20 SAVOY ROAD - BUILDING INSPECTION 20 SAVOY ROAD
CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS CITY' OF SALEM, MA
BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE
SON
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
STANLEY J. USOVIOZ, JR.
TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 1UOS ,AUG -2 A 11: 21
MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KIM& SHANE FRANKLIN REQUESTING A
SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20
SAVOY ROAD R-I
A hearing on this petition was held on July 20, 2005 with the following Board Members
present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Nicholas Helides, Steven Pinto and
Edward Moriarty. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the
hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening New in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a rehearing for a Variance/Special Permit to construct a single
story addition. This is a rehearing of original petition with specific and material changes
as determined by the Salem Planning Board for the property located at 20 Savoy Road R-
1 Zone.
The provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to the request for a
Special Permit is Section 5-3 0), 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 Sections 8-6
and 9-4, grant Special Permit for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming
structures, and for changes, enlargement, extent 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 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.
B. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KIM & SHANE FRANKLIN REQUESTING A
SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20
SAVOY ROAD R-1
page two
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
of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after
reviewing the plans makes the following findings of fact:
1. The Petitioners, along with their architect, appeared and presented a petition and
request for relief.
2. The request includes revised plans submitted before the Planning Board of the
City of Salem on April 21, 2005.
3. The new plans call for the demolition of the existing three-season porch on the
premises.
4. The plans further call for the expansion of the existing kitchen and the building of
a deck.
5. Most importantly,the plans do not request, as requested and denied heretofore
before this Board of Appeal on or about December 2004,permission to build
above the kitchen, to include a new second- floor bedroom.
6. The plans further minimize the impact on the surrounding neighbors and the view
and potential views of abutting neighbors.
7. According to Petitioners' architect, the existing kitchen is only 9' x 14' and is
inadequate for Petitioners' growing family. The new expanded kitchen will be
approximately 17' x 15'.
8. The new plans not only met with the approval of the Planning Board, but also
many of the Petitioners' surrounding neighbors who had expressed concern
regarding the original petition of December 2004, providing for a two-story
addition.
9. In fact, Petitioners presented signatures, totaling eight, from Petitioners' abutters
acknowledging said abutters' review of the proposed plans and agreement with
the plans as revised for a kitchen and deck, only.
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KIM& SHANE FRANKLIN REQUESTING A
SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20
SAVOY ROAD R-1
page three
10. Petitioners emphasized that the revised plans did not include a request to build
above the kitchen to include a full second floor bedroom and that said new
revised plans were limited to a first floor kitchen addition, only, to minimize
any impact on any views or potential view of immediate abutting neighbors.
11. Not all abutters or neighbors were in favor of the revised petition and plans
requesting permission to construct a one-story addition with deck.
12. In fact, Mr. Edward Ferris presented a petition signed by 13 neighbors, indicating
their opposition to the proposed plans for expansion of the home at 20 Savoy Rd.
13. The opposition expressed concern regarding density, height and loss of view if the
proposed single story addition for an expanded kitchen were granted by the
Board.
14. Petitioners further emphasized, in terms of their revised plans, that the existing
width of the house, represented to be 27', would be honored by the addition,
which would not be wider than 25'.
15. Petitioners further represented that the proposed addition would not encroach
on the 30' setback.
16. Although,Petitioners conceded the proposal would violate lot coverage and side
yard setbacks to a modest extent.
17. Petitioners further represented that they had spent considerable time and
substantial money to present a revised, substantially scaled-down plan for
addition to their premises, had the approval of the Planning Board as to a finding
that the new plan was a significant and materially altered plan, and had the
support of many, although, of course, not all, abutters and neighbors.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing the Zoning Board of Appeal concluded as follows:
1. Special conditions do exist which especially affect the subject property but not the
district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial
hardship on the petitioner.
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KIM& SHANE FRANKLIN REQUESTING A
SPECIAL PERMITNARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 SAVOY
ROAD R-1
page four
3. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial
hardship on the petitioner.
4. The relief requested can 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.
5. 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 voted, 4 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the
relief requested with 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. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained.
6. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board's or Commission having
Jurisdiction, but not limited to the Planning Board.
7. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing
structure.
8. Unless this decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does
not empower or authorize Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s)
located on the subject property to an extent or more than fifth percent (50%)
of its floor area or more than fifty percent of its replacement cost at the time of
destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than
50% of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except
in the provisions of the Ordinance. n (�
SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE
GRANTED Edward Moriarty ( Ott �
JULY 20, 2005 Board of Appeal
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KIM & SHANE FRANKLIN REQUESTING A
SPECIAL PERMITNARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20
SAVOY ROAD R-1
page five
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 or the owner of
record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
Board of Appeal
P
� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS cl t Y OF SALEM. E A
BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'SOFE'IC
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 7 2A• A/'i SO
MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KIM FRANKLIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 SAVOY ROAD R--1
A hearing on this petition was held on December 15, 2004, with the following Board
Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Edward Moriarty, Richard Dionne, Nicholas
Hellides and Bonnie Beliar. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and other 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 dimensional Variances to construct an addition. Variances
needed from lot coverage and side yard setback for the property located at 20 Savoy
Road located in an R-1 zone.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exit which especially affect the land, building
or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or
structures in the same district.
b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner
c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and
without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the
purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1. Petitioners Kim & Shane Franklin appeared with their Architect Walter Jacob and
presented their plans.
2. Petitioners need Variances from lot coverage and side yard setbacks to construct
an addition on the rear of their property.
3. Phil Pelletier of 22 Savoy Road appeared and spoke in favor of the addition.
4. Peter Dowdell appeared for his father who lives at 18 Savoy Road spoke in
opposition to the petition. Mr. Dowdell stated his father thought the addition was
too large and he would lose his ocean views, which he has enjoyed for many
years.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KIM FRANKLIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 SAVOY ROAD R-1
page two
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 not exist which especially affect the subject property and not
the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not result in
unnecessary hardship to the petitioner.
3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good or without nullifying and substantially hardship derogating from the intent of the
district or purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3 in favor and 2 in opposition to grant the
requested variances. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass,
the motion is defeated and the petition is denied.
VARIANCE DENIED
DECEMBER 152004
ichard Dionne ( ,
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 the 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 passed 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 owners Certificate of Title.
Board of Appeal
t
September 16, 1971
Mr. Daniel O'Brien, Jr.
Building Inspector
93 Washington Street
Salem, Massachusetts
Dear Sir:
As owners and residents of the property at 18 Savoy Road, and as members of
the Osgood Park Neighborhood Association, we wish to register our strong dis-
agreement with the action that resulted in the letter to you protesting the practice
of housing two to three students at 20 Savoy Road. We understand and share the
concern of those who fear that the area may be turned into rooming houses operated
by absentee landlords who aim to exploit the student housing problem. But this is
hardly the situation here.
The practice of people sharing their homes after their own families have
grown and left has existed since the former Normal School moved from Broad Street
75 years ago. One of the senior teachers at Horace Mann roomed in the neighborhood
for many years; we could cite many cases going back 20 to 30 years. If the "grand-
father clause" is a generally accepted principle it surely applies here.
We want to emphasize that the occupants of 20 Savoy Road have been ideal
neighbors. They live quietly and modestly. They take excellent care of their
property. If help is needed, it is freely offered and given but it is not forced
on anyone. The girls who have shared this home have never created the slightest
problem. If these girls had been unable to find housing they would have been
denied the opportunity for a low-cost education.
With ever-rising taxes and maintenance costs, older residents are increasingly
hard put to keep their own homes. The modest income from students sometimes makes
the difference between staying or being forced to sell out. Besides the injustice
of it, we frankly doubt that we could ever have as good neighbors as we now have.
/ Although we question the wisdom of continued unlimited expansion of Salem
k
State in a built-up residential area with its attendant problems of congestion,
traffic hazards, or even manageability, we feel that this is a separate issue which
should be considered on a city-wide basis.
Respectfully yours, We concur completely with these sentiments:
Mr. and Mrs. Vincent J. Dowdell, Jr.
A -
September 13, 1971
Mr. Daniel O'Brien
Building Inspector
City Hall
Salem, Mass.
Dear Mr. O'Brien:
At a meeting of the Directors of the Osgood Park Neighborhood Association
on September 12, 1971, it was voted to inform you and request that you take
appropriate action to prevent the practice of housing roomers and/or boarders at
the premises numbered 20 Savoy Rd. Salem, Mass. owned by Mr, and Mrs. Leo Kaden.
This is a recurring violation of which we informed you by letter dated 11 February
1971.
Since this property is located in an R-1 district. This condition is clearly
in violation of the applicable zoning ordinance. We hope and trust that you will take
appropriate action forthwith.
Very Truly Yours,
���
E. Ferris
President, Osgood Park
Neighborhood Association
1
OSGOOD PARK ASSOCIATION
(Meeting of the Board of Directors - November 12, 1970)
Due to the increasing number of alleged violations
of the zoning regulations a motion was made that the Board of
Directors shall receive complaints of zoning violations and a
meeting of the Board of Directors shall be called to examine
the evidence of the alleged violation. If the evidence appears
valid the complains; shall be forwarded by the Board to the City
of Salem Building Inspector for action.
This policy to go into effect at the completion of
this college semester (approximately January 15, 1971),
4 So voted.
Attached: copy of zoning regulations for R-1 district.
i
I
I
Respectfully submitted
E. Ferris, President
i
r�n:�n�s.��,sr' �TTTII�TYT� �E�IcY1�T1TPYI�
j anict 31. 1D' rirn, Jr., 'Supt. 2 . 24- 71,
X`601n 7, Qitq Pall
Albert R. Pitcoff, Esq . ,
70 Washington Street ,
Salem, Massachusetts
Dear Mr. Pitcoff:
We are enclosing copies of a letter received in this office , com-
plaining of roomers at 20 Savoy Road and 11 Hemenway Road, and copies
of letters from this office to the parties involved. This is an R-1
district , zoned for single-family residences.
We are constantly being informed of violations of the City Zoning
Ordinance , usually concerning rooming and/or boarding of persons , chief-
ly college students. The Ordinance presently specifically excludes
such use in the R-1 districts . "Special Permit Uses"allows rooming and
boarding of three or more persons, not to exceed a total of six persons
in the R-2 districts . In the R-3 districts , any special permit uses
specifically excluded from R-C, R-1 and R-2 districts , with the excep-
tion of convalescent or nursing homes, are specifically excluded.
There have been a number of factors brought to our attention;
namely, persons on fixed incomes trying to augment their incomes by
providing occupancy for the students ; exorbitant rents charged them by
some property owners; the unfairr$ess of rooming being permitted in some
districts and prohibited in others ; and finally, home owners with no
income from their property being assessed real estate taxes in keeping
with amounts charged neighboring owners who are realizing sizable sums
of money by renting rooms and/or apartments to students.
Because of the ever-increasing enrollment at the State College at
Salem such conditions are prevalent throughout the City, and it would
appear that some revisions to the Ordinance should be considered which
would protect all of the residents with regard to housing these young
people.
Very truly yours,
DJOB: cc * \- � \
Encl. 4 nspeg qr of Buildings
lJ