8 TAFT ROAD - BUILDING INSPECTION 8 TATT ROAD, ~
j
_ .. . sY"r .s. .�v..:�,.Y,. ..,�,;rv,,4,c�,•r. .v�,.r.-� ..,T � w`,ar.•. . n.. - ..._n, r9.-.s,t.-;, .. ,_ ��
FIELD COPY
CITY Of SALEM BUILDING
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01.970 PERMIT
DATE Mune 2 , 19 86 PERMIT NO. 36'2-
APPLICANT James t. Burkinshaw ADDRESS 8 Taft Rd. . Owner _
(NO.) (STREET) (CONTN'S LICENSE)
NUMBER OF
PERMIT TO Tnstall stove I_) STORY DWELLING UNITS-1
(TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT) NO. (PROPOSED OSE)
AT ILocan oNl
8 Taft Rd. Ward 7 ZONINGCT R 1
(NO.) (STREET)
BETWEEN AND
(CROSS STREET) (CROSS STREET)
LOT
SUBDIVISION LOT BLOCK SIZE.
BUILDING 15 TO BE FT. WIDE BY FT. LONG BY FT. IN HEIGHTANDSHALL CONFORM IN CONSTRUCTION
TO TYPE USE GROUP - BASEMENT WALLS OR FOUNDATION
(TYPE)
REMARKS: Concrete ahimney Brick Wall and Hearth ( Interior) installation
of stove.
=CALL FOR INSPECTION 745-0213=
VREA OROLUME ESTIMATED COST $ 1 .600 . , FEEM T l0 .oo
:CUBIC/SQUARE FEET)
OWNER James E. Burkinshaw ,
ADDRESS -8 Tait RA. :Salam. MN. 01970 I nector of Buildings
& Date-
Inspected and Anoroved
INSPECTION RECORD
DATE 'NOTE PROGRESS - CRITICISMS AND REMARKS INSPECTOR
1114. ERT
^ � Jitv of �Zcteut, �t5S211 �itt l`f f n
;; •� �, Aire peparhurnt Ii:,i,,,ntnl,ru MAY 39 3 39 NA '84
Rbbert J. Crowley `18 Nafe{!rtir ,*Irerl
RECEIYEO
A/Chief avufeuy 'Aia. 111970 CITY OF SALEM,MASS.
VIOLATION NOTICE
Date: Pay 10, 11x`4
To; James Burkinshaw He; fit; Mt Road
8 Taft Road jamns Burk inshn%v
Salem, i'.'la. 01970
SIrs:
Records at this office indicate, that you or your contractor have failed to
request a final Inspection for work performed at your premises:
Located at: 8 Taft Road
Application date: Nov. 15, 1983--Building hermit 1 516
A final inspection is required for issuance of a Certificate of Completion and/or
the signing of the Certificate of Occupancy, by the Salem Fire inspQctur.
It appears that sufficient time has elapsed, since the application was made to
perform work covered under the codes . You are therefore in violation of the
Salem Fire Code and Massachusetts General Laws , with reference to occupancy .
You shall make an appointment for the required tests and inspection, by the
Salem Fire Prevention Bureau inspectors. Please call 745-7777 within seven
days of this notice, to request said 'inspection, or notify this ullice of reasons
why test and certification is not required.
Failure to comply shall be cause for such further action as the law requires , and
possible court action to remove the contractors license to practice in the City of
Salem; and/or a request for action by the Salem Buildiny 110peotor to WSW that
use and/or occupancy be cancelled.
Per order:
Salem ire Prevention .Xnspuclor ''
cc: Buildinq Inspector
file
Form N82B (Rev.5/84)
ya,� ry �jrtl
Ott of Salim, ussuchueetts
'�'ccwNc++�' - Fire �Jeparfcne� u�fE .
Junes J, Prennnn �C$ $Q $e}
Date: November 15, 1983
Building Inspector Re: y-8—'Taft Road-,—Salem
City of Salem, Mass. `-�—
One Salem Green James Burkinshaw
Salem, Ma. 01970
Sir:
This office has observed that structural work is being done or contemplated,
at the address listed above.
This office has not approved plans for required items, under provisions of
Article One, Section 113.5 of the Mass. State Building Code as follows:
Building permit # 516, issued for construction of a shed dormer,
without prior approval of the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau.
Smoke detectors are required for this occupancy and Certification
shall be required. No plans have been reviewed nor approved.
The owner shall be advised that a Form #81 , shall be filed with the Salem Fire
Prevention Bureau Office, with a plan in sufficient clarity and deta-il , to
provide information required.
Respectfulsubmitted,
Capt. David J. Goin
Salem Fire Marshal
cc: Owner of record
file
Form #108 (Rev. 4/83)
.t
i
1
�n `# Cita of Salem, 4Rttssadlusetts
Pourb of �kppeo1
jAN 26 i Ui
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES BURKINSHAW FOR A SPECIAL Cfll frICE
PERMIT FOR 8 TAFT-ROAD SALEM, MASS.
A hearing on this petition was held January 14, 1987 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski and I
Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the 1
hearing were properly advertised in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property is requesting a Special Permit to extend non-
conforming density and rear setback requirements to allow a deck in the rear of
the existing structure. Property is located in an R-1 district.
A petition to allow a deck was denied by the Board of Appeal on November 12, 1986. j
Neither petitioner nor a representative were present at the hearing and no plans i
or evidence were submitted. The Board of 'Appeal, after hearing evidence regarding 4
substantial change and after receiving a Consent from the Salem Planning Board,
voted unanimously that there was substantial change from the previous petition and
they would re-hear the case.
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 careful consideration of the evidence presented, and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
i
1 . There was major neighborhood support for the plan; i
2. There was no opposition;
i
3. Porches existed for many years with no detriment to the neighbohood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
invent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISIO' ON THE PETITION OF JAMES BURKINSHAW FOR A
SFECIAL PER[•iIT FOR 8 TAFT R.D. , SALEM
Y.` page two,
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special _Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All work be done according to plans submitted;
2. The deck shall not encroach on the rear lot line closer than 21 feet,
as per the plans submitted.
SPECIAL Permit granted
dames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISYON HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING 17 RD AND THE CITY CLERK j
-
.V,r
APPEAL FRO"', THIS DECISIOt IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE &V.P".
--- ::EVER;'_ LAWS. CH'PTER SOS, A."D SHA1 EE FLED WITHIN 70 DAYS AFFE4 THE DATE OF FILIN;
DF THIS DECISION IX THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CiERK.
F i� •�75. CE:JR; L'.:5. G- P EC,, S_"IOi :1, THE 1'A ";E C° SPECIAL PEF':!i
i .r, .::;! N - :E EF 77U 1. r`, C'G?'i OF THEL r .� E .l THE GERL
CF ':�_ Lit LIE i,-'A Zi is r.: £'- ..°._ _.,`.i A.-. H:. . -._=D,
IF S,,:.:. . .. ;;PFE. Fo E_='( . :E �i.r l L_ _C IS
r li. EE 4'-TH ESSEw RE�:a.R` CF D_EFr„ I'._EXEJ iF:E _.h LE OF THE r;: .
OF REC32D OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED DG THE GGNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL