7 SUMMIT AVENUE - ZBA l'
7 Summit Avenue
Mary E. Jennings, Trustee
— -- - ------ -- — . -- of Jeni-May Realty Trust
1..
v
v
O
` � II
Mcovnrrn.
y� 1 WB#u of %Icm, 228P�dt�USP##�
yR�
r� '
r �/ 82 OCi 22 A11 :21 P �y. nttr� of 2ttI Sp.
f�lA1l1:F.� 1
C IT �cS1�QN' p � PETITION OF MARY E. JENNINGS REQUESTING
VAitIANCE FOR 7 SUMMIT AVENUE
A hearing on this petition was held on October 20, 1982, with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, Hopper and Feeherry.
Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and a notice of the
hearing was published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at 7 Summit Avenue to
convert the existing two-family dwelling at the site to a three-family. A variance
is required because the proposed conversion is not permitted in an R-1 zone where the
property is located. (See prior decision of this Board) .
The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1) Petitioner's proposed conversion of the property into a three-family dwelling was
unanimously opposed by' all abutters,.
2) Petitioner's proposed conversion will have an adverse impact on parking problems
in the area because the site has inadequate off-street parking.
3) The property has been in violation of existing zoning for a substantial period
of time.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the public
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1) The property in question is not in any way unique. Rather, it is a type of
structure which is found throughout the surrounding area.
2) Petitioner failed to establish any conditions which affect the property in
question, but not the zoning district generally.
3) The Petitioner failed to establish a hardship as required by Chapter 40A to
support a variance.
4) The desired variance may not be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good. More specifically, the grant of the special permit would be contrary
to the single-family residential character of the area.
Therefore, the Board of Appeal unanimously voted in opposition to granting the requested
relief. The Board unanimously denied a variance to ta4e?-.7B
itione .
APPEAL F,",�71 T4i; CECIS'ODI. IF ANY. SHALL 8E R1ADF PU RSL'A"IT TO SEC?r�^I 37 OFM. rry, �Yetary
A CtMP OFiTHTS .IECISJON.AN]b �Vif-04S HAVE BEEN,Fi1LEIk RFTF[EIOPLANNIOARD CITY CLERK
E^ ..J.i 11. THC V/'.?'V : O' SP; , r
r.(•.'!iii�ii ._.,:! .. .:!I,vL :i. ,: -"- _ ._ Cir,l P..2";IT
THE CERT-
Fi:,Ail-:.i C! 4- !I'/ i S D'E';I FI:cD.
;.H -:Sr. HE'.ISiRY U ;�c.u; /';D .:.LED C�;Ct'( iiE •L;:A;E OF THE DG16ER
Of REOCn Cdi U n_�CRD Eo AND Mi,_0 C'i! THE Ui ;:L_R"& i;Z?iIF:L'AiE Or TFi LE.
RnARn nc AourA.