Loading...
101 HIGHLAND AVENUE - BUILDING INSPECTION 101 HIGHLAND AVENUE of ttlem, tzssttcljusettsSEP H IZ ?o r ; 19; C CiiY C S4LFH• HgSS c� f E J.'K Oi i-ICF DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL GIGLIOTTI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 GREENWAY ROAD (R-1) a/k/a 101 HIGHLAND AVENUE A hearing on this petition was held September 20, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywuc and Arthur LeBrecque. 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, owners of the property request a Variance to enlarge non conforming structure to construct an addition for the property located at 1 Greenway Road (R-1) . 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. Petitioners property is a two family home of one story. Petitioners seek to enlarge their property by adding and additional story without changing the footprint of the existing structure. 2. William Katsapetses, an abutter who owns property at 103 Highland Avenue, appeared and stated that he has no opposition to the proposed addition. 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. 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. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL GIGLIOTT7 REOUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 GREENWAY ROAD (R-1) a/k/a/ 101 HIGHLAND AVENUE page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 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. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the exterior finishes . 6. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. Variance Granted September 20, 1995 Nina Cohen 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 thit 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appw has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the nth Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of re"gd, or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal T - o s> N O -L %�Z _- m� N t.0 1 f SEP t: JLc +:1; ;b (f itu of ttlem, C- u$$tttlju$'etr$- s �Roiirb of CAv}lezil DECISION ON THE PETITION:OF RICHARD & MARYANN O'SHEA/MICHAEL GIGLIOTTI FOR VARIANCES AT 1�GREENWAY RD! a/k/a 101 HIGHLAND AVE. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held september 11 , 1991 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, 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 Variances to allow a fence which is in violation of the requirements for fences in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District and visibility at intersections to remain. The property is located in an R-1 district. The Variances which have 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 petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without subsantial 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 . The petitioner received three price estimates for the existing fence and was unaware that the fence construction required a building permit because it was less than six feet. 2. The petitioners property is a corner lot that is unlike others in the zoning district in that it is open on two sides to traffic. 3. The parcel in question requires protection both from traffic and noise from adjacent Highland Avenue and Salem Hospital. 4. The fence replaced a group of shrubs and trees that were less attractive and the fence does not obstruct the view of traffic to significantly greater degree. 5. Several neighbors spoke in favor of this petition. 6. The petitioner's land would be severely restricted in use due to safety hazards from traffic if this petition is denied. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & MARYANN O'SHEA/MICHAEL GIGLIOTTI FOR VARIANCES AT 1 GREENWAY RD. a/k/a 101 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM page two 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 and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioners. 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: 1 . Petitioner is to obtain a legal building permit. 2. The section of fence adjacent to 99 Highland Ave. will be altered so as to lessen the obstruction of the view entering onto Highland Avenue. Variances Granted September 11 , 1991 �,,41 Vv� J Mary J Stirgwolt, ber, 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 6t the Mass. General Laws, Chapter soa, and shall be filed within 20 day! ,ftor the date of filing of this decision in the office of the city Clerk. ��anled Wain shall not take effect until a copy of the Pursuant to Mass. General Laws. Chapter 808, Section 11, the variance nion:I Pertcit decision, b?grin^, the ccrtif:wtion of the city Clerk that 20 z ahas been ys have elapsed and no oppo,� has been tiled,or that, if such app filed, that it has been dismissed or denied Is recorded In the South Essex Registry of Deeds and Indexed under the name or the owner of record or s is recorded and noted en the owner'sBOARD'OF APPEALcate of -r T) J e SENDER: • Complete items 1 and/or 2 far additional services. I also wish to receive the • Complete items 3,and 4a&b. following services (for an extra • Print your name and address on the reverse of this farm so that we can feel: return this card to you. • Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space 1. ❑ Addressee's Address does not permit. • Write"Return Receipt Requested"on the mailpiece below the article number. 2 ❑ Restricted Delivery • The Return Receipt Fee will provide you the signature of the person delivere to and the date of delivery. Consult postmaster for fee. 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number 4b. Service,Type, / ❑�F{egistered ❑ Insured / y/ � Certified COD Express Malk ❑ Return Receipt for r/y i Merchandise 2 U 7. Date of De Jive{y 5. SigAa{Gr Ad ess!I / 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested and fee is paid) 6. Sig ature (Ag nt) PS Form 3 11, November 1990 *U.S.GPO:1991-287-088 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ,�� E'SF�� Official Business 99� —� PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 Print your name, address and ZIP C/o/de here 3 a Cite of harem, ;0laggacbm5ettg Public Propertp Mepartment JRuilbing Mepartment (Ont 6alem Oreen 745-9595 ext. 380 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer July 29, 1991 Richard D. & maryann J. O'Shea 1 Greenway Road Salem, MA 01970 RE: 101 Highland Avenue Due to camplaints received at this 6ffice, a site visit was made at the above referenced property. It was noted that a six foot fence was installed in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Section V11 S.3. ( dimensional requirements for fences in a Entrance Corridor Overlay District ) and Section V 11 G. ( visibility at Intersections ) , both copies enclosed. Please contact this office within seven days of receipt of this letter. Failure to do so shall constitute a complaint being issued in Salem District Court. Sin ly, David J. Harris Assistant Building Inspector DJH/eaf enc: (2) - cc: City Solicitor Ward Councillor 00�1'=�Oz 0 ,01133' SENDERLI • Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the • Complete itibms 3,and 4a a b. following services (for an extra • Prim your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can fee): return this-card to you. • Attachjkipform to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space 1. ❑ Addressees Address doesno_t.p�ermit. K • Write-'Fi`eturn Receipt Requested"on the mailpiece below the article number. 2 ❑ Restricted Delivery • The Return Receipt Fee will provide you the signature of the person deliver¢ to and the date of delivery. Consult postmaster for fee. 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number P 735 032 661 Phillip E. Pelletier 4b. Service Type ❑ Registered ❑ Insured CR Certified ❑ COD ElExpress Mail ❑ Return Receipt for i/�2Cti 01$33 Merchandise 7. Date of D ive�y� 5. Signatre ddr see) 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested and fee is paid) 6. Signature nt) PS Form 3811, November 1990 *U.S.GPO:1ee1-287-0e6 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE I II II I Official Business PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 Print your name, address and ZIP Code here David J. harris / Public Property One Salem Green Salem,MA 01970 :1,::i!h%Miii 1,:,1„L:L•l:,II,:,li Citp of harem, Aaaacbm5etto Public Property Mepartment °rpro„au�' Auitbing department One &stern green 745-9595 aCxt.380 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer July 23, 1991 C::Ph]illip E. Pelletie Salem, MA 01970 RE: 101 Highland Avenue Dear Mr. Pelletier, Due to complaints received at this office, a site visit was made at the above referenced property. It was noted that a six foot fence was installed in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Section Vll S.3. (dimensional requirements for fences in a Entrance Corridor Overlay District) and Section V11 G. (visibility at Intersections) , both copies enclosed. Please contact this office within seven days of receipt of this letter. Failure to do so shall constitute a complaint being issued in Salem District Court. Sinc rely, David J. Harris Assistant Building Inspector DJH/eaf enc: (2) cc: City Solicitor Ward Councillor -7 3