Loading...
13-13 1/2 MEADOW STREET - ZBA 13-13'' Meadow St. B-4 H. Drew Romanovitz i r� ofttlem, � ttssttcljusetts ,guard of �Tyu}�enl qy C March 15, 1994 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT AS OF MARCH 10, 1994 THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK TO DENY THE PETITION OF H. DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR VARIANCES TO ALLOW PARCEL TO BE DIVIDED AT 13 - 13 1/2 MEADOW STREET. BOARD OF APPEAL BRENDA M. SUMRALL CLERK OF THE BOARD 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 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 --------------- (Cita of -5airm, .fHussttcltusetts ��oiira of uP enl ,� 3 06 iii 91 Ilwtt .l DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H. DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR A VARIANCE AT 13 - 13 1/2 MEADOW STREET (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held February 16, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, V. Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen O'Grady, Albert Hill and Associate Member Nina Cohen. 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, is requesting Variances to allow property to be divided and a variance from minimum parking requirements in this B-4 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 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: 4. The petitioner to failed demonstrate or to meet the burden of proof relative to legal hardship. uu ECiS10iv' ^uN -IT PETIT" OF H. CREW ROMANOViTZ FOR VARIANCES AT 13 - 13 1/2 MEADOW STREET, SALEM page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the LVA deuce , 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3-2, Mr.O'Grady, Mr. Touchette, Ms.Cohen voted in favor, Mr.Ahmed & Mr. Hill voted in opposition to the motion to grant, having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED February 16, 1994 Albert C. Hill, Member Board of Appeal 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 ^vF 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 (gity of -$UjVMfinssttrhusetts 304. s �Bntzra of �upettl :p,� �R iU DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H. DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR A VARIANCE AT 13 - 13 1/2 MEADOW STREET (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held February 16, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, V. Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen O'Grady, Albert Hill and Associate Member Nina Cohen. 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, is requesting Variances to allow property to be divided and a variance from minimum parking requirements in this B-4 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 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: 4. The petitioner to failed demonstrate or to meet the burden of proof relative to legal hardship. 1 DECISION Civ THE PETITION OF H. DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR VARIANCES AT 13 - 13 1/2 MEADOW STREET, SALEM page two jjki' y 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. -therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3-2, Mr.O'Grady, Mr. Touchette, Ms.Cohen voted in favor, Mr.Ahmed & Mr. Hill voted in opposition to the motion to grant, having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED February 16, 1994 Albert C. Hill, Member Board of Appeal 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 CF 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 CF APPEAL (City of -'-5ttlem, � ttssttcl�usetts 304 ' �Rorzra of Atrpeal 11 Y. 11 J DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H. DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR A VARIANCE AT 13 - 13 1/2 MEADOW STREET (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held February 16, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, V. Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen O'Grady, Albert Hill and Associate Member Nina Cohen. 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, is requesting Variances to allow property to be divided and a variance from minimum parking requirements in this B-4 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 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: 4. The petitioner to failed demonstrate or to meet the burden of proof relative to legal hardship. DEC1Si01v' ON THE rETiTi0ivv OF H. DREW ROMANOViTZ FOR VARIANCES AT 13 - 13 1/2 MEADOW STREET, SALEM page two ilE� L r.0 On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: I. 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3-2, Mr.O'Grady, Mr. Touchette, Ms.Cohen voted in favor, Mr.Ahmed & Mr. Hill voted in opposition to the motion to grant, having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED February 16, 1994 Albert C. Hill, Member Board of Appeal 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 of 1�3: ttlem, �4tt95tttj7usetts 30 43nar3 of penl :j,� 3 C � DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H. DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR A VARIANCE AT 13 - 13 1/2 MEADOW STREET (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held February 16, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, V. Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen O'Grady, Albert Hill and Associate Member Nina Cohen. 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, is requesting Variances to allow property to be divided and a variance from minimum parking requirements in this B-4 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 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: 4 . The petitioner to failed demonstrate or to meet the burden of proof relative to legal hardship. DECISION ON THE PETITIOiv` au^F H. DREW ROMANOViTZ FOR VARIANCES AT 13 - 13 1/2 MEADOW STREET SALEM page two (1Ga �u On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the �Vidence , 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3-2, Mr.O'Grady, Mr. Touchette, Ms.Cohen voted in favor, Mr.Ahmed & Mr. Hill voted in opposition to the motion to grant, having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED February 16, 1994 Albert C. Hill, Member Board of Appeal 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 AIVD INDEXED 'UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL -)ATE 0 EEARIiG /o VV PETI77ONER d- kY?,l M d—tk �_CCATIOii i0TI0N: TO GRANT p SECOND TO DENY SECOND TO RE-HEAR SECOND LEAVE TO WITHDRAW SECOND "0 CONTINUE SECOND POLL 'CALL PRESENT GRANT DENY WITHDRAW RE-HEAR CONTINUE STEPHEN O'GRADY !/ GEORGE A. AHMED _ /f MDAMQ�VAT To ALBERT C. HILL / l STEPHEN TCUCHETTE (/ ASSOCIATE 'iEMBERS / NINA V. COHEN I ' '6R�CgUG" CONDITIONS: /'� u 4 MAJOR POINTS: 1 . THE PROPERTY WILL EXPERIENCE NO PHYSICAL CHANGE AS A RESULT OF THE GRANT OF THIS REQUESTED RELIEF. AN ARTIFICIAL BOUNDARY LINE WILL BE DRAWN ENABLING EACH BUILDING TO HAVE ITS OWN LOT. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE' S PROHIBITION ON MORE THAN ONE PRINCIPAL BUILDING ON EACH LOT. 2 . BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF MARKETABILITY OF THISPROPERTY AS THREE UNITS IN TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS, THE OWNERSHIP WILL CONTINUE TO BE ABSENTEE AND WILL CONSTITUTE A HARDSHIP ON THE OWNER SINCE THERE ARE NO VIABLE PURCHASERS FOR THE PROPERTY. ON THE OTHER HAND, AS DETAILED IN THE STATEMENT FROM MARJ A. MARBET, THE PROPERTY IS VERY MARKETABLE TO POTENTIAL HOMEBUYER OCCUPANTS AS SEPARATE SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS, SINCE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS SPONSORED BY STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES WOULD BE WELL ADAPTED TO THESE POTENTIAL BUYERS. 3 . THIS PARCEL IS THE ONLY ONE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH HAS TWO BUILDINGS ON THE SAME LOT, MAKING IT UNIQUE. IN APPROXIMATELY 1950, JUST PRIOR TO THE CITY OF SALEM INCREASING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR THIS DISTRICT, THE ONLY OTHER PROPERTY ON THE STREET HAVING TWO BUILDINGS ON THE SAME LOT, WAS SUBDIVIDED AND CONVEYED INTO SEPARATE OWNERSHIPS, GRANDFATHERING THOSE PROPERTIES ON UNDERSIZED LOTS, WHICH ARE SMALLER THAN THE LOT BEFORE THE BOARD THIS EVENING. 4. THE PARKING CONFIGURATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN IS THE PARKING CONFIGURATION PRESENTLY, AND HISTORICALLY, USED ON THE PROPERTY. SINCE IT DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE ON THE PROPERTY, A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED. FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE REASONS THE PETITIONER REQUESTS THAT THE BOARD GRANT THE REQESTED VARIANCES. THE PETITIONER BELIEVES THAT DOING SO WILL ENABLE HIM TO SELL THE BUILDINGS TO SEPARATE OWNERS FACILITATING OWNER OCCUPANCY, HOME OWNERSHIP, AND IMPROVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I HOPE THAT THE BOARD WILL AGREE THAT THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTE A HARDSHIP BOTH FINANCIAL TO THE OWNER AND UNIQUE TO THIS PARCEL IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. ROM AND MAN P02 n2/15%94 16:27 V.A.MART 11.1-C.A. + 17450261 N0,327 901 I February 14 , 1994 H. Draw Romanovitz 25 Lynda street Salem, Mass . 01970 Dear Mr. Romanovitz The follow suggestions about your property on Meadow Street , Salem are made because of my experience in trying to market it since 1988 . The subject property consists of a two Family and a single family that at present are considered on one lot. These buildings if separated into two parcels could be sold to owner occupants that are looking for affordable: housing . More to the point these people could use the present FHAor vA programs or even MFH,, if another bond is issued by the Stats. As the offer in front of you would indicate I can sell these as two separate properties , As you are also aware my problem in selling these "as is" stems from the fact that investors for small properties need 30% down and are qualified on an income stream that is greatly reduced i when the costs of maintaining two building is computed into the APOD. The owner occupant type investor is also not able to use conventional sources of financing because tboy cannot 'occupy' both buildings . Thus after six years of watching your frustration, I hope your attempt to get property divided is successful . The city should consider the future benefit to the community that dividing this property would make. First insteed of unsalable investment units , this property would become two affordable homes. As two affordable homes the now owners would improve the conditions and the neighborhood, ss wall as increase the taxable value. The city will benefit by increasing its tax revenue as well as making the neighborhood a better place to live by the upgrades that owner occupants will make. at hes M rk A. Marbat , r cRB Bales manager VERNON A. MARTIN, INC„ REALTORS 261 Main Street • Gloucester, MA 01930-4141 • (508) 281-3727 FAX: (508) 281-3882 on,of"Older AM f Mont Rat some Pirm 06101"90461NM M"6WW la WqN pMoa hl ofia",swab,D"M O4ogofowrt.owi0 mr, HwW N11.11009h,MwAYl1'"M 694111,South MWO W11.T9p0W,and RWu*MN N"CONVY N,C4ndomH..n.a-d CA t 'CW Imwln*M DMMirno� 2.15 Ac 301 -303 108 r.N '647 /3,099 K 106 . 1302 a ts6o S - ,3G iv. a • 3630 . IOjO 104 ,e 6a IL a « 3OA0 -s !N a t5 �s L 1 U L F L LI uta 6 IT aT to So S° w • _ _ - so. so115-8 ❑ IIJJ "00 cn �s✓L r 85 103 102- 101 10 �5c siso 96 a a� 317 33 w 23,833 3,230 ,230 3249 99 30 rn» 03500 .! r w - 5ZJO t.m u u u i600 318 3 cd ° 86 S9 92 9 Y 0, 5500 x p„ 91 9 ?erg 319 330 too-i tl, g T. 32( t•!+- - 3677 ' 329 6 'T IMG P s st sO S0 40 6O i4 r6Sv 321 t 83 s! o or x n 34••70 l6�8 X593 �J 3 322 3 . 3.324 AC '.s 79 78 76 75 7 5,00 84 82 81 0 ` a,pp0 sroo sroo 250 a200 3,803' V 00g60c 4,131 ci,200 S 7 66 67 320 . 68 0 324 11 ion 71 " S » i 64 ..68 .. ` 70 ^ 5P5U S:zSC a'30 10500 3.092 a so • 5f0e ° S! so o too . ETO AST S2 w 1 u AVENUE 6a so 141 4C E I1N S0 T ,wta:a , ,,� ..ar . 4s ec so so ao AVENUE EASo 6/► Isi . o+ • 52 • � 50 6,3 58 3700 5.a,4n 51 5,347 59 4 90:. s.7on 53. 4,.oc 2 60 57 4,9C 54 4,9co 4,900 4,900 _ 46 4,660 44 45 _ ��, 4,653 9,i�7 —. F 1 �1 �'-1 I APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ' .. Ulm rIjjt eUmic TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: The Undersigned represent that he is are the owners of a certain parcel of land located at NO. .13keadow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6- .Street; Zoning District. 4. . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ; and said parcel is affected by Section(s). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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. N/A W s rzea a, "ate• _.._ iil,,,, t3 —J 7 M u CPI L 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 1pay be granted without substantially dero- gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for the following reasons: See attached Exhibit .A Owner. , H. Drew Romanovitz , , C/o Richard W. Stafford, Esq. Address Tinti:M!u 'n,&• Merryy P C'. „ 222 Essex Street, Salem,'.MA•' 0,1970 Telephohe.s9s_�45=so65. . ; , Petitioner.owner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Address:. . . . . . . . . . , . , . . : , . . . . . . . . . . Date. .Jaruary.3 -19Q1 . , . . . Tel epp/hLL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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. PETITION TO BOARD OF APPEALS LOCATION 131 Meadow Street ' PETITIONER..H-..Drew Romanovitz ADDRESS..122Essex Street .Salem. Mass. CONDPIIONS .PETITION APPROVED...._............. . ❑ DENIED:..........._........... El .. .... 19......... Exhibit A The Petitioner proposes to subdivide the existing lot with two buildings on it into two lots, each with one of the existing buildings . The building nearest to Meadow Street is a two-family dwelling. The building to the rear is a single-family dwelling. The existing lot is legally non-nonconforming with respect to certain dimensional requirements of the current zoning ordinance, and is legally non-conforming with respect to the Ordinance' s prohibition on more than one principal structure on a single lot. The proposed subdivision would eliminate the latter legal non-conformity. Under the proposed subdivision of the lot, the existing dimensional legal non-conformities would remain; the legal non-conformity relative to lot area would be technically recreated anew as to each of the separate lots, but would not change as to the parcel as a whole. Because of the location of the subdivision line from Meadow Street creating Lot A and Lot B as shown on the plan, Lot B would now violate the side and rear lot line requirements of the zoning ordinance. Variances are therefore requested for each of Lots A & B with respect to lot area, and for Lot B with respect to side and rear lot line requirements of the zoning ordinance. The parking as shown on the plan represents the parking for the property since the structures were originally built. However, since they appear on a plan for the first time, the Petitioner is requesting a variance from parking under the Ordinance for Lot .A and Lot B. Spaces A and B will be granted to the owner of Lot B by easement to be recorded at the Essex South District Registry of Deeds if the requested relief is granted by the Board. The Petitioner requests this relief from the Board of Appeals on the basis that the existing configuration of two buildings on tle lot is unmarketable, imposing a financial hardship on the owner. This lot is the only lot in the neighborhood which has two buildings on the same lot. In support of his application, the Petitioner points out that granting the proposed relief would not result in any physical changes to either structure on the property and would eliminate the non-conformity with respect to two principal buildings on the same lot; would promote home ownership consistant with the City' s master plan; and would reduce absentee ownership. A Contract to Purchases has been executed for the single family parcel subject to obtaining approval of the proposed zoning relief. ROBERT J. Le BLANC, J OSHUA a CLAIRE L . DESCHE -EIN o 0 OF 1928 o LAWRENCE J. o a NANCY E . MOO N EY n ,� N 82° 09' 00" W 58. 94 ' w } LOT A ti M 3 - 39927±SF I , ° j GEORGE T. , IlI 0) N0. 13 /2 It m O SUSAN M J T . a z GALLANT N 10 . 00_ \RA L. PLAN 431 OF 19 ti : S 810 30'0 0" E S 81 ° 30'00 " E _ L o 30.00' — v91 w cn - ( w- � U - 3 a 9' 9 -� = 3 0 a it arnu- Im LOT B- N0 U0 : o ;1,80 0± ° = N r ti (D 9 Z NO. 13 0� a ' / �m acQi i To HAZEL ST. 30.00 ' .:. : 18.00' , S 810 30' 00 " E MEADOW ST RE ET . Ctu of Salem, Anseadjusetts :ju 30 8 so M 'O}. �Rnxra of '4ym! fILE1f CM CLERK.SALEN.MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H. DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR A VARIANCE AT 13} MEADOW ST. (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1987 with the following Board MemberE present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski and Associate Member Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abuttE and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from any and all applicable density- and rear and side setback requirements to allow one parcel of land to be divided:into two nonconforming lots. Additionally, petitioner is requesting a second variance to allow an existing deck which encroaches on rear and sideline requirements. The variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the -r 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 in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; i 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. i The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at�the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The condition of the two buildings on one lot has existed for many years; 2. The deck was constructed prior to the purchase by the petitioner; 3. The deck is used also as a means of egress. � I i On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: i 1 : In regards to the division of the lot, petitioner failed to establish hardship; 2. In regards to the deck: a. desirable relief may be "granted without substantial detriment to j the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance; b. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial j hardship to the petitioner. i r, y DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H. DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR VARIANCES .' AT 131 MEADOW ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0 against the granting of the Variance to allow division on one lot into two lots. Additionally, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0 to grant thevariance ,to allow the existing deck, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The deck remain in its present form as provided on the plans submitted to this Board. DENIED VARIANCE TO DIVIDE 1 GRANTED VARIANCE TO ALLOW DECK 4 ( I Richard A. Bencal, Secretary YS� Iji�. A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE•CITY CLERK c � UA9T TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. SHALL B. MADE PURS ON Ir ANY. _ . . N THIS DECISION- . .. r DATE OF PILINS AL FROM _ 7 D APPE .. .�� c ,, FLc.� :. •il�. c0 CAPS A,iEk H. . C_ GENERAL LAWS. CHAP.EP, S.0 A:.� OF THIS DECISICd,, 1•. THE CF-: E vc THE CIT) CLERK. CHA°'ER VS SELL' ll. THE V�FI'v ° CP. cPE�lk_ FC '•1T , PI;¢SW TEL' - �H. .RT• _ '.IE0 HCREIiL SH=aL ti:". TA:`- Ef Ul U-JIL A C:P1 OF III F F •• fI�ATIGN CF THE U.1' CLERr. - �'I i u :D IS GR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPC:I H;S BE:'. fl E. TH- If - i:(-•.E JF TAE RECORDED IN THE SCJTII ESSEK REi I°TRY OF GEECS A' I\D > .: U' OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OaNERS CERTIFICATE GE TIitE. BOARD OF APPEAL ' II A TRUE COPY ATTEST " July 17, 1987ALA _ ) v sep ne R. Fusco CITY CLERK SALEM, MASS. ofttlem, Cttss�ztfjuse##s , Paura of Aupeal c ty tl� Qi Z� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H.DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR A VARIANCES AT 13-13 1/2 MEADOW STREET (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held October 20, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen Touchette 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. The Board of Appeal,after hearing the evidence presented and at the request of the petitioner's attorney voted unanimously 4-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for Variances to allow this existing nonconforming lot containing two residential dwellings to be divided into two nonconforming lots. The property is located in a B-4 district. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE October 20, 1993 �• / Francis X. Grealish, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. ROBERT J. Le BLANC, Ji ' JOSHUA & CLAIRE L . DESCHE T-EIN o 0 OF 1928 o LAWRENCE J. o & NANCY E . MOO N EY *751 -R c N 820 09' 00" W 58. 94 ' w /77 LOT A 3 _ 31927±SF � . °cli GEORGE T. , IIC NO. 131/2 ; o~ SUSAN M . N T . & Z GALLANT 10 . 00-: ARA L. N PLAN 431 OF 19 ti S 810 30' 00" E__ S 81 ° 30'00 " E L L 0 30.Oo' - 91 U w 'j) - U- _ o f } � ,o O M (D - � 0 i ii it LL LOT 8� NO g o ii O 119800-4- ° = 9 N0. 13 O cr z c (n- �Q i n TO HAZEL ST. 30.00 ' .. .. 18.00' , -F— S 81* 30' 00 " E M E A D O W ST RE E T CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL 745-9595 Ext. 381 Will hold a public hearing for all persons inter- ested in the petition submitted by H. DREW ROMANOVITZ for variances to allow 13, 13 1/2 MEADOW STREET (B-4) to be divided and a variance from parking. Said hearing to be held WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1994, AT 6:00 P.M,ONE SALEM GREEN,second floor. FRANCIS X. GREALISH, JR., Chairman February 2, 9, 1994 SN38643 JFPu-bl�icationDate.-: CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL 745-9595 Ext. 381 Will hold a public hearing for all persons inter- ested in the petition submitted by H. DREW ROMANOVITZ for variances to allow 13, 13 1/2 31EADOIV STREET (B-4) to be divided and a variance from parking. Said hearing to be held WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1994, AT 6:00 P.M.,ONE SALEM GREEN,second floor. FRANCIS X. GREALISH, JR., Chairman February 2, 9, 1994 SN38643 IPublication Date:_l� CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL 745-9595 Ext. 381 Will hold a public hearing for all persons inter- ested in the petition submitted by H. DREW ROMANOVITZ for variances to allow 13, 13 1/2 MEADOW STREET (B-4) to be divided and a variance from parking. Said hearing to be held WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1994, AT 6:00 P.M.,ONE SALEM GREEN,second floor. FRANCIS X. GREALISH, JR., Chairman February 2, 9, 1994 SN38643 `I Publication Date:A APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,fN LII GRLI of `AAGfA nrc.P' - TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: The Undersiggned represent that he is are the owners of a certain parcel of land located at NO. ,13k Meadow , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .Street, Zoning District.D.4. . , , , , , , , . . . . 6 . . . ; and said parcel is affected by Section(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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. N/A _ r Xi r �r:I CIL L.1 - fr1 C3/1 OD 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: See attached Exhibit A Owner. . H. Drew Romanovitz c/o Richard ta W. Sfford, Esq. Address Tintir,Quinn,&,Merry� 222 Essex Street, Salem,'.MA.' 0,1970 Teiephone,508-745-§M . . . . . . . . . . . Petitioner.owner. . . 6 . . . . . . . Address.'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . Date. . Janvary.3. .1993 . . . . . Telepph�g . . . . . . 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. PETITION TO BOARD OF APPEALS - LOCATION IA Meadow Street PETITIONER..Hc...Drew Romanovitz ADDRESS_Z22.Essex Street Salem, Mass. CONDITIONS PETITION APPROVED........._........_❑ r DENIED............_........... .... ......_.........................................1 19......... r ROBERT J. Le BLANC, J OSHUA a CLAIRE L . DESCHE -EIN0 o 0 0 OF 1928 o LAWRENCE J. o 1. to a NANCY E . _ 5 < MOO N EY N 820 09' 00" W 58. 94 ' w } El: /V fl fl� LOT A ;� M 3 - 31927±SF o GEORGE T. , III 0) NO. 131/2 ; r- o SUSAN M . J T . a z GALLANT N 10 . 00.: aRA L. PLAN 431 OF 19 t` t S 810 30' 0 0" E S 810 30' 00 E _ L 0V 9' U) - I w- w U 00 % O O SON O M cD 3 a 9' Q - 6 c LOT B= �o � o ti I,800+ N= // o 9• ti(� r Z N0. 13 o i ra CIR TO HAZEL ST. 30.00 ' .`. .. 18.00' , , S 810 30' 00 " E M E A D O W ST RE E T Exhibit A The Petitioner proposes to subdivide the existing lot with two buildings on it into two lots, each with one of the existing buildings. The building nearest to Meadow Street is a two-family dwelling. The building to the rear is a single-family dwelling. The existing lot is legally non-nonconforming with respect to certain dimensional requirements of the current zoning ordinance, and is legally non-conforming with respect to the Ordinance' s prohibition on more than one principal structure on a single lot. The proposed subdivision would eliminate the latter legal non-conformity. Under the proposed subdivision of the lot, the existing dimensional legal non-conformities would remain; the legal non-conformity relative to lot area would be technically recreated anew as to each of the separate lots, but would not change as to the parcel as a whole. Because of the location of the subdivision line from Meadow Street creating Lot A and Lot B as shown on the plan, Lot B would now violate the side and rear lot line requirements of the zoning ordinance. Variances are therefore requested for each of Lots A & B with respect to lot area, and for Lot B with respect to side and rear lot line requirements of the zoning ordinance. The parking as shown on the plan represents the parking for the property since the structures were originally built. However, since they appear on a plan for the first time, the Petitioner is requesting a variance from parking under the Ordinance for Lot A and Lot B. Spaces A and B will be granted to the owner of Lot B by easement to be recorded at the Essex South District Registry of Deeds if the requested relief is granted by the Board. The Petitioner requests this relief from the Board of Appeals on the basis that the existing configuration of two buildings on tle lot is unmarketable, imposing a financial hardship on the owner. This lot is the only lot in the neighborhood which has two buildings on the same lot. In support of his application, the Petitioner points out that granting the proposed relief would not result in any physical changes to either structure on the property and would eliminate the non-conformity with respect to two principal buildings on the same lot; would promote home ownership consistant with the City' s master plan; and would reduce absentee ownership. A Contract to Purchases has been executed for the single family parcel subject to obtaining approval of the proposed zoning relief. CY ('gity of '*ttlem, 'Mttseadjusetts Ja 30 6 0 M '87 Paura of �"wd FILE CITY CLERK.SALEM,MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H. DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR A VARIANCE AT 13'' MEADOW ST. (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski and Associate Member Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutte and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. '! Petitioner is requesting a Variance from any and all applicable density and rear and side setback requirements to allow one parcel of land to be divided`t.into two nonconforming lots. Additionally, petitioner is requesting a second_'variance to allow an existing deck which encroaches on rear and sideline requirements. The variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the 'r 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 in- volve 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. 1 'j The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at:.the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The condition of the two buildings on one lot has existed for many years; 2. The deck was constructed prior to the purchase by the petitioner; 3. The deck is used also as a means of egress. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: i 1 . In regards to the division of the lot, petitioner failed to establish hardship; 2. In regards to the deck: a. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to i the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance; b. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial j hardship to the petitioner. 'n Vim- • - j � - V DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H. DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR VARIANCES st AT 131 MEADOW ST. , SALEM r page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0 against the granting of the Variance to allow division on one lot into two lots. Additionally, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0 to grant the variance,to allow the existing deck, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The deck remain in its present form as provided on the plans submitted to this Board. DENIED VARIANCE TO DIVIDE GRANTED VARIANCE TO ALLOW DECK r F� SI Ilk, Richard A. Bencal, Secretary I}Iiq'? 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 MASS- GENERAL LAWS. C4 P EP, B1C A::C SH%.LL G f Ai i -� :::T hl;. 20 DAYS Eh. THE DATE OF FILINGS OF THIS DECISIOF I. THE C='•:.E CF TN CITY CIERti. C :.,SS CE;cP'.; !.A..`. CuA°'Er Edo Sr.C� —I Il. To PURSASi Tr YAFI TCP. SPErIC FF ;:IT GFiA`;iEil HCREIi: SH .LL NO' T EFTE(T U TIL A C:P� a TI1 - 4 F..S r FIr:); fIGATICN CF 1HE U,Y CLERr. 11-�: 20 CAl° ,.,I i_F_ „En IS . . - OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL H:S BE:': f11 THS IF - - !.f'%E Of Tr-- RECORDED ri= C RECORDED IN THE SCOTH ESSEX REIASTRY OF DEECS A; i ISD +E C' - ' OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OJ.NERS CERTIFICATE 0"r TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL A TRUE COPY ATTEST July 17, 1987 ) sep ne R. Fusco CITY CLERK SALEM, MASS. of Salem, 'Massadjusetts -,Q Paurb of �kuprzd DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H.DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR A VARIANCES AT 13-13 1/2 MEADOW STREET (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held October 20, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen Touchette 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. The Board of Appeal,after hearing the evidence presented and at the request of the petitioner's attorney voted unanimously 4-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for Variances to allow this existing nonconforming lot containing two residential dwellings to be divided into two nonconforming lots. The property is located in a B-4 district. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE October 20, 1993 Francis X. Grealish, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. Ctu of ttlem, ttssttcliuse##s ,.3� 30 , 8 se �I 'ol PnxrD of GO CLERK SALEM.MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H. DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR A VARIANCE.., xk; @ �.• �.+ AT 131 MEADOW ST. (B-4)IN A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1987 with the.following,Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary;;.Messrs. ; Fleming, r .. Luzinski and Associate Member Labrecque. Notice, (?f sent,to abutter f the h acing was and others and notices of the hearing were properly publi hed.;in the Salem IIx' Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A rt` Petitioner is requesting a Variance from any and all applicable `density`and,rear y; and side setback requirements to allow one parcel of land to,be °divided.'into two x nonconforming lots. Additionally, petitioner is requesting a second variance to allow an existing deck which encroaches on rear and sideline requirements. $ 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; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance'would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment ,to the A, public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. $� ti, rk 4. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at,the,;hearingy<makes the following findings of fact: t In •,' }¢ , 1 . The condition of the two buildings on one lot has existed n' for many years; 4 i irtL 2. The deck was constructed prior to the purchase by the petitioner; 3. The deck is used also as a means of egress. On the basis of the above. findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the "2 hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . In regards to the division of the lot, petitioner failed to establish hardship; 2. In regards to the deck: a. desirable relief may be 'granted without substantial.. detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance; b. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve, substantial hardship to the petitioner. I 10 01 1 It'll S!41,04S M'9'11 I kh r.. - ol- r ' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H. DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR VARIANCES ,4 � '; r • AT 131 MEADOW ST. , SALEM ' t t s F°I`- �.. f : page two EzJ; Lv ' Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0 against the granting of Variance to allow division on one lot into two lots. ' Additionally, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0 to grant the,kvariance to allow the existing deck, subject to the following conditions: ? ' f # 1 . The deck remain in its present form as provided on". x° , the plans submitted to this Board. ,1 tFi + . DENIED VARIANCE TO DIVIDE GRANTED VARIANCE TO ALLOW DECK 6 i Richard A. Bencal, Secretary a i 0 � 1 Y t w 2 R. r ' A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITYrCLEAK y. tV a S � k� tlF t 1� t I,' ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE tdA.SS ' APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, , x'b GENERAL LA145, C4APIER 8:' A'J SH'LL D F U ZO DAYS AiiER THE GATE OF FILING T TH- CIT` CLERK. g OF THIS DEC'SI P I THE c v 1 , n PP SPE''@'- TC IT x ' f qr . Pts$Ali ' rc R'.,_ t -. t"A°'Er c'. o S l I : 11. T4_ V 4E t' 'i ;li r.V� Oi T1 iN ,v- GfcA Ici) HCREI Sh L N:" T EF"i(i U.'t L A F P r ., R F;UNTIG�1 Cf THE CI-,y CIERi. I vO 0'1 IS , CR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPE4 H 6 H E TH IT v' t r -r,.�.E OF Tri% 91 Tj� REGORGED IN THE SOJTH ESSEX. RE"ISTM OF DEEDS A D 1%D'a- C 1 OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE DOUR S CcRiIFIC 1E Cr TITLE. s - it BOARD OF APPEAL , 1 t + s ' A TRUE COPY ATTEST $r , y 3 W, 1i \ l July 17, 1987 r Lae id 71i t'0 sep ne R. Fusco jjj e CITY CLERK 81 SALEM. MASS. of itzlem, � ttssttcljusetts ja4 ' PnttrD of � peal c,r, it ' ✓y DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H.DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR A VARIANCES AT 13-13 1/2 MEADOW STREET (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held October 20, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen Touchette 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. The Board of Appeal,after hearing the evidence presented and at the request of the petitioner's attorney voted unanimously 4-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for Variances to allow this existing nonconforming lot containing two residential dwellings to be divided into two nonconforming lots. The property is located in a B-4 district. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE October 20, 1993 Francis X. Grealish, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. 1 Exhibit A The Petitioner proposes to subdivide the existing lot with two buildings on it into two lots, each with one of the existing buildings . The building nearest to Meadow Street is a two-family dwelling. The building to the rear is a single-family dwelling. The existing lot is legally non-nonconforming with respect to certain dimensional requirements of the current zoning ordinance, and is legally non-conforming with respect to the Ordinance ' s prohibition on more than one principal structure on a single lot. The proposed subdivision would eliminate the latter legal non-conformity. Under the proposed subdivision of the lot, the existing dimensional legal non-conformities would remain; the legal non-conformity relative to lot area would be technically recreated anew as to each of the separate lots, but would not change as to the parcel as a whole. Because of the location of the subdivision line from Meadow Street creating Lot A and Lot B as shown on the plan, Lot B would now violate the side and rear lot line requirements of the zoning ordinance. Variances are therefore requested for each of Lots A & B with respect to lot area, and for Lot B with respect to side and rear lot line requirements of the zoning ordinance. The parking as shown on the plan represents the parking for the property since the structures were originally built. However, since they appear on a plan for the first time, the Petitioner is requesting a variance from parking under the Ordinance for Lot A and Lot B. Spaces A and B will be granted to the owner of Lot B by easement to be recorded at the Essex South District Registry of Deeds if the requested relief is granted by the Board. The Petitioner requests this relief from the Board of Appeals on the basis that the existing configuration of two buildings on tle lot is unmarketable, imposing a financial hardship on the owner. This lot is the only lot in the neighborhood which has two buildings on the same lot. In support of his application, the Petitioner points out that granting the proposed relief would not result in any physical changes to either structure on the property and would eliminate the non-conformity with respect to two principal buildings on the same lot; would promote home ownership consistant with the City' s master plan; and would reduce absentee ownership. A Contract to Purchases has been executed for the single family parcel subject to obtaining approval of the proposed zoning relief. 3 • 2 °g`,.:$:,aa.za,as;g,ga,aaa,a mR,maR[aa.;z''o-.sasamm,asawes`a<s.A.a$'ar^(`._>".:.g"7.L,:.:aaa,s.mw.a.w.4a,m'«s,s<:..';R:..,a«�...a«,_•R s.s.a°.„.r,y...gr°:...a:.n..x.,P.,_.r°;,..m. rRa,. ..�.a-..R°z... *xg,•,.s��,fII a4es`amat:.,na,.s%.a@;.,i•.m�sz.ma ns.eam".aa,..ms.o'.:..sisa.''...s.'a E,x.m-_asm,'saMIIg,,aea.yffim,xsa..a.g'..«a.$:S`w-as�a.a�Negsa�sc�.gs,g.aa'as,.R...,:s�..g;sa�,4aRmm$ag4,axaeaaam..m8m,,..e,d;Rce\:.:s.„,Le.maa.^Pg^ aY:x°' `:'"^�«.,.,'...:flas«n,samA CARD, OFm ASSESSOaF Re`wmRs a.3�m....sae;"-.'.e,s,m:a,mmtagmR,S3xsaxe,mg.�sm�3-,ar-nosg� aa„',"4;'�E.,sa'.`&e„a<a2°`sR sa.«ax..faF`.isx'a _$r ..aa.,y:..,•...eaga �a 2,aat ',P gA,lro daz 3o PAE 2. 3t .aam1` 4 3 Cla7iY H 1 • 6 • s DATE 01/20/94 6 • 6 CERTIFIED ABUTTERS LIST 7 e 7 s: m.: R a Pa ;, ga,d,'.... : a ,.. „ ' °_, ^.... a:,' a 4Sm : as §r .sa§ a.¢w`S ... yv. ..: BLi, d..y. ° v : . v Si titre > .v, �. "< m aR P ,v` a, `e. ^e ma $,2, m '4 ia.. 35 ro` v. - R „a a? n O,l. , a008U ma.SUI I GO-I £a x ,;x m <. . PROPERTY. s.g. ,�.. saes.s.. MAN , 33,a°e aL:. w a, m .:m a. a„ �.&� ° a `saa". 4asam soxaa » .:, rs aa , rs rims 8 sa..x..m a s•` c saa: sgam,s , .P e, $' " & e':sma §` :rss .,.:m x:a t:a$ ,,.. s`o mgr*^as `.:s ♦. £szx'a` .,. _ am"'a:.... ,a. •:, a ° s 11 RE,E.T = m::.ma«mm e n'°ma.a`-, , a<ra. a••aa a..s,=a= , , IIz.< .: ,.£. a .<: . FRQPE:R7Y <AC<DRE. *a .A a.»,a .-. w a mf, .s;P�.:aa 'ax§tie ��,a'aaaa�o S�aa�as o�sx �a-, -Ra a�aaag c'9 a�gg 12 a ° � 10 .. _:SSE•S aE17 tfGJ111EF2 R19'M 1Nn�YTZ"`H U13 °'"' - - ^ ..Y x , 13 •• 6na';!�„.:. .»an,,maa,a°aax:.e.t:mza°a 0a0x8'a 3a0.ra+»;,mflR.sasaaa;msa"a;:''ffiy.'xa°wa,m a xm«..:o:,m: a:m.$..e,.S,.pmy*`a^,e , ..,..R::,,.. s.,,,m,ass .• a ,«,�a...:.a:a,ewaa-a 1»M. 2AIVC?SII. T ...aHDRE�tJs s@ .� :euaSRa° .R,,, :a ��ssa.x'a,m�'sa.a...;i_•g.;m_:.,£ # . a 'm a; . a.s 14 11 1 _D UWNER MAILING .ADDR s3aa Bs , a .ASSESSEs IS a LxQTm;SUFF PRQPERTYm ,sagm = mze E:, T a« r 14 a.£z ,t$at�ffsm< m. sa 189ss s . a .0400.13aMEAaSTEEaDBZ 16 21 •• • 17 33 OQ80 :O 0013 MEAC.+C:+W STRE.'ET 1/ RQMANOVITZ H DREW 5 LYNDE S7 z SALEM MA 01970 19 asa ,aasn :A.�, a .:.:: .. - i.-. <'a;ax «gv0. ,,... �uFC?l7'RNI'E'RJrAMES—R` -R a�a,a,m 'aa 19 ... t .7`1 [b >re ..axa: 00<9lr..a0GE.AN:..A;VEN,I.«E:. ..,a,: , sa.sd:�a 9�r...•.UGEAIV•••.-.F1VE:NUE.. e .. QQ6r °. £g' k:3ae .<a e._' aaa,s.a,s 'aa mr ..., a&s.:�o, tmw,.s� ^:8a,s•$} ax s. maa}.ggo- s ,. ss _F_hl hYA...Q.199Q >,. s .faa as. ..a:R:a msBsa-am - iY bIRGINI-ASR., ascot; aka gm.e mm s ';<aa ee.m o-.,,:, II4$^b`gt ,s°R gsm@'$3s she '16 :°�.�.emas„ bis�a � a..5:a tia,m, ,. .,. . < ma m3>,:&trAce,v;:s d92 .a:a 4a$pa'a > ,,, :. , v,, sx. a.. • a.a am;.sss:a,sa sg as• ,., s r 76:s'. W .S.ma F`<z;a:a:..:aa`s` ' xaP'saas ..:.aReaaa a.n ,- }.,,a.,x I'aMImaRE<.ALTm,Yab�IIVVESs711ENTRR7Rscamsssa�sag 6 .. s"'s:sgaa ` �maaaa sRag:a . ss s. aaaa 5.. i7 f1VE.lVVEamax .:s.aa >. sa„ ' ;:'m maR°g scow „am.. sm as..et5nms»aa-°Rx«a �.s_s., a ss'x:sksaa a$Yr:aa >x•s.s:-. ams�?:s's,�m,s sa.. efmR . 3LZ;R � aQS� R-_<cE.AN»tee, xmw :,... mas: m a�%a a.€,e a�g a.©.aamm»:,»,a � g m _ aaa -. mw lQb a �maF. _. Z Y L CtFtY111—C7'irYAL—F+—,J `EAI'QTR, x A7=kM �R 33 0066 0090 OCEAN AVENUE ROMANOVITCH KEITH R 90 OCEAN AVE ROMANOV.ITZ R.ITA A SALEM MA 0'19770 3+ z1 FQ'6 - ^,008.870-CEAN-.AVEN',1:I . m hI1VSELLA I7AV�3-GSE a a c�8 CEA A.VE 6. RQVQ7 t+a ai 6.xx naBsxa` d a 1411,91 a3°2& •,.a` PS a.v ;p,.a '4R sA$.s , gg £ a 4R $a;b.: D R=ae aaa e; «r..- :: .g:.axe a a. >,.r.- '`, $ a'a s 'amsa ; `_+;, a' sR'�' :.sh h1<sMAsdQ;197Q;.; g ..x - ae mms, „ „SAI_ a ,._ , ` gn.< - �a a� a, sa.aR RarE.� « -, a „ �b�N,Sr J'1 A 7k RESA.:.,5 c.x:� ass ma: ssaamss sm. mm ° ata r :ssS f mesa sw:m,, maa.a.:�:s £ , - sm`s;.e a m <a �=ms�,a Ba ,x$a"o aam a. :;:e xam«$«-�: a�s gsama�m wa3m�e .m .... ...... ... . ..: m.. ,a§;,�a ar.,:..> _e?a • ti ,. araEa- ma..ss eema 'a2m ,e w, a. a `,;,. _§s ,,,a.8.... .e.ICE.AN , x,ra.:. , a<x ., , •,ssms»& 'e. m m a:ssmae�:w -.o a = 4 :NUE MARb.UIS ,C'l sorsa a$am ` aa. s sn<ws s ate, m m, gym ,as saa a'ema a,s,, • `¢, a,mt�(S m=1068: aQQB '.x:FJ,CEAN.,.A E mA,a;sie aamm&amasa msm<ss�$ ,,:as.P,.ag a 7s maa,amasa:`: R«a.,a`;a..: » @ . ,e °,wR .°a,m-aas•:esax,adaas ewzs' m:m. ,. - m ��m m;y��,s�a sm s,,,r, m` a d< s Vim. s smsmexd..aa " _ms ,a s,mY:be , .. T, ,. �, - ,r ,,,^ - 0 6 33 0078 0009 MEADOW STREET MORE.NO JOSE 9 11MEADOW ST c ^ . 9 MORe:NQ MILADY SALh_-hi r'IA 019770 o a::a .aR :asZ3 a0C<•79 '. . , . .. ... 5021-Y'iEAflCtdJ—STREiET.. SHA1y1BAUGH,k1AROLD-L;. . .'a, z �s 1.1..,..Y'IEAC�C?4.�1,-„S,X N 1 a:;se . . .a.. a.3` ,' „m . < a, g.xa$ $� ," x> . as ; <; R a Bis, mfr,s;saa.:41 a'e'., 3a,a " ea'ffiz:.:• a..: a >, ` ,, a a a.»` a s Sfil h M MA 0, .�. a .«.. . . , n.° -« . d.. •€a <;,. ., z,.m xa.a;; aseSHA!'YN 4UGHaEILEhN>>: hY - _ :. aa aa,- RcaEra a.a,a.'ma„ as se.smaadg - ea:a.^:.a 'dama':sa;a s,: P: s .:..,.;.%"..s,,a as 0d 1^cot ,�® •':'a maw&gsasx arz '= -r 4. ;.;, S§t'..,em`S.m' R<,S g-' •- • ' : Rga,waa3,'4'saRa '.®ve gta<a. ,1:S,,.MF ADC?LJ-aSTREE.*J£ ADC, {.iALpRIEL:m a,... zs,a r,°a.. . . 33 aOC18'1,.,m « ADC « . »�.m` .r... .has ,. ,;<a:.: ea sm,a>;:a 3 - a. e ma•.�aaw «^a aa.wd m.. .'<,. ,nx- «.e naa =a za.°[a ' ,, _ ,. gw -. ^IIS •+ a masm gm sR� Ss..R a�,.�, m�gma���Al=..�_MA> , utaa ymsea Ea am aa'•, 2mg^tar g,Ean�,. . 33 0082 0017 MEADOW STREET CUTE EDWARD E: 8 CHARLOTTE, ST s COTE MARY T SALEM MA 01970 ,= i'3 00$7 — 0014 fIE:A(?F1W:S7RE'E(.. ,. PERhYbIVS—MARrIIV P_ 14 PIEAC?C?l.J;STK,*11-7 7.°s aaa.x.am: sn - P . a.s r ea ...�.. . m aaa 'a. ,II.em .�s,.« .d, `aAL.Eh,I I',IA .;01=97Q'x:stsaa§xs= x'Rrr aaa Rama aa.s: xa`sa'¢s $. '.a m s a':a _ a e,a.ax.a PE'Rh INS mNc Rf lA'^L* at �eS ,¢, m t, a a w, s ..s a.m aaaa t a aaaismas,.a�. .£ ^.s S a . »,. ..a.a °enP, ...,:msm? °, .t., s .a . as exs ¢^:.,.._.,.ME ,s a.f; sa , 8^:a aa, t -.. .m os„ ,,.se: sS€$, $aaa e as (, s l<1 R . .,a,, ay.» ,Sa:,sa"ss 3a, 57 • • s ma £;, ° ass maa "A'I"1P8EC.L .7)A✓I C)_ A „ a 3a« 1 .:,ME ACCIJ S Ts spas o-mmma.,sma a .ae as,FA.. z34 aQQ�£8: QQ1t.m,MEAL CIl :S7 REET. as.4.aemaC_w:.,. „e; 'a ., r .s^ e`s..,` as m, .. ., saes ,w ,a R:m..raasaeea,ss R- ,. ,ms.amasg':t mr^.ex m �s8.3 § ,a- -ams x-,e ,u«. Rc:g„azc ami v,aa«tammu 9a, aas g»% $ - agp... , . '..a. xa m _ `ata ' saR ms,...a�am,P 'a s"�®seaaa ms.61, o. ,,h'lAm=4l'1e97(� asmacaa s}� as xeRm<A^ a Sa .mmgaxeao::a oaa::r 'RVkl�ams' ,. A w » ' 33 0089 0010 MEADOW STREET' MAR(aCILIN FAITH A 40 ALLEN FARM LANE 5 • 91 CONCORD MA 0174 • z Sac j .as",a eaam?� x¢ °".m a ° .« . . r r § z'cs ss ammtasm a ma,.� a a aaa s ga arre 's':x xr.ma,s xa aaa`zg L ,aa6 a.a-a ,as, rR 4.c az s,4<a LR ,sg:ai as rs a;&3 s. 4m 6aaeemad a .<«< ..tt. v.zsv. e.+., , <« ,m , r ,. Ya�a.s'$nx a.'R `° .. S`T:, $ ig. v9.vm9 3i''Pi.aaS' Ss afr,m s,3`T¢j@f rR6F..a, mPn xb$a). 'e'mm,,. • a¢.,sa:e maa - ia : , '.;.ga.."°s:a x. 3§« ,Bos';'. aaa\ma ..: m.a ' Bab 5.sa 'a; Via» ,x.,, cu x:m¢$ mfaa¢ws'xm.'.z,.,,, s aAx tt t,t , ° xs::,sxta `§ nc aaa as<.aa assa.a »inb baa^¢mm =gin x4m< R,.a..a ws ms.z a `°' x. 7s. 61 • • 8 'S'it gga Rgser'� a-Sa. ,. .. , va'j xx:.",rt',"A t sag 9 ,: ,m xsaa,w sssm''a'a,: £sa' }:.ax.:a.� Vim` �as� �.a`r'"gp Wim:.-;.`aa r....a,® tie ma ..., my,'�',3. amsa m?4:e u,R'$ ,m,a.' a - 'm�:aa,g '..x �? .. ....,, .... 4 r, °,.aa as ._.m ,gs�Smm4 a.r. ax as a>aw s ae. . ,< °' as<a a ,.-.. a..°.m°. ,,,.n, ,a• m v,.., ., ea�:.m a,, ,8 t;^n,o,..e6 s:@�4tas baS 8e4 ,.s 8a4m ey:'m`'& va Rm A'a Raaaaa,y>R;.A ,a,al; IIm ss n'r.t aa, ,vs ;x afia:a:x..s,aLarsm asTssg a�.a;y mam m: sx.a .,s gam - m a,grass , as , R.: maaa a p S;ae,"a„ sg Aaas.ees.a:t ,. . . ..:.. . n'. ,..,..., '_� ,. .. . ., �:x aaa ;:,a .wa .Bas m aa,�aBaa • $�,a z99s ..II Ra e. se.s.. ma as ops aas a«sa.�BSar aag'� as ::' e" aortic*..gee a. ma... as,. em ,mga ��..si a ,z , a -e.; r: asr,'�s ss. gigs €'„ a wag& s £ •. a:o;'m, ,,, , ,, ,:.,-, ,, ,: .. , . m�.a Ea: , ,r... , .>.a am:na aa.. mia:g. sw:,'x `As $a ,a'<:t .��as,,:.a ss ,am as'a ..a,. a. ,,:a •aasx'as ,a" ,,.,.a=, �a aaacs as ..,a4s. €a.,s...,m teas a ,ar;;syaa':a r.a, ,R,.a., Rbr:mm.aaa„ :. ,es„'.. 2 • 3 71 • n Sa'$ a ” e;:R ': i4•s..a .'a a:a ..:_,°«se a..a^a z a ,,. ., ,<.. s)s7s $R?:s2 ..a«, a '. ?, masa„°a,.-`:a a.,r agm,.z, sq,m .;§,sass, a,.sa m's;.§ ss,a ON/ ,s ,.w, ,, , .. ' ,, ,a s::aaSaa- ,.. ....., » aAa'aa ” .«.:has saa g:,s¢§xsm'wk&..Beg n a..,,aaR ,. m a. .P` 2 ,:, aaim e.;bi. m„�, a, @ysaag .s <"..eeax xaa .<a 's aesz,e e aa, � ;..s: ...t ,,a,.6 m a?:H a. 4, �;a aa4am,e pa:..'m A and ° a:F•'s' a ,aa a. .ai ea.° - a a .am. a.N tb BA S cossm.s;eansm as� xm,.r a.z.s'., a. as x , ,, ;i ms3 ;e?a`ma `a W'a'm>�x, m .,. 3,, e'iB,a, ,... a .;s' a..:: t ,o ..a%':e, ^asaaa`.. ..ma , > m<,a ':.� .. x ,.wx \� m� as.aa; «,,a„ aaaa".,R4 rmgas.a. a xsaai"i. %.ra `s, S s.:s „ as ;as s°a.ras.a.:a aaaa samr,.a s,..e„§ m,. k.�x�`,.,. 5S$aea9.:. gr a„^. aaa8 ,'m g. 4=a.�s a a , w�/��,� o.Y Ya m°...g.l.a` s tSq,. • a .m. ,e` ,,... aN ,a::a Via. da4aaa ,."..a mm .s m,a': „a ae.am�mma. ,.s �.�Li/!�+'-a ms. aaR amrt',uRa�sa.a Eag'gis ,g�m�...a:�' 'F �=2 .«« .,ems;^, a.:e �2 3. a'm ,.... saa.! a� _ ®vum r) PETER ht CARON �� • 1 CHIEF ASSESSOR 70. Z7 so y� 98 3200 `� —las=8 101 1 -i 333 5,2.52 slsa 96 "z m 317 /2075 0 to ❑ 2050 „ 1. 3300 85 103 52so 252' 9-e 99 ❑ a M w 23.835 51j0 I1i60o0! o y 318LLJ 9? vl n 86 I 89 I 91 -32• g oL fi v 5.500 x 3 y d _ X660 : 88 % 190 - 319 330 4b. 5312 g • ; , ��73 78Ts s0/S� 5201Ir i ^ � `e 5250 .51 *s3ce. e s T. 3677o-S ^_ 10 s _ s s'' 76.50w </^.� 1D O ,Wly s..s1/ ' ' yoq0 so74eSO +:9 � s7 330 wal. 40 ee x 32suoo 8593 a 7 7� V o�,8a�4 m y 545S 4200 5650 2200 3x033231500'I9 5700 m84 82 e1 g0 a;SCJ T 7z �' ° o U 1 - 324 "A'3Cii3 4,/31 6.:00 X z,,58 a on 32` 32gp 'y �{ 6 67 6 69 71 " N 51 J5U gc� o 650 acv 5 e 4 /o 0 3.092 11Jee so oa a yz 65 a 23 3600 : °° E A ST ss m 63 •50 5 S0 570 ° so so le 89 s, / „ , !d\ 45 525 50 Y 82'(2.92 1� V E I�V E ,s " 15 sO so y' 49 'I r a \ •• - 63 y0 SO - n OCEAN a so U r+ y08150 so 50 B3`1rl /7 .40 a 52 m 32y.S 4,.99 - (R9 � Ep5� „JI.:OI 41 yO U �J6 51 5,•'347 AVENUE ss ❑ 58 53 5,30 4 ,^,Cic X AN 2, 5800 55 5:700 4 ,co 48 OCE 163 4906 57 4,9(12 54 45 4,410 2 60 45900 4,9oc 44 _ . oo-s 61 4,660 �46 47 9 i?i 9,353 4.2/C 4,653 41 � 43 5,riB0 1 so 3 39 4.9 o s,o0% 42✓J 4/00 4 y�n e b S 7 40642 - n m 7 38 4,900 y0 12 i0 = 5 s 36 ,' s° 26 sb m guo 4,90 150 1e° I6 iq ,y U.p1/ 50 25 9 _ H 9.400-s 10o Rios E �Y a 115 V2 so s° so 2,646 11 74.4 i 0 _ 26 H E y0 ''0 27 v le s° 28 v .so 32 31 30 29 749•)o 4�--. Iso - 34 4.900 4,900 490J 5,900 33 4. ip0 a 23 ° ^ 4 Z m 757 ,,900 _ I8 19 120 sso L a 1 1 '26.430 Q - m e.3CC � I '3.Co, i✓ u«�T '`g qq (gitg of Ju 30 8 so 1M '87 a .9 �narD of �ppe:il FILE# OfTT CLERK.SALEM.MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H. DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR A VARIANCE AT 131 MEADOW ST. (B-4 ) A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski and Associate Member Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutte and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from any and all applicable density.and rear and side setback requirements to allow one parcel of land to be divided. into two nonconforming lots. Additionally, petitioner is requesting a second variance to allow an existing deck which encroaches on rear and sideline requirements. 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; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve 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 hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 11 . The condition. of the two buildings on one lot has existed for many years; 2. The deck was constructed prior to the purchase by the petitioner; 3. The deck is used also as a means of egress. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: In regards to the division of the lot, petitioner failed , to establish hardship; 2. In regards to the deck: a. desirable relief may 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; b. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. _ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H. DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR VARIANCES AT 131 MEADOW ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0 against the granting of the Variance to allow division on one lot into two lots. Additionally, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0 to grant the variance to allow the existing deck, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The deck remain in its present form as provided on the plans submitted to this Board. 1• DENIED VARIANCE TO DIVIDE GRANTED VARIANCE TO ALLOW DECK Richard A. Bencal, Secretary ". . 9�, 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 PURSU:YT TO SE-TION 17 OF THE NiMS - GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER S".:. A', SH'dL GE GAPS Ai iEF. THE DATE OF FILING - DF THIS DECIWN IS THE CF.';.E _F THE CIT) CLERH. ll. THE YAEIAvCE CP. f _':iT ,RA`;°C HERM; SWILL Ir'! T%_E EF,EUl U' TIL A C'P) 0i ET F!LE,.. f IUATICH CF 1HE LITI CLERr% 1� :D GA)S :i,..,.r EI'';-•• :11'� " F:.,, Is . OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPi 4! H+S 6r_::: IILE.,TN=.T IA::i,.I50F1._ !:!::.L I:7.'.:E JF Tri. RECORDED IN THE SOJTN ESSEX REIASTRY OF DEECS OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOIED ON THE O';:i:ER'S CERTIFICATE Or TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL A TRUE COPY ATTEST July 17, 1987 : J • sep ne R. Fusco CITY CLERK SALEM. MASS. j (1�ity oftzlem, � ttssttdjusetts I �Roxra of Atvren! Cit rr `JS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H.DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR A VARIANCES AT 13-13 1/2 MEADOW STREET (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held October 20, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen Touchette 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. The Board of Appeal,after hearing the evidence presented and at the request of the petitioner's attorney voted unanimously 4-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for Variances to allow this existing nonconforming lot containing two residential dwellings to be divided into two nonconforming lots. The property is located in a B-4 district. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE October 20, 1993 ` l /i Francis X. Grealish, Chairman Board ,of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. o I- X o m = D z = D r (D c rri m N D r °D D S 070 28 ' 49 " W - 60.00 cn 49.42' 105. 00' cn w Oz O '' O OD - O _ _ O K D w o °, O -I o z O z w 00 t13 . 00 W r ap O D o : - �� 60.00; z N O . 00 N m n z 0 S 07° 28'49 " W --- I 11 ~ cn o < -< n 0 0o 9 RIGHT OF WAY I w a �'_ co m rn 8 SPACE AlFACE Bi : SPACE C1 N� -n p —fT m _ 20 `° 20 ' 200 \� 7LO 105 .00 69.00 ° 41. 07 ' N 07° 58 ' 30" E o N 07° 58 ' 30" E + —'� 00 �7 0 Qp O CO (T� m 0 m . r � D r m x D G7 �� w ,,. i l�'S :;o ilio r- w r D m6, Ili �� 1� r co r o z : z M c- 2, iso 1 I 1 j —1 '�10 u%, , ❑ 3200 3 rL 99 33 101 qc'5( 3230 96 a aw 317 /2073 85 103 10 0 25C 5 57 99 Y 30 to a "3300 �9 m 2 �ar W p3 833 31j0 116 any 318 �G 1 89 g1 92 `;4� 550c, x 331 y _ �b60 88 j 90 7s7s 319 330 3312 g. j ��,[��►► 7873 T3 SDI330 320 e x�x_ 97 3250 5'1, is act rY59 .S,Zi^ yo a o e .S T. a 3677 ' 329 m too-6 t2 0 T ' ' Z65U e. DOW„ a a`/ ' Is4o gO 14050 „ 62s s x 3648 32 6 2 326 U 3 y° 73 5,U0o 0 7 75 S 93 J )4!5 79 378 700 .F 00 5 6p 4,200 3,303 " o�80c 2300 3.524 AC 455 ,T,L,+, 323 324; 84 82 81 80 o fT 324 j n3,4:i3 4,/31 ti70o LJ x,.38 v 32v $r6p 69 x ° ,! 0 0"30 c,SCU 6 71 67 yp5o 3 " 6 5 4 70 ' 13.092 4 -3 a '/�> 65 3600 ro t 0 u �A S 63 / ,708 525o0 s° 76 E a, ss ' 5230 50 3 SO o sa J�3e3 so Y B2',2, 92 A V E W U E ; is " �so s+ 6� a: ,9 60 So 49 OCEAN 6s si-as`;: so 50 u so so szs-s ,. ,, : ° so 52 50 6,3 T q, 9+ EAS „n.:o, a7 so 51 5';4i AVENUE 99 5 5800 57on 53 5,Sa0 4"()( x OCEAN =' res ❑ 4 9os 5T 55 a,°co 48 4,9c0 54 4,410 p0"6 2 61 60 4500 4,900 44 45 _ 41660 4H 47 ' 9,!l e 4,653 43 9,353 90 4.2� 41 S,ri80 t 3 0 .2 � 4100 , 0 m 39 q g00 4,06' �• 4,9' - a ^ S T. 40642 - t 3� 38 ,900 s° o 6 m 3 6 SO so _ 7' �' y6 25 g,6U0 4,90 a ,9 ,_ ,,.u'/ 50 5° 2 to �' 9,405 too zo Y ,6 ISV= so 50 744 0 too=s 2a H E R S E rt .jO yO 27 L,646 7. so yO 28 tSu 32 31 0 29 49•,0 24_ 34 4'. 4'900 n 900 n z 4 s00 ' 4 z g� 4,^pd 23 ° m rl v 430 / e a ,e7 ,.,.� e3CC 18 19 4,50:7 -..-..--....-,- .-.o. r -R ,._ _r....-_..:_.__.._._.,....-..,-....»..- _..-,..._.-.--._-.. -_..... ..._.. . .-.. .. .,_.$._..... ....� -.-..,-.�, -............ . ..•-,_---. ....-._., .-.r-..., _-..,.... _.ria.-r•�,r rwn.+.w**w�....+.m,.ae+•.*s�..,•.n'+. ASSESSORS MAP 33 PARCEL' 80 rri ir ,me".d V _ sr APPROVAL UNDER SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW NOT REQUIRED L 0 C U S MAP SALEM PLANNINGBOARD OCEAN AVE NU E y N 820 09 ' 00" W ROBERT J. Le BLANC, Jr. CHAIRMAN DATE N / F JOSHUA a CLAIRE L . DESCHENES EPSTEIN o 0 J PLAN 60 OF 1928 o LAWRENCE J. o & NANCY E . MOO N EY N 820 09' 00n W 58. 94 ' w _ 71111171tll 77 = 4 LOT A 3 _ 3,927±S� t GEORGE T. IIL ' a v , - N 1 -� a N0. 13 '/2 % o SUSAN M . BURTON T . a � v ; z GALLANT W L1 BARBARA L. o ,� Io oo/„ , _ W BALL ~o S 81 30'00" ES81 ° 30'00" E , PLAN 431 OF 1941 30.00 �9 w t.,. cn - W- _ o O f � � O O I OoM 6 O3Q cD 0 � = 3 I—m ` cD 0 J LOTT B � N0 5LL' i O � ' 11800± o = f- (D 9 Z � NO. 13 oy �w- s1 v 348 ' TO HAZEL ST. , 30.00 18.00 , . --- S 810 30' 00 " E SUBDIVISION PLAN OF LAND M E A D O W S T R E E T LOCATED IN SALEM , MASS, PREPARED BY EASTERN LAND SURVEY ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY CHRISTOPHER R. MELLO P. L.S. 40 LOWELL ST. P E A BODY, MASS. Record Owner : H. DREW I HEREBY CERTIFY THIS PLAN CONFORMS TO THE y l SCALE : I " = 20 ' FEBRUARY 19, 1987 ROMANOVITZ RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REGISTERS OF PREPARED FOR DEEDS OF THE .COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. � 1 H . DREW R OMA N O V I TZ GE dRGE DEE 111 DESIGNER � 0 10 20 40 60 80 a F7307