Loading...
25 WISTERIA STREET - ZBA 25 Wisteria St. R-2 James Poppe P::. - -- - ------- - — or— c� f� / Ctu of �$ttlem, �Hazsarllusetts _ Poura of p}�ettl ke i.pTT aT' July 3, 1991 Notice is herebygiven that as of Jul 3 1991 8 y the decision of the Board of Appeal has been filed in the City Clerk • _ to deny the petition of James Poppe for variances to allow 4 property to be divided into two lots at 25 Wisteria St. • BOARD OF APPEAL Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk of the Board �re1, 16A tl+a'8a tit[e S�T1 dR 6=1,Laws, Chapter 808.and shall be filed W"I"20"S jMwffw date,,of filing of this decision in the office of the city Clerk. Perection 11,the Variance Pursuant to Pdass. 6enerai I a��o�s. Ch e- 808, .: or ?0.,eci;! Permit ';'-rd"l fr.;ein s^ " 'pct take effect until a copy of the -!e-ision, !-aring the certificatlo- It I:je City Clerk that 20 days have ;�apsed an,: no apnecl ha= peen t�'zd, cr that, if such appeal has been filed,that it has been &smissciii cr !'nied is recorded in the South Essex and indexed uw:e the name or the owner of record or Registry of Deeds 's recorded and noted 0,1 the 0"mer's certificate of Title. n.nnpn n: pfx',EQt. y ( itti of ttlem, 'Rttssarllusrtts '' vs Bourd of Arrpettl _ - = JUL 3 II 014t '91 G!7', DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES POPPE FOR VARIANCES;c •.:5 AT 25 WISTERIA ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 26, 1991 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio; Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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 Variances from any and all density regulations in order to allow property to be divided into two lots in-. this R-2 district. 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 petitoner. 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 . The building in this parcel is a three family rental property. 2. The division of this parcel into two lots would allow the garage and yard to be conveyed to an abutter in need of a garage. 3. The conveyance of this portion of the lot would allow the petitioner to refinance the mortgage on the property making it a more lucrative investment. 4. On abutter spoke in favor of the petition. 5. Several neighbors and abutters, and the Ward 7 City Councillor, spoke in opposition to this petition, citing problems ranging from parking and noise, to the desire to maintain the property in tact so that it would be attractive to families in the future. 6. Petitioner failed to demonstrate or to meet his burden of proof relative to substantial hardship or to demonstrate unique circumstances that affected this property and not others in the zoning district. F/ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES POPPE FOR VARIANCES AT 25 WISTERIA STREET, SALEM page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, 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 Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 0-5, against the granting of the Variances requested. Having failed to garner the four affirm- ative votes necessary to pass, the motion to grant fails and the Variance is denied. Variance Denied June 26, 1991 ) Mary J Stirgwo t, ember, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK ,an v, �r w "at from this decision, If any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 0 ® the Mass.General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 le days _ after the date,,of tiling of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808. Section 11, the Variance r or fbecial Permit granted herein shall at take effect until a copy of the _i ave decision, bearing the certification of thoer thatcity , if such ierk aappeat 20 hhas ys hbeen ti elapsed and no appeal has been tiled. ri filed,that it has been dismissed or dented is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL r' (Cita of ulcm, ussttClluSPtts _ $ VnttrD of �upeal — JUL II c1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES POPPE FOR VARIANggS�',, S AT 25 WISTERIA ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 26, 1991 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio; Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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 Variances from any and all density regulations in order to allow property to be divided into two lots in this R-2 district. 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 petitoner. 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 . The building in this parcel is a three family rental property. 2. The division of this parcel into two lots would allow the garage and yard to be conveyed to an abutter in need of a garage. 3. The conveyance of this portion of the lot would allow the petitioner to refinance the mortgage on the property making it a more lucrative investment. 4. On abutter spoke in favor of the petition. 5. Several neighbors and abutters, and the Ward 7 City Councillor, spoke in opposition to this petition, citing problems ranging from parking and noise, to the desire to maintain the property in tact so that it would be attractive to families in the future. 6. Petitioner failed to demonstrate or to meet his burden of proof relative to substantial hardship or to demonstrate unique circumstances that affected this property and not others in the zoning district. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES POPPE FOR VARIANCES AT 25 WISTERIA STREET, SALEM page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, 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 Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 0-5, against the granting of the Variances requested. Having failed to garner the four affirm- ative votes necessary to pass, the motion to grant fails and the Variance is denied. Variance Denied June 26, 1991 Com/ Mary J Stirgwd`1t, ember, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK m N _ 7 J - - from this shall be made pursuant to Section 0 ^ppeal decision. If any, o the Mass.General Laws, Chapter BOB, and shall be filed within le days_ atter the date�of filing of this declsion in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 803, Section 11, the Variance -- or rJpecial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy v the r 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 it has been dismissed or dented is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and ihdexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted an the owaeCs Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL ('Citn of �jtticm, ,_4Rttssttclluscite ') \� -S02Ir?1 of appeal V JUL I I c1 kri '91 Ci T'+ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES POPPE FOR VARIANCE_§:., , SS AT 25 WISTERIA ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 26, 1991 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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 Variances from any and all density regulations in order to allow property to be divided into two lots in this R-2 district. 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 petitoner. 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 . The building in this parcel is a three family rental property. 2. The division of this parcel into two lots would allow the garage and yard to be conveyed to an abutter in need of a garage. 3. The conveyance of this portion of the lot would allow the petitioner to refinance the mortgage on the property making it a more lucrative investment. 4. On abutter spoke in favor of the petition. 5. Several neighbors and abutters, and the Ward 7 City Councillor, spoke in opposition to this petition, citing problems ranging from parking and noise, to the desire to maintain the property in tact so that it would be attractive to families in the future. 6. Petitioner failed to demonstrate or to meet his burden of proof relative to substantial hardship or to demonstrate unique circumstances that affected this property and not others in the zoning district. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES POPPE FOR VARIANCES AT 25 WISTERIA STREET, SALEM page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, 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 Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 0-5, against the granting of the Variances requested. Having failed to garner the four affirm- ative votes necessary to pass, the motion to grant fails and the Variance is denied. Variance Denied June 26, 1991 ) Mary JffStirgwolt, 4Pfember, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK m � _ shall be c:) M made pursuant to Section 17 0 _ ^ppfrom this decision, If any, ® the Mass.General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 Jaya _ after the dateof filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Mass. General Laws. Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance or fDecial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the ave decision,bearing the certification of that lhatCat 20 nys h if suchappealhasbeen elapsed end no appeal has been filed, -� filed,that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded io the South Essex or the name or the owner of record or Registry of Deeds and indexed und Is recorded and noted art the owser's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL -r Pity ofulcm, ttssttrljusPtts Bnttra of -Aupeal JUL J n1 G! '( DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES POPPE FOR VARIANCE_§ ` -C AT 25 WISTERIA ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 26, 1991 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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 Variances from any and all density regulations in order to allow property to be divided into two lots in- this R-2 district. 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 petitoner. 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 . The building in this parcel is a three family rental property. 2. The division of this parcel into two lots would allow the garage and yard to be conveyed to an abutter in need of a garage. 3. The conveyance of this portion of the lot would allow the petitioner to refinance the mortgage on the property making it a more lucrative investment. 4. On abutter spoke in favor of the petition. 5. Several neighbors and abutters, and the Ward 7 City Councillor, spoke in opposition to this petition, citing problems ranging from parking and noise, to the desire to maintain the property in tact so that it would be attractive to families in the future. 6. Petitioner failed to demonstrate or to meet his burden of proof relative to substantial hardship or to demonstrate unique circumstances that affected this property and not others in the zoning district. f DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES POPPE FOR VARIANCES AT 25 WISTERIA STREET, SALEM page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, 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 Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 0-5, against the granting of the Variances requested. Having failed to garner the four affirm- ative votes necessary to pass, the motion to grant fails and the Variance is denied. Variance Denied June 26, 1991 Mary iff Stirgwolt, J4Tember, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK oa U) R J _ popeel from this decision,If any,shall be made pursuant to Section 0 o the Mass.General Laws, chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days after the da Chapter 808. Section 11, thete.of tiling of this decision in the office of the city Clerk. Var ante Pursuant to Mass.General Laws, or Special Permit granted herein shat not take effect until a copy of the .� decision, bearing the certification filoed`nor that, if sue city Clerk ch appeal appealt 20 , have sbeen i-v elapsed and no appeal has filed,that it has been dismisse0 or denied is recorded in the South ssex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or Is recorded and noted fan the owser's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL e DATE OF HEARING PETITIONER CICl/yJtP�o���st� C. LOCATION MOTION: TO GRANT / SECOND TO DENY SECOND TO RE-HEAR SECOND LEAVE TO WITHDRAW SECOND TO CONTINUE SECOND ROLL CALL PRESENT GRANT DENY / WITHDRAW RE-HEAR CONTINUE RICHARD BENCALy RICHARD`'FEBONIO EDWARD LUZINSKI !/ MARY JANE STIRGWOLT ASSOCIATE MEMBERS / RONALD PLANTE v CONDITIONS: UAW Fes : "DcmnA -4 PakJ g (.v�CS+-Pr,,a S sc deak 186 ear eve are c �n 1�h9 - s Wlcac cc+ de Q n , to 0 Lo 4-P-r �T411vr 4?� Pdppe ©- 0, See-h�, 6S a)l � �Q Aske �x w e -�rOrn 1� S P�K n 5 rrF �► S 3 Fa,m i IN CSt(kd e4Ss 6rn e . I e-�' ►�e- 3+ct6 4a� Pf. e .;S Q o,6w44 fart ; S Awe/1t . 0e A, S-a+ec( �Ine CAIS e �anc� s solc,Q - i n brGQ2r �-a �akP Mom c r (- rk; ng • ;s c u ; L( - e quio-y amore. I d` �r�m e I0+ (-CA. e- �O use i 5 OY) S`n, ee �,e A�, o urn el e X16` l�e_ A� _ n, L --- ke, cPs den �,;-1 � ea-u rn� 4� cQ eA 0 y I A d� -I�s 3 S- �eC P-100r C,_� �2Gf� O� e V�Acx 9 0. eAr PyrKP �►9 ha-s Deer► a PrAt-e-rn ;n - PK- T SIS LV �l eAvse Aofe C,'Z� a P�b� tq{ ; mss a " Sett -- 41�R+ g�ouId 3S3 -}kere- " 9u�6ur"+-e Luf l� OC co(lA be (4"e wt--IA 4"- � o-� So(cA � Lposs,b�e home 40 �e Ipvtl� l3 e i S )6ke- Ques}i on - 7?• -1,t„ ---�kv e. P A-s-F e XSSLX- s US ParKin9 - A (So POrkl, n � eLoc-ktn9 J�' re p�s u-� 0 P�rK n t3Y1 � po fr -y -fir C( a or 3 P m moss lyl9 r )e_ec b04es +-0 °" c c� �° j-n�) 4e ta4*`MOfn c o& A"` porck • cpf-C `�- 6� til sm e� (t -t , s +0 / our U-rJers4Qnd,e45 A e is kaue -mo-Ae; APrb(P-ms w% k 1kIs 6YY1e IV`e house is 4 Is9/-a e �b ,-}l�e o eagle 6or foo& , S� S ✓1 w eecQ o �- ���, v� Out Sld2 lvor �Ur (ne'� �W`r VoocQ. �orn9 c din k; �6me . -3 hoc) I d Ae GCec,ded seU c to T" Uj - e Douse orn t -f -rl�e� c,�; C� b e IaAA Oe(tsc See ce4acc�-eJ 4 's Swe h oYne 1&()A per- MINUTES - NOVEMBER 6, 1985 page four 104 Proctor St. - Continued living. There is plenty of office space available in Salem. Also, he does not have a good parking plan. Mr. Strout: I feel the same, we could be setting a precedent. Mr. Charnas: I agree as well and I agree as far as the evictions but that is personal and should not enter into the decision, it does not effect my decision. Mr. Gauthier: this is badly congested area and this would make it worse. Mr. Luzinski: people are buying property and thinking they can do anything they want to do, I am against encroachment of business in the area. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition they be in compliance with all applicable fire codes. Mr. Gauthier seconded. The Board voted unanimously against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 25 Wisteria St. - W. Burdett Godfrey Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert existing three family into a four family dwelling by adding a basement apartment inthis R-2 district. Mr. Hacker appointed Mr. Bencal a voting member. Mr. Charnas :read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal,. no objection: Mr.. Godfrey represented.himself. He displayed plans of the proposed basement apartment. Mr. Bencal asked himt how long he has owned this property. He said since August. He showed on the plot plan where the parking would be for the needed six cars. Mr. Hacker asked him if there was anyway he could change the parking, the Board, as a rule, does not grant petition where you would have to back out on to a street. Mr. Godfrey:. No, I can't change it, it is already existing and this is not a main street anyway. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Dawn Moynihan, 18 Wisteria St. , there is a problem with parking in the neighborhood. I don't know how many people are living there now, but there are an awful lot of cars there. Mr. Hacker invited her to look over the plans that were submitted regarding the parking. Tom Moynihan, 18 Wisteria St. , I am also concerned about the parking. There are no other four family homes in this area, most of the houses are two family. Councillor Nutting: I am not here because I was called, I saw this on the agenda. This will certainly not help the area. It is close to the college and this will add to problems they already have. This is a well kept street, but very narrow with parking on one side only. I just don't think we should increase the density in that area. �x In rebuttal: Mr. Godfrey: all the parking would be in the yard, would not park onthestreet. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: I think this would be another case of opening Pandora's.Box, I am familiar with the area and I think this would be derogating from the intent of the neighborhood. I would be inclined to vote no. Mr. Luzinski: I agree, if I did vote on this I would want to see parking change. I can't see increasing the density. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board voted unanimously against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 58 Proctor St. - Robert A. Cohn Mr. Gauthier will be voting on this petition. Petition requests a Variance from density, lot size and frontage in order to .construct a "two car garage with an apartment above in this R-3 district. Mr. Charnas .read the application and a letter from the Fire,Marshal, dwelling not ins-compliance with smoke detector law. June 26, 1991 Open Letter to the Abutters of 25 Wisteria Street, Salem: 23/23A Wisteria St. , Stephen Kapantais 22 Wisteria St . , Don, Mary and David Michaud 18 Wisteria St. , Robert Hayes 20 Wisteria St. , Paul and Donna Moynihan 24 Wisteria St. , Windham Realty Trust (Leslie A. Fishman) 26 Wisteria St. , Raoul I . Lheureuc On June 20, 1991 , Stephen Kapantais and myself had a discussion covering the neighborhood's concerns regarding my recent application for a variance to subdivide my property at 25 Wisteria St in Salem. As outlined to me, the neighbors concerns, as they relate to the subdivision of the property and the general nature of my property are as follows: 1) The subdivision of the land and subsequent sale of that land to my abutting neighbor at 328 Lafayette Street will eliminate one parking space from the currently available parking spaces. Parking in the neighborhood is already tight. 2) New building development located on the combined lot of my subdivided land and the buyers abutting land. 3) The tenants I have rented to are primarily Salem State College students who have a tendency to not respect the quality of life in the neighborhood_ The tenants' behavior has in the past led to late night parties, noise, excessive guest parking and the need to call the police to quell these disturbances. Of the three concerns detailed above , the first is directly relevant to the sale of the sudivision and sale of the property_ In order to comply with the interests of the neighbors, I pledge to create a new parking place on the land that I retain ( to be located between my house and the subdivided land; see attached plot plan) . In creating this new parking place the subdivision will have no adverse affect on the neighborhood. r„ The second concern is in fact not a relevant risk to the subdivision of the land as proposed at this meeting. The subdivided lot is not a buildable lot; the buyers current land is not a further buildable lot; the combination of the two properties is still not a buildable lot. The buyer is neither planning to build nor is she at this hearing for subdivision requesting a building permit . Any future attempt to build would require a building permit and a separate hearing before the Board of Appeals. With regards to the third concern, while it is not relevant to the subdivision of the land, I want to make it clear to all the abutters of 25 Wisteria Street that I will make an impression on all current and future tenants at 25 Wisteria Street that the quality of life in the neighborhood is to be respected. I will make it clear to all current and future tenants that abuses of parking and noise are criminal offences and not to be tolerated. It is my hope that by acting on the above mentioned concerns of the neighbors of 25 Wisteria Street, that they in turn will support my request to the Board of Appeals to approve the subdivision of land at 25 Wisteria Street. 7� James W. Poppe �Z(olq' 27 Bradford Street / Salem, Mass. SUBDIVISION PLAN OF LAND SALEM MA. OVER: JAY POPPE ` DATE: MAY 30. 1991 SCALE: 1" = 20' 0 20 40 60 so OF CARTER a TOWERS ENGINEERING CORP, o - 6 FAIRVIEW AVE. SWAMPSCOTT. MA 01907 u� (617) 592-8386 }:y UNIT l: f DAVID C. LACHAtELLE .� I CERTIFY THAT THIS'PLAN HAS BEEN W UNIT 2: PREPARED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE $ GEORGANN J. KA T RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REG- , IST4RS OF DEEDS OF THE COMMON- U p• od WEALTH of MASSACHUSETTS. PARK TOWERS TR. m � 6rJ� '7car i ��� Z N gg GI ?BRED RD SURVEYOR LOT 2 Q (I (J STEPHEN LOT 1 _ 3602 S.F. 1 a KAPANTAIS 4568 S.F. ^ 8 SOUE APPROVAL UNDER SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW NOT REWIRED "o " SALEM PLANNING BOARD . }' ; 1 0^ Q sP la« los aS Ck ('eiUl DATE.• NOTE: VARIANCES REQUIRED FOR a THE CREATION OF THESE •' , LOTS. WISTERIA STREET BOARD OF ASSESSORS C.1 TY HALL PAGE, PA T 3 j jjtb� ABU TERS, 'LISTI b..: II, 1 1 �" , , �� ,�,*,�*0�1-,4 11 , I "', 3 • ,� : �� '?v �� .,, , ,-,I,, , .I I I I, I I. .. .... ..... 4 A ............... . .................. T • SUBJECT PROPERTY: MA P- 32 L. 0224 SUFF. 6 PROPERTY ADDRESS.' 0025 WISTERIA STREET 6 A CZ R F C"`1117 Irl C)1,IN F R F $a'sa 9 7 1 10 L • 9 1 1 12 1 6* gcjrlr�I S." -PROPE%RT�'�Ab'6f�ti3SrKAIIINGADDRERS— p 13 10 RI A L4 ++ 32 0-19-3 00.2-`6 WISTERIA STREET" LHEUREUX RAOUL 1 6 W.1 S TE STREE I is 12 SALEM MA 01970 16 0 T7- 13 , 0'71A."WIS TERI A*"�q'FREET''� 4 WIKYNAPT REAurr'� !TR0ST-,'l 14 E. �Q;P'S SAI-JEN A 0-192W, ISHMAN,ILE'SUel.E ET 0, T. -,�2 �,W!S:T'ERIA� STREE 'REAL-TY 16 NICHAUI) D/Pf.T.CHAUD M/NICHAUD 1) T RS SALEM PIA 01970 21 zz 17 322 0213 0330 LAF'AYETTE STREET' MATEX REALTY TRUST 857 WESTERN AVE CARDILE FRANK J TR LYNN MA 01905 X M�*ET TE" S -3 *STREET, I OVESOIUE� ;E-"VA�t"I �'32 8' UA 103-18, 25 v ...... 35° 2, 20 •970 .I. I.... 27 AtHAPELLE. DAVI'D': (3 21 To ""I ....32 0215'80 1 0�32�,, EIT, IS'TREETI'Ul . . . ... 326" �Ul X 22 13ALEPI MA 0,1970 ✓ 29 309 023 32 0215 802 032'6 LAFA YET TE STREET U2 KALAT GEOR(--iANN J 326 LAFAYETTE ST U2 71 24 SALEM MA 01970 32 35 m 2 $ 03'-,101�UAF4�YETTEI S8TR�6-10`-, �,TOWFAS, TR,0S,,tI, m 4 IIsi L '602-6 ALI RS" 35 IS 4 --AYETT '3- "02 0316,,4:.Ar, 6 'E`�STREEIT-0 I P, —,,,:-z �&'MREALI.Y' TRU e 3d ........... 28 1-1CGRATH V E. ZAIDO P M TRf:3 READING MA 01867 29 322 0221 801 0019 WISTERIA STREET Ul JAIAES PAUL J 19 WISTERIA ST Ul 30 EMILY J SALEM MA 01970 31 -,%i,IIBm T9 "WISTEIRIA 8"T"Il U­11' S, 41 0 2 32 4 1"' -1 iX b I,' H ;,mA �o El' 17`ABETH,4-� 3@ � �%, , ,,-,, I ",, 4-3 AZUZ`AW JOHN, • • 3 E� a,q, bI ,t6p,EA 03: 02��0224 8 U,3 fn 4 34 MAZUZAN MARK P BEATRICE B SALEM MA 0-1970 $ 035 32' 0222 0021 WISTERIA STREET BATES DENNIS Cl CO JAMES B JR 105 LEACH S7 36 C/O COLLETT JAMES Q JR SALEM MA 01970 z 1)0';!3*441 - TERI "'S4 UPHEW'', S�, APANTAIS s 'A srr RE'6 T- 37 v e,I, 0 TA I SA IS 1"PlA,Y'0.19 70 1 M K A"P As 39 s S I 3F 5£F S2 I V 40 53, 4 •• 41 $ 42 56 43 11 2 7 44 9 0 46 61 • 2 47 3 0 48 4 Ix" 49 g X 6 so 51 52 0 53 71 $4 55 PETItW-fit: 1.A! kWA,�,� 3 0 7 75 71 o Z!� � 3 F6 49 C5 lag $ m p 19 6800 4984 5250 N v 3655 0 _ O o2x eo 2 Q 12600 221 m 0 201 ` 6000 1 - — -- 0 5000 1 2 a 180 22 ' 2 5250 2 197 _ 37601 i' /1,008 s� 20 gooc b u 5395 N 216 ° 5250 9 0 •� g �: s 223 18,000 1 0 15301 'c 196 p0 *y' 4480 'Z9 176 az a 410 ao �. 5,950 g b - m 1, A i 230 2 421560 773177 4 5932 e - 42004 00 8170 :, m a o 194 2J14 6.440 146 3713 563 OD 2u II �1 P P 0 00 . 50 175 P3693 4 of N -e F250 os > 19123o gT. 5500 9 y 7200 232 l T l 9,02 120�a 220 W 22 65 m J ¢Oa 9 a +6 Y. S .p/ / °8 e° �° 7200 Z� 7i 4941 (2465 / � 'off O 'oy SS Qlh'• � 6b ; I'y \ yo SrtO', a�o 4v ti' b In ti �vj� ` C\y� Ob SALEM �� 5 h° STATE COLLEGE \ s� 0 0 U \ ,ham 1h T6H 3522 ah x 50.37 / h CHIMNEY / / vim•\J APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of HIPTIT� Nass; r4uzPff$ �. ' Rvarh of 'A pal TO THE BOARD Of APPEALS: The Unde signep represent tat he is are the owners of a certain parcel of land located at NO. . 5. . w• •� • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •Street; Zoning District./�:"� and said parcel is affected by Section(s ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of the Massachusetts State Building Code. Plans describing the work proposed, have been submitted to the Inspector of Buildings in accordance with Section IX A. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance. z r � cTa �i re A �� » m N Ct N The Application for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following reasons: c ec A The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code and order the Inspector of Buildings to approve the application fee permit to build as filed, as the enforcement of said Zoning By-Laws and Building Code would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially dero- gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for the following reasons: A/J cz, 0 vo rrali ces J,,j arc) J K/. 1 e_ N .1/ '°1 Z QMCS• w � o Owner. . . . . . 11. . . . <z w Address. . . 2, 7. . . . . . . . . . . . ?^.� Lj - 7�5• - 9033 53 Telephone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 L> Petitioner. . � r1e5. . . .�!:. .L9.11'. . . . L —'3 Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telephone. . . . . . . . . . . . By. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .�. . . Three copies of the application must be filed with the Secretary of the Board of Appeals with a check, for advertising in the amount of. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The Evening News. NO........_.......................... 7 PEI(TION 10 BOARD 017 APPEALS = iJ YT13 I OVA I ION .. . ........ ........ ................. PEI I I IONUR.......... ...... .................. ADDRESS. -.............. ....... ................................................ CONDI I IONS ........................... .....I.............................. ............ ... ........ ................................ ......................................................... .... 11........................................I........................ ................................................................. .....................................-........................ PETITION APPROVED.................... ❑ DENIED..........._............ ............ 19......... SALEM MA. OWNER: JAY POPPE DATE: MAY 30, 1991 SCALE: 1" = 20. GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 40 60 80 N OF CARTER 8 TOWERS ENGINEERING CORP. 6 FAIRVIEW AVE. SWAMPSCOTT, MA 01907 F.CIST (617) 592-8386 UNIT I. BEEN DAVID C. LACHAtELLE ' ) W} UNIT 2. E REG-- $ GEORGANN J, KA AT )MMON- a•-Oa-oO^ 0 _ PARK TOWERS TR. m $ ;VEYOR o,•- a-j'_oe^ _,.. ' 4.00' �+ LOT 2 STEPHEN LOT 1 3602 S.F. 3 KAPANTAIS 4568 S.F. 8 EVA A( LEVESQUE VISION CONTROL � o o p N y n � W m 8 h 0 uN 10.3 Yo 91 'ED FOR e N „ THESE WISTERIA STREET DATE OF PERMIT I PERMIT No. OWNER LOCATION " I W. BURDETT GODFREY I 25 Wisteria St. R-2 STRUCTURE MATERIAL DIMENSIONS No. OF STORIES No,OF FAMILIES I WARD I COST 3 BUILDER BOARD OF APPEAL: 11/6/85 - DENIED - Special Permit to convert three family to four fami City of ttiem, 'Mussac4usetts s �Raxrb of �kppeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF W. BURDETT GODFREY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 25 WISTERIA ST. , SALEM A hearing on this petition was held November 6, 1985 Jhh2Dhe11o9goQ1 nP oard Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charn Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was s o abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published inWT� ,al�myv �jews in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to convert and existing three family dwelling into a four family dwelling in the R-2 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applciable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, 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 VIII F and IX D, 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 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, The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration. of the evidence presented, and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Vigorous opposition was presented by neighbors; 2. The area is very congested already and allowing the relief requested would exacerbate the parking problem; 3. The rest of the area is primarily two and three family homes; 4. Allowing the relief requested would tend to change the character of the neighborhood; 5. Petitioners proposed parking would necessitate backing onto the street which would create a dangerous condition. 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 . The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without substantially derogating from the intent of the district and purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF W. BURDETT GODFREY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 25 WISTERIA ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 against granting the Special Permit requested. SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK I _ _ .. . .; TO S[CT!np 17 OF THE Y4SS. A"FE.4L FP.O"'. THIS CECISION, G ANY. Sf ' . '- .. ;g AF`:E' THE DATE Oi FI J':v C ETvEF S1 1iGS. L'H(.PT'[ 80£. At:C LE_�iEi THE OFFICE PU,_. T� CE`%E5i,: Le:7, . . . ._ . ...,3 THE 7T. SlIALL v TA':.i - . ',L H: EEEN F!'_0. CF 1!I`_ CITY CLEF.Y. On 1flAr, 1F SJ-,H A': AFPEA''_ �; THE NA6!E OF THE OWNER RLCE'DLI) lir THE S..JT'H ES ,;jj A,E OF TITLE. OF RECORD OR IS RECCRDE:. -- BOARD OF APPEAL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 6, 1985 page four 104 Proctor St. - Continued living. There is plenty of office space available in Salem. Also, he does not have a good parking plan. Mr. Strout: I feel the same, we could be setting a precedent. Mr. Charnas: I agree as well and I agree as far as the evictions but that is personal and should not enter into the decision, it does not effect my decision. Mr. Gauthier: this is badly congested area and this would make it worse. Mr. Luzinski: people are buying property and thinking they can do anything they want to do, I am against encroachment of business in the area. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition they be in compliance with all applicable fire codes. Mr. Gauthier seconded. The Board voted unanimously against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 25 Wisteria St. - W. Burdett Godfrey Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert existing three family into a four family dwelling by adding a basement apartment inthis R-2 district. Mr. Hacker appointed Mr. Bencal a voting member. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal, no objection. Mr. Godfrey represented himself. He displayed plans of the proposed basement apartment. Mr. Bencal asked him how long he has owned this property. He said since August. He showed on the plot plan where the parking would be for the needed six cars. Mr. Hacker asked him if there was anyway he could change the parking, the Board, as a rule, does not grant petition where you would have to back out on to a street. Mr. Godfrey: No, I can' t change it, it is already existing and this is not a main street anyway. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Dawn Moynihan, 18 Wisteria St. , there is a problem with parking in the neighborhood. I don't know how many people are living there now, but there are an awful lot of cars there. Mr. Hacker invited her to look over the plans that were submitted regarding the parking. Tom Moynihan, 18 Wisteria St. , I am also concerned about the parking. There are no other four family homes in this area, most of the houses are two family. Councillor Nutting: I am not here because I was called, I saw this on the agenda. This will certainly not help the area. It is close to the college and this will add to problems they already have. This is a well kept street, but very narrow with parking on one side only. I just don' t think we should increase the density in that area. In rebuttal: Mr. Godfrey: all the parking would be in the yard, would not park on the street. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: I think this would be another case of opening Pandora's Box, I am familiar with the area and I think this would be derogating from the intent of the neighborhood. I would be inclined to vote no. Mr. Luzinski: I agree, if I did vote on this I would want to see parking change. I can' t see increasing the density. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board voted unanimously against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 58 Proctor St. - Robert A. Cohn Mr. Gauthier will be voting on this petition. Petition requests a Variance from density, lot size and frontage in order to construct a two car garage with .an apartment above in this R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal, dwelling not in compliance with smoke detector law. I -- I 1 , Y r s 220 218 '- �g 19 13 aco Q 43'0 3FJ� 6 5250 2 193 roo ❑ [� ��.00 + 221 u .1 V o 201 - - 6000 ,� — ------ 8 '; VS000 228 m �'' 22'- � 20ll,00s s lar ' _ 202 4190 '^ 216 �s j5o ao 1� Fj n 2?3 re,000 o -,got A ° 198 (11 17 0 6m 20 4p00 4100 9D' 4.,ao 8 Z ' 0 W 9250 $ 0 5 w 230 m j 177 `-+ v m o 20 4000 224 215 60 7773 5932 4200 q 00 9170 m 194 : 214 N 176 W a 20 6.940 ,s-g 213 g �N 5463 3713 P 40 �� 'cn / .O ..C2 ° D PS 0 0 D w so 36175 93 25 191r 191r 212 m 2 n 3 57. 550o 90 71'00 -i 23 /V2 71C 1 y 22 6550 rn - ac-5 d°/ qa a ; .° 7200 Z� V F61 / i/ as n 9 41 / / ^o . U j 5 � 41E 7465 a '3230 F (`\ �, 615 (7 h0° j SALEM S 10 0 h ST.aTE COLLEGEIQ TEM 3522 50.37 P y 1 0•90 CHIMNEY /� SUBDIVISION PLAN OF LAND t'h.. SALEM ITA. a OWNER: JAY POPPE DATE: M14Y 30, 1991 SCALE: 1" 0 20. ' GRAPHIC SCALE *}' 0 20 40 60 80 p OF f "' Y' CARTER 8 TOWERS ENGINEERING CORP, a 6 FAIRVIEW AVE. 15 SWAMPSCOTT, MA 01907 (617) 592-8386 UNIT 1: DAVID C. LACHAt ELLE I CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAIT HAS BEEN UNIT 2.- PREPARED JPREPARED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE 1 GEORGANN J. KA AT RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REG— ar•-oa-0o' + ISTFRS OF DEEDS OF THE COMMON— " ' �"•- WEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. PARK TOWERS TR. DA GI TEItED AND SURVEYOR 0 ^—oo'-oo• ,'_s s . ._ LOT 2 STEPHEN LOT 1 3602 S.F. x z�z5' KAPANTAIS 4568 S.F. E EVA M, '} y PbRe'xx', LEVESQUE APPROVAL UNDER SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW NOT REQUIRED 0 h SALEM PLANNING BOARD n k + g � 1 01Nt:WNG Jol A, 901=oo=od' el 4- Y a may �.x Y DATE. NOTE: VARIANCES 'REQUIRED FOR K G- 11 *. THE CREATION OF THESE �N OI°i-o0 eo W LOTS. Y WISTERIA STREET 3�t n +7C '1 r J Ma�. 1 SUBDIVISION PLAN OF LAND SALEM MA, `? OWNER: JAY POPPE DATE: MAY 30, 1991 SCALE: 1" = 20• GRAPH C SCALE 0 20 40 60 80 N Of CARTER $ TOWERS ENGINEERING CORP. 6 FAIRVIEW AVE. IST MA 01907 (617) 592-8386 UNIT 1: ' f DAVID C. LACHAtELLE I CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN Has BEEN 2; PREPARED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UNIT UNIT 2. NN J. KA AT RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REG- _ prod-o0' -► ISTTRS OF DEEDS OF THE COMMON- WEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. PARK TOWERS TR. DA CI TERED ATPD SURVEYOR s; LOT 2 STEPHEN LOT I 3602 S.F. A 3 ";. KAPANTAIS Y j9= 4568 S.F. AS EVA 14 LEVESQUE APPROVAL UNDER SUBDIVISION CONTROL o Ito ' LAW NOT REQUIRED SALEM PLANNING BOARD ( n O g DWELUNG DATE . - Fbzcm j. lhiH o � , NOTE: VARIANCES :REQUIRED FOR 6- i THE CREATION OF THESE :.. LOTS. --,., o,�-oo-�•.,� r I p WISTERIA STREET c� iRIG37 SUBDIVISION PLAN OF LAND SALEM MA. 5' z OWNER: JAY POP'PE ;k DATE: MAY 30, 1991 SCALE: 1" = 20• GRAPHIC.i— SCALE T 0 20 40 60 80 o�llb OF CARTER 8 TOWERS ENGINEERING CORP. ti 6 FAIRVIEW AVE. SWAMPSCOTT, MA 01907 AEGIsrc0.E (617) 592-8386 UNIT l: DAVID C. LACHAtELLE I CERTIFY THAT ?HIS PLAN HAS BEEN W UNIT 2; PREPARED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REG- S GEORGANN J. KA AT ISTFRS OF DEEDS OF THE COMMON— WEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. PARK TOWERS TR. .A DA GI TPRED AND SURVEYOR 4.00 LOT 2 r ` 3602 S.F. 3 ' STEPHEN LOT 1 8 z KAPANTAIS 9= 4568 S.F. EVA M ""max 3 8 LEVESQUEY APPROVAL UNDER SUBDIVISION CONTROLJDKLUNIS o m . LAW NOT REQUIRED o o " SALEM PLANNING BOARD i =� n i ;8 DATE, 8 Q 7MM r . �N =� f NOTE: VARIANCES REQUIRED FOR y 8` �• i THE CREATION OF THESE LOTS •�-N o/ co°-=o w WISTERIA STREETIt cQa i 17 1 +i s: (111itu gfttlem, � Httchu5Fft5 'aa� Mire 33eparf meat 3den�quartcra u 48 3l1aftrorttr "3"trect Joseph F. Sullivan csa)Pm, ffltt. 01970 Chief City of Salem Date: June 26, 1991 Board of Appeal One Salem Green RE: 25 Wisteria Street ja s Poppe�` Salem, MA 01970 The Salem Fire Department has no objection to the granting of a Special Permit and/or Variance to allow: pmpgrrty to be divided into two lots. subject to the following conditions: 1- This property (h*&*iW (is in) compliance with the provisions of the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 148, Section 26E, relative to the installation of automatic spoke detectors. 2- Plans for the proposed construction are to be presented to the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3- The proposed construction shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Massa- chusetts State Building Code, the Salem Fire Prevention Code, 527CMR(Code of Massa- chuestts Regulations) , the Salem City Ordinances, and Massachusetts General Laws relative to fire and public safety. 4- The applicant and/or contractor shall arrange for an inspection by the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau upon completion of the work. leded, rman P. LaPointe Fire Inspector CC. file applicant Y June 26, 1991 Open Letter to the Abutters of 25 Wisteria Street , Salem: 23/23A Wisteria St. , Stephen Kapantais 22 Wisteria St. , Don, Mary and David Michaud 18 Wisteria St_ , Robert Hayes 20 Wisteria St. , Paul and Donna Moynihan 29 Wisteria St. , Windham Realty Trust (Leslie A. Fishman) 26 Wisteria St. , Raoul I _ Lheureux On June 20, 1991 , Stephen Kapantais and myself had a discussion covering the neighborhood's concerns regarding my recent application for a variance to subdivide my property at 25 Wisteria St in Salem. As outlined to me , the neighbors concerns, as they relate to the subdivision of the property and the general nature of my property are as follows: 1) The subdivision of the land and subsequent sale of that land to my abutting neighbor at 328 Lafayette Street will eliminate one parking space from the currently available parking spaces. Parking in the neighborhood is already tight. 2) New building development located on the combined lot of my subdivided land and the buyers abutting land. 3) The tenants I have rented to are primarily Salem State College students who have a tendency to not respect the quality of life in the neighborhood_ The tenants" behavior has in the past led to late night parties, noise, excessive guest parking and the need to call the police to quell these disturbances_ Of the three concerns detailed above, the first is directly relevant to the sale of the sudivision and sale of the property_ In order to comply with the interests of the neighbors, I pledge to create a new parking place on the land that I retain ( to be located between my house and the subdivided land; see attached plot plan) _ In creating this new parking place the subdivision will have no adverse affect on the neighborhood. The second concern is in fact not a relevant risk to the subdivision of the land as proposed at this meeting. The subdivided lot is not a buildable lot; the buyers current land is not a further buildable lot; the combination of the two properties is still not a buildable lot. The buyer is neither planning to build nor is she at this hearing for subdivision requesting a building permit. Any future attempt to build would require a building permit and a separate hearing before the Board of Appeals. With regards to the third concern, while it is not relevant to the subdivision of the land, I want to make it clear to all the abutters of 25 Wisteria Street that I will make an impression on all current and future tenants at 25 Wisteria Street that the quality of life in the neighborhood is to be respected. I will make it clear to all current and future tenants that abuses of parking and noise are criminal offences and not to be tolerated. It is my hope that by acting on the above mentioned concerns of the neighbors of 25 Wisteria Street, that they in turn will support my request to the Board of Appeals to . approve the subdivision of land at 25 Wisteria Street. James W. Poppe W Z�/q� 27 Bradford Street Salem, Mass_ SUBDIVISION PLAN OF LAND SALEM MA. OAR: JAY POPPE DATE: MAY 30, 1991 SCALE: 1" = 20' GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 40 60 80 M OF CARTER 8 TOWERS ENGINEERING CORP. o 6 FAIRVIEW AVE. SWAMPSCOTT, MA 01907 (617) 592-8386 y UNIT 1. DAVID C. LACHAELLE I CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN HAS BEEN � _3 v UNIT 2. PREPARED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REG- S GEORGANN J. ICA T CY'-Od-cO' ISTTRS OF DEEDS OF THE COMMON- WEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. PARK TOWERS TR. m 6N2 ur �IrJ� 2N p I DA , GI TFRID RD SURVEYOR _ _ *^�' be- y LOT 2 Q (I (l STEPHEN LOT 1 3602 S.F. KAPANTAIS 4568 S.F. 8 EV SQUE APPROVAL UNDER SUBDIVISION CONTROLS "Y. LAW NOT REQUIRED SALEM PLANNING BOARD } ; 0,j q-sVal- ^j 1, Pla« IoS DWElLMM, o.� � e- a ac feSu l p• m.�o' .. j .� OT Su�'QCI�/IS 10N DATE: f NOTE VARIANCES REQUIRED FORIt THE CREATION OF THESE LOTS. WISTERIA STREET CPP /IA�FR7 (IT tV of ttlem, C � sttchu�e##� �Guanc ire Pepartmertt �Heabyuartrrs 48 Pfagctte ,Iitreet Joseph F. Sullivan *lcm, ffltt. 01970 Chief City of Salem Date: June 26, 1991 Board of Appeal One Salem Green : 25 Wisteria Street James PonAe Salem, MA 01970 The Salem Fire Department has no objection to the granting of a Special Permit and/or Variance to allow: property to be divided into two lots. subject to the following conditions: 1- This property (hathft) (is in) compliance with the provisions of the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 148, Section 26E, relative to the installation of automatic smoke detectors. 2- Plans for the proposed construction are to be presented to the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3- The proposed construction shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Massa- chusetts State Building Code, the Salem Fire Prevention Code, 527CMR(Code of Massa- chuestts Regulations) , the Salem City Ordinances, and Massachusetts General Laws relative to fire and public safety. 4- The applicant and/or contractor shall arrange for an inspection by the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau upon conpletion of the work. rman P.. LaPointe Fire Inspector cc: file applicant CITY OF SALEM •' BOARD OF APPEAL 745-9595 Ext. 381 Will hold a public hearing for all persons inter- ested in the petition submitted by JAMES POPPE for any and all Variances necessary to divide prop- erty at 25 WISTERIA ST.(R-2)into two lots.Said hearing to be held WEDNESDAY,JUNE 26,1991 at 7:00 P.M., ONE SALEM GREEN, 2nd floor. RICHARD A. BENCAL, Chairman June 12, 19, 1991 . CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL 745-9595 Ext. 381 Will hold a public hearing for all persons inter- ested in the petition submitted by JAMES POPPE for any and all Variances necessary to divide prop- erty at 25 WISTERIA ST.(R-2)into two lots.Said hearing to be held WEDNESDAY,JUNE 26,1991 at 7:00 P.M., ONE SALEM GREEN, 2nd Boor. RICHARD A. BENCAL, Chairman June 12, 19, 1991 o �� s r Y Y r Y x Y a a Y r a Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y a Y Y Y Y r,. I O6-11-91.09:44:uiusa CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL 745-9595 Ext. 381 Will hold a public hearing for all persons inter- ested in the petition submitted by JAMES A aESde ppoP for any and all Variances necessary -2)into two lots.Said hear ng t bat 25 e held W EDN R11% ST.SDAY,JUNE 26,1991 at 7.00 P.M OE SALEM GREEN, 2nd floor* RICHARD A. BENCAL, Chairman June 12, 19, 1991 . r IN � + � Y Y Y Y Y M Y M Y Y Y Y y Y y Y Y i Y # Y Y Y Y Y y y ._ _- 06-11-91.09:44: r CITY OF SALEM BOARD-OF APPEAL 745-9595 Ext. 381 Will hold a public hearmg for all persons inter- ested in the petition submitted by JAMES POPPE sryerty at 25 WISTERIA ST.(R-2)anto two lotspSaito divide d hearing to be held WEDNESDAY,JUNE 26,1991 at 7:66 P.M., ONE SALEM 2nd floor. RICHARD A. RENCAL, Chairman June 12, 19, 1991 . i� 0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y I Y Y Y Y APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . , � (Ility ofttI>em, tt>3sFu4usPits �. ' Bzarb of A"Pml TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: _ The Undersigned��r�pr sent thay,_he is are the owners of a certain parcel of land lo c ted at NO. . . . o�J� .'vi"Lr �e7�t� �•,¢•r• • . • . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Street; Zoning District.'t:sq and said parcel is affected by Section(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . of the Massachusetts State Building Code. Plans describing the work proposed, have been submitted to the Inspector of Buildings in accordance with Section IX A. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance. � C r rn c csP o� o r!> V Lo The Application for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following reasons: The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code and order the Inspector of Buildings to approve the application fee permit to build as filed, as the enforcement of said Zoning By-Laws and Building Code would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially dero- gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for the following reasons: cn, 777 <i LQ_. ( J c� } Owner. . . .rn ffzl Address. . . aj W Telephone. . .��s.��3 3 . . . . . . . . . . Petitioner. . . �a n. QS � ,: .:.r e'• • • • • • • Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telephon s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . By. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .� . . . . . . . . Three copies of the application must be filed th the Secretary of the Board of Appeals with a check, for advertising in the amount of. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The Evening News. ' / 7 � NO........ -............. -...... PEI yTl0N1nBOARD Of: &yPFALS v |/)[8Tk)N ............ ................. ... ......... -................ PEI TTY()N[R ...................... -... ....... ' &1dNRUSS......... ....... ---------.� �����������...'......'. ^ CONDDIONS ~'-^'----' ------------ / ........................ -.................................... � ~~^^''-^--------~--'-^- w -^~----'-----------'-^- ` i -^~---'---. -------'-^-' � -'^---^--------------- ^ �~� �PETITION APPROVED-.--._-. �� DENIED................ ... ,' �~1 � 19..-� � �� �� DATE OF PERMIT PERMIT No. OWNER LOCATION W. BURDETT GODFREY I 25 Wisteria St. R-2 STRUCTURE MATERIAL DIMENSIONS No.OF STORIES No.OF FAMILIES WARD I COST 3 I BUILDER BOARD OF APPEAL: 11/6/85 - DENIED - Special Permit to convert three family to four fami I I� 4 SALEM MA, OWNER: JAY POPPE DATE: MAY 30, 1991 SCALE: 1" = 20. GRAPHIC SC E 0 20 40 60 80 b OF CARTER a TOWERS ENGINEERING CORP. 6 FAIRVIEW AVE. In SWAMPSCOTT, MA 01907 (617) 592-8386 UNIT 1. ° DAVID C, LACHAtELLE i BEEN W UNIT 2. .,N THE $ GEORGANN J, KA AT 3 REG- a•-oa-od + )MMON- 0 PARK TOWERS TR. .� 1— Xff oft 400 LOT 2 STEPHEN LOT 1 3602 S.F. 3 KAPANTAIS 4568 S.F. 8 EVq R4 3 ° 8 LEVESQUE VISION CONTROL g o h T� owauNG 10.3 Sol. S oiivo.-xr 2' S 2s¢ 3 Fb¢cN N „ 'ED FORWI THESE . , o,"- ,�' W1,5TERIA STREET • �S - . _ - - 3> _ �L Lon✓Gy�c�. O,-� _ , �%S _Pe ✓Y7G^_ Q� �-_-_ _ sP�C�c in -cas%f_;o17 ---- �-hf * i / .- r-C_. �arbGSl_ !� f✓rvrc..- - - _ �� � la' 1 . .. »,1-..��. ��-�i ri'/c.-c_.- Gf••c� h/dip _ __ _-_. _..- . _.._. Un:.quc- -.Gl�'.-c"Pn-SA�5 42e---f . .STT -. r I it - - - •." , , Y a •