Loading...
14 SCOTIA STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION iyS�eT Sir z z aur.aiQ�4W.�aus:..�'w�:.,�;vcw. ,w._.�...�,.w: ...,, �.� a. .:.,_,.: --m..,L-.��_ ,-_",_...�.:.be.L..,.«— �,_t ---a. _ _ MORTGAGE INSPECTION PLAN SULLIVAIVSURVEY P.O.00X 2513 WOBURN,MA.01888-0913 . �Py l:OF A}AS�4 TET..(781)9.44.8750 aye ny , FAX (781)9424437 BARRY v g M. SULLIVAN y No.33428 gss a�LANns�� �' 45.,00 ibo a: od • 7, t SVD ~ �.df0�&n'7/f CA zQ #14- Lis In - >9.sf to G.0 T Z,q R 0, .7s7lo 5.E 5900 SWOT. S7,' THIS TAPE SURVEY, CERTIFICATION & MORTGAGE INSPECTION PLAN ARE MADE FOR THE USE OF FOR MORTGAGE PURPOSES ONLY BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION& BELIEF, I CERTIFY THAT THE BUILDING ES] CONFORM ES] TOT ZONING BY—LAWS [DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS] OF THE TpWJI OF S.G/_�� ! MASSACHUSETTS iPd7'G dR'...V/7C/ F Je✓4Q %01-1A "&X1xWr- .o ��4'�'LU' 6`eXAt47l96fG� ' (0:144 Public Propertg Department iguilbing Department (Pne #alem (6reen 508-745-9545 Ext. 3d0 Leo E. Tremblay Director of Public Property Inspector of Building Zoning Enforcement Officer June 5 , 1995 Mr. Richard Plante 14 Scotia Street Salem, Mass . 01970 RE : 14 Scotia Street Dear Mr. Plante : On Wednesday, May 31 , 1995 , I conducted an inspection at the above mentioned property and found construction debris and other construction related material at this location. This property is located in a R-1 District and therefore this type of material is not allowed to be stored there . Please contact this office within ( 7 ) seven days upon receipt of this letter and let us know what your course of action will be in this matter. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter . S�i0n-cceerely, U � c � John J . J nning r Local Building Inspector JJJ: scm CC: City Solicitor - 7/17/03 Bd. of Appeals, Chairperson Bd. of Appeals MACCALLUM & SIMEONE, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE CITIZENS BANK BUILDING . 385 BROADWAY,P.O. BOX 321 REVERE,MASSACHUSETTS 02151 BERNARD J.MACCALIAM TELEPHONE:(781)286-1560 LAWRENCE A.SIMEONF,JR. FACSIMILE:(781)286-5532 July 17'h , 2003 C= C_ Deborah E. Burkinshaw t5rri r City Clerk and c T Clerk for the City of Salem Zoning r cn r Board of Appeals -j (D 93 Washington Street 0 7i3 Salem, MA 01970 W rn3 Y W Re: AAA Modular Homes, LLC v. Cohen, et al. 00 No. ;s "141 " Dear Ms. Burkinshaw: Enclosed please find a Notice of Filing Complaint pursuant to M.G.L. 40A Section 17, a copy of said complaint, a copy of the Decision of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeal filed on July 2"d , 2003. Kindly stamp the enclosed copy of this letter to confirm your receipt and return it to this office. k s, meone Jr., Esq.lar Homes, LLC. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, ss SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT DOCKET NO. 3 141 B AAA MODULAR HOMES LLC Plaintiff V. NINA COHEN,RICHARD DIONNE, NICHOLAS HELIDES, BONNIE BELIAR AND JOSEPH BARBEAU As they are members of the City of Salem o Zoning Board of Appeals, c m r �Q Defendants — � J u,cn CD 1' M a1 w C. M ID NOTICE OF FILING COMPLAINT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW °J PURSUANT TO M.G.L. c. 40A § 17 TO Deborah E. Burkinshaw City Clerk and Clerk for the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that AAA Modular Homes LLC ("AAA Modular Homes")has filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Essex County pursuant to M.G.L.c.40A § 17, seeking judicial review of the decision of the City of Salem Zoning M6 Board of Appeal ("ZBA") which was filed in the office of the City Clerk for the City of Salem on July 2nd , 2003. A true copy of the said complaint is attached. For the Plaintiff, AAA Modular Homes, LLC, By its Attom y, e E26. S imeone J ,:BrO #550allum & Simeone P.A. The Citizens Bank Building 385 Broadway, P.O. Box 321 Revere, Massachusetts 02151 (781) 286-1560 0 � m Dated: July 17`h , 2003 �x 'cn r- (Dr- n r7 00 w x .. : :a< d .•,*., tm. � �',". fir.,: q COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, ss SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT DOCKET NO. AAA MODULAR HOMES LLC Plaintiff V. C-� 1 NINA COHEN, RICHARD DIONNE, NICHOLAS HELIDES, BONNIE 0 3 BELIAR AND JOSEPH BARBEAU U As they are members of the City of Salemw XS s� Zoning Board of Appeals, w co Defendants COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO M.G.L. c. 40A, Section 17 Plaintiff, AAA Modular Homes LLC, ("AAA Modular Homes") pursuant to M.G.L. c. 40A, § 17 appeals from the decision of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") which denied the Plaintiffs' request for a variance from minimum lot size and frontage dimensional regulations for 16-18 Scotia Street (`the Property") to enable the Plaintiff to create a subdivision proposal of Lots 43, #4, 45 and#6 on Scotia Street, Salem, Massachusetts. Said Property being located in the R-1 district, a single family residential district under the Salem Zoning Law. ?w _. !4_ For its complaint, the plaintiff alleges as follows: 1. The Plaintiff, AAA Modular Homes, is a Massachusetts Limited Liability corporation with a principle place of business at 501-509 Main Street, Saugus, Massachusetts. 2. AAA Modular Homes shortly after purchasing the Property on June 16`h , 2002 discovered asbestos under the ground during excavation on the Property; the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ordered all activities to cease and the site secured. After hiring consultants to assess the condition and extent of hazardous material on the Property, AAA Modular Homes determined that the clean-up cost would be greater than one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. After review the conditions on the Property and the zoning bylaw AAA Modular Homes filed an appeal with the ZBA. 3. At all times material hereto, AAA Modular Homes was the owner of the Property when the request for relief herein was filed with the ZBA. 4. Said Property is located in the R-I district, single family district, in accordance with the Article V "Use Regulations" of the Zoning Ordinances and Zoning Map of the City of Salem. Table I of Density Regulations for Residential Uses establishes that the minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet and minimum lot width (frontage) is one hundred feet. 5. The Defendants are members of the City of Salem's Zoning Board of Appeal. Their names and addresses are as follows: Nina Cohen, Chairman, 22 Chestnut Street Salem, MA 01970 :t o : Or .. Richard Dionne, 23 Gardner Street Salem, MA 01970 Nicholas Helides, 20 Central Street Salem, MA 01970 Bonnie Belair 113A Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Joseph Barbeau 48 School Street Salem, MA 01970 6. A public hearing was conducted on May 21", 2003 on the Plaintiff s application, seeking a request to vary the minimum lot size and frontage dimensional regulations in the R-1 zone to enable the Plaintiff to subdivide the Property in order into proposed Lots #3, #4, #5, and#6 on Scotia Street in the City of Salem. The ZBA continued said public hearing to June 18`h,2003, wherein it had requested the Plaintiff to provide additional information in order to further review Plaintiffs request for appeal. 7. Subsequently on June 12`h, 2003, the ZBA sent notice that its public hearing on June 18`h, 2003 would be rescheduled to June 25`h , 2003. Counsel for the Plaintiff a letter with the ZBA on June 17", 2003 requesting a further continuance in that he had a conflict with the June 25`h, 2003 rescheduled date. 8. On June 25`h, 2003 at its rescheduled public hearing the ZBA found, inter alia, that " 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 : .a ZW 1. Petitioner AAA Modular Homes LLC purchased two lots 16-18 Scotia Street in May, 2002. There lots were contaminated by the presence of asbestos in underground pits apparently left by previous owners. According to the petitioners representative Lawrence A. Simeone Jr. Esq., the cost of cleaning and removing contaminated soil will be over $150,000.00. 2. In order to finance the cleanup, petitioner seeks variances to subdivide and create four single family homes on the site each having square footage less than the required 15,{0}00 square feet and each having less than the required 100 ft. of frontage. 3. Neighbors speaking in opposition to the proposed variance were Karen Lavorti of 23 Summit St., Deb Conway of 4 Scotia St., Robin McGlone of 30 Summit St., Andrea Peterson of 10 Scotia St., Kathleen Deleos of 9 South St., Rob Rennicks and Dorothy Cormier of 25 Summit St. also stated their opposition to the proposed variance. They stated that their property was damaged by water runoff caused by the petitioner's improper excavation and site work. Mrs. Lavoratic confirmed that petitioner has created a dangerous unstable condition by piling earth against a 6 ft. fence at the perimeter of her property resulting in an abrupt change of grade between the two properties that had not been there before. 0 4. The neighbors further stated that they have suffered anxiety as a result of the petitioners failure to comply with state requirements for hazardous waste cleanup, in that they may be exposed to airborne asbestos particles. 5. Ward 4 City Councillor Leonard O'Leary stated that petitioners had met with the neighbors and had been asked to provide a plan to ensure safety vehicles could access the proposed lots. Petitioner failed to present a plan for creating a roadway to ensure access. Indeed, due to a schedule conflict neither the petitioner nor his representative appeared at the hearing. 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. " (See attached decision marked Exhibit A). 9. The ZBA's findings set forth in its decision of June 25`h, 2003 are un-supported by the facts and circumstances and the ZBA's decision denying Plaintiff's request for a variance herein was arbitrary, capricious, based on legally untenable grounds and exceeded the authority of the Board. 10. Plaintiff, AAA Modular Homes, is a person aggrieved,within the meaning of M.G.L. c. 40A, § 17,by the decision of denial and the findings made by the ZBA respecting the Plaintiff s requested relief wherein Plaintiff sought and requested a variance of the dimensional regulations in the R-1 district under the Salem Zoning Law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, AAA Modular Homes,respectfully prays that the Court: 1. Determine that the findings made by the ZBA were arbitrary, capricious, based upon untenable grounds and exceeded the authority of the board; and 2. Annul the ZBA decision in that it exceeds the authority of the board; and 3. Grant such further relief as justice and equity may require. AAA Modular Homes, LLC By its attorney, Lawlnce A. Simeone, Jr., Esq. BBO# 552605 MacCallum & Simeone 385 Broadway, P.O. Box 321 Revere,MA 02151 (781) 286-1560 Dated: July 17'h , 2003 YY CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS CI I Y 10 F SALEM MA v��cowwru� � BOARD OF APPEAL C LERn,6OFFICE a 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR a», Aljro SALEM, MA 01970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 �e�irrtnecP� FAX (978) 740-9846 .1000 JUL 2 P I: � STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AAA MODULAR HOMES LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 SCOTIA STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on June 25, 2003, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Helides, Bonnie Belair and Joseph Barbeau. 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 a Variance from minimum lot size and frontage to subdivide 2 lots into 4 lots for the property located at 16 Scotia Street 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 . Petitioner AAA Modular Homes LLC purchased two lots at 16-18 Scotia Street in May of 2002. There lots were contaminated by the presence of asbestos in underground pits apparently left by previous owners. According to the petitioner's representative Lawrence A. Simeone Jr.Esq, the cost of cleaning and removing contaminated soil will be over $150,000.00 2. In order to finance the cleanup, petitioner seeks variances to subdivide and create four single family homes on the site each having square footage of less than the required 15, 00 square feet and each having less than the required 100 ft of frontage. 3 Neighbors speaking in opposition to the proposed variance were Karen Lavortl of 23 Summit St., Deb Conway of 4 Scotia St.. Robin McGlone of 30 Summit St... hnarea Peterson of 10 Scotia St, Kathleen Deleos of 9 South St, Rob Rennicks and Dorothea Cornier of 25 Summit St. also stated their opposition to the i1h DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AAA MODULAR HOMES LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 SCOTIA STREET R-1 page two proposed variance. They stated that their property was damaged by water runoff caused by petitioner's improper excavation and site work. Mrs. Lavoratic confirmed that petitioner has created a dangerously unstable condition by piling earth against a 6 ft fence at the perimeter of her property resulting in an abrupt change of grade between the two properties that had not been there before 4. The neighbors further stated that they have suffered anxiety as a result of the petitioner's failure to comply with state requirements for hazardous waste cleanup, in that they may be exposed to airborne asbestos particles. 5. Ward 4 City Councillor Leonard O'Leary stated that petitioners had met with the neighbors and had been asked to provide a plan to ensure safety vehicles could access the proposed lots. Petitioner failed to present a plan for creating a roadway to ensure access. Indeed, due to a schedule conflict neither the petitioner nor his representative appeared at the hearing. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: T. 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 5 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 A JUNE 25, 2003 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal K — MfF: n 40 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 tiro W *t;z $•'- '+iw. .»1 .w'A a:��dT4� pA7 off11PTtt� 22554� c� �� SALEM.4iASS. � s �9IIarb of (�pPeAFILEf CITY CLERK,SALEV. v,ASS. DEC1S10N ON THE PET1TlON OF RICHARD & KATHLEEN PLANTE FOR VARIANCES AT_�14 SCOTIA STREET] (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held June 17 , 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski and Associate Member Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioners, representing themselves, are requesting Variances from side and rear yard setbacks to allow construction of a garage, breezeway and deck at 14 Scotia St. The locus of the property is located in an R-1 district. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circAstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involy, 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 . No opposition to the plan was presented at the hearing, and Councillor Leonard O' Leary spoke in favor of granting the requested relief; 2. The proposed plan would alleviate on-street parking in vicinity of 14 Scotia Street; 3. The plan is the only way in which the petitioners can construct the garage, breezeway and deck. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioners; and 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD Sc KATHLEEN PLANTE FOR A VARIANCE FOR 14 SCOTIA ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The petitioners must obtain a building permit from the Building Inspector, City of Salem; 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety must be adhered to; 3. All construction must conform to the requirements of the Massachusetts Building Code; 4. The exterior of the garage, breezeway and deck must be in harmony with the exterior of the existing dwelling; 5° The construction of the garage, breezeway and deck must be in accordance with the plans subrpitted to the Board of Appeal. VARIANCES GRANTED /dames M. Fleming, Esq. Vice Chairman, Board of A peal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK D C.A'fS AGER T' E DATE OF FILING APPEAL FP,DN. THIS C= ISI I- A'dY, SHAG B`_ MADE PURSUANT TO S`.CTI.N 17 OF THE MASS. OcI.EP AL LAi1J. �. rid ° . J 7'. :.- - OF IRIS D`_!.'S'�• _ F7."T C. -- c '° ° il T:c Pil v .1 T !LL r: c : (:T T. A C'. GR -cD r:F.Li r .,� H's. I �.? I$ FICAi ..c IF THE - _ ~. I. TR C 1,7F. OR THAT. IF SL r ' RE�''S'4,1 _ < RECU`. I.. THE S TH ESSE: Of RECGRD OR IS RcCOR OEU AX. N`.iTE0 01; THE OYi;�=R S CERT,FIC.AiE OF T TLE. BOARD OF APPEAL