRISKO FOR A VARIANCE AT 8 RAVENNA AVE. , SALEM Page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Variance as requested. VARIANCE GRANTED James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DKISION. IF ANY. SHALL SE "ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MAM GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER SCE. AND SH BE FILED 'W+THIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IG THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERri. PURV"'117. TC Wi SS. CEt;ERAL Ll.'IS. CHtrFTER E-1,7. SECTMN 11. THE VARiATXE OR SPVCIAL PEP.�!IT GRA}ITE RE H_ Sr:7t N07 TAKE EFFE? U:;`iE A COPY OF THE CEL;S;_ti. :_r? `;,: THE URT FICAl':`\ OF THE 't, ;![Rn T�.ST 20 GiYS H=:E E-,,:FSEG i.%_1 f_ APr�.'_ H-.5 OR TH"i. IF $UC.. V, ;.PFEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT H'S BE_., ED OR IS .. RcCLS[ED T4' S:'/JTH ESSEX RMS7Ri ._ECS AND INO-Xr L SER OF THE D7F3_R OF RECORD OR IS RE;2RD'cD AI,0 NOTE, Oh THE OWN`IRS CERTIFiC.1iE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL Cyrl . 01 •' J,tp �� � .. \AA �. ��ly .f� S�� ` '�w�.l� � - - .pr �j `o •� to - `-_ l• i m fit• y f bCY oeti'eY / a% JOvv 51 Ccbp 4CY /0 4S 611. ;`` a �r `a �4 .Sv �� �•"jOL� t.. //6.33 , dS9C _ 'f> - PSN . . Cir ,`, �j JV P� ,r; 17,0.00 p0 0g 6� )CO 00 1"7.L2 6A Y8 $ ,tr ld �slatA 00�50 : oa4 : SO.P9 W O� c UC A LN —� s 0005 . 53. 7 53.17 33.^ 3d SS • - i Z. 8ARCELLDNA 9yFy t I' See Sheet ,No i ��. ............... - -. �..�..... ,rm..c.:i cf'snc3w.'+t'Y_.- - :i�.:._. :sv;.,.'.ei'x1..._ -..., � � . -n •+sos:.en•..iw..��J -'� ^J .. 1 PEARL,McNIFF,CREAN &COOK ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAMUEL PEARL 30 MAIN STREET JOHN A.MCNIFF PEABODY, MASSACHUSETTS 01960 PEABODY 617/531.1710 JOHN M.CREAN OLIVER T.COON BOSTON 617/289-3456 LAWRENCE J.O'REEFE WILLIAM M.SHEEHAN 111 March 19, 1980 Gloria J. Jermyn, Trustee Dundee Realty Trust Salem, Massachusetts Re: Dundee Realty Trust 344 Ravenna Avenue, Salem Salem Land Court Plan #11802E, sheet 2 Dear Mrs. Jermyn: You have referred to me for an opinion a letter from Daniel F. Mansur, Assistant Building Inspector, dated February 25, 1980, concerning the above real estate and building permit #390 issued September 13, 1979. Mr. Mansur in his letter states that the building permit appears to have been issued in violation of the zoning ordinance, §VIII B. 1. , and that he would like to confer with you on this matter. Examination of the zoning map discloses that the subject lot is in an R 1 district. The minimum lot area in an R 1 district is 15, 000 square feet, and the minimum lot width is 100 feet (zoning ordinance, §VI, table 1). The subject lot appears to contain about 7474. 25 square feet in area with a width of 57. 38 feet at its front on the street, ac- cording to the above-described land court plan. As such it is a valid nonconforming use. Its status as such is confirmed by the following. The subject land is registered land shown on a subdivi- sion plan approved by the Land Court in' 1928. When the first zoning ordinance was enacted by the City Council under then G. L. , c. 40A, in 1955, there were no provisions in the ordinance regulating lot sizes. Salem accepted the sub-division control law, G. L. , c. 41, §§81A-81GG on March 12, 1962. As I explained to you and City Solicitor Alfred Dobbs on or about that time the Trust's lots by G. L. , c. 41, §81FF, as land registered in the Land Court, the subdivision plan of which y , PEARL.McNIFF,CREAN &COOK - 2 - Gloria J. Jermyn, Trustee Salem, Massachusetts March 19, 1980 was registered and recorded in 1928 and before February 1, 1952, were as valid as though approved under the sub-division control law. In November 1962 the zoning ordinance was amended to provide lot sizes and dimensions. By that amendment in a single residence district, in which the Trust's lots were located, the mini- mum Lot area was 5, 000 square feet and the minimum street frontage was 40 feet. It is very significant that the above-described lot 344 was acquired by Dundee Realty Trust by deed recorded and registered on or about September 6, 1962, and that at such time of recording was not held in common ownership with any adjoining land. As such, under present G. L. , c. 40A, §6, fourth paragraph, first sentence, as long as it has 5, 000 square feet of area and 50 feet of frontage it is a valid buildable lot. The April 20, 1979 amendment of c. 40A to which the February 25, 1980 memo of Mr. Mansur refers is chapter 106 of the Acts of 1979. It inserted a new sentence after the first sentence of §6, referred to above, and it exempts from increased area require- ments for five years after the effective date of any such increase occurring on or after January 1, 1976, certain Lots on a recorded or s endorsed plan which were held in common ownership with adjoining land and conformed as of January 1, 1976 to then existing zoning requirements and contained at least 7500 square feet of area and 75 feet of frontage. Lot 344 is not a Lot,which on January 1, 1976, con- formed to the then existing zoning ordinance (1965) and was not held in common ownership with adjoining land at that time. Lot 344 is a nonconforming lot which as I pointed out above comes within the pro- visions of the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of §6. Careful study of §6 will disclose that the first sentence of the fourth para- graph- went into effect June 30, 1978, in place of former c. 40A, §5A which provided: "Any lot lawfully laid out by plan or deed duly recorded - - - which complies at the time of such recording or such endorse- ment, whichever is earlier, with the minimum area, frontage, width, and depth requirements, if any, of the zoning ordinance - - - in effect - - - may thereafter be built upon for residential use if - - such lot was held in ownership separate from that of adjoining land PEARL.MCNIFF,CREAN &.COOK - 3 - Gloria J. Jermyn, Trustee Salem, Massachusetts March 19, 1980 - - - and - - - such lot has an area of five thousand square feet or more and a frontage of fifty feet or more Former §5A is a necessary consideration in the construe- tion of the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of the present 56. It explains the absence from §6 of the words "deed" and "plan" in the first sentence of the fouith paragraph thereof. Construed in the light of its predecessor, the words"recording" and "endorsement" in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of §6 necessarily and logically refer to the deed or plan of the lot. The provisions of Section VIII B. 1, of the current zoning ordinance of Salem (1977) are a paraphrase of §6, fourth paragraph, first sentence, and, accordingly, the within analysis of the latter applies to the former. In closing I should call to your attention that Mr. Mansur addressed his letter to you and not to the owner of the property, the Dundee Realty Trust. Under well established principles of law a trust is a legal entity just as a corporation or a natural person is. The corporate entity acts through an officer, a natural person acts personally, and a trust acts through the trustee. This should be called to Mr. Mansur's attention in order that there will be no con- fusion as to the correct identity of the owner of lot 344. I believe that adjoining lots 343 and. 345 were or are owned by Marlboro Realty Trust and were acquired by that entity by deed recorded on or about September 6, 1962. The trustee of record of Marlboro Realty Trust is your husband John E. Jermyn. Any contention that adjoining lots of Dundee Realty Trust and Marlboro Realty Trust are held in common ownership is error because of the principles of law concerning entities and ownership I have endeavored to set forth above. In summary, in my view building permit #390 issued on September 13, 1979, was proper and valid. ASinely, A. McNiff JA McN/cw !�✓T �' ha-�.4^.,.. � ,� q.,,, #. i �,znm �t r<Y ��#�♦x'+�Ky� ��.' F t Sys miv �. .•xr �ty'� ro�Y♦ a ARM t�tA°�•y' fret�5 r� 'h tr'! ' ' r t CCJJ'> . i S T ' E # v7:. x s e P .n"U.P.�a Y� t•. ,� i '�r eA tt",i'}„R !`�" ":hE-J a ��4 'N�y�r'rj rh zP"'c a. �}x�s�^i�' r "� t r. v �•� p $ a .S �f I . . . . .. . . . . . . . • IN / r� ., 1�+iyyh;+r r k :T� n ", 'G al. ry ^� e; "di z '4�d� a T.. + ..0 93cy.i d'y�,.?:A-.Se•r} }r� s } t +r Cvi .. $ " ,Ae, ✓ � 'e n�`^�„ !`'.4. z " rr "`♦nx't' e q y '..ro +., m4 '�3 4$5'z '4 �� �' # ka �i � E ,x'.v4` �� 3�E ^';4n dF* � 4r� }�✓j � t� !c'♦�^.� t T'z.� $$.,4 ' .,� •" x `+ �`� r'� ' .•...t"�"w ,., s"y* _ xs ' # ���.� ��" � TJ''xk�Sp.':� x �� # ,��ids. p� 'i.�+�n �-� �. r rm' ! x � $r y! ` r'�; y� p'� k,§k ea eea* +' nw�-. $» 'ti ..d'!d ♦ "9 ,zee�. fi i ? E R � irk + {' �4,?"��� '•• x `-,.* 2. �''4 .�4� z � yT'^� � � � ',r$ {��' :� �* a'P,- ,# 7 t s,x� �� �. t *std♦ ♦ �u'�;y.. +TP'}� a'„^ r k ♦ � ,sT v♦� t��v,����rnd i � �5[' i � � y,. �% F �` ♦����a%�r "�� '3,�.�.¢ t� � +� a,' + '`a qy { ,.in t . h"�� '{i x r_��"l�r a, 1 ♦ •r- a 5 f�n�,fr +�'�f���'i.a.�ts4: .r . ri't b♦.. �'�C ':,�E �h S aM'i � +3 >w a '�I ,k� b Y ' 3 ti,. ♦ t {�,,„:='�G a sfl i`i t r i'.: A s "{a s �'a# " a?r $ „' .a fe # rr. E A z ^ Xf" i .1♦ '*� l Mat +21z Nk .� Fr ♦ •-'} tiT'1``ib lw! d'z ` r +.a. a 33A ,e. "3 roil s? 3 z '+div s a r Es v: s �. , ,� `�'' .# N .v.. pox o�r4 < c m Public 3rQ ert �fOf artli pnt (One alcw Ocreru il:i-0213 - February 25, 1980 Gloria Jermyn 146 Marlborough Road HE: Ravenna Avenue Salem, MA 01970 Building Permit Yd390 9/13/79 Dear Mrs. Jermyn: It appears that your Building Permit was issued in violation of the zoning ordinance Section bill B 1. "Non- conforming Lot." I have to advise you that It may be necessary for you to go before the Board of Appeals priox to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the premi_ses,. Would you contact this o.'r..iice and: arrange for a meeting to discuss this matter in more detail.. Very truly yours, Danieli Assistant Building 7n.spector DFM:tc ._....,..-.....„....e....m�...,.�.. ......,...vumrvna<..:arwwwax .:.....:.:. ,retivaruS"�'.:..�n:-:•m,"r,.+'R;,'lx,��^',"'1�r...... .G, Gifu of ��Ulrttx, JEttssarlau�e fM> °6 �C"t Z� �8 57 �� - it (fire Orpartnirm liru)rluartereLIP— RE C.GIVi•:[3 CITY CE Sd,t_? dal-- ASS. ,'Jlnmre �i- �.irrnna" CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION FOR A FIRE ALARM INSTALLATION The undersigned 'installer of a Fire Alarm System, plans of which were previously approved , hereby certifies that the installation (or alteration) of said Fire Alarm System has been installed in compliance with the guidelines and provisions of the Salem Fire Department and the State Building Code. Furthurmore , this installation has been tested in accordance with the requirements of the Salem City Electrician and is now ready for a final test by the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau. Tests are conducted by appointment only. A representative of the installer must be present for the test. Complete instructions as to the use and maintenance of the system have been furnished to theperson (or persons) for whom the installation (or alteration) was made. Date 1� 3Installer s Loctiosi' O ! l U fl, Signaturet #" q License Fire Dept. Inspections Date_ Inspected byt Approved Disapproved Remarkso Plans filed in Box ##16 d Form ##82 (rev. 7/76) a Etsl1lLEJitdG �F(� P PEARL.McNIFF,CREAN &COOK ATTORNEYS AT"W /� p9 SAMUEL PEARL 30 MAIN STREET I �9R Zh IL as PH '8D JOHN A.MCNIFV 44..U _ PEABODY.MASSACHUSETTS 01960 JOHN M..ROAN PEABODY RECEIVED BOSTON 6 )'96913666 .1710 LAWRENCE J.0'M98/E OLIVER coon CITY OF SALEM,MASS. ° p WILLIAM H.SHEEHAN III March 19, 1980 Gloria J. Jermyn, Trustee Dundee Realty Trust Salem, Massachusetts Re: Dundee Realty Trust 344 Ravenna Avenue, Salem - Salem Land Court Plan #11802E, sheet 2 Dear Mrs. Jermyn: You have referred to me for an opinion a letter from Daniel F. Mansur, Assistant Building Inspector, dated February 25, 1980, concerning the above real estate and building permit #390 issued September 13, 1979. Mr. Mansur in his letter states that the building permit appears to have been issued in violation of the zoning ordinance, §VIII B. 1. , and that he would like to confer with you on this matter. Examination of the zoning map discloses that the subject lot is in an R 1 district. The minimum lot area in an R 1 district is 15, 000 square feet, and the minimum lot width is 100 feet (zoning ordinance, §VI, table 1). The subject lot appears to contain about 7474. 25 square feet in area with a 'width of 57. 38 feet at its front on the street, ac cording to the above-described iand court plan. As such it is a valid nonconforming use. Its status as such is confirmed by the following. The subject land is registered land shown on a subdivi- sion plan approved by the Land Court in 1928. When the first zoning ordinance was enacted by the City Council under then G. L. , c. 40A, in 1955, there were no provisions in the ordinance regulating lot sizes. Salem accepted the sub-division control law, G. L. , c. 41, §§81A-81GG on March 12, 1962. As I explained to you and City Solicitor Alfred Dobbs on or about that time the Trust's lots by G. L. , c. 41, §81FF, as land registered in the Land Court, the subdivision plan of which PEARL.McNiFF.CREAN &COOK 2 - Gloria J. Jermyn, Trustee Salem, Massachusetts March 19, 1980 was registered and recorded in 1928 and before February 1, 1952, were as valid as though approved under the sub-division control law. In November 1962 the zoning ordinance was amended to provide lot sizes and dimensions. By that amendment in a single residence district, in which the Trust's lots were Located, the mini- mum Lot area was 5, 000 square feet and the minimum street frontage was feet. It is very significant that the above-described lot 344 was acquired by Dundee Realty Trust by deed recorded and registered on or about September 6, 1962, and that at such time of recording was not held in common ownership with any adJot_� ninon . As such, under present G. L. , c. 40A, §6, fourth paragraph, first sentence, as long as it has 5, 000 square feet of area and 50 feet of frontage it is a valid buildable lot. The April 20, 1979 amendment of c. 40A to which the February 25, 1980 memo of Mr. Mansur refers is chapter 106 of the Acts of 1979. It inserted a new sentence after the first sentence of §6, referred to above, and it exempts from increased area require- ments for five years after the effective date of any such increase occurring on or after January 1, 1976, certain lots on a recorded or endorsed plan which were held in common ownership with adjoining land and conformed as of January 1, 1976 to then existing zoning requirements and contained at least 7500 square feet of area and 75 feet of frontage. Lot 344 is not a Lot which on January 1. 1976 con- formed to the then existing zoning or finance 1965) and was not held in common ownership with adjoining land at—hat time. Lot 344 is a nonconforming Lot which as I pointed out above comes within the pro- visions of the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of 56. Careful study of §6 will disclose that the first sentence of the fourth para- graph went into effect June 30, 1978? in place of former c. 40A, §5A which provided: "Any Lot lawfully laid out by plan or deed duly recorded - - - which complies at the time of such recording or such endorse- ment, whichever is earlier, with the minimum area, frontage, width, and depth requirements, if any, of the zoning ordinance - - - in effect - - - may thereafter be built upon for residential use if - - - such lot was held in ownership separate from that of adjoining land PEARL.McNIFF.CREAN &COOK 3 - Gloria J. Jermyn, Trustee Salem, Massachusetts March 19, 1980 - - - and - - - such lot has an area of five thousand square feet or . more and a frontage of fifty feet or more Former §5A is a necessary consideration in the construc- tion of the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of the present §6. It explains the absence from 56 of the words "deed" and "plan" in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph thereof. Construed in the light of its predecessor, the words"recording" and "endorsement" in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of 96 necessarily and logically refer to the,deed or plan of the lot. The provisions of Section VIII B. 1. of the current zoning ordinance of Salem (1977) are a paraphrase of §6, fourth paragraph, first sentence, and, accordingly, the within analysis of the latter applies to the former. In-c-losing I should call to your attention that Mr. Mansur addressed his letter t�_u and not to the owner of the property, the o ' Dundee Realty Trust. Under well established principles of law a trust is a legal entity just as a corporation or a natural person is. The corporate entity acts through an officer, a natural person acts personally, and a trust acts through the trustee. This should be called to Mr. Mansur's attention in order that there will be no con- fusion as to the correct identity of the owner of lot 344. I believe that adjoining tots 343 and 345 were or are owned by Marlboro Realty " { Trust and were acquired by that entity by deed recorded on or about September 6, 1962. The trustee of record of Marlboro Realty Trust is your husband John E. Jermyn. Any contention that adjoining lots of Dundee Realty Trust and Marlboro Realty Trust are held in common ownership is error because of the principles of law concerning entities and ownership I have endeavored to set forth above. in summary, in my view building permit #390 issued on September 13, 1979, was proper and valid. Sincerely, o A. McNiff JA McN/cw