40 ESSEX STREET - ZBA (2) 40 ESSEX STREET {
J JOHN CAGOLL T �%
i
a
h Legal Notice
Crl'Y OF SALEM F
BOARD OF APPEAL
7459595 Ext.381
Will hold a public hearing for all
persons interested in the petition sub-
mitted by JOHN CAHILL requesting
Variances from lot coverage per
dwelling unit for property located at t
40 ESSEX STREET R-$.Said hearing
to be held WEDNESDAY,JULY 17,
2002 AT 6:30 P.M., 120 WASHING
TON STREET,3RD FLOOR,ROOM
.313. i
Cohen
NChhairman
(7/3,10)
1 rr
' 1 f
�gow"T1,1 CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
_ 59 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
SALEM, MA 01970
Sp- s
TEL. (978) 745-9595
FAX (978) 740-9846
r
STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR.
MAYOR
i'J C
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN CAHILL REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR,
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40 ESSEX STREET R-2 r =-
A hearing on this petition was held on August 21, 2002, with the following Board s
Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman„ Richard Dionne , Joan Boudreau, Stephen
Harris and Bonnie Belair. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and other and
notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioner is requesting Variance from lot coverage per dwelling for the property to
be used as a three family for the property located at 40 Essex Street R-2.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exit which especially affect the land, building
or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or
structures in the same district.
b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner
c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and
without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the
purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1. Petitioner is the owner of 40 Essex Street, an older property that in 1964 housed 3
families. In recent years the property was used as a two family and thus lost its
grandfathered status as a multifamily dwelling. Petitioner proposes to renovate this
property for use as a three family dwelling. He is represented by F.Kelley Landolphi
of 70 Washington Street.
2. The existing house is nonconforming as to lot size and front, side and rear setbacks.
Petitioner submitted a parking plan incorporating two parking spaces at the rear of
the building and an existing three-car garage to meet the zoning ordinance's off-
street parking requirement.
3. Ward Two Councillor Regina Flynn, submitted a letter opposing the plan. She
reports that many in the neighborhood oppose the increase in density on grounds
that the additional units are likely to worsen the on street parking problem and
because the small size of the building and the proximity to property lines makes
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN CAHILL REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40 ESSEX STREET R2
page two
three units untenable. Opposition on grounds of density was also raised by Gordon
Hayes, a neighbor at 38 Essex Street. Mr. Hayes stated that the proposed plan would
not only burden the neighborhood with an overly dense development, would also
encourage conversation of other two-families to multi family use.
4. The proposed plan had the support of a neighbor, Marie Breschia of 48 Essex Street
Who stated that she was very concerned about increasing parking in the area, but
felt the petitioner's parking plan would keep additional cars off the street.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing,
the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not
the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not result in
unnecessary hardship to the petitioner.
3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good or without nullifying and substantially hardship derogating from the intent of the
district or purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3 in favor and 2 in opposition to grant the
requested variances. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass,
the motion is defeated and the petition is denied.
VARIANCE DENIED
AUGUST 21, 2002
Nina Cohen, Chairman
Board of Appeal
CJ '_
nJ rqC/-
C
Ci' ..
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the MGL
Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the
office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or
Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing
the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have passed and no appeal has been
filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is
recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the
owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title.
Board of Appeal
F-1
:v
q;
cn
�itp of Salem, Alassarbusetts
office of the QCitp Council
q eCitp fall
COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE REGINA R. FLYNN WARD COUNCILLORS
PRESIDENT
2002 2002
LAURA A DeTOMA DEBORAH E. BURKINSHAW CLAUDIA CHUBER
THOMAS H.FUREY CITY CLERK REGINA R. FLYNN
KEVIN R. HARVEY JOAN B.LOVELY
ARTHUR C.SARGENT III LEONARD F O'LEARY
KIMBERLEY L. DRISCOLL
MICHAEL A.BENCAL
August 21,2002 JOSEPH A. O'KEEFE,SR.
Nina Cohen
Chair,Board of Appeal
City of Salem
120 Washington Street
Salem,Massachusetts 01970
Dear Chairperson Cohen,
This letter is in opposition to the request for variances for the property located at 40 Essex
Street in an R-2 District.
Although this building might have been used in the past as an illegal three family--to
continue would be a violation of Salem's ordinances and sends the wrong signal out to
future buyers and current homeowners who diligently maintain the current zoning. At
this time I ask the board to uphold our ordinances and not grant this variance. This is an
already densely settled neighborhood and to add to the congestion would depreciate the
surrounding residences.
I thank you for your time and attention to the above request.
Sincerely,
} Reg a R. 1
War Tw Ci Councillor