Loading...
42 BAY VIEW AVENUE - BUILDING JACKET Ew rsuperiTOWSWTab. W%LwVerLaWa q M E7 AM YOU ORGANIZED No. 10301 PMWFENM �w ��.�.d, Pasr�owsuet UVENUM GET ORGANIZEDATSLM.= R� Titu of ulrm, AussuChnutts Bourd of _Au}teul SEP L11 3 oz rr '91 DECISION ON THE:P-ETI-TION OF JOHN & CYNTHIA HUTCHINSON FOR A CL""' `' ''rF'''CE VARINCE ATn42 BAY VIEW AVE. (R'1 ) A hearing on this petition was held August 21 , 1991 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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 Variance from setback requirements to allow an existing garage in this R-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, 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 derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . That the petitioner presented to the Board a petition in favor signed by twenty one neighbors and abutters. 2. That there was no opposition to the granting of the Variance. 3. That the granting of the Variance would enhance the petitioner's quality of life. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN AND CYNTHIA HUTCHINSON FOR A VARIANCE AT 42 BAY VIEW AVE. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal toted unanimously, Q, �o rant the Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: YY fant e CITY 1 . That the petitioner shall comply with all City and Statglstatutes, or34nances, codes and regulations. 2. That the structure shall be in compliance with the plans and dimensions submitted with the exception that the easement noted on the plans does not exist. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to. 4. A building is to be obtained for the garage. 5. That the garage is to be used for storage only. Variance Granted August 21 , 1991 Richard Febonio, 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 OZ the kla.s. General Laws, Chapter 508,and shall be filed within 20 days after the elate of filing of this decis{on in the office of the City Clerk. Purscint to Mrs. General Laws. Ch-pter 803, Section 11, the Variance 11: "•'.re:;I Fermit ;ranted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the ..a^Lion, baarirg the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days ;apsed and no appeal has been f:^-d, or that, if such appeal has been wed, that it his been dismisseJ or< anied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed undLf the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL Citp of �§aiem, A1a!6!6arbu!5ett! Jgoarb of ` ppeaf CITY OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE 2001 MAY -3 P 2: UU DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT & ELAINE COOK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 42 BAY VIEW AVENUE R1 A hearing on this petition was held April 25, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris and James Hacker. 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. The petitioner is requesting Variances from side yard setback to rebuild existing porch for the property located at 42 Bay View Avenue R-1. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Robert and Elaine Cook are homeowners seeking to construct a new entryway for their Bay View Ave. home. 2. They seek a variance from side setback requirements to allow their front porch to extend to within 7 feet 3 inches of the property line. 3. There was no opposition to this petition. � II DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT & ELAINE COOK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 42 BAY VIEW AVENUE R1 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing construction. Variance Granted �� April 25, 2001 X'4" ) cm,csc J Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT & ELAINE COOK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT42 BAY VIEW AVENUE R-1 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the 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 is 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 a, Y nttrDof 'A"ett1 — 1 F� qa CIT- of �ift?n S 0 ;-ICFCS DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT & ELAINE_ _COOK.REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ATC442 BA!"A AVAUE-(R-ij A hearing on this petition was held November 19, 1997 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, and Richard Dionne. 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 from side setback to allow an addition for the property located at 42 Bay View Avenue. 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 . The petitioner Robert Cook appeared and presented the plans for his proposed addition. He would like to bump out the kitchen area 4 feet to give them additional Space for their kitchen. Said addition will not change the foot print of the existing structure. 2 . Cynthia Hutchinson, 44 Bay View Avenue appeared and spoke in favor of the petition. 3. Attorney Carmen Frattaroli, 76 Lafayette Street representing Carol and George Kardenetz of 38 Bay View Ave. opposed this petition due to the fact that they were not able to view the plans prior to the hearing and said proposed addition would interfere with their ocean view. 4 . The plans were available for review and time was made to go over the proposed construction of this property. 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 conditions 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 ROBERT 5 ELAINE COOK REQUESTING VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 42 BAY VIEW AVENUE 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, 4-0 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 the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building inspector . 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and safety silaii be strictly adhered to. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. J. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Exterior finl511es of the new constructlon shall be in harmony with the existing finishes . Variance Granted November 19, 1991 Albert Hill , 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 r,gcord or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. -< Board of Appeal z cam': n ,r) Plans must be filed and approved by the Inspector before a permit will be granted. No. 7 City Of Salem Ward�nL� 5 J Home Phone # Bus. Phone # APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO INSTALL A SOLID FUEL BURNING STOVE Salem,Mass., TO THE INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS: The undersigned hereby apppermit to build according to the following specifications: lies fora Owner's name and address k I Architect's name Mechanic's name and address - Q Location of building,No. - Z 13 What is the purpose of building? Material of building? _ L4, Q' If a dwelling,for how many families? d Will the building conform to the requirements of the law? I Y 'E / Estimated cost 000 - 41n Cct s C.No. _ ignature of applicant vKebe., REMARKS (� 0-1v W c9 J D -sy2 ; i C cnG No,-I%—/19-3 Ward_ APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO INSTALL A SOLID FUEL BURNING STOVE Location T PERMIT:GRANTED 9 19 y ` AT Building Insp'ebt0r I I � I y NONCONFORMITY SALEM ZONING ORDINANCE Art.VIII, § 8.5 of the lots do not meet the requirements for increased in height, except as provided for lot width and area as established by this in section 8-6.�Howe�ver, if such structure ordinance, the lands involved shall be con- used for single- or two-famil si ential sidered to be an undivided parcel for the ,purposes can a en arge br altered 'n coon. purpose of this ordinance, and no portion of Iormt y with tile o covera efront yard, said parcel shall be used or sold which does si e yar rear yard and distance require- not meet lot width and area requirements ments of Table I of Article VI,said enlarge- established by this ordinance,nor shall any ment or alteration shall not be deemed an division of the parcel be made which leaves increase in the nonconformity of the struc- remaining any lot with width or area below ture and permissible even thou t e of the requirements stated in this ordinance. ufe_a_and lot width are nonconforming. Sec. 8.3. Nonconforming use of land. (2) Should such structure be destroyed by any means to an extent of more than fifty (50) Where use of land exists that is made no longer percent of its replacement cost gy more than permissible under the terms of this ordinance or fifty(50)percent of its floor area at the time amendment, such use may be continued so long as of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the fol- except in conformity with the provisions of lowing provisions: this ordinance. (1) Such nonconforming use shall not be en- (3) Should such structure be moved for any larged, increased or extended to occupy a reason for any distance whatsoever,it shall greater area of land than was occupied at thereafter conform to the regulations for the effective date of adoption or amend- the district in which it is located after it is ment of this ordinance. moved. (2) No such nonconforming use shall be moved in whole or in part to any other portion of Sec. 8.5. Nonconforming use of structure. the lot or parcel occupied by such use at the If a use of a structure or a structure and pre- effective date of adoption or amendment of mises in combination exists that would not be al- this ordinance. lowed in the district under the terms of this ordi- (3) If any such nonconforming use of land is nance or amendment, the use may be continued discontinued for any reason for a period of so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to twelve (12) consecutive months, any subse- the following provisions: quent use of such land shall conform to the (1) No existing structure devoted to a use not regulations specified by this ordinance for permitted by this ordinance in the district the district in which such land is located. in which it is located shall be enlarged, ex- tended, constructed, reconstructed, moved Sec. 8.4. Nonconforming structure. or structurally altered, except in changing- Where a structure exists which could not be the use of the structure to a use permitted built under the terms of this ordinance by reason in the district in which it is located. of restrictions on area, lot coverage, height, yard (2) Any nonconforming use may be extended dimensions, or other characteristics of the struc- throughout any parts of a building which ture or its location on the lot, such structure may were manifestly arranged or designed for be continued so long as it remains otherwise such use at the time of adoption or amend- lawful, subject to the following provisions: ment of this ordinance,but no such use shall (1) No such structure may be nlarge r�1 be extended to occupy any land outside such tere n a way which increases ss noncon- building. forte, except as provide or in section (3) On any building devoted in whole or in part 8-6. In addition, such structure may not be to any nonconforming use, work may be 51 (fitp of qpalem, Aa!5garbu!6ett!6 Public Propertp Mepartment �uilbing 3epartment One&alem green (976) 745.9595 Ext. 380 Leo E. Tremblay Director of Public Property Inspector of Building Zoning Enforcement Officer June 10 , 1998 To Whom it May Concern: It is not uncommon that the Building Department processes paper work for the Board of Appeals hearings without complete architectural drawings submitted to the board up until the night of the meeting for various reasons . Contrary to the thinking of Mr and Mrs . Cook ' s neighbors , this was not done because Mrs . Cook is employed by the Building Department , small sketches were provided at the filing of the paper work for Board of Appeals . All plans and specifications were properly reviewed before they were submitted the evening of the meeting. Small sketches were provided prior to the meeting and could be reviewed by any interested party. All required notices were sent per rules and regulations of Massachusetts General Laws . Mr . & Mrs . Cook did not receive special treatment in filing to the Board of Appeals because of her status of employment with the Building Department . Just by the fact that the Cooks filed to the Board of Appeals for a Special Permit should be enough proof that they meant to follow legal procedures . On the morning George Kardenetz appeared at the building office requesting to see the application and plans that were submitted by the petitioners , Mrs . Cook who was behind the counter could not find the original application submitted . The person in charge of the Board of Appeals happened to be out on a personnel day. Mrs . Cook presented copies of what she had in her personnel files . The paper work was later found when I returned to the office that day . Again , nothing was done deliberately office that day. Again, nothing was done deliberately to impeded the process or to keep any information from the abutters or any one else in this matter . I as the Department Head know and feel that nothing illegally was rendered to Mr . & Mrs . Cook by my department . Sincerely, Leo E . Tremblay/,;% Zoning Enforcem nt Officer f CARMEN A. FRATTAROLI AND ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW THE METCOM BUILDING 76 LAFAYETTE STREET SALEM,MAssACHusEm 01970 CARMEN A. FRATTAROu TELEPHONE (508) 740.9501 WILLIAM F.MARTIN FACSIMILE OF COUNSEL (508) 740-9692 November 19, 1997 VIA FACSIMILE 744-5918 Mr . Gary Barrett Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 RE : Variance Petition Petitioners : Robert and Elaine Cook Premises : 42 Bayview Avenue Salem, MA 01970 Hearing Date: November 19, 1997 Dear Mr . Barrett and Members of the Board: Please be advised that this office represents Carol and George Kardenetz of 38 Bayview Avenue, Salem, MA. Respectfully on behalf of Mr. and Mrs . Kardenetz we oppose the above petition for a variance and cite the following reasons therefore: 1 . The petition and plan filed by the applicant are inadequate and in violation of the Board' s rules regarding the variance application process . Specifically, the plan attached to the application was uncertified, and otherwise failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 3 . Mr. Gary Barrett Page Two November 19, 1997 2 . No accurate scale drawings were filed with the application or plot plan. Such drawings, which are to show work proposed, were never filed with the application; also in violation of Rule 3 . 3 . Both my client, and this office, were advised on separate occasions, that the applicant intends to bring in additional plans to the Hearing, on the evening of November 19, 1997 . Such last minute delivery of any additional materials, plans or application documents violates both the spirit and the substance of Rules and Laws requiring adequate notice to the abutters and to the public in general . The essential concept of notice contained in the Board' s rules and in General Laws Chapter 40A § 11, requires that both parties in interest and the public in general, be given an opportunity to review any specific plans which are the subject matter of the application. Therefore, we request that no plans or further documents be accepted by the Board at the Hearing. 4 . Most significantly, we suggest that the application falls far short of the Variance standards contained both in this Board' s rules (Salem Zoning Ordinance § 9-5) and the General Laws (General Laws Chapter 40A) . Specifically the application shows no circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape, or topography of the land or structures, especially affecting such land or structures, but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located, such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would involve a substantial hardship to the petitioner. Moreover, the allowance of this Variance would derogate from the intent or purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, which is to require appropriate and consistent setback and sideback dimensions . Mr. Gary Barrett Page Three November 19, 1997 In the interest of fairness, we also call the Board' s attention to an incident which occurred on November 10, 1997 . On that date, in the morning, our client George Kardenetz appeared at City Hall offices and requested to see the application and plans submitted by the petitioners Robert and Elaine Cook. One of the petitioners, Elaine Cook was behind the counter and claimed that she could not find the application, which she herself had filed! Mr. Kardenetz was denied a review. Once pressed, later in the day, the office of the Building Inspector "found" the application. Our office continues to investigate this matter, and we assume the Board would want to conduct its own investigation in order to assure the integrity of the process . For all of the above reasons, we respectfully request that the Board deny the request for Variance at tonight' s hearing. We look forward to speaking before the Board tonight . We have also included additional copies of this letter for the convenience of the Board. Thank you. Very truly yours, Carmen A. Frattaroli : jaz Enclosure Cc: Mr. and Mrs . George Kardenetz / 611 oa /. 1 �.. / -10 y- i / C sN i // �£ ` o I 3543/ / 'L yN3W'/. apo aa C-1 os eo ae ne co ob s_ v is a< .Op .9 b I ON S _ / b,Y, NN / Y o. 68 s .� a !6•�� y �< 2< 8�O< / _ _ / -. 9'02 ��'• m w 400, m m _ oz oa /6 .p0 d Oday �t� o o �N 2/ �, 40.x" �w�c, �a `� �'3n4I °Eo o N 6€•ell �� a v �7�� a.2j rye\ 5 p01 alb• a OA 5-0. 0` v t�` s G O < o SLY rd d00 4 0\ Z 6 4 \ y5. o 009 LS g • 61J.2 0, IZJg. .L��, 0;69 /�N� ��4 76S/ ? 091 b .. 7 a N p 'r0 r�o � I I� \ oSZz ° 1Q-� �1�\ a C" C' c_ ��a \ G, v` 009 _ �N� •! V 6 I a 4 \ t• \ r cp �` OOLII r• 0 \O oozy z •, � �;r. £IJ QII �- �� �y y •`-9 p4 . '- 6g 44 �, ,. \ \ o o cJ 61\ o 4tl L9 -rb ra pb 4' 's a. .; asl ,s C� ` d.'ln� �d 99g\Z �S Q42 g S .Gz �� O O. . O9 ra r _ G w4 s sdbw .SUOSS3SSV s1.L3snHOb'ssdw ` w3-1ds 3o kilo f�V, •� t:�.k i n / 40- CITY LAND e � f SF q i ISLAND AVENUE t h♦ r � ' • ► v P r / Va A. ol r Raon ` $ VIEW +/ "`♦ :*•+ . S '� AVE�y 2 � u P / :AA Ir u ti. ty Q 1. nVST"V Sr 1 A`' k /y A �Tf SHOP lit, � ,r f� r;• t� ilNtltJ� �' \,{ t1 h;• tct r� l . 9r o3 J J`•�p�- / r, Id- "I � 'JAI �`e`,J � � � a�3 � �� � n . City of Salem, Mass. , s ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT , 441Lafayette Street a PAUL M: TU.TrTLE ,CITY ELECTRICIAN DATE;. ti. ' . . . .). , .- To: INSPECTOR tOF<BUILDINGS Salem, Mass. r..... Electrical Contractor -- --- -`------------ ------------ ---- ............ b (Signature of Applicants- i -. " 1 has signified their' intention of,"performing the ;,required electrical, K` work; viz: removing;and Iate'r replacing,all electrical wires, fixtures, receptacles, etc., on outside of building located at: / d �d ih ! - / ' r Street in conjunction with a wall siding Installation to be made by:�IV xfr �r • f, r n a ., " js Siding Contractor . -- - - ISSUED BYJ / ' _- This is a requirement, preliminary to the issuance of a permit for the sidewall installation by the Inspector of Buildings.. m: _ --��ORIGINAL-SIDEWALLINSTALLER T - PINK COPY-BLDG. INSP YELLOW COPY-ELEC. FILE'