10 PHILLIPS STREET - ZBA (2) i
10 Phillips St. R-1
— City of Salem
Q � I
� I
I
�'1
y�ovrr �
dig of , Massachusetts
Paurb of AjuyeA z.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE CITY OF SALEM FOR
VARIANCES FOR LOTS 1 & 2 at 10 PHILLIPS STREET, SALEM 84 J'G�' U P� :Q`
A hearing on this petition was held December 21 , 1983 with t1WTfb�i9wing ;Board-
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hoppfexi, _Luzinski "t
and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of said 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, the City of Salem, requests variances from lot size for lots 1 & 2
at 10 Phillips Street so they may be sold as buildable lots.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would 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 purposes of the ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes
the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition was presented to petitioner's plan;
2. Without the requested Variance, the lots will probably remain
unmarketable and a burden to the City and it's taxpayers;
3. This circumstance is unique to the area.
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 circumstances exist which affect this property but do
not generally affect the district;
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial financial
hardship upon the City;
3. The Variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment to
the Dublic good and without substantially derogating from the intent
of the district and the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE CITY OF SALEM
FOR VARIANCES FOR LOTS 1 & 2 at 10 PHILLIPS ST.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the petitioner
a Variance as requested, provided that this subdivision is approved by the
Planning Board of the City of Salem.
c1�, ! ��IGn�,�•�a i
Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
APPEAL FRO'A THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE !BASS
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION NJ_ THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSANT TO '.,.ASS. CENERAL LAMS, CHAPTER, 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TA::[ EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION, BEARING THE CERT-
FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND ND APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED,
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
c'� 05
I j�
❑❑n `� i
y�c C� ILTI�J !tr �iT�E'IU� C��MSSMch1TSP##s
,�, � � �latutiu9 �Oartl -
,,s RE ?1 1��9 E.,
�`"�4"` (�nr �ttirtn (Srrrn
CITY q,; F' IAVS.
December 19, 1983
Mr. James Hacker, Chairman
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA. 01970
Dear Mr. Hackert
The Planning Board has reviewed the petitions scheduled to be
heard before the Board of' Appeal on Wednesday, December 21, 1983 ,
and wishes to express general opposition to the increase in den-
sity of residential areas because this practice in time could
create de-facto zoning changes . Our opposition to petitions 1,
5, 6, and 7 reflects this opinion. It runs contrary to the City's
planned zoning for speciric residential densities , tends to change
the quality of life in the neighborhoods , and exacerbates the
parking conditions .
This policy is the Board' s general view; however, we are hes-
itant to issue blanket opposition without knowing all the factors
involved.- There are many properties in the various zoning classi-
fications that are under-utilized and could be upgraded to reflect
the surrounding density. We , therefore , respectfully ask that
the Board of Appeal take our concerns into consideration in making
their decisions on these types of petitions.
Regarding the petition of Mr. Stasinos (#8) , the Planning
Board has been presented with a preliminary plan only by the
petitioner for this proposal. Therefore , we do not feel we have
had enough information to comment in a responsible manner. The
project conerns us, particularly as it spans three zoning dis-
tricts , it is being located in a sensitive area, and we wish to
make sure the commercial section is well-Manned and the quantity
and quality of the housing units is compatible with the area.
Therefore , we respectfully request the Board of Appeal consider
continuing this petition beyond the December 21, 1983 meeting to
allow us proper time to give constructive input.
The Planning Board would very much like to meet with the Board
of Appeal after the first of the year to discuss issues of mutual
interest, and in particular to review our role in commenting upon
the various petitions pending before the Board of Appeal. Because
r 't-
our areas of interest and jurisdiction are very often concurrent,
it would seem to be valuable to both Boards to become more familiar
with the aims and policies of each. The Planning Board feels
understanding of our mutual goals for the City would be beneficial.
If the Board of Appeal agrees , I would be pleased to arrange
a mutually convenient time to meet.
Sincerely your
wCdkk1' ,IA- _
Walter B. Power, III �� -
Chairman U
WBP %dey