62 BUTLER STREET - ZBA (2) 62 Butler St. R-2
Jose Periera
� �1 J
jr
Fie L 3 l9 M
T CitU of ,$Ulem, : ttssttclluseti
=, si �nttrb of �VVeal 5� s.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSE PEREIRA FOR A VARIANCE
AT 62 BUTLER ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held January 31 , 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman, Messrs. ,
Febonio, Luzinski and Associate Member Dore. 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, owner of the property, through his attorney, John Keilty, Peabody,
is requesting a Variance from density and setbacks to allow parcel to be divided
and to construct a single family dwelling on newly created lot in this R-2 zone.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect 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 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 and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was strong opposition from abutters.
2. Councillor O'Leary opposed the granting of the Variance.
3. There were concerns regarding a possible drainage problem.
4. The density of the neighborhood would be imposed on.
5. Granting of the requested variances could set a precedent in the neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented 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
involve substantial hardship to the petitioner;
r
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSE PEREIRA FOR A VARIANCE
AT 62 BUTLER ST. , SALEM
page two
3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent
of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 0 to 5 against the granting of the
requested Variances, Variances are therefore denied.
DENIED
tchard T. Febo m o, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
<:a from this d_ci_!on, if ony, chat[ be r-Ide Pt^suani to Section 17 of
I !z-s. 4;ncral L:::•a. Cha;.ror d03. .:n 1 ;hcll bo li'rrl :,ith in 20 r1;ys
G da:a a, i.. of iws decision "I the mice of th^ (,:Ly k.
Lr:s, f'.: ':r C� ,• ._..,n i• : ._ ('•.nce
scat r.^,i itrc n If
'!I"V C .'.ilNha. al (,I / l •�'_ Tri'
/e
1 h na II is I cen 1 or
ti,to I.I, tccn -orr -.c or nay o r:- ccivn _ it Soi;i -sex
R_bstry of L=ads and neexed un.cr i`te name or t r_ ot+ner of record or
is recorded and notad on the owner's Certificate of Tit[a.
BOARD OF APPEAL
i
f
FED y .3 io .,a 13D
'. (fitV of ttlPm, C ttssttcl#use# '.
ultra of en!
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSE PEREIRA FOR A VARIANCE
AT 62 BUTLER ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held January 31 , 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman, Messrs. ,
Febonio, Luzinski and Associate Member Dore. 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, owner of the property, through his attorney, John Keilty, Peabody,
is requesting a Variance from density and setbacks to allow parcel to be divided
and to construct a single family dwelling on newly created lot in this R-2 zone.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect 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 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 and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was strong opposition from abutters.
2. Councillor O'Leary opposed the granting of the Variance.
3. There were concerns regarding a possible drainage problem.
4. The density of the neighborhood would be imposed on.
5. Granting of the requested variances could set a precedent in the neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented 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
involve substantial hardship to the petitioner;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSE PEREIRA FOR A VARIANCE
AT 62 BUTLER ST. , SALEM
page two
3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent
of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 0 to 5 against the granting of the
requested Variances, Variances are therefore denied.
DENIED
u� �
lchard Febo¢m o, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Iran this d-ci_!on. if any, shall be r:x!e pt.T.nant to Section 17 of
O;aoral L:'1:5. ci,octer ros, all f :.11.-.Il 72 lilrrl v:-.thin 27 11�y5
date of bin, , of ows dcci',;on in the cnl_c of Cl^ C,ty Cl—k.
17s 3
..;n:;; r :i harm ..1. ,. ... il' _ _I � : , •/ rf _
r.1/e
'•. 1 d na - " -I 11'u l ui cr 1', it I 'c h
d. t i;t It •s Lc3n d-otr a... or cit ls r c 'wJ 1.1 tile, a'.h '_sex
,,;istry o. D=ods ,id ncexed un er the nim or the owner of record or
is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL