Loading...
15-17 BOSTON STREET - BUILDING JACKET I5-17 BOSTON STREET r k i CITY OF SALEM PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT KIMRFRLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALFM,MASSACHUSEI-S 01970 TEL:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 VIOLATION NOTICE PROPERTY LOCATION 15-17 Boston street October 4 2006 Dear Trustees of 15-17 Boston Street Condos The above listed property has been found to be in violation of the following State Codes and/or City Ordinances: State Bld .code 780 C.M.R. Section 103: Matinence The posts,supporting the front porches are in serious disrepair. A licensed Contractor will need to secure a permit and perform the repairs. Said violations must begin to be corrected, repaired, and/or brought into compliance within 30 days of your receipt of this notice. Failure to do so may result in further actions being brought against you, up to and including the filing of complaints at District Court. If you have any questions regarding this letter,please contact the Building Inspectors Office at (978) 745-9595, extension 380. Sincerely, Thomas J. St. Pierre Building Commissioner/Zoning Enforcement Officer CC: file, A �S Ctu of S 3 Putts of A} FMI '�",.°'•�'� '81 SEP, 14 P4:27 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KENNETH T. DESCHENE. SALEM, ,?u.;S. REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 15-17 BOSTON STREET A hearing on this Petition was held on September 9, 1981 with the following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, Hacker and Feeherry and Associate Member Martineau. 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 Petition of Kenneth T. Deschene requests a Special Permit to enlarge an existing nonconforming structure at the site by the addition of a four-room apartment in the attic area at 15-17 Boston Street. A Special Permit is required because the building at this site is in . a B-2 business district; however, the property has for many years been used as a four-family dwelling. The provision of 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 Appeals may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and I% D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of non- conforming structures, and for changes, enlargements, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substan- tially 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 health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter, makes the following findings of fact: 1) The property is currently nonconforming as it is a four-family dwelling within a business district. 2) The surrounding area is heavily congested and has well documented parking and traffic problems. ` DECISION/KENNETH T. DESCHENE September 9, 1981 f 15-17 BOSTON STREET Page 2ncn Rr C:_c, ,/_ _ '81 SEP 14 P4 :27 3) The Petitioner does no f, i t off-street parking . for even the four-dwelling uni s.`$ 2!( E gA ; On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals finds (i) that the proposed use of the property will be substantially more detrimental than the existing use to the neighborhood, (ii) that the.-proposed use of the property will not promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants, and (iii) that the proposed use of the property is not in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board denies 5-0 the granting of a Special Permit to the Petitioner. thony M. Feeh rry, Seer tarp RM ... ... .. ... _. . . ..... ._ 'L_ � ..._ ....... it �...r u.. _ .. ...._ .. MM CF AMEX _ A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK co, 4$ Ctu of "Salem, r ntzrh of Aetzl '81 AUG 24 P 3:21 CITY E3`'S OrriCE CL DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HARED' S, INC. SALE :ASS. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 29 BRIDGE STREET A hearing on this Petition .was held .on August 19, 1981 with the following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker, Piemonte, Feeherry and Associate Member Martineau. 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 requestsa variance for 29 Bridge Street to construct an addition to the existing restaurant/lounge at this site. A variance is required because the building at 29 Bridge Street is in a B-2 district where the proposed addition would violate maximum lot coverage requirements, parking requirements and front yard set back requirements. The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question is currently non-conforming. 2. . The property has substantially fewer parking spaces than required for a restaurant/lounge of its current — size. urrent .size. - 3. There are substantial traffic and parking problems in this area which will be exacerbated if the requested variance is granted. 4. The Salem Fire Marshal has cited deficiencies in the existing structure. 5. The Petitioner' srequest, while supported by some abutters, was opposed by many others. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and other evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes. as follows: 1. The Petitioner failed to establish circumstances rela- ting to the land or structure which affect that property but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the property is located. - 2 - 2. The Petitioner failed to establish that a literal en- forccment of the provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordi- nance as applied to this property would involve sub- stantial hardship to the Petitioner. 3. The Petitioner failed to establish that the requested variance could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purposes of the Salem Ordinance. ' Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in opposition to the granting of the requested relief. The Board denies a variance to the Petitioner. In so ruling the Board also notes that if the Petitioner had requested a special permit rather than a variance, the Board would have found on the basis of the above facts that the proposed addition to the property would be substantially more detrimental to the area than the existing non-conforming use. Accordingly, a special permit would also have been denied. �1 A'� fthony M. eeherry w :Secretary N � V UU N K^ C: r, Law LL ¢ __j_j aD ~ U ASS. o - e�,t Vai is A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK AND THE PLANNING BOARD.