The URL can be used to link to this page

APPEALS DECISIONS 1964-1967 i-ons ,CGBe � Tittu of '�$ttlezn,. 41assar4usetts • - f ` g �nttrD of c�PPes1 'r�C1Af1;VE _. WILLIAM F.'ABBOTT JAMES H. BOULGER JOHN M. GRAY ARTHUR LABRECOUE JOSEPH F. MOYLE TO 'His l raor, Francis Z4, c ollinss ftydr of Salem, :;• and The Honorable City Councili Gentsle men i � Purs t to the k#2AAS �it , e. ssib iet'rt.$pa t :5 BOmrds of eoi A Speaa3 herewithe to t its Y` rd part and a smeary of docioiOnz rendered during the year 1964: l,; fir. 04 'Agar ala$ granted a variance to or-act a orae story adds; tion to his d lli-ta at 12 Monroe Road, to be used as an Onclo$ed porch. . IIr* and Ura. Albert Bouchard were granted a variance to erect a Single family dwelling at; 219 North Street. 3# lam* Robert Kimball received a variance to ersot A four-ftaajIl-ly dwelling at 540A Loring Avenue, 4* D.-# Frederick P. Reads WU granted Pa varie,aace to alter the two and one- half story wood frame dwelling at 393 Essex Street, to provide are additional Apartmem, 5. Joaepb, and H aigeauhiO Chi.claraavorian were allowed a variarco to erect a single ftuilY dwelling at 13 Silver Street, 6. A variance was granted to i1r Irencis Pappalarde to erect a breezeway and garage attached to his dwelling at $ Green awn Ave nue# 7. 14*4 Raymond IH6 ming$, Trustee of the Loring Realty Trust was granted a variance to eruct; apartment houses, s Wdloal building, and a turaing home can Loge describers as Lots A„ Bor and C Loring Avenue, S. Mr, Srneaat; Myers sought and received a variance to erect a gage in the rear of his d 04ing at 54 Appleton Street, 9. . Raymond p. Youngs 35 hillside Avenues, tis granted a variance to erect a gavage and breaseway attached to his dwallia 10* W* "Thomas . Ri eras granted a variance to erect a single fame* dwelling on Lot 15 Looneq Avenue* * 11* ?4reo Mary Arc ung Wan granted a variAnce to remove an existing two atta�agy j.�rch 7 1t, , and replace with as porch 121 x IV at 11 Skerry Stroe^t. 12. A variance to erect a single family dwelling on Lot #10 Parallel Street s granted to Mr, Leo Bergeron« Z39 Mr. Carl .Xootafian received a variance to erect a, single family dwelling on Lot #19 Henry Street. 14 Mr. Joseph Morris, 10 Larkin Lane, was granted a variance to erect a one- story porch attached to.his dwelling.. 15, A variance to alter the third floor of a dwelling at 57 garrets Street to: provide an additional apartment was granted to !4-. Robert 144 Lambert. 16. The 'Montserrat Development Corporation was granted leave to withdraw a pe- tition for a variance to convert a two-scar garage on Lot #2 Botts Courts to provide a four room apartment. 17. Mr. Hector Danereau of 2 Soenic Place was granted a variance to erect a carport. 1$. Mr. H, Philip Griffin was granted a variance to enlarge his kitchen by en— closing an existing porch at 120 Bay View Avenue. 19 A variance to erect a carport was granted to tai. Albert LeBlanc at 26 Roslyn Street, 20, W. James D. Smith, 64 Memorial Drive, was granted a variance to erect a garage. 0. Mr. Stephen Smith, 63 Memorial Drive, was granted s variance to erect a garage. 22. A variance to alter the premises at 143 North Street to provide an addi— tional apartment on the third :floor was denied Mrs Roch Poitras, 23. Mr. Charles S. Johnstorss Jr. , was denied a variance to erect a single family dweelling on Lots 143„ 144' and 151 Belair Street. 24. A variance to erect a two story addition to his dwelling at 430 Loring Avenue was granted to Mr, Henri Theberge• 25. Fontaine Bros., Inc.# was granted a variance to erect a two story masonry oonstkucted convalescent nursing home at 34-36y38 Highland Avenue. 26 Mrs. Concatta Ingemi, 30 Hathorne Street, was granted a variance to alter the third floor to provide an additional apartment. 27. A variance to erect a single family dwelling on Lot #7 Sable Read was granted to ?iir. John I'. Elates. 28. Mrs, Eleanor Crowdis was granted a variance to erect a single family dwelling at 36 Hanson Street. n �y 3 » Mr er Audg scs a lied far and received a variance to er tot a single m s Takily Awe; at the oorner of Iarssell Parkway .and Witch Hill rive. 30. A variance was granted to W. Michael Co Freeman* 71 Moffatt Road, to erect a roof over an existing patio. 31. Mr. Willi.an T. Burke was gr&nted a variance to erect a single family dwelling at the corner of South and Summit Streets 32. A variance to construct a porch attached to his dwelling at 22 Sutton Avenue, was granted to Mr. Richard J, Condor:. 33. A petition for a variance to erect a parch at 16 Calabrese Street was denied Nix•. Walter Czapla. Respectfully submitted, Joseph r^. Doyle, Secretary 130ARD OF APPEAL • To HS,s Honor, Francis X. Collins, Mayor of Salem, ` "and the Honorable City Council : Gentlemen: . Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 4, Sec. 16 of the Revised Ordinances of Salem, Massachusetts, the Board of Appeal herewith submits its report and a sum- mary of decisions rendered during the year 1964: Mr. James H. Boulger was granted a variance to erect a one story addition to his dwelling at 12 Monroe Road, to be used as an enclosed porch, y Mr. and Mrs. Albert Bouchard were granted a variance to erect a siggle fam- ily dwelling at 219 North Street. 3 Mr. Robert Kimball sought and received a variance to erect a four-family dwelling at 540A Loring Avenue. y Dr. Frederick P. Keach was granted a variance to alter the ,two and one-half story wood frame dwelling at 393 .Essex Street, to provide an additional apartment. 5 Joseph and Haigouhie 6hicknavorian were allowed a variance to erect a single family dwelling at 13 Silver Street. L A variance was granted to kr. -Francis Pappalardo to erect a breezeway and garage attached to his dwelling at 5 Greenlawn Avenue. ? Mr. Raymond L. Cummings, Trustee` of•the Loring Realty Trust appeared before the Board seeking a variance to erect apartment houses, a medical building, and. a nursing home on lots described as Lots A, B, and C Loring Avenue, This variance was granted. & received Mr. Ernest Myers sought a variance to erect a gpa garage in the rear of his dwelling at 54 Appleton Street. y Mr. Raymond P. Yuung, 35 Hillside Avenue was given a variance to erect a garage and breezeway attached to his dwelling at 35 Hillside Avenue. /o Mr. Thomas J. Manning petitioned the Board for a variance to erect a single family dwelling on Lot #15 Looney Avenue. Variance was granted. )f Mrs. Mary Archung was granted a variance to remove an existing two story porch 7' x 14' , and replace with a porch 121 x 14' at 11 Skerry Street . iz A variance to erect a single family dwelling on Lot #10 Parallel Street was given to Mr. Leo Bergeron. /3 Mr. Carl Mootafian received a variance to erect a single family dwelling on lot #19 Henry Street. 1q/ Mr. Joseph Norris, 10 Larkin Lane was granted a variance to erect a one- story porch attached to his dwelling. Is' A Variance to alter the third floor of a dwelling at 57 Warren Street was granted to Mr. Robert M. Lambert. 16 The Montserrat Development Corporation was granted leave to withdraw a pe- tition for a variance to convert a two-car garage at Lot #2 Botts Court, to provide a four room apartment. 17 Mr. Hector Dansreau of 2 Scenic Place was granted a variance to erect a carport 2 - f H. Philip Griffin was granted a variance to enlarge his kitchen by enclos- ing an existing porch at 120 Bay View Avenue. /A variance to erect a carport was granted Albert LeBlanc at 26 Roslyn Street. yo Mr. James D. Smith, 64 Memorial Drive, was granted a variance to erect a garage. zi Mr. Stephen Smith, 63 Memorial Drive was granted a variance to erect a garage. 2, A veriance to alter the premises at 143 North Street to provide an additional apartment on the third floor was denied Mr. Roch Poitras . 23 Mr. Charles S. Johnston, Jr. ,. was denied a variance to erect a single family dwelling on Lots 143 , 144, 'and 151 Belair Street. zy A variance to erect a two story addition to his dwelling at 430 +Loring Avenue was granted Mr. Henri Theberge. zs'A petition for a variance to erect a two story masonry constructed convalescent nursing home at 34-36-38 Highland Avenue was granted to Fontaine Bros. , Inc. , 2,6 Mrs. Concetta Ingemi, 30 Hathorne .Street, was granted a variance to alter the third floor to provide an additional apartment . 21 A variance to erect a single family dwelling on Lot #7 Sable Road, was granted to Mr. John F. Bates. 2P e petition of Eleanor Crowdis, 36 Hanson Street, for a variance to erect a qWngle family dwelling was granted. 21 Mr. Emery Audesse applied for and received a variance to erect a single family dwelling at the corner of Mansell Parkway and Witch Hill Drive. 3O variance was grantdd to Mr. Michael C. Freeman, 71 Moffatt Road, to erect a roof over an existing patio. -7/ Mr. William T. Burke, appealed to the Board for a variance to erect a single family dwelling at the corner of South and Smmmit Streets. ,sL A variance to construct a porch attached to his dwelling at 22 Sutton Avenue was granted to Mr. Richard J. Condon. 33 A petition for a variance to erect a porch at 16 Calabrese Street was denied Mr. Walter Czapla. Respectfully submitted, John M. Gray, Chairman, James Boulger, Sr. William Abbott, Arthur E. Labrecque, Joseph F. Doyle, Secretary BOARD OF APPEAL BBCISIM c t1r. abd Woo o Albert Bouchwdp 219 Vorth ft root,ro€ato oorwr sof Cwhi sig to . w...,.-* erect a aiaoA fly dtmIIImS# with A.mbu�r Labreo< undoro jai'trph pa Do rlea €► Etf3,m f°�1 a �� atr t3zts �cr�r �cr�Ra axad �� ftrmtstcs caa�+txtttrra u bo crlo�atf + t4aca e #es is tfty asf` 3fct sre�i3b aetbac offtaoavdt tta cat #€ G pe�t��.tca�atar ap�t�.ctd tG t:hta xd fear ca ��aar , orad vxa � �� thea r � 1�3,Q S,ct t2se cstsea e�f` tine eeameat tca caoG�.caa � fl pc�itrlc! �� t:he p�atttr�eard abu�terca, Boaa:�3 ��bereo � Ct!21t3rEau. All membero or the Swrd ware present at; tble hearUgo o one apposred In opposition* Wq, iO ,ta of t e Derby Rath Satoto Oem4auyv 137 Derb a reet # "ho ,444 :be lot to Pro Souchardo appeared is Coveaawa is 60 feet by 88 feet* mos, due cc idaraCion by tho Board# It too voted unanimuslys, all .owbers besfagt and votin g# to gretatt the variancein view of the root C� all rento arc kit with the ortept» ion of az Xigtooh Toot not c twu Mag r t:*' The Board voted 1aovol of a var�,� to allow a t he foot setback on the =hug Street lido of the (h*1 1aso VA&WXZ G.AUT90* DOARD OF /APPEAL catsx�at.Qr'Sr �F .. 5 M vY. i W �: x Yr r#} ,} .4: • a x i. ;'i A '� 1iR ';2�'i.a: ...L F }.A a i:rG ♦,wwfy;. .. �'k "kY"R ' ....i�•b #. . k.:.'. :Kr at.ixs i •+: x. - . ss .i rr r:st.. y.Y 4 Y:l i.+t •..w .n : '! .Y - Y4. �w ';1.. «. 1 :' .:w trY'?:• L,� ' i ,.i i R s fxc � ' rY." i '+ : .1,. ; : . L •... A y ,,. a. fir: i,a: . ntk-..- -:.'�''Y #a; . a.,W.R xrx'.:Y.y Y ', r 4 .-•L�+ ,€ r. a k *:: ,�. y,i . :.Nr2 1 .iM: i?x Y.. ',• u .: :Y _• i.#' : }k: 's A.f'L k #^¢ 'F i-i � . R.r .1•._ : }. ,a. :, f }:(. Y ' ,+ :,� .rY u� ; a A. .�.. ,. .. i .h4 '. 4.:Y f v ii:Yt i,. :x ♦ „aw Rat .. # 1 "R L .y ' +Y _'L.4 .. t *.:'F Y. Y-. i i'err{ .' -• 2 � L4xYr . .. � si '...* »;L dN'.. {' :fii_ " i Y'4 .. %.♦ iYi3 � .- Y4 4 J1 p k w P. F .Z14. y ♦ i..- ';fi `.i int €.} i R x r �r IL f r;N� a# M.i�F IA' ,k k � � 4+.} � } '�i 1 d. 3 •..;F t t S,h{. ?Y }. fl"l k ,�. S,t I- 1 1i`i i•i ti' :x LLx R2 Rtk i "ifi Rr x. .:'C M >" i ♦ ��ry ; •.."A. :.. L2 .5 -.,�i4 i to i'i .3. 1. # x'N ! K�x S. ;R= � i•k { i#`: f}h" A d'� 3�•# .:i A a L,4 yr k .f x }...i '. .c a ig.r. [:tiasn,,,2 k'i, 8 iti.ti F :S +` R'L a•Y '. f k ♦ 'Sb w:.ilxFb s � i ]� ti. { k� R .# # '.R i..g+{F -s.x +": Tar *.. .S iYi ♦ ,. . ;. Yt »- ti t-s y� s:. _ t£ d i. `#. : ^ . wk Y !: Ys•R.:h # � x-d: Fii.i. w.Vt & - � �(.'qh -...R: t ., a �r i UouM 3� cImtivorich to �oaapA sand �.. �. , erect � r lir dMIU at 13 Silver rafto Axthur 9rao ..o jocoph Por.Doy`e i M F"a 2S,* 1964 a part too to mot o aha y Its at thft location for thodo woos: tbo pot—ob€tots &OM the atroot Mutrod the Zones i oa 'f�a 'Obtitlot " .co &Uow 601V too foot; rooAmd alat taeo tom 'Rde bouniary 31ma ttsa 04t,, :Po tfomor arat3 allow oy "oasta. 3on P&vh 16, 1964* aboo a had on tt4a portition in tbo office of tbe XnOPootor off"12 adueas Rom 7r City ,116110 Below, All a of tho Hoa:'"d wvo proftat at this t1oa Sngo no Ute® appetrod It mppooltioto ApCoring in favor wero the potitu hie ski.»lA' WOrt ftnof ant* Attorney Bmtko appeared for the potitioncro After copolderi6S tbib potitiono the Board all fire cambere p"Mat, and roti , unanim%mly voted to grant tbo v4rwian000 reqUebtede i •.VSA+F�J�Go OSBUMt Fr€ancla PappdaMot arab br ,oqv md : lEV=A jomt.)Ph 14 Doyle ; a Petition wdo refer a permit to erect as broosaim,J an . attached to an duelling at 5 OreohIauu Avmu4> aa he coral allow a df+otatco of ttvo feet f the t-dwidary line* atae3 tits Pree0at Ordinanos re4uiraa a distance of tori foots 'atp�x�cs of3, �a�d tes t� ��; of A �aai�. der a v€ $.a#tGo .� int he €afffcta o#' t€tea �e�etar of e* 1tau� 7. +fit j AU romboro ,of ithe Board were pr ae nta 4ttblahesr * o c tea dio 9ppo iftfcrt Aping is f4vor were the patitionor wW Pro, Stw'to Ulwo# an Ancor dw OoWidoraatlon the Board all wmbora pskoaaht and votes# Wealmidly Ivot ed to urmt the Sit l ve VAR CZ OFAMN DO" or RMAL brtr .eat J EMMM ' THIS IS A COPY OF DECISION FILED IN OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK i� (fTtq of `�akra, tts �t�C��tse f • 1. l� of }p �A � �) jjE2I( 0@iE N WILLIAM F. ABBOTT Petition of Raymond L. Cummings, Trustee, JAMES H. BOHLGER Filed February 26, 1964, for variance from JOHN M. GRAY application of zoning ordinance. = iRwfFf�11F1�T1@� DECISION Joseph F. Doyle, Arthur Labrecque (March 16, 1964) The BOARD OF APPEAL OF THE CITY OF SALEM held a public hearing on Monday, March 16, 1964 on the petition of Raymond L. Cummings, Trustee of the Loring Realty Trust, filed February 26, 1964, for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the use for the purposes set forth in said petition, of a certain parcel of land situated on the northwesterly side of Loring Avenue, bounded southwesterly by the division line between said City of Salem and the Town of Swampscott, shown on a plan filed with said petition, which, with said petition and said plan, is annexed hereto and made a part of this decision to be filed in the office of the Clerk of said City of Salem, as provided by General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 17, as amended, due notice of such hearing having been given by„publication and mailing as provided by said Section 17, of said Chapter 40A of said General Laws. • On evidence intruduced at the hearing, it appeared and the board found that since the adoption of the zoning ordinance, wherein the area in which the parcel described in the petition is located, the land in Swampscott directly opposite the entire frontage of the petitioner's parcel on Loring Avenue has been re-zoned as a Business B-3 District, effective October 7, 1963 ; that in said Business B-3 District a nursing home, clinic and medical building are permitted; that the land in Swampscott abutting the parcel described in the peti- tion, is now being developed for use for cemetery purposes ; that these changed and changing conditions respecting both areas in the Town of Swampscott, particularly affect the land described in the petition but do not affect generally other land in the zoning 'dis- trict in which the parcel described in the petition is located. As a result of these changed conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve practical difficulty, substantial and unnecessary hardship, financial and-other- wise to the-,:petitioner, from which desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullify- ing or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of said Zoning Ordinance. Practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the petitioner, affecting the parcel for which the variance is sought also stems from the topography of the particular parcel and the formation there- of. From an examination of plans and profiles, as well as personal • knowledge of members of the Board of the land described in the peti- tion andin the zoning district in which it is located and other evidence, the same being hilly and rocky, with large areas of ledge l_ f� - , 2 - t high above and below the surfa6e, it^ appeared and the Board found • that these unusual -conditions particularly prevalent in this partic- ular parcel do not obtain in the rear portion of the petitioner's 75 acre tract of which it is a part, which is practically free 'of ledge and to a considerable extent is low level land, 'nor is it prevalent generally in the zoning district in which it is located. While it is possible to develop the land for which a variance is sought for the erection of single family detached dwellings the cost of so doing is prohibitive because of the topography and formation of the land referred to and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended October 23, 1962, the requirements of the Sub-Division Control Law adopted by the City on March 12, 1962, and because of the Rules and Regulations- adopted by the Planning Board pursuant thereto. The petitioner with many, years, experience in laying out, devel- oping and sale of- land for the erection and sale of single-family detached dwelling houses, having sold over 130 lots for such purpose in the past 15 years in the single residence district in which the parcel for which the variance is sought is located, testified that the maximum value of lots in the area for use or sale is $4,000. FranX-: C. Hancock, an engineer with wide experience in creating and laying out sub-divisions of land, including the location and construc- tion of roads, of land preparation, blasting and removal of hedge from lot sites and roadways, and familiar with the cost of such work, esti- mated that the total cost of road construction - including the laying • out and building of roads 50 feet wide, the installation of water mains, sewers and storm drains, . putting in granite curbing and the building of sidewalks, all of which is now required by the Planning Board prelimi- nary to the approval, which is necessary, of sub-division plans - With the necessary extensive blasting operations and the removal of -rock and ledge, allocated to the 58 usable lots shown on the sub-division layout designed by him, copy of plan of which was introduced in evidence, resulted in a per lot cost of $2,900., exclusive of raw land cost. He also estimated, that due principally to the prevalence of ledge and precipitious slopes necessitating greater topographical coverage and higher layout expense, an additional development cost of 1,000. or more per lot Would be incurred, making a total cost of 3,900. to be allocated to each lot. The Board found that the maximum value of single house lots in the area to be in the neighborhood' of $4,000. , and that the cost of build- ing the roads delineated on the plan introduced in evidence of the proposed sub-division layout - in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Board - with the installation of the utilities, to- gether with topographical studies and engineering costs, would approx- imate $3,900. per lot, and that the costs of creating the usable lots would be disproportionate to their ultimate worth and an economically unsound venture. These conditions which have arisen largely as a result of the adoption • of the Sub-Division Control Act and the requirements of the Planning Board adopted pursuant thereto, have arisen since the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance and especially affect the parcel respecting which the variance is sought, but do not affect generally the zoning district in which it is located. I ` 3 • As a result of the conditions stated, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning -Ordinance would involve practical difficulty, substantial and unnecessary hardship, financial and otherwise to the petitioner, from which desirable relief may be granted without sub- stantially derogating from the intent and purpose of said Zoning Ordinance. ; It further appeared and the Board found that an advantageous and financially profitable use of the .land for which the variance is sought as stated in the petition, may be madebythe erection of apart- ment houses on Lot A shown on the plan accompanying the petition, on which about twenty housing units per acre can be developed as against five or less per acre ,for single family detached dwellings, by the erection of a nursing home on Lot B, for which there is an urgent public demand in Salem, and by the erection of a Medical Building with offices for professional use on lot C. in an area where adequate parking facil- ities now badly needed, will be made available. The Board found these uses to be in the public interest and that they may be effected with- out nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance of the City. Letters addressed to the Board were presented, from three outstand= ing physicians practising in the city, reciting that there is need for the proposed nursing home in the city, that the same is in the public interest and requesting that the petition be granted. Also, a petition • was presented signed by sixty-five residents of the city favoring the petition "as being in the public interest" and praying that "the variance sought be granted". One Robert H. Kimball, a property owner in- the immediate vicinity, appeared in person and was recorded as favoring the granting of the petition. No one appeared in opposition. On closing of the hearing the Board considered the matter atllength, and predicated on the facts recorded in this decision, all members of the Board voting in favor, it was, VOTED: That the prayers of the petition be granted and that the variance sought for the use of Lots A, B and C respectively, be author- ised, construction to be commenced within 18 months from date of notice of this decision, and if construction is not commenced on one or more of such lots within such time, the variance authorized shall lapse as to such lot or lots, unless the time for the` commence- ment of such construction on such lot or lots is extended by the Board. DATED and CERTIFIED by me, this thirty-first day of March, 1964 Joseph 98_1289199 e f n, Apd oWll*d s .le Avows, tris aarac t a. air s ,,, . ems» f . Yx9yW MMaNLA1M �y JY9�o JoOoph Doyle Agt ^ed lot 41t .to 7000 aqumer toot; gatr tiormr,a lot ama is 6666 aqwm coats Am zoned for to =-SmAl '. tilde nc.04' �1ftlr t1 oner ted t o oftet a �'� � dMixitie At a boating t' axcta 16, 1964* vating on avotbor patitionarta w r Wdltbooal amtore andto H at A c t On rAy 18* $964 with fow t t')$ara of the ms'd hroapote and Wo Dogs abatato tho ted iotesd approval of Ilre Xlmbt4Va pctl� • tion to eaveieit: ca f -apartat NoUIM at twtAaa lout ion No one appearad. in opposition* t T OU GRAMDa BOARD O APPSA R J R l i _�- • l�� --G� � �'� J a3mlov: Ernest I rzs !4 Appleton Stroat pct ArtMw Zabracqub Josef vaylo Petitioner raoUsed a'par:tit to ampts a bra + r ��' bla d�33 cs 54 Ap�ton 8�t - April b� +s awn c atr�tction vo64 : vIoUtiozr of the zonUxg ordI t2 roquIr• tg 0 dUtanco f the lot Um of ton feet*, a� potitiot r Calow only a .Five toot duty* . � �� atancso ;k"x'o� 1 a. qtr �► f .tl,- taq oco t tactor t� �i3 s: 7 t � t to sot ocd lad o . Paid tc� ties gc'ttt%�e�! �3aexd r att 'a.� d ot}; a� • Allrte:.of thea mrd .Ouv pro*out, at thin 3 rd ;tai this OXCOPUdn 04 .# Doyle who vw abcoats Vo one appeared its opposition* on* tom+ Wr APPOAMd at►d stated bio ease to the Board rimborev The Doar4„ four- cera premat arA. voting„ vAanjr4Wjy votod 1 to want the v4riabc#4 V'AgUtICS tom,MD BOARD of A AT �K�rCi cc. MIDISTOW p* �. 35 : ides Avomw, to»� pct a 4 at�sc to a o an 1 April 13. 1964. potitlomr,vasroaesi ,. t! a s►tt c2nerF to br c +� "to ,EIroat a j 5 laido Avaj.2uo, buca ash 0004truc#ioxs d be In vio. lotion of t�4 zmuz Ordinaucs V41uh r04,14 a diems or ton. i'oa;G trot. lido bomdary lines, and 16titimoirvana3aia to Gallow 02117 figs toot# On APrU 25•1964, Poutie rx� to d From thin dooloion to the Doaard of Apca�,, aah� .fcr a ar eazsca t $icatiaxr or tbo Zoning cdirmca., Yit sem# id itt meta t tsar tlsilifs , tca t� pt3t�,'cio3'aor> �e ��ara�, abuttta�3�, a� eatDaca �tcaar°irtg �s Dai � �.�3, 19aifs,. All rmbwo or tho Board* Vitt, the exceoptlob of Ur. I)OY14, woro pre€ t at this baarlii* NO =0 ap} t3 4o opposit'i at APPOOrItO tOr t O patitifter wom nabort fteriatat, 8iidaido JLVM , 04 ftv., StePaa G�ir ftllsift Avonuo s All four ra abora or the Board v4w were propent at tho hearica vOwd vrM lV to cmt tho variance ro4umtodo VARIArAM GRAM D, DOW OF APMAL Q /sfr 1� 3 P WOMAZ x8 * meam to erect a alogo xMily F* Moyle Cu P47 2% 1964 betituner pfomit to ores Aii1y dio in .ati-blowy Av r ,* bocg. �� + #� �3 +G� mss � �• 4 All soubers he board woro proftut with the extoptiou o 0 A lottor.from tho autuiv.s Ir. s .roftalrg the ;por it+ to a roatd 6V-61 5 OZty A plea p1w wftirtroduiced aho %hot 010. propt dwi� woWA be nino fit. sj4tt y Un"$ of tib tit# faw AP iG 00 d E' WITIO i s Mary AtrcYsrarsge U ft6rry StrBelta erre eaelsat3nd tv-Story porch 70 at 14ts replace r d extoszd to 129 x 140* Five feet from bvundory 11noo joacph Pf Doyle €aiar Lamaexque Els v: 28„ 1964, titles r re aed apermit by the z apeator oS Wage to remove etaotin two.. tatornf• porch' and replace and extend porch to 12 at 140s since such ocnotruction ted be In violation of tib Zoning Crdinance of the City of Wong which requIree €t ton root distance to aide boom l oao P€stltioner can pori only fives Foot dis"moo Petitionelrsled to the Swrd of Appeal for a varlaasoo from tMtq ap 100th le n of the Zoring Ordirmcco A hearing rww hold on Nond;%y June 15, # 19+64r in the office of the pF3ctaar est ll�r Hoed 7► City tis Solom 304 All4 +bestxs of tho F3oarrih that caatcept3cs o Jobts 0mg, proamt. at this hearing,* Petitioner appoaresd psad altscd the planoo d'harloo Lo. Due appeared In favory Des one appeared In oppoOltiono The Board voted ra ssPmWly to grant the potAtieno BOARD OF A,PFFAL I m w 00 c -o m MCIOU: on MMOV of too &3rafmo s® #10 ParaUel fto !www.+si•.+* nasi; to bewWory lino oit pno 'aide# 4fjO vo 0, dqt an ftw 280 1%-41 potitio r t" ram 0 p0a° itr ty tho b tiQ9rre tt� e e dcsn P4r900 rtsd000tet tr Stt � oolad to the 3oa lof bppea'for a vwiOee from tcaPcac a rhesarrs� � � l' op 's Jezire 5. arl� 3d Sts f ro ¢qtr G cry' Q& !of 0 bo � � �� 40,0 aro esti y as prve�et aat tst�,� l�° ti CowerlUor FeUetlar mW tie ao VaUlme uirts 12 ParoUel .wreots pp4 eet 10 �'evcrr. Na one appebrod A&-oppooltimo : The' "tod WgUAWU sly to grout pea ltions, . Tinca GUMflo D AM4 !/ v NJ4L C ( A W 1 O O e -o m s 0 O O G 3 'o to m a __ J. Ot '9wltwvStrout +► f-w l dletwxo t toCY ftwd or =Ctr6 q 9%= M6 muon of COW Maim w4 a bcaMt W#7* Tha3doW DucrbD wd =wOomMov teor&M C for qb* UMV4 d1 . cry and Mju Mrv- ,i�n� 6it $' t� . �y a � � ab" joati atai iocfrft At tba OMO# AU =bm voted Wil' to VWt sotfti ' s ` QIP A�w LO 1 GUIM on %a# of JtOMPH UGHS1## 10 Gln l To aroot a onei;story prate attached to 4u*Ulng vAtbin , ?uu five foot at bopWory 11no on we Woo joph F# ,.D03.s L #rao+ a tea i= 28 1964 tItionor tsar ra oda a the toarma; o ®rQeat a ¢a�ao ataxy, garcactlac to hied R Ott - itl �t.3 tt C'�t3Aw d�.p6Q1�CCa FottltIonor dppeaW from thle doctolon to Lha Word of Appoa for o varlavaa from tho application of tho ZmUc Ordiumoo# A haw htalct tom offico of the poator of Dulld�a� now 741cy �1* on adds 4th �.5e 19$toa A aro rel' with th6 oxo aptioh or n"s Jbhn Gray mro pmt at fttiwis r ' d exod and explained tho Plan Of hdUllogo Do one appoarod, ln oppooltiono. Doardbmbora voted =wImAly to grwt potitiono PETITIon GRAMOO BOARD OF APMAL ,�uoerot4vy— Z=W= co TU*, a To t.tar FOArd tUw of dwUuin to "Aft to tsdQl .t t� poylo ca Opartmom:w an AprU. ,# 11 Votitl tW pro 4 Part# by Up y to Our tho tbuod Mor ot bso 4ttl*p 44 + U N �� to ai4*u+ LL ��,,qmp Mi� 6 a lb v� c! * V Skiralab tts wu=oa tftj`,bortfta U* 0,*Aot bWFWtV to t* b* atm t* VvvUW an 14� � - a' le U4 too bald in tw OMO ,of .tb; 7 CAS � s 06titottr wt aig)" Over Ow =AtIm lbo r bobrIed u.a W4 on Jwo IS# 1964* � d "oft �t � hl Get Gln ct" .Ia Attly# Harrioctm oppoW for potAtlancro Uiod Gb PION 00 chi OPPOWM4 in qzvoitloav, od UftOnZ=OIV to Ormt gptt#tA * ' L j J i faCISX00 .. r1ontserrat bovelopment vie, as Leat 02 Botts Court* ceph F* Doyle Yhaas Labreoque Potition to convert existing two-ear moo. built ars street 11noo to rotes—room eapur lento 2n Jta lr • , peatlti©aamr Asa z d a por"it to alcor orAot to con�reax^t to a lgtuw-rraon rat *loco btarata €�ttaratie aaa d tae lra viol aatt©ra of the City of Salem ZonU4 Ordinance relative to lot site and location of existing building lin relation to lot UU006 O. July 90 1964. petitioner apad fromthis decision to the as ac of Appeal# and ing was bold In the office of the In actor of BuildlW# beam 7a City kms* on Plondays July 2s, 1964* • AU members wro prawnt at this hear o Pro Wph Oo Smithson of the Montserrat Developmout Corp*r pard and a blued the plans also showed tura plctures ra o build. o We Smithson mated he head an o a aea rent to purchase the Mo from the Seacoast Roaltq 6b s . A9le , !`.anadara Potitloner stated he Intiedead to rant the property which wtald consist of three rooms on the r1rat floor and one room on the second floor* Ca account of conditions existing in surrounding neighbor- hood it was tararardin a<wly stented that the petitioner be gtvea leave to witbdraW* MOZO 3 leave to wltbdrava DOW OF At9FM HY rotary i . I r ...mss , « c.00I)bI eta I%T I a do&um a wwtamo frm tbb O;vllcbtltm of tbo ttIIa €at 4o ..40 Awtv potltiWAr hft 34625 f6ot 40 ahC�m Vu Cb Jum Us 104 Att'y« Jan �@l, p." Mt t*"a � s a pat u3 � of tear va rl ancm, :10" they arm of pot4tl�►s lest at 04t 9) cdZusto on Bacta .t root T :t WO r4w*, told :tom Of l a 3 t are, tb a a moat# latae t tbo ro r s u tat w tb a tater wft us d t� �� ► �,� � � .ate � • 4tt•ya , i �► ' s St ::lot o t<A tett �►bdt�7a dC't�g� mesad �' � wca lot SMO C` AMAL t J w . O C . -o m R 7 i F W C m a m a ,� J r maxagm Hector Damoresu# 2 $conia na co +wrwrw..rr Arthtw,S* , La cacao PSi'l 00% To at oct a: carport attached to dwelling ' tioner oaan not maw too toot raged distance to boUr4 line* ani * Baxaa aapp3.ied far a patx° G to erect 6 otalCpgrG a►tGa3aahaD to hl6 ae�ell.ia et alcaanic I�$a3aas, alttdk ray ed j thea naapeoter F9u�3a��s eas asuch aa ruo3— tiaaaa �d bei ulaleeia�n Of the E;�tl* of $tabs �nan8 �- iaaa a e Which rax @wires as toa3t dclota3nca� to eia3a� ba�adarga F tltiaa aaom allow ow aaaal g old fee On Jay 3# 2964, petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal iasr a� rSraa €r. his potl.t'lon« hea�rUV d an the o 'r'ice mmi" thae Inspector of BuildingeD Baa 7$ cit B" on J a` y 200 1964« All membora ware pre cant at this hearing*, Petitioner wgAalned he has a drivoW an d oorwr to Where he parks his car now and wants to put as roof ovor the ca sport« Tho Beard voted es =Woualy to OtM the petition* BOARD OF APDL 8Y �. cr MCISIONs Charles Diggag 3 Willson Road* Joseph ro.h , la $o. ��roaqua MUM To met earme which aid extend Into an back- 000to variances. required on front and rear bou nda rIeSo On Juno220 1964r the Spector of Build ln as reused to issue a3 permit fur the motion of a &gym e VoUld eaxt*Ad; Hca a n inbanhzent since ouch construction csould be in violation of the city of St 10M Ordinances requ€ rlag a 15 toot cat-back from the street and a rear YM-4 depth of 30 fboto.. Potitionor could tuUaw only four fact rrcm the street i.Ums W d tusasty- €our fit mar yard, depth* Mrs SICSo lc€pthe pea ed tht�the ose 4toard of Ap al ffor a v'aari Ctei, from A hearing was hold on July 20t 1964# in the, office of the Us c orof Suildinvo Room ?t City Halt 4010mo Vi a. All res of the mrd wore present at this hoar. Petitioner dial not sppearo r1ro and Mrs* Stanley Poirlar# abuttorst appeared but ware not sure they were opposed mtU they looked at the pla o Plow had net been fIlbdo Potitionor is a roamed leave to withdrawQ Petitioner hap permiaapioo to reapply In conformity With the lava BOARD OF AMAL BY , 40 ® • M W O jI )lT V '� V�qI 1.1 J O � rt � �`. to � . W O q®q N Y MOISI Nt Ho Philip 6rdfa a« 120 Bay Vlow Avonuo* +k ph Pa Do krthur go quo Petition to onlaArge kitchon by enclosing an existing porch which is five Foot ,from aide bow4ary €n one aide$ and olghe inchoo firm other aide botmda'rYa f ^, 1964, t lrtcapCor oi' �di3�3 ��id to ilgt3ti e3 pe:1 iao rsnla►rgta €ass aasia3�its ^ch ant t�9ery Atrc�tztao - ca: applicaatat caa rat otr dSateaacoer fess qui on Jtm 95® 19+64 potitionor appealed to the Board of Appeatil for a Variance from the aglication of the r.* Ore39.a?t ce and a hate Use hold in tlue'f fia;�® of the Inspector of Buhl cavae Rotas 70 city Eb.Ug. Salome MWtsoy to July 200 19(*0 All membere of they mrd were present at this boaxInao No one asppaaarod In cappotaltl=6 IV* Griff- n explained hid plan, Bits lot contains 2700 0=0 foots, diatances to abutters the exception* Both abUttera anent lejtters thay have no objection to proaa4od altorotio o . Pati» tiorex has lived In thIS hcaratto since 1 ovezbor 1950. By 7 I 5��r Rs-aA3.bart �lnc, W� ,_�• 26 �tosald �tx�ecito ArtNr bracqm jcsgph Po DoYla On August 27 19644 Wo Inapector of SaIdUvo, rePused to 1 6"W es for tha csvrsst uttt csra o carport at 6 ktcses drat becauses suesh cc tx ucti d In viaiatieaca e�£ the Ct + mar Sri; c7rd�nec thicta awe u rest t�C4iesCgx►r c� to thss caicle y Ice& petltSoFaax� e:acakd ea�lac� o�.y �ivm �essta Potitioner sp evled From thus decision to the Boasof A eai egad a aril v held on Monday► G caber Up l4 Purownt to notices railed- pootpaaid to the peti« t1lonear,. abuttortty mrd Pamberas and Gathers* and by advertleovent In the ftlom zvoniva Places. All mobesro of the Board were present at this hear s, Potitione* appeared Un4 stated his OPPOO16 in favor -of ganting the petition were Councillor George tbrquis, . a and Mrao Arthur Arsamults Josephine `iilbeaatltg Ja So Harrison, Chester Smochowiczo and Emil Dev000 There vms no oppositiona Afters due consideration with all members pre Mont# by a unOulmous vote, on the grourcclo that an ordinance re.- quires off-street porking of vehicles# hence petition- or in thio Gass weeaauld hes wduly subjected to a hardship and furthermom it waste bo unJust and therefore the soard allows the appotaa �'��O • A ��j6dophF ,bxoaqua • • OISIOUS - Jame Do Smitho Arthur Labraeque 64 Pazorlal Drive Joseph P'+ Doyle On August 21 1964* the 0tor cif, ldir" refused to oue a paqmt fur the ac�rirudtloas of a axe Ot 64 Nom- orXal iDrrvra because such construction bo 16 vjo a. tion Of than MY Of Sa cm ZOnSug Ordinance whish roquirso a ton Ptaat dlist&oce to the side boundary line, and peti- tioner could mallow only rive. resat* Petitioner app Cd front this deet ai an to than Board of A a and was pea hearUV hold on Mia** September 14 , 19aG:R gam' "oumt to notices walled Postpaid to the patitionor, ab- !Q board , encs otksers#, and bar adv ia(s nt In,the em Evening now$. All raembars of the Board were present at this hearing* P8- tltionar appeared and stated his iappetal. Thera uses no op- po,Qtloaab . Attar due consideration with all merubaro present, by a tris-. arms a vote, cA the grounds th is ars ordinance requires oaf street park of vehicles* heaQo petitioner In thic C406would be and y oubjectod to a hfardshipp and furtxiercore, It would be unjust and therefore the Board Les s the appe s16 APPA C J° b BOARD QP APRAL #3T. is re . r 9 i • Stafhan Smith* �Y 4.F8Y• agd�PY4� V On August 23, 1964, the Inspector of bAldbW, ra r ed to issuo a permit for the Gonot 'coon of aaso at 0 m ori eve.. beca use IIx constrootic�xt pubo in vola- tion of the City of Salem Zoning finance which requires . a ton foot disgrace to the anidei boundary lim, dry potl- tioner could all m orAy five feet* Petitioner appealed from this deoiaim to the Board or Ap- peal and a haex°iria %ma hold can llonday# September24s 1964, pursuant to natricou mallod poet pp�id to the P$titio r* abtttora' hoard lZrs�, and otcr of and by advertieemorat; In the Salem Evenim News* All bwbera of ties Soared were present at this hearing# Petitioner appeared Ot;at:od his Weal* There was no, opppositioU6 After duce consideration with all members pr eaeut,, by as un-* animoua vote, on the grounds that an ordinance requires teff street: arklbs of t chicles# hensce petaitt on r Jtv thin case mould unduly outs.,�€acted to a ha�^dohip and 15wthor- ore 3t: would be +5uat iwd therefore tho bbard allows the appeal* AMAZ MMD BOARD OF A AL ueoretary J w me W ffif� �t�t �icaah p4�t3'ees 143 north Ctrooto Arthur Labrocque. et August 1%,,0 the loapector of Wads: r�taa�d issue a� peat o iveart: one aldo of the tcost° €aai a �ts�a dtl t►t l�� ac�icat tq pdc3 an ndd�t�.e #��. �+ ♦ act aauc3� + "�® ��.� �t�.d �n tr>�ca&�t�on off' t is ��.t� erg �ar9.�.df. +�„ ��SGN ��:� erhich t3tatea pro��dO # ��b�t d�bavc� ��3Ctsod �,ta�r"a On A 25. 1964# ptttitioner app ed to the �d of I ca ^ v icmco Fret. the a p�atican sash the ��:ng Rig 9 • At. }gearing . � 0 the DOW,d of Appc3€�. tOrO Dreamt.*. Wim. Polt-xi4a a and d 4�xPl aine d US POtitiOno Ho Mead kid ht the property as raw taotyt4m caro and the cortzago pa nt,a am high and he oeedb additlonal rOVOhMa 60oat appeared in oppoeltiono Afte r duo cOnaidoratlon thereof the board by a ux icouo vote of * fives xwnborts p £st3cit end vcstIag uta the � t that the rataexis and need far the third floor oWU*nt ere riot Sufficimt to taker thle case out of tho c of c0066 %tercin it does not appear to the Board to be 111thAD the Intent of t,be, ftnd n� Ordloancoo In ar d.U. 1oas0 =Mw-re gad 1t lie# .thin the d3tsoretlov of the Ward DOOM voted WMIOMto taphad the 0610i= Of the Idus Invector. Byl = � I R , 4� �` { �,a :. s is � �.�, .;i : �; x � ,R +e i tt Y � a X R Y a} ti .L % f.�� # iA.i. k'+'X• .._ o X: ti. s Yf rk. a �� ' ,R�.- �& M.' '1` . # " # s - i a `Rrv � rR a `�. RRss y � r '. #9[ y.s } # • # x: s �# t 8# r �#'•R 3 a- w. �!# c�t e a ' b.: }, r:�, ;, y •. �{ � -y M L # -k �R#.� b. R ' # :m.Y .'- � L Y 4 Y t r ay. '.A Y ., VV Ea ..+ u R. {n R R - M } R ..3 ii q. . `# S.R k�C 3 a+�# .: 3 k � a.-. 3T: .'/ !'I R'#i ' R f }' 1 . i',s,"' # R CRY•>Sii` ` Y'. X k. '.5 s; -?. C F 4 # Y �s, s' ,'� R k..'z i�� .,a ,� ; L.4s#'. � i G '4 -R. i }.. ,}r' i ; 1 k f 'r i s 'Y$ Ha rk. R'3.: s.g.e:: � . -R 9 R i4f •H,J:.i X, f r �.I'S }. �, o' �1.1�'.> bR.3. - i ,i. #'ply �. l.Y. f$ Ri 1. 1 " i � R A4 '.K €.' �� t. .} `+ a :5 ' Ya #� i � + �. R% . d . iR i,b�.� Y .t `C b�iB 4 6� i � a &R •R3 .. #4 'tk . y t f9 #� r ' R' I .i a�. r2 e•t a: ' R . �y. i ':.i Y . A':i' .TR � ��U F� 5 R x' K4T , jF � . S{ Z � i is Art:!�tsr .��ac 430 Lorlr4, Avormo Jos ftph Pa Doyle an July 30, 1964, W, Tbabeo ref'ucod aporch to erect a two a3tory addition to his z JIN a at 4130 fi art Avenue Av a n such construct ion would be 1 vin�t.033 th Zea din co which requires s ton foot dintance to the) boundary . 1110410 Ptit4 ioMr coo Falba only 7j feetir Petitioner au ed to the Ward of, ,Appeul for a variance from the a Miot of tbo Zonftg flydin anco# d on t1ond aye 4aptamber 1964, a bcorlM m ao had uat to lei 'got t3 3 p2zfi 1 i the I ^ Evening raw 4 T3�lGlS7e3 c a e d postpaid to the paatitlwor, atautttsra, Board Members# and ottaerc p At this hearing all combero of the Board of App o were prtaoort e Mrs Thebergo appeared and wple+.ivdd the plo s of the proposed addition* ` Tin Is a tam fcpily dw7.11og# He seeks ra variance to build as tva story~ adddi.tson 76 feet Crm adjacent property and t'bn trdinaaaace, raaquirosa ton foot* 1tpp rIM in OPPOOltiono vnre rAry Yeaai.a 1ri, and W04 't<`eallett, JOWPh l i.bito and vary After dtY., eon ai deraati on thesreof# the Board by ua ni.tousa veto, all *oro par ovont w4 votfta on the grounds that, tho per. ,posed constructlon would not a ubototiaaly ddzro to fron the intent =4 purpose of the ZorAM Ordiumcco granted the i€a a APVZA7 GRAMD* BGAPI) CW APMALO �aOcroer e i J r� CD ® � M -v res 1 wwoa30 ft f f40 $. o1w "o ft1110 *1 - sumt o i I � "o hoew" *as ., "144 o v 0 `� �0 . gots � x Ar � . l l�* .a� bo I *y# govulbAt s to UA i V * OWO AMAL 1 , P � J m a .8`� �V\) V T • W O a i i m D m w w q�� p v V J preaOt at WA . . fp to to but o 4k uq* . mar W, - Voatdbyo monUoua Olt of WAIM OP OPM OY # bo=oa duch lion f tow by tobo *vis as w y to tho at ' dr tho balicatlaft Of °dao swam Aftor vow" ouwx* t€ t �{ tb�► WO W APM J mu Drive* 40 d , tea � bra �c+3 * t" o �E �s AU wom W"aft at tbft Vi s: Aud witts � . ' yo�N �t l��" �iFM+av ¢gy¢y �M©�yy�}N�4� ��p��j� E'�{Y,yMtjc��4(� •.{g•.�y}fd�ll�il • Y I 1 votutt Dad to b4d It tho arfct of tho Ugoovtor ot eS3x a# Raw 7# Cit' W1, r Oatbbar Itgy194 Aftar �� i 5 yah# b` *A • tho 0mund# hl o w.thmt a a r b* mot of tbo in bib Or" am the tit v aA Mea VVmtv4 %be varl4m o VAAW dM r lot DovarAbM 19% Of tho D*rd or in 'Z6 OMOO a tbo UM city a"I* Sato* 6t 7125 Pon* ft Up bM * Up4m ftr a *o'er to anov tbo awaruculcmOf 0 vAth +* 4 tori � 2� � Sys All ftobm ofthoWard AtWo im p * SwAw 0 Plou v dU* 0 by mmuftovac or tbo fctwpft0olot OW WtU cam , . "r� d tbo pmt md v4rp000 of tho + � Arte * OVAL cM* ST a } >. , -' .y ,i ..r � . �'. ..Ix'�^ � o �v. ,� ` .p +ra. .. Y � `. ti' a 1:.F:r< P p-L:_ P, r..a', . ' � = ..E d a �. ' w ?3 .p >K .zl.. c.. a 3 �'. ;a 5g:.{�.'. x w F p � �... ,.tl ., ,.. _. Cl �".A [ v • t s>.g'. R�" i f N: ' �.'b v�. ffi 2 6$'.' ;(y, 1' a h'. ;d < : 9 k'a� '7.1' v �3.+y� t a p.�74 �J .'s. r e o 'K S .t. r�.� i � ,. t: a >7,.,:�. 'X r ." �F. f "k,.c.�.x a '� .� x t . s ' J iy. r � Y....} I / I� /. •: -i i • sst 3 Z S# M a 1s 14 of ftu4im" o'er 4�CA�k s ft vo*4w 23304 Jaz 71p#otk a 1414ruw Am tuo t s It. � � t bo � of 3A , �_ 7*. 'tNeu# All s or US prosoft sit tbu hwl*$,* th . ` �Un art fir* � � tri mto of tbo ftur mvbo" ProtUl om Tau op t, its UO ft VO ta'iMrrm v l o damgaa inowt, " iaf irfba `d "* t%k tR s# #fir. two ro ;gyp" Ali . i �. J w O c m cn m ` w 1 a w 0 0 c m a m w w Po ut � r a t to cc tma a perch a d tit# CUs" at � t&Abiim s WO tilts ,0s bo so ,10% for 4 fi;*nAr, an Ubwd on 4h0=07 'd 7th gym, xt � ;u ; r Ad '1 t s *f t avd� w _ tto tivos. maluva postp*14 to b t4� A. m ot tha Board wwo pro"ft with Ubo OU40ticM or Ww roulaof* .7A rovor of Mins04 UtIo n U46��y comeal a 2" Mv ' `* fit# � i 4 of 14 W abrim StrOt, b tip: Ot*t 4 t"# UVAa4 10ft fib$ light ut two Of Us roomy brave UMO 04t*4tba UO potitipW bUjed #xio in Tho ftord Wt that or the flat* 41hi t VIOLA bbe ti**. bye' wo regmo 0 4mo room a4diu4o to hie bow * 0 APPSAL t DBCISIOB — Ret Saverio Ciruolo 22 Irving Street iiEtr PUZY_ , 4 noon Of A 99 At a bits j t* Q407ri6 di. * . . V f � ig 36� o1, �ol rim WAC , r a silo ;x.«00 t 'lsuoOf t � � City # e s t" t Ad Pura-W- t toA*t00 t t # PEI ` itrs 3e4 �stR�t+ r Aft4w oft t sm a tubsAG of t 4,, t� tis ' bot bo to Ohli* t OGO"# AVM" DOAM 4W APPS" or 4: y fw } L ! -n. wYkr. td i* • lb a %. Mq i i .Y �,k YYY k { Ad.%�. C 3 - „- 8'ai � S;k .: � t. ' }:,s� •1' k ; sP $ a + #::. b n ` + '. r a- tAlt 3. R a $. ..t ;�. # ! & v Y r• f n k•.. � .r. is � t .. r October 29, 1965 PETITION: : Frank Famiglietti, 7 Winter Street To alter three story wood frame dwelling to provide fifteen studio apartments. On September 14., 1965, petitioner was denied a permit by the Inspector of Buildings to alter this dwelling to pro- vide fifteen studio apartments as this area is zoned for two-family residences. On October 5, 1965, petitioner through his attorney Mich- ael J. Harrington, appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance of the application of the zoning law, and on October 25, 1965, in the office of the Inspector of Build- ings, Room 7, City Hall, Salem, a hearing was scheduled on this petition, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and adver- tisements published in the Salem Evening News. All members of the board were present at this hearing. Attorney Harrington appeared for the petitioner. Many people appeared in opposition, their names not taken. Mr. Harring- ton made a statement at the outset in which he in substance said that on account of the nature of the opposition, the petitioner had decided to file a new petition. Result was no action was taken by the Board. BOARD OF APPEAL BY �% ti'k it , ,ae a0 ':•r:` .¢ � .' ;. x. '.a.g. a :;4: .e .y¢ •' ,a.. v»a. ay � q•.. �'fi: .♦ '�:5.. rf`a ':,s. e st,.-: 'A.'+k" ,< rt ,,#Ry . iy ,. � : . i, ,Tr:n `�t�r.'.:.ru +~a •rs-. :.. a-e3 ui;...i c' .b ,,� - '. #. T •.a �1t� � t �} k age #, x Y � d 3x""... .}:a. � yr ,l"'Ta: .._K - a-w s 's ,kq�: 4sxR+.: � -k:-. S .::y# a'h r' ', K +4. •' .' R .`:xd:i .:.- .�:. a y;: : 's !'� �, >F :4: �rY �'.:. T.` : �4 dai:m:» + .. , ay. . � — ,:.*•a. 1rw•-> gri a :, s' _ . �°9 `e i'-...a.� �' �'..%��r .3 -n • 'i eK Y :a4 a p ij}^. i k=in.'.. p. i' ei INr ♦ <�4" A. _,. A* P'R '.4.:bP} n1, a bt.� G i '45.. _ x of t , a�si #x. .a.. n; .°4' �Y R f,b ..•` .: »f x :.,, m . � r F".t.. c ,, ,.� -. pa> .{ 6�. •: a.'�` .n'-rr3 e:w: i,°0 : _ 44 . r...wr-: _r§. a:�i n - #} = s.a f Y vi '.�' r4d.a'. + {,' - • {,. ��.y: .# '� b ywn.w{g: 3- 'a a:,. .dyf '{. t ..nja+:YrT ab: •e - +.'s .3-.- w � ;4 z� xK .,'r-; c•. E ♦r: i ) 4fi: F Z#1' 'Ak#:.�1 4 R iK f • Y `� 4 1 }4.y ..d SY 3- sE .R# •.1,. x.:.bgs�nc � is.%4k z. x a t `!; � kix aik �:. «i K^k .. +:r3 nY ♦ }:Yrv..... �a. . r ';..: T ... R uK ,�. n 3 :£', '4 a' r•. a 'r w. : a.2x -' ..Mia i3 PSax a.,.' =ib2': i}:'� "x fi. a�w q ,x . K ♦x- •IAr:'F ..a.aT-t., � i K':4 s c .y4'»: ; r, tr t , Y ' .:+ * 1 i r 1 1965 To OreetAUY Willing lot �� c $44, tt, 2863 ft* ftqUirawats or* '50W tt lot 40 fts ;rrmtec i 10 fC to sidenLoon# 36 it rear At 0 maw " of th* ftar4 of d the fJAaOf the $�. o at Citi* 401, vo# OnAsy rU51, tho boriag jas rasauwjd on the 4bta" mantlowA Ostltlov* • ALL 306Present 4t thit h 6 Tft MO "tech tMOUNQualy to cousinuo thif Com With the mderat=dlza Oat petitioner ia to tiio appro" PrIato petition with tho Pl �. 4 ,.�, .. ,�. :a'�v .4 y F:.., 't i .a:i:i p C l: • 1rA, ;fd F, ar.} ! �, A. ♦ v. � } 6 ex T . Y k'.# Yr#^.3' -,µ ♦ �!' � a apt . ..w .«k p p a' s •�: A � -+ w ':t . .#,_'-ty � a". wr rt. . .. ria i a' ....a :p 3 a s i-.. . # s, ` 4l''�'•*' ¢'k . * ; '4-.,a . w. '4 ap n•T- efM W- A t i,s e } y:.' v! � d ♦A ...M{+# fr' X3 T.' i 'e�.'. ':.R b 4 !°i •ifie • ii'. .<}'#i3 # , y..Y`.0 -t'-5 . : ". ap Fra - } 4 a .,a Y.R ! A A «!x #' »..<.. X+qS •. y .e+Y•Mi tl 3' .., y � .� fy;. : }, A rr-: sass k. a }.:', � t� . � a - 'Y fi ■a � .a .. :...+ c: " z4 3. 8- } # '. # - r. a a�a.- '/- 5 « r* a: 'w. ' t � c: e a: Y ,{� 5♦ e 4 , Y a»i - Ft '.-� a � >.. pi Ni<I '+.a e�•i 4+ • p . '}'+e Y .« a y r #,ai (v,#..ter.! y. y. }Fx *.., �.�_. :ai ".#•.# # y.. 4' .4. :' } .�,M' # ':x ,y. Y• F -N6! .+ ' t am k:fsa5 e . L i44_A4 i:.-YY'T'w R*4�' is rc...:"} # tf#.., M6.c .., . �3 i a ° a'- _ - ♦ �A: Ri. f# # .•.W . '1 # i . sa'p• }>r. s #. - .� 'p A:i 97 .�' - s m >•. .. a.� ♦ 4 yl. W" a. .. .-3T .y ♦ a A+ i� p . a w +..s§ 'Y f' .w t' : bw' .a i v #.ea@-, `3 ai' t 'sR. t' § aA ai i "�• e � #`kl A 4' '1 i fl•Y:x1A i iwyRs#'} ), '4 i #- Yth.• k.. 4r3.fa « ��.... d.� Y �# h t !`p �k le • ' ? $'� f i 1*!. k ', :# s ia# j ""E?® i'➢c. +:4 ? ..8'.'. - Y#'# +i ' � s t ^s• # 9 a a:,i a �f:* ..w:s . •h r,W:r '..x >:i r.rt - p. . a. fir.. i «y ,. .Wl ' a:#.en4A x i ..a-< "c,i- • ♦• t�, an r. •.p x . :.:.4': pe —E Y'#M a* -- 'i.#. #sa# .# #." A' ♦ # #4', F is ,i. Fta p a 4 i ♦r yy.� ':v#.eM 4r zt�>..ye# a w ° { Wpi '{ b f. -F , An ,: ♦ b. l !ptl LY=' Ra # '. A}Y:i# a #sNh.}, "a. 1 3.:: Y. `.Mr x .p F •=w" -♦ i. ♦ x� it :t .r .i • P.k;! y p .. F g - tr CIA �f$iPTT$� ��i$5�2IC�tISE��S Poarb of �Aypeal w,,.t.M .. ..Ro December 27, 1965. .JAMBS N. 00VlOER JOHN M. prygy ARTHUR L.RECQQE JOGpPN V, OOVI_H PETITION: Sale 4.; ^�s, Inc., Lot #51 Valley Street. To allow variances in relation to location of dwelling on lot as necessitated by outcropping of ledge. On December 3, 1965; uetitionar through Attorney George P. Vallis appealed for a variance from the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance as it affects the location of dwellings on lots of land. A hearing was held on this petition in the office of the Inspec— tor of Buildings on December 20, 1965, pursuant to notices. mailed Postpaidtothe petitioner, attorney, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertibements- published in the Salem Evening News. All members of the Board were present at this hearing. Attorney Vallis appeared for the petitioner; and explained the plan stat— Ing requirements regarding distances to boundary lines could not be met. After due consideration thereof, the Board by unanimous vote, and voting on the grounds of. considerable hardship to petitioner to deny this appeal, and granting the variance would cause no detri— ment to the public good, and would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, granted the variance. APPEAL GRANTED., BOARD OF APPEAL t By y P�l 1 it�.'i'6r.�.=� ecretary. !r • Applicant's attention is called to the fact that in the event sewer and water services are not installed in the street at � ,e,.,n this location, the City is not obligated to install the some. *mot a D3.V410 rMSIF .€01 ,,06 on lot Vit h 30 1.'t; rmktasor ftro reqAridl 5 ft to tick+ b on AU VAt �CfMa r' to to thea d of �1� for a� Go t:3aaas tr Utd 1a a b*uAddry �sf 016 lots res et the � I hR Oiuce proPorty . sAW-Ohn t r ti t+ y tion yeam rT4) And Mftv 'TtAWVUtrjt;j- d the DG€ vj tom" hwUM# and on Upt, .. 27*. 196% d carte .old this Petition in Chep � a � zwpiiilotor of 3 L d#> s Boal 70 Cita* Haut WoutV avantptw to vvtlaes Balled tiC t�Paar� €tfiauGxc , Kinard bora Waal Pa=t at thIS h*ArIM* A aarIr "itb the poutim*ri Aw-7 Tfivrotons, Thorem Wkn000 any 26 SWWa novAt '411k�. '40-M.4.4.Oratlov thaft0,r:,o '.the Ward by a tit a:terM and t t timt It voUM be a OUNa Ut lb p€�t�t �' h4 the � far ted �' .' its �B a*i ittat.�d Yoto mad ��rar lama t:3sat �t��s3�t�► & .eattntr c�' t gar3a+a ` SaW sow or, APML VARIr Y C � nT*Ita TUNI 40M.4 A. Sopy# 5 SOWOrd stat #. Altor ChU,4 fluor ot ba•"�*#tM 4*&Uiz& to vmvids an Odditi Ap*rt mAt3t for a earl ws trom th# opplimcion ott thm ordingat000 Mot the rAnbors of Oo BbarO vera precont pactat this to raO;t . [ + Wit; prat taa sa w c0=00z Otto Vie" oto tonoldarotiotii the noard votod [tt jr44z t y to w& p i i sax. on lawo growd's tomes to aro bordobsp �'��$,t��zc�u�e#t�. A a > ;f/G ortrcl of cAypval ''�N/� �Ef191}Vly December 27, 1965 111111 M. ""^' PETITION: Peter 'Pzortzes, 87 Bridge Street . Alter building to provide an extra room and sunparlor. Zoning requires fifteen foot set—back from the street , minimum side yard of ten feet, and restricts coverage on lot to 40% of lot area. On November 18, 1965, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to alter these premises since such alteration would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal on November 27, 1965 for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance. A hearing was held on this petition in the office of the Building Inspector on December 20, 1965, pursuant to notices mailed post— paid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. All Board members were present at. this hearing. The petitioner appeared with his nei.ce, Mrs. Kay Murphy: Councillor Joseph �- O' Keefe appeared and signified his approval. - Mr. John Hines also wished to be recorded in favor. After due consideration thereof, the Board by a unanimous vote of all members present and voting on the grounds that it would be a substant,i.al hardship on petitioner to refuse the variance, and that granting the variance would not substantially derogate from the in— tent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, voted to grant the variance. APPEAL GRANTED. BOARD OF APPEAL r BY _ ' ecretary �N - - ''f1 Q LD .A hr:. oflem, ttsttc �zse##s ,m 3 32e Pk 166 Poaxb of &1ppeA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE z PETITION: Sfi%AAA Ginsburg, 315 Essex Street. JOMN M.ORMY To erect addition to building to be used as photographic osER„ P. noY . studio. This is an R-2 district, zoned for, two-family residences. Petitioner can allow only two feet to side boundary, zoning ordinance requires ten feet. On September 14,'`"1965; pe idoner was denied a permit to alter this building to provide for photographic studio, by the Inspector of Buildings as suchr„alteration would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. On September 16, 1965 petitioner appealed to. the Board to reverse this decision, and on October 29, 1965 a hearing was held by the Board of Appeal in the office of the Inspector of Buildings, pursu- ant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Even- ing News. All members of the Board were present at this hearing. Attorney John O'Connell appeared for petitioner and presented photographs showing the proposed changes. Mr. Wadleigh the contractor, spoke, also the petitioner. There was no opposition. Mr. Sweeney of the Planning Board requested the Board, in the event the petition was allowed, to include a proviso that adequate provisions would be made for off-street parking. No final decision was made at this time. Mr. O'Brien, the Building Inspector, and Mr. Gray, Chairman of the Board of Appeals, were to inspect the premises and report back to the Board at the next meeting with any suggestions they may have. Hearing on this petition was resumed at the November 290 1965 meeting. Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Gray after their inspection of this property made the following recommendations : 1. Two-hour fire resisting ceiling on the first floor. 2. Addition on the rear of the building to be built of concrete block. 3. The apartments on the third floor are to have another flight of stairs, running from the second to the third floor. After due consideration thereof, the Board by unanimous decision, voting on the grounds that granting this variance would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and would nou be detrimental to the public good granted the variance with the above l.i.ated conditions. The Board Vof the opinion ttIat t•,hArn aro Ads- quate perking facilities. APPEAL GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS. BOARD OF APPEAL, . BY , �iacretary. VaTinot dim ftne Marey 106 Drtdp Street Proposes to orf9ot *4dit on to reel oxiAting atvAge t4 be Used rias OA4 station and car Mobt as W for a seer of yeaara. Oz September 3 1965 tho Uspoctor of Suild refused to Issue a permit to erect on a 4ditiou as torasttion waE's A be it violation of tba UtY of U140 Zeros Arluftoo which boo designated tbio a g-*4 as asa tw o,4swily r4oidenoe aiistriet, *Acro taimarly it was * bualacoa 416trricts Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal *a "ember 7, 1985 for as wrdriassaee to allow theproposed tai terasri ionp* A 7-,(,)r6X taa ms: e4s^asv es4 edas *ti �exatls p li's stwd t All Board MWAOrs wa o6esat at thio !ring* 14 U sszwe dee�,a lon of t Appeal Board to requmt the mwer to appy at the next sats. 03 t}ctaaor 5 3965, Si 4«- XU Board bard appearod at baa Vii * a� � t tba 4001sto' the Boas that the e ito1w r� 144 1 a now tri door prov,11 9 atruotural ehw4os W4 naafi, in the k'oor* aas OP JR BY / October 29# 1965* TXUM olove t 8* hvblo# J r*# "4� 4;0 Bre.do ftraeto *at* a" display of zowroy4os W4 votur 040DW4* 04 b 196$- :Lttmer wio reflood perott by bha parr bi to ift *x cozotruo- # u5# �i cs Asa Or#A has L4m to 9b$�r hold an Wo ritIon to who 6-Mot sof th All b*r* of the ftard waroprevent at thts bearing.,, $0- Itiorlor Wfor himolfg also C�oillor o' C`le Orad Counoi loo After 4w, oozalAorAtiva t4wreofj tho Boar uUnimus vqtzo VOW bre pant tbo vmrl prtsv IIor the CU7 r r Uto iW* U to BOARD or Armto APDL OR c 3 -v m c Y r W O O i ,_t a�-A. _ fN ..; � J ..d +S.Y r `♦ }4 'e Y 'k 'tiL - 4a r . :'.F. ' £ .. , rn �_ k.. mn .t • spa 'a 5,n } ' _ ► h f - -96 ++ f * s� i _d 6 n. M c = ' S # '.'. 2 i s 1 Y �'aae' .. { . i p. K•r 2'. :. d J:.^ �: :.... : S'. i Rb • 'e ..ta +. c% : N .. . xr .;' .#.V '. 3K L '., .. Yr 'K ♦ : :. # + Yd aw - '. F. � K ."; } SSL - 'ti } p: . - J. . x 'kY-:. ♦ . LK "- NI J. � :eF a .;... �,a. .:, d=i,ws'a a;. . `�s�f: i, . d R.'.a.`p, * nes.::••. s �t, <.,: 3 r � •..� s d # % saY laJ. a t�' 't,#'3 t J,=r UO W- � � mxxa,✓ nY 4 5..d M# � # n'.. "f.' . B;#t p=k. . ad - <=M:'d 5 a-uNt a 'i -a{A-,* It t '%,t-"fx .a::ri;.P.B h;- i.•; p i'1 %. ' '!''R i.o- '4' 11v . Ys'i F - i. Pb f 1�Y. _ f R 1it4, 'ke'" eY?' R"'}' . k ��r`-� = r•, .e r? nrB a4-�d'� _ a x ;;y T > r s. Ne 'b ,.l a#' r a ."B,^4 •.k.,a. e:q . s .« a ..,A a •#' x 1 -# ! }• - ; a.,Y' 4 � ✓_? � # v .'k..: +.a.e A r. Ca�r9 s &:' +-.,s ,.,k .i o it.c-.rtP r rz t'% 6' fN,' p.'T w` x i•i.e ' S ,ati �. xx+ ,cs %'# §;¢ _ +,?. 'xS".. s er s•. it;eds. } : '.,i s� -, 'ac•e i�. . r, ra4.. z R•pC ' i '.f r'"e rL m.e i a � i .J{ : k f'.�yY y" Y'!,- . d "z:.}�' % ^� 5 s: � A...a. d k _t.a '" f i mk (.i "• b' *=a ,'� F A � ,n .� r a`F.x: Y`#[ia�9 ♦. A9x 1' Y A Y '. 't� �1tyK e e ' q^ 4t-a•B+ sx axa, t >ats.R n i.':. 2 - k'�" YRs A s.# i.:e x¢ .:t a44"k'. ','4 -R`t % ✓ ., h^amk' n };a p3. l �.iS�#. k h i♦ .. d i... 'Y +�=R d ., l+q f✓ �k �N.x 8 . e' • kfN:4•B § ... F=+ �s�'i pah'i t } 1 f � v iB+'6 .•sa#: } '4 •..:f.. a4 a J. d P y-5 rc -. +ex'.,'' n;.s i' ,.k-,� w :X'.�:, R . k-d -. z z: i # T..' w. }...: s �,♦; :y r t.m. o.£*d w� O 4 C s� a m rrY�� fJ f t W O O C 3 f2® m e �J $ 106o, 4 Axuw 40 to *v"+w*bter an War 00 AWVh Seo r ** Ift .* tbr4uo U. 06 OA-14414i VC tbo zwrje ordu*bcoo 1 � a s s * or toor ' # root �� vo+, y �i of oSaInm, ttss�zrl��asr##s Pottrb of \` w .M •. •®.o December 27, 1965. Jnq ee w. ea� o eR J JO MN M, 00.AY . nRTwVR 1s YR.CO VB oore PETITION: The Salem Glass. Company, 75 Canal Street. To erect addition to exY.;';ing building in a B-4 District, addition to extend into yin R-2 districtzoned for two- family residences; Zoning Ordinance limits coverage of all buildings to, $0% of lot area, ,'and' require.s a rear yard of twenty- i'r✓e feet: On November 30, 19650 petitionl&r appealed to the Board of Ap- peal to revers® the decision fused to issuof .the Building Inspector who re- , e a 'permit to erect this additio#1 since such con- struction would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. i A hearing was held',on this petition on December 20 1965 in the office of the Inspector, of Buildings, 9 5 p� postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Pursuant and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. A. Simon, representingAttorney Harry petitioner, appeared' with him. Mr. Simon stated that the company wished to expand,- and also stated the number employed by this company, and said denial of this ,pati- tion would be a hardship. Appearingin o Marquis presented a petition signed by Eugene1Tremblayuandlsix- ty nine others. Councillor Marquis' stated the area is already congested. Attorney Ralph Edelstein of Beverly also appeared, representing numerous abutters. Mr. Edelstein relied on the case of Sulli- van vs Board of Appeals of Belmont in which it was: held it could not be a hardship in this particular case, ,190 N.E. 283, because a hardship is supposed to affect a particular lot and it cannot Meuself-imposed hardship which is the situation in this partic- *" �ul&r. case. Mr. Haskell of Gardner Street and Margaret Freeman 4 "!CSp9 in opposition. .pecion: Voted to refer petitioner to the Planning Board to Conder the matter of rezoning in this case. BOARD OF APPEAL - - - Y9t✓(. 13.1 t r sere ry. _ su. December 24, 1965 PETITION: Ernest R. Belleau, Trustee, 119-125 canal street. To permit construction of buildings for commercial uses, including retail and uses accessory thereto, in area zoned for wholesale and automotive, and extending into an R-2, two-family residence didtrict On November d,, 1965, petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals through his attorney,. Louis E. Baker, to permit the use of land at 119-*125 canal Street by allowing construction of buildings for commercial uses,, incl,uding retail and uses accessory thereto, as such construction would be in violation of the City of Salem Zon- ing Ordinance. On November 29, 19650 a hearing was held on this petition in the office of the Inspector of Buildings pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. f No decision was reached at this time, and it was voted to continue this hearing at the nextrmeeting of the Board of Appeals. The Board conducted a meeting on December 20,9 1965s at which time hearing on this petition was resumed. Appeuribg for the petitioner were Attorney Louis Baker of Salem, and Attorney William Carey of Lynn. Also appearing for the petitioner was Donald Michaud, 111 Canal Street. Attorney Baker presented a written brief as well as an oral statement in favor of the petition. Mr, Baker also relied on Rodenstein vs Board of Appeals of Boston, 337 Mass. 32E. There was no opposition. The Board byiana:nimous vote voted to grant the petition to build according to a preliminary plan on file in the Building Inspector's office, dated July 6, 1965. This plan was filed by the Great A. & P# Tea Company. No additional buildings are to be built or erected other than those noted on the plan heretofore referred to. Board felt that the literal enforcement of the Law applicable in this case would involve substantial hardship, and the granting of re- lief sought is without detriment to the public good and would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinances, APPEAL GRANTED. BOARD of APPEAL BY U iU Secretary August 30, 1965. MITIONs Wilfred Rochon, 3 meter SBtreet# TO erect garage seven feet from side boundary. On June 2$s 196$0 Mr, Wilfred Rooban was refused a permit to treat aa � atant�ar Street by the Inspector of dinse At* niel J* O'Brien, Jr., since such coAatruc_ VMA A bs in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ord- Inoue whish requires a tees forst distance to the side bout— dAry line* , Roahon appealed to tht Board of Appeala on July 1, 1065 for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance A heart dA thfa petitf sri its meld ix t?ie gff`3ce of the sp�sctor 4f d3tadldfnsr 84gi 7r Cfty � , slemr on A�xglzat 2.3, 1965r pursuant to noLicea nail®d gtaatpsid to Lha pati- tioner, Bo Ord membmrs, d cat �axa� and advex i ementa pubes llabad in tho s om I roea :>g .tteazs, All members of the Board were present at this hearing,. Pro* Barbara Rochan i:fe of p®titionarr appeared in favor, There was no opposition After due considcrat on thereof,, the Board by ,a unanimous mater acid voting on the grounds that it would not den*ogste from the intent and purposo of theLOrUnance# granted the varlanea« BY lot' ri4.' 'v r.•e!a Y - u wt .. ,. yn #rr �.! '. .a+. �:& .r $'.R 4 ♦. _ .. R f, !'' �iS1"1: ': a 'k:. H .dfi, c ! 'i. iJ6 *.�'. r $ fi£-s .D$a..*`„t • Y'! > k '- a:#:tl ”! y.-. + hz-.6 3$ i1tr h'i l• .. .':N,E b � 1 $�,. I� e :T '. 8 ., = u ♦ A �? 9 xai h ' � �' . ^ f• _>: : ipx `A v ..jt�S a ' :.d,# F. 7i �A r• .» R " a . .iEr@R A. N.: A. T:nJ� ! 1 1 • ' te :.ir,MFT ,. ...- !i'sx it # fs� Ti 0'D ,:. . W t " :.fi,. ♦' •',o ', .t MF< ! •. } R v. Ryr 9' S x .b Y... * i ?'4 V � R" fizz i a :. ' 3<t .{-"f9A .y' s �g s April 3t 196$,* MTMOO: Alyra Thorlavlt# I ha i*y Strait* to *root Quart two tort fr Oda boundary11cog required d a—t"" beftga too foot* . At it veatIns. of the Soard of ApIn the rffiao Of the bwaatar of Ooil4sapl* City 9411a mon* Mbso# 'April 5 196 at tbi Sr— tag r4su6ed ce t patition, o` Alyro 1ho 4o drtat tares Port at I 00MY Ura$t* At At prior hosting heX4 In the sof as of tho bopeotor ot WIdU44# lc-, i463,v pirSumt to wt>060 M00, 04 V*Stpai+d to tho moi,, donor, Owners and at ra w Robert t an awt r# tired but d Meat state arty �a tI�iss* + JW .��s � � � Roy Wota d Utter atdt� � 0j-ftctl*a*# as stating Zbot tlro .tray bo, ims no, ainb'OOntd eta the heorlas bting I : an t All board miabore llitb the ax tom: of Xr# John Oftr vara 6)4 the April 5.01 hearifto Attornty 000r da prod tor, 't,$oner* rAr* Robert 801. Oppbaftd in OpogitioN After duo 400ssidorotion therooft the Roar a man vote of hies .tom , roa�a�st prat tit the � tbat It would ba a a t tlCede iea sAd allowneo voad not dQr4M*,t* .trm laest md pwT"a qt tbo nxdibana-v, Srautt4 the verlienoo but , idth thio xootrIction — iao mra, t three paato to to Vt04e4 4M add* of tart acina lora loyso tsesU004 PPS" ICT0. BOM OF AMS BT i a ata t a �IfU of cI11IT1l 4AIRL .$2it��$T4t`fts Asan of Clpueal 9 e December 27, 1965. JCHh nl. Gni n" <lal"H1J ti LpA RC:OI'E J Oti C.i•fl f+. AO .0 " PFTITION : Marie and Alyre Theriault, 1 Cherry Street. To erect a carport but can not allow required ten foot distance to side boundary line. On October 25, ;:.965, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a carport since such construction would .be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals on November 2, 1965 , for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance. A hearing was held on this petition in the office of the Inspector of Buildings on December 20, 1965, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, �. , and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing=,. Petitioner ap— peared with his wife, also Mr. Alfred Lebel who lives at 2 Cherry Street, appeared in favor. Appearing in opposition were Richard and Robert Roy of 7-9 Cherry Street. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant the variance with the following conditions ; 1. Roof to be nine inches from the property line. 2. Four posts may be installed if' necessary .accordirng to the de— sign of the roof. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS. BY 1 =•,'a urr w - - ecreta'ry: cm v LTJ la! C7 -' i 2% 1960 PSTVISS* _ftrothft Am 94rrY* 10 Dorbarb 16 WOO do to two toWo I t * 1900 o A. VUad for a t o tit % t4 * 4"UM sod � fto awb a $*U wo%Ad bo � , � �. ► � � ash` � � �" � � for o var a rnm Ot u ot t mrd: vme pramut *t 046 3 t Off' , jWbAt t bo * sit � s ond # a O . o fro um and Owpoe a t � tad Wil ;* aW APPSAL • J Qatobor 290 1965* PATITIM! Tbaddous nodyka# 91 Perby Sar t* TO *Uer third floor of 1W Irv* Luadj" is provido two ApartmO�ts# On deptsoor 3* 19,65* t t0, of 0 od to o a Permit t o .alter tbo t rd floor of a wood froze bund- 104 to pion ,do two apoiftonts t#taso auoh 01tarAtIon "Ov d be In vlolatIon of 880 4100 311 City of >d om �,oi10C Code* which stag # oto o�timg �ordl bu dl o to sj.* ter" " Ide o oA rt t above the o��aeotd flo'ar Petitioner o ed to the mrd of Asaj for t trarigneq to Allow the 'o�otoo� r��to�^o�,�o�o� & � as is�+o�t� Ease t� b�sr � � �, the ol'rlms off' t�ao nsyo *tor sod` &Axd� . 3 bt+'d jWU. gal exp* $F# t'�It tea ' iUs ,64 milod n#tt s d to the potitionoro abuttert# Doar d Mpbtoxq; d OWv 8otstt'iotar did not appecro AU mrd mire wers pm set Bora votos to tont -nthis hotrUs to the nut Ekmr+d of Appeal ,gearing* Owl October 2% 196,9, too ransad t ob thus Petition* t ido s * a3 0�o d a of oillor Jo ba Dwke Mae After due coMIdoration thorood the Bw,4 by o �eaot vote,ranted to d jr t� potition dt hod* Wt four forditea It t wooden otfruinwoo would be t how# CD O !r it 7 y W O ry�ry�� N TC V Y! m pei $'.S p Y.. a » q rYr Yv F �.• a Me 4 az 'i'e h.� a #'. .e 4 •d. {'s Ldn , a=a � z: e . M" a e_ ..>. ' Ke .pAY .ti E F 1.#:.: 77W ie t tt f,+ n s -as..• . x;. e y L J k- w O O M c CO 3 'o N m s ro W a O c mo m st J j# � , 4 cissarti setts T _ Pourxb of cA��pext December 27, 1965 �MeeM1v!no��o EA T f Gallows Hill Road. YETITIOPi: Saler, Acres, enc . , Lot , 37 To allow variances in relation to location of dwelling on lot as necessitated by outcropping of ledge. On December 3 , 1965, petitioner through Attorney George P. Vallis appealed for a variance from the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance as it affects the location of dwellings on lots of :Land. A hearing was held on this petition in the office of the Inspec- tor of Buildings on December 20, 1965, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, attorney, abutters, Board Members, and others, and. advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. All. members of the Board were present at this hearing. Attorney Vallis appeared for the petitioner, and explained the plan, stating requirements regarding distances to boundary lines could not be met* hereof, the Board by unanimous vote, and After due consideration t voting on the grounds of considerable hardship tp petitioner to deny this appeal, and granting the variance would cause no detri- meat to the public good, and would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, granted the variance. APPEAL GRANTED. BY BOARD OF APPEAL i • °' ecretary v nvNi i w w J J 4D r Ctu of 'alem, jfflassar4usldb s%` z P=6 of ' ,Apvpal December 27, 1965. J.>Mart 1i. ®UVt.a EF - J!MN M. 0R/,v ,FfiIJF L4O FF.COUC JCOrtrH n. UOYIH PETITION: Salem Acres, Inc. , Lot #45 Gallows Hill Road.. To allow variances in relation to location of dwelling on lot as necessitated by outcropping of ledge. On December '3, 1965, petitioner through Attorney George P. Vallis appealed for a variance from the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance as i:" affects the 'location of. dwellings on lots of lard. A hearing was held on this petition in the office of the Inspec- tor of Buildings on December 20, 1965, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, attorney, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News.. All members of the Board were present at this hearing. Attorney Vallis appeared for the petitioner, and explained the plan stat, ing requirements regarding distances to boundary lines could not. be met. After due consideration thereof, the Board by unanimous vote, and voting on the grounds of considerable hardship to petitioner to ati deny this appeal, and granting the variance would cause no detri- ment to the public good, and would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, granted the variance. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED. BY -77-mus Secretary: fj P - up Q G1 Z3 .- - - T yyrr t�i [I i1fE'ttTz r gilt ;tC�ittSi` ff ry ` y ern?/ 1(121T Of C December 27, 1965 PETITION: Salen, Acres, Inc. , Lot 7'r'85 Gallows Hill Road. To allow variances inrelation to location of dwelling on lot as necessitated by outcropping of ledge. On December 3 , 1955; petitioner through At George P. Vallis appealed for a variance from the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance as of land, it affects the location of dwellings on lets A hearing was held othis Decembe — r petitiol in the office of the Inspec for of Buildings on 20, 19651 pursuant to notices mailed Postpaid to the petitioner, at t and others, and orney, abutters, Board Members News. , advertisements published in the Salem Evening All members of the Board were present at this hearing. Attorney Vallis appeared for the petitioner, and explained the plan stat- ` ing requirements regarding distances to boundary lines could not be met. After due consideration thereof, the Board by unanimous vote, and voting on the grounds of considerable hardship to petitioner to deny this appeal, and granting the variance would cause no detri— ment to the public good f , and would not substantially derogate rom the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, granted the variance. APPEAL. GRANTED. BOARD OF APPEAL =o �, BY a .fix a� ecret&ry: :.i WW - - J J 3-4 I � �yAp { Auvat, 30, 1955 KTITIOTir - Phillip Soucy# 24 Goodell Street. To erect addition to dwelling to provide additional aleceping quatteroo 10*„2u from front boundary line, ge„Au from rear line, On July 33, 196$, baro aoucy► was read a permit to arecs an addition to his dwelling ;since Such construction would. be in violation of Sac, 2A, Dear. 2 of the Zoning Ordinance which requi.reea a -fifteen foot t-bAck from the Street, and a distancee of thirty feett from the rear property line, Thr, Soucy appouled to the Bard of Appes .1 an July 3 8v 1965 for a variance from the spli.oation at the Zoning Ore in0ces and on Auguat 23, 1955 at 445 .P* a hearing w given On tieia ppatition in the office of the Inspector of Btii3dings, . esm 7, City lialo U-jam pursuant to notices trailed post- paid to the petitioners toard Members, abutters, and others rend advertisements published in the Salem Evening News# All members of the ward were prevent- at this hearing* pro souop earing - Soucp appeared at this heatring and stated that the heat in the house is unbeearable o No one appeared In opposition*• Amer due consideration thereof, thea Board by .a unwi us votes and verging on Cbeounds that it mould be a substan- tial gi p: ted &Uowng the variance would not derogate from the Ifitent and purpose of the Ordinance, granted the Variance BOARD Off' AM APPRAL GRANTED-i By � eerr�ttts y► y J SK ' 'Rr� • s: a ' N'er - s'P J -. f e ' s j. r . N as a ie N � i ♦ i .4Y k:' 5 f. 't.3 3La'• a N, A } .;_fix' a.i # 1« .�.. !�s- tY F' f-44 y {.x Ca6,.� ( •r:t -,A J ?'a 4 ♦;.. d . ,-e'�4. w k. i h+ -Y W t s }x-fa "i i. . -.+:.. � M' i axe n {t• 4vf - . } -P" ' . `•Y i'4 {', x • Pi,+e N. ;Y a �'a • t 5. # v � ck A. Na P. � k'. b f. ; 4 x -• k ♦-� )•s NSM.. Naa sY ' }5. z w{.a Rn a1 % ti gi. dY pY i f Y aY : . 4 a, t�x i a #� n,1 a' - s ;' S �. - 1 ♦ "k . F +da#k sa: s EF k 'r '�.+ PEA : OSW kt4 :2 P• R.� R 4 � �i }. '.N A:� i -' S' 'a :nx,s-': 'e' -.% i. r r a a w r n 8 ♦ -4q: t i.,a i k .- 6 c k+;Y 4 .5¢N i .it • .wY s .?"i N k�' • tib.,q. R .'{AN.i =. e. Y n AT .J B ✓:D._P: 1 M • %'.n ! tl 6x k i M 4 ¢� .:a a 'f 4 lT {"P Y Y.f. 9EPRk i' r Y +R..P t } #v r � k.NT l.i s dy c+l : •.s F ,A 1; J,7 i To tas* the tam Cdr of a tuo aA CrAwbat or ' Ldpx� t� 1000 4 �t for tba OAM now a 6 I fkm4 Otwou to pftv%4o a hftrina t . bd � $* fids 3t 'U* *Moo � Us o ��' � *# 04 add 4" tvo Ic to a' :too „ 1965 %h*ftrlzs too rtaw=4 A tbw arm OU ` tw • Att 0*14ory O; twvl* for '4 ba pastlomrs � , E40 r6Vx*ot*d* wd Uld 0 tho Out a vould bo a gip' vot*4 Oro" MOM 47 # L sY' ; 1� �Ziv !.� .�.:. " r .. - F.� i:y w' k. .. ,.. a ... •! s mrx' V k^� v e. t i.i-7t '- xfa R F sk A.a'e #tt' .��.. .•,A Y; 3 # y: .'�1 �t+}" � '.:> • • 4' i9_9 ,.j.... V f Vi s Y J te4 i.��: . ">f-�'. n r. � w ..<_v' - + 'a�� A a... of.3'- i t.. .nr t }. +V.... .Y.a _ F" 'h9 t + R s Ea '4 '. A:-tl } .k.:u ma .-A-v i +f <a - SY i s,�a' M' ��,a 3. . r' • e _ "ya r�3-' "1 V T Yr 1 "A M.E _k x r x -�{f t 1 w- 'G. r '� $. }t si f k'a..a ' neer a,k S x ".4 9 .fie - '4 a �`,w .{. . �vv ;:' Y:h �,fY.t+ � rnM1'.V4 ". A� "1V 0 Y ^k'Y„+ -.Y" •'�'. •:F �.. � , ��I k:: .4 O ♦� October Ot 190* MITIMI Jam p1saftV4 311 His . ' A'#aDT3t3et, To OrtiOt 40 butaMbUO 4LOPUY arm# ACV scoft deo roquirge 4 s*''t: back ftsm otroot I es let area a l2s000 ft with a 100,oft fraotasof, yard vt 10 I rear yard of 30 A# a 0v#x age by *11 tepeember Ss 100,o 'blue at or of ft- ildiag4 rafe4. to Asad 4 poralt to trach a g to be uW for dtlst sa �f � b $ Ouch a3 tiuotl+oh wouldbad la Pot itio Op the Swr4 of alppe"t tar a varisneo from the Iftarson or the zftftsmaeo, and an t cs luppootor iso' fta4'AAPs Robp "fit City, 4oltaw p e to wbia" mailed postpaid to tho peel- ti t* putalsbad to tho, 4 iviig h7amv, AU =wbotv of the Board wart pvsont aye this ing* Ntittator *ppeare4 and Otat od VUt thiobUildift web was the Stdbjectti matter, of the potIt Ion W beam started onprovio tso ob by a loth to 4 ft a fttid September 16# 196$x, as A ee�pt� to the Zaaug n- i 2Ga0 be ra€i1d ba vo px�ed * After fto c idw*tU s thore.of, the Board by e unaulmous Qm entad v bi + a t* mod thata kad act acro to from frt =ratan � ' the OftUmoijo V=U4 the varUM060 or AM By RW1S .`fin ®[ Tf J o ` it�fIlT, cT S2zCI�LtSE tS r a oarb of rAf,f,eaf H,. �.. December 27, 1965. iuEc N. eo�wEe ._ . �fiTHUli lPPri P.CgVE - JG8E1'ri v. pOC PETITION: James Grasso, Lot 111501 Highland -Avenue. To erect automatic car wash in H—C, Conservation district. On December 1, 1905 , the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an automatic car wash since such construction would be in violation of the City of Salem ton— ing Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal, and on December 20, 1965 a hearing was heldon this petition in the office of the Inspector of Buildings, pursuant to notices mailed , postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and • others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Petitioner appeared with his wife, and stated that he will spend $125,000. in order to improve the premises; also, that there formerly was a used—car lot on this property. In opposition, Anthony Pero of 2 Barcelona Avenue, a policeman in the City of Salem, appeared and stated he owns two houses in the vicin— ity, one house being directly across from the property of Mr. Grasso. After due consideration thereof, the Board by a unanimous vote, voted to refer petitioner to the Planning Board as a matter of � raaoning is involved. J 'in BOARD OF APPEAL BY -ru y to Secretary:` Applicant's attention is called to the fact that in the event sewer and water services are not installed in the street at September 29, 1965 this location, the City is not obligated to install the same. i ---- - -- -- — J PETITION: Camp Lion of Lynn, Mass. , rear Highland Avenue. To erect a recreational building for Camp Fire Girls in a B-1 area which specifically excludes recreation buildings. On September 2, 1965, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a recreational building as this area is a B-1 dis- trict, Neighborhood Business, specifically excluding, - - "recrea- tional buildings". Officers of Camp Lion appealed to the Board of Appeals for a var- iance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance, and on September 27, 1965, a hearing was held on this petition in the office of the _ Inspector of Buildings, Room 7, City Hall, Salem, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. All Board members were present at this:-hearing. Attorney Charles Ingram and many members of the Lions Club of Lynn appeared in favor of this petition. No one appeared in opposition. Ater due consideration thereof, the Board by a unanimous vote, and voting on the grounds that it would be a substantial hardship, and this is to be a charitable institution, and allowance of the variance would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, granted the variance. APPEAL GRANTED. BOARD OF APPEAL BY Secret "ry." ftobor4 i6 fthuoidory "* T 4W*4 ,adWA4n to to prw4ft 300 . l rear bouudaV7 n 14 044 *tltl4MOr *JW *U*W On r 23# 1965 ! t of pct � . 4 t W et tk Owe h 4o�ms� i 3 An,wolatiap or tho city or a r4nbv Ord e' titioner appWod to tW noftd ot Appc l on soar, l* 196$ for 4 ` iVACO fha tho amlloAtwu of thea � U46400 A tiring half, an thle pot4t fib. r s 010 b the 7#, CUY 114U* staftiv� to Flo 104 poat;wl � pot.it vt "Ut o, 414= ftaulni PotAtlow *p*�r � b!'+r 1N Q �'S" f3`E�iaeffi�G tod t�tMabs4ringozor P ' Ft ter,. tib mcorded in ftvor* go one Appeared la :b:: Yet � " t � �. '�a cowa a sub s : t �acz u�l trUm By u x a September 3, 1965. a W UP PETITION: - Saverio Ciruolo, 22 Irving Street. 0- c� To alter third floor of dwelling to provide an additional apartment. ce This petition had been denied at a hearing on January 18, Q 1965. Petitioner's attorney, "David Burns, applied to the 0 Planning Board, for permission to file new appeal as re- quired under Section 20, Chapter 40A of the General Laws . On June 21, 1965, a hearing was held on this petition. All members of the Board were present at this hearing. Appearing for the petitioner were Attorneys David Burns, and John Serafini. A statement was made by Attorney Serafini to the effect that two elements were present that were not brought out at the January hearing: : 1. Fifteen neighbors on Irving Street are in favor of 41 granting this petition. 2. Financial hardship as shown by a statement of a cer- tified public accountant, Stanley Hale, 76 High Street, Danvers. Appearing in favor were Richard Dunham and his wife Rose, also Barbara Allard, all of 30 Irving Street. c Appearing in opposition were Edward J. Freeman and his wife a of 20 Irving Street, Mrs. Anna Burton, 24 Irving Street, and Catherine Dunn of 19-21 Irving Street. The Board voted to continue this hearing until its next meeting. ffi W On August 23, 1965, hearing was resumed on this petition. After due consideration thereof, the Board by a unanimous vote of all Q members present and voting on the grounds that it does not appear to the Board that the petition presents a substantial hardship, and it further appears to the Board that granting of this var- iance would substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, denied the variance. APPEAL DENIED. BOARD OF APPEAL 0 BYe� cr�' . i HEARING JUNE 21, 1965 PETITION OF: SAVERIO CIRUOLO, 22 IRVING STREET, To alter 'third floor of dwelling to provide, an additional apartment. This petition had been denied at a hearing on January 18, 1965. Appearing for petitioner were Attorneys David Burns, and John Serafini. All members of the Board were present. A statement was made by Attorney derafini to the effect that two elemenets were present now that were not brought out at the last meeting on ; this petition. 1. Fifteen neighbors on Irving Street are in favor of granting this petition. 2. Financial hardship as shown by a statement of a certified public accountant, Stanley Hale, 76 High Street, Danvers. Decision of Board continued to await report from Ward 6 Councilor Samuel Zoll of the City Council meeting to be held Thursday, June 24. Councilor Zoll stated that the City Council was to consider this whole locality in regard to back yards, factories, and changes in conditions of any houses. Appearing in favor, Richard Dunham of 30 Irving Street, and his wife Rose; Barbara Allard, also of 30 Irving Street. Appearing in opposition were Edward J. Freeman, and his wife of 28 Irving Street, Mrs. Anna Burton, 24 Irving Street, and Catherine Dunn of 19-21 Irving Street. Mr. Freeman made long statement. No permit is to be given out ; await results of Thursday night ; Councilor Zoll will report. September * 1963t, v4ul tamanos 14t #1.63 I trvo o loado To erect 0ai a r 1y l lot contoulum aq ft ,rareoy r>~ ft bones roqulrodl 7-ft to old* 6iunftr3i# Q rovAx ao Om 40ptamber 7.1v 1965 the Ynapeotor of DAXlre�ed to Id» pi t to erect a � i" �` dwml- are 63 Utor" a a Road* bUt advj0sd ,W. LOSUM6 to app*4 to tbo Bard of Appo s far varian *$ from the tepplItaticn O' the 3fatn�t� tderd3naxe�om rnl�- tive to lot a sa„. lot troutaso, ad aldo Vard 'diatawo to teo - arq Une. fir. �mt3lana appaaaleet� tae tta L�e+aG a� Appcec�e; d can �e �# 3� a* fas°3tc > a h Ct pet: aa itts the tt'i"ie� trs lea �aa9.7�cecl p�satpt�� isa tvhte p�t:�tltls7�t$r at231ntt�'as � �"` �.�' bok'as ated a+thetirG� aAd tkdi'��:�gpl4t!! wed 3tR th2t .lam $1fa Ing go,** . boawd vambera * preamt at thSa hoatt°lug* Pat iti *+r aP- tprod with bib father# W# Afthw LOMOAC who ratvoyred +0po0.0 oft ap"arad 3n opp"itiono After due camaidomt1an th ereof# the Boars by Unonlo= votes and vot on the tbot It va`ulA be a bub0t0tial hwfthiplo WA co of tJho w1ando would not dor-0pt►te from the Int and purpose of the 0rdUVu0e� granted the vatrftma ero c✓ i ♦ i y y p • �r # i :y 1 'Y t '�h a i t t. Y'ti '-s a o c i � A' 4.Q F. i Y` � • rtC �t �Y: T 9. t '+ t x-.'+'4ra s. . . .* � �, r,a,, a ? ai. z t eco €, 'i ..k.a; c. i- i- -. AM.• FC :< WL {t .S.ihf E. t+ ' :i ,y-#. - 'FS # T.' i .. » 's t� '. Y Y: '.A..- 3..' x,,.� ..' .}'.' Y 1'. 'e ±: 1'#. f � r".: y, 'Y. k - l'S 't ♦ 3-..A "> .F '" t •.#, r. � � ;: -.t. .0 • I 'h 1a' . t - ♦: a _ t s a .:.i' � e t ,a,r,x � s.Y .. y w " a- < ': '€ a 'r.t -:;w !..-. t.s e.9 - p f" ' a`JPp_': 'k Y 'F q' t s a rH� 'A Y t y - i R s > 4 a* v .Yx Y's t - r - rAt t ,a a �x .-. � a -Y: :: 4 � r d �' x 4 t �'P t t _ H Y i s y.p �. 'e- �.{ 4 XYixr u 1 c=' i ,ca 1. #r t : # 3.'6. #r,� a i. - 2 ♦ �x a e «.ss c, ., ;:: k.' f . ti' s z V -. .i . .A c $ ! :'.r, y J }a( ry t. Y '• A. .:4 • •fi i ; h ¢ � ., lV 'i a V� r 4 , & # k�. �i� v s to t .. .x..x W.tl Y-D.'.. K' ,y Sn Y�'a: ♦ q ,a ' ,e. '!'��` ai> .4i '}P .� aY it :'k .P9r.+iad i.xk y. u F ! .. 2 :. i:. . { t 3 4'. r F ',t� P ♦ 5 % F+. t.1. � - f e r �:.F . ...SF R c �t # d � t '.R � r♦ � C;. 4•t 3 i J v, WA»1b >#4 v.E 4 � ',S{ # ? - 5rd F � 4." ; ! i..N [}v 4 t *•a $ S rveS' m a : C R S:}.. = il5 .. t 5 . .F},:. 4.♦ =.Y'x}f A q 5,%. .# S r..Y.: ', .a 9 M3 4 +'-• ;.`I <j P. a.;' �54 $ k sjk x k,i' Y 4 5 4 ): ..�A '•2ri 4 / / 3 t•4 i ,EY t ...a '! s if } d` ♦ Ya.. 1 4 v :jx:r. a! 'r..x t � �.x F F .I:,xt w;�' . L �k5' eF . gA.z';a, + -:d 'n.&,t # 4g); i # •'dF[ �( 3Fi# r 4 •,; ;aG d.. `� 5 t.t:a ._: [j'. t x v 4 ! •.xf 4, m=w: ;,.;. A BOORUM & PEASE " �T��s" ® BOORUM & PEASE � � PETITION: Raymond L. Cummings, Lots A, B, C Loring Ave. Six months extension of time previously allowed for commencing construction. On March 16, 1964, the Board of Appeal : VOTED: That the prayers of the petition be granted and that the Variance sought for the use of Lots A, B, and C respect— ively, be authorized; construction to be commenced within 1$ months from date of notice of this decision, and if con— struction is not commenced on one or m6re of such lots within such time, the variance authorized shall lapse as to such lot or lots, unless the time for the commencement of such constr— uction on such lot or lots is extended by the Board. On September 27, 1965, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Appeal, Mr. Raymond L. Cummings appeared and requested an extension of six months time for commencement of construction, as stated in his petition of September 17, 1965. EXTENSION GRANTED. BOARD OF APPEAL BY ,— Secretay:`' J000 d 40 a da, lives Otog b� sovan OW an .0 f from to lineo, Tbobowa was � 4 v l=c* to brgot tbit ietait. log 19"0 go did vat proted 'idIO the vwk within 40AU, of w tho B'W'd of Aw", Ovabeft wore pr#Aent At thto hwi o ,Aro* xary X"Ss 410 �� A" O �d Vrs* �, w 1 * AVS -Monod lb ItUN, Aftor 4w* oonaMomtAon thor..ot Us by a ium% vow:, 'vul04 VU44 not darn t ► Amm—Im 'I J x a w O - O c 3 SA rn r, sr to m s OD 0 .t4 x i14 .@vaA t'. eF : F _ fi." e4 j1 a y '+'tl . . e" c ,.. GIA 'f F' ,'p *..R J4'f 1 .�" .. 'a ..-��.« , :.. ' •,.ti :tl -. 'R r :t '3 '•,•; * - •• a 5 '. 'i;; t : ':3 �;., +'� H ,Y. Fd- Yr ,R -+ ti ' t. a ik Y �.y . �Y o.'" � . 4 ' d. 6S ;..i. � ei b' xR 'k 4#2�,..9' :' b :. a.1 ia"F e IV.i i �. 3 b d K � :: � F W �s, r.�... � ,d a f � ik ^ � Y y,.ia: w � . y $+ '�A S . .it ' #.d.G x t^f.%i! KE: w s s }t n S F"b A.3 1 q Y ��2 a L'o4d.R 9k,.. 4: r �. �: 'p � x i 4 t c.; ':;�r z ';!.: o: t a fi : .� a-� a �. ape S;i. �Y 4 r �.:.,M '_ s:' ik ap� L:3 .i 4:.b. . y. . .t a. . ;:�a.0 9k a ,.-.;�. - or k r` .'. E.. i. a♦ ti z # ' P . 'd r �r-s.+ Y — . a' +tr �b to R� � „ F " ! s �. e ++ '. r,£ R -b F "M1 :L`�. � Y 4 1'� M F � f'-`, q{3 9'l � N �3 'hey. rl*d. ' .b 43A i'Ak L Y'� $ A..: � Ys �Av :•j Y'♦ :.4 4: h• N'Y` '. 9' n 4 ,..i M f:,:. xt G Lf E ..;r.3a=. t l is F , #. . b ti# E a c Y :. „ .G :3 t s ,v,a Xri • ;g ' F. fk :: 1b:4` , ..3 ♦ � Me rt i Y b .. L i. {k F 4 Y a � s..+ n.., 9: ,,,-0�G, �. -'. 4 b,�x Y },a tS G.r • 5 :. �+i >'.'R. �. 'ri �'-0 '..: x�a Af xlm �. :B. 'k`.'S' $ F '� i f`'.' ;,. �o l„i$. n�� .�I k /pjf' Y MVITIMS 14wtate ey* 96 Lyaft 3tr"t* Alter dard i or d to #brio abdditiol *rtt tar t 'too dit$ktiolityleyta ft me appeared to *PPOW006. star dw UO6UOMtIft theraof# tb* SW4 by aw UpaniMud doh# grotod mr, suaidey leave to ,14twraw joiltio s With- a, i w O r Q C M1 -O le m c Y w Q 0 J TI t vorotbr Iw ara"Or. Lest "A* , tple ft"Oto arigtft on 1 Oleo to eroet a d llits'; lot contains Moly 4312 4aq Stt and b*s b4m owned by itloee3ar *Inc* On Septombor 28, 1965.s po ttoaar to.$ adviead by the Uspo for or APsacs Appeal to t or � for a variewe from p aatim rad t o zonsas which sr" +a lot. sreee -Petition appWad to the hWd of ►;pre t saber 25* 1968 0 bbarlAg wao hold an this Petitiou it tho nice off` tbA bwpector of aagee Rom 7, tits X0113, Salem rux*maut to Uotitee Coiled postpaid to t-.h4 petitionear# abut re 4w otbors adv'�ie xo ibliabod is *.b* l Evens All members of the Bowd out at thud b rier;. lttitioaer Appeared tar horselra stulagghs nted a vagi er to a now after touW b 4# This is + tedd scats. tsar ^ of then - ring board 'Who WAS preseat, was. roeardad in favor# ,. %tare a no cess-& uter duo *cmAoration ther"r, the 9oardo br a uftalaws decision and vot3oa tho mad#i that t' thin "a ig carer d nowv d��►to rom tho Itt ent9 purpose of Ot Using Ordimmee # grObtod the vithoef NMI) or PAPMAL CRAB=* BTn tkptcabor 29s 1965 PAyVlt s « "roo Prancis tavortys 112 14xgirr ft"ate To erect addition to dwelling to provide enclosed. porch* On September go 19690 the DulldU4 Inspector rent to issue a porta to *r osta an addition to a dw a reg at 102 fisrgl n Ctreeat, to be used 40 are enclosed porch* since ouch addition would be a violation of the Zed Ordinance which' requires equines a teen toot distance to the aide boundary lirasJe e e LAVOrtY. toad di allow a distance nces a only flie- foot. M rs a lavorty appealed to the Board of Appeal for a trsrionce from the, application of this Ordinances and an September 27s 196$ a hearing woo on this petition in the office of ;herr inspector tai Bul2dingso its 9, City Halls Salm# Pursuant to notice* taped postpaid to the petitioners abuttearrs Dowd Umberrss and others* and Advertisements published in UM Sabra l�verra3 t�aii�i All Board bows erre present at this hoarlza, Appas,OIAS with ;Brei latrertiy and titr +approval of tsha ,tpetsiticrrt were tlr• and apse ire ;biro+ and tis QWultoronGs abUtt oree DO 000 e�ppe3a�"�td +�n opp��:�i7nQ3ns After due consideration tboreof s the Board by a unanimus v'otre @ and, Voting can the grounds that it; would 'tee a sub8t tial fid- ships seed al�lOsancIo of the varlLance mould not demato from the lntee a* purpose of the Ordinanree.s granted the variances By October .t 1965s MMIONt Ralon Pol4ugUsz* 10 XamorUl eve To, Oftot Addittion to aacia tt fah to aha preiM awry school raaaii,ltol can allow only 20 -rosr Yards mains Ordiaaaeacte raquiros 30 ft#. ft Octobtr. 6. 1965*. Ohs Uspfttor of VsA2diW raftead to issue a Vomit to oraat an addition at thio 3l+ototian azo such tonotruttion would be in violation of tba city of dad, UnUff Orduumoo wtaloh rewired as 30 .f roar yar4o aAditi aztut'i SUGW Only 20 ft.: %titiener appealed to the Dwd of Awa for a variance fm tha aypia3t#ests a ohmratina . +� 'aksaalr3e i' S� �naa wdo &ga estaii xshaaina of �Spnt�r o� dJ: s � #i�� iie acs �aoraaa�: ��iaarts mid n4 Maseiie � a$huex # � ora�. dra, and • 61l Boar# rAmbera were just tit. did haring. * ohd d Ska iaaraghl a Appeared at this' s owlta a fld ogAi minod tbay need tho aid— ditloo to Ovatid *X101815naa"O ry e►eP bol 4eul l oe. 110 app. p rod 10 . itIOA*. After due vronaider0ia thereof* they Board by aA040 vo e# and aot. . Cao a3aa► i Braid not d0i . . ,t* from the h aaa er vota4 to � that vari,a me v* iaaa� � e5 � 1 ` By 4 baz air:` April 9, 1985. PETITIONS Charles Angeramo, LQt #437 Outlook Avenue to erect a single family dwelling on lot with a 51.53 foot frontage; required frontage is 60. feet. On March 18, 1965,, ppetitioner applied for permit to erect a single family dwelling on Lot #437 Outlook Avenue, and was refused by the Inspector of Buildings since such construction .would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance which requires a. frontage of 60, ft. •On March 19, 1965, Mr.. Angeramo appealed to the Board of Appeal for variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance. `A hearing was held an this petition on April 5, 1965 in the office ,of the Inspector ofBuildings, City Hall, Salem, Mass,, pursuant to ,notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, and others. . All Board members with the exception of Mr. John Gray were present at this hearing. !No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereoft the Board by a unanimous vote of the four members present and voting on the gr unds that it would ,be a substantial hardship, and allowance Ivariance would not der=ogate from intent and purpose of the ordinance, granted the [variance. ;APPEAL ORaAMD BOARD OF APPEAL BY ecretar i I = w TMyT •fe M ® I� rri VI rn v Y August, 34 1965. MITION: - dales Rousing Authority* Palmer Covet, To erect multiple types dwelling units to provided housing for elderly persons, in single family area. The Salem Rousing Authority on July 13, 1965, applied for a permit t# erect multiple type dwelling units to grov .de housing for etlderl�y psrsone. On July 15y 19651 the lnepoe- for or Buildings; i}apiel Jr Mrieno Jr*a .notiflid the Authority 'that grantiz A permit would be in violation or the pity Of Siem Zoning Ordinance vhich dosignatern this area for single family dwellinge. The Housing Authority ap ealed to the Board of Appoal to da grant a varlanes m the aplicaation psi' the Zoniig ire-. ones# and oa August 23* 1r3b r a hearing man hold in the office of the Inspector or Buildings.. Room 7r city 1,: pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioners ahutteera# Board t1embera, and othera, and (Advert.isematts published in the Salem Evouing Newas. All members of the Board were present at this hearing. Appearing for the petitioner wore ephaera 21ascul chairsaan or the Authority* and Robert t duthiers Jobb Walsh# avid John Sandal, mambers of the Authority., Xro aisson spoke for the mrd and described in general the type of units to be tt7c`@ante d* NO one appeared in opposition* Atter dee consideration theref$ the Board by a unanimous vote, and voting an the grounds that it s►*Aad not, derogate from they lritesnt and purpose of the Ordinance# granted the varlaS2mees *BOARD- or APMAL AFMAL ORAMO By 1 �,tfi3Te$fi y l i +k k . Y..A I.. k = :' P F; r'y i`4 2 .:a 4' �..x' i.'.'y v . <:♦ ...C. '< , 'i Ova r 'A P k s. k. nx '. r 4 a.µ... , y. i*, i ;1,.i Rad « u ii" '�.♦ 4.,.,� +' -- ;x; k ;�k .A#'Y A:e: w=a' fy s a„f Y t .rd. ♦ '.f.zk 77'143 F . a�.�. � .. .IR ,•: ,k l i_�... .f... AiX.. .#! `v.F , ... 0. 'r 1 Y:` k'.i z','.: a - r e Re .,R v R a. ♦ , 'Y t y • i Y ! 4 �b ': x :a a '. y J i ' '4 e'k -• • eSwe€*'r - .:.. 'i ♦ o„ �f'fa�-. '. ,a •Fe;i) i Y q�F a ..:.i 4 i k� t, •4 ;1.f` J . E w .iF i-' #'F .a E = > . F Z.k .b. V14. 4+M�r+ .4 a ''x3i x: a Ynk w � YiR ♦ :"y Y i,{„E, -{ : n Y R u ;L p, Y `M'.k,iE' M Y.'i Y Y a rw >;. f y,< 's a •a` Via. R > < iA. - a R ': 4 w yw.;•:1 ,xMnf S. • F' k: i +tS ' #.�.. ,�i: . f- '..4 '."& > Y ;1 1 y i L• A4,oOtovio Lot #42 4aMb Strood oMor logo g4 0 7'9$ r-t 'TW YOXO of 17* r r with � p ° wo sobs r" `o wta do I cab Apptarloo U o s is * a Aob • I UPOOIWUO vote ox thw tow vatuto on tbo O° a i tm viazo ? ,SPMA TEtt�7 of �C6�L`�11.� r4!j�i;j:1 211-A�LI�t�LA� �4rr:ir�l of Atr( r_ Pe �'r YiLLiPn n, idn V1T December 27, 1965 J>MEP H. pOVL<C'a JUHN M, p•iI.Y PETITION. Gulf Oil Corp. , State Road and Vinnin Street JOPEPH �. p,vL� To erect canopy over existing island of gas station. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot; area of 17_000 s Pt with a 1201 width; p:l.us additional 2000 sq ft for every Wo pumps and one service: bay in excess of four pumps and turo service bays; setback of 40 ft, minimum set back from all property lines of ten feet ; all pump islands shall be set back a minimum of fifteen feet. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit for the erec— tion of a canopy over an existing island at a services station, since such construction would be in violation of the City of Salem Zon.;.ng Ordinance. On November 22, 1965, petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal to reverse the decision of the Building Inspector. A hearing was held on this petition on December 20, 1965, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. A1.1 Board members were present at this hearing. Mr. R. R. Kiddle appeared for petitioner, also - Mr. R. K. Merrell of the Beamen Cor— poration. Pictures of the locus and the .canopy were shown to the members of the Board. Mr. Goldstein, a dealer also appeared in favor. After due consideration thereof, the Board by-unanimous decision, and voted on the grounds that granting this variance would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, granted the variance. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAlL GRANTED. w BY i ;a otiec�retary LU _ ,y i J" 4w June 29# 1.965.a V to 011ow We of flmt door for retail 0440 of teaWAe* Iz, a,purttmt dam dleatz�.;nt. f April 13# 1965* jutlt I"er *I*4 to the roard of 1p for 4 Variance bo 4bletsar to a*as the t1rat floor at her Pv��, at 23 8=44i4treit for the retail and est tea�ine A is ar *48 Wd on thle OPPWI an MY 3, 1965s So the 46140, W, , sa ss to tl a P+dt old to pcstitln�, Wabava# *th6mq W4 aftattidwonto pubs Chad it t ite5: ftlem Event � A loner too latraducod atatlM ttot tho fbU*w!n dtsutt o ra aau=t4d to tis P14ns jamov Ow Rym# HiPD#o eek Aip Harfearm", The hwrUW ims c ontlisu v4b4boe to the 1tFi ev OubrAttiesd 1 a to " the �ld1rs8 neaputa r **"dx4 tip proposed C=, moo On JUr.* Z# 1965 thin boUrIM t Sketch: dbe Med e:�t c el bbd bow �►x m� to t 1 r tea� ��1.da u0s tmbzittad for oval of tbe3 Air Maes conaidoratift t Ww aof, tho d tz snUt*u t votot. 40d votingan t mss t +4e11 Vince . of t vdr: e a granted variance. + w go=Cr iR 3� eacr NW 12# 196$ ' ITM4 1I j !rvn 23 r meat« Urionoo tipratan tale or romiant u apace b $ tAhs A btu§ bald to tb °roti,= may �► 1965s iA the floe! at t in"lsor of tld City ALU# a o. rout to t eao railed t� P"d to tto tutonor Outt i *thereond loo t o �l � iia the � �*A � Ilea"* ,n waborfs of the 1Ss ro prolont at Shia boar , e 90 40M p rfd In €sMw##ti*Im A loiter too fttrodutod ItAtIAS tbbt 06 toll, Sm "mrd A* oofrm.=4 d t R'orrear o* vi 40 CAnuo epd ftry 4 Tbo sftr4 voted t y to oantinuo thio 0"00, subject to the tttlot Wft4ttins a aketcb to t btuuftns5 +tor ahowng Thb BUUAAnQctor is to ski ohotVh to t 1, �, crw—vrt1� /a hits of �x1En, ��zrrclT�zfti C , 7:VIIari of December 27, 1965.. nMF':9 PC,U ltile4 ' .IUVN rvl. GRnv - A1171UIY Ln4(,ECOUE .1 PFYi r LI- - PETITION: Salem Acres, Inc. , I.ot #24 .Summit Street. To allow rarianceEa in relat;on to location of dwelling on lot as necessitated by outc-r•oppig of ledge. On Deceizbe.r 1965 netitioner through Attorney George P. Vallis appealed for 3 variance from the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance as it affects the location of dwellings on lots of land. A hearing was held on this petition in the office 'of the Inspec— tor of Buildings on December 20, 1965, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, attorney, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. All members of the Board were present at this hearing. - Attorney Vallis appeared for the petitioner, and explained the plan stat" ing requirements regarding distances to boundary lines -could not be met. After due consideration thereof, the Board by unanimou's vote, and voting or. the grounds of considerable hardship to petitioner to deny this appeal, and granting the variance would cause no detri— ment to the public good, and would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, granted the variance. APPEAL GRANTED. BOARD OF APPEAL rn m 13Y ,.L ecretary. r� a ow xC "JW >.VI `M Arm, set u � 5 Pla arb of ai"L3ul w LLi<M r. ,PeoTT December 27, 1965.' JaMe¢ w. aovLoea - JOHN M. ORTY AaPT.H¢RVAP rL.a¢oPo @YCL¢OV¢ PETITIO111-, Ni i.1 Acres, ufit /34 Summit Street. ' To allow variancoa :in relation to location of dwelling on lot as necessitated by outcropping of ledge. On December 3, 196;, petitioner through Attorney George P. Vallis ZoningeOrdinancvariance aa a ceaffectththerlocation of thelcity of Sale of land. lots A hearing was held on this P8titior: in the office of the Inspec- tor of Buildings on December 20, 19659 pursuant to notices mailed Postpaid to the petitioner, attorney, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. All members of the Board were present at this hearing. Attorney Vallis appeared .for the:petitioner, and explained the plan stat- ing requirements regarding distances to boundary lines could not be met. After due consideration thereof, the Board by unanimous vote, and voting on the grounds of considerable hardship to petitioner to deny this appeal, and granting the variance would cause no detri- ment to the public good, and would not substantially derogate from the intent and purppse of the Ordinance, granted the variance. APPEAL GRANTED. BOARD OF APPEAL BY �r �r. W ret ry;.. J CM c>a r October 99v 19+5 I(li t Tho ft*o5** 2 et Road To ealarfe exit UW Soose to 40 off' #traots d� u Wad 2 A to only to A 6""Or 220 196 06 pat:it�tszsd pest: Poutric r appt* int* di d of Appy. for a var;14e tr(mC 1Rt.3{�C1 Off` So s �� +r an Qot* tai * � hwl d 14 � W off' tate �+ed- tear at h Udl aod# Roofs 7r City HOU,* mous, puMlM to bars, aad C' ,imd *dvortliftmota pu .iethad $a the Ulan n ,041"S nev$* All ambero € t the bwd were pr*stunt At thla wi4ak ► a�pp�tr ��i o� A�� r.�rs pr�d+�ta� 3 ' � ?�au u d� nc'd 2e gnu F 1 6i77W Y'.W# YM MIi i 1. v." % brt;j d+� Air dile comaderation t,# t$o SooM b9 umnUmo s oo ,14 wt d at* frca the IMeat rind punof the OWD OF 'PLi AMAX. CUMD h9vAt 300 1965« P TITIONt - Nicholas Santhakyt lit Sutton Avenue* To erect an addition to his dwollimg# 9t, x 21e to oularge his living quarters, The Inspector of Buildia, on Juan 22, 1955, advIded « Xantha�isdr orae would have to rhe to issue a parrot to enlarge his ,dwelling as the now additiorm wed be within five reset of the elide bomtorry litrta and a ton forst distance is reiquired by the Zoning Ordinensst, Btu tion *-A, Parwaph a# far« X04theky appealed to the Board of Appeals for a var- ianct from tae asppliest>i.on of 'th4 Zoning Ordinance on July 26, 1.9'5.. On kug t � 1965 a hoesring on this petitions was held in tha oftl -as of toss Inspector of Buildings, Room ?� city uall# soder,*. pwouant to notices nailed postpaid to oras pttttitsns 6 abuttoret, Board VA mbtrt, and oLhesra� ound advmrtia @tam putil obe4 In ghee esm ver N�3 + All moobe+ras of the Board were present at this hearing.* AAp� wi C& than rtitionors wasanatautter, i�'rai, bguttAvon , spksinfavorot16iassss � petvitdssntr mstatsd tih�re is insu�w scent dining row arta in his h which to aiva� oaa ataxy► After due co aideroti n thtreofp, the Board by a UUNAUous : vote#, slid voting eta the he grounds ti'hst it would be a �subst an- tw hardships, ,aaM 011owance salt the variance could not deroSate froin the intent and purpose of the Ordinancal, the variamoer BOA" Oir AF' AL AMATs OMRTBB BY '3esGi'e't 3X*�� y 13 o 1965 Px"xx.IT102; v4ad & Stone OoaVanye Road* ad.. To erect a block houes .herr stortse of Wtplosives Im Single family resi.denoo zone4 petitioner, through Attorney Johm OWLtary., appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordibancep to allow the construction of o blockhouse in an area toned for singles family residencea.. OA fty 3., 19€5 s hearing seas held in the offices of the 2 .. spe:otBr et %lidiness, City Rall, ssal , '9000** Pursuarnt to notiereae nailed postpaid to the patitloneer, his attorneys, ahutteres, and otheres, and advertisements tztebliaheii in the Salem Zvening gees# All members of the sow-d were present at this hearing. Thins block house in cloftly regulated by State Laws There will be two. storages depots* Rother than a baphaesnrd oarry �. Ing of explosives through the city of sal:ems it las sure do. s r'able to have such dapots,K Five acres are to be used for then" depotia* Appearing, in favor was der* maks, an officor of tj% n ii+2and & Stone Companys, also Rrj Flynn# an angi.nser. C$t Solicitor Alfred obro*1alslti bad no objection as fat t o city is concerned. The city owns some park lend near this location* The Board after r duo t3orssideratioro verted unaninousl.y to grant the variance provided the patitionesr o pl.irss with Sall l and rules of the Commonwealth of and the City, of Salem. VARIANCE GRANTED* ca' t y�rt J Y,k 62 T�rtwat Stmt,. corner o JoporAct and Z*vv 'aa Av • to *at it �t ray dvelliogN ItS only * ttI rt4 r4# ra4pirad 40 O ftp." r r M14 )0 fto 01 1 t tett �t � a� ��cia �s+��xtI � Oft Vamp d* 3965* O'Gft4 ' tied to "tba 8*#r4 of App for avarimU4 f* oho applicAtion of the Zoning djajfna # A its vw tit as tbis pet3;Imi r $ " 3965 in tho ptxt'� to notAoo vale mos 946 t Ot All Doors r4uws Frith zbo b=*Ptloa of ., °,* John GrAy waro poet At We awts an* appoamd in plp tic After due c sI t. th*rWi, tho Boby a unanizom vtto ot tbo four c pr#sant 44 voting on the gr =40 tbAt it MA44 dQrog"$ from intAmt sad purposo of the or4in+#uce.y C'r t vorl BOA" or ASA OUMD* of �$alem, �Fttszar4use##s November 1$9 1966 _ J.M I. N. .OVIOfN ' JO wN M. OMY PETITION: - Andrew Mitchell, Lot #226 Barcellona Avenue `o To provide facilities for home-type beauty shop when erect- ing dwelling at this location, which is in a single family residence district. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to allow part of a proposed dwelling to be used as a home-type operated beauty shop, since such permission would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. MrMitchell appealed to the Board of Appeal to permit the use of this dwelling for a home occupation, namely, beauty shop. A hearing was held on this petition on September 26, 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, board members, abut tars, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. Four Board members were present, Mr. James Boulger, Sr. , being un- able to attend. The petitioner and his wife appeared, also two relatives who were in favor of granting this petition. Mr. Mitchell explained that the shop was to be moved from Lynn to this location. Attorney Richard 0. Johnson, 10 Colonial Road, Salem, appeared for the opposition; also, Alice L. Pitreau, 18 Barcellona Avenue, Mrs. Ruth Langone, 29 Barcellona Avenue, and Miss Mary Reardon, 27 Bar- cellona Avenue. Mr. Johnson requested that these persons named here who are owners of homes nearby, be recorded against the petition beT. cause it would bring into this restricted area, and would bring many strangers and motor traffic to the property and would devaluate it. The Board voted unanimously to have the Inspector of Buildings, M.r Daniel J. O'Brien, Jr., confer with the City Solicitor in regard to the status of home-type beauty shop in this area, At the next Board meeting, November 14, 1966, a letter from the City Solicitor in this regard was received and read and herewith becomes art of this decision: On page 22 of the New Zoning Ordinance, adopted 1965, "home occupa- tions", involving the use of a room or rooms in a dwelling under certain conditions therein specified, are permitted. J 'Hairdressing facilities are classified as home occupations and therefore are permissible under the section above mentioned. On Page 23 of the same Ordinance, Section 2.b. 9 barber shops and beauty parlors are specifically excluded from R-C and R-1 districts. How- • - 2 ever, the words "beauty parlor" herein referred to must mean commercial types of beauty parlors, such as the ones located in business districts like Essex Street and Washington Street. "Thank you for your kind courtesy." The Board voted unanimously to grant this petition. / PETITION GRANTED. BOARD OF APPEAL BY ecretary • •i, CITY OF SALIAA, MASSACHUSETTS LfeAL DIPO"MENT ALFRW A. DO8tOSI6LSKl � a 7U x71 WASHINeTON sTRE6f CRT UXIOTOR SALEM,MASSAMUSSTTS November 14, 1966 Board of Appeals City Hall Salem, Massachusetts Re: Beauty parlors R-C and R-I Districts Gentlemen: On page 22 of the New Zoning Ordinance , adopted 1968, "home occupations," involving the use of a room or rooms in a dwelling under cer- tain conditions therein specified, are permitted . Hairdressing facilities are classified as home occupations and therefore are permissible under the section above mentioned. On page 23 of the same ordinance, Section 2.b. barber shops i and beauty parlors are specifically excluded from R-C and R-I districts. However, the words "beauty parlor" herein referred to coat mean commercial types of beauty parlors, such as the ones located in business districts like Essex Street and Washington Street . Thank you for your kind courtesy. Very truly yours, Alfred A. Dobrosielski AAD:Jmd Tt#u of "ittirm' 'Mttssar4nut#s Pvarb of '1Vper l February 4, 1966. WILLIAM F. ABBOTT JAMES H. BOULDER JOHN M. DRAY PETITION: Sidney Galper, 2 Beaver Street. ARTHUR LABRECOUE JOSEPH F. DOYLE To alter basement to provide coffee and sandwich shop, in R-2 District, zoned for two=family residences. On December 29, 1965, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to alter this building to ::provide a coffee and sandwich shop as such alteration would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal on January 4, 1966, for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance . A hearing was held on this petition on January 24, 1966 in the office of the Inspector of Buildings, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner;. abutters, Board members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. All Board members were present at this. hearing. Petitioner explained • his case, stating there are nine business firms in that particular area. There was no opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board by unanimous vote, and voting on the grounds that granting this variance would not substan- tially derogate from the intent and purpose of the ordinance, and would not cause detriment to the public good, voted to grant the appeal with the following conditions : - i 1. Put a fire proof ceiling in the restaurant . 2 . Metal doors are to be put between the boiler-room and the res- taurant . 3 . Demolish the present coffee shop. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS. BY Secretar of ttlem, ll-min illsetts nttrD of ,Appeal May 3, 1966 WILLPM 6, sB90TT JAMES +. BOULGEFl PETITION: Frank Lento, 113 Boston Street. AR'Y.UR LT PFlECOUE JosEP F. D� LE Alter third floor of dwelling at this location to provide additional apartment. This area is zoned for highway business; Building Code specifies no apartment above the second floor in a wood frame dwelling. On April 49 1966, petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal ` to reverse permitctoiprovideha thirdifloorsapartmentector who atrefused to issue a p location. A hearing was held on April 25, 1966 by the Board of Appeal on this petition, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and adver- tisements published in the Salem Evening News. All members were present at this hearing. Petitioner appeared wife and stated the only way he can pay for the pr with his operty is to have additional apartment with the necessary income. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voting unanimously, voted to grant the variance sought on the grounds of alleviat- ing hardship to the petitioner, no detriment to the public good, and it w he not subst Ordinanceantially derogate from the intent and purpose of r � PETITION GRANTED A AL Secretary CCU of $alrnt, fflttssar4usetto A �Ioxra of �PPvd yo ri June 3, 1966 wiuiAw r. A.eorr ... PETITION: John Flynn & Sons, Inc., 106 Bridge Street. JONN M. OMV A/ HUR L WRCCQUK JG..rN r. ..YL. To erect addition to Jiffy Car Wash, 106 Bridge Street The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addition to the existing building at this location, since such construction would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner, through his authorized representative, O'Rourke Construction Company, Inc. , appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance. A hearing was held on this petition on May 31, 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Appearing for the petitioner Mr. John O'Rourke, Jr., and Michael Flynn, an officer in the petitioner's organization, explained the plan. Mr. William Attridge of 15 Cross Street appeared in opposition, also Miss Jones who lives in the neighborhood. After due consideration thereof, the Board by unanimous vote, and voting on the grounds that denying this petition would cause hardship to the petitioner's business since the addition will be used for waxing automobiles, an operation included in the existing business, and granting the petition would not der- ogate from the intent and purpose of the ordinance and would not cause detriment to the public good, granted the petition with this condition: 1. Flood lights are to be controlled after 6:00 P.M. PETITION GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY Secrets, oow�r� of 'stem, 4fittssar4usetts Poarb of rkpvral December 29, 1966 " ' " BOLOeP PETITION : — Robert and Lucille Deschene, 121 Bridge Street �osev" r. oov�e To maintain a ceramic studio and erect a sign, 3 ' x 41 on these premises which are in an R-2 district, zoned for two family residences. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to conduct a ceramic studio at this location and to erect a sign., since such would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Petitioners through their counsel, John F. O'Leary, appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zon- in$ Ordinance. A hearing was held on this petition on December 19, 1996, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, board members, abutters , and others, and notices published in The Evening News. All board members were present at this hearing. Counsel O'Leary appeared for petitioners and stated the property is located at the corner of Bridge and Pleasant Streets on the fringe of a business • district, and there are a car wash and package store near here, and there would be no derogation from the intent and purpose of the Ordin- ance. He further stated this is a typical case of hardship, among; - the three children in this family, one child is blind and it is nec- essary for the mother to be present to supervise, and also referred to an existing mortgage and the house having seventeen rooms. Appearing in favor of granting; this variance were 14rs. Helen Cronin of 1212 Bridge Street and Ward Councillor Joseph O'Keefe. No one appeared in opposition. The Board after due consideration thereof, voting on the grounds that denying a variance would cause hardship, and granting the variance would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would cause no detriment to the public good, voted unanimously to grant this variance subject to the following restriction : - it is not to be transferred by the petitioner to any other person without the written approval of this Board. BOARD OF APPEAL VARIANCE GRANTED WITH RESTRICTION BY f ecreta y `� CtU of , assaar4usetts r Poarb of AP� 4/3 '�avnc WILLIAM I. ABBOTT J ne 2, 1966 AM.. M. .."... aM� M. .RA. PETITION: Joseph S. King, 299 Bridge Street I.RTNUR LA.R.COV. '."R.. '. BOTLe To erect addition to existing building to provide offices and lunchroom and toilet facilities. On April 7, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addition to an existing building at 299 Bridge Street, since such addition would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. This area is newly zoned for two family res— idences and petitioner could not allow required distances to boundary lines. Mr. King appealed to the Board of Appeals and a hearing was held on this petition on May 31, 19669 in the office of the Inspector of Buildings pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and notices published in the Salem Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Mr. King appeared with his son Robert and they stated they buy and sell metals and • have no place to house them at present; .they would like to add another story to increase facilities ; they employ fifteen people and need the addition in order to have proper toilet facilities. Recorded in favor of granting this petition was ex—Councillor Leonard Cawley. Captain Henry Nichols of 93 Federal Street, Edna Odell, 104 Federal Street, Florence Gelin, 881 Federal Street, and Spencer Gelin of 90 Federal Street appeared in opposition. Captain Nichols spoke at length representing the abutters. . He stated dishes have been shaken off neighbors ' walls, laundry hung on lines damaged, dark smoke from the chimney damages buildings on Federal Street, and a wrecking ball dropped on the materials and the burning of material on the premises create a nuisance and a hazard. He. further stated complaints have been made to the Board of Health and the Fire Department about junk piled in the yard. ' After due consideration thereof the Board voted unanimously to grant the petition with the following conditions : 1. The wrecking ball is not to be dropped. 2. There is to be no burning of any kind on the premises. BOARD OF APPEAL BY - Secreta y `� of '*ttlem, tts$�trlZse#t� 16nttrb of a�� J December 29, 1966 .M.6N .o •.R ,o6.RN I. pOVl6 PETITION: - Richard and Ruth Osborn, 2$-2$1 Broad Street .� JOHN M. ORFV. 6R. .R,H Ru.R""'° This is an existing three apartment dwelling converted from two apartments without a permit; area is zoned for two family residences. Petitioners through their attorneys, Glovsky and Glovsky, appealed to the Board of Appeal on October 10, 1966 for a variance from the application of the Zoning ordinance to permit the use of the prem- ises situated at and known as 28-281 Broad Street for three family dwelling purposes. A hearing was held on this petition on November 14, 1966 at which time Attorney Glovsky appeared and explained 6laiatdhisclients had welling had been acquired ownership on February 13, 9 5 , and the occupied as a three family dwelling from February 1962 through Nov- ember, 1963- All board members were present at this hearing, and after due con- sideration thereof, voted unanimously to continue hearing of this petition pending submission of plans in order that the Board may properly act on this matter. Hearing on this appeal was resumed at the meeting of the Board held 3 on December 199 1966 and the plans were presented as requested. f After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this variance subject to the condition that plans showing two proper means of egress from the third floor of this dwelling are filed with and approved by the City Building Inspector. VARIANCE GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITION. BOARD OF APPEAL BY 6��A�etrY� CCU of '�$ttiem, assar4use##s ;ru �P�� varb of Appeal �o /3 0 June 30, 1966 WILLIAM F. ASBOT AM(( R. PETITION: - Isabella Ablow, y Lots #1 and #2 Broadway. JOHN M. 6RAV PRTN VR LC BR(COU( JO.(GN .. UOVLG To erect a building to be occupied for stor- age and offices with a five foot setback on one side, and twenty five feet on the other side. Maximum coverage by all buildings on lot allowed by Zoning Ordinance is 451, petitioner proposes to cover approximately 57%. On June 2, 1966, the Inspector of Buildings refused to is- sue a permit to erect this building because such construc- tion would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ord- inance. On June 7, 1966, petitioner through her attorney, George P. Vallis appealed to the Board of Appeal to reverse this de- cision. A hearing on this petition was held on June 27, 1966, pur- suant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, her at- torney, board members, abutters, and others, and notices pub- lished in The Evening News. • All Board members were present at this hearing. Appearing for the petitioner Attorney Vallis described the locus and purpose of the petition. He stated that under the Redevel- opment plans in the City now in progress, petitioner must vacate premises where business is now conducted on Central Street. He further stated that the petitioner wants to re- main in Salem and needs more space for the business. Also appearing in favor of this petition were Mr. Saul Ablow, Representative Samuel Zoll, Ward 7 Councillor Edmond Perron, Daniel Mackey representing Thomas Mackey and Sons, an abutter, and a representative from Shaw's Poultry Company. No one ap= peared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board, voting on the grounds of considerable hardship to the petitioner if variance were refused, and that granting the variance would not substan- tially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would cause no detriment to .the public good, voted unanimously to grant the variance. 49 APPEAL GRANTED ecretar , BOARD OF APPEAL 0 b Use##$ it of ttlem; sstic April 1, 1966 w ., .. ...o,. gxchang . 124 broadwa7: "•' " •'°, .. . . . . The Student Book b Inc. , JONN Y: OYY 1 ' PETMON ""'"` book store. Zoning ordin •••~" """ To erect 'sign for advertising area for each lineal aide mho's" one aquareo oott o-faced sign measures 4126' ; broof ke tlaof•signp is 16 ft. and frontage b the Ia®pec= petitioner *as refused a permit to erect this sign 7_ . sled to the Board of Appeal to Brant a variance tor _of Buildings Since such would be in violation of the Zoning Ordinances an dppe lication of the Zoning. ordinancee from the app A hearii"' waa held bn this petition in the office of the Inposstpaid of Bnlld i s ". March 26, 1966, ,pu'e�t to notices nailed p to the p titioner, abettors Board umbers, and others, and adver- Evening paha• tisements ptblished in the ales veG Pour Board sabers iron,, pres int at this hearing. 14t : John Mi, Graz, • Chairman of the Board, being ill and unable to attend. I Neseared for the owner and the petitioner. He is from 8i Compan7, 28-32 Allerton Street, Boston. 'tiro E44k �1 , gn this abutters also appeared to be recorded in favor of granting ' petition: After due coax dsration thereof, the Board by unanimous vote, four on the Grounds that to grant this varix As :piesant and voting h put good, and vould not anco rrould cause no d etfromnth to intent and purpose of the Ordinance, substantially granted the variance. 9 VASI1►M GYAIi'18D ec tar7, (Qi# ofttlem, ttssttcuse##s Poarb of Appvd September 30, 1966 VJ".IIAM F. A..OI •o.L... PETITION: - Joseph Larusso, 125 Canal Street JO"M M. OMY To erect signs for the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., o.."" .o.�. which would have greater area than allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. On August 12, 1966, the Publix Sign Corporation was notified by the Inspector of Buildings that the proposed signs for the new A & P Supermarket at this location would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance which allows one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot frontage. On September 7, 1966, an appeal to this Board was received for a hearing on this petition - to grant a variance from the appli- cation of the Zoning Ordinance. A hearing was held on this petition on September 269 1966, pur- suant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing with the excep- tion of Mr. James Boulger, Sr. , who was unable to be present because of illness. Paul Valiquette of the Publix Sign Company, appeared for the pe- titioner Company, Mr. John the pMatthews roposed sofnthe rA &tPnCompanyaappearede in favor. Mr. Tondreau of 127 Canal Street was present and in- quired about the signs, and after an explanation, he withdrew his opposition. After due consideration thereof, the four Board members present voting unanimously on the grounds that to deny this appeal would cause great hardship to this company, and granting the variance would cause no detriment to the public good and would not sub- stantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, granted the variance. BOARD OF APPEAL PETITION GRANTED BY /)_ `jf�= ecreta �, tiVIl1T� TIN of ��d�PTTt, �L�i15n2IL�1LI5P��5 190arb of C�ppeal March 7, 1966. PETITION - Ernest R. Belleau, Jr. , To place a metal works building now located at 125 Canal Street on lot of land at 27 Laurel Street. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance after be- ing refused a permit to occupy this under-sized lot for the re- location of his metal works building. A lot of 6000 sq. ft. with a frontage of 60-feet is required in this district. Petitioner's lot contains 5250 square feet and has a 50-ft. frontage. A hearing was held on this appeal in the office of the Inspector of Buildings, Room 7, City Hall, Salem, on February 28, 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. • Appearing in favor of this petition, Att 'y. Louis Baker and the petitioner; appearing in opposition, Raymond Rosmich, 25 Laurel Street, Rita Tessier, 17 Laurel Street, and James Connolly, 13 Laurel Street. After due consideration thereof, with all Board Members present and voting unanimously, the variance was granted, provided the building at the new location conforms to all other requirements of the Zoning law, and also provided that the petitioner obtain all necessary and legal permits from the proper authorities in order to move said building. The Board voted on the grounds that granting this variance would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and would not cause detriment to the public good. VARIANCE GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS. BOARD OF APPEAL BY r Sec ry • `�.. Tlitg of '*Iem, Aassar4usctts 4` a Poarb of Appeal y,LLiAM P. A...I December 29, 1966 JAMEH M. .O VLOER JOHN M. ORI.Y h pTMUP V.RHCOVH JOHHPN P. OOYLH PETITION — Salem Liquors, Inc. , 125 Canal Street To erect a stationary sign. Zoning Ordinance allows one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of frontage of the establishment ; frontage here is 30 feet, sign would be 3 ' x 24' , or 72 square feet . The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to allow the erection of this sign since such would be a violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals to reverse this decision, and a hearing was held on this petition on December 19, 1966, pursu— ant to notices mailed postpaid to petitioner, board members, abutters, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All board members were present at this hearing. Attorney John Sera- fini appeared for the petitioner and stated the reasons for this ap— peal are all contained in the letter of appeal which is now part of this record. tr. Serafini stated this is a new area where the li— quor store is to be adjacent to the new A & P Supermarket, and a sign of this nature is necessary on the property of the petitioner. Mr. Arthur Portelance of the Leslie Sign Company appeared in favor and showed a sketch of the proposed sign. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voting on the grounds that to deny this petition would cause hardship to the petitioner, and granting the appeal would cause no detriment to the public good and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, voted unanimously to grant the variance. VARIANCE GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY ecreta y"' � arc lBoarb of Appent um+E WILLIAM F. A%180 T June 2, 1966 JAM CG X. BOVLO CR JONN M. ORAV ARrM R � .ems, . PETITION: - Lorus Realty, Inc. , northerly side of o.�RN UOVLC Laurel Street, between 127 Canal Street and 18 Hazel Street To allow the construction of a building on the land identified by the symbol C. To permit the land described and identified by Symbol B to be used for commercial uses, including retail and other accessory uses. This petition was first brought to the Board on February 2$, 1966. It appeared at this hearing that the City of Salem should have permission to enter into any building on this location in order to inspect the easement over which the City of Salem has control. The Board at this hearing was of the opinion that a legal question was involved' and it was the unanimous decision of the Board to continue this hearing until the execution of a proper agreement. On May 31, 1966 petitioner again appeared before the Board whereas a proper agreement authorized by the City Council, dated May 4, 1966, has been duly executed by Lorus Realty, Inc. , and approved by Mayor Francis X. Collins, and record- ed with Essex South Registry of Deeds, Book No. 5360, Page 413, a copy of which has been filed with this Board, pro- tecting the City of Salem from any and all liability in connection with the construction of the proposed building over the City of Salem's easement, and further in no way extinguishing the easement running to the benefit of the City: The Board voted unanimously to grant this petition on the grounds that the relief granted would be without detriment to the public good and would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. PETITION GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY secreta y. Titin IItilPiT[, �ISStttllSPttB Poarb of Appeal WILLIAM F. A080Tf March 7, 1966. 4M. ". ..IL..R o"" M. aAA. PETITION: - Lorus Realty, Inc., northerly side of ARTHUR L,.AE=o„K Laurel Street between 127 Canal Street `"" and 18 Hazel Street. To allow the construction of a building on the land identified by the symbol C. To permit the land described and identified by Sym- bol B to be used for commercial uses, including retail and accessory uses. On February 7, 1966, the Lorus Realty, Inc. , through its attorney Louis Baker, appealed directly to the Board of Appeal on these petitions. A hearing was held on this appeal in the office of the Inspector- of Buildings, Room 7, City Hall, Salem, on February 28, 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attor- ney, abutters, Board members, and others, and advertisements pub- fished in the Salem Evening News. Mr-1, Baker appeared for the petitioner and explained the plan. Mr. Daniel O'Brien, the Building Inspector, explained what the contractor intends to do. It APPeared at this hearing that the City of Salem should have per- miss_On to enter into any building on this location in order to" in- spect the easement over which the City o€ Salem has control. The Board was of the opinion that a legal question is involved here, and it was the unanimous opinion that the City Solicitor and the Building Inspector, Mr. O'Brien, draw up A document so that the City will be adequately protected against all liability. When the papers are drawn up the originals or a copy thereof are to be incorporated in this decision. BOARD OF APPEAL By �( r' SecretAr ' Ti#g of SttlPztt, ttssttcl�xzsP## M„LLAM P. ASSOT February 4, 1966. JAMES H. BOULDER JOHN M. GRAY ARTHUR LADR EODUE PETITION: - North Shore Optical Company, 129 Canal Street. JOSEPH P. DOYLE To erect an addition to an existing building in a B-4 dis- trict, zoned for wholesale and automotive, where a twenty- five foot rear yard is required; petitioner can allow twelve feet on one of building addition, and four feet on the other end. On November 30, 1965 the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a per- mit to erect an addition to this building as such addition would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal on December 2, 1965, and on December 20, 1965 a hearing was held in the office of the Building In- spector, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abut- ters, Board members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News . All members were present at this hearing. Appearing in favor with petitioner, Robert Pettit, were Mr. Laroche, Mr. Shields an architect, Councillors Pelletier, Poitras, Perron, and Dolan. Appearing in oppo- sition were Arthur McCarthy and Martin Perkins of 1421 and 14 Meadow Street. The Board voted to continue this hearing to its next meeting. On January 24, 1966, hearing on this petition was resumed. Attorney John Ward appeared for the petitioner, and stated that the petitioner had been in business for a long time, that a certain portion of the proposed addition would be used for professional offices, and as this is a B-4 district, zoned for wholesale and automotive, granting this appeal would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the ordinance, and would cause no detriment to the public good. Arthur McCarthy and Norman Beach appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted to suggest to the pe- titioner that he comply with the Building Code Law, the Inspector of Buildings will explain to the petitioner or his attorney, just what is needed in this particular case . DECISION: Denied without prejudice . BOARD OF APPEAL BY ° Secreta y " Ci IIuy S82iL3iSPfS r, Pmbof A"W 140 July 2$, 1966 J' ' tj^ MILA.YY../J.OIt ' JAM" " """`" "WH M.owwr DECISION: - George W. Pickering Company, Canal Street, corner of Ocean Avenue. Petition to erect addition to existing service station. I€ On June 30, 1966, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect. an addition to this service station since such construction would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. f The Ordinance requires a lot area of 12,000 square feet and f petitioner's lot .contains $545 sq. ft. The Ordinance also re- quires an additional two thousand square feet of lot area and an additional twenty feet of lot width for every two pumps and one service bay in excess of four pumps and two service bays. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance to permit this addition. A hearing was held on this petition on July 25, 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the peti- tioner, board members, abutters. and others, and notices pub- lished in The Evening Hews. All board members were present at this hearing. Mr. Frank Wet- more appeared for petitioner and stated his case as it appears in the appeal dated July 1, 1966 and incorporated in this de- cision. Councillor Edmond Perron appeared in favor, Mr. Anth- ony Tarnowski an abutter also appeared. No one appeared in op- f position. After due consideration thereof, the Board voting unanimously on the grounds that denying this petition would be a hardship to the petitioner and granting a variance would cause no det- riment to the pubficgood and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, granted the variance. Y' PETITION GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY becretaVY a ` � 1 Ctv of 'Sttlem, f ttssarhusetts Poarb of Appeal y, ( � �Y June 3, 1966 J.MR. M. .OVL4.N JOHN M. ...Y ..Y..RI.H....e PETITION: William and Marguerite Mahoney, 8 Castle Road. To erect a fence. The Building Inspector refused to issue a permit to erect a fence at this location since the height of the fence would in one area exceed the five-foot height allowed by the Zon- ing Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal to reverse the decision of. the Building Inspector, and on May 31, 1966, a hearing was held on this petition, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and notices published in the Salem Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. No one appeared in opposition. • Mr. Mahoney explained to the Board that due to the contour of the land the fence would be six feet in height in one area, and four feet high in another. Two of his neighbors are contemplat- ing erecting fences and these would join at owners' boundary lines, also, he and his neighbors who are erecting these fences would pay all expenses. This fence would provide needed privacy. The Board, after due consideration thereof, voting on the grounds that to deny this petition would cause hardship, and granting the petition would not substantial) derogate from the intent and pur- pose Y g not cause detriment to the public pose of the Ordinance, and would good, voted unanimously to grant this petition. PETITION GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY tl -'�ecretavY 40 flo ofof May 3 , 1966 PETITION : Theresa Kirkness, Lot # 281 Clark Street Erect single family dwelling on lot containing 5818 so_. ft. 7000 sq ft, required ; 50—ft frontage, 60—ft required ; sid v _ side .yard,and 1.0 ft required. On March 31, 1966, petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal to reverse the decision of the Inspector of Buildings who had refused to issue a permit to erect a dwelling at this location. A hearing was scheduled on this petition for April 25 , 19669 pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutter Fs , Board Members , and others, and advertisements published in th'- Salem Evening News. All members were present at this hearing,. Attorney George Vallis appeared for the petitioner and requested that petitioner be given leave to withdraw without prejudice. • The Board voted unanimously to allow petitioner to withdraw without prejudice. LEAVE TO WITHDRAW GRANTED. B AR F H. Secretary fai# Of �tt1Pm, Ittssttrl� se##s PDMrb of cAppeal umh w,LL M ,. AppO June 30, 1966 J/M[p „, pOVLO[R o„„ M. pR,V PETITION: - Francis Lachance, Lot 289A Clark Street. . RTM UR LApRCCOU. JO-[R„ R. DO.L[ To install dormer on existing dwelling, four feet from side boundary, eight feet from other side. On June 6, 1966, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to install a dormer in petitioner's dwel- ling as such would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. The Ordinance requires a ten-foot distance to side boun- daries and petitioner's existing dwelling is four feet from one side line and eight feet from the other side line. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Ordinance, and on June 27, 19669 a hearing was held on this petition, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, board members, abutters, and others, and notices published in The Evening News. • All board members were present at this hearing. Petitioner appeared and stated that to grant this variance would alle- viate a distinct hardship for his family as he needs addi- tional sleeping quarters for his children. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the board voting on the grounds that a hardship to the petitioner would be relieved by granting a variance, and that granting the variance would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would cause no detriment to the public good, voted unanimously to grant the variance. APPEAL GRANTED ecretary 17 WARD OF APPEAL a o£ ttl�m, ssttt�use##s ••� �Raard of LAppeal November 17, 1966 PETITION: - Rene H. Poirier, 12 Cleveland Road. .wr"uw I....OUR ! o•v" .. Dori.. To erect vestibule on rear of dwelling, six feet one inch from side boundary line, Ordinance requires a ten foot distance. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a ves- tibule on this dwelling since such construction would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals to reverse this decision, and a hearing was held on this petition on November 14, 1966, pursu- ant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, board members, abutters, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. • The petitioner appeared at this hearing with his wife and stated his case saying this vestibule is needed for protection against the weather. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board members having in mind that special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the structure involved which are not generally affecting other structures in the same district, and literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the appellant, and desirable relief may be granted without derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance, voted unanimously to grant this variance. VARIANCE GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY ecret y f�i#g of 'ttlem, ttssttrusp##� Poarb of JAPPVd June 3, 1966 J�Mu o.w JpNN M, pMY PETITION: James and Anna Durkin , 7 Cottage Street To erect a fence. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a fence at this location since in some areas, it would exceed the five-foot height allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a reversal of this decision, and on May 31, 1966, a hearing was held on this petition, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and notices published in the Salem Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. No one appeared in opposition. Attorney William Mahoney explained the plan for the petitioner. He stated that the petitioner proposed to erect a fence to pro- vide privacy for his family, and following the contour of the ground the top of the fence would be even but would vary in height from one area to another. The Board, after due consideration thereof, voting on the grounds that to deny this petition would cause hardship, and granting the Petition would not substantially derogate from the intent and pur- pose of the Ordinance and would not cause detriment to the public good, voted unanimously to grant this petition. PETITION GRANTED. BOARD OF APPEAL BY creta q II� � Ti#u of �zlem, tzsstttl��zs�##s �nnrb of Appenl June 6, 1966 M�LL,.M .. PBBOTr JPM ES ". BOULDER PR.M�RLPBRE�o�F PETITION: Ernest R. Belleau, 3rd. 5 Crowdis Street J03EP" F. OOVLE To place single family dwelling on lot with 5$.94 ft. frontage. A hearing on this petition was held on April 25, 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements pub- lished in the Salem Evening News. At this hearing the Board voted unanimously to continue this hearing because there is a question of the power of the Board of Appeal to deal with anything but a use of the land, and a question whether the Board has any power to place a single fam- ily dwelling on a lot where there is a question of moving the dwelling from one location to another. On May 31, 1966 The Board of Appeals prepared to continue this hearing. Attorney Louis Baker appeared for the petitioner and requested that his client be granted leave to withdraw his pe- tition. The Board, all members present, and voting unanimously, voted to grant the petitioner leave to withdraw his petition without prejudice. LEAVE TO WITHDRAW BOARD OF APPEAL BY . ecretary/ 00 J Ali# of *km, �ttsstttl�se##g ' IIBTb of PF� 51 ��J �3 dune 3, 1966. 1.w.. H. .ou ..w PETITION: Daniel and Rita D'Aprile, 5 Cottage Street. .wrw uw u.w.c ou. _••^� To erect a fence. The Building Inspector refused to issue a permit to erect a fence at this location since because of the contour of the ground, the height would exceed the five feet allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a reversal of this decision, and on May 31, 1966 a hearing was held on this petition, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and notices published in the Salem Evening News. All Board Members were present at this hearing. No one appeared in opposition. Petitioner through Attorney William Mahoney explained the plan stating he proposed to erect a cedar fence of a height running from approximately 512" to a height of 616", following the running contour of the groundp to provide privacy for occupants. The Board, after due consideration therof, voting on the grounds that to deny this petition would cause hardship, and granting the petition would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and would not cause detriment to the public good, voted unanimously to grant this petition. PETITION GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL n BY o il /�( ecretar �GONIA 1 11110ard of Appeal May 3, 1966 �rEaPNa PETITION : Ernest R. Belleau, 3rd. 5 Crowdis Street O3Lr To place single family dwelling on lot with 5$.94 ft. frontage . On April 6, 1966, petitioner through his attorney, Louis E. Baker, sought a variance to permit petitioner to place a single dwelling on said lot. A hearing on this petition, was held on April 25, 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. All members were present at, this hearing. Att `y. Baker appeared for the petitioner, also a Mr. Melanson who sold the land to Mr. Belleau appeared in favor. Councillor John Butler appeared in opposition, stating there is no hardship involved because this parcel of land was bought within the last three months. A list of names of fifty people opposed to allowing this petition was presented. In addition Mr. Pento from Freeman Road appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board unanimously voted to continue this hearing because there is a question of the power of the Board of Appeal to deal with anything but a use of the land, and a question whether the Board has any power to place a single family dwelling on a lot where there is a question of moving the dwelling from one location to another. DECISION PENDING . BOARD OF APPEAL �tt r Y Tito of ttlem, H sstt�hu�e � Paurb of �pprzd � April 4, 1966 JGM ER ". .°° ... PETITION: - Ernest R. Belleau 3rd, 5 Crowdis Street JO"N M. ORGY To place two single family dwellings on this parcel of land, buildings presently standing at 20 and 22 Laurel Street. This lot has a frontage of 58.94 ft; petition- er desires variance to have frontage of 38.94, the other 20 ft. to provide a right of way for dwelling in rear. Petitioner through his attorney, Louis Baker, appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance to allow the location of two single family dwel- lings on this land. A hearing was held on this petition in the office of the Inspector of Buildings on March 28, 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. There were four Board Members present at this hearing, the Chairman, John M. Gray, Sr. , being ill and unable to attend. • Petitioner and his attorney, Mr. Baker, appeared in favor for the pe- titioner and explained the plan. Att°y. Baker described the entire area of Salem as being very small in comparison to other cities, so the tendency today is for small homes to be erected here. In this particular case, one lot would adjoin an easement in the form of a right of way. Appearing in opposition were Councillors O'Keefe and Butler. Att'y. John Serafini, representing many citizens, appeared and filed a writ- ten paper with the names of the various objectors. These numbered thirty-one. This paper is incorporated into this decision, and may be read by any person interested. It can be found in the original file in the files of the Board of Appeal. Att 'y. Serafini stated that to grant this petition would constitute a breakdown of the real intent of the Ordinance which applies in this case. He continued that there was no hardship relative to the lot of land on Crowdis Street whatever the situation would be in regard to the houses proposed to be moved from Laurel Street. Furthermore, Mr. Serafini said that this really is a proposed division in two or more proposed parts, and petitioner is not following the right procedure, in such a case as this the Planning Board must act as it is not solely the matter of a variance. The Attorney went on to state that the peo- ple who built their homes in this area had a right to feel they were to have some degree of permanence, and this area has been set aside with restrictions as to lot size and frontage, and represents quite an in- vestment to many people. In conclusion, Mr. Serafini stated that ac- cording to the plans of the petitioner on file, it reveals a state of very narrow roadways which constitute a problem for the Fire Depart- ment to gain access to the houses adjacent to said roadways. _ z After due consideration th®reof, the Board by unanimous vote of all four members present, voted to refer the petitioner to the Planning Board for appropriate action because this may involve subdivision. / 9E1ret ry, -BOARD `A E • Ctu of '*ttlrm, '�Hassar4usr##s Pourb of clppraf '/ w,LU,w„ w.Bon June 3, 1966 o„„ . BRwY PETITION: Richard Matton, Trustee of Matton Trust, ,AT„ A u.aH=OUH Lots "L” and "M" Day Avenue. JOBHPl1 I, OOVLH To construct a single building, containing eight apartments, on these two lots of land on Day Avenue. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a special permit to permit the construction of an eight-apartment building at this location. This is an R-2 district, zoned for two family residences. Attorney John McNiff appeared for the petitioner at a hearing on this petition held on May 31, 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and notices published in the Salem Evening News. Attorney McNiff stated his client proposed to construct a single building to contain eight apartments for dwelling units on the two lots, L and M. in a two family residence zone. He further stated that since a four-family unit may with the approval of the Board of Appeals be constructed on each lot, he was request- ing that the petitioner be permitted to construct one building_ on the two lots for eight families. Appearing in opposition were Mr. and Mrs. Charles Hughes of 1 Day Avenue, Mr. and Mrs. John Avigian, 3 Day Avenue, Raymond Kulakow- ski, 464 Lafayette Street, and Councillors John H. Burke, Richard Poitras, and Edmond Perron. After due consideration thereof, the Board by unanimous vote, and voting on the grounds there is no hardship involved, and granting this petition would derogate from the intent and purpose of the ordinance and would cause substantial detriment to the public good, voted to deny this petition. PETITION DENIED BOARD OF APPEAL BY ecret;a ?:*:�" Poar3 of Appeg u R April 1, 1966 WILLIAM R. ABBOTT PETITION: Richard F. Dylengoski, 156 Derby street JOHN M. .RAV ARTR VR WB"QCO UB JO.QRH ,. pOTLQ To alter front of cafe, remove street door to upstairs e of fisting second floor aporch tote on denlarge lexistiencloselding - existing bedroom and provide closet area. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit for these alterations since such alterations would be in vio- lation of the Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinancaq and a hear- ing was held on this petition on March 28, 19668 in he office of the inspector of Buildingse pursuant to notices ®ailed postpaid to the petitioners abutters, Board Members and otherse and advertisements published in the Salon Even- ing Neves. Four BogtA members were present at this hearing, th® fifth member, Chairman John M. Gray, Sr. , being ill. Mr.and Mrs. . Dylengoski appeared at the hearing and Mr. Dyle ni stated the place is too small at present for his family. He needs larger bedroom for two children, and it is necessary to make some other changes etoprovide for the convenience of his customers, No one app After due consideration thereofs the Board bydsonanimtosgvotes four members present and voting on the gr rant this variance would cause no detriment to the public goods, and . would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, granted the variancee VARIANCE GRANTED ecr ar7, A of ialrml 4EaSSar4U5dt6 Pourb IIf �1�J�JPFI� w,LL,AM F. AESOTT December 29, 1966 JAMES H. BOULDER JOHN M. GRAY ARTHUR LAEREOCUE PETITION: - Frank Wetmore, 222-226 Derby Street. JOSEPH F. DOYLE To alter first floor, formerly occupied by two stores, to provide two additional apartments. This is a two- family district and there are already four apartments in this building. Mr. Wetmore was refused a permit to alter this building to provide two additional apartments by the Inspector of Build- ings, since such alteration would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal and a hearing was held on this petition on December 19, 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, board members, abutters, and others, and notices published in The Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Petitioner ap- peared and explained he needs the additional income. Mr. John M. Gray, Sr. , chairman of the Appeals Board stated that the State Law applies in this case, as any more than three apart- ments are subject to state regulations. Mr. Gray further stated that state regulations must be followed when making al- terations to an existing building, and also, Section 6 of the City of Salem Building Code requires that all state regulations apply in a case of this sort. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted to continue the hearing on this petition pending an inquiry regarding State Law applying in this case. DECISION PENDING BOARD OF APPEAL BY Secreta3Vy ` CtU of ialrm, fflasezr4usetts ^� "Poara of �ppeal WILLIAM ,p,p November 17, 1966 JAM.. N. .OVlp aw JOHN M. pwPY "w,N"w `A....... PETITION: JENNEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, 245-249 DERBY STREET JoaaaN v. ooYa To construct a new service station to replace existing sta- tion with thirty-foot driveway entrances, Zoning Ordinance limits driveway to twenty-four feet; also, a twenty-foot side yard is required, and plans show only a five foot distance. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to construct this service station since such would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Aeal fir a variance from the application of the Ordinance, and on 14, 1966, a hearing was held on this appeal, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, board members, abutters, and others, and advertise - ments published in the Evening News. • All Board members were present at this hearing. Mr. Bert Larson from Melrose, an engineer of this company, appeared representing petitioner. He stated his case pointing out that the company needs a new station and in his opinion the. proposed struct- ure will beautify this corner. No one appeared in opposition. Having in mind that special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the structure and land involved which are not generally affecting other structures and land in the same dis- trict, and literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the appellant, and desirable relief may be granted without derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance, after due consideration thereof, the Board members voted unanimously to grant this variance. VARIANCE GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY4 ecreta " 0 ctu of *Iezu, $�z��ttc uset#s Poarb of April 1B 1966 wiuuM v. wo on JAM.. N. .CVL..A PETITION: Ward II Social Club, 1 East Collins St. JOHN M. OMV '" "U" "•""" To erect addition to existing dlubg *hick is a ooh® JC..rN .. ...�. confo:aXing use in a single family residence district. Zoning Ordinance requires fifteen foot front yard; and ten-foot distance to side boundai�ye Petitioner's property has a twolvo-foot front yard and a six foot aide yard. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal to reverse the decision of the Building Inspector who refused to issue a permit for this addition since such addition would be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. A_ hearing was held on this petition on March 2S® 1966; in the office of the Inspector of Buildings, pursuant to no- tices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members and others, and advertisements in the Salesa Evening Newsy • pour Board members were present at this hearing® .the fifth member© Chairman John M. Gra', Sr., be ng ill. Attorneyhat John F® 0 ®11 representing Pe addition contemplated consists is part of a hall which any- one of the public can hire for $10,00, He further stated it is necesaary to build the addition in the Wmner proposed as no other plan is feasible, and nembership in this club has increased so rapidly, the addition is a real necessity. Appearing in Favor were Joseph Pineault, Mr. Perkins; and Robert Marchand who is president of the club. Councillors Joseph O'Keefe and John Burke wished to be recorded in fetor. After due consideration thereof the Board by unanimous, four members present and voting on tae grounds that granting this variance would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and would cause no detriment to the public good granted the variance. VARIANCE GRANTED 1 e ret ry, n e dlttV of �$Atm, Anseadjusetts June 39 1966 WILLIAM I. P..Off JAN.. . O." JOHN M.. SMv PETITION: Heritage Realty Co., 176 Essex Street. AMMVN LA."[COY. ,�•••N •_�� To convert portions of the premises of the Essex House to provide additional rooms to be rented. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to add nine rooms to be rented as furnished rooms at 176 Essex Street since such would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, which designates this area as a B-3 District, zoned for Central Business and residential units are not permitted. _ Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal to reverse the decision of the Building Inspector, and on May 31, 19660 a hearing was held on this petition pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the peti- tioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and notices published in the Salem Evening News. All members were present at this hearing. David Gordon and David Todreas, petitioners, appeared and explained the plan on file. They stated that eventually it will be an office building with an elevator up to the third floor. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board unanimously voted to deny this petition as this is a B-3, Central Business district, there is no hardship involved and it would substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the ordinance, and granting this petition would cause detriment to the public good. PETITION DENIED. BOARD OF APPEAL BYAt�rettf �- ecre rq t ' y�,rocavu+u. �3. :+ T Titu of olrm, r 7sszrc(tu efts �3 s A 1. ;1 �QdYL� Olt Appeal May 3, 1966 M R4. PETITION: The Pedlar Shop, 181 Essex Street. To install a sign covering 150 sq. ft. area; frontage here is 33 feet. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to install a sign at this location since such installation would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordin- ance. On April 6, 1966, petitioner appealed to the Board of Ap= peal to reverse this decision, and on April 25, 1966, a hearing was held on this petition pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Even- ing News. All members were present at this hearing. Mr. Portelance of the Leslie Sign Company appeared for the petitioner. Appearing in opposition, Mr. Michael Harrington, as a private citizen stated this sort of a situation is under consideration by the Planning Board; also, that this sign is five times the size of what the law allows, and that there will be new requirements by the Redevelopment Author- ity. After due consideration thereof, the Board, all members vot- ing unanimously, voted on the grounds there is no hardship involved, and allowing this sign would substantially dero- gate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would cause detriment to the public good, to deny this petition. APPEAL DENIED. BOARD OF APPEAL Secretary 0,i �AM.CD o C"TTmd WILLIAM F. A.a GTT June 30, 1966 I... N. .oeto.. JONN M. 4PAV ^a...... PETITION: - Shirley Boucher; 11 Fairfield Street. Joe.PN v, oovlc To install swimming pool. An exception to the application of the Zoning Ordinance is required for installation of all swimming pools. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to install a swimming pool at this location, as such instal- lation would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for an exception to the application of the Zoning Ordinance, and a hearing on this petition was held on June 27, 1966. All members of the Board were present at this hearing. Attorney George Vallis appeared for the petitioner, also Henry Boucher husband of the petitioner, and Councillor Edmond Perron appeared in favor. Petitioner's home is located too far from the nearest beaches for young children to visit them. There are seven children in the family and they would have to cross a very busy street, (Lafayette Street ) to attend any beach in the area. Two of the children are very small babies. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the board recognizing the existing hardship to this family, voted unanimously to grant this exception. 'Sbcreta EXCEPTION GRANTED OARD OF APPEAL of �$akni, Aassadjusetts g Poarb of Appeal July 10 1966 --lo Cx,41 C-" � WILLIPM P. FBBOTT AMES N. eOULOER PETITION: — Louis Wood, 107 Federal Street, corner of JOXN M. ORPV PRTMl1R LPRRE=o„E Beckford Street. JOSEPH F. 00"x[ For variance to install signs on street sides of building. The Inspector of Buildings on June 7, 1966, refused to is— sue a permit to install signs over a store at this location since such installation would be in violation of the City of Salem 'Zoning Ordinance. This store is located in a residential district where signs over twelve square feet are not permitted. The Salem Sign Company, representing petitioner, appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance to install two signs. A hearing on this petition was scheduled for June 27, 1966, pursuant notices mailed embers, abutters, andotherpostpaid and notices publishedto the inboard Evening News . All Board members appeared at this hearing. Petitioner requested permission to withdraw petition without prejudice. The Board voted unanimously to grant this request, and Mr. Wood was given leave to withdraw without prejudice. LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE . u" ecretary V BOARD OF APPEAL t y . '0 TitU o 1faa, 4Uas52itj11I5Pft-.; 3 L p .V`nark of Appeaj w .ry F ..00r May 3 , 1966. .. res ry ocu�cee orvry n. c9.. PETITION: Louis Woods, 107 Federal Street. Cosa=w � oo.ue Change of use to permit the sale of beer and wines in addition to groceries in existing grocery store in R-2, two-family district. On March 24, 1966, petitioner through his attorney, David T. Doyle appealed to the Board of Appeal for a change of use so that petitioner might sell beer and wines in addition to gro- ceries at the specified location. On April 25, 1966, a hearing was held on this petition, pur suant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. All members were present at this hearing. Attorney Doyle stated this is a petition for a change of use of the premises, and re- ferred to the petition on file; it has been a grocery store for fa quite a few years, and under this petition only packaged goods are to be sold. One hundred and two abutters and neighbors pe- titioned in favor. Appearing in opposition, Councillor John Butler stated there would be too much traffic in the vicinity. Mrs. Walter Caron also appeared in opposition, stating to allow this petition is allowing an unnecessary increase in traffic. Mr. W. Neil Goddard who owns property on Beckford Street, and Mr. Peter Copelas also appeared in opposition. Board Member Joseph F. Doyle refrained from voting. After due consideration thereof, the other four Board Members, voting on the grounds that granting this change of use would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and would cause no detriment to the public good, voted unanimously to grant the petitioner a change of use as requested. The fact of permission to sell beer and wine is a matter for the Licensing Authorities. CHANGE OF USE GRANTED VY APPEAL Secretary Ilk gag of osai Ss�Lh1tSE 8 July 28, 1966 DECISION. - Foster Leather Company, Florence Street, rear of 51 Canal Street. wwn+uw v..wacou. To erect building for leather processing to expand ex- isting leather business at 51 Canal Street. On June 290 1966, the Building Inspector refused to issue a permit to erect a leather-processing building on Florence Street since such construction would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. This is an R-2 district, zoned for two family residences, and busi- ness in this district is a non-conforming use. The Ordinance re- quires a fifteen foot setback from the street and petitioner proposes to erect this building within one foot of the roadway; also, the Zoning Ordinance limits the coverage on the lot of all buildings to 35%; the_ plan shows the proposed coverage would be 73.5%- The Burke Corporation, General Contractors, representing the Foster Leather Company, appealed to the Board of Appeal for variances to enlarge a non-conforming use, to cover a land area greater than 35%, and to come within one foot of existing roadway. A hearing was held on this petition on July 25, 1966. All Board Mem- bers were present. Mr. John F. Burke of the Burke Corporation appeared for petitioner, also Mr. David Tenzer a member of the Foster Leather Company. Mr. Burke stated a hardship exists in this case, mentioning the variances sought in his appeal to the Board, dated June 299 1966, and incted many joobsp andtthiscadditionrwouldzer be atated the firm distinct benefit sto created many � , the City. Appearing in opposition were Councillor George Marquis and Mr. Alfred Lebel who stated the odor of leather enters his house from this fac- tory. Two petitions expressing objections to granting this petition were presented with 121 signatures. � After due consideration thereof, the Board voting on the grounds that granting this petition would cause detriBenoftthehe public Ordinancegovotedd F would derogate from the intent and purpO unanimously to deny this petition. BOARD OF APPEAL PETITION DENIED BY , ecret y Titu of '�$ttlem, '�Httssar4usetts Poarb of cAVpeal June 30, 1966 WILLIAM V. ABBOTT Jwrnee N. sovLo eR JOHN M. ORAV w RTM VR LA.RBCOV[ JO.[RN �. OOVL[ PETITION: - J. Robert Jean, 2 Forest Avenue To replace existing porch on dwelling, three feet to side boundary, five feet to rear boundary. On June 2, 1966, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to replace an existing porch at this lo- cation since such construction would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal to reverse this decision, and on June 27, 1966, a hearing was held on this petition pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the peti- tioner, board members, abutters, and others, and notices published in the Evening News. All board members were present at this hearing. Petitioner explained that the existing porch is deteriorating and will soon be unsafe, also he proposes to lengthen and cover the porch to make a better back entrance especially during stormy weather. No one appeared in opposition. Mrs. Marie McCloskey appeared in favor. The Board after due consideration thereof, voting on the grounds that the existing porch is causing hardship to the petitioner, and that to grant a variance would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would not cause detriment to the public good, voted unanimously to grant the variance. APPEAL GRANTED Vecretary V OARD OF APPEAL �t#g of ialrm, ttssttrl�use##s Potts of 4Appettl wiu"M r. ".,oTT April 4, 1966• PETITION: Joseph Pazdziomy, 29 Forrester Street, JONN M. ORMY RT"VR LA.g6C0V6 To erect two story addition to dwelling to provide addi- tional sleeping quarters. Zoning Ordinance requires 3500 square feet for each dwelling unit in this district, also, a fifteen foot front yard, ten foot side yard, and a thirty foot distance between buildings. On March 4, 1966, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit for these alterations as such would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the Application of the Ordinance, and on March 28, 1966, a hearing was held on this petition pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and. others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. Four Board Members were present at this hearing, the Chairman, John M. Gray,Sr. , being ill and unable to attend. Appearing in favor with the petitioner, Alr, Paadziomy, were two abut- ters, Theodore Robialka and Roland kadore. Also, Councillor Richard Poitras was recorded in favor. Petitioner explained to the Board tt he needs this additional room for his family. No one appeared in' -®ppoeiii '' After due consideration thereof, the Board, four members present and voting on the grounds that refusing to grant a variance would be a hardship to the petitioner, and granting the variance would not sub- stantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would cause no detriment to the public good, voted unanimoueiy to, grant the variance, VARIANCE GRANTED 4"1__4W C, , . ^ya 13UAlarqjY AP (9itV of $alrm, Massar4usietts pDarb of c�Fpvd April is 1966 WILLIAM R. A.BOTT JAMB PETITION: Clart Realty Corp., 25 Poster Street F. qqni To alter third floor of wood frame dwelling to provide ,additional apartment in a two family residence, district; I q The Inspector or Buildings refused to issue a permit for these alterations since such would be in violation of the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance, The Building Code prohibits an apartment above the second floor in I a I wood d- frame' dwelling. ' The Zonin _ g Ordinance re- f' f gr , 3590 sq, t, 9 lot area per- dwelling unit; A thirty- 0 istanc I e I 'between I buildings on a 1.ot a fifteen root front a 11 at distance top foot side yards and thirty foot roar yards, I are front I her I requirements. I Alopt t lot coverage he MaXiMM' by all buildings cannot exceed 359 * Petitioner meAlod to the Board of Appeals to grant him a Tar- t... application, of the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance.dinance. A hearing was held on this petition in the office Buildings I on March 28" iO66, pursuant to, he 1�pppe March 1 . P I o Ces mail d postpaid ibutterap Inspector of t to the pOt't'onoT Board Next L e' t'i I b and others, and ad'yer , oements published in, the Aale* e L ' ' ' - - 11 1 vrOn n news 9 Four Board members Were present at thisMr. John No 1 Four 1 Chi � I a Board being illhearing, Gray,a y i;�p an. o f_1 the andT�a e to be piee6nt. Arthur Chairman I A. Chalifour and Clair Callahan Aprared. and Mr. Chal- i�tp�u'r explained Attorney Same!, Q", also I appeared 1 , � pod the plan. 'in mayor; stating this kiPd ' of investment should be encouraged. After due consideration thereof, the Board by unanimous votes fmembers present and voting on the grounds that to grant our mop_er to the he public ' this variance" would cause no d4tmrimont - t go and would' not substantially cause derogate from the intent and pur- is1 of the Ordinance, ir, anted the variance. VARIANCE GRANTED D 'OF APPEAL reftary, BOPP Ctv of *Irm, 4&66ar4use##s el Ell Pnurb of �Vpjad July 27, 1966�,O° � WILLIAM i. "[YOT' I DECISION: - David T. Doyle, 6 Hayes Road. JONN M. ORAV •pTNUR LA.R[COU[ JO.[iN F. 00YL[ Petition to erect addition to existing dwelling to pro- vide family room. On June 20, 1966, the petitioner was refused a permit by the In- spector of Buildings to erect an addition to his dwelling since such construction would be in violation of the City of Salem Zon- ing Ordinance which requires a lot size of 7000 sq ft in this area, and petitioner's lot is 5952 sq ft. Mr. Doyle appealed to the Board of Appeal to reverse this decis- ion, and on July 25, 1966 a hearing was held on this petition, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, the board members, abutters, and others, and notices published in The Even- ing News. All board members were present at this hearing. Board Member • Joseph F. Doyle disqualified himself from parti-cipating in this hearing as his son is the petitioner. Petitioner appeared and presented his case. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the four members of the Board hearing this petition voting unanimously on the grounds that de- nying this appeal would cause hardship to petitioner, and grant- ing petition would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would not cause detriment to the public good, granted petition. PETITION GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY ecreta ` e of Cmagoa justfiS P=bofM01 September 309 1966 Cly W. .. ...OW jwr.... .Oew.. 'JOHN .; .. .. QyPETITION: - Michael J. DeCotis, d.b.a. U . ..n. Rodman A. Nichols Package Store, Inc., Richfs Highland Plaza, Highland Avenue To erect sign on Liquor store with a thirty foot front- age, sign area to be 150 square feet. On September 69 1966 petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance to afor had refused to issue a ph permit for premises. building since theainspec- tor on these reaoc f the sign is greater than allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. A hearing was held on this petition on September 269 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, and others, and advertisements published in the Evening News, with the Mr. board Beoulger,were present whoewasat this unable toeattend because of exception r Attorney Harry A. Simon appeared for the petitioner, and stated that this was formerly the Rodman Nichols Package Store on North Street. but due to the heavy traffic there, petitioner would like to relocate Con Highland Avenue. Mr. Arthur Portelance of the Leslie Sign Company, ,and Mr. Edward O'Brien, a clerk in the liquor store, appeared in. favor of granting this petition. No one appeared in.:oppositiono mbers i�ngeunanimouslydonathengrounds ofthe four hardshipbtortheepetitioner® vot- ing de if he were restricted to the provision that one square foot of sign area be allowed for each lineal foot of frontage, and granting this var- iance would cause no detriment to the public gooand of tw would he ninance, substantially derogate from the intent and purpose granted the variance. <qBOARD OF APPEAL PETITION GRANTED B2 ".4414 ll/)/ ecret " • x c: Tit" of v.� lrmy � ) 'C5a2ICfi11SCt !; �nard of �u�ea1 April 29, 1966 PETITION : Louis Robicheau, Highland Avenue, between #106 - #108. To erect single family dwelling on lot of land with a fifty-foot frontage, and allow seven-foot distance to side boundaries. On March 11, 1966, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a dwelling on this lot since such construction would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal and on April 25, 1966, a hearing was held on this petition pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. • All members were present at this hearing. Petitioner appeared and stated he had an option to buy the property involved, and will complete purchase of same if variance is granted. Councillor Poitras appeared in favor. Appearing in opposition were John Mil- ler, Sr. , 106 Highland Avenue, and John Miller, Jr. , of the same address, who stated the lot is too narrow and it is all ledge. Also appearing in opposition were Mr. and Mrs. Bernard Caron of 10$ Highland Avenue who stated that to allow this petition would devalue other property. After due consideration thereof, the Board all members present and voting unanimously granted a variance on the frontage of the lot, and voted to refer this petition to the Building Inspector for further action. VARIANCE GRANTED ON LOT FRONTAGE . �Y 'Af�PEA L Secretary CHH of "ittlem, assuchuse##s Pourb of 'ppzal �a C'&A c1 w""AM F. '.NO" June 3, 1966 JAM ee N. •o Vtp[w JOHN M. pgAY AwTNVw Upw[COV[ Jp.[wM e. pOYI[ PETITION: Doris C. Raymond, 124 Highland Avenue. To conduct business of manicurist. Attorney John R. Serafini, representing the petitioner, ap- pealed to the Board of Appeal on May 5, 1966, requesting permission for his client to conduct a home occupied busi- ness of manicurist. A hearing was held on this petition on May 31, 1966, ;pursu- ant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, her attor- ney, abutters, Board Members, and others, and notices pub- lished in the Salem Evening News. All Board Members were present at this hearing. Attorney Serafini appearing for petitioner, stated that this is a single family area, his client has five rooms on the prem- ises, no employees will be hired, no products will be sold. ^� He further stated the petitioner is limited in her physical activities and needs the income. The Board after due consideration thereof, voting on the grounds that denying this petition would cause hardship to the petitioner, and granting the petition would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the ordinance and would cause no detriment to the public good, voted unanimously to grant this petition. PETITION GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY ecreta y ` of �*drut, ssttrl#usP##s Pant of JAPPM November 25, 1966 _"" .. .� . PETITION: - CITY OF SALEM, 137 HIGHLAND AVENUE wwr"u. lw...C.O[ To erect pumping station to increase water pressure for area residents. On November 8, 1966, the City Engineer, Mr. Neal B. Mitchell, filed an application with the Inspector of Buildings for a permit to erect a pumping station at this location to improve water services in this area. This is a Conservation district where municipal buildings other than schools, libraries, and fire houses are specifically ex- cluded and the Building Inspector referred this application to the Board of Appeal. A hearing was held on this petition on November 23, 1966, pur- suant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, Board Memo bers, abutters, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. • All Board Members were present at this hearing. No one appeared in opposition. Four abutters appeared in favor. Mr. Mitchell, the City Engineer, appeared for the City of Salem, and stated this is a public necessity and will give better water service to people living in the vicinity, and also, this is re- quested by the City Council. After due consideration thereof, having in mind that special con- ditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the struct- ure involved which are not generally affecting other structures in the same district, and literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, and 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 purposes of the Ordinance, the Board voted unanimously to grant this petition. BOARD OF APPEAL PETITION GRANTED BY SecretajFy e CHU of '$36A' 'Massar4usett$ September 29, 1966 (!AA e` ws.uwr r. woerr - JwN■s N. .ouw■w JOHN N.Oww' PETITION: - North Shore Waste Paper Company, Inc., •wrruw u.w:eou■ 53 Jefferson Avenue To erect a structure around an existing loading dock for protection against bad weather. This is an indus- trial district where a thirty-foot distance to all boundary lines is required. Petitioner cannot allow more than twelve feet from front boundary. On August 17, 1966, petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance, havinngg been refused a permit for this alteration by the Inspector of Build- ings. A hearing was held on this petition on September 269 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, and others, and advertisements published in the Evening News. Ylith the exception of Mr. Jame Boulger, Sr., who was confined to the hospital, all members were present at this hearing. Mfr. Herbert Gold, president and treasurer of thig company, appeared and made a statement exactlthe same as stated in his letter of ap- peal dated August 17 which Uecomee part of this record. He stated the business has been located at this address for thirty-five years and it is impossible to expand in another direction. He further stated the business is growing and if not permitted to expand, it would be a great hardship to the company. Appe,aring in favor of this petition was: Richard Walsh of the Richard Vialsh Construction Compan , who explained the plan on file. .W*Robert Beirne, representing New ngland Power Company, an abutteril appeared neither for nor against. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board, all four members present voting unanimously on the grounds that to deny this petition would cause. hardship to the petitioner and granting the variance would not substantially derogate from the Intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would cause no detriednt to the public good, granted the variance. PETITION GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL B7 ecret f. " s (fitV of *Irm, fflassar4usefts 'Pnarb of �ppeal NWILLIAM F. ABBOTT November 17, 1966 JAM.. M. BOULO.R JOHN M. CRAY ARTHUR LA...Co.. PETITION: - Laurent Fontaine, 324 Jefferson Avenue. JC.S.H .. CCYL. To erect a one-story addition to a two family. . dwelling to provide additional sleeping quarters and a bathroom. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addition to this dwelling since such construction would be in vio- lation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. In single-family residence areas, and this is one, 7000 square feet are required for each dwelling units a distance of ten feet from side boundary lines is also required and petitioner can allow only six feet, six inches. The area of this house lot is 5000 square feet. Mr. Fontaine appealed to the Board of Appeal to reverse this de- cision, and on November 14, 1966, a hearing was held on this pe- tition, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, board members, abutters, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. • All Board members were present at this hearing. Petitioner appeared and explained the plans, stating he needed the additional rooms for his growing family. Mr. Thomas Johnson, a builder, appeared in favor. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, having in mind that special condi- tions and circumstances exist which especially affect the structure involved which are not generally affecting other structures in the same district, and literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the appellant, and desirable relief may be granted without derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance, the Board members voted unanimously to grant this variance. VARIANCE GRANTED BOARD OFFF APPEAL BY (j If �t�3 ecret • f�if� �f ��eztr, �Htts��cl�lisett� �utirb of cAppeal April 4, 1966. w uuM .. ..001 - G�1 4^ o"" M. .V P TJ63'Iallo Wilfied Ja Reiletier, Lot 293 Jefferson Ave. A.1... I.... t °."L` To 'place, building, on _lot,, Zoning requires ten-foot side jrards; thirty®foot rear yard, and petitioner can allow only a five®foot side yard and a twenty-five foot rear yard: On Mich 81966 the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a i permit to nstal a building at .this location since such would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Boird .of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Oidiaance. A hearing was held on this petition on ftirch 26, • 1966i. in the office of the Inspector of Buildings, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the peti- tioner, abutters, ,Board. Members and others, and advertisements published .in the Salem Evening News. Four Board Members were present at this hearing, the Chairman, • Xre Gray being ill and unable to attend. The petitioner appeared and stated he needed this building to conduct his business. Mr. Napoleon LeBlanc, an abutter also appeared in favor for the petitioner. Appearing in opposition was Mr. Hugh J. Gilbert. After due consideration thereof, the Board, four members present and voting on the grounds that granting this variance would cause no detriment to the public good and would not substantially dero- gate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, voted unanimously to grant the variance. VARIANCE GRANTED et y, �- of Salem, tt5sar4urov##s � t Poarh of Appeal July 1, 1966 WILD>M I. iBBOR JAM EB M. BO VLOEP JOHN M. OPAY PETITION: — Charles Leclerc, 36 Juniper Avenue, at P. P BPEOcuE Corner of Star Avenue. JO.EPM L OOrL` To erect a garage for two cars, and storing of various garden tools, storm windows, etc. , four feet from Star Avenue street line, on street line of Juniper Avenue, and 11 '-6" from rear boundary line. On June 2, 1966, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a garage at this location since such construction would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. The Ordinance requires a fifteen-foot setback from all street lines and a distance of thirty feet to the rear boundary line. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance. A hearing was held on this petition on June 27, 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, board members, abutters, and others, and notices published in The Even- ing News. All board members were present at this hearing. Appear- ing for the petitioner was his daughter Carol Barry of 36 Juniper Avenue. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof the board voting on the grounds there is no hardship involved, and granting a variance would substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and would cause detriment to the public good, voted unanimously to deny this appeal. APPEAL DENIED Fecretary BOARD OF APPEAL of $aIem, jfflassar4usetts m r� PDarb of 'Avpeal tr�cy�auc WILLIAM F. ABBOTT February 4, 1966. JAMES H. BOVLOER JOHN M. ORA. PETITION: - Lydia M. Marchand, 159 Lafayette Street. APTH UR LABRECOUE JOSEPH F. DOVLE To alter third floor of five—apartment dwelling to pro— vide additional apartment, using sky windows for lighting and ventillation. On December 29, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to alter the third floor of this dwelling to provide an additional apartment as such alteration would be in violation of the City of Salem Building Code . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal on January 3, 1966 for a variance from the application of the Building ordinance . On January 24, 1966 a hearing was held on this petition in the office of the Inspector_ of Buildings, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. All Board members appeared at this hearing. Appearing for the peti— tioner Mr. Arthur Marchand and his son explained the plan, and stated if the Board needed more information they would furnish same . There are five families in this house . After due consideration thereof, the Board by a unanimous decision, voted to continue this hearing until the February meeting as peti— tioner wishes to furnish further evidence which may be helpful in arriving at a decision in this case . BOARD OF APPEAL DECISION PENDING. By 6re Se � Titu of §'alvw, c15S2IC�?lt5rttti ^811arb of -Appeal March 7, 1966. PETITION : Lydia M. Marchand, 159 Lafayette Street. ., 4 :AeAE o E To alter third floor of five-apartment dwelling to pro- vide additional apartment, using sky windows for light- ing and ventilation. A hearing was held on this petition on January 249 1966, at which time the Board by a unanimous decision voted to continue this hear- ing until the February meeting as petitioner wished to furnish further evidence which may be helpful in arriving at a decision in this case. The hearing was resumed on February 280 1966. Mr. Arthur Marchand, Jr. , son of the petitioner appeared in person and withdrew this appeal. The board, all members present and voting unanimously, voted to grant request of petitioner to withdraw this petition. PETITION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED. BOARD OF APPEAL BY w ecret y Ctu of Sttlem, Ha sttchuse## PlttrD of '�ppettl July 1, 1966 JAM E9 N. °O VL°[R JOHN M. GRAY PETITION: - Alfred J. Thibault, 301 Lafayette Street JoaeRN n. oovu To install a swimming pool; an exception to the application of the Zoning Ordinance is required for the installation of any swimming pool. In this case a variance from the application of the Zoning Ord- inance is also required because of a six-foot distance being allowed to side boundary line, and a fifteen-foot distance to the rear boundary. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for an excep- tion and a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance. A hearing was held on this petition on June 27, 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the pe- titioner, board members, abutters, and others, and notices published in The Evening News. All board members were present at this hearing. Attorney George Vallis appeared and spoke for the petitioner. • The petitioner also spoke, stating he wanted the pool for himself and his family. Ward 7 Councillor Edmond Perron appeared in favor, also Mr. Henry Boucher. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voting on the grounds of hardship to the petitioner, and granting an excep- tion and variance to the application of the Zoning Ordinance would cause no detriment to the public good and would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, voted unanimously to grant an exception and variance. APPEAL GRANTED Zj Cecret BOARD OF APPEAL • �l of �sa+nny .6assarijusPtt8 26Darb of �kppw July 28, 1966 .E 7aC� le J.ru w. .nuww Jwww r. aw,,. DECISION: National Shawmut Bank of Boston, Trustee, A' VR"•wff �U 391 Lafayette Street JO.[IM r. ooru Petition to erect an 8' x 8' addition to an existing dwelling. On June 28, 1966, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an 8' x 81 addition to an existing dwelling since such construction would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. The Ordinance requires a ten foot distance to the side boun- dary lines and this proposed addition would be within two feet of the lot line. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal on July 7, 1966 to reverse the decision of the Building Inspector. A hearing was held on this petition on July 25, 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner board members, abutters, and • others, and notices published in rhe Evening News. All members of the board were present at this hearing. Mr. Al- fred Rossi of L. Rossi, Inc., Contractors, appeared for the pe- titioner, and stated Mr. Peter Wilson, a trust officer of the i National Shawmut Bank wished to be recorded in favor.. Mr. Rossi stated the addition would be a platform with steps. Councillor Edmond Perron appeared in favor. Letters from two abutters were received favoring the petition, Mr. J. Leo McCarthy of 389 Lafayette Street and Mr. Francis Welch of 31 Fairview Road. A third letter waspresented stating opposition to the petition as presented. This letter was also from an abutter, Mr. Irvin Graves, 395 Lafayette Street. After due consideration thereof, the board voting unanimously on the grounds that granting this petition would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would cause no det- riment to the public good, granted the petition with the CONDITION there is to be no permanent roof or awning. PETITION GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS BOARD OF APPEAL BY =1 A. ff itV of �$ttlrrc, Massar4usdis A. 'rrs" M ' Pourb of �Fvettl crow February 4, 1966. WILLIAM F. ABBOTT JAMES N. BOULDER JOHN M. °RAY PETITION: - N. Talbot Construction Company, ARTHUR F. DOYLE E 20 Leavitt Street . JOSEPH F. OYLE To use these premises for a coin-operated laundromat, and rug-cleaning establishment - This is an R-3 , multi- family residence district . . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals to reverse a decision of the Inspector of Buildings, refusing a permit to alter this building to accommodate a coin-operated laundry and rug cleaning establishment . On December 20, 1965 a hearing was held on this petition in the office of the Building Inspector, pursuant to notices mailed post- paid to the petitioner, abutters, Board members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News . All Board members were present at this hearing. Attorney John R. Serafini appeared for petitioner and presented plans. Mr. Sera- fini stated there would be no substantial change from the former use of the property and no structural changes and would not dero- gate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance . Appearing in opposition, Attorney Harry Simon, joint owner with his wife of property at 16 and 18 Leavitt Street . The Board voted to continue this hearing at the next meeting. On January 24, 1966, hearing was resumed on this petition. ; Attor- ney Serafini appeared and presented the case for the petitioner. Councilor Pelletier appeared in favor. Attorney Harry Simon stated he owns property adjacent to the petitionerrs and it would be detri- mental to his property because of the exhaust of fumes and the noise . After due consideration thereof, the Board by unanimous vote, and voting on the grounds that granting this variance could cause a nuisance unless strictly regulated, voted to allow petitioner leave to withdraw without prejudice . If new petition is filed, petitioner should consult the office of the Board of Health as to their attitude . DECISION: - Leave to withdraw without prejudice . BOARD OF APPEAL • BY C�� Secretany Ctu Of 6SUI t, Massar4usetts Pnura of Mw September 30, 1966 J11Nt. M. .OYLOt11 JOHN K. .MY PETITION; - William .NOIYN LL.w.eCUM R. Lasarakia, 17-19 Lemon Street J`•"N .. """ To alter a four family dwelling to :.. provide six apart- ments, in a tiro-family residence area. The Inspector of Buildinga, Daniel J. O'Brien, Jr., refused to issue a permit to allow the alteration of this dwelling to provide two additional apart- ments since such alteration would be in violation of the .City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner, through his attorney, John T. Laskaris, appealed to the Board of Appeal requesting a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance. A hearing was scheduled on this appeal for September 26, 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the Petitioner, his attorney, abuttera, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All board members with the exception of Mr. James Boulger, Sr., were present at this meeting. Petitioner's attorney appeared for his client and asked for leave to withdraw. The Board voted unanimously to grant this request. PETITIONER GIVEN LEAVE TO WITHDRAW. BOARD OF APPEAL BY etre" Ctv of "iatlem, cmassarl uejv##$ ' varb of �Appeal April 4, 1966 .M . ...on .OUL... PETITION: Historic Salem, Inc. , 20 Liberty Street JOHN M. OR/.Y To restore 17th century house for use by real estate broker and for the display and sale of antique furni- ture. This is a multi-family residence area. Attorney William Donaldson, representing Historic Salem, Inc. , appealed to the Board for variances to permit the repair, ren- ovation and use of the said premises as set forth above. A hearing was held on this petition in the office of the Inspec- tor of Buildings on March 2$0 19668 pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to petitioner, Att'y. Donaldson, abutters, Board Members and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening Nees. Four Board Members were present at this hearing, Chairman John M. Gray, Sr. , being 111 and unable to attend. Attorney Donaldson appeared for petitioner and stated this house i� is of the year 1660 conatruction' type. There are not too many of these in the United States. Three hundred people participated in acquiring this building to benefit the City of Salem. The pur- chaser, Mr. John F. Cole, will authentically restore the building and make all of the renovations. Mr. Col®�reds. Roberfavor.HeThiania Mr. James Ballou and Mr. Xanthaky all app a real hardship® stated the attorn®Y. Appearing in opposition, Mr. Hugh J. Gilbert, who owns property across the street from "this locua. Ara Gilbert stated that the place in question is nothing but a rat trapo and has already been condemned by the Board of Health. Decision on this appeal is reserved until the next Board meeting in order to submit the facts to Chairman John M. Gray, Jr. ap eta , V1 oftt1pm, ttssttru�e## PIIara of LAppW �� C44-/ WIIIIAM w. A[80TT SAM e[ w. [ov�ocw June 2, 1966 PETITION: Historic Salem, Inc., 20 Liberty Street ARTM uw Lw.we<p�[ ioscwM �. pov�e To restore 17th Century house for use by Real Estate broker and for the display and sale of antique furni- ture. This is a multi-family residence area. Attly. William Donaldson presented this petition to the Board on March 28, 1966. At that hearing, decision on this appeal was reserved until the next Board meet- ing in order to submit the facts to Chairman John M Gray, Sr. who was unable to attend the hearing. Hearing on this appeal was resumed on April 25, 1966 at which time the Board voted unanimously to allow petitioner to restore the house, all other parts of petition denied, there is to be no business conducted on these premises. On May 2, Attorney Donaldson at the direction of his client, Historic Salem, Inc. , withdrew the application for a variance to permit commercial use of said premises, At the same time, he requested a variance to permit the repair and renovation of the property as an examble of early colonial architecture in accordance with plans submitted. On May 31, 1966, the Board heard this petition. Peti- tioner was granted leave to withdraw without prejudice the application for a variance to permit commercial use of this property. All members were present at this hearing and voted unan- imously to grant petitioner permit to repair and renovate this structure according to the plan on file, dated MARCH 15, 1966, James Ballou, Architect. BOARD OF' APPEAL BY ecreta �IIFII'�1 of ��PMl December 29, 1966 PETITION: - Robert E. Dalton, 100 Linden Street. JoecvH r. ooY�e JOXN M. U0.hY. Sfl. .Arm A .eAE oma. To alter third floor of dwelling in two family residence area to provide third apartment . The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to alter the third floor of a dwelling at 100 Linden Street to provide an additional apartment, since such alteration would be in vio- lation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance . On October $, 1966, petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Ordinance, and on November 14, 1966 a hearing was held on this petition. All Board members were present at this hearing. Mrs . Dalton, wife of petitioner appeared and stated her husband was unable to be present. She explained the reasons for the petition. No one appeared in opposition. • After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to notify petitioner he must submit two full sets of working plans and a plot plan before the Board could properly act on this appeal. Hearing was continued to await additional information. On December 19, 1966, plans and plot plan having been submitted, hearing was resumed on this petition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this variance. BOARD OF APPEAL VARIANCE GRANTED. BY Secret ry " i { Ctu of ttiem, ttssttr�juse##s 3 �Iottrb of '�PPCA November 18, 1966 wugrn r. q.torr PETITION: - Walter Power, 18 Loring Avenue oRR c. .Rgv gRTMUR Lq.RtCO Yt To alter existing third floor premises to provide an additional apartment. The Inspector of Buildings refusedto issue a permit to alter the third floor of this dwelling to provide an additional apartment. Mr. Power, through his attorney John R. Serafini, appealed to the Board to permit the necessary alterations. A hearing was held on this petition on September 26, 1966 at which time it was voted to have petitioner submit a new plan showing the entire front and rear stairways from the first to the third floor. On November 14, 1966, hearing was resumed on this appeal. All Board members were present. Attorneys John R. Serafini and Richard Farley appeared representing petitioner and pre- sented the new plans. No one appeared in opposition, at either hearing. After due consideration thereof, the Board, having in mind that special conditions and circumstances exist which especially af- fect the structure involved which are not generally affecting other structures in the same district, and literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the appellant, and desirable relief may be granted without derogating from the intent of the district or the pur- poses of the Ordinance, voted unanimously to grant this petition. PETITION GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL By � ecretar ffi#v u �zlem, tt� ttt1#u�e##� Pourb of Apprz wILI ! a March 7, 1966. w_ ,AM F Aaaon eOu`... PETITION: - David and Doris Wong, 499 Loring Avenue. o,EP„ ooYE To erect addition to dwelling to enlarge family living area. Petitioner applied to the Inspector of Buildings for a permit to erect an addition to his dwelling and was refused as such constr- of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. ucton would be in violation The requirements in this district are a 7000 sq ft. lot, a ten,-foot side yard, rear yard of 30 feet; petitioner's lot contains 5542 square feet, allows only eight foot side yard, and twenty-four foot rear yard. Mr. Wong appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance, and on February 2$9 1966, A hearing was held on this petition in the office of the Inspector of Buildings, Room 7, City Hall, Salem, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to, the petitioner, abutters, Board members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. Appeasing in favor with the petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Wong, was W ' J. Begin, a contractor. Mr. Begin explained the plans. Mr. Leonidas Tsionis, an abutter, signified he had no objection. Councillor John Burke appeared to be recorded in favor. After due consideration thereof, the Board, all members present and voting on the grounds that to deny this variance would cause petitioner substantial hardship, and granting this variance would cause no detriment to the public good, and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, voted unanimously to grant the variance. BOARD OF APPEAL VARIANCE GRANTED. BY�. • ei#u of *Utg c, Oussadjusetts ourD of �ppear! November 17, 1966 WILL14M I, hC\.lT PETITION: - Mrs. Ruth Bessom 3 Maple Avenue JONX M. 014Y f I' 4"YN Vw 14.w.CO Uf To alter a single family dwelling to provide a second floor apartment. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to alter this dwelling to provide an additional apartment since this property is in a single family residence area, and a two fam- ily dwelling would be a violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals to reverse this decision, and a hearing was held on this petition on November 14, 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, board members, abutters, and others, and advertisements pub- lished in the Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Mrs. Bessom appeared and stated that since her husband's death she needs additional income, hence the request for this addi- tional apartment. Mr. John Barry, a neighbor residing at 13 Maple Avenue appeared in favor. There was no opposition to allowing this variance. Having in mind that special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the structure involved which are not generally affecting other structures in the same district, and literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship to the appellant, and desirable relief may be granted without derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance, after due consideration thereof, the Board members voted unanimously to grant this variance. VARIANCE GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY ecreta y • y �tLt# t of p�$alfnt, 2tSS�L11ttSE��B Paurb of a June 3. 1966 WILLIAM I. P\.OTT JAMI. M. .ouLO.w JOMn M. .w.,r " M""""""'"` PETITION: Joseph Ingemi, 50 Margin Street "T o..wM oorL. To permit the use of the second floor of an existing building at this location for the purpose of conduct- ing classes in instruction in automobile driving. After being refused a permit to allow the use of the second floor at 50 Margin Street to provide quarters for conducting classes in instruction in automobile driving, petitioner pealed to the Board of Appeal to reverse the decision of the Inspector of Buildings. On May 31, 1966, a hearing was held on this petition, pursu- ant pectivenotices tenant,mabutteiled rst osttoardaid to the Members0 and others,his and ad- vertisements published in the Salem Evening News. All Board Members were present at this hearing. A letter from Rev. Salvatore Screnci, Pastor of St. Mary's Church, 56 Margin Street, an abutter, stating he had no objectiore- to the opening of an auto school atthis anas in sented. Councillor James Dolan appeared and wasrecorded favor of granting this petition. Mr. Anthony Salvo appeared and stated he will be the tenant, and will conduct a school of instruction in automobile driving, having about fifty students. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board by unanimous vote, voting on the grounds that to deny this petition would cause considerable hardship on the owner of the building, and grant- ing the petition would not derogate from the intent and purpose ofthevoordinance ted to anand would cause petition. detriment to the public goodthis BOARD OF APPEAL PETITION GRANTED BY ecretar of '�$ZIlrnt sSMf41tSEtts Puara of (�+pral September 29, 1966 WIL JAM I. A.00T .Mae M. •OW.K. PETITION: - Clarence A. Hartnett, 66 Moffatt Road, JOHN .. OKAY ""'H""1. 000 Y` J...IN .. To install a shed dormer on a dwelling 91-6" from the side boundary; the requirement is ten feet distance. On September 6, 1966, Mr. Hartnett through his attorney David T. Doyle petitioned the Board of Appeal to reverse the decision of the Building Inspector who refused to issue a permit for this installation since such alteration would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. A hearing was held on this petition on September 26, 1966, pur- suant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All board members were present at this meeting, with the excep- tion of Mr, James Boulger, Sr. , who was unable to attend due to illness. Attorpsy Doyle appeared for the petitioner and explained that his QV client required the dormer to provide additional room for his chil- dren. The petitioner also appeared and spoke on his own behalf. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the four Board members present voting unanimously on the grounds that to deny this appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner, and that to grant the variance would cause no detriment to the public good and would not sub- stantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, granted the variance. PETITION GRANTED. BOARD OF APPEAL BY ecret Ti#u of $Ulem, �z sazcliu�e##s February 4, 1966. WILLIAM P. ABBOTT JAMES X. EOVLOER JOHN M. CRAY PETITION: — Robert Gonyea rear Northey Street. ARTMUR I.REC... J JOSEPH P. OOYLE To erect commercial garage in R-2 district, zoned for two—family residences, with a ten—foot frontage . On December 27, 1965, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to construct a garage at this location since such con— struction would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordin— ance . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal on January 3, 19660 and a hearing was held on this petition on January 24, 1966, in the office of the Inspector of Buildings, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News . All Board members were present at this hearing. The petitioner and • his son appeared and explained the plans. Councillor Joseph O}Keefe appeared in opposition, also an abutter, Arthur Dionne, and Attorney John Serafini representing other abutters who are opposed. Councillor O'Keefe read a report compiled by the Blair Associates in reference to a case similar to this. He also spoke of the possibil— ity of a playground being installed in this area. After due consideration thereof, the Board by a unanimous vote, voted to continue the hearing on this petition for two months to await the report of Councillor O'Keefe on the matter of a proposed playground. DECISION PENDING. BOARD OF APPEAL BY �U Secretar ' • of Salml, its 16� of LA"vd March 319 1466 wnaUN r.w..e,r JJWL. N. .euu.w JOHN M. OMY �1 p� .wYNuw ww.eou. PETITION: - Robert Gonyea, rear Northey Street To erect commercial garage in R-2. Two-fazilyy residence area with ton-foot right of rat frontage an Northey Street. On December 279 1965, the Inspectgr of Buildings refused to issue a permit to construct a garage at this location since suchconstruc- tion would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning h cOe Petitioner appealed to the board of appeal. on JanWT 39 1966, and a hearing wa held on this petition on January 24, 1966, in the office Of the Inspector of Buildings pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, fioaro Members and others, and. adver- tisements published .. In the Salem Evening Mews, All Board members were present at this hearing. Petitioner and his son appeared and explained the plane, Councillor JosephaO'Knd eetoraq fe appeared in opposition, also an abuttArthur John Serafini representing other abutters who are opposed* Councillor O'Keefe read a report compiled by the Blair Associates reference case similar to being installed.in�th s area�ke of the possibil- After due consideration thereof, the Board by a unanimous votes Voted to continud -the hearing on this petition for two months to await 'bAts report of Councillor O'Keefe on the matter of a proposed playground. Hearing on this petitio�l, was resgmed on March 28, 1966. Four members of the Board were present, Mr. Gray the 'Chairmn of the Board, being hospitalised. CovaoUlor O'Keefe withdrew his opposition. The Board voted unanimously to a41ow the petitioner to erect a two- car garage which muet 'be according to the plane on file, and this garage shall be for AOA-commerci}1 uses. The Board felt that grant- ing this use would cause no detriment to the public goodand theOrdinance. not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose GRANTZD WITH CONDITION. etre HARD OF APPEAL f�i#g of ��lem, �tt��tl�use##s _- Pattrb of (A"rx[ September 29, 1966 CL"; "" M. *�V PETITION: - Katherine Lord, 6 Oak Street. .IR"Y.w.ec.u. Joan-" r. ecru TO erect g�'a8e, 2.5 ft. from side boundary, 1.5 ft. from rear boundary. Zoning Ordinance requires thirty-foot dis- tance to all boundary lines. On September 2, 1966, the Inspector of Buildings, Daniel J. O'Brien, Jr., refundd to issue a permit for the erection of a garage at this location since such construction would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the ap- plication of the Zoning Ordinance, and on September 26, 1966, a hearing was held on this petition, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. At this meeting four Board members were present, Mr. James Boulger, Sr., being confined to the hospital. Mr. and Mrs. Lord appeared and explained that this proposed garage would be erected on a site occupied previously by a barn for the past seventy- five years. Petitioner presented a document with signatures of eighteen neighbors signifying their approval of this petition. Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Dorman and Mr, and Mrs. Gibney, all owners of property abutting petitiondr's land. No one appeared ia.opposition. After due consideration thereof, the four board members present Toped unanimously on the grounds that to deny this. appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner, and granting the variance would cause no detriment to the public good and would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the ordinance, to grant the variance. PETITION GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY ec et ° Arsw • �ytDiDtlq J�. �Q Tity of Sttiem, Itts ttc. �zsr## S� v CMfNg WILLFAM F. ABBOTT December 29, 1966 JAMES H. SOVLGER JOHN M. GRAY ARTHURLASREOOVE PETITION: - Harvey C. Levesque, 184 Ocean Avenue JOSEPH F. DOYLE To alter second floor to provide additional apartment ; this is an R-2 district, zoned for two-family residences. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to allow the altering of the second floor at this location to provide an addi- tional apartment since such would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Harvey Levesque appealed to the Board of Appeal on November 23 , 1966 for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordin- ance. A hearing was held on this petition on December 19, 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, board mem- bers, abutters, and others, and notices published in The Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Petitioner ap- peared with Mrs. Levesque and stated he can not make both ends meet, he has owned the property for eight years, and in order to maintain it, he must have additional income. Mrs. Bertha Lebel of 182 Ocean Avenue appeared and stated she was not opposed but wants privacy. After due consideration thereof the Board voted to continue this hearing pending an inquiry regarding State Law applying in this ease. DECISION PENDING BOARD OF APPEAL BY ecret y" • fdi#g of *ttlem, fflttssar4usetts auzD u# �p�ea1 yo � c P 6/2 June 3, 1966 WILLIAM I. A..OTT _ JAM[. M. .OVLO.A PETITION: Wolfe Winokur, 26 Pleasant Street. w.TM�w u.wm oma. � Jo..Iw I. oovL. To alter third floor of wood frame dwelling to provide additional apartment. On May 6, 1966, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to alter the third floor of a wood frame dwelling at 26 Pleasant Street to provide an additional apartment since such alteration would be in violation of the City of Salem Building Code and Ordinance on Zoning. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal to reverse this decision, and on May 31, 1966, a hearing was held on this petition, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and notices published in the Salem Evening News. Petitioner appeared with his wife and stated his petition. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board, all members present and voting unanimously on the grounds there is no hardship in- volved, and granting this petition would substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and cause detri- ment to the public good, voted to deny this petition. PETITION DENIED BOARD OF APPEAL BY ecreta y " ..., Tits IIf *Irm, tts�ttr��zsetts Poarb of �p�ettl 9T r November 17, 1966 WILLIAM .. M1BBOTT PETITION: - Grace M. Puleo, 23 River Street, JOHN M. OMY gRTNUH lM BR6COV6 JO.B.N .. OOVL. To enclose existing porches and install stairway from second floor on dwelling which has no front setback. On September 21, 1966, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue tion oftto allow the City ofhese Salemlterations since Zoning Ordinance.on would be in viola- Board of Appeal on September 30, 1966, Petitioner appealed to the i and a hearing was held on November 14, 1966. All Board members were present at this hearing, notices having been mailed postpaid to all members, the petitioner, abutters, and others, and advertisements published in the Evening News. Miss Puleo appeared and stated that two sisters of hers and their • children live on these premises, and she needs to make the place more comfortable. No one appeared in opposition. Having in mind that special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the structure involved which are not generally af- fecting other structures in the same district, and literal enforce- ment of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the a pellant and desirable relief may be granted without derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ord- inance, after due consideration thereof, the Board members voted unan- imously to grant this variance. BOARD OF APPEAL vARIANCE GRANTED BY ecretar of "ittlem, f ttssar4 se##$ X. �Aourb of '�"ettf December '290 1966 WILLPM F. P°BOT PETITION : — Raymond St . Pierre, 25 Shore Avenue. ^Ar"„q �P°AES°„£ To erect porch on dwelling four feet from front boundary line; Ordinance requires fifteen feet . This will replace a porch recently removed and will be larger in area. Mr. St. Pierre was refused a permit to erect a porch at this location by the Inspector of Buildings because such construction would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the ap— plication of the Ordinance, and on December 19, 1966 a hearing was petitionheld on this pursuant onotices tioner, board members , abutters, andothers, and notipcesdpublisheto the dein The Evening News . All board members were present at this hearing. Petitioner appeared and stated that to deny this variance would cause undue hardship to himself and his family. Councillor Richard Poitras appeared in favor. • After due consideration thereof, the Board voting on the grounds that to deny this variance would cause hardship to the petitioner, and that granting the variance would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the ordinance and would cause no detriment to the public good, voted unanimously to grant the variance. BOARD OF APPEAL VARIANCE GRANTED BY ecret ry" Tito of 'f6alrnt assar4usetts November 17, 1966 WILLIwM w. w0001T J4M C! M. BOV LO60 PETITION: - Minerva A. Young, 5 Summit Street. wRTM un u.new ue O6H " .. DOVLe To enlarge an existing dormer on dwelling with five- foot front yard. On September 15, 1966s petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a var- iance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the enlarg- ing of an existing dormer on her dwelling at 5 Summit Street. A hearing was held on this petition on November 14, 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, and others, and advertisements published in the Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Peter Seamons, counsel for Mrs. Young appeared and explained the petition, presenting a sketch of the proposed alterations. No one appeared in opposition. Having in mind that special conditions and circumstances exist which espBec- isally affect the structure involved which are not generally affecting other structures in the same district, and literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the appellant, and 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 purposes of the ordinance, after due consideration there- of, the Board members voted unanimously to grant this variance. VARIANCE GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY ec-re ta y Civ of �$ttlem, 'Mttssarhuse##s Poxrb of !AFPCA � w" • ••", dune_ 3, 1966 PETITION: Stephen Zisson 5 Surrey Road o.cnH , oor ¢ To erect addition to existing dwelling. On May 5, 1966, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addition to this dwelling as such con- struction would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal to reverse this decision, and on May 31, 1966, a hearing was held on his petitions pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the peti- tioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and notices published in the Salem Evening News. All Board members were present at this meeting. Mr. Zisson appeared and explained the plans. He stated it was necess- ary to locate the addition as shown on the plan because of a large out-cropping of ledge and the unusual shape of the lot. No one appeared in opposition. Councillor Edmond Perron appeared in favor of granting this petition. After due consideration thereof, the Board, voting on the grounds that to deny this petition would cause hardship to the petitioner, and granting the petition would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the ordinance and would cause no detriment to the public good, voted unanimously to grant the petition. PETITION GRANTED. BOARD OF APPEAL BY ecretary F� ,Cam Ti#u of " Wr n, gassar4uutts Rf��apaTSt February 4, 1966 JAMES H. BOULDER JORN M. GRAY ARTHUR LABRECOUE JOEERR F. DOYLE PETITION: - Airs. Theodore J. Condon, 34 Tremont Street . To remodel basement of dwelling to be occupied as home beauty shop. On January 4, 1966, The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to remodel the basement of this dwelling to provide a home beauty shop since such alteration would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal on January 5, 1966, and on January 24, 1966, a hearing was held on this petition in the office of the Inspector of Buildings, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News . All Board members were present at this hearing. Petitioner appeared and explained the plans ; also, presented letters' from four abutters signifying their approval of this beauty shop. There was no opposi- tion. After due consideration thereof, the Board by unanimous vote, and voting on the grounds that granting this petition would cause no detriment to the public good, granted this petition. APPEAL GRANTED. BOARD OF APPEAL BY Secreta fj .y CHH of "SArm, azssa rouse##s • •� Pourb of :�Appeg WILLIAM F. A..OTT April 1; 1966 JhM[B X. .OULp[R JOHN M, pgAV ' ARTHUR LA.R[=pUC MITION: Joseph E. Leighton, 27 ®elley Street® JO.i RH . ODVL[ to conduct part-time home operated typing and engraving service. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a_ variance to the application of the Zoning Ordinance to permit home occu- ppations relating to typing and engraving services at this locationm A hearing was held on thin petition in the office of the Inspec- tor of. Buildings on Bch 280 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Kalem Evening Please Four Board members were present at this hearing, Chairman John:, M® Gray; aro® being ill and unable to attend. ,• Petitioner appeared and stated that this type of home occupation will disturb no one. No one appeared in opposition. After de consideration the Board by unanimous vote, four members present and voting on tte grounds that granting this variance would cause no detrinimt to the public good, and would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, granted the variance. VARIANCE GRANTED. ecretary, BOARD OF AM= Ctu of *Itm, Alsoar4use##s 260xrb of CAPPeal W .. 1. AMMO, September 29, 1966 Cti Jar.. w. wuw.w JOHN M. OMV ' -N,wUw�•^•__U• PETITION: - Wladek Suchecki, 14 Victory Road. Jo..nw r. oovu To erect Addition to duelling, eight feet from side boundary line. Ordinance requires ten feet. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addi- tion to a dwelling at this location since such alteration mould be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal to reverse the decision of the Building Inspector, and on September 26, 1966, a hearing was held on this petition, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petition- er, abutters, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. Four board members were present at this meeting, Mr. James Boulger, Sr. , being unable to attend due to illness. • Petitioner appeared and explained he lives< at this location, and the purpose of the proposed additional space is to provide room for his mother-in-law. Mr. Thaddeus Olbrych, an abutter, appeared in favor. Mr. Frank Tansey of 45 Fort Avenue also appeared. After due consideration thereof, the Board, four members present and voting unanimously on the grounds that to deny this appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner, and to grant this variance would cause no detriment to the public good and would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, granted the variance. PETITION GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY ecreta�� c P=b of �kpvvd July 2$, 1966--'� y' �' JLY•. M. .CYw•" DECISION: Hyman Marcus, Vinnin Street. JOY" Y. 6MY „..Y.• Petition to permit the use of land in a single family ��•••Y • "^' district on Vinnin Street for parking area. Petitioner appealed to the Board for a variance to permit the use of land in a single-family district for parking cars as an extension to an existing parking area in a shopping center. On July 25, 1966, a hearing was held on this petition, pursu- ant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, the board members, abutters, and others, and notices published in The Evening News. All board members were present at this hearing. Mr. Marcus appeared. and stated a multi-situation of hardship exists, and the only practical use of the land is as requested by petitioner. He also stated it would be a hardship to use this land for res- idences because the cost would be exorbitant, in the-neighbor- hood of $24,000.000 and would make available only two lots to build on. Mr. John Silva of the Stop and Shop, Inc. , also ap- peared in favor. Appearing ' in opposition were Councillors Edmond Herron and George jUquis. Mr. Raymond Sweeney of the City Planning Board was also opposed. After due consideration thereof, the Board voting unanimously on the grounds that granting a variance would not derogate from the . intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would cause no detriment to the public good, granted the variance. PETITION GRANTEDBOARD OF APPEAL BY � ecr a s qg's 9 e� P 1 of '$ttlem, a6Sztr U5r#1s � q WILLIAM I. A...I larch 21, 1966• JAM E9 X. !°VI.CR PETITION: - Publix Sign Corp. , to erect signs at 152 ARiX VR 11BREC.LI[ a„RXI .OYES Washington Street, advertising restaurant of "Dunkin Donut” business enterprise. On January 25, 1966, petitioner was refused a permit to erect signs at this location by the Inspector of Buildings. The Zoning Ordin- ance allows one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of frontage. Frontage of the lot is 160 feet, and the total area of all signs shown on plan is 554 square feet. On February 2, 1966, petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance, and on February 28, a hearing was held on this petition in the office of the Inspector of Buildings, pursuant to notices mailed post- paid to the petitioner, abutters Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the ahalem Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Ir. Paul Valiquette appeared representing petitioner and re-stated • what was said on the original application. Appearing in opposition, Attornrg Michael Je Harrington who stated he apeared as an individual and it was his impression that under the roan Renewal Program, there must be a control over signs such as proposed to be erected in this instance. He further stated that all signs extending out over buildings should be replaced by signs of a more attractive manner. nr. Harrington stated it would be detrimental to the overall picture of the new Sale= to allow a sign such as this one. He further stated that one look at the sign on Brifte Street on a place comparable to this should convince anybody that this sign will be no improvement to the area. It was his opin- ion that there is no hardship involved in this case, and furthornore, petitioner should first go to the Redevelopment Authorities so as to have the sign if any, to be in harmony with the entire area. After dose consideration thereof, the Board voting unanimously on the grounds that refusing a variance would cause substantial hardship to petitioner, and granting the variance would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would cause no detriment to the public good, granted the variance with these conditions : 1. The sign shall not be of a flashing nature. 2. Signs are to be erected according to the plan on file in the office of the Building Inspectore • BOARD OF APPEAL VARIANCE GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS B7 scre ar Tito of ialrin, Cass trhmetts oS .. 19oarb of 'Appvtf RF�AuvT. F. P..11 April 29, 1966 ;ogEpp `oGE`E" PETITION: Carroll F. Dickinson, lg Webb Street To operate Ceramic Studio in R-2 district, zoned for two family residences. On March 8, 1966, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to operate a Ceramic Studio at this location since such operation would be in violation of the City of Salem Zon- ing Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance, and on April 25, 19660 a hearing was held on this petition, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. All members were present at this hearing. Petitioner appeared and explained the operation of the proposed studio, stating this seemed an ideal place to operate said studio. Councillor Poitras appeared in favor. Councillor Louis Swiniuch appeared in opposition because he said in this locality there is a coal yard, and oil trucks are continually passing; he suggested a ninety-day trial period. Also opposed was Wilfred Plante, of 16 Webb Street who spoke about the area being congested. After due consideration thereof, the Board, all members present and voting on the grounds that to deny this petition would be a hardship on petitioner, and granting a variance would cause no substantial detriment to the public good and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, voted to grant this variance PROVIDED petitioner provides off-street parking facilities . GRANTED WITH CONDITION. iFFEAL, Secretary. i y ,gOnULL� CT' 1 Tial of Kilvitt, 116, nchll5c1tti �iwm-1 Of ApNF;d a H ,. yr", March 7, 1966. PETITION :- Bertha Porter, 14A Willow Avenue. , =EJ Qo. E To erect 16' x 20' addition and hallway to dwelling. On January 149 1966, Mr. Daniel O'Brien, Building Inspector refused to issue a permit to erect this addition since such would be in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance which requires a ten-foot distance to the side boundary lines and petitioner's plan showed he could allow only a five-foot distance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance. A hearing was held on this petition in the office of the Building Inspector, Room 7, City Hall, Salem, on February 2$, 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board members, and others, and adver- tisements published in the Salem Evening News. • Mr. Ferdinand Rioux, structural engineer, appeared for the peti- tioner and explained the plan. Mr. Rioux stated that Mr. Porter needs this extra room because he now lives at 265 Lafayette Street, and wants to move to this location at 14A Willow Avenue. Mrs. Eastman, 13 Glendale Avenue, spoke in favor. Councillor George Marquis stated he wanted to be recorded in favor. The Board by unanimous decision, and voting on the grounds that refusing the variance would cause substantial hardship to the petitioner, and granting the variance would cause no substantial derogation from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and would cause no detriment to the public good, voted to grant this variance. VARIANCE GRANTED. BOARD OF APPEAL BY ecretary. • of *Irm, Htts�ttch�zse##s Pourb of �ppeal December 29, 1966 W,LLtAM I. ABBOTT JPM EB N. BOUL..H JOHN M. ORiV ARTHUR LABRECOUC OBBRH •. °°." PETITIOA1: Margaret Quartarone, 70 Winthrop Street. To erect a single family dwelling in a two-family res- idence area where a lot size of 5000 square feet is re- quired allowing a rear yard of thirty feet. Petitioner's lot comprises 4664 square feet with a 10.9 foot rear yard. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to allow the construction of this dwelling because of violations of the Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance to allow construction on this lot which she has owned since 1945. A hearing was held on this petition on December 19, 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, board members, abutters, and others, and notices published in The Evening News. • All board members atten6ed this hearing. Mary Woyck, daughter of the petitioner appeared and stated this is an isolated lot, and explained the plan. Appearing* in opposition, Attorney Michael Harrington representing the Estate of Albert Joyce, Mrs . Meier, and Miss Joyce, stated the Joyce family lives on Hathorne Street, and this could have an adverse effect on their property. After due consideration thereof, the Board voting on the grounds that to deny this petition would cause hardship to the petitioner, and granting the appeal would cause no detriment to the public good and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, voted unanimously to grant this petition. VARIANCE GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY eecR�, eta Y:'" i fdi#� ofttlem, ttssttc �zsets ,s Foam of 'ppeal WO November 17, 1966 JOHN M. OMV PETITION: - Salem Acres, Inc. , Witchcraft Heights. JoecwM .. oov � Variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance as it affects the locations of dwellins on Lots #?9 and #102A Gallows Hill Road, and Lots �64 and #98 Gables Circle. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the application of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance to permit the locating of four dwellings, each on a corner lot, where a thirty-foot rear yard is required. A hearing was held on November 14, 1966, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to all Board members, the petitioner, his at- torney, abutters and others, and advertisements published in the Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. • George P. Vallis, counsel for the petitioner, appeared and stated this area is known as Witchcraft Heights in the Highland Avenue section of the city; also, each location is a corner lot and each meets all of the requirements of the law with the exception of the requirement of a thirty-foot rear yard. He further stated that this case is identical with a former petition involving six other lots, where this Board of Appeal has previously granted variances. No one appeared in opposition. Having in mind that special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land involved which are not generally affecting other land in the same district, and literal enforce- ment of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the appellant, and desirable relief may be granted without derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance, after due consideration thereof, the Board mem- bers voted unanimously to grant this variance. VARIANCE GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY ecreta • T (fity of 'Sttlem, 44jjzjFsztchit5c##! 'r. P Pourb of �ppenl May 3. 1966 Woodbury Court. PETITION: Ronald J. Gallant, 9 Y To provide additional means of egress from dwelling; non-conforming use in an Industrial area requiring thirty-foot front, side and rear yards. On April 6, 1966, petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal to reverse a decision of the Building Inspector refusing a permit for the addition of two stair cases on a two family dwelling at this location. A hearing was held on this petition on April 259 1966, pur- suant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. All members were present at this hearing. Petitioner appeared and stated his plan. There was no opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voting unanimously on the grounds of alleviating hardship to the petitioner, and granting this petition would cause no detriment to the public good and would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, granted the appeal. PETITION GRANTED. BOARD OF APPEAL ecretary • 3 of "Salem, assar4usette u tl r r f 2 Pottrb of �PVVUI WILLIAM F. A...I � gMES ". °GU GER REPORT OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL iatl °sePH F. OGYLE JOHN M. GR4Y. 8P. hRTHUR 1.BEGONE To His Honor, Francis X. Collins , Mayor of Salem, and The Honorable City Council: Gentlemen: The members of this Board are appointed by the Mayor with the approval �0 of the City Council . Each member is appointed for a three-year term. The five-member Board consists of John M. Gray, Sr. , the Chairman, William F. Abbott , James H. Boulger, Sr. , Joseph F. Doyle, Sr. , and Arthur E. Labrecque . During the year 1967 , there were eighty-two petitions presented to the Board. Decisions were reached on seventy eight of these , with the remaining four appeals brought forward to the new year for final disposition. . The following is a brief summary of the petitions heard by the Board: ,ere were eighteen petitions for the erection or location oi' dwellings on is which did not meet the density requirements. In each instance a var- iance was granted in order to utilize the land involved without detriment to the public good, and without derogating from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. i Five petitioners sought permission to alter dwellings to provide additional apartments. Four of these were granted. Fifteen persons petitioned the Board for permits to alter existing dwellings which were not in strict conformity with the Zoning Ordinance . These were allowed. Twelve petitions for additions to existing non-residential buildings were heard and granted. Permission to erect garages was sought by two peitioners, one of which was denied. V Special Permits were granted for the installation of five swimming pools. Of five petitions to install signs , four were granted. Five persons were granted "leave to withdraw without prejudice" petitions they had presented to the Board. F L � a. Y i . z - �ariances were also granted on the following miscellaneous petitions : To erect a concrete block building to house a low pressure boiler. To locate a trailer on a lot of land, to be used as an office in connection with the sale of automobiles, on the condition that it be removed within three years from the da.te the permit is granted. To permit the use of a portion of a dwelling for an office . To erect a veterinary hospital. To permit occupancy for one office in an auxiliary building on a lot con- taining an apartment dwelling. To erect a medical office building. To erect and operate a gas service station. To construct an addition to an existing nursing home . To permit cnnstruction of a nursing, convalescent and rest home . Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH r. DOYLE, Secretary. Cig of "iniml, Attssad usr#s 'Pottrb of '4PW June 1, 1967 WILLIhM .. .. •OTT •M•• " •�� ••. DECISION ON Petition of Henry Boucher to erect a single -family dwelling at the corner of Adams Street and Madison Road . oww M. aww. en. �rrtwoA u•weeove The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to allow the construc- tion of a single family dwelling at this location as this is an Industrial district, and petitioner can not meet the City of Salem Zoning requirements for this district. Counsellor George P. Vallis appealed to the Board for the petitioner, and a hearing was held on this petition on May 22 , 1967 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, abutters, board members, and others, and notices published in the Evening News. Petitioner's appeal stated that the area in question had been recently zoned for :industrial use but there exist in the immediate area numerous single and two family dwelling houses. All board members excepting Chairman John M. Gray, Sr. , were present at this hearing. Counsellor Vallis appeared and stated the construction of • this dwelling would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordin- ance . Councillor Perron appeared in favor. No one appeared in opposition . After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY Secreta y " of �$ttiem, fflttssarhusetts Paurb of A"tz l May 1, 1967 WILLIAM P. hBBOTf JAM LG M. .OUI.O E" DEI;ZSION ON PETITION OF Robert Ad. Phelan, 77A Barstow Street JOl6P" I. OOVL[ To erect an addition to a dwelling to provide additional sleep- A" " """ ing quarters for his children. sed to ue a permit to asepetiti petitioner can Ballow nonly aufive-foot sside yard , and not ca tensaddition Inspector of foot yard as required by the Zoning Ordinance . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the applica- tion of the Zoning Ordinance , and on April 24, 1967 , a hearing was held on this ppeal, ursunt to boardamembersP andaothersr,oand eadvertises mailed mentsapublished aid to the int The oEvenabutters, Evening News. Mr. Phelan appeared and stated this is a hardship case . He has four children aand nd relieveothedsituation. theand proposed onepappearediin oppositin would on. Mrs .de Phelanther broom ap- peared to support her husband's petition. After due consideration thereof, the Board, all members present and voting on ke grounds that to deny this appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner d granting the variance would cause no detriment to the public good, and ,n ould not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance , voted unani- mously to grant this appeal. HOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY ecretary `V V d Vp Cig of S Iem, ttssttcl�use##s March 29, 1967 DECISION on PETITION of Sun Oil Comnanv, Corner of Bridr�e and Thorndlke- -jtreetso JOHN M. GRAY. MR. ARTHUR IABR¢L OV¢ On February 6, 1967, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addition to an existing service station at this as location petitioner could allow only a three foot aide yard and a ten-foot distance to the aide boundary is required, and with this addition the rear yard would be ten feet instead of the required thirty feet. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance, and on March 27, 1967, a hear- ing was held on this petition, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, board members, and others, and also, advertisements published in the Evening News. All Board members were present at the hearing. Mr. Earl Peterson, representing the Sun Oil Company, appeared and stated the case the same as in the original petition. Appearing in favor of granting • this variance was Mr. Robert M. Beirne, representing New England Power Company, an abutter. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board, voting on the grounds that to deny this petition would cause hardship to the petitioner, and granting the variance would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and would not cause detri- ment to the public good, voted unanimously to grant the variance. BOARD OF APPEAL VARIANCE GRANTED BY Secreta • of p akuy $$.11C liSS S Pmb of MW May 290 1967 -••.�. •«u•" DECISION ON PETITION OF F. John DeSantis and F. Paul DeSantia, �• to permit the continuance of an existing non conforming use, but under new ownership, businesses established and operating at 63 Bridge Street and rear of same to East Collins Street and Lathrop Street. A hearing wae:1held on this petition on March 27, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioners their attorneys abutters, board membera, and others, and advertisements pubiished in The Evening News. 1� All Board members were present at this hearing. Counsellor Harry. A. Simon appeared for the petitioners with his son Robert. Mr. Simon stated the pe- titioners are two brothers, each owning a half interest, and they are divid- ing up the ownership of the land, and each will have his own business. Chester Kopogkas 19 East Collins Street, Norman Bishop, 3 East Collins Street, and Eugene Dubiel, 2 East Collins Street, appeared in,opposition to granting this appeal. Frank Soanowski, 9 East Collins Street, stated his was a qualifying oppositions - - if they clean up the property he will withdraw his opposition. •ird 2 Councilor Joseph O'Keefe appeared and made a long statement, suggesting certain conditions be incorporated in any permit that might be granted. At this meeting the Board voted unanimously to write to the petitioners and their counsel, requesting a plan be submitted ten days prior to the next meeting of the Board, showing the area involved with identifying linea, also showing the location and type of fencing, and inform the Board what is pro- posed regarding cleaning up the area. Hearing on this appeal was to be re- sumed at the April 24 meeting, but at the request of counsel for the peti- tioner, the Board agreed to continue this hearing until the May meeting. The plan was not submitted until the evening of the May 22 hearing. In the meantime, the Board received a memo from the Ward Councillor asking that he be recorded in favor of the erection of a stockade type fence. Board Members held a meeting on Saturdays May 27, at 10:00 A.M. All members were present at this meeting. By unanimous vote, the Board granted the peti- tioners leave to withdraw without prejudice. BOARD OF APPEAL BY . Cectbetary RECEIVED Tit� II �IjE11t' c�S �TCLISES Z9 1 25 nurb of �FFA %.a . LFFIC September 28 , 1967 CIT SALEM, FSASa. W ILLInm i, npOOTT " , y oLE DECISION ON PETITION of F. John DeSantis and F. Paul osP F. DeSantis for Variance to sub divide land, located at 63 Bridge Street bounded by Lathrop Street and East Collins Street . On August 22 , 1967 this petition was filed in the office of the City Clerk. The Board of Appeal having been notified, a hearing was scheduled to be held on September 11 , 1967 . Advertisements giving notice of the public hearing to be held on this petition were published in The Evening News on August 25 , and August 28 , stating the hearing would be at 6: 30 P.M. on September 11 , 1967 . Notices of the hearing were mailed postpaid to the petitioners , their attorney, Board Members , abutters , the Planning Board, and others . All Board members were present at the hearing . Appearing for petitioners , Counselor Harry A. Simon presented a plan, and stated he had consulted with the Ward Councilor, Joseph A. O 'Keefe about this matter. Mr. Simon and Mr. O 'Keefe conferred in an attempt to agree on reasonable restrictions , d later presented a signed agreement as follows : eptember 11 , 1967 - Fence to be erected on the property line as shown on the plan with gates as shown on the plan, all within three months after per- mit for the fence is granted, subject to weather, availability of labor and materials . SIGNED: F. John DeSantis SIGNED: F. Paul DeSantis BY THEIR ATTORNEY: Harry A. Simon WARD 2 Councilor: Joseph A. O 'Keefe" t No one appeared in opposition. Police Officer Moran appeared in favor. , After due consideration the.reof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this variance . VARIANCE GRANTED POARD OF APP AL BY a L oz ��¢ /X ' 4 Secretar ` _var-w.+..ns�...,•�.+.aiu.l L..,wwyy - ,� , s (lei#g of '�$ttlem, flttss�tclj�zsE##s Poarb of A"Val WILLIMM �,gBBOT! JRMCB X. BOVLOCR JOBERX 0CYL6 October 24, 1967 - JOXNM. ORgY.BR. _ 'i NRTXVR LgBRECOVC ' .. i >� I, Christina Callahan, clerk of the Board of Appeals for I the City of Salem, do hereby certify that a Special Per- I mit has been granted to John Flynn & Sons, Inc. , to erect ,I an addition to an existing car-wash building at 106 Bridge iStreet, on land owned by John Flynn & Sons, Inc. 'i The decision of the Board is on file in the office of the I '1 Clerk of the City of Salem. I� �- Attest: BOARD OF APPEAL, - Clerk i r BOAR) 01 APPEAL, - ecretary -I I {Ii If a ! 1 1 ^ � RECE'lvEo Otu of '�5aIem, juassadjusetts q LI Oct 23 3 of �pptaf CITY �,L October 23, 1967 SALEH, IAASS: DECISION ON PETITION OF JOHN FLYNN & SONS, INC. , r TO ERECT ADDITION TO EXISTING CAR WASH AT 106 BRIDGE STREET. On September 20, 1967, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a per- mit to erect an addition at this location as the existing building and - • ! use are non confirming in this district which is zoned for two family residences. Petitioner appealed to the Boa'rd .of Appeal on September 25, 1967, re- questing a special permit or variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance to allow this addition. A hearing was held on this petition on October 16, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, .! .board members, abutters, and others, and advertisements published in the Evening News. i All board members were present at the hearing. Mr. Michael Flynn appeared for the petitioner, and stated that it would be handier for all concerned if the petition were allowed as the insurance people have made some com- plaints and a safety hazard may exist unless the situation is corrected I : now. �.. No one appeared in opposition. - After due consideration thereof the Board voted unanimously to grant this petition onthegrounds that it would cause no detriment to the public 1 good and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the ordinance, and to deny the appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner. - BOARD OF APPEAL I PETITION GRANTED AS SPECIAL PERMIT Secretary r I �"`• y xrR0 xrno e Iran mr 0. of "Sn alm, Aassar4usetfs Panrb of Appeal September 26, 1967 WIL LIgM p, qBB OTT Jh... ". RO VLOLR oLER" ' ° DECISION ON PETITION of Paul H. DesRochers, 107 Bridge Street, to alter building to provide a fourth apartment. Rr"VR LgRgECOVE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to alter this build- ing to provide a fourth apartment as this is a B-1 district , zoned for . Neighborhood Business. t Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for relief from this decision, and a hearing was held on this appeal on September 11, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Evening News advising of the appeal. All Board members were present at the hearing. The petitioner appeared and stated he had spent a considerable sum of money on this three story wooden building which presently houses two stores and three apartments . Ward 2 Councillor Joseph O'Keefe appeared in favor. The Inspector of Buildings did i not attend this hearing as he was on vacation. After due consideration thereof, the Board voting unanimously on the grounds that there is no hardship involved, and togrant this appeal would be detri- mental to the public good, and would derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, voted to deny this appeal. APPEAL DENIED BOARD OF APPEAL BY U Secreta y`° ' Ixrap'� xr.Ro xi[riol "� ' �COI'Y. .--... --�-•-. -_•. ..-. OI'T .......-. __.--•--... .- _...._. II T� ,ROI�, i. ' F of pZ'�ttiem, ttSSttCIISE##S curb of �p ettl tn a- a a October 30/ 1967 I J4MBBK BOU�R -: � '� JoeeRMT,00�. 'icy �QDECISION ON PETITION OF Joseph S. King, d.b.a. Universal .R.MUR�ReC YI6teel & Trading Company, 297-301 Bridge Street, to erect r a one story building. 1 : Hearing was resumed on this petition on October 16, 1967. All Board Members ,.' were present at this hearing. No one appeared in opposition. This petition was brought to the Board on September 11, 1967, at which time it was voted to write to Mr. King stating the hearing would be continued at j that time until October 16, 1967, requesting that he then appear and bring the Board up to date on the condition of these premises. ' i On October 13, 1967, Mr. Walter Smith, an abutter, residing at 32 Beckford Street, wrote a letter to the Board stating he lives directly behind this business and there is no smoke and no noise from it; he further stated he believes the owner wants to improve the appearance of the place and wishes he would be permitted to do so. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this petition with the following conditions : 1. Petitioner is not to use the steel ball for breaking metal. 2. There is to be no burning of any salvage material. BOARD OF APPEAL I PETITION GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS. BY ecretarry ✓ i . i I _ I 1 IX4p0 KORO %Hq0 (`MIRY XERO +un en •n _ HU of 'Salem, cffl2Issar4use##s b Ty Pourb of September 27, 1967 � WILLIMM r.gBBOTf Jg MCB ". °OULO CX � J°Mena .. °°V Le DECISION ON PETITION of Joseph S. King, d.b.a. Universal Steel & Trading Company, 297-301 Bridge Street, to erect wwrMUB LgeMee°ue � a one story building. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a building -i at this location as this is an R-2 district, zoned for two family resi- dences, and also would be in violation of the City Zoning Ordinance with regard to density regulations . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance to permit the i. construction of this building, and a hearing was held on his petition on September 11, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Evening News advising of the appeal. All Board Members were present at this hearing. Petitioner appeared and 1 _ stated his appeal the same as appears in his petition, and produced a pic- ture of the proposed building. Miss Rita McMahon, 100 Federal Street, and I' Florence Gelin, 882-90 Federal Street, appeared in-,opposition, stating �. there is great noise from the premises and smoke; some older people could not come to the meeting, neighbors who would be opposed. Councillor Joseph O'Keefe of Ward 2 appeared in o? position. The Inspector of Buildings was y on vacation and did not attend his hearing. i- The Board voted unanimously to continue hearing on this petition until the next meeting and to advise petitioner as follows: Dear Mr. King: On your petition to erect a building at 299 Bridge Street, a hearing was held on September 11, 1967. The Board decided to postpone the decision until the next meeting which will be_lheld on October 16, 1967. i It has been reported to the Board that you have not complied with the decision of the Board on June 2, 1966. The Board would like to be brought up to date on the condition of your premises. It will be convenient for you to appear at the October 16, 1967 hearing, I The Board also voted to notify Miss McMahon and Mrs. Gelin of the postpone- ment in the decision and acquainting them with the date of the next meeting. DECISION PENDING 1� ! i i i 'i XERO - %ERO . XEgO %ERO ,Cour roi.r noir . ronr. n f..a i . 1 . . , (tai#g of .-5ttlem, 'fflaSSat*e##s { 'JirJp�"•fir`" �RFITL� � �. �Pi[1 '. y wiurAm P.AeBorr NOVEMBER 7, 1967 JAMBD M. BOVLOCR I JOBCPN P. DOVl6 ' I JOXN M. GRAY. BR. AfRNVR LABR8COV8 I 7 -.1 - DEAR BOARD MEMBER: .j The enclosed is a copy of a letter received in this + office, showing a picture of the envelope also. It seems j to be a rather important document so I thought it best to forward a copy to each member, as the next Board meet- ing will be held about three weeks from now. i Chris Callahan I i . t I I ilit HERO XERO X^RO XEROI CORY GORY - 'v Corr i ,CAN 001., N7V 4 y - ti , NAVY SEABEE' . lyse t 25TH ANNIVEkt• II 0 x RECEP 'R? DEC 20 3 62 PM V Pnarb of Appral December 20, 1967 CITY :LL:;;( S OFFICE SALEM MASS. / PETER COPELAS D.B.A. PETER' S LAUNDRY 1 osev„ F, s , 35 BOSTON STREET, °Rq,, TO INSTALL SHELTER FROM WEATHER OVER LOADING AREA, ALSO, I.R...°° TO INSTALL SIGN AT SAME LOCATION. October 31, 1967, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to install a canopy to provide shelter on these premises as this is an existing nonconformity with regard to the City Zoning Ordinance and nonconformity would be increased as petitioner does not have the required side yard setback of ten feet. The Building Inspector also refused to issue a. permit to install a. sign as the frontage of the establishment is eighty feet and the total sign area Would be ninety six square feet. The Zoning Ordinance allows one square foot of sign area. for each linear foot of frontage of the estab- lishment. Mr. Copela.s appealed to the Board of Appeal for relief from these decisions. A hearing wa.s held on his petition on November 27, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. The petitioner' s son ap- peared at the hearing and stated it would cause no inconvenience to anyone, it would help the driver of the truck to load and unload and not get wet if it rains if there were a canopy over this area; as to the sign, he had a. permit from the City Council and put up a bond and no one had objec- ted. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this petition. n PETITION GRANTED B ARD�OF ..APPEAL, Secretary Ctg of "'5HIPM, 'Mttssar4usetts • � joottrb of ett! February 1, 1967 SAM ee r. eo�weR oeeRn r. oove PETITION: - A. C. T. , Inc., 127-129 Boston Street ^R KKR IA.RF.COUR To erect a two-faced sign containing 350 square feet; frontage of establishment is 56 feet, and the Zoning Ordinance allows one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of frontage of the establishment. Having been refused a permit to erect this sign by the Building In- spector, petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Ordinance. A hearing was held on this petition on January 30, 1967 pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. An official of this corporation appeared and stated it would not be a flashing sign, and explained the design. • Appearing in opposition were Ward 4 Councillor John Butler and Coun- cillor Poitras, Representative Samuel Zoll, Mr. and Mrs. John W. O'Neil of 1231 Boston Street, Leonard Broyer and Mr. and Mrs. John Broyer of 120 Boston Street, Roopen Rochakian of 149 Boston Street, Mr. and Mrs. John Lynch also of 149 Boston Street, Mr. Thomas Brennan of 160 Boston Street, and John Sweeney, 22 Silver Street, and Roland Michaud, 138 Boston Street. Councillor Butler stated there is an existing sign at this location, the largest allowed under the law, and the proposed sign would only cause annoyance to the neighbors, and a larger sign would detract from the value of the neighborhood property. The Board after due consideration thereof, voting on the grounds that no hardship was shown by the petitioner in the literal enforcement of the law applicable in this case, and to allow relief sought here would derogate substantially from the intent and purpose of the law applica- ble, and desired relief could not be granted without substantial detri- ment to the public good, voted unanimously to deny the variance. VARIANCE DENIED. BOARD OF APPEAL B7 ecret ry, CHH of '�$tt1em, Aassar4use##s 18oara of �pprttl March 30, 1967 wiLuAM F. Aeon JAM C9 M. B01J Lp ER Jp..RM .. pOYLE DECISION ON PETITION OF FREDERICK H. ERWIN, 13 BOW STREET JONn M. GRAY. .R. .R,M R ApREOpVE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to construct a two-car garage on these premises as petitioner could allow only a four foot side yard on one side, an . eight foot side yard on the other, and a five foot rear yard. The Ordinance requires a ten foot side yard and a thirty foot rear yard. The petitioner appealed from this decision to the Board of Ap- peal, and a hearing was held on this appeal on March 27, 19671 pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, board members, and others, and advertisements published in the Mvening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Petitioner ap- peared and stated he wants to build a two-car garage so that he can work on his own car. John Prikowski, of 16 Ord Street, app- geared in favor of granting the variance. Councillor John But- ler appeared and stated that he is opposed personally, and pre- sented a petition signed by many neighbors in opposition. The Councillor stated the petitioner has a history of many viola- tions in the past, and in July of 1964 had received a letter from the acting building inspector to discontinue his practice of repairing cars and storing same in his yard. The letter was an order to remove these cards from the yard as this was a res- idential area. A letter was received by the Board from Mary Dwyer of 2 Bow Street, stating her opposition to granting a variance. After due consideration thereof, the Board, voting on the grounds of no hardship involved, and to grant a variance would be detri- mental to the public good and would substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, voted unanimously to deny a variance. BOARD OF APPEAL VARIANCE DENIED fir; BY 'Secretary r 't. -- -" July 31, 1964. Mr. Tlbderick Ervin, 13 Born Street, Salem, Mass. Dear Sir: Upon a visatation to your house this morning, I noticed there were four care in your back yard, all Of which seemed to be worked upon. Inasmuch as you are living in a two family residence area you are not allowed to Bio any auto repair work or store automobiles in your back yard. Would you kindly take this letter as an order to remove the cars from your yard. Very truly yours, URB:cc Icting Inspector of BuUMPO fli#u oftt1em, Httssrttl�use#ts a Pearn of ' 1Wnd March 30, 1967 WILLIAM F. ABBOTT JhM[B ". BOl1LOER JO.LRR .. oo.LE DECISION ON PETITION OF FREDERICK H. ERWIN. 13 BOW STREET JO"fi M. ORA V. BR. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to construct a two-car garage on these premises as petitioner could allow only a four foot side yard on one side, an eight foot side yard on the other, and a five foot rear yard. The Ordinance requires a ten foot side yard and a thirty foot rear yard. The petitioner appealed from this decision to the Board of Ap- peal, and a hearing was held on this appeal on March 27, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, board members, and others, and advertisements published in the )evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Petitioner ap- peared and stated he wants to build a two-car garage so that he can work on his own car. John Prikowski, of 16 Ord Street, app- geared in favor of granting the variance. Councillor John But- ler appeared and stated that he is opposed personally, and pre- sented a petition signed by many neighbors in opposition. The Councillor stated the petitioner has a history of many viola- tions in the past, and in July of 1964 had received a letter from the acting building inspector to discontinue his practice of repairing cars and storing same in his yard. The letter was an order to remove these cards from the yard as this was a res- idential area. A letter was received by the Board from Mary Dwyer of 2 Bow Street, stating her opposition to granting a variance. After due consideration thereof, the Board, voting on the grounds of no hardship involved, and to grant a variance would be detri- mental to the public good and would substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, voted unanimously to deny a variance. BOARD 0F APPEAL PE VARIANCE DENIED BY ecretary "V Cy RECEIVED TjtU II FYIEYTt� � FXSauC li E B DEC 20 3 02 PH '67 Poarb Vf Appeal CITY CLEi ;:• 'S OFFICE December 20, 1967 SALEM. MASS. <M=s " ao =a DECISION ON APPEAL OF ROGER B. DIONNE FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE `" CITY OF SALEM AS IT AFFECTS A PROPOSED DIVISION OF AT" a�oaE�o E PROPERTY AT 2 BUCHANAN ROAD INTO TWO LOTS. On November 6, 1967, Counsellor George P. Vallis appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance for the petitioner, as stated above. A hearing was held on this petition on November 27, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All Board Members were present at this hearing. Counsellor Vallis appeared at the hearing and stated his client' s prop- erty is in an R-1 Zone, and contains 10, 700 square feet of land; he wishes to divide this land into two lots, both of which would fail to meet the minimum lot width and lot area requirements. He further stated that Mr. Dionne proposed to erect a single family on one lot, which he said would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and would cause no substantial detriment to the public good. • No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this petition. PETITION GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY 9 O Secreta ff e Ctv of Salan, cettso"4uSettB PMb of Meal June 26, 1967 wl a m.. wuoTr «.. M. .ou"K. DECISION on PETITION of Charles Zerola, 32 Cabot Street to replace footing under existing porch, and to enclose �wn.uw u.w.cou. porch area. W. Zerola appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance to permit this work, having been refused a permit by the Inspector of Buildings because bf front and side setbacks which would not conform to. the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner's appeal stated the existing porch footings consist of a five gallon can of cement which supports four wooden columns which in turn support a second floor overhang and a slate roof. Existing footings are inadequate to support the weight and thus require periodic jackings so that the doors can be operated, and also to stop plastered walls and ceil- ings from cracking. He further stated he has lived at this address some fifteen years during which time the front of the house has been jacked up at least eight times. He plans to eliminate this hardship by constructing a,"full length concrete and cement block footing which will be permanent* The appeal also requested a permit to enclose the porch since it is pres- ently exposed to the elements and columns and flooring have been replaced f � three times in fifteen years. A hearing was held on this petition on June 19, 19679 at which all board members were present. Petitioner appeared and stated his appeal the same as in his petition. Donald Kingston and Ronald Giunta, also Councillor Joseph O'Keefe appeared in favor. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY 01 !Secretary • of 0sainno Pmb of Mad May 29, 1967 ""`""'' '•"" DECISIOg OH PETITION OF SALEM GLASS COMPANY, 75 CANAL STREET, '-"•« `��"" to erect addition to existing building at this location which • . ,�« .. ...•.... is a B-4 district on Canal Street extending 100 feet from the • ■�•••• center of Canal Street; existing building extends fifty feet into an R-29 two-family residence district; this is a noncon- forming use and the proposed addition would increase this by 40 feet. The proposed addition would cover 100% of the lot area; maximum lot coverage. al- lowed by the Zoning Ordinance in this district is 35%. The Ordinance also re- quires a minimum front yard depth of fifteen feet, side yards of ten feet, and a rear yard of thirty feet. The proposed addition would cover the total area of the lot being constructed on the boundary lines with no setbacks. A hearing was hold on this petition on March 27, 1967. All Board members were present at this hearing. Mr. Saul Goldberlry owner of the Salem Glass Company, appeared accorpanied by his counsel Harry A. Simon. Mr. Simon stated be has a decision of the Supreme Court where part of the lot has already been used, as in this case, and wbere the proposed use has already been in existence, the matter falls into a different catogovy; he further stated there is no detriment to the public good and no derogation from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance under sr$ conditions. Counsellor Simon also stated he has another case which says wh, Otho nearest abutter, (who in this case is Leo Auger of Gardner Street) has no ob,®ction this is a strong element to be considered by the Board. Councilor George Marquis appeared and stated he is opposed to granting a variance for many of his constituents, and would like the Board to review the previous files on a similar petition. He called on his constituents to stand, and many attendins this hearing stood, all in opposition - 'Frank Tobin, 28 Hancock Street, Frederic Haskell. 32 Gardner Street, Joseph Morin 26-261 Hancock Street, Joseph Pelletier, 57 Hancock Street, Dorot#y Freeman, 51 Hancock Street, John Fallon, 30 Hancock Street, Eugene Tremblay 35 Hancock Street, Armand Martel, 29 Gardner Street, and Dolores Pelletier, 27 kaacock Street. The Board voted unanimously to notify Counsellor Simon to bring in the two decis- Jons of the Supreme Court he referred to, at the next meeting of the Board to be held on April 24. Later at the request of Counsellor Simon, the Board agreed to continue hearing on this petition at the May 22 meeting. On April 25, the Board received a communication from the office of Israel Bloch, s in Counsellor at Law, stating that office hado representen retained thembinpopposingothergrant- ez the vicinity of the Salem Glass Company ing of this application. At a subsequent meeting, Attorney Bloch appeared and made a statement and cited several cases pertaining to the issues here involved. Attorney Simon was also present at this meeting. i 2 _ Board Members held a meeting on Saturday, May 27, at 10:00 A.M. All members were present at this meeting. By unanimous vote, the Board granted the petitioner leave to withdraw without prejudice. BOARD OF APPEAL BY cre ry ,`�.. Ctg of intent, 'Mttssar4use##s 19oxrb of �ppeA May 11 1967 wau�.n e. weaon nrn ze „. eo��aew oaer„ r. oov�e DECISION ON PETITION OF Merchants-Warren National Bank, „r„VR �epeCOUe To erect two sets of illuminated free standing letters on two elevations of new banking building at 125-129 Canal Street , corner of Laurel Street The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to install signs at this location as the Zoning Ordinance allows only one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of frontage of the establishment . The frontage of this bank is fifty-three feet , and the total sign area, as proposed, would be 74.66 square feet . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance to allow the installation of these signs. A hearing was held on this petition on April 24, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to petitioner, abutters, board members, and others , and notices published in The Evening News. Mr. Linzee Wallas, Vice President of the bank appeared and stated the case the same as in the petition. He explained that these are to be plain metal signs, and the main reason is the bank likes to be identified on the Laurel Street side . Mr. Bernard H. MacNeil, the sign maker also appeared in favor. No one appeared in opposition . After due consideration thereof, the Board, voting on the grounds that to deny this appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner, and granting the variance would cause no detriment to the public good , and would not sub- stantially derogate from the intent and .purpose of the Ordinance , voted unanimously to grant this appeal. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY �. Secretar • F oftt1Pm, {ttss�t�l��zse##s May 1, 1967 "ME" ". SOVLaER DECISION ON PETITION OF Saltz Chevrolet , Inc . , 142 Canal Street JOSEPH F. DOYLE To permit the location of a trailer at 207 Highland Avenue ; Lot 2 ; `p°"JJ. also , to erect large signs at the same location. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal to locate a trailer which is to be used as a temporary office building for the sale of used cars and for renting cars . A hearing was held on April 24, 1967 on this petition pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, board members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All Board members were present at this meeting. Robert Saltz , president of the corporation appeared and stated his case , the same as in the petitions. No one appeared in opposition . The Board after due consideration thereof, voting on the grounds that to deny this appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner, and granting the variance would not cause detriment to the public good and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance , voted unanimously to grant petitioner per- fmission to locate the trailer on this lot ON THE CONDITION that it be removed thin three years after the date the permit is actually issued . Petition to install signs granted unanimously. #1 APPEAL GRANTED WITH CONDITION #2 APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY 9,4"4, cretar cow, �' , '`f•; 3 � n# Arab 6 10 of 11t4 '6T pFFICE Putzrc�VP CISCL y" µ0N 1 3 , CITY C4°_;. l�eOFFICE - WILLIAM F.Ap6pTT D1Y 14; 51ON PETITION OF HENRY BOU94WMRELOCATE JAM HB N. BO VLpCR Jo9RRN R. poYLe A DUELLING AT 41 CHARLES STREET. � JO NN M, pRgY. 8R. ARTHUR L SRCCOV[ The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to relocate this dwelling at 41 Charles Street as the plot plan showed that instead of the required thirty feet the rear yard would be twenty-six to twenty- seven feet. i Petitioner' s attorney, George P. Vallis, appealed to the Board of Ap- peal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance. A hearing was held on this appeal on October 16, 1967 pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Counselor George Vallis appeared and stated his client had purchased three buildings from the Salem State College with the understanding they be moved to new locations. Mr. Boucher was able to purchase this lot of land at 41 Charles Street to relocate one of these buildings but the rear yard would be three to • four feet less than required by the City Zoning Ordinance. After due consideration thereof, the Board voting on the grounds that to deny this appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner, and to grant the petition would not be detrimental to the public good and would not dero- gate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, voted unanimously to grant this appeal. e PETITION GRANTED ARD OF APPEAL, ✓ ecretary . I I i i i i j , �ntlnv ,ROILY r,lmv Titv of aljcnt assaL etts - .f..F a 00 NO? -pottrb of 4pral AALT11SAU9, gASS. DECISION ON PETITION OF HENRY BOUCHER TO RELOCATE �MHB m. eOVLOeR A DWELLING AT 46-48 CHARLES STREET. j �osevm r. oov�e ,ro Rn m. cwnv, en. Aman-R ueveeo.. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to relocate a j dwelling at. 46-48 Charles Street as the lot is undersize, contain- ing 4160 square feet instead of 5000 required by the City Zoning j Ordinance; also required are setbacks 'of fifteen feet from the 1 street line and thirty feet from the rear property line, and this structure would be ten feet from the street line on one side, and have an eleven foot rear yard. I .. Petitioner' s attorney, George P. Vallis appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance. ' A hearing was held on this appeal on October 16, 1967, pursuant to -� notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others , and advertisements published in the Evening News . All Board members were present at this hearing. Counselor George Vallis appeared and stated his client had purchased three buildings i • from the Salem State College with the understanding they be moved to new locations. Mr. Boucher was able to purchase land at this address for one of these buildings but it is lacking in lot area and side and rear yard distances to boundary lines as required by i . the City Zoning Ordinance. After due consideration thereof, the Board voting on the grounds that .to deny this appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner, and to grant the petition would not be detrimental to the public good and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, voted unanimously to grant this appeal. PETITION GRANTED ,_fv i F) ARD F APPEAL, Secretary i 1 1 i I i (REF- %RRO. - NGRO %EROI CORY ICOI•y Illy•y �.OI,Y� ,_ _��.,,,__..�—�_ ., — .gym---C"-•---..-' __-._.--�---- e...- i f -1. cO*Ort 4 of galem, Aassacl setts �� ;, :• Pourb of C�"enl , I " November 20 1967 WILLIAM �.ABBOIT , JAM60 ". BOVL06R ' JOHHPM .. OOVLH , DECISION ON PETITION OF WALTER R. ABRAHAM TO ERECT ARTHO"-13RHCOVL A DWELLING ON LOT #115 CLARK STREET, AND A DWELLING l ON LOT #116 CLARK STREET. r Mr. Walter Abraham appealed to the Board of Appeal on August 25, 1967 for a variance to erect dwellings on these lots since neither lot has the frontage required by the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. In his petition he stated that when the lots were purchased he and his sister lots which at that time had sufficient front- planned to build on both age. Since then his sister has moved from this area and for financial reasons he wishes to sell one of the lots. . I A hearing was held on this petition on October 16, 1967. All Board mem- bers were present at the hearing which was held pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, , and notices published in the Evening News advising of this petition. The petitioner appeared and explained why he was seeking a variance, the same as in his written appeal. No one appeared in opposition. f • The Board after due consideration thereof, voting on the grounds that to deny the petition would cause hardship to the petitioner, and to 4 . grant the appeal would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would not be detrimental to the public good, voted unan- imously to grant this petition. PETITION GRANTED L E°� ARD F APPEA , Secretary f L + t; HERO HERO %ERp %ERO OOPY COPY - -.... .. I,O"Y 1.1 COPY.4 .P .. .. _ Qli#g of Salem, 'Massar4usetts Puxrb of A"Ettl March 30, 1967 wuuwM r. •.•or "" " eOULCR DECISION ON PETITION OF SOPHIA PLECINOGA. 107 COLUMBUS AVE. oe.RM a. oovu - lO"N M. GRAY. IR. ,RTM VR ........ Petitioner applied to the Building Inspector for a permit to install shed dormers on a dwelling at this location. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 7000 square foot lot, ten foot side yards, and allows 359 coverage by all buildings. Petitioner's lot contains 5080 square feet and has a 5.67 foot side yard. Permit was refused. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance, and a hearing was held on this appeal on March 27, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, board members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Edward Plecinoga appeared for his mother and stated they need additional bedrooms and bathroom. Elliott Rowand of 109 Columbus Avenue appeared to be recorded in favor of granting the variance. Mr. Edw. Miller of 103 Columbus Avenue also stated his approval. No one appeared I, in opposition. 4 J After due consideration thereof, the Board, voting on the grounds that to deny this appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner, and granting the variance would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would not cause detri- ment to the public good, voted unanimously to grant the variance. BOARD OF APPEAL VARIANCE GRANTED B7vz J ecre ry ' Ctvv of inlrnI 'Magww4ugletts a 16oarb of �,Vptal June 1, 1967 J""`° " "O.L... DECISION on Petition of Industrial Engineering & Metal `°8.. �Fabricators , Inc. , 32 Commercial Street to erect addi- tions to existing building for business expansion. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to allow this con- struction because it failed to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ord- inance . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the ap- plication of the Zoning Ordinance , and on May 22, 1967, a hearing was held on this appeal pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the peti- tioner, abutters, board members, and others, and notices published in the Evening News. All Board members were present at the hearing with the exception Of Chairman John M. Gray, Sr. Mr. John W. McCarthy, president and treas- urer of petitioning company, appeared and stated that at the time this land was purchased the Zoning 'Laws were not as restrictive as at present, and when drawings were submitted of the initial facility, proposed future additions were shown on the plan as a necessary factor in the growth and expansion plans . Mr. McCarthy further stated that refusal puts the com- pany in a very serious predicament in the respect that without expanded facilities, petitioner will be forced to relocate . Mr. McCarthy declared he had agreed with the National Lumber Company, an abutter on the north side, to substitute a masonry wall for a metal wall and a letter to this effect was signed by Harold Kaits of the lumber company. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this variance with the following condi- tion imposed : The proposed building is to be made of concrete blocks on all four sides and the petitioner will not re-use metal wall on present building in said new. addition . APPEAL GRANTED WITH CONDITION BOARD OF APPEAL BY. Cgs Secreta of of Vd July 19, 1967 Mwn'w,sauwiw DECISION ON PETITION OF PARCO , INC . , FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT 90HMw. 6MY.at TO PERMIT THE CONDUCT OF LIGHT MANUFACTURING BIISINESS at 21 CONGRESS STREET AND 233 DERBY STREET. Attorney John M. Fogarty, representing the petitioner, appealed to the Board of Appeal for a Special Permit, stating: "This letter is written in behalf of Parco, Inc. , a Massachusetts corpora- tion currently operating a light manufacturing business at 27 Davenport Street, Boston, Massachusetts. Parvo, Inc. , must shortly vacate its prem- ises due to a taking by the Boston Redevelopment Authority and has entered into a Purchase-.aud Sale Agreement with R. S. R. Realty Company, Inc . , a Massachusetts corporation with a usual place of business in Boston, for the purchase. of premises In Salem, Massachusetts, consisting of approximate- ly 37,677 square, feet of land, together with the building thereon known as 21 Congress Street and 233 Derby Street. Parco, Inc . , desires a special permit to permit it to conduct its light manufacturing business in connection with the preparation of shoe bindings and the application of a thermo-plastic adhesive thereto.If •A hearing was~held on this petition in the office of the Inspector of Build- ings, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, board members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All .Board members were present at this hearing held on July 17, 1967. Attor- ney John M. Fogarty of Lynn, Massachusetts, appearing for the petitioner, stated he had been in business for thirty-four years, and wishes to establish the business in the old Hawthorne Garage. The business is processing bind- ings used in the manufacture of shoes; thirty-five persons are employed in the factory, and ten are employed in the office. Counsellor Fogarty stated he had talked with the fire chief and he had no objection to this operation. Mr. Carr, an official of the company, appeared in favor, as did Mr. Davis of the Pickering Company, an abutter, and R. S. Robe. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this petition. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY �N SecretaYy y 0 Ctv of '*Arm' 'Massar4usetts Pourb of �kppznl March 29, 1967 wuugM ", q.aorr q"" " O `"`" DECISION JO"EI. .OYL. ON PETITION OF LEO BRUNET, 7 CROSS STREET COURT PN JONN M. ORgY. .R. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addition to a dwelling at this location as the proposed addition Would be twelve feet from the rear boundary line and the Zoning Ordinance requires thirty feet; the Ordinance also requires a ten foot distance to aide boundary lines and petitioner has three feet eight inches; also, existing building covers about 449 of the lot area and the Ordinance allows 359 coverage. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance to erect an addition to pro- vide a bedroom and enlarge existing kitchen. A hearing was held on this appeal on March 27, 1967 pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitionerabutters, board mem- bers, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. • All Board members were present at this hearing. Petitioner ap- peared with his wife Agnea, and stated the case the same as in the original petition. Councillor Joseph O'Keefe called and said he wished to be recorded in favor of granting this variance. After due consideration thereof, the Board, voting on the grounds that to deny this appeal would cause hardahip to the petitioner, and granting the variance would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would not cause detri- ment to the public good, voted unanimously to grant the variance. VARIANCE GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY J-I r. / ecr` et-' c , RE C E N E!O IB{ S�a1Em, ss�xc �t e##s DEC 10 3 oz PMutarb of 'ApEtt1 �'Fcr.mt'.os" CITY CLtH;,`5 OFFICE December 19, 1967 WJLLIAM P.aeoon SALEM. MASS- JwMes N. uouic Ew J06EPN P, OOYIE DECISION ON PETITION OF ROLAND L'HEUREUX FOR VARIANCE FOR .PTN N BPE-'ve LOT AREA ONLY AS TO LOT 2A SHOWN ON PLAN OF LAND LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF DEARBORiv AND WALTER STREETS. On October 23, 1967, petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal, through his attorney, Joseph F. Doyle, Jr. , for a variance for lot area only as to Lot 2A as shown on submitted plan. Plan showed land at the corner of Dearborn and Walter Streets with a dwelling fronting on Dearborn Street, with an attached garage in the rear which he proposes to remove. By removing the garage, the petitioner hopes to divide the land, contain- ing a total of 12,300 square feet into two lots; the front lot on Dearborn Street containing 7583 square feet, and the rear lot, 4717 square feet. This is a two family residence area requiting a lot area of 5000 square feet with a minimum frontage of 40 feet; the proposed division would leave. Lot A, in the rear with a frontage of 51.78 feet, and a lot area of 4717 square feet. A hearing was held on this petition on November 27, 1967, at which all Board members were present. Appearing for the petitioner, Counsellor Doyle explained the plan, stating the Planning Board had requested that Mr. L°Heureux appeal to the Board of Appeal with regard to Zoning require- ments. Appearing in favor was Mr. John Capuccio of 10 Linden Street. Appearing in -opposition were the following; Councillor George McCabe of this Ward, Mary Horton of 15 Dearborn Street, Jane Reid, 35 Walter Street, Mrs. Ma- tures, 23 Dearborn Street, and 'Page Day 32 Walter Street; also, a number of others whose names appeared on a petition opposing granting this pe- tition. Board Member Joseph Doyle disqualified himself from participating in this - hearing, and abstained from voting. All other members voted unanimously to grant this variance on the grounds of hardship to the petitioner, and granting the variance would cause no detriment to the public good and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. PETITION GRANTED (fiOAROJ OF APPEAL, VS . • II i 1 RECEIV�p ` 1,31 DEC 05 PHI of �tt1em �Ittssttcl�>zsP##s 'S Q CITY Clt;:t; S SALEM MA S Aaarb of 4prA WILLIAM F. ABBO T December 20, 1967 Wooer" r. ovule DECISION ON PETITION OF ELMER H. WARNER FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE APPLICABLE ZONING LAWS RELATING TO LOT SIZE pm" P ABeC E REQUIREMENTS, SETBACK REQUIREMENT, SIDELINE REQUIREMENT, AND REAR LOT LINE REQUIREMENT, AS IT PERTAINS TO PROP- ERTY SITUATED AT 144 NORTH STREET. On November 6, 1967, Counsellor John R. Serafini appealed to the Board as sta.ted above, in behalf of his client Elmer H. Warner. A hearing wa.s held on this petition on November 27, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, abutters, Board Members, and others , and advertisements published in the Evening News . All Board Members were present a.t this hearing. Counsellor Serafini appeased and stated the petition a.s above, and explained the plan sta.ting his client would not be able to sell the rear lot unless this petition is granted. The plan shows a. dwelling on a lot of land at 144 North Street, fronting on North Street, designated as Lot A, with a. right of way to another dwelling in the rear on a. lot designated as Lot B. No one appeared in opposition. A letter was received and read from Phyllis M. Locke , 5 Dearborn Street , an abutter, sta.ting she wished to be recorded as opposed to the variance until she had more specific in- £orma.tion. A few days after the hearing she called and requested a. copy of the decision of the Board. The Board of Appeals, after hearing, found that the lot in question ha.s had two dwellings on it for the past thirty years. Assessors ' records indica.te that both properties were owned by one owner as is presently the case . The Board further found that there would be a.. hardship imposed on the owner of the property if he were not given permission to transfer the rear lot and were not granted a. variance from the applicable Zoning Ordinance . The Board noted that no physical change in the structures was contem- pla.ted, and the Board decided that the granting of this variance was '- within the purview of the Sta.tutes of the Commonwealth, and more specif- ica.11y, Chapter 40-A, Section 15, Clause 3. Ater due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant the variance . PETITION GRANTED ! c«�! ✓\/ o�G7 CK jBOARD OF APPEAL, SECRETARY ` r Of ?R s of CtAexi July 21, 1967 ISCISION ON PETITION OF HARRIET KOHN. 204 DERBY STREET J.MwO r. wUUM JowlPr..oovu OwIMUw WwwOOUw " The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to allow the construction of an addition to an existing building at this location, known as the Bunghole Package Store, as this is an existing nonconforming use in an R-2 district, zoned for two-family residences; also, petitioner can not allow setbacks re- quired by the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance in this district, and proposes to cover 100% of this lot while the Ordinance allows a maximum 'coverage of 35%• Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal stating - "Due to the inadequate floor space and crowded storage room it has become quite a hardship for-. us to handle the volume of merchandise that is delivered on the premises, also with this proposed addition we could increase our refrigeration space which we desperately need". A hearing was held on this petition on May 22, 1967 at which all Board members excepting Chairman John M. Gray, Sr. , were present. Mr. Kohn appeared and stated his mother owns the property, and they have been in this location for 23 or 24 years. Appearing in opposition were Stephen, John and Michael Bik. tephen Bik stated he represented his father who lives at 26 Herbert Street butting this property, and there had been trouble for years over this land. The Board voted unanimously to continue this hearing until June 19, and to request petitioner or her agent to bring the deed to the property to this hearing. On June 19 the hearing was resumed. All Board members were present . Mr. Kohn and members of the Bik family were in attendance. The Board voted to request an opinion from the City Solicitor on the legal question - - Does the petition- er have the legal right seeking relief sought under all the circumstances of this case? The Bik family stated it was agreeable to them that the City Solic- itor review the deeds pertaining to the issues and the various claims, and give an opinion relative to rights of petitioner to erect the addition on the land in question. It was voted to continue this hearing until July 17. Hearing was resumed on this petition on July 17. A reply from the City Solic- itor was read. This letter was accompanied by a plan of land between Union and Herbert Streets, dated October 17, 1934, and a copy of a transfer of owner- ship relating to the same parcel with quitclaim covenants; these documents to be an integral part of this decision. 2 A communication from Counselor Richard E. Blake of the law offices of Hill . & Blake was next read at this hearing, stating that he had examined the title and the petitioner is the owner of this property, and accordingly, the record title is in the petitioner Harriet Kohn. This document also becomes an integral part of the Board's decision. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal on the grounds that to deny this petition would cause hardship to the petitioner, and to grant the appeal would cause no detriment to the public good and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance., BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY ecretar a- • • + CIT' OF SALEM, MASSACMUSETM • LEGAL DEPARTMENT .r r, �ALSM A. DOSROSIELSKI a 125 WASNINISTON STREET i cm soUCROR SALEM,MASSACNUSEM e h June 29, 1967 Board of Appeals City Hall Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: Harriet Bohn 204 Derby Street Salem, Massachusetts Gentlemen: I agree that petitioners request for permission to en- large a non-conforming structure and use in an R-2 residence . area is a proper matter for a Board of Appeals decision. Your letter requests my opinion as to whether the peti- tioner has a legal right seeking relief sought under all the circumstances of this case. a. Yes, petitioner has a legal right to seek relief, but I an not familiar with all the circumstances of this case, and since you failed to list any, I must defer making any comment. b. A dispute about ownership of land should not be any concern of the Board of Appeals. The Appeals Board is not a forum for adjudicating land ownership and the Board should strongly reject any such claims -- by any party. I have examined two deeds recorded in the Essex Registry of Deeds in Book 3010, page 537 and 838; copies of same with pertinent plan are herewith attached. I have not made a title search of all four parcels shown on the plan. The plan purports to show a private way in which only Dowd of Appeals - 9 - June 99, 1987 abutters had an interest. By deed recorded in Book 3010, Page 837 at bottom, the abetters gave any interests they had in the mall piece that 3 I have marked in red, to Louis Pooharski and Francis H. Pocharoki. Subsequently, the petitioner acquired title to this parcel from the Pocharskis. If. there are no intervening erroneous conveyances, then the parcel in red is land owned by the petitioner. Very truly yours, Alfr4rd A. Dobrosielski AM pan cc: lira. Harriet Kohn, 904 Derby St. , Salon. Hr. Hichael Bik, 98 Herbert St. , Salsa. • -----=+—tri-,•s.-------�'..:F-- • VN/ON ST. 4G.00 3'0.00' o � O -c 3'0.00 A � 40.01 ry 1t A O%Cmg esai m - suoo' S•T. 3J 3 rn pq v U) A y v `Vat', Hichgl Bik, Louie Pooharski and Francis H. Pooharsky and Andrea Noce and Baanislaso Monk hubcmd a$9 vile ad tsamts IWthe entirety-all of :Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts, for consideration paid, grant to Panlo with �ITCd.AIM COYBNATTTS the land in SALEM bounded and de- Oluk of scribed as follows: Westerly by Union Street Seven (7) feet, Northerly .<iands of said Nooek and Bik Sixty Seven and Twenty-Six Hundredths (67.26 feet, to land this day conveyed to Pocharski, Westerly by land this day conveyed to Pocharski Seven (7) feet, Southerly by land of Grantee Sixty Six and Four Tenths (66.4) feet, meaning and intending hereby to convey all our right, title and interest in and to the above described portion of the private way adjoining our lands and the Grantee hereby agrees not . ' to use said land for any purpose which would constitute a nuisance under the law. See Plan dated October V. 1934 drawn. by Halter M. Wheeler C.B. recorded this day with said Deeds. -husband wife of said grantor-.releea to said grantee all rights of tenancy by the curtsey dower and homestead and other interests therein, WITNESS our hands and seal this Fourth day *October 1934 Michael Bik Her Witness to all and mark; ) Bronislawa g Nocek Adam F. Stefanski ) Andrew Nocek THE COMMONWEALTH ) Mrs. Louis Pooharski OF MASSACHUSETTS ) Louis Pocharski Essex, as. Salem, ) Panko Shaluk Qotober 4. 1934 ) Francis H. Pocharski Then personally ) Mary A. Pocharski appeared the above named Hichal Bik, Andrew Noce.k and Bronislawa Nocek a d acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their free act and deed, before me Dennie Mavrogenia Notary Publio (Notarial seal) My commission expires August 51 1938. X- ex as. Received Nov. 9, 1934. 12 m. past 4 P.M. Recorded and Examined. --- -------------------------.-----------------------------------------s We, Panko Shaluk, Michal Bik and Andrew Nocek and Bronislawa Nocek husban and. wife and tenants by the entirety-all of Salem, Essex County, Massachu i netts. for consideration paid, grant to Louie Pooharski and Francis H-Poch, arski of - with QUITCLAIM COVENANTS the land in SALEM bounded and descri � as follows: Easterly by Herbert Street Seven (7) feet, Northerly by land of Bik Eighteen and Ninety-four Hundredths (18.94) feet, Westerly by land this day conveyed to Shaluk Seven (?) feet,, Southerly by land of Grantee- Eighteen and Ninety-four Hundredths (18.94) feet, meaning and intending hereby to convey all our right title" and interest in and to the above de- scribed portion of the private way adjoining our lands and the Grantee-he !e by agrees not to use said land for any purpose which would constitute a nuisance under the law. See Plan dated October 17, 1934 drawn by Walter 1. Wheeler C.E. recorded this day with said Deeds. -husband wife of said grantor. release to said grantee-all rights of tenancy b the cur tesy dower and homestead and other interests therein. WITNESS our hands, and seal th s , Fourth day of October 1934 Michael Bik Her Witness to all and mark: ) Bronialawa I Nooek mark Adam F. Stefanaki ) Andrew Nocek THE COMMONWEALTH ) Louis Pocharski OF MASSACHUSETTS ) Panko Shaluk Easaz, as. Salem, ) gatarzyna Shaluk October 4, 1934 Then personally appeared the above named Michel Bik, An- drew Nooek and Bronislawa Nooek and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their free act and dead, before me Dennis Mavrogenis Notary Public - (Notarial seal) My commission expires August 5, 1938 Essex as. Received Nov. 9, 1934. 12 m. past 4 P.M. Recorded and Examined. 41 -.wwwwwwwws---------• -----www ---------------------------- ww w-------w Notice of Conditional Sale of Personal Property (General Laws, Chap. 184, Seo. 13) _ NOTICE IS HERMY GIVEN that Sears. Roebuck and Co. , a oorpor- _dulv_o, n�s+.d_bs_the lase_of the State of Nes, DrLand dcd LAW OFFICES HILL 8, BLAKE 70 WASHINGTON STREET w EluT W. HILL 1.910-1966) SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS TELEPHONE Ce coneE 6nn17 na RICHARD E. •LAN[ 01970 DOUGLAS H. HALEY July 5, 1967 Board of Appeals City Hall Salem, Massachusetts Gentlemen: Re Harriet Kohn 204 Derby Street, Salem At the request of Mr. Chester J. Kohn, I am writing you this letter . The City Solicitor wrote your Board a letter under date of June 29th, and concerning some question which had apprently been raised about ownership of the property, stated that if there were no intervening conveyances the strip of land in question is owned by the petitioner. I have had the title examined since the date of the deed from Pocharski et als to 40 the petitioner March 28, 1946, and the petitioner is still the owner of the property, since there have been no subsequent conveyances . The Pocharskis acquired title to the strip of land in question, which formerly was shown as a way, under a deed from Panko Shaluk, Michael Bik, Andrew Nocek and Broniwlawa Nocek dated October 4, 1934, and accordingly, the record title is in the petitioner Harriet Kohn. The occasion for my addressing this letter to you is that Mr . Kohn felt a letter from this office would supplement the opinion letter of the City Solicitor, who I understand is not now available . Very truly yo REBEL Richard E.. Blake r Ctv of '*Iem, 'Massar4use##s Paurb of �ppvd March 29, 1967 WILLI♦M I. /\.OTf JI.M 6. X. 90VLO8R Jo.¢Rw R. Dort¢ DECISION on PETITION of FRANK WETMORE, 222-226 DERBY STREET ARTXVR LA.R¢COV¢ The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to alter the first floor of these premises, formerly occupied by two stores, to provide two additional apartments as this is a two family residence area and there are four apartments in this building. On December 19, 19669 a hearing was held on this petition, at which time the Board voted to continue the hearing on this appeal pending reply to an inquiry regarding State Law applying in this case. The Board resumed hearing on this petition on March 27, 1967. All members were present at this hearing. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board, voting on the grounds that to deny this petition would cause hardship to the petitioner, and granting the variance would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and would not cause detriment . to the public good, voted unanimously to grant the variance. BOARD OF APPEAL VARIANCE GRANTED BY ecretar ` CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS LEGAL DEPARTMENT ,wvq y FRED A. DORROSIELSKI IIS WASHINGTON STREET CITY SOLICITOR � SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS February 27 , 1967 Salem Board of Appeal Building Inspectors Office City Hall Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Gentlemen: In reply to your letter of February 6 , 1967 , re- questing a clarification on the application of the State of Massachusetts Code with reference to apart- ment buildings in Salem; I have no knowledge of any Massachusetts Code relating to apartment buildings . rurthermore, I have not been able to find a copy of such code in Salem. If you have a copy of same , please advise . Very truly yours , Q Alfred A . Dobrosielski City Solicitor kfc 4' • February 6. 1967 Allred A. Dabrosielahl. Bag*, 70 Mahington Street. Salem. ftsaachuootta Door We Dobroaialshit 19oold you kindly furnish this Board of Appeal with a clarification on the application of the State of Mass= achuaetts Code with reference to apartment buildings in 9alame She nmA =sting of the Board is acheduled for Feb. ruary 27, and we would appreciate hearing from you in this regard before that date. Very truly yours, JM tee rman • � r JOHN M . G R A Y Co . • REGISTERED ARCHITECTS TA. Am zrz . I.k., .l Ardivcu JOHN M. GRAY, F.A... 183 MILK STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108 JOHN M. GRAY. JA.A.1..A. FRANCIS J.GRAY, M.C.P. Area Code 817 426.4993 March 6, 1967 Mr. Daniel J. O'Brien, Jr. Building Inspector City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts Deas Dans Enclosed, herewith, is City Solicitor' s letter dated February 27, 1967 which you loaned me to check with the Department of Public Safety. I took the matter up with Mr. Joseph Yantosca, Supervisor of Plans, of the Department of Public Safety and he informed me as follows: 1. The general State requirements apply only to areas where there is no Building Code. 2. The Apartment House definition in B-1 of "Apartment House of Tenement": A building or tenement over two stories in height and having more than eight rooms above the second floor, are within the jurisdiction of the State Law. As to egress, stairs, etc., below this requirement, the City Code applies. 3. Row Houses not more than two or three stories, as are being built in Peabody, Danvers and Marblehead, come within the local code. 4. If an apartment house built or altered to have more than eight rooms above the second floor have existing stairs less than 3'-60 as called for, and the pssent stairs and exits below the third floor are 3'-0" in width, they will ware the requirement of 3'-6" and all third floors tobe3'-0w. Mr. Yantosca is sending me a copy of the latest code covering the above and I will give this to you. In view of the above, the City Solicitor is correct. However, I would like to have him interpret our own code requirements covering items "Specifically Prohibited", ACP h- and tell us if we can no`s act on such items. With kind regards, I an, Very truly yours, ohn M. Gray —� JMG:b enc. I 41 DEC B 3 47 PM '61 uttrD of � ettl WILLIP.M R. PBBOTT CITY CLEI K'J OFFICE December 8, 1967 .Mse „. BOBLOEB SALEM. MASS. ! JOB6P„ F. oovLe DECISION ON PETITION OF SALEM ARMY & NAVY STORE, INC. , B"."B` 182 ESSEX STREET, TO INSTALL A SIGN, THE AREA OF WHICH IS GREATER THAN PERMITTED BY THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE. A hearing was held on this petition on October 16, 1967, at which time the Board voted to continue thio hearing until the next meet- . t of the Bourd, November 27, and to notify petitioner to this ef- fect, requesting that he furnish a sketch of picture of the pro- posed sign. At the November 27 meeting of the Board, hearing was resumed on this petition. All Board members were in attendance. Bertram Glovsky, of the firm of Glovsky and Glovsky Attorneys, ap- peared as Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Glovsky presented a plan of the proposed sign, and stated there would be no flashing light ; the sign will be flat against the building, illuminated from within. Noione.'appeared(`in opposition to this petition. • After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this petition. BOARD OF A PEAL PETITION GRANTED BY / c Secret ry"' j , I • I I E e. aeof 'S$alrm, cIHttssa rouse##s 3 25 AM ��j Poarb of A"ral CITY "E'r:Y\'� OFFICE November 2, 1967 SALEV4,8"S, "rn ee ". eou�aea J096P"_o. ooY a DECISION ON PETITION OF SALEM ARMY & NAVY STORE, INC. , i """ "' aa"y''R' 182 ESSEX STREET, TO INSTALL A SIGN, THE AREA OF WHICH ARTHUR L"eaeCRVe IS GREATER THAN PERMITTED BY THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE. On September 19, 1967, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a per- mit to install a sign at this location as the proposed sign would have an i. area of one hundred sixty feet. The Zoning Ordinance allows one square ' foot of sign area for each linear foot of frontage of the establishment, and the frontage at this store is forty feet. On September 22 the petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal stating he had been located at this address for over a year and has been unable to put up an adequate sign. He further stated that without this sign the -I growth of this business is being severely held back. I. -I A hearing was held on this petition on October:: 16, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. There was no picture or sketch of the proposed sign, and the Board could not get in touch with the sign company. : i The Board voted unanimously to continue this hearing to November 27 when the next Board meeting is scheduled, and to notify petitioner to this ef- fect, requesting that he furnish a sketch or picture of the proposed sign. DECISION PENDING � -� AR OF APPEA Secretary � I 7 ]]I i 1 -I) XERO XERO COPY �COF'Y �— (;Of.y - XEROX A COPY I� _ t i I F ` RECEIY�iti II ` FSIEItT� HFSB�FTLItBES 3 2s Pourb of �yyral w,LL,. ..AVOO CIT BAIEMYMASSFIC6 November 2, 196'7 IRMEE ". BOVLOCq DECISION ON PETITION OF SALEM ARMY & NAVY STORE INC. JOHN M. 182 ESSEX STREET TO INSTALL A SIGN THE AREA OF WHICH V ARTHUR LN6gewVE IS GREATER THAN PERMITTED BY THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE. - � On September 19, 1967, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a per- mit to install a sign at this location as the proposed sign would have an ' area of one hundred sixty feet. The Zoning Ordinance allows one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of frontage of the establishment, and the frontage at this store is forty feet. On September 22 the petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal stating he f had been located at this address for over a year and has been unable to put up an adequate sign. He further stated that without this sign the growth of this business is being severely held back. A hearing was held on this petition on October. 16, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. There was no picture or I sketch of the proposed sign, and the Board could not get in touch with + the sign company. i The Board voted unanimously to continue this hearing to November 27 when the next Board meeting is scheduled, and to notify petitioner to this of j fect, requesting that he furnish a sketch or picture of the proposed sign. DECISION PENDING1 , -�� 1 AR OF APPEA14 Secretary I j j J 1 i• ' NERO HERO - XERO NEgO OOPY ('OILY IOliy fOPYw y''!'i (9i#U of �$ttlezn, Massac4usetts Aloarb of '4vettl March 29, 1967 WILLIAM I. ...OTT ,.M.. H. .DVLD.H DECISION ON PETITION OF DAVID TODREAS 2461 ESSEX STREET J0.6IH I. DOVL6 The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to alter the third floor at 246J Essex Street to provide a third apartments as this is a B-3 district, zoned for central business, and all residential uses are prohibited. Mr. Todreas appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance. A hearing was held on this pe- tition on March 27, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abuttera, board members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Mr. Todreas appeared and stated it is a case of altering an existing apartment. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board, voting on the grounds that to deny , this appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner, and granting variance would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would not cause detriment to the public good, voted unanimously to grant the variance. BOARD OF APPEAL VARIANCE GRANTED Byl y' ecretary • a �w o ie r orf 09afrint j 3 f Appeal July 19, 1967 # i qt MRM,1U1Pf4 A�f�dlt dXileM'_ Nk6ti1M+M DECISION ON PETITION OF FRANK A. GALLAGHER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE USE OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AT THE REAR OF 328 ESSEX STREET FOR AN ENGINEERING OFFICE FOR A „.CONSULTING ENGINEERING FIRM OPERATED BY HIS SON. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal to grant a Special Permit to allow occupancy as stated above. A hearing wras held on this petition in the office of the Inspector of Buildings on July 17, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, board members, and others, and advertisements pub- lished. in The Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Appearing for the peti^; tiofter, Frank E. Gallagher, #on of the petitioner who stated he has an engineering office in the main 'boiled and decidsd to move it out into thisy other building; he further stated his father had talked with all of the • abutters and they had no objection. No one appeared in opposition. • After due consideration thereof, the Hoard voted unanimously to grant a Special Permit for the personal business use of the petitioner's son, r namely Frank E. Gallagher only. GRANTED WITH CONDITION BOARD OF APPEAL BY ecr� � Setary• S 3 r 4 ('gi# of the nseac lyse#s �Avarb of Mad June 26, 1967 wau"re r."neon DECISION on PETITION OF 'Richard P. Keville, 47 Federal St). JO.QrM r. OOVL. IOMN M. 01UV. .A. To permit portion of structure at this address to be used for business offices handling work involving deeds and land surveys. Mr. Keville appealed to the board for a variance to permit the use of this structure as stated above. His appeal stated he has been accepted for graduate school at Northwestern University in Illinois and and resigned his position at Salem State College, subsequently putting his house on the market for sale. He further stated that since there is an existing funeral home next to him, and recently established law offices a few doors down the street, and the fact that this structure of his had been used as a business establishment in the past, he assumed it could be used for offices. Two gentlemen whose work involves deeds and land surveys made a deposit on the house and he then discovered the area had been- rezoned for multi- family dwellings. He must move his family to Evanston and find housing there before registering for school. Time is an important factor as his wife is expecting another child and the prospective buyers have agreed to their staying until after this event. He .believes the proposed use will cause no detriment to the neighborhood. A hearing was held on this petition on June 190 1967, at which all Board members were present. The petitioner appeared and stated he has sold the property to Robert Bowman, an engineer, and made a statement the same as appears in the petition. He further stated that John Green, director of a funeral parlor next door is in favor; the purchaser Robert Bowman also appeared in favor. There was no opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal. $OARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY Secretarok ` Cgi#u of "Salem, 'Mttssar4use##s Poard of Appeal j DECISION ON PETITION OF ROSE WINER TO ALTER THE PREMISES "'LL"M ''A...I AT 76 FEDERAL STREET TO PROVIDE THREE APARTMENTS AND A .BBRM o. ..YLe SUITE OF OFFICES TO CONDUCT A REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. JOXX M, OKAY. BR. ' i ARTXVR I.RBOO U. • ..i On September 19, 1967, the Inspector of Buildings . refused to issue a permit to allow these alterations as this district is zoned for two fam- ily residences, and operating a business would be a nonconforming use; also, the building is nonconforming with regard to density regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Michael J. Harrington, Counsel for the petitioner, appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordin- ance . A hearing was held on this petition on October16, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, her attorney, abutters, i Board members, and others, and notices published in the Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Counselor Harrington appeared for the petitioner and stated the Essex Institute was the only abutter required to be notified, and they had sent a letter signed..by i Mr. Little , the Director, dated October 13. The petitioner, Rose Winer, was in attendance at this meeting. • Appearing in. opposition Captain Henry Nichols, 90 Federal Street, stated: . . i, "This is a real Historic Street , and I am reluctant to be heard, but I ' feel it is my duty" . Mr. Stephen Phillips appeared in opposition and said: "I am opposed and furthermore, the President of the Essex Institute, Mr. Albert Goodhue, is opposed and I have authority to speak for him,regardless ,.� of the letter" . Also appearing in opposition were Daniel Foley, 114 Feder- � - " i al Street, Joseph Cooney, 2 Beckford Street , James Bailey, also of Beckford .Street, Mrs. B. Peabody, 6 Federal Court, and Historic Salem, Inc . , speak- ing through Elizabeth S. Hunt , secretary. A letter was received fromWm/ Burns of Beckford Street stating his opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant the 1. petitioner leave to withdraw. LEAVE TO WITHDRAW. BOARD Of APPEAL, Secretary I < i Pro, 411 T orf 'Sainn, C- n� QQ P sw4uyetts f Pamb of �k"tal August 17, 1967 w,u.w+..•..on �wwu w..oyusw �oww�w. wwr �Uwi..=Cs & DECISION: - On Petition of City of Salem, School De- ""'"' '"^' partment to build a portable classroom at the Bowditch School on Flint Street. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to install ; a portable classroom at this location because the structure would not conform to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance with regard to density regulations. On July 319 1967, the City Clerk received an appeal to the Board of Appeal for a variance from existing Zoning regulations. Board Members agreed to hold a special meeting to hear this ap- peal on August 15 as the City Schools would be re-opening for the fall term the first week in September. All Board members were present at this hearing. Dr. Laurence Fitzpatrick, Superintendent of Schools, thanked the Board for IVcalling a special meeting to hear this petition. He stated the t reason for the petition was because of an unusual situation at the Bowditch School, even if this petition is granted, it will be necessary to transfer some pupils to a school on Broad Street, due to crowded conditions. The. portable classroom, in his opin- ion is the only answer, for the present at least. The principal of the school, Patrick Fallon, agreed with the superintendent and stated that perhaps some might think the third floor of the school could provide the necessary additional classrooms, but the author- itie's in Boston are not in favor of placing children on the third floor, especially in this building. . John Francoeur, 33 Flint Street, appeared in favor. Councillor John Butler of Ward 4, wished to be recorded as neutral. Attorney Charles Woods of Peabody, appearing for Mr. and Mrs. Atkins, owners of,property at 392-394 Essex Street, stated that after hearing the presentation made by the superintendent and the principal of the school, he was satisfied that the property of his clients would not be interfered with and they had no objection. After due consideration thereof, the Board by unanimous decision, voted to grant this appeal on the grounds that it would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would cause no det- riment to the public good, and to deny the appeal would cause hard- ship to the pupils and to the school°s operation. PETITION GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL e b✓ GO>91 V y 1 4�GE''VE� (�T g Of ttlEztt, la5SaC4UUttSRECEIVE,9 Poarb of 'A"Jeal uo l 6 10 o1 AM '67 ��'OLMI�EO�AP R�,+ (,, OFFICE C1jY C t�',,MASS, CITYCeCLEb.:, o OFFICE WILLIAM F. ABBG SW6ASION ON PETITION OF HENRY BOUCHER % LbeAff, JAMeB N. ROVLAeR JOGERH F. OCYLE A DWELLING AT 34 FOREST AVENUE. JOHN M. GRAY. BR. ARTHUR LABRECOUE f Buildings refused to issue a permit to relocate a dwelling � The Inspector o B g at 34 Forest Avenue as the lot is undersize, containing 4940 square feet in- stead of the required five thousand square feet. j Petitioner' s attorney, George P. Vallis, appealed to the Board of Appeal j for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance. A hearing was held on this appeal on October 16, 1967 pursuant to notices mailed post- paid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertise- ments published in the Evening News. J All Board members were present at this hearing. Counselor George Vallis j appeared and stated his client had purchased three buildings from the ' I Salem State College with the understanding they be moved to new locations. Mr. Boucher was able to purchase a lot at this address for one of these I buildings but it lacked sixty square feet of meeting the area required by i the City Zoning Ordinance. After due consideration thereof, the Board voting on the grounds that to deny this appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner, and to grant the petition would not be detrimental to the public good and would not derogate i from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, voted unanimously to grant this appeal. PETITION GRANTED �// �XX B\$RD 0^ APPEAL, Seg cretary { i i 1 � i i Ixr_ro � w[no ernp 'nnl.y r,uvr.__. _ cilirf Aff Wag of Purb of cAP June 26, 1967 MCISION on PETITION OF JOHN J. KOZLOVSRI, 24 FOWLER STRBST, To install dormer to provide additional sleeping quarters; Zoning Ordinance requires a ten foot distance to side boundary and petitioner's house is 7'-2° from side line. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to install a dormer at this location as the side yard did not meet the Zoning requirements, and ad- vised the petitioner to appeal to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Ordinance. **" Kozlowski appealed to this Board, stating as follows: °If it may please the Boat.d, consideration should be given to the following statements: 1. The above dwelling is a 2j story structure, the second and third floor being occupied by the underoigned. The second floor contains a kitchen liv- ino Croom two bedrooms the top floor has four room all of which {lave insufficient head room as 10 necessary for comfortable habitation. The un- dersigned now bas two children olooping in one bedroom; it is imposing a severe hardship an them,, and it in imperative that they be given separate oleoping quarters, for the one they now occupy is far too small. As afore- oned, lack of head spaee renders the third floor room virtually use- for all but storage use and the absence of windows in the room limits ventilation and lighting. Tie installation of one dormer will effectively solve these difficultiso. 2. The above dwelling has a 7'-2" side yard, falling short of the minimum requirement by less than a yard." A hearing was hold on this petition on Juno 19, 1967, at which all Boadd mem- bore were present. The petitioner's father appeared for his son, stating that the Junior Mr. Kozlowski works at night and his wife must stay at .home to tend the children. He stated his son needs the additional room for his growing family. An abutter, Florence EcElroy of 20 Fowler wished to be recorded in favor* Ao one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal with this condition: Granted provided a second mane of egress iiGinstalled which meets with the approval of the Building Inspector. GRANTED WITH CONDITION: BOARD OF APPEAL BY UTA C�s+� n Q1itV of �$ttlrnt, Anssxc4usEtts June 1, 1967 wi�uwor r. ♦ttorr ..a� w. touu°ew DECISION ON PETITION OF Edward McCormack 13 Gables Circle to install a swimming pool. y.rw uw w•wmout Mr. McCormack through his agent, Aqua-Rama of New England, Inc. , appealed to the Board for a Special Permit for installing-, a swimming pool, as re- quired by the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance . A hearing was held on this petition on May 22, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, board members, and others, . and notices published in the Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing with the exception of Mr. John M. Gray, Sr. , Chairman. *rs. Olbrych, an abutter, called and stated she had no objection to the installation of this pool. Petitioner and his wife appeared , seeking the Board 's approval of a Special Permit. Councilor John Butler appeared and stated the pool is already installed but the contractor was not acquainted with the law regulating the instal- lation of swimming pools. Councilor Butler signified his approval of grant- ing this permit; also appearing in favor were Mr. and Mrs. Burnham of 53 Summit Street, Denis and Barbara Rozumek, 47 Summit Street. No one appeared • in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this Special Permit providing all requirements of the Health Department, Electrical Department, Water Department, and Building Department are observed. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED HY 1 `J fl Secre�" (1�i# of '�$ttlem, f ttssarhuse##s .� Paurb of Appeal April 28, 1967 w«I.» ¢. ...o.. .m¢• r. .00�o en OefiPM �� " DECISION ON PETITION of Ernest N. Boisclair, Counsel for Estate of Edward G. Pleau, 1 Harrison Avenue Appeal is for variance to permit a non conforming use. Building is located in an R-3, or multi-family residence district. The Board of Appeal held a hearing on this appeal April 24, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to petitioner, abutters, board members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. Counselor Boisclair appeared and stated he has a potential buyer who wishes to use this building for an office and display room for plastics. It was formerly used as a laundry. There may be occasional selling of goods, but not to any great extent . Mrs. Pleau appeared in favor; no one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board, voting on the grounds that to deny this appeal would cause hardship to Mr. Pleau's heirs, and granting the variance would cause no detriment to the public good, and would not .substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, voted unanimously to grant the variance. APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY J Secretary " • p �W Al OSUIMIf MarijusQfts 9 Puurb of tal June 26, 1967 WILLIAM 1. ...O1T JAM.. N. wOYL.<w J°..•N •. corLa DECISION on PETITION of Armand Tardiff, 5 Hayes Road, •" « "L"`"`°°"` To erect a 169 x 221 addition to existing garage, since lot size and side yards are not adequate in view of the City of Salem Zoning requirements. The petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the appli- cation of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the erection of an addition to his present garage. He stated the existing garage is very small, creating a hard- ship to house a car and various garden tools and related items, which if left outdoors would subject them to deterioration. He further stated in his appeal that the proposed addition would add to the valuation of the existing property. A hearing was held on this petition on June 19, 1967, at which all Board mem- bers were present. We Tardiff the petitioner appeared and explained the petition the same as stated in his appeal. No one appeared in opposition. 0 Mer due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this ppeal. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANISD BY ecreta " • £zt,co>v�r1, J RECEIVED C to of �tt1em, assarlpnet#s • � 43 PM 'ss PnttrD IIf6 OF ��ett1 CITY$AIEM, MA5$FICE October 2, 1967 . WILLIAM P. ABBOTT ,AM EE „. ooVLOER DECISION ON PETITION OF RONALD C . COFFIN, TO ERECT A J09EP„ P. OOVLE 160-Bed Nursing Home at 82 Highland Avenue . ART„VF 140RECGVE _ Mr. Coffin, through Counselor David T. Doyle, appealed to the Board of Ap- peal to obtain special permission in accordance with the provisions of Sec- tion IX D of the City Zoning Ordinance, to construct the nursing home in conformity with Section V, Sub-paragraph B, Sub-section 4A. A hearing was held on this petition on September 11, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, abutters, Board members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News , ad- vising of this appeal. All Board Members were present at the hearing. The Inspector of Buildings was on vacation and unable to attend. Counselor Doyle appeared and stated this was a direct appeal to the Board. He further stated Mr. Coffin proposes to erect a 160-bed nursing home of first class construction which will employ many persons, plans for which have the approval of the Department of Public Health and all necessary agencies. Dr. Belock appeared in favor. Mr. Walter Abraham of 78 Highland Avenue and another neighbor looked at the plans but did not register any opposition with the Board. No one appeared in opposition. The Board finds that the use sought is a Special Permit use permitted in this R-3 district under the provisions of Section V B 4A of the City Zon- ing Ordinance, and the Board finds that the granting of a Special Permit as sought by the petitioner is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance, and that the permit may be granted without sub- stantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substan- tially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The Board voted unanimously to grant this Special Pe3'mit. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED BOARD /OF APPEAL BYr C / U Secretary' ” r I� �xrrr;o �xr-iio�. zr r•o� {si;p y '• ,OPy il'YI pl.y. Ulitg of �$ alent, ffiassarhuselts �RAztrb of MeA ♦o.w� �. Dora . oYY Y. .wwr, ww. .wrYuw wwwcoY• I, Christina Callahan, clerk of the Board of Appeals for the City of Salem, do. hereby certify that a Special Permit has been granted to Ronald C. Coffin, to erect a 160-bed nursing home at 82 Highland Avenue on land owned by Maurice L. and Teresa A. Sullivan. The decision of the Board is on file in the office of the Clerk of the City of Salem. ATTEST: BOARD OF APPEALS, Clerk Utd RECEIVED �t##�� II� ��TIETit� FSSSFXL�1tSP��B OCT2 2 44 PM '6r r Puttrb of Appeal CITY CLEWS OFFICE September 28, 1967 SALEM. MASS. IEF OOIIL DMS „ O R OSEP„ P. 00. E DECISION ON PETITION of Richard E. McKeage, M.D. to convert property at 114-116 Highland Avenue to be oc- ..a,„„A I.EEcooe cupied as a medical office building. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to convert these premises for this purpose as such is not a permitted use in this dis- trict , R-1, zoned for single family residences. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal, and .a hearing was held on this petition on September 11, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News, advising of this petition. All Board Members were present at this hearing. The Inspector of Buildings being on vacation was unable to attend. Attorney Harold Tobin appeared for the petitioner and explained the purpose of the petition is to provide medical offices. The Doctor spoke also, and stated some neighbors are in favor. There was no opposition except a let- ter from the City Planning Board which is on file and is incorporated in= ^• this decision. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this petition as a Special Permit. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL - BY 1 U Secreta�Y- �X O XCPO _ X[RO� X RO'i ' 041.'Y I %UI'Y �Ilnl'Y� n;zy-� e �Tf of "Salent, 4agisar4usetts PIIMTD of Aral AMLL P. Lo aLP October 2, 1967 Jo[ePM r. ooV�L JOHN M. OPMV, eP. ' ♦PTN VI. LAOP[COVL I, Christina Callahan, clerk of the Board of Appeals for the City of Salem, do hereby certify that a Special Permit has been granted to Richard E. McKeage , M.D. , to convert property at 114-116 Highland Avenue to be occupied as a medical office building, on land owned by The R. & H. Realty Trust , Dr. Richard E. McKeage and Dr.Herbert C. Hagelev Jr. , Co-trustees. The decision of the Board is on file in the office of the Clerk of • the City of Salem. /� /l ` fi 0 &)- � Attest: t '_�Yni.� i.,�,L� c?- �c � tGx-i✓ BOARD OF APPEALS9 Clerk l n of , ti[eiu, �t��ztc[jusrts October 3, 1967 J09Ec9 i. OOV�F. . JOHN +. Gf nti. yP The R. & H . Realty Trust , 129 Highland Avenue , Salem, Mass . , Atten: -Dr. Richard McKeage . Dear Dr. McKeage : This is to call your attention to a portion of Section 18 of Chapter 40-A, of the Zoning Law of the • Commonwealth of Massachusetts , which states: "No Special Permit shall take effect until such notice is recorded in the registry of deeds for the county in which the land is located" . We thought by calling this to your attention in the event you were not aware of this law, you might be spared any further unnecessary delay. Very truly yours , B: cc (gag of "ittlem, 4Httssadjuse##s Poar t of �Vpeal April 28, 1967 I.M„ H. .CUI.O ER DECISION ON PETITION OF E. &. F. King & Company, Inc. , s6 Jackson Street JOHN M. ORGY. .R. To erect concrete block building to house boiler; to install 1500 gallon underground storage tank for do- mestic fuel; install 12000 gallon storage tank at rear of building; and to bulk, store and mix a limited line of chemicals. On March 16, 1967, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to commence this work due to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In this district a twenty-five foot rear yard is required and the proposed tank would be eight feet from the rear property line, and the boiler room would be twelve feet from the line; and the operation here is an existing non conforming use. On March 27, 1967 petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal, and a hearing was held on this petition on April 24, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed post- paid to the petitioner, abutters, board members, and others, and notices pub- lished in The Evening News. All board members were present at this hearing. Appearing for the petitioner, �amuel G. King, an attorney and director in the company. Mr. King stated hat Mr. Allen, the president was unable to attend the meeting. He further stated this company has owned and operated this warehouse for a period of fifty-two years, and in order to keep abreast of progress and remain .compet- itive in this field, this expansion is necessary. They wish to add a new activity, erect a concrete block boiler room and a storage tank underground to fire the boiler. The process is to liquefy, that is to add water to zinc chromate. This is all mixed inside the building, and when the product is ready it is stored in tanks outside the building, then pumped into trucks and carried away by the buyers. This process saves the buyers considerable freight charges. Appearing in favor were Lloyd R. Pettit, a technical director for the company, and James Helenski, employed by the company as foreman. As qualified opposi- tion, Richard Arnold 93 Jackson Street, directly across from the building, w appeared, also Samuel DeFrancesco, 97 Jackson Street, Frank Zampino and wife , these kson n95 amedchave nokson objections. iifcthere is noodorfromethe place.persons dust After due consideration thereof, the Board, voting on the grounds that to deny this petition would cause hardship to the petitioner, and granting the variance would not cause detriment to the public good and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the ordinance, voted unanimously to grant the appeal, GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY �� , 7 J • Secretare� CCU of *ttlem, Anssar4use##s Pourb of MM March 29, 1967 w .M .. ...° DECISION ON PETITION OF MAURICE PELLETIER, 293 JEFFERSON AVE* .mu ". eou °ew The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addition to an existing building at this loca- tion as the lot area is 5880 square feet and the Zoning Ordinance requires a 6000 square foot lot in this area; also, petitioner has a twenty-foot rear yard and the re- quirement is thirty feet. The petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance. A hearing was held on this appeal on March 27, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, board members, and others, and notices published in The Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Mr. Pelletier appeared and stated he will use the addition for a barber shop. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board, voting on the grounds that • to deny this appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner, and grant- ing the variance would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would not cause detriment to the public good, voted unanimously to grant the variance. VARIANCE GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL/ BY'1 / Secretary • (9i#n of *Ipm, Aassar4uset#s A mars of 'ppPttl April 28, 1967 WILLIAM F. ABBOT AMES ". BOLE. DECISION ON PETITION OF Carole L. Barry, 36 Juniper Avenue JOSEPH P. OOVLE ' To erect an addition to a dwelling; Zoning Ordinance requires "r""R LFBRECOVE a 7000 square foot lot with a sixty foot frontage, and a fif- teen foot setback from the street . Petitioner's lot contains 4712 square feet, with a frontage of 32'-611, and the addition would be on the street line. The Inspector of Buildinra refused to issue a permit to erect this addition for the reasons listed above. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance. A hearing was held on April 24, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, board members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All board members were present at this hearing. Counselor John McNiff appeared for the petitioner, and stated the case. Appearing in favor of granting this appeal were Councillor Louis Swiniuch, Councillor George Marquis, Mr. and Mrs. Irvin Dauphinee, 20 Beach Avenue, Louise Ellis, 6 Star Avenue, Elizabeth O'Brien, 31 Juniper Avenue, and 0. and Mrs. Russell MacDonald, 2 Star Avenue. There was no opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal as a Special Permit under Section I% - D of the Zoning Ordin- ance on the following condition: 1. Keep open 80 ft x 32 ft 5 in. on Juniper Avenue, indicated as lots 69, 70, 71, and 72 on plan signed by Mr. Walter Wheeler, recorded in Essex South Registry, Book 3231, Page 487, a copy of which is filed in the office of the Building Inspector. BOARD OF APPEAL GRANTED WITH CONDITION 1 �1 BY i �3ecret y ` ` ' pconv� �yr CEIVEO Ctu of Sttlem, ttssttcl�use##s 3 2 45 PM 61 ` y Poarb of �ppetti S OFFICE OLL MASS. w,LL,,,„ ,.,,000,�A�,EM� September 28, 1967 "HE- r. vovL.EP JOSEPH P OOYLE IO'N ..A�, DR. DECISION ON PETITION OF Rita L. King to demolish and ARTHUR`"BREOOE replace front porches and roof over same . t The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to replace these porches and install roof over second story porch as such would be in violation of the City Zoning Ordinance with regard to density regula- tions, specifically front setback being insufficient . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal, and a hearing was held on this petition on September 11, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid -. to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others , and advertisements published in the Evening News, advising of this petition. All Board members were present at this hearing. The Inspector of Buildings being on vacation, was unable to attend. No one appeared in opposition.pposition. Petitioner stated the porches are in great need of repair, and proposes to have a concrete foundation with concrete !� floor on the first level and replace the existing porch on the second level. - She also stated there are elderly people living on the second floor and as there is no roof over this porch they have no protection from the weather. She hopes to be able to roof over this porch. After due consideration, the Board voted unanimously to grant this petition. PETITION GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY //Jil Secretary" A rXn ;zr.o� 7101of i•-,�o of '*ttlem, El�ss c se##s �Rwrb of M=1 June 1, 1967 wwwu r.woorr "" DECISION ON PETITION OF Boucher Funeral Home, Inc . , roe v„ r. oov�. 191 I.�fayette Street, to erect a new sign-. ♦IRMVR IA....Qua The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a new sign at this location as petitioner .did not have the setbacks required by the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Boavd, stating the reason for erecting a new sign abolishment oflthe tname h0.lA. Boucher o& Son n of sbydthis icorporatthe ion. A hearing was held on this petition on May 22, 1967 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, board members, and others, and notices published in the Evening News. All board members, excepting Chairman John M. Gray, Sr. , were present at this hearing. Maurice Constant, director of the corporation, app eared for scribedithenproposed sign asalso Arthur Pshownaoneof the Leslie the plan. Counseeand qlorCJohnnCarson who de • His clientodidnots. Cimon opposef185 it. ohnyette J. Santisit 189 Lafayetteuired about Streethelan. ap- peared also and stated he is not opposed if the sign is within reason. Counselor George Marquis signified his approval of granting this appeal: After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal with this condition : The sign is to be flat against the building just as the present sign is located and is not to exceed 3 ' x 51 . APPEAL GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS BOARD OF APPEAL BY �Secre flLi# of Salem, E[tt�sttcl#use##s ?Roxrb of � ettl September 28, 1967 vnuuwn �. w••orr .IwMu H. •oulotw �c••wH • oo.�• DECISION ON PETITION of Dolores Selenkow, Friendly Ice Cream Corp. , to alter premises at 331 Lafayette Street to provide wwrw uw u•w•cou• service window at side of building, to be occupied as an ice cream and sandwich shop. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit -for these alterations as such would be in violation of the City Zoning Ordinance with regard to density regulations. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal, and a hearing was held on this petition on September 11, 1967 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters , Board Members , and, others , and advertisements published in The Evening News, advising of this appeal. . All Board members were present at this hearing. The Inspector of Buildings, being on vacation, did not attend. Appearing for the petitioner, Counselor John R. Serafini stated he had been retained in this matter September 7, 1967, and had examined the papers and was of the opinion that a new appli- cation should be filed. 10r. Serafini requested leave to withdraw without prejudice . The opposition was not heard in view of the withdrawal of the petition. The Board voted unanimously to grant counsel leave to withdraw without prejudice . LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. BOARD OF APPEAL BY Secret r �i# of alem ossa sdis RECEIVE 9 3 3 24 AM '61 Pattrb of � attl , �. WILLIRM ..,aeorr CITY CLC;tN'S OFFICE November 2, 1967 SALEM MASS. JOSE— '' ° DECISION ON PETITION OF JOHN SOSNOWSKI, 20 LEMON STREET, J°MR M�'R�'' "'' FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE ZONING ORD_ ,R:nuRueRe°oue INANCE AS IT APPLIES TO DENSITY REQUIREMENTS. i Mr. Sosnowski appealed to the Board of Appeal on September 18, 1967, j stating he has been owner of a lot containing two dwellings for ap- proximately fifty years, and had installed a fence to separate the i dwellings involved. One house is numbered 20 Lemon Street as shown on plan and the other dwelling is numbered 6 Lemon Street Court. The petitioner stated due to advanced . age he finds the care of the i_ property burdensome as the dwelling he occupies has seven rooms and due to a heart condition he is unable to use the four rooms above the ground level. The smaller unit would be more suitable for his needs. He hopes to sell the house at 20 Lemon street which lacks required setbacks front, side and rear, and the lot is undersized for this district. Also, the dwelling at 6 Lemon Street Court is situated on an undersize lot and it also lacks front, side, and rear distances to boundary lines. A. hearing was held on this petition on October 16, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Evening News advising of this appeal. All Board Members were present at this hearing. The petition was read to the Board. A Mr. Gonet of 22 Lemon Street, a neighbor appeared in favor. No one appeared in opposition. The Board, after due consideration thereof, voting on the grounds that j to deny this appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner, and to grant i the petition would not be detrimental to the public good and would not . � derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, voted unanimously a to grant this petition. PETITION GRANTED ARD OF APPEAL,§/ecretary XERXERO NF_RO XEROX Cont/O roPv ?O'R COPv p Of kN• � 16� of Meat vsr v dilly 19, 1967 °.k DECISION ON PETITION OF MIRIAM F. RAYMOND TO ERECT A TWO k w, uw,.as�zoo.& CAR GARAGE AT THE REAR OF 399 LA FAYETTE STREET , (S HARBOR ,.. „., . VIEW TERRACE) . s - a drone 23 , 1967 , the Inspector of Buildings refused to -soot a permit. to SII ; rlsct this gavage as petitioner could not allow a thirty-foot rear pard . � required by the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 41 ' Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the appl. 1" aatioin of the Zoning Ordinance, and on July 17 , 1967 , a hearing was 'd on this petft� n in the office of the Inspector of Buildings, purauan Lo ' notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, board members, anis' , others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. a ' All Board members were preaent ill be at this hearing. Attorney Sumner{Ra'gmmnd, '$ ,-husband of the petitioner appeared and stated the garage woro street level, and explained the plan to the Board - to construct the garage other, ';.. than as applied for would obstruct a view of the ocean from petitioner's ^ and as the lot is narro dwelling, w to put the garage closer to the street . would waste the land to the rear of the garage. No one appeared in oppo- sition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant a , i variance to erect the garage .,, BOARD OF APPEAL ; k.. -.VARIANCE GRANTED BY 4� Secreta a n Y :f p 6'; x- Ctu of alem, assar4ilutts �BaurD of �ppettl mh own February 1, 1967 JPM E6 N. BO VLVEP JOSEPH F, ..ILE o„ ..,I. Ea PETITION: - Narcisse Talbot, 20 Leavitt Street, Corner P6,H NL.6P6C0•..E of Salem Street . To alter premises to provide a one-family dwelling. On January 3 , 1967, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to atter these premises to provide a one-family dwelling. This district is zoned for multi-family dwellings, and the Ordin- ance requires a 12000 square foot lot area with a minimum frontage of 100 feet, a fifteen foot setback from the street line, a twenty foot side yard and a thirty loot rear yard. This lot contains 060 square feet with a 36.24 foot frontage,with no setback on the Leavitt Street side, a setback of ten feet on the other side and a fourteen foot rear yard. The petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Ordinance, and on January 30, 1967, a hear- ing was held on this petition pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters , Board Members, and others, and adver- tisements published in The Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Attorney John Ser- afini appeared for the petitioner and stated the plot plan shows this to be a one-story structure which petitioner proposes to con- vert to a single family dwelling since there is not enough lot area topermit a multi family dwelling; if the variance is granted, Mr. Talbot proposes to use the existing foundation. Petitioner has al= ready been refused a permit to operate a business at this location. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof the Board voting on the grounds that to deny this appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner, and granting the variance would cause no detriment to the public good, and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, voted unanimously to grant the variance. VARIANCE GRANTED. BOARD OF APPEAL BY } V E Ctv of *Ipm, gassacliusetts 9 Poarb of ( r"Vd June 1, 1967 wiuw,. �. wevorr �oee DECISION ON: "•"" ' ""` PETITION OF George H. Beaulieu, 1 Leval Road, to install a swimming Pool- The ool.The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to allow for the in- stallation of a swimming pool . The City of Salem Zoning Ordinance permits only the Board of Appeal to allow such installation under "Special Permits" . ld n this Mr. Beaulieu 67 , pursuantto the to nnooticesand a mailedepostpaidstoetheopetiti neral on May s, 1967 , P abutters, board members, and others, and advertisements published in the Evening News. Petitioner stated in his appeal that he wished to install an "in-ground" cement swimming pool. He is an insurance man and his business keeps him out of town, so his wife and children are left alone , and a pool would enable his wife to supervise the children in the yard and offer them relaxin ation while- he is away. His appeal also requested a variance in order to instll the pool witha athe leaching tfield®for rhis om tSeptic he rtank cwhich is near dthe tinterfere house . • All Board members ,excepting Chairman John M. Gray, Sr. , were present at this meeting. Mr. Beaulieu appeared and described the pool, and stated none of his neighbors was opposed . No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted to grant this appeal providing all requirements of the Health Department, Electrical Department, Water Department, and Building Department are observed. The Board voted unanimously to grant this petition. BOARD OF APPEAL BY �« APPEAL GRANTED Secreta t �CpvO 1011itg of $aIrnt, �ttSBttL�iBE##� w October 30, 1967 . .. wlluwm v.n4eorr W WN nmee//�. eo�v''EP ON .I...P-P DOVLG Na "mmyR"1.w. "� ECISION ON PETITION OF LLOYD E. WINER, D.B.A. LLOYDrS Rr:Y-T" RUG, 198 LORING AVENUE, TO ERECT ADDITION TO EXISTING o ,::dRUG STORE. v v Q Hearing was resumed on this petition on October 16, 1967. All Board j members were present at the hearing. I . This petition was brought to the Board on September 11, 1967, at which time the Board voted to continue hearing on this appeal until the Board I ' Members could take a view of the location of the existing structure and note where the proposed addition would be erected. Ater viewing the site of the proposed addition, the Board voted unan— imously to grant petitioner leave to withdraw without prejudice, on the grounds there is no hardship involved, and to grant this appeal would be detrimental to the public good, and would derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. i BOARD OF APPEAL BY U Secretary f � I (%ERO - %ERO %F_RO %ERO COPY n,oi, OOP? COPYI r CQ\D1(l � Ali ✓ • CHH of atem, 'Mtts$ttt*dis J `5carb of lll... 11 W September 26, 1967 W,LLI4 M��PYY.AR� {Yy t JAM H8 F�90 VL�'G^LR OQ OHHPMDOV,� '- DECISION ON PETITION OF Lloyd E. Winer, d.b.a. Lloyd' s JOHN M.W11AV.M I;= „j ARTHUR VRHOOVH .>,w Drug, 198 Loring Avenue, to erect addition to existing W c 'c .q drug store. >_to H The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit for this addition as the drug store is an existing non conforming use .,I in this district, zoned for one- family residences; also, the I it plot plan shows it does not conform to the density regulations of the City Zoning Ordinance. -� Mr. Winer appealed to the Board of Appeal for relief from this decision, stating . in part as follows: { "The drug store I operate fills a definite need in this neigh- i. . borhood and is greatly depended upon by those living in this area for taking care of their Pharmaceutical needs. i "The space now occupied by my drug store is greatly inadequate to best serve this neighborhood, but with the proposed alterations, this drug store could render better and more adequate service to this area, this lack of space thus creates a hardship to your pe- titioner. "The literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would involve a substantial hardship" . A hearing was held on this petition on September 11, 1967, pursu- ant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Petitioner ap- peared and stated the reasons he seeks a permit for this addition, i the same as appear in the appeal. Appearing in favor were Michael Moran, 17 Cleveland Road, Leonard Carr, 4 Pershing Road, occupant o£ 16 Surrey Road. Roger Noiseux, 196 Loring Avenue, appeared in opposition stating that if this is granted his view of Loring Av- enue would be diminished, and the proposed addition would be a def- inite hazard. The Inspector of Buildings was on vacation at time of this hearing, and did not attend. 1 The Board voted unanimously to continue this hearing until the mem- li bers of the Board take a view on call from the chairman. I ` HEARING CONTINUED BOARD OF APPEAL BY Secretary' NERO INTO N[R -'. 001/ n01'R O r Y ROI d Y L Y '-tom.�.—.�.�..--...---- ..,. '�--rte.-w-�..—.--•-..�-�-_. Ctv of *aIr tt, assar41tsP##S pmra of Mul June 26, 1967 WIWhM I. "„OT DECISION on PETITION of Dr. Arthur Lager, Lots 10 - 15 Loring Avenue, for a Special Permit to allow the con- struction of a veterinary hospital, also providing for adequate parking. Dr. Lager's appeal stated granting this Special Permit would allow him to replace an existing facility which he now operates, adjacent to this location. A hearing was held on this petition on June 19, 1967, at which all Board members were present. John R. Serafini, counsel for the peti- tioner, appeared and stated the doctor has been doing business in this vicinity for years, and the present facilities are out of date. Dr. Lager also appeared and made a statement as appears in his peti- tion. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY ecreta y • Cfitg Df �$Utuy AU90ZtC4U99tt6 Y June 27, 1967 wuuM r. A . JAM 6. M. .OULO.. JC..." .. oa.,.. DECISION ON PETITION OF ARMAND BLAIS, 2 MADELINE AVENUE, •"'" " "•""`"` For a Special Permit to install a swimming pool. Armand Blais appealed to the Board of Appeal for permission to build a swimming pool in his yard, stating he and his wife have six children, ranging in age from eleven to two and one- half years, and it would eliminate a hardship on his wife tak- ing them to the beach, and would also allow for closer and safer supervision. A hearing was held on this petition on June 19, 1967, with all Board Members attending. Attorney William Donaldson appeared for the petitioner and stated the case the same as in the appeal, and further stated that the pool was started in 1964. Councillor John Butler appeared to be recorded in favor of granting this appeal. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal provided all regulations of the Health, Elec- trical, Building, and Water departments are complied with. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED. BY �ecretar i (fitvJ of "Salem' 2X88220 lISQ B 41 PM �guttrb of �Vyral 1 9J E;0I UFFICQ September 26, 1967 EM.MASS. WILLIAM R. F SA6 JPM EB H. BO VLBER , DECISION ON PETITION OF Naumkeag Amusement Company JO"N M. ABR9 BR. � ARTHVRtABREBOVE to erect a service station at the corner of Norman and Crombie Streets . The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a service station in this district , B-3, zoned for Central Bus- iness, as this type of occupancy is not listed among permitted uses in the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance; also, the Ordinance �. requires a ten foot rear yard for service stations, and the plot - _' plan shows a rear yard of 3 ' -9" - � Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from � the application of the Zoning Ordinance, and a hearing was held on this petition on September 11, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and I others, and advertisements of the appeal published in the Even- ing News . All Board members were present at the hearing. Miss Helen Ganley • appeared for. the petitioner and stated that in 1949, the City j Council had granted a permit to occupy this property for this pur- pose , and every year since it had been renewed. Miss Ganley fur- I ther stated 'that this company has many .vacant properties and can find no tenants for them, and it has become necessary for the com- pany to dispose of any parcels it can to provide revenue to pay taxes and other outstanding obligations on these possessions . The company now has an opportunity to sell this property if a permit can be granted for such occupancy. Donald Koleman, 25 Flint Street, an attorney, stated he appeared as a public citizen, and it was his opinion that Salem did not need another gas station, and this particular place was not a proper I place for a gas station. A gentlemen from a neighboring service station, 38 Norman Street, appeared in opposition. A letter to the Board from James Ballou was read. This letter was a copy of a letter to the Evening News from MB�. Ballou, stating his opposi- tion. No one at this hearing requested a notice of the decision. The Inspector of Buildings was on vacation and did not attend hearing. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this variance on the grounds that a hardship exists, and granting thq, appeal would cause no detriment to the public good, and would notderogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. PETITION GRANTED OARD (O�(/fF APPEAL Cl Secretar AIxr_rxo 'COT�4.. . f i f CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS Board of Appeal January 29 , 1968 DECISION ON PETITION of Naumkeag Amusement Company to erect an automobile service station at the north- east corner of Norman and Crombie Streets on 19717 . square feet shown on plan by Carter & Towers Engineer- ing Corp. dated May 31 , 1966. This decision by unanimous vote of the Board at a meeting held January 29 , 196$ is made in amplification and substitution of the original decision of the Board of September 26 , 1967. On this date all the members of the Board were present at the time of consideration of this decision. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a service station in this district , B-3 , zoned for Central Business , as this type of occupancy is not listed among permitted used in the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance ; also , the Ordinace requires a ten foot rear yard for, service stations , and the plot plan shows a rear • yard of 3 '-9" . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance , and a hearing was held on this petition on September 11 , 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters , Board Members , and others , and advertisements of the appeal published in the Evening News . All Board members were present at the hearing. Miss Helen Ganley appeared for the petitioner and stated that in 1949 , the City Council had granted a permit to occupy this property for this purpose , and every year since it had been renewed. Miss Ganley further stated that this company has many vacant properties and can find no tenants for them, and it has become necessary for the company to dispose of any parcels it can to provide revenue to pay taxes and other outstanding obligations on these possessions . The company now has an opportunity to sell this property if a.permit can be granted for such occupancy. Donald Koleman, 25 Flint Street , an attorney , stated he appeared as a public citizen , •and it was his opinion that Salem did not need another gas station, and this particular place was not a proper place for a gas station. A gentlemen from a neighboring service station, 3$ Norman Street , appeared in opposition. A letter to the Board from James Ballou was read. This letter was a copy of a letter • to the Evening News from Mr. Ballou , stating his opposition. No one at this hearing requested a notice of the decision. The Inspector of Buildings was on vacation and did not attend hearing. _1_ On all the evidence the Board finds that the premises are presently vacant and used and are usable under the present zoning law only for parking, a use which is not productive of sufficient revenue for taxes and a fair return on the assessed valuation . It further appears that on the opposite side of Crombie Street there is a large gasoline service station in operation and abutting the property on Norman Street there is a New England Telephone Company building, while on the opposite side of Norman Street are the office buildings of the Holyoke Mutual Fire Insurance Company , Post Office and other office buildings . The existence of the Telephone Building and the gasoline service station in proximity to the above premises limits its usefulness for retail purposes or other commercial use , makes its use for residential purposes impossible , and due to its restric- ted size and area it cannot be developed for any other commercial use except a filling station. The premises abutting on the north side and on the opposite side of Crombie Street including property of the Crombie Street Congregational Church and other miscellaneous residential property would be less damaged by the use of the premises for a gasoline service station than by the present use for parking of miscellaneous vehicles . The variance for building closer to the rear line than required will not affect premises in the neighborhood and is necessary to proper development of the property by installation of pumps , tanks and spece in front of it . The vehicular traffic in front of the premises is heavy and the function of parking in the neighborhood is sufficiently served by the large city operated parking space about 200 feet away. Presently this is the only vacant land in the area so located as to make its reasonable use for business impractical . Since the property is in the central business district the tax burden on it is substan- tial and with the tax return to the city is not commensurate with its location in this district. It is the opinion of the Board that it can be used in no better way than for its proposed automobile service station. The use of the premises for an automobile service station will be governed and carefully regulated by Section VII B to which the premises conform as undeveloped and will conform when developed , and which section carefully regulates the use of property for' this purpose . The premises are located in the B3 or central business district , and which under Section V6 allows within itself and by reference to other sections a wide variety of similar and probably less desirable uses such as an off street parking structure (by special • permit - Section V7) all types of retail stores and service establishments , including such examples as laundries , dry cleaning -2- and pressing establishments , self-service laundries , drive-in restaurants , trade schools , retail-wholesale contracting supply, commercial recreation and entertainment including bowling alleys . There is another service station just across a narrow intersecting "street , therefore the hardship to the petitioner due to the location and use of nearby premises justifies relief, and the Board finds that this hardship can be assuaged by the variance requested . without any detriment to nearby property in particular, and the general appearance and development of the city, and that no sub- stantial derogation to the zoning plan of the city would result . In view of the foregoing, the Board therefore finds that owing to conditions especially affecting the parcel above described , but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located , the .literal enforcement of the provisions of zoning ordinance of the City of Salem would involve substantial hardship to the owners of the premises and that the relief requested can be granted with- out any detriment to the public good, and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance of the City of Salem, and the Board, therefore, unanimously votes to grant the variance requested in the petition. PETITION GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL A. b - Y /SJe^ etary U • i -3- I Poarb of January 31 , 1968 wLL..M F. .,GGGTT JFM ES H. GOULGCR JO4EPH F, OOYLC ' JOHn M. .RAY. SR. FHTHUR LFURCCOUC Arnold S. Dane , Esq. , 27 State Street , Boston, Massa.chusetts 02109 Dear Mr. Dane : . Thanks for the papers in the matter relative to the peti- tion of Naumkeag Amusement Company for a variance . I have this day filed in the office of the City Clerk a new decision exactly as you presented it . I will today notify all persons entitled to notice that such decision has been duly filed. I was plea.sed to hear that you married Clarence ' s daughter, • and as I told you on the phone , the Newmark family has a fond pla.ce in my book: Thanks also for the splendid opinion and summary on the law from Professor Huber. If I can be of any further service in the case , do not ihesitate to call on me . Yours very truly, JFD: cc BOARD OF APPEAL, Clerk • %Tity II c��EItI� 2YS5�IC LtvP S Pourb of '�typval January 31 , 1968 WILLIPM F. AUOOTT JPMLS N. OOULGCR - JosoRN F. oovLe JONh M. GRPV. SR. ARTHUR LAORLCOUC This day I have filed with the City Clerk decision on the petition of the Naumkeag Amusement Company to erect an automobile service station at the northeast corner of Norman and Crombie Streets . I BOARD OF APPEAL, Clerk I • I • y .. EGEt`tE0 (fitu II CC�PItI� � 2I$SMC LISP #S 2 43�� 6� Pourb of c�yyval SUFFICE tjy;,l October 2, 196'7 CItYS4N`,MASS. WILLITM P. AB60'R „M¢R ". R, LaER DECISION ON PETITION OF SALEM LODGE OF ELKS, CHAPTER 799, oe P �� LE To erect an addition to an existing building and renovate present structure, at 17 North Street. RFT"VR LgBgECOVE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to allow this construc- tion and renovation as this district is zoned for two family residences, also, because of non conformity with regard to density requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal from this ruling through Counsel- or John F. O' Connell, and a hearing was held on this petition on September 11, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, attorney, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News advising of this appeal. All Board members were present at this hearing. The Inspector of Buildings was on vacation at the time , and unable to be present. - Counselors John F. O' Connell and Edward A. Coffey appeared and stated the case the same as in the petition:- "The Lodge has been in existence over • sixty years, constantly trying to better itself and the community in accord- , ance with its Charter and the best interest of the Community. The quarters presently occupied are now antiquated and not suitable to carry out the future functions the Lodge plans to participate in, therefore the construc- tion of the addition is of vital importance to the members of the Elks, individuals, and citizens of the community, and future cooperation for the best interest of all" . They further stated there is not enough space on the main floor for present purposes. Councillor Dolan appeared in favor. No one appeared in opposition. The Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal on the grounds there is a hardship involved, and granting the appeal will not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and will not be detrimental to the public good. PETITION GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY Q Secretax/y ~` Ix o� xiino xlgol n OOVy O VI'Y Gpl•Y 6 of aLnn, jffiassadrasefta ' C t Pwrb Y r July 191 1967 """ • 4° " DECISION ON PETITION OF MRS. JOHN MAGUIRE, SR. , 137 NORTH ST. , aCtlP3M'N.4AMf.BM: M1T1,4!R 6fy.Rf4>4MC. For a Special Permit to allow the installation of a Swimming Pool. ' 0n1_june 26, 1967, petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for permission to instal a swimming pool, stating "I would like very much to build a swimming pool in my back ;card because I have three children and it is an extreme hardship for me to take my children to a public beach. If I am allowed to have a swimming poet my children's activities would be supervised and for health reasons , I feel that my children would be safer under super- vision in their back yard". A hearing was held on this petition on July 17, 1967 in the office of the Insector of ar,pabutters, board Buildings, pursuant members, postpaid and others , andnoticepue lished inthetEven nA ing 'Mesas. All Board members were present at this hearing. John Maguire, husband of ,,*,vbe petitioner appeared and stated the case the same as in the petition. Peter Rebehinuer appeared in favor. Mrs. Helen Gabrielski, 135 North Street , appeared and stated she was not opposed as long as the pool would not be used at late hours. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant a Spec- ial Permit to allow the installation of a swimming pool on the condition the pool is Closed at midnight. GRANTED WITH CONDITION . BOARD OF APPEAL 9 BYP t Secreta r f cP� of 'Salem, Htt��ttcl tse##$ Poarb of March 29, 1967 ,nm eo X. .o uaER ,O6EPX .. OOTI.e DECISION ON PETITION OF HARVEY LEVESQUE, 1$b OCEAN AVENUE JOXN M. ORiv. .R. ARTXUR tAeR[GOVE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to alter the second floor of this three family dwelling to provide a fourth apartment as this is an R-2, two-family residence district. On December 19, 1966, a hearing was held on this petition, at which time the Board voted to continue the hearing on this appeal pending reply to an inquiry regarding State law applying in this case. The Board resumed hearing on this petition on March 27, 1967. All members were present at this hearing. No one appeared iA opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board, voting on the grounds that to deny this petition would cause hardship to the petitioner, and granting the variance would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and would not cause detriment to the public good, voted unanimously to grant the variance. • BOARD OF APPEAL VARIANCE GRANTED BY�� ecr arq February 6, 1967 Alfred A. Dobrooielahi, Saq., 70 faahington Street. Salam, Yassachusotto Doar lir. Dobronielakis Would you kindly furnish this Hoard of Appeal with a clarification on the application of the State of Yana= achuoetto Coda with reference to apartment buildings in Sales. The next mooting of the Hoard Is scheduled for Feb. MOT 27, and we Would appreciate heoring from you in this regard before that date. Very truly yours, JAG tee rman CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS LEGAL DEPARTMENT a w.cwngb y •LFRED A. D08ROSIELSKI 125 WASHINGTON STREET CITY SOLICITOR a SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS February 27 , 1967 Salem Board of Appeal Building Inspectors Office City Hall Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Gentlemen: In reply to your letter of February 6, 1967 , re- questing a clarification on the application of the State of Massachusetts Code with reference to apart- ment buildings in Salem: I have no knowledge of any Massachusetts Code relating to apartment buildings , Furthermore , I have not been able to find a copy of such code in Salem. If you have a copy of same , please advise . Very truly yours , Alfred A. Dobrosielski City Solicitor kfc • J 0 H N M G R A Y C 0 c' REGISTERED ARCH IT EC TS TA, Am ,.n 1.0., of An:hiwu JOHN MGRAY, JR.A.1.A.GRAY, F.A.I.A. JOHN M. . 153 MILK STREET BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02109 FRANCIS J.GRAY. M.C.P. - Aree Code 017 4264993 Mardi 6, 1967 Mr. Daniel J. O'Brien, Jr. Building Inspector City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts Dear Dan: Enclosed, herewith, is City Solicitor' s letter dated February 27, 1967 which you loaned me to check with the Department of Public Safety. I took the matter up with Mr. Joseph Yantosca, Supervisor of Plans, of the Department of Public Safety and he informed me as follows: 1. The general State requirements apply only to areas where there is no Building Code. • 2. The Apartment House definition in B-1 of "Apartment House of Tenement": A building or tenement over two stories in height and having more than eight rooms above the second floor, are within the jurisdiction of the State Law. As to egress, stairs, etc., below this requirement, the City Code applies. 3. Row Houses not more than two or three stories, as are being built in Peabody, Danvers and Marblehead, come within the local code. 4. If an apartment house built or altered to have more than eight rooms above the second floor have existing stairs less than 3'-69 as called for, and the pmeent stairs and exits below the third floor are 3'-0" in width, they will waive the requirement of 3'-6" and all third floors to be 3'-0". Mr. Yantosca is sending me a copy of the latest code covering the above and I will give this to you. In view of the above, the City Solicitor is correct. However, I would like to have him interpret our ,owry code requirements covering items "Specifically Prohibited", and tell us if we can not act on such items. With kind regards, I am, Very truly yours, • ohn M _ Gra JMG:b enc. I. �.c.:h..r rte.. ......al ..�..�..:� .�.•...c.w.,r ..� ... ._..+.�r......w++-..Wu..�.a.....:_. .._. RECFIVED Tit g ` �T�$Itt� 2TSStTC TSE S 3A f � DEC t0 3 02 PM '61 Pourb of cAypral CITY CLL'tn'S OFFICE December 20, 1967 wILLIAH F. ABBOT' SALEM. MASS. "p DECISION ON PETITION OF ROBERT F. CUMMINGS I... �1. .oYLE , 52 ORNE ,o„„ . GRAY, STREET, TO ERECT AN ADDITION TO HIS DWELLING TO PRO_ ARTHUR�ABREC,UE VIDE A GARAGE WITH STORAGE SPACE, AND A FAMILY ROOM ABOVE TO ALLEVIATE CROWDED CONDITIONS WHICH PRESENT- LY EXIST. Mr. Cummings appealed to the Board of Appeal on November 5, 1967, for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the con- struction of a two story addition to his home as stated above. A hearing was held by the Board of Appeal on this petition on November 27, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. The petitioner appeared and stated this house had been built around 1927, many years before the Zoning Ordinance was adoptedr_in its present form. He has no place to house his late model automobile from the elements and a very limited storage space for garden tools and accessories. If he is granted this variance and is permitted to erect a family room above the garage the hardship of existing crowded conditions will be elim- inated and his family will have sufficient space which children require. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted to grant this variance. PETITION GRANTED t OARD OF APPEAV, Secretary Ctv of 'Sale nt, fflawr4usftts Pwrb Of Mad July 19, 1967 DECISION OR PETITION OF STEPHEN PHILLIPS TO RELOCATE A iQ�..4fMY.�rF �tfTg ng �na�p SWARE nfcpyw .uwsaeuR BUILDING ON ORNE SQUARE• Olt-AiCle 23: 1967, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to relocate a structure to Orne Square after its remval from the corner of "North and Federal Streets. A variance from the application of the Zoning 4ihance would be required as the proposed location is an undersize lot with insufficient rear yard distance to boundary line. James H. Bal.lou, architect for the petitioner, appealed to the Board of .Appeal, and a hearing was held on this petition on July 17, 1967 in the , office of the Inspector of Buildings, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the. psti �, abutters, board members, and others, and advertisements poblished''in The Evening Bess. All board members were present at this hearing. Mr. Albert Putnam appeared for the petitioner and stated that Mr. Phillips has permission to relocate the building at this location, and stated the case the same as appears in the petition. Mr. James Ballou appeared in favor. Mrs. John Wolfe, 76 En- O"Acott Street appeared and stated she has no objection to the building being located on this lot. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof the Board voted unanimously to grant this variance . VARIANCE GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY v Secretail (,MDI of ,julem, C �s�ttcllz�se##s s� Wourb of �Vyeat w qM aA�„ March 60 1967 jo,° ~ "`p PETITION: - Surrey Real Estate Development Corporation, H � R aA� o24 Osborne Street, Salem, Massachusetts. To erect a two-family dwelling at 36 School Street, cor- ner of Barr Street; lot contains 4835 square feet and the Ordinance requires 3500 square feet for each dwel- ling unit, and also requires a fifteen foot setback from each street line of a corner lot; petitioner can allow only five feet on Barr Street side of lot. On February 6, 1967, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a dwelling at this location. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal, and on February 279 1967, a hearing was held on this petition, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, Board Members, abutters, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Counsellor Samuel E. Zoll appeared for the petitioner, and stated his clients pro- pose to raze an existing building at this location, and propose to erect a new two-family dwelling. He further explained the need for a variance to accomplish this purpose. Persons appearing in favor of granting this petition included Ar- thur Chalifour, Claire Callahan of 24 Osborne Street, Edgar Book- holtz of 28 School Street, and Lewis Puliston of 29 School Street. No one appeared in opposition- After due consideration thereof, the Board, voting on the grounds that to deny this petition would cause hardship to the petitioner, and granting the variance would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would not cause detri- ment to the public good, voted unanimously to grant the variance. BOARD OF APPEAL VARIANCE GRANTED BYecretT a • Ctv of "S'ttlem, �Rassar4uset#s �gattrb of 'A"P 1 May 1 , 1967 WILLIAM F. ABBOTT J<M C9 N. BOUIOCR OSEFH F. ooYL9 DECISION ON PETITION OF Salem Acres, Inc . , Lot #16 Pioneer Circle JOHN M. ORPY. 9R. ARTHUR `"°R"°"` To erect a single family dwelling. this The uldlnotgallowused to issue a ermt to the required thirty-foot rear yard . dwelling yard . The petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance to allow the lo- cation of the dwelling on this lot . A hearing was held on this petition pur- suant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, board members, and others , and advertisements published in The Evening News. All board members were present at the meeting. Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. George P. Vallis appeared and stated the case for his client . It is the same situation as in prior petitions on other lots which the Board has granted. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board, voting on the grounds that to deny this appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner, and granting the variance would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance , and would t cause detriment to the public good , voted unanimously to grant the appeal. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED By Secreta y of1Pm, tt�stttlpzse##s r Paura of 'ppenl m�G March 31, 1967 ..... DECISION ON PETITION OF SALEM ACRES, INC. , TO ERECT A "Mfs R. BO �fR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON LOT #19 PURITAN ROAD. J08EPM P. OOY Lf JONN M. GRAY. .R. hRTM UR LAf Rf f.O Uf Petitioner was refused a permit by the Inspector of Buildings to erect a dwelling at this location as the rear yard would be 21 feet at one point, and the Zoning Ordinance requires a 30 foot rear yard. Petitioner through his counsellor, George P. Vallis, appealed to the Board of Appeal to grant a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance. A hearing was held on this petition on March 30, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, abutters, board members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All board members were present at this hearing. Counsellor Vallis stated the petition the same as in the original appeal, also, this petition comes under the classification of previous cases the Board ihas heard. No one appeared in opposition. . After due consideration thereof, the Board, voting on the grounds that to deny this appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner, and to grant the variance would not cause detriment to the public good and would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, voted unanimously to grant the variance. BOARD OF APPEAL VARIANCE GRANTED iC ,� BY ecretar*� 'I 0 01viy . ,,rrood� r RFCEIVE(9TtV Q ` 2TIQIIT� ��1122SStIE TSP 3 OCT 3 2 46 PM ;97 Pourb of cAyPettl CITY CLL ^.K'� OFFICE October 3, 1967 WILLIgM .. aeaan SAG€M, MAS$. wm ee R. eovweR �oaewn w. Doris JOR" M. *RAY. GR- DECISION ON PETITION OF MILDRED CAPUTI, RAYMOND REST HOME, A�RVRUOReC"` 1 Raymond Road, to erect a 6 ' x 38 ' addition to the rear of the building, one story in height, to increase kitchen and smoking room facilities. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect this addition as a rest home is a non confurming use in this district, zoned for single family dwellings, also, the lot size required is 7000 square feet, and petitioner' s lot contains 6049 square feet. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal, and a hearing was held on this petition on September 11, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Evening News, advising of this petition. All Board Members were present at the hearing. The Inspector of Buildings being on vacation, did not attend. I i j Petitioner appeared and explained why she needs this addition. Councillors Perron and Dolan appeared in favor. A letter from Helen Nichols, an abutter, stating she had no objection, was read. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration, the Board voted unanimously to grant this petition, to deny the petition would cause hardship to the petitioner, and granting it would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and would cause no detriment to the public good. PETITION GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL I BY i Secretar 1 �Y.$Rn xrpo xGno of Ie assay se##s April 2$, 1967 WILLI"M P."..OT "`• " """`" DECISION ON PETITION OF George Carpenter, 10 Shillaber St. JO.i"" . OOYIi To erect a two story addition to an existing dwelling. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addition to this dwelling as the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance requires a lot of 7000 square feet in area, and a front setback of fifteen feet. Petitioner's lot has an area of 6400 square feet,. and at one, point, the front setback is only four feet. Mr. Carpenter appealed to the Board of Appeal and a hearing was held on this petition on April 24, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to petitioner, abutters, board members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All Board members were present at the hearing. The petitioner appeared and stated he needs this addition to provide rooms for his family. There was a fire in the house in February which destroyed the third floor and badly burned the second floor. This addition is to replace the third floor rooms. Councillors Burke, Butler, and Dolan appeared in favor. No one appeared in opposition. 0- After due consideration thereof, the Board, voting on the grounds that to deny this appeal would cause great hardship to the petitioner, and granting the variance would cause no detriment to the public good, and would not der- ogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, voted unanimously to grant the appeal. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY ecretary ('gjty of '$UIPM, tISS�tLI�IISE##S ptmrb of (1"vd June 1, 1967 WILL UM I. wo.I ' JwM Y. H. .OVLO-R DECISION on Petition of John E. Sullivan, 24 Shillaber JO.•RH .. """ Street, to erect addition to existing dwelling. JOHN M. ORwV. -R. •RTNVR LAY R6COU• The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to allow this proposed addition as petitioner did not have sufficient side yards as required by the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance . Petiioerr a ance from ppealed and onAMaya22 , 1967 , aihearing washheldpca- to the Board of on this petition pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abut- ters, board members, and others, and notices published in the Evening News. The appeal of the petitioner stated he wishes to extend his house ten feet to the rear and two stories in height; the entire rear wall is in need of valor repairs due to fire damage ; his family consisting of seven people , is cramped for bedrooms, bathrooms, and living space ; existing means of egress are insufficient for safe exit in the event of fire . The addition he proposes would provide a dining room two bedrooms, one and one half bath- rooms, an enclosed porch with rear exit, and new front exit. All Board members excepting Chairman John M. Gray, Sr. , ,were present at this hearing. Mr. Sullivan appeared and stated his case , thesame as in his petition. He produced letters from three abutters, Marg aret Mary Cotter, and Julia Riley, all of 19 Maple Street , all in favor. CouncillorS Joh But ler, Samuel lsShapiro , ofi26favorlaber Street, and Henry We After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously .to grant this appeal. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY Secret y `V 4• ftLitU of �ziem, EItt$gttcl��zset#� ilowxley �aoarb of �1 7EM1 WILLIAM I. A.00l may 1, 1967 i JAM 6B N. BOVLOEP JOYCPN I. OOVL6 DECISION ON PETITION OF Rene Leclair , 20 Station Road APTNUP LABM EOOVE To erect a two story addition to a dwelling to provide an additional bedroom with storage space under. The petitioner was refused a permit by the Building Inspector to erect this addition as he could allow only a five foot side yard instead of ten feet required by the Zoning Ordinance . Mr. Leclair appealed to the Board of Appeal for athearing on-ho noticesileis detition. The hearing was held on April 24, 1967 , pursuant postpaid to the petitioner, abutters , board members, and others , and advertisements published in The Evening News . All board members were present at this meeting. The petitioner appeared and stated he needs the additional room to provide sleeping quarters for his children. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board , voting on the grounds that to Reny this appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner, and granting his etition would cause no detriment to the public good , and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance , voted unanimously to grant the appeal . BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED By Secret r;;" �J i i } REG�.s�Ea (iii#g n# Iem, fCttssttclsP##s 3 , PuttrD of �pyPttl ,t ;; OFFICE . WILLIAM F. gBBC T CITYSAIEM MASS. November 2, 1967 JwMeB N. BovLBeR - � JOBEPN ., oovLe ' JOHN M. ORMV. BR. iARTHUR LAORCCOVB i -j I, Christina Callahan, clerk of the Board of Appeals for '. the City of Salem, do hereby certify that a Special Per- mit has been granted to Charles George Redmond to install 'i a swimming pool on land owned by him at 5 Sutton Terrace. The decision of the Board is on file in the office of the City Clerk for the City of Salem. j I Attest: BOARD OF APPEAL, Clerk � Y j I I a i 1 I { i I INRRO XRRO NERO XERO OOPY - TOOPY - OI^Y COPYµ. 1 - � Y 1 pM '�1 3 24 Puttrb of tAypettl j " pFFICE November 2, 1967 • I E iWILLIAM V.R96C CITY CLE P.` MASS., SALEM' JAMES X. RGVLOUR DECISION DN PETITION OF CHARLES GEORGE REDMOND TO INSTALL A SWIMMING POOL AT 5 SUTTON TERRACE.- JOXN - ' 1 PfiTXVR L/.B RECOVH • -= J On August 30th 1967, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to install a swimming pool at this location as the lot in- volved has -an area of 6690 square feet and the Zoning Ordinance requires a 7000 square foot lot in this district; also, petitioner { could allow a five foot side yard and a five foot rear yard and the Ordinance requires a ten foot side yard and a thirty foot rear yard. : i Also, under the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance the Board of Appeal j only, has the authority to grant a special permit for the installa- tion of swimming pools. � f 1 The petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal on September 18, stating he has four children, one of whom has rheumatoid arthritis and the only sport he is permitted to partake in is swimming. The { child can not be permitted to go to the beach alone and it is imposs- ible for his mother to go with him because of the care required by the other children. He also stated that if he were permitted to in- stall a swimming pool all of the children could enjoy it and the moth ,• er would be able to supervise them properly. j A hearing was held on this petition on October 16, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, i . { and others, and notices published in the Evening News advising of this appeal. All Board members appeared at this hearing. The petitioner appeared - i and his appeal. was read to the Board. Two abutters sent letters to the Board stating they had no objection to a swimming pool at this location. No one appeared in. opposition. I After due consideration thereof, the Board, voting on the grounds that to deny this appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner, and to grant the petition would not be detrimental to the public good and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, voted junanimously to grant this appeal. PETITION GRANTED. _ ARW OF APPEA Acretary i INERO NRRO %ERO %ERO ! .COPY rol'Y Ti#g of "ialem' 'Mttssa rouse##s k PAMYd of �ypP2Lr February 1, 1967 wu.unM r. neeon nM ea H. em aeR PETITION: - Stop and Shop, Inc. , - Vinnin Square. JOHN M. ORnY, BR. nRiH LIR LnV R6C0V. To erect additional sign on supermarket. On December 28, 1966, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit for an additional sign at this location. The Ordinance allows one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of frontage of the establishment. The frontage at this location is 124 feet; an existing sign comprises an area of 246 square feet and the proposed sign would contain 150 square feet. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance. A hearing was held on this appeal on January 30, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed post- paid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. • All Board Members were present at this hearing. Mr. Andrew E. Reynolds, an engineer, appeared for the petitioner and explained the plan of the proposed sign. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board, voting on the grounds that to deny this appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner, and granting the variance would cause no detriment to the public good, and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, voted unanimously to grant the variance. BOARD OF APPEAL VARIANCE GRANTED BY , ecreta . " ig?oR; July 199 1967 '"°`°, v • DECISION on PETITION OF JOSEPH L. PELLETIER, 3 WHEATLAND ST. , 3f1Mi w�+tt,ww. weiinamt aKpwem+ws. To etect addition to dwelling eight feet from side boundary line; Zoning Ordinance requires tear foot side: yard. an Jae 25t 1967, Mr. Po32rtiox appealed to the Board of Appeal for a vary iance frox tie applicat cW of th# ing Ordinance to Mit the construe- tion of an addition to his duelling, having been refused by the Inspector of Buildings because of insuffi^$exit distance to his side boundary line. * His appeal stated tale are getting along in years and it creates a hardship on ay wife to walk up and down the stairs to hang clothes in the yard. She could use the addition to hang clothes. Ygaelf, the present stairway to the cellar is not too safe the way it winds and is narrow, and by having an addition I could have straight and aside stairs to the cellar" . A hearing was held on this petition on July 17, 1967 in the office of the Inspector of Buildings, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petition- er, board members, *butters, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening Nears. u_. All Board members were present at this hearing. No one appeared in cppersi- tion. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant the variance as it would cause no detriment to the public good , and. would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance , and to deny the variance would cause hardship to the petitioner. VARIANCE GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY Secreta C�ti �t of 'SMlrul' Assarflusefts 280arb of Meat June 26, 1967 wiwww i. wooTr 1;;S; "; " DECISION on PETITION of LESTER STROCK, 24 WINTER STREET, JONN M, pIUV, ... To convert existing one-family dwelling to two families; district is zoned for two-family residences requiring 3500 square feet of lot area for each dwelling unit, front setback of fifteen feet, ten feet side yards, and thirty foot rear yard; coverage of all buildings on the lot is limited to 35%, and existing buildings now cover 479 . Mr. Strock appealed to the Board of appeal for a variance to permit the con- version of a single family dwelling to provide a second apartment. A hearing was held on this petition on June 19, 1967 with all Board Members in attendance. Petitioner appeared and stated the house is a one family dwelling consisting of eighteen rooms, and one of the main purposes. of the petition is to get more income from the property. He stated he is an engin- eer with Sylvania Electric Products Company. : Councillor Joseph OtKeefe- appeared and stated he was in favor of this appeal being granted. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board #acted unanimously to grant this appeal. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY ecretar Ctv of 'Sttlem, Aassar4ugietts Pourb of Apprzd mac . March 30, 1967 WILLIAM F ^.. ° 'Ew DECISION ON PETITION OF SALEM ACRES, INC. , TO ERECT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ON LOT #3 WITCHCRAFT ROAD, LOT #14 PIONEER CIRCLE, AND LOT #18 PURITAN ROAD. nwrr+uw uanec oue The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a dwelling on Lot #3 Witchcraft Road as the rear yard would be seventeen feet instead of the required thirty feet; the rear yard of Lot #14 Pioneer circle would be eighteen feet in- stead of the required thirty feet; and the rear yard of Lot #18 Puritan Road would be twenty three feet instead of the required thirty feet. Petitioner through Counsellor George P. Vallis appealed to the Board of Appeal to grant variances from the application of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the erection of these dwellings. A hearing was held on this petition on March 27, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, abutters, board members, and others, and advertisements pub- lished in The Evening News. a ./ All board members were present at this hearing. Counsellor Vallis stated the petition the same as in the original appeal, also, this petition comes under the classification of previous cases the Board has heard. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voting on the rounds that g ha to deny this appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner, and to grant the variances would not cause detri- ment to the public good and would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, voted unanimously to grant the variances. BOARD OF APPEAL VARIANCES GRANTED eS cretary a Ctu of � Ient' 4Ha56IE� 9dt9 4 �II�a of ►tet September 28, 1967 vnkuN 1."666 J.N.. «. .ou�..w DECISION ON PETITION OF Salem Acres , Inc . , to erect dwell- ings on Lots 130 Witchcraft Road, Lot 149 Crescent Drive , Lot 150 Crescent Drive, and Lot 151 Crescent Drive ; The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect dwellings at these location as such would be in violation of the City Zoning Ord- inance with regard to density regulations , specifically depths of rear yards. petitioner through Counselor George P. Vallis, appealed to the Board of Appeal for variances to permit the undersize rear yards , and a hearing was held on this petition on September 11 , 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, Mr. Vallis , abutters, Board Members, and others , and advertisements published in the Evening News advising of this appeal. All Board members were present at the hearing. The Inspector of Build- ings, being on vacation, did not attend. ounselor Vallis appeared and explained each lot has sufficient area with adequate frontage, the variances are required because of insufficient rear yard space . No one appeared in opposition. The Hoard, voting on the grounds that to deny this petition would cause hardship to the petitioner, and granting the petition would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance , and would cause no detriment to thep ublic good, voted unanimously to grant this petition. OARD OF APP ^AL VARIANCES GRANTED BY Secreta V/ Ctv of r Iem, Anseadjusetts 'Poarb of WIT June 1, 1967 DECISION ON Petition of H. J. Raiser, Inc . , to erect a one- story warehouse building on Lot Z on a roadway existing be- tween Boston and Maine Railroad and North Canal .wr"u. u.".c°u. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to allow construction of this addition. The City of Salem Zoning Ordinance designates this as an Industrial area, and petitioner could not meet all of the . density re- quirements for this district. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal stating they had owned this land for more than ten years, long before present zoning ordinance went into effect, and respectfully request they be given permission to make practical use of it. A hearing was held on this petition on May 22, 1967 , pursuant to notices nailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, board members , and others, and notices published in the Evening News. All board members, excepting Chairman John M. Gray, Sr. , were present at this hearing. Petitioner was also unable to attend. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the board voted unanimously to grant this appeal. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY - Secret y.`