Loading...
42 ENGLISH STREET - ZBA 42 English St. R_2 Clart Realty Trust k L / ` I C ` 1 ram` (Cit" of aIemlpeal � ussttthusetts i � 1 i, DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CLART REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AT 42 ENGLISH STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 21, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Edward Luzinski, Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'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. The Board of Appeal, after hearing evidence presented and at the request of the petitioner' s Attorney, George Vallis, voted unanimously 5-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a Variance to allow construction of a single family dwelling in this R-2 district. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE July 21, 1993 Ateph Touchette, Vice Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. of �2z1Pm, rZISSFIC�iliSPtfB Au -6uttr3 of , pent DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CLART REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AT 42 ENGLISH STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 21, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Edward Luzinski, Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'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. The Board of Appeal, after hearing evidence presented and at the request of the petitioner's Attorney, George Vallis, voted unanimously 5-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a Variance to allow construction of a single family dwelling in this R-2 district. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE July 21, 1993 Steph n Touchette, Vice Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. -„tom (city of �ttlem; �ffl ttssttCltusPtts s -gnttrD of Aupeal 23 , ' v �S DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CLART REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AT 42 ENGLISH STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 21, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Edward Luzinski, Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'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. The Board of Appeal, after hearing evidence presented and at the request of the petitioner's Attorney, George Vallis, voted unanimously 5-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a Variance to allow construction of a single family dwelling in this R-2 district. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE July 21, 1993 Ateph Touchette, Vice Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. t itv ofuiem; � tlassuchusetts F BattrD of A peal 0S DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CLART REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AT 42 ENGLISH STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 21, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Edward Luzinski, Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'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. The Board of Appeal, after hearing evidence presented and at the request of the petitioner' s Attorney, George Vallis, voted unanimously 5-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a Variance to allow construction of a single family dwelling in this R-2 district. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE July 21, 1993 Steph n Touchette, Vice Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. iqb Ctu of ttiem; ttSSttC�1uSPttB s' -goara of ^A P esc! c 3 '" yf i'lr DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CLART REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AT 42 ENGLISH STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 21, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Edward Luzinski, Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'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. The Board of Appeal, after hearing evidence presented and at the request of the petitioner's Attorney, George Vallis, voted unanimously 5-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a Variance to allow construction of a single family dwelling in this R-2 district. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE July 21, 1993 Steph n Touchette, Vice Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. July 21, 1993 City of Salem Board of Appeal To:Francis X. Grealish Jr. ,Chairman Re:Petition submitted by Clart Realty Trust for variances at 42 English Street My name is Brian F. O'Neill. I am the owner of a two-family house at 40 English Street abutting the lot in question, and I wish to go on the record as being strongly opposed to the granting of variances at 42 English Street as submitted by the Clart Realty Trust. I fail to see how this. appeal meets the requirements of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 10, and Salem Zoning Ordinances Section 9-5 on variances. First, no special conditions affecting the landAinvolved. Second, substantial hardship is not demonstrated in the light of Clart Realty's long- term ownership of this lot, vacant since 1977 when the building there was demolished by order of the Salem Board of Health. It seems no attempt to rebuild was made, thus abandoning any nonconforming status held. Thirdly, English Street suffers from factors created by the crowded cheek-to-jowl building practices of the past, including noise, traffic, lack of parking,. and lack of privacy. To allow not one but the four variances requested would be a detriment to the public good, and would nullify the intent and purpose of today's lot size and setback requirements. This is especially true since the lot size at 42 English is not even one-quarter of the 15,000 square feet now required.. As an abutter whose house lies only about ten feet from the property line of the lot in question, I would be particularly negatively affected should these variances be given. I purchased this property knowing that this lot was non- buildable under present zoning laws. I also have concerns about the ownership responsibilities-or lack thereof- shown by Clart Realty in the past. The building once there was condemned by the city for its poor repair, its rubbish- strewn lot, and its fire danger( having had four fires in 1976 alone.) The vacant lot in recent years has been kept from being an eyesore and a health hazard by the efforts of neighbors, including myself. I strongly urge the Board of Appeals to deny this petition for variances. Sincerely, / Brian F. O'Neill 88 County Road Ipswich 01938 DATE OF HEARING PETITIONER LOCATION p� , :10TION: TO GRANT SECOND TO DENY SECOND TO RE-HEAR SECOND LEAVE TO WITHDRAW SECOND TO CONTINUE SECOND POLL CALL PRESENT GRANT DENY WITHDRAWW RE-HEAR CONTINUE STEPHEN O'GRAOY GEORGE A. AHMEDy FRANCIS GREALISH l' 1 'EDWARD LUZINSKI STEPHEN TOUCHETTE ASSOCIATE 71EMBERS RONALD PLANTE ARTHUR LABRECOUE CONDITIONS: 0 July 21 , 1993 iff fzngl*sh Street Salem, MA 01970 Board of Appeal One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Board: We are writing in response to the petition for construction of single family dwellings at 42 English and 4 Allen Streets. We wish to have this letter read and formally entered into the. -. record of tonight' s discussion as well as be informed in advance of any future appeals concerning the mentioned properties. . As homeowners of 34 English Street we feel the following reasons outlined below should be considered in denying the application for construction of such dwellings. Hi--torical Context of Street/Neighborhood: Numbered dwellings #46 - 30 on the even numbered side of the atreet where one of the proposed sites has five homes registered with the Salem Historic Society . A new home would displace itself among the existing registered homes. At this time Derby Wharf and the existing streets around are under consideration for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Areas in Washington, D.C. New constructions will dissuade English and Allen Streets from consideration of such prestigious nominations. Should these homes be permitted to be built a study should be done on the historical impact new dwellings would have in and among these historical existing structures. Street Traffic: The proposed dwellings will create more problems at the ._ intersection of Allen and English Streets. There motorists who turn off Derby Street enter it as a one way but at the said intersection are soon confronted with two-way traffic. A driveway at 42 English Street would be directly adjacent from the said intersection and will cause traffic hazards. Should these homes be permitted to be built a traffic analysis has to he implemented to consider changing English Street to a pnp-way fitreet like its neighboring streets. On-Street Parking: Many homes are established two-family dwellings with on-street parking located on the odd-numbered side of the street. The proposed new dwellings will clog on-street. Residents already have to compete with the overflow from the Salem Polish Falcon Club for on-street night time parking. Two new residencies will Wan RAar6 Vphiclp, A"ripq FR�ts.tFyyF�}FNl and after when visiting the new homes. Should these homes be permitted to be built resident parking=has to be instituted to help protect the establish homeowners who compete with the already too few on-street parking spaces available. Construction Fallout: An all Engli%h street homeowners know the soil is rocky and blasting to lay a foundation may be needed . In such a case, alder existing foundations may not be able to absorb such shock . Pre and Post-inspection of existing neighboring foundations (not Just the abutter) should be made to protect the homeowner in ,such said instances. Also residents will have to dealwillnoise construction/pollution . An ordinance for construction timer- should be instituted and followed so local residents can rely a - standard quiet time, with a copy going to all local neighbors. No- construction of anytime should be allowed on Sunday . Should these homes be permitted to be built certain guarantees should be given in writing to protect:-homeowners foundation and respected quiet time. - - Above are the mentioned reasons why we strongly feel such new dwellings will be detrimental to the overall neighborhood. We can be reached at home at 741-3124 to confirm the above fore- mentioned. te ly ,/1Power Jr Gary M Adams-, Co-owners of 34 English Street er • 4o 'ROM tLLIUTk L� !, ML . PC U 1-,V.7445918 P. 01 0�1 July 21 , 1993 11 Citv of Salem Board of Appeals Attn: Brenda Dear Board Members: I' IY My husband and 1 have been the homeowners of the single family home at 30 English Street for the past 5 1/2 years . we have just been Informed of the petition for construction of a single family dwelling on 42 English Street and we have several concerns : Parking. Parking on English street is very congested. It is often difficult to find a place to park . We would hope that this proposed home would have at least a driveway large enough for two cars . Homeownership. Our neighborhood does not need an absentee landlord. We would want the people who live there to own their home. Style . We would want any new buildings ' architecture to reflect and be consistent with the colonial and victorian style of Salem . New construction should only be built if it will be a significant asset to the area . Single family home. We would insist that the proposed building only be single family home; built with no possibility or consideration of dividing into smaller units . i Noise and Traffic. we have a small child and I would be concerned that the noise and traffic from the construction might be problematic. Thank you for letting us voice our concerns . 1 hope you take our concerns into consideration. Sincerely, 1 Roberta Moss-JacobowyE2 Roy Jacobowitz 30 English Street Salem , MA 741-2772 y July 21 , 1993 Q 091W dtreet Salem, MA 01970 Board of Appeal One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Board: We are writing in response to the petition for construction of single family dwellings at 42 English and 4 Allen Streets. We wish to have this letter read and formally entered into the record of tonight' s discussion as well as be informed in advance of any future appeals concerning the mentioned properties. As homeowners of 34 English Street we feel the following reasons outlined below should be considered in denying the application for construction of such dwellings. Historical Context of Street/Neighborhood: Numbered dwellings #46 - 30 on the even numbered side of the street where one of the proposed sites has five homes registered with the Salem Historic Society . A new home would displace itself among the existing registered homes. At this time Derby Wharf and the existing streets around are under consideration for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Areas in Washington, D.C. New constructions will dissuade English and Allen Streets from consideration of such prestigious nominations. Should these homes be permitted to be built a study should be done on the historical impact now dwellings would have in and among these historical existing structures. Street Traffic: The proposed dwellings will create more problems at the intersection of Allen and English Streets. There motorists who turn off Derby Street enter it as a one way but at the said intersection are soon confronted with two-way traffic. A driveway at 42 English Street would be directly adjacent from the said intersection and will cause traffic hazards. Should these homes be permitted to be built a traffic analysis has to he implemented to consider changing English Street to a pnp-Way street like its neighboring streets. On-Street Parking: Many homes are established two-family dwellings with on-street parking located on the odd-numbered side of the street. The proposed new dwellings will clog on-street. Residents already have to compete with the overflow from the Salem Polish Falcon Club for un-street night time parking. Two new residencies will wean @R"F6 VphjVAps� O"F4Vq FRL1s. FHFk R(l and after when visiting the new homes. Should these homes be permitted to be built resident parking has to be instituted to help protect the establish homeowners who compete with the already too few on-street parking spaces available. Construction Fallout: AS all English Street homeowners know the soil is rocky and blasting to lay a foundation may be needed . In such a case, older existing foundations may not be able to absorb such shock . Pre and Past-inspection of existing neighboring foundations (not dust the abutter) should be made to protect the homeowner in such said instances. Also residents will have to deal will noise ` construction/pollution . An ordinance for construction time should be instituted and followed so local residents can rely a standard quiet time, with a copy going to all local neighbors. No construction of anytime should be allowed on Sunday. Should these homes be .permitted to be built certain guarantees should be given in writing to protect.--homeowners foundation and respected quiet time. Above are the mentioned reasons why we strongly feel such new dwellings will be detrimental to the overall neighborhood. We can be reached at home at 741-3124 to confirm the above fore mentioned. tely , Power Jr - Gary M Adams, Co-owners of 34 English Street u7,?tit i4.; 11 : 46 FROM ELLIOT FINP.ELSTEIN• Pi i:•, Pi TO 1SO 7445915 P. 01 0 C;41 July 21 ; 1993 I: v. City of Salem Board of Appeals Attn : Brenda Dear Board Membaafi_ My husband and 1 ha% o Soon tho homeowners of the single family home at 30 English ,,,reet for the past 5 ii' years . we Have just been informed of the Petition for Construction of rl single family dwelling on 42 F'nglis . _Str =et and we have several concerns : Park?.ng . oarXing oto Lnglirn dtteet is very congested . it 1S often difficult to find A 1:3ac- to park . we 'WUU10 hope that this proposed home s,ovil+: hay,-, at "03t a Jrivwwa>' 3 r age enough fOt two Gai'S Homeowner 8ini ' . Ont n=i "C1vC�'_ hood Wen ,"t need an dbsentee 4 o t th > }' t G Y to own their lat)ciiort3 . E u�ulCi wen, _ r"..opie who 1. v.. there home . idI Style . We, w'!uIe Want ii« new buildings ' architect'ur'e to reflect and be cwn3: 8tont with �Le colonial and victolian style Of Sales. Now annnoc?7C. nn shc0d only be hoilt if it will be a Significant r;.eset to the area . ;lhglo fel l] a': howny, w011d insist that the proposed buli_ding only be oinglo fAWAY ilOoe: Dtt' lt, ulfh no possibility or consideration of ti,'iding ±.nO swallmr unlzs . i:0i5� and T7'r 3f f j.C. we hive d u111-j11 child and a wttl,Ild be concerned that ;no noisy uyd traffic from the construction (night be problematic_ Thank you for _yTtaag us 'mica onr conc "rp.s . 1 hope You take our concerns into considoratinD . Sincerely, I/ /1 % Ro'ilerta t�ioS3-3�c`:1pX>w' rt2 Roy Jac000wl t2 30 English Street Salim , MA 741- 2772 TOTAL P. O1 APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9T111 II G�cIjL'11T, c4n.11ZT55c�L125Eff5 T :. . 1o(Irb of hppr:il TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: The Undersigned represent that he is are the owrers of a certain parcel of land located t ,. 0. . . 42 English, , , , , , , , , , , , , , . . . . . . - , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .StrPet; Zoning District. . R-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : and said parcel is affected by Section(s ) . .vl.,. .Ta1D1e. 1. . . . �, a «. a n,, ;i,;_ ta .r�rP �T the nmd��5�+f' ��-�g�,;,��,,;L;,;�,�-,mak -,L,t.� ,�,; Salem Zoning Ordinance. Plans describing the work proposed, have been sutrd tted to the Inspector of Buildings in accorda::ce �.,ith Section IX A. 1 of the Zoning Crdinance. Petitioner proposes to construct a single family house on a lot containing 3,24�, s�re feet - with 37 feet of frontage on English street. The proposed structure' will not meet Ideyard and front yard setback requirements. rn c o "s r., N N G7 Ct N (sJ The Application for Permit was- denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following reasons : The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and,tihec�asiclimrg�cSca��c�u�cn$E�ec�,b�cx�&s i.l�i avcaxaxkho- p'. w�w��-.Fe :}. n4i�iLa.��_filad_. as the enforcement of said Zoning By-Laws and Building Code would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the Undersigned and relief nay be granted without substantially dero- gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and IEEade for the following reasons: The property..tas been in single and separate ownership since prior to .1963 and is surrounded by buildings on adjacent lots which makes it impossible to obtain additional land to make the property conform to existing density regulations. without a variance, it will be impossible to use the property. Sufficient area is provided for off-street parking spaces. It is sub- mitted that the proposed use will conserve the value of the land and enhance the values of the surrounding properties and is an appropriate use of the land. The immediate neighborhood is made uo of lots containing approximately the same square footage as the locus property. v VO OG - r O Owner. . .cl"t Realkv- corp. .` . . . . Address. . . .? waster stree , ,�t,, 0.1970. N Telephone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petitioner. . . . . . . . same. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Address. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 30, 1993 Date. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telep e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . By. . . . . . . �. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EOR P. VALLIS, Its Attorney Three copies of the application must be filed wi theI onSecretary of the Board of Appeals with a check, for advertising in the amoun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The Evening hews. 0li v boo ` r N a OV q II. J 60� 1`x.0 d. I� e �j yy6 �C1 ao If Gds ° �� •° � ` , '`�•(•d')c �q t,< °s L4tip�+` a s S=r�OgElllbfy C `8j \ \ Jtq: ry 9 qq • 0 IQ C2 a01 '!s Oq - c Lq m4 Ott. gt r+r s 6yq 6 Z� / \ r 0 6Z $ N N h 1 ra/ ,, � rr° y0Cb s6 4RI/ All Oil ,1 \-F\,p��� -f ° / �\ �7 \�\ o •. O \�' 'Lt`' 001: wti ° / a" �"!/O o9r' 2a a..•6' ar. ti�71' 0�' 60�\ \ti\ �\ rs ° a.� ,. spa • 0 �s9 � .7N � [�_ •� °r it aq� n0/� O� ' • .1c a/e4 r9 •r /' u Q 9• d L\ /sot ^` b �9i •e / a \ y s$'/ r •r \\ 0'W k y S • p y4 UO. n° r O s2� 0\ \ Ll9 ee �/ � s`�r / ,/ ` � � �y .m � Asa � yyS•• °°r cow\ � �/ • o t a / 8 e w APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �ttu o G`5clll'I1T� C'��Snacz u5Ptf5 u tocirb of map rai FO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: The Undersigned represent that he is are the owners of a certain parcel of land located at !;O. . .42 English, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,Street; Zoning District. . R-2 . and said parcel is a fected by Section(s) . .Qz,. .TapJe. l. . . . of theivdSsfa �} �;1�1Qx Salem zoning Ordinance. Plans describing the work proposed, have been submitted to the Inspector of Buildings in accordance with Section IX A. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner proposes to construct a single family house on a lot containing 3,248 square feet with 37 feet of frontage on English. street. The proposed structure will not meetideyard and front yard setback requirements. �^m -n �t E� The Application for Permit was- denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following reasons : The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and ;�;kC��_..= . nor «ha fie;` tee€ ,t ��� as the enforcement of said Zoning By-Laws and Building Code would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the Undersigned and relief nay be granted without substantially dero- gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and for the following reasons: The property_.bas been in ,single and separate ownership since prior to .1963 and is surrounded by buildings on adjacent lots which makes it impossible to obtain additional land to make the property conform to existing density regulations. Without a variance, it will be impossible to use the property. Sufficient area is provided for off-street parking spaces. It is sub- mitted that the proposed use will conserve the value of the land and enhance the values of the surrounding properties and is an appropriate use of the land. The immediate neighborho194 is made up of lots containing approximately the same square footage as the locus pro-perty. G a C� r_ r Owner. . cLaxt Realty• Corp. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . Address. . . .? Walter Stre� , AA, . . p�_g)p, Telephone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petitioner. . . . . . . . same. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Addres . . . . . . . . . . Date. , . June 30: 199J . , , Tele ho � . �. . • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . By . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OR E ?. VALLIS, Its Attorney Three copies of the application must be filed wit th Secretary of the Board of Appeals with a check, for advertising in the amount f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The Evening News. APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . gTiU II G 71L'11T� c �SSac�C ITSP S , v j 4 Ai,clrD of appeal rO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: The Undersigned represent that lie is are the owrers of a certain parcel of land located at NO. . .i2 English. . . . . . . . . . . .Street; Zoning District. . R-2 . . . . . and said parcel is affected by Section(s) . .uL,. rIbj-v-. 1. . . . of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Plans describing the work proposed, have been sub:d tted to the Inspector of Buildings in accordance with Section IX A. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner proposes to construct a single family house on a lot containing 3,24@' sjuare feet with 37 feet of frontage on English. Street. The proposed structure' will not mget Adeyard -and front yard setback requirements. m o 0 Ma ".cn va r.. �rn N !r�A C-0 The Application for Permit eras denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following reasons : The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and xgyq as the enforcement of said Zoning By-Laws and Building Code 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 and for the following reasons: The property bas been in single and separate ownership sincepriorto 1963 and is surrounded by buildings on adjacent lots which makes it impossible to obtain additional land to make the property conform to existing density regulations. Without a variance, it will be impossible to use the property. Sufficient area is provided for off-street parking spaces. It is sub- mitted that the proposed use will conserve the value of the land and enhance the values of the surrounding properties and is an appropriate use of the land. The immediate neighborhood is made up of lots containing approximately the same square footage as the locus property. v. Cn : cry Owner.. .C1axt. Fealty. corp. .` �. . �. . . �. Address. . . .7 Walter Stree nz?�91970. N Telephone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petitioner. . . . . . . . same. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date, , June 30: 199J Telep o e . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . By, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . By. . . P. VALLIS, Its Attorney Three copies of the application must be filed wi the Secretary of the Board of Appeals with a check, for advertising in the amoun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The Evening hews. 258 29 0 X r:/) 37,600?sr- i } a.es yyy y 29 O % 0 OBp E3 9��/ Y OJ��. �o e 31_S �'f\ e r✓ /j 416 i mea— � sr cgs + } r o e 35, p J C SESO 2?76y y' 4- nql STACK ...� '�., � �° e F°N. AA-, � a0• ., 22S /es`, � --�\{S /�a >/.. 8 /Q } sp a° -k'z� 4 - O "c� aV• 1\ � J ^Q 3s) F 2° ¢� �`+ R� • ��0 N° 001 Cti � +t ._ ,Sol \� �s/ 3B °t�°e 9 p ,�,Q eb a?° • a X99''9 \ \�tih6 yti LV& tih 0 O ry6h .. � .B �s A�6 �(yy� ;./�� � •°�° '�B ��� �hj h �w. �2 m,mow /,V,�/ v ,t3 , `♦'°�V V. `ti�\ ! 9 (p \�QFI 1�,�7 y. k '�9.::f � r'B'� I 2AQ J3� ST ° � n "N ST \ti. i TANK �oX A j .I •9L... a� rs 9 p s 6' 3t \P ��., r 29 C 16s 15 0 29 D ti B„ y z, ,2 s 66 6 ze J7,600 H 14.85 1 i o /4TO 10 ro �' / - 3 •� ' / 4/16+ e a BB B •o `� /Jr3 ° 's s S 7- /46 - h e _ O 9 O� n �2p zYF- SESD i 1 - "u,, / 40 ,�• _ � ��, /� e - n" -" /�' ♦��.� a`��B��4 n 0.91 /�/�\\v STA.yK o e �.v /q3 -, + a 4° °F•,N �, / a� Ab 22 s QST � /S /�o � /4 k 3c e RRo <11 V � U roh' m ` a� q s 116 AQX31 0 bti , �b0 r ' �A� � bCate ° •o'a .� v �_ so H DtiOF � .� 4T sem_ 4i A� 0 ti at 0 FF � •, ' ? \ h�� � tij� � v CO AD s�tib 0 1AJ Q ) s �, \,�Qb try/►�O< k, Ss.:, 4 4e \ h ♦h S \ TAN K 2' t is ..- 9,. .pip 9 � N � ee s. / 15 `0' Opt S IX a 1 °F Rti dJ STACK ?., d�O 0.91 / Af 10 . co \'V 96 7� .'�6 TT. `rd'p 60. °j ° J P° �� ti \Q 6J •r `J RJ 2j`S,*y y P' k iy 066 6, 21 �y°„d /4,, �' A`h pi; Oj a �O 0 `'•9=r sYi9L q e2 I TAN K I a2 •M0R 0 bO 15 S� F °° 0 A.03 6 J h�C �o -sl � 5 AAO `9 --- \ T A N K BOARD OF ASSESSORS CITY HALL PAGE. SALEM, MA 01970 ........... ............. ..... . ..... .......... I ...... . ....... CER 2 ...... 2 ............ .......... 3 • 3 ........- 4 ...... I Igg ....... ..... I. ........ ..... 4 PROPERTY ADDRESS., 0042 ENGLISH STREE7' 5 ASSESSED OWNER GARLAND RY TR--DECOULOS N J TR 7 ...... ....... .. .....I.... .......... ...... S , 2 0 1 41 0'10: 0042 ENGLISH STREET GARLAND RY TR-DECOULOS N J TR 96 NORTH STREE'F 14 12 C/O CHALIFOUR CLAIRE SALEM MA 01970 5 16 13P9,71 M,M 77 tJ '14y, .........l 5 ..... 17 :4 ... ....... ......... ...... 5I)VEN ................ I I • 17096'''.. L 91�I$O 00U5 / 41 A IT', I Ir 21 :7 41 0097 0072 DERBY STREET GOONEY MICHAEL J '120 BEc KFCIRD ST 22 Is MAUREEN 6 SALEM PIA 01970 23 K 24 ........... ........ 04 9 7 02 ........ ........SAf 2'1 0 ...I.. N%', "ir �,,,,GAJ tx,�!sKi, �RA Cel 'r . y -R,6 2 ..... I ......I, 22 23 41 0100 0048 ENGLISH STREET HOULL E E PAUL_ HOULE BARBARA J 10 RUTI-EI)GE 29 RD 300 24 G A R A 8 Ef)l A N R L - GARABEDIAN S A PEABODY PIA 0-1960 31 E'H 3 25 ....................... 4,,,F.)4, 4T. U.1 ...... 2 Cih 1 164 4,l ......... I. ................ .......... ................. 33 ............ .......... 2 ......... 3 ENz • 2741 01010 -,CH %�HIL �FBRAND, ISH 35 .I I.....I.I. l$l Mi, 28 37 29 .P1 0103 0040 ENGLISH STREET ONEILL BRIAN F 88 COUNTY RD 380 .29 IPSWICH MA 01938 39 30 -N4' 4� 7 9!,� 1,11 6i=—144 61z 1 AM-S, C-6.ARE-,M�.4 ...... 41 31 ....................... �SWM .......... ......... 3 L ......% ...... ...... 42 43 PA .......... _�+tl Lt. IP C I........ -;'l? NOE 5 PTT-MA- fe5'(37e, I, 2 • 33 ............. .. ..... e 44 ........ ............ ..... M4 ;L 34 45 35 41 0132 0021 BECKET STREET ARMSTRONG CHARLES R 21 BECKET ST 46• ARMSTRONG PATRICIA K SALEM MA 01970 47 36 -4 48 ;7 ...... 49 ....... SALE Y1 !IA 01 '7L} ..................... ......... . 50 it J�T Rl C HA I............. I ...... T1*MTT51 ft Y., - 0 3 %RBORN. 5 e 41.10 00 2,5. 39 32 ........... • 41 1 L1135 0003 BECKE7' AVENUE SAVICKEY RICHARD E 36 DEARBORN STREE"T 53 54 z SALEM PIA 01970 55 42 56 7' 73 _UF"A le=.V4,"I........... R 57 58 L, BARBARA- -1, T 0 4,7 4w ..................... L E MSVE -11EAT.IPIA .......... ......... ....... 44 Ri di A-, 9 • 4 ......... E, 45 48 <+1 6 0 x.t'i 01-76 803 0003 BECKET AVENUE 1/2 U3 VERICKER WALT'ER 3 11/_2 BECKET AVE U3 62 470 VERICKER JEAN E SALEM MA 01970 9 :3 2. 1 48 PA y L.p4;p 1,41 1 BE ��E T Si 4 9 :�7 C .................. 49 .......... JANET 65 .......... •50 66 P�Xpilk�0 '970, ..... ....... ...... 1 67 • 51i1 ........ .. ... 52 69 �13 AA 70 0 71 54 72 55' -CH ASSES, c 74 ........... .............%'Irlll 1711 56 7 ..........I s7 o FF la.o L2.z k.y ZO J 1A /V F d 0 � 0 3,3/554 Fr + /� SSSS o?s �Jia,� ¢� DoT io z BOM fC'L� O f' N 7-17-4,6' ,A?XF .6,K G�B�-P4 s54- PR�P.9R�.p FoR C4ART CORPoRAT/c'N ,.SCALE : / .._gyp , J,u.4-1 /x, /993 II j 9000WIN 5&RVr/ co, 9S .Gi8.�h'�J' Sj �i IraD.`„rToN, M.e. am _ 8�z 4 n - o U Z40 N IQ,p daz. F>R/AN � L? /ViGt_ 4` N�C� t✓ S7l� EJ c or�taA-�14vi 41M 3,313,5q Fr :t XB3 4- SA L.,EA-;l •M�9 . ' P.�.�P�►R.�n For- C G A CORpGRAT/DN 5CAGE = 9oODWiN 5ZIRV.r CQ. Hem Ay �6 . dfa 41 4IG v FF 0 _ u IO.O PZ.Z. 98 - �` 3>3/ 3Sa FY + I i A5-5 E:sso1?s A-;IqR 4-1 .LOT AO z BoAF�.G? ©f ;.�i f P�•9�s P�.� N f, 7-1T,4,E fFC., 8K I 4 C � /aRr /TxA4 �/y CoRFoRAT.IoN t J u /999 �, • . � G ooAu, ,N s.ae vky co. I - Is-sem 0 o I 45 I 70ULRNR M t i t `25IRVAN � . L7 %V : C� __. u iVrfCiS +� ✓T1CF_E� t ' - 1 6 3,3/354 Fr - I I lqsys,A�Sso?s Ik;?AR ¢/ 40"r 102 BOOM 'C .0 Of AJ ,E--9 4-S oo fA . 5AL,EI✓I /VIA . , r PR,EPARJff,D f"or C � /ART" Ft`.E'A,Z7`/� CoRPo,4r'�T/ren/ du