50 GALLOWS HILL ROAD - BUILDING INSPECTION �. 50 GA;LOWS HIT.?,ROAD
4
f "0.
16 6 20 PN '88
of Arm, ttssttthuse##s
FILE#
Pourb o{ '4pezl CITY MASS.
•��14iMC
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN & PAULA TASSINARI FOR A
VARIANCE AT 50 GALLOWS HILL ROAD (R-1)
A hearing on this petition was held on Jul-_ 15, 1988 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Bencal, Luzinski, Nutting, 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 variance from minimum
side setback requirements to allow construction of a deck. The property is
located in a R-1 District.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upona 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. There was no opposition presented at the hearing.
2. Approval of said petition would add esthetically to the property.
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 do not affect the district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial
hardship to the petitioner;
3. The relief requested 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 unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN & PAULA TASSINARI FOR A
VARIANCE AT 50 GALLOWS HILL ROAD, SALEM
Page Two
1. As per plans suhrrdtted.
2. As per dimensions of plans submitted be adherred to.
3. Apply for all legal permits.
GRANTED
I
Peter Strout, Member
Zoning Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
°.yALL F' f.]F F!IP°1 !T TO S CJICN 17 rF I° `
.,-AI ,DW e
ICEr
.,. r
OF CR
BOARD OF APPEAL
� � c
cv. o+
T
x Q�
r o
w O
TT
f
m
M Co
f �� o•ont�� Jur 16 6 20 Pd '88
of �ttlPm, Httss�rhusP#tg
FILE#
S Poarb of 1 PIIl
'�J'• ,�.m+"`� CITT CLYkiC, MASS.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN & PAULA TASSINARI FOR A
VARIANCE AT150 GALLOWS HILL ROAD (R-IT)
A hearing on this petition was held on Jule 15, 1988 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Bencal, Luzinski, Nutting, 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 variance frau minimum
side setback requirements to allow construction of a deck. The property is
located in a R-1 District.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upona 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 frau 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. There was no opposition presented at the hearing.
2. Approval of said petition, would add esthetically to the property.
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 do not affect the district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial
hardship to the petitioner;
3. The relief requested 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 unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN & PAULA TASSINARI FOR A
VARIANCE AT 50 GALLOWS HILL ROAD, SALEM
Page Two
1. As per plans submitted.
2. As per dimensions of plans submitted be adherred to.
3. Apply for all legal permits.
GRANTED
i
Peter Strout, Member
Zoning Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
I
• p' FPP I' NT TCC CTI 17 C; - .
.. .. . IIS.I:
T.._ ._i.. . , -..... . ,.....�
BOARD OF APPEAL
< m z
� � m
T
0
o
a
m
C30