75 COLUMBUS AVENUE - BUILDING INSPECTION 75.COLUMBUS AVENUE
i
QCitp of &areMt Aja50aCbU0ett2;
JIDubtic propertp Mepartment
J3uitbing Department
One hatem Oreen
745-9595 Cxt. 380
William H. Munroe
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer
April 13, 1989
Frank Pierce
75 Columbus Avenue
Salem,MA 01970
RE: 75 Co'lumbus'Avenue� _
Dear Mr. Pierce,
Please be advised that I will need a plot plan of your
addition, once your footing and foundation are in.
Sincely,
DAvid J. Harris
Assistant Building Inspector
.......f ou
`y FILE f of *drm, �49assar4usedw 19 3 07 PW 188
^ITY CL: I c Pourb of Appvd FILE
CITY CLERP;.SqtAl
E MASS.
DECISION. ON THE PETITION OF FRANK J. PIERCE FOR VARIANCES
' COLUMBUS AVE.y
AT (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held on. October 12, 1988 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman; John
Nutting, Secretary; Peter Strout and Associate Member Arthur LaBrecque. 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, owner of the property, is seeking Variances from use, density, setbacks
and parking to allow construction of an addition to be used as a fourth unit in
this R-1 .
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
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 structures in the same district;
b, literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner;
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 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 . Support of the plan was voiced by the Ward Councillor as well as
many neighbors, abutters and others;
2. The addition of this unit would allow the petitioners family to be
together;
3. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good.
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 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property
but not the district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRANK J. PIERCE FOR VARIANCE
AT 75 COLUMBUS AVE. , SALEM
page two
3. The rlief requested can be granted without nullifying or substantially derogatinE
from the intent of the district or the purpose ofthe Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variances requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner must comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department
relative to smoke and fire safety;
2. All construction be done as per all existing City and State Building
Codes and with a legal Building Permit;
3' A Certificate of Occupancy for the fourth unit be obtained;
4. All exterior finishes of the addition are to be in harmony with
the existing finishes of the present building
5. All construction is to be done as per the plans submitted.
VARIANCES GRANTED
Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
P.PPEAL EFO'.r THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
CkNERP). LAV;' CHAPIER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 LAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF T!IIS DECISIDN IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK_
GENEPAI LAi'S CHAPTER 808. SEC.ION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPCCIAI PEP.'?IT
'"?'11 NUI TARE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEUECISION. BEARINS TIIE (.LRT
C:-'-Rh, IIIA' 2.^ DAYS HAVE EI.ALS EI) AND N) AP'1°EAL HA:; SEEN FCE_D.
R iAPPLAL HAC BEEN FILE, THAI IT H,' 6EEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS
REL F.L" IN Li: SOJTII ESSEX RECISFRY 9F DLEDS AND INCEXED UNDER THE :44%;: OF THE OV7f:EF'
OF RE-11"x. OR IS RC::ORDED AND NOTED ON TME OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL