The URL can be used to link to this page

70-72 DEARBORN STREET - ZBA -L7 0 m7 2 Dearborn St. R-1 'James Cdh i-I I -Jr* (Owner) J & John & Patrica Taft (petitioners) / __ _: <�. �1 � � � ._ s i _ _ _ __. -_ ��_ �� DATE OF HEARING PETITIONER LOCATION MOTION: TO GRANT- -SECOND TO DENY SEC D TO RE-HEAR SECOND LEAVE TO WITHDRAW SECOND TO CONTINUE SECOND ROLL CALL PRESENT GRANT DENY WITHDRAW RE-HEAR CONTINUE RICHARD BENCAL RICHAR D V'FE B ONIO EDWARD LOZINSKI MARY JANE .1 STfRGVOLT ASSOCIATE MEMBERS JOHN GRADY '7 ARTHUR I ARRECOUR CONDITIONS: of "16alieln, �ffiztqoar4usetts (Offire of t4e (9itU Qlaunril Tug �Iall WARD COUNCILLORS COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE MARK E. BLAIR 1990 PRESIDENT 1990 GEORGEA.NOWAK DONALD T.BATES JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R.HARVEY GEORGE P.McCABE CITY CLERK VINCENT J.FURFARO JOHN R.NUTTING LEONARD F.O*LEARY RICHARD E.SWINIUCH DAVID B.GAUDREAULT SARAH M.HAYES MARK E.BLAIR January 14, 1991 Mr. Richard Bencal Chairman Salem Board of Appeal One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Re: 70-7Z Dearborn Street Dear Chairman Bencal: I am writing to express my opposition to the application of John and Patricia Taft for a Variance from frontage requirements to allow the division of land and subsequent construction of a single family dwelling at 70-72 Dearborn Street. After hearing from several residents of this neighborhood, I feel strongly that the granting of this Variance by the Board of Appeal will be detrimental to the character of the surrounding neighborhood. I urge that you consider their concerns when making a decision on this petition. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, I�A G e o Ire P�Mc'6c C�a te Councillor-at-Large M12WP (IT xlitv of Aire Peparintent �ieabquartrrs 48 '�afqcttr, S61rept Joseph F. Sullivan $alrm, 4Rn- 01970 Chief City of Salem RE: 70-72 Dearborn Street Board of Appeal City of Salem One Salem Green Hearing date: January 16, 1991 The Salem Fire DeparbTbent has no objection to the granting of a Variance to allow construction of a single family dwelling at 70-72 Dearborn Street subject to the following conditions: 1- Plans for the proposed construction are presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to the issuance of a building pern-Lit. 2- The proposed construction shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Massachusetts State Building Code, 527 Code of Massachusetts Regulations, the Salem Fire Prevention Code, the Salem City OrdiKances, and Maasachusetts General Laws relative to fire safety. 3- The applicant shall arrange for an inspection by the Fire Prevention Bureau upon completion of the work. ) Vz1v �'qlNuffan P. LaPointe Fire Inspector CC: file OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION OF JOHN & PATRICIA TAFT A petition for a variance to allow the division of land at 70-72 Dearborn St . and to allow the construction of a single family dwelling has been submitted to the Salem Board of Appeals. As neighbors, we feel that it is necessary to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood which includes adequate spacing of the houses from each other . There is little available open space in North Salem and the small , side lot at 70-72 Dearborn provides some of it for the residents of the neighborhood. Granting the petition will simply squeeze the houses together more . We want to maintain our neighbor- hood with adequate open space and good separation between the houses . We do not feel that any hardship exists that would allow the granting of the variance . We request that the petition be denied. 71113_�2 1 Jl;�IZ11�1104 Z�0 . A,- A'_A__ /2 7 LSZ I&K A�j (h Azdx'L q,-(-3 g-c?o 7 bl? Id- b My name is Owen J. Meegan and I live at 65 Dearborn St . I would like to oppose the petition of James Cahill and John and Patricia Taft for a variance to divide the lot at 70-72 Dearborn Street . First , I would like to say that the Cahills have been good neighbors to me and my family . I respect the work that Jim has done for his community over the years and the contributions that Mrs . Taft has made to the city . Notwithstanding these contributions , I still have to oppose the petition. It is not a personal matter . Mr . and Mrs . Taft have alleged that enforcement of the zoning would involve practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship. I respectfully contend that failure to enforce the laws would inflict a practical difficulty and an unnecessary hardship on me , my family and my neighbors. I contend that the allegation is inaccurate in that the lot in issue has always been a small , vacent side lot . STREET WIDTH The street in front of 70-72 Dearborn Street is only 25 ft . wide . The house at 70 Dearborn that Jim Cahill- lives in has only a one car garage with a small driveway. Extra cars belonging to the Cahill family drive down a second driveway and park on his side lot so as not to block the street . Any— one buying Jim' s large house (4 bedrooms) will have two and probably more cars . But there will be nowhere to park these extra cars except on the street in front of my house if the variance is granted. This will block the street . In my recent memory , we have had two accidents involving Cahill cars where cars struck parked cars . HARDSHIP? PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? W bought our house in 1979 with notice that t zoning laws re -uired 100 ft . lots. This is why__"_pa,i. 4g-mo-n�e.341 LZ 6-t-T—he ime) because we didn' t want-the cl ess of smaller lots or ho sea jammed together . To remove he impediment of the 100 ft . zoning will seriously advers y effect my pro- perty and re ce its value. In F u r 1976, Jim bought the side lot for $ 6, 500. having a t . f ntage on Dearborn Street (that he * s nor trying t a lit off) . In April 1976 , Jim bought his ho se for '$ 0 nd it has a frontage on Dearborn Street of 66 ft . real estate listing sheet I saw sets out that J m i as ing $379,000 for the two parcels together or $299 ,900 or the house on its 66 ft . lot . Salem' s assessed v u of the property ( 100% value) is only Xa, qO0 ��,�� I fai to a e a "practical difficulty or unneces- sary hardship" because m canit find buyers in 1991 who are willing to y $379 ,000 r property he paid $77 , 500 for 14 years ago Not finding a uyer who will pay the "asking price" oes not constitute '1practical difficulty or unne- cess y hardship" . Inabilit to sell property at predeter- mi ed price is not sanctioned a an unnecessary hardship nder the legal interpretation of the zoning laws . INTERFAMILY SALE Mr . Cahill ' s petition sets out that he wishes to sell the side lot to his daughter and son-in-law. But we all know that there can be no alienation on the transfer of property --- once the variance is given the land (or the land with a house on it) can be transferred to anyone . It makes a good "emotional" argument and anyone would want to help a father sell (give?) his daughter a building lot , but zoning ordi- nances are supposed to remove emotion from these issues and I request the Board to ignore the issue of who the land is being transferred to. It is not relevant . GRANDFATHERED LOT Another argument advanced by the petitioner was that the lot was a legally buildable lot when he bought it . The rea- son for allowing the "gradual" transition from the 60 ft . requirement to the present 100 ft . was to prevent the very type of petition we have here . Jim could have exercised these rights for a while after he bought his land. But he chose not to . He chose to enjoy the openness of his 150 ft . lot . Now that he chooses to leave our community , all we ask is that he leave it as he found it , not cluttered with closely spaced houses built on lots with substandard fron- tages. DENSITY REQUIREMENTS I sincerely question the petitioners position that the building would conform to the density requirements . The lot in question is very steep on the Dearborn St . side. Within 30 ft . of the street , it steeply slopes to the flood plain. That is , the buildable area is probably less than about 2 ,000 sq . ft. ft. This is below the minimum density requirements . More than once I have seen ducks and geese swimming in Jim' s side lot when there is a very high tide. Assuming one could build a house on the lot , it would have to be butt up against the street . PROPOSED SUBDIVISION CREATES TWO SUBSTANDARD LOTS Most importantly is that the granting of this variance would create not just one substandard lot , it creates two . The lot at 72 Dearborn St . has an 84 ft . frontage --- but the lot at 70 Dearborn St . (with the house already on it) would have a frontage of only 66 ft . On Dearborn St . or Dearborn Lane (north of Felt St . ) #70 would become the lot with the smallest frontage and #72 would become the fourth smallest . CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD From Felt Street north, only two houses facing on Dear— born St . or Dearborn Lane do not have frontages more then 100 ft . My house was built more than 75 years ago and O 'Brien' s house conformed to the zoning when it was built . The lots can be compared as follows : Owner ot# Frontage (rank) area rank O'Brien (4 80 #10 1224 #7 Gallant (487) 100 #8 400 #2 Cahill (486/499) 1 #1 32080 #1 Houle (500) 140 #3 22834 #3 Papalardo (502) 108 # 10192 #9 Dixon (503) 144 #2 13910 #6 voe (504) 120 5 10257 #8 Donahue (498) 107 #7 7139 #11 McManus\X (613) 1 #4 18072 #4 Meegan (612) 76 #11 16457 #5 Rakoc (611 90 #9 7553 #10 house faces on Felt St . an the 90ft . represents lot depth. Thus it can be seen that the median frontage on Dearborn St . or Dearborn Lane is 108 ft . The median lot size is about 14735 sq. ft . Parenthetically , while my frontage is the smallest , my area is 16 , 457 sq . ft . , the fifth largest and above the median. Granting a variance to allow a 66 ft . lot for Jim' s house and allow a new building on an 84 ft . lot would be totally out of character for the neighborhood . I am submitting a petition that was circulated in the neighborhood . Everyone on Dearborn St . and Dearborn Lane (north of Felt St . ) , except Mrs. Gallant , signed the peti- tion. Many other neighbors on other streets in the neighbor- hood signed too. 17. ItP'OSITION TO THE PETITION OF JOHN & PATRICIA TAFT A petition for a variance to allow the division of land at 70-72 Dearborn St . and to allow the construction of a single family dwelling has been submitted to . the Salem Board of Appeals. As neighbors, we feel that it is necessary to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood which includes adequate spacing of the houses from each other. There is little available open space in North Salem and the small , side lot at 70-72 Dearborn provides some of it for the residents of the neighborhood. Granting the petition will simply squeeze the houses together more. We want to mAntain our neighbor- hood with adequate open space and good separation between the houses. We do not feel that any hardship exists that would allow the granting of the variance . We request that the petition be denied . 7 71157.2 Den �2 oi 1---,o 'Al _Ieut�� Cj)rj'4 Lie &M4 Y 1"� CN &4 a �Z 6, 7 YA1 C)v 7_YY—_117(1 V" /17 V q -3 g-? V (06 Wdkt blol�;Q n e2 ��OL� & ov �co ........ ..... CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS KEVIN T.DALY Legal Department LEONARD F FEMINO City Solicitor 93 Washington Street Assistant City Solicitor 508-745-0500 Salem,Massachusetts 01970 508-921-1990 April 11, 1991 Essex Superior Court 34 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 ATTENTION: Civil Docketing Clerk RE: Normand Houle, et al. v. City of Salem, et al. Hvil Action No. 91-462 Dear Sir or Madam: Relative to the above-named matter, please find enclosed my notice of appearance on behalf of the City of Salem and Salem Board of Appeals. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, KEVIN T. DALY CITY SOLICITOR KTD/rmj Enclosure CC: Attorney Robert F. Peck, Jr. Attorney Carl D. G odman Salem Board of Appeals COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. TRIAL COURT SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 91-462 NORMAND HOULE, Plaintiff BARBARA BULRISS, Applicant for Intervention OWEN J. MEEGAN, Applicant for Intervention NOTICE OF APPEARANCES V. JOHN R. TAFT, PATRICIA CAHILL TAFT, JAMES J. CAHILL, JR. , RICHARD BENCAL, EDWARD LUZINSKI, RICHARD FEBONIO, MARY JANE STIRGWOLT, JOHN GRADY, AND CITY OF SALEM, Defendants Please enter the appearance of Kevin T. Daly, Esquire for the defendants City of Salem and Richard Bencal, Edward Luzinski, Richard Febonio, Mary Jane Stirgwolt, John Grady, all as members of the City of Salem Board of Appeals. CITY OF SALEM and SALEM BOARD OF APPEALS, By their attorney, KEVIN T. DALY CITY SOLICITOR One Church Street Salem, MA 01970 Telephone No. ( 508 ) 745-0500 Dated: April 11, 1991 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I , Kevin T. Daly, Attorney for Defendants, hereby certify that I served the foregoing NOTICE OF APPEARANCES to all parties by mailing a copy thereof, first-class mail, postage prepaid, directed to Robert F. Peck, Jr. , PECK & BEATON, 265 Essex Street, Salem, MA 01970 and Carl D. Goodman, Esquire, 265 Essex Street, Suite 301, Salem, MA 01970. Signed under penalties of perjury this lith day of April, 1991. KEVIN T. DALY CITY SOLICITOR One Church Street Salem, MA 01970 Telephone No. ( 508 ) 745-0500 �7, PECK & BEATON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 265 ESSEX STREET 91P-2392 SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01.970 1508) 744-8180 ROBERT F. PECK.JR. FAX(5081 744-9349 BRENDA A.BEATON GERALD P.SHEA February 11 , 1991 Mr. Richard Bencal 19 Goodell Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: Normand Houle vs . John R. Taft, et al Essex Superior Court Civil Action No. 91-462 Dear Mr. Bencal : Pursuant to the provisions of M.G.L. ch. 40A, Sec . 17 , enclosed herewith please find copies of Civil Action Complaint and Civil Action Cover Sheet relative to the above case, the originals of which have been filed with the Essex Superior Court on February 11, 1991 . Thank you. Very truly yours, ROBERT F. PECK, JR. 7 RFP/mad Enclosures CC: Client Certified Mail No. P 038 765 520 TYPE OR USE BALL POINT PEN—BEAR DOWN FIRMLY MASSACHUSETTS TRIAL COURT SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT ESSEX CIVIL ACTION COVER SHEET SS. (To be filed with each Complaint) NO. PLAINTIFF(S) OEFENDANT(S) John R. Taft , Patricia Cahill Taft , James J . Cahill , Jr. , Richard Ben -, Normand Houle Edward Luzinski, Richard Febonio , Mary Jane Stirgolt), John Grady, City 0 f S-al� T ATTORNEY(S) (Firm Name, Address, Tel.) ATTORNLY(S) nown Robert F. Peck, Jr. Peck & Beaton, 265 Essex Street Salem, MA Tel. 508 744-8180 BBO # 393040 Place an (g In one box only ORIGIN 1. F01 Complaint 0 4. F04 Dist. Ct..Appeal c.231, s.97 2. F02 Removal to Sup. Cf. c.231, s.104 0 5. F05 Reactivated after Rescript; Relief 3. F03 Retransfer to Sup. Cf. c.231, s.102C from judgment/orcer (Mass. R. Civ. P.60) Place an Z in one box only NATURE OF ACTION CONTRACT REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS 71 A011 Services, labor and materials C] C01 Land taking (eminent domain) Cl E02 Appeal from administrative agency, El A02 Goods sold and delivered N CO2 Zoning appeal,G.L. c.40A G.L_ c.30A r-I A03 Commercial paper 0 CO3 Dispute concerning title E] E03 Action against Commonwealth or M A08 Sale or lease of real estate 0 C04 Foreclosure of mortgage Municipality, G.L.c.258 E] E04 Taxpayer suit, G.L.c.40 s.53 [3 A99 Other(specify) C99 Other(specify) 0 E05 Confirmation of arbitration awards, G.L. c.251 TORT EQUITABLE REMEDIES 0 E06 Massachusetts Antitrust Act, 0 B03 Motor vehicle negligence-personal 0 001 Specific performance of contract G.L. c.93 injury/property damage 0 D02 Reach and apply, G.L. c.214, C] E08 Appointment of receiver C3 B04 Other negligence-personal Injury s.3(6)-(9) 0 E09 General contractor's surety bond, property damage C] 006 Contribution or Indemnification G.L_c.149, ss.29,29a [I B05 Products liability C] E10 Summary process appeal [] B06 Malpractice-medical C] D07 Imposition of trust 0 Ell Workman's Compensation 0 B07 Malpractice-other [] 008 Minority stockholder's suit 0 E12 Small Claims Appeal (specify) E] D10 Accounting C] E13 Labor Dispute E] B08 Wrongful death, G.L. c.229, s.2A E] 012 Dissolution of partnership E] E14 Chapter 123A Petition—SDP EJ B15 Defamation (libel-slander) 013 Declaratory judgment, G.L. c.231A 0 E15 Abuse Petition, G.L. C.209A C] B99 Other(specify) 099 Other(specify) C] E16 Auto Surcharge Appeal C] E17 Civil Rights Act, G.L.C.12,ss.1 1 H-1 0 E99 Other (specify) SUPERIOR COURT RULE 29. Requirement of statement as to money damages to prevent the transfer of civil actions to District or Municipai Court Departments. 1. Superior Court Rule 29, as amended requires the statement of money damages on the reverse side be completed. 2. Failure to complete the statement, where appropriate, will result in transfer of this action (Superior Court Rule 29(2). SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD DATE: (OFFICE USE ONLY—DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE) RECEIVED DISPOSITION BY: A. Judgment Entered B. No Judgment Entered DATE: 01. Before jury trial or non-jury hearing 6. Transferred to District Court DISP ENTERED 02. During jury trial or non-jury hearing under G.L. c.231, s102C El 3. After jury verdict BY: [3 4. After court finding DATE: 5. After post trial motion Disposition date CLERK'S OFFICE COPY rnt�nn1_n71AA COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX ' SS Superior Court Department Statement of Damages Pursuant to Superior Court Rule 29 To Prevent Transfer to District or Municipal Court Departments (Applicable to Civil Actions) 1. This action is not subject to Rule 29 Remand for the following reason(s): (concise statement as to why this action is not remandable, e.g., party seeking equitable relief, declaratory judgment, action against commonwealth or municipaJity, etc:) This is a Complaint for Judicial Review pursuant to M. G.L. c. 40A as to the granting of a variance. 2. This action is subject to Superior Court Rule 29 and the following detailed statement pursu ant to Rule 29 sets forth the facts in full and itemized detail upon which the plaintiff relies as constituting the damages in this action: (if tort action, for example, specify doctors' bills, hospital bills, out of pocket expenses, etc. that would warrant a reasonable likelihood that recovery will exceed $7,500.) (if contract action, state with particularity damages which would warrant a reasonable likelihood that recovery will exceed $7,500.) . ... . . . ....... . . . ...... .. . .. .... . . ... . . ... .. ....... . ..I. ........ ... .. ....... (date) (signature of attorney of record or pro so) COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX DIVISION TRIAL COURT SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT CIVIL ACTION NO . NORMAND HOULE, Plaintiff VS . COMPLAINT JOHN R. TAFT, PATRICIA CAHILL TAFT, JAMES J. CAHILL, JR. , RICHARD BENCAL, EDWARD LUZINSKI , RICHARD FEBONIO, MARY JANE STIRGWOLT, JOHN GRADY, AND CITY OF SALEM, Defendants 1 . Plaintiff, Normand Houle, is an individual who resides at One Dearborn Lane, Salem, Essex County, Massachu- setts . 2 . Defendant, John R. Taft, is an individual who resides in care of James J. Cahill, Jr. at 70 Dearborn Street , Salem, Essex County,Massachusetts. 3. Defendant, Patricia Cahill Taft, is an individual who resides in care of- James J. Cahill, Jr. at 70 Dearborn Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts . 4. Defendant , James J. Cahill, Jr. , is an individual who resides at 70 Dearborn Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts . 5 . Defendant, Richard Bencal, a member and the Chairman of -1- the Board of Appeals for the City of Salem, Massachu- setts (hereinafter referred to as the "Board" ) , is an individual who resides at 19 Goodell Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts . 6 . Defendant, Edward Luzinski, a member of the Board, is an individual who resides at 25 Hardy Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts . 7. Defendant, Richard Febonio, a member of the Board , is an individual who resides at 4 C Arnold Drive, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts . 8. Defendant, Mary Jane Stirgwolt, a member of the Board, is an individual who resides at 17 Andrew Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts . 9 . Defendant, John Grady, an associate member of the Board, is an individual who resides at 27 Congress Street , Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts . 10 . The defendants , Richard Bencal, Edward Luzinski, Richard Febonio, Mary Jane Stirgwolt, and John Grady, constitute the duly appointed members and associate members of the Board of Appeals for the City of Salem (said defendants shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as "the Board" ) . 11. Defendant , City of Salem, is a municipal corporation established and existing under the laws of the Common- wealth of Massachusetts . 12. This action is an appeal brought pursuant to M.G .L. c. 40A, Section 17 for judicial review of a decision of the -2- Board, which decision was filed with the City Clerk for the City of Salem on January 30, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "the Decision" ) . A certified copy of the Decision is incorporated herein by reference and attached hereto as Exhibit A. 13. Plaintiff is a person aggrieved within the meaning of M.G.L. c. 40A, Section 17, by the Decision of the Board in granting a variance to defendants , John R. Taft, Patricia Cahill Taft and James J. Cahill, Jr. , as to the real property located at 70-72 Dearborn Street , Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts (hereinafter referred to as lithe Locus" ) . 14 . On or about November 30, 1990, the defendants , John R. Taft, Patricia Cahill Taft and James J. Cahill, Jr. , filed with the Board a petition for the granting of a variance as to the Locus wherein they requested per- mission for the division of land into two lots , the first which would contain 66 .28 feet of frontage and 16 , 500 square feet of land and the second which would contain 83. 6 feet of frontage and 15,579 square feet of land. 15. Thereafter a hearing was held before the Board on January 16, 1991 . 16 . At the conclusion of said hearing the Board, by a vote of four affirmative and one negative, voted to grant the requested variance to defendants, John R. Taft, Patricia Cahill Taft and James J. Cahill, Jr. . -3- 17 The Decision of the Board exceeds the authority of the said Board . 18. The reasons for the findings set forth in the Decision are Insufficient in law to warrant the granting of the variance to defendants , John R. Taft , Patricia Cahill Taft and James J. Cahill, Jr. and the Decision does not constitute a decision supported by proper reasons as required by M.G .L . c . 40A, Section 10 and Section 15 . WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands that this Honorable Court: 1 . After hearing all evidence pertinent to the authority of the Board, determine the facts , and upon the facts so determined, annul the Decision of the Board on the grounds that said Decision exceeds the authority of said Board; and, 2. Make such other decree as justice and equity may require. DATED: February 8, 1991 NORMAND HOULE By his attorney ROBERT F. PECK, JR . BBO # 393040 Peck & Beaton 265 Essex Street Salem, MA 01970 Tel . (508) 744-8180 -4- Titu of "�Wem' '�'fflassadjusetts Pourb af Av peal Jim 30 3 01 N" '51 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & PATRICIA TAFT (PETIT%MRS) , JOHN J. CAHILL JR. , (OWNER) FOR A VARIANCE AT 70-72 DEARBORN �SITY. A hearing on this petition was held January 16, 1991 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Richard Febonio, Mary Jane Stirgwolt and Associate Member John Grady. 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. Petitioners are requesting a Variance from the minimum lot width as defined in the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to divide two contiguous lots in this R-1 zone, and to construct a single family dwelling at 72 Dearborn St. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this 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 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 present at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . That the lot was previously designated as two lots and approved in the original subdivision plan. 2. That at the time petitioner purchased the lot designated as number 70 he already owned the lot designated as number 72. 3. That dividing the lots back to their original configuration, as requested, would leave 70 Dearborn St. with 15,579 square feet and 72 Dearborn St. with 16,500 square feet, both having over the 15,000 square feet required by the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance for an R-1 zone. 4. That the proposed single family dwelling will meet all setback requirements of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance for an R-1 zone. 5. That there was support and opposition voiced at the hearing. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & PATRICIA TAFT (PETITIONERS) , JOHN J. CAHILL JR. , (OWNER) FOR VARIANCE AT 70-72 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM page two 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 exist which specifically affect the subject property but not the district in general . 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief can 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four in favor of granting the request, one opposed (Ms. Stirgwolt) . The Variance from frontage is granted subject to the following conditions: 1 . The petitioners obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor. 2. That petitioner obtain all necessary permits and approvals from any other City of State Authority which has jurisdiction, including, but not limited to the Conservation Commission. Variance granted January 16, 1991 fJohn H. Grady, Associat'17member A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this deisioa, If any, shall be made Pursuant to Section 17 of the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date It filing Of this decision in the Office of the city Clerk, Pumuant to Mass. GeneraVl-aws. Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance or Rpeciai Permit granted herein shau not take effect until a COPY of the decision, bearing the cerfificaVon of the city Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has heen tiled, or that' If such appeal has been tiled, that it has been dismissed or denied IS recorded in the South Essex Registry of DeDds and indexed under the name or the owner of tecord or is recorded and noted On the ownees certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL, A TRUE COPY ATTEST: sep i e�RFusco, City Clerk CitU Lif !��Ujvm, fflassurijus cite Nourb of -Appeal JAM 30 F I L E#' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN 6 PATRICIA TAFT (PETITIqffyWkf�y'�q�-H ,ASS J. CAHILL JR. , (OWNER) FOR A VARIANCE AT 70-72 DEARBORN ST. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held January 16, 1991 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Richard Febonio, Mary Jane Stirgwolt and Associate Member John Grady. 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. Petitioners are requesting a Variance from the minimum lot width as defined in the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to divide two contiguous lots in this R-1 zone, and to construct a single family dwelling at 72 Dearborn St. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this 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 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 present at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . That the lot was previously designated as two lots and approved in the original subdivision plan. 2. That at the time petitioner purchased the lot designated as number 70 he already owned the lot designated as number 72. 3. That dividing the lots back to their original configuration, as requested, would leave 70 Dearborn St. with 15,579 square feet and 72 Dearborn St. with 16,500 square feet, both having over the 15,000 square feet required by the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance for an R-1 zone. 4. That the proposed single family dwelling will meet all setback requirements of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance for an R-1 zone. 5. That there was support and opposition voiced at the hearing. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & PATRICIA TAFT (PETITIONERS) , JOHN J. CAHILL JR. , (OWNER) FOR VARIANCE AT 70-72 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM page two 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 exist which specifically affect the subject property but not the district in general . 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief can 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four in favor of granting the request, one opposed (Ms. Stirgwolt) . The Variance from frontage is granted subject to the following conditions: 1 . The petitioners obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor. 2. That petitioner obtain all necessary permits and approvals from any other City of State Authority which has jurisdiction, including, but not limited to the Conservation Commission. Variance granted January 16, 1991 /John H. Grady, ASSoclatsPember 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 "ass- General Laws, Chapter soa and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decisio;in the office Of the City Clerk. Pursuant to mass. General Laws. Chapter 8os. Section ii, the Variance or '3;)ectai Permit granted herein sh0 not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing. the cert,fication of the City Clerk that 20 days h... elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that, If such appeal has been ri ted, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex F�egistry of Derds and indexed under the name or the owner of tecord or is recorded and noted on the ownees certificate of TM@. 130ARD OF APPEAL, (gitU of $a1em, 4jja953UrjjU9ejt5 Boarb of A�eaf An 30 3 FILE#r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & PATRICIA TAFT (PETITI9ffFj�_k.VjJQHN, J. CAHILL JR. , (OWNER) FOR A VARIANCE AT 70-72 DEARBORN ST. (R-1 I).1. A hearing on this petition was held January 16, 1991 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairm�an; Edward Luzinski , Richard Febonio, Mary Jane Stirgwolt and Associate Member John Grady. 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. Petitioners are requesting a Variance from the minimum lot width as defined in the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to divide two contiguous lots in this R-1 zone, and to construct a single family dwelling at 72 Dearborn St. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this 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 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 present at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . That the lot was previously designated as two lots and approved in the original subdivision plan. 2. That at the time petitioner purchased the lot designated as number 70 he already owned the lot designated as number 72. 3. That dividing the lots back to their original configuration, as requested, would leave 70 Dearborn St. with 15,579 square feet and 72 Dearborn St. with 16,500 square feet, both having over the 15,000 square feet required by the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance for an R-1 zone. 4. That the proposed single family dwelling will meet all setback requirements of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance for an R-1 zone. 5. That there was support and opposition voiced at the hearing. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & PATRICIA TAFT (PETITIONERS) , JOHN J. CAHILL JR. , (OWNER) FOR VARIANCE AT 70-72 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM page two 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 exist which specifically affect the subject property but not the district in general . 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief can 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four in favor of granting the request, one opposed (Ms. Stirgwolt) . The Variance from frontage is granted subject to the following conditions: 1 . The petitioners obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor. 2. That petitioner obtain all necessary permits and approvals from any other City of State Authority which has jurisdiction, including, but not limited to the Conservation Commission. Variance granted January 16, 1991 )JoghngH!LGrady, Associat ember 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 mass. General Laws, Chapter 808 and shall be filed within 20 days after the date Of filing of this decisio'n'm the Office Of the City clerk. Pursuant to mass. Generaj�Laws. Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance or 3peciai P,rmit Rranterf herein sha:l not take effect until a copy of the deciSlOn. bearinti. the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have ejapsen and no appeal has been filed, or that, If such appeal has been fi:ed, that it has been clismissea or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of De�ds and indexed under the name Or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner-s certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL, Citt7 Lif 'j�ajvm, fflassucIlus cite Soarb of -Appezd JAN 30 02 F I L E# DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN 6 PATRICIA TAFT (PETIT, J. CAHILL JR. , (OWNER) FOR A VARIANCE AT 70-72 DEARBORN ST. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held January 16, 1991 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Richard Febonio, Mary Jane Stirgwolt and Associate Member John Grady. 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. Petitioners are requesting a Variance from the minimum lot width as defined in the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to divide two contiguous lots in this R-1 zone, and to construct a single family dwelling at 72 Dearborn St. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this 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 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 present at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . That the lot was previously designated as two lots and approved in the original subdivision plan. 2. That at the time petitioner purchased the lot designated as number 70 he already owned the lot designated as number 72. 3. That dividing the lots back to their original configuration, as requested, would leave 70 Dearborn St. with 15,579 square feet and 72 Dearborn St. with 16,500 square feet, both having over the 15,000 square feet required by the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance for an R-1 zone. 4. That the proposed single family dwelling will meet all setback requirements of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance for an R-1 zone. 5. That there was support and opposition voiced at the hearing. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & PATRICIA TAFT (PETITIONERS) , JOHN J. CAHILL JR. , (OWNER) FOR VARIANCE AT 70-72 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM page two 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 exist which specifically affect the subject property but not the district in general . 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief can 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four in favor of granting the request, one opposed (Ms. Stirgwolt) . The Variance from frontage is granted subject to the following conditions: 1 . The petitioners obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor. 2. That petitioner obtain all necessary permits and approvals from any other City of State Authority which has jurisdiction, including, but not limited to the Conservation Commission. Variance granted January 16, 1991 )Jo4hn ��Gr&ady, Associat ember A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, it any,shall be made Pursuant to section 17 of the mass. General Laws, Chapter 808 and shall be filed within 20 days after the date at filing of this decisio;in the office of the city Clerk. Purquant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have th or ipeciai Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of e elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, If such appeal has been Ned, that it h11 been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of DePds and indexed under the name or the owner or record or is recorded and noted on the ownees certificate at Title. 13QARD OF APPEAL -tV of '�Ujrm, fflassucilusetts Bourb of -Av peal IN 30 3 01 P11 151 F ILE-ir DECISION ON THE PETITION Or JOHN PATRICIA TAFT (PETITI9KP,5, A S S' J. CAHILL JR. , (OWNER) FOR A VARIANCE AT 70-72 DEARBORN ST. (R'�T�' --- A hearing on this petition was held January 16, 1991 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Richard Febonio, Mary Jane Stirgwolt and Associate Member John Grady. 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. Petitioners are requesting a Variance from the minimum lot width as defined in the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to divide two contiguous lots in this R-1 zone, and to construct a single family dwelling at 72 Dearborn St. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this 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 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 present at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . That the lot was previously designated as two lots and approved in the original subdivision plan. 2. That at the time petitioner purchased the lot designated as number 70 he already owned the lot designated as number 72. 3. That dividing the lots back to their original configuration, as requested, would leave 70 Dearborn St. with 15,579 square feet and 72 Dearborn St. with 16,500 square feet, both having over the 15,000 square feet required by the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance for an R-1 zone. 4. That the proposed single family dwelling will meet all setback requirements of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance for an R-1 zone. 5. That there was support and opposition voiced at the hearing. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & PATRICIA TAFT (PETITIONERS) , JOHN J. CAHILL JR. , (OWNER) FOR VARIANCE AT 70-72 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM page two 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 exist which specifically affect the subject property but not the district in general . 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief can 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four in favor of granting the request, one opposed (Ms. Stirgwolt) . The Variance from frontage is granted subject to the following conditions: 1 . The petitioners obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor. 2. That petitioner obtain all necessary permits and approvals from any other City of State Authority which has jurisdiction, including, but not limited to the Conservation Commission. Variance granted January 16, 1991 )Joghn!4H Grady, Associat ember A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, it any, Shall be made Pursuant to Section 17 of the Mass. General Laws, Chapter BOB, and Shall be filed within 20 days after the date Of filing of this decision in the office of the city Clerk, Pursuant to Mass. General LaWs, Chapter so% Section i i, the Variance or '3pecjai Permit granted herein shail not take effect until a COPY of the decision, bearinF the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have eiapsed and no apoeal has been filed, or that, If such appeal has been Ned, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of DePcls and indexed under the name or the owner of record Or is recorded and noted fn the owner's certificate Of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL GOODMAN AND MUGGEO ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW THE PRINCE BURDING 265 ESSEX STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 LOUIS J.MUGGEO* TELEPHONES CARL D.GOODMAN SALEM AREA(508)741-1177 BOSTON AREA(617)581-9531 LYNN M. MURPHY THOMAS 0. HAGGARD OF COUNSEL 'ALSO ADMITTED FLORIDA&ILLINOIS January 24, 1991 Clerk, Zoning Board of Appeals City Hall Annex 1 Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Re: Petition of James and John Cahill and Patricia Taft 70-72 Dearborn Street, Salem, MA Gentlemen: Please be advised that I represent an abuttor to the above- referenced premises. It is my understanding that there recently was a variance granted to sub-divide a lot at 70-72 Dearborn Street. Would you please contact the undersigned as soon as a decision has been prepared for filing. We enclose a self- addressed stamped envelope for your convenience. V y y t ours, tr CARL D. GOODMAN CDG/msg Enclosure 12-26-WOUQ:0153071-LEGA 11 12-26-i0-0120:03.53071-LEGA CITY OF SALEM CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL BOARD OF APPEAL 745-9595 Ext. 381 745-9595 Ext. 381 Will hold a public hearing for all persons inter- Will hold a public hearing for all persons inter- ested in the petition submitted by John and Patricia ested in the petition submitted by John and Patricia Taft for a Variance from frontage to allow division truct a single family Taft for a Variance from frontage to allow division of land into two lots and to cons of land into two lots and to construct a single family dwelling at 70-72 Dearborn St.(R-1).Said hearing dwelling at 70-72 Dearborn St.(114).Said hearing to be held Wednesday, January 16, 1991 at 7:00 to be held Wednesday, January 16, 1991 at 7:00 P.M., One Salem Green, 2nd floor. p.m., one Salern Green, 2nd floor. RICHARD A. BENCAL, Chairman RICHARD A. BENCAL, Chairman January 2, 9, 1991 January 2, 9, 1991 12-26-90.06:20:03.5307 I-LEGA 12-26-90.06:20:03.53071-LEGA CITY OF SALEM CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL BOARD OF APPEAL 745-9595 Ext. 381 745-9595 Ext. 381 Will hold a public hearing for all persons inter- Will hold a public hearing for all persons inter- ested in the petition submitted by John and Patricia ested in the petition submitted by John and Patricia Taft for a Variance from frontage to allow division Taft for a Variance from frontage to allow division orland into two lots and to construct a single family of land into two lots and to construct a single family dwelling at 70-72 Dearborn St.(R-1). Said hearing dwelling at 70-72 Dearborn St.(R-I). Said hearing to be held Wednesday, January 16, 1991 at 7:00 to be held Wednesday, January 16, 1991 at 7:00 P.M., One Salem Green, 2nd floor. P.M., One Salem Green, 2nd floor.. RICHARD A. BENCAL, Chairman RICHARD A. BENCAL, Chairman January 2, 9, 1991 January 2, 9, 1991 12-26-90.06:20:03.53071-LEGiV CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL 745-9595 Ext. 381 Will hold a public hearing for all persons inter- es,ted in the petition submitted by John and Patricia Taft for a Variance from frontage to allow division of land into two lots and to construct a single family dwelling at 70-72 Dearborn St.(R-D. Said hearing to be held Wednesday, January 16, 1991 at 7:00 P.M., One Salem Green, 2nd floor. RICHARD A. BENCAL, Chairman January 2, 9, 1991 APPEAL CASE 110. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9i'M 0f -'551MT1 4&!5�jachuseffq C/ -04 -Irb of JAFFC- I --toc FO THE EOARD OF APPEALS: and Detitioners The i�'ndersigned represent that they ivc are tije owners/of a certain parcel Of land located at No. .��-.7-2. .D-e-a-rborn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Street; Zoning. DiSWS�. . . . . . R 1 affected by Section(s). .U�. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; and said parcel is 11 of the ;1assachusetts State Building Code. Plans dcscribing the work proposed, have been sutrAtted to tile Inspector of Buildings i.n accolldance ,-,,ith Section IX A. 1 ol the Zoning lu:-dilnance. This is a direct anoeal for the division of land into two lots, the first which would comtain 9,?.,.28 �petof frontage and 16,500 sa. ft. of land and the Second which would co jitainfR�6feet of frontage and 15,579 square feet of land. LU M:r C�j c::D The Application for Permit was- denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following reasons : N/A The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance as the enforcement of said Zoning By-Laws artdckud4d$=;xes" would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the Undersigned and relief -may be granted without substantially dero- gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance uxAx2vb1*)R9o0ode for the follo-aing reasons: The Owne2; nurchased the vacant lot containing 70 feet of frontage with 15,579 scruare feet in Febilia'ry 13, 1976, which at that time was a legal size and buildable lot. On Anril 30, 1976, the Owner iDurchased the immediately adjacent property with the dwelling house in which he vresently resides which at the tine was also a legal sized lot, The two lots, however, merged into one lot by the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance Section VIII (B-3) on may 5, 1977, which now requires the present 100 feet of frontage and 15,000 square feet of land. The owner desires to transfer the vacant lot to his daughter and son-in�law who pro'pose to erect a single familv dwelling house thereon. The house to be constructed would conform in all other respects to all density regulations except frontage., Both lots are considerably larger than most lots in the neighborhood on which houses have been erected, It. is submitted that the division of the lots shall not be detrimental to the neighborhood and thetwo lots are substantiallylartjer than the other existing non-conformingr lots, Janes J. Cahill, Jr, Owner. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Dearborn Street, Salem Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telephone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John R, Taft and Petitioner. Patricia Cahill Taft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C/ J,arne s Cahill, Jr,, Address. . rbo Str en Date. t Y' G ORG t Y of I Telephon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I BY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . their t o y, GEORGE P, VALLIS Three copies of the application must be filed with the S etary of the Board of Appeals with a check, for advertisinglin the amount of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The Evening News. 1\1 0............ ....................... PETITION TO 130ARD Or APPEALS LOCATION 70-.72 Dearborn Street .... . . .. . ...... ..........................Yam.e.s...F.....Cah.i.11.. ..Jr. and John -R. Taft ana Patricia Cahill Taft I'MITIONER......................................... ADDRESS..... Salem, MA ............. ................................... CONVTIONS ................................................................. ........................ ....................................... ................................................................. ................................................................. ............................................................. 4........................................ ............. PETITION APPROVED.................... Ef DENIED......... ............... ....... 19......... BKt217 PG182 ,,asArGHU@a"G QUIVOLAN, Cases @No A.....(INDIVIDUAL)661 n Charles Goutzos4as I am the Trustee of the Dearborn Realty Trust, u�der a written Declaration of Trust dated June 6, 1972 and recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds, Book S874, Page 332, of Peabody, Essex Cowry,Massachusetts, hjtAXXX%Y1AUA for consideration paid.and in full consideration of Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred .......................................... ($16 a S00.00) Dollars---------- grantsto James F. Cahill, Jr. of !Mwr, MA55. with rialtrialm rautualfill IDescription,and Dworebrancess,if"Ill The land in Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts, shown as Lot 18 on a plan entitled, "Subdivision Plan Wellington Park, owner - Larch Realty Trust, Registered Land Surveyor R. J. sotiros, dated October 16, 1972", which plan is recorded at said Deeds, Plan Book 128, Plan 6. For my title see deed of Robert R. Wall, Tr. dated October 29, 1973 and recorded at said Deeds, Book 6024, Page 308. Cf-)MmCf:V,1FALTH OF tAAS1,AC"USZTT.4 5, "r r.- (I -�w .1 (J 7 6 2 q 4jj ,�q L-------- -1 IPY,hancl and seal this .......ha.........day of...-F-0-TYfL-TY............ 193A. .......... .........................................4..........................4.......... ........ . .. .... .......... Trustee a ................................................................4.............. ............................4........................4...... .............................................. .......................... .......4...................................................................... 134flammumatraLil;at Analmetimitus February 13 , ig 76 Essex, as. I h/ -A4J.D A-S' 1AU%VIP 111- 4 Then personally appealed the above named Charles Goutzos ra 7 efore and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be his ree act n cc .. .. .. .... ......*......... N It/q./ MY canorissio. /0 19S-1 "Pim (olodividul joint Teressals—Tentats in Common—Tenants by the Entirety.) CH"M 185 SEr 6 AS AMENDED BY CHAFM 497 OF 1969 Eveq deed Presented for Nonfat shall contain of baso endorsed upon it the full courest,midence and Fast,office add"of the grant" And A tental of the mount of the full ote,idnodua thereof in dollar,of the ounce of the Other c=idmUO.therefor it Out ddimod 'for"Y Hens Of man=sm.The full consideration shall man the tout price (Of the ODAV 0"ce ithout deduction 3 h.11 be mordod as put of 11�s d-d. bythellfant"or sensuous.. 0 .1— —1 — —1.�fri,.uli".olm Ann I th on.All such cuslot"mullal And Feel BK6236 PG573 We, HAL C. RICHARDSON, JR. and LOUISE S. RICHARDSON, husband and wife, as tenants by the entiretyr both of Salem, Essex County,Massachusetts, for consideration paid,grant to JAMES F. CAHILL, JR. of 70 Dearborn Street, said Salem with quitclaim tobtriants the [and in said Salem# together with the buildings thereon, situated at 70 Dearborn Street, bounded and described as follows: NORTHWESTERLY by Dearborn Streetr sixty-six and twenty-eight hundredths (66.28) feet; NORTHEASTERLY by land now or formerly of Charles H. McManus, et ux, two hundred twenty and two tenths (220.2) feet; SOUTHEASTERLY by high water line of the North River, sevent (75) feet; SOUTHWESTERLY by Lot A, as shown on a plan hereinafter referred to, two hundred forty-six (246) feet; Containing 16,300 square feet of land according to said plan and shown as Lot B on plan entitled# "Land of Isadore L. and Mary M. Gallant, Dearborn St., Salem, Mass., Scale 1" = 40', dated November 1966, Edwin T. Brudzynski, Registered Surveyor", recorded with Essex South District Registry of Deeds, in Book 5411, Page 721. Being the same premises conveyed to us by deed of Lester B. Brackett, Jr., et ux dated October 21, 1968 and recorded with said Registry, Book 5569, Page 369. Said prwises are conveyed subject to real estate taxes for the period July 1, 1975 through June 30, 1976, which the grantee herein assumes and agrees to pay# and which have been apportioned as of this date. Full consideration for this deed is $61,000.00. C' -A Pitnes, our hands and stals this................ day of .....................lg.zk .................................................................................................... Essex, A-,�bl_ 367 1976 Then pawn&Uy appeared the above named HAL C. RICHARDSON, JR.and LOUISE S. RICHARDSON and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their i c ndd efor a zSSzX S8. RECORDEDJ�4�976 JSV. PAST_.J _2X IN*T ro 0-4 00) cl; 4b 0 4 lb 4 A Cb ib CO APPEAL CASE N 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 09ilU Gf �3ZTIMT 4-HM55aC4115effS P oarb Lif JAFFCA t FO THE COARD OF APPEALS: and netitioners The undersigned represent that they ivc are the cwners/o� a certain parcel of la;d located at NO. .��-7Z Dearborn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d sai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .StrFet; Zonin q Dis%i �. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .; -a i., parcel is affected by Scction(s) . . . . . . . . of the ;.Iassachusetts State Building Code. Plans dcscribing the worl< proposed, have been sub,Atted to the Inspector of Buildings in accorda:ice �-Jth Section IX A. 1 ol the Zoning Ordinance. This is a direct .anueal for the division of land into two lots, the first which would corWain 6EF�28 f t of frontage and 16,500 sa. ft. of land and the SeCond which would coqlain 8f�6feet;,of frontage "'and 15,579 square feet of land. LLJ a_ :�- a) The Application for Permit was- denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following reasons: N/A The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the termq of the Salem Zoning Ordinance as the enforcement of said Zoning By-Laws andcAkj4 ft" would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the Undersigned and relief -may be granted without substantially dero- gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance for the following reasons: The (>jxieK.purchased the vacant lot containing 70 feet of frontage with 15,579 scruare feet in Febeiia'ry 13, 1976, which at that time was a legal size and buildable lot. On Anril 30, 1976, the Owner ourchased the immediately adjacent property with the dwelling house in which he presently resides which at the tine was also a legal sized lot. The two lots, however, merged into one lot by the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance SectionVIII(B,3) on May 5, 1977, which now requires the present 100 feet of frontage and 15,000 square feet of land. The Owner desires to transfer the vacant lot to his daughter and son-in-law who nropose to erect a single family dwelling house thereon, The house to be 'constructed would C`Oni�rrft in all other resoects to all density regulations except frontage, Both lots are considerably larger than most lots in the neighborhood on which houses have been erected, It- is submitted that the division of the lots shall not be detrimental to the neighborhood and thetwo lots are substantiallylarqer than the other existing non-,conforning lots, Janes J. Cahill, Jr, Owner. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Dearborn Street, Salem Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telephone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John R, Taft and Petitoner. .!�atricia Cahill Taft i . . . . . . . . . ... .:� . . .. . . . . . . . . . . C/ James Cahill, Jr, , Address. . . . . . . . . . Date.� 0 rbo . Street,' SaIeT*a' Telephon . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . By. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . their t o y, GEOK-E P, �7ALLIS t y of 1 Three copies of the application must be filed with t 1* he Board of he S etary of t Appeals with a check, for advertising In the amount of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The Evening News. IN,0............ ................... ITION TO BOARD Or APPEALS LOCATION -72 Dearborn street . .. ...... .... .....................j�� F Cah i 11 Jr and orohn- R.*Taft ana Pa�ricia Cahill Taft TITIONER.......................................... DRr-SS..... ....Dearb5m.n...5,tX.QQJ; lem, MA ............. ........................ ......... CONIDMIONS ...................................... ....................... ............................. ...................... .......... .............. ............................................... ................. ............ ................................ ............................... ................................ .........................................Is................... r-TITiON APPROVED.................... DENIED.......................... r7 19......... —jar to <�Vpz .11lel tloo 6� b Al. N'�07 1� IV : 4 1, rd 10554 50 609 139/0 c 08 R IQ% ,.,VL 12,447 V 4b \9 314 //,070 613 18072 �01 612 457 A lb6o POOL 09 00 'lot tP 0 u <6 00 'o 41 0 13. 9 BOARD OF ASSESSORS CITY HALL PAGE. . ,-SALEM,. MA 01970 1 2 DATE 12/17/90 2 3 -'ABUTTERS- L 3 -k CERTIFIED i IST 4 SUBJECT PROPERTY: MAP. 36 LOT. 0486 S I UFF. MAP: 36 LOT: 0499 6 PROPERTY ADDRESS. 0070 DEARBORN STREET' PROPERTY ADDRESS: 0072 DEARBORN STREET 8 7 A 5-'i Lb b L 1) 0014LH CAH.rrt.. JAI-lEl-r--j-R--------ASS=-D-OWlq R: RES F jR 9 a - ,, -, I -I 1 11 ;�, - ,, ,, I I I : -I . - 11 0 X :2 MAP LOI zsuf-l- PHOPLKi Y AVEJKLbb ASSESSED OWNER itAftiNG ADDRESS 3 :4 12 27 0612 0065 DEARBORN STREET MEEGAN OWEN J 65 DEARBORN ST V�� 16 13 mARTE-T--- SALEM PIAUI Y IU 17 14 27;,0613 -80-1-- 0067. DEARBORN: STREET UA -MCMANUS JOANNE 'A,- 67 DEARBORN STREET UAL—' :19 15 SALEM NA 01970 20 6 2/ U61i 6U2 UU6/ VEAHBOHN Zj I Hf-t.. I VU U.UL.Klb5 L-.Arr.Arm 's 6 9 D ItEA.If I 11.1 1 11� I:f 21 SALEM MA 0-1970 22 23 36 04-87 0068 DEARBORN STREET GALLANT ISIDORE L 68 DEARBORN 24 PIA H v M 111A 0 1 7 r u 25 o 36-0458 0066 DEAR6ORN' STREE'T oBRIEN4 PETER-'A 66 DEARBORN ST 2G 27 I SOPHIA C SALEM MA 01970 2 36 0300 0002 DEARSORN LANE DEARBORN tAtip, 28 29 23 SALEM MA 01970 30 31 24 36 0502 0006 DEARBORN LANE PAPALARDO SAMUEL L JR 6 DEARBORN LANE 32 25 yf c-fo Rf t, SALE!f MA of 19:70 33 V 34 36 8 37 3 9 : 0 40 31 41 32 :2 33 44 34 45 0 35 :11 6 48 49 39 52 40 53 41 54 55 42 56 43 57 -M 58 44 45 60 46 61 47 12 0 3 48 64 43 65 67 51 'a 52 69 70 53 71 54 72 55 z li 0 .6 PETER M. CARON 140 75 CHI EF ASSESSOR elv CN 32K-55W 6-x-9 1%04' All ®RM as RON R12 INNIAM%iil - 2 0 al, �Nlxwll__Ol lan WA gu �P& 00- W11-60 1 111 1 NO N-21 - _1 WIN HIM M RP f;, A,r,WM._ I% Aff, :,-nN Ell 0.'. *7 1. LJ LJ LJ "'t tz.; Ij oD 4r I All rig J76 Y NO "A"R RAM"k i for "gM low NO, rl I Fro", 000 ON Itil m . ......... s � y - '% ,� x ` • ;. i b n , J '� D g Y a � .y Y n S?p� � + .� y :7 a Y a �� c z � � , � c ` � bw s �a ' y � o ' s � a W. o . � s, .. `` ..- .. Tt zvi WIN. I "M��4 @F4 &0,%- ol og�jR Qgf MAi MIN OW IVA AAFA W-11 J-11 3- A RPA 'Au VrA LU f wg ,ly-I fig' JW ; W j IRA A ol ' l / 1 / *_ � r ' ' _ �'_ �� ' t• wi:€ � '�t4� yy. i3.i'� Y� i a{�,�t Y� Y' �� # At�� -� '> 3`mA��1a Gvnf&�, I _, 'Ag of .4.4 R.-V-9- Mi" .-41T 1991 t6M *NV ax g 51 Manh . 11i Moll ---------- 17 n/f Raymond A.& Madeline R Michaud L" A no.16 t n/f Fred 8 Elizabeth Plece*lcz no.14 OQ_ _LQ S. 2.10 M S 'q/ hydrant "I of Er est e�l U, 4)!0"' , w 90'bend 45 gate _j 10,237 t sf Q: E a _0 10,192'sf no.8 tu N61' 3d-00"\N 72.5 N(61�3d-Od'l LO sf 7,139rs.f. 'ow westa" 44s.f. 8,,3 a, n e Z' w N61'-3d-()d W 0.7 .19 1 k % 7 Odl "72.5 3417 0 1�80 co te g'gate Istin e, in GO T Existing Sewer lc� N61�3d-Od'\N T" N610-3d-Od'W 179:t oou'+1001 jide DRAIN 2(T' - -1 BOTTOM AsEMENT a RIGHT OF 6 a 1!�,579±sf NISI�301- 1 "W 0 C, at 2� N61 0000"W L/f Ha I C_Jr a' n/ Hal C Jr. Ek Louis"a Richardson j �f Sciern specifliaotions T$,in the bd!xAs!Qn hu,.� open) co i'y=lbase brick(standard type) -C) Q: PLAN OF LAND IN- : SALEM 4 _4� F o o C)Sp -z;z `F� � .� , _�- ., <:ffa, B0,217 PG182 4MAVCHUSEWS QUITCLAI,Oscar, SHORV V*AM(INDIVIOUAL)851 I, Charles Goutzos4as I am the Trustee of the Dearborn Realty Trust, under a written Declaration of Trust dated June 6. 1972 and recorded with the Esse x South District Registry of Deeds, Book 5874, Page 332, of Peabody, Essex Gininty,Maucichusetts, r consideration paid,and in full consideration of Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred ;WXgIcKMAX�A fo ($16 a S00.00) Dollars--------r- Is grantsto James F. Cahill, Jr. with quitrIatm cournants of N 17 AIA"d V jDactiptiM and WICUMblarea,if M3 The land in Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts, shown as Lot #8 on a plan entitled, "Subdivision Plan Wellington Park, owner - Larch Realty Trust, Registered Land Surveyor R. J. Sotiros, dated October 16, 1972 which plan is recorded at said Deeds, Plan Book 128, Plan 6. For my title see deed of Robert R. Wall, Tr. dated October 29, 1973 and recorded at said Deeds, Book 6024,- Page 308. C0MIAr1t:V.1FAL1H OF I`AAS',ACHUSr77q -,Vlwa gzg 3 7. ff-75 4VLl this........k�.........day of.....Feb.T.Y.;txy.............. 1.93-0.. 19tittram....My..�hand and seal ........................ ...... Tru....................................................... stee aforesa(id .............................................................................. ............................................I.................................. ............................................................................... ............................................................................... Essex, as. February ig 76 NPI V/P "D 457 Then personally appeared the above norned Charles I �-S ;V,76SA43) and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be his ree act n ee Clore .. ..... ....... ..........I......... N. F.bHc—jj0 c MY cournissio."Fire, 19 (4,Icadividust—joint Tenuarats—Timants in Consumer—Tensunts by the Entirety.) CHAPTER Ills SEC 6 AS AMMMED BY CHAPrER 497 OF 1969 Evcq deed prevented for record shall contala ar,Issas endorsed upon it the full assur.midern,and past office address of the grocater and a rental of the sanw..t of the fall consideration therrof In dollars or the WWW of the other co.id,.d=therefor,if net delivered '00 for my licm Of for 0 Pacific W.=sum.ne full consick!'�ca shall namn the WWI prim for the con,,ycc ,itho.a ded.00 crecra.All such cmdraerntnts and mi I hall be rccoudrd - Pact of th, card. eac,unlim"a ass. by.the gpina,of rctnaininal.th I., I : . .. - ,--. —1 ——:....1 A—s�A-11—1.� larrOldi-unless BK6236 PG573 We, HAL C. RICHARDSON, JR. and LOUISE S. RICHARDSON, hus band and wife, as tenants by the entirety# both of Salem, Essex County.'Mastachuntu. for consideration paid,grant to JAMES F, CAHILL t JR, of 70 Dearborn Street, said Salem with tinitclaien cobermule thelandin said Salem, together with the buildings thereon, situated at 70 Dearborn Street, bounded and described as follows: NORTHWESTERLY by Dearborn Street, sixty-six and twenty-eight hundredths (66.28) feet; NORTHEASTERLY by land now or formerly of Charles H. McManus, et ux, two hundred twenty and two tenths (220.2) feet; SOUTHEASTERLY by high water line of the North River, seventy-five (75) feet; SOUTHWESTERLY by Lot A, as shown on a plan hereinafter referred to, two hundred forty-six (246) feet; Containing 16,500 square feet of land according to said plan and shown as Lot B on plan entitlede "Land of Isadore L, and Mary M, Gallant, Dearborn St., Salem, Mats., Scale 1" - 40' , dated November 1966, Edwin T. Brudzynski, Registered Surveyor", recorded with Esse,x South District Registry of Deeds, in Book 5411, Page 721. Being the same premises conveyed to us by deed of Lester B. Brackett, Jr., at ux dated October 21, 1968 and recorded with said Registry, Book 5569, Page 369. Said premises are conveyed subject to real estate taxes for the period July 1, 1975 through June 30, 1976, which the grantee herein assumes and agrees to pay, and which have been apportioned as of this date. Full consideration for this deed is $61,000.00. Agitnt".......Our hands and seals this............... -day of M.'Oli.....................t9.7k ................................... .................................... .... .. %:he Cmageonta"114 Essex, AITJL 367 1976 Then peraonally appeared the above...ed HAL C. RICHARDSON, JR.and LOUI RICHARDSON and acknowledged the tonzoins lnstmmcnt to be their f c ndd efor a .......... ..... ....... FIN. XSSEX 8S. RECORD 976 JSV. PAST I INST 9 7: N 762,500 E 559,500 N 2 4 5 0, 00 ip IVA 45 (o A 60 00 1 10 Q0 POOL WO 41 13. 9 VO % '-s) Z, ESSEX RECtSM OF DEEDS.SO.DISTS"K.MhSS. 7AI RagWa of OeedS zoor- 5 COO P-00 ax THIS PLAN HAS BEEN REDUCED. FOR C 0.3 R ECT SCALING SEE ORIGINAL ON FILE. I OAI—Cqell;-� ian,�l Ole C37— Z 5-),q -Slc�le Am--k�q A low I-4= ESIAX REC45TRY OF DEEDS.SO.DIST.SALEK MSS. ll�eivikxl V&P,0- 61 1964 withl&"d: . 4�c� qlcd .2el- "I. p niod"vj^. 19 Rtoioa of 0 s ZOY4 11'171-lao a, THIS PLAN HAS BEEN REDUCED. FOR CORRECT SCALING SEE ORIGINAL ON FILE. 0 d n/f Raymond A.a Madeline P..Michaud 1 FR . t h no.16 26y�\4 4 n/f Fred 81 h 13,10tsf, Elizabeth Piecewicz 4r SMH g U a ?� no.14 i = - f. , W SMH o y{\^6000: ,e V` I,�`p SMill FSI 2.10 Q� \ hydrant _ - �Z .,1 n/f Er est .BeNleau /0", 45 45° Safe 90'bend J Z 7J 10,237= s.f, E I p o' 3v,. 10,192,SJ Y _ 41 �6 N61°-30-OO W v Q ' 62.10 N N61 139*72. 7 1391 ,1 w 1 v• 1 � o y � S a� I v 10,5?8tS.f. O 4' Y o° 7,159%.f. o o $ s (Westart s.f. ne s W m N 1 MO � .. ,f0 ... 2 Za I Z , N_ N61°-30-OO�W o.7 ft •72.57 __- 34.17 "'� ` S__7 .Ofil_ __ C9 180 - c B 12,315t S.f. ii gote Ch 'Istin fi' water le v Existing 8 Sewer '9 N61°-3(1-0d'W VuE. Inv.=1 T :-" outfall r'\��0 179 3 0.00 t N 61°-30-Od'W j RC'pi, t%8 Propose 32 — BOTTOM 2j;—,d,T5RIG1� 1 EASEMENT 9RIGHT OF 0 15,579tsf. W I I o 1 N61°-30-OO W O ' Not P \V/ z / \ n/f Hal C.Jr. a Louise R1Chardson I salm specincattbns I (4j +T.s,in the subdivision h t .(rfg0 hand open) co ..>� Sal boss Y I rylr lid,brick lstandard typal + 1 O a PLAN OF LAND IN-': SALEM +—{--T i J t" t yr x r 'C v N NVF� n/f Raymond A.8 `s Madeline R Michaud FR \y no-16 h�h\ n/f Fred a Elizabeth Piecewicz 13,910'-sf. SMH Gj� H a no.14 coq 36 _ 3 20 A,%' .. W I� -00, "� `� 2+10 SMH hydrant , � 12 I.. Of Er est .Belleau 44JfRw dem. ° 90bend 45gale e Q - F4SFb ��e 10,237= s.f. e I of10,192tsf. Z Mv N61'_ _ 'h N61°-30-OO,w 62.10 Q OOw 72.5 ". - 91: = 1 _ 139t � 1 m c W W Ow u �_ -0 :o a- a 10,528=s.f s W estarti 0 7,139' . o m o g _ sfa w mMo vo z za > a .: R- 10 16 00 W 0.7 N N6 ' I - _ 72sr 3417 . ` ---� osl pe 140 12,315ts.f. Co B9ata m E Istin fi a r in � a t' •�pi1'H^ Existing 6 Sewer 5 - - N61°-3d-OOW VUE Inv.-1 7� .._• , Wpa_ tfOo.all . 179:t _. t - 1,161=5d-Odw RC.pill oe, - I ProposeIBes TOM a 2 wide cRaN� ASEMENT RIGHT OF BOT e L ®� 15,5792sf. ' I iiO , N61"-3d-OOW ( O EttO I f n/f' Hal C.Jr. 8 no.7o �1" Richardson lot Salem sDecificattbns 1 ¢T.'s yin rhe sobdiNsion - Co -� 9 ....(rl�gbj.lwnd "J W D Dp:SaleLpse j for i'B'd brick(standard ty De) a y I , •' PLAN OF LAND IN SALEM { 1 � r , a �•-, � e�s , .tea kp r ; y ;� Alow I-46C ES-AX REGSTRY OF DEEDS,SO. DVST.-SNXK.MhSS. P 7A I Filed"tiA. �5-000'19 66 RaqLl'ka of oseds e�4(/'K Z20-e zo Ye- rl /10 lvf' THIS PLAN HAS BEEN REDUCED. FOR GC.3RECT SCALING SEE ORIGINAL ON FILE. -------------- 17 FIG 182 ,"AV"USEWS OUITCLAIM DIon, SHORT SOMA,(INDIVIDUAL)661 I Charles Goutzos4as I am the Trustee of the Dearborn Realty Trust, ui�tder a written Declaration of Trust dated June 6 1972 and recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds, i0ok 5874, Page 332, of Peabody, Essex CowtyMas�achusetts, for consideration paid.and in full consideration of Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred .......................... ($16 a 500.00) Dollars------------------------ grantsto James F. Cahills Jr, of M /7 096C M,4�6- with qattriatm 9011trItIntil tDooription,and o0varribmeara,"Say) The land in Salem, Essex County,, massachusetts, shown as Lot #8 on a plan entitled, "Subdivision Plan Wellington Park, owner - Larch Realty Trust, Registered Land Surveyor R. J. Sotiros, dated October 16, 1972", which plan is recorded at said Deeds, Plan Book 128, Plan 6. For my title see deed of Robert R. Wall, Tr. dated October 29, 1973 and recorded at said Deeds, Book 6024, Page 308. COMMCNY.'EAL TH OF fAAS%ACHUSVT5 (73 3 7. 6 Z QV� 'D 0 313CNV. L. G 19ftrog....my-hand and seal this........ka.........day of.....E-Ab-ry-A-Ty.............. 19.1k. .................... ............................................................................... o i e�� i d� Trus .............................................................................. ................................................................I............... ..................... ..................................................I............................ .......................................................... of filaaaachuartis February 19 76 Essex, as. /&�)l VIP A40 Af Then personally appeared the above named Charles G Wig i and acknowledged the foregoing instrumeot to be his ree act n cc efore ............. A N. ublic—]%OA c MPH./ MY conam!"iOn (*Iodividol joint Tenants Terants in Common—Tenants by the Entirety.) CHAFM as SEC 6 AS AMUMED BY CHAPTER 497 OF 1969 Evcq deed Prevented for named sh-11 rent"n of have ondomd upon it oW foij Warne.modence and pon office add"Of the SWot" Am W1 of the ArWaint of the f.11 conalidDSHOA thereof In dOlIM of ft na'am of the other conoideration th=for,if not delivered a me" the cc.V ,yce withoot ded.ction for my New 01 for record as part of .d. Man=am-The fail sh-11 man the WWI prim for and met a 611 be cd It, d. wu by.the SfUttee Of endArMancou 1— ——i=-, far mcmdicat dIoW BK6236 PG573 We, HAL C. RICHARDSON, JR. and LOUISE S. RICHARDSON, husband and wife, as tenants by the entirety, both of Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts. for consideration paid, grant to JAMES P. CAHILL, JR. of 70 Dearborn Street, said Salem with quitclaim t.bertaut, the land in said Salem# together with the buildings thereon$ situated at 70 Dearborn Street, bounded and described as follows: NORTHWESTERLY by Dearborn Street, sixty-six and twenty-eight hundredths (66.28) feet; NORTHEASTERLY by land now or formerly of Charles H. McManus, et ux, two hundred twenty and two tenths (220.2) feet; SOUTHEASTERLY by high water line of the North River, seventy-five (75) feet, SOUTHWESTERLY by Lot A, as shown on a plan hereinafter referred to, two hundred forty-six (246) feet; Containing 16#500 square feet of land according to said plan and shown as Lot B on plan entitled, "Land of Isadore L. and Mary M. Gallant, Dearborn St,, Salemt Mass., Scale I" = 40', dated November 1966, Edwin T. Brudzynski, Registered Surveyor", recorded with Essex South District Registry of Deeds, in Book 5411, Page 721. Being the same premises conveyed to us by deed of Lester B. Brackett, Jr., et ux dated October 21, 1968 and recorded with said Registry, Book 5569, Page 369. Said premises are conveyed subject to real estate taxes for the period July 1, 1975 through June 30, 1976, which the grantee herein assumes and agrees to pay, and which have been apportioned as of this date. * Full consideration for this deed is $61,000.00. n '41 T� �;4,Qj I zi At"815 our hand3 andscals this.................. of ....................19.1k ................... ........................ ...... ................ Cho Ca Ansotsidiuselits Essex, A-I)bL 367 1976 Then persorudly appeared the above named HAL C- RICHARDSON, JR.and LOUISE S. RICHARDSON and ackno.ledged the foregoing instntment to be their tfg d tlefor e M, X.SS= 5S. RECORDna*_J_�976_39M. PAST___.L InT 0 CA CA 0 OV ocb th .X Cb 44 VIP, �& 0 tv� @4 mb fe DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES J. CAHILL, JR. , owner of 70-72 DEARBORN SIREET, FOR A VARIANCE f lots,, which would of.-�ale -.-ioiin�- -g _g =909;Vr�on �qe _qqi ents. Of� ---_--pe rm A HEARING ON THIS PETITION WAS HEI ON: January 17, 1991 WITH THE FIOLLOWING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairman; Members Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt; and Associate Hember ,John H. Grady. NOTICE OF THE HEARING WAS SENT TO ABU= AND OIHERS, AND NOTICES WERE PROPERLY PUBLISHED IN TIM SALEM EVENING NEWS IN ACCORDANCE WrIH MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAWS CHAPTER 40A. PETITIONER is requesting a variance of the minimum lot width as defined in th it� oof Salem Z Section VI, Table I. In order to divide two corrtk7u: lots in this R-1 Zoej THE VARIANCE WHICH HAS BEEN REQUES= MAY BE GRAN= UPON A FINDING BY THIS BOARD THAT: 1. SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST WHICH ESPECIALLY AFFECT THE LAND, BunDiNGs OR SMCIURE INVOLVED AND WHICH ARE NOT G04MAUY AFFECTING OTHER LAND, BUILDINGS OR SIRUCnRES IN THE DISTRICT; 2. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WOULD INVOLVE SUBSIANTIAL HARDSHIP, FINANCIAL OR CYMMqISE TO THE PETETIONER; 3. DESIRABLE REL EF MAY BE GRANTED WITHOUT SUBSTAN7IAL 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 ENFIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING- MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Desirable relief may b 6 without substantial d( men 0 the public good and wi lifying or substantial:� ri t to derogating from the the district or the purly of ordinance. oose 0 the 2. That the lot had Trevi designated as two lots and approved in the original s vision plan. to y t li !e inten f the t pre�i rigj1nal vis 3. That at the time Petitioner purchased the Lot designated as # 72, Petitioner owned # 70. 4. strict enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in substantial hardship to the appellant. ��Al 1 5. special conditions exist a this Lot which do not I laf I �" generally af in this District. ,ject thebth9 ',b4 /1,P DECISION ON THE PETITION OF 70-72 Dearborn Street for a Variance from the minimum frontage of a Lot. Page two ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARimG, = BOARD oF APPEAL cowums As FoLLows: 1. SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXIST WHICH SPECIFICALLY AF= THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BUT NOT THE DISTRICT IN GENERAL; 2. LIBERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WOULD INVOLVE SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP TO THE PETITIONERS; 3. DESIRABLE RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED WITHOUT SUBSIANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD AND WrIHOLTr NULLIFYING OR SUBSTANTIALLY DEROGATING FROM THE INTENT OF THE DISTRICT OR THE PURPOSE OF THE V1 ORDINANCE. THEREFORE, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VOTES 4-1 TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUESTED SUB= TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: �-1. That stru tUr to be built--on�the Lot,!0v==rm t=al, spec. 0 so requir s Cand�a �eras rovj�sio he ��9!oytp Q, diriance. ZonIng 2. rt titioner�obt:aiin?all nLary permits or approvals from �p any other City or State Autho ity which has Jurisdiction. VARIANCE GRANTED January,00 1991. �&Mb- ' MaW LANNINGI'ti� WITH THE D A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN =F TH!E ING AND THE CITY CLERK.