Loading...
10 FREEMAN ROAD - ZBA - a 10 Freeman Road :41 Nancy & Steve Pinto 1 4\ i 4 " ! S z j 4' 'J � a I i � 4 a :\ ------------- i 1 V S I 1 1 _ 1 i _ F ---------- • '. _ y AS is"w gin - _ 4 , :, �.. - - .. � -. .- + - _ � uL LAS .,•3. �- p MORTGAGE INSPECTION BAY STATE SURVEYING 234 CABOT ST., BEVERLY, MA. LOCATION : j,�r ! , ✓ AML-: r NOTES: ................. . ................. SCALE : I° = y0 FT. DATE .-•._..__ This is a Mortgage Inspection survey and not an _. . _ _ .�` instrument survey,therefore this plot plan is for REFERENCE =4?K. 95 ._ /L:.` �7_.._ mortgage inspection purposes only. •This survey is based on survey marks of others. ......... .. . .. .. .. ... .... . ..... .... .... • Bushes,shrubs,fences and tree lines do not Tonecessarily indicate property lines. - -- -- . _"__"' --- - --- • In my professional opinion the building(s) are not hereby certify that I have examined the premises and that the located in the special flood hazard zone, as defined building(s) shown on this plan are located on the ground as by H.U.D. shown and that they conformed to the zoning setbacks of the •Whenever an offset is 1'f or less, an instrument C �AIF� when constructed. survey is recommended to determine prop. lines. . NIt= TRK Is a 121.6pr NlF Sopez fF �- 41 N I w � c U J ryj i DFc� i C aM,oLy LtJ�Ttf /U� �/O£SET�r4c�. �p M r Yz. bjd, r IC OL ttl OF ,yFJ R y RT `? soTIRO,^: � 1 0 N0. 26094 c# lU r .68. 28 "'t i Ayo .gam MAKEVEACE �cowglb z (fitg of Sntvm, Aussadjusetts Pourb of Appeal March 2, 1992 Notice is hereby given that as of February 27, 1992 the decision of the Board of Appeal has been filed in the office of the City Clerk to grant the petition of Nancy and Steve Pinto for Variance to allow deck at 10 Freeman Road. (R-1 ) BOARD OF APPEAL Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk of the Board ala;;o of from this decision,if tiny,shah be ma03 pursuant to S•edioff l I tfu t!w iY±2zs. General Laws,chapter So% and shall be fiied within 2.0 diver cri er ih • dz c of fiiin.g of this decision in the office of the City Cici*. cs�:.a! Laws, Chanter 308, Section 11, the Vzrlr .•)co ' an"-d'....c,7 shad no'lsko e;e Y .ntfl a ccPY of the tti- r ri -i ;aie'. of tf!a ;;YY C .'eri< ih_;t 20 day- have has been filed, or that, if such e Peal has boon fhec.L.;;t i9: has been disrrdssed or denied is recorded in the South Ess,,t F,-_Asir;• c` Deeds and indexed under the name or the r,.wner of record or is rcco!dcd and noted :i the oner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL r ti ("it" of �&Ulem, 111c'ls57Ctillsetts B- attrtl of -Aupeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NANCY AND STEVE PINTO FOR - VARIANCE AT 10 FREEMAN ROAD ( R-1 ) w' held February 19 1992 with A hearingon this petition as S , P the following Board Members present : RichardBencal , Chairman ; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski , Francis X Grealish and Stephen Touchette . 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 , owners of the property, are requesting variance from side setback to allow a previously constructed deck in this R-1 district . The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that : 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands , buildings and structures involved. 2 . Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship , financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3 . 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 . The abutter most affected by this deck spoke in favor of the request. 2 . The placement of the deck follows approximately the same line as the present dwelling. 3 . Placement of the deck in any other location would also require variances and would encroach further into setback requirements . DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NANCY AND STEVE PINTO FOR A VARIANCE AT 10 FREEMAN ROAD , SALEM page two 4 . The deck allows the petitioner a fuller use of the property without derogating from the intent of the ordinance . 5 . The shape of the lot and side line causes a hardship to the petitioner . If the side line were to be straight instead of at an agnel then petitioner would not need to seek relief from this Board . 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 especially 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 petitioner . 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 unanimously, 5-0 , to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions : 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes , ordinances , codes and regulations . 2 . All requirements of the City of Salem Fire Prevention Bureau relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to . 3 . All contruction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and by legal building permit . 7~ CD �ci fV r CV ., co ti DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NANCY AND STEVE PINTO FOR VARIANCES AT 10 FREEMAN ROAD , SALEM page three VARIANCE GRANTED February 19 , 1992 Richard A. Bencal Chairman 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 Massachusetts General Laws 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 Massachusetts General Laws 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 elapsed 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 owner ' s Certificate of Title . n—a m r'< T p V W -'n ry V (fit" of �5cllem, 'Aassacillisetts 'Bourcb of Aupenl DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NANCY AND STEVE PINTO FOR - VARIANCE AT 10 FREEMAN ROAD ( R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held February 19 , 1992 with the following Board Members present : RichardBencal , Chairman ; Richard Febonio , Edward Luzinski , Francis X Grealish and Stephen Touchette . 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 , owners of the property, are requesting variance from side setback to allow a previously constructed deck in this R-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a Finding by this Board that : 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land , building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands , buildings and structures involved . 2 . Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship , financial or otherwise , to the petitioner . 3 . 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 . The abutter most affected by this deck spoke in favor of the request. 2 . The placement of the deck follows approximately the same line as the present dwelling. 3 . Placement of the deck in any other location would also require variances and would encroach further into setback requirements . DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NANCY AND STEVE PINTO FOR A VARIANCE AT 10 FREEMAN ROAD , SALEM page two 4 . The deck allows the petitioner a fuller use of the property without derogating from the intent of the ordinance . 5 . The shape of the lot and side line causes a hardship to the petitioner . If the side line were to be straight instead of at an agnel then petitioner would not need to seek relief from this Board . 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 especially 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 petitioner. 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 unanimously, 5-0 , to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions : 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes , ordinances , codes and regulations . 2 . All requirements of the City of Salem Fire Prevention Bureau relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3 . All contruction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and by legal building permit. �r ti w nJ m L ti DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NANCY AND STEVE PINTO FOR VARIANCES AT 10 FREEMAN ROAD , SALEM page three VARIANCE GRANTED February 19 , 1992 Richard A. Bencal Chairman A COPY OFTHISDECISION 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 Massachusetts General Laws 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 Massachusetts General Laws 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 elapsed 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 owner ' s Certificate of Title. no ti C^ r�� Chi of �&ZII£m, �7.`iZISfadlu8£tts Board of Au}ienl 0 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NANCY AND STEVE PINTO FOR - VARIANCE AT 10 FREEMAN ROAD ( R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held February 19 , 1992 with the following Board Members present : RichardBencal , Chairman ; Richard Febonio , Edward Luzinski , Francis X Grealish and Stephen Touchette . 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 , owners of the property, are requesting variance from side setback to allow a previously constructed deck in this R-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that : 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land , building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands , buildings and structures involved. 2 . Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise , to the petitioner . 3 . 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 . The abutter most affected by this deck spoke in favor of the request. 2 . The placement of the deck follows approximately the same line as the present dwelling. 3 . Placement of the deck in any other location would also require variances and would encroach further into setback requirements . :j DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NANCY AND STEVE PINTO FOR A VARIANCE AT 10 FREEMAN ROAD , SALEM page two 4 . The deck allows the petitioner a fuller use of the property without derogating from the intent of the ordinance . 5 . The shape of the lot and side line causes a hardship to the petitioner. If the side line were to be straight instead of at an agnel then petitioner would not need to seek relief from this Board . 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 especially 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 petitioner. 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 unanimously, 5-0 , to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions : 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes , ordinances , codes and regulations . 2 . All requirements of the City of Salem Fire Prevention Bureau relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to . 3 . All contruction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and by legal building permit. n~ 0 r V CAS b N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NANCY AND STEVE PINTO FOR VARIANCES AT 10 FREEMAN ROAD , SALEM page three VARIANCE GRANTED February 19 , 1992 Richard A. Bencal Chairman 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 Massachusetts General Laws 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 Massachusetts General Laws 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 elapsed 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 owner ' s Certificate of Title . �Y m r T p n Cr> na M y t .e `s ,s,+' f z i� v /jam 14 Of a P ', .�+5 " o� I av A w �i�ry�SeJ 9 7��JS.n � �<s�' ! + �. N f rW ,mac- w �d�� a(V�lr���i3 . , !� �a! y1/ 01�f�Y fi � 14��:. �1� �� i i � ,�� � e � a' e�!!. m .�"' � '. f ,. r 1 � Ib 91� � ✓ # s`V F 'e � 1 P f ..1 V� F+ � � ���� s � _ e • �� I _. ' ._ n. � t s.� yam-' DATE OF HEARING a /9 PETITIONER LOCATION �j� . 1J 12- 1 MOTION: TO GRANT fJ SECOND TO DENY SECOND TO RE-HEAR SECOND LEAVE TO WITHDRAW SECOND TO CONTINUE SECOND ROLL CALL PRESENT GRANT DENY WITHDRAW RE-HEAR CONTINUE RICHARD BENCAL RIEHAOD FEBONIO FRANCIS GREALISH EDWARD LUZINSKI STEPHEN TOUCHETTE ASSOCIATE MEMBERS RO PL UR LABR OUE CONDITIONS: �L� C� To City of Salem Board of Appeal We, the undersigned, ;are homeowners at the addresses that directly abut 10 Freeman Road, Salem, MA. We support the granting of a variance from side setbacks to allow a deck for Steve and Nancy Pinto of 10 Freeman Road, Salem, MA. Mrs. Mary Pinto 8 Freeman Road Salem, VIA Mr. Edmund Edmund Polchlopra:k 12 Freeman Road MA The Tnkis Farnily 7 CI owdis Street sal m, MA I v e CITY OF SALEM —� BOARD OF APPEAL • CITY OF SALEM 745-9595 Ext. 381 BOARD OF APPEAL Will hold a public hearing for all persons inter- 745-9595 Est. 381 osted in the petition submitted by Nancy and Steve Will hold a public hearing for all persons into,.- Pinto for Variance to allow deck at 10 Freeman ested in the petition submitted by Nancy and Steve lid-(R-U.Said hearing to be held Wednesday,Feb. Pinto for Variance to allow deck at 10 Freeman ruary 19, 1992 at 7:00 P.M.,One Salem Green,2nd ltd.(R-1).Said hearing to be held Wednesday,Feb- 1 Door. ruary 19, 1992 at 7:00 P.M.,One Salem Green,2nd RICHARD A. BENCAL, Chairman floor. February 5, 12, 1992 SN75491 RICHARD A. BENCAL, Chairman --- February 5, 12, 1992 SN75491 CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL, 745-9595 Ext. 381 Will hold a public hearing for all persons inl.er- ested in the petition submitted by Nancy and Steve Pinto I'or Variance to allow deck at 10 Freeman Rd.(R-D.Said hearing to be held Wednesday,Feb- ruary 19, 1992 at 7:00 P.M.,One Salem Green,2nd Door. RICHARD A. BENCAL, Chairman February 5, 12, 1992 SN75491 i. APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ` (9it1J of airm, cjaSSarjM5rffS s +,s - �Rvarb of '� 1PIsl TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: The Undersigned represent that he is are .he owners of a certain parcel of land located at NO. . . . . . . ./. d. . . . ,rP-p�-— . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toninn District. ✓P !. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : and said parcel is affectea by Secticnis ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of the Massachusetts State Building Code. Plans describing the work proposed, have been submitted to the Inspector of Buildings in accordance with Section IX A. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance. tap cern � cw rr �T �o axe cC) rn cO xc. [U� c[rri 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/or the Building Code and order the Inspector of Buildings to approve the application fee permit to build as filed, 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 Building Code for the following reasons: Owner. . G . ✓ . 1 .� . . . . Address. . . .. . ��. . . . . ��: !�.. Telephone. . . . 7 � . . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petitioner, ;ter . . . . .*�' / Address. . f .'. . . c� . . Date. jle. 7 t?. . . . . . Telephone. 7.�l. . . . .� C� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . %%" „ By. . /dL�i! �. . �: �. . . . . . . . . . . . . Three copies of the application must be filed with the Secretary of the Board of 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. i No ... ... ITIMON ]OBOARDOI APITAI.S UII AI[ON PPIIIV)NI[R_................ . ._ ................ Ahl)1 FSS __.._. _......_ _. ..__...._.. f ONDI I IONS ........................ ....................................... ................................................................ .................................................. .............. ................................................................. ......_......._._._......_....._......_.................... PETIT ION APPROVED.................... ❑ DENIED......................... ...........................I.—....... 19......... APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11itU of ?i1PTIi, � lISSttL�t1iSP) 5 +,f �Bvarh D{ �� JP2Il G TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: The Undersigned represent that he is are the owners of a certain parcel of land located at NO. . . . . . .fa . . F.ff� . . !i-W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Street; Zoning District. .Ai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : and said parcel is affected by Sectionisl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of the Massachusetts State Building Code. Plans describing the work proposed, have been submitted to the Inspector of Buildings in accordance with Section IX A. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance. m ate— fir- O an u r qc= rn The Application for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following reasons: 171G? ,E � The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code and order the Inspector of Buildings to approve the application fee permit to build as filed, 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 Building Code for the following reasons: V14 1,44t2E /foµ1 Ownerxi?�. `: Telephone. . .. '� .'? . . . .q j.�? 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . Pe ti ti oner.;? Address A4. .�� e?c .. . . . . . . . . . Date. . . /. ��v/ill. . . . . . . .� �.� .- 73jo 7 Telephone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . By. . . e�.?�� . . . . . . . . . Three copies of the application must be filed with the Secretary of the Board of 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. > - - - - o r Z s z z � > ? - - - m x z Z F = � _ m C _ > O < Z �„ l't n Z :: O i � _ MORTGAGE INSPECTION BAY STATE SURVEYING 234 CABOT ST., BEVERLY, MA. LOCATION �,r[ /� ; ti� �] NOTES: SCALE = 1° = O FT. DATE : ___ • /�` !r t •This is a Mortgage Inspection survey and not an 2 """ `�J -- instrument survey, therefore this plot plan is for REFERENCE .. _ _ . _ ? . 9 5 __. �:._`.. ...,_ mortgage inspection purposes only. h�E}C C'oiliv �o . �rSTe . 9 This survey is based on survey marks of others. ------- -- -- - -- -- ----- ---- ------ - • Bushes, shrubs,fences and tree lines do not TO necessarily indicate property lines. - - - --- --- -- - ----- --- -------- ---- ---------------- • Inmyprofessional opinion the building(s) are not hereby certify that I have examined the premises and that the located in the special flood hazard zone, as defined building(s) shown on this plan are located on the ground as by H.U.D. shown and that/they conformed to the zoning setbacks of the •Whenever an offset is 1'f or less, an instrument when constructed. survey is recommended to determine prop. lines. ult TA K 15 o,. 121.60! tJ�F rJor EtZ j_ N 83,4'! w � a g , s ' U J t l Z�oF-. ,vo T a I DECK I C 41-/.OLS/ GU/-Fq /O[ /Ot"jET—nAe-k- `O 0 1 vz wd, - *� I C 2 I W AQtzeA = E3 12`�—SF� N l �1ti of Y1�PA/q s T y N 847rIR03' t No. 26OU ,a.. G4itsC`s�4 m �2E E M P.r► Ro I'—O m MAKEPEACE MORTGAGE INSPECTION BAY STATE SURVEYING 234 CABOT ST., BEVERLY, MA. LOCATION 34-/�a9, /-//./: NOTES: SCALE I = 20 FT. DATE : /�� ,�l •This is a Mortgage Inspection survey and not an instrument survey, therefore this plot plan is for REFERENCE e .. . _ . Q2 9�s .• 1�. 7y---- mortgage inspection purposes only. �Tx . r�jsi . This survey is based on survey marks of others. ... .... ...... .... .... • Bushes, shrubs, fences and tree lines do not To necessarily indicate property lines. - ' "' ----•--- • In my professional opinion the building(s) are not hereby certify that I have examined the premises and that the located in the special flood hazard zone, as defined building(s) shown on this plan are located on the ground as by H.U.D. shown and that/they conformed to the zoning setbacks of the •Whenever an offset is 1'f or less, an instrument V,_ when constructed. survey is recommended to determine prop. lines. t5 1 a 121.6or N�I� SoPEP N I w � _ s r u J �t 7 l z ° t�Ee� Tom n�CT rij i DEc� i G dH,o�f/ L(✓iTtf /O� �/OF SET CJr1c..[_.. �O O tr.oT A. k I0 I W Aazt� = 8a12`�—sF� RP�1H df ,yqJ' �n_9 JA�Cs Cm A4 SOTIROS A $ NO. 28094 F t r - 6g• 28r -- �`r 9F�ISiiRE'it�°�" MAKEPEACE t i I _ i` I i t Y e A APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . u` Chi III �ttlPm, c�tt55c�LIT12SE�5 +.f Boarb III Apprzd om.c TO TnE EOARD OF APPEALS: _.,ie �ndersianeo reoresent _r.at are :.-e owners _ ::=_stain -arcel lana locate, t '10. . . . . . . 4G . . .r.(;cci?�g^ . . . !� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:street: -nina strict. . l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :no aid _crcei affected D'/ rt' n'• , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . or the •fassacnusetts State uuiiding Code. Tans describing the work prcoosed, have peen submitted to the inspector or Euildings in accordance with Section IX A. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance. — - m — - c-e ~ cs� r c c c CL' he Application for Permit was denied by the inspector of Buildings for the following reasons: 71U7 � � The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code and order the Inspector of Buildings to approve the application fee permit to build as filed, 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 Building Code for the following reasons: V,14?m e.t'c. f02o4 s i c s CT/3,01 T� Owner, . • • • Address. l.4. . . ��o..�hsY. . . Telephone. . ... (y. .. .� .7. . .. . . . . . . . . . Petitiover.27rz_ � .�. �• Address Date. . . !. ��/cl!. . . . . . Telephone. . . . .Y. :. . 7.?�0 �. .. . . . . . . . . . . . Three copies of the application must be filed with the Secretary of the Board of 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 f y IIfctl£1TT� � c�55uLI11TSP °v r r.. c;� :r, OF S-EI'EI: P1NTG ( PETiT:Ot.E-r,�11; y ;'0 (G'n':Efi) fc^ VARIA;;CES FOR 8 FREE:;A:: ROAD A hearing on this petition was held ^]ovember 19, 1986 with the following Board Members present: James B. Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Strout and Associate •Member Core. 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 ;5assachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from density and setbacks to allow property to be divided into two lots, lot A & B, and to const'uctot pa single erfamilyldwelling on lot .. ar_d to allow existing 1 ' story e-l -ing on in an R-1 district. - - The 'Variance which ha§ been requested may be granted upon ;—rinding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial derogatingtrimentto thethe public good and without nullifying or substantially intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the tearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: ;.o ep:.:.sition and many neighbors spoke .n favor; c. The lot size would be the same as most lots in the neighborhood; 3. Hardship is related to the location of the ledge. 0n the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as fellows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve s,:tsta^.t'-al hardship to the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. f ..ECISIOI< 01: :-7T ICN Or °T :E., -TNTC ( FETITiOG_R) , ".ARY PINTO (Oi':NER) FOR V-.AIANCES F=3 8 FFEZN..N ROAD, SALE-: caee two ':herefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following terns and concit-icns: 1 . Plans for the proposed construction shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to the issuance of a -building permit;. 2. Correct street number shall be obtained from the City Assessor; 3. Construction shall conform to all applicable Building Codes, Salem Fire Prevention Code, City Ordinances and MGL relative to fire safety; 4. Topography- of the lot. not. be changed except for the foundation of the house; 5. Existing garage is to be removed; 6. A building permit and a Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained. VARIANCES GRANTED Peter Strout, Member Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. APPEAL 1.4 ,Cj DEC:SI3N. I* A':Y. SH-:L BE WADE PURSUANT TC �EET�7!i 17 OF THE " OEIiTWS l4iVS. CF-.?iE? CC2. Sr. -E TILED ViITH:N 20 DAYS ATTER THE DATE CF F._: .; OF id:S DECIS:Ti 1!; `:E OFC:L 'uE - CITY CLERK. LEL'.-E.^ HE-'F' Sd ALiE.. .-1:.... C`. ? :',a. 11. THE PP.P15 P: e•_, . F._.. FF.ATIv:: iF TnE C!n' ,._...i i:'`_ ;- C:'i !:i::. A W?'! :> iNE•._= �..r, ir.:., a HALE ELA.^crJ LND I. c :.... OR THAT, IF SJ;H A;, 6PFE=.L H'? ��.�UL HAS Ecc': FI'::,, EJ IN THE SJdTH --_• • .•_•. 7"` :( n'•' CEEf; EJ ESS Rc.:Iiii: :F CUES A;'D MDEi:EJ^:''._�•^ -'•- . E OF REc.^.an no ;C CECJR_Eu A..d Ic_1_J 0!; THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF iI LE. - - • BOARD OF APPEAL MORTGAGE INSPECTION BAY STATE SURVEYING 234 CABOT ST., BEVERLY, MA. LOCATION : A/A/ ] NOTES: i - --------- -- - -....... ........ SCALE : 1" _ �O FT. DATE + / -/,C, This is a Mortgage Inspection survey and not an _- - . - instrument survey, therefore this plot plan is for REFERENCE .. . _ . . .. ... . .. ....... .... mortgage inspection purposes only. =-- -:'= 1�=. '?.: • This survey is based on survey marks of others. ... .... .. .. . .. _. _.... . ... . ... .. ..,. .__. • Bushes,shrubs, fences and tree lines do not TO necessarily indicate property lines. • ---- "--- -- ---- • In my professional opinion the building(s) are not I hereby certify that I have examined the premises and that the located in the special flood hazard zone, as defined building(s) shown on this plan are located on the ground as by H.U.D. shown and that they conformed to the zoning setbacks of the •Whenever an offset is V± or less, an instrument when constructed. survey is recommended to determine prop. lines. _ - Wilt= 7C,K t$ ' N�!• SOPE'2 ib f21.6Or N -OVA 83'411 w � Q. s S � V t LL a it/Qi E IVM i DECD i C t7H,nLy Cu iT/->` /0� 9/OF}ET DAc� _O � I 0 1 Yz_ LLU'. l W �4tzte� � f3012`�-5� r `c. . 1 U NO. 2600 J" � _:66. 28 �6oy�r ta�F a L .l: • r F / 6dr i t i �nty, j oh i i 1 i �i \ i a � L \ �\, ,`a s`s yNdN�li �NiO c tic•` Loo\ \ �. � oN OV ut a Y O cot \ o' oo` 1 1 \\ 0 p '\N N W N to "OS \ m e u LO G�00%to 0 % S 6 m b \ a QO� M \ < + O .\ t j� d \ u to to 4D CCI t}Ch ip \ G\ c N a t 7 Ir 0 vN OmN� y. yew to 4 •SGL 126-6 9 r• N a- a J, \J lb 1 s C\V\ BOARD OF ASSESSORS CfTY HALL PAGE. ...........................• 2 ......... .......... I ol I".l,� I —!IT ......... .. 2 1 ITE1, %...... . .................. 4 .111.1 loll,I I. 3 CE 14 1, RT f 4 • 5 SUBJECT PROPERTY. PIAP. 14 LOT- 03-14 SUFF. 6 PROPERTY ADDRESS. 0010 FREEMAN ROAD 7 -7l, 7 ......... ........ ..... w 97, 0 R I ................ . .... .. .... I ........ %'I..—'--............% -'N AN, ............... i1i A ...I..... o 9 o ...... ............— ........... ....... ....... 121 10 PlAr Lul Z�ury PROPE :3 11 4 12 14 03-14 0010 FREEMAN ROAD PINTO STEVEN A 10 FREENAN ROAL) 15 6 p r 16 ' ..% , -. , . ........... . . �- ... ..... , � I . ..... 17 14 14 �b�-64 " " C)I,f%O% [l16/ALANtjIAVENUE% . � iij qxejN . . . ...... "Ell 701,� 5AL PIA 04 15 o I 16 4 'fj1—.t5 P6 21 -I I�,- I �: 11 11 o 20 pf— A., MAU]A A SALEM MA 0-1157t.-I 22 •17 14 (3266 0007 CROWDIS STREET TAKES HARRY G 7 ST ✓ 2311 18 QA1 ELM MA 24 TT77 19 ......... 25 14 0 ........... ........................ 7, OWDIS"s, Q R 2 A,�. PSK I OG -.,P§4 I.A. ....... ............... "o FR ........ 20 ........ 26 qw -l". ......... �P 0 15! ............... 27 ........... SA L E 1 1,IPIA,'., ..... ...... ....... ............... 4 07T3 -;; m - 22 AN 2 23 PAULETTE M SALEM MA 01970 39• 0 24 14 0281 0014 FREEMAN ROAD POL CHL OPEK J I D--' FREEMAN ROA31 Pc 32 ............. ...... . ......... �l Eof mA wjAD — 25 ... ...... ......., 33 ".Ii.............. I, .. .... I. ......... 14 0 28 2.Il� J4 I I F-FrIANI RD 26 I_ ............. ......... "I ...... ISALIEM. 0 ............. 27 ..... ........ 28 37 29 SA L.Et I MA 0 1 T70 38 14 0284 0002 FREEMAN ROAD HULL. FREDERICK H 2 FREEMAN RD 39 30 p cj;v;L;71c1 40 31 ........ ....... o ......... I o ol,%l';' 41 Q-HIG I A o" I'l..... )N',� -)SSXANbe "0,285 ...... N, LEVC S A I I e lo I I 32 ...........� N 42 ............ o' 0%�Io I % ,— I ,1. 43 33 l 1' 44 34 IA SAL MA 015'70 4� 35 ZOF Il3 46 14 th-,3 7 0144 HIGHLAND AVENUE JONE'S JANICE E 144 1-41C.,HLAND AVENUE 47 • 36 41'.A�-47W.-WA-P4*,- Q 48 e, ............................... ... ... ...... 37 .......... I. ......... 49 ........... R P. AN e V�O%A 50 38 �:(32:90 00Z3%,%Fk..ij ............. 44" 0AN ........ 77— . .. ....... ............ ............. .......... %o "I o -%.......... o 51 39 52 ............... 40 53 •41 :4 1 42 56 o ........ .... .... 57 ........... ............ ........ ...... a ............. 59 ........... 45 ..... ............ ...............— ..... . ................... ....... ol Go 46 61 47 62 .3 48 64 ............ I o I ................. 50 .... ... .....I. o o' 51 ... I..... 8 52 69 53 70 7' 54 12 55 ...... e 73 .......... ......... .. I �o �o o I .I..I I I. 56 I y etit'Y74 750 7[1 o e" I o ct kA 001 I , � \ � cpra To s� G-o d Qs To p s X , J N - G• d u \ G; oN } , uTa cp wam s N a d \ N m ? C o J Q� I N , OJD 120 - ,e `. \\ _ °.ice, .L ;,��b •'GL � 125-5 ! f \ �+„ I4. `s �Y ,rr�.�R+�m4 ?*�'�moi``m. ;rc` �'; , � x 2\ .`• �.t�� �'r°� nU.!' +ti''�.i�\ +r klqv DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FOR A VARIANCE AT /1) �'aA C2-;, A HEARING ON TH I S PETITION WAS HELD ON �� 0 �/i A?'?Z WITH THE FOLLOWING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: RICHARD A. BENGAL . CHAIRMAN ; EDWARD LUZINSKI . VICE CHAIRMAN : FRANCIS X. GREALISH. SECRETARY ; RICHARD FEBONIO : STEPHEN TOUCHETTE AND ASSOCIATE MEMBER ARTHUR LA BRECQUE AND RONALD PLANTE. NOTICE OF THE HEARING WAS SENT TO ABUTTERS AND OTHERS . AND NOTICES WERE PROPERLY PUBLISHED IN THE SALEM EVENING NEWS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAWS CHAPTER 40A. PETITIONER IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM IN ORDER TO IN THIS )er1 ZONE. THE VARIANCE WHICH HAS BEEN REQUESTED MAY BE GRANTED UPON A FINDING BY THIS BOARD THAT: 1 . SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST WHICH ESPECIALLY AFFECT THE LAND. BUILDING OR STRUCTURE INVOLVED AND WHICH ARE NOT GENERALLY AFFECTING OTHER LAND, BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES IN THE DISTRICT: 2 . LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WOULD INVOLVE SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP. FINANCIAL OR OTHERWISE TO THE PETITIONER ; 3 . 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 MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDIINGS OF FACT: 2 . cPe a? few a� 3 . � y� :4C., 07�iat, b 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 ESPECIALLY 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 PETITIONER ; 3 . 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. THEREFORE. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VOTED TOtZ THE VARR.IIAANCE REQUESTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOW/ING CONDITIO S : 6 7 . 10 . ,11 .