Loading...
28 UPHAM STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION fru � � au UPC 10330 l g No.1 53L. `ar.coxs� HASTINGS. NN SENDER: • •N COMPLETE THIS SECTION ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. si re — Rem 4 if Restriot6d Delivery is desired. X ❑Agent ■ Print your name and address on the reverse ❑Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different Rem 17 ❑Yes If YES,enter delivery address ss b below: ❑ No 3. Service Type G1 ( /� ❑❑Certified Mail Express;Mail Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1541 H,9 O UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Fi lass Mail o Post ge Fees P" USPS ' Permit No. 3510 S • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 inbs°x� e City Of Salem Building Departme:st 120 Washington Strec t Salem, MA 01970 <;Y eco r CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF SALEM: MA .� BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR �c SALEM, MA 01970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 Fax (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. 2001 OCT 2u p 2: po MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID DUNTON, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28 UPHAM STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on October 17, 2001, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Helides and Joan Boudreau. 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 Variances from density and lot area per dwelling unit to allow a three family to for the property located at 28 Upham Street located in an R-2 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 David Dunton owns the property at 28 Upham Street, which consists of a 3 story house on an undersized lot with a condominium unit on the first floor. The condominium is currently occupied by Dyanne Olson: the upper floors by Mr. Dunton, who seeks to a variance to, create a second condominium unit on the third floor. 2. Petitioner presented letters in support of his proposal from Byron Locke of 34 Upham St., Dean Larrabee of 9 Dearborn St., and Patrick Foley of 30 Upham St., In addition, a paper with the signatures of 13 neighbors was presented, purportedly in support of, or having no opposition to the proposed variances. 3. Speaking in opposition to the proposed petition were Staley McDermet, of 30 Dearborn St and Stephen Harris of 160 North St. Mr. Harris, who is also a member of the Zoning Board, did not participated in the decision of this petition. Both Mr. McDermet and Mr. Harris stated that the increased density would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. McDermet further stated that if the Board were to allow the third unit, the total square footage per dwelling unit would drop to 1,500 sf., which DECISION OF THE PETITION OD DAVID DUNTON,TRUSTEE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28 UPHAM TREET R-2 pagetwo is considerably lower than the 4,500 sf per dwelling unit required in the multifamily districts. 4. Mr. Dunton was represented by John R. Keilty, Esq., who argued that the petitioner improved the property during his 4 years of ownership by installing a fence around the garden, hot topping the back yard for additional parking and installing a patio. Mr. Dunton argued that economic need forced him to request this variance, and that he could not afford to live in the property unless the variances were granted. 5. The Board finds that petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence of hardship on which to base the granting of a Variance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially hardship derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 1 in favor and 4 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 OCTOBER 17, 2001 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal I } DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DAVID DUNTON, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28 UPHAM STREET R-2 page three 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 of Imettssttcl usetts '`r r r' � aj O� C" j _Lr,i C;rIC� ., Poara of A"eal 4� L00 ? L3 ! P 2= 2R DECISION ON THE PETITION OF UPHAM STREET REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT-28 UPHAM STREET.R- A hearing on this petition was held on July 19, 2000, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Buczko, Paul Valaskagis and Richard Dionne. 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 requesting Variance from the density and area table to allow 3 family structure on a lot containing 4,566 sq. ft. rather than 22, 500 for the property at 28 Upham Street located in an R-2 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. Tom Donovan of Blodgett & Donovan of 10 Chestnut Street presented the petition of David Dunton & Rick Fitzgerald the owners of the property. 2. The petitioner's intention is to convert a 2 family to a 3 family with additions inside and outside including a kitchen. There would be access from a stairway on the outside of the building. 3. The property currently has 2 parking places. The intention is to pave the backyard to provide for 6 parking spaces total with access from a driveway, which would run down the right side of the property. 4. The owners of the property presented a signed petition from neighbors in favor of the project. It was also said that others were in favor but were not able to be reached for this meeting. 'i DECISION OF THE PETITION OF UPHAM STREET REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28 UPHAM STREET R-2 page two 5. Scott Uva of 26 Upham Street spoke in favor, but did have a couple of concerns.One being if a fence could be installed to separate his yard which abutts the property from the parking area and driveway for safety reasons. The other was how the backyard would be leveled to provide proper drainage and blend with his yard. 6. Staley McDermett of 30 Dearborn Street opposed the petition. The reason being congestion and the paving of the backyard. 7. Stephen Harris opposed the petition for reasons of density and traffic. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially hardship derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 2 in favor and 2 in opposition to grant the requested variances. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED July 19, 2000 rr"'L Paul Valaskagis, Member Board of Appeal Y DECISION OF THE PETITION OF UPHAM STREET REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28 UPHAM STREET R-2 page three 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 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS t< !1 BUILDING DEPARTMENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET,3R FLOOR \cwJ TSL. (978) 745-9595 FAX(978) 740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR THoMAs STTIERRE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROPERTY/BUILDING OMSUSSIONER July 10, 2012 Edward and Julia Henning 28 Upham Street Unit#2 Salem Ma. 01970 Building Code Violation Dear Owners, I was asked by the Salem Fire Department to look at the third floor deck to the rear of your property. As you are probably aware, the third floor porch is supported by an angled support. This support has failed and the structure is "Unsafe" . You are directed to begin repairs immediately upon receipt of this notice. You are also directed to have the repair designed by a Structural Engineer, due to the height of the deck and the unusual construction. A building permit will be required to make this repair. Failure to comply,will result in Municipal Code Tickets and further enforcement actions. If you have any questions,please contact this office directly. If you feel you are aggrieved by this order, your Appeal is to the Board of Buildings, Regulations and Standards in Boston. Singly, Thomas St.Pierre Building Commissioner/Director of Inspectional Services cc. Jason Silva, Counclior Prevey, Fire Prevention