81 WEBB STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION 8� WEBB STREET
l�
:x
V
:} flit Of idem, u$SttClj�l �#� SALEM, MA
3, t CLEWS OFFICE
n Poarb of �ppea1
1081 AUG --I A & 2U
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LLYOD TERNES REQUESTING AN
ADIM{ TRAT—{1 E R LIIVZSR fit 1E PR(�PERI Y LOCATED�TIE�BS STREE
R-2
A hearing on this petition was held on July 18, 2001 with the following Board Members
present: Nina Cohen, Chariman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and Nicholas Helides.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were
published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting to Amend Conditions of a Special Permit granted on April 30,
1985 for the property located at 81 Webb Street.
After hearing the evidence the Board of Appeal makes the following findings of fact:
1. Petitioner, Lloyd Ternes appeared before the Board to request to amend condition
number 3 of the decision of 1985 which states, Driveway in rear be crushed stone.
2. Petitioner would like to be allowed to hot top driveway.
3. There was no opposition to this proposal.
Therefore, based on the fact and on evidence presented, Nina Cohen made a motion
and was seconded that the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0 to grant the
petitioners request to amend condition of 1985 with the following conditions;
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and
regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety
shall be strictly adhered to.
Nicholas Halides
Board of Appeal
106
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the
date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein
shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk
that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has
been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry
of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted
on the owner's Certificate of Title.
1
' .LOMIII r. 1,
CERTIFICATE ISSUED
DATE April 121 1991_
E' CITY OF SALEM
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 BUILDING PERMIT SIR
a�CDm„ CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
DATE I'14y 3 19 -i 11 PERMIT NO. {f1-1n
APPLICANT David Clarke ADDRESS 8 "lechanic Court, Marblehead 568
INO.1 ISTREETI ICONTR'S LICENSEI
renovate feline clinic & apartment NUMBER OF 1
PERMIT TO (_T STORY DWELLING UNITS
ITv/E OF IMSROYEMENTI N0. IRROPOSEO USE
AT (LOCATION) 81 Webb Street Ward 2 ZONING'
ONIN'R -2DISTR .
(NO.) ISTREETI
BETWEEN AND
'CROSS STREET) (CROSS STREET)
LOT
SUBDIVISIONLOT BLOCK SIZE
BUILDING IS TO BE FT. WIDE P., FT. LONG BY FT, IN HEIGHT AND SHALL CONFORM IN CONSTRUCTION
TO TYPE USE GROUP BASEMENT WALLS OR FOUNDATION
)TYRE)
REMARKS, Remvam Feline lreterinary Clinic r, one'a<1atrert - immmed by Rnard of AUal - nMnlinn A_A_R_ !!siva
**CALL FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY �[`j^T�'�K��}yE^�B7.Ey�'� KBS1E N� Euru[��E����1yP���7((��E��j�SSI�����,E��B.BIIKByEi1B�S�Ipub
AREA OR p�E� Ep�IY�Yi'IBwIPpLpO1�ly�I:pErY4
VOLUME 11TH�0'E�NIyI I��zNS1FS(I�z1F¢i7 TYelr�'71D1.1�]HpIL3@T.111
C BIC:SO WAf FE[ll �1q W,gME1 9�I�y3By1E•
.LovdeTernes & Kathleen Kaefe-Ternes�^IOi91YlNSN„oerloellsNN oerlbmvelTVrnorn ER,- sR„orno
OWNER - TO 9E PO��SRT�E�D ONT(PR):S,IISES
ADDRESS 15 Pickman Street, Salen SEE REV �1u.�6Au 0'8' IP'y'g'S KATE
BUILDING
PERMIT
JOB WEATHER CARD
DATE -• 19 PERMIT NO. tiles.
APPLICANT ADDRESS -.,. •'rC)J
(NO.) (STREET) ICONTR•S LICENSEI
,ii (•-.•: nl7;I j••. _ ..:NUMBER OF
PERMIT TO - 1_I STORY - It DWELLING UNITS
(TYPE OF IUPROYEMF MTI M0. IPPOPOSfO VSFI
AT (LOCATION( ZONIN CT
(N0.) (STREET)
BETWEEN AND
(CROSS STREET) (CROSS STPEETI
LOT
SUBDIVISION LOT BLOCK SIZE
BUILDING IS TO BE FT, WIDE BY FT. LONG BY FT. IN HEIGHT AND SHALL CONFORM IN CONSTRUCTION
TO TYPE USE GROUP BASEMENT WALLS OR FOUNDATION
(TYPE)
REMARKS: tr. ':'..h"7'7� •v i.3�117r 1-i Y;; znt ..
AREA OR PERMIT
VOLUME ESTIMATED COST FEE S -
'O19IC%SOUARE FEETI
OWNER Y1�17i;r,:n,n , .. BUILDING DEPT 5AA
ADDRESS .,.Ie� I BY �oa�•�5 __
THEREOF.E
THIS PERMIT CONVEYS C RIGHT TO OCCUPY ANY STREET, ALLEY OR SIDEWALK OR ANY PART THEREOF. FINGER TE, MUST
BE AP-.Q P
PERMANENTLY. ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED LOO UNDER THE BUILDING CODE, MUST AI AP-
PR BY THE JURISDICTION. STREET S. ALLEY GRADES AS WELL AS DEPTH AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC SEWERS MAY BE OBTAINED'
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT GOES NOT RELEASE THE APPLICANT FROM THE CONDITIONS
OF ANY APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION RESTRICTIONS.
MINIMUM OF THREE CALL App ROVED PLANS MUST BE RETAINED ON J08 AND THIS WHERE APPLICABLE SEPARATE
INSPECTIONS REOUIREO FGR CARD KEPT POSTED UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN PFPMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR
ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK: ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND
I. FOUNDATIONS OR FOOTINGS. MADE. WHERE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS RE- MECHANICAL INSTALLATIONS.
2. PRIOR TO COVERING STRUCTURAL OUIRED,SUCH BUILDING SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED UNTIL
MEMSERS(READY TO LATH1. FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE.
S. FINAL INSPECTION BEFORE
OCCUPANCY.
POST THIS CARD SO IT IS VISIBLE FROM STREET
BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVALS MBING JNSUCTION APPROVALS ELECTRICAL INSPECTION APPROVALS
17-
4 kc!
z � z
C 2'l/2/9/
BOARD CF HEALTH INSP PPROV LSz E PT. INSPECTING APPRO ALS
ro'e14 46,AloR
00
OTHER CITY ENGINEER 2 2
WORK SHALL NOT PROCEED UNTIL THE PERMIT WILL BECOME NULL AND VOID IF CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS INDICATED ON THIS CARO
INSPEC-OR HAS APPROVED THE VARIOUS WORK IS NOT STARTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF DATE THE CAN BE ARRANGED FOR BY TELEPHONE
STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION. PERMIT IS ISSUED AS NOTED ABOVE. OR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION.
THE ESSEX BUILDING COMPANY
MA"LEHEAD,
MrDN,,,�k s , MA 01945
td� t I�r 617.639.2640
S lMassa �xh O N 70
ter.
`T
�
S��e Bu:t�i.�J �� ►�e�,;a.e�..e~-�s . i �e�,� �- �,�.:.Z�� >;s re.�.C� ~�-
atf�.,
cot
(n.+G¢aASe U
,f 1
- 2amn�umu�e�zl�
sxew� CAW
_qo ��TT�
Michael S. Dukakis -150 -OTmmont Awt
Governor Eleventh Floor Aod" 0$,lil Tel: 617 727-6214
Philip.W.Johnston
Secretary
December 21, 1990
David H.Mulligan
Commissioner —i
-o l
Kathleen Keefe Ternes, DVM N N
The Feline Hospital M n `'
131 Boston St. _ o `� rn
Salem, MA. 01970 w'
RE: Shielding Design Veterinary Suite
81 Webb Street Salem
Dear Dr . Keefe Ternes:
The Radiation Control Program has reviewed a shielding design con-
sisting of floor plans, workload information, and occupancy infor-
mation.
The Radiation Control Program is of the opinion that the submitted
shielding design is drawn in conformance with modern radiological
health practice and hereby approves it.
Compliance with 105 CMR 120. the Department 's Radiation Control rules
and regulations, require in sub-chapter 120. 103 (b) and (c) that each
person that intends to maintain a facility or acquire a source of
ionizing radiation shall apply to the Massachusetts Department of
Public Health 's Radiation Control Program to register the facility
prior to acquiring, installing or commencing to maintain the facility.
The enclosed "Application For Registration Of Ionizing Installations"
shall be filed with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health 's
Radiation Control Program according to the regulations outlined above.
Sincerely,
ROBERT M. HALLISDirector
Radiation Contro R rogram
RMH/TOC
Enclosure: (1)
Ctv of ttlem, Massachusetts
19uara of 4peal RF CF(VE
rl
25 AN 30 P3 :04
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHLEEN KEEFE-TERNES AND
LLOYD TERNES (PETITIONERS) , PHYLLIS SPILIOTIS (OWNM CLERKS OFFICE
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 81 WEBB ST. , SALEM SALEM MASS
A hearing on this petition was held April 24, 1985 with the following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout.
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 request a Special Permit to allow them to use the premises as a
combination one unit dwelling and veterinary clinic for cats. The premises, in
an R-2 district, is owned by Phyllis E. Spiliotis and is currently used as a
dwelling/beauty salon.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 11 , 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 after
viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The proposed use of the premises will not significantly increase
traffic congestion or parking problems in the neighborhood beyond
that caused by its present use as a dwelling/beauty salon;
2. The proposed use of the the premises will not result in any
significant increase in noise in the neighborhood beyond that
caused by its present use as a dwelling/beauty salon;
3. The proposed use is not a veterinary hospital as defined in the
Ordinance, because the subject building will not be used soley
for the medical or surgical treatment of animals, reptiles or
birds. It will also be used as a dwelling as proposed by petitioners.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHLEEN KEEFE TERNES h
�- LLOYD TERNES FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 81 WEBB ST. , SALEM
page two
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed use will not be 'substantially more detrimental to
the public good than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood;
2. The proposed use will not nullify nor will it substantially derogate
from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance;
3. The proposed use does not or will not constitute an unreasonable increase
in the degree of use of the premises over its current use.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4 - 1 (Mr. Luzinski voted against) to
grant the relief requested, provided that:
1 . The veterinary clinc may be open to the public or customers of the clinic
withing the following hours only (except for medical emergencies) :
a. 8:45 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on three weedays per week;
b. 8:45 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on two weekdays per week;
c. 8:45 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays;
2. A minimum of six (6) on site parking spaces be maintained at all times;
3. Driveway in rear be crushed stone;
4. Maximum of one veterinary and three employees be on premises at one time;
5. Landscaping be done in accordance with plan submitted to the Board;
6. Any signs advertising the business be affixed to the building itself and
be no more than 18" x 32" and unlit;
7. Smoke detectors be installed in a configuration appropriate for mixed
occupancy and plans for installation be provided to the Salem Fire
Prevention Bureau prior to start of work;
8. Basement to be used for storage only;
9• Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
T
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED mm 0
3� W rn
3 Cn C
2"
0
i
Scott E. Charnas, Secreta 1 .1 A
"A L�4yE�)RNCT9I91YDEYPIUJUXAWNDURPU 9So}UV13)IBEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
„rHE G° SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS ARER !HL D,
.. TH ICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
IAWS, CH4FI1-R "I SEC11214 Il, TI:[
"IE EFFECT U9hL A COPY OF THE DEC: -
'.:IC: '9 DAYS HAVE 111 '-SED AND N^ f.P'r E:l H:_'
6n:: : FILE. THAT li HrS BEEN D!£'""EJ Li( C:': ..
RECLK9LJ i.. . :.?' REGISi6. OF DEEDS AND INDEXEU UNOLR THE itd,:_ GF ii._ ,...
OF RECORD OR IS ,.... ..__., ;.7.J VOTED ON TIE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
camng4�
ofttlem, Ctt�sttclfuse##�
15 APR 30 P3 :04
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHLEEN KEEFE-TERNES -AND
.LLOYD TERNES (PETITIONERS) , PHYLLIS SPILIOTIS (OW%7r)f CLERK'S OFFICE
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 81 WEBB ST. , SALEM SALEM MASS
A hearing on this petition was held April 24, 1985 with the following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout.
Notice of-the hearing was pent 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 request a Special Permit to allow them to use the premises as a
combination one unit dwelling and veterinary clinic for cats. The premises, in
an R-2 district, is owned by Phyllis E. Spilictis and is currently used as a
dwelling/beauty salon.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 11 , 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 after
viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The proposed use of the premises will not significantly increase
traffic congestion or parking problems in the neighborhood beyond
that caused by its present use as a dwelling/beauty salon;
2. The proposed use of the the premises will not result in any
significant increase in noise in the neighborHood beyond that
caused by its present use as a dwelling/beauty salon;
3. The proposed use is not a veterinary hospital as defined in the
Ordinance, because the subject building will not be used soley
for the medical or surgical treatment of animals, reptiles or
birds. It will also be used as a dwelling as proposed by petitioners.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHLEEN KEEFE TERNES &
r LLOYD TERNES FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 81 WEBB ST. , SALEM
page two
J
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 proposed use will not be substantially more detrimental to
the public good than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood;
2. The proposed use will not nullify nor will it substantially derogate
from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance;
3. The proposed use does not or will not constitute an unreasonable increase
in the degree of use of the premises over its current use.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4 - 1 (Mr. Luzinski voted against) to
grant the relief requested, provided that:
1 . The veterinary clinc may be open to the public or customers of the clinic
withing the following hours only (except for. medical emergencies) :
a. . 8:45 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on three weedays per week;
b. 8:45 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on two weekdays per week;
c. 8:45 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays;
2. A minimum of six (6) on site parking spaces be maintained at all times;
3. Driveway in rear be crushed stone;
4. Maximum of one veterinary and three employees be on premises at one time;
5. Landscaping be done in accordance with plan submitted to the Board;
6. Any signs advertising the business be affixed to the building itself and
be no more than 18" x 32" and unlit;
7. Smoke detectors be installed in a configuration appropriate for mixed
occupancy and plans for installation be provided to the Salem Fire
Prevention Bureau prior to start of work;
8. Basement to be used for storage only; Cl)
9. Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. cn'<
mm C7
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED 3 x we 11
Y Cn
Scott E. Charnas, 6ecretar;' i,.
L*UP4ECt PNTgFI5yDg ra VDX.ARNDJfpMSOI;AVD:;BEEN 7ILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
"SHE„CA 1_ "Y: i SHALL BE FILED WITHi9 20 DAYS AFTER 1fiL
. . iH rICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
LAWS, CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11, THE -
.. 'iE EFFECT UNTIL-A COPY Or THE dC:::::,..
20 DAYS HAVE 1L..-SED Ar:o N
FILE, THAT IT H=> BEEN PIS :ISSED Di;
RECORbEu i:: ,::% REGIST"' OF DEEDS AND INDEED UNDER THE i:F Tr6E
OF RECORD OR IS NOTED ON TU OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL-
Michael S. Dukakis
Governor � � G� -.�+anz 1390
Deborah A. Ryan
Executive Director
(6'1 7) 727-0660
DECISION
y m
RE: Feline Hospital)-.'81 Webb Street, Salem �„
� r
1 . An application for variance was filed with the Board by Lloyd„o
Ternes, Jr. (Applicant) on May 8, 1990. The applicant had requested ,
variances from the following Sections of the 1982 Rules and
Regulations of the Board. =
Section: 26.1 relating to the requirement of providing an accessible
entrance
2. The hearing was held on: Monday, July 23, 1990
3. The following persons appeared:
81 Webb Street (Feline Hospital), Salem, with Lloyd Ternes, co-
owner, The Feline Hospital
4. FINDINGS AND DECISION:
The Board having considered the evidence, hereby, finds and decides
as follows:
An application for variance was filed with the Board by Lloyd
Ternes, Jr. on May 9, 1990. The applicant had requested a variance
from the following section of the 1982 Rules and Regulations of the
board: Section 26.1 relating to primary entrances. The Board
reviewed the information as an incoming case and at that time voted
to Deny the variance request to Section 26,1 . The petitioner
requested an adjudicatory hearing to present the case in person
before the Board.
1
The petitioner testified that the property at 81 Webb Street, a
victorian home built,1850-1860, will be remodeled to be used as a
veterinary clinic for cats only, and one dwelling unit. Mr. Ternes
wife is the the veterinarian. The total cost of the construction to be
performed is $80,000, and the assessed value of the building was
submitted as $181 ,200.00.
The petitioner was before the Board to seek a variance to Section
26.1 relating to the requirement of providing a handicapped
accessible entrance at the facility. The petitioner testified that it
is technologically infeasible to provide ramp access, and the cost
for compliance via a wheelchair lift would be excessive.
A letter regarding the waiver of Section 26.1 , was submitted dated
May 4, 1990, from David Jaquith, Registered Architect, which read in
part: "The first floor level is 4' 3" above grade at a minimum. This
would require a ramp greater than 48' plus landings, and level
platforms to access the first floor level. I have been unable to
design a ramp that would solve this problem. The second method of
access would be an exterior chair lift. This method would require an
expenditure of over $10,000.00".
The Board inquired as to the conditions at the rear of the building.
Also, if it would be possible to use a portion of the parking lot in
constructing a ramp?
The petitioner testified that there is no substantial difference
between the front and back of the building. With respect to the use,
of the parking lot, the Board of Appeals in Salem granted a Special
Permit for the use of the premises, and one of the restrictions on
that use, is the requirement that a minimum of six (6) on-site
parking spaces be maintained at all times. This restriction
precludes the placement of a ramp in the parking area.
The petitioner also testified that house calls will be made, at no
extra charge, for persons with disabilities unable to access the
premises. The petitioner reiterated the fact that the Veterinarian
will be dealing with a relatively small clientele, since this will be a
feline hospital only and no other animals will be treated. It was
2
also noted that there are two other full service veterinary facilities
in Town, and one of them, accessible to persons with disabilities, is
only a mile away from 81 Webb Street.
After listening to the testimony, a motion was made by J. Bennett
and seconded by L. Braman to GRANT a variance to Section 26.1 to
the requirement of providing an accessible entrance at 81 Webb
Street for this use only, the Feline Hospital, on condition that the
veterinarian make house calls, at no extra change, for anyone
seeking treatment for their cat, and unable to access the stairs of
the premises. In granting the variance, the Board noted the limited
clientele, that will be using the facility, and the fact that there is a
comparable accessible facility nearby to serve physically disabled
persons with cats. Further, the Board ordered that any
announcements sent out should include the information that house
calls are provided, for the treatment of the cats, for persons with
disabilities unable to access the stairs of the premises.
THE VARIANCE IS FOR THIS USE ONLY, THE FELINE HOSPITAL,
AND WILL EXPIRE IF THE BUILDING IS SOLD, LEASED, RENTED
OR A CHANGE IN USE OCCURS.
This constitutes a final order of the Architectural Access Board,
entered pursuant to G.L. c.30A. Any aggrieved person may appeal this
decision to the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts pursuant to Section 14 of G.L. c.30A. Any appeal must
be filed in court no later than thirty (30) days of receipt of this
decision.
DATE: Augustg 1990 ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD
Gerald LeBlanc
Chairman
cc: Local Building Inspector
Local Handicapped Commission
Independent Living Center
I
3
10 April 1991
Mr. David Harris
Salem Building Department
One Salem Green c
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
eat.
Re: Field Report n'n
The Feline HospitalCD
81 Webb Street r"
Salem, Massachusetts =
� co
Site Visit #3: 10 April 1991
Dear David:
We have inspected the finish project at The Feline Hospital Building, 81 Webb
Street, Salem, Massachusetts and believe that to the best of our knowledge of
.the inspection and renovation meets the Massachusetts State,Building Code. .
If you have any questions please give mea call.
Si c rely,
avi F. Ja i
Registere A c it ct
cc; Lloyd Ternes
David Clark
Jaquith & Siemasko, Inc. Architects & Planners
8 ENON STREET, BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS 01915(508)927-3745
6 March 1991
Mr. David Harris
Salem Building Department
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Re: Field .Report
The Feline Hospital
81 Webb Street . c,0
Salem,,Massachusetts ,a
Site Visit #1 : 12 December 1990
Dear.David: t,a
We have inspected the rough at The Feline.Hospital Building, 81 Webb Street,
Salem, Massachusetts and believe that to the best of our knowledge of the _
rough inspection meets the Massachusetts State Building Code.
If you have any questions please give me a'call.
9erely,,
t• laq ct
Registered rch
cc; Lloyd Ternes
David Clark
Jaquith & Siemasko, Inc. Architects & Planners
8 ENON STREET, BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS 01915 (508) 927-3745
6 March 1991
Mr. David Harris
Salem Building Department
One Salem Green
Salem,' Massachusetts 01970
o�J . ry r
Re: Field Report '
r
The Feline Hospital ,
81 Webb Street m
Salem, Massachusetts N �=
Site' Visit #2: 15 January 1991
Dear David:
We have inspected the near finish point at The Feline Hospital Building; 81
Webb Street, Salem, Massachusetts and believe that.to the best of our
knowledge of the rough inspection meets the Massachusetts State Building
Code.
If you have any questions please give me a call:
aicely,,
J
a 1
Registere I A itect
cc; Lloyd Ternes
David Clark
\ Jaquith & Sietnasko, Inc. Architects & Planners
8 ENGN STREET, BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS 01915 (508) 927-3745
,r Czecu/uu:C�Cc o�`�u�✓ic.%�
1 ,
\lich:u•I S. Dukakis
C7r ('�iee.;U.l�r�✓u�laiz ,Jlcre� ✓icu:�re J370
Deborah
A,A. RN an '
E cecutivc Uirrctur
.._A,:✓f.... :I/Lam/.,.✓G :/ .•
(61 7) 72-7-066C
TO: Local Building Inspector
Local Handicapped Commission 00 a
Independent Living Center rn
o
FROM: Architec±ural Access Board
0 o
SUBJECT: _ _ / f `
DATE: Zf M
Enclosed pl se find the following material regarding the above
premises:
Application for Variance L4Decision of the Board
Notice of Hearing Correspondence
Letter of Meeting
The purpose of this memo is to advise your office of action taken or
to be taken by this Board. If you have any information which would
assist this Board in making a decision on this case you may call this
office at (617) 727-0660 or 1 -800-828-7222 Voice or TDD or you
may submit comments in writing to the above address.
Thank you for your interest in this matter.
Michael S. Dukakis
Gmernoz
DeborahAANan
Executive Director
n (617- 27-111C G:3
P1
DECISION a
-It
E
RE: Feline Hospital, �2�L-, WlTb�bSt�ree`t, Salem -1:
1 . An application for variance was filed with the Board by 'DoY(T
Ternes, Jr. (Applicant) on May 8, 1990. The applicant had requested
variances from the following Sections of the 1982 Rules and
Regulations of the Board.
Section: 26.1 relating to the requirement of providing an accessible
entrance
2. The hearing was held on: Monday, July 23, 1990
3. The following persons appeared:
81 Webb Street (Feline Hospital), Salem, with Lloyd Ternes, co-
owner, The Feline Hospital
4. FINDINGS AND DECISION:
The Board having considered the evidence, hereby, finds and decides
as follows:
An application for variance was filed with the Board by Lloyd
Ternes, Jr. on May 9, 1990. The applicant had requested a variance
from the following section of the 1982 Rules and Regulations of the
board: Section 26.1 relating to primary entrances. The Board
reviewed the information as an incoming case and at that time voted
to Deny the variance request to Section 26,1 . The petitioner
requested an adjudicatory hearing to present the case in person
before the Boa '.
1
f r
The petitioner testified that the property at 81 Webb Street, a
victorian home built,1850-1860, will be remodeled to be used as a
veterinary clinic for cats only, and one dwelling unit. Mr. Ternes
wife is the the veterinarian. The total cost of the construction to .be
performed is $80,000, and the assessed value of the building was
submitted as $181 ,200.00.
The petitioner was before the Board to seek a variance to Section
26.1 relating to the requirement of providing a handicapped
accessible entrance at the facility. - The petitioner testified that it
is technologically infeasible to provide ramp access, and the cost
for compliance via a wheelchair lift would be excessive.
A letter regarding the waiver of Section 26.1 , was submitted dated
May 4, 1990, from .David Jaquith, Registered Architect, which read in
part: "The first floor level is 4' 3" above grade at a minimum. This
would require a ramp greater than 48' plus landings, and level
platforms to access the first floor level. I have been unable to
design a ramp that would solve this problem. The second method of
access would be an exterior chair lift. This method would require an
expenditure of over $10,000.00".
The Board inquired as to the conditions at the rear of the building.
Also, if it would be possible to use a portion of the parking lot in
constructing a ramp?
The petitioner testified that there is no substantial difference
between the front and back of the building. With respect to the use
of the parking lot, the Board of Appeals in Salem granted a Special
Permit for the use of the premises, and one of the restrictions on
that use, is the requirement that a minimum of six (6) on-site
parking spaces be maintained at all times. This restriction
precludes the placement of a ramp in the parking area.
The petitioner also testified that house calls will be made, at no
extra charge, for persons with disabilities unable to access the
premises. The petitioner reiterated the fact that the Veterinarian
vv iii Uo uc4i�liy Yv ilii d IdI Ll I Jlil dii is1EntE 16, SMCe OiIS V4111 Ue a
feline hospital only and no other animals will be treated. It was
2
also noted that there are two other full service veterinary facilities
in Town, and one of them, accessible to persons with disabilities, is
only a mile away from 81 Webb Street.
After listening to the testimony, a motion was made by J. Bennett
and seconded by L. Braman to GRANT a variance to Section 26.1 to
the requirement of providing an accessible entrance at 81 Webb
Street for this use only, the Feline Hospital, on condition that the
veterinarian make house calls, at no extra change, for anyone
seeking treatment for their cat, and unable to access the stairs of
the. premises. In granting the variance, the Board noted the limited
clientele, that will be using the facility, and the fact that there is a
comparable accessible facility nearby to serve physically disabled
persons with cats. Further, the Board ordered that any
announcements sent out should. include the information that house
calls are provided, for the treatment of the cats, for persons with
disabilities unable to access the stairs of the premises.
THE VARIANCE IS FOR THIS USE ONLY, THE FELINE HOSPITAL,
AND WILL EXPIRE IF THE BUILDING IS SOLD, LEASED, RENTED
OR A CHANGE IN USE OCCURS.
This constitutes a final order of the Architectural Access Board,
entered pursuant to G.L. c.30A. Any aggrieved person may appeal this
decision to the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts pursuant to Section 14 of G.L. c.30A. Any appeal must
be filed in court no later than thirty (30) days of receipt of this
decision.
DATE: August 1990 ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD
Gerald LeBlanc
Chairman
cc: Local Building Inspector
Local Handicapped Commission
Independent Living Center
3
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
THE TRIAL COURT
ESSEX, ss . SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
No. 85-1222
rs era
r*s
MICHAEL E. PELLETIER, et als
Plaintiffs
VS .
KATHLEEN J. KEEFE-TERNES, et als
Defendants
*
FINDINGS, RULINGS and ORDER
The defendants, Kathleen J. Keefe-Ternes and Lloyd Ternes,
applied for and were granted a special permit by the defendant,
Board of Appeals of the City of Salem, Massachusetts, to allow
them to use the premises at 81 Webb Street, in said Salem, as
a combination one unit dwelling and a veterinary clinic for cats .
The plaintiffs are property owners in the same zoning
district and have brought this action as persons aggrieved pur-
suant to the provisions of Mass. G.L. C. 40A, Sec. 17 .
The hearing before the Court is a de novo hearing in which the
facts are to be determined from the evidence which is introduced
by the parties, the governing principles of law applied, and in
light of such evidence and law to review the decision of the Board
of Appeals, and to enter such decree as justice and equity may
- 1 -
require in accordance with the determination of law and the facts.
Counsel for the parties have submitted agreed stipulated
exhibits for the Court' s consideration.
Counsel for the parties have further stipulated, that:
1) Defendant, Board of Appeals of the City of Salem, granted
a Special Permit to the petitioners., Kathleen Keefe-Ternes and
Lloyd Ternes, to allow them to use the premises at 81 Webb Street,
Salem, Massachusetts as a one unit dwelling and veterinary clinic
for cats, upon certain conditions by an undated decision filed
with the Salem City Clerk on April 30 , 1985 .
2) The land and structure located at 81 Webb Street, Salem,
is located within an R-2 District as defined under the Salem
Zoning Ordinance.
3) Plaintiffs ' Complaint was filed in accordance with
Massachusetts G. L. Chapter 40A, sec. 17.
The Court took a view of the locus.
A jury waived trial was held on April 15 , 1986 . Based
on all credible and-material evidence and the reasonable inferences
to be drawn therefrom, I make the following Findings of Fact,
Rulings of Law and Order for Judgment.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
The Court finds that the plaintiffs are property owners in
close proximity and in the same zoning district as the property
which is the subject of this action. The Court accordingly finds
that the plaintiffs are "persons aggrieved" under Mass. G.L. C. 40A,
Section 17 .
- 2 -
The pertinent sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance are
the following:
Section V, B, 10 of the "Use Regulations" provides :
1110 . Extension of Nonconformity" .
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in
this Ordinance, the Board of Appeals 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 non-
conforming lots, land, structures, and uses , provided,
however, such change, extension, enlargement, or expan-
sion shall not 'be substantially more detrimental than
the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
Section IX, D of the Ordinance provides:
I'D, Special Permits" .
11
. . . The Board of Appeals shall not have the power
to grant any special permit where use of land or structure
is specifically excluded from the district" .
Section V, A, 2 recites the permitted uses in an R-2
District and does not specifically include the type of
facility and use proposed by the petitioners, Kathleen J.
Keefe-Ternes and Lloyd.
Section V, B, 7 lists the special permit uses allowed in
an R-2 district and does not include the type of facility
and use proposed by the petitioners, Kathleen J. Keefe-
Ternes and Lloyd Ternes.
Section V, B, 7 does on to specifically exclude in an R-2
district the following:
Section V, B, 7
" (d) Any Special Permit uses for B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 and
I Disticts" .
Section V, B, 7 of the ordinance lists "Veterinary Hospitals"
as a special permit use in a B-4 District.
Section II, B, 43 of the "DEFINITIONS" section of the
ordinance provides:
"43 . Veterinary Hospital, (Animal Clinic) - a building
whose so s will be the medical or surgical treatment
of animals, reptiles or birds. Patients may be boarded
on the premises not longer than twenty (20) days. The
building shall not be used for breeding purposes or as
a kennel.
3
Plaintiffs argue that the facility proposed by the
petitioners, Kathleen Keefe-Ternes and Lloyd Ternes is a
veterinary Hospital (Animal Clinic) as defined in the Ordinance
and may be the subject of a special permit only in a B-4 district
andis specifically excluded by the Ordinance in a R-2 district.
The Board of Appeals, among its findings 1/, made a finding
as follows:
"3 . The proposed use is not a veterinary hospital as
defined in the Ordinance, because the subject building
will not be used solely for the medical or surgical
treatment of animals, reptiles or birds. It will also
be used as a dwelling as proposed by the petitioners. "
(emphasis added)
This Court makes the following findings:
The petitioner, Dr. Kathleen Keefe-Ternes is a licensed
veterinarian in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. She limits
her practice to the medical and surgical treatment of cats .
She intends to use the first floor of the building at
81 Webb Street [which she and her husband, Lloyd Ternes, have
under contract to purchase] for reception and examination purposes.
The second floor of the building would be used for surgery, over-
night patient care and an office. The third floor would be rented
out as a residence apartment. She and her husband do not intend
to reside upon the property
1/ . The Board of Appeals also found that the proposed use will
not significantly increase traffic congestion or parking
problems beyond that caused by its present use as a dwelling/
beauty salon nor would the proposed use result in significant
increase in noise beyond its present use.
- 4 -
She will have one assistant at the present time and at
a later date would expand her staff to two.
She has designed the facility' s parking lot to minimize
parking and traffic problems as required by the Board of Appeals
and will have parking for six cars as required by the Board of
Appeals . She has made provision for additional overflow parking
at a rented parking lot close by if this becomes necessary.
She would expect to see three patients per hour during
the hours permitted by the Board of Appeals 2/ or about 90
per week.
She would not expect to have more than 5 or 6 cats at any
one time for overnight post-operative stays. -
I further find that the R-2 district in which the property
is located is comprised of residences (single and multifamily
homes) with commercial and professional uses within the district.
That Webb Street, within the R-2 district in which the
property is located, includes a mixture of residential and
commercial uses, including a roofing company garage, a donut shop,
a machine shop, a donut shop, a barber shop and a fish market.
That Webb Street, at the intersection of Andrew, where the
property is located, has a traffic density of 3000 vehicles
per day, including heavy trucks . That the veterinary clinic
for cats will add a maximum of 24 vehicles per day to Webb
Street traffic and none to Andrew Street beyond the entrance to
the property' s parking lot.
2/ Tne Board of Appeals in its decision provided that the clinic
may be open to the public or customer within the following hours .
a) 8: 45 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on three weekdays per week
b) 8 : 45 a.m. to 7 : 00 p.m. on two weekdays per week.
c) 8 : 45 a.m. to 12: 00 noon on Saturdays.
I further find that the use of the property as a veterinary
clinic for cats will not generate offensive noises or smells
outside of the building which is part of the property.
That the prior non-conforming use (beauty salon) had an
estimated customer count of 75-80 customers per week seen both
by the defendant, the present owner of the property, Phyllis
E. Spiliotis, and her helper.
The Board of Appeals on the basis of the findings of fact
made by them concluded and this Court also so finds and concludes
that:
1. The proposed use will not be substantially more
determinental to the public good than the existing
nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
2. The proposed use will not nullify . nor will it sub-
stantially derogate from the intent and purpose of
the Ordinance.
3 . The proposed use does not or will not constitute
an unreasonable increase in the degree of use of the
premises over its current use.
With respect to the finding by the Board of Appeals that
the use proposed by the petitioners is not a veterinary hospital
as defined in the Ordinance because its use is not solely that
of a veterinary hospital in that it will also be used as a
dwelling, the Court finds that distinction and finding to be
tenuous to say the least. To sanction such an interpretion
would be a precedent and would allow petitioners for a veterinary
hospital in R-2 districts to merely provide a,residential use or
other use within the facility and thus subvert the intent and
express exclusion of veterinary hospitals (by special permit or
- 6 -
otherwise) in a R-2 District.
Thus Court, however, finds that the facility proposed by
the plaintiffs, Kathleen J. Keefe-Ternes and Lloyd Ternes is
not a Veterinary Hospital, (Animal Clinic) as defined in Section
II, B, 43 of the ordinance.
This Court finds that a Veterinary Hospital, (Animal Clinic)
as defined by the Ordinance would encompass a full service
Veterinary Hospital, used for the medical or surgical treatment
of a variety of animals ranging from aardvarks to zebras. Such
a full service veterinary hospital, with its attendant sounds,
smells, waste generation and traffic may rightfully be limited
to a B-4 district. The Court does not find that the framers
of the ordinance intended that such a limited facility and operation
as that proposed by the plaintiffs should be classified as a
Veterinary Hospital and thus specifically excluded by special
permit or otherwise from this R-2 zone.
The Court therefore arrives at the same result as the
Board of Appeals, although on differenT grounds ; that the
plaintiffs, Kathleen J. Keefe-T ernes and Lloyd Ternes be permitted
to use the premises at 81 Webb Street, Salem, Massachusetts as a
combination one unit dwelling and a veterinary clinic for cats,
subject to all of the conditions required by the Board of Appeals.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
On appeal to the Superior Court, the judge is required to
hear the matter de novo and determine the legal validity of the
decision of the Board upon the facts found by him. Lawrence vs.
Board of Appeals of Lynn, 336 Mass. 87, 89 and cases cited.
7
In such a hearing before the Court, the matter is heard
de novo and the judge makes his own finding of fact, independent
of any findings of the board, and determines the legal validity
of the decision of the board upon the facts found by the court,
or if the decision of the board is invalid in whole or in part,
the court determines what decision the law requires upon the facts
found. Pendergast vs. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 331 Mass . 555,
559 , (emphasis in original) .
The function of the Court is confined to the usual and
proper function of applying established law to established facts .
It does not permit the Court to invade the field of administrative
discretion. Pendergast, supra at 559
The Board of Appeals properly concluded based on its findings
of fact that:
1. The proposed use will not be substantially more detrimental
to the public good than the existing nonconforming use
to the neighborhood.
2. The proposed use will not nullify nor will it substantially
derogate from the intend and purpose of the Ordinance.
3 . The proposed use does not or will not constitute an
unreasonable increase in the degree of use of the premises
over its current use.
That both the former beauty salon and the proposed cat clinic
are non-conforming uses in an R-2 district.
That the proposed use as found by this Court is not. specifically
excluded from an R-2 district.
That the proposed use will not depart from the intent of
the Ordinance and its prior degree of use nor will the
building be increased in volume or area unreasonably.
- 8 -
It is therefore ORDERED:
1. That the decision of the Board of Appeal is affirmed.
2. That a copy of this Order be forwarded to the City Clerk
of the City of Salem, its Building Inspector, and its
Board of Appeal.
By the Court,
Septeembsr 25, 198b,
dated William a Jr. Justice
Cil)
j'tment of
Sup3rior COul't
° gc_,z,2
i
r
P1ich ..el E. Pelletier, et ai
vs.
I
i
Kathleen J. I<_eef e!ernes, et als
II
JUDGIE ITT
This Cause Came on for.;trial be'f'ore the Court, ",.i'-hgas, J.
preSid_inG, and the issues having; been duly heard and findings j
havi-S been duly rendered, It is Ordered and. adjudged;
1. That the decision of the Board or Appeals is affirmed.
That the Clert�t-71a31s'vrate of thi.s Court shall L=7itnin
i
30 days send an attested co- y of this judgment to t-ae Cit? Cl.ervi
Bulldin.� Inspector and Board of Appeals, res-oectively of the Cit %
t
I
of Salem. /}
ht test : leX41 � �ldLr
Assistant Clarv-
D^ut ad at e^.-:130d�r, 'TS.SS=.chusetts, this ?Fth da. r ofSe-otenb^r,
1°8b.
f
I
f
f
I �
Michael S. Dukakis4'/i """""`^`�'
Governor
Charles V. Barry
Secretary
.fJoaloic,..�:.moo.JueelG.02908
(617) 727-0660
C-- VARIANCE HEARING NOTICE `
RE: 81 Webb Street, Salem-
Ley.,
You are hereby notified that an informal adjudicatory hearing before the Architectural
Access Board will be held on Monday, July 23, 1990 at 4:00 p.m. in Room 1310, One
Ashburton Place, Boston, MA
This hearing is upon an application for variance filed by Lloyd Ternes, Jr. for
modification of or substitution of the following Rules and Regulations: Sections 26.1. A
copy of the application is available for public inspection during regular business hours.
This hearing will be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in M.G.L., c.
30A, and S. 1.02 of the Standard Rules of Practice and Procedure. At the hearing, each
party may be represented by counsel, may present evidence and may cross examine
opposing witnesses.
Date: June 5, 1990 ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD
/HLAIRMAN/&
cc: Independent Living Center
Local Building Inspector
Local Handicap Commission.
4 Z Q
rn o
3 f`7
co
m,E w
�m m o
_
y �
N O
1'
Michael S. Dukakis
Governor
R%
- 6,e .-24",W—a(ace - ✓l<uun 1310
DeborarahbA.A. Roan
Executive Director
(617) 727-066C
TO: Local Building Inspector
Local Handicapped Commission
Independent Living Center
FROM: Architectural /Access Board
�D
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Enclosed please find the following material regarding the above
premises:
Application for Variance Decision of the Board
L.---Notice of Hearing Correspondence
Letter of Meeting
The purpose of this memo is to advise your office of action taken or
to be taken by this Board. If you have any information which would
assist this Board in making a decision on this case you may call this
office at (617) 727-0660 or 1-800-828-7222 Voice or TDD or you
may submit comments in writing to the above address.
Thank you for your interest in this matter.
Peng, -t Apei"�Il �
� vv
V�r
Q&tu of *Irnt, 4massac4usefts
Public VropertV Petlttrtlucut
'A'gSO1NM1 }T�' ",suillilig D` eparinTent
(One ?�nfrrn tk,rren
7.15-11213
William H. Munroe
Director of Public Property Maurice M Martineau, Asst Inspector
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer John L. LeClerc, Plumnmg/Gas Insp.
RE: CONSTRUCTION CONTROL: Permit #
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the construction authorized under the above
stated permit is subject to section 127, CONSTRUCTION CONTROL, of the
Massachusetts State Building Code.
All construction documents, including but not limited to working
drawings, shop drawings and specifications shall be prepared and approved
by a registered professional architect or engineer. These documents shall
be submitted to the Building Department for permit review purposes.
Progress reports shall be submitted by a registered professional
architect, or engineer to the Building Department on a by-weekly basis.
Reports shall contain all information regarding the readiness of the
project to proceed and any comments pertinent to problems encountered on
the site that effect compliance with any and all codes. Deviations from
approved plans shall be brought to the attention of the Building Department.
At the completion of the project, a report shall be prepared by the
' registered professional architect or engineer commenting on the readiness
of the project for occupancy and listing any pertinent deviations from the
approved building permit documents.
Also, at the completion of the project, the general contractor recorded
on the permit shall certify to the best of his knowledge the the work has
been performed in accordance with the approved construction documents and in
a safe and satisfactory manner in accordance with all applicable local, state
and federal statutes and regulations.
Failure to produce reports shall result in a cease and desist order
placed upon your project within five (5} days after an established due date
has passed.
Please feel free to contact this office if there are any questions.
Respectfully,
William H. Munroe
Inspector of Buildings
WHM:bms
NST 7CT" ^CL
PROJECT :!UMBER: 9DD 2 9Q75
ROJECT TITLE: )WF'DSED �EL/it/� /�DS�/ / L. /�D� �{1�F/LC � ✓•
PROJECT LOCATION: B/ W45&40 5r. 11 SALt5m)z A4,+.
NAME OF BUILDING: /
NATURE OF PROJECT: ��NDVAJ�IdI� OF
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 127.0 OF THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE BUILDING CODE,
I' AI12 7E- - Registration No. OF53
BEING A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL zvFtE£R7ARCHITECT HEREBY CERTIFY.THA'tZ HAVE PREPARED
Ofl DIRECTLY SUPERVISED THE PREPARATION OF ALL DESIGN PLANS, COMPU1 TTIO� S> AND y#EC:711-A-
MONS CONCERNING: c
ENTIRE PROJECT ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURA�'�- .
P
FIRE PROTECTION ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL
OTHER (specify)
FOR THE ABOVE NAMED PROJECT AND THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, SUCH PLANS,
COMPUTATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS MEET THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS
':TATE BUILDING CODE, tLL ACCEPTABLE ENGINEERING PRACTICES AND APPLICABLE L WS AND
1D:NANCES FOR T-E FROPOSED USE AND lCCUPANCY.
FURTHER CERTIFY 7:!AT 1 �iiALL . ERFORM iiE :.ECESSARY . "OFESSIOi'!AL .,ERVICES
'RESENT CN THE CZNST°UCT:ON :,ITE ON A REGULAR AND fERICDIC n-ASI: TO DETERMINE 7"AT
-HE WORK IS PROCEDING :A ACCORDANCE WITH THE DOCUMENTS APPROVED FOR THE BUILDING
PERMIT AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FOLLOWING AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 127.S.S:
1 . Review of shop drawi=, .amles and other sutmittals of the cmmractor as rmuired by the
ccnstructim contract dooxmr.^, as sun tted for buildzg permit, and approval for ccnorimnce
to the desiell ccncept.
2. Review and approval of the quality control procedures for all code-requirsd controlled materiaLs.
3. Special ammitecturai or engineering professimal inspection of critical cautrvctim camaien=
requiring controlled materials or caistructim specified in the accepted engrneerulg practice
standards listed in Appm= B.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 127.2.3, I SHALL SUBMIT PERIODICALLY, A PROGRESS REP F
WITH PERTINENT COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR. a DAVID F
a L
UPON COMPLETION OF THE WORK, SHALL SUBMIT A FINAL REPORT AS TO THE S 3
COMPLETION AND READINESS OF THE PROJECT FOR OCCUPANCY. r ,mesxwsA�
G
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 19 Q
-lichael S. Dukakis
Governor
Gni d4diel ulo a ace ` Roo ro 9390 'c CA
Deborah A. Ryan
Esecutix-e Director tO
67>7) �066C Z
NOTICE OF ACTION o '' r
VRE.781 Webb Street,_Salem,,MA o
1 . An application for variance was filed with the Board by Lloyd Ternes, Jr.
(Applicant) on May 9, 1990. The applicant has requested a variance from the
following section of the 1982 Rules and Regulations of the Board:
Section 26.1 relating to primary entrance
2. The application was heard by the Board as an incoming case on Monday, May
21 , 1990.
3. After reviewing all materials submitted to the Board, the Board voted as
follows:
kDENY the variance to) Section 26.1 for the reason that impracticability has not
been proven.
Any person aggrieved by the above decision may request an adjudicatory hearing
before the Board within thirty (30) days of receipt of this decision by filing the
attached request for an adjudicatory hearing. If after thirty (30) days, a request
for an adjudicatory hearing is not received, the above decision becomes a final
decision and the appeal process is through Superior Court.
Date: May 24, 1990 ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD
Gerald LeBlanc
Chairman
cc: Local Building Inspector
Local Handicapped Commission
Independent Living Center
SERAFINI, SERAFINI AND DARLING
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
63 FEDERAL STREET
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
JOHN R. SERAFINL SR. TELEPHONE
JOHNR. SERAFINI.JR. 744.0212
JO MN
E. DARLING 9014743
AREA CODE 017
i!
June 3, 1988
Lloyd Ternes
16 Pickman Street
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Pelletier v. Keefe-Ternes
Essex Superior Court
Docket No. 85-1222 —
Dear Lloyd:
As you had recently asked me , the effective date of
Judgement in the Superior Court in Essex County upon rescript
from the Appeals Court is May 9, 1988. The two (2) year period
during which you must make use of your Special Permit will. run
from that date.
Enclosed is the rescript order from the Appeals Court to the
Essex Superior Court showing a date stamp on the back of the
first page of May 9 , 1988. If you have any other questions,
it
please call me.
Very truly yours,
J N R. SERAFINI, JR.
JRS,JR/mkt
Enclosures
I
II
SERAFINI, SERAFINI AND DARLING
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
63 FEDERAL STREET
i
SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970
i
TELEPHONE
i JOHN R. SERAFINI, SR.
0212
JOHN R. SERAFINI,JR. 561 JOHN E. DARLING AREA C56CODE
_
617
j�
'! June 31 1988
I� Lloyd Ternes
16 Pickman Street
Salem, MA 01970
j' Re: Pelletier v. Keefe-Ternes
Essex Superior Court
Docket No. 85-1222 -
Dear Lloyd:
As you had recently asked me , the effective date of
Judgement in the Superior Court in Essex County upon rescript
from the Appeals Court is May 9, 1988. The two (2) year period
during which you must make use of your Special Permit will run
from that date.
Enclosed is the rescript order from the Appeals Court to the'
Essex Superior Court showing a date stamp on the back of the
first page of May 9, 1988. If you have any other questions?
please call me.
Very truly yours,
(i
J N R. SERAFINI, JR.
JRS,JR/mkt
ii
Enclosures
i +
i
1lichacl S. Dukakis '4�/
C:rah .k.r f ne.:L>/r�uu�larz nce - �Rt�ryre Ism
Deborah A. ligan
Ececu(ire Dirxr(or
(617) i27-066C
TO: Local Building Inspector
Local Handicapped Commission
Independent Living Center
FROM: Architectural Access Board _
SUBJECT:
DATE:
i
Enclosed please find the following material regarding the above
premise
Application for Variance _Decision of the Board
Notice of Hearing Correspondence
Letter of Meeting
The purpose of this memo is to advise your office of action taken or
to be taken by this Board. If you have any information which would
assist this Board in making a decision on this case you may call this
office at (617) 727-0660 or 1-800-828-7222 Voice or TDD or you
may submit comments in writing to the above address.
Thank you for your interest in this matter.
c
�� r
m
Len
is lil CO --_
N
H L�
787
Itfaze �Ua���aza�zuleaLG� c��/GGa�-,�acfu.�e�
e..���7eCl2Gt�C�IL?cILL c.�CCP,Q6 �fCIO�/X� �/ 11 .� — i L-
MEdhael S. Dukakis ,.�> �,7f �y
Governor oner'Q411 ereon ✓"lace - ✓Laavx. f3>0
Charles V. Barry ✓JaJlon, i%lRrataclzuuCLt 4.2108 _
Secretary
(6-171 7.27=4660
Voice & TDD
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
In accordance with M.C.L., Chapter 22, Section 13A, I hereby apply for
modification of or substitution for the rules and regulations of the
Architectural Access Board as they apply to the facility described below on the
grounds that literal compliance with the Board requlations is impracticable in
my case.
1. State the names and address of the owner of the building/facility:
keef'e_ �er�c r a„,a 'L /v'.1 Ter Ne
('jerY'7 :d7d _i7, y�.r,sl M'4 11I
r
2. State the name and address or ocher identification of the building/facility:
SS V ebb t. S�le�t d 17{� i I el "7 C'
3. Describe the facility: (number of floors, type of functions, etc.):
_ �y°_�•%s+1_.l l i'�"P v�Ngr� C�' n1...0 'tv .,rt�'� Fav � l 'P��iiv�' ar -'f”
4. Check the work performed or to be performed:
_New construction Reconstruction, Alteration,
Remodeling
_Addition Change of Use
5. Briefly describe the extent—and nature of/ .the work performed or to be
performed: &L�_ eu�,t;.vc �rii'Ye,•;a.a r,6Idiaa4 will ! r,,m4Lfie 4 45e
i.� '��h,'��,z-}[t-� ,vg �r c,t;n%' c, r-ti� r�✓ r?rr+rJM �"r.;y'.
V
6. State each section of the Rules and Regulations of the Architectural Access
Board for which a variance is being requested.
SECTION NUMBER ? DESCRIPTION
`�,G, 1 �r`irl,�r�_�ubirc cNtYnn+ce
8. For each variance requested, state in detail the reasons why compliance with
the Board' s regulations would not be practical. State the necessary cost of
the work required to achieve compliance. (You should submit cost estimates
detailing the amount of compliance) USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY.
9.. Has a building permit been applied for?-
n
If yes, state the date the permit was issued: r�H6 'i
10. State the estimated cost of construction as stated on the building permit.
X35 . . �i Yl�z .,P,.r �,h�,_ r
If a building permit has not been issued, state the anticipated construction
cost: h ,
f'
11 . Has a cerriEicate Of ocu.roanc}' be^.n tssned for the facility? j
If yes, state the date:
12. State the actual assessed valuation of the BUILDING ONLY AS RECORDED IN THE
ASSESSOR'S OFFICE of the municipality in which the building is located:
17. State the phase of design or construction of the facility as of the date of
this application:
14. State the name and address of the architectural or engineering firm
including the name of the individual architect or engineer responsible for
pJA
reparing drawings of the facility: , yUJTI4' "r
�fC/L �iI `-
S ri•:it
TEL:
15. State the name and address of the building inspector responsible for
overseeingthis project: ny `=
P j 17• li li, i''iuY✓yt !'>,.ri I;/•:r'1
.7 � ..i rl N a-r-
J
PLEASE NOTE: The Board may, in its discretion, hold a hearing on your
application for variance. The Boardmayalso decide your application without a
hearing, upon the information you . submit. You should' therefore, iuclaue all
relevant information with your application. At minimum, the plans should
include a site plan, all floor pians, elevations, sections and details.
Photographs are extremely helpful.
Date: ? 7 " �� SIGNATURE OF OWNER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT
PLEASE PRINT OWNER/AGENT'S NAME
�: U
f'/,ix '7/ l 9 9
n _� p
P. R62i. R .� ,1��i„-ar�. � J ,-�h-,y-���ru,- - ! /7<<•c 55
far ���,-� Merr,bers •.
INe � 16i44lee,r ) . Kce�c Ter'r�cs c„�d Ll-id G TerN'25 ewe
Cr ��zr�7 k-j-
� Iu1 rtiM 3icrs5 ,, 1c ic;;N /1 ial :,t1 G��Gb 5/.
i , -h chnlD/ c Ny r' i'•a5rblC rci fI1 ( I:Tt itCt'SS %7CVN?7. UrrS
(_"CS i-- ; c✓ Cor-r OI,R/✓i` c ,. :.i., (r! bi' C(" cc.a:U'� /� w • f1.uy .(.' elrvy 51�+g�.�rvf•4(
pIL'C'Nt �' t �o �,9N GFgl �h,Q��rl 'r'-1Cl')'�iv � JPclGr 7l1(' J�v'� U/ w/ ,ua
6reen to Al,
I �Z ie(r1N! �w�iq• fJlA ( i c,1 jV��c"i•�n/''Ar•y cIi/�r C- 6�htc Lt Sc'r /S C7-�S o„1(�/
J C.hY Y'C P' / l I�' CV_� IC �Ir ql 131 l7�'ih.. '-T� ( i✓ �1IC f"t (�” COC'r Pc{
/w Taf� I9Yr'� of �Glis reAACck 5
6h '1 J i�v<� Ceiv'�ev� ii� �r 4,-S' ICccl (.�: G1�, C.�vtr? /.,��de,j lk c415.
y
'/5 �Or, fl :r� /Ifl✓(`/C!i.lp�'L` rI L'C'C-•r7/��( G
r l0 q
II'1C A; 5tlrj J Iii- Fq,Ne Pc1) ,t41 5 u ruc I J 7jr,
r
tt+ds j W L Ye ry ii< S'fCc%' ��'r .^. i �c/i �.✓ �✓c rh ')�C s�•1"lCM F��;9�-IJ` F.r f7��'C'-t� 5
�C) CtiNuc.rt Hr exi51 ;,- bC"W, �� yi//�;v Tn q t/
VL
L.(//✓i �C. u✓ C'q 4 5 c n-J' � C�r-o a 1/1 w.i �c r; �'1 C {r te. F x /I/
Lf
4 $5 { yAN 4,
f YG i'7 7H� I Cf t�/ 1 v:ry tTS(ly
s M b le h4 se ca(/ �i�cl ct
ON A���st 1 � I�jS wz
Da ,A� ; ( l / I -lam WC4i u;- > �y;Cd f
OrJ 5efleNlvev .�5/ ly SL (ate 1k jgCr nLrv( U^7 Nr4/ L,ed GIcu. J -
�.-�- oo �e Silcary2 \ �.%:,gyp `S c/i�e Jlr s• a.✓ � SCe �yti;y; f � : �� ..
kqL✓i ur loll rt J �d`C rytr✓ 1 1 r y
l� �Ctebe- ( [I �� r �Nvv A�'�C��7n"/ �i�ef
5 rtiee +r eve t rIUG u+e7 -'lies de(dy ('4
fihjt f6riO4 In) C/n-II I '187 w� 0 eN�erea to a S ytiJ7�
�� V -tA e yrNtu 1 P l 3l st- ,� St 57 b se�ti/ate f t�
L' crstvu G�rnnEN c�wtL',,.(77�ggf"�� ,� , n /+
45 k)e NP9reJ hN Ayre>15 C"urt ✓cul
.n RP�z/1ls_. (n�uyi" Vel sect tv�i
ri'�2. � �wP✓._ �o.� ✓ �1A, 5,11er'r-i �hv.Arr� 'S G(G.GrS �^r S f"C' .'�r� C,
� CASe- CcMNL,fr^ tf'i� �' aC,v� SK (� ;1 /1rJrk( 5�/�r1 a� Nve.>t/1e,�1— lYJ
'71 ! 99
Ttiee / ,✓�
YrZ/L�H � tOrodKr�7 I WZ �,�v{ f"VIecR t'v c�C� So.yG G:Se
cel I.Lvy{ vCkv t&L UNGC `l.gve cle /'hXc-1 CSN�iyru Cfi�ui 97- 91
Itiebh St uN+r N w 1 Cr9✓7 a Fier U e h -
'>fvi, cj, o.� ,
17✓r hr �er"fu ✓p"I � vN
Y' MN
2C✓ Ny:
�Jc�n �e NAC I Inpr
cy , ] Mf1'l � l��u (h V4s / c1'� �if, er�' to✓�
J 0
Cvv >nff7 >' EVS V"niSecr sev-tv; ( i✓,Gy✓ta \c� +it:re cT
W� rc,l-i +hC 14 +e vA'I Ac, eess �`-]" ag Y� �D�� I�J� / Sh:�k � C! �C' <tGJq✓C
� I �v"�'b S'7". � S � eC✓l1 c'cP IN �ti R- � L;.,v:by cr,s J.{.�..c�
cw tie Cdc '(f bf A ILI, C ve& L
?rd y �Vomti< t7Alr, 1 ��/tiM ca _ urns Are"J r4
:4✓;,jr � 'ttCtlkvaI ) cG Cite 1Cro/ti�Sr� /"c orrc's� vde �G
-blz cweArteST exfif 97 C-
V✓ }r 1 Ardi, � .
J
rJ`f'tN+/ i/.c �Av�' (i�1� 5cr f� ✓G.y`iC �flrC
furl i1R✓� v�rR ve yo✓ the 9r�MCr W l SIN tie Cin 7 rr y
04 4-ij t,,� ANd N o-t- cN
Y✓D Sc aI✓ G N wNoer/V
f �`r G r19t?V M./} Ce,-A/ yWRS v-lu +g C C4/1
I �`/ .•1"7��;i1:�'1�1✓r,'` /V"ISc' Clvc� {G;?Y�rfvJ �'ruk?�Crr'IGi . C� �-, (ice `+?
There 5 v. rtwlillI Nv ,ILl-%1/1bte cN -yar �iN
I i /"l/•,�� e/ j2.LI�Nz P-C';'f, f-0 1 JVC11..1 e. ! �' s{ cry,/L� 3e p/�ts5ir�.��rnl
04-1 �.Ce { il'IG Jp9\/CHJ 1�` t' 144 II//K i_l"G C)uv `7�w V�J' ( ('-cVy -c l.9/0 J'✓J ui 5,
!I"le- m4 k'l 6eof ().cc o- -
S(fci l Llr• v, s' a.-I ' � a vrd eked us
U'c `Sy
�rc✓ i5rcJ 1 . llli5 �/��t FYI,v; 5/ xO1AiN7 wh GO Ir p
FICP7C 1 ✓t C✓ th e IO�AIvi s hm ffec( to e Cru K/l e
J `�ie ?-��owec� �!'i�/L5 ✓;OP-e Sli�hfl� -CebuCY. �Ar✓ Wt �vrerfl�
k�. I.. ze , We hque qy . � _ 0�1Doc cliCNf� �e1 cwNerS uwcl gJ'e
7pCv9"tirvq c t 0/1Vt J7 Lue dD `t4k-e /NZW [be'lv'fl I wwev ssi �IC1
bc,C.gtst
4e,e . IS 5- ;ne —f ur voter, Nvweveri wv)ifu c� eiv✓z
vf� crlNA✓y Hos �4 � W �� f}M � e >t2.r� h0-fr`2 ciNd �1i��
�1 `rN9N c� 4 l /;SJ r YPrI , civ % �;c 7rry yeNt(y Lf�rc/CfC'.r't4l Y
Ne'Lz- C i4eej-t'S t � c 7'he ��t,ff ( Jve7e% r,4r7 bcy, A71S
I a r7<r(e/K _" c)t, 2 ;4 VA-7 "I do ✓5_ /i✓ t hh:";t) �,.:e
CANwC_}' q✓ cw Pt6(C, ( C'7 tr,c�,d'( e �4 va)Dve✓ q'� /C, �° .p N NIA a/J?
Lie. aJ vCYy snAMA�11 Sh,;1v�., I
cq l b�i 5 u lv4 -}he -,Imo-,- ` 3 �Ci9� tr i �-A 41t., Qc li a J
hol, 4/ / Wr hgvc r—fi eA%C:; 1iv Inre4 UivC r. hee I :' r c i CN;�..
LA�hi Z W2 G(L` hv"ue, l cn��"7 w. . c�i`�' c:. 1h r✓91k-"N4 1 JN Gub
oCt r✓ o,v i,J2 G{c Nit I�AUL it S.ivy IC i;tlen,t u1{Io �ou SPS �":.:
99 -rY f..
tvi1C IN - O�rS Co i^,e (2(rh �{c7� to wli> W u(c( bz. urv!th(t
J r 1 C U'bb J1 7, Z cv; 'fG 57e S
CDNT(1tiu q O;� P=Sc c
AIf7�i , (� � �1 � G�Yow �� yC��fY:C7r :N7 �✓vh7 �. �-����4 rL� �f y� �
(;J1+1 �'rN�� Vi � 6ht- ii1 r"7c'rt 7]`r?t/ L L• (.eNf l^!1t; � 1 T 15
if/V ti vCt '7S i �I C -('hc�-(" I " <'a-G } -�j„/( /"i/✓w 1 ,f, 1'?�"�Ir'
r Ir
CY I��- M r�ltt jUCvt ✓ Viave- �L'r'i" vI.SL /, �G✓ l `' y>'/pry 1
VU t 1 (1 a i wrZ a (p-r,Ilf 1 �c 2� t rNcvc,✓ r ✓uv L I;e✓vt h. e /f
_( S 7 It, 5i ✓e �Vlury cL
l i + V,gnLI
//t//✓ eli�N
CC,
(-ve 19C v L �hq* 71te b�NCC,+ s,e /x'17
VC*e✓rN wy &INi c Ov r r"(.7rrJ7 / S �� ���(�� gf5 t:. fduCGI 5K 'TPr�.✓�.
L1Nd '�" ✓vll/Ly N'1.9'rr� Oh.z.slllir.i hA�r7 iiliG7 t:(r✓%l 5tt;;;N'44,-1(y ho
C V wtuN cfpl 1,-'1 ,-� c'a-t" cv%Nz✓5 ! (?c/u.c;Y7C- a �d U✓{v1 5& their ".v �l e
K✓ f1icrsr-L"t-e c +I c f,1 M>awy b e -Y,vt 1` qu e4 0�1� hu M,fiN
�o1r'mvivi Cqt vN 5 OIL,e- CvC✓ �%Z ph°,Jz (t S /V4 vrvk ed o:
-{'�✓ U.h + dtu6. tYrN°1 Ye (A. rGAO>hi� 5 w�'�'C, C'lieAIJP t-t)hc ( t✓�
VAYeI� SLS , GV C'fY�i il�L�hf .rrrry't N A L9✓1riCr �, Cala, o✓
.- ofi',4. q -frreNK 1 Sv< 6-SC-cjKer7
tZ eN
Ar racS to d�.i� u 51-7
1)1( 1UUN9101-� C'�
Cµil,i� , Whev e Ne�esSar� _ (fir. �r� nir Wii- k.c✓ 1 cl �c;✓h��y � o�lr.9'fL5 Ct
vzw.4✓,1 [I IV; c wl1 !G trA�e6y fic /�o $h l5hvre , � I { a
�c1erA,k eel CH.�r ✓ - u5ev L`� eN r /fe5ieeour ve1Cvi.vltry ✓jL✓I,iZCj
e Th C"/ a _ �- e �NSu.I -h,he") )0)Z�' Cv Wr GC
c��vttv- -tV✓t�� �vF�d c�1' � �ti�Gct ���% iyr3c.h�cv� . k�12, au✓
mw'mill cr,i.CN+Gj Zivd Ouv hum#,r er� e�'T/e-4 oig c t,ve5 , Theke. •15
! y '�
�. ` jj
] JJ 11�� J The !-�l;d� �-•�;�4/
cc Nd.rnrer✓i�c ( dI-gc v�tN« 'Y�_c rtw eery
N 'l Cli/�Z (YD 7�!f"41 w i'I'L� reye,
,
( fi-5T �r4mer �, �66 fY9'�i1iL �.� K ve�cr� rvy ��1/Ds��/r �i/ SPAS ror tilt'
G N� - h.e lT / l / ti 11 Dive - �A I I 0 D 4 S a C 4,; TN Y
i o
c i iC.gvwNzr� tc �hrsiceil )5, preSc"r / S r✓:c
ow, iii>y bz. j�e ca l7 /Y S=,N '20 0.9r✓ Gzry-t"
[u-., 4-� W�, ) T�h< cwlNzr gyf;(1i11 13rrIvZS Ae Cqf iiv x j�a�ricv
C{w'K /�f�"�i ull' I t kN� ��N"�YD� Dve✓ 7�C �iY'><`S Dive ctrr,1L" -e
I�yy l�✓ i �l'e b.� jrsi C.vt � roblt(115 eeCu�✓ r% � �rrlu;� 4
j)uv 1A l . l (qW� CwNQY7 hAue yeyr i e>1,�� 7/�ziv
L �5 �NYG ('4rrlCv> C1✓a /1,vivy pef5qct Le gN it Dv j in
lie cAr
Y` CrY�'+ %v ' h i1ANcIi! (:A�'�'�cP �CA/� N�N�. 7I'}%NdiC,g�,lrPd� C'9fCW ? tv�r
� N 7_, _ 0
(AC l`"'t li'� 5! �f �/C1err /VAY, q/Ul, ACC :4y � �C/vS f –,j�"`%ct.su-�.�;fS
5-Ir ✓`:'.I17L n'kI vf"fC✓iNn✓y C:�IA/i L ly tfCYL S7 //',C 6JN N�"yy {/-,.erC
qvf_ •;h�.`1" �� � I•g'�—✓ :�Iv ve'--er! r✓�' C1rN;cy gCV�SS L' eti�irz.
Cou,vfr� / h v� be�n/�estytl%yt;e arec:�zFry,
r
l W-C ee
N
ae(t75!{7Ie Ety/). CC i"�C Duv Sr+1,a- rDN j
K ow tvtr +e- C sfi o >VJii s C' i2�'1 aaL'e &lei d frC-t' S
b,t � ) 'i W ; 1"-qf arvy 54, J4,t"4l
E��hclie`.� Crcf CerS=a 5, �e rec',Lie 5t Thal -tile
vCr✓
.�3. � C. t'/✓1/FNIcI V�ZhI YZIT'CeNI �-� /}"�lo�(/. l!5 1 " �i'fl �12C
/�'�e to
V6,7 5 fer `-�C- :g90 aitA clrCa,n S;fdA)te-y 0 CflSz .
L-LOYP
t
Titg of 'Salem, Ausourhusetts P J
RUTIVE
<- �$ Pourb of Cal.
885 APR 30 P3 :04
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHLEEN KEEFE-TERNES AND
LLOYD TERNES (PETITIONERS) , PHYLLIS SPILIOTIS (OWVVY CLERE'S OFFICE
FOR A SPECIAL. PERMIT FOR 81 WEBB ST. , SALEM SALEM M ike,5
A hearing on this petition was held April 24, 1985 with the following Eoard Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout.
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 request a Special Permit to allow them to use the premises as a
combination one unit dwelling and veterinary clinic for cats. The premises, in
an R-2 district, is owned by Phyllis E. Spiliotis and is currently usel as a
dwelling/beauty salon.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 11 , which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing
in th. s Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in
accordance wit!, 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 :hall not be substantially more
detrimental ttan 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 after
viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . 'The proposed use of the premises will not significantly increase
traffic conestion or parking problems in the neighborhood beyond
that caused by its present use as a dwelling/beauty salon;
2. The proposed use of the the premises will not result in any
significant increase in noise in the neighborhood beyond that
caused by its present use as a dwelling/beauty salon;
3. The propose-,i use is not a veterinary hospital as defined in the
Ordinance, L�ecause the subject building will not be used soley
for the medical or surgical treatment of animals, reptiles or
birds. It will also be used as a dwelling as proposed by petitioners.
� xhr . � Jt
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHLEEN KEEFE TERRES & f
LLOYD TERNES FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 81 WEBB ST., SALEM
page two
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed use willnot be substantially more detrimental to
the public good than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood;
2. The proposed use will not nullify nor will it substantially derogate
from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance;
3. The proposed use does not or will not constitute an unreasonable increase
in the degree of use of the premises over its current use.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4 - 1 (Mr. Luzinski voted against) to
grant the relief requested, provided that:
1 . The veterinary cline may be open to the public or customers of the clinic
withing the following hours only (except for medical emergencies) :
a. 8:45 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on three weedays per week;
b. 8:45 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on two weekdays per week;
C. 8:45 a.m. to ?2:00 noon on Saturdays;
2. A minimum of six (6) on site parking spaces be maintained at all times;
3. Driveway in rear be crushed stone;
4. Maximum of one veterinary and three employees be on premises at one time;
5. Landscaping be done in accordance with plan submitted to the Board;
6. Any signs advertising the business be affixed to the building itself and
be no more than 18" x 32" and unlit;
7. Smoke detectors be installed in a configuration appropriate for mixed
occupancy and plans for installation be provided to the Salem Fire
Prevention Bureau prior to start of work;
8. Basement to be used for storage only;
=';
9. Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. X
rn
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
x —
Y
ze�a 'Cn
Scott E. Charnas Secreta
-"t1 �tyi�li NTPfI 'YDEL18I3di�1RNPI�RPGJtitlS�FtA3iS rBEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
THE C .E1 �^+,'L 3ilALL BE FILER WITHIN 2U WA ' A!T:.ti "R" P, . .
1tiL Ot"("it;{ V i`. CITY CLERK.
iflYS. CW'o it i' :'.'s.
''�E EFFECT ti ',.L A COPY OF Tq[Si.0 u.
'9 DAY;. !i&!E [ ;-qD Atfi: :.' t1 Y.
I]'F. Triril IT 11-,S SEE;, 1''. :..J Lit 6.:< ..'.
RECi .. DELDS ANU MPDL9 UGdLC Iti- h.,,.:, i.i i,._ _..
OF RECORD OI( 6, ..._ .__. i:;.J ;.DIED Opt ii—' OVINER's CERTIII(AIE OF TITLE.`
BOARD OF APPEAL
Da7a-tnant of Me Trial Tcurt
13sox, Ga. Su nvrior Court I
i
1
i3r, at al
Kathleen j, Ireefe=ernes, at als
i
r
This cause come on c ..trial before the Court, .._ nEas, 7,
2res_din3 a`:'ld the issues having been duly heard and findinZE
Vvi_^ Man duly rsndered, '_s Crtorad an y.Sf. l disd:
1 That the decision of the Board of ApDeRls is of f it-Lad, i
i
7-at the Merm—Haglztrate of this Court shall vithin I
I
j days s s.and an au e .,
oo , of MY juaZnMt to tme City C13M,
I
Building inspector and Board of Appeals, res9ectiTielY of tha „i UV_
d i
of
Salem. �
�Assistant'
Clem
?)
Date at ?e.-body, --, ..s chose ts, t-,:js n5th aay of Saptam` er,
1
i
I
f
i
�i
�I
�i 1 .
CXj-? ; bi C
4 May 1990
Architectural Access Board
1 Ashburton Place
Boston, Massachusetts
Re: Waiver of Access to The Feline Hospital
(A Renovation of an Existing Building)
81 Webb Street
Salem, Massachusetts
Dear Sirs:
I would like to bring to your attention the impracticality of access at 81 Webb
Street, Salem, Massachusetts. The first floor level is 4' 3" above grade at a
minimum. This would require a ramp greater than 48' plus landings to access
the first floor level. I have been unable to design a ramp that would solve this
problem.
The second method of access would be an exterior chair lift. This method would
require an expenditure of over $10,000 dollars.
It is my understanding that the veterinarians do house calls and would continue
this practice.
S' cerely,
a i
Registered itect
cc: The Feline Hospital
Serafini, Serafini and Darling
Jaquith & Siemasko, Inc. Architects & Planners
8 ENON STREET, BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS 01915 (508)927-3745
4!7VIO
WV
O� b
ai r o
4g
' A , �
,ladyjar 141
vj
14
fie• �Ua�77mza�nulerzClf a�/✓��aa�sacfurr�eC�i
r J / G cS�xCCE•`d6 � `/�
b iduet S. Dukakis cn� r•�
Governor ( i.e �lirrr4�On ✓�aae . Roon• 1310
chanes V. Barry 0ou4r , ✓l6wa� OVOS _
Seorerary r6Y7) 7i7-06i �
Voice 6 DD O
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
In accordance with M.C.L., Chapter 22, Section 13A, I hereby apply for
modification of or substitution for the rules and regulations of the
Architectural Access Board as they apply to the facility described below on the
grounds that literal compliance with the Board reputations ,is impracticable in
my case.
1. State the names and address of the owner of the building/facility:
FM 's • d Ttr N:
r ,
2. State yythe-name:and_.addressor,.other-identification of the building/facility:
1}"1 't'1 M19 1I i "1 `7 G -
3, Describe the facility: (number of floors, type of functions, etc. ):
4. Check the work performed or to be performed:
New construction Reconstruction, Alteration,
_._. Remodeling
Addition Change of Use
5. Briefly describe the extent and nature of the work performed or to be
performed(: A/C
6.. State each section of the Rules and Regulations of the Architectural Access
Board for which a variance is being requested.
SECTION NUMBER DESCRIPTION
i
i
i
8. For each variance requested, state in detail the reasons why compliance with
the Board's regulations would noc be practical. State the necessary cost of
the work required to achieve compliance. (You should submit cost estimatts
detailing the amount of compliance) USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY.
Nr, k<-,1 bili
4. Has a building permit been applied for?
If yes, state the date the permit was issued: C11 i
10. State the egtimated cost of construction as stated on the building permit.
V1�.Yit4 Sr- 7�c i�4 � -J��f:. i� �1fl�Y �i"t ri.'-f
r
If a building permit has not been issued, state the anticipated construction
cost: Scr
11. Has a certificate of occupancy been iss•ipd for Cho. facility? /rc
If yes, state the date:
12. State the actual assessed valuation of the BUILDING ONLY AS RECORDED IN THE
ASSESSOR'S OFFICE of the municipality in which the building is located:
13. State the phase of design or construction of the facility as of the date of
this application:
14. State the name and address of the architectural or engineering firm
including the name of the individual architect or engineer responsible for
preparing drawings of the
facility: •} S1CYi n 1L C Ih
P.,: TniV- "d'1, f TEL: '1.3 .7
15. ,' State the name and address of the building inspector responsible for
— overseeingthis� project: j'-J, tt, ire (1fuNe"i t it �tj, "c tt yr<
/ lY. Lfl q•:J �'1 J ( ' �I. •.�. 1?.i• li`. IN %( 61i
VR
PLEASE NOTE: The Board may, in its discretion, hold a hearing on your
application for variance. " The Board may also decide your application without a
hearing, upon the information you submit. You should thereiore, iticl.iti2 all
relevant -information with your application. At minimum, the plans should
include a site plan, all floor plans, elevations, sections and details.
Photographs are extremely helpful.
Date: —rJ— a SIGNATURE OF OWNER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT
r
t. t lyr
PLEASE PRINT OWNER/AGENT'S NAME
,ll,y
ply
3,A A,
149 .
y
>
hot
A V
4 kf�
j I
W!, if IM Ar
,N tt
V1
Jh (vv
A V
.lytj
f .2 j2
LAO
V4
1/44 yl
-9401
v
Z 7.1
14
ill
jai
LI�e
-�Vtc. I 'L �c<t
�,
ter`''1Yrr
M
JA
YCW
yt y } 1Ni Gt y1aVC
.� , � � :� , N,., ,.--- ��.;,a�� �� ✓y� ., r� r� ' � 41 �' `-f"
>
r}L v'A
e ` h�C
oyv 1A(J)i � �cl Yzs ?
y r
t`)t . 4'e �ticr� cG �� , KJ {1C rht
..tar .7cr
IV
MA
N� ef vV{ l f
�IAb� l", y _ 'L .,I"N � rr,,:et".N W:9:` r � 1`1 7 • Jkl�,.,, r7 . . 1Cq.7ti...c.�
r/ . N f/lp ,�✓ a. /+aY�•Ih '�- 1 7�`, �.• �� '.1��C , �,', ,, 17,
• � ,; p—Yhev �. ci+` F ,fir 41' � � ., , .n{
�tL� it "` �,�lu;�t� t7a,. • . -{:; ,i�,yi�,;"
i.
')
�
i t Lj9�CF r G d ice' o! a 4-e'
l7
( e f `r'�` "tyi v
A JL if
1.114
Y
IV
r r,.� y !
Me.fJV i �. v 77 a .t,t tai mcg: 00
• :tai c, w
ter . j.uYN " ti
A,
,N
. 1
•�'�i,r' 'y1 99
-tre rc,�111. . „eft° N� heriv tja
L ✓ /J �,,
•
PA IV X� U -, V'��t� / �utr_,.c"✓ ! 0+� tua
y,C\'tet
\`ter f `_ . . —Ale+n.jt ��:,qii � , 41, a^'
r ter N ch• t�AY v' L.Hl3 r
r
Al" vti.r"` �._ - Y t„,G'%�
` ` �ve t: � -, rt} N�_.: t`. jt ` I �-+..�.�,'e
vv
W47 A
Iv
1. "'• yip-��,,,u ��•�jj , `?
c i ��,« ��� s of -} r IV 0.
rheell
14'7e
e ✓ .t-
t
'y t:
Nt.Y lc1 -j
_ Y CA
Ye
�tY VA J``,v9N .\ ..l
,� ti \ ) .
rl'.!" DA'$ ' ti,( %st^JMl4�� wuN��t.�
Y(xyi�'} . Sr.tr,.. �, 1. f�-•(to(i � .-�� . ,�- �cJ tC
All
t
VVV
\
� � ,,i fP>-. r9✓�
t P!! f yr dill
�} Ca,riC ✓CNt'i W.' �yre�.t.'f
v!k t4I 0 :'r S Y
i r �I
� hF,:QI rid, C�1Nc 1 ✓ hp> r �
1 t' {C✓r rt'A y CNr
i RN �✓Ra, Co� � ,
f1tTi A 141Lr"
`>r N•
�1C7l�P
q {1 p yf SC v`
Siid91y
r, t(y !
Zryc Ia.A1-* ih , ')..Z �wrv. F'7 `�° i` 7 � P C!11'✓ CSN .N � �vyiey
A
DwNtyt �6 7.�.t. �vt✓ "r�t7 ::,rYrU�� t
Y4It to1'ft �,� .: pCl'K� .�rY �irN{ "�lirrr
{, ;n✓ s �yy ver gN� /
r1Aw fir ' ��\ -i ] - -;(��
C,12 7�a� r,r YtBW' f 1 , (�7�
� t6 L,hYYr(ri t U1' :9 �G ` t'9� ttrb
cq� 7 s � �� �� s �✓ � �' Y � � l��frcfii,t�(�""�� .�l;t.. s>:a-d ::-
111r
qh' , Cr7✓t
LiZ i'� '
vc
CtC �� irN'iY� C.�,p.rCy
4_j. js':,:I ,i:,..�,j � � . t , �'lerr � � ,1Prl;�i,e„i ;�✓
{ H �fi��•�� �� fZ9tit kli jir^,rtd,�/^��_d
IA
��t� 7ur's.r', ,,✓ � W{ i guv ,� -1 :ttir:/� � 5 c ` -jjkC )?t:-1;r�✓c�' `>
LJ'V �r tl.t~ �'f r ry 1 4
hfc p { -)ii C',a: F7
QetEYy t aru7
�
� �: -khat `�/1 e owCvCv et £..>y�rV4.
� 5 v�� re uc y1
i'
e l.�.tr Ole
h' 5j1Y` ,.J .
( iYpN`c.. s,WH Ye �C f ar, clue fv �l,c
CAO �?' r G r aj { ,c
vfY..{ iFl,L�i`trt” - w .'il�[rt'� ykbY�rl�CN
1