9 SUTTON AVENUE - ZBA (2) 9 SUTTON AVENUE
tYPEdcttool
E
UPC 10330
a `�
®� 'Posi.cov
NASANGS,:,MN
�w�
;� a _,
�, ��
�� � ��
<' c1,
` 0
Legal Notice
CITY OF SALEM
BOARD OF APPEAL
?459595,Ext.381
will hold a public hearing for all
persons interested m the petition sub
-
w by NAREG&NANCY GRI-
GORIAN requesting Variances from
side setback and rear setbacks to con-
struct a 12'x24'addition for the prop
erty located at 9 SUTTON AVENUE,
R.I.Said hearing to be on WEDNES-
AR
P.M., 120BWASRUARY 19, 2003,at 6:30
HINGTON STREET,
3rd FLOOR,ROOM 313.
Nina Cohen,Chairman
(2/5,12)
j�oiao�mf CIYY OFi SALEM, i`4`tAS. ACKU:.ETT (;li'i' Oi' SALEM MA
BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE
120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR
It SALEM, MA 01970 _
\ -
TEL. (978) 745-9595
JFe��MIN6��D FAX (978) 740-9846 - . ..1007 FEB 25 P Ir. 35
STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR.
MAYOR
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NAREG GRIGORIAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9 SUTTON AVENUER-2
A hearing on this petition was held on February 19, 2003, with the following Board
Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, Joan Boudreau, Richard
Dionne and Nicholas Helides Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and other and
notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioner is requesting a Variance from side and rear setbacks to construct a 12 x
24 addition for the property located at 9 Sutton Avenue located in an R-2 zone.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exit 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:
1. Petitioner, owner of the property requests a variance from right side and rear
setback to construct a two story 12 x 24 addition. The rear setback would be
7" and the side setback would be 4".
2. Mr. Grigorian presented his petition with his architect present to assist with
Details. The addition would be built to complement and match the existing
structure.
3. Mike Townsend, 111 Columbus Avenue is an abutter to the rear of 9 Sutton
Avenue objected to the addition for the following reasons; addition to close to his
property line and the addition would take his view of the skyline away.
4. Dianne Burns an abutter to the petition feels the addition would impede views
. from her property
5. Letters were sent in favor of the petition were from an abutter at 11 Sutton Ave.,
117 Columbus Ave, and the abutter at 14 Sutton Ave.
r
1
r
DECISION ON THE NAREG GRIGORIAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED A 9.SUTTON AVENUE R-2
pagetwo
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 result in
unnecessary hardship to the petitioner.
3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good or without nullifying and substantially hardship derogating from the intent of the
district or purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3 in favor and 2 in opposition to grant the
requested variances. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass,
the motion is defeated and the petition is denied.
VARIANCE DENIED
FEBRUARY 19, 2003
2=dre"au C J
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 owners Certificate of Title.
Board of Appeal
City of Salem
Board of Appeal
120 Washington St.
Salem,MA 01970
Feb. 8,2003
Dear Sir,
Regarding request of Nareg and Nancy Grigorian requesting variances located at 9 Sutton Ave.:
We support the approval of this variance. After seeing their proposal we have no objections
Sincerely,Patricia and Dennis Murphy
14 Sutton Ave.
Salem,MA 01970
Phyllis A. Arouth
Kimberly A. Arouth
117 Columbus Avenue
Salem, MA 01970
February 19, 2003
To Whom It May Concern:
Due to our work schedules, we are unable to attend the hearing this evening regarding an
addition to the house on 9 Sutton Avenue. My daughter and I live at 117 Columbus
Avenue and have.been a neighbor of Nareg and Nancy Grigorian for nine years. Nancy
Grigorian has showed us the plans for the addition and we have no objections.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at 978-741-8520..
Yo �ly, ,
Phyllis A. outh
Kimberly A. Arouth
! y t
i.
e
q v�
ie
ex
{ ` i
"�l/ �`/ ' �.i� V �`��I { { i y a �{ 1✓� h \/'�G �,. •. :F �e. 5 ° �sFn
y f
n
not
Z 9
yy a r
J
�`
»v,.�
���
{���
1
l��
�.� � �'�
'�.s
14 SUTTON AVENUE
SALEM, MA 01970 '
I
.1
f
NAREG AND NANCY GRIGORIAN
9 SUTTON AVENUE
SALEM, MA 01970
Concerns about development:
The building of Sutton Ave. will adversely affect our
personal environment in the following ways:
■ Dramatically changes our ability to use our
backyard
■ Privacy will be greatly jeopardized
■ Lighting — the structure will box our view of the
skyline and sunlight into our yard
Our intention for living at 111 Columbus Avenue is
lifelong. We are presently the 2nd generation living
in the house, raising the Td generation. We do not
plan on moving anyplace else.
- � 5k
tex
aim
-42
3r
ti
a
p
f t _ -
y
f x
Figure 2 Backyard Patio
4 t
_.-
v
,�r-a•. "f" ,-,.,.,,vat; - = —� �.w:; -
a
"I
Figure 7 View from back porch
� a
x
a _
AT
,wH
- 4" ..
Z
�y t
n
a