Loading...
APPEALS DECISIONS 1968-1969 � P� � 5 1�-� � 5 �� o� S 9q � � - Iq� 9 �_ tS , 1968 BOARD OF APPEALS CASES STREETS NAMES PAGE 5Abbot St. Anthony Giunta 1 35 Abbot St. Agnes M. Mooney 2 20 Bay View Circle Mary Christian Sowinski 3 3 Bradely Road Albert J. Le Doux 4 190-218 Bridge St. Parker Brothers, Inc. 5 5 Beachmont Road Harry E. Cobb 6 45 Boston St. Thomas J. Beaulieu 7 163 Boston St. Josephi'MiCastro 8 7j Burnside St. Mr. and Mrs. A. Sidney Galper 9 531 Canal St. Ernest R. Belleau. JR. 10 1 Castle Road Albert B:. Bianchi 11 7 Cedar Crest Road Antonio Losolfo 12 Ask 9 Cedar Crest Road Micheal Patruno 13 27 Center St. Robert MC Caffrey 14 10 Colonial Road Ruth E. Burke and George J. Burke 15 18-20 Commercial St. Thomas A. Sullivan. 16 204 Derby St. Harriet Kohn 17 245-247 Lafayette St. William B. Delaney and Eugene G,irouard 18 283 Derby St. Marvin Sterman 19 284;'•Eedex=1,Stc;:t. General Uffice Equipment Company 20 '41 299 Essex St. Hair Fashions, Inc. , 21 181 Essex St. Barnett F'abric.. Stores, Inc. * 22 406 Essex St. Litwin Motor Company 23 76 Federal St. William D. Little 24 x 76 Federal St. Rose Winter 25 30 Foster St.. Seaboard Chemical Company 26 4 Franklin St. Harry Mi. And.3"s 27 46 Harrisomr=St. William J. 28 illi b 1968 "BOARD OF APPEALS CASES STREETS NAMES PAGE 24 Hathorne St. S. Wayne Belleau 29 Lot A Hemenwa.y Road George and Patricia Michaud 30 13 Hersey St. Omer R. Talbot and George W. Well 31 84 Highland Ave. Virginia T. Flynn 32 116 Highland Ave. Richard E. McKeage, M.D. 33 272-274 Highland' Ave. Samuel Rome 34 Kimball Court Frank Wetmore 35 23 Irving St. Thomas Beaulieu 36 Irving and Phillips Sts. Zion Realty Trust 37 53 Jefferson Ave. North Shore Waste Paper Company 38 61 Jefferson Ave. Henry LE Blanc 39 110 Jefferson Ave. Lionel J. Bouchard 40 199 Jefferson Ave. Robert Jalbert 41 414 Jefferson Ave. Micheal Bulyga 42 242 LAfayette St. Peter LA Bonte 43 301 ► Lafayette St. Alfred J. Thibault 44 331 Lafayette St, Blake Bros. Company, 45 LOTS XWY and Z Laurent Road Ida. M. Talbot 46 74 Leavitt Stv' Palmer Cove Yacht Club, Inc. , 47 LIBERTY HILL AVE. City Of Salem 48 LOTS 24 and 28 Lincoln Road Henry3Boucher 49 10-12 Lynde St. George Ahmed 50 10-12 Lynde St. George Ahmed 51 37 Marlborough Road Donald R. Masella 52 171 Marlborough Road Eugene A. Lutrzykowski 53 69 Mason St. Raymond L. Truche 54 71-73 Mason St. Morris Isaacson , 55 1968 BOARDS OF APPEALS CASES STREETS NAMES PAGE 59 Memorial Drive John B. Russell 56 Corner of Norman and Crombie Phillips Petroleum Company 57 73 North St. James F, Logrippo 58 121 North St. Gabriel Rossi 59 6 Nicholas St, John and William Kokores 60 27 Oakland St. Peter Carbone 61 4 Ocean Terrace Dorothy L. Cote 62 13 Pleasant St. John F. Nestor 63 20 Scienic Avenue Paul R. Pelletier 64 State ROAD and Vinnin St, Gulf Oil Company 65 2 State Road Marvin Schloss 66 47 Summer St. Grace Snychalski 67 16 Surrey Road Ltbter Newth 68 53 Turner St. Anna E. Kopka. 69 LOT 122 Valley St. Salem Acres, Inc. , 70 14 Victory Road Wla.dek Suchecki 71 14 Webb St. Henry L. Berkowitz 72 18 Webb St. Carroll F. Dickson 73 66 Wilson Road George W. Weil 74 6 Winter Island Margaret T. Griffin 75 62 Winthrop St. Edward M. Zarella 76 26 Wisteria. St. Grace L'Heureux 77 132 Witchcraft Aoad Salem Acres, Inc, . 78 i yeti t,CO 11,l;4 c M Critg of Salem gassar4nsetts , REPORT OF. THE BOARD OF APPEALS WILLIAM F. ABBOTT //�''``` JgMfiB N. pOVLO ER JOBEPN P. OOYLE - JONN M. pRgY. pR. ' gRTNVR LA9RECOUE ' .1 To' H s Honor., " Francis X. Collins,, Mayor of Salem, and The Honorable City Councili Gentlemen: The Board of Appeals welcomed two. new associate_ members this year, appo-inted by Mayor Collins with�the, approval of the City, Councillors. . Mr. Emery P. Tanch of Pleasant Street and Mr. Norman Welcho , Jr. , of Raymond Road have been very faithful in attending the ,Board meetings , and have dem- ons'trated their ability and understanding of, the,, Zoning. Ordinance in. assist- ing 'the Board Members in arriving at decisions on appeals brought before ,the Voard, ., .Members ,of the Appeal's Board include Chairman John M, Gray, Sr,. , Wil- liam F. Abbott , James H.` Boulger, Joseph F. Doyle , Sr. , and Arthur E.. La- brecque . All members, including the associate members,are appointed to terms=-.of. three ;years-,. Of the eighty-- three petitions before ,the .Board dur}ng 1968, sixty-nine were granted w eight,;were •%denied,, and six were ,granted Le'a,ve to „Withdraw. The';following . is , & summary, of the dispgpo tsion of these petitions bythe 1 Hoard>:,� Permdips,Ion to erect % ten"s' ingle 'family dwellings. ;. . Variances to" allow0constructi6n of%,two four-unit dwelling' a Seven-t Special. Permits to' install Swimming Pools: Five=-'va'riances to.ide'fine”location of.,existing structures,. verrmitre= t'o erect .six, private garages . Four' pe:tItions to inste,11=4_f:en6es, ?:Variances required with regard to .height . 2. Twelve requests for variances to permit alterations,:and/or additioYns .o existing business establishments were granted. Petitions were presented for the alteration of six dwellings, in three instances to increase tenant occupancy, and these were granted. Variances for the construction of three new business buildings were granted, these will be for a warehouse, a restaurant , and a warehouse-office building to permit expansion of a game manufacturing concern. A sign permit , a variance to erect a new gasoline service station, and a variance to permit use of land at an existing service station for public- paid parking were also allowed. Under the heading of "Special Permit" uses eleven petitions were grant- ed, including occupancy for two beauty salons, three . ceramic studios , addi- tions.' to various business-occupied structures, permission to sell used cars, d permission for occupancy by real estate offices. Permits denied were as follows: Construction of six Town House type apartments. Construction of four Town House type apartments. Conversion of apartment building to permit occu- pancy by professional offices. Installation of buffing box and acid tank. Various signs. Permission to operate a restaurant business. Occupancy 'for real estate office and six apartments in the same .building. "Leave to- Withdraw Without Prejudice" was granted on petitions pre- sente d to alter an existing dwelling to provide real estate offides and apartments; to erect .single family dwelling on undersize lot ; to. install ,,*,lunchroom; to alter a residential building to provide business office and permit the remainder of the building to be used as a rooming-house; i to install certain types of signs; and to- erect a structure to be used "• for light manufacturing. In conclusion, the Appeals board wishes to express its sincere thanks to Mayor Francis X. Collins, Members of the, City Council, the Inspector of Buildings, and to the Salem News Publishing Company, and all others who have been most helpful in their cooperation during the; past year and in . preceding years. Respectfully submitted, Secreta • .l(1 UR�CTL � of r49 AM '�� ourb of (1ypcaf JUN ZB 10— LrrJune 28, 1968_ W,IU_,AM i. ADOOTT DECI1CM0'OdN,- F49N OF ANTHONY GIUNTA TO INSTALL A PENCE STREET. �oseRH r. oov�e JOYiN M. GRAY. GR. ARTHUR IA.R...1. Petitioner through his attorney, James E. Farley, appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the City Zoning Ordinance , which limits the height of fences in residential areas to five feet . Pe- titioner proposes to erect a fence which would vary in height from three and one half feet to six feet . A hearing was held on this petition on May 27 , 1968 , at which Counsel for the petitioner appeared and explained the situation. Counselor Irving Herbster of Peabody, in behalf of Mr. and Mrs. D' Orio , 3 Abbott Street , appeared and stated he did not want to be recorded as opposed .until he 1 had a chance to find out through a surveyor, the exact property lines in l this case . He further stated he would bring the report to the next Board meeting if this were agreeable to the Members , and also , in the meantime he stated it was possible that. all matters could be adjusted. The Board voted to continue this hearing as requested to its next meeting, June 24. Hearing was resumed on this petition on June 24. All Board members were ,-resent at the meeting. A letter received from Counselor Herbster was read to the meeting, and becomes an integral part of documents in this case . The final paragraph of this letter states - "In summary, the DeOrios do not object to the granting of the variance , provided that the decision does not ' grant to the Giuntas a new division line" . A After careful considera.tion of . all evidence presented to the Board, on motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously VOTED -That on petition of Anthony Giunta a variance be granted from the app- 4 lication of the zoning ordinance which will permit creation of a fence six feet in height along the northern boundary of the property of the petitioner located at 5 Abbott Street and from a point on said northern boundary opposii and .to the northeast corner of the dwelling on said premises. This variance is granted for the reason that 1. The above' premises are in a. one family residential district. The purpose of constructing the proposed fence is to permit the family of the petitioner, especially their young children, to make full use of the rear yard and to ha• privacy therein which use and priva.cy would otherwise be denied; 2. and owing to conditions especially affecting generally the zoning distrii i h! i 2 _ in which it is located, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship, and 3. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the pub,---- . lie good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the ordinance . 4. the parties involved are to determine the correct property lines . APPEAL GRANTED (BOARD OF APPEAL B )AL Y GiY CJ( Secretar' ` RE�E�VFDgituT II 2IIEITt� Ccs 2tCI Lt�E s1 WO Poarb of cApp xl / I CITYSAIEM MASS. June 27 , 1868 µ'ILLIAM F. FO BOTT I JAMES N. OO ULOER . ' JOBpPN F, pOVLE JOHN M. GRAY. BR. DECISION ON PETITION OF AGNES M. MOONEY, TO ERECT A ARTHUR LTRRE=Opp SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON LOT #35 ABBOTT STREET. Inspector of Buildings Daniel O ' Brien refused to issue a permit to erect a single family dwelling on Lot #35 Abbott Street , as the lot is undersize for the district , and also , ha.s insufficient frontage a.s required by the Zoning Ordinance . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a. variance from the appli- cation of the Zoning Ordinance , and a. hearing was held on this petition on June 24, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to petitioner, abut- ters , Board Members , and others , and advertisements published 'in The Even- ing News . All Board members were present a.t the hearing. Mrs . Mooney appeared and t stated her petition, the same es in appeal previously filed. Mr. and Mrs . Elliott Percy, 21 Abbott Street , and former City Councillor Richard Poitras appeared in favor of granting this appeal . �ifter careful consideration of the plan submitted and the evidence presented, the Board found that the lot in question does not differ in size nor in front age from other lots in the neighborhood, and 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 deroga.te from the intent and purpose of the ordinance . The Board voted unanimously to grant the variance . i BOARD OF APPEAL { APPEAL GRANTED BY Secrete j f i j .C,<t\I IIL of Am, assar4nae##s June 5, 1968 . 7d e-42 \111111. P. A...I Jnm c° ". oov�aew DECISION ON APPEAL OF MARY CHRISTINE SOWINSKIiTO / J JOHN m. OR 9Y. Gfi. / `J Awrw.w Ln.....Ue INSTALL A SWIMMING POOL AT 20 BAY VIEW CIRCLE. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to install a swimming pool at this location as according to the City Zoning Ordinance , the Board of Appeal is the only authority who may grant such permits. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal , and a hearing was held on this petition on May 27 , 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the peti- tioner, abutters , Board members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. Four Board members were present at this hearing, the fifth member, Mr. James Boulger, being confined to the hospital and unable to be present. Petitioner appeared and explained the plan. No one appeared in opposition. After careful consideration the four members present voted unanimously to -*nt this appeal on the condition that regulations of the Health, Electric- and Building Departments be strictly adhered to. BOARD ,9O�F/ APPEAL PETITION GRANTED - _ SPECIAL PERMIT BY n,f Secreta. `(,OSOIGL - Otu oaf "SHlem; Aassar4nsettz —��.��,;� �uurb of c�3�3Tr�x1 WILLIAM F. ADDOT JAMEG "• °o°LaER DECISION ON PETITION OF ALBERT J. LE DOUR, 3 BRADLEY ROAD FOR VARIANCE FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY ZONING ORD- INANCE AS IT APPLIES TO SIDE AND REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS. ' ARTRUR LA°RGCOUE This appeal was made directly to the Board of Appeal. It concerns a dwel- ling erected in 1961 which was located 'on the lot in nonconformity with the existing Zoning regulations, specifically with regard to' side and rear yard requirements. Counselor Robert D. Bowes appealed to the Board of Appeal for the petitioner to grant a variance from the application of the City Zoning Ordinance, and a hearing was held on this petition on November 18th, 1968, in the Council Chamber, City Hall, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, Board Members, abutters, and others, and advertisements pub- lished in The Evening News. All Board Members appeared at this hearing. Counselor Bowes appearing for the petitioner, presented a small plan of �the land at #3 Bradley Road to each Board Member, showing the location of ehe existing dwelling with regard to boundary lines. Chairman John M. Gray read the original letter of application which is incorporated herein. No one appeared in opposition. The Board after careful consideration voted unanimously to grant this appeal, finding that to grant the petition would in no way be detrimental to the pub- lic good and would not nullify nor derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would relieve a substantial hardship to the petitioner with regard to the marketability of this property. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY 2,. Secretary LU y ` ur LU c� ti to Ae ' F a 1 b1f ?ZIETYi, 2 �uarb of '�FFL�zl N'I LLIAM i. AV V°,T DECISION ON PETITION OF PARKER BROTHERS, INC. , TO CONSTRUCT '°°"" R °°"`E A NEW BUILDING AT 190-218 BRIDGE. STREET TO BE OCCUPIED FOR WAREHOUSING, SHIPPING, AND OTHER PURPOSES INCIDENTAL TO ITS hRTHVRLFORECOVE GENERAL BUSINESS. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to construct a building at this location as the propo.sed structure would not conform to the density requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. The Ordinance requires a thirty foot rear yard and allows 45% lot coverage by all buildings. The plan shows the building would be on the lot line at one point and at others , would allow less than the required thirty foot rear yard; also, the total coverage by all buildings would be 47. 83%- Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the applica- tion of the Zoning Ordinance , and a hearing was held on this petition on November 18th9 1968, in the Council Chamber, City Hall, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, its attorney, Board Members, abutters , and others , and notices published in The Evening News advising of this• hear- ing. A*All Board Members were present at the hearing. Counselor James Farley appeared for the petitioner and stated the case the same as in the original appeal. The proposed structure will be of masonry construction and will be occupied for warehousing, shipping and other pur- poses incidental to the general business of the company. At present there are approximately five hundred employees. . Councillors John Burke and Jo- seph Ingemi wished to be recorded in favor of granting this appeal. No one appeared in opposition. The Board found that the construction of the proposed building in the area set forth in the plan would in no derogate from the general character of the neighborhood and not to grant this appeal would handicap the appel- lant in its business sufficiently sous to cause hardship to it and that there would be no detriment to the public welfare, in fact in appeared that it would promote the general attractiveness of this area ;, so the Board finds tot his appeal may be granted without substantial detriment to the public roocrand without nullifying or derogating from the purpose of the Zonis i_Aice in any way. The Board voted unanimously to grant this appeki. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL G,aANTI,:;� BY N r " Secretary o U Y �� 1 � A "' RECEiV-D�i#� II ` 2T�P1119 is°� cSG18SE# S OCT 46 AH �� u�cz of �3�flrtrl ,V iLLAM F. AGBOTT CITYA`Ej�,;p{ASS. OFFICE October 3. 1968 LGE" DECISI�1� ON PETITION OF HARRY E. COBB, TO INSTALL A SWIMMING, JOBER" F. OOYLE POOL AT 5 BEACHMONT ROAD. JO"N AI. GRAY. BR. PRT..R LAO RECOVE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to install a swimming pool at this location, and advised the applicant that the Board of Appeal was the only authority under the City Zenng Ordinance regulations who could 'approve such installation. Petitioner appealed to the Board, and a. hearing was held on this petition on September 23, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, Board Members, abutters , and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. Mr, and Mrs. Cobb appeared at this hearing at which Board Members Gray, Abbott , Labrecque , Boulger and Tanch were present , Members Doyle and Welch being unable to attend. Oetitioner stated the case the same as appears in the petition: Mrs. Cobb is allergic to sand and this has caused her. grea.t hardship to procure re- sponsible people to take her children to the beach; if approved, the in, stallation of a pool in her own yard will grant her peace of mind and elim- inate the hardship of taking her children to the beaches, Mr. Cobb stated. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration, the Board voted unanimously to grant a. Special Permit to allow the installation of a swimming pool at this location, pro- viding all rules and regulations pertaining to such installations required by State and City authorities are met. APPEAL GRANTED n� BOARD OF APPEAL BY Acting Secretary)c J THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS S A L E M c1n an rowH REC�II�E� BOARD OF APPEALS OCT a 41 M ts� 5 ............ eptember. --' 19 68 CITYSALEM, MASS. NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To..............._RARRY..E---COBB.....---•---•---.............------------.................................... ...................... Owner or Petitioner Address..........5...BEACHMONT__ROAD City or Town...............SALEM ...-----•-••----•---...--5--BLACEMON T.110AR..................................................................-------............... Identity Land Affected --------------------....SAUM...YASS-r--...... •-----------.....------------------------------------------......-----------•--......... City by the Towirof.....................SALEM-,;;MASS.__.................-_._._:__Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. -$- BEAEHMONT• ROAD SALEM street - City or Town • the record title standing in the name of •------•......................110-IM-E---'-. COBB--..............-----------------..................... ------.......................... whose addressA ...................SALEMMASS.........- Street City orTowv ...------•--------------- -- State by a deed duly recorded in the..........-ESSEX.................County Registry of Deeds in Book ................ Page................, ....................................................Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No................. ...... .........Book ....----........Page................ The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No........ ........ City , in the office of the Tom Clerk.....AUQUiTINE...J.,... OOMEY..---....---------••-------------------_....._-, Signed this...ay...day of---SEPTEMBER.......................1968• Board of Appeals: ---------- -- - -�'/..!!-..------Chairman Hera fleClerk aoard o[ APpe61e -------•........................................19-----... at-._-_--_--o'clock and............ ...................minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of.......................................... Book_...................... Page......... ......... ATTEST ......-..................................................................... Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Owner. FORM 1094 HOBBS & WARREN. INC., REVISED CHAPTER 212•1962 ov of Am, RECE �`Y_ )' 3 44 Poarb of Apyral FEB February 1968 CM 1, MASS DECISION On Petition of Thomas J. Beaulieu, d.b. a.. Tom Beaulieu' s Mobil Service Station, 45 Boston Street , i A„TH�R LAORECOUC for a Special Permit to sell used cars. Petitioner through his counselor, Samuel E. Zoll , appealed to the Board of Appeal for a. Special Permit to sell used cars in this B-2 district. � A hearing was held on this appea.l on January 29, 1968 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, abutters , board members and others , and advertisements of appeal published in The Evening News . With the exception of Mr. James Boulger, all Board Members attended this hearing. Counselor Zoll presented the case for the petitioner, stating the business is located across the street from the Sylvania. Electric Products Company— lie also presented a plot plan to each board member. Appearing in opposition, Raymond Joidan, representing Sylvania Electric Company, 60 Boston Street , stated that in many aspects this business might interfere with the workers of the Sylvania Company. However, he stated, the company had no objection personally to this petition, they feared that if the permit were granted Wre might be a later transfer to someone who might not prove satisfactory Sylvania ; he also presented a letter from J. M. llarris , plant manager, which is on file with..this petition. Mr. Frank J . Ronan appeared and stated that he owns the property at the corner of Boston and Federal Streets in which Sylvania is a. tenant . tie thought there might be a. traffic hazard in the vicinity if this petition is granted. After due consideration, the Board voted unanimously to grant a Special Per- mit to sell used cars as outlined in the petition presented to this Board, for one year only from this date; furthermore, if there is any violation of law in the meantime, the Board reserves the right to revoKe the permit before the expiration of the year. CONDITIONAL AND LI1,,I*fED SPECIAL PERMIT uRANTED. BOARD OF APPEAL Clerk �✓'a.. /� _ j���na�-c� of arrl FEBREP I S 3 44 PM CITY BICE February 6 , 1968 �oTT C'�.i .,; aM« `�OULGCR SALEP11 tit 0 oo.LL llECIS10iv - On Petition of Joseph NiCastro for a Special'' Permit to operate a beauty shop at 163 Boston Street. I HNTIALI i LAOIi F_COUf Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a. Special Permit tolcon- duct a beauty shop at 163 Boston Street. A hearing was held on this petition on January 29 , 1968 , pursuant to not- ices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters , Board Members , and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. Mr. James Boulger, board member, was unable to attend this hearing, all other members in attendance . Mr. Samuel G. McGla.uflin appeared for the petitioner. }Ie stated he operates the Coronet Agency, a rea.l' estate company which sold the property to the petitioner. He further stated that for many years there has been a business of one kind or another at this location. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the four Board members present , voted unan- *imously to grant . a Special Permit to Mr. NiCastro to operate a beauty shop at 163 Boston Street. BOARD Or' APPEAL SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED BY / v Clerk itV of 1-5alem, ��ttsSarh Sett Pnurb of Appeal DECISION ON PETITION OF MR. AND MRS. A. SIDNEY GALPER, FOR VARIANCE WITH REGARD TO DENSITY REGULATIONS AFFECT- ,o„„ ING PROPERTY AT 71 BURNSIDE STREET. A!THUR uVRECQue Petitioners through their attorney, John R. Serafini, ' appealed directly to the Board of Appeals on November 26, 1968. A hearing was held on this petition on December 16tJ19 1968 pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioners, their attorney, Board Members, abutters, and others and advertisements published in The Evening News. Mr. Joseph F. Doyle was unable to be present at this hearing, all other Board members being in attendance. Counselor Serafini appeared for the petitioners and explained the appeal, the same as in the original petition on file. He explained the petitioners are owners of two Lots , 3-A and 3-B as shown on a submitted plan. Both pareels, . prior to their being divided as shown on this plan, were contained in the same lot of land, both houses having been maintained on 'the same lot for over forty years. Under the new Zoning regulations of the City of alem both structures are nonconforming with regard to front line, side ine , rear line and area requirements. His clients wish to convey each parcel separately, and there will be no changes made. It will be a hardship to his clients if the variance is not granted. No one appeared in opposition. The Board, having in mind , that to grant this appeal would in no way derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and would cause no detriment to the public good, and would relieve hardship to the petitioners who wish to dispose of these two properties, voted unanimously to grant this appeal. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED m W BY �< 1�0 e.3 Secretjry G 4 SAN bH . � 2 Cr Cn 1- .. W '.J W J C.2 /- O V (1litu of �alem, assar4antts Pourb of cAral �•.f�`li�'F!\KCS WI�LIAM F. nRROr DECISION ON PETITION OF MR. AND MRS. A . SIDNEY GALPER, FOR ... VARIANCE WITH REGARD TO DENSITY REGULATIONS AFFECTING PROP- JoecRM ERTY AT 9 BURNSIDE STREET. JONN M. ORwI'. BR. MRTR UR LA UIiEC OVG Petitioners through their attorney, John R. Serafini, appealed directly to the Board of Appeals on November 26, 1968. A hearing was held on this petition on December 16th, 1968, pursuant to no- tices mailed postpaid to the petitioners, their attorney, Board Members, abutters, and others, and advertisements published in the Evening News. With the exception of Board Member Joseph Doyle , all Board Members were pres- ent at this hearing. Counselor Serafini appeared for the petitioners and explained the appeal, the same as in the original petition on file. He explained the petitioners are owners of two Lots, 3-A and 3-B as shown on a submitted plan. Both parcels , prior to their being divided as shown on thi6 plan, were contained in the same lot of land, both houses having been maintained on the some lot for over forty years. Under the new Zoning regulations of the City of Salem, both Structures are nonconforming with regard to front line, side line, rear line , .d area requirements. His clients wish to convey each parcel separately, and there will be no changes made. It will be a hardship to his clients if the variance is not granted. No one appeared in opposition. The Board, having in mind that to grant this appeal would in no way derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and would cause no detriment to the public good, and would relieve hardship to the petitioners who wish to dispose of these two properties, voted unanimously to grant this appeal. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL WNXjED BY I = Wvf Secreta y. - G wt 'D V) U_ CD ::..x Li l Uj v � W L, O ^t V1 NW, - , C E 1% u �t1em ��T3 2XC� 1tSP# 1.1•. a JUN I� 51 A4� 'Fi9 urs of Appeal CITY ' June 26 , 1968 M WIIIIPR. AOOOTT 55 SALEM MASS. JAMES H. OOULOER DECI ION ON PETITION OF ERNEST R. BELLEAU JR. REALTY TRUST CO. JosevH R. oov�E ' To erect a. gas service sta.tion and permit its opera.tion at ARTHUR LAMRCCOUE 53'-z Canal Street Petitioner through his attorney , Louis E. Baker, appealed directly to the Board to vary 'the a.pplica.tion of the present Zoning Ordinance a.s it applies to the use of the land above described and to the proposed structures as they appear on the said plan accompanying this petition and which is made part thereof so a.s to (a ) permit the said described land to be used for a. Service Gas Station Class A (b) permit the construction of the Service Ga.s Station structures as de- scribed on said plan On June 24, 1968 , a. hearing wa.s • held% on this petition, purusant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, abutters , Board Members , and others , and advertisements published in The Evening News advising of is hearing. All Board members were present at the hearing. Board Member Arthur Labrecque disqualified himself and did not partake in the discussion or decision on this petition. Counselor Baker appeared for the petitioner and explained the situation, exactly the same a.s in the petition a.s filed. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. Robert Beirne , a representative of the New England Power Company, an abutter, appeared and stated he was in favor of granting this petition. This is an R-2 district , zoned for two-family residences , but there are presently no dwellings in this immedia.te area.. Prior to August , 1965 , the entire area was zoned for business and from the beginning of the street up to number 95 , is entirely occupied by one type of business or another. After careful consideration the Board, Mr. Labrecque abstaining from voting, voted unanimously to grant this appeal according to the petition, to relieve hardship to the petitioner and having in mind that granting this appeal would be without detriment to the public good, and would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance . BOARD OF APPEAL PPEAL GRANTED BY /�1 Secretar „co�rnrt 1� P_•.qJ4� f3yM1i s4 - . J s-ZF of '5;'Am, 'fflassar4uoetts 51 pM ', � ZT IOuttrb of �yzpPtt1 . ., wLunM P. ARoo,� GI'�YS ALEMMASS.: '(;E 27 , 1968 JAM CB N. VOVLO LR ” • " ' J09LPM P. OOYL6 � JOHN M. ORAV. BR. ARTHURI BREOOVE DECISION ON PETITION OF ALBERT B. BIANCHI, TO ERECT A SIX-FOOT SCALLOPED STOCKADE TYPE FENCE AT 1 CASTLE ROAD. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a. variance from the applica- tion of the City Zoning Ordinance to allow him to erect a. fence which will . be six-foot high a.t the high points and about five feet at the low points. A hearing was held on this petition on June 24 , 1968 , 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. Mr. Bianchi appeared and explained the purpose of the fence around his home . No one appeared in opposition. Whe Board after careful consideration voted unanimously to grant this ap- eal, having in mind tha.t until the new Zoning Ordinance wa.s adopted in 1965, the height of fences in residential areas could be six feet . BOARD OF APPEAL C APPEAL GRANTED gy S e c rek ary . c/ .COFUq� REP Fiv 7 - t OCT 4 8 47 AM '68 of � perz1 October 3, 1968 CITYCSeC�L�iJpii(�'S�yOOFFIC€ JAMES H. SOVOLRER DECISTA ONSPETITION OF ANTONIO LOSOL:FO, TO ERECT A JOSEPH DOYLE GARAGE AT 7 CEDAR CREST ROAD. JOHN M. ORAV, SR. ARTHUR LAOR6COVE Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a. variance from the applica- tion of the City Zoning Ordinance as the Inspector of Buildings had refused him a permit to erect a. garage at this location because of nonconformity with side yard requirements of the density regulations of the Ordinance . The Ordinance requires a ten foot side yard, and petitioner' s plan shows a distance of three feet to the side boundary line. A hearing was held on this petition on September 23, 1968, pursuant to no- tices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, abutters , Board Mem- bers, and others , and advertisements published in The Evening News . Attending this hearing in addition to Chairman Gray were Board Members Boul- ger, Tanch, Labrecque , and Abbott ; Members Doyle and Welch were unable to be present . *Gene V. Santeusanio, Counsel for petitioner .appeared and explained the case the same as in the original appeal, and further stated that his client would have to undergo a hardship in building a garage over a leaching area , and also , as a necessity, have to do extensive blasting in order to be able to construct said garage, if variance were not granted. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration, the Board voted unanimously to relieve a hardship to the petitioner and grant this appeal provided wire glass in metal frames in the windows of the side of the building nearest the lot lines is installed APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY ,/4 �G+o v f211z Acting Secretary RECEG` ' LYl �2t�Eltr �"� E��I5S22C�Li%E��� ><r Ocr 4 8 47 AM 'GO 25nurb of ckypral CITY CLEW 'S OFFICE October 3, 1968 SALEM, MASS. J^M EE "' RDVLO ER DECISION ON PETITION OF MICHAEL PATRUNO TO ERECT A GARAGE JOEEP„ P. DOYLC AT 9 CEDAR CREST ROAD MRT„l1R lA ORECO UC The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a garage at this location due to nonconformity with the density requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance, specifically side yard requirement. The Ordinance requires a ten foot distance to the 'side boundary line and petitioner' s plan shows he can allow only a. three foot side yard. Petitioner, through his attorney, appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance , and a hearing was held on this petition on September 23, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News, LTn addition to Chairman Gray, Board Members Labrecque, Boulger, Tanch and bbott were in attendance at this hearing, Members Doyle and Welch being unable to be present. Gene V. Santeusanio of Lynn, Counsel for the petitioner, appeared and stated the case the same as it appears in the original appeal ; if the petition is granted it will relieve the petitioner from hardship as the only other loca- tion on his land to erect a. garage would be over a leaching field. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration, the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal to relieve hardship to the petitioner, being mindful of the fact that peti- tioner could not build anywhere else on this lot without upsetting his drain- age field4 appeal granted provided wire glass in metal frames in windows be installed on side of building nearest lot lines. APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL ,y BY Acting Secretary i �,U "Titu of � s� ttlem' Anscljuse##s REGI ' w'� J JuN 11 l0 51 Pourb of Appeal CLkitp,'� uF'FICE June 27 , 1968 WLUNM P. ,°BOTT CI'f YSALEM- MASS. °°" DECISION ON PETITION OF ROBERT MC CAFFREY TO ERECT JOBEP" P. OOVLB SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AT 2 CENTER STREET AND .Ar" " A°"EEOVB 27 CENTER STREET. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue permits to erect dwellings on - these two lots as each is undersize for the district and neither ha.s sufficient frontage , and the proposed dwellings would not have the required setbacks from the boundary lines . Petitioner through his attorney, Francis B. Gerry, 10 Chestnut Street , Peabody appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the appli- cation of the Zoning Ordinance . A hearing was held on this appeal on June 24, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, abutters , Board Members , and others , and a.dveetisements •published in The Evening News . All Board Members were present at the hearing. ,ounsellor Gerry appeared and stated petitioner is purchasing this property, e further stated thatthere is no other use can be made of the land; this is an R-1 district , zoned for single family residences , and the construction of these dwellings would not derogate from the intent and purpose and would not be detrimental to the public good. Mr. Lawrence Michaud, 11 Shillaber Street , an abutter, appeared and stated he has a. ra.in water flow problem. After careful consideration of the plans presented and the evidence presen- ted at this hearing, the Board found that to deny this appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner, and granting the vatiances would not cause detri- ment to the public good and would no,t substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance as many dwellings in this neighborhood are lo- cated on lots no greater in area, and would not conform to existing Zoning ordinance regulations with regard to required setbacks and frontage . The Board voted unanimously to grant the variances , and any question regard- ing the flow of water must be agreed between parties in- BOARD OF APPEAL volved. A-PPEAL GRANTED BY / Secreta 0.'U" RECEIV' 0 1(Zit Of k5"'alem, 2�tt�stttl�ltsetts JuN 7 53 uttrb of A3'EttX unyt�" f.'5 OFFICE C WI.LAM >, aRBo,- mFpi?IA ASSQn Appeal petition of Ruth E. Burke and' George J. JAMEB.„. Bo„�o eR- Burke, Trustees of Colonial Realty Trust Company for a permit to construct an addition to an existing office building at JOHN M. ORAV. BR. ART„„R LA....... #10 Colonial Road, Salem, Massachusetts and for variances from the required side and rear set back provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. A hearing was held on May 27, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed, postage prepaid, to the petitioners, abutters, Board members and others, and pursuant to publication of this Appeal hearing in the Salem Evening News. . All Board members were present, except Mr. James H. Boulger. The petition was read and counsel for the petitioner gave the Board additional details, regarding the long range development background of the office building complex of which the proposed addition would make a part; details, regarding the specifications of the present office complex facilities; details of some of the projected engineered features and expenditures previously made on the present existing facilities for heat, electricity, water and sewerage, designed especially to accomodate the proposed addition; and counsel further discussed the fact that the petitioner would suffer a 'a*nancial hardship due to the loss of monies previously invested for this projected addition, the fact that the land is now no longer suited for any other use, since it has been committed to a development for office buildings and the fact that the long range development was commenced and tentatively approved, as a whole, prior to the enactment of the subsisting Zoning Ordi- ' nance, which makes the requested relief necessary. Nobody appeared to speak in opposition to the Petition at the hearing and it was ruled that the. matter be taken under advisement. Having now considered the matter, those members of the Board, having heard the matter, unanimously find on the facts presented: 1. That the denial of a permit and the requested variances would cause the Petitioner an undue financial loss and substantial hardship; 2. That the denial of a permit and requested variances would prevent the Petitioner from making full productive use of his land, which would be an undue and substantial hardship; 3. That the facts indicate there are special circumstances affecting the land in question, not affecting other parcels situated in the same Zoning District; • 4. That the granting of the requested permit and variances would not substantially derogate from the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, nor cause a substantial detriment to the Public good, but would in fact enhance the status-of the area in question and provide benefits to Public in the form of an improvement to the area and the City; increase( valuations and tax revenue. -1- WHEREFORE, the members of the Board unanimously voted to grant the requested permit and variances. APPEAL GRANTED r BOARD OF APPEAL • BY: a Clerk i I i �j 1 1 -2- h fit oftem ass iac u P� �j g $w3 VE 0 Jgoarb of �"ajy♦�y{.y��y¢p}aval � ` J l MAY i y 10 14 AM #90 DECISION ON PETITION OF THOMAS A. PS��],LIVAN, .T g�JILD wILLIhM F, gOO pTT WAREHOUSE AT 18-20 COMMERCIAL STRE , SALELE'M,'WA' S ICE ,A ,ER „. Ro„LaER SS. JOSEPH F. OOYLE . JOHN M. GRPY. GR. - PRTILH LASRECOVE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to construct a build- ing at this location as the lot is considerably undersize, and the proposed structure would not comply with the density requirements as specified by the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal and a hearing was held on this petition on April 22, 1968, pursuant to notices: mailed postpaid to the pe- titioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The 'Evening News, advising of this hearing. All Board Members were present at the hearing. The petitioner appeared and explained the plans and the purpose of the building. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal, mindful of the fact that this is an Industrial district in which -ructures for similar purposes are presently existing, and granting this appeal would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would not cause detriment to the public good. APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY ','Secretary. JT, I`l E� QjitUI of 5z,at assar11u5 It, � E��s j +, ��u r 3 57 Ph A8 Part gf Appal CITY April 8, 1968 CLG:'•�� ` GFfICE PM PGGG SALEM, MASS' JPMC6M. GOVLGGF DECISION ON PETITION OF HARRIET KOHN, 204 DERBY STREET To erect small addition to existing structure to obtain "r""R LPGAeGGVe additional storage and refrigeration space for store. On October jO, 1967, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a. permit to erect an addition to a building at this location which is an existing nonconforming use in an R-2 district zoned for two family residences, and a nonconforming structure with regard to density regulations. A Board of Appeal hearing was scheduled on this petition for November 27, 1967. On that da.te John R. Sera.fini, Counselor for petitioner, requested that the present application for a variance be continued until such time as a, new request for a. Special Permit to allow this construction, also filed November 27, 1967 ) could be heard. The next meeting of the Board was held on January 29 , 1968. All Board mem- bers were present a.t this hearing, with the exception of Mr. James Boulger who was unable to be present. The Board voted unanimously to continue this hearing pending receipt of additional information regarding disposition of a�urt case on a previous appeal of this petitioner, and an abutter. Hearing on this petition wa.s resumed on February 26, 1968. Appearing for the petitioner, Counselor Serafini stated that the granting of this permit would not derogate from the Ordinance or from the intent and purpose of the said law, and would not create any detriment to the public good; it is sim- ply to expand an existing use; at one time in the rear of the building there was a. v/ooden shed. Appearing in opposition, Nichola.s Decoulos, Counselor for Michael Bik an . abutter, stated that the variance granted by this Board on July 1, 1967, was void and of no effect; also, he introduced a consent decree, dated February 15, 1968, from the Superior Court in the ca.se of Michael Bik against the Appeal Board which is incorporated in this decision by reference . He further stated that Herbert Street, adjoining the premises in question, is a one-way street , and that trucks in order to make a: delivery to the prem- ises in question, . would have to park on Herbert ,Street, the proposed addi- tion would front on Herbert Street so it would be necessary for the trucks to use said street. At these hearings, the following facts were established to the Board' s sa.t- isfa.ction: 1. Decree from Court agreed to have bill dismissed, no pending action at j the Court. s That the particular use had been in existence on this parcel of land for a. number of years prior to the adoption of the new Zoning act. At one time there was an addition connected to the building, which addition had extended to the rear -lot-line , and this addition had been torn down 2 - • by the petitioner. The proposed new addition is simply to add a structure which would complement the already existing -building, and would replace the portion of the structure which had been torn down. i It was established that the neighborhood is a. commercial neighborhood, and that the petitioner has occupied the same location for many years, conduct- ing the same or similar type of business for all of this period of time . It was established to the satisfaction of the Board tha.t the property of the abutters would not be affected in any way in granting a. Special Permit to extend this nonconforming structure for a distance of approximately seven feet, in that originally this area had been occupied by a. structure which because of age had become unusable. It appeared to the satisfaction of the Board that this matter was a proper one for the granting of the Special Permit, and tha.t granting said permit would not in any way dero- gate from the intent of the applicable Zoning Ordinance, and would not in any way cause substantial detriment to the public good, and further that the granting of this permit would not substantially increase the size of the building itself, or the use therein. After due consideration the Board with four members present , the fifth mem- ber Mr. William F. Abbott being ill and unable to a.ttend, voted unanimously to grant the variance and the Special Permit �PPEAL GRANTED FOR VARIANCE 'AND SPECIAL PERMIT. BOARD OF APPEAL BY C Secret UO u� y o Y N � h " SILL, of5y y n PDFIYb of AppPttY k!Ia➢nnT"'r^ April 17, 1968 WILLIAM P. ADBOTT JAMCB N. DOVLOER ' JOBCPH F. DOYLE JOHN M. ORAY. BR. ARTHUR LAORECOVE Nicholas Decoulos, Esq. , I 12 Peabody Square , Peabody, Mass . Dear Mr. Decoulos: i In accordance with your telephoned request , this letter explains the reasons for your receiving the decision of the Board of Appeals on the Kohn petition on April 16, 1968. As this was a request for a "Special Permit" , the Statute requires •Frtification by the Chairman and the Clerk of the Appeals Board. The decision was filed with the City Clerk on the ninth, of April . The following day it wa.s taken by messenger to the home of the Clerk of the Board for his signature . A day or two later the Chairman of the Board was called and asked to drop in to the office and sign also. The 12th of the month 'was Good Friday, a half holiday in the City of Salem. The decisions were mailed on the next work day which was Monday, April 15.E Very truly yours, JFD:cc SEP F. DOYLE, C,derk " Copy to Att 'y. Serafini V • i THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ." _._ .....ctrr OR mwx �-- BOARD OF APPEALS April.._.9. .x............19 68 NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit t (GO"eral lawn Cluptee 40A,SecUon 18 as ammded) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted TO................FIARRIET.,KOHN-,.-••- Owner m Petitiontt Address........�04•-DERBY-- STREET City or Town.......BA], M-' lypSSACIiUSETTS,------ ..............•..•...I...................................................... ..........................2Q4...VEM.Y.—UREE-1....... ... -SALEM..........M�I .S,.... _... Identify L[nd Affected . ........................................................................... ... City by the•lown of............SAUN.y._1!JASS. rights of the owner with respect to the use of,;.premises on. Board of Appeals affecting the t 204 DERBY STREET . ..stred . _................ ................ SALEM the record title standing in the name of Cay or Town ,. .....--••---••--•....... .......•--._..........11AHJUE.,r–KOB1N.................. ......-•------ ' whose addiesa ia:....--•--••-$--WES')^--C-�RQDE----•--•------SATtRM--------------- MACC :.Street Cit1 of Towu ........•..••--"' SaN .......... it by a deed duly recorded in the----------------------- ------ County Registry of DeedsinBook -------•--..... Page................ Certificate No... -----------------------------------------------------Registry District of the Land Court ..... ...... .........Book ................Page................ The.decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No........ City in the office of the 4'ewwClerk......Axtgust.ine...,I.....T.onmey.*...city..iia11*...Sa1em..... Sighed this..b !....day of---------A.PJ.UL.......... 196 8. y Board of Appeals: .............. Chairman Board o7 ADDeela'..;� _r ? t . . ... --- --•- Board o< AD • ..Clerk ----•...................•..... ...........I... .19-------. at--------------o'clock and. ------ minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of...................... Book--..-............... Page....................... ATTEST Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Owner. FORM 1094 NOBBY h WARREN. INC., a[V�aaa cwa area a,¢.�aea l i<. IN I Offzi� Jaf "5'alrauy Alus5arflnuffi Pntzrb of �z1�rE�zl April 29, 1968 WiLllf�l.1 F. hU VOTT JM1M Cfl N. OOULGCR Jo�cFN r. oGv�e JOHN M. GrsAY, .^.R. ARTHUR tAURLCpVG ' Alfred A. Dobrosielski , Esq„ 7u Washington Street , Salem, Massachusetts Dear Al : The following case has been entered in Superior Court. Michael Bik, John Bik, and Stephen Bik against Salem Board of Appeals and Harriet Kohn, #17626. It was entered on April 25, 1968, Nicholas J. Decoulos , 12 Peab- ody Square ; Peabody, attorney for petitioners. It is an appeal from a de- �sion of the Board of Appeals. You will probably recollect that this ca.se was formerly before the Court, but by agreement it was returned to our Board. Please enter your appearance for the Board. John Serafini appears for Harriet Kohn, I am under the impression no written answer is required, . but please check on this. Very truly yours, n BOARD OF APPEAL, Secrptary'-- . „c,ow� t �T' Y � yb � �i� of ��tXEm �s�rze �t�Eifs Aoarbr of 'Appea1 EL REC 3 57 PM 69, April 9 , 1968 w:LLAM .. nflflflTPITY Ci. ;:; OFFICE nM=fl floflLflER SAttb1M3�MN ON PETITION OF WILLIAM B. DELANEY AND EUGENE GIROUARD, To remodel the premises at 245-247 Lafayette Street to provide o wu m cane. sR. offices for professional persons. nRTMUR Lnfl RLCOVE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a. permit to remodel an existing apartment building in an R-3 district , zoned for multi-family residence, to a professional office type of building. Petitioners appealed to the Board of Appeal, and a. hearing was held on this petition on February 26 , 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to peti- tioners, abutters, Board Members , and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News advising of this hua.ring. All Board members were present at this hearing excepting Mr. Abbott who was ill and unable to attend. Mr. William Delaney, Little ' s Point, Swampscott , one of the petitioners ap- peared and explained the plan. There are now eight apartments in this structure, and petitioners propose to remodel the building to provide offic- es for doctors , dentists, and lawyers. 1 o one appeared in opposition. After due- consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to deny this appeal as the proposed use is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance . APPEAL DENIED BOARD OF APPEAL BY Y.1' Secret2fry i of alExIT �p Yrlr 6 R,� P.ourb of', ppyWl 8 . 8 . 69 WILLIAM P. A BOOTT -JAMMB H. ROVLOGR JOO6PH P. OOYLG JOHNM. ORAY..9 R. ARTHUR I.AORGCOVG Honorable Edward F. Hennessey, Associate Justice Superior Court, Superior Court - Judges ' Lobby, Pemberton Square , Boston, Massachusetts Dear Judge Hennessey: As per your request in your interlocutory decree in the matter. of Michael Bik, ' et al , vs the Salem Board of Appeal , et al s , Superior Court Equity .No . 17626 , I am enclosing herewith a statement of the Board of �ppeal I have filed a copy with the Clerk' s office in Salem Superior Court, and have sent a copy to Counsel for the Biks . Trusting this furnishes you with the information desired, I remain Very truly yours , BO RD OF APPEALS, Secreta`r`y l , k ' uarb of tAy, I 8 . 1.3 . 69 WILLIHM I. gppOTT - JgMC9 N. pOVLOGR JOUGRN A. COVLC JOHN M. . GH. 'gRTHVRLgpRF.COVG Nicholas J . Decoulos , Esq.., 12 Peabody Square , Peabody, Massachusetts Dear Sir: Enclosed please find copy of amended decision which the Board has filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court . Very truly yours , iJJFD: cc /BOAR OF APPEALS,/Secretary #17626 Re : Petition , of Harriet Kohn Premises at 204 Derby Street , Salem, .Massachusetts This is in compliance with the order of Edward F.Henness y, Justice of the Superior Court , dated June 19 , 19.69 , in the above entitled matter. An examination of the records and notes in this matter makes clear that the intention of the Board was to grant a Speci 1 Permit, and not a variance, and the Court is hereby notified tha this was the intention of the Board in connection with this matter. Photographs. introduced before the Board at the time of the . ari,ous hearings on this matter show clearly that there existed prior to the application for a building permit , a structure on the area in question, which structure was an addition to an already existing brick building. The structure was substantial and per- manent and . had existed for many -years . The photographs show tha he structure covered approximately the same area as would be co - red by the proposed new structure , which appears on the plan ac ompanying the application for a building permit . The different eing merely that the new structure would blend in with the exist- ing xis -' ng building and would be of brick construction rather than the ooden and p.lastic ,eonstruction which existed at the time of thi earing. The area . covered would be approximately the same . The Board determined that the new structure would in ef- � . ect be - replacing an already existing structure with one that wa sthetically pleasing to the eye and would blend in to the alrea y xisting brick .building. At the last hearing before the Board, held on February 2( , 968 , it was determined that in reliance on a permit issued by the i uilding . Inspector, the structure which was on the premises and I i i #17626 ,• page 2 attached to the existing building and which had been in existenc for a number of years and which further, was to be replaced by th structure as shown on the plans , accompanying the application fo permit , had been torn down, preliminary to being replaced. It w subsequent to the tearing down of this structure by the Petition in reliance on the permit that had been issued, that it was dis covered that because of a failure to notify the abutters of the decision of the Board the permit. had to be revoked. There was no question in the minds of the Board that there was existing prior to this application for a permit , a structure which was permanently attached to an already existing • building and that this structure antedated the ordinance changes made in the City of Salem in 1965. The ordinance changes in zon- ing made this particular building a non-conforming building and the use a non-conforming use . The Board also personally examined the premises and the location and familiarized themselves with the area prior to the hearing. In addition to the facts above described the Board found as additional facts the following: That the particular use had been in existence on this par- cel a -cel of land for a number of years prior to the adoption of the new Zoning Acta At one time there was an addition connected to the uilding, which addition had extended to the rear lot line and this addition had been torn down by the petitioner as stated above . The proposed new addition is simply to add a structure hich would complement the already existing building, and would replace the portion of the structure which had been torn down. here was no intention to abandon or discontinue the non-oonform' n se or the non-conforming structure . It was_ .simply . to be replaced y the structure for which a Special Permit is sought . `.` #17626 :• page 3 It was established that the neighborhood is a commercial one , and that the petitioner has, occupied the same location for merry years , oonducting the same or similar type of business for all of this period of time . It was established to the sat.isfac- tion of the Board that the property of the abutters would not be affected in any way in granting a Special Permit , . in that Orig- inally this area had been occupied by a structure which because of age , appearance and other factors .was required to be replaced. It appeared to. the satisfaction of .the Board that this matter wa a proper one for the granting of the Special Permit ; and that granting said permit would not in any way derogate from the in- • tent of the applicable zoning ordinance , and would. not in any way cause substantial detriment to the public good, and further that the granting of. this: permit would not substantially increas . . the size of the b,uilding, i'tself, or the use therein nor would .it be an unreasonable extension of a non-conforming structure. and a nonconforming .use . The, Board found that to permit this construction re- quested it is not in any way unreasonable for in effect would enhance the neighborhood, the. proposed structure being architec- turally more pleasing to look at than the structure that had been there . And for all of these reasons it was voted unani- mously to grant a Special Permit . . C Z t r i i • RECEIVED Ctu of 't$tt1Em, assaChUSBttS ` # AuG V 9 z2 AM a oarb of eal 'U.rnm:F\iC . CITY OFFICE August 27, 1968 CAI CC WILLIAM P. A°OOT TSAL . M HASS. OHR DECISION ON PETITION OF MARVIN STERMAN TO INSTALL SIGNS AT JOBCPH P. DOYLE ^Q�j oMM M. ORgY. BR. 283 DERBY STREET. ' gRT"UR L4°RCCOVH The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit .to install signs at this location as the total area of the signs would exceed the area allowed by the City Zoning Ordinance. The front of this establishment is 34 '-7" and petitioner proposes to install a, double face illuminated horizontal sign, 4 ' x 81 , and to erect a. belt sign 4 ' x 30' . The City Zoning Ordinance permits one square foot of sign area. for each linear foot of frontage of the establishment. Petitioner appealed to the Board of appeal for a. variance from the a.pplica.- . tion of the Zoning Ordinance , and a hearing was held on this petition on August 19th, 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 the hearing. Petitioner appeared and ex- plained .one sign is to be on the face of the building, and the other is to be an overhanging sign. !After careful consideration of this appeal, the Board voted unanimously to grant petitioner leave to withdraw without prejudice. BOARD OF APPEAL I GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. BY /. / Secretary { i i I CZin� of �alem, : eluse# s February 8, 1968 IV I.LIAM F. AOOOTT JAMCS H. OOVLOGF JOSLPH F. OOY�E A IITMUR LAOFCCpVC Samuel E. 'Loll , Esq. , 256 Essex Street , Salem, Maks. Dear Mr. Zoll : Enclosed are two copies of the decision on the peti- tion of Thomas J. Beaulieu, and a notice of same which is to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds. When this has been recorded, please notify this Board the Book and Page . Very truly yours , JFD: cc BOARD OF APPEAL, Clerk I x V ,.opvey,,Vz RE C F I tV Of �55 AC 2t, Aa55aC4USdtS „r ""`s' Auc N 9 23 AM '6B Pourb of cAyyru1 CLE ;­,'6 OFFICE August 2'], 1968 W LLtAM , eRRon CITYSALEM MASS. ami° ". °oa °ER DECISION ON PETITION OF GENERAL OFFICE EQUIPMENT COMPANY �oEERM P. D.VLE FOR A SPECIAL PERMITTO TO OCCUPY PREMISES .AT 284 ESSEX STREET FOR BUSINESS PRESENTLY LOCATED AT 22 FEDERAL STREET. 4RTHVR LA°PCC°VE Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a Special Permit to occupy the premises at 284 Essex Street as a store for the display of office equipment as the company is forced to move from its present location a.t 22 Federal Street due to the Urban Renewal program. A hearing was held on this petition on August 19th9pursuant 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 hearing. Petitioner appeared and stated his case , the same a.s in the written appeal on file. No one ap- peared in .opposition. This is an R-3, multi family residence , district zoned a.s such in August f 1965 from a business district. After .ca.reful consideration, the Board ted unanimously to grant this appeal. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED BOARD OF/jAPPEAL BY SecretarV THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ...........:..—....................._.SA LE.r.t............................_..................... CITY OR TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS .AucusT...27................19 68 NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To.....................Gq GENERAL OFFICE EQUIPMENT COMPANY ...............••--------•----...---.. ----------------------.......---•---•--.......------•-------......................... Owner or Petitioner Address............ 2..FEDER.AL__STREET a City or Town...SALEM-,-__MASS. -------------------------••--------••-----.......----...----•---•--............................. .............................................UTIz.LD.jN.Q..AT 284..1 SSEX--STREET................ Identity Land Affected ....................................................................................................................................................... City by theTewa of..........................&AZ.tEX. Mb.SS.,•••____,_......._••__••_Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. ............... ESSEX STREET..................... SALEM....MASS...... ......... street City or Town the record title standing in the name of ....._........................•---•--...-•-•------......---...-•---.....---....---------------------------•-••-----------......................-- whoseaddress is---------------------........................................................................................................ Street City oe Town State by a deed duly recorded in the........................................County Registry of Deeds in Book ------------•--- Page................. .........................................• .........Registry District of the Land Court . Certificate No................. ................Book ................Page................ The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No....................... City in the office of the 'Pawn Clerk...........AUGUSTINE . T.00MEY. ....................... .. . .. Signed this.a2th....day of....AUGUST............................1968 Board of Appeals: ............... ............. . 1 YY..!. .!.. /.lL........ ./.�i....Chairman Boarf Appe. e /� l.ti,/-(l C_.`.Clerk / 13 .rd of APpeale Q ................................................19........ at.......Z-O'clo«!c///k and......................... --....minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of.......................................... • Book........................ Page........................ ATTEST ............................... Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Owner., FORM 1094 HOBBS 6 WARREN. INC.. RBVI&KO cewvrsR 212•1982 � t SON 27 `O 51 Poar} of \r.mr.o GTY5A ,O LE` SS. M,��AM P. AOROTi June 27 , 1968 JAMES R. OOULOER JO GEPM OOYLE DECISION ON PETITION OF HAIR FASHIONS, INC . , TO CONDUCT JONIV M. ORHY. 6R. ARTHUR LAORECOUE A HAIR DRESSING BUSINESS AT 299 ESSEX STREET. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to alter these premises for occupancy, by a. hair dressing business as this is an R-3 district , zoned for multi family residences . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for relief from the decision of the Building Inspector, and on June 24 , 1968 , a hearing wa.s held 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 hearing. Appearing for the petition- er were William Lawson, Treasurer, Alexander Pano , President , and Robin Ta.cciola , Vice President , all members of petitioner corporation, and all spoke in favor of granting this appeal . They stated that due to Urban Renewal they must relocate their business which has been opera.ting for twelve years at the present location on Front Street . P,unselor George Vallis , representing the Salem Redevelopment Authority, Poke in favor of granting this appeal to relocate this business , as it must be moved from its present location under the Urban Renewal Program. After due considera.tion the Board found that it would be a hardship to petitioners to deny this appeal , and a.s the new location is situa.ted among many other types of businesses , granting this appeal would cause no detriment to the public good and would not substantially deroga.te from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance . The Board voted unanimously to grant the appeal . BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY Secret ry r THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SALEM .......................................-.........I............. t � ciry ort TowH BOARD OF APPEALS ................... JUn?E.-z Z.......................196 8 NOTICE OF VARUNCE Conditional ®r Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To..--..HAIkZ--k ASZIz.QAC...-Z11�..................•---------------•-----............--.....--.........................---••--•-•- Owner or Petitioner Address--7..FR QNT_-.STREET.-----•--•........................................................................................•-- City or Town.--SALEM ........•.................................29.9..ES-$Frx- STREET----------........................-•----...---...................--.... Identify Land Affected ........................................................................................................................................................ City by the Tewa ef-------------------------- ....SALEM..------------.----..---.---Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. ?.9.9 STREET.................................................••SALEM............................................ Street City or Town the record title standing in the name of ...........................................................AIR FASHIN ..-INC . FRONT STREET SALEM............ ......... MASS.- whose address is------.J------------------------ Street City or Towu State by a deed duly recorded in the........................................County Registry of Deeds in Book ---------------- Page................. :...................................................Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No................. ................Book ................Page................ The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No....................... City AUGUSTINE J . TOOMEY m the office of the Tewn Clerk ..... .... . .. ...... .................... . ..... th Signed this..27.....day of...................SUNE...................196 8 Board of Appeals: (�� .......`----�,l j—z-..��, "/11.2:Z/!! :.........Claairman 1/ Board'of ADDeelqClerk Boer of ADD �- � e- . .............................................---19........ at...... ..--.o'clock and................................minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of..... ..................:................ Book........................ Page........................ ATTEST i Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Owner. FORM 1094 HOBBS & WARREN. INC., REVISED cHRPTER 311.1062 ,viuSviri L (I'A#u of "'Mem, �Mas5achusetts °nfpi, S Pnttrb of '�PVstt1 June 5 , 1968Ju G-, C2, IYIUAM R, AOOO IT JAM`6 "' "�"L6CR DECISION ON PETITION OF BARNETT FABRIC STORES, INC . , JO6`R" Y`E JOHN M. GRAAY, TO INSTALL SIGNS AT 181 ESSEX STREET. . 6R. % ART"VR L4ORLCOVC The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to install signs at this location, as the City Zoning Ordinance permits one square foot of sign area for. each linear foot of frontage of the establishment. The frontage of this establishment is thirty-five feet , and the total sign area would be ninety-six square feet . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal, and a. hearing was held on this petition on May 27, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, board members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. Mr. Arthur Portelance of the Leslie Sign Systems appeared for the peti- tioner and explained they want to block out an old sign and erect a new one and there would be no way to install a new sign unless the old one was blotted out . Counselor George Vallis appeared for the Salem Redevel- pment Authority in opposition to granting this appeal. Mr. Vallis stated the Authority is going to make a taking and a.cquire interest in real es- tate , and provision in their code says all signs must be uniform; also, it could be, if th.Ls petitioner were granted this appeal, it could increase the damages that the petitioner could collect from the Redevelopment Author- ity. The Counselor read a section from the provisions , relative to signs in the Zoning Ordinance pa.ssed by the City Council. Mr. Vallis also gave the dates the Redevelopment Authority was established and the Authority was notified by the City, and the Federal Government , that the project wa.s given the "go-ahea.d" . After careful consideration, Chairman John M. Gray, Sr. , and Board Member William Abbot voted to grant this appeal; Members Joseph F. Doyle and Ar- thur Labrecque voted to deny the appeal, with the result that the appeal is hereby denied a.s it did not have the required four votes. of approval . BOARD OF APPEAL PETITION DENIED BY :,.;�. L_JcA-u Secretaky /Cj iurt��Jl^ of "'�Mezm, �f:ll r nsr. WILLIAM P. AOO OTT OOVLOER DECISION ON PETITION OF LITWIN MOTOR COMPANY TO ERECT veep" P. pOVLE AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION AT 406 ESSEX STREET. ARTFIVP LA°RECOUE . The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addition to the existing service station at this location as it is presently a non- conforming use in this district and this would be an expansion of a non- conforming use. The petitioner appealed to . the Board of Appeal for a variance from the ap- plication of the City Zoning Ordinance, and a hearing was held on this pe- tition on November 18t' 1968, in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 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 stated the company needs a new showroom and office room, and they have only` a small waiting room, and the new addition would project twenty feet towards Essex Street ; he would like to install a new store front on the building; he further stated he employs nine persons at this service station. Samuel Zoll, an attorney appearing for Dorothea Lannon, an abutter, stated his client was not opposed as long as no determination was made as to .prop- erty lines. No one appeared in opposition. The Board found that the proposed addition would in no way derogate from the general character of the neighborhood, this business having been operated at' this location for a number of years and not to grant this 'appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner and that granting the appeal would not nullify nor derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal. BOARD �)OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY Secretary ` U.1 � V r � �N LLJ � g L tJ J J N r N 9 o V 11 P� uttrb of Appeal DECISION ON PETITION OF WILLIAM D. LITTLE TO PERMIT OCCUPANCY AT 76 FEDERAL STREET FOR REAL ESTATE OFFICE SUITE AND THREE o.=P� .. APARTMENTS. •RTMUR LAS=RCCOVC it Petitioner through his attorney, Michael J. Harrington, appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the application of the City Zoning Ordinance to permit occupancy of these premises for a real estate office suite and three apartments. A hearing was held on this petition on November 18th, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, Board Members, abutters, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All Board Members were present at thi hearing. At the request of Counselor Harrington, a decision on this appeal was post- poned to the next Board meeting which was held on December 16th. I The Board. found there was no hardship involved, this is a violation of the Zoning laws , and there were no plana presented, and voted unanimously to any this appeal. Od APPEAL DENIED BOARD OF APPEAL _ BY Secretary"/. T l li Cn S . LU J J V W V 0 I `T RECEo4 D CITItu of �ztlem, gassadjuutts � rn. 36 Poarb of ,r omcE wiLUAM F. AGGorr CITY CLL -ON ON PETITION OF ROSE WINER, TO ALTER PREMISES ,AMC6 „. Go�LoeR AT *;EDERAL STREET TO ALLOW OCCUPANCY BY REAL ESTATE BUSINESS ,o6CP„ P. OOYLC AND PROVIDE THREE APARTMENTS . JO„N M. GRNY. 6R. AD1.UR LAO RECOVG The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to allow altering the' structure at this location for use requested as this would be a nonconform- ing use in a residential district, and also, the building is- nonconforming with regard to density regulations of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. jCounselor Michael J . Harrington appealed in behalf of his client, Rose Winer + to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ord. finance, and a hearing was held on this petition on April 22, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, her attorney, abutters, Board. j members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News, ad- vising of this hearing. All Board members were present at the:'hearing. Counselor Harrington appearei for the petitioner and stated the general purpose of the petition. Ward Coun cilor John Butler asked to be recorded opposed to granting this appeal. Mr. Stephen Phillipsappeared and stated that as a member of the Board of the l + Essex Institute the only abutter) he opposed granting this request. A list I containing the signatures. of the following persons opposed to granting this appeal was read into the record: Daniel J. Foley 114 Federal Street Joan and James Bailey 120 Federal Street Joseph and Mary Hanley 111 Federal Street 1 Edna O'Dell 104 Federal Street Mary E. Cummings 3 Federal Court i Harold and Joanna Peabody 6 Federal Court Lester E. Pitman 103 Federal Street Joseph and Geraldine Cooney 20 Beckford Street i i Lucretia Burns 38 Washington Square,. owner of Property at 22 Beckford Street Counselor Harrington requested and was granted Leave to Withdraw, by unani- mous vote of the Board. '� y * LEAVE TO WITHDRAW GRANTED BOARD OF..1AP�,EAL�/ BY / Secretary ” YMrry �c�ivr� Chi#g of ovalem, 3 45 Pearb of cApyral l}fI]Y.Y CI_E;=�,,PE91MEON ON PETITION OF SEABOARD CHEMICAL COMPANY, wi"ITM T SAIEM, MCBSALTER THE PREMISES AT 30 FOSTER STREET TO PRO- ,AMERBOULDER VIDE ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE JOOCP" Y. OOVLG JOHN M. ORT V. 6R. ' ARTHUR LTRREGOVE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addition to an existing building at this location to provide office space, as this is an existing nonconforming use in a residential district, also, the pro- posed structure would be nonconforming with regard to the density require- ments of the City of. Salem Zoning Ordinance. Michael J. Harrington, Counsel for petitioner, appealed to the Board of Ap- peal and a hearing was held on this petition on April 220 1968, 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 hearing. All Board members were present at the hearing. Counselor Harrington app- eared and explained the petition to the Board, and also the plan showing the proposed alterations. Mr. James Ballou, architect, and Mr. Dee of the Seaboard Chemical Company appeared in favor. No one appeared in opposition. *fter due consideration the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal as this is an expansion of a business conducted for many years at this location, and to deny petitioner' s appeal would cause hardship to this growing business . BOARD /OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY Gf v Secretary y RECFZldttu of c c"im?� MC ZTdT11f-V""i5 ! r- OCT �I 8 4G AH 68 c .:rcl Tif Capjjral CCIT)( C FFICE October 3, 1968 - SALEM, HASS. AME' „. ooVEGER DECISION ON PETITION OF HARRY M. ANDREWS TO ERECT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING CAR WASH BUILDING AT REAR 4 FRANKLIN STREET 4RT„VR L40RECOUE ' The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addition to this building as it is presently a nonconforming use for the district, R-2, zoned for two family residences, and this would be an expansion of a nonconforming use. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal, and a hearing was held on this petition on September 23, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters , Board Members, and others, and advertibements pub- lished in The Evening News. In addition to Chairman Gray, Board Members Abbott , Boulger, Labrecque and Tanch were in attendance at this haa.ring, Members Doyle and Welch being un- Oe to attend. Petitioner appeared and stated this addition is necessary to expand his bus- iness and provide better service to his customers. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal on the grounds that to deny the petition would cause hardship to the peti, tioner, and to grant the appeal would not be detrimental to the public good, nor would it derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY Acting Secretary i Linz, EjtU Lr '�' zn; DECISION ON PETITION OF WILLIAM J . WILLIS FOR VARIANCE TO WILLI A:n G. AOO OTT CONVERT FIRST FLOOR PREMISES AT 46 HARBOR STREET TO PRO- VIDE R - VIDE TWO ADDITIONAL APARTMENTS. JOHN IA. GR4V. .^.R. A RTMVR LAVRECOVC ' The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to alter the first floor of a building at 46 Harbor Street' to provide two additional apart- ments because 'of nonconformity with the density requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. This is an R-3 district, zoned for multi-family resi- dences , and the Ordinance requires a 12,000 square foot lot area, 1000 square feet for each dwelling unit, with a front setback of fifteen feet , side yards of twenty feet , and a rear yard of thirty feet; the Ordinance also 35% lot coverage by all buildings. (Permits The existing building on the lot at 46 Harbor Street is within 1. 5 ' of the front boundary line, 1. 2 ' and 1. 6 ' respectively of the side boundary lines and the lot contains 3400 square feet. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the applica- tion of the Zoning Ordinance , and a hearing was held on this appeal on Nov- ember 18th 1968 in the Council Chamber, City Hall, pursuant to notices mailed ,maPostpaid to the petitioner, Board Members, abutters, and others, and adver- tisements published in The Evening News giving notice of this hearing. All Board Members were present at the hearing. Counselor John Crean of Pearl, McNiff and Crean appeared for the petitioner and stated the case the same as appears in the original petition, his cli- ent proposes to convert the first floor premises to provide two additional apartments. No one appeared in opposition. The . Board found that to grant this appeal would cause no .detriment to the public good and would not nullify nor derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and voted unanimously to grant this petition. BOARD OF APPEAL ao � APPEAL GRANTED M BY d Secretary N 1/ — hl o y„ v� O'> J N � U p J F— w� 4. U Qtt" ofSttlec $sttcse##s Y '' ; ♦ �varbi of ckypettl IfF�;;\m}.OJTT August 3, 1968 WILLIAM P. Ai100TT JAM EB X, BOVLOER JosEPlr P. oovLE DECISION ON PETITION OF S. WAYNE BELLEAU TO ERECT A SIX ^^ • BR. FOOT FENCE AT 24 HATHORNE STREET. ARTHUR LA...C.U. Mr. Belleau appealed directly to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the City Zoning Ordinance to permit the erection of a six-foot at the rear of -his property. The Ordinance permits a five foot fence in this district. ' A hearing was held on this petition on July 23, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News , advising of this hearing. All Board Members were present at the hearing. Mr. Belleau appeared and explained he hoped to be permitted to erect a. fence six feet in height for the protection of his children, and also to assure some degree of privacy as the rear yard opens onto Hathorne Court . No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration, the Board voted •unanimously to grant this appeal. APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY Secreta " I -- -_.-- „c'M U M).: OLTitU of Salem, as!5ttchttsette June 5, 1968 -7, C,�j c.” WILLIAM F. AOUOTT , JAM.°_"' °o°`o ER DECISION ON PETITION OF GEORGE AND PATRICIA MICHAUD J04CPry R. OOYIC Jo„„ M. DRAY. 6R. TO ERECT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON 'LOT "A” HEMEATLJAY ARTHUR LA°RCCOUC ROAD. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a. single family dwelling at this location as the lot is undersize in area and plot plan shows petitioner could not allow the thirty foot rear yard required by the City Zoning Ordinance . Michael Harrington, Counsel for petitioners , appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance to permit construction of this dwelling. A hear- ing was held on this appeal on May 27 , 1968 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioners , their attorney, abutters , board members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. Four Board members attended the hearing, the fifth member, Mr. James Boulger being confined to the hospital, and unable to be present . Counselor Harrington appeared and expldined the plan. No one appeared n opposition. After careful consideration, the four Board members present voted unani- mously to grant this appeal , being mindful of the fact that existing dwellings in this area. could not all meet density requirements of the present City Zoning Ordinance , and to deny this appeal would cause hard- ship 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. BOARD OF APPEAL PETITION GRANTED BY Secretar ^ RE Cs i�p �t l� of �$akra, !( >; APR 9 3 57 PH Paurzb of '�Aypal q . a000n CIT CL'-''!' j MASS, April 9, 1968 "L9H �� `� R DECISION ON PETITION OF OMER R. TALBOT AND GEORGE W. WEIL .,oscrH F, oov�e , o Trustees of Broadway Realty Trust , for Variance to erect ARTHUR LADRECOVE a. single family dwelling on land at 13 Hersey Street. George P. Vallis, Counselor for petitioners , appealed to the Board of Ap- peal for a variance to erect a single family dwelling at 13 Hersey Street , a lot containing 4900 square feet instead of the 5000 square feet required by the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance in this district . A hearing was held on this petition on February 26, 1968, pursuant to no- tices mailed postpaid to petitioners, their attorney, abutters , Board mem- bers, and others , and advertisements published in The Evening News, advis- ing of this hearing. All Board members were in attendance excepting Mr. Abbott who was ill and unable to be present . Counselor Vallis appeared for the petitioners and explained the -Locus. The parcel is located in an R-2 Zone and meets all of the Ordinance require- nts with the exception of the minimum lot area., this lot containing 100 et less than the required minimum. Mr. Vallis stated this is a direct petition to the Board, and if it is granted he will then go to the Inspec- tor of Buildings with plans of the proposed dwelling. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this variance. APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY c r; is Secret .ry i i RECE.IVFD Qilpitu of " calem' 'fflassaC4UBetts EP 92 37 PH V POttrb of Appent OFFICE CITY CLc�,r', September 9 , 1968 SALEM, MASS. DECISION ON PETITION OF VIRGINIA T. FLYNN TO ALTER PREMISES AT 84 HIGHLAND AVENUE TO PROVIDE OCCUPANCY BY JO"N M. GRAV.'°F. a RrNVR V,°..COOL DRUGSTORE. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to remodel the build- ing at this location to permit occupancy by a drugstore as this area is zoned for Multi family dwellings , an R-3 district . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the appli- cation of the City Zoning Ordinance . At a meeting of the Board held on August 19 , 1968 , a decision was reached on' this petition, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, her attorney, abutters , Board members , and others , and advertisements pub- lished in The Evening News advising of this appeal. All Board Members were present at the hearing. Counselor Robert D. Bowes appeared for the petitioner and stated the premises were formerly occupied by the late Dr. John G. Flynn, husband of the petitioner. He stated the 10,usiness was going to be strictly limited to drugs and used for a drugstore ; also , the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would impose a great hard- ship on the petitioner. Mr. James Garrity .appeared in favor. Appearing in opposition, Counselor Oliver Cook, 31 Milk Street , Boston, representing his client , Dr. John Belock, stated that to grant this petition would dero- gate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance a.s it is a highly conges- ted area , also , it would be contrary to public interest . After due considera.tion the Board voted unanimously to grant this petition to relieve a great hardship to the petitioner, and on the grounds that granting the appeal would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would not be detrimental to the public good. PETITION GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY v Secretary " �2Ctu af Am, Aasmr4usett5 Pourb of Citi June 5, 1868 �7o C117; '� w��IAM F. a000n ,AM"8 „. 0o"`G`R DECISION ON PETITION OF RICHARD E. McKEAGE M.D. ,oser„ r. oov�e f TO ERECT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AT . H„ CoA=CQU. 116 HIGHLAND AVENUE. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to construct this addition as this would be an expansion of an existing nonconforming use , and the Board of Appeal is the only authority who may grant such permits . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal, and a. hearing was held on this petition on May 27, 1968 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters , Board members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. Petitioner appeared and explained the plan, stating it would be a one floor addition in order that he and his associates could practice on one. level and eliminate hardship and danger to patients visiting this clinic . Ward Councillor John Butler appeared, to be recorded in favor of granting this appeal, also Mr. James Ballou, architect . No one ap- eared in opposition. i After careful consideration, the four Board members present voted unan- imously to grant this appeal, having in mind there are other medical of- fice buildings in the immediate vicinity, and granting this appeal would cause no detriment to the public good and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. BOARD OF APPEAL PETITION GRANTED - SPECIAL PERMIT BY e /c �7 Secret y " :n : RECE OCT 4G Ali D6� uttrb of � }zezc1 WLLiAMP AUU OTT CITY ULE r, :'>, uFF ICE October 3, 1968 SALEM. MASS. JNM CL H. OOULO CR ' �sR" ooL DECISION ON PETITION OF SAMEUL ROME TO ERECT AN ADDITION JO"" ". 1,RA.. sR. TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AT 272-274 HIGHLAND AVENUE ARTHUR LA�RCOOVE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to allow the construct= ion of an addition to a building at this location because of mnconformity with regard to density regulations of the City Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the applica- tion of the Zoning Ordinance , and a hearing was held on this petition on September 23, 1968 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members , and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. In addition to Chairman Gray, Members Boulger, Labrecque , Abbott and Tanch were in attendance at this hearing, members Doyle and Welch being unable to e present . Counselor John R.. Serafini appeared for the petitioner and stated the case the same as in the original petition. He further stated that petitioner operates an existing business a.t this location, known as TriCity Sales, and it is necessary to this business to enlarge the building to provide store- house facilities . No one appeared in opposition a.t this hearing. Leonard Cawley, ex-Councillor for this Ward, appeared at about 8:00 P.M. to oppose granting this petition, but this appeal had been hoard at 7:00 P.M. ,After due consideration the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal to relieve hardship to the petitioner, having in' mind that this district is zoned for Highway Business and there are numerous business establishments operating in the immediate vicinity,' the Board Members felt that to grant this appeal would cause no detriment to the public good, and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance . APPEAL GRANTED // BOeRD OF APPEAL Acting Secretary LT fEB 0 44 CIl TUU X:ilu IIf �tiJ�� �:� February 6 , 1965 E!TY C .'l " :jFFiGE SA _Ts, ,haSS. DrC 1- 6� A - On petiIi on of ! rare `/etmore to build six Town house apartments on Kimball Court , facing lloward Street . ' Tl,o Tnspector of Buildings refused to i. sun per!nit to erect those apart- ::n:nts because o_' tine rc ulaticns of the City Zoning Ordinance . This is an P-' district , zoned. :for two family residence's'. The Orcinancc rccluires 5no squaro feet of lot area for each dt:,elling unit or 25, 000 sc;ua.rc feet to accommodate existing -.hd proposed dwelling units on t;.is 11 , 6^,Ssnu;.re .foot lot ; si.dC yard requirement is ton feet , these would be seven Inches ; conr y rd reclllired is thirty feet and this would be two feet ; tie front lot width is 3j -S" and ;Should be 1101 ; there would be 14 ' bet,::een exist- -lie buildin', instead of required thirty feet ; also , lot coverage would be o b:_;<,, the Ordinance . permits n%3� .o coverage . petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for permission_ to erect these nnartments . A hearing was hold on this petition on January 29 , 1965, pur- suant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters , Board me.^..hers,, and others , and adve-rtiseiients published in The Evening news . All Board members attended the hearing with „hc exception of Mr. I:;oul>er foo was unable to be present . Councillor Joseph B. 011iecfe of this 'r;ard, esented a letter voicing his opposition to granting this permit , stat- im, "the neighborhood is too congested. In addition, I feel - hat the fire Department would have a difficult time in laddering the building in the event of a fire" . Petitioner appeared at the hearing and presented pictures of houses in other towns which are similar to the Town House apa.rtments whicn he would like to construct on Kimball Court . ne further stated he had owned this property for thirty years . lie presented a petition signed by persons in favor. 1?ol,,- ever, later in the hearing it appeared that after full investigation, they had decided to oppose the petition. Appearing in opposition were Mr. Arthur Ja.nnell , Mr. and Mrs . Albert Dock- ham, ".r. and Mrs . Norris Dozois , Mr. Philip Koklas , Mrs . Beechey, ?Irs. ki- ns , Mrs . Dowman, and Mr. Milewski all owners or residents of abutting propert-les . Councillor John Bur'..e `.wished to be recorded opaoscd. ?tier due consideration Thereof, the Board voted unanimously to deny ..__is petition on the grounds there is no hardship involved , _.:d o „r..nc his arineal would dero.;ate from the intent and purpose of th:3 0rdinnncc , and 10ould A detrimental to the public good. ..PPLAT DENIED - BO:'.I'D OI` :?I'i".: ,,T �: Cie« RE CF a MAY 1 10 14 AM '68 narb of :�pyral fffl� INS FjtrETITION OF FRANK H. WETMORE TO ERECT FOT9WLM1M5S9USE STYLE APARTMENTS ON KIMBALL COURT AM 66 H. 6o LG6R WITH FRONTAGE AT 8 HOWARD STREET. Jo9LPH F. COYLC ' JOHN M. GR^V. 6R. ARTHUR L^°RCCOVC The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect these apart- ments as this is an R-2 district, zoned for' two family residences , and also, becauee petitioner' s lot is undersize and does not comply with the I density requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the appli- cation of the Zoning Ordinance to permit this construction, and a hearing was held on this appeal on April 22, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed post- paid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertise- ments published in The Evening News advising of this hearing. All Board members were present at the hearing. Mr. Wetmore appeared and explained his plan, claiming a hardship. He stated he owns the property at 8 Howard Street and told of the investment he had made there . Appearing in opposition to granting this appeal were Russell Lebel, 3 Williams Street, Mrs . Albert .Dockum, 2 Kimball Court, Philip Kokelas, 2 Brown Street, Mrs.. Sarah Beechey, 2 Brown Street, and Mr. and Mrs. Norris Dozois, also of Kim ball Court. A letter written by Mr. Dozois explaining his opposition was read into the record. All of these people own or reside in abutting prop- erty. The following City Councillors wished to be recorded in, opposition to granting this petition to install four additional apartment units : Councillor John Butler Councillor Joseph Ingemi Councillor John Burke '. Councillor James Dolan Councillor Joseph O'Keefe Councillor Bruce McLaughlin James Brennan, Chief of the Salem Fire Department, submitted 'a letter to the Board voicin his opposition. John Tull Marshall of the Salem Police g'. PP Ys Department stated he was opposed to granting this appeal because of the traffic problem involved. After due consideration thereof, the Board, voted to deny this appeal on the grounds there is no hardship, and granting this appeal would derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and would be detrimental to the public good, because of serious traffic and safety problems that would be created. APPEAL DENIED BOARD OF APPEAL BY ' .�'%' 61 Secretary " • I } `UAU,L 1 Pourb of cAyyral August , 1968 WILLI4M V. AOOO TT JAMC6 H. OOULOER DECISION ON PETITION OF THOMAS BEAULIEU TO INSTALL A ART"VR L/1O RECOV¢ SWIMMING POOL AT 23 IRVING STREET. ART Mr. Beaulieu appealed directly to the Board of Appeal for a. Special Permit to allow the installation of a portable swimming pool 18 ' x 36 ' at 23 Irving Street . A hearing was held on this petition on July 23, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News, advising of this hearing. All Board Members were present at the hearing. Petitioner appeared and ex- plained his case to the Board. He has seven children and can not spare the time from his work as a. service station operator to take them to the local beaches; if he were permitted to install a. pool in his yard it would relieve a considerable hardship on his family and provide protective supervision for them. one appeared in opposition. ter due consideration,. the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal with the condition that all local and/or state regulations are observed, including the Zoning requirements and Special requirements under Section 273 of the City Building Code, also, all requirements of the Electrical and Health departments. BOARD OF�LAPEAL SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTEDWITH CONDITIONS. BY �� ? v/ Z Secretarf Copy of Zoning and Building Requirements attached to Petitioner' s copy. THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SALEM ..................................................................................................... c1n ort rowH BOARD OF APPEALS .......................AUGUST.. 2...............19 68 NOTICE OF VARUNCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To.........MORA$..BEAULIEU.................................................... Owner or Petitioner Address....23 IRVING STREET ..............................................................•--...............................................---•---•--............ City or Town.......SALEM-,. MASS. .................................... cl•_area;••of dwelling'•..occupied.bv petitioner..... . . ........ . Identify Land Affeeted ....................................................................................................................................................... City by the Town-,of.................................. ...........................................ALEMBoard of Appeals affecting the i rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. .;?.3._IRVING•_STREET ... T.................... .....................•--•SALEM............-.......- • .• Street . City or Town the record title standing in the name of ............tiIAZC..1 A7 dCA1[S1CX.....................................................................................:.................. whose address is......AEVEI;EAUX_•AVENUE•-••••-------------SALEM.•.•--•-------- - MASS. Street City or Tow. State by a deed duly recorded in the....E$.$EX--SOUTH County Registry of Deeds in Book ................ Page.... ..........--..................Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No. ..Book ................Page................ The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No....................... City in the office of the XQwn,Clerk.....AU.GUSTZNE...J....-T.OQMEY.................................................. Signed this..2xtd...day of..............A.V.GU T...................196 8 Board of Appeals: 1 .......... ........ .. ........ ------ �1.? i LLQ -<,,.Chairman I)pard of AP e6 . .......' °'Boar --� .. Clerk Board of ApDeole .....................19........ at..............o'clock and................................minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of.......................................... Book........................ Page........................ ATTEST ' ........................................................................... Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Owner. PORM 1094 HOODS & WARREN. INC., Hevl9cn CHAPTER 212.1962 Otu of , assay nze#ts 29varb IIf �Fpral m15 11**, June 5, 1968 WILLIRM P. 40ElOTT , JhM L6.N. OOVLO EF ' JOS@vN v, OOYLC DECISION ON PETITION OF ZION REALTY TRUST, ALAN R. ZION, TRUSTEE, TO CONSTRUCT A NEW BUFFING BOX AND A PERMIT TO INSTALL A SAFETY ACID TANK AT IRVING AND PHILLIPS STREETS Hearings on this petition had been continued several times awaiting a plot plan and working plans showing proposed installations. On May 27 , 1968, hearing was resumed, with four Board Members in attendance, Mr. James Boulger, the fifth member, in the h'ospita.l and unable to attend. Mr. Generalas an officer of the company appeared and explained the proposed location of the buffing box and the location of an acid tank for storing sulphuric acid. Ward Councillor George McCabe spoke for many constituents. who want to make sure this business is not extended. They feel they have been discriminated against , and are very much opposed to the acid tank installation. Letters were read from Bessie M. Dorman, co-owner of a. dwelling at 4 Phillips Street , Wtbutting this property, protesting granting this appeal. Louis Levesque , an- her abutter, stated the tank should be put inside the building. Edward Freeman and Francis Bates who reside in this neighbrohood stated their op- position to granting this appeal. After careful consideration of all information gathered at this and pre- vious hearings , the four Board members voted unanimously to deny this ap- peal ,feeling it would be detrimental to the public good and would derogate from .the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance if the petition were granted, and further they found no hardship to the petitioner existed. BOARD OF APPEAL PETITION DENIED BY ecretary ` Ctu of Sttlem, tt�s � lzse##s 31 PM Pourb of c pyeal CST iALEM MAS$FICE wLL,gM R. AOq august z, 1968 JAMMU H. OOVLOCR DECISION ON PETITION OF NORTH SHORE WASTE PAPER COMPANY, JOHN M. OKAY. M. ggT"V R,IAORE COU. ,. Petitioner appealed to the Building Inspector for a permit to erect an addi- tion to an existing building at 53 Jefferson Avenue and was refused said per- mit as his plan showed that he could not allow the required distance to the side boundary fines as specified by the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance . A hearing was held on this petition on July 23, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News advising of this hearing. All Board members were present at the hearing. Herbert Gold, an official of petitioning .company appeared with his contra.ctor, . Richard Walsh of Bev- erly, and they stated the case. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to have peti tioner present two complete sets of plans and a plot plan to. the Building Inspector, and no permit is to be issued until these are received and are- approved byhim. j The Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal with this condition. I BOARD OF APPEj APPEAL GRANTED n BY Secret i j I cccrtr Ctv of �, l June 27 , 1968 , N'ILl4A1 F. M1UOJTT JhMC3 N. OOVLGEP DECISION ON PETITION OF HENRY LE BLANC TO OPERATE JOHN M. G 1, RTHUP L DRZCQUE A LUNCHROOM AT 61 JEFFERSON AVENUE At a. continued hearing on this petition held on June 24 , 1968, petitioner was granted leave to withdraw without prejudice . I- LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE BOARD OF APPEAL BY ' Secretary RE C Ctu of '�5�alem' 'Massn djusetts 3 44 FEB �aarb of '4ywl February ;K, 1968 CITY CL�_l OFFICE 11111.,11 1. 1...TT SALEM, -SASS, DECISION - On petition of Lionel J. Bouchard to erect an addition to an existing service station at 110 Jef- ferson Avenue, an extension of an existing non conform- ing use in an P-1 district , zoned for single family residences ; also, 'requests variance as to required set- backs of Zoning Ordinance . A hearing was held on this petition on November 27, 1967, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitionero abutters, boa.rd .members , and others , and to advertisements published in The Evening News advising of this appeal. All board members were present at this hearing. Petitioner appeared and stated he needs more floor space . Robert beirne of tne New England Power Company, 1101 Turnpike Street, North Andover, mass. , appeared and stated his company has no objection. board voted to continue this hearing and to advise petitioner to bring in plans showing the proposed alterations. Hearing was resumed on this appeal on January 29, 1968 , notices naving been mailed to same persons notified of first hearing. Board members present included all but Mr. Boulger who was unable to attend. Petition- er appeared and stated the proposed addition was needed in order to prop- 0rly conduct his business. Officer Frank Wrigley, police officer on the eat , stated he personally was acquainted with the plan, and wished to . be recorded in favor. He further stated the petitioner was of great assis- tance to the Police Department in storing cars which had been illegally parked. Appearing in opposition Mr. John Burke , officer of the Colonial Realty Trust, who conducts a business in the vicinity, and who is also the Building Inspector for the 'town of Swampscott. A Mrs. Fielding, president and treasurer of the Titus Furniture Company, also in the vicinity, wished to be recorded opposed. After due consideration thereof the Board voted unanimously to grant peti- tioner a Special Permit. APPEAL' GRANTED BOARD OF APPY-AL BY ClerkV J u �z�ez , •, _.:, _. Poarb of '�Avpral —11111IAo ..UC THE ENCLOSED NOTICE OF VARIANCE GRANTED BY THE BOARD OF APPEAL OF THE CITY OF SALEM IS TO BE RECORDED BY THE LAND OWNER AT THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS . AFTER RECORDING, KINDLY NOTIFY THIS OFFICE OF 'THE BOOK AND PAGE. • i C.......... `}` ,;,,,• tU of �alera, ns5adjuse##s �tl r 4 �A2tYit IIi ��7�,iPtTt >. A000 April 29, 1968 Alfred A. Dobrosielski, Esq. , 70 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts Dear Al : Re - George J. and Ruth E. Burke, Trustees of Colonial Realty Trust , against Lionel J. Bouchard and Members of the Salem Board of Appeals . As I stated in my letter of April 17, 1968, this is case #91, Jury- waived at Lawrence for Thursday, May 2, 1968, Bezore Judge Hale. Attorney for plaintiff is R. 0. Johnson, Colonial Road, Salem. Timothy J. Davern �f 221 Essex Street , Salem, is the attorney for Lionel Bouchard. You may want to contact him as his interest is perhaps identical with yours. Very truly yours, B0112D OF APPEAL, Sebretary • o IIcTIETTi� c`CSSfTLLIES :w Ia.u9 AH :69curb of �Fpral .JUN 26 ...::, OFFICE June 28 , 1968 WLLAM a. ARR OTT FI ; :SALEM, MAS S.'.�'� JAMCR N. ROVLOLR J. JOSEPH F. OOYLC JOHN M. GRAY. RR. DECISION ON .PETITION OF ROBERT JALBERT TO ALTER THE PRTNVR LAO RGCOVL PREMISES AT 199 JEFFERSON AVENUE TO PROVIDE OCCUPAN- CY FOR A SUBMARINE SANDWICH SHOP. ' The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to allow these nec- essary alterations for operation of a submarine sandwich shop, as this would be a nonconforming use in this district which the City Zoning Ord- inance has designa.ted an R-3 zone , or multi family residence district . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a. Special Permit to allow such occupancy . A hearing was held on this petition on June 24 ,1968 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters , Board Members , owner of record, and others , and advertisements published in The Evening News advising of this appeal . All Board Members were present at this hearing. Counselor Francis Gerry of 10 Chestnut Street , Peabody, appeared for the petitioner. Counselor Wta.ted this ha.s always been occupied as a place of business ; his client , r. Jalbert , lives only a short distance from this location where the shop is to be located, and is under contract with Lena., Inc . , who will furnish certain foods . After careful consideration, the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal having in mind that prior to the adoption to the present Zoning Ordinance in August , 1965 , this a.rea. had been zoned for business purposes , and granting a Special Permit to allow the occupancy of a. submarine sand- wich shop would cause na detriment to the public good and would not sub- stantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance . BOARD OF APPEAL C BY 'l APPEAL GRANTED �/ S cretary, • THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS .............................................SALEM................................................. Cl v OR Town ,• BOARD OF APPEALS ......................JUNE 28l..................19 68 NOTICE OF VARIANCE . Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To.......................R OBE RT-_JALBERT •................................................................................•...--.-..--..........• Owner or Petitioner Address...............32.1..J F.EZ?S-QN...AVENUE..-------••............................_...--...........---...•........... Cityor Town......SAT✓EZ1.t-..MAS.Sx............................................................................................... ...-:...•.--.•.....•................................•....19.9--,JEFFLF-S QN--AVB.0T1F...............--.............................. Identity Land Affected . ....................................................................................................................................-.................. City bythe Town,9f.............. ALEM•••••-••••••••••-------------------•--••.---------..Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. 199..JEFFERSON- AVENUE SALEM,.... MASS. ................................ ........... street City or Town the record title standing in the name of BERT, E-. AND-•VIRGINIA•_STANLEY -------------------------------•--•----------................---------........---........ whose address is.....26--.UQ-UQ-T..aQA,D.................MAI?73.LFMEAR...................... P14S- ......--.-. Street City or Town State by a deed duly recorded in the........................................County Registry of Deeds in Book ............... Page................. ....................................................Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No................. ................Book ................Page................ The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No----------------------- City in the office of the TowarCleIk...... AUGUSTINE J. TOOMEY Signed this...R.8t Aay of.................JUNE.....................196 8 Board of Appeals: ........ .....> 4 �c:.1.1./...-_G/-/-LL1L . -4'/4;- Chairman I Board of Appeals � ....... L:. —f k .....� .... Clerk Board of Appeal. •----------•....................................19-------- at......... ....o'clock and------..........................minutes --..M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of........................:................. Book........................ Page........................ ATTEST � ............................................................................ Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded .by Land Owner. FORM 1094 HOBBS & WARREN. INC.. REVISED CHAPTER aun962 RECD! 'Otg of ,k5� aleM, OCT 8 46 All V ,' �u�xrN of c�ppet�1 CITY i ._ ; 'OFFICE October 3, 1968 WILLIAM F. ARROTT SALEM• MASS. - JHM C9 N. ROVLGER J°,ERN �. °oVLE DECISION ON PETITION OF MICHAEL BULYGA TO INSTALL A SWIMMING J°"" M. ORAY. 9R. POOL AT 414 JEFFERSON AVENUE . ARTHUR LFOR@COVE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to install a swimming pool at this location, advising petitioner that according to the City Zon- ing Ordinance , the Board of Appeals alone has . the authority to allow such installations. Petitioner appealed to this Board. and a hearing was held on this petition on September 23, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, ) abutters, Board Members , and others , and advertisements published in The Evening News. Board Members in attendance at this hearing, in addition to Chairman Gray, included Mr. Boulger, Mr. Abbott , Mr. Tanch, and Mr. Labrecque , Members Doyle and Welch being unable to be present . rtrs . Bulyga appeared with the builder whom she has retained for the proposed installation. Petitioner stated the case the same as in the original appeal, stating further, she hoped to be allowed to have the pool installed to pro- vide healthful relaxation and enjoyment for her family. No one appeared in opposition. After ,due consideration the Board voted uanimously to grant a. Special Permit to this petitioner to install a swimming pool at this location as requested, providing that all State and City Regulations are complied with. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY Acting Secretary THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS S A L E M ................................................................................................................. Cl"OR TOWN RECEIVED BOARD OF APPEALS OCT 8 47 aM '68 CITYSALEM, HASSFICE sLPTEMBER..•3Q.....................19 68 NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To..........MI.Q.UALL..D.U. GA............................................:..................................................•...... Owner or Petitioner Address-4I?!_JEFFERSON•AVENUE•---•••-•••••-••••-•, Cityor Town...�AL Ma-•----•..................•---...--•---_...-----........................--•---...---••---•--...-.....•.........-. 414 ' JEFF RSON AVENUE Identity Land Affected .............................•-.--..-...--.......-.......---....-...--.-......-:...........--.--.................-.-...-..-......--..--.........•...-.. City by the Town of........SA.LEM..........................................................Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on, 4-1?+.-JFFFFRob- AVENI?R.............................••--•--.-..-.- ............................. street Cit?or Town the record title standing in the name of .....................................................MIU EL. BUuaoY .....................---•--------......------..-...-............ whose address is..................... 4.1.4...azuLlISm-..A.ux. l.--•-•----..aA7. R.........MASS,...... Street City or Town State by a deed duly recorded in the...........---SS.SEX.............County Registry of Deeds in Book ................ Page................. .....................................................Registry District of the Land Court. Certificate No................. ................Book ................Page................ The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No....................... City in the office of the Town Clerk..........AUQ!$TIN.L.- %...TQOMEX............................................. Signed this..304- ...day of.......SGPTSkIASR...................196 8 Board of Appeals: ///� .........-- l.'I�-?21- /.`J.- '�-"� `�2-Chairman -• Boerd of ADDea1� . . l ........ <snrl-- .--GCS 75�-- CC J --------------------- --•`Clerk` / Board of Appeals .................................................19........ at..............o'clock and................................minutes .---M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of------------------------------------------ Book........................ Page......--------.....--..- / ATTEST ....................... . . . . ..........................:............ - _ Register o/ Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Owner. /ORM 1094 HOBBS 81 WARREN, INC.. R6v15aO CNawTaR 211.1962 RECEIVE D U it1 IIM�Ptlt, "�ul�T$$�CEILt$P $ Auc N 9 22 AM '68 Pourb of �ypraj August 26, 1968 CITY CLE:Ri�''S OFFICE . qM`o �PeOULO A SALEM. MASS. IJOSCPM F. DOYLE JOHN M. ORAY. DECISION ON PETITION OF PETER LA BONTE, 242 LAFAYETTE AArILA I FA....DUE STREET, TO ERECT AN ADDITION AND ALTER THE PREMISES TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APARTMENT. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addition to the building at this address as this is an existing nonconforming use in a district zoned for multi-family residences since petitioner operates a television repair service on these premises; also, petitioner proposes to install a new kitchen and ba.throom on the first floor and rent the exist- ing second floor apa.rtment. A hearing was held on this petition on August 19th 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. Petitioner appeared and stated he has been in business for eighteen years and bought this proper- •ty eight years ago. Counselor William Evans, representing Mr. and Mrs. Clayton Gardner, 238- Lafayette Street, abutters, appeared and sta.ted that 1 while his clients did not oppose the petition, but hoped that if the ap- peal were granted it would be with certain qualifications. No one ap pea.red in opposition. { After due consideration, the Board having in mind tha.t petitioner now uses the first floor kitchen for storage space and needs more storage room, and to prevent further hardship in conducting this business, voted unanimously to grant this appeal with the following conditions: 11I 1. There is to be no change in the present mode of business. l 2. There are to be no signs erected. 1 3• Title to the business is to remain in the name of the petitioner, otherwise the permit will terminate and the variance will be auto- matically revoked. BOARD OF APPEAL i PETITION GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS. f BY j ✓ Secretary I i 1 . I THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SALEM CITY OR TOWN • BOARD OF APPEALS ...........AUGUST-.z. 7.y................. 1968 NOTICE OF VARUNCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted TO..................... ETER LA BONTE ...•..................•---------.......-•-•---•--..............................--............-- Owner or Pttitionrr Address.............2 4 2_•LAFAYETTE•_ STREET ......................•---•----•.••-----...........------.......................... City or Town..- SALEMs... ASS,-.•....... j?ILP1rG.-PN.-LAr?D-,AT 242--LAFAYETTE...STREET................. Identity Land AKee ted ................-----..................................................................----.............................................---.-•-....---. City by the Tewtrof..............SALEkI.,---MASS....................................Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. 2k2...1 fkE9YETTE..STREET ..............................................HALEM4--MASS.---.........------- ' Street City or Town • the record title standing in the name of ...................PETER••LA BONTE •----•-•---------•----------------------•---......0.0................................. whose address is----------242...LAFAYETT1-_STREET•_-----CITY--OF•-SALEM. .MA SS---------- Street City or Town by a deed duly recorded in the......E.$.-UX••SOUTH-•...__County" Registry of Deeds in Book ............ Page................. ................... .............--...Registry District of the Land Court . Certificate No................. ................Book ................Page.....:.......... The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No.......:.............. . City in the office of the Town Clerk..........AU.Cc17S.T.INE...j7.% TOOMEY............................................... Signed this...2.V--day of......AVJQAlST.............................1968 Board of Appeals: �y d..Chairman Board of Appeal /� / 06 Z-Z Clerk Board o[ Appeal, 19-... at-------V...o'clock and................................minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of................................... . Book..................... Page........................ ATTEST .0....... ........... Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Owner.. PoRM 1094 HOBBS a WARREN. INC.. REVISED CHAPTER 321•1462 s ` �•. RECE1119aU of \ ttXem, tts� c tt e## ff AuG 2 3 31 PM '60 ?3uttrb of Appeal '• k'°unet oo=' CITY ii CLF,:'': OFFICE August 2, 1968 SALEM, MASS. JAM 6B M. t)OVLOER ' DECISION ON PETITION OF ALFRED J. THIBAULT TO OPERATE .RAY. R. A CERAMIC STUDIO IN HIS GARAGE AT 3011LAPAYETTE STREET. hFT"VR LAt3 RECOVE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to allow petitioner to alter his garage to provide occupancy for a. ceramic studio as this district is zoned for multi-family residences, and a business operation would be a. nonconforming use for this area.. Petitioner appealed to the Board for permission to utilize the garage at this location for this purpose and a hearing was held, on this petition on July 23, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abut- ters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News, advising of this hearing. All Board Members were present at the hearing. Petitioner appeared with his wife Priscilla , and they explained the case to the Board, stating they pro- posed to conduct a. small class in ceramics, there will be no exhaust fumes, and they intent using electric ovens. Peter Saharis and Edward Norton, both abutters, appeared at the hearing. *After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this petition with the following conditions: 1. Attendance is to be limited to ten students. 2. Two means of egress to the outside must be provided. 3. Plans must be submitted to and approved by Mr. O'Brien, the Building Inspector, and all work carried out to his satisfaction. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS. BOARD OF APPEAL BY Y n Secreta. `` 'a THE COMMONWEALTH.OF MASSACHUSETTS SALEM .... ................................................................... CM OR TOWN RECEIVED BOARD OF APPEALS Auc 2 3 31 PM '.68 CITY CLEFT 'S OFFICE ..............August..2x...................... 196$ SALEM. MASS. NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A.Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To.......ALrFREA.:Lr..THIBAULT............................................................................................... Owner or Petitioner - - Address....3.01__ LAFAYETTE__STREET ... .................. Cityor Town....... SALEM.............................................................................................................. ........................ ..AT..3-U 1:L LAFAYETTE.•S.TR.EET................................ Identity Land ABected SAITM-r...MASS.............................................................. City by the T.Qwn........................SALEM...........................................Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on ......... U1'�__LAFAYETTE__STREET.........................................SALEM . ........................................ street City or Town the record title standing in the name of .................ALF11rP.. F r...AND••PRISCILLA•A.--THIBAULT::................................................ whose address is.........301,_LAFAYETTR TE STREET SALEM MASS. Street City or Tow. State by a deed duly recorded in the.....Essex .. .South.....County Registry of Deeds in Book . ..... ................ Page................. ....................................................Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No.................. ................Book................:Page................ The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No....................... City in the office of the Tamt-Clerk........AV.WU.;QNE..:�7.,.-TOOMEY...................................... Signed this...?P.d--day of............ UGUST•.__•-••._._.._-•----196 8/ Board of Appeals: . c ✓ !11.---..Chairman ' - - - Board otAppeelc `� ............ .. :.f ...:` .......-. -... ef---------Clerk // Board of Appe.j. ................................................19........ at..............o'clock and................................minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the. County of.......................................... • Book........................ Page.................... ATTEST ............................................................................ Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Owner. . •ORM 1094 HOBBS d WARREN. INC.. R[Vu[n eNw�r[R a.a•loea ,u,m LL����YY itu of ' x5 TTTy �T RC1 LYaP 3 ^ 54 nrb of cAPE1 9 3 -� Y CI.F OF'fiCE April 9 , 1968 CIT ''" WILLIAM P. 4000 TT SAL MASS. AM=s oo Lo=R DECISION ON PETITION OF BLAKE BROS. COMPANY, ,o3�Pl. P. oo.LE o„ M. oRAY. sa. To install sign at 331 Lafayette Street. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to install a sign at this location as the Zoning Ordinance allows one square foot of sign area to each linear foot of frontage of the establishment. Frontage of the es- tablishment is twenty-eight feet, and the proposed sign would be in excess of this. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance to permit this installation. A hearing was held on this petition on February 26, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Mem- bers, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News advising of this hearing. All Board members were present at the hearing with the exception of Mr. Wil- liam Abbott who was ill and unable to attend. jr. Richard Guthrie, 1855 Boston Road, North Wilbraham, attorney for peti- oner appeared and explained the purpose of the sign, stating it would be a. stock sign. Mr. Neary, a neighbor, appeared but did not wish to be record- ed as opposed. After due consideration thereof the Board voted unanimously to grant this ap- peal as this is a. B-1 district zoned for Neighborhood Business and the prem- ises are to be occupied as a. restaurant , further there are other signs in the immediate vicinity for other businesses . VARIANCE GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY ,.4 'C �/ Secretary V Y� n __ c�lvro (fits of 9ttlem, tt�srzcl�zzse##s pp O •_l4 '6V Pourb of �ppral Y CLLii"•' OFFICE June 27 , 1968 WLLiAM >. .RR°S ALEMI MASS. I JAME9 ". OOVLO ER DECISION ON PETITION OF IDA M. TALBOT TO ERECT DUPLEX DWELLINGS ON LOTS W AND X, Y AND Z LAURENT ROAD also Rr"ORLA°RE`° ` known as Horton Road� On Monday, June 24, 1968 , a. continued hearing was held on the application of the above named Ida M. Talbot requesting a. variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance relative to lot size requirement , setback require- ments and frontage requirements . At the hearing held on the above described petition, further evidence was introduced by the petitioner indicating the proposed type of construction, indicating the location of the buildings , and further indicating the pro- posed development of the roadway, together with the utilities . Examination of the facts of the situation indicate that this area was zoned a.s an R-3 zone in 1965 , and as a result , there was insufficient area left in the lots as they existed to permit the construction of any building in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning law. It was felt that if petitioner combined the lots as shown on the plan sub- tted and by granting the variance requested, that he could then make use the property without in any way affecting or derogating from the intent of the Zoning Ordinance , having in mind that the zone is an R-3 zone . The petitioner indicated that he wished to construct duplex dwellings on both sides of Laurent Road as it appears on the plan submitted with the ap- plication. Further, the intention of the petitioner was to place one build- ing on each side of Laurent Road, which building would cover the areas now shown as Lots Y and Z , and Lots W and X, each building containing 4 apartments . The Board found that since this area is in an R-3 zone , it would be an undue hardship not to permit the petitioner to build on the lots in question., It was further felt that the petitioner would still have to appear before the Planning. Boa.rd to comply with all of their requirements pertaining to road- ways and installation of utilities . The terrain of .the property is such that it was found that the request for the proposed variance is a. reasonable one . There are other dwellings in the neighborhood and there are some business establishments in the neighborhood and that since the construction contemplated was of a residential type and in keeping with the general residences in the neighborhood and, in view of the fact that the terrain is not conducive to other types of construction and, in further reference to the fact that the Zoning has been changed to R-3 zone with larger area. requirements , that it would impose a. substantial hardship on the petitioner not to be permitted to proceed as requested. The Board voted unanimously to grant the requested variances . BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY r __�-- f Secretyry l 1 01tfu of fem �zs �zcl�u etts A , < Poarbi of Appeal August 2, 1968• WILLIAM I. AOOOTT JAM E6 M. ROVLOER J06E oo�LE DECISION ON PETITION, OF PALMER COVE YACHT CLUB, INC. , JO..� M. OR".• 6R. TO ERECT ADDITION TO E )ESTING YACHT CLUB BUILDING AFTMUR LAORECOVE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addition to an existing Yacht Club at 74 Leavitt Street as this is an existing non- conforming use and an addition would constitute an expansion of a noncon- forming use. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal and a hearing was held on this appeal on July 23, 1968 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the peti- tioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News . All Board Members were present at this hearing. Donald Derflinger, Commo- dore of the Yacht Club appeared and presented the case to the Board. Also appearing in favor of granting this appeal were Wilfred Julian of the Build- ing Committee of the club, William Duffy, its treasurer, and Hilla.ire Trem- blay, a. club member. •o one appeared in opposition. After due consideration, the Board, having in mind that this club has exist- ed for a number of years at this location on the waterfront, voted unanimous- ly to grant a. Special Permit to allow this expansion. PETITION GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY Secreta • W � THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SALEM ..........................................................................................I.............. ... f CITY DR r WH BOARD OF APPEALS ...............AUGUST..?z .........19 68 NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To.............PALMER S_-C..VE..YACHT._..LUB.t...INC. .s...... ........ Owner or Petitioner Address.....74t Z.$..LBA.YIXT..S.T.Ak:FT..................................................................................... City or Town..... SALEMx MASS. LAND- ADJOINING EXISTING BUILDING ............................... Identity Land Affected - ....................................................................................................................................................... City by the Town'of.....................SALLM,..MA.SS...............................Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. f{EAY=...STRETI T.........................................S.AI,FIM.................................... Street City or Town the record title standing in the name of • kAJ,ME115...�9Y.E..XA F1T -Q1IIR....II4.0y.................................................. whose address is..7-B---LEA.Y.ITT...STREET...............SALEM"..................................MASS:..... Street City or Town State by a deed duly recorded in the.... ESSEX SOUTH County Registry of Deeds in Book Page................. ....................................................Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No................. ................Book ................Page................ The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No....................... City in the office of the `fmrtrElerk.....AUGUSTINE...J,...,TOOMEY........... Signed this..2xtt]...day of.....&U.Q.US'T.............................196 8 Board of Appeals: %1,..Chairman .. IIoard of Appeals L // _U ..........:J. .... .. 'yam% . ..............Clerk IIoard of APP16 ...........................................19 ..... at.. .. o'clock and................................minutes ---.M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of.......................................... • Book........................ Page........................ ATTEST ............................................................................ _ Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Owner.. FORM 1094 HOBBS ® WARREN, INC., REVISED CHAPTER 212-1064 (fitu gf �zlPTrt, c��zsPt# curb of cAypjaal Im V. AM R. App GTT DECISION ON PETITION OF CITY OF SALEM TO ERECT A FENCE AM=° H. ppULGRR AT PROPOSED SCHOOL SITE ADJACENT TO THE KERNWOOD COUN- TRY CLUB, OFF LIBERTY HILL, AVENUE. JOHN M, GRAY. SR. ARTHVR LA°RCGpUL On advice of the Inspector of Buildings to the effect that the City Zoning Ordinance limits the height of fences in this district to five feet , peti- tioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance to permit the erec- tion of a fence at this location which would be six and eight feet in height in some sections. A hearing was held on this appeal in the Council Chamber, City Hall, on Nov- ember 18u, 1968 pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, Board Members, abutters and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News, advising of this hearing. All Board Members were present at this hearing. Chairman John M. Gray, Sr. . disqualified himself from voting in this case, but he did make a statement and went over the plan with the spectators. 0ppearing for the petitioner, a Mr. Grabowski; it was stated that the City had acquired this property through a gift from the Kernwood Country Club and a fence was to be erected in accordance with the provisions of the deed from the Club to the City of Salem. The fence will extend from Liberty Hill Avenue to Appleton Street. A' letter favoring granting this appeal was read from the Kernwood Country Club, signed by Sam Pearl, an officer of the Club. The Board found that to grant this appeal would 'cause no detriment to the public good and would in no way nullify or derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and voted unanimously to grant this petition. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY t/ Secretary -G N s C1_l 9 �J UJ A J -l- V- _U , y LOSI tl'� ` p RECEIVED (�tU, ofctlEtTt' �T52tCLiSE OCT .2 3 33 PH '90, oxrb of �ppeal CITY CL;. UrFICE October 1 , 1968 w AM F. AO60 SALEM, MASS. JAM E6 „. 60VLO Lii o6E,„ ,, 00 DECISION ON PETITION OF HENRY BOUCHER TO ERECT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ON LOTS 24 and 28 LINCOLN ROAD. APTNVR LAONECOV. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue permits to erect dwellings on these lots as neither lot has sufficient area or frontage as -required by the City Zoning Ordinance , amended and adopted in August , 1965 . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the applica- tion of the Zoning Ordinance . A hea.ring was held on this petition on Sep- tember 23, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, abutters , Board Members , and others , and advertisements published in The Evening News . Board Members in attendance at this hearing, in addition to Chairman Gray, included Mr. Boulger, Mr. Abbott , Mr. Labrecque and Mr. Tanch; unable to be present were Mr. Doyle and Mr. Welch. ounselor George Vallis appeared for the petitioner and stated the case as llows : - The great majority of lots in this area are o'f comparable size and with comparable frontage , some even having two family dwellings located thereon; he further stated the buildings would conform to the setback re- quirements of the Zoning Ordinance . Appeasing in opposition were George Bracket and Lester Bracket , who reside across the street ; George Higley, 229 Loring Avenue , who owns property at 12 Lincoln Road, and Patrick McDevitt , 20 Cleveland Road. After due considera.tion the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal .. having in mind that these are isolated lots , loca.ted in a. single family dis- trict which would be worthless if the appeal were not granted, also, there are . very few dwellings located on larger lots in this area , and granting this appeal would not deroga.te from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance nor cause detriment to the public good. APPEAL GRANTED /BOARD OF APPEAL U'9 BY Acting Secretary i a� o PDurb of Appeal !ff}PipF�` WILLIAM .. ABB OTT DECISION ON PETITION OF GEORGE AHMED TO OCCUPY BOVLOBR BB¢R„ R. BBVL¢ PREMISES AT 10-12 LYNDE STREET BY REAL ESTATE JB„„ M. BRAY. BR. OFFICE AND LODGING HOUSE. ART„VR L4BRECOVG Petitioner, through his attorney' Micahel J. Harrington, appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the application of the City Zoning Ordinance to permit occupancy of the premises located at 10-12 Lynde Street for a real estate and :.insurance office in two first floor rooms, and a lodging house in the rest of the building. A hearing was held on this petition on November 18, 1968, pursuanr to no- tices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, Board Members, ters, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News . All Board Members were present at this hearing. At the request of Counsel- or Harrington, the Board agreed to postpone this hearing until the Dece;::`er meeting. On December 16, 1968, hearing was resumed on this petition. All Board Mem- bers, w:i.zh the exception of Mr. Doyle, were present. .r. e Board voted unanimously to grant petitioner a variance from the app., ion of the Zoning Ordinance to allow occupancy of two rooms, fox' a real tate and insurance office , and with regard to occupancy of the rusk of building petitioner is to agree to the Zoning law, Section V "Use Regula-. : or:. Page 24, Paragraph 3, R-2 Districts, sub-paragraph d. "Roori:Lng and board:-r.e of three (3) or more persons, not to exceed a total of six persons . APPEAL GRANTED WITH RESTRICTIONS BOARD 0^' °ii':```: BY ,�,, �• J�. v Secretary. ® W . Tc v C E W(n Uj O W j W U 1- W U 1 g RECEIVED city of 'Salem, Elia ir4usPtts uc 27 9 22 AM '60 of , ppettl , r ItFCIJmF',NS" .. —� CITY Ci_i a�. � OFFICE august 27, 1968 WILLIAM F. ABBOTT SALEMASS. IA... N. DELL... JOBBPR W. OOYLE DECISION ON PETITION OF GEORGE AHMED TO ALTER FIRST FLOOR - JOMN M. ..AY. R. ARTHUR LABRBOOUB ROOMS AT 10-12 LYNDE STREET TO PROVIDE OFFICES FOR CONDUCT- ARTHUR ING A REAL ESTATE AND INSURANCE OFFICE; (BUILDING PRESENTLY OCCUPIED AS A LODGING HOUSE) AND TO INSTALL SIGNS ADVERTIS- ING SAID BUSINESS. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to alter these prem- ises as this is an R-3 district, . zoned for multi-family residences and this would be a. nonconforming use for this district. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance or special per- mit to alter this structure and to remove a sign from a location at 98 North Street to this location. A hearing was held on this petition on August 19th pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitinner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All Board Members were present at this hearing. Petitioner appeared and ex- plained his petition, the same as in the original appeal. `After careful consideration of this petition, the Board voted unanimously to grant petitioner leave to withdraw his appeal without prejudice. BOARD OF APPEAL LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. BY ,. Secretaily i I 1 1 i r V Of `�2S�EriT� ?X$SfTC�Lt�E��n etas 49 aP� ��� PIIttrb of AppEttl WLLHM P. ApOpYi CITY OFFICE SALEM, MASS' June 28 , 1968 JHM EO H. OOVLO GR JOSCPH P. OOYLC JOHN M. OFM1Y. 6q. .81.11 L..RCCOVC DECISION ON PETITION OF DONALD R. MASELLA, 37 MARLBOROUGH ROAD FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO INSTALL A SWIMMING POOL. . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a Special Permit to install a swimming pool at his dwelling located at 37 Marlborough Road. A hearing was held on this petition on June 24 , 1968 , 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. Mr. Ma.sella appeared and explained he proposed to install an above ground swimming pool , twenty-one feet round and four feet deep. The pool is also portable . After careful consideration of this petition, the Board voted unanimously to grant a Special Permit to allow installation of the pool , provided that All regulations of all City Departments with regard to swimming pools are observed. 2 . All other City or State regulations are observed. APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY r r - Secretar� J ` THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS r' SALEM f .............................................................. an a rowH BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE..Z$.z....................1968 NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 18,as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To.........DQ,NALD .... -,___MASELLA ' Owner or Petitioner Address.....37._Marlborough Road City or Town....SAle n ......................................... 7.. ----............................................................. Identity Land Affected - ....................................................................................................................................................... City by the Tawlraf........................... ------SALE.1`-'I................................Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. .. MARL..MARLBOROUGH ROADSALEM" MASS . .......... .._ -- ........................................... ..................•... Street City or Town . the record title standing in the name of DONALD AND JEAN L. MASELLA ---------------------•------......-------•------•-•-•--•-------•. ....................................................... whose address is........3.7..MARLBOROUGH_ ROAD SAL. E. M MASS _ Street City or Town State by a deed duly recorded in the........................................County Registry of Deeds in Book ................ Page................. ............ ........:.Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No................. ................Book ................Page................ The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No....................... City in the office of the Towit Clerk..........AU Us l SNE•-J-,.,-TOOMEY Signed this.2$ ..:.day of J.............................N196 8 Board of Appeals: n ................ 1�1���= 1 •-�%�? riles `L....Chairman - Bo rd of A ........._ Ppeals i .. �1 1z l t = V. c__ •-•------..Clerk Board of Appeal ' ................................................19........ at..............o'clock and................................minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of.............................I............. . Book........................ Page.................. ATTEST ............................................................................ Regissr of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Owner PORN 1094 HOBBS & WARREN. INC., Favisno CMArraa.stn•tooa 1 t RECEIVED (fitu of '5nale t, 21S 22C LtSC B s, Auc V 9 -22 AM '66 Poarb Of Appeal a, N ,,r August 27, 1968 CITY CLI:::t'," OFFICE 1.111." 1. A...I SALEM MASS. ,gME6 », ROIJLCER DECISION ON PETITION OF EUGENE A. LUTRZYKOWSKI, 171 MARL- borough Road, to erect addition to existing dwelling to provide an additional bedroom, bathroom, and family room. ARTHUR LADRECCVE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a. permit to erect an addition to this dwelling at 171 Marlborough Road as petitioner' s lot contains 5400 square feet and the City Zoning Ordinance requires a. lot area. of 7000 square feet with a. sixty foot frontage and petitioner' s lot frontage is 55 ft , also, the Zoning Ordinance requires a. ten foot side yard and petitioner' s side yard is seven feet . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the appli- cation of the Zoning Ordinance, and a hearing was held on this petition on August 19th, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abut- ters, Board Members, and others, and notices published in The Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Petitioner appear ed and stated he has put considerable labor and money into this property and wants to erect an addition to this dwelling which he has owned for eleven years 11W cause of increases in his growing family. No. one appeared in: opposition. After due considera.tion, the Board voted unanimously to grant this variance to relieve hardship to the petitioner -and his family, and feeling that to grant the variance would cause no detriment to the public good and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. PETITION GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY �. Secreta y " (fttu of "5aIem, gassar4melts � ',r •:.,-_,�<>� uttrb of cAypeal 'nuxryar� DECISION ON PETITION OF RAYMOND L. TRUCHE FOR VARIANCE AMER „ ROU SER RELATING TO LOCATION OF STRUCTURES ON AND UNDER LAND JpOEF„ R. DpVLE AT 69 MASON STREET. ART„UR LP.O RECpVE - Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal directly on October 24, 1968, and a hearing was held on this petition on November 18, 1968,, in the Council Chamber, City Hall, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, Board Members, abutters, and others, and adver- tisements published in The Evening News . All Board Members were present at this, hearing. Counselor John R. Serafini appeared for the petitioner, and stated the case the same as in the original petition; this parcel of land includes a facto- ry building which his client purchased in October, 1968, and an agreement between the parties requires the conveyance of projecting portions; a por- tion at the rear of the factory building and also a brine pit near the , front of this building comprise the projecting portions. Petitioner requires a variance from side line requirements of existing City Zoning Ordinance in 14io)rder to clear the title to his property. There is to be no change in the use of the land. The Board found that to grant this appeal would relieve substantial hardship to the petitioner and would in no way be detrimental to the public good and would not nullify nor derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and voted unanimously to grant this appeal. BOARD OF APPEAL �/ BY ✓�� Vo�;l� . APPEAL GRANTED. Secretary m w I. U) .r. C= J l +Q �"I y O C.7 p Y. t,.cn�inrw � t Puttrb of 'ApyVal ha rntnv,Mr - WILLIAM F. AOOOTT JAM=R Ir. oo��o CR DECISION ON PETITION OF MORRIS -ISAACSON FOR VARIANCE RELATING TO LOCATION OF DWELLING ON LAND AT 71-73 MA- o"" M. ORAY. 6R. SON STREET. ART"VR LAORECOVC Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal directly on October 24, 1968, and a hearing was held on this petition on November 18 , 1968•, in the Council Chamber, City Hall, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, Board Members, abutters, and others , and adver- tisements published in The Evening News. All Board Members were present at this hearing. Counselor John R. Serafini appeared for the petitioner, and stated the case the ' same as in the original petition; his client , in 1943, had purchased an adjoining lot of land with a factory thereon which petitioner has operated until recently; the land and dwelling at this location, #71-73 Mason Street , was acquired by petitioner about nineteen months after purchase of factory with land under and adjoining. A survey shows that a portion at the rear of the factory building and also a brine pit near the front of the factory Sbuilding . project into the adjoining land of this petitioner, and it is necessary for him to convey these projecting portions to the new owner of the factory parcel. There is to be no change in use of the land, this is in order to clear the title. No one appeared in opposition. The Board found that to grant this appeal would relieve substantial hard- ship to the petitioner and would in no way be detrimental to the public good and would not nullify nor derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and voted unanimously to grant this appeal. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED 1 BY 'l,ul,�� Secretary uj LA um �, ;T Ln W J J t1` L1+2 o F 14 1014 RM V ourb of cAypjml TQ =ice� r= .. CITY C_, , uFFICE.e.�'. .'. w, L,AM F. AOOO SALE Mr 'Albk&ISION ON PETITION OF JOHN B. RUSSELL, 59 MEMORIAL AM SH. 00 SER DRIVE, TO INSTALL SWIMMING POOL WITH A CEDAR SCREEN =H oo.LE FENCE, AND ERECT A CABANA. JOHN v.. GRAY. SF. ARTHUR LHURLCOUE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to install a swimming pool with a cedar screen fence, and erect a cabana, as the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance permits only the Board of Appeal to authorize the instal- lation of a swimming pool. Petitioner appealed to the Board for a Special Permit to allow this instal- lation, and a hearing was held on this petition on April 22, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Evening News advising of this . hearing. .All Board members were present at the hearing. Mr. Russell appeared and explained the locus and his plans for this construction. No one appeared in opposition. •After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal, as provided by the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance as a Special. Permit APPEAL GRANTED - SPECIAL PERMIT. BOARD OF APPEAL _-. BY / Secretary ` a .. • r THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ........................1..............SALEM_.....................:............................. . am OR TOWN ' BOARD OF APPEALS MAX_... 4.a......---•-•---....19 68 NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted TO---------------- 1QDR B' RUSSELL--•--------------------------------------•-•--...........------............................. Owner or Petitioner Address.........59...MEMQIUA.L..DRz.Y.E-....................................................................................... Cityor Town-.SALEM-------------••---•-••-•-•-----••---.............--......................... ..................................... .....................................P.QSai1.Qa..Q ..Yh41z-S2•--lot--_to--be... sed••,for---instAl.l_q _ion Identify Land Affected Q ---S73.ammxXlg..P.9Ql-.with--cedar-_-fence --and---cabana....................................... City by the To"-of..................................SALEM............_..............---.Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. ............53..MEMORIAL- DRIVE..............................................SALEM....------............................. Strut City or Town • the record title standing in the name of JQHNB• RUSSELL.......................................... .......... whose address is....59..MRMQB.TA.L -DR1Yj- ..••__.••_SALEM_____.__•._..._••••._..___.__MASS-e••,--------- Street City or Town State by a deed duly recorded in the........................................County Registry of Deeds in Book ................ Page............ ....................................................Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No................. ................Book ................Page................ • The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision oilase-N&...................... City in the office of the Town•Clerk..............AUQU51'.113E...L".-T00M........................................... Signed this...15!b.day of.............MAY............................1968 Board of Appeals: , 1.� ......-•- � ../�•.:�-:!22:x/ p(,�'---Chairman Board of Appea `� V -----Clerk / Board of Appeal. ............................. .............19........ at---------/o'clock and................................minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of.......................................... Book........................ Page........................ ATTEST ........................................................................... FORM 1094 v,coyv r ,V _ oez , s � � r 11LLJA1 A...I DECISION ON PETITION OF PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY TO USE REAR IA11 " oo.«=R OF SERVICE STATION PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF NORMAN AND CROMBIE .."` STREETS AS A PUBLIC-PAID PARKING LOT. AHTMUR ISRC..JL On advice of the Inspector of Buildings that the City of Salem Zoning Ordin- ance does not include this use in the permitted uses for this district , the petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the applica- tion of the Zoning Ordinance. A hearing was held on this petition on November 18th 1968, in the Council Chamber, City Hall, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, Board Members, abutters, and others , and advertisements published in The Evening News , advising of this hearing. All Board Members were present at the hearing. John Clinton and real estate representatives of this company appeared for the petitioner, and stated that prior to the acquisition of this property by this company, this land had been used as a public-paid parking lot . •No one appeared in opposition. The Board found that this appeal could be granted without nullifying or derogating from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance , and further found . that granting this appeal would cause no detriment to the public good, and voted unanimously to grant this appeal. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY (/ Secretary y e en UV Qj £V q J " �: w >- H � �'-•>. RECEIit of Salem, �t�stt�I �zse# � ' 47 RM '69 Pnarb of Appeal �``,r<,,�>,nrvr�• OGT � 8 JAM CB M. OOV LO CR . October 3, 1968 WILLIAM F. AOROTT CITY CU-0 'S OFFICE SAL-0 // SS oa�FH F. oo.L4 DECISION ON PETITION OF JAMS F. LOGRIPPO, RR rya NORTH JOHN M. GRAY. OR. STREET LOT 1-E, TO ERECT A BUILDING AT THIS LOCATION. . ARTHUR LAORECOUC The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a building at this location due to nonconformity with regard to density requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance , specifically lot size , and front , side and rear setbacks. The Ordinance requires a 40000 square foot lot area with front, side and rear yards of thirty feet; petitioner' s lot contains 21,998 square feet , and the plan shows a five foot front yard, a five foot side yard . and a twenty-three foot rear yard. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal, and a hearing was held on this petition on September 23, 1968,. pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to -the petitioner, his abutters, Board Members , and others, and advertisements pub- lished in The Evening News. 'ttending this hearing in addition to Chairman Gray, were Members Tanch, abrecque, Boulger and Abbott, Members Doyle and Welch being unable to be present . Petitioner appeared and explained his case the same as it appears in the original petition; he proposes to allow a side yard on the easterly side, abutting the property of O'Rourke Bros. , Inc . , of five feet, while he re- tains a ninety-one foot side yard on the westerly side to allow ample space for loading and unloading trucks; because of the size of the proposed struc- ture, his plan shows a. five foot front yard with a twenty-three foot rear yard. Mr. Walter O'Neill, an official of the O' Rourke Bros. , Inc . , Monumental Works appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant peti- tioner leave to withdraw without prejudice due to disagreement among inter- ested parties. BOARD OF APPEAL LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE BY Acting Secretary t JY:1 \big r cif >�zec �t >=iii RECEIVED10 14AM '68 nark of Lel CITY CLPECIUAtEON PETITION OF GABRIEL ROSSI, TO ERECT A I�LllA. P. AGGGTT SALE4VT4AtjNG AT 121 NORTH STREET, CORNER OF RANDALL STREET AND LEAVITT QOURT. J03[RI"I P. OOVIC JO MfJ M. GRAY. SR. I . ARTNVR LA GRCCOVE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a structure at this location as this is an undersize lot and the proposed building would not conform to the density requirements of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. . Petitioner through his attorney, John R. Serafini, appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance with regard to the density requirements. A hearing was held on this petition on April 22, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements pub- lished in The Evening News, advising of this hearing. All Board members were present at the hearing. Counselor Serafini appeared for petitioner, and stated that at present there is an old building on this lot which is badly in need of repair and remodeling, and it was felt that it would be in the best interest of all concerned if a new building were placed � the lot . His client wishes to erect a modern building which would el' - 3.nate many problems for him, and would not be detrimental to the nei--' Allie Mamad who lives fourteen feet from the existing building appeare- opposition, represented by Attorney William O'Brien. Ward Councillor Gecrt_. McCabe stated he was opposed in behalf of the residents of Leavitt Court "and Randall Street, and further stated the locality is too congested for parking. Lawrence Pszenny, 119 North Street, appeared in favor. After due consideration, the Board voted unanimously to deny this appeal, there is no hardship, and granting this appeal would derogate from the in- tent and purpose of the Ordinance, and would be detrimental to the public good. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL DENIED BY Secretary • RECEIVED 11t II ?t�$tIi' 2t�vS2it LiSEf r ,a Auc 27 9 22 AM 168, P` ourb of �yycal kr„mvr. August 26, 1968 CITY CLE:n�1'S OFFICE W3LLIAM P. AOOOTf SALEM, MASS. H. oouLOEa DECISION ON PETITION OF JOHN AND WILLIAM KOKORAS TO JO9EPM P. OOVLE oHN M. oPAv, aA. ERECT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING, AND TO ARTHUR LAOREOOIIE RAISE WALL ALONG NORTHEAST SIDE OF SAME AT 6 NICHOLS STREET The Inopector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addition and do the other above referenced work at this location as this is a man- ufacturing business, a. nonconforming use in an R-2 district zoned for two- family residences, and to allow additional construction would be expanding a nonconcorming use. The petitioners appealed to the Board of Appeal and a. hearing was held on this petition on August 19 , 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioners, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All Board members were present at the hearing. Petitioners appeared and explained their petition, the same a.s their original appea.l, also stating they need this variance as the building is being vandalized. No one ap- peared in opposition. Iter due considera.tion, the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal, having in mind that petitioners have operated their business at this loca- tion for a. number of years, and to deny their appeal would impose a hard- ship on their operation, and to grant the appeal would not derogate from the intent and purpose of .the Ordinance and would not cause detriment to the public good. PETITION GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL/j BY moi' caw V Secreta `✓ RECEIVED, T1 LY21ICItT� FTSS�ILTISES ' J An 2 3 31 PM '68 on.rb f p eul August z, 1968 wi��iner. nnooTT CITY CL•e.k^.'S OFFICE - - SALEM, MASS. '0MCe „. OO 40..r. oov�¢ LO6R DECISION ON PETITION OF PETER CARBONE TO ERECT A GARAGE r. AT 27 OAKLAND STREET hRT„UR 1SOf.[GOVC The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a, permit. to erect a garage at this location as such a structure would not conform to the side and rear setbacks as : required by the City Zoning Ordinance. The Ordinance requires a. ten foot side yard and a. thirty foot rear yard, and petitioner' s plan showed.a five foot distance to . the side boundary line and also to the rear. boundary line. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal and a hearing was held on this petition on July 23, 1968; pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the pe- titioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and notices published in . The Evening News advising of this hearing. All Board Members were present at the hearing. Mr. Carbone appeared before the Board and explained his case. No one appeared in opposition. ter due consideration the Board having in mind that the City of Salem re- ires off-street parking during the winter months, voted unanimously to grant this petition to erect a garage which would afford maximum protection from the elements for his car. PETITION GRANTEDBOARD OF APPEAL BY Secretary I ti*r' Y% T14 c RE r `SIC Of " ,UIV01 T, W55aC411ultS A'\ . MAY I 16 14 AM '98 �3aarb of �ypral _ CITY Lt.r,r, t OFFICE 1111"aM o. ^°°or DECISIOIfA6VP*WrION OF DOROTHY L. COTE TO ERECT A DWELLING ON LOT 4 OCEAN TERRACE. ' JOSEPH F. OOYIC JOHN M. GRFY. 9R. r1 RTHUR LNORECOVE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a dwelling at this location as petitioner' s lot is undersize and proposed structure would not conform to the density regulations of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance . Petitioner, through Counselor George P. Vallis, 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 April 22, 1968, purusant to notices mailec postpaid to the petitioner, her attorney, abutters, Board members, and other: and advertisements published in The Evening News advising of this hearing. All Board members were present at this hearing. Counselor John Serafini appeared in place of Counselor George Vallis, and stated many houses in the vicinity are on small lots, and this house will not derogate from the general appearance in the area as petitioner is• her own abutter on one side. Counselor Serafini further stated there would be no blasting. *Joseph Nodzenski and wife, 3 Ocean Terrace, August Gagne, 15 Cliff Street, and Mrs. Freeman Morse, 17-18 Ocean Terrace, and John Linehan, 5-7 Ocean Terrace appeared in opposition. Mr. Gagne stated there would have to be blasting, and Mr. Linehan stated there would be no room for parking. After due consideration the Board voted unanimously to grant petitioner leave to withdraw without prejudice. LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. BOARD OF A/PPEAL BY Secretary • i r i c�iniq � z o _J:? Nourb of �3J�JP2TY . rr, -1 June 5., 1968 Jo Cay W ILLIHM F, gpp OTT , AMEa H. po�LGCR DECISION ON PETITION OF JOHN F. NESTOR, JR. , JOHNF M. GRAY. SR. TO INSTALL A SWIMMING POOL AT 13 PLEASANT STREET. ARTHUR LAOR[COUE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a. permit to install a swimming pool at this location, as according to the City Zoning Ordinance , the Board of Appeal is the only authority who may grant such permits. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal, and a hearing was held on this petition on May 27, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the peti- tioner, abutters, Board members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. Four Board members were present at this hearing, the fifth member, Mr. James Boulger, being confined to the hospital and unable to be present . Petitioner appeared and explained the plan. Roland Erwin, 4 Webster Street , appeared in favor of granting this appeal. . No one appeared in opposition. After careful consideration, the four members present voted unanimously to •grant this appeal on the condition that regulations of the Health, Electric- al , and Building Departments be strictly adhered to. BOARD OF APPEAL PETITION GRANTED - SPECIAL PERMIT BY " Secreta y r„aTviri VL / e � Clgi r of alem, CM, n5a rtjmett5 Pearb of �}rpettl T� �mt v vc• WILLIAM V, q�60TT ' gM66 H. OOVLG=a DECISION ON PETITION OF PAUL R. PELLETIER, 20 SCENIC AVENUE, ,O6 E\'H F. OOYLC FOR VARIANCE FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE qRT"�R LA©FECCll6 AS IT APPLIES TO SIDE YARD REQUIREMENTS. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addition to an existing dwelling at this location due to nonconformity with the density regulations of the City Zoning Ordinance, specifically, the Ordin- ance requires a ten foot side yard and this: structure is seven feet from the side boundary line . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal, and a hearing was held on this petition on November 181, 1968, in the Council Chamber, City Hall, pursuant to nAtices 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 plan the same as in the original pe- tition, stating he proposes to erect a 12 ' x 1$ ' one room addition to his welling to provide a bedroom for his recently widowed 'mother. No one appeared in opposition.. The Board found that to grant this appeal would relieve a hardship to the petitioner, would not be detrimental to the public good, and would in no way nullify nor derogate from the purpose and intent of the Ordinance, and voted unanimously to grant this appeal. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY _ u'��i ✓��^2 Secretary/ ` ® w ¢a U ILI f y W. �J N y N � F O C.1 \ �•> %Ti#u of ttCem, �s c sP##s ' s ourbi of Appal DECISION ON PETITION OF GULF OIL COMPANY TO ERECT ADDITION WILLIAM P. AOOOTT JAM E9 „. OGV LGEF TO EXISTING SERVICE STATION AT 'STATE ROAD AND VINNIN STREET JOSCPH F. OOVLE JOHN M. GRAY. SR. ARTHVR l!•O RCCOVC The Inspector of Buildings .refused to issue a permit to erect an addition to a service station at this location as petitioner could allow only a seventeen foot rear yard, and the City Zoning Ordinance requires a thirty-foot rear yard in this district . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal , and a hearing was held on this petition on November 18t 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, Board Members , abutters , and others , and advertisements published in The Evening News , advising of this hearing. All Board Members were present at the hearing which was held in the Council. Chamber of City Hall . Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Kiddle, officers of the company, appeared and explained the appeal as stated in the original petition. They propose to add an addi- tional bay to this service station to allow inspections of motor vehicles as required semi-annually by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts . `o one appeared in opposition. After careful consideration, the Board voted unanimously to grant this ap- peal as this proposed addition would in no way derogate from the general character of the neighborhood, and not to grant this appeal would handicap the appellant in its business sufficiently so as to cause hardship to it and that there would be no detriment to , the public good. APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL % BY Secretary � v kn C) L U. .J J V r� V "TRU of alern, .24Hassar4uselts p� Poarb of tAPPral w'r:nmr.or"^ OF t11gC - rC WI.LIAM a. ARBOTT CALEPir P4AS5 June 27 , .1968 JA MEB H. ROVLO ER y�... - j OBeR" ppVLE DECISION ON PETITION OF MARVIN SCHLOSS TO ERECT A BUILDING AT 2 STATE ROAD. ART"VR Lq OHECpVE I On June 24 , 1968' a.t 7 : 30 P.M. a.t a duly advertised meeting of the Board of Appeal of the City of Salem at which all members were present , the Board heard an appeal by Marvin Schloss relative to a. request for variance per- taining to a. certain parcel of land situated a.t No . 2 Sta.te Road. The pe- titioner was represented by Attorney John R. Serafini of Salem. The evidenceheard at the meeting produced the following information: 1 . That the lot in question wa.s No . 7 on a plan of land recorded in Essex South District Registry of Deeds. 2 . That said lot of land was a corner lot and has frontage on Loring Av- enue and State Road, so-called. 3 • That the lot of land contains 10,000 square feet and that prior to the • adoption of the new zoning ordinance in 1965 , said lot contained 10 ,000 square feet ; that the zoning ordinance adopted by the City of Salem changed the area in which this lot is located to a. B-2 type zone , and further changed the requirements so that a minimum lot area of 12 , 000 square feet is required and a. minimum lot width of 100feet is required; maximum lot coverage(by all buildings )a.11owed is 25%; 30-foot front and . rear setbacks with 10-foot side yard setbacks are also required. It wa.s further determined that the petitioner wished. to construct a. build- ing a.pproxima.tely 20 feet by 40 feet and to place said building in such a. way on the lot that the entire front of said lot, would be open for parking purposes , all in accordance with a. plan as presented to said hearing. The petitioner further indicated that the new area. would be well lighted and would be free from obstruction in the front portion. After examination of the plan, and after familiarizing themselves with the area , and. a.fter hearing all the evidence , the Board determined that if the building were pla.ced in the proposed location as shown on the plan filed with the applica.tion, that it would actually enhance the appearance of said lot , and that if the front of said lot were landscaped and lighted in the manner sta.ted by the petitioner, there would be an improvement over exist- . ing conditions . The Board also found tha.t it would be an undue hardship to prevent the pe- . tioner from constructing a building on said lot a.s said lot had contained __— '— L - 2 - *0,000 square feet prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance in 1965 and tha.t the lot size requirement wa.s changed in 1965 . The Board also found tha.t it would be an undue hardship to the petitioner to have to place the building in any other position than the one shown on the plan submitted with the application as this location would leave a. maximum amount of area. free from obstruction and would enable motor vehicles patroniz- ing the petitioner ' s place of business to park on said lot and not be a hin- drance to the movement of traffic . The Board further found that to grant the variance requested as to density requirements , sideline requirement , rear lot line requirement and area re- quirement would not in any derogate from the intent and purpose of the zon- ing ordinance as the immediate surrounding area is commercial in na.ture and currently has located within a. very short radius several restaurants , gaso- line stations , a. shopping center, and an animal hospital , and further, that the fact that the area had been rezoned to a. B-2 area , Highway Business) indicated the intent of the ordinance as permitting a use of this type . The Board voted unanimously to grant the variance required. • BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY Secret 'Ty l' RECEIVED �I1 IItt�PIYC� tSSS2XCI�lISPS -, �r�, OCT �I 8 47 AM �� Paurb of ckpyeal r. CITY CLEI'r, S OFFICE October 3, 1968 WILLIAM P. NOOOTT SALEM- MASS. . 14MH0 ". EOULOER 'r OOE>H 1. COIL. DECISION ON PETITION OF GRACE SPYCHALSKI, 47 SUMMER STREET, TO CONDUCT REAL ESTATE OFFICE AT THIS LOCATION, AND INSTALL ARTHUR LAORECOUE SIGN. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to conduct a real es- tate office and install a. sign at this location as under the City Zoning Ordinance regulations, the Board of Appeal is the only authority who may permit such occupancy as a, Special Permit. Petitioner appealed to the Board and a. hearing was held on this petition on September 23, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Even- ing News. In addition to Chairman Gray, Board Members Tanch, Labrecque , Boulger, and Abbott attended this hearing, Members Doyle and Welch being unable to be present. •ppearing for the petitioner were the petitioner and Mr. Frank Rizzotti. Appearing in opposition were Mr. Alfred Putnam of 27 Broad Street and Mrs. Moses of 6 Broad Street; a. letter stating her opposition to this request was received from Mrs. Grace M. Stocker who owns abutting property. After due consideration the Board voted unanimously to grant a. Special Permit to allow occupancy for a real estate office for the use of the present owner only and to install a. sign no larger than requested in the original petition, 18" x 18" . BOARD OF APPEAL SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS BY �lJ ell �GZYN Acting Secretary ` 3 • f THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS sALErt c1n OR towN RECE.IVF� $ 47 AN 1" OCTOBER OF APPEALS OCT a ,., ocTon�� 3 ' ,S ofFICE ............ .. ........................19 68 CLQ CITYSALEM, MASS. NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted . To......QRACE...SPYCHALSKI............................................... Owner or Petitioner Address.-A7...SUMMLR... ............ STREET ..................................................................................... . .............. City or Town........SALFM............................................. ................................................................ ..........................4.7...SUMMER... TREET ........ Identify Land Affected SALEM.--•MASS. ........................................................•-•-....................................... City by the Tow&of...........SALFM.,...MAS.S........................................Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. ..........................4.7...SUN3.IFR..STRMT.................................. ALEM......................................... • street City or Town the record title standing in the name of OUIS..L.AND__GRACE.......SPYCIiALSKI............. ........................................ whose address is...............47...S.LIMMFL..S:LBEUT..........SALEM.....................MASS................ Street City or Town State by a deed duly recorded in the........E.SSEK......... .........County Registry of Deeds in Book ................ Page................, ....................................................Registry District of the Land Court . Certificate No................. ................Book ................Page................ The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No....................... City in the office of the Town Cjerk.........ApGUSTINEJ....TOOMEY. . .. . ..... ................................ Signed t11is.3x.d....day of.......OCTOBER.......................1968 Board of Appeals:........ _e4- n ��I- ......Chairman- Board of Ae�I ......... . ... li yiz --Clerk p c Board of Appeals <e 3' .......................................... .....19....---. at..........._o'clock and.................................minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of.......................................... • Book.............I......:.... Page........................ ATTEST � . . . ...............................:........................................... Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Owner. FORM 1094 HOBBS B WARREN. INC.. REy192D oRA9r6R 212.1962 „<<,,,11 s jW �I�Extt, ttSSFSCIiSEB Y;fa AU017 n 9 22 AMN 'A' Daxb Df ,:A� }1yPM1 August 26, 1968 CITY �LLr,I+,'� UFFICE w«AM .. h000T SALEH, p{�y�$�� JnmEo m. oov�oER DECISION ON PE17Z'ION OF LESTER NEWTH, 16 SURREY ROAD, J OEERN F. DOYLE TO ERECT A GARAGE AND BREEZEWAY. JORN M. ORpY. BR., RRTmVR IA ORECOUE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect this garage and breezeway as petitioner's lot is undersize , 6500 square feet in an R-1 district where a lot area of 7000 square feet is required, also the proposed structure would be 20 ' -4” from the rear boundary line rather than the required 30 feet. Petitioner appealed from this decision and on August 19th a hearing was held on this appeal, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abut- ters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Petitioner appeared with his wife and stated he built this home ten years ago, and at that time could not afford to erect the garage and breezeway. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration, the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal, having in mind that since this dwelling was constructed on this lot, the Wy Zoning Ordinance has been completely changed requiring larger lot as and increased setbacks from all boundary lines, and to deny this ap- peal would cause hardship to the petitioner, and to grant the appeal would not cause detriment, to the public good and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. BOARD OF APPEAL PETITION GRANTED BY G � � Secreta �> of '�5lEm, 4ffissarhusdts V />r? June 5 , 1968 v� =,C�­ WILLIAM F. AOO OTT JAMES H. OOULGER JOSEPH F. OOVLE JORN M. GRAY. GR. DECISION ON PETITION OF ANNA E. KOPKA, FOR SPECIAL ART., . LAGRECOVE PERMIT TO OPERATE A RESTAURANT AT HER HOME LOCATED AT 53 TURNER STREET. it Petitioner appealed directly to the Board of Appeal for a Special Permit to allow the operation of a restaurant from her home and a. hearing was held on this appeal on May 27, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, board members , and others , and advertise- ments published in The Evening News. Four Board Members attended this hea.ring, the fifth member, Mr. James Boul ger being confined to the hospital . Petitioner appeared and stated she is the owner of a three tenement dwelling which her family has ,owned for forty years. She stated she is losing money rapidly. Councillor at Large Robert E. Cahill sent a. letter to the Board stating he wa.s in favor of having this appeal granted. r. Gilbert R. Payson, President of the House of Seven Gables Settlement Association forwarded a, letter stating the reasons why the Settlement Assoc- iation was opposed to granting this appeal. A Mrs . Gardner, also of the Settlement House association, registered her opposition to the appeal. G. Miller Primm and Dorothy B. Primm also sent a. letter to the hearing, voicing their opposition to this appeal being granted. Mr. Suczlack, also of Turner Street , expressed opposition. After careful considera.tion, the four Board ,members present voted unanimously to deny this appeal , as. they found no hardship involved, and granting this petition would be detrimental to the public good and would derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance . BOARD OF APPEAL PETITION DENIED. BY Q h Secretary R E C F!V E �i i � IIf �ca em, �� Li�T5�22t�lISL�1S MAY 1 10 14 AM 160 Paurb of '�Fyval WILLIAM F. AGOOT S'.��L'_�.�;�•'.,H) §SSCCFF A�T�{�.I E'T'ITION OF SALEM ACRES' INC . , FOR VARIANCE ROVL... FROM APPLICATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE AS IT AFFECTS LO- JOHEF„ F. OOVLE CATION OF DWELLING ON LOT #122 VALLEY STREET. JOHN M. ORAV. ER. ARTHUR LAORECOUE Petitioner through Counselor George P . Vallis, appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City as it affects the location of a dwelling house located at Lot #122 Valley Street. A hearing was held on this appeal on April 229 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, attorney for petitioner, abutters, Board members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News advising of this hearing. All Board members were present at the hearing. Counselor John Serafini, appearing for Counselor George Vallis, explained the reason for the appeal, stating that all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance are • complied with, excepting the requirement of a thirty-foot rear yard. There was no opposition. After due consideration, the Board voted unanimously to grant this variance, *s denying the variance would cause great hardship to the petitioner, and ranting the variance would not be detrimental to the public good and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY - _ Secretary � F r ��� Tai of "alem, as!5ac u!avjte �Lr � � : a curb u 'Ayp �l APR 57 N\ @14 11I CLApril 9, 1968 UWILLI4M F. ADOOTT { ` ,'i 6 { CE ,AMG .,. oa„L��a gALEMMASS, o,E,„ oovLE DECISION ON PETITION OF WLADFK SUCHECKI, 14 VICTORY ROAD To erect a. second floor addition to an existing dwelling. A„r„u„ LAorsecoue - The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a. permit to erect an addition to a dwelling at this location because of the density requirements of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. The Ordinance requires a. ten foot side yard, and the proposed addition would be within eight feet of the side boun- dary. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal and a. hearing was held on this pe- , tition on February 26 , 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the pe- titioner, abutters , Board Members, and others , and advertisements published in the Evening News advising of this hearing. All Board members were present at the hearing with the exception of Mr. Ab- bott who was ill and unable to attend. , The petitioner presented his case, stating that the reason for the petition and the proposed addition is to give proper care to his mother-in-law who is soon to be discharged from the Middlesex Sa.nitorium and will have living uarters in this addition. Police Officer Thaddeus Olbrych, 16 Victory Road appeased in favor. Frank Tansey, 45 Fort Avenue appeared but was not re- corded as being opposed. After due consideration thereof, the Board voting on the grounds that there is hardship involved, and granting this 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 this variance . APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY a ecreta y ��� IIcSTi� Dt Fie e 3 44 Pry � ':A� ypeal CM February 6 , 1968 ,A% L,��A 1. ..ULG�R SALEM, MA55, - JO�RPH F. ROYL� DECISION- Henry L. Berkowitz to erect a garage at JO"" M. GRAY. 'R. 14, Webb Street ; lot 4500 square ,feet shoule be ARTHUR LADRGCOUE 5000 square feet ; side yard should be ten feet , proposed garage would be two feet ; thirty foot rear yard .required, can allow two feet ; garage should be thirty feet from house , plan shows it will be thir- teen feet . The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect this garage as petitioner could not comply with the regulationsof the City Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the ' Board of Appeal for .a variance from the appli- cation of the Zoning Ordinance . A hearing was held on this petition on January 29 , 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters , Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News . Board member James Boulger, Sr. , was unable to attend this hearing, all other members being present . I Petitioner appeared and explained the conditions on the lot where he has petitioned to erect a garage. A Mr. Plante, 16 Webb Street, appeared in favor. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the members of the Board present , voted unanimously to grant this variance. PETl'ilury uRANTED BOARD Or' APPEAL I B T � �U Clerk of "�5alenl' Aa5zadjusettS 36 PM ;�9 Pourb of :AyyyL ON PETITION OF CARROLL F. DICKINSON, TO .M. H. pGVLOER SAl�M� ECT SIGN AT 18 WEBB STREET FOR CERAMIC STUDIO. ,o serH r. oov ¢ .JOHN M. ORNY. OR. ARl... LA ORCCOUE Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal to permit the erection of a sign 4' x 8' to provide proper advertising for a Ceramic Supply and Gift Store at this location which has been operating for the past two and' one half years . A hearing was held on this petition on April '22, 1968, 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 the hearing. Petitioner appeared and stated this business is her source of income as she is retired, and feels she would attract tourists to increase her sales if she had a reasonable and legible sign advertising her giftware. No one appeared in opposition. Ifter due consideration the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal . APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY Secreta y i , v 4 Tito of �$s ttlem, June 5, 1968 .7eCA4j7(j WILLIAM P. AMO0= r AM`s "' sOVLSRR DECISION ON PETITION OF GEORGE W. WEIL TO LOCATE A �oscvH a. oo.L� + oH. M. GRA V, sR. GARAGE BUILDING at 66 WILLSON ROAD FROM LUSSIER ROAD ARTHUR LAORCCOVE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a. permit to relocate the garage from the Lussier Road location to petitioner' s home location as petitioner' s plan showed nonconformity with the density requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance, specifically with regard to side yard setback from Old Road. Petitioner proposed to locate garage five feet /from this boundary line in- stead of the required fifteen feet . Counselor George Vallis appealed to the Board of Appeal for his client , Mr. Weil , ,and a hearing was held on this petition on May 27, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his counsel , abutters, board members, and others , and advertisements published in The Evening News . Mr. Vallis appeared and explained the plan. No one appeared in opposition. 0eter careful consideration, the four Board members present voted unanimous- to grant this appeal with the condition that the garage be set back no ss than nine feet from Old Road, having„in mind that similar structures in the vicinity lacked yard area. a.s required by existing City Zoning Ordin- ance , and to grant this appeal would not be detrimental to the public good and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance,, and denying the appeal would cause hardship to the petitioner' s housing his ca.r to protect it from the elements . BOARD OF APPEAL PETITION GRANTED BY Secreta. • 1if of �tlemtt > �zse # I „rx RECEIVE U 2 1 r iarIb of tAypral,. Jug 25 ID 28 Dppp MT V%FIDE JUNE 24 , 1968_ wiLLAM F, nDoo CITY L'- �j Ff HIDED DECISION JAb,ES �. DODLDEa SALEM, M JOSEPH F, DOYLC ' JDHN M. C.RAY. PETITION OF ESTATE OF MARGARET T. ' GRIFFIN, TO ERECT ARTHUR LADREDOUE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 6 WINTER ISLAND ROAD. Hearing on this petition was resumed a.t the May 27, 1968 meeting of the . Board of Apoeal, at which four Board Members were present ; the fifth mem- ber, Mr. James Boulger, being in the hospital and unable to attend. A plot plan was presented a.t this hearing, showing the location of the existing dwelling and lot size of Lot B, and in addition, a plot plan also was presented showing location of the proposed dwelling with inadequate front and rear yards according to requirements set forth in the density regulations of the City Zoning Ordinance . Counselor Michael. Harrington appeared for petitioner and explained the plan, stating he has a prospective purchaser and it would be impossible to 'use the lots except as the petitioner seeks to have them used. No one appeared in opposition. Der careful. consideration, the four Board Members present voted unanimous- to grant this appeal , as Lot A has sufficient frontage , is above required lot size in area , and would present hardship for petitioner if petitioner were denied permission to build on this lot . With respect to Lot B, the Board voted unanimously to grant the request for a variance which would permit the nonconforming use of Lot B for residence purposes and for the maintenance of the dwelling presently thereon, its repair and repla.cement , despite the fail- ure of said lot to conform to the zoning law requirements a.s to required land area . APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY i I ecretary f 4 "Titof Saliem, :�fflas2jar4u t#s r IIMYb of £Ml June 5, 1968 .70 WILLIAM R. A°OOTT , JAMES ". OOVLOER ' oaEP^ ' ° TLE DECISION ON PETITION OF ESTATE OF MARGARET T. GRIFFIN, TO ERECT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 6 WINTER ISLAND ROAD. ARTNUF LAVRECOUE Hearing on this petition was resumed at the May 27 , 1968 meeting of the Board of Appeal, a.t which four Board Members . were present , the fifth member, Mr. James Boulger, being in the hospital and unable to attend. A plot plan was presented at this hearing, showing location of the pro- posed dwelling, with inadequate front and rear yards according to re- quirements set forth in the density regulations of the City Zoning Ordin- ance. Counselor Michael Harrington appeared for petitioner and explained the plan, stating he has a prospective purchaser and it would be impossible to use the lot except a.s the petitioner seeks to have it used. No one appeared in opposition. After careful consideration, the four Board members present voted unani- { • mously to grant this appeal, as the lot has sufficient frontage ,is above required lot size in area., and would present hardship for petitioner if petitioner were denied permission to build on this lot, also, the. Board was mindful of the fact that most of the existing dwellings in this area do not comply with the density requirements of the present City 'Zoning Ordinance, and therefor, granting this permit would cause no detriment j to the public good and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. a BOARD OF APPEAL j APPEAL GRANTED r' BY Secretary 1 i i i .GO]IpT� " RECEIVED(cit" DL � asmrIJUSPR5 OCT 8 47 AM $68 nrcr of c�`D��'eul CLFi0e,'S OFFICE October 3, 1968 CITYSALEM, MASS- wi�unm v. n000rr DECISION ON PETITION OF EDWARD M. ZARELLA TO ERECT A SINGLE FAMMLY DWELLING AT 62 WINTHROP STREET. J°"N M. °RP Y. OR. /BT"VR LP°BEGONE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to allow this construc- tion as this is an .R-2 District , requiring a $000 square foot lot with a rear yard of thirty feet; petitioner' s lot contains 4680 square feet of land and at one point the rear yard would be twenty-nine feet . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals , and a hearing was held on his petition on September 23, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, abutters , Board Members , and others, and adver— tisements published in The Evening News. In addition to Chairman Gray, Members Boulger, Abbott, Labrecque, and Tanch were in a.ttendance at this hearing, Members Doyle and Welch being unable to be present . .Petitioner appeared with his Counselor, John R. Serafini who stated the case the same as appears in the original appeal; this is an isolated lot in a res• idential area which would not be usable without a variance ; it is of compara- tive size with comparative frontage of the great majority of lots in the are; on which dwellings have been erected in the past . No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration thereof, the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal to relieve hardship to the petitioner, being mindful of the fact that most of the dwellings in this district have been built on lots containing similar areas, many smaller in size, granting this variance would not be detrimental to the public good nor would it derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY Acting Secretary • \gyp nuq;� / RE C E W r �t U II �T�ETtI' QTS PTCI LY E tB OCT ® 46 AM 40 �oarb of �ypcal �•dNp1.M\`1 CITY Ci.:_{; '•'S oFFICE October 3, 1968 WILLI4M R. AOU OTT ASS SALEMM , JA MEB H. OOVLG Cq r IA w JG6[RH R. UOVLC DECISION ON PETITION OF GRACE L'HEUREUX TO ENLARGE EXIST- JOHN M. GRAY' 6H. - ING PORCH AT 26 WISTERIA STREET. ARTHUR LAUR@COUC The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to enlarge an exist- ing porch at this location because of nonconformity with the City Zoning Ordinance with regard to density requirements, specifically, distance to side line . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the appli- cation of the Zoning Ordinance , and a hearing was held on this appeal on September 23, 1968, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The ! Evening News. In addition to Chairman Gray, Members Boulger, Abbott , Labrecque and Tanch were in attendance at this hearing, Members Doyle and Welch being unable 0.o be present. Petitioner appeared and explained the peition, the same as in the appeal , and further stated that the reason for eltending the porch is to eliminate a water drainage hazard presently existing which causes wa.ter to drain into the basement . Bob Bowman appeared in favor. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration, the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal to relieve hardship to the petitioner. APPEAL GRANTED. BOARD OF APPEAL Bim% ActingnSecretary 1 • of "k5zatent, April 9, 1968 111L,1. 1. A.o.ICITY U OFFICE IAII.� .. ..11�EA sALEH, KA5 JOSCPH F. oOYLr DECISION ON PETITION OF SALEM ACRES, INC . , For Variance From 1.11„ .. �qAY. Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as it affects the location Aar AOA==o of a dwelling house located on Lot 132 Witchcraft Road. Counselor George P. Vallis appealed to the Board of Appeal on behalf of his client, Salem Acres , Inc. , for a variance from the application of the Zon- ing Ordinance with regard to density regulations, specifically, rear yard requirement . The Ordinance requires a rear yard of thirty feet, and the rear yard at this location is twenty-eight feet , five inches. A hearing was held on this petition on February 26, 1968, pursuant to no- tices mailed postpaid to the petitioners, their attorney, abutters, Board members, and others , and advertisements published in The Evening News , ad- vising of this hearing. All Board members attended the hearing with the exceltion of Mr. Abbott who was ill and unable to be present. Counselor Vallis appeared for the petitioner, and explained that the dwel- ling as located on the lot meets all of the Zoning Ordinance requirements AW' h the exception of the thirty-foot rear yard. John Butler, Councillor this Ward, appeared and stated the neighbors were afraid that there would be a. cut into the hill nearby and there might be a washout. Mr. Dom- inic Maraffa , 19 Wall Street, stated that the- location of a dwelling on this lot would be hazardous. The land in question is lower than the abut- 6r' s land, and Counselor Vallis further stated that his client intends to landscape here in the Spring, and this should take care of any problems the . abutters have with regard to the land. After due consideration thereof, the Board believing that granting this var- fiance would not be detrimental to the public good and would not substantial- ly derogate from the intent ' and purpose of the Ordinance, voted unanimously to Grant the variance . APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY Secretary 1969 BOARW� OF APPEALS CASES -� STREETS NAMES PAGE 4 Adams St. John Dennis 1 23 Appleton St. John W. Munroe 2 7-9 Beach Ave. George *. Atkins 3 16 Beckett St. Andrew Smith 4 9 Bentley St. D.and L. Realty Company 5 18 Bridge St, and 1 Hubon St. Earl B.. Annis 6 165A Boston St, Joseph A. Fazio 7 45 toston St. Thomas Beaulieu 8 20 Bow St. Norma, Paskowski 9 9 Bradley Road Robert D. and Florence Bowes 10 96 Broadway Henry G. and Shirley Boucher 11 138 Canal St. Naumkeag Lumber Company 12 • 20 Commercial St. D. P. D'Aprile, d.b.a. 13 20 Commercial St. Salem Welded Products Co. , Inc14 32 Commercial St. Industrial Engineering and Metal Fab. , 15 35 Daniels St. Mary Szostek 16 29 Dearborn St. Henry L. Andrews 17 37-39'} Dunlap St. Marion Bliss 18 308 Essex St. Mental Health Association 19 65 Federal St. Micheal J. MCDouga.11 20 135 Federal Court John J. Connelly 21 24 Fort Ave. New England Power Company 22 31 Fort Ave. Edwin Conners 23 159 Fort Ave. Robert Bennett 24 14 Fowler St. Helen Kelley 25 75k Gallows Circle Salem Acres, Inc. , 26 5 Green LefteSt. Petro Theophilopoulos 27 5 Green':,'-ledge St. Petro Theophilopoulos 28 1969 BOARD OF APPEALS CASES STREETS NAMES PAGE 17 Greenway Road Kenneth A. Mac Iver 29 1 Grove St. Harry A. Hewitt and E 30 8 Hardy St. and 9 Bentley St. D. and L. Realty Company 31 8 Hardy St. and 9 Bentley St. D. and L. Realty Company 32 82 Highland Ave. Ronald C. Coffin 33 off Highland Ave. Camp Lion, Lynn Mass. 34 Di .Pietro 'Ave:. Stutz Plaisted 35 5 Horton Road Grace Boucher 36 Lots 1 and 2 Howard St. Thomas and Margaret Pelleteir 37 247 Jefferson Ave. John P. and Gloria M. Riley 38 Lots B and C Juniper Ave. Ruth Wenzel 39 90-92 Jackson St. William Clapp 40 Lot A Juniper Ave. Judith French 41 Lot Kimball Court Frank Wetmore 42 146 Lafayette St. Kenneth and Marion Gelpey 43 163 Lafayette St. Philip A. Levesque 44 270 Lafayette St. Marguerite B. Cote 45 53-55 Lawrence St. Henry G. and Shirley J. Boucher 46 53-55 Lawrence St. Henry Boucher 47 108 Linden St. Armand Jacques 48 112 Linden St. Peter Wong 49 189 Loring Ave. Leonard Levy, D.B.A. Charles STudio 50 10-12 Lynde St. George Ahmed 51 6 Maple St. Mario J. Tricomi 52 16 Memorial Drive Leo Richard 53 4 Milk St. Hampden Realty Trust 54 4 Milk St. and 16 Pickman-2 Milk St. Robert Cook 55 1969 BOARD OF APPEALS CASES STREETS NAMES PAGE 7 Mooney St. John F. Tierney 56 1152 North St. Sun Oil Company 57 20 Northend Ave, William Little 58 North River Canal South Side SDK Realty 60 Lot 6 and 7 Parallel St. Marie C. Ball 41 Lot 152 Parlee St. Salem Acres, Inc„ 62 73-A and 75-G Puritan Road Salem Acres, Inc., 03 75-A Puritan Road Salem Acres, Inc.,; 64 6-8 Smith St. Elie Theriault 65 2 State Road Marvin Schloss 2 State Road Marvin Schloss A7 Lot #2 Station Road William V. Buckley, JR., 54 Turner St, House of Seven Gables --69,; 152 and 17 Upham St. and 10 Dearborn St. Dorothea Barry _ZO 29-29 R Upham St. Omer Talbot 71 4 Victory Road Arthur Levesque 724', 260 Washington St. Beckett St. Realty Trust -73 31 Washington St. Square North Ralph H. Doering _24 31 Washington Square North Ralph H. and Judith C. Doering 75 12-3 Winter St, Joseph G. Cutler 76 242 Winter St. Victor H. Mazzarini 77* i ofrzlextc, scuse#ts r..< PnurD of Appeal � wiLUAM >. ABBBTT DECISION ON PETITION OF JOHN DENNIS TO ENCLOSE EXISTING ,AMEB ". BOULBER PATIO AT 4 ADAMS STREET TO PROVIDE UNHEATED SUMMER SIT- Z' oBERN Y. BOVLE TING ROOM. ARTMVR LAOREBOVE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to enclose an existing patio at this location as the area is presently zoned for Industrial pur= poses, and the dwelling is an existing nonconforming use, and is also non- conforming with regard to the density requirements of the City Zoning Ord- inance . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the applica- tion of the Ordinance , and a hearing was held on this appeal on March 17, 1969, 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, excepting Mr. Doyle , in 1 whose absence Mr. Abbott assumed the role of secretary upon request of . the Chairman. Mr. John M. Gray, Sr. , chairman of the Board, was obliged to leave early due to a previous committment . .' t Mrs . Irene Dennis appeared and stated the proposed enclosure would provide s`. a much needed recreation area during the warmer months of the summer time , the addition would be 24° x 14.81 , erected at the rear of her home . Coun- cillor Edmond Perron appeared in favor of granting this appeal . No one appeared in opposition. The Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal and alleviate hardship to the petitioner, having in mind that in the immediate neighborhood there are , many- homes similar to this one, and finding that to grant this variance would cause no detriment to the public good and would not derogate from thel intent and purpose of the Ordinance . BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED p 9 BY it r. .CiC-�':-r✓✓.' Acting Secretary"- LU i p •¢ o n Lit M � La: cr) L U LU LU Ln '� � r� r g U i I ' f A.60911T,� oflem, ttssttcue##s EV, Pourb of cAVprnl JULY 11, 1969 WILLIAM .. ABBOTT ,AME. X. RGULOER DECISION ON PETITION OF JOHN W. MUNROE, TO INSTALL . A SWIMMING POOL AT 23 APPLETON STREET / JOE r.RX R. ooYLE ' i JOXN M. GRAY. 6R. " ARTXVR LABRECOUB ' The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to install a swimming pool at this location, advising the petitioner to appeal to the Board of Appeals for a Special. Permit as under the regulations of the City Zoning Ordinance the Appeals Board is the only authority who may grant permission for such use; petitioner was also advised to include in his appeal a re- quest for a variance from the applicable density requirements of the Ord- inance . . Petitioner appealed to the Board, and a hearing was halt} on this appeal on June 25, 1969, in the Council Chamber, City Hall, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner,. .abutters, Board Members, and others, and adver- tisements published in the Salem• Evening News. Five Board members were present at this hearing, ,Mr. Doyle and Mr. Welch being unable to attend. Petitioner appeared and explained he wished to install a portable pool to provide a recreation area for his children, and further stated he would OIlso require a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance re- luirements with regard to setback from the rear lot line and setback from existing structure. No one appeared in opposition. After careful consideration of this appeal, the Board voted unanimously to grant a Special Permit to allow installation of this swimming pool, and further voted to grant a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordin- ance affecting . distances from structures and from rear lot line, all other setback requirements are to be adhered to. APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEALS BY � Acting Secretary" ' e� THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS .................... .............._L.............E.'.-.............M............................. ' mn ox wwx BOARD OF APPEALS i` JULY l.. 1969 % NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit - (General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 18 Es amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted. To.........JOHN'. . MUNROE .................. .................... Owner or Petitioner - Address......APPLETON STREET........................................:................:... City or Town.....: ALEM1--MASS-,-........................... .........................23--.ARP-LETQN-.-STREET...............................:...............................-........I........... Identity Load Affected .............SALEMa.....MASS.......................................................................................... City by the Tamrof.............. SALEM.t---MASS...............................Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. ............. �A...APPLETON-,STREET.......................................SA:LEaM......:............---...-..... street city or Town the record title standing in the name of :.....,7 QIiN.-1L...ASIA..MA RJQBLE-.E....MtIHRAE............................................................... whose address is.....2T..APPLETO}:!..$.TREST..........SALEM........................MASS................. Street City or Town - State by a deed duly recorded in the........FAUX...................County Registry of Deeds in Book ................ Page................, .............---....................................Registry District of the Land Court. Certificate No................: .:..............Book ................Page................ The'decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No....................... City in the office of the Tmi-Clerk....... UGUSTINE J. -TOOMEY ................................................... Signed this...1.0A..day of..............,1U-LY.r.....................1969. Board of Appeals: . .. �. . ... iu� BD.ol.e l.!.!.. .. b ' �-C hair man .......... ........ ...... . Clerk oard � ✓ ................................................19........ at..............o'clock and.................................minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of.......................................... Book........................ Page.....................--. ATTEST Register Of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Ouner. FORM 1094 1101156 S WARREN. INC.. REVtEaa CHarraa ata-ues - _V r RECEIVE D �iJ II2I�ETti� �TStStiiSES a nJUN 1113 AM %5 k(.�fapnT.oir. N9LLAM ,. ABBOTT C17 SALEM, MASS. .. JAMES BOULDER AMENDED DECISION J08EPM I. OOYLE JOHN MORAY. OR. ARTHUR LABREOOUE on PETITION OF GEORGE W. ATKINS, III, TO ALTER PREMISES . LOCATED AT 7-9 BEACH AVENUE TO PROVIDE OCCUPANCY FOR TWO FAMILIES. A decision on this petition was rendered by the Board and forwarded to the City Clerk, Petitioners , their Counselor, and other parties of interest on May 22, 1969. At a subsequent meeting of the Board held on May 29, 19699 of which all Board Members excepting Mr. J. pbrman Welch, Jr. , were present, it was unanimously voted to amend this decision as follows: Delete entirely the last paragraph which presently reads:;&s follows: *After studying the facts presented in this case, the Board voted unanimous- ly. to grant this petition as a Conditional Variance to become effective when Mr. Atkins returns and to extend for the period of time he will occupy the premises. " Insert a new paragraph, as follows: "After studying the facts presented in this case, the Board voted unanimously to grant this petition as a Special Permit to become effective when Mr. At- kins returns and to extend for the period of time he will occupy the prem- ises. BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED By j Secret ry J 1( of �c��Pttt9 �' c2��ctC��LiaPX�a s� Pad[ of �Aypjcal DECISION ON PETITION OF GEORGE W. ATKINS, III , os oo. t TO ALTER PP,EMISES LOCATED AT 7-9 BEACH AVENUE o GRAY, R. TO PROVIDE OCCUPANCY FOR TWO FAMILIES . ARTXVF LA�FGGOV[ ' Petitioner, through his Counselor, Michael J . Harrington appealed directly to the Board of Appeals , . requesting a conditional variance so as to use the residence located at 7-9 Beach Avenue for occupancy for .two families .rather than one family . A hearing was held on this petition on May 19 , 1969 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the peti.tiorer, his attorney, abutters , board members , and others , and advertisements published in the Salem Evening Ne,,%,s . All Board members were present at this hearing, Counselor Harrington appeared in behalf of Mr. Atkins , and explained that he was asking for either a conditional variance or a special permit limit- ed to the period of occupancy by the petitioner and his family. Mr. At- kins will return . from Vietnam in the Fall and will occupy part of the premises ; at present he is an equitable owner of the property and has a .valid agreement to purchase the premises . After studying the facts presented in this case , the Board voted unani- mously to grant this petition as a Conditional Variance to become effect- ive when Mr. Atkins returns and to extend for the period of time he will occupy the premises . BOARD OF APPEALS PETITION GRANTED AS CONDITIONAL VARIANCE. BY - -/e% > Secreta,�fy v o, vG cj, Li W "J cC rJ =]4 �! r U Y r_ G Cl Li y IIF `r Uleza' C lii�S�tL'�`li"r i r \VIL 1 1 I. Atl[I OTT a . UOULOC" DECISION ON PETITION OF ANDREW SMITH TO ERECT CONCRETE BLOCK DUSLDING TO PROVIDE GARAGE AND WORKSHOP AT #16 BECKET 'STREET. AIITHuri LAOIICCOU6 S i The Inspector . of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a 20 ' x 20 ' ono-story concrete block building at #lb Becket Street to provide occupan- cy for` a garage and a wo,rkshop• because such construction would be in vio- lation of the requirements of the .City Zoning Ordinance . This district is zoned R-2 , for two-family residences , and the Ordinance ddd requires a lot area of 7000 square 'feet with a sixty-foot frontage , and side and rear yard setbacks of ten feet and thirty feet respectively. This lot on which there is an existing dwellin , contains approximately 2340 square feet with a 30. 68 foot frontage . The plan submitted shows a side yard of four to five feet to the boundary line, and a distance of j only .five feet to the rear boundary line , and the 'building to be erected would be on the boundary, line on the other side. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals from this decision, and a hear- - ng was held on September 8y', 1969 , pursuant U notices mailed postpaid to r' ' the. petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements j published in the Salem' Evening News. { All Board Members , including the two associate members were present at ,this 13 hearing. Petitioner appeared with his wife and stated the appeal the same as it ap- pears in the original petition on file . Mr. and Mrs . Henry Raczkowski, ab- utters appeared and stated petitioner makes racing cars and races the en- gijes all hours of the day and night and the fumes come into his home . Another abutter Mr. Eugeneusz Falat residing rear 18 Becket Street, also ap- peared to voice his opposition to granting this petition for the same rea- sons . After due consideration, the Board, mindful of , the congested conditions in this area with regard to small house lots and the number of dwellings in existence there , mindful also of the nature' of this operation with regard to fumes from racing engines being offensive in this district, and finding that such a use is not permitted in any residential district , voted unan- im6usly to deny this appeal . APPEAL DENIED: BOARD OF APPEALS BY / Secretary, 1 Pourtr of cel usul w iLLgM .. gBoorr J4MCB M. OOVIO Eq - JOBCgM .. ..YL. DECISION ON PETITION OF D. & L. REALTY COMPANY TO JOHN M. ORq V.. Bq. qR*MVq gBRE00V5 ALTER THE PREMISES AT 9 BENTLEY STREET TO PROVIDE BASEMENT AND FIRST FLOOR OCCUPANCY FOR OFFICE AND STORAGE FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS; ALSO, SECOND FLOOR OCCUPANCY FOR OFFICE AND LIGHT MANU- FACTURING, PRESENTLY A NONCONFORMING USE, AND THIS WOULD BE AN EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE. o: The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to alter the premises at 9 Bentley Street as outlined above as this area is zoned for two-fam- ily residences and such occupancy would be an expansion of an existing non- conforming use . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance , and a hearing was held on this appeal on March 17, 1969 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the Petitioner, their attorney, abut- ters , Board members , and others, and advertisements published in The Salem Evening News . �1 Board members were present at this hearing excepting Mr. Gray and Mr. yle . Councillor Louis Swiniuch and Richard Dombrowskiof 8 Bentley Street appeared in opposition. . Counselor Michael Harrington appeared for the petitioner. At the request of the Chairman, John M. Gray, Sr. , it was voted. to se postpone a. deci,sion orii_this petition until the Board discussed the case further. On April 16th Board Members John M. Gray, Sr. , James Boulger, Arthur Labrec- que and William Abbott met to resume discussion of this appeal . The four members present , providing a` quorum, voted unanimously to deny this appeal , feeling that there is no hardship involved, and to grant this appeal ~ would be detrimental to the public good as there is presently a six-apart- ment building within ten feet. of the structure involved in this appeal , and an expansion of a nonconforming use would substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordipance . APPEAL DENIED. sa+ w BOARD OF APPEAL a (Act . Secretary T en E N r(n i lit IIfS�zCE1tT, � tts$�zclusE# s L < ` : Pourb of ypal DECISION ON PETITION OF EARL B. ANNIS TO VARY AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING USE TO PERMIT THE JOOFn" P. OOVL6 JO"" M. GRAY. OR. CONDUCT OF A RETAIL BUSINESS FOR THE SALE OF AFTNO" L,.°ae.Oue SPORTING GOODS AND SPORTING EQUIPMENT ON THE FIRST FLOOR PREMISES AT 18 BRIDGE STREET AND 1 HUBON STREET. I Petitioner, through his attorney, Michael J. Harrington, appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordin- ance to permit occupancy of these premises for conducting a retail business, specifically the sale of sporting goods and sporting equipment . The area is presently zoned as an R-2 district , or for two-family residences. At present it is being used for the sale of shutters, blinds , and related ac- cessories , an existing nonconforming use for this district . A hearing was scheduled on this petition for February 24, 1969, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, 'his attorney, abutters , Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. How- ever, severe storms and heavy snowfalls caused the hearing to be postponed twice, but it was finally held on March 10. 1 Board Members were present at this hearing. Counselor Harrington ap- ared' ana explained the appeal the same as in the original petition on file . Mr. Barrington presented a map of the locus to each Board member. He stated the premises are presently occupied for a retail business, for the purpose 'of selling shutters, blinds and related accessories. There are numerous, businesses located in this neighborhood offering various prod- ucts for retail sale . , No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration, the Board found that granting a variance to permit occupancy ofthese premises . for the proposed use would not derogate from the intent ,And,,purpose of the Ordinance and would cause no detriment to the pub- lic god, dnd voted unanimously to grant this variance . BOARD OF APPEAL APPE'4 aANT*'DBY � F LL1 a) ....0-' �r V ,' W Secretary W ICC J C c� a r Vi. I' L'--E 9 L.r wiLUAm R. A..O Ti Am=a R. DOUIG=R DECISION ON PETITION OF JOSEPH A. FAZIO, d.b. a . BOSTON STREET AUTO BODY AT 165A Boston Street , for a Permit JOFIN M. ORA V. SR. to erect an addition to an existing building at this ART"VR Lq�RGOpVG location for a spray booth. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect this addi- tion to provide a spray booth, as this lot is nonconforming with regard. to density requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance . In this district a lot area of 12,000 square feet is required, permitting a maximum cover- age by all buildings of 25%; this would be an expansion of a nonconforming use , the lot area is 3875 square feet and the structure covers approximately 641, of the lot . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals for relief from this decision, and a hearing was held on this petition, on January 2u, 1969 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, Board Members , abutters , and others , and advertisements published in The Evening News. All Board Members attended this hearing excepting Mr. Norman Welch, Jr. Petitioner appeared and explained his case stating at is an absolute neces- •sity to install a spray booth under existing fire laws, to operate his shop safely, and if a permit is refused him it would be impossible to conduct his business from these premises. The Board found that to grant this appeal would relieve hardship to the petitioner and would remove a dangerous condition with regard to personal safety and conflict with fire prevention regulations, and it was felt that such occupancy would not be detrimental to the public good and would not substantially nullify or derogate from the intent and purpose of the Zon- ing Ordinance, and having carefully weighed these considerations, voted unanimously to grant this appeal. BOARD OF APPP L APPEAL GRANTED BY / /plc 6/ Secretary " LLt S U _W W J J i Tits of �a�cm, '� ns5achzmP#�� vn�uAw v.jno ooTT I 'REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF BOARD OF APPEAL DECISTOT—" JAMeR H. �ouuGeR �� ^3 n� cn rn rn GG=R., F. oov E RE: - Thomas Beaulieu, 45 Boston Street -r-, JOHN M. GRAY. R. ARTHUR LAPRemUE On February 6 , 1968, a conditional and limited Special Permit Ti s 4aged 'to Mr. Beaulieu on his petition to the Board of Appeals, to be al5V4e=to sell used cars at a gasoline service station, located at 45 Boston S1�7regx. m 'ms A request from Counselor Samuel E. Zoll to review this decision, relative to a continuation of the existing use , was received by this Board on January 21, 1969 . As a result of this request , Mr. Zoll was invited to appear at the next scheduled meeting of the Board. After two postponements due to severe storms and heavy snowfall, the meeting was held on' March 10 . All Board members were present at the hearing. Coun- selor Zoll 'appeared and explained that the petitioner had been -given a .Spec- ial Permit to sell used cars and later sought the approval of the Licensing Board. That Board acted favorably in September, 1968, and in their decision required that the petitioner hottop the premises, also, the license limited the number of automobiles on the premises at any one time to eight vehicles . As a result of the foregoing, the petitioner was unable to conduct his bus- iness in accordance with the original decision of the . Appeals Board. He id not actually sell cars until January, 1969 , and it was well into Febru- ary before any number of cars were actually sold. Under the decision of this Board, the permission to conduct the business as requested, expired February 6, 1, 1969 . Counselor Zoll asked that the petitioner be given another year with the same conditions as the original permit to operate a used car business . He further stated that the Ideal Finishing Company, an abutter, was not opposed to granting this petition. ' A letter was read from the Sylvania Products Company, located at 6u Boston Street , objecting to granting this appeal. This letter was dated March 3, 1969`, and signed by O. M. Harris , plant manager. Councillor .John Butler appeared and stated he appeared as Ward Councillor only. The Board members , having in mind that this use may be granted by a Special Permit in this district in accordance with the City Zoning Ordinance , voted unanimously to grant an extension of one year from the date of filing this decision to the petitioner, for the purpose of selling used cars under the same conditions as .outlined in the decision of this Board on February 6 , 1968 on the original appeal by the petitioner, i. e . "if there is any viola- tion of law in the meantime , the Board reserves the right to revoke the per- mit before the expiration of the year. " The Board further felt that as this is a use allowed in this district as a Special Permit use in the Zoning Ord- inance , granting this extension would relieve a hardship to the petitioner, and would in no way derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance . BOARD OF APPEAL *APPEAL GRANTED BY ( 9 " l/// ✓ Secretary r THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS I I S..........A...........L........._E..........I I.......:............... s CITY ort. .WH - - 1 I • BOARD OF APPEALS ................MARCx z5 t......................19 69 li NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To........ THOMAS••BEAULIEU ............. Owner.or Petitioner 4 BOSTON STREET Address._.....-5._........ --•-••---._...._-_-..-_._....•---•-------•---••....................................................... City or Town.......... This is an of one this date of @._.SRe.0 al._.. __ . _ .... ... .... . ..... ...... _... Identify Land Affected .fermi-t--_granted by the• Board of Appeals.• 2. 6. 68r.__to•••permit sa1.gs of used City cars. by the Town of............................SALEM ................................................... of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. 4� BOSTON... TREE.T SALEM . .. Hereat City or Town the record title standing in the name of =-...................TU9M.AS...DE AU.LZZU-...._._..._...........---•----...---••--•----•...........--..........._....._._..._........._. whose address is.......4�-_-B05TON••STREET•••••--_-___..SALEM,.........................MAS$-r-.-__- Street City or Town State by a deed duly recorded in the- QUpli--];SS> 7k:......._..County Registry of Deeds in Book Page ..-__Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No................. ................Book ................Page................ i The decision of said,Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No....................... City in the office of the To,N� Clerk.........-....AUtxUST1NE_.J --.TUOMEY.........................._•-_-_-......... Signed this--_2-5'--day of..........---NAR-CH.......................1969. Board of Appeals- -12 12 r ............... .... .s:.c...................... sic"..........Chairman Board of Apppeals ..... . G $ ``�•--f�(�1 < _:.Clerk Bnard of wppea . ................................................19........ at--- .... ..--.O'clock and.................................minutes ----M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of.......................................... BOO .............. Page........................ ATTEST .-_-.--_---_.•.............................................................. Register of Deeds ---Notice to be recorded by Land Owner. PORM 1094 HOBBS B WARREN. INC.. R6vl-2a CHdrr2n 219•1-62 I i ; ki: """'"" W. "ROOT' DF.CTSTON ON PFTTTTON OF NORMA PASKOWSKT TO ALTER .M Ea „ Rom"`R PRF.MTSF•S AT 20 BOW STREET TO PROVTDE ADDTTTONAL APARTMENT. ARTHUR LABRCCOVB The Tnspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit 'to allow the altera- tion of a .dwel.ling at 20 Row Street to provide an additional apartment as this is an R-1 district , zoned for single family residences . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal from the decision of the Build- ing Tnspector, and a hearing was held on this appeal on November 1.7, 1969 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters , Board Mem- bers , and others, and advertisements published in The Salem Evening News . Tn addition to Chairman John M. nray, Sr. , Board Members Arthur Labrecque , William F. Abbott , and Emery P. Tanch were in attendance at this hearing, Mr. Doyle and Mr. Boulger being absent , and Mr. Welch being delayed in ar- riving; at this meeting. Petitioner appeared and explained the case the same as in the original, pe- tition on file ; her mother is elderly and ill and is presently living with �etitioner' s sister who must work to provide for herself; her mother re- uires constant care and must have someone with her at all times, and it is a hardship to the petitioner to go back and forth to care for her moth- er when her sister must leave her. No one appeared in opposition . After a careful study of the facts presented in this case , the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal as a Special Permit to relieve hardship to the petitioner in providing care and attention to her mother, with the condition that this is a , temporary use as long as this care and attention is required , and the dwelling will revert to a single family dwelling use thereafter. BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL P-RMTT GRANTED WTTH CONDTTTON. BY // �- C x _ Acting Secretary W 'J CC c y N o V Z i .: rrarb of CAppeal ., DECISION ON PETITION OF ROBERT D. AND FLORENCE M. BOWES, NOOGTT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING AN H. GOVLG=R EXISTING FENCE. JoceRH r. GOY�c JOHry M. GRAY. OR. AViTHUR LA EtRCGOVC Petitioners through attorney, Michael J. Harrington, appealed directly to the Board of Appeals for a "Special Permit" for the purpose of maintaining an existing fence , ranging in height from 5 ' -6" to 6 ' -011 , also, there is a question if the said fence meets requirements of visibility at intersec- tions as stipulated in the City Zoning Ordinance. On December 16 , 1968, a hearing was held on this appeal, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioners, attorney Harrington, Board Members, abut- ters , and others , and advertisements published in The Evening News . All Board Members , excepting Mr. Doyle , were present at this hearing. Counsel- or Harrington appeared for the petitioner, and explained the case the same as in the original petition on file. No one appeared in opposition. The Board voted unanimously to continue this hearing until the January 20th 1969 meeting. *On January 20, with. all Board Members excepting Mr. Norman Welch in attend- ance , it was voted to grant a Special Permit to maintain the existing fence with the following exception: 1. The fence shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance with reference to visibility at intersections. BOARD OF APPEAL GRANTED WITH EXCEPTION BY ,�,/_ / , Secretary m v � LLN W l c� w w CL N y N a r � V . r THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ............................... ....5.......A.......L...... P7 ......................................... c1n OR TowR RECEIVED +d 29 14 PH '99 BOARD OF APPEALS CITYSCLI ALEM, MASS. ..............JANgARY•__..22 ................19 69 S. 1. NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To........................ROBERT P,... ND__FLOREIQCE--M•:-_-BOWES .............................................. Owner w Petitioner Address----------------9---BRADI.F.Y...RQA.1?......... ..... ............ City or Town....._SAL1?M-, MASS. ..................._..._....9-.D1?ADUY...RQAD....CQRNER_.oF--.QUADRANT...RQ-AA........................... Identify Land Affected ._...._--.. ............................................................' City by the Town-of.................5AUU................................................Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. -----------9.._aRADLU..IRQAD....................................................SA I FM........-..._......_......_........__..... Street City or Town • the record title standing in the name of ......................ROBERT...n) --AM..rLQ11EXCE_.K.---BOW-ES-......-_...-_.......-....._-........ whose address is......9...BRADLEY: RQAD SALEM.---- M.aa .. y-....__... ............................... a.-_-...___ Street City or Town State by a deed duly recorded in the.............ESSEX.._......___..County Registry of Deeds in Book ................ Page......_......._-r ....................................................Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No................. ................Book ................Page........._...... The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No:...................... City in the office of the Town Clerk..........A_UG.LISTZNE.--J......T-Of0ME.Y.................................... Signed this....2Dj.day of........JAXUARY.......................1969. Board of Appeals: p� ...................... 'u{,S .Chairman Board of pprala0 e'— � --•- ,.70..x'-... ..... Clerk ------------------------------------------------19-------- at-- . .......o'clock and................................minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of................................ ......... Book........................ Page........................ ` ATTEST ............................................................................ Register of Deeds Notice-to be recorded by Land Owner. FORM 1094 HOBBS & WARREN. INC., REVISED CHAPTER 212.1969 CTt �' iem, � C�xs �zcl �zsef � 4-'! xl R m_� l' WILLIAM P. Ap pOTT DECTSTON ON PETTTTON OF TirNTP,Y G. AND SHIRLF,Y BOUCHF,R TO RELOCATE, A TWO rAMTLY DVIT TT,TNG TO 96 BROADWAY. APTN UR to pAECOVE Petitioner appealed to the TiuildingT.nspector for a permit to relocate this dwelling to 96 Broadway and was refused as the lot, in question con- tains five thousand square feet and the City Zoning Ordinance requires . 3500 square feet of land for each dwelling unit ; proposed occupancy is , for two apartments . Attornev Robert Rowes appealed to the Board of Appeals on behalf of petitioner and a hearing was held on this appeal on .Tune 23, 1969 , pur- suant to notices mailed postpaid to petitioner, attorney for petitioner, board members, abutters , and others, and advertisements published in The Salem Evening News. Board members present included Mr. Abbott , the acting chairman, Mr. Boul- ger, Mr. Doyle and Mr. Labrecque . Unable to attend this hearing were Mr. Gray, Mr. Tanch and Mr. Welcb . as ey ,Tames Ronan appeared for the petitioner and explained the appeal . as it appears in the original petition on file , and stated there is one building on the lot , and it would be natural for two families to occupy this dwelling. George and Doris Reauregard of 216 Canal Street , Tsabelle Guilbault, 212 Canal Street, Gerard, Alice and Yvette Ouellette, 218 Canal Street, Joseph and Eva Theriault , 228 Canal Street, Helen Dixey, 222 Canal Street , Stella Tardiff, 222 Canal Street , Ruth Dediovitch, 224 Canal Street, and Ida Gosselin, 226 Canal Street appeared in opposition. No decision was reached at this hearing. The Board discussed this matter on July 21, 1969 and voted to deny this appeal , finding that there is no hardship involved, and to grant this appeal would derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would be detrimental to the public good. . 0=) W - APPEAL ENTS:N. BOARD OF APPEALS _2 BY ui co V �Secretary� < w W cr_ J C rN a ca RECc14'F-�� itu of gSalem, .a Jl= Oct 3l 9 43 JF r""ICE wLLAM o. PPO T CITY , "IqA JS, J4M E6 N. OOVLOER SALt'� 109[PN F. OOVLE DECISION ON PETITION OF NAUMKEAG LUMBER COMPANY , .138 CANAL ST. iRTNVR LnPPECOVE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to the petitioner to erect an addition to an existing building as' the plan submitted showed no . front yard setback and the City Zoning Ordinance requires a setback of thirty feet in this district . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the appli- cation of the Ordinance and a hearing was held on this appeal on October 20, 1969 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters , Board members and others , and advertisements published in the 'Salem Even- ing News . All. Board members excepting Mr. Doyle and Mr. Welch were present at this hearing. Mr. Leon Masse and Mr. Bruce Runnels appeared representing petitioning company and explained the case ; they explained that the addition is needed �d will replace an existing structure in poor condition; it is to be used r protecting their lumber products in inclement weather in receiving and shipping processes ; they further stated that i_f a variance is granted with regard to the front setback requirement , it would enable them to line up the front of the new addition with the existing building and increase effic- iency in loading and unloading materials from trucks . No one appeared in opposition. After a careful study of the facts and plans presented in - this case, ' the Board found that to grant peti-tioner ' s request for a variance would ease a very real hardship to the petitioner in handling lumber products and i.n receiving and shipping of same in stormy and cold weather by protectin�' employees engaged in this operation and also protecting the ma`Cerials -in- volved, and in this Industrial district , adjoining structures built many years prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1965, are also non- conforming under the regulations of the Ordinance and found that to grant this variance would not be detrimental to the public good and would not derogate from the intent of the Ordinance , and for these reasons t',:e 'Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal . BOARD OF APPEALS, PETITION GRANTED BY Clerk Pro Tem ' i j 'y (fit of Salem, fflassarhusetts curb of �Vjrul � 1111A. AEE.„ DECISION ON PETITION OF D. P. D'APRILE,d.b.a . AAME6 H. EOVLO6R SALEM WELDED PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. , TO ERECT oaERH oo. E ADDITION TO EXISTING FABRICATING SHOP, AT 20 I '.HH ' ,RA.. R. COMMERCIAL STREET. ARTHUR LABRECOUE 1 iThe Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a p g permit to erect an addition' to an existing structure because of violations of theCity Zoning Ordinance . Petitioner' s lot is undersize, containing 19096 square feet instead of the required 40,000, with setbacks from all boundary lines of thirty feet . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals from this decision, and a hear- ing was held on this appeal on March 17, 1969 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board members, and others, and adver- tisements published in The Salem Evening News. Board Members Joseph Doyle and Norman Welch were unable to be p y present at this hearing. Counselor Kaitz of Boston, a brother of the owner of the National Lumber Company, an abutter, appeared and voiced his opposition to granting this appeal, as this addition would be within five feet of the Lumber Company *property. The Board voted unanimously to postpone a decision on this appeal pending further discussion between the petitioner and the abutter. On April 16 Board Members John M. Gray Sr. , James Boulger, Arthur Labrecque .and William Abbott reviewed this appeal. The four members present providing a quorum, voted unanimously to grant this appeal on the condition that the petitioner cut ten feet off the present plans if this is agreeable to .the Lumber company officials, and submit new plans showing this change to the Inspector of Buildings. GRANTED WITH CONDITION`SBOARD OF APPEAL (Act . ) Secretary G, u, tp Lu IW W J D: m �a Ar D- 4 i Ctv of �o uazb of �Fveal WILLIAM >. A000,-f 9 . 30. 69 P1E6HO� "`. DECISION ON PETITION OF SALEM WELDED PRODUCTS CO. , INC . ,' o,w o 20 COMMERCIAL STREET, TO ERECT ADDITION TO EXISTING < , AONE=o BUILDING ON UNDERSIZE LOT WITH INSUFFICIENT SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addition to, an• existing building located in an Industrial district as the City Zoning Ordinance requires a lot area of 40,000 square feet in these 'dis- tricts , minimum frontage of 150 feet , and front, side and rear setbacks from boundary lines of thirty feet . The lot at 20 Commercial Street contains only 19283 square feet , and the proposed addition would be fif- teen feet from the side boundary on one side, five feet from the other side , and only five feet from the rear boundary line . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals to vary the application of the Ordinance , and a hearing was held on this appeal on September 15th, 1969 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others , and advertisements published in The Salem Evening News . Mr. Doyle and Mr. Welch were unable to attend this hearing, all other Board •embers were present . Counselor William Donaldson appeared with the petitioner and explained the case the same as in the original appeal on file; petitioner has conducted his business at this location for the past seven and one-half years, and has now reached a point where he must expand his facilities to enable him to take care of the increase in his business. Maurice Chouinard, Counsel for William Simmons, 29 Mason Street appeared to voice his client ' s oppostion to granting this appeal . After careful consideration of the facts presented in this appeal and a thorough study of the plans and plot plan presented also , the Board found that to deny petitioner a variance to expand his increasing business would be a severe hardship to him, and found further that the business having been established in this Industrial district where various other businesses are presently being conducted , that to grant this variance would not be det- rimental to the public good and would not derogate from the intent and pur- pose of the Ordinance , and for these reasons, voted unanimously to grant this appeal. APPEAL GRANTED. BOARD OF APPF:.ALS. 1 BY 301 'I' Acting Secretary' 69� WC rz 6 lad ;:;T8 i I a; CtU Lt# �aljera, �tcT58tIL��YSE��S WILLIAM V. ADDOTT AM�a „. 6o Locw DECISION ON PETITION OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING & METAL ' JO6CPX P. DOYLE JO„� M. QDAY. 6A. FAB. , INC . , 32 COMMERCIAL STREET. TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDI- ARTHUR LADRDOODE TION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING TO PROVIDE OCCUPANCY FOR A PAINT SHOP. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addition to an existing building presently nonconforming with regard to density requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance , relating to lot size and set- backs from boundary lines. Petitioner appealed to. the Board of Appeals for relief from this decision, and a hearing was held . on this petition on April 28th, 1969, 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 exception Chairman John M. Gray, Sr. Appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. John McCarthy, Candlewood Road, Ipswich, president and treasurer of the corporation, stated the appeal on file stated the position of the petitioner; at the time the land was pur- chased and the initial facility was erected the zoning laws were not as re- strictive as they are at present ; when drawings on this initial facility were submitted, future additions were shown as these were a necessary factor in the growth and expansion plans; a refusal to grant this variance would put the company in a very serious predicament in the respect that without expanded facilities the business will be forced to relocate , and the difficulty in finding industrial zoned land plus the enormous cost in- volved would in all probability jeopardize the future of this company. Appearing in opposition were James and Ann Coughlin, 38 Mason Street, Mr. and Mrs. John Antonio, 42 Mason Street, and Ward Councilor George McCabe .. After careful consideration of the facts presented in this appeal , the Board voted unanimously to grant the variance , finding that it would relieve hard- ship to the petitioner, and would not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the Ordinance , and would cause no substantial detriment to the public good. BOARD OF APPEALS. APPEAL GRANTED BY `�I � , Cn 2 'Secret ry o cn u; en L w • W J J a- F- Q g v ,pGn>vtr4. of �$alera, gassar4usette Puurb of Ayyral wquaM ,. AO60TT DECISION .ON PETITION OF. MARY SZOSTEK TO ALTER THE PREMISES JAM E9 �. ROVLO ER AT 35 DANIELS STREET Tai S'NCREASE ,OCCUPANCY FROM TWO APART- oaER" ' oOYL. MENTS TO THREE APARTMENTS.= JOHN M. OKAY. OR. ARTHUR V pRECOVE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to alter the premises at this location to provide an additional apartment because of violations of the City Zoning Ordinance.. The Ordinance requires a minimum lot .area of 3500 square £eet ,for e5ch dwelling unit, and for three apartments the requirement would be 10, 500 square feet of lot area ; also, plans show in- sufficient setbacks from front and rear boundaries and from one side boun= dary line. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals, and a hearing was held on this petition on March 17, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others , and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. Donald Koleman, Attorney, appeared for the petitioner and requested that the hearing be postponed to the next meeting of the Boardy On May 19t this hearing was resumed. All Board Members were present at the hearing. Koleman appeared and stated he is going to buy the property and has a alid, enforceable Sale and Purchase Realty Agreement , and showed pictures of the propertyto the Board,which he further stated was a fine Federal house built in 1805. Noone appeared in opposition. After consideration of the facts presented in this case , the Board found that to grant this appeal would in no way nullify or derogate from the in- tent and purpose of the Ordinance, and would not be detrimental to the pub- lic good, and with Board Members James Boulger, Arthur Labrecque, . Joseph Doyle, and Chairman John M. Gray, Sr. , voting unanimously to grant this appeal with the following conditions, the petition was granted: a . A steel 'fire escape from the third floor to grade is to be installed and is to . be approved by the Building Inspector. b. Off-street,'parking is to be , conducted ac- cording to the Zoning Laws of the City of ®„ m Salem. W APPEA', G%MTIT BOARD OF APPEALS Uj Q j � BY C 01 ,;a 'e cretarj NP_ yN 6 V i WTRU of "-5aIem, �''Iplyp,oaf'\ WILLIAM I. AO°OTT '!HHRH "• Ro„�OHR DECISION ON PETITION OF HENRY L. ANDREWS TO INSTALL A SWIMMING POOL AT 29 DEARBORN STREET JONN M. ORhV. 9R. nRT"VR LARRHCOU6 Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals for a Special Permit to allow , the installation of a swimming pool in the rear, of his dwelling at '29 Dearborn Street , which would be six feet from the 'side boundary line and five feetfrom the rear boundary. A hearing was held on this appeal on May 19 , 1969, 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 presentrlat this hearing. Petitioner appeared and stated he had resided at this location for the past five years , and has a child who is handicapped with eye trouble ; he further stated the pool will have .full protection and will be fully enclosed and locked. ' Edward A. Curtin, an .abutter, of 10 Orchard Terrace , Charles Lee , 291 Dear- orn Street , and Robert Desrocher of 27 Dearborn Street, both also abutters, appeared in.:opposition to granting this petition. The Board after study' of the facts presented in this case voted unanimously to deny this appeal, finding no hardship involved and finding further that to grant this appeal would nullify and derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would be detrimental tothe public good. APPEAL DENIED. BOARD OF APPEAL BY ei /Secretary v G jN I! ud C 1 t!LL) an; 4 L -11: 2 , iYMI?I I14 L2C� rte.; LO m o m wiLunm v. nv°orr DECISION ON PETITION OF MARION BLISS FOR VARIANCE �J TH E- �ocerH GARD TO DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY ZONING ORD . A�OE, RELATING TO EXISTING STRUCTURES AT 37-392 DUNLAP STFELEYn and 2 and 6 DEVEREUX STREET. Petitioner, through Counselor Richard P. Farley, appealed directly to the Appeals Board for variances from the applicable density requirements of the Zoning Ordinance , affecting properties located at 37 and 392 Dunlap Street , and 2 and § Devereux Street. A hearing on this petition was scheduled to be heard on February 24, 1969 , pursuant to, notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, her attorney, abut- ters , Board members , and others and advertisements published in The Evening News . . However, due to unusually severe snow storms , the hearing had to be , postponed twice , and was eventually held on March 10, 1969 • All Board members were present at the hearing. Counselor Farley appeared and stated his client is ill and unable to attend to the buildings in ques- tion. There are four buildings involved, each of which was erected more than fifty 'years ago, the lot areas being separated by fences. Mr. Farley urther explained the lots are undersize and lack sufficient frontage to omply withlthe Zoning Ordinance . He explained there is also a financial hardship involved as it is impossible for Mrs . Bliss to maintain the prop- erty since her husband' s death, and she needs variances in order to go be- fore the Planning Board for approval to divide the property. The Board found thatthe lot areas in question and the frontage of these lots are in keeping with others in the area , and feeling that to grant, the variances sought would in no derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance , and would cause no detriment to the public good, voted unani- mously mously to grant this: appeal and relief sought by the petitioner. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY �/ (/ Secretary s� �A C11itu IIfrz�Pm, � ffizrscipz � s R ������ �rl �isa� of Ezr1 r �P ciry 2sP// ��,yp DECISION ON PETITION OF MENTAL HEALTH ASSOTT� JONt,{JF WILL gA00TT.. qM =R NORTH SHORE, INC . , TO RELOCATE ITS OPERATION O SCF .. oo. ESSEX STREET. JOHN nn. ORgV. 9 griTHVR IAORECOVE - Petitioner appealed- to the Board of Appeals to relocate its operation from 1 Cambrdire Street to more spacious quarters at 328 Essex Street , in an R- 2 District , zoned for two family residences. A hearing was held on this appeal on .July 21 , 1969 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to abutters as supplied on a listing from Assessors' of- fice, board members, petitioners, and others, and advertisements published in The Salem Evening News . Mr. Doyle and Mr. Tanch were unable to attend this hearing, and Mr. Arthur Labrecque acted as secretary; all other Board members were present . Attorney Hyman. Marcus appeared for the petitioners, and made a statement in their behalf. Ralph Golding, executive director, Cvhthia Field, pres- ident, and Dr.. Tobias Friedman appeared for the petitioners; also, Fr. ` McCormack of the Catholic Charities, Richard B. O'Keefe , and .James Brennan, •chief of the City fire department . Many letters were received by the Board favoring granting this appeal . "These included letters from President Meier of Salem State College , Lawrence Fitzpatrick, Superintendent of Salem Schools, Henry Higgins, Superintendent of Peabody schools, Dr. Calvin E Eells, Superintendent of Gloucester schools, Auro G Coleman, Superintendent of Marblehead schools, and Clifford Good who is superintendent of the Danvers school system. In each of these , the benefits derived from assistance provided by the petitioners to students and parents in need of these services were strongly approved . Caatain Henry Nichols, .Joanna Peabody, Daniel Foley, Gifford Stark, Don Kelly, McLain Griffin., and Peter Russell , president of the Ropes Memorial were among those opposed. After a careful study of the facts as presented the Board voted unanimously to grant a Special Permit to these .petitioners only, with the following con- ditions: 1 . To operate only during normal daily business hours. 2. No exterior structural changes to be made to the buildings . 3. The entire premises are to be kept clean. 4. There are to be no overnight accommodations for anyone, excluding a caretaker for the premises if one is provided. 5. Parking for people. doing business with this association is to be provided on the property. BOARD OF APPFALSJ / J /I SPECIAL, PERMIT GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS. By�ifL�UL Acting Secretary,' THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS S .................................... ....A........L ....... E.......M ......................................... BOARD OF APPEALS .................A!Llaus�,E.,A1.1....................19 09 NOTICE OF VARUNCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit i. (General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 18 as amended) Notice js hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To.MZNTAL,..UEALTJi..A,$.S.6.r,.T.ATT ON---OF..N.()RTJI... owner or Petitioner Address....... ESSEX STREET .................................................................................. ............................... Cityor Town........5AJXM-,...KA5-5.A............................................................................................ .....................................................:.....32a-.r.S.Sj!,X..STREF—T...................................................... identify Land Affected ......................................................................................................... .............................................. City by the:97zwu of..................... .............................Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on ............. 32.8...n.is.rx-s-T.mu ...................................... . ............................................ Street City or Town the record title standing in the name of ............... .............................. .............................................. whose address is.....3�28..kasFx...ST.RFET.............aA1,rK Street City or Tow. .......... State by a deed duly recorded in the...S.O.UTIA-USEX..........County Registry of Deeds in Book . .. ................ Page,................ ....................................................Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No................. ................Book .............--.Page................ The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No....................... City i in the office of the TewrrClerk......AUG.U.S.T.INZ..J.....T.O.ONE-Y Signed this...111'!-.day of..............ATIG.U.T....................196 9. Board of Appeals: ...............(2,24....----Chairman Boa, .. .App. Clerk....... . ...... . 0, d of ;Ppe ................................................19........ at............--o'clock and............--..................minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of.......................................... Book........................ Page........................ ATTEST ........................................................................... Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Owner. FORM 1084 HOBBS Is WARREN, INC.. REVISKI) CHAPTI. V2.1862 j C O M M O N W E A L T H 0 M A S S A „ H U S E, 1 S Es X , ss . Sunerior Court Cl) En,uity No . 14165 ® (+} i44 HARLAN B. PEA.BODY, JR. , ET AL c MCC>L VS . °j > ti JOHr, M. GRAY, SE, , BOARD OF APPEALS ,4 Cj OF THP CITY OF ::>ALEM ; and MENTAL HT,ATITH ASSOCIATIOP' OF THE NORTH SHORE , INC . FINAL' DECREE This cause came on to be further heard at this sitting; and it being renresented to the Court in .orer. Court that the defendant ,, i Mental. Health Association of the North Shore , Inc . has ac^aired { other o,ia,rters and has.-no r,re ent .intention to relocate at 72A Essex Street , Salem, ana. that .the defPrInt Board. of An-pals i of the City of. Salem ani .sai.d h?enta? Heal-th Assoninti.nn of the North Shore,, Inc . ha re, rn . desirc to an forward to nre^pct ev1i 'crce , in ornosirion to the bill of onmn1�!nt of the nlp;.ntiffs herein; then?')T'on , unnn (;pr^icer?tion . theref '', &il 7F:Y'G1CJ 1Clt is rE:ateC - consenting in v:ritin , it i ORDERED, ADJUDGED. and DECREED that . the decision. of the Board of . i Appeals of Salem filed in the . office . of the City Clerk of Salem or 1 August 11,: 1969., nurnort n? to mrant, , special nermit and/or variance to Mental Health Association of, the. North Shore , Inc . " to relocate, its operation" to ?29Essex Street , Salem, he j annulled-, without costs to an. .of .the defendants , and the Clerk o` 1 Courts is directed to send an attested cony of this decree within thirty days after entre thereof , to the Boarr9 of Anneals and to the Insnector of Buildings of the City of Salem. By the Court frz��{ecu „. } i Lei 7Q , Assistant (C'Zprik Entered : �-L—'1 Thu co rJ of tlh- above decree asser,tec: to, wivin. ail ri ;i;.z� of a peal the gel 0111. , � . Att fey for pl j Ki rl - 1.L - bShw (1li('.1tV ' ✓Col `-�J .u. ...� �ttgrno;j for ;ioary3 i,,�peais � /�. THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS S. _...._.._9.._......--L.__..._...E.... ........r1._......... ... CITY OR TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS .......JANUARY--....-..9........................19 7C NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To..................MZCHAU.A MC-..DOUGALL..-................... 9Ren or Petitioner Address.--.------81...WA.St1.INGTON...SxR>:11T...=. .-..... Cityor Town.........5AL1rM-t---MAS5......................... ................................................................. ............................... .5.-FEDERAL.-STUET..........-•-----•--....:...........................-......-................... Identify Land Affected .............................. ............................. City ' by the Ternrof...................5ALEX,..-MASS......................-.........Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the-owner-with respect to the use of premises on. Petitioner ................. .......--......_65t..FEDERAL..STREET.-------.................SALEM.....................--..... street City or Town he name of the record title standing in t ........................................•-•--.......--.......---..................-•----......•--............••----. whose address is......... ...............................••...... Street City or Town State by a deed duly recorded in the........ES- XX...................County Registry of Deeds in Book ................ Page................. ------...------............... ------------ Registry District of the Land Goan Certificate No................. ................Book ............•...Page.......-•-•----- The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No........................ City in the office of the Town-Clerk.......AVGUSTINE J .--TOOMEY••--••••••------------••--„• Signed this.!DJ ....day of........JANUARY.......................1990 I OIIr of Appeals: p n -•---- L.-f.:zru.- .��..... €.r.:.f.Chairman Board of Appeals .....................: .a,..= .CL��Y Board of Appeals •-----------------------------------------------19-------- at..............o'clock and........................!.......minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of.......................................... Book...............:........ Page------------............ • ATTEST ............................................................................ Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Ouner. FORM 1094 HOODS Is,WARREN, INC..- wanes. ale-uea \ L(- \ \ p .wy YtGILPST:� �.:v'G(3.�1 [{LL/.LtLk�.:J �r� �?J varb of cAppeu1 DECISION ON PETITION OF MICHAEL J. MC DOUGALL TO OCCUPY PREMISES AT 65 FEDERAL STREET FOR Illy. '�' CONDUCTING AN ADVERTISING BUSINESS. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals, stating he intended , if per- mitted by the Board to move his advertising firm from its present location to 65 Federal Street, and requested permission of the Board to conduct his business at this new location. The new site is a residential district , zoned for two family dwellings. A hearing was held on this appeal on December 29 , 1969 with Board `*embers all in attendance with the exception of Mr. Doyle . Notice of the hearine' was .published in the Salem Evening News once each in two successive week<. , ---and notices of the hearing were also sent to the petitioner in care of his Counselor, John O' Connell , to the owner of record, abutters, board members and others . The petitioner appeared and stated the case the same as in the original appeal on file and indicated e he intends to do n � � ,- 0 outside advertising 0 on the building and in no way change the physical aspect of the building .or degrade the neighborhood in any fashion. Councillor at Large, Robe: 'ahi.11 also appeared in favor of granting this appeal. No one appeared in opposition. After careful consideration of the facts presented at this hearing, the Board found that this building has been occupied for a beauty salon until very recently, and that this proposed professional use would be in keep- ing with other professional uses in the immediate vicinity, and voted unan- i �au!'ly toigrant this appeal as a Special Permit with the following condi- tions: 1 . There are to be no changes on the exterior of the building. 2. If a sign is installed it shall be limited to 1f' square feet in area . SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS. BOARD OF APPEALS BY Secretary l oit�ti�\ JULY 11 , 1969 WILL+hM F. A°°OTi ° LSA DECISION ON PETITION OF JOHN J. CONNELLY TO INSTALL A SWIMMING POOL AT 135 FEDERAL STREET A RTMVF LA i.R CCOV� The Inspector of Buildin.gs .•refused to issue a permit to install a swimming . pool at this location and referred the petitioner to the Board of Appeals, advising him that a Special Permit for the installation could be obtained only from this Board, and further advising him that a variance from the ap- plication of the density requirements of the Zoning Ordinance would also be required with regard to rear yard setback. A hearing was held on this: petition on June 25, 1969., in the Council Chamber, City Hall, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, the abut- ters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. Five Board members were present at this hearing, Mr. Welch and Mr. Doyle be- ing unable to attend. Mr. Connelly appeared and stated his plan the same as it appears in his orig- inal appeal . so one appeared in opposition. After careful consideration of the facts presented the Board voted unani- mously to grant a Special Permit to allow installation of a Swimming pool, and further voted to . grant a variance with regard to the distance from the rear boundary line , but all other lot line requirements are to be adhered to . APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEALS BY Acting Secretary i I� � f THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SA L, F, M ........................... _.... .........:.........._................................_ ....._ .� an oa roww Y J BOARD OF APPEALS ...................JULY..10-+...--•---.............19 69. NO'T'ICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted JOHN J...CONNF.I_LY.......7R. Owner or Petitioner Address------13-5..EIME13AI:...SMIRFFT................... City or Town...... SAT_FMo -MASS.................................. ......................135..F..FnFR E+L-sTpF.F C...-........--••-------------------•--------••-•-•-•-------............................ Identify Land Affected ...........................SAT E-M,...MASS._.--•---....-•---•------•----------------•----••--•--•--........................................ City by the Tuwnrof.................... ................................Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. ........--.1.35..k.,TE!3AL-..STRFFT............•...............................S.ALEM------................................. Street City or Town the record title standing in the name of . TOFIN_.. . CnNNET L.. =7R' -•.............................. ............ ........................................... whose address is...:..1.5--FEDERA -: S_TR_FF_ T............SALEM--••-----•_--.--------MASS-..........---••• Street - City or Town state by a deed duly recorded in the............ESSEX................County Registry of Deeds in Book ------ --------- Page........... .....SnUT11..F..SSFX....................Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No................. •...............Book ................Page................ Th6 decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No....................... City in the office of the-Towar Cleric...............AiJC,iJST7NE,• ......................................... Signed Signed this.101h...day of..................JAILY....................1969 . Board of Appeals: ...... . ,-_Chairman Board of Appeals ------------------ �1 �, �r•, c ...Clerk - - / � Board of APDeole ................................................19........ at..............o'clock and----•-••. ............---------.minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of.......................................... Book........................ Page------------------------ • ATTEST ............................................................................ Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Owner. FORM 1094 HOBBS & WARREN. INC., R.o MEa CHAPTER 212-1062 i C to of �5,alPm, gus5ar4USIA& wi iAM F. n000r DECISION ON PETITION OF NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY, FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ERECT AN ADDITION TO AN EX- ISTING GENERATING STATION TO BE COMPRISED OF BUILD- o"" INGS AND ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES AT 24 FORT AVENUE. nar"ua uorac cone - - The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addition to an existing electric generating station building at 24 Fort Avenue , as this would be a violation of the City 'Zoning Ordinance which limits the height of buildings in this district, zoned Industrial, to forty-five feet .' Petitioner appealed to , the Board of Appeals and a hearing was held on this petition on April 28, 1969, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the pe- titioner, abutters , Board Members , and others, and notices published in The Salem Evening News. All Board Members excepting Chairman John M. Gray, Sr. , attended this hear- ing. Mr. Philip H. R. Cahill, Assistant General Counselifor New England Electric System, 441 Stuart Street , , Boston, Massachusetts appeared for the petitioner. Th!5 company is the applicant for a special permit for its parcel of land located at 24 Fort Avenue, in an , Industrial (I) District ; the applicant has used the land for an electric generating station since 1950. Applicant Filed this application for a Special Permit under Section V of the Salem - Zoning Ordinance in order to construct and use an addition to the existing generating station in accordance with plans No. Pilot Plan H-27oo 4-1, and Building Plans H-25980 through H-25983, H-26512 through H1/26517, H-26525 through H-26527, H-SKA-21869, H-SHA 21969 , HSKA 22769 in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section IX-D of the Salem Zoning Ordinance fol- lowing public notice , a' public hearing was held by the. Board of Appeals on April 28, 1969 The proposed addition to the existing generating station of the applicant is for a property use for the parcel and the granting of a Special Permit therefor is within the provisions and intent of Section II A-33 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance . The use of the land for the addition to the exist- ing generating station would promote the public health, safety, convenience , morals and welfare of the City' s inhabitants . The parcel is 60 acres in size , located nest to the Harbor, bounded. by a road, sewage pumping station, and contracting business. The parcel is highly suitable for such a use be- cause of the accessibility to the Harbor. The Board of appeals hereby determines and makes the finding that the follow- ing specific conditions .as set forth in Section IX-D of the Zoning Ordinance have been met : ,a . The proposed use and addition to an existing electric generating station is not a use specifically prohibited from the City of • Salem according to the schedule of Prohibited Uses set forth in Section VIII-C of the Ordinance . b. Said proposed use is not dangerous by reason of hazard, by reason of danger from fire or explosion. C. Said proposed use is not offensive or detrimental by reason of causing dust , smoke , odor, fuel, noise , vibration, traffic con- gestion, or other nuisance. d. Said proposed use is compatible with the adjacent nonindustrial uses . e. Under all of the circumstances the use will be in harmony with the intent and purpose of Chapter 40-A, Section 4 of the General Laws , and of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The proper safeguards are present and the specific conditions set forth in the Ordinance have been met . Therefor, the Board of Appeals unanimously grants the applicant a Special Permit to use its land for an extension of an existing use, including the erection of an addition to an electric generating station and provisions for suitable load bays and parking facilities as set forth in the plans submitted with the application. • BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED UNANIMOUSLY. C BY ��Secret/ary. ¢� U T � ' C N W LU r� Q' p J Q a 1- U • 2 - j THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS .........._5...........A...........L ...E........._M.......................................... "cow oa rowa BOARD OF APPEALS .................Mn 19?h......................1969 NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that it Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted TO...........191YI.. ..G.QMFA1`IX.................... ' owner or Petitimer Address.-441:-STUARTSTREET .................................................... City or Town......BOSTONx. MASSACHUSETTS 02116 ........................... .. . .................................... ....................................................................... 0 Idmtify Land Meoted , ...............................Z4...F9.81..xMjNAj.Fr....:.......................$A...EM>.--RA2i5.: City by the Towitof................S.AUUt...MAS-S...................................Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. .............2 4---F.M..AY-ENIM.--..................................... ..-....SSI:Sk1-.....:....-....:........-...-:.-.-...... Street City or Town . . the record title standing in the name of • ...............NEW•ENGLAND••POWER•,COMPANY whose address is.....44.1...STUART...Sm=.........B.QS2QAL.............:.MA.SS-.-.....02116...-.. .street City or Town State by a deed duly recorded in the..........ESSEX.................County Registry of Deeds .in Book ................ Page...... ....-, ....................................................Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No................ ........Book ................Page................. The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No..................... City . in the office ofthegtnvrt Clerk..............A.LIGU.SUAIF.-S-.---�:QO.MFX...........................•----...-...... Signed this...2.0.! day of...............MAY..........................1%9. Board of Appeals: �'�� Chairman � - Boerd of AVDesb " D ' t .�✓ . ...................Clerk Board of Dml. ................................................19........ a --............o'clock and.........:......................minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of...................:...................... Book........................ Page--.....-..........--.... • ATTEST ........................................................ ....... ............. Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Ouner. •ORM 1094 NOaE6 6 WARREN. INC., aavtasa cwa►ru asuea 7 r �XIcCl'b of �AyvE2IX DECISION ON PETITION OF NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY, =r== FOR VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDI- TION TO AN EXISTING GENERATING STATION TO BE COM- ..11111 Lao„�cou= PRISED OF BUILDINGS AND ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES AT 24 FORT AVENUE. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addition to an existing electric generating station building at 24 Fort Avenue , as this would be a violation of the City Zoning Ordinance which limits the height of buildings in this district , zoned Industrial , to forty-five feet . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals and a hearing was held on this petition on April 28, 1969, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the pe- titioner, abutters , Board Members, and others , and notices published in The Salem Evening News . All Board Members excepting Chairman John M. Gray, Sr. , attended this hear- ing. Mr. Philip H. R. Cahill, Assistant General Counsel for New England Electric System, 411 Stuart Street , Boston, Massachusetts, appeared for the petition- er. - .This company is, the applicant for a variance for its parcel of land lo- �ated at 24 Fort Avenue, in an Industrial (I) District ; the applicant has sed the land for an electric generating station since 1950. The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing generating station which is 170 feet in height , and submitted,-•plans describing the work proposed to the Building Inspector in accordance with Part 2 of the Building Code of the City of Salem. On March 31, 1969 , the Building Inspec- tor refused to issue the applicant a building permit because the proposed addition will be located in an Industrial District , and will exceed the height li , itation of 45 feet imposed on uses in said District . The appli- cant then appealed to the Board of Appeals to authorize a variance from the height limitation of 45 feet with respect to the applicant ' s parcel in accordance with the procedure set forth in IX-E of the City Zoning Ordin- ance . Following public notice , a public hearing was held on April 28, 1969 , The. height of 172 feet for an addition to the existing generating station of 170 feet will not be contrary to the public interest within the provis- ions of Section 2A - 42 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed work is an addition to an existing generating station and as a continuation of the current use being made of the parcel by the applicant and it will not al cer the essential character of the location. i Because of the size of the ,.parcel , 60 Acres , and the location of the pro- posed addition upon it as shown on the plan submitted with the applicant ' s petition, adherence to the height limitation imposed on Industrial Dis- tricts is not necessary to carry out the City ' s Zoning plan. Desirable elief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or .:i.thout nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the Dis- trict or purpose of. this Ordinance . . As an engineering matter, it is impossible to construct an electric gen- erating station under forty-five feet in height . Moreover, the proposed construction is an addition to an existing generating station of 170 feet • in height , and has to be of a similar arrangement as the present station for engineering and operating reasons . The accessibility of the land to the Harbor is a condition peculiar to the property, and one essential to an electric generating station. Thus special , conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the . proposed addition and use of land which do mt generally affect other lands, buildings , and structures in the same district . Literal enforce- ment of the height provision would involve substantial hardship .to the applicant since it would prevent the proposed construction which is nec- essary and desirable in the public interest . Under the circumstances , the height of 172 feet for the addition to the existing generating sta- tion of 170 feet will not be contrary to the public interest , and owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the conditions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship. As found before , the facts meet the standards for the variance set forth in Chap- ter 40-A -Section 15, and Section Ia-E-1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance . Therefor, the Board of Appeals authorizes and grants to the 'applicant a variance from the height limitation of 45 feet to 1'72 'feet for the construction of an addition for an existing electric generating station as set forth in applicant ' s petition and plans submitted therewith. GRANTED UNANIMOUSLY. BOARD OF APPEAL.` / Secr-Mary ca csa � +L uS t L, cV rN Y F u • 2 - I a wr�u nM v. n000n � � JAM F9 H. DOVLOCRry JOSEPH R. oo.L� DECISION ON PETITION OF MORRIS GIBELEY FOR VAP��ANL'' rn OHH M. ORAY. GR. FROM APPLICABLE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE C1°PY %BN- ARTH VR LAOREcoue ING ORDINANCE WITH REGARD TO CONSTRUCTION OF J:. GARAGE- AT37 FORT AVENUE. m N a D -n CM The Inspector of Buildings refused to. issue a permit to erect 4M g=rage at this location as the petitioner' s plan showed a five foot side yard and a rear yard of eight feet . The Zoning Ordinance requires a ten foot side yard :and a thirty foot rear yard. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals and a hearing was held on this petition on March 10 , 1969 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the pe- titioner, board members , abutters , and others' and advertisements . publishe4 in The Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Petitioner appeared and explained that he is a police officer and needy a garage to properly pro- tecthis car from the elements . Mr. H. Elliott Nagle , 8 Victory Road, an abutter, appeared and stated he was not opposed to granting this variance . •No one appeared in opposition. After due liconsideration the Board voted ,unanimously to vary the applica- tion; of the density requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance , to permit petitioner to erect garage as requested. i APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OFj. APPEAL BY :l,��/. A�c ' � // Secretary i i i ISI I II of Ansar4uoetts Pub of '�Fpral W.LLIAM °' AEOOTT DECISION ON: PETITION OF EDWIN CONNERS TO INSTALL JAMEEN,'OOVLOER JO6E°„ ,, OOYLE A SWIMMINGPOOL AT 31 FORT AVENUE. JOHN M. GRAY. BR. ARTMVR IARRECOVE Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals for a Special Permit to install a swimming pool, and also fora variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance with specific regard .to distance between existing garage and pro- posed pool , requesting a six foot distance rather than the required forty feet. A. hearing was held on this appeal on June 25, 1969 in the Council Chamber, City. Hall , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Even- ing News. There were five Board members present at this hearing, Mr. Doyle and Mr. Welch being unable to attend. _Ward I Councilor, Louis SwiniuchI appeared for the petitioner, and explained the plan the same as in the original petition on file. o one appeared in opposition. After a' careful study of' the facts as presented, the Board voted unanimously to grant a Special Permit to allow petitioner to install a swimming pool, and also granted a ,variance with eegard to the distance between the existing garage and the proposed pool, all other requirements as to lot lines, dis- tances, etc . , will be- complied with. BOARD OF APPS LS APPEAL GWTED. v - BY '. f y �N Secretary' 'J Q J N i COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS �+ w S A L E M t ............................................................................................................... �, _ CIT•Oa TOWM BOARD OF APPEALS • -.. ,u, ........... ,T.0-y.....10........................19 69 LU .JJ .Or O i�-4 J H NOTICE OF VARIANCE V Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted EDWIN M . and MARGARET J. CONNERS To............................ . .............................--............................................................. Owner or Petitioner Address........31... ORT,.AVENUE ............................... City or Town..........S..AL.EM ....................................... 31...F.9In../AV>!=.l`n................................................................:........................... . Identify Land Affected . SALEM a...MA S S.......................................................................................... City by the Towfj-of....................................... ALEM...........................Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. ...........................31..FORT,.AVENUE..........:..........._...-.........SALEM........._...MASap........... threat City or Town the record title standing in the name of EDWIN-.M.t-_AND... ARGARET,_J_t---CONNER E.,R .S .........................................:..................... whose address is..........3L1...FORT..AV-EhLUR............SALEM.............................MASS.............. Street City or Tewn - State by a deed duly recorded in t]Ie.SOUTH--ESSEX County Registry of Deeds in Book ....3629--- Page...1:R5....... ............. OUTH.-ESSEX-.............Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No....:............ .........Book ................Page'............... . ....... The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No....................... City in the office of thelPvwn Clerk.......AUGUSTINE--J.--TOOMEY..............................-................... Signed this.AQ! ...day of.. .........J.V L-Y.........................1969- Board of Appeals: D 1�.�1 �lJ... .............. - - - -- . ........ �---Chairman Hoard of PP .1 ............ .. ...... . . �- .—...... ?... - -- ..............Clerk APP. �nnara of ................................................19........ at.. ..........o'clock and................................minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of..........................:............... Book........................ Page.:...................... • - ATTEST ............................................................................ Register o/ Deeds "Notice to be recorded by Land Owner. FORM 1094 HOODS d WARREN. INC., Rlvuaa CHArras 112.1062 i i I QU of �Stem, fflas5ar4nutt� Puurb of c Vyeul /f�fAl1HV.0\C" f DECISION ON PETITION OF ROBERT BENNETT TRUSTEE AME° H. oo�LOER D.C .D.REALTY TRUST TO ALTER PREMISES AT 1 JOP. OOYLE JOHN M. GRAY. 6R. FORT AVENUE TO PROVIDE APARTMENT. 59 I M ARTHUR LA°REGOUE On April 3, the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to alter the first floor premises at 159 Fort Avenue , formerly occupied by stores , to provide an additional apartment as this is a B-2 District , zoned for Highway Business and residential occupancy is nonconforming for the district Petitioner appealed to the Board of ,Appeals for relief from this decision, and a hearing was held on his petition on April 28, 1969 , pursuant to no- tices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters , Board Members, and others , and advertisements published in The Salem Evening News All Board Members , excepting Chairman John M* Gray, Sr. , were present at the hearing. Mr. William F. Abbott was acting chairman for .this meeting. The petitioner appeared and stated his case the same as in the original ap- peal ; for a time this structure had been a two-family residence and later the first floor was altered to provide occupancy for stores . He has owned the building since last September and has been unable to rent it for store •purposes , and in view of the character of the surrounding area consisting of mostly private residences , feels that residential occupancy would be in harmony with the neighborhood as a whole . Ward Councilor Louis ' Swiniuch appeared and wished to be .recorded in favor of granting this appeal to permit residential occupancy.. The Board determinining that in view of the existing homes in the area , altering this structure to provide an apartment would be in keeping with the neighborhood but would be nonconforming with regard to the designated B-2, Highway Business, district as defined in the City Zoning Ordinance , voted un,.MLmeusly to grant a Special Permit to allow the proposed altera- tions and oce��Lpancy, finding that granting this appeal would in no way derogarter'ErogL he intent and purpose of the Ordinance nor be detrimental to tho:.'puttli ood, and would relieve a substantial hardship to the petition SPEC � K RMZf, GRANTED. BOARD OF APPEALS '>^coC BY a — %Secretar " • y7pp yygg Vpr ryyq} 411- 'Ell ���• �¢ �y*r�y Q{�yJry1-1py S`z"� OY6tU VL '1 64 L6 LL/�43✓LAL7J 1!� �A\�� P 7t, 'S ; r SEP I I 3 Oo Fri �� Pearb of �Aypral CITYDTsGTSIJ �v'�Fd�t PETITION OF HELEN KELLEY TO ALTER THIRD WILLIAM P. AVVOTI' � / fIi ��gg JAM@P H. GGIJLGER IW68R 41MISES OF TWO AND ONE-HALF STORY -DWELLING o E H P. oovLE' AT 14 FOWLER STREET TO PROVIDE AN ADDI'CIONAL APARTMENT. JOHN M. GRAY. 9R. ' AHTN VR LAVHECOU E�� The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to install a third floor. apartment at 14 Fowler Street as the lot area is undersize and is presently nonconforming with the requirements of the City Zoning Ordin- ance . The Ordinance requires 3500 square feet of lot area for each dwelling unit ; petitioner' s plan shows approximately 6150 square feet, and there are presently , two apartments in this building. ... Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals from this decision,• and a hearing was held on 'this appeal on September 8th, 1969 , pursuant to no- . tices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters as shown on listing of Assessors, Board Members , and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening. News. All Board Members, including the two associate members were present at •this hearing. Petitioner' s son, Conrad Makarewicz, of 6 Autumn Street, Danvers, appeared and stated there would be no ,changes, and stated the case the same as in the original appeal on file. After .due consideration of the facts presented, the Board found there is no hardship, and .further' found that to allow this appeal would be detrimen= tat to the public good and would derogate from the ' intent and purpose of the Ordinance, _,and voted unanimously to deny this appeal. BOARD OF APPEALS APPEAL DENIED, j C` j BY % ",-z9 ' �! Secretary! • 1 jS�p I I 3 00 ��4 969n�z� IIf � 3�c7I CITY Cti: i.. '.. U1:1'10E M MoD SALEM, MASS, 9. 10 .69 ' R N. DOl1LOCR JO:]6FH Y. DOVLC JOHN M. GRTV, tlR. DECISION ON PETITION OF SALEM ACRES, INC. , TO "RTN.R DRcoDue ERECT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT LOT 75K GAL- LOWS CIRCLE-PURITAN ROAD - VARIANCE REQUIRED FOR REAR YARD AREA WHICH WOULD BE 15 FEET AT ONE POINT AND 40 FEET AT THE OTHER END, ORDIN- ANCE REQUIRES 30 FEET. Salem Acres , Inc . , through attorney George P. Vallis appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the application of the City Zoning Ordinance with regard to rear yard requirements as the proposed dwelling would not conform to the 30-foot distance to the rear boundary as specified in the Ordinance. This lot is situated on the corner of Gallows Circle and Puritan Road, and the plan shows that the dwelling would be fifteen feet from the rear boundary line. at the Puritan Road side, but would allow forty feet at the other end of the dwelling to the rear boundary line. •A hearing was held on this .appeal on September 8th, 1969 , pursuant to no- tices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, attorney for petitioner, abut- ters as furnished on Assessors ' listing, Board Members , and others, and advertisements published in The Salem Evening News. . All Board members were present at this hearing, including the two assoc- iate members. Counselor George Vallis appeared for the petitioner and explained the reason for requesting the variance . His clients are developing this a4ea and to date have built several hundred homes and have acquired addi- itional land for construction of many more. Due to the contour of the land in this area and the existence of vast quantities of ledge here, it is sometimes difficult to erect one of these dwellings in strict accord- ance .with the Zoning regulations, and for these reasons this entire acre- age has been idle until this developer proceeded to utilize the land for the. purpose for which it is zoned, namely residential dwelling units. No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration the Board voted unanimously to vary the applica- tion of the Zoning Ordinance inasmuch as the members believed that a lit- eral interpretation would result in hardship to the petitioner, and .further, felt that to grant this petition would in no way derogate from the intent nd purpose of the Ordinance, and would not be detrimental to the public good. APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAJ�S BY e�1°- secretary I 1, RF rE:' r E.D 'r' ittl Of �$Ukra, al 3 00 ��1 '�� CITY C!_f. '' FF CE SA PETITION 0� PETITION OF PETRO THEOPHILOPOULOS, 5 GREEN LEDGE STREET TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN JA1.1.... H, pO VLGCa o � HF. 00vL EXISTING .BUILDING FOR USE AS STORAGE AND SALE JO H; M. caAv. na. OF BUILDING SUPPLIES. AaTH VR LA[1N CCOVC Petitioner through Counselor Michael J. Harrington appealed to the Board of. Appeals to vary the applicable requirements of the City Zoning. Ordinance af- fecting construction of a single story cement block building, 40 ' x 801 , at- tached to existing building at 5 Green Ledge Street , for use as storage and sale of building supplies. The portion of the lot to be occupied for the proposed use is in an Indus- trial Zone , and the Ordinance requires a minimum lot area of 40,000 square feet with a frontage of 150 feet with front, side, and rear yard setbacks of thirty feet each. Petitioners plan shows a total lot area of 26, 110 square feet , with al- lowances for a twenty-five foot side yard and a ten foot rear yard. A hearing was held on this appeal on September 8s', 1969 , pursuant to no- tices mailed postpaid to the petitioner and his attorney, abutters as shown on Assessors ' listing, Board Members , and others, and advertisements �ublished in the Salem Evening News. All Board Members including the two associate members appeared at the hearing. Attorney Robert D. Bowes, appeared for Attorney Michael J. Harrington, and stated the case the same as in the original. appeal on file , and further stated that the petitioner can not construct on the entire lot without violating the Zoning law which creates quite a hardship, there are several industrial business establishments in the area , and allowing a variance on this appeal would not derogate from the intent of the Ordinance ; the proposed structure will be one-story of concrete block. Appearing in favor of granting this appeal were Councillor Joseph Ingemi, Mr. Haight , an abutter, Mr. Balatso, 297 Highland. Avenue ; also, Edwin T. Brudzynski, former engineer for the City of Salem, wished to be recorded in favor of granting this appeal . Appearing in opposition, Mr. Plaisted, 205-211 Highland Avenue stated, "I am not opposed to the building, but I am opposed to water running across Highland Avenue which comes , from this land. " After due consideration of the facts presented in this case, the Board found that to grant the petitioner permission to occupy his land for this use would in no way derogate from, the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would cause no detriment to the public good as there are many business ostablishments in the immediate vicinity, voted unanimously to grant this ppeal . APPEAL GRANTED. BOARD OF A�( p\EALS BY U 4f�e-- Attu of '5MIEm, 'fflassar4usetts , F Pourb of �k"ral DECISION ON PETITION OF PETRO THEOPHILOPOULOS TO ERECT JAMED H. Ro„LV ER A STRUCTURE FOR RENTAL AT 5 GREENLEDGE STREET. ' JOBEPM P. OOYIH JONN M. ORgY. BR. gRTNVR IABRECOVE - - The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a building at this location for rental purposes as the plan submitted showed insuf ficient lot area, insufficient' frontage and inadequate setbacks from the boundary lines causing violation of the City Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals, and a hearing was held on this appeal on June 23, 1969, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the peti- tioner, Board Members, 'abutters, and others, and advertisements published in The Salem Evening News. Four Board members were present at this hearing including William F. Abbott, acting chairman, James Boulger, Joseph Doyle, and Arthur Labrecque. Petitioner appeared and explained the plan, stating he proposed to erect a building which would be rented to others, but at the present time he did not know who the tenant might be or what use the building might be occupied for. Councillor Joseph Ingemi, and abutters Leonard Spence and William Niaight appeared to be recorded in favor of granting this appeal. A Mr. Plaisted and Mr. James Wescott, also abutters, appeared to oppose granting the appeal , stating their opposition centered on the water problem as water runs off from the land onto 'Highland Avenue, a State highway. After a careful ,study of the facts as presented, the Board, finding no hard- ship exists, and that to grant this appeal would be detrimental to the public good, and would derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance , voted unanimously to deny this appeal`tt ' as it is at , odds with all Zoning requirements. APPEAL DENIED.. BOARD OF APPEALS, BY t, �� Secretary alusn C, y Nca �•� • - `PC 0,1 . Ctu II F11EItT� MSS�tC LtSE t$ \r, Pourb 0# tA"raI uwnye.cA' WRA..M .. ARUOTT DECISION ON. PETITION OF KENNETH A. MAC IVER JA... N. 600L06R TO ERECT ADDITION TO HIS DWELLING TO PROVIDE J... R. 1, OCYIR A GARAGE WITH ROOM ABOVE, AT 17 GREENWAY ROAD.' JOHN M. OR.Y. BR. ARTHUR I ORCCOUE - The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to allow the construc- tion of an addition because applicant ' s plan showed nonconformity with the area and setback requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. I Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals and a hearing was held on this • petition on June 239 1969, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the peti- tioner, Board Members, abutters, and others, and advertisements published in The Salem Evening News. The Board Members present at this hearing included William F. Abbott, act- ing. chairman, Joseph Doyle," James Boulger, and Arthur Labrecque. Mr. MacIver appeared in his own behalf and explained the plans, and further stated he is prepared to take the risk of building over a drain on his prop- erty; he also presented two letters from abutters, John Dumeracki, 19 Green- way Road, and John and Katherine Mento, 15 Greenway Road, signifying their approval to granting this variance. •No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration the Board voted unanimously to grant this appeal , according to the plan submitted showing the structure 3.93 feet from the side boundary, finding that granting this petition would not be detrimental to the public good and would not derogate from .the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, andthat having a garage to house his a,utomobile . would re- lieve a hardship from the petitioner in cold and stormy weather. APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEALS � BYfs< Secret$ry mo+" W _ C; _n U) a }I Nn Y - w JJ. J F few, r4rz � f a Di CT � * ON PFTTTTON OF HARRY A. HEWTTT AND F,LLTOTT F• . SA, ._ JWA%,, T TO CONSTRUCT A CONCPETF.• BLOCK BUTLDTNG AT LOT °v R ul GROVE STREET, FOR USE AS AN OFFTCF. AND FOR PRFFAr,7TCAT n-,7 „ q L„°„° OF HOUSE COMPONF,NTS, AND THE SERVTCF.• AND STORAGE OF FrgrTP�lz^`."^ The Tnspector of Rui.ldings refused to issue a permit to erect a bni_idin;- at this location, Lot #1 Grove Street , as this district is zoned P-2 , for taro_ faa:gilk' residences , and the plan shows that the proposed construction would t";.nt conform to the density requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance . Feri.ti.crner appealed to the hoard of Appeals from this dec.isi.on , anei a hear-_ - ing was held on this . appeal. on ?November 17 , 1969 , pursuant to notices mai ] - i Postpaid to the petitioners , their counselor, abutters , Roarrj Meme(-I-s . arid others , and advertisements published .in the Salem Evening News . Board Y'aMbex-s present at this hearing inc.l.u(led Mr. John M. Gray , Sr. , Chair- !-nn, Mr. Arthus Labrecque , Mr. Emery P. Tanch , Mr. Norman Welch , and Mr, ":•'illiam F. Abbott ; Mr. Joseph F. Doyle and Mr. ,lames Roulger were unable ro attend . "llarles J. Panagoponlos , Counselor for the petitioners appeared and stateri ne"ition the same as in the or:i.gi.n.al appeal on file ; he explainc:d that the lot Is such that no construction within the preaentl vrescribed requirements is possible , and the environment is not. conducive r,o .the construction of dwellings . Litman appeared in favor of .granting this appeal . Appearing in oppo- siti-on to _canting this appeal were Mrs . Jankowski , Mr. Zaber of the Wai- rTut Finishin;- Company, Mr. Frank Savory of the Pohl Chemical. Company, So_ zie Walsh , Dlr. Harold Spring, and Alice Marin . While this pettion •::::�s ^hein ; RECEIVED gitq Of ,Sa1C t, fflaSMC4USP#te JUN 2 11 13 AM X69 Puarb of tA"ett1 CITY CLkr,'S GFFICE WiLLAM F. .BBo,T SALEH. MASS. AMENDED DECISION J4MEB M. ©OULOEF JO6EPM F. OOYLE on JOHN M. OR4V. R. ARTHUR LABRE"„E PETITION OF D. & L. REALTY COMPANY, 8 Hardy Street and 9 Bentley Street, to use these premises for the conduct of a general construction business. A decision on this petition was rendered by the Board and forwarded to the City Clerk, Petitioners, their Counselor, and other parties of in- terest on May 22, 1969. At a subsequent meeting of the Board; it was unanimously voted to amend this decision as follows: Delete entirely the line stating "The Board voted unanimously to grant this variance with the following conditions with which petitioners shall comply" Insert in place thereof a new line' as follows: "The Board voted unanimously to grant a Special Permit with the following conditions with which petitioners shall comply: " Delete #3 Condition entirely and insert a new #3 Condition as follows: "#3• A five-foot fence is to be erected starting from the rear line of existing two-story building and extend northwesterly to the property line; an additional fence is to be erected on the rear corner of the existing ' one-story building and extemd southeasterly to the property. line" . SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED BOARD' OF APPEALS. BY Secretar-& (This meeting was held on May 29 , 1969 at which all Board Members were • present, excepting Mr. J. Norman Welch, Jr.., an associate Member) . (f itu of �$ttteztt, Aussadjuse##s • Pourb of �,�` SRF WILLIAM V. ABBOTT DECISION ON PETITION OF D. AND L. REALTY. COMPANY, JAMB. H. BBULBBR - 8 HARDY STREET AND 9 BENTLEY STREET, TO USE THESE JBB.RH P. BOIL. PREMISES FOR THE CONDUCT OF A GENERAL CONSTRUCTION JOHN M. BRAT. OR. BUSINESS.. ARTHUR LABRECCU6 The D. and L. Realty Company through their attorney, Michael J. Harrington , appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance to permit the use of. these premises for conducting their general, construction business . A hearing was held on this appeal on May 19, 19.69 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioners., their attorney, abutters, board members, and others , and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. All Board Members were present at this hearing. Counselor Michael Harrington appeared for the petitioner and stated that this would be a distinct improvement to the property. No one appeared in opposition. The Board voted unanimously to grant this variance with the following condi tions .with which petitioners shall comply: 0 1 . No obnoxious odors are to be allowed to escape from the premises. 2. No work is to be carried on except during normal business hours. 3. A five foot fence is- to be' constructed ten feet from the rear of the . building at 9 Bentley Street . The fence is to be constructed across the entire width of the property. VARIANCE GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS. BOARD OF APPEALS BYUj �- Secretary LL� G 0- W N yH • THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS e 5................. ..............L ...........E..............M........................ clry oR yowN • BOARD OF APPEALS .................... 2.t. .1969 NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General laws Chapter 40A,Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To............. ...& L. REALTY COMPANY ................................................................................................. Owner or PNitiontt Address....8..Hardy,-and__9- Bentley-.;Sreg tts,-.--------- City or Town................ Mass.. ...........................8 .......................... ............................... Identity Land Affected - aa1.em....Ma_as.r............................................................................................... City by the Town of.................................SALEM .-,,,.....Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. 8 Hardy' ..Bent1@Y:.StTe:�. S............... Sal.eCo...:..:........................ Street City m Town the record title standing in the name of • ..........................1?.e... ..1 .....11yALIX...COMPANY....................................................................... whose address is:.....8..>1:1raY.-s...#.�d?.tJeY.:..Stxae. S.......... aletaa..............Mass........ Street City or Town State by a deed duly recorded in the........................................County Registry of Deeds in Book Page................. ....................................................Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No................. ................Book ................Page................ The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No....................... City in the office of the Town.Clerk........AUaUSTZNz..J.-- T.WMEY................................................ Signed this..2.2adday of.................MAY.........................196 9 . Board of Appeals: � I ......... .... �Z/... .. ccv/� �..,1__,Chairman ' _Byy^^rd of ADDeels / ...... .. ...... .......-sf.:.... .................Clerk Board of Appe e ................................................19........ at... ........o'clock and................................minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in.the County of.......................................... Book........................ Page........................ • ATTEST _ Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Owner. FORM 1094 HOBBS s WARREN, INC.. RRVHIW CHAPISR *M1982 ( Catty of '�5'allw, '4455 zcfjuutts i. '=MP �`� DECISION ON PETITION OF RONALD C. COFFIN FOR VARIANCE WILLIr\M R. P!]OOTT FROM REAR YARD DEPTH REQUIREMENTS OF CITY 7,OhTIATG ORD- JOSERry R. IJOYLE INANCE WITH REGARD TO LOCATION OF NURSING HOME ON LAND AT 82 HIGHLAND AVENUE. PRTMUR Ln�RECOUE Petitioner having been refused a building permit for the construction of a nursing home at 82 Highland Avenue as the plan showed the structure would not conform to the City Zoning Ordinance with regard to rear yard require- ments , appealed through his counsel , David T. Doyle, to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the application of the Zoning Ordinance . A hearing was held on this petition on January 20, 1969, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, 'Board Members , abutter's , and others , and advertisements published in The Evening News . With the exception of Mr. Norman Welch, "Jr. , all Board Members were present at this hearing. However, Board Member Joseph Doyle disqualified himself from participation in this case. Counselor Doyle appeared and explained the petition the same as in the orig- inal appeal on file , petitioner has already been granted a Special Permit �rom this Board to construct a nursing home at this location, and since that event. , the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has adopted some new requirements regarding nursing homes, the result being the petitioner requires a variance for a small portion of the property in question. Mr. Carr, an engineer for the petitioner, appeared in favor and explained the plans. Walter. Abraham, /S Highland Avenue , stated he had already sent a letter and submitted pic- tures (returned to him following the hearing) , and declared that if this petition is granted it would put him and his family in a bad position. Paul Young, Hillside Avenue, voiced an objection. The Board, having in mind that occupancy of a nursing home, is a Special Per- mit use in this district as stipulated by the City Zoning Ordinance , and that this Board had already granted a Special Permit for this use, felt it woulc', be a hardship to the petitioner to deny this appeal for a variance and further felt that to grant this appeal would in no way derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would cause no detriment to the public good, voted unanimously to grant this appeal, Board Member Joseph Doyle abstaining from voting. APPEAL ,RANTED BOARD OF APPEAL (L= C., n m 4 U Secretary CL; -w w N r N z r vcov,ui _ �. Quito of '6ttlem, 'fflttssathuutts �';rs dE f4 Pourb of Appral July 11, 1969 DECISION ON PETITION OF -CAMP LION, iNC. , � OF LYNN, MASS. J,1MHH „• DDUIDHR TO INSTALL A SWIMMING POOL AT CAMP WALUTA A RECREATION JOBHP„ P. DOYLH AREA OFF HIGHLAND AVENUE IN SALEM FOR THE CAMPFIRE GIRLS ..RT„UR LADRHDDVH AND GIRL SCOUTS. Petitioner was refused a permit to install a swimming pool by the . Inspector of Buildings as the only authority to grant such permission, under the Zon- ing Ordinance of the City of Salem, is the Board of Appeals, and advised petitioner to this effect. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals and a hearing was held on this appeal on .June 25. 1969, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the peti- tioner, abutters, board members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. Five Board members were present at this hearing, Mr. Doyle and Mr. Welch being unable to attend. Counselor John R. Serafini appeared for the petitioner and stated the case the same as in the original petition, further stating that the , pool would •be used for day-campers ' recreation and swimming instruction. No one appeared in opposition. After careful consideration of this appeal , the Board voted unanimously to grant a Special Permit to allow the installation of a wading pool bn the condition that no -lights are to be installed and no diving board will be installed, and a- chain link fence four feet in height will be installed. APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEALS BY �/zl/ Acting Secretary . i • 1 t r _ THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS - s ............:.A..........._..L E M .............................................................. GlY OR TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ...............JULY....la.........................19 69 i NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General laws Chapter 40A, Section 18 as ameaded) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To.......CAMP-.I TONi..INCa................ Owner or Petitioner Address__LYNN, MASS. City or Town.........:...........LYNN t...MASS. ....................................:.................................................. . .......................?1.8B...RIGIti.ANA..A.y]JUB...............: Idmtitr Land ............: .......--.SAI.>;I1�-..MA SS.ti............... City .............................. by the Tomei-of..........SALEM.-.a Mi.-5................... .....Board of Appeals affecting the ................ . rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. 4R8...H1GlM44XA...A-VZ1WE stmt .....:....:..... SAl FM.r...1xASS ............. ......... ' the record title standing in the name of City or Town CAMP LION OF. LYNNE MASS, t. INC, t............. whose address is..............:.:.. . LYNN MASS. Sheet City or TownSISte by a deed duly recorded inthe................Z.SB.EJb...........County Registry of Deeds in Book .............. Page................ .......SOLUTE-ESSEX..................Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No................. ...............:Book ................Page................ The'decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No....................... City in the office of the Town-Clerk.................AUGUSTINE_.J...TOOMEY Signed this. ] Qt°...day of..............JIM.........................196 9 Board of Appeals: DD ......... -� ...... ... . „. .ti. -.. ...Chairman Be Appeal ..... .. .. ..................Clerk D� ....................19..._.... at..............o'clock and................................minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County,of........................ Book........................ Page...............:........ • ATTEST ............................................................................ Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Ouner. Foam 1094 HCana 8 WARREN. INC.. REVISED CH11FrtR 212-1962 -- \ ) RE( I IyF, n Tito of `��ctlaa' SEP 3 00 PH '69 'Puurb of cAppval CITY ' 4CFON PETITION OF STUTZ PLAISTED TO CONSTRUCT �' E STORY CONCRETE BLOCK BUILDING 16 ' x 52 ' on - JAM 26 M. OOVLG G.R DI PIETRO AVENUE, REAR OF 311 HIGHLAND AVENUE. JOHn en. aRAv. aR. ARTHUR LAORLCOVG Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the appli- cable density requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance with specific re- gard to required distance to front boundary. Plan submitted shows a front yard of 13 ' -9" , and the Ordinance requires a distance . of 30 ' -0" for this district , zoned B-2 for Highway business . A hearing was held on. this appeal on September 81', 1969, pursuant to no= tices mailed ,postpaid' to the petitioner, abutters as furnished on Assess- ors ' listing, Board Members , and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening' News . All Board members, including the two associate members, were present at this hearing. Petitioner appeared for himself and explained the petition, stating the land is in the rear of his property and he intends to use it for the auto- obile business, restoring antique cars when he retires from business . No one appeared in opposition. The Board found that to vary the application of the Zoning Ordinance with regard to front yard requirement would not. derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would not be detrimental to the public good, and voted unanimously to grant this appeal. , .. BOARD OF APPEALS. APPEAL GRANTED BY Secretary` to c�,owirL� of ' i5aklu' fld�2lC lY B S ISIAN.0 DECISION ON PETITION OF GRACE BOUCHER TO ERECT�INCf� � "'11`„11 0. ABBOT' FAMILY DWELLING ON LOT #5 HORTON ROAD; LOT IS NDER IZ� Jam Es N. BOVLOER l:J JoGEP„ ,,.GG,�E ACCORDING TO REQUIREMENTS OF CITY ZONING ORDIN�kA10E o v o JOHN M. GRL V. BR. I (n T 4 RTH UR Lit,RECOVE n Qp The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a dwelling at thi's location as the City Zoning Ordinance requires a lot area of 70u0 square feet in this district, and the area of this lot is approxi- mately' 5241 square feet. Petitioner, through her attorney Richard E. Daly;, appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the application of the City Zoning Ordinance , and a hearing was scheduled on this petition for February 24, 1969 , pursu- ant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, her attorney, abutters, Board members, and others, and advertisements published in The evening News. Due to severe storms and heavy snowfalls, the Board meeting had to be post- poned on two occasions, but',was finally held on March 10, 1969. All Board members were present at this hearing. Counselor Daly appeared for the petitioner and stated h'is case the same as appears in the .original ap- peal on record. He also stated the family has held possession of this lot Oince 1928, and a financial, hardship is now involved; his client wishes to btain° the maximum value of her property or use it to the greatest advantage ; he further stated his client ' s low income will not allow for any expendi- tures . other than the absolute necessities, and if a variance is not allowed it will create a serious financial hardship and force the petitioner to dis- pose of her entire estate at a great loss . No one appeared in opposition. After due consideration, the Board, finding that the areas of many lots in this district are of comparable size, and feeling that to grant the relief sought would alleviate a hardship on the petitioner, and granting this var- iance would in no way 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 APPEAL GRANTED /f ,• BY �zvnl� �• �\ o,r V Secretary` • !rixon. of �tlem, $tx �zc�i�ise#ts " ? �Bourb of Apprxl \VILLIAM I. AO©OTT DECISION ON PETTTTON OF THOMAS AND MARGARET PELLETIER FOR VARIANCE.. TO ENABLE PETITIONERS JOHN M. GRAY. BR. ' AAT"�R LA°R��cuc TO SUBDIVIDE LAND SHOWN ON SUBMITTED PLATT AS LOTS #1 and #2 HOWARD STREET. Petitioner, through his attorney, Harry Simon, appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance to enable .him to subdivide this land as shown on . plan submitted, to sell the lot shown as Lot #2. A hearing was held on this petition on July 21 , 1969, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to .the petitioner, his attorney, abutters as listed on records of Assessors ' office, and others, and advertisements published in The Salem Evening News . All board members , excepting Mr. Doyle and Mr.� Tanch , were present at this hearing. Mr. Arthur Labrecque acted as secretary. Counselor Simon appeared for the petitioner and presented the case the same as in the original appeal. •No one appeared in opposition. Itwas determined that this land is located in an Industrial zone, the use of the buildings is nonconforming for the district, petitioner doesnot re- side on the premises, and the lot size is insufficient according to the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance . - The Board voted unanimously to deny this appeal, finding there is no hardship involved and to grant this appeal would derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and would be detrimental to the public good . APPEAL DENTED. BOARD OF APPEALS. BY 4 l/ r] /✓ e�> ti Act . Secretary` W ttD U i u., M IJ w UJ J J y � Y Titg of "N akul' Paurb of c�Vpal DECISTON ON PETITION OF JOHN P. AND GLORIA M. RILEY, °`R FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO ALTER FIRST FLOOR ,„, °R,., °F. PREMISES AT 247 JEFFERSON AVENUE TO PROVIDE TWO ADDI- TIONAL APARTMENTS. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit td alter this struct- ure to provide two additional apartments as the City Zoning Ordinance re- quires 3500 square feet of land for each dwelling unit; in this case for three apartments the requirement would be 10, 500 square feet , and this lot has a land area of 2975 square feet . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal from the action of the Building Inspector, and a hearing was held on this appeal on January 20, 1969 , pur- suant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, Board Members , abutters , and others , and advertisements published in The Evening News . All Board members excepting Mr. Norman Welch, Jr. , were present at this hearing. Counselor Harry Simon, 221 Essex Street , Salem, appeared for the petitioner, and stated that the first floor of this structure which has existed for many years , has been occupied as a store and is now vacant ; his clients , Mr. and Mrs. John Riley, who reside with their family on the second floor, require more income to pay the running expenses, and it •,tomes down to a question of converting the store into two apartments . Mr. Savoie, a contractor from Danvers, wished to be recorded in favor. No one appeared in opposition. The Board found that to grant this appeal would relieve hardship to the petitioners, and would in no way cause detriment to the public good nor nullify or substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ord- finance , and voted "unanimously to grant this appeal, for a Special Permit. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY Secretary ca+ w � U P LL N LU J J • rN H 6 C.i THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS .t $ A L E M ����CITY OR TOWR RECF+VF.D BOARD OF APPEALS JAN Z9 3 14 CITYSALEIA. MASS- NOTICE .............:L�.N..V.tm.....2.9...................19 69 NO'T'ICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40Ar See tion 18 as Intended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To......................t1.0IjN..'='..AND.,GLORIA M RILEY........................................... .................... Owner or Petitioner Address.............. 4.7...JFFFrRSON AVENUE : . . ...... ................................•---..................................................... Cityor Town.....5 cYI J M-,...MA s` ..... .............. .............................. ...........-.........-............. ............................... 242___;JNFFERSON AVENUE . . ...... . ... ................................................... Idevti.fy..Land Affected ................................SAL '}.iM,...NA5. a.......................................................................................... City by the-Iowa of........SALZM,-..M as i:.........................................Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. ................. 7..._I.EFFERSON AVENUE SALEMt MASS. .................... street City or Town the record title standing in the name of ...........................JO1IN..P.....Al?D__GLORIA M. RILEY .................................................•....................... whose address is.......24.7-.....Jz.FFrRSQNL_AyRNUE_,_..• SALEM, • MASS. ................... Street City or Town State by a deed duly recorded in the...SOUT1L-LS.SFX..........County Registry of Deeds in Book ................ Page..............-- ...............................Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No................. ................Book ................Page................ The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No....................... City in the office of the Town Clerk........AUGUST CNE J..•_TOOMEY. . . ....................... Signed this..29t.day of........JANUARX........................196 9. Board of Appeals: /, )� �j ..................R :Qv✓�../..%1.:. /�G uY�tl.�//,..Chairman Board of Appeals c. ............. .. , :�f2:.. ......... 2v_-.-...Clerk Board of Appeal. ................................................19........ at... o'clock and................................minutes ----M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of.....................................:.... Book........................ Page........................ ATTEST ............................................................................ Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Owner. FORM 1094. HOBBS & WARREN. INC.. n.VIXKC C...r.R .1.4.e2 L, oarb of 'Appeal 9. 30. 69 KILN A.N F. RODOTT ' DECISION ON PETITION OF RUTH WENZEL TO VARY APPLICATTON JOiGP" F. DOY�C OF CIT]' ZONING ORDINANCE WITH REGARD TO DENSITY REQUIRE- MENTS AFFECTING EXISTING STRUCTURDS AT LOTS B AND C ON JUNIPER AVENUE. Petitioner, through Counselor Timothy Davern, appealed to the Board of Ap- peals for a variance from the applicable requirements of the City Zo3aing Ordinance. A hearing was scheduled on this petition on July 21, 1969 , pursu<.nt to no- tices mailed postpaid . to the petitioner, her attorney, Board Members , abut- ters, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News . At this hearing, it was voted to postpone this case until the next hearing of the Board, to acquire more information relating to the appeal . The next meeting of the Board was held on September 15th, 1969 . With the ex- ception of Mr. Doyle and Mr. Welch, all Board Members were present . � ounselor Davern appeared and explained the case, the same as in the orig- inal appeal on file . He stated buildings have existed on both lots for many' years, and' the' purpose of this appeal is to clarify the title to the land and buildings; on Lot B, the dwelling is set back three feet from the front , on the side it is setback 1 .62 ' at one point, and at the rear 0. 83 ' from the lot line . The Ordinance requires a fifteen foot front setback with ten- foot side yards , and thirty-foot rear yards . Lot C is an undersize lot con- taining 2545 square feet instead of the required 7000, and the existing building has a three foot front yard and a four foot side yard. No one appeared in opposition. Q After .careful consideration of this appeal , the Board, having in mind that in this waterfront district the majority of dwellings are located on simil ar size lots with insufficient front , side , and rear yard setbacks , found that to grant this appeal would not be detrimental to the public good, and would in no way derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance , and voted unanimously to grant this appeal with the proviso that petitioner present to the City Planning Board, the linen submitted to this Board show- ing the lard and buildings thereon, for endorsement by that Board !'Approval Not Required by the Subdivision Control Law" . en W APPEAL .;rRA,#TF,D WITH CONDTTION. , BOARD OF APPEALS U-1 BY N I • . 0 M .,g (Acting). Secretary LU w _J J D 01D U Q'I.,., Ci t" of �$A �D rf w, ,AM AD OTT DF,:CTSTON ON PFTTTTON OF WTT LTAM (-,LAPP, 90-92 JACKSON STRFFT. JAMC- H. 00t LGCH J09C'H F. DOYLC ' JOHN M. GfiAY, SIi. ARTHUR IAURCCOVCf Mr. William Clapp, throw-h his rorsnsel_or John R. Serafi.ni , appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the application of the Citv 7oni:r,f- Ord- inance with re?-ard to nse of the premises at 00-92 Jackson Street , for the purpose of mannfactnri.nm finished leather prndncts. A hearing .was .he.ld on this appeal on Octohrr 20, 1969 , pursuant to notir,es mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, Board Members, abutters , and others , and advertisements pnhl.ished in The Salem Evening News. All Board members , excepti.ne Mr, noel , and Mr. 1,'elch , attended this hearinr*. No one appeared in opposition . Ward ^nl:nri l nr, .Tnseph Tngemi- , wished to be recorded in favor of €rrantinr, this anneal , ='F:elinm it would be a desirahle use . This matter came ,on to he heard at tt,n duly annni_nted time , and Colnselnr Serafini. stated the case the sa-e as npponr-s ` n the original petition on file; the property is located in a R-4 Hist , + nt . zoned for Wholesale and Automotive Bnsine.sses; for gtiite tir+«- fTae petitioner has soa,!-ht to tain a customer, and now has in tact ort - ^:r-? a enstomer who is current- engaged in the mannfncturin7 of sandajs wearing apparel , handhar-s , skirts , and vario7!s other le»tber »,nods f-.r wholesale distri.hutinn and sale ; these products hn,we,,er, re ^ot specifically permitted under the rix- isti.ng rises allowed in a B-4 district. , and petitioner feels that it would be an nndne hardship to ref:ise to perriit the premises to he used for the desired purpose as above described hecause of the omission of this partic- ular use from the list of uses permitted in this zone. Tn reviewin!- the facts presented in t`lis rase, the Board found that the Z.oninr- Ordinance has zoned this district, for wholesale merchandise bro- kers and who.le5nle stora<;e , (Page 2.1 , Par, (-. ) , and felt that the inten- tion as manifested in the Ordinance clearly indicates that this tree of use sho•nl .v he 'permitted , and that there was no deliberate intenti.o: 0111itu of *Itm, Pon �Fpraf f .., . ....— 9 . 30. 69 ..... .. o..« DECISION ON PETITION OF JUDITH :FRENCH TO VARY APPLICATION OF CITY ZONING ORDINANCE WITH REGARD TO DENSTTY RF.QT.TIRE- MENTS AFFECTING EXISTING STRUCTURE AT LOT A JUNTPER AVENUE. Petitioner, through Counselor Timothy Davern, appealed to the Board of Ap- peals for a variance from the applicable requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance . A hearing was scheduled on this petition on July 21 , 1969 , pursuant to no- tices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, her attorney, Board Members, abut- ters, and others, and advertisements published in The Salem Evening News . At this hearing it was voted to postpone this case until the next hearing of the Board; to acquire more information relating to the appeal . The next meeting of the Board was held on September 15th, 1969. With the exception of Mr. Doyle and Mr. Welch, all Board Members were in attendance . Sunselor Davern appeared and explained the case , the same as in the orig- inal appeal on rile . He stated a building has existed on this lot for many years , and the purpose of this appeal is to clarify the title to the lane] and building; .the Ordinance requires a lot area of 7000 square feet , and this lot contains only 2779± square feet ; front yard setbacks of fifteen feet, side yards of ten feet and rear yard distancesifirom% boundary lines of thirty feet are also required ; this structure is two feet from the front , side and rear boundary lines . No one appeared in opposition. After careful consideration of this appeal , the Board, having _n mind that in this waterfront district , the majority of dwellings are located on sim- ilar size lots with insufficient front, side and rear yard setbacc:s , found that to grant this appeal would not be detrimental to the public food, and would in no way derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and voted unanimously to grant this appeal with the proviso that the petitioner present to. the City Planning Board, the linen submitted to this Board show- ing the 10,nd and building thereon for endorsement .by that Board "Approval Not Requ�edttby the Subdivision Control Law" . ci BOARD OF APPEALS. APPEAi, GTT'ANTE7 WITH CONDITION. a BY 1.. U < � u �LO Acting � Secretary o .mac n7 y h Vj U •� � j card a ? pal JULY 11 , 1969 1111L11 ;- 1117 J0.h1Gs �.. BCV SGL it ,�;��., ,•. .,:,vim_ DECISION ON PETITION? OF FRANK WETMORE TO OCCUPY LAT OF LAND OFF KIMBALL COURT FOR PUBLTC-PAID PARKING OF MOTOR VEHICLES. Petitioner through Counselor John R. Serafini, appealed to the Board of Appeals for a Special Permit to occupy a parcel of land off Kimball Court as a public-paid parking lot. A hearing was scheduled on this petition for June .25, 1969, in the Council Chamber, City Hall, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, Board members, abutters , and others, and advertisements pub- lished in The Salem Evening News . Five Board members were present at this meeting, Mr. Doyle and Mr. Welch being unable to attend. Counselor Serafini appeared and asked to be permitted to withdraw this ap- peal on behalf of his client . The Board members voted unanimously to grant this request , leave to with- draw without prejudice. BOARD OF APPEALS LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. By Acting Secretary ` • (�itvu of IX <•% lutzrb of Appeal 9 . 29 . 69 DECISION wi�unw r. neoorr DECISION ON PETITION OF FRANK WETMORE TO UTILIZE LAND ON KIMBALL COURT FOR PURPOSE OF PRIVATE PARKING OF MOTOR VEHICLES. 4RTIVP LA�RECOVE Petitioner through his attorney, John R. Serafini, appealed to the Board of Appeals for permission to utilize land owned by him situated off Kimball Court and abutting property also owned by him at 8 Howard Street . A hearing )was held on this appeal on September 15, 1969 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, abutters , Board Members , and others , and advertisements published in The Salem Eveninl- News . . Board Members Joseph F. Doyle and Norman J. Welch were unable to attend this hearing, all other members. of the Appeals Board being present . Counselor Serafini appeared and presented the appeal , the same as in the or- iginal petition on file , stating his client was appealing for a Special Per- mit to allow private parking for motor vehicles. Registering. opposition to granting this appeal were Councillors-at-Large 0obert Cahill and John Burke who had contacted the office of the Board of ppeals prior to this hearing. Councillor Joseph O'Keefe, of Ward II, also appeared in opposition. Counsel Allen Chew, representing abutters who had previously written to the Board voicing their objections, stated the case for his clients , some of whom were also present . After careful consideration of the facts presented in this case , the Board having in mind that the area is congested due to its location in the center of the City and the many structures • in the immediate vicinity, .and also due to the constant flow of vehicular traffic passing the entrance to this Court, voted unanimously to grant the petitioner leave to withdraw without prejudice. BOARD OF APPEALS LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. BY Acting Secretary • m V = o z UJ +w cz::) • W Vj V jq RECFIVED Ctv of *Iem, f ttssur4usetts ;,s,.. OCT 2 II 47.AN . Pourb of AppeA CITY CLER",' i OFFICE 10. 2.69 w �.w 0.0TSALEM. MASS. ,.w.. w. 00uLaen DECISION .ON PETITION OF KENNETH AND MARION GELPEY TO REMODF o..Pw ooze A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 146 LAFAYETTE STREET TO PROVIDP "w" " m THREE APARTMENTS. nrrtw�w uanecove i - The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to alter a single f ily dwelling at 146 Lafayette Street to provide twoiadditional apartment such alteration would be in violation of the City Zoning Ordinance. Pla, submitted shows lot area to be 3690 square feet with a 521. frontage, sir yards at most points 4 ' and 519 front yard at one point 121 , and a 55;$ < erage of the lot; also, there is parking area for only one car. The Orr ante, for this district, requires a minimum lot area of 129000 square ft with a 100 ' frontage, 15 ' front yard, 10 ' side yards, and allows a maxis ' lot coverage of 35%i; it also requires 4-} spaces for off-street parking. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals to Averse this decision, 'ei a hearing' was held on this petition on Septemberr 15th, 1969, pursuant to tices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and of and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. All Board Members were present at this hearing, excepting Mr. Doyle and Welch, who were unable to attend. •etitioner appeared with Counselor William Donaldson who explained the .( the same as in the original petition .on file . Mrs. Rose Bergeron, form( owner of the property, wished to be recorded in favor of granting the al Appearing in . opposition to granting the appeal were Raymond Bouchard of Lafayette Street, who stated the stairway from the third floor comes dowi . the wrong side , and there is a serious parking problem, and Arthur Cast, quay of 150 Lafayette Street. The Board questioned the petitioner as to when the property was purchasf and he stated he had bought it three months ago. After a careful study of the plot plan and plans presented, and a thoroi review of - the facts presented, the Board found that the third floor is suitable for an additional apartment, it further found that there is no hardship involved here, and that a serious parking problem exists on th, lot , and believing that to grant this appeal would be detrimental to th4 public good and would derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordin, voted unanimously to deny this appeal and to uphold the decision of the Building Inspector. APPEAL DENIED ' BOARD OF APPEALS BYr • (Acting Secretary °" ti i I, ' I G.r"„r F of �5ttlem Aassar4use##s ? uurb of Appeal ura.`nyF v r> y< ry i DC: G]� WILLIAM F. TO9 GtT Gr�,r m JAM 6R X. RGVLRRR DECISION ON PETITION OF PHILIP A. LEVESQUE TO i� PQFMI1ES J..H JF.GRAY.Ro.�E AT 163 LAFAYETTE STREET FOR CONDUCTING A FUNERAJ' HOVE. <XN M. 8R. �( . O ARTHUR IARRECOU6 N C • O A CA The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to alter fhe'vremises at 163 Lafayette Street to provide occupancy for a funeral home, as this is not a permitted use for this district , which is zoned as R-39 Multi-fam- ily ultifam- ily residential. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals for relief from this decision, stating that his family had conducted this business for the past fifty-three years at its present location, 15 Harbor Street ; this building has been sold, and the new owner wishes to occupy this space for business purposes of her own; Ais lease at the present location of the, business expires in September, 1969 , and if he is unable to relocate at the new address, 163 Lafayette I Street , he would be forced out of business as he has no place to move to. A hearing was scheduled on this petition for February 24, 1969, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, Board members, abutters , and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. Wevere storms and heavy snowfalls forced postponement on two occasions , but the hearing was finally held on March lO, 1969. All Board Members were present at this meeting. Arthur Marchand, Jr. , an abutter appeared in favor of granting this appeal, as did Councillor Edmond J Perron. Counselor John Serafini appeared for petitioner and explained the case the same as in the original appeal on record. No one appeared in opposition. Counselor Serafini presented evidence to support the following facts which the Board found: I 1. The building in question is in an R-3 zone , and under the City Zoning . ' Ordinance , a funeral home is permissible on the granting of a Special Permitlby the Board of Appeals for such use . I I 2. Petitioner would occupy the second' floor as his home . 3. The ground floor premises and a portion of the second floor will be used for the purposes of a funeral home . 4. Petitioner has been forced to vacate by reaso4 of a sale , the premises on which he currently operates a funeral home , and that the building 9.t 163 Lafayette Street is in close proximity to his present location. I05- Adequate provision is being made for parking. i 6. There is presently an existing funeral home in the immediate neighbor- hood. , i i - 2 7.9 That, it would not substantially affect the value of any of the surrounding property, and that the granting of the permit would not in any way be det- rimental to the neighborhood or in any way affect values. j � That', it would be an undue hardship to prevent the- Petitioner from using the building at 163 Lafayette Ftreet as a funeral home , the premises having beenipurchased by him at considerable cost . On the basis of the evidence and .the facts found, the Board of Appeals unani- mously voted to grant the Special Permit in this case as being within the gen- eral intent of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Salem. i SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED BOARD OF APPEALS BY �' _/✓oti Secretaty Cn UJ � U � W N 7 +p W (n li.l WLij •i U • _ JQ �' N YN C V. . g II1 � iI 1 i i i 71 THE COMMONWEALTH OF'MASSACHUSETTS J ...............................5...A....L...r....M.: CITYOR T ............................................... BOARD OF APPEALS .............MAU H........ 5.......-...............196 9 NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To................PHILIP...A...I EYESQU ...:...-......... Owner or Petitioner Address..........8...S.........UNSET ROAD ..........................................:.......................... City or Town.............SALEM, MASS. ............................................................ 163. LAFAYETTE STREET Identif7 Lead Affected .................................... .......... .........................................................-...-..........--............---.. .........-.......•..- City :........:..-..-.:...-.--. by the Tow*of.........SALE.M.,._.MAS-5.................. ...Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises.,on. 1.63...LAFAYETI ,-.3TR ETA............................................SALEM- . Street ••-Cit7 or lbwa the record title standing in the name of ............................PRIUP-..A-....J whose address is.....8..5-MUS •,ROAD•-.--•••-- SALEM, Street City or ToMASS. ................................A. -.- --.-..-:........ wn ' by a deed duly recorded in the...-Snautkt. 1- ss-pxState .........County Registry of Deeds in Book Page.....:-.--: „ „-Registry District of the Land Court --.... ................. Certificate No.................. ................Book ................Page................ The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No................. City in the office of the-To„m Clerk............AUGilSTS.ATE....l..--:TOOMZX....................:.....• Signed this:25t1...day of...............MARC 1----------••---•----1969 Board of Appeals: -----..-- Chairman Hoard o[ ADDoale I ............... �4s L/ c --.Clerk Hoar o Appeals � ------..........................................19.......g at... . .......o'clock and.....--........-:...---••-----..minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of.......................................... Book............0........... Page........................ ATTEST � E ................................................................. F " Register of Deeds Notice"6-be recorded by Land Owner. III FORM 1094 MOBBB 6 WARREN. INC.. REVISED CHAPTER 113-18e1 j _„covvrr,� ♦� ML /�' y a3 � ; �LLil1 L1{ �T�Crii� fT$$fII1ISPS '. Pourb of �p ettl `hjVY.M�` DECISION ON PETITION OF MARGUERITE B. COTE TO REMODEL THE WILLIAM R. ARBOTT THIRD FLOOR OF BUILDING AT 210 LAFAYETTE STREET TO PROVIDE ANADDITIONALAPARTMENT. f JOBEPR R. OOVIE � ARTHUR LABRECOUE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to alter the premises at this location to provide an addititional apartment on the third floor as this is an R-'j District , zoned for multi family dwellings, and the City Zoning Ordinance requires a lot area of 12, 000 square feet with a frontage of 100 feet . This lot contains 10, 5uO square feet and has a frontage of seventy feet . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals from this decision, and a hear- ing was held on her petition on January 20, 1969, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, Board Members , abutters, and others , and advertisements published in The Evening News. All Board members attended this hearing excepting Mr. Norman Welch, Jr. Petitioner appeared and stated her petition which is on file , contained her appeal, further stating there is sickness in the family. Chairman John Gray read the appeal to the hearing, this appeal being incorporated in this de- cision by reference . No one appeared in opposition. "',Johe Board voted unanimously to grant a Special Permit to allow occupancy of the third floor premises as an apartment to the petitioner personally, said Special Permit will cease if and when petitioner disposes of this prop- erty. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED WITH RESTRICTIONS., BY Secreta " ao W � V G 0. .man U W W -j J Q) J Q z r a � coo r ' THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ` 1 S A L E M � CITY OR TOWN e RECEIVED JAN 29 3 14 WSW BOARD OF APPEALS CITY CL T' tP,'S OFFICE ...................JANUARY...2gi.............,-1969 SALEIAI MASS. NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 49A.Section 18 RR amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To..............MAIMlIP'.RE'tE...13.....C.Q� .......................................................................................... Owner or Petitioner Address......a17_.LAFAYETTE STREET ......... . .. .. ....................................................................................... Cityor Town......SALEM.....-----•-•-•................................,.................................... 270 LAFAYETTE STREET ...............................................................................................................:........................................ Identify Land Affected ......................................... .................................................................................. City by the Town of........................SALZM..........................................Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on ..........................z7.Q..urttuTu:I:...51210a....................SAI.F.M............................................. street City or Town • the record title standing in the name of .................. ....................---•--......................-•--•---•--••-•---.......................... whose address is........317-...LaX.aye.tte...S.tree.t.,.........Sa.l em........Mass......................... street City or Town State by a deed duly recorded in the....SQUTII..ES.SEIC.........County Registry of Deeds in Book ................ Page................. ....................................................Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No................. ................Book ................Page................ The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No....................... City in the office of the Town-Clerk..........AV.G.VS.11NE...J.....2'QQMEY.............................................. Signed this....29!:.day of........,LANVARY......................1969 Board of Appeals: ............. ../1/. �Cl.. . . ... .Y/1ft.Chairman Board of Appeals .............. ... �✓/�-----� ...... ...'may.. ....Clerk Board of Appeal, ................................................19........ at..-- ... --.o'clock and................................minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of.......................................... Book........................ Page........................ • ATTEST ....................................................................... .... Register of Deeds —Notice to be recorded by Land Ouner. FORM 1094 HOBBS 6 WARREN, INC.. Ravlsao CHarTaR ata•Isee varb of '�AjSpral DECISION ON PETITION OF MARGUERITE B. COTE TO REMODEL THE A,.. T THIRD FLOOR OF BUILDING AT 270 LAFAYET":.E STREET TO PROVIDE M« H. oo�LaER AN ADDITIONAL APARTMENT. JOSEPH F. pOYLE JOHN M. GRhY. SR. PRTHVR Lh VRCCOVE ' The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to .alter the re:rzses at this location to provide an addititional apartment on the third floc:- as this is on P.-3 District , zoned for multi family dwellings , and the City Zoning Ordil-.ance requires a lot area of 12, 000 square feet with a fronta;;e of 100 feet . This lot contains lO, juO square feet and has a frontage of seventy feet . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals from this decision, and a hear- ing was hole. on her petition on January 20, 1969 , pursuant to notices mailed post,iaid to the petitioner. , Beard Nembers , abutters , and others , and advertiserr•ents nnblished in The Even:i..,g ?:ews . All Board n. ibers a tended this hearing _xceotinl; Mr. ^io;. man Welc:r. , _'r. Petitioner a;:peared and stated her patition wni_cl Ls ' _ i1e , corr;; -d her appeal , f- , ...ger sta :i-ng there is _.ickness th,^ fr.rr. .�_ 'Mi * rrrrn'n ^ o:-..._ Gray read the .. ,oea1 to the hearing, this appeal beinC incorpo.^,.ted is de- cision bT: ;ference. No one appeared in opposition. The Board v.. ied' Tnar imously to grant a S-,ecial 'Per:-ait to allot., occupa. .c} of the flo^r premises as an apartment to the petitioner personally , said Spec .%,:_ Per-mit will cease if :_nd when petitioner disposes of tnis ;prop- erty. ;OARL �-.^ APP ,'AL APPEAL ;DCT:R RESTRICTIONS. By l c _is ter. u � �N Lu L � CC c. C r� vJ Je RECIE � IIf 1Eztt, � � axc rpt E t SEP I I 3 oo P ' Pnurb of tAppral CITY (.1.' It:. ;, OFFICp M . nopo+T DECISIONSxITEWKAPWy§§L OF HENRY G. AND SHIRLEY J. BOUCHER, FOR " ppm ... VARIANCE FROM APPLICABLE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF CITY ZONING ORDINANCE AFFECTING EXISTING STRUCTURES AT 53-55 LAWRENCE STREET. Petitioners through Counselor Robert D. Bowes, appealed to the Board of Ap- peals for a variance from the applicable requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance affecting existing dwellings at 53-55 Lawrence Street . The plan submitted shows undersize lots with dwellings thereon, in nonconformity with the Ordinance requirements for front and side setbacks from boundary lines. A hearing was held on this appeal on September 8t1l, 1969, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioners, Counselor Bowes, abutters as shown on list furnished by Assessors, Board Members, and others, and advertisements: published in the Salem Evening News . All Board members were present at this hearing,• including the two associate members. Counselors Robert Bowes and James Ronan appeared for the petitioners and stated the case the same as appears in the original appeal on file , further stating that the petitioner has a buyer for one lot , he has made the modifi- �ations requested by abutters at a previous meeting, there is a real finan- ial hardship involved which the Board of Appeals could recognize , and it does not violate the intent or purpose of Subdivision or Zoning regulations. Counselor William O'Brin'e appeared for Mr. Ouellette, an abutter, and stated the plan as filed is incorrect , and if this petition is allowed it will be a serious detriment to the Ouellette property. Dorothy Gorman of 61 Lawrence Street also appeared in opposition. On the day of this hearing the Board received a telephoned request by a Mr. LaBranche an abutter, seeking a postponement of this hearing. This request was brought to the attention of the Board, and it was decided that the Board would come to a decision in this case at this time, and notify Mr.Labranche of this fact . After due consideration of the facts presented in this case, mindful of . the very pertinent fact that petitioners had bought this property a number of years ago, and prior to the adoption of the present Zoning Ordinance, and finding; .,r-t to deny the petitioner the right to dispose of his property if he wished to do so, by conveying it to another, would cause considerable hardship to the petitioners, and mindful also of the fact that surrounding properties are of a similar nature with regard to lot areas and setbacks from boundary lines, the Board found that to grant this variance would in no way derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would cause no detriment to the public good, and voted unanimously to grant this appeal . OAPPEAL GRANTED rn:1RD OF. APPEAT S BY �secretar.' v ° 1 Ci#u ofttlEm, � �tgscl�zzsEts W LLiAM P. P°oon DECISION ON PETITION OF HENRY BOUCHER FOR VARIANCE FROM JA ME9 ". �OULDEq APPLICABLE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, AFFECTING EXISTING BUILDINGS AT 53-55 LAWRENCE STREET. JOHN M. .gAY. 8R. RgTH Uq �A ggECOUE Petitioner, through his attorneys Robert D. Bowes and James T. Ronan, ap- pealed directly to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the applicable density requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance , affecting existing buildings at 53-55 Lawrence Street. There are two buildings on this lot and petitioner proposes to dispose of the property; a variance is required with regard to lot size, lot coverage , and front and side distances to boundary lines'; the portion containing the larger building also lacks suf- ficient rear yard area . A hearing was held on this appeal on June 23, 1969, pursuant to entices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorne} s, board members, abutters, and others, and advertisements published in The Salem Evening News. Board Members present included Mr. Abbott, the acting chairman, Mr. Boulger, Mr. Doyle and Mr. Labrecque. Unable to attend this hearing were Mr. Gray, Mr. Tanch and Mr. Welch. „ *Attorney .James Ronan appeared for the petitioner and explained the appeal as appears in the original petition on file , and also stated that to com- plete a sale the petitioner needs this variance. Appearing in opposition; Mr. and Mrs . Leon Ouellette , 57 Lawrence Street, Dorothy Gorman., rear of 61 Lawrence Street , Alfred Labranche, of 49 Law- rence Street . No decision was reached. at . this hearing. The Board discussed this matter :. i on July 21, 1969, and voted to deny this appeal, finding that there is no hardship involved, and to grant this appeal would derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would be detrimental to the public good. APPEAL DENIED. BOARD OF //APPEALS BY �zl�7. � W { 4Secretary J 43n ul u n $ wce)• U V '..1 W W ;>Q (fitU of � 4)H, ;;ar4usetts 51 Pourb of c�ppral y; .OFFICE IAM.D R, DELL... LE JOSEPH F. DOYLE DECTSTONT ON PETITION OF ARMAND JACQUES, 108 T,TNTDENT STREET TO ERECT TWO CAP GARAGE, 221 x 24 , The Tnspector of Buildings refused. to issue a nermit to erect a two-car ,gara,-e at this location as the existing dwell.inr, and proposed '7,arage build- inr, would not conform to the requirements of the density re:Pulations of the City 7oni-n,- Ordinance . Petitioner appealed from this decision to the Hoard of Appeals , and a hear- in.- was held on this appeal on T\Tovemhe r 1.7 , 1-969 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters , Roard members , and others . and advertisements published in the Salem Fvening News . All of the Members of the Appeals Tlnard attended this hearing, excepti.nr, Mr. Doyle and Mr. Roulper. Petitioner appeared with his wife and stated the appeal the same as in the original petition on file , he can not park near his home as the students from the nearbv State Colle.-e park there from 7: 30 A .M. to 9 : 45 P.M. *'o one appeared in opposition and there were no requests to be recorded in opposition to -ranting this appeal . After a careful studv of the facts and plans as presented in this case , the Board found that the proposed oposed strlictiire would be too large for the availahle yard area , it would be too close to the existinl- dwellin(- on the prnpertv , and would be In Violation of all of the density rer�ulations of the ("itv 7on- ing Ordinance , and for these reasons , Franted petitioner Leave to Withdraw Without prejudice . P 0 A PT) OF APPFAT,S LFAVE TO WTTHnPAW WTTHOUT PPF,.TTJT)TCT, . RY -7— �7A —cr,�ta ry y li 3 43 varb of (�ppru1 %VEL L OAM F. AOUOTT DECISIO�IVPi PETIT]Q0F Q6F PETER WONG, -112 LINDEN STREET. JAME9 H. OOl1LOER §A�Ehi, F1As�: .- JoscvH JOHN M. CRAY. SR. ■ AR"'R IA ORECOtIC Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals to permit him to install and maintain a private parking space for himself and the convenience of two or three neighbors who are denied the use of the parking facilities on neighborhood streets caused by congestion at the Salem State College , lo- cated in the immediate area , and "no parking" restrictions ordained. by City Ordinance . On September 8 , 1969 , a hearing was held on this appeal , pursuant to no- tices 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, including the two assoc- iate members . Petitioner appeared and explained the petition, the same as in the origin- al appeal . Counselor Samuel Zoll appeared, representing Armand and Isa- belle Jacques . The Board voted to take this petition under advisement •nd postpone a decision until the next Board meeting, and further voted o notify petitioner and Counselor Zoll and request that they try to come to some agreeable solution in the meantime . The Board again discussed this petition at its next meeting. At that. time , Board members Mr. Doyle and Mr. Welch were unable to be present at this hearing, all other members attending. Petitioner' s wife appeared and stated her husband was unable to come to the hearing and she appeared in his behalf; Mr. Frank Linskey, an abutter, also appeared to voice his approval of the Board ' s granting this appeal . After a thorough review of the facts presented in this case , the Board found that to grant this appeal would not be detrimental to the public good, and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordin- ance , and further found that ' it would relieve a hardship to the petition- er4='rwho'_l k;e many residents of the area find it extremely difficult to park cars outside of their homes when the College is in session, and for these reasons , Board Members William Abbott , James Boulger, Sr. ,John M. Gray, Sr. , and Emery P. Tanch, Jr. , voted to grant petitioner a Special Permit "toprovide, such occupancy parking, with Board Member Arthur La- brecque opposed to granting this appeal . SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED BOARD OF APPEALS , BY • Acting` Secretary I THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 5.:...__....A........:.....L........... E M .............................................. an oa rowN BOARD OF APPEALS .............OCTOBER__ 0.x.....................19 69 NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted r,. To_..-._._.___PETER AND KATHERINE WONG Owner or Petitioner Address.--.;?...7INDEN„STREET Cityor Town.....-SALEM>•-.MASS..................................................................... ............................ .......................................112 LINDEN STREGTy SALEMy MASS,:, Ideati7y Laad Affected .......................................................................... City by the Town of--------------------*-Ai<:FM_t-.-M-A,5-5-,,-................ ---Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. „_,,,,-_„--,_112 LINDEN STREET SALEM ....... .............................................. street City or Town the record title standing in the name of • ................. AND--KATHERINE„WONG--„ whose address is----112„LINDEN--STREET•------„-,-SALE-M-------------------- MA55_1 street City or Town State by a deed duly recorded in the.....South-_Essex........County Registry of Deeds in Book ---------------- Page................. ....................................................Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No.................. ................Book ................Page................ The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Recision or Case No................. City in the office of the Towix Clerk-.-.......AUGUSTINE J;-,TOOMEY„----,------ Signed this--3Q.'---day Of------------ ...................196 9 . Board of Appeals: 7 '-'-•-•- --...Ch¢irm¢n .1.� n B07d)ofAppeals ..---•--------•-.. -•-- -•----••---•-� ., Clerk Board of Appeal. --• -------------------------------------------------19--=..... at and: minutes M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of.......................................... Book........................ Page...... ................ ' • ATTEST ...--...........................................................•'----...-.. Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded by, Land Owner. FORM 1094 HOBBS & WARREN. INC.. Rerb2fl CRa0160 212.1062, i Ctv ux 'p,alean, _ DECISION ON PETITION OF LEONARD LEVY, D.B.A . CHARLES STUDIO, «Po as 189 LOPING AVENUE "SPECIAL PERMIT" - FOR ADDITION TO EXIST- ING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND VARIANCE WITH REGARD TO o.„ A.. APPLICABLE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS . ..HTHVR LAORCCOUC The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to 'enlarge an existing structure at 189 Loring Avenue as the existing structure is nonconforming in use , also, in this district a 7000 square foot lot area is required and coverage by all buildings is limited to 300. This lot contains 4460 square feet and the proposed coverage by all buildings would be 46. 4%. Petitioner through his attorney, David T. Doyle , appealed to the Board of Appeals for relief from the Building Inspector ' s ruling. A hearing was held. on this petition on January 20, 1969, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, Board Members, abutters, and others, and adver- tisements published in The Evening News.` All Board. Members were present at this hearing, excepting Mr. Norman Welch, .Jr. Counselor Doyle appeared for the petitioner, and presented pictures of the site , and stated the appeal the same as in the original petition on file ; he further stated the petitioner has conducted his business at this location ' or many years in an exemplary manner, and the addition is necessary to his expanding business. No one appeared in opposition. Attorney Harold Tobin appeared and stated that his client, a relative , residing at 2 Grant Road abutting this prop- erty, was not opposed. Board Member Joseph Doyle disqualified himself from participation in this hearing. The Board found that the proposed addition would in no way. derogate from the general character of the neighborhood and would not be detrimental to the public good, and this business having been conducted at this location for a number of years to deny this appeal would cause hardship to the pe- titioner, and with Mr. Doyle abstaining, the Board voted unanimously to grant a Special Permit and a variance to the petitioner. APPEAL GRANTED .. BOARD OF APPEAL m w BY LSD- Secretan'y " u_ LL. C y W J • C m 'a N Y N Z F" a V C G THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ................ S........A.......L.._. M .......................................................... RECEIVED CITY OR TOWN • JAN 29 3 14 PH G9 BOARD OF APPEALS CITY Ci_Er,(,'S OFFICE ................ RY 27x...............19 69 SALEM, MASS. NOTICE OF VARIANCE. Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To.....................] rUMARD•_LEVY ....................................................................... Caner or Petitioner Address.............................................. ............................................. ..................................... Cityor Town....PrAVOnX.t..MASS .............d..b.a.................................................................. ......................In..kQRZNQ..AVrNLTl .....A.S_W1_LLZAM..CHA_RL.ES.._5T:UA.L9-..._.............. Identify Land Affected .........................SALM14...MASS..........__._............_..........._... ..._................ City by the Telwref...............................SA1,LM.....__.............._.....---.....Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. .....................a.9_..L.QRxNG_ AVENU........................... ........-....._....SALEM................------------ street City or Town • the record title standing in the name of ... ......_.......................LR QNARA..UXK. ............ whose address is..................... PEABODY MASS. .--=--•-••. ---•.................................0-----. ... --...__- tree[ City or Towo State by a deed duly recorded in the....RSSF.X...SQVTR.........County Registry of Deeds in Book ................ Page............ ..._.--.................__.-------.--.........__....Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No......... ............Book _.............._Page._..._.......... The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No.'...-.............. City in the office of the-Twm Clerk.......AAGU.5.11 JL..J,._TQQMEx................ Signed this...2.7!Lday of-.-..=JANUARY..........................196 9. Board of Appeals: mi o;............. ...,,.,.Chairman r Boad of Appeals ' .. . . .........Clerk /� Board of ADDeale ............................. .......... 19...._... at-� and........._................. ....minutes ....M. . Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of......................................... Book......._m.........m... Page........_............... ATTEST 1. ............................................. Register of Deeds Notice-io be recorded by Land Owner. FORM 1094 HOBBS d WARREN. INC., nev,aia cas•r.. ...... WILLIAM P. AOOOTT 'AME° " °Ea DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF BOARD OF APPEAL DECISION' °`°" '' �� ` ON PETITION OF GEORGE ARMED , 10-12 LYNDE STREET ARTaVR Lq ONCCO VE December 16 19687 o1968, petitioner appeal was granted a conditional 10-12 Lynde Street . f Appeals with regard to occupancy variance on his ap peal to the Boof the ' Premises at This appeal was for a variance from the Cit inance to permit use application of the of these premises as follows: Y Zoning Ord-. 1 • Use of two rooms 'on the first floor for the general real estate and insurance office. purpose of conducting a 2 . Occupy the remainder of the structure as a lodging house . On April 16th, 1969 , the Board with Mr. Mr. Abbott present , providing a Gray, Mr.unanimLabrecously Mr. Boulger, and quest for review and reconsiderationum' voted unanimousl y to refuse the re- BOARD OF APPEALS BY Act.7 Secretary a cr w - yi 'IX :may LLJ L p 'gig cG N �4n i /111\Ulf1 �h QlitU of !Mem, m_ ?, �30nrb of CC�t�tE2lt 9 . 29. 69 l.'ILLIgM P, qO OOTT JqM C9 N. OOVLOLR DECISION ON PETITION OF' MARTO J. TRICOMI , TO ERECT ADDI- TION TO DWELLING AT 6 MAPLE STREET, TO PROVIDE, PORCH, TO BE ENCLOSED FOR PROTECTION OF INTERIOR OF DWELLING. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addition to an existing dwelling at 6 Maple Street as such construction would be in violation of the City Zoning Ordinance requirements. The Ordinance requires a lot area of 7000 square feet and petitioner' s lot contains 2820 square feet; also, a minimum of ten feet to the side boundary and thirty feet to the rear boundary are permitted by the Ordinance , and with the proposed addition, the side yard would be six feet and the rear yard only ten feet . The petitioner appealed to .the Board of Appeals , and a hearing was held on this appeal on September 15, 1969 , pursuant to notices mailed. postpaid, to the petitioner, abutters , Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Salem Evening News . There were five Board Members present at this hearing, Mr. Doyle and Mr. Welch being unable to attend. Petitioner appeared with his wife and explained the' appeal the same as in ihe .original petition on file , stating they wish to protect the inside of the dwelling from the elements in stormy and cold weather as the entrance presently leads directly into the kitchen, and causes difficulty in heat- ing and maintaining comfortable temperatures . Communications from abutters Mary and Helena Murray, William and Eleanor Kroen., and Anna Marie Conway were received and filed, stating that each of these was in favor of granting this appeal . No one appeared in opposition. After careful consideration of the facts presented in this case and a fur- ther study of the plans as submitted, the Board found that to grant this appeal would relieve a ,definite hardship to the petitioner' s health and comfort , and further found that to grant this appeal would not be detrimen- tal to the public' good, and would not derogate from the intent and purpose' of the Ordinance , and voted unanimously to grant this appeal. L C� BOARD OF APPEALS APPF,AL Z tA?i > N U_ — AcBY ting Secretary . (.> • u ,W -J M r y W C11) V �cmn i Tit ' ofales€, n1mr � la r DECISION ON PETITION OF LEO RICHARD TO ERECT A PORCH, A,H H. o0 oER 12) ' x lb ' AT ThE REAR OF niS DwELLIiVv AT lb MEMORIAL w JO VCI+FI F. OOVLE Da IVE ARTHUR LAOHEC OUE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect, an addition to applicant ' s dwelling at 16 Memorial Drive to provide a rear porch as the plan submitted showed a distance of 21 ' -5" to the rear boundary line instead of thirty feet as required by the City Zoning Ordinance . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the appli- cable density requirement of the Zoning Ordinance with regard to rear yard requirements , and a hearing was held on this petition on May 19 , 1969 , 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 this hearing. Mr. Richard appeared and stated the reason for the petition to erect this porch is because his son is ill and needs a sheltered but open space to sit out of doors in order to improve his health. •io one appeared in opposition. After considering this case as presented, the Board voted unanimously to grant petitioner a variance to permit an addition to provide a porch at the rear of his dwelling finding that to grant relief to the applicant and to relieve the hardship to the petitioner would in no way nullify or dero- gate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance , and would not be detri= mental to the public good. VARIANCE GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL W BY / Secretary Js W _x N T N a— V Tity of �5,UILNnt, � rise juUtts k. """'^" F. A°�O= DECISION ON PETITION OF HAMPDF.N REALTY TRUST I` >ry Qry MOVL6`F TO ERECT ADDITION TO EXTSTING STRUCTURE AT 'k J G f.6 fury p, pOY1.R , Jory� 4 MILK STREET TO PROVIDE, SINGLE, FAMILY REST- DENCE, AND VARTANCE FROM APPI,TCABLE DF,DISTTY REQUTRF.MF,NTS OF CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, AFFECT- ING PROPERTY AT 4 MILK STREET AND 16 PICKMAN- 2 MUX STREETS. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addition to an existing building on Milk Street as this district is zoned R-2 , ' for two. family residences, and the Ordinance requires a lot area of 5000 square feet with side setbacks of ten feet from side boundary lines ; the axisting building is 2 ' -0" from the side boundary line and the lot area 4125 square feet . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal for a variance from the applica- tion of the Zoning Ordinance with regard to density requirements, and a hearing was held on this appeal on July 21 , 1969 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters as supplied on listing; from Assessors ' office, board members , and others , and advertisements published •in the Salem Evening News . Excepting Mr. Doyle and Mr. Tanch all Board members were present. Mr. Arthur Labrecque acted as secretary. Counselor George Vallis appeared for the petitioner and explained the ap- peal as appears in the original appeal on file . Councilor Joseph O'Keefe , Herbert Osgood and Roland L'Heureux appeared in opposition . A decision was not reached at this hearing. Counselor Vallis later presented a letter to the Hoard, requesting leave to withdraw this appeal without prejudice . A subsequent survey of the feelings of the. Board members with regard to this request revealed a ma- jority of the members voted to grant petitioner leave to withdraw without prejudice . BOARD OF APPEALS m , LEAVE. T�W%HDRAW WITHOUT PRF„JUDICE. BY o vii Acting Secretarv/ ` U! a ;w � �Q r N U. t- L 11r�1� RErr- ,V_( ��h LyCc ' iso �dctC � P SEP 11 3 OU N 199 'jjarb of �Apywl CITY 1,:.._ 17A ` iii FIDE ^000 iCQ }yT Appeal of Robert Cook, Trustee , Hampden ,AmCS F1.pOVLGGF Realty Trust -IVR LAUF�COUC This petitioner, through his Counsel George P. Vallis, appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the application of the City Zoning Ordinance as it applies to lot area requirements in an R-2 zone, a dis- tnict designated for residential use, specificially two-family occur) an- cy. The parcel of land owned by petitioner is located at 4 Mil's Street, and the lot is undersize , all other Ordinance requirements would be met with regard to the .construc,tion of a single Family dwelling on this lot . A ,hearing was held on this appeal on September -8th, 1969 , pursuant to no- tices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his counselor, abutters as furn- ished on Assessors.' listing, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News . All of the Board Members were present at this hearing, including the two associate members . 0ounselor Vallis appeared for the petitioner, and stated the case as it appears in the original' appeal on file, all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance will be complied with with the exception of the minimum lot area requirement . The Ward II Councillor, Joseph O'Keefe, Roland L' Heureux of 14 Pickman Street , and Herbert Osgood of Brooks Court off Andrew Street appeared in opposition. Councillor O'Keefe stated he had been asked by an abutter, Mrs . Stromberg, to inform the Board that she was in favor of this appeal being granted. Af�er due consideration of the facts presented, the Board voted unanimously to grant a variance to permit the petitioner to erect one single family dwelling only, in accordance with the requirements of the Ordinance re- lating to boundary lines, and this petitioner must also gain the endorsement of the City Planning . Board before a permit may be issued by the Building Inspector; the Board believed that to grant . this appeal would relieve a hardship to the petitioner and would in no way derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance , and would not be detrimental to the public . good, but this decision is not to become effective until approval has been endorsed by the. Planning Board on plot plan to be presented to that Board. APPEAL GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS. BOARD OF APPFALS • —✓ / - ', BY j Secretary s CtV of Salem, El gsttcll�tse##� aurb of eal JULY 119 1969 WILLIAM P. FBBOTT - JAMEe R. BOVLBBR DECISION ON PETITION OF JOHN F . TIERNEY TO INSTALL JOHEPM P. OOVLE JOHN M. ,RAT, BR. A SWIMMING POOL AT 7 MOONEY AVENUE. ARTM VR V.B RHCOUE The Inspector of Buildings advised the applicant that permission to install a swimming pool must be obtained from the Board of Appeals before he could issue a permit for such installation, he further advised that a variance must also be obtained from the Board of Appeals with regard to the distance from an existing dwelling to the proposed swimming pool according to the regulations of the City Zoning Ordinance . Petitioner appealed to the Board and a hearing was held on this petition on June 25, 1969, in the Council Chamber, City Hall, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, board members# and others, and adver- tisements published in the Salem Evening News. Five Board members appeared at this hearing, Mr. Welch and Mr. Doyle being unable to attend. Petitioner appeared and explained his case the some as appears in the orig- inal appeal, further stating his wife can not swim in cold water due to an •rthritic condition; also, he presented a letter from Dr. John P. Cena , po diatrist of Peabody, Massachusetts, stating petitioner' s wife was a patient of his with a severe arthritic condition, and he felt that sunshine and plenty of bathing would help this condition. No one appeared in opposition. The Board voted unanimously to grant a Special Permit to allow installation of a swimming pool at this location, and also voted to grant a variance from the application of the City Zoning Ordinance requirement regarding distance between structures, specifically twelve feet from the existing dwelling, all other requirements of the Ordinance are to be adhered to,-, and the swimming pool is to be installed according to the plan approved by 'the Board. APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEALS 'BY Acting Secretary" • THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ................:..$..:...........A_............. _............E..............li.................... Cl"oR wwx i BOARD OF APPEALS • JULY...,. 1Q 1969 NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 18 Rs amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To.....JOHN__F_t... IERM................ Owner or Petitioner Address....7..1190NEY AVENUE _ .. .................. ...._._......_._......_............_.._........_..._.... City or Town.....SALEM:............................. ....................7_..MODNE_Y_._AYE.NAE................................................................................................ Identify Lmd Aaeeted SALEM ......................................................................................................•-•••-•-•........._..__. City by the Towncf.......................SALEl4.__.MASa. ..........................Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. ..............7. INOONEY AVENUE.... S��EIAa_.kIA,9S.._........._..... .. ............ . .. ... ................ Street City or Town the record title standing in the name of . ...............1QFIN...r.....AILD_..GE, TRUDE... ....T.IERNEY.....................................................:........ whose address is....2_.14DQNEY..:A.VZXUE.................SLLEM..............._......_......MASS...._._.._._.. Street City or Town State by a deed duly. recorded in the.........E&SEX..................County Registry of Deeds in Book ................ Page................. ....................................................Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No................. ................Book ................Page................ The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No...................:... City in the office of the Town Clerk.................. UGUSTINE••J.t....10MEra'...................................... Signed this..lA!d...day of.........JULY..............................1969. Board of Appeals: {/' /n ....._. ._ L'.:1:�1./.Zl_(�1•... _. _ . .._.. ..I.LI4-,, Chairman ' _ �rd Dyeala �' ' ......... .. .... ......d...__._.........Clerk ' Dosrd of AD ala ................................................19........ .............O'clock and................................minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of....................................:..... Book........................ Page........................ • _ ATTEST Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Ouner. FORM 1094 HOBBS S WARREN. INC.. RRVtata CHawreR 21¢.1962 a\>>n of "SaIrm, f xssar4usrtts 3 �� f x Pourb of �kppral ' l!(fplty 5\At'P WILLIAM I. ABBOTT ^ JPM eB N. BOVLOHR � .1 ' JCB.'. I. CCVL. DECISIONON PETITION QFN SUN OIL COMPANY, 115'7 NORTH JOHN M. CRAY. BR. -.STREET .TO ENLARGE AREA: OCCUPANCY OF EXISTING SER- ARTM UR �nBRecoue - VICE STATION AS IT 'IS PRESENTLY A NONCONFORMING USE IN THIS DISTRICT, B-1 ZONED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD BUSI- NESS, AND THIS WOULD BE AN EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORM- ING USE. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to enlarge the area occupancy at this service Station on North Street at the corner of Mason Street as it is presently a nonconforming use for the district, and this would be an a pansion of 'a nonconforming use, also, petitioner proposes to increase o ening to thirty-five feet and the City Zoning Ordinance lim- its these openings to twenty-four feet . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals for relief from this decision, and a hearing was held on this petition on April 28, 19690 pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters , Board Member„ and others; and advertisements published in The Salem Evening News . •All Board Members were present at this hearing, excepting Chairman John M. Gray, Sr. Mr. Richard Bunzell,/ representing Sun Oil Company, Concord Street, Framing- ham, appeared for the petitioner and stated the case the same as in the original appeal, inasmuch as this is the extent' of the lot owned by this Company and since the .Company is desirous of modernizing its existing fac- ilities , denial of the -application is . creating a hardship in that the company is prevented from utilizing their land and increasing and improv- ing the facilities and operation of this service station. Ward Councilor George McCabe ;appeared in opposition on behalf of some of his constitutents , also the Ward 2 Councilor, Joseph O'Keefe registered opposition to granting :this appeal . P w In vieioft.)the facts presented to the Board, the Members found that to denya pa=it,,toper the right t6 expand his existing; pusiness and to modern ize Lan(tim"T31°)ve his facilities, would .•impose severe hardship to the .opera- tiozi! ofe'Vtfi i 9: business , and to grant. relief would in no way nullify or der�&aCO frain the intent and purpose of the 'Ordir'iance and would cause no detriment bbaiithe.. public good, _voted unanimously to, grant this appeal with the aPo_1�rpwrry� conditions: a � g 1 . No structures are to be built on the premises: 2:0:'°.:No vehicles are to be housed or parked on the premises either for the purpose of sale or renting. . S 3. Premises not to be used in any event to park or locate ,,trailers. BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS BY �. ��- �hn-<✓ RECEIVED git� of $EP 11 3 43 N '99 PIIttrbi of Appeal Pr'•cmr*rte CITY CL „3 Sp O�FgFICE wiLLiAM n. A000 C S%V-ON PETITION OF WILLIAM LITTLE, 20 NORTHEND JAM C9 ".-°OULO ER osEP" a. °ovLE AVENUE TO ERECT A SECOND DWELLING ON LAND AT THIS ...... .RAY. ER. LOCATION, REQUESTING VARIANCE WITH REGARD TO LOT ART"°R °RE" R AREA, FRONTAGE, AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF ZONING ORDINANCE. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance to erect a single family dwelling on a portion of a lot of land at 20 Northend Avenue on which there is presently a dwelling, for which he also re- quests a variance with regard to density requirements of the City Zon- ing Ordinance. A hearing was held on this petition on September 8e , 1969 , 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, including the two assoc- iate members. Counselor Robert D. Bowes appeared for the petitioner and stated the case {Oche same as in the original petition on file; petitioner requires variance with regard to lot size and front and side yard setbacks from boundary lines on existing dwelling; he also requires a variance as to lot size on smaller portion of lot on which he proposes to erect a single family dwel- ling. The new .dwelling will be a small Cape , 26 ' x 34 , and will meet all other requirements .of the Ordinance . Appearing in oppo's �ion to granting this variance were John Snow of 11 Cressey Avenue , Lugger Simard of 9 Cressey Avenue , and George Goolsby of 26 Northend Avenuoa After due consideration of the ,facts presented in this case , the Board finding that many: dwellings in the immediate and adjoining areas have. been constructed on .lots of similar size, some on smaller lots, and for this rea- son believing that granting a variance as requested would in no derogate from the intent and purpose of the ordinance, and would not be detrimental to the public good, voted unanimously to. grant this appeal . BOARD OF APPEALS APPEAL GRANTED BY ✓- %/,� Secretary e . . ! y Attu II �z1Em, s 2. 29ottrb of (43?ral - �L:oUn�p�ac DECISION ON PETITION OF SDK Realty to erect an addition """ "' ROBOT to an existing warehouse on land on the south side of JTM Es X. Bou�a ER - ' JBBEPX R. BBYLE the North River Canal, westerly of North Street, JOXN M. OR/Y. BR. M1RTH UR LAORECOUE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect an addition at this location as this is an Industrial District and the City Zoning Ordinance requires a 40 ,000 square foot lot with a frontage of 150 feet' and setbacks of thirty feet from each boundary line. Petitioner' s lot contains 14, 209 square feet and has a frontage of 130 feet; and the setbacks from the front , side and rear boundary lines according to the plan submitted are fifteen feet each. Petitioner appealed to the' Board of Appeals and a hearing was held on this appeal pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members , and others , and advertisements published in The Salem Even- ing News. After several postponements due to severe storms and excessive accumula- tion of snow, a hearing was held on this appeal on March 17, and resumed on April 28t�'. A final decision was reached on May 19t' with all Board Mem- bers present, and petitioner appearing and explaining the plans. Petitioner stated the appeal is the same as in the original petition; due to growth of business ,necessity for a larger warehouse exists , and the best means to solve the difficulty is to enlarge the existing warehouse building which is 30 ' x 6U ' . No one appeared in opposition. After considering the facts presented in this case , the Board, all Members present , voted unanimously to grant this appeal, finding that the granting of this appeal would in no way derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would cause no detriment to the public good, and would relieve hardship to petitioner relative to warehouse facilities. APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEAL BY d (a_ ;may —/r7e—creta y �N -'' C= �a w yin a- F- G 101-11itU o �Mrra, 7 curb of al JULY 11, 1969 WILLIAM I. RBB OTT „MBB M. BOVI.OBR DECISION ON PETITION OF ROSE MARIE C. BALL TO ERECT A I...r. .. BOYLB SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON LOT 6 and a portion of Lot JONN M. ORRY. OR. 7 Parallel Street . ' ARTHUR LABRBCOVB The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a" dwelling at this location as the land is in An Industrial district, and is undersize with insufficient frontage and inadequate setbacks as to requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance for this district. Petitioner, through Attorney John R. Serafini appealed to the Board of Appeals to vary the application of the Zoning Ordinance, and a hearing was held on this appeal on June 25, 1969, in the Council Chamber, City Hall, pursuant to notices mailedrpostpaid to the petitioner, Counselor Serafini, owner of record, board members, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. Five .Board members were present at this hearing, Mr. Doyle and Mr. Welch being unable to be present. _Counselor Serafini appeared for the petitioner and explained the plan as in the original appeal; he stated that prior to 1965 when the present Zon- ing Ordinance was adopted, this was a residential area and the land in ques- tion can only be used for residential purposes and could not be used for industrial purposes because of the area requirements; there is in existence on an adjacent lot, another residence. No one appeared in opposition. After careful consideration of the facts as presented, the Board voted unan- imously to -grant this appeal , providing the dwelling: is erected on Lot 6 only, finding that the size of . the lot limits its use to residential pur- poses only, and finding further that to grant this appeal would not cause detriment to the public good, and would not derogate from the intent and. purpose of the Ordinance. . APPEAL GRANTED WITH CONDITION.` BOARD OF APPEALS BY Acting Secretary • 'THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ...:..............e5..............A...............L..............F...............M.................... ' a" OR TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS . ......................JULY 10x .1969 NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted TO......RQSE--MARE-.C r-_.BALL....................... .............:........................................................... Owner or Petitioner . Address_.-._LOT 6 _PARALLEL STREET .. . .. .................................................... Cityor Town................. ALEMA-.MASS.•....--............_.--.....-............................................................ LOT 6 PARALLEL STREET ......... ...........................................-. ..._.._.....-...-...--.--..-.-... ........--.-.-......-.........-........ Identify Land Affected ..................SALEM.,---t• :.3s�........................................................................................................ ., City by the Tewwof..........................SALEM..........MASS....................Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on: L.9T-.-6...EARALLEIr_-STREFrT.............. ..MLEM....-....-: Street City or Town the record title standing in the name of • ------,ROSE -MARIE, C .__BALL ........................................... ........-......-..--.........._....._-........-....... whose address is........ .5... .ENOX...UREE1............FEARQAK...........................M.ASSx........... Street City or Town Stats by a deed duly recorded in the..........ESSEX County Registry of Deeds in Book . ................Page................. .... 0TLi_ESSEX..:_.-...._._.........Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No................. ................Book ................Page................ Tbd decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No....................... city in the office of the T-own-Clerk............AV-GV_S.TIRE..JA._TOOMEX............................................. Signed this...xWt.day of.......... YL-1C............................1969 Board of Appeals: ...... .... :. �i!. !.3-./.:_ �11 . . 4-,Chairman - Board of Appeals ............. ...� - .........Clerk Board of Appeals .......:.................... .................19..--.... at. .........o'clock and................................minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of.......................................... Book........................ Page......................... ATTEST . �- .................................:........._---..-.-...._..-...-..._........ Register o/ Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Ouner. FORM 1004 HOBBS O WARREN. INC... RRTIRRB CRarTrR 1114usa - ' tu of alezzt; s c �z ekt �',� �3 �II2TY1� It{ �1�J�JEFII WILLIAM P. AOOOTT lAME6 IY. DOLILO ER J06CPM P. OOYLE O"� M. ORAY. DECISION ON PETITION OF SALEM ACRES, INC . , Lot #152 ARTMVR LA ORE"„E PARLEE STREETS FOR VARIANCE FROM APPLICATION OF CITY ZONING ORDINANCE AS IT APPLIES TO- REAR YARD REQUIRE- MENTS. Counselor George P. Vallis appealed to the Board of Appeals on behalf of . his client , Salem Acres , Inc . , for a variance from the application of the City Zoning Ordinance affecting setback from rear boundary line . A hearing was held on this appeal on April 28, 1969 , pursuant to rotices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, abutters , Board Members, and others , and advertisements published in The Salem Evening .News. Excepting Chairman John M. Gray, . Sr. , all Board Members were present at . the hearing. Mr. William F. Abbott presided as acting chairman. Counselor Vallis appeared and stated that the Banks insist on these var- iances before they will advance money; this petition involved minor viola- tion as the Ordinance requires a thirty-foot rear yard, and the setback ere will be twenty-three feet . The dwelling complies with all other reg- ulations of the Ordinance . Appearing in opposition was Ward Councilor John Butler. Upon consideration of the facts presented in this case the Board found that the petitioner had met all requirements of the Ordinance excepting the re- quirement of a thirty foot rear yard, and voted unanimously to grant the variance to relieve hardship to the petitioner, feeling that granting this appeal would in no way derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance , and in no way be detrimental to the public good. BOARD OF APPEAL c� APPEAL GRANTED BY n ,��. e retary _ r c� s L J LJ W JJ a o va g 47 rte. (tai#g ofttlEm, ttscl#use##s 3, 4. „ ` P Pourb of Apywi ugM gceor DECISION ON PETITION OF SALEM ACRES, INC . , FOR VARIANCE "MeBHBO FROM APPLICABLE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF CITY ZONING ORD- OBePH '' INANCE WITH REGARD TO LOCATIONS OF DWELLINGS ON LOTS JONN M. OFq Y. BR. gRTNUq ,..,RREC OUR 73-A, and 75-G PURITAN ROAD. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue permits to erect dwellings on Lots 73-A and 75-G Puritan Road as the plot plans submitted show that the thirty-foot distance to the rear boundary line can, not be allowed. The plan for Lot 73-A shows a rear yard of fourteen feet at onepoint, with a distance of forty feet on the other end of the structure ; the plan for Lot 75-G shows a rear yard of twelve feet from one corner and. twenty-two feet from the other corner of the proposed dwelling. Petitioner, through his attorney, George P.. Vallis, appealed to the Board of Appeals for variances from the application of the City Zoning Ordinance with regard to rear yard requirements. A hearing was held on this petition on May 19, 1969, 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. Counselor Vallis appeared for the petitioner and explained the case the same as in the original peti- Wion; the plan of land which includes these lots has been given approval by the City Planning Board; the land to the rear of these lots is owned by the City of Salem and the City 'has no objection to the granting of these vari- ances; Mr. Vallis contended this is a real hardship because if his client can not build as petitioned, he can not build at all; also, the developer has given to the City of Salem, without charge , an easement over this prop- erty. Ward Councillor John Butler' appeared in opposition and stated that the lots should have been laid out so• as to conform to the law and as far as he is concerned, there is no hardship. Stanley Bornstein, 14 Gables Circle, an abutter to lot 73-A Puritan Road appeared to register his opposition to granting a. variance , stating that if this petition is allowed it will hurt the value of his property. CnUJ After s`�tnud) ing the facts presented in this case , the Board finding that a hardsvhiFtd�-�he developerSin' not .being able to erect structures on these lotsLLasr4hey-doriginally planned, would be relieved by granting the variances requi'rec,{,,, anccl that granting the variances would in no way nullify or dero- gate rbrrt thj intent or purpose ' of the Ordinance and would not be detrimen- tal VIA, c:i 1�klic good, votedunanimously to 'grant .this appeal. VARIANCE'M'G%kNTED BOARD OF 'APPEALS Secre aaty t„coualtir , (situ aSazlem, ttssttcl� setts grrl INFAc, DECISION ON PETITION OF SALEM ACRES, INC. , VARIANCE FROM REAR YARD REQUIREMENT OF ZONING ORDINANCE WITH `DER REGARD TO LOCATION OF DWELLING ON LOT 7$A PURITAN RD. JOD6P" I. DOVL6 JOHN M. OR^V. BR. ' "RTMVR URRCCOUH The Inspector of Buildings refused' to issue a permit to erect a dwelling at this location as the plan submitted showed a rear yard of only twelve feet at one point, and the Ordinance requires a distance of thirty feet from, , the rear boundary line. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the applica- tion of the Zoning Ordinance, and a hearing was held on this appeal on June 23, 1969 pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, Board Members, abutters, and others and advertisments published in The Salem Evening News. . Four Board members were- present at this hearing, including William F. Abbott, acting chairman, Joseph Doyle , James Boulger and Arthur Labrecque. Counselor George Vallis appeared for the petitioner and explained the case; he stated this petition should have been included in the last hearing of the 40oard but the public notice had been inadvertently omitted in the adWertise- .ent. No one appeared in opposition. After careful consideration, the Board, four members present , voted unani- mously to grant this petition feeling that there would be no detriment to the public good and it would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and granting this appeal would relieve hardship to the pe- titioner who has developed this area and erected several hundred dwellings, Nand because of the shape of this lot it could not otherwise be utilized. 'APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEALS BY Secretary cam v T N .. S Y N J H Pourbi of 'Appull wLUAm F. Avv oTr Ames H. vo�LcvR Jose RH F. oo.L. . JOHN M. CRAY. SR. DECISION ON PETITION OF ELIE THERIAULT, 6-8 SMITH STREET ARTHUR LA[RCCOUE Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the appli- cable density requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance , affecting land and existing buildings thereon at 6-8 Smith Street , with particular, regard to lot areas , and front , side , and. rear setbacks from boundary lines . A hearing was held on this petition on October 20 , 1969 , pursuant to no- tices mailed postpaid to the pei;i.tio.ner, his attorney, Board members , abut- ters , and' ;others , and advert:isement:s published in the Sa] (�m Evening News . l;. Alll- Board diernbers , excepting Mr. Doyle and Mr. Welch were present at this hearing, Counselor Foisy. ,appeared for the petitioner and explained the case , the same as in the original petition on file ; the property has been in this family since 1915 , and the dwellings thereon had been erected many years prior to their acquisition of the premises ; one portion has already been conveyed to new ownership , and the petitioner now hopes to pass ownership _* the second parcel to his son. Dwellings were erected prior to 1860 . Mr. and Mrs . Marquis and Mrs . Amerault appeared in favor of granting this petition. No one appeared in opposition. After carefully reviewing the facts p:-esented in this case , the Board found that owing to conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of the actions of the applicant , a literal enforcement of the Ordinance would re- sult in unnecessary and undue h.nrdsi-iip, and further found. that many houses in the area and particularly in the immedi-ate vicinity are located on sim- ilar undersize lots with insufficient setbacks from boundary lines in non- conformity with the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance , and for these reasons the Board members voted unanimously to grant this appeal . s APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEALS BY wn w Clerk Pro Tem � v �yi rl s. � Y Ll L CG o U v U O it •, �YiU of �cTkx1T, �' F%sqeTL4Li5Ptt!5 r rp�um„or'D^ NLL_LiAM F. ^000T. 1AME6 N. OOV16GR J06EPH F. DOYLE DECISION ON PETITTON OF MARVIN SCHLOSS TO INSTALL '."'° ''L .RA,' .R. SIGNS AT 2 STATE ROAD. ARTH V.'i I.AORECOUC , The petitioner was refused a permit to install signs at this location by the Inspector of Buildings as the total sign area would be in violation of the City Zoning Ordinance which restricts the area of signs to one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of frontage of the establishment. Petitioner, through his attorney, John R. Serafini appealed to the Board of Appeals to vary the application of the Zoning Ordinance ; and a' hearing was held on this appeal on- June 25, 1969 in the Council Chamber, City Hall , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, •abutters, Board Mem- bers , and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. There were five Board Members present at this hearing, Mr. Welch and Mr. Doyle being unable to attend. Counselor Serafini appeared for the petitioner, and explained the plan the same as in the original petition, stating his client needed these signs to properly conduct his business preparing food for sale. 'I •RToone appeared in opposition. . i After careful consideration of the facts as presented in this case, the Roard voted unanimously to allow a plastic center pole sign 6 ' -9" x 9 ' -7" with a 7,' bucket , plus three 3 ' x 27 ' signs on the building, but there will be no flashing lights in any sign. BOARD OF APPEALS APPEAL GRANTED BY Secretay i � v N LJ J � V • Chit ofttlPzn, DECISION ON PETITION OF MARVIN SCHLOSS FOR VARIANCE FROM APPLICABLE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF CITY ZONING oG G=R ORDINANCE WITH REGARD TO LOCATION OF BUILDING ON PREMISES AT 2 STATE ROAD JON .N. GR4 Y. Gii. .11111R LgGR..OIC Petitioner through Counselor John Serafini appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the applicable density requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance with regard to lot area , and side and rear setbacks from boundary lines . A hearing was held on this petition on January 20 , 1969 , pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, Board Members, abutters, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All Board Members were present at the hearing excepting Mr. Norman Welch, Jr. Counselor Serafini appeared and stated the petition the same as in the orig- inal appeal on file ; petitioner had been granted a variance with regard to setback requirements and lot area at a hearing of the Board of Appeal on June 24 , 1968; since that time , conditions have changed on the premises •nd the proposed location of said building has been altered slightly and a ariance is requested with regard to setbacks from boundary lines. Mr Sera- fini presented a plan which was viewed by the Board, showing the size of the building would not be increased, the reference being to the shape of the building. Mrs. Kimball of 542 Loring Avenue appeared in favor. No one appeared in opposition. The Board, having in mind that a variance had already been granted petition- er to erect a building on this lot , found that the proposed structure and use would in no way derogate from the general character of the neighborhood and would not be detrimental to the public good, voted unanimously to grant this appeal. /BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL GRANTED BY Secretary aD U • LLUj U � J J cr-- cun .�4 N r N 2 c U ' (11itu of `��(EZli� �2i$S2it�libEttS Pourb of Appeal . DECISION ON PETITION OF WILLIAM V. BUCKLEY, JR. * TO JAMES H. BOUIOER ERECT A DWELLING ON LOT #2 STATION ROAD, JoeERN v. ooY�E JONN M. GRAY. ER. <gTNVq LgORECQVE The Inspector of Bdildings refused to issue a permit to erect a dwelling at this location as the plan submitted shows an existing dwelling on a portion of this land, and the area remaining would not conform to the re- quirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and the proposed structure would not allow sufficient distances from the side and rear boundary lines. Petitioner, through 'his attorney, Robert D. Bowes, appealed to the Board of Appeals to vary the application of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a single family dwelling. A hearing was held on this appeal on June - 23, 1969, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, Board Members, abutters, and others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. Four Board Members were present at this hearing, including William F. Ab- bott, acting chairman, James Boulger, Joseph Doyle, and Arthur Labrecque. torney James Ronan appeared. for the petitioner and read a statement from r. Buckley, stating he needs this variance to allow the installation of a foundation for the proposed dwelling. No one appeared in opposition. The Board after considering the facts as presented in this case, having in mind that dwellings in this district erected before the present Zoning Ord- inance went into effect in August of 1965 were constructed on lot areas of similar size', found that to grant this Appeal would in no way be detrimental to the public good and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, voted unanimously to grant this appeal ,to allow the petition- er to erect a dwelling on this lot as it could be used for no other purpose, except residential in this district . APPEAL GRANTED BOARD OF APPEALS BY Secretary% m w O D_ Dy. > N _ . LL: y- WtoJ J O: v to � r o v , { m - - e.-f nY_C T�SOM nIV YY_T-ITI'.OIY oY ArCfltV 11 r �,':••-.•_.✓.-. .`• _. . •'•.a.T ,.._._ �� i a A GARAGE AT 37 TURNER STREET Jwwnra_v. To cr.r_cr ,;.. '�oceP.a:roaY�E JQNN�M. GRAY.9R. ARTMYR IA gRECOVE - 6e Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a garage at this location as the Plan- submitted showed an undersize lot and insuffic- ient rear yard, and coverage of the lot by all buildings would exceed that permitted by the City Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeal and a hearing was held on this petition on June 23, 19699 pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the pe- titioner, Board Members, abutters, and others and advertisements published in The Salem Evening News. Four Board members were present at this hearing, including William F. Ab- bott, acting chairman, James Boulger, Joseph Doyle, and Arthur Labrecque. Petitioner appeared and stated he owns and operates "TheOld Pepper Company^ , a business known as garag, candy makers at this location, and needs the e to enable him to conduct his business and to replace one that was torrn. down. The following, all abutters, signed a written communication that they had no objection to the erection of this garage: Sophie .Sawicki, 39 Turner Street Stanley Zielinski 3 Stanley Jaskiel, Sr. , 109 Derby Street Frank Konieczny, 105Turner DerbyStreet Alice Jordan, 97 Derby Street. No one appeared in opposition. Ar4pr reviewing the facts presented in this case the Board, finding that a ga age was a necessary addition to conducting this business voted unani- mously to grant this appeal to relieve hardship to the petitioner, and feeling that to grant the appeal would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would cause no detriment to the public good. F APPEAL GRANTED. BOARD OF APPEALS, BY _ �. U Secreta � n G Ck— ON - ks u- In _ J LLJ v J J W - t1G OC N to :, �,�. Thc• Undc v}�ncd rcprc.cnt drwa A. t .................... -- . . ... . Scrcec; Lonmg Diatnca ... ai'td said Parcel is affected by ArtiSle..............I------- of the Salem Zoning By-Laws and Section.............._.._... of the Building Code of the City of Salem. q Plans describing the work proposed, have been submitted to the Building Inspector in accordance with Part 2, of the Building Code of the City of Salem. Briefly, the work is as follows: The Application for Permit was.denied by the Building Inspector for the following reasons; • The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem Zoning By-Laws and the Salem Building Code and order the Building Inspector to approve the application fee permit to build as filed, as the enforcement of said Zoning By-Laws and Building Code would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Laws and Building Code for the following reasons: 9 Date.............................................. ... Petition .. ............................ .. ....... .. ................................- By...-- --- --- ----- ------ . - -------- -- ------------ -- Address-l.. ..--�. ...... ---� Thisapplication must be filed at the City Clerk's Office with a_eheck, for adveiiising in the s ouat of l�" REGFIv'-n�i YST of Am, FSsmr4us]M5 n� JUN 2 1113 nttrb of '�ppQ l �._... G'Ta•1151.00'� DECTSION ONici'kION OF HOUSE OF SEVEN GABLES SETTLEMENT ` w AM AR6o ASSOd �cF O A 4 TURNER STREET, TO ERECT AN ADDITION AND "ME6 ". ao�"ER MAKE ALTERATIONS TO REAR TEAROOM, INCLUDING REDUCTION IN SIZE AND RELOCATION OF KITCHEN, A NEW ENTRANCE FROM PARK JO"N M. ORAY. 6R. ' A.1..,, A9REOOVE ING AREA, ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE AND COMPLETE LANDSCAPING. On May 1, 1969 , the Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit for the above outlined proposed alterations as he considered this as an ex- tension of a nonconforming use in an R-2 district . A hearing on this petition was held on May 29, 1969 at which all Board Members . were present, excepting Mr. J. Nbrman Welch, Jr. , who was unable to attend. Counselor Richard E. Blake , 70 Washington Street , appeared for the petition- er and explained the general purpose of the plan; he introduced various other persons who later spoke in favor. Mr. Blake further stated that the petitioner has never called upon any of the Citizens of the City for fin- ancial help. Mr. James Ballou, architect, explained the plans to the Board. Appearing in favor of granting this appeal were Mr. Albert Goodhue, Mr. Felix Kulik, Mr. Roger J. Eastman, Mr. Gilbert Payson, Mrs . Chester Defan- ski 241 Hardy Street, Mr. Lucien Morin 20 Hardy Street, and Mr. Edward Luzynski of 24 Hardy Street. Mrs. Stuart Gardner spoke in favor of grant- •ing this petition, stating she is a director of the Settlement Association, and that many times tourists and other visitors are forced to. stand in line on the Turner Street sidewalk, sometimes in rainy weather, waiting to enter. A letter received from Anna Kopka , 53-55 Turner Street was read to the meet- i ing, voicing her opposition. Also appearing in ,opposition were Anthony Iwan- iciki and Walter Suslak, owner of a lunchroom establishment at the foot of Turner Street . Mr. Iwanicki°s objection had to do with his fear that he would be unable to park his car on Turner Street if the additional parking area and an entrance were permitted. The objection of Mr. Suslak was con- cerned with his fear that his business wouldr:be injured by the proposed op- eration. After hearing, the following facts were established to the satisfaction of the Board: The petitioner, House of Seven Gables Settlement Association, a char- itable corporation, owns old historical buildings at its location which are open to the public , the admission charges to which are expended in social settlement and welfare activities carried on at its location since 1910, and incidentally in the maintenance and repair of its historical buildings . Traffic congestion in the area and parking problems of the public have caused the petitioner to greatly increase its parking areas over a period of years, which has substantially benefitted the neighborhood as well as the general public . The additional parking area shown on the plan filed with the petition will be of additional benefit to the area and the gen- ; • eral public. j 2 petitioner has been concerned with the small , in- for r::any years, the • adequate public entrance to its property from Turner Street , which opens into a very gmall room 'where visitors remain until they are taken by guides on a tour of the old houses and the grounds of the petitioner. Only a very *all group can be admitted through this entrance from Turner Street, and is has forced large numbers of the public to remain outside on the Turner Street sidewnll" , until they can be admitted, and often large groups of visi- tors have been forced to stand on the Turner Street sidewalk during stormy and rainy weather. As, a consequence , the petitioner for several years has been con*idering a now, adequate entrance directly from its parking areas and has 'recently approved an architect ' s plan which is on file with the Board, involving a small addition to its so-called tearoom building, an in- crease in its existing parking areas, and a complete landscaping. It is the finding of the Board that the proposed improvements will be of substantial benefit to the public , will lessen traffic congestion and parking problems in the area , and that the petition filed by the House of Seven Gables Settlement Association is primarily for the public benefit and not for any so-called commercial benefit to the petitioner. Insofar as material, the Board finds that the so-called restaurant operation of the petitioner, carried on for many years prior to the adop- tion of the Salem Zoning Ordinance , is a small, non-profit function which exists only to satisfy demands of its visitors for some form of food, us- ually in the form of sandwiches and drinks such as Coca Cola, coffee and tea . It was established to the satisfaction of t:.,; Board that the interests and property of abutters would not be injuriously affected in any way by the granting of a Special Permit to do the proposed work under the provis- Qns of Section V B (10) , page 2'. , Section VIII A . Paragraph ,3, page 47: Sction VIII F, Page 52; and Section IX-D page 56 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and that the small addition to the tearoom building will not increase its volume or area unreasonably or the use thereof. After due consideration, the Board, .ith five regular Members and one Associate Member present, voted unanimously to grant the, Special Permit as petitioned for. BOARD OF APPEALS APPEAL GRANTED, c, BY �t_•, m: Secreeary T r+ 4 G N 4 r� • r - - THE COMMONWEALTH OF MA98ACHUSETTs ................5..........A...........L.......:..E..........M.............................: Stn oe»wH ...... . BOARD OF APPEALS MAY..29m ......................19 69 j NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General laws Chapter 40A, Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To:......MOUSE_ OF,_SEVEN_,GABLES ,SETTLEMENT--ASSOCIATION ............................................ ' Owner or Petitioner Address...........5.4.-.T.V.11NE1?..STREET........................................................:............................... Cityor Town-:......SALEM*...MA.SS-..........:.........................................:.......................................... ....................................5.4..TURNER._Spun.......................--................................--................ Identity Lend Affeeted .....................................SA_I RM....MA_S.AY..................................................................................... City by the Pvwtt of............SALEM MASS. ......................................Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. .....................5.4.-TURNER_STREET SALEM.-.-......-.: ................................. ........................ .Street city or Terra the record title standing in the name of • ---........-„.___.._..HOUSE OF `SEVEN GABLES .SETTLEMENT ASSOCIATION . ............................. .......................... .... .............. . ..................................... whose address is......5.4__TURNER--STREET-:-_ -- . SA LEM,-.............................MASS. Street city or Town stata by a deed duly recorded in the........................................County Registry' of Deeds in Book ................ Page.................r ...............................Registry District of.the Land Court Certificate No................. ................Book ................Page. The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No....................... City in the office of the-'eweClerk...AUGUSTIRE_.1.....TOQMEY...................:................................. Signed this..Lat...day of...............JJUNE........................196 9 Board of Appeals: ///_�, /1y/lam/,A-XP.Pa 1 /..rC!/./.mac-.+_•r•-/-•- 9_�................. `_v_ i1.-.Chairman Board � C�. -.... ................Clerk Board of ADD ols ................................................19........ at.. ...........o'clock and.................................minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of........................................... Book........................ Page..............:......... •' ATTEST ........................................:................................... Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Owner. FORM 1094 HOBBS B WARREN. INC.. REVISED CHAPTER 21E•1e62 CONM I�1' �..�GT1PTiT� • f NOV .3 S7 N � narb of cApprzd € 10E A°oo DECTSAF \T p 7 T �lnN OF DnPOTHT A RAP 2Y FOR VAPTANCE FP..m! APPT,TCAR r DENSTTY P :OTITPFMFNTS AFFECTTNC: * r — �uaePH v. oovLE � LAND AVT) r?1.Ti_,.) INDS AT 151 and 17 UPHAM STREET AND 10 DPAPRORN STPF T. ARTHUR LAORROKOE Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the appli - cation of the density requirements of the W tv Zoning Ordinance with ve7nrd to 'lot areas, frontage , and all setback regulations . hearirn was held on this appeal on November 17 , 1969 , pursuant to notices '"ailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters , Board members, and others , and advertisements published in The Salem Evening News . All Board members excepting Mr. Roulger and Mr. Doyle were present at this heari.nq. Petitioner- appeared and explained the case the same as in the or.igi.naj peti - tion on file , stating she has had approval of the Citv Pl.ann .n« Roord in re- ocating lot lines of these properties in order to provide off-street narkir - facitities as she proposes to convey two parcels to others , retaini.n,,,r onr fur ler own use . 40 one appeared i.n opposition. The Roard found that these buildings had been existing for a number of wars nt these locations and further found that to grant, the variances would cause no detriment to the publics good and would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance , and further found that to grant the variances would relieve hardship to the petitioner in permitting the sale of the aforemention- ed properties , and for these reasons , voted unanimously to grant the variances . i APPEAL GPA\*TED BOARD OF APPFAT.S RY . C Se creta- --— YActing cretary C to of �5nlm, f ttssar4USP#fs IIarb of �Tttnp ral 4com-anr'. <M >. A66p DECISION ON PETITION OF OMER TALBOT FOR VARIANCE FROM AP- JhM E6 M. 6p V1.6ER PLICABLE:.DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE O6EPM ooYE AFFECTING DWELLINGS ON LOTS A AND B, COMMONLY NUMBERED 29- oR„ 29R UPHAM STREET. ARTNVR 146RECOVE Petitioner through his attorney Philip Strome, appealed directly to the Board of Appeals , requesting a variance from the applicable density re- quirements of the City Zoning Ordinance affecting land and buildings thereon at 29-29R Upham Street. This area is zoned for two-family residences, and the Ordinance requires a lot area of 5000 square feet with a frontage of forty feet on an exist- ing way. Lot A contains 2520 square feet , lot B contains 1506 square feet , each includes a thirteen foot strip shown on plan submitted as "way; said strip providing access to Lot B. A hearing was held on this petition on March 10, 1969, pursuant to entices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, his attorney, owner of record of proper- ty as given on Assessors" records, abutters, Board Members, and others , and advertisements published in The Salem Evening News. All Board Members were present at this hearing. Counselor Strome appeared for the petitioner and stated the case the same as in the original. petition. The Board voted unanimously to postpone a decision on this appeal in order to discuss the case more thoroughly. On April 16th, Board Members John M Gray, James Boulger, Arthur Labrecque and William F. Abbott met for further study of petitions on which decisions had not been reached, and discussed::'this appeal. Mr. Labrecque moved that the Board grant a variance to the petitioner on account of hardship pertaining to the Zoning Ordinance , and the four members present providing a quorum voted unanimously to grant this appeal. BOARD OF APPEAL. APPEAL G 24NUD �) r Act . Secretary p "µ W ...1 J N Y� 40 curb of Appral 9 . 29. 69 WILLIAM P. AOOOTT AMEE "' oo `EA DECISION ON PETIT:_e)N OF ARTHUR LEVE` QUE) TO ERECT A GARAGE IO SEP" R. OOVLE AT 4 VICTORY ROAD FOR VARIANCE TO I, -,OW 5 ' SIDE YARD IN- ART"�" LAOFEOpUE STEAD OF 1011 AS REQUIRED BY ZONING ORDINANCE. The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a wooden gar- age at this location as the plan showed the 'building would be five feet from the side boundary line , and the Zoning Ordinance requires a distance of ten feet. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the applica- tion of the Ordinance , and a hearing was held on this appeal on September 15,, 1969, pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members, and others, and advertisements published in The Salem Evening News . With the exception of Board Members Joseph Doyle and Norman Welch, all Board Members were present at this hearing. Petitioner appeared and stated the appeal the same as in the original peti- tion on file . Also appearing in favor of granting this appeal was Lawrence Levesque, son of the petitioner. *No one appeared in opposition. After careful consideration of the facts presented in this case, and view- ing the plot plan presented which showed that unless the garage were erec- ted as proposed, it would be too close to petitioner' s dwelling, and find- ing further that granting this appeal would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and would not be detrimental to the public good, the Board voted unanimously voted to grant this appeal . BOARD OF APPEALS ' APPEAL GRANTED BY Acting. , Secretary W do cs ov r q S LL `, =.z LU LL - J m y N C� V Chi# Of '�$aIem, fflassadjUSLAtz Poarb of LAppral ' WILLIAM P. TRR OiT DECISION ON PETITION OF ,BECKET STREET REALTY TRUST TO ...... P. YL JOHNM. ORAY, OR. C ALTER FOURTH FLOOR PREMISES AT 260 WASHINGTON STREET • n RrrOn LABREO,,,E TO INCREASE OCCUPANCY FROM EIGHT TO ELEVEN APARTMENTS, ALSO, VARIANCE WITH REGARD TO PARKING FACILITIES, The Inspector . of Buildings. refused to issue a permit to alter the premises at 260 Washington Street to increase fourth floor occupancy from eight apartments to eleven apartments , and petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals as this district is presentlya nonconforming use in the district and this would be an expansion of a nonconforming use , also, there is no parking area provided for the tenants. A hearing was held on this appeal on March 179 1969 , pursuant to\notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members , and others , and advertisements published in The Salem Evening News . Hearing was resumed on this petition on May 19, 1969, with all Board Mem- bers present.. Counselor John Serafini appeared for the petitioner and stated that amendments to the Zoning Ordinance have been recommended to the City Council by the Salem Planning Board, and these .include a proposed change of zone in this district, from theB-4 district to an R-3 district , hich is a zone designated for multi-family residential use . The .peti- ioner intends to make needed repairs and in general to upgrade the prop- erty. Councillors Richard Guy and Joseph Ingemi appeared in favor of granting this appeal. No one appeared in opposition. The Board, after consideration of the facts presented at this hearing voted unanimously to grant a Special Permit to allow increased occupancy of the £ourth . floor premises from eight to eleven apartments , subject to. the rules and regulations of the City Building 'Code , and further voted voted that a variance be granted 'in connection with the parking, Counselor Serafini to work out the conditions of parking with the Building Inspector, feeling that granting the Special Permit and the Variance would in no way. nullify or derogate from the intent or purpose of the Ordinance , and would not be detrimental to the public good, and would relieve hardship to the petitioner. I . APPEAL ,&2AUITED BOARD OF APPEALS Z w N BY ' `Z c Secretar U -LL+ Zr :..n w .. en Ijw Q 6.1 a` THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS S A L E T11 ..............................................._................._............................_...... CITY OR TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS uY...2z.:>... 52t.................a9 NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To....DECKET STREET REALTY TRUST .......................•---.................--------.......----........----.................--•----............................ Owner or Petitioner Address......&.Z9...STEYE! S MARKET .6 MARGIN STREET,SALEM, MASS. .... .................................................................................. City or Town.............................SALEM .............•----......---..........---....................---...------............... .............?FS2..; ASHINGTON STREET ........ ••--------------•--•--•-....-•-----•---................-----........................-... Identify Land ABeeted - ...................y AZ FNl>..Tt 4 s s.r.....------..................--•---------------...........------....................................... City by the Town of..........Sia.T,:l<k1.,... IASs.t.......................................Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on. SALEM ..................................... Street City or Town • the record title standing in the name of ........................PL GZCr ..STRFI TRE ILTY TRUST ..... .. -•----•....................:.................•----------------........ whose address is........... H..PZA� I\..STU,T:I ...SarLL, MASS .................. - Street City or Towu � State by a deed duly recorded in the........................................County Registry of Deeds in Book ................ Page................I ....................................................Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No................. ................Book ................Page................ The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No..............._...... City in the office of the Tawan.Clerk........ pUGIJSTZhE.. I_...T.Qa�iEY.......--•.......................•-.:........... Signed this.....2.LMay of..............kl-!I.................... .....196 9 Board of Appeals: : ..I?7_� _moi ^.�-- ------------------Chairman Board of Appe.6l. r L_ � --- 4 l s/.-'­-4-- .... .r4 c ................ Clerk /j B...d of ADAja]. ................................................19-------- at--------------o'clock and......................-.........minutes ---.M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of.......................................... Book........................ Page.,.................... •. ATTEST ............................... Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Land Owner. FORM 1094 HOBBS & WARREN. INC.. REVISED CMEVrER 212-1962 - f,gU1RIR,t�'., 01.1kitu Of Salem' 'Mass djuseft8 Paurb of cAppml WILLIAM F. ABBOTT 1 - JAM.° ". °OOL06N - DECISION ON PETITION- OF RALPH H. JR. , AND JUDITH C . J°as°M °• COTLC DOERING TO REMODEL AN EXISTING CARRIAGE HOUSE BUILD- 10.H ING AT 31 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH, OPPOSITE OLIVER. AAT"uRL,aAe°°tee STREET TO PROVIDE A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals for a Special Permit and a Var- iance to allow the conversion of a structure formerly occupied as a carriage house , to be occupied as a single family residence.,. and to vary the applica- tion of the City Ordinance on Zoning to permit such occupancy and also, to vary the applicable density requirement regarding front yard regulations. Auhearing was held on this appeal on May 19, 19699 pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioners, their attorney, abutters, board members , and others , and advertisements published in the Salem Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. Sumner L. Raymond, Counsel for the petitioners, appeared and stated that if this petition is granted the appearance of the existing structure would be greatly improved; the building is directly 'across the street from where the late Dr. Clark had his offices; the building was constructed between 1800 and 1812 and fits in with the surrounding architecture . John Manning of 10 Oliver Street appeared and stated he has no objection to this appeal. Lester Stock of 24 Winter Street appeared and wished to be re- corded in favor of granting this petition. The Board, finding that this . is an R-2 district , zoned for two family resi- dences., and that by granting a Special Permit as set forth in Section V-B of the 'City Zoning Ordinance, Paragraph 3-e occupancy may be increased to four families, there being a three-apartment building presently existing on this lot, and the existing carriage house in the rear of the apartment building will when converted have frontage on Oliver Street ;i'voted unanimous- ly to grant a variance from the applicable density requirement of the City Zoning Ordinance with regard to depth of Front yard and voted unanimously to grant a Special Permit to permit such occupancy as. requested in petition- er' s appeal. BOARD OF APPEAL SPECIAL PS;tMLT AND VARIANCE GRANTED. w V Ao' u.. BY o o y ecretary > ^ nQ w w .,iw (�itg of a em; wi�unm R. A000rr DECISION ON PETITION OF RALPH H. DOERING .lAME9 H. ROVLQER , 31 WASHINGTON �oEERH .. ocrLd SQUARE NORTH, TO RENOVATE AN EXISTING BRICK STABLE FOR oHH M. DRAY, sA. A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR TOWN ARTHUR L URECOVE HOUSES, The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to erect a building to provide four Town house apartment units, and to renovate an existing carriage house to provide a single family dwelling, as this is an R-2 District ,, zoned for two family residences , and 'additional dwelling units may be permitted only by Special Permit from the Board of Appeals . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals for relief from this decision, and a hearing was held on this petition on April 28, 1969 , pursuant to no- tices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters , Board Members, and others , and advertisements published in The Salem Evening News. All Board members excepting Mr. John M. Gray, Sr. , Chairman, were present at this hearing. Counselor Sumner L. Raymond appeared for the petitioner with Mr.. Freelove , an architect from the firm who had prepared the plans which were submitted �ith the appeal. Mr. Abbot, member of the Board and acting chairman read he original petition explaining all of the reasons for this appeal This document is incorporated by reference. Counselor Raymond called the archi- tect to a blackboard with the plan attached, and thereupon the architect explained to the Board the proposed plan; he also described the proposed structures to be erected. Mr. Raymond stated that there are only minor in- fringements of the Zoning Ordinance ; petitioner can not use the lot as it is , it would not be economical to do so; he further contended the petition should be granted on account of hardship and be granted as a special permit and a variance both. `. Mr. and Mrs. John Manning, 16 Oliver Street , Mr. Ralph Lawson, Trustee of the Bertram Home , an abutter, Raymond Paige , 5 Oliver Street , F. Paige , 5 Oliver Street , Andrew Ardolino, 5 Oliver Street , Mr, and Mrs. James Dauph- inee, 6 Oliver Street , Mr. and Mrs. S. DeFranco, 7 Oliver Street , Mr. and Mrs . F. Pallen, 8 Oliver Street , Phyllis, Mary and Harry Noyes, 10. Oliver Street , S. Paige , 5 Oliver Street, Henry Belanger, 12 Oliver Street , and J. L. M ra , Jr. , 6 Mall Street appeared in opposition to granting this appeal iv The Boar vM:ted- unanimously to grant petitioner leave to withdraw without preji0idAm�-. oanr �.� BOARD OF APPEALS. ,W cC o Ud BY Jl . {.7 THU of "SnIm, assar4meAts vara of �yyeal q(.rpnnti.os" Y/ILLIPM F, gpp OTT ' JAMRBM. SOULGpR ' DECISION ON PETITION OF JOSEPH G. . CUTLER , M.D. , TO ALTER JopaRM F. poYLc PREMISES AT 11-3 WINTER STREET TO PROVIDE FOUR APARTMENTS. JONN M. GRAY. BR. ARTMVR 1.p ..OUE The Inspector of Buildings refused to issue a permit to alter these premises to provide 'occupancy £o� four apartments as this is an R-2 district , zoned for two family residences. Petitioner ,appealed to the Board of Appeals for .relief from this decision, stating "The increase in the number of apartments is, considered urgent because of ',the increase burden of taxes and upkeep to make it necessary to improve and maintain the upkeep of the premises by way of Increased income" . A hearing was held on this petition on March 17, 1969, pursuant ' to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, and Board members, and others, and advertisements published in The Evening News. All Board members were present at this hearing. excepting Mr. Welch and Mr. Doyle , in whose absence Mr. Abbott was requested by the Chairman to act as 0ecretary for the meeting. Dr. Cutler appeared and explained his petition, the same as in the original appeal on file . No one appeared in opposition. The Board found that there are other multi-family dwellings in this district , and felt that 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 , and voted unanimously to grant a conditional variance, the condi- tion being 'that THE .THIRD FLOOR IS NOT TO BE USED FOR HABITATION. BOARD OF APPEAL GRANTED WITH CONDITION. BY (Acting) Secretary o. v �N o aLn L;j 14 .A,X M ._ J W N r d U R I °� �Ytu of �'�z em' assn juutt5 r 9 . 30 . 69 n;�cs w. oo��c an Decision on Petition of Victor H. Mazzarini to alter single- M. .�,Al. ingle- M. .�n.. sa. family dwelling at 242 Winter Street to provide three apart- nRr A >o E ment s . Petitioner appealed to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the applica- tion of the City Zoning Ordinance to alter a sir.4,le family dwelling at 24 Winter Street to provide three dwelling units . A hearing was held on this appeal on September 15th, 1969, pursuant to rotices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, Board Members , and others , and advertisements published in The Salem Evening News. At this meeting, all of the Board Members were present., excepting Mr. Doyle , and Mr. -Welch. Petitioner appeared and explained the petition as in the original appeal on file . No one appeared in opposition. �fter careful consideration of the facts presented in this case and a thor- ough study of the plans and plot plan also presented, the . Board found that the area of the lot as shown on the plan was 4800 square feet , and that the existing building did not conform to the front, side and rear setback re- quirements of the Ordinance . The Ordinance requires 3500 square feet per dwelling unit , and for three units the lot area should be 10 , 500 square . feet ; it also requires a fifteen foot front yard area, with a ten foot distance to the side boundary and a thirty foot distance to the rear boun- dary; the plan shows no front yard, a five foot side yard on one side and a garage erected on the 'other side boundary, the rear yard shown on the plan is seventeen feet ; the Board further found that the third floor is not suitable for an apartment , the buildings are too close to lot lines, the area is too congested to allow additional occupancy of two more. dwel- ling units , and further found there is no hardship involved, and to grant this variance would derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance , and would be detrimental to the public good, and for these reasons , voted unanimously to deny this appeal . APPEAL DENIED, BOARD OF APPEALS BY '0 cia �a]lVS Acting ' Secretary` 13 kilo