4 FLORENCE STREET - ZBA . s 5'I:,R. .CANAL STREET':�'�••
1-5
f
1�
owwl
(Iittt ofaar ,. OCT Z3 iZ 04 fii
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ADMIRACION MUTUA DE LA SOCIEDAD
CORPORATION AT R51 CANAL STREET/5 FLORENCE STREET. R4 AND R2
A hearing on this petition was held October 18, 1995 with the
following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary
2arrett, Nina Cohen, Arthur Labrecque Albert Hill . ':otice of the
hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing
were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting Variance for a CHANGE OF USE to allow for a
Television Production Studio and Singles Dances with a Liquor License
for providing refreshments .
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding
of the Board that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially
affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not
generally affecting other lands, buildings 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. No-one spoke in favor of the Petition.
2. Attorney Philip Moran, representing Mr. Anthony .;. Picariello
spoke in opposition to the petition.
3. Mr. Peter Vaillancourt spoke in opposition to the petition.
Additionally, Mr. Vaillancourt submitted a Petition with 19
Signatures to the Board voting in opposition to the Variance
requested.
DECISION 'N THE PETT_TTON OF ADMIRACION VUTtiA DE LA SCCIEDAD
CORPORATION FOR A `<`.RIANCE AT R51 CANAL STREET/ FLORENCE 5-3EET.
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:
I . Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the
subject property and not the district in generai .
°. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner.
3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good or without nullifying and
substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the
purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 0-5 against
the motion to grant, having failed to garner the required four
affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is
denied.
VARIANCE DENIED
October 18, 1995
Albert C. Hill , ;r
Member, Board of Appeal
.A COPY OF THIS DECISION' HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, _F ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT 70 SECTION
17 OF THE MCL CHAPTER LOA 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 60A, 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, _F STTCH 'PPFAL 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 OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF
TITLE.
c, O
BOARD OF APPEAL
_ N
O
—Z F
Lz
N Ln