20 VALLEY STREET - ZBA (2) 20 VALLEY STREET (R_1 )
- JOHN KARAMETSOPOULOS
b
Edit" of �ttlem, "E5ssttrltuseits
Nourd of Au}renl
^o —
ao> N I
O; F 11
7= 3
^�a
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN F.ARAMETSOPOULCS FOR VARIANCES AND SggECI
PERMIT AT 20 VALLEY STREET. "'
A hearing on this petition was held February 15 , 1995 with the following
Board Members present: Stephen Touchette; Chairman, Arthur Labrecque, Gary
Barrett, Nina Cohen and Albert Hill. 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 a Variance from side and
rear setback, lot size, lot frontage and a Special Permit to remove a
non-conforming existing dwelling located at 20 Valley Street. The property
is located in an R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this
request for a Special Permit is section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the
Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set
forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and
reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement,
extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion
shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming
use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit
requests, guided by the rule that 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 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 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.
i
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN KARAMETSOPOULOS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
AND VARIANCE AT 20 VALLEY STREET, SALEM
page two
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,
and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1. Ward 4 Councillor, Leonard O'Leary spoke in opposition to the petition.
2. Cynthia and Peter Georgelas of 22 Valley Street spoke in oppositon to
the petition.
3. George Psomos of 2 Malm Avenue spoke in opposition to the petition.
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 exist which especially affect the subject property
but not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship on the petitioner.
3. The relief requested can 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.
4. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the
neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience
and welfare of the city's inhabitants.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 3-0, to grant the
relief requested, subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, codes
ordinances and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done per the plans and dimensions submitted.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4 , Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction. s
A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. —_
S r
112 L
ti
N
DECISION ON THE PETITLON OF JOHN KARAMETSOPOULOS FOR VARIANCES AND SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 20 VALLEY STREET.
cage three
o . Petitioner states that no blasting is required for construction of a
foundation.
Special Permit and Variances Granted
February 15, 1995
61
l /
Albert C. Hill, jr.
Member, Board of Appeal
n s
nK
-o
CD- to
—: r
= 3
�n
<n to
N ��
.1
(f itn of �551em, rfttssziciTuBette
ia�- 9 $�nard of �upeal
lea ] 110 .lug
CITY 01 !;-Ll.'s- MASS
CLFRK`S Of FlCf
AMEMDMENT TO THE DECISION OF 20 VALLEY STREET
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN F.ARAMETSOPOULOS FOR VARIANCES AND SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 20 VALLEY STREET.
A hearing on this petition was held February 15, 1995 with the following
Board Members present: Stephen Touchette; Chairman, Arthur Labrecque, Gary
Barrett, Nina Cohen and Albert Hill. 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 a Variance from side and
rear setback, lot size, lot frontage and a Special Permit to remove a
non-conforming existing dwelling located at 20 Valley Street. The property
is located in an R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this
request for a Special Permit is section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the
Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set
forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and
reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement,
extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, '_and, structures, and uses,
provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion
shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming
use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit
requests, guided by the rule that 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 Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of
the Board that: _11�
A. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or stiuc-bre 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.
y:ENDMENT TO THE DECISION OF ZO VALLEY STREET
DECIS1Cid OF THE PETITION OF �2HN KARAMETSOPOULOS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
'.ND VARIANCE AT 20 VALLEY STREET, SALEM
page two
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,
and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Ward 4 Councillor, Leonard O'Leary spoke in opposition to the petition.
?. Cynthia and Peter Georgelas of 22 Valley Street spoke in oppositon to
the petition.
3 . George Psomos of 2 Malm Avenue spoke in opposition to the petition.
4. Board Member, Arthur LeBrecque spoke in opposition, stating to many
violations.
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 exist which especially affect the subject property
but not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship on the petitioner.
3 . The relief requested can 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.
4. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the
neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience
and welfare of the city' s inhabitants.
:'herefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4, in favor and 1 opposed, to
grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, codes
ordinances and regulations.
All construction shall be done per the plans and dimensions submitted.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
I �
ADMENDMENT TO THE DECISION OF 20 VALLEY STREET
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN KARAMETSOPOULOS FOR VARIANCES AND SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 20 VALLEY STREET.
page three
5 . A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
o . Petitioner states that no blasting is required for construction of a
foundation.
Special Permit and Variances Granted
February 15, 1995
Albert C. Hill, Jr.
Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD ANT THE CITY
CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
the Massachusetts General Laws 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 Massachusetts General Laws 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 elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has
been filed, that is 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
Cts of �$ttlem, � ttssttrltusetts
x
ja4� ' �uttrD of �trpeal
April 3, 1995
Robert LeDoux
City Solicitor
Salem, Mass. 01970
RE: 20 Valley Street
Dear Bob:
Enclosed please find an appeal with respect to the petition
of 20 Valley Street. Debbie Burkinshaw, City Clerk said this appeal
was filed past the dead line of the 20 days. Please file an answer on
behalf of the individual members of the Board of Appeal. Thank you.
Very truly yours,,
Stephen C. Touchette
Chairman, Board of Appeal
SCT: scm
James M. Fleming, Attorney at Law
Tetephom(508)7448341
47 8uffum Street
Salem,MA 01970
March 24 , 1995
Stephen Touchette
452 Loring Avenue
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Cynthia Georgelas, et al. v. Stephen Touchette et al.
Essex Superior Court, Civil No. 95-06323A
Dear Sir/Madam:
In accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General
Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 17 , enclosed please find the following
documents relative to the above-captioned matter:
a) Summons and Complaint
b) Civil Action Cover Sheet
C) Tracking Order
Si cerely,
James M. F1emizEsq.
JMF/smb
Enclosure
N/F SGS ` S 66
JOSEPHm
AP 14 _ SALEM , MASSACHUSETTS
LOT
260 JOSEPH M.2P!='ACN �
r S6 `T S 30'03'55' = MAP 14 LOT 262 I y C n C
soot' ��
F� .I 1 OF L i 1D PRE_. —.R�� FOR:
JOHN KARAMETSOPOULOS
I `
pAt L
RElD LAG SURVE(CRS
TION 0R
\ \OX3J CHATHAM '
-o�a`
ea ��
slw� '�\H V �_vNN, r^-.C`r'C'—lUSCI IS \\ /
N dE PD&C\
Z —� _ _(_• ,��TE 1L, _4 O.` SCALE: = 7n
Cn
D
07 I i —
CMCS s
I r
GRAPHIC SCALE
�3 = s w JAMES ?. GECRGELAS
)T 2 MAP 14 LCT 255
m N
lN#LO 01 m
MAP 14 LOT 254 > n �o )n '; -,
GARAGE TO 3E REMME]
8 7NO (9'x19•) PARKINGS
n ?0 3E CONSTRUCTED _
LOT
559 BCr—O c�
Q r I a
rNlAlL 4 .35 Sr _ssEc ccur^c _ccrio
T )
7' 50.00'1 L–1-
14 31'03'16" 'N X 64.06'
V A L L E Y S T R E E T
STRICT (ESSEX COUNTY LAYOUT)
5,000 SF
100'
15'
10'
30' \ R94-082
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT EXCEPT WHERE SIGNATURE IS REQUIRED
Trial Court of Massachusetts - DOCKET NUMBER
CIVIL ACTION COVER SHEET SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
Ess"-X Division 3
?LAINTIFF(S) DEFENDANTISIJIE !Yr*1�:•1—
Cy fy+t„z A . Gec./ ;�1d5 anLL reoSue' Cche,t%'
/l � Ua 3cJ r�tt Nin a
'-1ber+ Hrlt � T -.� • b
ATTORNEY(S) FIRM NAME.ADDRESS AND TEL.) i ATTORNEY(S)(if known,
I �Grnes Yl;\. �lemin9 (�
I 1
Board of Bar Overseers s (Reauired)
ORIGIN CODE AND TRACK DESIGNATION
Place an .19 in one box only:
1. FOt Original Complaint 4, F04 District Ct. Appeal c231, s. 97 (X)
2. F02 Removal to Sup. Ct. c 231, s. 104 (F) 5, F05 Reactivated after Rescript: Relief `Tom
E 3. F03 Retransfer to Sup. Ct. c231, s. 102C (X) judgmenUorder (Mass. R Civ. P. 60 (X)
6. E10 Summary process appeal (X)
TYPE OF ACTION AND TRACK DESIGNATION (See Reverse Side)
CODIE,NO. TYPE OF ACTION (specify) /� TRACK IS THIS A JURY CASE?
�1( Z L• C• � T (�j a Yes No
1. PLEASE GIVE A CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE FACTS: (Required in ALL Types of Actions)
C''+t-� s ra� r- iyu'_ Cln\nv1men-}• f= VarfC1r,%
S pp et an P�e r rn l+ f u(N4ej� J�2n 4a r4E
2. IN A CONTRACT ACTION (CODE A) OR A TORT ACTION (CODE B) STATE, WITH PARTICULARITY,
MONEY DAMAGES WHICH WOULD WARRANT A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT RECOVERY
WOULD EXCEED $25,000:
� 67QP ► Cabe j
3. PLEASE IDENTIFY, BY CASE NUMBER, NAME AND DIVISION, ANY RELATED ACTION PENDING
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT.
SIGNATURE LCF AT NEYOF RECORD
FF DATE
• Y=1101,I ik4M• • I :
DISPOSITION RECEIVED
A. Judgment Entered B. No Judgment Entered
BY-
1. Before jury trial or non-jury hearing 6.Transferred to District DATE
2. During jury trial or non-jury heanng Court under G.L. c.231, DISPOSITION ENTERED
I 3. After fury verdict s.102C.
! s Gftor rn,in finriinn Disnosition Date _ BY:
TNOXNHW9 ESSEX k(JURT FOR CIVIL BUSINESS
ly 11 El S
- DOCKET 9500623 1='I._ACNTIFF GEORGELAS CYNTHIA A ETAL
DEFENDANT BARREfT G/ME:M/BD APPLS/SALE:M
.. . UAl ;.- CASE - _ . . Q o
95Of,623 � 03209`5 CO2 F .. A
02 SERVICE-_ COMPLETED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 061995
10 RULES 12, 15, 19. '0 i°IO1`tDNS HEARU. 0.81795
20 DISCOVERY COMPLETED QI'1596
30 RULES 56 MOTIONS HEARD . . . . . . . .. . . . . 02.139h
f-T_ ONFER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
tiw
APPROXIMATE DATE AS 1'(J EVENT 40 . I' UVAS NOTICE WILL B SENT
60 TRIAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60 TRIAL CONTINUED TO 000000
-- --
LAST CONTINUANCE
DKT NO SUFE
COUNSEL FOR PLFF MUST
- SERVE COPY OF TRACKING
- ---- ORDER ON DEFTS-ATTORNEY
ESSEX SUPERIOR COURT
Copy Mailed to
P-laiatin-Atty.-on:I2 -
F
(TO PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: Please Circle Type of Action Involved. —TORT— MOTOR VEHICLE TORT—
CONTRACr — EQUITABLE RELIEFR.l
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
r No.9Jr 06231
s
u
Cynthia__-A..---Georgelas_-_&.-.Peter---J-.---G-eorgelas Plaintiff(s)
m O
Stephen Touchette , Arthur Labrecque, Gary Barrett ,
g v Nina Cohen, and Albert Hill , as they are the Board of
t Appeal._of the City...of.,Salem.--and._John-
-
........ Defendant(s)
m .. --...... -
Iarametsopoulos
� 9
T.0
r m
SUMMONS
C y
to the above named Defendant:
E °
h
° A Tames M . Fleming
d You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon ..'.......................................... ..............................................
o
plaintiff's attorney,whose address is 47...�uffum Street Salem, Massachusetts
- .- ...-..... Salem,- . ..................s ..... , an answer to the
N U
C t
2 complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of this summons upon you,exclusive of the
t'. U
go day of service. If you fail to do so,judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the
e complaint. You are also required to file your answer to the complaint in the office of the Clerk of this court at
e �
N
s Salem either before service upon plaintiff's attorney or within a reasonable time thereafter.
0 3
c � Unless otherwise provided by Rule 13 (a), your answer must state as a counterclaim any claim which you may
m ie have against the plaintiff which arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiffs
claim or you will thereafter be barred from making such claim in any other action.
u
� 3
} a WITNESS, Robert A. Mulligan, Esquire, at Salem, the 20th
I— c day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand
< c nine hundred and ninety-five
O °
z
m
Zu u
W m
D
� E
U
o � Clerk
z
NOTES:
I. This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. When more than one defendant is involved,the names of all defendants should appear in the caption. If a separate summons is used for each
defendant,each should be addressed to the particular defendant.
Office#30
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL,NO. 9S , Q 6 Z 3 A
Cynthia A. Georgelas and }
Peter J. Georgelas }
Plaintiffs }
}
}
V. COMPLAINT
}
Stephen Touchette, Arthur Labrecque, }
Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, and Albert Hill, }
as they are the Board of Appeal of the City
of Salem and John Karametsopoulos }
Defendants }
----------------------------------------
Jurisdiction in this matter is granted to the Superior Court, by the provisions of
M.G.L. C. 40A, s. 7 and M.G.L. C. 40A, s. 17.
1. The Plaintiff, Cynthia A. Georgelas, is a natural person who resides at 22 Valley Street,
Salem. Essex County, Massachusetts.
2. The Plaintiff, Peter J. Georgalas, is a natural person who resides at 22 Vahley Street,
Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts.
3. The Defendant, Stephen Touchette, is a natural person who resides at 452 Loring
Avenue, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts, and is the Chairman at Salem
Massachusetts Board of Appeal.
4. The Defendant, Arthur Labrecque, is a natural person who resides at I I Hazel
Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts and is a member of the Salem,
Massachusetts Board of Appeal.
5. The Defendant, Gary Barrett, is a natural person who resides at 7 Patton Road,
Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts and is a member of the Salem Massachusetts Board
of Appeal.
6. The Defendant, Nina Cohen, is a natural person who resides at 22 Chestnut Street,
Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts and is a member of the Salem Massachusetts Board
of Appeal.
7. The Defendant, Albert Hill, is a natural person who resides at 4 Larkin Lane,
Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts and is a member of the Salem Massachusetts Board
of Appeal.
8. The Defendant, John Karametsopoulos, is a natural person who resides at 355
Maple Street, Lynn, Essex County, Massachusetts.
9. The Defendant, John Karametsopoulos, is the owner of the real property located at
20 Valley Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts. shown as Lot 559 on the plan of
land attached as Annex "A" of this Complaint. The lot contains 4,935 square feet of land,
upon which an existing dwelling and garage currently exist.
10. The Defendant, John Karametsopoulos, filed a petition with the Salem Board of
Appeal, requesting a Special Permit to remove the existing dwelling located at 20 Valley
Street, Salem, Massachusetts and Variances from side and rear setback, lot size and lot
frontage to build a new dwelling at that locus.
11. A public hearing on the petition was held on February 15, 1995 by the
Defendants Touchette, Labrecque, Barrett, Cohen and Hill, as they constitute the Salem
Board of Appeal.
12. The Plaintiffs, Cynthia A. Georgelas and Peter J. Georgelas, as well as others,
spoke in opposition to the petition at the public hearing on February 15, 1995.
13. At the public hearing on February 15, 1995, the Defendants Touchette,
Labrecque, Barrett, Cohen and Hill heard no substantial evidence that :
a. special conditions and circumstances existed which especially
affect the locus and which do not affect other locuses in the
same district;
b. literal enforcement at the Salem Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner;
c. desirable relief could 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 Zoning
Ordinance.
14. At the public hearing on February 15, 1995, the Defendants Touchette, Labrecque,
Barrett, Cohen and Hill, as they constitute the Salem Board of Appeal, voted four(4) in
favor and one(1) opposed(Labrecque) to grant the Variances and Special Permit
requested by the Defendant, John Karametsopoulos.
15. On March 1, 1995, the Defendants Touchette, Labrecque, Barrett, Cohen and Dill,
as they constitute the Salem Board of Appeal, filed a written decision with the City Clerk's
Office in Salem, Massachusetts. Said decision is attached as Appendix "B" to this
Complaint. On March 7, 1995, the Defendants, Touchette, Labrecque, Barrett, Cohen
and Hill, as they constitute the Salem Board of Appeal, filed an amendment to the
decision, which is attached as Appendix "C" to this Complaint.
16. The decision of the Defendants Touchette, Labrecque, Barrett, Cohen and Hill as
they constitute the Salem Board of Appeal, granting the relief requested by the Defendant,
John Karametopoulos is in excess of their authority, is based on legally untenable grounds,
and is unreasonable, whimsical, capricious and arbitrary.
17. The Plaintiffs, Cynthia A. Georgelas and Peter J. Georgelas, are persons aggrieved
by the decision in that they jointly own the abutting property, shown as Lot 255 on the
plan of land attached as Annex "A" of this Complaint.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, Cynthia A. Georgelas and Peter J. Georgelas, pray
this Honorable Court as follows.
1. Annul the decision of the Defendants Touchette, Labrecque, Barrett,
Cohen and Hill, as they constitute the Salem Board of Appeal.
2. Grant such other relief the Court deems just and equitable.
Cynthia and Peter Georgelas
By their attorney,
James M. Fleming, Esq.
BBO No. 542657
47 Buffiun Street
Salem, MA 01970
(508) 7448341
March 17, 1995
Ctr of �5alrm, C4Ett55arjiu5Ptt3
3 � ,
coQ� � �nara II{ ��27�2P211 n s--
_ a
9
DECISION ON THE PETITION 07 .;OF.& CAR.L'^.ETSOPOULCS .CR V:.RI tiCES AND SpzC'_Z
PERMIT AT 2G 'v ALLEY STREET.
., hearing on this petition was held February 1 1995 wit: the following
3oard Members present: Stechen Touchette; Chairman, Arthur Labrecque, Gary
Barrett, `Tina Cohen and Albert H411. 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
Chanter =CA.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from side and
rear setback, lot size, lot frontage and a Soecial Permit to remove a
non-conforming existing dwelling located at 20 Valley Street. The property
is located in an R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this
request for a Special Permit is section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the
Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set
forth in Section 8-o and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and
reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement,
extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion
shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming
use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit
requests, guided by the rule that 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 Citv's
_..hacitants.
he Variances wnich have been requested may be granted upon a finding of
the Board that:
:.
Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
Iand, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district.
3. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the
petitioner.
_ L
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN KARAN.STSOPOULOS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
AND VARIANCE AT 20 VALLE7 STREET, SALEM
page two
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,
and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Ward 4 Councillor, Leonard O'Leary spoke is opposition to the petition.
2. Cvnthia and Peter Georgelas of 22 Valley Street spoke in oppositon to
the petition.
3. George Psomos of 2 Malm Avenue spoke in opposition to the petition.
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 exist which especially affect the subject property
but not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship on the petitioner.
3. The relief requested can 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.
4. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the
neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience
and welfare of the city's inhabitants.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
relief requested, subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, codes
ordinances and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done per the plans and dimensions submitted.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
5. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
n d_
O Ln
n Gv
yy
'DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ?OHN KARAMETSOPOULOS FOR VARIANCES AND SPECIAL
Pc:.LMIT AT 20 VALLEY STREET.
rage three
6. Petitioner states that no blasting is required for construction of a
foundation.
Soecial Permit and Variances Granted
Februa rr 15, 1995
.filbert C. Hili,
?ember, Board n'ppeal
n S
O
LA
9
J� n
r
S
^1= r
N
N Lin
�-- �' �IIIJ cII J��£IT[. ,=�1u55u`LII1I5£IfS
s Garb at a Pal
N:z 7 11 azi-i 'sem
_ ::CC:�S•� Df FiCL:
-
_ .-. ._ Ui _ :za_.:: C� :.ND S=:CL;L
__
i ^ .- ..__. .
hear_-z -
t:t as e =Ebr c .aa the 'p.-owing
BOdrC :"�ambor - c ^, 2^ :cil LC .Er - _=a.^.•� :rt::Lr ...iu^rSC^Le. (_dry
3arr=_tt. .,_Ra O ;.eR .:d `
_.,ort ..--_ _
S:O t:CE __ __._ :;aar:ng :'as Sent CO
_CUttErs and o:nars arc n0z_jzes`0: tae Rea":•`.^ wire pro^ErLy published
_.e _`.31Em .`.'JERl rg .'Saws aCCC rCdRCE ::Lh :°2ssac.^.useczs General [.aws _1 -
hapter -' GA.
Petitioner, owner of :ae property, _s reouesting a Variance from side and
rear setback. __t S_.._ -
Cc ___R e and a ^Ec___ ?--r to r=__ove a
'on-confor-, en:=L :Ei -•z -
_.s .reared In _ _mat ^_ __raet. he property
?he provisI.OR of the Sala_ L-ning Ordinance will Cl is appliCsblE t0 ChiS
request for a Special'_ Per.it is sect on -,f, ' n
''-hieprovides as follows:
YOtwl LhS tanding anvihing to the Contrary aopearing in this Crdinance, the.
Board of Appeal ¢av, _r acccrdance with the p-cc=cure and Condi-ions set
forth in Section 3-6 and 9-s -
rant Special
aiterat_ons and
`
reconstruction of noncprfor_i 9 structures. and for for caanges, enlargement,
extension or expansion of nonconforing lots. -and. structures, and uses,
provided, however. .hat such change, extension. Enlargement or expansion
shall not be substantially more detrizental than tie existing nonconforming
use to the neighbcnccod.
In more generai tEra.s. chis Board is, -:hen r2vIEW!_R; Special Permit
requests, guided ty the pule -a: - c ci- _
ce Per-• _ r=_quest may be granted
upon a finding t- tae 3card iliac tha Sant C= Special' Pe^it 0
promote the - C ..aa _... sale- _onven_= _
=
_ahabi_ants. ncE _ndel--re cc -.e '--`="s
'he Variances which Rave been r=_gLestad _av ce -granted upon a finding of
the Board that-
A.
A. Special CCnd^t-tens and zirCum-sconces EX-sL at c: especially aIied: the
:and. cUi_.._..g or Str'LctUre _RVOived and .hie„ are not generally .-.-
affecting CL.^.er _=ROS. _111_,._:_5 or structures 4a the same district. s...
3. _iteral enforC ment pf tie orovisions cf the Soning Crdinance would
involve substantia'_ rarashi financial or oche.•isa, to the
petitioner.
�z'i
- -UT ---_T - _- -_--
:ave ryo
o-
--;!znout :-t_:-en: C-e
rucc_G goca ataC,___ ng Cr snds:ant____, cert_ -:? From the-
intent . t.-2 G-StCiG: Cr t':2'011IpOSE OI Lae Ordinance. -
:a ^Cart o* - caa:. __ a_ .__a_ __ ,;'ns_.^.a raC_C.. ..'
=no a. _cr _eG'i-g ::a ?:Is. :aK2s z:-.e IviiO'r in. .u_ gs _; :act:
_ . '..arG - _a_narC C _carV 'coke _. . _ ^s___ci. _.. -Ft___On.
_ . 7nt.._: and . et°i_• (:E0"2_a_ c' __ Val_EV S_reet =-oke cctos__Cr
the
501:.05 _ .2 i. .:''venue s:cKe in eCCcs:C'_cn to :ae c=__tion.
3oara Yemier. rthur _a3recque stoke -- OCvos- :icn. =Cat_.ng CO =anV
:7 Cna '-2s-5 '-_ --::2 cCOVE __'S:Azs c. fact. .inn c'. ::..2 c 'idcROE "resented
ac tie near-ng, :-e :card c. :.CQe31 conci des
. . Stec_al conal:-:ns Esist thio: especially affect C:E s1C'e^_C crccert,
Cut not the d_str_c: _- zenerai.
_. Oral =nfCrGESenc zf C.:- crc'V_sions Of C 8 vrd:.^.ante wouid '_1VOiVe
substantial harCshlA on :aa cet_:_oner.
? . The relief rsaueste^_ can Ce granted wit6cuc substantial detr-_ent to
the Public good and :_cnCut .11liifJ_ng or sudstartiaiiy derogating from.
tae --tent c Cie d_str_G: Cr tae purpose cf the ordinance.
The Sceci3l ---4 : g:3nted can be granted i.. har_cny wizb the
ae zg ,tCrncca -1-d :___ -^OuCt=_ :=e C1C:_C `Flea-t.'.. 5arerv. c7nvenience
ana waliare cC "a G__J _ ^.aCi Cants.
_ .._ - 7carz ... -cceai 'voted .n, f=vcr c-a =csed. :C
r'Clies CCC. 51a 2c: CC tie
_talc .:Ctool` vita aL' .'_Cv and n_Zts __ctIIt2s. codes
ord_nanc=_ anc regul3:-Gas.
-ll _cnst c:i:n s:.a;! :e done ter the -fans and -_=ens-cns sucrated.
4C v:
r Y+ �1
s . .-11 r2quiramen-s of :.._ -S-1-lem-S-1-1 :Fira Cept. ati:e to mpke and _re ' A -
safety snail to suit:-7 aahera_a to.
]e s n _ c g Perm-_t :rior t., g 3
tit-over zai- Dotal.. G Cui___n - hE�_Rr.'Rg dRV
Gonstr�ct_:n. r
N...
i
fY
(
/-----
-
/_\\\\ --
../ .
, SE2J G — ,223: 3 «6 ��z22e2: DEy;�z= z3c.n. �
-aze
» » a.e:ze 2 :=Res: e = G toes. «
§ zee :a: s Gz=g z ages Szwe:saw; ea
\3G/\. -
]car: c: RR£ .
\\/ � 3EE/3 se 2. gem 2—23 : /_ — Ey
#R£ ecus &&&on. 2anvZha emade o�-zias – &sang 2
',,assachusects
Genera: ' 1 Cl_: :«. and & /\a /ct2 3
&9 2»u 6s 2 52� 2 : &t6c a @ece 2 Qp
Clerk. 2 _: o aeaa�._ G�s: .s ::�r wt :ems e E. t
& ems or # £ 3 : ;.ca! &as ,GE not take £az a '-' a
=#7 2 the decision wza; :=t-.1-::ar e 2 the C--- t7 Gek :G= 2
wgsa o gR£ '-as teen z-@ e =:t 2 s g@e! 2s
\ays teen \. = 2 :- & z£%: :3 2 ee£2 a :& 2 uth
se\qG of Deeds =l :2ew � name xe �e 2 aa�
e 2 eels as sem, or,
2arr « aR£
�\��
\ s
}
N/F
JOSEPH TINA
MAP 14 LOT 263 JOSEPH M. PIEMONTE SALEM , MASSACHUSETTS
S 30'03'59" E MAP 14 LOT 262 PLAN OF LAND PREPARED FOR:
50.01' o .
9.5' 28`° -HOFJOHN KARAMETSOPOULOS
RA
JOHN
• y1 CS
W PROPOSED LPN
IL
WILLIAM REID LAND SURVEYORS
i \ � �
�1
FOUNDATION i;�. .� 90 9No rn+22a ";
365 CHATHAM STREET L S o
It roes AG LYNN, MASSACHUSETTS
1
_ -y,
u/F � LJj DATE: 12/29/94 SCALE: 1 " = 20'
GEORGE PSOMOS v.
MAP 14 LOT 253 I s.s' w JAMES P.� GEORGELAS GRAPHIC SCALE
°� MAP 14 LOT 255 0 10 20 40 so
m N -co
#20 rn 00
MAP 14 LOT 25_4 U) ( IN Fm )
Q z GARAGE TO BE REMOVED 1 inch 20 ft
_ _ & TWO (9'x19') PARKINGS
LOT 559 TO BE CONSTRUCTED
4935 SF > �
c
0 m NAIL ESSEC COUNTY BOUND
7 I (found) (found)
50.00' 50.00' L— — J
N 31'03'16" W X 64.68'
V A L L E Y S T R E E T
R1 ZONING DISTRICT (ESSEX COUNTY LAYOUT)
MIN AREA 15,000 SF
MIN FRONTAGE 100'
MIN FT YARD 15'
MIN SIDE YARD 10'
MIN REAR YARD 30'
R94-082