26 BUFFUM STREET - ZBA f
26 Buffum St. R-2
Robert & Valerie Peterson
�F ~ +
Titg of SUIM efflttssuchUSC is OCT 3 8 40 AN '86
�z 3
Poxrb D{ '4PVd FILET
CITY C:_ z t' r Ii.MISS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT & VALERIE PETERSON
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 26 BUFFUM ST.
A hearing on this petition was held September 24, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski 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 Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to allow
construction of a second means of egress to allow the property to be used as a
two family dwelling in this R-2 district.
The
Provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
= for Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
- r � _Xotf&ithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of
_ tpp9al may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section
NIIJ F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of non-
15 .2 ..4:e-'conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of non-
_ " - Stonforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change,
_ - cextension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental
' °than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
u ` W n more
� general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests
R guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
- - ` safet
y, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
the Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence and after viewing
-she plans, makes the following findings of fact:
r 1 . The proposal as presented would adversely affect the neighborhood;
= W
_ - " x 2. The area if very congested with parking at a premium.
(� V: - ul y
LL_ = �n the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposal would be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood
and would not promote the safety, convenience and welfare of the
City's inhabitants.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted three in favor of granting the petition,
Mr. Bencal voted present, petition failed to carry the four votes necessary to
grant so the request for a Special Permit is denied.
DENIED
Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
I ol
I An"',
ZOT
S.F
P c1ges
5P)gC67 -
CAR
e(o
Z-0 T-.
101
r") Coll
— Lk
ex (.-I flU 2 ---5tor/ Lc600(-
24e ur-1
d-w e- /I
-5 ?
7'
-0' 7 �f�r✓ �� 7'
M;°'ice 2C�
r
ui 1,9 IN N
LOT 360 i 1 37o
1
J
C/!k�s 1
I < S Aq C- - I
10.tt ` � I
—ry
r'l
i Arrie �Jiv� L. CCNSY�NJ7/+lE
II T✓ 2V LS uf"f u��� "f•
�1
c�dd i h n I I}
I Q r
1
I�
I i
i
h I
-57 �
�ro��r of POC,CRT /�ETERSo�
SCo,_le-- 1 1/= fU
1
EKISfac, � tZST F'�.coL ExiST -j rL-00
1
1 ,
NEw -, iRM_ YrA�fL�
I
� III �
P
AParLrn�e�T
11 NFF
Iz
o W 48
X� T�JG "MJQ (Zoom " J�lEv�/ ZTAIfr. - ,
1,g
a' A;S
IZEt,10471 O r l S 7-0
Zlv POrr-uM ST.
�LAQs
� f
rAT-H JrIL r�'
li
i
wsr. srk0- rc�cw L)nurY i
Oi0 EI I _
; i
L1vL.l6r,>f,l1,,J4 mcckn
i
I
K�f i I
i
I
I �Exlsn,�u vorc.�c2
T� $LM�Vfp
I I 1
I I I
EDIrE o�
5)(j,5 r I I TZ ccr-
� Gil
,� tZoo� rJEGK �
r.G L-O-j PJ
(I
PF o�
Q-
yY m inyfl
Ass 2 jA
7'MpcOAPc'�'
jt;i�Et4CVAT-ICt-4S TC
S40
A
pkrE. : Z4 Jdl.'>' I�rBb
s� c-rlo�
M
-_..... - _ __--. -_-____-.-. -_. -.- - _ _.__�_,,.T`.- --. ---. --.. __•- Tom" _.__-_.. _ _--. ___ --.. _- _. .-_ ---. _. __. _-._
r—
ih
—
Ll H
i rzc" oec-K
Ti -
E
I Li
-
-
I
� I i
i
NES E�r`Y :TkrR IE�J EJrz{ :rr�rc To
,rzo r�ovv_ aP�rzn c r GX Sr . F r 0L)-.F
No�.7'H SLE✓LTi o� �/� : E�EVa71 CN
r
Sia :
P FPa
5 G'�
Tsl OF t�F`�'SPG�
cNi A7- CtJ TO
bArr - 24 jUL-Y