32 HANCOCK STREET - ZBA , I
32 Hancock St. R-2 1
/ Andrew Wood II
JJ
I
j
r4.g
tF 3�.co.m1�
�` f1�Ttg of "alcm, C-u55ur4HSrf*y 16
31z
Paurb o{ , JP211 FILE#
N Y
Oily CL{RK. 6a7.R ,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANDREW J. OD, II FOR A VARIANCE haJg.
4`t7
AT 32 HANCOCK STREET, R-2
A hearing on this Petition was held on April 27, 1988 with the following
members of the Board present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Bencal,
Fleming, Luzinski and I,abrecque. 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.
The Petitioner, represented by Atty. John Serafini, is the owner of the
property and is requesting a variance to add a third dwelling unit. Petitioner
previously appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeal on February 17, 1988
and was denied a Variance. On March 24, 1988 the Petitioner appeared before
the PlanningBoard which voted that specific and material changes have been
made to the original petition.
The Zoning Board of Appeal first considered the question of whether this
petition contains specific and material changes from the petition presented
to the Board on February 17, 1988. The Board voted unanimously, 5-0, that
such specific and material change existed.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
m ,; a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
m the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
$ ' affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
N e
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
C"3 involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the
LC W
petitioner;
_ F 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, 4 g makes the following findings of fact:
1. The petitioners lot is narrow, undersized, and there is no
possibility of expansion since it is bounded by other closely-spaced
dwellings and other business uses.
2. The neighborhood will suffer hardship if the current upgrading of
the property is not completed.
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
f
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANDREI4 J. WOOD, II FOR A VARIANCE
AT 32 HANCOCK STREET, SALEM
Page Two
property but not the district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial 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 or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal vote unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
requested variance subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. All work must comely with all the requirements of the Salem Fire Dept.
2. Legal building permit be obtained.
3. Construction be done as per plans submitted.
4. A Certificate of Occupancy to be obtained.
5. Six (6) legal parking spaces be maintained on site, as per plans
submitted.
6. Property must be owner-occupied. If not the Variance is terminated.
7. Garage is to be removed after the obtaining of necessary permits.
GRA=
,James M. Fleming, Esq: Vice-Chairman,
Zoning Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
F -
BOARD OF APPEAL
. ' 3,�,�,�`� 315 QY► '86
f1�i#n ofttlPm, � ttsstttl#usP##s
•�h^�waa �9ClERK.`-AL:N.�.A.ss. �nxrb o{ Pprz ( .
'MAR -Z 3 is PM '88
FILE#
CITY CLERK. SA-FIA. MASS.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANDREW J . WOOD, iI FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 32 HANCOCK ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held February 17, 1988 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Strout and Associate
Member Dore. 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.
The petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance to convert an
existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district.
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 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;
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 consideration of the evidence presented and after
viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The petition can maintain five ( 5) legal parking spaces on the
premises:
2. There are other three family and multi-famiiv dwellings in the area;
3. A petition in favor of this project signed by neighbors and abutters
was presented;
4. There was no opposition;
5. Facts presented concerning legal hardship were questionable.
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 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;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANDREW J . WOOD, II FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 32 HANCOCK ST. , SALEMM,
page two
3. The relief requested cannot 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 Board of Appeal voted 3-1 , against the granting of the requested
Variance. Messrs. , Fleming, Hacker and Strout voted in favor, Mr. Dore voted in
opposition. Having failed to carry the required four affirmative votes, the
petition is denied.
DENIED
ames B. Hacker, 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 MADS.
C.EN ER AL LAGS. CHAPTER F6'8, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFIER THE DATE OF FILING
GF TH;S DECIS!ON 171 THE OF-KE OF THE CITY CLERK.
Pa�(t:SST T6 ";—S. (Li:ZRA: ii.;..:. CHAPTER SS3. SECT13N 11. THE Vi PIA:i,-C C+ "^,:L FERVIT
. ;I;IED HEREN. SHALL G:T TP .E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEOL„IS',Cti CERT-
, ST1:N OF THE CITY CLEP.' L S,i 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED A';1) NO AFP-+,L H�)
IF SLC.H A!; AFPr At- R'S B-,'; RLE. THAT IT HAS BEEN _...Ed IS
U1 TFL S::),H ELSEX P.ECISTRS OF DEEDS AND INDEXED URCEC T,z ;,A64E OF THE OW'JE^
OF RECORD OR IS REURDED ANJ NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
NORTON
115'-6"
9'X20' 9'X20' 9'X20' 9'X20' 9'X20' 9'X20'
REAR
ENTRANCE
BALTISEHANCOCK
tn Ln
STREET
PROPOSED PAVED PARKING LOT WALKWAY
WITH SIX SPACES
` PAVED INCLINE
j WITH CEMENT WALLS
0
116'-3"
SALEM GLASS SCALE DRAWING
RED- EXISTING (MILLER) 32 HANCOCK STREET
BLACK- PROPOSED
PETITION
RE: VARIANCE TO CONVERT A TWO FAMILY DWELLING INTO A THREE
FAMILY DWELLING AT 32 HANCOCK ST.
WE THE UNDERSIGNED SEE NO REASON TO DECLINE ANDREW J. WOOD II
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO CONVERT 32 HANCOCK ST. INTO A THREE
FAMILY DWELLING.
ly
/ !
x,Cox nrk Chi# of "'�4altm' ttss .c. ix e##s
9 DA Y Onr Saltm Green
March 28, 1988
James B. Hacker
Chairman
Salem Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, Ma 01970
Dear Mr. Hacker: -
On March 24, 1988, in accordance with Chapter 40A, Section 16, the
Planning Board reviewed the petition of Andrew Wood, regarding his
petition for a Variance to convert an existing two family dwelling into
a three family dwelling in an R-2 district at 32 Hancock Street, which
was denied by the Board of Appeal on February 17, 1988.
As required by state law for this petition to be resubmitted to the
Board of Appeal within 2 years of unfavorable action by the Board of
Appeal, the Planning Board agrees that specific and material changes
have been made to the petition.
Sincerely,
Walter B. Power, III
Chairman
J1656