34 WILSON STREET - ZBA 34 Willson St. R-1 l
I Roger & Saundra Tremblay
J OcT 11 3 of Ph' 'OI
Tito of ttlem, cn55Ur1J ftW €f.
g ! SJTY CLEF:K. Ft._ry. u.4gS.
ultra fff �ypeA
4
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROGER & SANDRA TREMBLAY FOR A ,
VARIANCE AT 34 WILLSON ST. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held on October 7, 1987 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski and
Strout. 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 petitioners, represented by Attorney John A. Doonan, are seeking a Variance
from rear and side setbacks to allow for an existing pool, deck and oversized
shed. Property is located in an R-1 district. .
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
w 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 sane district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner;
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal after,careful consideration of the evidence presented, and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition presented at the hearing;
2. Relief should be granted for the existing pool and deck, but
not for the continued existence of the oversized shed.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes, as to the pool and deck, as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which affect the subject property but not
the district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial
hardship to the petitioner;
3. The relief requested can be granted without detriment to the public good
and without nullifying of substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Additionally, the Board of Appeal concludes, as to the the oversized shed,
as follows:
1 . Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would not involve substantial
hardship to the petitioner;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROGER & SANDRA TREMBLAY FOR A
VARIANCE AT 34 WILLSON ST. , SALEM
page two
2. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to
_ the 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 4-1 (Mr. Fleming opposed) to divide the
question relative to the requested variance, and further voted as follows:
As to the relief requested for the existing deck, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted
unanimously, 5-0 to grant the petitioners the requested Variance, subject to the
following conditions:
1 . The deck is to remain the same as it currently exists, with no addition.
*c H As to the relief,requested for the...
existing pool, the Zoning Board of�Appeal voted
4-0 (Mr. Hacker abstaining) to grant the petitioners the requested Variance,
subject to the following conditions:
1 . The pool is to remain where it is presently located.
As to the relief requested for the existing oversized shed, the Zoning Board of
Appeal voted 1-4, (Mr. Fleming voted in favor; Messrs. , Hacker, Bencal, Luzinski
and Strout opposed) to grant the petitioners requested Varaince. By the vote of
1-4, the requested Variance, as it relates to the oversized shed, is denied.
VARIANCE GRANTED FOR POOL & DECK
VARIANCE DENIED FOR SHED ( � }
/James M. Fleming, Esq. , ice Chairman
A• GOPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
PUPSUAST TO SEMM 17 CF. THE L:A"
—F:'f 2C DA'is A�:ER THE C;.E
'
OF T^ ,H
;° i_:'S�::. 16 _ _ i,'c!:E C.c T. CITi C_EG S.
FS'c:. i- C2=� ._' ,
p-r
'[• •. '.:1
IT ECS"8:� . .. D
` . _..� _ c_r. l.::C .;C.:.iD -.:E C'F
OF RECGRD GP IS RFGJRD"ED A%D @GiED 2 TkE G7: S CEF,i iF1CATE Gf TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
MORTGAGE INSPECTION
BAY STATE SURVEYING SERVICE INC.
234 CABOT ST., BEVERLY, MA.
LOCATION NOTES
S�L �/ ---
�
SCALE : I'� = Z FT. DATE ._ �'!G This is a Mortgage inspection survey and not
�7
an instrument survey,therefore this plot plan is for
REFERENCE — < �^ r ' ', . .. , �:_:__ ....:...:................. mortgage inspection purposes only.
......""""""'""'"""""' • This survey is based on survey marks of
others.
To _ � ;t:2� �a f rnJ!^-_• ja/ft I�,_-_•. • Bushes,shrubs, fences and tree lines do
I hereby certify that I have examined the premises and that the, not necessarily indicate property lines.
building(s) shown on this plan are located on the ground as
The nebuilding(s) are not located in. the spacial
shown and that they conformed to the zoning setbacks of the
_ flood hazard zone, as defined by H.U.D.
C TiF._�/;L.,-�!/_________• when constructed.
Robert Jellison Leonard Gravel
LaT
28 20—
r �.1 CfJoG DaF_��c'
i
'Dennis M. I r.:J� �.Y
Mennen
and
S„san J.
Biddiscombe
h.
-a
Ann M. Spencer
' and Robert E Spenccr
i I L0T
38
� M�
\y � S % vJ�
'd 3�
i '