14 BRIDGE STREET - ZBA 09/11/1985 1
��
ro
i w �
� r �
�i �s
� �
� � ..
i n7 m
�s
w cn
I � �
n
I N
i
f
1
r � ��`
� � � -
�'
,�
IIfttlPm, CZI38ttClluse#t8
<� Poxrb of '4peal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL S. FRASER FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 19 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held September 11 , 1985 withtfilopipg
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. ; Charnas, Strout an i9t1-
Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters afitLE)#hers and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance
with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. CITY .0kE'er "IEE DABS.
r.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from all applicable
N ` density and setback requirements and use regulations in order to construct a
LL L
- `- � singe family dwelling in this B-2 district.
u _ -
The 1kariance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
Maty a
1y o Sa. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
Q 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 in-
volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; and
W = a !t2 7- "J , c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
-
c 2 ; intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
3Ae Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, and after
wxg-ewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Opposition was presented by neighbors;
= � H 2. The petitioner did not follow through with the reconstruction of
the fire damaged property, presenting a serious fire hazard to the
a = g abutting properties. As a result, the City Council ordered the
z o g property torn down.
= c
o LL o the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The relief requested would substantially endanger the abutting properties
because of closeness and the past performance of the petitioner in
following through with construction procedures;
2. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment or
without substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 4-0 against granting the
requested relief.
DENIED
Peter Strout, Member
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
f
9/16/85
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL S . FRASER FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 19 BRIDGE ST SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held Sept. 11, . 19.85
with following members present Mr. Hacker Messrs . Charnas ,
Bencal 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 Mass . General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property is requesting a
variance from all applicable density and setback requirements
and use regulations in order to construct a single family
dwelling.
The Board of Appeal , after hearing the evidence and
viewing the plans presented at the hearing makes the
following findings of fact.
1. Opposition was presented by the neighbors ;
2 . The owner did not follow through with the reconstruction
of. the' fire damaged property, presenting a sereous fire
hazard to the abutting properties as a result the City
counsel orded the property torn down.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the
evidence presented at the hearing the Board of Appeal
concluded as follows
1. The relief requested would substantially endanger
the abutting. properties because of closeness and the past
performance of the petitioner in following through with
construction procedures .
Therfore , the Zoning .Board of _Appeal voted 4-0 against
granting the requested varience.
VARIENCE DENIED
etP ert4r _
S o t Meber
», w Titv Qf �5,Arm, 7fflU5eiar4U5rttS
IMannin$ Nvarb
sem`°ms�r" (One '-$tt1em (6reen
September 10, 1985
Mr. James Hacker, Chairman
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA. 01970
Re: Petition of Paul Frazer for Variances from all applicable density
and setback requirements and use regulations in order to construct a
single family dwelling at 19 Bridge Street. (B-2)
Dear Mr. Hacker:
The Planning Board supports the granting of the above-referenced
variances. It is the Board's opinion that construction of a
single-family home on the site is a proper use for the property.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely
yours,
Walter B. Power, III
Chairman
r mit IIf1�m ef5 �h�zs�t
ll�f� �� ,;�} �ublit ��rusPx:g �E�rxrfrreni
�kecic cam'
i-TUNng Bqartrunt
William H. Munroe
One Salem Green
745-0211_'
July 22, 1985
Mr. Paul S. Fraser
19 Bridge Street
Salem, MA 01970
RE; Application for building permit
Dear Mr. Fraser,
Please be advised that your.application for a building
permit to construct a single family house at 19 Brdige St.
must be denied by this office for the following reason.
The submitted plot plan does not satisfy the density
regulations for a B-2 zone as set forth in Section VI,
Table II of the city of Salem Zoning Ordinance.
Please be advised of your Fight to request relief from
this decission by filing application with the Zoning Board
of Appeal for the necessay variances.
Sincerely,�/�
William Munroe
Building Inspector
WM/ 'd
J g
Chi#g of "Salem,
.G�c '"mow ire Uepar nmrd �ieabquarters
ROBERT J. CROWLEY 48 :afqettP `ilreef
A/Chief ttlem, tt. D1970
Date: September 11, 1985
City of Salem Re: 19 Bridge Street
Board of Appeal Paul S. Frazer
One Salem Green Hearing Date: 9/11/85
Salem, MA 01970
Sirs:
As a result of the notice received concerning the Board of Appeal hearing for
the above listed name and address, the Salem Fire Department requests the
following items to be placed on record:
The Salem Fire Department has no objection to the granting of Variances for the
construction of a single family dwelling at #19 Bridge Street.
The appellant has submitted plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau indicating
the locations of smoke detectors within the proposed building.
Respectfully,
Robert W. Turner,
Fire Marshal
cc: Appellant
Building Inspector
File
Form #105
MORTGAGE INSPECTION
BAY STATE SURVEYING ASSOCIATES
234 CABOT ST., BEVERLY MA
LOCATION SR( E/V� F MLI NOTES:
----- --------
SCALE : I" FT. DATE : + 6 Z S 96 •This is a Mortgage Inspection survey and not an
¢¢ ""' instrument survey,therefore this plot plan is for
REFERENCE �K:_7 3 Y__��?'. .............. ......
............. . . mortgage inspection purposes only.
SEX
_ _ __So, p is T _ _ _ .This survey is based on survey marks of others.
... .... .. . . . .. .. . . ... .... . ... .. . ... .... • Bushes, shrubs, fences and tree lines do not
To _WORcESTE CEJv4L FED. CQED/T Np necessarily indicate property lines.
"" " f • In my professional opinion the building(s)are not loc
The location of the building(s) as shown, either complied with the in the special flood hazard zone, as defined by H.U.i
local zoning set backs at the time of construction or is exempt •Whenever an offset is 1'± or less, an instrument sur
from violation enforcement action under Mass. G.L. Title VII is recommended to determine prop. lines.
Chapter 40A Section 7. •Offsets shown are approximate by tape survey.
VA.t2l/�,�cE G-��gnJiE'o S�z7/�7
PT
yo' DoT
4111
Q � ;
a
v
W
Y
s 3 3't NO
yd"