Loading...
372 HIGHLAND AVENUE - ZBA (3) 372 Highland Ave. B-2 1 Puleo (Owner) David,Michelle & Dana DiLisio (pet) -- — — — — � f Ctu of ttlem, � ttsstttl use to -J ? Boara of AtTpeal �j DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID, MICHELLE & DANA DILISIO (PETITIONERS) CHARLES PULEO (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES & SPECIAL PERMIT AT 372 HIGHLAND AVENUE (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held March 10, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; George Ahmed,Francis Grealish, Edward Luzinski and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing ;;ere properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with ?^assachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting Variances and Special Permit to allow construction of a miniature golf course and place of recreation and entertainment housing six (6) amusement devices. The Variance and Special Permit 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 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. d. A Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. 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. Councillor at Large George McCabe sent correspondence requesting the petitioner have a neighborhood meeting. Councillor at Large Jane Stirgwolt was present at the hearing also requested a neighborhood meeting. / DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID, MICHELLE & DANA DILISIO (PETITIONERS) , CHARLES PULED (OWNER) FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 372 HIGHLAND AVE. (B-2) page two 2. Councillor O'Leary, Ward 4, submitted a petition signed by neighbors who are in opposition, he also voiced his opposition. 3. The proposed construction would substantially alter the existing character of the neighborhood and would be detrimental. 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 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. 4. The proposed use would not be in harmony with the district and would not promote the public health, safety or convenience of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 2-3, against the motion to grant the request for a miniature golf course, (Messrs. , Ahmed, Bencal & Grealish voted in opposition, Messrs. , Luzinski & Touchette voted in favor, having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition to allow miniature golf course is denied. The Board then voted unanimously, 0-5 against the motion to grant the request the amusement devices. VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED March 10, 1993 Francis X. Grealish, Jr. Secretary, Board of Appeal m n r� s - Ln ... ., N >- G U DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID, MICHELLE & DANA DILISIO (PETITIONER) , CHARLES PULED (OWNER) FOR VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT AT 372 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM page three 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 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, 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. BOARD OF APPEAL T Ui r ;n N > � v , (9itu of �ulem, _4fttssarijus is - = ? 3Boara of —Au}teul �� `� j• _ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID, MICHELLE & DANA DILISIO (PETITIONERS) CHARLES PULEO (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES & SPECIAL PERMIT AT 372 HIGHLAND AVENUE (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held March 10, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; George Ahmed,Francis Grealish, Edward Luzinski and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing +ere properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with "Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting Variances and Special Permit to allow construction of a miniature golf course and place of recreation and entertainment housing six (6) amusement devices. The Variance and Special Permit 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 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 ,.etitioner. c. Desirable relief may beranted without substantial detriment ent to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. d. A Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. 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. Councillor at Large George McCabe sent correspondence requesting the petitioner have a neighborhood meeting. Councillor at Large Jane Stirgwolt was present at the hearing also requested a neighborhood . meeting. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID, MICHELLE & DANA DILISIO (PETITIONERS) , CHARLES PULED (OWNER) FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 372 HIGHLAND AVE. (B-2) page two 2. Councillor O'Leary, Ward 4, submitted a petition signed by neighbors who are in opposition, he also voiced his opposition. 3. The proposed construction would substantially alter the existing character of the neighborhood and would be detrimental. 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 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. 4. The proposed use would not be in harmony with the district and would not promote the public health, safety or convenience of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 2-3, against the motion to grant the request for a miniature golf course, (Messrs. , Ahmed, Bencal & Grealish voted in opposition, Messrs. , Luzinski & Touchette voted in favor, having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition to allow miniature golf course is denied. The Board then voted unanimously, 0-5 against the motion to grant the request the amusement devices. VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED March 10, 1993 Francis X. Grealish, Jr. n Secretary, Board of Appeal L d � � � U DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID, MICHELLE & DANA DILISIO (PETITIONER) , CHARLES PULED (OWNER) FOR VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT AT 372 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM page three 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 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, 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. BOARD OF APPEAL Lns N r s � Z �' i Ctg of Salem, �Fttssadjusetts - F Pourd of �Fvral ke.i.UTS,� March 24, 1993 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AS OF THIS DATE THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK TO DENY THE PETITION OF DAVID, MICHELLE & DANA DILISIO FOR A VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MINIATURE GOLF COURSE AND PLACE OF ENTERTAINMENT HOUSING SIX AMUSEMENT DEVISES AT 372 HIGHLAND AVENUE. BOARD OF APPEAL BRENDA M. SUMRALL CLERK OF THE BOARD Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17, of 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/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. Board of Appeal City of Salem Board of Appeal 745-9595 Ext. 381 Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition submitted by David, Michelle & Dana Dilisio for variances to allow construction of miniature golf course and a place of recreation and entertainment housing six amusement devices at 372 Highland Avenue (B-2 ) . said hearing to held Wednesday, March 10 , 1993 at 7 : 00 PM, One Salem Green, second floor. Richard A. Bencal, Chairman To all concerned: The Planning Board, The Board of Appeals, Mayor Harrington, City Councilors, the Dilisio family, Charles Puleo, and the residents and taxpayers of Highland Ave. , Barcelona Ave . , Savona St. , Ravenna Ave. , Pyburn, Madelaine, Barnes circle, street and road etc . We are opposed to a Miniature Golf course, Arcades, Video booths and as rumored, Batting Cages . This area is zoned for business, not amusements . if you want amusement, please go to the Willows or Salisbury Beach. We in this area of Salem do not want a Route 1 , Peabody in Salem. We would not be opposed however, if Mr. Puleo wanted to expand his milk business or his restaurant . The traffic pattern would also be exhausting and unfair. Also, the department stores in our area close at 9 :00 or 10 : 00 PM, but would prefer to stay open 7 days a week until 11 : 00 PM. Please people of Salem, stop this ! Sincerely, Residents and Taxpayers of Wards three and four. NOTES : No amusements, Videos, or Batting Cages . Traffic is already too much. This will bring our property values down and will bring unwanted guests to our neighborhood. 00 DATE OF HEARING b PETITIONER LOCATION Lam\ 9�L2_� MOTION: TO GRANT SECOND TO DENY SECOND 44 70 RE-HEAR SECOND LEAVE TO WITHDRAW SECOND "0 CONTINUE SECOND ROLL CALL PRES ] GRANT DENY W HIS DRAW E-HEAR CONTINUE r RICHARD BENCAL FRANCIS GREALISH / EDWARD LUZINSKI STEPHEN TOUCIIETTE ASSOCIATE ',]EMBERS RONALD PLANT ARTHUR LABRECOUE CONDITIONS: r Co 117 .:.-�J _. i 372 Highland Avenue Salem, MA 01970 February 1, 1993 David, Dana and Michelle DiLisio 1 Alvin Road Swampscott, MA 01970 Dear Dana, David and Michelle: This letter is intended to memorialize the agreement reached between yourselves and Puleo Realty Trust relative to the land at 372 Highland Avenue. The Trust hereby authorizes you to apply for all necessary special permits and/or variances necessary to utilize said parcel for a miniature golf course, and a place of entertainment and recreation housing six (6) amusement devices. If said approvals are obtained from the Board of Appeal, the Trust will enter into a formal lease containing the terms previously negotiated. S ind'erely, J Q____-Charles Puleo, Trustee Puleo Realty Trust CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS n LICENSING BOARD 1+ /� ONE SALEM GREEN Tel.745-9595 Ext.345 �AgQ�nnv6 W� Chairman,John A. Boris CLERK Samuel L. Papalardo JUDY DAVENPORT James M. Fleming March 3, 1993 City of Salem Board of Appeal One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Board Members : It has come to the attention of the Licensing Board that the Dilisio Family has applied for a variance to allow construction of a miniature golf and amusement area at 372 Highland Ave. Because this type of amusement is licensed by the Licensing Board, we respectfully request that a condition of approval of a variance be subject to approval of the Licensing Board. Sincerely, SALEM LICENSING BOARD ��vri lni Joh4oris Chairman March 9 , 1993 Board of Appeals City of Salem 1 Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Chairman Bencal and the Board I am writing to address the matter of the proposed development of Puleo' s commercial property on Highland Avenue. Being unable to attend this meeting of 10 March 19939 I wished that my comments and concerns could be brought to the Board' s attention and greatly appreciate your consideration of my comments. For the record, my property is located fronting on Ravenna Avenue and with the back directly abutting the Puleo' s undeveloped residential properties on the paper street section of Savona Raod. Technically, as such, I do not abut the commercial property , but practically, with no develop- ment between the dairy and my property, any action on the commercial property will directly impact the value of my home and the quality of life of my family. Mr. Puleo has heard my comments and concerns directly and has requested that I make them known to the Board as well. Ir must also be understood that, in making these comments, I have not seen the plans for the proposed development and have little knowledge of its design placement on the lot. I may , therefore, have more or fewer concerns upon gaining more information. Personally, I feel that, if the concerns of the neighbors in the entire Ravenna & Barcelona loop, along with those of the indivduals on Savona can be satisfied, I would be for the proposed use of the property for a miniature golf course. Speaking for myself, my concerns about the development would include traffic, security, privacy and lighting. I do not speak for the neighbors. They may have other concerns. One must assume that the development would be of good qua- lity and would be well maintained and well run. Given this, a miniature golf course will attract more people to the area. As more people come to the area, more will discover that as they approach from the south, they can reverse direction by driving through Ravenna and Barcelona. Those leaving the property to head north, will travel down Ravenna to U-Turn. This will increase traffic on these small roads. Page 2 Either the developer or the city must be prepared to assure the safety of the residents. If, as Mr. Puleo has sug- gested, he would be willing to cut a driveway through his property to Ravenna, located such that the disruption to the lives of those residing at that end of Ravenna could be minimized, this would allow traffic from the south to shorten the drive on Ravenna and may actually decrease traffic on Barcelona. This would also stop many of the U-Turns that currently take place in driveways and on Ravenna at Pyburn and at Madeline Avenues. This, however, should be addressed by those residents directly effected. If this is not deemed an appropriate solution, I would expect very intensive traffic enforcement and signs to control the intermittent speeding problem that exists on Ravenna. My second concern, would be with security. As more people from other cities become aware of this quiet residential area, I would be concerned about the increased potential for crime and vandalism. This concern is based simply on numbers. If 0. 1 % of the population is predisposed to crime, and we have 1000 people coming to PuleoIs each day, then only 1 person so disposed would be present in our area. If we increase the traffic to 10,000, then we would have 10 such individuals roaming our streets and thus ten times the potential for crime or van- dalism. We, the neighbors , can do much to alleviate this potential problem by watching out for each other, but I would expect the City, already short of resources, to bear the burden of increasing police patrols in the neighborhood. Thirdly, is the privacy issue. As I have previously stated, my property is situated directly behind Puleo' s and the land grades down. Only the roof of my home is visible from the back of the dairy. Occasionally , we have had patrons of Puleo' s peering down into our backyard while they enjoy their ice cream. This happens rarely but it may become more of a concern as the number of people accessing the business increases. I would be willing to live with the development for a period of time to see if this concern becomes a problem in practice. My concern would be alleviated if the developers would be willing to set aside funds for a period of time so that, if myself or any neighbor experienced privacy problems, either Page 3 an attractive privacy fence or appropriate landscaping that would establish a barrier could be put in place. Once again, this would need to be done on a case by case basis and only if privacy problems actually existed. My final concern is that of lighting. I have come to understand that this is a seasonal business and that it will operate until 11:00 pm during the summer. I would like to be assured that all lighting will be ground level lighting and will not impact on adjacent housing. Having declared my concerns, I feel compelled to point out that Puleo' s Dairy is a long established business with a customer base in the neighborhood. As such, the Puleo family has a vested interest in ensuring that any activity on their property would not alienate their customers. While the proposed development is not directly under their control, I would expect that the Puleo' s would contractually require plan review and approval over the developers and would throughout the development and construction phases, consult with the neighbors and work with the developers to act in both parties ' best interest. Further, the Puleo' s have owned that property and have paid commercial taxes on it for many years. I feel therefore that they should be allowed to use the property for commercial purposes if they are so disposed. I feel that the proposed development of a miniature golf course will, for the most part, attract family type patrons and, if it is not overly boorish in design and is well landscaped, will not be anathema to the character of the neighborhood. In general then, given that the concerns of myself and those of my neighbors can be addressed, I would be in favor of allowing the proposed development to go ahead. Sincely , tep en C. Turner 6 Ravenna Avenue "u (flit ofMlem, a9 �s�snch�zsetts r� p A (Office of tlrc (Tlitg (tIuuncil Tito?-ittl[ keruu„e.uK`" COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE DAVID B. GAUDREAULT WARD COUNCILLORS PRESIDENT 1993 1993 DONALD T. BATESGEORGE A NOWAK DEBORAH E. BUR KINSHAW GEORGE P. McCABE KEVIN R. HARVEY JANE STIRGWOLT CITY CLERK VINCENT J. FURFARO STANLEY J. USOVICZ,JR. LEONARD F. O'LEARY DAVID B. GAUDREAULT SARAH M.HAYES MARK E. BLAIR March 10, 1993 Mr. Richard Bencal, Chairman Board of Appeal One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Chairman Bencal: I am writing regarding the petition for a variance by David, Michelle & Dana Dilisio to construct a miniature golf course and install six amusement devices at 372 Highland Avenue. I have been approached by several neighbors expressing their concern regarding this use. At this time, I would like to request that the Board of Appeal withhold any action on this petition until a neighborhood meeting can be held with the petitioners and the neighbors, so that the concerns of the area residents can be addressed. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Geotge P. McCabe Councillor at Large esd\mingolf. ltr March 9 , 1993 Board of Appeals City of Salem 1 Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Chairman Bencal and the Board I am writing to address the matter of . the proposed development of Puleo' s commercial property on Highland Avenue. Being unable to attend this meeting of 10 March 1993, I wished that my comments and concerns could be brought to the Board' s attention and. greatly appreciate your consideration of my comments. For the record, my property is located fronting on Ravenna Avenue and with the back directly abutting the Puleo' s undeveloped residential properties on the paper street section of Savona Raod. Technically, as such, I do not abut the commercial property, but practically, with no develop- ment between the dairy and my property, any action on the commercial property will directly impact the value of my home and the quality of life of my family. Mr. Puleo has heard my comments and concerns directly and has requested that I make them known to the Board as well.. It must also be understood that, in making these comments, I have not seen the plans for the proposed development and have little knowledge of its design placement on the lot. I may, therefore, have more or fewer concerns upon gaining more information. Personally, I feel that, if the concerns of the neighbors in the entire Ravenna & Barcelona loop, along with those of the indivduals on Savona can be satisfied, I would be for the proposed use of the property for a miniature golf course. Speaking for myself, my concerns about the development would include traffic, security, privacy and lighting. I do not speak for the neighbors. They may have other concerns. One must assume that the development would be of good qua- lity and would be well maintained and well run. Given this , a miniature golf course will attract more people to the area. As more people come to the area, more will discover that as they approach from the south, they can reverse direction by driving through Ravenna and Barcelona. Those leaving the property to head north, will travel down Ravenna to U-Turn. This will increase traffic on these small roads. Page 2 Either the developer or the city must be prepared to assure the safety of the residents. If, as Mr., Puleo has- sug- gested, he would be willing to cut..a driveway through his property to Ravenna, located such that the disruption to the lives of those residing at that end of Ravenna could be minimized, this would allow traffic. from the south to f { shorten the drive on Ravenna, and may actually decrease. , Sill traffic on Barcelona. This would also stop many of the U-Turns that currently take place in driveways and on Ravenna at Pyburn and at Madeline Avenues. This, however, should be addressed by those residents directly effected. If this is not deemed an appropriate solution, I would expect very intensive traffic enforcement and signs to control the intermittent speeding problem that exists on Ravenna. My second concern, would be with security. As more people from other cities become aware of this quiet residential area, I would be concerned about the increased potential for crime and vandalism. This concern is based simply on numbers. If 0. 1 % of the population is predisposed to crime, and we have 1000 people coming to Puleo' s each day, then only 1 person so disposed would be present in our area. If we increase the traffic to 10,000, then we would have 10 such individuals roaming> > g our streets and thus ten times the potential for crime or van- dalism. We, the neighbors , can do much to alleviate this potential problem by watching out for each other, but I would expect the City, already short of resources, to bear the burden of increasing police patrols in the neighborhood. Thirdly, is the privacy issue. As I have previously stated, my property is situated directly behind Puleo' s and the land grades down. Only the roof of my home is visible from the back of the dairy. Occasionally, we have had patrons of Puleo' s peering down into our backyard while they enjoy their ice cream. This happens rarely but it may become more of a concern as the number of people accessing the business increases. I would be willing to live with the development for a period of time to see if this concern becomes a problem in practice. My concern would be alleviated if the developers would be willing to set aside funds for a period of time so that, if myself or any neighbor experienced privacy problems, either 1 Page 3 an attractive privacy fence or appropriate landscaping that would establish a barrier could be put in place. Once again, this would need to be done on a case by case basis and only if privacy problems actually existed. My final concern is that of lighting. I have come to understand that this is a seasonal business and that it will operate until 11:00 pm during the summer. I would like to be assured that all lighting will be ground level lighting and will not impact on adjacent housing. Having declared my concerns, I feel compelled to pointsout that Puleo' s Dairy is a long established business with a customer base in the neighborhood. As such, the Puleo family has a vested interest in ensuring that any activity on their property would not alienate their customers. While the proposed development is not directly under their control, I would expect that the Puleo' s would contractually require plan review and approval over the developers and would throughout the development and construction phases, consult with the neighbors and work with the developers to act in both parties' best interest. Further, the Puleo' s have owned that property and have paid commercial taxes on it for many years. I feel therefore that they should be allowed to use the property for commercial purposes if they are so disposed. I feel that the proposed development of a miniature golf course will, for the most part, attract family type patrons and, if it is not overly boorish in design and is well landscaped, will not be anathema to the character of the neighborhood. In general then, given that the concerns of myself and those of my neighbors can be addressed, I would be in favor of allowing the proposed development to go ahead. SincPen ely, � e , C. Turner 6 Ravenna Avenue TitLj of 5 lem, � Office of llie Ulitg (Ztuuncil '�. THU Mall aeFA COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE DAVID B. GAUDREAULT WARD COUNCILLORS PRESIDENT 1993 1993 DONALD T. BATESGEORGE A NOWAK DEBORAH E. BURKINSHAW GEORGE P. McCABE KEVIN R.HARVEY JANE STIRGWOLT CITY CLERK VINCENT J. FU RFARO STANLEY J.USOVICZ,JR. LEONARD F. O'LEARY DAVID B.GAUDREAULT SARAH M. HAYES MARK E. BLAIR March 10, 1993 Mr. Richard Bencal, Chairman Board of Appeal One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 - Dear Chairman Bencal: I am writing regarding the petition for a variance by David, Michelle & Dana Dilisio to construct a miniature golf course and install six amusement devices at 372 Highland Avenue. I have been approached by several neighbors expressing their concern regarding this use. At this time, I would like to request that the Board of Appeal withhold any action on this petition until a neighborhood meeting can be held with the petitioners and the neighbors, so that the concerns of the area residents can be addressed. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, � �IGa� ge P. McCabe Councillor at Large esd\mingolf. ltr ' ;� C � \ � . G �/r✓`. � � _. ---moi; , ^ ,w p- 17 SA 74 14, s e \_3 i,�/'- �. 3S47 14 e�'�- Az ell 1c) 03 Vp IN c� \ j. sz V ?ps 3 \. /C 3�4 _ J. ik YIN -fP BOARD OF ASSESSORS CITY HALL PAGE: ----- 2 4 SUBJECT PROPERTY; MAP, 03 LOT: 0063 SUFF, 5 5 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 0370 HIGHLAND AVENUE 376 6 6 ASSESSED OWNER PULEL'.)-REAL-1Y--1RUqI 7 9 RL.ES ET AL TR S•' PULEO CHA 1011 10 9 MAP OT SUFE PROPERT AD.DRE5S ASSESSED-OWNER MAI.L.I.N.6-ADDRESS 12 10 13 11 14 07 0040 0358 HIGHLAND AVENUE ANIMAL RESCUE LEAGUE OF BOSTON P 0 BOX 265 5 12 C/0-AR-THU.R-P-E"-Y—D.I.R-OF—ADM—BOS-TON-MA-02417 16 3 03 0062 AVENUE 366 PULEO REALTY TRUST . 3 FREEMAN ROAD 17 :4 ,E�l PULEO CHARLES T AL TRS SALEM MA 01970 15 :3 AN6 AVENUE-Zaa- 12111 EOL_RjrAj TV TRUST J(RT 3-EREEPIAN-ROAD 20 2 16 PULEO CHARLES ET AL TRS SALEM MA 01970 21 0 17 03 0065 0362 HIGHLAND AVENUE KEANE JOHN P JR 9 RIVERBANK ROAD%-�-, 2 23 is6 t73 PAM97-1 A SALEM MA n1 n 24 .......... ........... 057............. ....... ..% REALTY" TRUST 2 W02% E PULEO, FREEMAN 5 ....................... ...... � kfLkbt-HARLESET_,,., AL.,,"T 27 ...... FEEEPIAN- ALL� ............ 21 .....%"",n%,.i,,.%,nn-; -.",.""".,..',,..',.,--, PUl 'Fo"RFAL TV,,To Jq' %, 22 PULED CHARLES ET AL. TRS SALEM MA 01970 29 23 300 0 07 0057 0002 CEDAR ROAD INGEMI I CEDAR ROAD DOMENIC 311 24 SALEM MA 0197 Z�� 32 25 ....... 0373 AND AVENUE U E :CED 'R,,�,Rq HxRGI N�'ST 26 ............. 34 350 ......... .. ... ...... -N INGEM 0 .1 STE PHE 'C,"%ET,.%AL'le%�TRS..e.,."%%,�.', ,.-.,SALEM.,MA;e01970 . .. .... 27 NCIEMf JOHN 111' 381 HIGHLAND"AWNUE 36 28 LETTERIA T SALEM MA 01970 37 29 38 39* 30 40 31 41 32 4210 33 43 44 34 45 35 4i 4710 36 48 4 37 9 5 38 0 .. .........%, 51 521 ........ ..- 3 40 53 54 0 41 m 5 i z 42 56 z ............ 43 44 5 59 t 6 45 0 46 61 47 62o 0 631 48 64 49 65 :6 50 7 51 68 52 69 70 0 53 71 541 72 73 PE CARONA 55 R M.w 74 CHIEF 56 ASSESSOR-:, Z .......... 7 �7 45