34 BRIDGE STREET - ZBA 34 Bridge St. B-2
John Spinale
1�4
s�
C
Qg of �5,ttlEllt, �7�i�Ca �SCI�Lt Q #s
a u&!it Propertg Department
s
~ "t�ui(liiig �epttrtment
\1 �t
William H. Munroe
One Salem Green
745-0213
April 17, 1986
Mr. John Spinale
11 High St.
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 341 Bridge St.
Dear. Mr. Spinale:
At the Public Hearing held February 26, 1986, the City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeal voted to deny your request for a Variance from
density, height, lot size, lot coverage and any and all applicable set-
backs in order to complete construction of a building at 342' Bridge St.
Records in the office of the City Clerk indicate no appeal of this
decision has been filed as permitted by Massachusetts General Laws,
Chapter 40A. , Section 17.
In view of the above you are ordered to, within thirty (30) days of
.your receipt of this notice, see to the removal or demolition of this
. .-illegal building. A building permit from this office will be required
prior to the start of work.
Failure on your part to comply with this order will be met with
the appropriate legal action.
Sincerely,
William H. Munroe
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer
WHM:bms
cc: City Clerk
City Solicitor
Councillor Harvey
Chairman, Board of Appeal
z Ctu of Salem, ttssttc4usetts
_ . T S
.i�.
"' ' 2 Puura of '�trPenl
'WnTIT,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN SPINALE FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 342' BRIDGE ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held February 26FAflQ6 w9tfi0A #&lowing Board
Members present: James Hacker., Chairman; Messrs. Bencal, Charnas, Strout end
Associate Member Dore. Notice of the hearing Jd; !knt to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly publis � Arj ,thg.�S�lep� ✓ening News
in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws C �apter 40A.
t _
0
= = W Petitioner, owner of the premises, requests a Variance from density, height,
Lot size, lot coverage and any and all applicable setbacks in order to
W _ �mplete construction of a building at 34' Bridge St. ,, which is in a B-2 zone.
= h = w The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
d W &)ard that:
52
L L Q W m
v 4 v = a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect.
z o LL the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
- w affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
W 4 v z W b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; and
s W c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
s r o public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from
H E ~ W w the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
makes the following findings of fact:
u W W
`yd
J c r c
1 . .substantial opposition was presented to the plan;
2. Petitioner has failed to show sufficient facts for this Board
= - o to find that substantial hardship would result from the denial
T _ o of this request for a Variance.
On the basis of the above finding of fact, and on the evidence presented at
the hearing the Board of Appeal -concludes as follows:
1 . Petitioner has not met his burden of proof as regards
legal hardship.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, against granting
the petitioner his requested relief.
VARIANCE IS DENIED.
��C�h�✓aao/1 i�'� �
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK