46-52 GREENLAWN AVENUE - ZBA (3) I
Lots 46-52 Greenlawn. Ave. R-1
Charles Brett Tr.
PHEASANT HILL REALTY TRUST
14 GLENN AVE - SALEM, MASBOARB (IDF APPEALS'
AuG 32 AM
RECEI4ED
CITY OF SALEM,MASS.
August 10, 1989
Board of Appeal
City of Salem
Salem, MA 01970
Gentlemen:
I am in receipt of a copy of the petition of Charles
Brett Trustee regarding his request for variances to combine
seven (i) lots on Greenlawn Avenue into three (3) lots.
It is my understanding that these lots are the same as
variances granted by the Board of Appeal and approved by the
Planning Board on December 2, 1982.
As these lots (3) blend well with the existing lots and
homes in the neighborhood , I have no objectives to the
granting of the necessary variances by the Board of Appeal.
Very truly yours,
Richard E. Swiniuch
Trustee
RES/Is
DATE OF HEARING
PETITIONER %,�
LOCATION__.,/,
MOTION: TO GRANT SECOND
TO DENY SECOND �//
TO RE-HEAR SECOND
LEAVE TO WITHDRAW SECOND /f
TO CONTINUE SECOND
ROLL CALL PRESENT GRANT DENY WITHDRAW RE-HEAR CONTINUE
RtfMl7D-BE*G41,
RICHARD FEBONIO
JAMES 'FLEMING
EDWARD LUZINSKI /
JOHN NUTTING
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
PEKE
« ARTHUR LABRECGUE
CONDITIONS: j
l/
z
PHEASANT HILL REALTY TRUST
14 GLENN AVE - SALEM; MAS�BOARFVF APPEALS
AUG 8 '2 as '39
rECE '-D
CITY OF SALEH,HASS.
August 10, 1989
Board of Appeal
City of Salem
Salem, MA 01910
Gentlemen:
I am in receipt of a copy of the petition of Charles
Brett Trustee regarding his request for variances to combine
seven (i) lots on Greenlawn Avenue into three (3) lots.
It is my understanding that these lots are the same as
variances granted by the Board of Appeal and approved by the
Planning Board on December 2, 1982.
As these lots (3) blend well with the existing lots and
homes in the neighborhood , I have no objectives to the
granting of the necessary variances by the Board of Appeal.
Very truly yours,
Richard E. Swiniuch
Trustee
RES/ls
Civ of ttlrm, Eitts��cl�iiset#�
3� � �C2LY[YLtY[� �Q2IT�t
'�ramne
011 $alem Gum
July 24, 1989
James Fleming
Chairman
Board of Appeal.
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mr. Fleming:
On July 20, 1989 in accordance with Chapter 40A, Section 16 of the
Massachusetts General Laws, the Planning Board reviewed the petition of
Charles Brett regarding his petition for variances to combine seven(7)
lots into four(4) lots on Greenlawn Avenue which was denied by the Board
of Appeal on May 17, 1989.
As required by State Law for this petition to be resubmitted to the
Board of Appeal within two(2) years of unfavorable action by the Board
of Appeal, the Planning Board agrees that specific and material changes
have been made to this petition.
Sincerely,
Walter B. Power, III
Chairman
r289
U6 -U 3 iI
� 3 � (�itu of �ttlpm �Cttssttrl�use##s r,� f
r7?' Pourb of �VVral
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES BRETT TR. FOR VARIANCES
AT LOTS 46-52 GREENLAWN AVENUE (R-1 )
4 hearing on this Petition was held August 16, 1989 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messr. , Febonio, Luzinski, Nutting
and Associate Member LaBrecque. 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.
Petitioner, owner of the property, represented by Attorney John Vallis, is
requesting variances from lot size and frontage to allow parcel to be divided
into three lots in this R-1 district.
A petition to divide this property into four (4) lots was denied by the
Board of Appeal on May 17, 1989. The Board of Appeal, after hearing evidence
regarding substantial change, said change being, three (3) lots rather than
the four ( 4) lots originally, and after receiving Consent from the Salem Planning
Board, voted unanimously, 5-0, that there was a substantial change and they
would hear the petition.
The Variances which have 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 and structures in the same district;
o. 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, and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The abutter who had been opposed to the previous petition requesting
four lots sent a letter to the Board of Appeal stating he would have
no objection to the request for three (3) lots.
2. Councillor Leonard O'Leary, Ward IV, spoke in favor.
3. The property in question is unique in the manner in which the
property slopes up and the amount of ledge, making this the most
feasible way to develop this site.
4. The proposed lots would be in harmony with the existing neighborhood.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES BRETT, TR. FOR VARIANCES
AT LOTS 46-52 GREENLAWN AVENUE, SALEM
page two
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and
and not the district generally.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would work a
substantial hardship on 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 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 . The lots be established as per the plans submitted and as per the
dimensions shown on those plans dated 6/12/89.
2. Subdivision aooroval, including the extension of Greenlawn Avenue, be
obtained from the City of Salem Planning Board.
3. Drainage plan be offered and approved by the City of Salem Director of
Public Services.
4. Proper numbering of lots be obtained from the City of Salem Assessor.
VARIANCES GRANTED
L
Oohn R. Nutf7ing, Se tary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
^.ppeal from this decision. if env, shall be mode ours_ant to Sect:^n 17 df
e "ass. General Laces, Cho!;tcr b02. j.nd s;la'! ,e filed•..,ftq 20 ^sys
w' the r..'te or f'' ne Of Iris ;.._i.,ioo i- .; 0 fizc C t o i, ,> -::a:'.f.
-Imcu. o .._..s G_ncr LI s rr- _..c . arce
n1 9 formit gmn,�d li . Ili ,-.t .,. . zifeu a t. 1 =y n.
Gn.'t'f�9_ '1 _!a r k i
ii U,O,istry Gr 0�cds and inicxei ❑r!ar (b;r nBmc o.' C;e O'. ❑'9r of 12=914 W,
Is recorded and noted on the mvrer'5 Cc,'utica-,e o. ilte.
BOARD OF APPEAL
-` �' ` '�a+.a Lf �� - It i -. .-'. 5 �k.... _.s...as at •e4aa' _� _ 1" _ �"r�k�_
ne
aab V! walYi es W►, say .r, r.",3 t` w' IDN R --------
17
'w4 ans its sera, f +uy + __." i1. M a -J+.t7•S t "„ ► 1W►. . x+ �.
- i' -' apo E�".ry'7 c„� 7-•- .z:, Lt - ss --- � � '•� � i r. 14�c' E ° a"•''' 'r i Y'rjM s.
'� '� �� isM i ..a. ♦ _7+ s.'.. f +ce� "'�.� �13 � `� �s aR, "tLTY 1r•V►i/•"+ sz '�y$4c�>�i .
Ea• w w t
N � � • '! � j � i ,v .. ` o' p � � tsar, •+' � —11r- E P ssu+ � M..'�,�
� J �►a • ries �= C Se, s. p j .o- p' `w�"'a{,S'^'•« .� '. �rT-r..! !! � •mss :2
s
ltu t � •y! lsssJ \ sr' rea s aaa Ei-v •s.a `� ae ar ..r ' a '
esti i :�� isst i'4. • ? 4�� 1. +7ZLLA� ,cr+• Q
I' s � IA[ - �tr tis. � i ��.f ^ao' � '�J•(,.n, � sib y i � w -,z � a's` _�' aa � swti s4 auis T ���
. � gig
moi. � .:1� tale isati p .t •~N Er°° � � � - ° � rr�=`' � � � i � � � � wss/ � �..: .}.Sts'Y . .
,•NSE Y � son � � ) KA ^... !M �-. r � � �- - i � --cME �, � � � �.•.� � � `s +x�+ r
.►nr '� :1.i,{I • se}t i :OD+ ♦rs „ ! uo" 'b� • +•- .atm.. •c iz i SrssTT --o[T�'K / . - V � _�:, • i L i �.a` t d ' �,'
• jti - wW .r�IY d ` + s•, , 1 �L .. 2 res'• �..•.s ,nsx,.,,, .
,• + r - :�La � ty� +s3s '. .w- 1 � t+s►1 i � �' .y`- .o''t''g
r
"eya� sssi mitis! ♦ ia�� as t•' E .�.. yY: • �.ei:f. `.?
wow� e � ..� ! : � «s1 � •ss e.s T �-i z - S ti•. t^ M... � � •r.es � � � ., � � y� s •,.
M/Nl � ry{ i YV ~!rt Y •-- x :i �s� � .i..r asa � Nva � Y Y 7. rte' { � as' .w• sw 4n � �.. ~~� - 9 „r{` � �.
tsM aae z l( � .' "SSttYj"• r r � �' '+ � � - s S • a a1 Y � � .� � N ��� �z
s+"'as' .�. � � _ �a.i+� • _ 1 . _. ..+•: swra . : . .r+!- � 1 's r+ nsr � - A �� ,� ",.
` , ase / t o s ✓1 fi . t why r r 2y
., �. 9 ;`rsA!
V160, i�r iNi. +tv LEti�wa.� M aR .►a 's � 1 o1�a� - �
s' i • a ,. �y.d � � y �.' '� , �}�r-e .§
ss•f., - ,fe.., :. '• ��°+ a••at.+ .ham 's` tr *' " '. M �" aaMa�
pmv
Air r z s.c ..... t, -Ir+✓ ewa\+ ` atlar .K O .� Y- ham} u
a
w..+ aea �d it:• j It f c s��a •k y u �r w.j !, y�l �, � 3
AkW w r+yM s ,
rm ...as• xt "'R. a» a .M ' wsrw s r r
.wr .ae ao a t^ tae
` ` .!�- Lir ~i►qs
vim i .ssp N.s, fag ia// w. r� M+ sa.• alc a 1 *.ti aA: s�G A srua t s rq � f3"nk=
v �iV•Q �. p t
t>� sse p= w•. Iil t• WM'v �t�`. µ. e a aP� , - z as
S r ZSWT ♦_
� .:. ..��.. - '�rier .� ...-ys a`��...._. � 1 i-_^� ri r�♦ 4pe,. � - .. w.o. Y �..,.-. r Q 4 • d� �s1t
!asla Ear ., .,n ,,,,.._. � «:. i �J � ci"""'_" _.._._ • i
-aas j —�;♦s+tr— i'6TS_. a "" y a •'�i _ ..a. .. _
9.. \ �111-''s+•..•isr w� Wi ;c.sr Uar. KL �! cry ..•'s• �_.. E•'4 w.a v, +lll1 ' sr� y - '` see. • „t d .1M-e �� - . .
_ 4♦OO•.•!117'x'
AdF
vQ
4
DQA CI OF APP ALS APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . •
(situ of SRkjn,.53
�ttss�cl�ts>et#s
'• �Eerly � �RMMb of �L"W
TO THE BOARD OF APOIAE SALEM'MASS'
,itThe Undersigned 46-52 pGree]awnaAvee is the owner' of a certain parcel of land locate
7h .!Un d e r
and said par el s affe ted. bM : Zoning District.R-. 1 .
of the Massachusetts State Building Code an or Salem pLoninj A��ina�r�c��ZZ� $-3•' TJA.
Plans describing the work proposed, have been submitted to the Inspector of Buildings in
accordance with Section IX A. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
DIRECT APPEAL
The Application for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following
reasons:
DIRECT APPEAL
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 uv-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:
Please see continuation sheet attached hereto.
C" vi
m v,
r
� J
G
CV a
]G
EY
m _ w
+ v
9 J T
Charles Brett, Trustee of the
Owner. D,r-gt<. Family. Realt.X Trust
Address.139 •Holten street; Danvers ,MA
" 'o f 42 *
Telephone.W8 ) 777-1571
. 1 . .
Peti ti oner.same d
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Address. . . . . . . . . . . .
DateJune. 3.4. . 3.9A9 . . . . . .
Teleph
J
. . ..
By. . . .
nGliy for Owner
Three copies of the application must be `iled with a 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.
Continuation Sheet
The Petitioner has purchased the seven small vacant lots
shown as Lots 46 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 51 , and 52 on a pian dated October,
1925 , recored in Plan Book 55, and 17 , a copy of which is
attached hereto, and intends to combine them into three larger
lots, Lots 1-4 as shown on the new plan filed herewith being
dated June 12 , 1989 . All lots would be used as single-family
house lots. Petitioner' s proposed combination would create
lots with more than the required 100 feet of frontage, each
with an average area of about 11 ,270 square feet. Because
of the size and shape of Petitioner' s parcel , a condition
especially affecting his land but not generally affecting
other lands in the same district, Petitioner ' s proposed combination
would create lots of less than 15 ,000 square feet. Petitioner
notes that the parcel of land involved is part of an old subdivision
where the great majority of existing dwelling lots are in
the 5 , 000 to 7, 000 square foot range, well under the size
of Petitioner ' s proposed lots. These existing lots containing
mostly single-family houses . The Petitioner' s plan would
result in single-family homes on three lots substantially
larger Than most lots existing in the area. Therefore, Petitioner' s
proposed three lots would not substantially derogate from
the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance of otherwise
be detrimental to public good. To implement his plans and
avoid the necessary hardship, which literal enforcement of
the zoning ordinance would create, Petitioner seeks a variance
of the zoning ordinance from section VIII B. 3 as to division
of land and from section VI A as to lot area.
Petitioner refers the Board to a decision of the Board
filed on May 26 , 1989 , in which Petitioner' s Application for
a four lot variance was denied. Made a part of this current
application is a decision of the Salem Planning Board that
Petitioners current plan now before the Board is substantially
different from his prior four lot plan. Petitioner respectfully
suggests that his current plan is in harmony with the surrounding
area and any density impacts are alleviated because of the
larger amount of square footage per lot now offered.
U0,
��� 7Yt ,:': F mss! 44 L� 000y oo S oa os o00 0001 Q n v ei
�W .01 - - o of N • �I 1 SI
3 IP q ? i a o8¢� 8f W , os S� ci•6oi M6.�7N �c
X11: o �e4-.l.l +fis s}- UI �S ZS
rS,ll Yc f+2� 0 � 9{►28 �j�� t � !>Sf5 /yam �y 'a . . oo•os• 0005 00 os
of t5 • � a' s i . � .0 U (t � (�i_ O Z2 Z _
7'F7 • `�.1 r e Y O - io o N(N l.Sf$ y f co J u • N 0 i.
• tS �v8 �' o t eel it
o�iL sass�e '"' �'r '� a o° g ^ p c 0 °
yyq o7a
t.Y •' to. : 0/ . �DSfS G! .A 4L" f 000 vo 5 oo'og o.�s, o
t �'• - c� } P e oc °o
Us �+ o N a Ln 0 0 Q p N
.,..r LB 6Zo5 ,. . 44aP j 0009 " ooSi; Lg v- LSfS nOf
4 p Q Q O 0 0 d
'1880\ - .,. -. "a7t1�yF..� . 3�-� ` - • .. y 1 .. 84 .:C�- of v �Z ° '42 O 0 0 U 'n
'` p -� d SLI$. w 6£ 8L"ey o • ��vy.? ro ms � _�,,`
872S y d �1+r8 oyo 000 00'. 9 oe.oS_= o 0
oll ^l 4'l0
W 0 L 19 1!l St 0 °0 AON0 'q 0 11<` ? OT` GaZ M
Ln
of t9S�L1 N W �` 822$ `' in 0 tBZp
?o1.. o ..�4.mf1� iS• of n �'SSg • ��'' t t
os 85 is
IV
�
N s �
J y►9L�� _
ul 0 a 14
47
[fl _
o t y W 4 .��vti� TooS of q, •000 Ll d
IL'LtiZ S•')j!f 'koo; A �v .y (b 0 h
N Ul ,, ,a. , , c a ( Q w N
a 0 ,92 - c oti'6ot ' ;oy n•oV o'S3
Z�I
�
Jo
105-S � o r \
♦„ y r uo_a i2o-s
D SlY P 4♦
at
�C, S.o �r - nor - 109, °O-s uo
Ln
d of
%D O op i1 ° m� a 0
W�
/O N
NU i o a0 m
u o Ar y o u
U O
m
ro i o r'I
A
o / -=Z-t
\ 1 l
r
\ O
9i
ti
4�� w
.g
l 1 £
d
4L,
g6
i
v � rlA
4I 'i's 990'Ll
z .
M
! L
404 • " 9�b
9
V
q6
4 o
'J'S OBZ'L L
b
1
i
9X.
/ !6,
�/J 0$ ,
AV E.
SPRINGS►DE
3
90-5
e -
-8121
�pgENEN� a� 10Ep
0 0 0 ' _ 19000
o %026 1945 `e°w
N ^R
19194
6440 - \\\ 5890
\0 56 Q 5910
10'4 Ire NVE 20 C� �'A
,as626 c -. `�� _ �a �0 tnyy a
000
Y S 050.e \5
9 13
2
9
e° PSE \o g1 \53 e
GAO X85 . 11910 'v <
92 i.
\\913
9Q c 1�
105 \ .
5 \0.3 . 10110 \e
O 1,t
\�J\ 913 ze
N r
1 «
\ i 9
9
0+3 -
61 2�-e
Id
gg ,
1 . ;
2 F,A 2
9 N °y O \\rO Pc
i2+338 9 5
6419 �J
N$
spy \\860
5 13
6A
�g PO SOL•
\gn
ro tie° zea i
\Q
1A .a i
Ito i
(situ ofttipm, � �s�tttiru, #s
3Boarb of Au#rrttI17
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES BRETT, TRUSTEE FCR VARIANCES
AT LOTS 46-52 GREEN, AWN AVENUE (R-1)
A hearing on this petition was held Mav 17, 1989 with the following Boara Nlembers
present: James Fleming, Chairman: ,Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman; John hutting,
Secretary, and Associate Member LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Saler
Evening Mews in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, Trustee of the Brett Family Realty Trust, owners of the property, is
requesting variances to combine seven ( 7) lots into four (4) lots in this R-1 zone.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a findina of rhe
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 and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The lots in question have always been vacant.
2. The lots in the immediate area of the proposed plan all contain
more square footage than the proposed lots.
3. The proposed lots would not be in harmony with the surrounding area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented.
the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject
property and not the district generally.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. Desirable relief can not be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
0Z m
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES BRETT, TR. FOR VARIANCES
AT LOTS 46-52 GREENLAWN AVENUE. SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted three (3) in favor, one ( 1 ) opposed
(Mr. Nutting) to the granting of the variances requested. The request is denied
due to the failure of the petitioner to obtain the required four (4) affirmative
votes .
DENIED
Richard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman e
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Mass.
General Laws, Chapter 908, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing
of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 809, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit
granted herein, shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certi-
fication of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and not appeal has been filed,
or that, if such an appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is
recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the nate of the owner
of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
f�itg of ,Jajent, C CUSSar4US&OR E C EN E n
JJO/41F110�
Poarb of tAyyral '81 OCT 19 P4 :21
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD MORGANI CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR LOTS 46-52 GREENLAWN AVENUE SALEM HASS
A hearing on this Petition was held on October 14, 1981 with the
following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker,
Piemonte, Feeherry and Associate Member Lusinski. Notices of the hearing
were 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 Petitioner has requested a variance for Lots 46-52 Greenlawn Avenue
to combine the existing seven lots and then divide them into four new lots.
A variance is required because the lots to be created as shown on the plans
submitted to the Board will all be non-conforming.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented
at the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following
findings of fact:
1. The lots in the surrounding area are similar in size to
those which petitioner wishes to create.
2. No substantive opposition was raised to petitioner's plan by
neighbors.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of its peculiar configur-
ation and because of the ledge at the site and the manner in which the
property slopes up from Greenlawn Avenue. In addition, the
present configuration of the lots imposes a hardship on the
petitioner by restricting his development of these lots in a manner
which is consistent with the surrounding area.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the land in question
but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the land
is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question,
but not the zoning district generally cause special financial hardship
to the Petitioner.
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good.
DECISION - OCTOBER 14, 1981 - EDWARD MORGANI - PAGE TWO
'81 OCT 19 P4 :21
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted i�Tfavo;,,."!z
of approving the grant of the requested relief. The Boar 8 sM,.% �'FFICE
a variance to the Petitioner on the following terms and cond �is:�pss
1. Petitioner may combine Lots 46-52 Greenlawn Avenue into four single
family house lots as shown on the plan submitted to the Board.
2. This variance is conditioned upon the approval of the petitioner's
plan by the Planning Board and any conditions imposed upon petitioner
by the Planning Board "I. be incorporated into this decision.
3. Petitioner shall submit all plans to the City Engineer who may then
review these plans to determine whether they adequately deal with
drainage at the site. The City Engineer shall, in his sole discretion,
modify such plans as they relate to drainage if he deems that to be
necessary.
Anthony M. eeherry
Z
APPEAL
GE!QEMI L� C ... - L
DF il!IS ! L�m:..t I II` �..I 6L - I .. A TO :� T� t _F "1E iS.
U
FMASj* TO .F THE ,,..!
GRAJ:T EJ I tl-7 Si i l 4 1 c_ '.'! 11 T
FICATiO J IT C :c
i.,_ Lli! CLEI„, i�:S `D DAYS !;A';C c •;qD L:7J !!r -PEa' 'P.—
v1- _
GR T4AT. IF d A. A.PEAL 'i' En E. T' * I� h:".S u .,
RE rx=R 1:. L:E Ic�ni GF OiE_$ A:tc I,.uL;.cJ ?J:F `•
OF f:E00dJ GR l: r a
'�`-OdOLD A::J tJJTCJ Oq THE 0:7i:ER'S OERTIFVTE OF TITLE. �F TnE GP..IER
O9A17$ OF APKA1
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
4 U,-FIVER �J
r �tJ t IIf1PTtT� c�SS�TCBEIB
��allll�b w-FIIc'IYIi Df � rpQtt1 82 MAR 17 A10 :49
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD MORGANI CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR LOTS 46-52 GREENLAWN AVENUE SALEM is li
A hearing on this Petition was held on March 10, 1982 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker, LaBrecque, V
Piemonte and Feeherry. Notices of the hearing were 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.
1981This property is currently the subject of a prior variance dated October 14,
. However, the Petitioner has requested a new variance for Lots 46-52 Greenlawn
Avenue to divide the property into four lots as shown on the plan dated December 31,
1981, bubmitted to the Board. A variance is requird because the lots to
be created as shown on the plan submitted to the Board will all be non-conforming-
The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the .
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings
of fact:
1. The lots in the surrounding area are similar in size to those
which Petitioner wishes to create.
2. No substantive opposition was raised to petitioner's plan by
neighbors.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of its peculiar
configuration and because of the ledge at the site and the
manner in which the property slopes up from Greenlawn Avenue.
In addition, the present configuration of the lots imposes a
hardship on the petitioner by restricting his development
of these lots in a manner which is consistent with the sur-
rounding area.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the land in
question but do not generally affect the zoning district in
which the land is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question,
but not the zoning district generally cause special financial
hardship to the Petitioner.
t
DECISION - March 10, 1982 - ED14ARD MORGANI R`-�
Page 2
'82 MAR 17 A19 :49
4. The desired variance may be granted without stantial
detriment to the public good. l�Y CLE? jF;irE
Art
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted 4-1 in favor of
approving the grant of the requested relief (Mr. Piemonte voted
"present") . The Board grants a variance to the Petitioner on
the following terms and conditions. .
1. Petitioner may combine Lots 46-52 Greenlawn Avenue into
four single family lots as shown on the plan submitted to
the Board.
2. This variance is conditioned upon the approval of the
Petitioner's plan by the Planning Board and any conditions
imposed upon Petitioner by the Planning Board shall
be incorporated into this decision.
3. Petitioner shall submit all plans to the City Engineer
who may then review these plans to determine whether they
adequately deal with drainage at the site. The City Engineer
shall, in his sole discretion, modify such plans as they
relate to drainage if he deems that to be necessary.
nthony M. Feed r
APPEAL Fn^a TS!L :-U .':ADZ PO":i::L:i TO S'CT!C:'. 17 CF T:i"c I.:ASS.
. C:i:.?t' _.. ,,%.. :J -. .....!'Pi [u D '.S .. TE^ TIN: DA'l CF FILING
r-r�.....(! .._ aii CIE^':.
CF T63 uc....... C: . .
1- TF_ .. _ rF.?:'IT
Fla"T;:,. .., .. ....
t 1 ..: u.t ....._ .. o..-.: ..: .:... F... _.... '.• . . •::',: HA!;
Olt Tiii.T. iF Ss.i: .,.. .:F 7.i'!. Ib.S L.... ;L;. S.. .T .. .-.. ... . .5.'] C:;>, f-:::5: 13
LF THE G'1PIEM
OF RECD:2D Oft Is kEC2i:u ED Afiil -;JTED O:: T:.: Ci.,H j'S CuIGFILA.TE OF TITLE.r -
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
BOAfn OF APPEALS APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ctv of s2dem, Ssxc*ft
� JUL 3 2 53 PH 'B9
RECHVED
TO THE BOARD OF APPA& SALEM.MASS.
The Undersigned represenRt that he is )W the ownery of a certain parcel of land locate
3t ;IO.Lots• •46-52 Gree awn Ave.
" ' • • .1t8> ; Zoning DistrictR.1 .
of the Massachusetts State BuildingnCode�an %orl S�aleme�Loninjx��l4ila�r���zzz
Plans describing the work proposed, have been submitted to the Inspector of Buildings in
accordance with Section IX A. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
DIRECT APPEAL
he Application for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following
reasons:
DIRECT APPEAL
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 8v-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:
Please see continuation sheet attached hereto.
ao �,
Ln s,
¢C
9 -_
�' Charles Brett, Trustee of the
Owner.Bxgtti. F.al
m. . Re. . ..rust
Addres5IA9.Holten Street, ?anvers,MA
Vi923. . .
Telephone.W8•) 777-1571
a . .
Peti ti oner.Same
OateJune. 3A. . )9A.� . II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . Address. .
� Telephone2heSecretary
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
By
Vallis, Attorney for Owner
Three copies of the application must be `iled wit of the Board of
Appeals with a check, for advertising in the amount of. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . A
four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to✓The
tvening News.
Continuation Sheet
The Petitioner has purchased the seven small vacant lots
shown as Lots 46 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 51 , and 52 on a plan dated October,
1925 , recored in Plan Book 55 , and 17, a copy of which is
attached hereto, and intends to combine them into three larger
lots, LOts 1 -4 as shown on the new plan filed herewith being
dated June 12 , 1989 . All lots would be used as single-family
house lots. Petitioner' s proposed combination would create
lots with more than the required 100 feet of frontage, each
with an average area of about 11 , 270 square feet. Because
of the size and shape of Petitioner' s parcel, a condition
especially affecting his land but not generally affecting
other lands in the same district, Petitioner' s proposed combination
would create lots of less than 15 ,000 square feet. Petitioner
notes that the parcel of land involved is part of an old subdivision
where the great majority of existing dwelling lots are in
the 5,000 to 7 ,000 square foot range, well under the size
of Petitioner ' s proposed lots. These existing lots containing
mostly single-family houses . The Petitioner' s plan would
result in single-family homes on three lots substantially
larger than most lots existing in the area. Therefore, Petitioner ' s .
proposed three lots would not substantially derogate from
the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance of otherwise
be detrimental to public good. To implement his plans and
avoid the necessary hardship, which literal enforcement of
the zoning ordinance would create, Petitioner seeks a variance
of the zoning ordinance from section VIII B. 3 as to division
of land and from section VI A as to lot area.
Petitioner refers the Board to a decision of the Board
filed on May 26 , 1989 , in which Petitioner' s Application for
a four lot variance was denied. Made a part of this current
application is a decision of the Salem Planning Board that
Petitioners current plan now before the Board is substantially
different from his prior four lot plan. Petitioner respectfully
suggests that his current plan is in harmony with the surrounding
area and any density impacts are alleviated because of the
larger amount of square footage per lot now offered.
Continuation Sheet
The Petitioner has purchased the seven small vacant lots
shown as Lots 46 , 47, 48 , 50 , 51 , and 52 on a plan dated October,
1925, recored in Plan Book 55 , and 17, a copy of which is
attached hereto, and intends to combine them into three larger
lots, Lots 1-4 as shown on the new plan filed herewith being
dated June 12, 1989 . All lots would be used as single-family
house lots. Petitioner' s proposed combination would create
lots with more than the required 100 feet of frontage, each
with an average area of about 11 ,270 square feet. Because
of the size and shape of Petitioner' s parcel, a condition
especially affecting his land but not generally affecting
other lands in the same district, Petitioner' s proposed combination
would create lots of less than 15 ,000 square feet. Petitioner
notes that the parcel of land involved is part of an old subdivision
where the great majority of existing dwelling lots are in
the 5, 000 to 7,000 square foot range, well under the size
of Petitioner' s proposed lots. These existing lots containing
mostly single-family houses. The Petitioner' s plan would
result in single-family homes on three lots substantially
larger Than most lots existing in the area. Therefore, Petitioner' s
proposed three lots would not substantially derogate from
the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance of otherwise
be detrimental to public good. To implement his plans and
avoid the necessary hardship, which literal enforcement of
the zoning ordinance would create, Petitioner seeks a variance
of the zoning ordinance from section VIII B.3 as to division
of land and from section VI A as to lot area.
Petitioner refers the Board to a decision of the Board
filed on May 26, 1989, in which Petitioner' s Application for
a four lot variance was denied. Made a part of this current
application is a decision of the Salem Planning Board that
Petitioners current plan now before the Board is substantially
different from his prior four lot plan. Petitioner respectfully
suggests that his current plan is in harmony with the surrounding
area and any density impacts are alleviated because of the
larger amount of square footage per lot now offered.
BOARD OF ASSESSORS
CITY HALL PAGE:
::Af frt4- mA,,—ni97n 7�
DATE
2
CEftTIFIEO
3
cic
2 . ........ 4
rE
3
5
4 SUBJECT PROPERTY: MAP, 08 LOT: 0154 SUFE: MAP: 08 LOT: 0113 MAP: 08 LOT: 0153
05 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 0011 GREENLAWN AVENUE 0013 GREENLAWN AVENUE 0015 GREENLAWN.AVENUE 7
ASSESSEQ FR BRETT FAMILY REALTY TR(JqT qAmF SAmF nWNFP- a
9
10
7 r-R'
X", ADDRESS'PROPE
13
10 14 40
Oil 08 0.10.1 00'14 GLENN AVENUE PHEASANT HILL REALTY TRUST -14 GLENN AVE ✓ 5
12 SWINIUCH RICHARD E TR SALEM MA 01970 16
.......... 17
..........I
3:1 1 A
GREENLAW, AVENUE 6% �M
:4
DEL'RA MLtk IA"01'97.Q
4Ix—r", E,
'IF RD f IF ,�-,,.I , - , -
6d -1,Z',,,dL6QtRb I fF
I'll, 14�11
06, -1 15�-
....... E, 'i AN ti,
16 SALEM MA 01970 2122
017 08 0114 0018 CLOVERDALE AVENUE WALSH GEORGIA J 18 CLOVERDALE AVE 230
SALEM MA 01970 24
25
08 0 152 0020- CLCQE R Q A L t AVENUE R0 MA N 0 ,J�c,)SEPH' J . . . W)VE-,RbA'CE"AVE40
t .......
z�
28
20 27 li
'T RUST, "S 28
PIA"01Y70.
L, IT 2f3,,9I.1.H�L,,TEN t,
'Doi .......
21 7,
U,"GLE�N A v UE T-7,e
22 BRETT CHARLES TR DANVERS MA 01923 29
0 30
23 08 0120 201 0234 HIGHLAND AVENUE FINOCCHIO JOSEPH A 157 HIGH STREET 31
24 IRENE B TOPSFIELD MA 04983 32
33
14,1, 00.08. EN ADES,,,,CHA
I. , .5,� ,K, �"....16-VEP
25, —VERONA'�STREET,v
34
•26 SrLEPt MA 01970<
35
17
3]
28 3
029 3:
30 40
...... 41
31
42
..... ........
31 430
.........
44
33 ........ ........
45
34 4
6.
035 4
36 48
37
I . . ... ... ........
..
49
..... 51
.........
38
............ 52
39
53
41 54o
41 55
42 56
57
43
I:Z
44
45°
61
46 62
0 47 63
48 641
65
41-, ... ....
66
67
so
e
51 s
69
52 70
053 71
•
54 72
55 q PETER M CAR
ON 73
....... AS: 7,74
'
•51111 1 1 1
75
�77
w
uo-a izo-s
"
v 9a •�
100 -- - 109- 110-a 110- t
a0 0 W
d of oa
f �U uO U, ,
�. ma!' m� m o c
s ,a N
O N
T i V i 0
'DO m
in
y � �' .r��6� 9L ��V• yG � � o� g
•� o� D
0 0
�/ ••tib �
J
_ W
0-6 �40 ll�
y X19 e O
\ aFbe
\ o
\\\ VO 0 � T O
O
N _
s
� 4
A
f
s�
5 •
11 ,280 S.F.
do
N� •
Q0
lg v!
�fro "���6 � •
. 2 1°
11,065 S.F. p5
SIF ��9 01
�P
3
11 ,473 S.F. 6� G
61'
n
0
Sw\A
N�F
g� PLAN OF LAN D
i
IN
e
SALEM MAO
Of y�
GERALD PREPARED BY:
a
RRINI
lE4034
P.J.F. & ASSOCIATES
11 GLEASON ST MEDFORD MA.
0 10 20 _ 40
SCALE: t"= 20'
0 GERALD GUERRINI R,L,S, DATE: o
DATE: 6\ 12\89 FILE NO.: 89-02
--T-
1,
I �
1
�j
56'
11 ,280 S.F.
N�F
Lo
Al
2
11 ,065 S.F. p5'
loi
P
3
11 ,473 S.F.
6�.
in rk
0
SM��N
N�F
tib PLAN OF LAN D
IN
q
t r
SALEM MAO
PREPARED BY:
�GUERRINI
• ! 14034
P.J.F. & ASSOCIATES
11 GLEASON ST MEDFORD MA.
0 10 20 40
C � - �3 - 6y
SCALE: 1"= 20'
0 GERALD GUERRINI R,L,S, DATE:
DATE: 6\ 12\89 FILE NO.: 89-02
IA
c
i
L,
is
1
h
• ��`Off,
<Do 1
11 ,280 S.F.
n
LO
g�.
�g �w
OF M4trf
os �G
1 O.
2 p� f GERALD H
11 ,065 S.F. p~J1 � 14034 GUERRINI�
�O`APND Gh� SORvc•P
1-3
\\ 0 GERALD GUERRINI RLS No. 14034
P 13 GILWAY SAUGUS`, MA 01906
l�
3 CJ�
11 ,473 S.F. 0$
h
Q)
O
N�
PLAN OF LAN D
IN
SALEM MAO
PREPARED BY:
P.J.F. & ASSOCIATES
11 GLEASON ST MEDFORD MA.
0 10 20 40
SCALE: 1"= 20'
h
0 GERALD GUERRINI R,L,S• DATE:
DATE: 6\ 12\89 FILE NO.: 89-02
i