29 BARSTOW STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION ci i c o L
�-�
tiBarStoW St
29
rlrl.''L� 'S'
r
(` s fgitU of �ttlem, � ttsstzcljusetts
nttrD of AppealS_F �� 3
k!L.TT.Pi`
FILE ='
DECISION ON THE PETITIONOF WILLIAM AND LUCY COLEMAN FOR A C!1Y Fr NABS
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR �29""BARSTOW'STREET�
A hearing on this petition was held August 27, 1986 with the following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, 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, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to extend
nonconforming side setback to allow for the construction of a two story addition
in the rear of the premises at 29 Barstow Str�et, said building being located in
an.'r-2 district.
The provisions' the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board
of Appeal may, in accordance with 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 Baord that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Apepal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was d6-;;opposition to the petition;
2. Upgrading of the building would be a substantial improvement to
the neighborhood.
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 addition will not be substantially detrimental
to the neighborhood;
2. The relief requested can be granted without nullifying or substantially
derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the
Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & LUCY COLEMAN FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 29 BARSTOW ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit requested under the following terms and conditions:
1 . The proposed two story addition be building as per the plans
submitted to the Board;
2. The side setback for the proposed addition be no more than
six (6) feet;
3. The petitioners must comply with the requirements of the Salem
Fire Department, the State Building Code and obtaine necessary
building permit;
4. A Certificate of Occupancy must be y'btained.
-SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
ames M. Fleming, Member
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLARK
APPEAL FF.OIL THIS DE'ISIO`L IF ANY. S°A,I_L BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OFL:ILS.
Ec FILED YI!THIN 20 DAYS AFTER. THE DATE OF
FILIS�
GENEnAL LP.P:S, CHAPTER 3G9, AN" SH'rL'_ r r THc
pP Tn`.S DEC 'ur 14jME O`9CE ' iR CITY CLERK.
S r o�R, S.' T.Jd V
S cE.iEF C.: . r
C.Pt.—c. P i
0-
L' Tr.
P: c $H',lL fw' l E EiTc TIL A Cnr:D.
'C L a EL4Pi ED "N0 ' _ r r IS
p -il X11 ;G THE CFii CLr.Pn 1F TH
O'r, TH=T. IF SdCH AY APP-'L F. S BSE r. E. THAI IT HAS 6EE C
RECORDED I\ THE SOOTH ESSEX FEC.STR OF DEEDS AI•D 1t"E�'`D LOF
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED OiG THE 0`N ItER'S CERTIFICATE BOARDOFAPPEAL
•r
s
William T.Coleman Jr.
29 Barstow St.
Salem,Ma 01970
Concept One Remodeling
350 Massachusetts Ave.,#205
Arlington, MA 02474
September 5,2006
The following is a list of grievances and deceptive practices we have with Concept One Remodeling:
Illegal plumbing—Use of a plumbers apprentice without direct supervision of a licensed plumber while
working on plumbing *' '
Illegal plumbing#2—Use of an unlicensed individual, not an apprentice,journeyman or master plumber,
for work on plumbing
Illegal plumbing#3—No use of showers for 7 weeks
Plumbing-8/1/06: Drain on second floor kitchen sink disconnected. No one was told this and 2nd floor
ran water and flooded the cellar that I cleaned up.
First floor toilet is still leaking into cellar, piece of wax ring fell through floor.
Unreasonable expectation—12 days without use of any water in the house. No attempt to complete
plumbing or restore water(08/1/06 first date without use of facilities)
No running water or toilet for tenants from 8/1/06-8/12/06.
No water at all (kitchen,no drain)first floor 8/3-8/9.Toilet on first floor leaked enough that we could
not use it for 1 week from 8/3-8/9.
Unreasonable expectation-Workers come infrequently, no notice as to when workers show up.4 weeks
to tear two bathrooms apart and minor electrical work. Scheduling is impossible.Cannot get a hold of
owners or project managers to schedule work times.Will not return phone calls. Broken promises. I was
promised workers would be here 8/30, 8/31,and 9/01, and only one worker showed up on Thurs 8/31
for less than 4 hours and only removed one window and boarded it up.This is all the work done for the
entire week,8/28/06 through 9/01/06.
Safety-Floor paneling removed from both floors on different levels,open below.No safety measures
taken to ensure persons will not fall through the floor. Nails sticking up on floor since floor ripped up on
8/01/06.
Customer Satisfaction—Contractors will not return calls. Hard to get a hold of.
Illegal Transaction—Took 2/3 of total price upfront in advance. (05/15/06, 1/3 given at signing)
(07/17/06, 1/3 given at start)
a
Loss of Money—Because of no plumbing/water situation Rent has been reduced because of conditions.
Unreasonable expectation—Estimated start time was 07/01/06 they started over 2 weeks later with no
reasonable condition as to the delay.
These conditions have led to loss of money,unsanitary living conditions,and unreasonable living
conditions.
We hereby demand the following relief for a reimbursement in the following manner: Completion of
the work required within the contract within 2 weeks of receivership of this letter. Also a$1,500.00
refund for loss of water and toilet, loss of rent money, laundry mat expenses, unsanitary conditions,
paying to take showers at other homes,hole in kitchen cabinet caused by smashing pipes with a sledge
hammer,drains plugged up on 8/03 due to smashing pipes out with sledge hammer. I paid$182.00
Thurs night(8/03),to have drains cleaned out by ASAP drains, Inc.,sewerage pipes and trash left in back
yard and not yet removed for 1 month,and unsafe bathroom flooring.
I need a promise by Concept One that work will be done daily every week day until this project is done.
This should take no more than two weeks. I was told by Dan Flanagan(salesman)that it would take 6 to
10 days per bathroom start to finish. It's been 7 weeks now. As these grievances exist,failure to agree
to this amended agreement will constitute a breach of contract and recovery of all funds paid to your
company by a law suit.
We ask for a response by Sept.8,2006
Signed,
William Coleman
29 Barstow St.
Salem, MA 01970
Concept One Remodeling
350 Mass Ave#205
Arlington, MA 02474 QoOctober,
Since you have worked a total of less than 6 hours this entire mon
you have left me no choice but to hire another contractor to complete my bathrooms.
Your horrible service is terminated as of today, October 25, 2006. You have left two
families with no shower for 4 months.
Sincerely,