Loading...
156 BRIDGE STREET - ZBA (2) It�� �r 1L1I 156,:BRIDGE STREET R_@ J J Fy � v 1 Y 1 :\V I i Legal Notice CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL 978-745-9595,Ext.381 will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition sub- mined by MARK CONNELLY reques- ting a Variance to allow the continu- ation of a third floor unit for the property located at 156 BRIDGE STREET,R-2.Said hearing to be held WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2002, at 6:30 P.M., 120 WASHING- TON STREET,3td FLOOR. Nina Cohen,Chairman '8 (12/4,11) i t 1 �oxmr�a� CITY OF SALEM NIASSACHUSET L�I�Y OF SALEM. MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE 3 y, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MA 01970 �s 4= TEL. (978) 745-9595 9g0�MIrvEWc� FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. 10U10EC 30 P 13 MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK CONNELLY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 156 BRIDGE STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on December 18, 2002, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, Joan Boudreau, Richard Dionne and Bonnie Belair. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and other and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting Variances to allow the construction of a third floor unit for the property located at 156 Bridge Street located in an R-2 zone. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exit which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or 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. Attorney Stephen Lovely of 14 Story Street appeared and represented his petitioner. 2. The property is currently being used as an illegal three family. 3. A letter from Councillor Regina Flynn was read in opposition to the proposal. 4. The property has previously been denied as use as a three family. Gil Y OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK CONNELLY EQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED A 156 BRIDGE STREET R-2 page two 1001 DM30 P 3P 1 li 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 do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially hardship derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 2 in favor and 3 in opposition to grant the requested variances. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED DECEMBER 18, 2002 Bonnie 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 MGL 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 MGL 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 that 20 days have passed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal December 18'', 2002 Board of Appeal City of Salem 120 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Chairman Cohen, This letter is in opposition to the variance request to allow a third unit at 156 Bridge Street. This is not the first time this particular property has come before you for a variance—in my tenure as Ward Two City Councillor it is the third time. When it came before the Zoning Board of Appeal in 1997 and in 1998 the former owner of this building withdrew his request for a variance, on both occasions, because he was aware of the fact that I would oppose it and I was sitting in the audience at both hearings. Nonetheless, this absentee landlord continued to operate the building as an illegal three family. This happens time and time again in neighborhoods and it is unfair. As you are well aware city-wide neighborhood groups as well as individual council members have worked long and hard to maintain the integrity of Salem's neighborhoods by being mindful of density issues. This is especially true of many of our downtown areas. These issues affect not only the quality of our lives but also the values of our homes. I have been deeply involved in the revision of our zoning ordinances over this past year with the Planning Department and Councillor Sargent. The issue of increased intensity of use in our already fragile neighborhoods has been discussed time and time again, and is viewed as one of the most important concerns in preserving our quality of life here in Salem. There may be plenty of room for parking at this particular site, but wouldn't it be nice if that backyard could be preserved as a backyard and not another hot-topped parking lot. I hope the Board of Appeals upholds our present zoning ordinances, which clearly deny this type of variance. Please don't let all the hard work of the past be in vain. I request that the Board of Appeal not grant this variance as it has done in other recent instances on Briggs, Beckford and Essex Streets. Bridge Street deserves equal consideration and treatment. Sinc ely, I Reg a RQ 1 y 1