8-10 WINTER STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION 8-14 WINTER STREET
i
i
I
i
I
ofu[em, � Hztsstttljusetts
3
;,4 s Boura of `c'\tr{zenl
&cis 3
CITY or ,.
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF TOD JOHNSON & MUSGRAVES R9( 99?3 ' N u RBANCE
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT,8-10 WINTER STREET 1(R-2) f�iC
A hearing on this petition was held December 11, 1996 with the following
Board members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne,
Albert Hill and Paul Valaskatgis. 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.
Petitioner, requests a Variance to expand a non-conforming structure to add
a dormer for the property located at 8-10 Winter Street.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this
Board that:
1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting
other land, buildings, or structures in the same district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at
the hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1. Petitioners own a two-family residence at 8-10 Winter Street.
2. Petitioners seek a variance to build an additional room or rooms onto
the third floor without changing the building' s footprint by raising
the roof line at the rear of the building. Petitioners plan to add
windows and to finish the addition with wood shingles in order to
maintain the appearance of the original house.
3. Two neighbors offered their support for the petitioner's plan:
Jane Lyness of 22 Oliver St. , and Paul Herrick of 12 Winter St.
4. Three neighbors opposed the proposed variance on the grounds that they
felt it would lower their property values and reduce the light and air
their property received. These were Ann Sweeton and Randy Yoder of
20 Oliver St. , and Joan Duhaime of 18 Oliver St.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented
at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1. Special con2litions exist which especially affect the subject property
and not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substation hardship to the petitioner.
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF TOD JOHNSON & MARCIA MUSGRAVE REQUESTING
A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8-10 WINTER STREET (R-2)
page two
3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to
public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from
the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented
at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant
the variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances,
codes and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions submitted to
and approved per the Building Inspector.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4 . Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with
the existing structure.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
Variance Granted
December 11, 1996
Nina Cohen, Member
Board of Appeal
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 certification 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.
Board of Appeal
CS�
O C
�G9
NA
z
to
w
iz
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Essex Division Trial Court
Superior Court Department
Civil Action No. 97-0022B
ANN SWEETEN, )
Plaintiff )
V. ) AGREEMENT FOR JUDGMENT
TOD JOHNSON, et al, )
Defendants ) m.aUEY C P ,A
C�4 d YASST.C
Now come Ann Sweeten, Plaintiff, and Tod Johnson and Marcia Musgrave,
Defendants, and hereby agree that Judgment shall enter in keeping with the
following terms and conditions:
1. Plaintiff shall withdraw with prejudice her appeal from the grant of a
variance to the defendants, Johnson and Musgrave;
2. Judgment of this Court shall enter, affirming and otherwise upholding
the grant of a variance to the defendant's Johnson and Musgrave;
3. The.existing;shed-and�deck*whicI?are-locateeon'the property.ofthe.
defendants,Johnson-and=Musgrave;_shall-remainmin Aheir.present
!� locations,,with=no,expansions,thereto_free,from any-complaint of the
�I
ii plaint ffand.plaintiff shall,hereafter_undertake no action to object to
�• the4ocations:of same monto:ca-use others.to;so object,,
a
f"lM ..
BK 141CY3 14P 11-3
4. Plaintiff shall hereafter make no objections to the creation and
construction of a dormer by the defendants, Johnson and Musgrave,
which dormer is the subject of the variance granted to the defendants,
Johnson and Musgrave, by written Decision of the Salem Zoning Board
of Appeals, dated December 11, 1996;
5. Defendants, Johnson and Musgrave, shall hereafter make no objections
to the location of plaintiffs fence, nor shall they undertake any action
to suggest or allege that any portion of plaintiffs fence encroaches upon
their property, nor shall they cause others to make such suggestions or
allegations;
6. Defendants, Johnson and Musgrave, shall not hereafter cut or trim any
portion of plaintiffs red maple tree without first obtaining the consent
of plaintiff,which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld and which
consent shall not be withheld in emergency situations where immediate
damage to the property and/or residence of the defendants,Johnson and
Musgrave will occur if the tree is not trimmed;
7. Defendants, Johnson and Musgrave, shall take no action to interfere
with the plaintiffs on-going access to and use of parking facilities
adjacent to plaintiffs residence;
8. Neither plaintiff nor defendants,Johnson and Musgrave, shall erect any
fences other than as exist at present time, except that plaintiff may, at
2
her option, cause to affix lattice-work to the top of her existing fences;
and,
9. By entering into this Agreement for Judgment, neither plaintiff nor
defendants,Johnson and Musgrave,intends the execution and existence
of such Agreement to confer any greater or lesser property rights with
regards to boundary lines, easements, or uses of property than were in
existence prior to January 7, 1997, the date of commencement of the
within action.
Dated: April 29, 1997
ANN R=TEN, Plaintiff TOD JOHN N,Def dant
01
RANDY YOD re ' g at CIA MUSGRA , D endant
20 Oliver eet, Ssi m
CjaluaGvw-
' F. P Ik R , S M. WALSH,
Attorney for Plaintiff torney for Defendants
Johnson and Musgrave
r__�R�RT LEDLED
Attorney for City of Salem and Board of Appeals Members
3