24 VALLEY STREET - ZBA 24 Valley St. R-1
p. Theophilopoulos
zs
� � r
r
1
i
(1�it of 4�tt1Pm, ttssac4uset 28 3 11 P '87
4 FILE#
poarb of (Apreezi
CITY CLER.v, �ALEF.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETRO THEOPHILOPOULOS FOR A
VARIANCE AT 24 VALLEY ST. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held June 24, 1987 with the following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Bencal, Strout and Luzinski.
,- 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 petitioner, representing himself, is requesting a Variance from rear yard
setback requirements to allow for the construction of an additionto the existing
single family dwelling at 24 Valley St. in order to provide more living space for
his family. The' property is located in an R-1 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 and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of_the -provisions, of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
t -- _ � e tGosubl otherwr�P to-tpe � iner
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 . There was substantial opposition to the petition presented at the
hearing by several abutters and neighbors;
i
2. There was evidence presented which indicated the petitioner could
add to the existing dwelling at the right rear of the property
without encroaching on the rear yard;
3. if the petiitoner were allowed to build according to the plans
submitted, such construction would affect the quality of life of
v
his abutter to the rear of his property;
4. The petitioner failed to prove substantial hardship.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
F 1 . Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject
'i property but not the district generally;
{
DEC131ON ON THE PETITION OF PETRO THEOPHILOPOULOS FOR A
VARIANCE AT 24 VALLEY ST. , SALEM
page two
2. Literal enforcement of the 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 or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, against granting the
Variance requested. Having failed to carry the required four (4) votes necessary
to grant, the petition is denied.
VARIANCE DENIED \jI
S�ames M. Fleming, Esq.
v?ce Chairman, Board of- A peal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL fcDC, THIS DPCIS�ON. cHALL °E HAD PL10.5!IANT iQf�T!hH ]1 �� THE Mkt.
: ": c '•i!t `<.e P.AY3 A�€w iF1t VAT€ (�F �IE1116
GENERA' S CHEF :r °Hrg.ccc _cS C CITY CLEPT. GR S. ,i.iiT
OF THIS ..c'..ISI..il I "Hi __ F:i.: �.,. I.I. Hr \i: In' {
RtiS " T
WA9S. Lc P L. C �oY �r TH° =' I _ ILED.
I cc c - UrTi
"As -
F. S _
-i4 F c n CI[ c GP
v 'gin
_ C r: c
P 1
c c\. :. . P F C D Stip InL L
Rr_C r, f; ir' S CEFTIFKATE Or �17�E.
OF REC-RD OR IS RECOROEO A'.D Nv�:�
BOARD OF APPEAL
?4 . an
WE THE UNDERSIGHNED ARE IN FAVOR OF THE ROOM ADDITION
AT 24 VALLEY STREET. WE FEEL THIS ADDITION HAS NO BURDEN
1-
ON ANYONE BUT WILL RE OF NEED AND USE TO THE OWNER, AND WILL
ADD VALUE TO THE HOUSE AND NEIGHBORHOOD.
Ra51 , .
}
--" -- -- ------ -- - (a `~ ----------- ` ------------
-- � -- --�Z--....----
-----------------------------
- hb — --- ---------------------------------
— ate _E. -- �-.��f���"�} �/�------��-_ __ _�l�?'� �-•�P,u--
7. / l� �!/ V sem- 'i ^/ �
-- — - L �- -------- -- --
— - 'ln��(=--- . �' "'NI •tee�� Gln_u�G-� L_3-- ^
JA
_ .
� /U I
WE THE UNDERSIGHNED ARE IN FAVOR OF THE ROOM ADDITION
AT 24 VALLEY STREET. WE FEEL THIS ADDITION HAS NO BURDEN
ON ANYONE BUT WILL BE OF NEED AND USE 1-0 'THE OWNER AND WILL
ADD VALUE TO THE HOUSE AND NEIGHBORHOOD.
'oe
2.
-g------'�-�-M7 -
---- -------
ILL 6;?3 1)
----------------
V
Vo lw-�.2-ls 2
---------------------
�z
13.
14.
15
r.
C.
9a
WE THE UNDERSIGHNED ARE IN FAVOR OF THE ROOM ADDITION AT
24 VALLEY STREET. WE FEEL THIS ADDITION HAS NO BURDEN ON
ANYONE BUT WILL RE OF NEED AND USE TO THE OWNER AND WILL ADD
VALUE_ TO THE OUSE AND NEIGHBORHOOD.
2.
4.
5.
S.
7.
5- ---------------.- --- -
_ ,_.�ry14 ,
.
10.
11- -----------------------------
12 _________________________12
18.
14.
15.
I
,Lsg ��g,,'u'E'
Lo+ M Ac
aRP.
L,D fG�s �
�p0`Krof
._ -- - -- toy
2a' a '!', po
----7
�AM� Nt�ip �� �• s 2 story 11 Lot Lyd. ing°�1
1�o t 1 I r i
G GoR� Pip
a
wbd. FcncC
1
PLOT PLAN OF LAND
/N
s.Sessur :7 "C.P /hI
�e'e G: .[„i• �.:vrFc��cre� .- ✓� <P �/<i. � PQOPERTY OF
PETPO ,4. e ,4N,4STAIS/Q TaZ:010 11LOPOVL4S
e,f
SCALE . / 20 ' JULY 30, 1904
AO
E'55EX SURVEY SERV/CE IAIC.
47 FEDERAL 57'REE'7- — SALEM, MASS.
62 77
SII