14 GARDNER STREET - ZBA d
1_ 7. 71
--
vJ
S
l
Jo ha
{
Legal Notice eat
fief
CITY OF SALEM plai
BOARD OF APPEAL Lai
745.959.5 Ext.381 mail,
Will hold a public hearing for all thirt
persons interested in the petition sub- recoi
miffed by WILLIAM HENERY request- as co
ing a Variance to allow an existing tion.I
curb cut to be used for a second 00
driveway for the property located at 14
GARDNER STREET R-2.Said hearing
to be held WEDNESDAY,OCTOBER
20,2004 AT 6:30 P.M.,120 WASHING
TON STREET, 3RD FLOOR, ROOM
313.
Nina Cohen
Chairman
(10/6,13) (91
i
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
Ila
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595
MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 n
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM HENEY REQUESTING A VARIAN% �T
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14 GARDNERSTREET R-2
6 car-
A hearing of this petition was held on October 20, 2004 with the following Board D
Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Edward Moriarty, Richard 8
Dionne and Stephen Pinto. Notice of this hearing was sent to abutters and others and w v
notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordancP
with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petition is requesting a Variance to allow an existing curb cut to be used for a second
driveway for the property located at 14 Gardner Street in an R-2 zone.
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. Petitioner, William Heney representing the homeowners, David and Victoria Cote
is requesting a Variance to allow for a second driveway that has an existing curb
cutin place.
2. Petitioner states that Mrs. Cote has a disability which necessitates the need for a
second driveway. Mrs. Cote is sight impaired and requires the location of the
second driveway because she is unable to negotiate the original driveway with her
condition. Mrs. Cote is blind in one eye and therefore has no peripheral vision.
The original driveway is narrow and against the side of the house. Petitioner
further states that the second driveway is a necessity and the original driveway
creates a hardship for her to utilize.
DECISIONOF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM HENEY REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14 GARDNER STREET
R_2 cn
page two r"—
o m
C-) O
3 The petitioner supplied a letter in support of his proposal for a Variance that wpy
signed by thirteen neighbors. a o
D 41
4. The direct abutter,the Scialdoni family were opposed to this second driveway.c.? cn-
The car would be parked very close to their house and would be right under thgJ m n
Bedrooms subjecting them to fumes and exhaust from the car. 'o
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 1 in favor and 4 in opposition to grant the
requested variances. Having failed to gamer the four affirmative votes required to pass,
the motion is defeated and the petition is denied.
Variance Denied �
October 20, 2004 ✓�JCY' �` �t�L
Bonnie Belair ���
Board of Appe
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 of 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 owner Certificate of
Title.
Board of Appeal
a nH
CM m <
C-') G
Q D
D
Q
W r.r3
C) n
y
J ,�;s _evw._ --o _
- 13
IZ
�o < -41
t f CL'V
� -
r4. _.s. �. .. _ter �_ .r _ � _ tl}
... _...�. i .. v. _ � ._ � � _. �. � .1 _ _ _ __ _ f �.. _ _ _ _..
r
r � �
i
_ __ ___ � _ _. . _ _ w_. � .__. _._ �__. _ _..— -..� _ .:r-
__ _ _ _. �
__ .. _ _ __ _ _ ,. ..- _ - _._ _ _ _ _. _ _ - ,a4
.. .. _ _..-_ - . _.. _ _ _ . __ . _ �It. '. ..
I
(' b
�__. ,