40 DERBY STREET - ZBA -- // \
!� h � J
7
1
��I� �
� ���
, �
��
� ,
���
� �
' ' . a
,'�' �r�
� �.
4�
! �L
I+ \ I
i
f � � 1Ma � , __.�._.�`
i � `
{\\J
'1.::-
JOSEPH F. COLLINS d LEONARD F. FEMINO
ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR T�1 — J� ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
93 WASHINGTON STREET 93 WASHINGTON STREET
AND CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS AND
22 SO. MAIN STREET MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN ONE SCHOOL STREET
TOPSFIELD. MA 01983 CITY SOLICITOR BEVERLY, MA 01915
745-4311 93 WASHINGTON STREET 745.4311
887-6401 AND 921-1990
PLEASE REPLY TO 22 SO, MAIN STREET 81 WASHINGTON STREET PLEASE REPLY TO ONE SCHOOL STREET
SALEM. MA 01970
745-4311
744-3363
PLEASE REPLY TO 81 WASHINGTON STREET Ili,
November 6 , 1989 ?-
-c j
Cz
James M. Fleming, Chairman
Board of Appeal
City of Salem _ _p rn
_ v
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970r' V'
Re : Soucy, et. ux. v Fleming, et. als .
Essex Superior Court #88-1905
Dear Mr. Fleming:
Enclosed please find copy of a Superior Court Order
in the above matter which is self-explanatory.
If you have any questions regarding the same, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
:;
Ve truly yours
ichael E. O'Bri
City Solicitor
MEO/jp
Enclosure
cc: James A. Peterson, Esq.
. :.
r
I �
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS: TRIAL COURT r
- SUPERIOR COURT DEPT.
p CIVIL ACTION NO. 88-1905
GLENN E. SOUCY and
SANDRA J. SOUCY
Plaintiffs ) o A o
O DERr3 %
m
JAMES M. FLEMING, RICHARD A. BENCAL, ) a o y
JOHN R. NUTTING, EDWARD LUZINSKI, ) r
N
PETCR STROUT and ARTHUR LaBRECQUE ) n
as they constitute the ) `�
BOARD OF APPEAL OF THE CITY OF SALEM )
Defendants )
After hearing the parties, it is Ordered that the
plaintiffs ' application for a Special Permit be remanded to the
Board of Appeals of the City of Salem for a rehearing. The
Court retains jurisdiction over this matter , and this Order
shall not affect the plaintiffs ' claims in Counts Two and Three
regarding the constructive grant of a variance.
By the Court (Ronan, J. )
9
wD
Ctg of "Sttlrm, Aussadjusetts
�Rvarb of �ppeal Ill 6 Z 43 Ph '88
��MIII{
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GLENN E. & SANDRA J. SOUCY FOR A FILE#
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 40 DERBY STREET (R-2)
CITY SLE71K.
A hearing on this petition was held on June 29, 1988 with the following Board
Members present, James Fleming, Chairman, Richard A. Bencall , Vice Chairman;
John Nutting, Secretary; Edward Luzinski and Associate Member Arthur LaBreque.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notice of the hearing
were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with the
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners, owners of the property, request a Special Permit from set back
requirements and lot coverage to allow construction of a deck and swimming pool
in this R-2 Zone.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, 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
VIII F and IX D, 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 Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and
viewing the plans make the following finding of fact:
1. The deck and pool have already been built without legal permits for
either one.
2. The deck. and pool as they exist now are a hardship on the neighbors,
abutters and others.
3. The deck, as now constructed is only 27 inches from the property line.
4. The pool, as now constructed is only 16 inches frau the property line.
5. Because of the closeness to the rear lot line the quality of life for
the abutters, directly behind the property, has been adversely affected.
6. The property in question is in a Historic District and no certificate or
approvals have been obtained for the Salem Historical Commission.
7. The property in question is small, only approximately 1900 square feet.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GLENN E. 6 SANDRA J. SOUCY FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 40 DERBY STREET, SALEM
PAGE TWO
8. Neighbors, abutters and others either spoke in opposition or sent
correspondence in opposition.
9. A petition, signed by abutters and others, was, presented in favor, also,
sane of these same persons spoke in favor.
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. The relief requested would be substantially more detrimental to the
public good than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted 3 in favor (Messers. Fleming, Nutting,
and Labreque) and 2 opposed (Messers. Bencal and Luzinski) . Due to the failure
of the petitioner to have 4 votes in favor the petition is denied.
DENIED
chard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FIT WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
A"PE4'_ FP.?,j THIS I- SHALL EE PIT° '9i TO SEC'IO'i 17 OF TH' W!S.
RE . .. .._ .. ."14 E3, RL ...rr; rs
OF REL„RU UR 13 Ri;a RHU Alio Nj'L0 O(. 1. - D.,NER S CERTIFICATE OF TIRE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
?PEAL C:;SE ..0. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .
AA
r5k; t
CifIL'lti, (7c7S_ LITITSEZfS
J
r
-0 TiiE c ,;"nD OF APPEALS.
rc,,,rCsent '... C t...'y xz rce1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . ._..tr.a Dist).. _ . . .
R?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ':0 __id -_ _ _ ones . . . and. . . . . . . .
;f Salem Zoning Ordinance.
Plans _.::Crlb ing the ;,ur} ;lropgSCo , ..;vP. I'.-`.'!t : ....'•1 CCCd .- CCCLCr ;i Ouildir,n5 in
accorza::ce with ieCtion IX A. 1 ,a e i. ;nine c t ce.
� N
J_J G N
� v�
U
(V _
T- r
U
l.J -�
The Application for Permit was- denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following
reasons:
Pool and deck exceed lot coverage and setback requirements.
The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code and order the Inspector of Buildings to
approve the application fee permit to build as filed, as the enforcement of said
Zoning By-Laws and Building Code r:ould involve practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship to the Undersigned and relief -ay be granted without substantially dero-
gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for
the following reasons:
The petitioners request a Variance and/or a Special Permit allowing an above-ground pool and
adjacent deCIK'as shown on the plans submitted herewith. Specifically, the petitioners request
a variance (to the extent applicable) from the lot coverage and setback requirements, and a
variance or special permit allowing a pool the sides of which are located less than six (6)
feet from the rear and side property lines and less than ten (1'0) feet from the foundation.
In support of the Petition, the petitioners state the size, shape and configuration of the lot
does not allow the construction of a swimming pool complying with the requirements;
literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hard-
ship; the relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent
of the Ordinance; and allowing such relief would be in harmony with the purpose and intent
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Owner. Glenn E. Soucy and Sandra J. Soucy
AddreS5.40 Derby Streets Salem, h5t y 01970
Telephone. . .�617) 744.0389. . . . . . . . . .
Glenn E. Soucy and Sandra J. Sou
Petitioner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40 Derby Street, Salem, MA. 01970
Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Date. . May 20, 1988. . . . . . . (617) 744-0389
By. . . . . . .
Three copies of the application must be filed with the Secretary of the Board of
Appeals with a check., for advertising in the amount of. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . ... . .
four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The
Evenina trews.
114
Salem Historical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN.SAL EM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
1617! 745-9595. EXT. 311
To Whom It May Concern;
This letter concerns the work done at 40 Derby Street without
a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salem Historical Commission.
As it stands now, the work is in violation of the Historic District
Ordinance because the Certificates of Appropriateness was never ob-
tained.There are two courses of action that could be taken to resolve
this violation. The first would be to come before the Historical
Commission with an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness
and either get that approved or follow the course of action laid out
by the Commission. The second course of action would be to remove
the offending sections of the work, (any part that is visible from
a public way within the Historic District) . Either of these actions
would be deemed acceptable by the Historic Commission. If there are
any questions concerning this issue, feel free to call me at 745-9595,
ext. 311.
Sincerely,
/
Kent Hea
Preservation Planner
City of Salem
�r
7 ' \
J � 1
rl
D
j I I I
I � 1
\ V
MOF, iGAGE INSPECTION
BAY STATE SURVEYING SERVICE INC.
234 CABOT ST., BEVERLY, MA.
LOCATION SXI NOTES
..............f-• - -- •• -i ---...............-
SCALE : I" =ZO FT. DATE : _ • This is a Mortgage inspection survey and not
REFERENCE
Z � an instrument survey, therefore this plot plen is for
.QK. .�.7�1l.P� •.............
y So. S mortgage inspection purposes only.
• This survey is based on survey marks of
-• •- -- - -• -- - •--- -•-• ._. .._._... others.
To • Bushes,shrubs, fences and tree lines do
I hereby certify that I have examined the premises and that the
not necessarily indicate property lines.
building (s) shown on this plan are located on the ground as
shown and that they conformed to the zoning setbacks of the • The building(s) are not located in the apeci
G!j�_-_OF SAL�M flood hazard zone, as defined by H.U.D.
•_______ _ __ _ _________ when constructed.
Z4' �AV'7'�E c�f}TrvF'j -T 11,4E'4 15 i.J F/oao
Z0IJa �..
�Y TfFPc SJR✓r�/ �,-�-yam
S���c�/ Rcco ,�Mc-uoco f-o2
Er,,gL
T Lcz.trio/,j OF sraLA--7.0As
RvO �'�W�ERTy UnJE$
W
h
Z Ela�i
�a DSR 3 y s T
' E;'ER
AN
��'aOFFSET IS
! OR LESS AN INSTR. SURVEY IS
RECOM
MENDED TO DETERMINE
T�
�.- •.cam i � � � i
4i
.o .T
SIc1<
C? C)
y
t
fc I '
i
i ! J I i
I I
I I
Pb
I -
May /6, /988
To The Membea.a O� The Appeals Boaxd;
An abuttene o� 40 vertby Sficeef, We ane not opposed to the
above gaound pool and deck in the Soucy',& 6ackyaad. Thin pool
an been up ort overt one yea& mifhouf any p&oblema to the neiy.h-
6oahood.
NOE ADDRESS OWNER/OCCUPATION
i
GC'rs�121�
too• � LLL
i
L l s. �/ •.
O�� O
243 j
E
;903 248 J�bJ P
g�C
TER. 7 4 AC.
X '
so 0
s / ho-s Jp Al
p 239 e44' bao �'k,
238 o.ioo a P
S 236 ez50Al
19i63 5
460 U ,", .,o
` ,e6.t ,• 265
i
11got, bs �J • "� •o.s CO ode ,
69 ro ro do
26$5 2 \ �:/qo • • ,
0 k
900 170-s
s h 0 �
• '' 259 �P '//+
5 N16,0/9
< 3 ! by
w E B e Z, l °ry 9 S 2Sg 2S7 258 29 0
37,600 X
Iq. TANK
I O �\
106 > ♦ � \ \"^J\
cl •Ojel 169 +
S3
r
jy 4-
/611 O v>Job • � � I
STACK ?_ `*s 4 ., q o 0.91 \
fc
A o
`
Cy / b d!9O O
/S O
, v + /3
\tom 19,S / T N
IT.
ob .�
6 ♦ c0 V
tib 11``0 !
AC
May 16, /988
To The Ae-mbetA O� The Appeale Boand;
AA abuttene o� 40 Denby SfReet, We ane not oppoeed to the
above ynound pool and deck Ln the Soucy 'e backyand. Thin pool
as been up 04 oven one yeah wLfhout any pnobleme to the netg.h-
boAhood.
NAME I S,.h ADDRESS OWNER/OCCUPATION
cz, Ai
1
l--Y
i
I
I
James A. Peterson
Attorney at Law On
in iq 53 py app
FILE# 7L i A W
CITY OLEJUL SALE4. MASS.
October 18 , 1988
City Clerk
City Hall
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Re: Petition for Zoning Variance
Petitioners: Glenn E. Soucy and Sandra J . Soucy
Premises: 40 Derby Street , Salem, Massachusetts
To the City Clerk :
On September 27 , 1988 , I filed a Notice with your office, a copy of
which enclosed. The period for appeal has expired , and to my
knowledge no appeal has been filed.
Under the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws , Chapter 40A,
Section 15 , we hereby request that you issue a certificate stating
the date of constructive approval of the application, stating the
fact that the Board failed to take final action, and stating that
the approval resulting from the failure has become final . The
certificate should be forwarded to my office .
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours ,
GLENN E . SOUCY and SANDRA J . SOUCY
,py their at n ,
JAMES A. PETERSON
JAP: nac
1448LD
Telephone (508) 744-2450
81 Washington Street, Suite 10, Salem, Massachusetts 01970-3574
�.c,iaR,c
W• It
n a.•gT'nu
uitly i is
KEVIN T. DALY �' — LEONARD F. FEMINO
.ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR AQ JJ? ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
93 WASHINGTON STREET �n•.`rtY.:,�� 93 WASHINGTON STREET
AND CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS AND
ONE CHURCH STREET MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN ONE SCHOOL STREET
SALEM, MA 01970 BEVERLY. MA 01915
CITY SOLICITOR 745.4311
745-4311 93 WASHINGTON STREET
745-0500 921-1990
AND --
=-EASE REPLY TO ONE CHURCH STREET BI WASHINGTON STREET PLEASE REPLY TO ONE SCHOOL STREET
SALEM, MA 01970
745-4311
744-3363
PLEASE REPLY TO BI WASHINGTON STREET
October 13 , 1988
4
Parker Harrison, III
5 Allen Street
i Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Re : Petition for Zoning Variance
Petitioners - Glenn E. Soucy, et ux
Premises - 40 Derby Street, Salem
Dear Mr . Harrison:
Please be advised I reviewed the Zoning Ordinance and
Application in the above matter. with respect to the pool ,
the application requests "a Variance and/or Special Permit" .
Section VIII , J. 7 . provides that special permit is the
exclusive relief when a pool is located within six ( 6 ) feet
of an applicant' s side or rear property line. Accordingly,
the Board acted correctly in treating the same as a request
for a special permit.
A close reading of the application indicates that with
regard to the deck, the applicants requested a variance.
However, it is my opinion that the fact that the Board' s
(3Pci.sion refers to the applicants ' request for both the pool
and deck as a "special permit" request is of no legal
consequence. The last sentence of the Board' s decision
indicates that the applicants ' requests, whatever they may
be termed, were denied. Perhaps it might have been more
appropriate for the Board to distinguish between a special
permit for the pool and variance for the deck. However, the
last sentence of the Board' s decision is dispositive of the
applicants ' requests . This is particularly true because the
criteria for establishing variances are even more stringent
than the criteria for special permits. Also, the law is quite
clear that the Board has inherent power, without the necessity
of further public hearings, to correct an inadvertent or
clerical error in it' s decision so that the record reflects
it ' s true intention.
- z -
Accordingly, it is my opinion that there was no
constructive grant of a variance for the deck and I do not
intend to appeal the Soucy' s assertion that there was such
a grant. I will forward a copy of this letter to the Board
For it ' s determination as to whether or not it wishes to
amend the decision as outlined above .
Very, truly yours
Michael E. O' Brien
City Solicitor
MEO/jp
cc: James M. Fleming, Esq. ,
Chairman Board of Appeal
James E. Peterson, Esq..
DATE OF HEARING ]
PETITIONER
LOCATION
MOTION: TO GRANT SECOND
TO DENY SECOND
TO RE-HEAR SECOND
LEAVE TO WITHDRAW SECOND
TO CONTINUE SECOND___,,,/ ...
ROLL CALL PRESENT GRANT DENY WITHDRAW RE-HEAR CONTINUE
RICHARD BENCAL
RICHARD FEBONIO
JAMES FLEMING
EDWARD LUZINSKI
J0
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
PETER DORE
ARTH{ Ra@eUF
CONDITIONS:
10.
3 �
Cgitg of "S'ttlrm, :M� ttssttcl 50to
Poxrb of tAppral JUL 6 Z 43 PM
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GLENN E. & SANDRA J. SOUCY FOR A FILE#
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 40 DERBY STREET (R-2)
CITY tlS!!A. SALb.i.Jq.186:
A hearing on this petition was held on June 29, 1988 with the following Board
Members present, James Fleming, Chairman, Richard A. Bencall, Vice Chairman;
John Nutting, Secretary; Edward Luzinski and Associate Member Arthur TaBreque.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notice of the hearing
were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with the
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners, owners of the property, request a Special Permit from set back
requirements and lot coverage to allow construction of a deck and swimming pool
in this R-2 Zone.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, 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
VIII F and IX D, 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 Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and
viewing the plans make the following finding of fact:
1. The deck and pool have already been built without legal permits for
either one.
2. The deck and pool as they exist now are a hardship on the neighbors,
abutters and others.
3. The deck, as now constructed is only 27 inches from the property line.
4. The pool, as now constructed is only 16 inches from the property line.
5. Because of the closeness to the rear lot line the quality of life for
the abutters, directly behind the property, has been adversely affected.
6. The property in question is in a Historic District and no certificate or
approvals have been obtained for the Salem Historical Commission.
7. The property in question is small, only approximately 1900 square feet.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GIMN E. b SANDRA J. SC()CY FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 40 DERBY STREET', SALEM
PAGE TWO
8. Neighbors, abutters and others either spoke in opposition or sent
correspondence in opposition.
9. A petition, signed by abutters and others, was presented in favor, also,
some of these same persons spoke in favor.
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. The relief requested would be substantially more detrimental to the
public good than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted 3 in favor (Messers. Fleming, Nutting,
and Iabreque) and 2 opposed (Messers. Bencal and Luzinski) . Due to the failure
of the petitioner to have 4 votes in favor the petition is denied.
DENIED
-tichard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPE,:_ FR. V THIS OF.i.I G! II -:A;' CE _c Pq FF•.�.:IT TO S.C•..i.. 17 OF TH; kl-'7S.
CE(ic tl c4 _ c._. _7"._. •. L LII:S rr - `rt D;. c u:
H;: :D.
He i',' ... 'i, E7S R. S,rr; _.: i.FO L c" _ i:a..-c u' WE u, ';: _R
OF REI.,.Ru OR IS R�CURDED AND iw,ED CS T::_ O,l:;ER'S CERTIFICATE Or TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
BOARD O1= APPEALS.
Z AH
at/v r
SW�MM�r1CT 1�_Ol Inl CSLChI. z--SdVJ P, SONG /
Z Lt V_E AT 5 /�LLGS �-(_-�- MY (�j/aGK.YAR-tom
_I5—�I_R �ciZY g r�-L-> ft�EiIZS . T HAv_E L—
�l0 P�p(j(kT�S W_l n `�iEi 2 HAS/ rl�s A
1E
_N E I Ce)H P,09S A-t-ASJ L'_V_E rl D j�G+✓l� Tt t c�E �S
Amu t T Sip_ yISloil wrtErl MtE K\as
X11
-ELAU"
BOA
,Nss
----- ----------
a>nirl
h b'r
(situ of '�$ttlem, 'fflttssac4usetts
R"2umn.�
February 6, 1990
Glenn & Sandra Soucy
40 Derby St.
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mr. Mrs. Soucy:
You are hereby notified that the hearing of the Board of
Appeal on the remanded petition for 40 Derby St. has been re-
scheduled for March 7, 1990 at 7:00 P.M. , second floor, One
Salem Green.
If you have any problem with this date, please contact me
at 745-9595 ext. 381 or write to, Board of Appeal , One Salem Green,
Salem, MA 01970.
Sincerely,
Brenda M. Sumrall
Clerk of the Board
CC: Board of Appeal Members
Salem .Historical 1.0.7ommission
ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(617) 745-9595. EXT. 311
May 7 , 1990
Albert & Ellen Eisen
Glenn & Sandra Soucy
40 Derby Street
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Property Owners :
On March 19 , 1990, you were mailed an application for a
Certificate of Non-applicability for deck construction at 40
Derby Street . The Non-applicability application was mailed based
on your telephone conversation with our staff person, Jane Guy,
to whom you indicated that the deck was not visible from the
public way. At this time, no application has been filed with the
Salem Planning Department. Kindly return your application within
30 days in order that the Commission may ratify that the work is
non-applicable and therefore satisfy the conditions of the Board
of Appeal .
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Respectfully,)
C7
THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Annie C. Harris
Chairman
cc : Board of Appeal
His104
M Tito of ttlem, iagsadjusptts
aura of 4veal
ke,.mm�.WT
March 14 , 1990
r . .
Notice is hereby given that as of March 13 , 1990 the
• r '
decision of the Board of Appeal has been filed in the
Office of the City Clerk to grant the remanded petition
of Glenn & Sandra Soucy for a Special Permit to allow
deck and pool at 40 Derby St .
BOARD OF APPEAL
Brenda M . Sumrall
Clerk of the Board
Appeal from this decision, if any,shall be made pursuant to section 17 of
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808,and shall be filed within 20 days
after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. -
Pcrsuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, section 11, :he Variance
or °vecial Permit granted herein shall not take effect Lehi a cipy of the
.recision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 day+ 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 Scuth Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or
is recorded and noted do the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
OAR 13 9 33 ilii 'JO
0
b`bT. fl�itl IIf �zlem, "T'6 He
3tHDMTa of C^1Upeal
m
DECISION ON THE COURT REMANDED PETITION OF GLENN AND SANDRA SOUCY
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 40 DERBY ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held on January 31 ,1990 and continued until
March 7, 1990 with the following Board Members present: James M. Fleming,
Chairman; Richard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Richard Febonio,
and Associate Member Peter Dore. 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 Special Permit from setback
requirements and lot coverage to allow construction of a deck and swimming
pool in this R-2 zone.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, 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 VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations
and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement,
extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, lands, 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 Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition was presented and support in the form of a signed
petition was presented.
2. The immediate abutter, who opposed the original petition is no longer
an abutter.
3. Petitioners have maintained the pool and deck for at least two years
with no apparent problems.
4. The pool and deck would give the petitioner a fuller use of their property.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The pool and deck would not be substantially more detrimental to the public
good then the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
DECISION ON THE COURT REMANDED PETITION OF GLENN AND SANDRA SOUCY
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 40 DERBY ST. (R-2) , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 (Mr. Bencal opposed) to
grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner obtain, if deemed necessary, a Certificate of Appropriateness
from the Salem Historical Commission.
2. Petitioner must meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept.
3. All work be done by legal building permit and as per all city and
state building codes.
4. As long as the pool remains a splash guard shall be installed and
maintained on the rear fence to protect the abutting property.
5. All construction and dimensions to be as per the plans submitted.
6. The Special Permit granted shall continue in effect only as long as
Glenn and Sandra Soucy are owners of and reside in the property.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
chard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman
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 Mass. General Laws, Chapter So9, and shall he filed within 20 days
after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the city Clerk.
Pursuant to Mass. Cencrz'. Lam'✓s. 'Ih >>r sob, section 11,the variance
or Special Permit gm,.nt^_ ' P,a eM sir is o,t t:ke effect until a copy of the
decision, bearing the C:J.:ilC. to' City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no appall has hemi i'ed, or that, if such appeal has been
filed, that it has been disraiscc. cr levied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or
is recorded and noted cti the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAU
Z (Cif" of �ttlrm,( -� ttssttclTurffs
-Soura of _�u}1ett1
DECISION ON THE COURT REMANDED PETITION OF GLENN AND SANDRA SOUCY
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 40 DERBY ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held on January 31 ,1990 and continued until
March 7, 1990 with the following Board Members present: James M. Fleming,
Chairman; Richard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Richard Febonio,
and Associate Member Peter Dore. 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 Special Permit from setback
requirements and lot coverage to allow construction of a deck and swimming
pool in this R-2 zone.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, 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 VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations
and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlarqement,
extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, lands, 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 Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition was presented and support in the form of a signed
petition was presented.
2. The immediate abutter, who opposed the original petition is no longer
an abutter.
3. Petitioners have maintained the pool and deck for at least two years
with no apparent problems.
4. The pool and deck would give the petitioner a fuller use of their property.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The pool and deck would not be substantially more detrimental to the public
good then the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
I DECISION ON THE COURT REMANDED PETITION OF GLENN AND SANDRA SOUCY
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 40 DERBY ST. (R-2) , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 (Mr. Bencal opposed) to
grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner obtain, if deemed necessary, a Certificate of Appropriateness
from the Salem Historical Commission.
2. Petitioner must meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept.
3. All work be done by legal building permit and as per all city and
state building codes.
4. As long as the pool remains a splash guard shall be installed and
maintained on the rear fence to protect the abutting property.
5. All construction and dimensions to be as per the plans submitted.
6. The Special Permit granted shall continue in effect only as long as
Glenn and Sandra Soucy are owners of and reside in the property.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
' chard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman
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 01
the Mass. General Laws. Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
after the date of ttkgn of this decision in the office of the city Clerk.
Pursuant to 'Moss. Ge-.e:c' L:rr•, Cir-.!r t?08, Section It.the variance
or }.pecial Permit grr.n: :t t..ke until a copy of the
decision, bearing th_ c:'_r ,i.c I.,' City Clerk that .A days have
elapsed and no ape:a-.d hcs i`f'^" i'^.d. cr that, it such appeal has been
filed, that it has been dismisce. cr 'en•ed is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or,
is recorded and noted L., the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL]
(Citt7 of &ajcm, � ttss�dTusetts
si 'Botts of Appral
DECISION ON THE COURT REMANDED PETITION OF GLENN AND SANDRA SOUCY
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 40 DERBY ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held on January 31 ,1990 and continued until
March 7, 1990 with the following Board Members present: James M. Fleming,
Chairman ; Richard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Richard Febonio,
and Associate Member Peter Dore. 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 Special Permit from setback
requirements and lot coverage to allow construction of a deck and swimming
pool in this R-2 zone.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, 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 VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations
and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement,
extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, lands, 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 Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition was presented and support in the form of a signed
petition was presented.
2. The immediate abutter, who opposed the original petition is no longer
an abutter.
3. Petitioners have maintained the pool and deck for at least two years
with no apparent problems.
4. The pool and deck would give the petitioner a fuller use of their property.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The pool and deck would not be substantially more detrimental to the public
good then the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
I '
DECISION ON THE COURT REMANDED PETITION OF GLENN AND SANDRA SOUCY
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 40 DERBY ST. (R-2) , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 (Mr. Bencal opposed) to
grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions :
1 . Petitioner obtain, if deemed necessary, a Certificate of Appropriateness
from the Salem Historical Commission.
2. Petitioner must meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept.
3. All work be done by legal building permit and as per all city and
state building codes.
4. As long as the pool remains a splash guard shall be installed and
maintained on the rear fence to protect the abutting property.
5. All construction and dimensions to be as per the plans submitted.
6. The Special Permit granted shall continue in effect only as long as
Glenn and Sandra Soucy are owners of and reside in the property.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
'R- chard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman
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 01
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall he filed within 20 days
after the date of tlln�, of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Hass. Cr-c!cL:: : C'l"':" iv)% Section 11, the variance
or °.retial Permit �rrnte t,2 cin ,-t t:.ke effort until a COPY of the
decision. beann.g the C..:r cc la! CAY Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no apt-erl h-.s PO"" i-<d. Cr that, if such appeal has been
filed, that it ha been dismi s_e.. cr '^Ted is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds ani indened unrler the name or the owner of record or.
is recorded and noted Lii the owner's Certificate of TWO.
BOARD OF APPEAU
rr t I
� �` ! Ctb of �ottra of ttlem, {Rtts5achusetts
r
t B ?�, pettl
Win,`+r�
DECISION ON THE COURT REMANDED PETITION OF GLENN AND SANDRA SOUCY
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 40 DERBY ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held on January 31 ,1990 and continued until
March 7, 1990 with the following Board Members present: James M. Fleming,
Chairman; Richard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Richard Febonio,
and Associate Member Peter Dore. 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 Special Permit from setback
requirements and lot coverage to allow construction of a deck and swimming
pool in this R-2 zone.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, 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 VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations
and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement,
extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, lands, 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 Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition was presented and support in the form of a signed
petition was presented.
2. The immediate abutter, who opposed the original petition is no longer
an abutter.
3. Petitioners have maintained the pool and deck for at least two years
with no apparent problems.
4. The pool and deck would give the petitioner a fuller use of their property.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The pool and deck would not be substantially more detrimental to the public
good then the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
0
DECISION ON THE COURT REMANDED PETITION OF GLENN AND SANDRA SOUCY
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 40 DERBY ST. (R-2) , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 (Mr. Bencal opposed) to
grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner obtain, if deemed necessary, a Certificate of Appropriateness
from the Salem Historical Commission.
2. Petitioner must meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept.
3. All work be done by legal building permit and as per all city and
state building codes.
4. As long as the pool remains a splash guard shall be installed and
maintained on the rear fence to protect the abutting property.
5. All construction and dimensions to be as per the plans submitted.
6. The Special Permit granted shall continue in effect only as long as
Glenn and Sandra Soucy are owners of and reside in the property.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
"ITchard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from thls decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 o1
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall he filed within 20 days
after the date of tiling of th's dccic,on in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to 'Sass. Cr-�Cr7 1.::"+'. ':'l "98, section It. the Variance
or !%nccial Permit rant_ Yr_ cin � ! take elf:ct until a copy of the
decision, bearing tha crr'a c .i I.0 City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no apic:l h=.s r•vw, 1-•.d. cr that, if such appeal has been
filed, that it hos he en dis cti c. cr 'r.n-ed is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or
is recorded and noted c=i the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPFFJW
,.om4b
ofttlpm, ussttclj>zsetts
�Bnttra of �upeal
March 15, 1990
Glenn & Sandra Soucy
40 Derby St.
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Soucy:
Enclosed is a copy of the Board of Appeal decision of
March 7, 1990, this decision must be taken to Superior Court.
I have also sent a copy of the decision to your Attorney,
James Peterson.
I have also enclosed the checks you submitted to the
Board at the time of the initial filing. These checks are
the two dollar check for the certified copy and the ten dollar
check for the recording of the decision at the Registry of
Deeds. You can either mail me two new checks and I will take
care of the recording when the appeal period is up, or you
can go to the City Clerk ' s office, on or after, April 4, 1990
and obtain the Certified copy and then take it to the Registry
yourself, please let me know what you decide.
Sincerely,
,�� p�
Brenda M. Sumrall
Clerk of the Board
cc: Board Members
Enclosed: Checks # 817 & 818
ZBA Decision (2)
DATE OF HEARING l�
PETITIONER ) Q
LOCATION 4L< AA
J
MOTION: TO GRANT - SECOND
TO DENY SECOND
TO RE-HEAR SECOND
LEAVE TO WITHDRAW SECOND
TO CONTINUE SECOND
ROLL CALL PRESENT GRANT DENY WITHDRAW RE-HEAR CONTINUE
RICHARD BENCAL VI/
RICHARD FEBONIO
JAMES FLEMING
EDWARD LUZINSKI
J
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
PETER DORE
14-R- E�
CONDITIONS: j ✓ Y ��-
L� f
l
(IlitU of �5ttlem, �fflttssuchusetfs
'�BstII>1 0{ Ar
peat
February 6, 1990
Glenn & Sandra Soucy
40 Derby St.
Salem. MA 01970
Uear Mr. G1rs . ''oucy:
You are hereby notified that the hearing of the Board of
Appeal on the remanded petition for 40 Derby St. has been re-
scheduled for March 7, 1990 at 7 :00 P.M. , second floor, One
Salem Green.
If you have any problem with this date, please contact me
at 745-9595 ext. 331 or write to. Board of Appeal . One Salem Green,
Salem. MA 01970.
Sincerely,
Brenda M. Sumrall
Clerk of the Board
CC: Board of Appeal Members
4�..LOYe„1�
r fllitu of �$ttlPm, Aassar4uspits
� 1
�r ? �goarb of '4FVd
��OI,IIML
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL JULY 29 , 1988
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held July 29 , 1988 at
7 : 00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing
have been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on June 15 ,
22 , 1988 . Abutters and other interested persons were notified
by mail .
Members Present: James Fleming, Chairman, Richard Bencal , Vice
Chairman, John Nutting, Secretary, Edward
Luzinski, Arthur Labracque.
Meeting was called to order by Chairman, James Fleming, at which
time lie appointed Arthur Labrecque a voting member.
Mr . Bencal : A motion to accept the July 15 , 1988 Minutes of the
meeting as recorded. Mr. Labracque seconded.
4 ALLEN STREET - DEAN BOUCHER
CONTINUED Petition of Dean Boucher for Variance from density and
setbacks to allow construction of a two family dwelling. where
Mr. Bencal did not sit on this matter, since it is a continued
petition, it will be a four member board and you must have a four
affirmative vote in order to prevail .Attorney Vallis : I would like
to request to continue this matter till next meeting, July 20 , 1988 .
Mr . Luzinski moved to continue the petition. Mr. Labracque
seconded, the vote was 4-0 .
UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CONTINUE.
40 DERBY STREET - GLENN E. & SANDRA J . SOUCY
Petitioner is requesting a Variance and/or Special Permit from
set back requirements and lot coverage to allow construction of
a deck and swimming pool. Mr. Nutting read the application. Letters
in opposition from Councillor George Nowak, Letter from the Salem
Historical Commission stating violation. Letter from the Fire
Marshall stating no objection. Letter from Catherine M. Trayers ,
3 Allen St. , in opposition. Petition from abutters on Allen St.
in opposition, Petition from abutters on Derby St. in approval.
Mr. & Mrs . Soucy, petitioner, owners: the pool has been up for
about a year and a half, no one has ever complained to us . Mr.
Bencal: Has any permits been taken out to construct this deck and
pool? Mrs . Soucy: No, we did not know. Mr. Fleming: May of 1188"
you bought the house? Mrs . Soucy: Yes, I have lived there for
5 years , I was renting. Mr. Fleming: Can you tell us something
about the back yard? Mrs. Soucy: We have submitted drawings, the
back yard is small, the deck and the pool were put up by my husband
and brother-in-law, we made it so there would be access around
the pool in case of emergency, the stairs are locked when there ' s
no one there or we leave. On the side there is a cloths line and
rabbits _ for 4H, picnic table and grill, and a little garden. In
the back there is a 6 ft. fence. Leah Martin is on our left, and
MINUTES 6/29/88 Continued
Page 2
40 DERBY STREET - GLENN E. & SANDRA J . SOUCY
Mr . Eisen on the right. We are willing to lower the deck if that
is the offending part, and we would put it to ground level . Lean
Martin, 44 Derby St. , spoke in favor. Mr. Eisen 36 Derby St . even
though he does not live there, he has had no complaints from his
tenants , spoke in favor . Theresa O ' Brien, 40 Derby St. 2nd floor tenants
spoke in favor . In opposition, Beverly Harrison, 5 Allen St. , spoke
in opposition, feels her privacy is being invaded, has very strong
feelings , submitted pictures of how close to their bedroom window
and being observed is very disconcerting. The pool is so close
that we get splashed in our yard. Mrs . Soucy, in rebuttal: I lived
at 40 Derbv St. for 5 yrs , there was a swimming pool in there yard
the entire time I have lived there , there was no 6 ft. fence there
it was a chain link fence, the pool was removed when they bought the
property. Mr. Bencal : Any comment on the letter from the Historical
Commission, have you met with them? Mr . Soucv: Talked with a guy
named Sam, Le said if we move the stairs to the other side of the
deck that it wont be visible from the street . Mr. Nutting: Was the
work done by you and also the electrical . ',Ir . Soucy: Yes , and it
just plugs in to deck outlet. Mr . Luzinski : Is the pool up all
year long, and has been constant for 2 yrs . , surprised at the small
amount of space for the deck, locate pool to another site but
opposed to deck. Mr. Fleming: Also opposed to the deck, could be
dropped to ground level. Mr. Luzinski : When you talked about ground
level 2 to 6 ins . off the ground. Mr . Bencal: I will vote in the
negative because of it being done without permits and area much to
small for a deck and pool , I do not see the hardship . Mr. Fleming :
This is a very hard decision for the Board, objection of
neighbors causes a lot of hard feelings , and we have a young family
who have bought in Salem and are trying to bring enjoyment to the
children, it is a dilemma, where the lot is small , the splash
guard could work and possibly bring harmony back in the neighborhood
and also lowering the deck to ground level. Mr . Bencal: Whats
the hardship? Mr . Fleming: People do build without permits what
I object to the most is developers who take the law in their own
hands , this is a young couple who are not receiving profit trying
to right this , this case, mercy is called for. Mr. Nutting: moved
that a temporary Special Permit be granted with the following
conditions: that the deck be lowered to the ground not to exceed
10 in. , also a splash guard be put in place to protect the adjacent
property, that the event of the sale of the house the Special
Permit cease, obtain Certificate of Appropriateness from the
Historical Commission, building permits and electrical permit be
obtained as per plans submitted. Mr. Luzinski seconded. Mr. .3
Bencal and Mr. Luzinski opposed, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Nutting, Mr.
Labracque in favor, the vote 3-2 . The motion passes 3-2 but in order
to prevail in a Zonning matter you have to have 4 affirmative votes ,
you have 3 therefore, the Petition is denied.
DENIED
CHAMPLAIN ROAD - JOHN & CYNTHIA BUONFIGLIO
Petitioners are requesting a Variance to divide existing lot into
i
,tom
r
Salem Historical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN.SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970
,5171 715-9595. EXT. :;! 1
January 30 , 1990
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 40 Derby St .
Dear Chairman Fleming:
This letter is in regard to the petition of Glenn and Sandra g
Soucy for a special permit which would allow the construction of
a deck and swimming pool at 40 Derby Street.
Although the swimming pool would not come under the
jurisdiction of the Salem Historical Commission, plans for the
deck and any alterations in fencing would require the review of
the Commission. In this regard, it is respectfully requested
that the owners file an appropriate application and the plans be
referred to the Commission for review at a regular meeting .
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
THE SALEM HISTORICAL eOMMISSION
Annie C. Harris
Chairman
J3521
j
On January 31 , ?990 the Salem Board Of Appeal will be meeting
to talk about giving us a special permit for our pool l9cated
at 40 Derby Street . He would like our neighbors to staxd
behind us . If you have no problems with us keeping our pool
we would like you to sign this petitiox.
Tkank-you
Tke Soucy Family
5 Aiizn
7
(XNea
Omer by s
dw:1��
,1wwr�
JOSEPH F COLLINS '+ d LEONARD F FEMINO
ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR Y'a — .rJs ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
93 WASHINGTON STREET tln�. 93 WASHINGTON STREET
AND CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS AND
22 SO. MAIN STREET MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN ONE SCHOOL STREET
TOPSFIELD. MA 01983 CITY SOLICITOR BEVERLY. MA 01915
745-4311 93 WASHINGTON STREET 745-4311
887-6401 AND 921-1990
PLEASE REPLY TO 22 50. MAIN STREET 81 WASHINGTON STREET PLEASE REPLY TO ONE SCHOOL STREET
SALEM. MA 01970
745-4311
744-3363
PLEASE REPLY TO 81 WASHINGTON STREET
November 6 , 1989 cn
(^ .1 Ca
James M. Fleming, Chairman
Board of Appeal h
City of Salem rnv
One Salem Green - -
Ln
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Re: Soucy, et. ux. v Fleming, et. als .
Essex Superior Court #88-1905
Dear Mr. Fleming:
Enclosed please find copy of a Superior Court Order
in the above matter which is self-explanatory.
If you have any questions regarding the same, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Ve truly yours
i
ichael E. O'Br1
city Solicitor
MEO/jp
Enclosure
cc: James A. Peterson, Esq.
I V
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS /
ESSEX, SS: TRIAL COURT
_ - SUPERIOR COURT DEPT.
CIVIL ACTION N0. 88-1905
GLENN E. SOUCY and Jo
Cn o. v
SANDRA J. SOUCY
Plaintiffs oA d' a
V. ) Cn r
ORDER,--:) a
JAMES M. FLEMING, RICHARD A. BENCAL, ; -y'o v
JOHN R. NUTTING, EDWARD LUZINSKI , 5- r
N
PETCR STROUT and ARTHUR LaBRECQUE ) (n
Lq Lip
as they constitute the
BOARD OF APPEAL OF THE CITY OF SALEM )
Defendants )
After hearing the parties , it is Ordered that the
plaintiffs ' application for a Special Permit be remanded to the
Board of Appeals of the City of Salem for a rehearing. The
Court retains jurisdiction over this matter , and this Order
shall not affect the plaintiffs ' claims in Counts Two and Three
regarding the constructive grant of a variance.
By the Court (Ronan, J. )
9
(IZitg of "Sttlrm, 'MUSSUCIEusetts
q �
'mare of 4pral JUL 6 2 43
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GLENN E. & SANDRA J. SOUCY FOR A FILE¢
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 40 DERBY STREET (R-2) 01TYCLERK. ti4;�;;, Fuss,
A hearing on this petition was held on June 29, 1988 with the following Board
Members present, James Flaming, Chairman, Richard A. Bencall, Vice Chairman;
John Nutting, Secretary; Edward Luzinski and Associate Member Arthur LaBreque.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notice of the hearing
were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with the
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners, owners of the property, request a Special Permit from set back
requirements and lot coverage to allow construction of a deck and swimming pool
in this R-2 Zone.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, 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
VIII F and IX D, 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 findinq
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 Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and
viewing the plans make the following finding of fact:
1. The deck and pool have already been built without legal permits for
either one.
2. The deck and pool as they exist now are a hardship on the neighbors,
abutters and others.
3. The deck, as now constructed is only 27 inches from the property line.
4. The pool, as now constructed is only 16 inches from the property line.
5. Because of the closeness to the rear lot line the quality of life for
the abutters, directly behind the property, has been adversely affected.
6. The property in question is in a Historic District and no certificate or
approvals have been obtained for the Salem Historical Camussion.
7. The property in question is small, only approximately 1900 square feet.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GLENN E. & SANDRA J. SOUC_'Y FOR
A SPE(.-IAL PERMIT AT 40 DERBY STREET, SALEM
PACE TWO
8. Neighbors, abutters and others either spoke in opposition or sent
correspondence in opposition.
9. A petition, signed by abutters and others, was presented in favor, also,
some of these same persons spoke in favor.
Ch1 the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The relief requested would be substantially more detrimental to the
public good than the existing nonconfo=ng use to the neighborhood.
Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted 3 in favor (Messers. Fleming, Nutting,
and Labreque) and 2 opposed (Messers. Bencal and Luzinski) . Due to the failure
of the petitioner to have 4 votes in favor the petition is denied.
DENIED
-Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FIT WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
'.IT T-2 SE'"',': 17 OF THE
D.
IS
14 E S_. R� rR. r' ._ .. .rd ..,�.� '.� vF 11;-
OF
I -OF REL,.RU UR G RLLJRDEU A6D iWU EO D:, 1dE Un:1ERS CERTIFICATE Oi TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
,'PEAL . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
Clittl of 7Z1iMT7 �' � rf�usPifs
J THE O:nO LF "( PEALS :
':..'L t ':'VXX .. - __ _ .. _ __. : : .. . arC2 ! .T tQna _ .1L
O. Rerb.Y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -) ''Istr• .. . . . .
_: nt y'1 and VII
R?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - _ _ _ . . . . . . .
i t.`. xw)6EzdXM36dJ&&Yxk$3kBxxxXX)oXkx.Mzxxadc Salem Zoning Ordinance.
rleil5 _.:_Criblig the Ii UI'i; ;�:'0(:c'ed . --`!p I'' -'� ', ...'.I t-•'-'7 __ ".CcC LCr ulldlr^s : .'7
aeeoi•d.:::ce ,J th ';(!cLion I;( A. 1 of iia :':Dina e ce.
C� N
L1
w
U
The Application for Permit was- denied by the inspector of Buildinas for the following
reasons:
Pool and deck exceed lot coverage and setback requirements.
The Undersigned hereby petitions the Coard of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code and order the Inspector of Buildings to
approve the application fee permit to build as filed, as the enforcement of said
Zoning By-Lams and Building Code 1•:ould involve practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship to the Undersigned and relief -ay be granted without substantially dero-
gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for
the follo:ring reasons:
The petitioners request a Variance and/or a Special Permit allowing an above-ground pool and
adjacent deClCas shown on the plans submitted herewith. Specifically, the petitioners request
a variance (to the extent applicable) from the lot coverage and setback requirements, and a
variance or special permit allowing a pool the sides of which are located less than six (6)
feet from the rear and side property lines and less than ten (1'0) feet from the foundation.
In support of the Petition, the petitioners state the size, shape and configuration of the lot
does not allow the construction of a swimming pool complying with the requirements;
literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hara-
ship; the relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent
of the Ordinance; and allowing such relief would be in harmony with the purpose and intent
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Glenn E. Soucy and Sandra J. Soucy
Owner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
Address40 Derbv Street, .Salem,. MA.01970
. . . . . . . .-.
Telephone. . .�617) 744.0389 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Glenn E. Soucy and Sandra J. Sou
Petitioner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40 Derby Street, Salem, MA. 01970
Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
Date. . May 20, 1988. . . . . . . Teleph (617) 744.0389 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
o/nJ . . .
By. . /4 /f!i . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .
Three copies of the application must be filed with the Secretary of the Board of
Appeals with a check. for advertising in the ar..ount of. .. . . . . . . . .... ... . . . . ... . .
four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The
Evenina Yews.
Salem Historical Commisfion
ONE SA1E%l GREEN.SALE.1. ^.1.=,SSACHUSETTS D!97
16171 7459595. EXT. 311
To Whom It May Concern;
This letter concerns the work done at 40 Derby Street without
a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salem Historical Commission.
As it stands now, the work is in violation of the Historic District
Ordinance because the Certificates of Appropriateness was never ob-
tained.There are two courses of action that could be taken to resolve
this violation. The first would be to come before the Historical
Commission with an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness
and either get that approved or follow the course of action laid out
by the Commission. The second course of action would be to remove
the offending sections of the work, (any part that is visible from
a public way within the Historic District) . Either of these actions
would be deemed acceptable by the Historic Commission. If there are
any questions concerning this issue, feel free to call me at 745-9595,
ext. 311.
/Sincerely,
Kent He—aEy
Preservation Planner
City of Salem
i �c� ' — — -- --— - —
.�_ '� ,;
,7,� ,T
y_
�,.� _� �
-'i T
rr
��\ � \
ii.� �� � �
3 T ' i
� p1
i
� i
� \\
^T _ r ._ _ �_ . � � /�
c _-.. _ _ --1/
�. -
--... � �
Q� I � i
I
i
Z
� I ����_
21, .� -� -
. �.
�� J � . . �� c�o D � � �
i
� � � � �
i
ti
1 � i
� J
__ �I ii � �
i
--- ------- — 3g ' —
MOR i'GAGE INSPECTION
BAY STATE SURVEYING SERVICE INC.
234 CABOT ST., BEVERLY, MA.
LOCATION �/)LEM /� A 55• NOTES :
SCALE : I" = ZO FT. DATE ? IS� • This is a Mortgage inspection survey and not
REFERENCE .G'K . .�. l `il.P�:.?S_�' ............ an instrument survey, therefore this plot pl_nisfor
..
_-.. . mortgage inspection purposes only.
E �. :...........1�T.. • This survey is based on survey marks of
others.
To _ • Bushes, shrubs, fences and tree lines do
I hereby certify that 1 have examined the premises and that the not necessarily indicate property lines.
building(s) shown on this plan are located on the ground as
shown and that they conformed to the zoning setbacks of the k The building(s) are not located in the specw
G/ �_•_D _ SAL�Mflood hazard zone, as defined by H.U.D.
_________ when constructed.
S APPtuoX LcLPcTiorJ AZ Eq �5 %J F/oao
ZonJ4: —� ..
�Y r/tPE 5JI2✓,E y �/_r-,(,?.
Svc✓C\� RCLOM MC Nda0 FU/1
EYy�
T Ltxit-.ionl o f =¢L-C7URc
finj0
� 38 '
(R,I900� " .
^� h
W
1 0-S7Y-'L\-C)0
�rl
_ 38'
s T
V/HFP,,E;'ER x%, OFFSET IS
.�yti �t � •;'" l'.±.OR LESS AN IN � -
STR. SURVEY IS '
RFCONI.4ENDED TO DETERMINE
!ONES.
" REMO" --
i
z
r
T
r SIG1�
I
i � I
ti I
\J
y I
Tr
IVY ,
i
- -- 35 ' -
Aay /6, /988
To The Members.& 0/` The Appeal.& Boand;
AA abatte&4 of 40 denby Staeef, We ane not opposed to the
above rynoand pool and deck in the Soucy ',& backryand. Thi.& pool
as been Up /`on oven one yeah without any pno6lem.& to fhe neigh-
borhood.
NARK ysk ADDRCSS n OWNER 1OCCllA4 TION
1?CZ12
Ij
bZVJI4 A IC7
- — es_ \/
'243
;905 248
TER. 7 4 A
/ B`c
39
238 2 2
<;;oo
'S 236 ez10 beo
19i63 29p8 ` \ ��206� ,e 26t> Gj
II �` �e 2 • 5
41�L' "cf
�o
s
� d /
\ - 5966
2 n. ol .
F O s 565
\p /+
900 AB
i
259
16.0/9 i +
I
Y e
258 29 0
37,600 X �.
14. TANK
O
/ h
f
t �~ 0 6y
so
J�J s T
^ / je` s 146 + +\
Sq •Joe ti ,
SESD i-
h
+ \
/S �y h /y + �
STACK ?' o ias�4 � ^ v' 4� `��� / 0.91 \
? QT
0
N
Jf
OV
P0) }�
May /6, /988
To Tke Members O� Tke Appease Board;
Aa abuttene 04 40 Denby Sfreet, We ane not oppoeed to the
above ground pool and deck Ln the Soucy 'e backyard. Thie pool
ae been up �on overt one year mi.fhout any pnobleme to tAe neLgA-
6onhood.
NAME IADDRESS OWNER/OCCUPATION
-v- �-
42
7 14
✓ , 1
I ,
I
frit of $a1em, fflassar4usptts
Paurb of 4kFVettl
�fY/lIIN6
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL JULY 29 , 1988
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held July 29 , 1988 at
7 : 00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing
have been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on June 15 ,
22, 1988 . Abutters and other interested persons were notified
by mail.
Members Present: James Fleming, Chairman, Richard Bencal, Vice
Chairman, John Nutting, Secretary, Edward
Luzinski , Arthur Labracque.
Meeting was called to order by Chairman, James Fleming, at which
time he appointed Arthur Labrecque a voting member.
Mr. Bencal: A motion to accept the July 15 , 1988 Minutes of the
meeting as recorded. Mr. Labracque seconded.
4 ALLEN STREET - DEAN BOUCHER
CONTINUED Petition of Dean Boucher for Variance from density and
setbacks to allow construction of a two family dwelling. Where
Mr. Bencal did not sit on this matter, since it is a continued
petition, it will be a four member board and you must have a four
affirmative vote in order to prevail.Attorney Vallis : I would like
to request to continue this matter till next meeting, July 20 , 1988 .
Mr. Luzinski moved to continue the petition. Mr. Labracque
seconded, the vote was 4-0 .
UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CONTINUE.
40 DERBY STREET - GLENN E. & SANDRA J . SOUCY
Petitioner is requesting a Variance and/or Special Permit from
set back requirements and lot coverage to allow construction of
a deck and swimming pool. Mr. Nutting read the application. Letters
in opposition from Councillor George Nowak, Letter from the Salem
Historical Commission stating violation. Letter from the Fire
Marshall stating no objection. Letter from Catherine M. Trayers ,
3 Allen St. , in opposition. Petition from abutters on Allen St.
in opposition, Petition from abutters on Derby St. in approval.
Mr. & Mrs . Soucy, petitioner, owners : the pool has been up for
about a year and a half, no one has ever complained to us . Mr.
Bencal: Has any permits been taken out to construct this deck and
pool? Mrs . Soucy: No, we did not know. Mr. Fleming: May of "88"
you bought the house? Mrs . Soucy: Yes, I have lived there for
5 years, I was renting. Mr. Fleming: Can you tell us something
about the back yard? Mrs . Soucy: We have submitted drawings, the
back yard is small, the deck and the pool were put up by my husband
and brother-in-law, we made it so there would be access around
Ij the pool in case of emergency, the stairs are locked when there ' s
no one there or we leave. On the side there is a cloths line and
rabbits _ for 4H, picnic table and grill, and a little garden. In
the back there is a 6 ft. fence. Leah Martin is on our left, and
MINUTES 6/29/88 Continued
Page 2
40 DERBY STREET - GLENN E. & SANDRA J. SOUCY
Mr. Eisen on the right. We are willing to lower the deck if that
is the offending part, and we would put it to ground level. Leah
Martin, 44 Derby St. , spoke in favor. Mr. Eisen 36 Derby St. even
though he does not live there , he has had no complaints from his
tenants , spoke in favor. Theresa O ' Brien, 40 Derby St. 2nd floor tenants
spoke in favor . In opposition, Beverly Harrison, 5 Allen St. , spoke
in opposition, feels her privacy is being invaded, has very strong
feelings, submitted pictures of how close to their bedroom window
and being observed is very disconcerting. The pool is so close
that we get splashed in our yard. Mrs . Soucy, in rebuttal: I lived
at 40 Derby St. for 5 yrs , there was a swimming pool in there yard
the entire time I have lived there, there was no 6 ft. fence there
it was a chain link fence, the pool was removed when they bought the
property. Mr. Bencal: Any comment on the letter from the Historical
Commission, Have you met with them? Mr. Soucy: Talked with a guy
named Sam, fie said if we move the stairs to the other side of the
deck that it wont be visible from the street. Mr . Nutting: Was the
work done by you and also the electrical . Mr . Soucy: Yes , and it
just plugs in to deck outlet. Mr. Luzinski : Is the pool up all
year long, and has been constant for 2 yrs . , surprised at the small
amount of space for the deck, locate pool to another site but
opposed to deck. Mr. Fleming: Also opposed to the deck, could be
dropped to ground level. Mr. Luzinski : When you talked about ground
level 2 to 6 ins . off the ground. Mr. Bencal: I will vote in the
negative because of it being done without permits and area much to
small for a deck and pool, I do not see the hardship. Mr. Fleming:
This is a very hard decision for the Board, objection of
neighbors causes a lot of hard feelings, and we have a young family
who have bought in Salem and are trying to bring enjoyment to the
children, it is a dilemma, where the lot is small, the splash
guard could work and possibly bring harmony back in the neighborhood
and also lowering the deck to ground level . Mr. Bencal: Whats
the hardship? Mr. Fleming: People do build without permits what
I object to the most is developers who take the law in their own
hands , this is a young couple who are not receiving profit trying
to right this , this case, mercy is called for. Mr. Nutting: moved
that a temporary Special Permit be granted with the following
conditions: that the deck be lowered to the ground not to exceed
10 in. , also a splash guard be put in place to protect the adjacent
property, that the event of the sale of the house the Special
Permit cease, obtain Certificate of Appropriateness from the
Historical Commission, building permits and electrical permit be
obtained as per plans submitted. Mr. Luzinski seconded. Mr.
Bencal and Mr. Luzinski opposed, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Nutting, Mr.
Labracque in favor, the vote 3-2 . The motion passes 3-2 but in order
to prevail in a Zonning matter you have to have 4 affirmative votes,
you have 3 therefore, the Petition is denied.
DENIED
CHAMPLAIN ROAD - JOHN & CYNTHIA BUONFIGLIO
Petitioners are requesting a Variance to divide existing lot into
•bnvf.
Salem Historical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM.MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(6171745-9595. EXT. 31 1
January 30 , 1990
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 40 Derby St.
Dear Chairman Fleming:
This letter is in regard to the petition of Glenn and Sandra
Soucy for a special permit which would allow the construction of
a deck and swimming pool at 40 Derby Street.
Although the swimming pool would not come under the
jurisdiction of the Salem Historical Commission, plans for the
deck and any alterations in fencing would require the review of
the Commission. In this regard, it is respectfully requested
that the owners file an appropriate application and the plans be
referred to the Commission for review at a regular meeting.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
THE SALEM HISTORICAL eOMMISSION
Annie C. Harris
Chairman
J3521
On January 31 , 1990 the Salem Board Of Appeal will be meeting
to talk about giving us a special permit for our pool l9cated
at 40 Derby Street . We would like our neighbors to staid
behind us . If you have no problems with us keeping our pool
we would like you to sign this petitiom.
Tkank-you
The7Soucy Family
i -,7
pelt
0Q-r by s f
aw:1��
On January 31 , 1990 the Salem- Board Of Appeal willbe meeting
to talk about giving us a special - permit for ou'r. -pool heated
at 40 Derby Street, We would like our .neighbors to stand
behind us . If you have .no problems with us keeping our pool
we would like you. to sign this petition
Tkank-you
Tke Soucy Family
p
u i. V
Y I
ek
-�
�M.,COSOITi.411
0� IQ'
P
qfC/1IIFE oQ�l
Salem Historical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(617)745-9595,EXT.311
January 30, 1990
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 40 Derby St.
Dear Chairman Fleming:
This letter is in regard to the petition of Glenn and Sandra
Soucy for a special permit which would allow the construction of
a deck and swimming pool at 40 Derby Street.
Although the swimming pool would not come under the
jurisdiction of the Salem Historical Commission, plans for the
deck and any alterations in fencing would require the review of
the Commission. In this regard, it is respectfully requested
that the owners file an appropriate application and the plans be
referred to the Commission for review at a regular meeting.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
THE SALEM HISTORICAL OMMISSION
Annie C. Harris
Chairman
J3521
(11:111[L
� 1
i l 4lltiiLTiUN
KEVIN T. DALY' LEONARD F. FEMINO
ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR T��j /'? ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
93 WASHINGTON STREET ''m�' 93 WASHINGTON STREET
AND CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS AND
ONE CHURCH STREET MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN ONE SCHOOL STREET
SALEM, MA 01970 CITY SOLICITOR BEVERLY. MA 01915
745.4311 93 WASHINGTON STREET 745.4311
745-0500 921-1990
_ AND ---
PLEASE
-PLEASE REPLY TO ONE CHURCH STREET 81 WASHINGTON STREET PLEASE REPLY TO ONE SCHOOL STREET
SALEM, MA 01970
745-4311
744-3363
PLEASE REPLY TO 81 WASHINGTON STREET
October 13 , 1988
4
Parker Harrison, III
5 Allen Street
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Re : Petition for Zoning Variance
Petitioners - Glenn E. Soucy, et ux
Premises - 40 Derby Street, Salem
Dear Mr . Harrison :
Please be advised I reviewed the Zoning Ordinance and
Application in the above matter. With respect to the pool ,
the application requests "a Variance and/or Special Permit" .
Section VIII , J. 7 . provides that special permit is the
exclusive relief when a pool is located within six ( 6) feet
of an applicant' s side or rear property line. Accordingly,
the Board acted correctly in treating the same as a request
for a special permit.
A close reading of the application indicates that with
regard to the deck, the applicants requested a variance .
However, it is my opinion that the fact that the Board' s
dipci.sion refers to the applicants ' request for both the pool
and deck as a "special permit" request is of no legal
consequence. The last sentence of the Board ' s decision
indicates that the applicants ' requests, whatever they may
be termed, were denied. Perhaps it might have been more
appropriate for the Board to distinguish between a special
permit for the pool and variance for the deck. However, the
last sentence of the Board ' s decision is dispositive of the
applicants ' requests . This is particularly true because the
criteria for establishing variances are even more stringent
than the criteria for special permits . Also, the law is quite
clear that the Board has inherent power, without the necessity
of further public hearings, to correct an inadvertent or
clerical error in it ' s decision so that the record reflects
it ' s true intention.
2 -
Accordingly, it is my opinion that there was no
constructive grant of a variance for the deck and I do not
intend to appeal the Soucy' s assertion that there was such
a grant . I will forward a copy of this letter to the Board
for it ' s determination as to whether or not it wishes to
amend the decision as outlined above.
Very, truly yours
Michael E. O' Brien
City Solicitor
MEO/jp
cc: James M. Fleming, Esq. ,
Chairman Board of Appeal
James E. Peterson, Esq.
4'
1
James A. Peterson
Attorney at Law pM iD IL 53 p17 g app
fILE4 W
WY G.Eiti.. S°ALEX.MASS.
October 18, 1988
z
City Clerk
City Hall
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Re: Petition for Zoning Variance
Petitioners: Glenn E. Soucy and Sandra J. Soucy
Premises : 40 Derby Street, Salem, Massachusetts
To the City Clerk :
On September 27 , 1988, I filed a Notice with your office, a copy of
which enclosed. The period for appeal has expired, and to my
knowledge no appeal has been filed.
Under the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws , Chapter 40A,
Section 15 , we hereby request that you issue a certificate stating
the date of constructive approval of the application, stating the
fact that the Board failed to take final action, and stating that
the approval resulting from the failure has become final . The
certificate should be forwarded to my office .
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
GLENN E. SOUCY and SANDRA J . SOUCY
$y their at n ,
/MES--'3 . PETERSON
JAP: nac
1448LD
Telephone (508) 744-2450
81 Washington Street, Suite 10, Salem, Massachusetts 01970-3574
(INMI.�
JOSEPH F. COLLINS # d LEONARD F. FEMINO
ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR pr's — J? ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
93 WASHINGTON STREET 93 WASHINGTON STREET
AND CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS AND
22 SO. MAIN STREET MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN ONE SCHOOL STREET
TOPSFIELD, MA 01983 BEVERLY, MA 01915
745-4311 Clry SOLICITOR 745-4311
93 WASHINGTON STREET
887-6401 AND 921-1990
PLEASE REPLY TO 22 SO.MAIN STREET 81 WASHINGTON STREET PLEASE REPLY TO ONE SCHOOL STREET
SALEM, MA 01970
745-4311
744-3363
/
PLEASE REPLY TO 81 WASHINGTON STREET
November 6, 1989 C,
n / caT
James M. Fleming, Chairman y
Board of Appeal , T',
City of Salem - !m rn
One Salem Green r
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Re: Soucy, et. ux. v Fleming, et. als .
Essex Superior Court #88-1905
Dear Mr. Fleming:
Enclosed please find copy of a Superior Court Order
in the above matter which is self-explanatory.
If you have any questions regarding the same, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
AichVetruly yours
ael E. O'Bry Solicitor
MEO/jp
Enclosure
cc: James A. Peterson, Esq.
An }+F,f..e.a- -mac• -�`. .."'a^`!'•'i. y "Rp.
L , '
IV
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS: TRIAL COURT
- -_ ���� - SUPERIOR COURT DEPT.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 88-1905
GLENN E. SOUCY and
SANDRA J. SOUCY
Plaintiffs ) mss.+
o:
V.
O�b�Rp
JAMES M. FLEMING, RICHARD A. BENCAL,
JOHN R. NUTTING, EDWARD LUZINSKI, )
PETrR STROUT and ARTHUR LaBRECQUE
as they constitute the ) `^
BOARD OF APPEAL OF THE CITY OF SALEM )
Defendants )
After hearing the parties, it is Ordered that the
plaintiffs ' 'application for a Special Permit be .remanded to the
Board of Appeals of the City of Salem for a rehearing. The -
Court retains jurisdiction over this matter, and this Order
shall not affect the plaintiffs' claims in Counts Two and Three
regarding the constructive grant of a variance.
By the Court (Ronan, J. )
9
DE C T S!CINI 0 N IHE�PETI: 1".1 ON OF A",
[-OR n (:.)F*Ef'IAI PERIMIT AT
u
A hear-irig an this petiticr) was hEddl.�,
vj:ith the fol lowirlyn Mefnbie.lei�., pr��-�seml t
Notic:e of the I�eWIllg was sent LO' RbUttE_:r-s and nd
non.cei, vjf-..?rL, ptcq.)Hi ly published In t.h.r.- Even:0.1r,',
accorclaric".? vlif-[) -M. ;I�,�achllsetts: Generraul. �alj�- Chapter lu.*.) A.
a Special. Per-mat ill 1'�
&,eL IA>4-At�
The provi— on n
f the em o i-i j.ri ci Or d J n am i c::e w h i. -.:h
applicaL)Ie to thii=, recluest for a Special F:'arfni t ic. S,r,c 4 c 1 i
B 10� whi.ch pirnvicies �a� follows?�
Nlotwij. Lhst-.andi ng .-anythi mg cl *.-..hc.? contrary aj..1p'(._e0A!-:Lnc2
1 3
in th-is, Ordinartce.. the Board of Plope'a.l. in a v, .4. r-
w.-I.Ah, the proc-eclure, and set:
-forth in Secilon VIII F and 1XI 1), cir-ant SrDeCiFil.
Permit-L; 4:or r..nd i, ecni*i�::�i-,�-t-irl*i (,.11*1 oi-
noriconfor-ming stirt-kci.-l-tres, cand �C?I-
exFentiQr, ai, expanz,:.'Lon fj+
rjonrofi+orming lors, land Ftrur:tLV-E�� , cMd Li5es ,
pr-covided , that ut c h c-�i a i-i Q e, 1,
eriliargofnerit� ar exparic-lion s,_Ial I. not b e s ij, �4�
E.-. L.an ti al 1.v
mnr e det,i mental than Lj Le i 1._..j I,- I i i c c,n+in r in J r k..,t c.E,�,
to the ne" ghbor hood
J.1-1 more gen(-_-�r al. t..crms�, thj. �.,z Bulard when rewiew.Lngi
capecial Pprrrat requiest.s, guided by the
SpEfiRl PerInIt FeC.7ur-est mov be kJI.-.1011 a fincl: ng I by i-'
Board that the qr�nt of Lhe .-:.l p e c:3. a I F,e r*in i.. t wi 1. 1 ri r o i r,o t =, t h. e
p utb 1 41 c h ea I L h , ._,�f e.t y, c ari v en j.77 nc:cm. an d we.I f ar e ot 1-h P C i 'r v
nhab i t�,nt,�
h r.-z
_E(o a r d r. p p e a 1 , a+t e r- c o ris j.cl ter a t i (:-�n c)4: hie e v i d eri c.*.e
1-.)r s en t e.d a-l' h e 1:3 u In I i.c. h i-2 a r .1,1-,ri , in a 1.:: s F h a f ol .1.n w 1.11 g
g s
�,x,""nop' /°x//rw . �v,'�«'�
� � '
2"
4.
K `
�
�.
/
|
On the basis of the above finding of fact , and on the
evidence presented at the hearing , the Board of Appeal
concludes as folls*s:
Therefore the Board of Appeal voted / to / the
Special Permit requested subject to the following �
conditions-.
1 .
,
� 2^
WAY /
i